The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The Docklands light rail is a light metro system, not LRT. It says so right in the link you posted. A light metro system is the same as metro/rapid transit except that the trains are shorter than typical metro systems. Neither Skytrain nor DLR is light rail.

The Docklands Light Railway is not light rail?

This is the thing - there is no clear definition, the lines are very blurred and every system is different. Some seem to suggest that if a system has any surface elements it is LRT, and subway is entirely underground. Of course this isn't true, many LRT networks are grade separated and some are partially underground, and almost all 'subway' systems have extensive above ground sections. The majority of the London Underground is on the surface.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The Docklands Light Railway is not light rail?

Nope. That's just Transport for London's chosen branding, which they chose since the system uses smaller, lighter stock than the London Underground trains. But it isn't an LRT system. They could have chosen to name it the Docklands Light Steamship network and it would still be a light metro rather than a dog team service.

There are other examples of transit agencies naming things in a misleading way. The Porto Metro is an LRT system, and the DART system (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) is LRT and not a rapid transit network. You absolutely cannot go by the branding when it comes to actually determing the technology type.

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is the thing - there is no clear definition, the lines are very blurred and every system is different. Some seem to suggest that if a system has any surface elements it is LRT, and subway is entirely underground. Of course this isn't true, many LRT networks are grade separated and some are partially underground, and almost all 'subway' systems have extensive above ground sections. The majority of the London Underground is on the surface.

The lines are slightly blurred in a few systems but in most systems it's pretty straight forward. Any urban passenger railway that's fully grade separated, high frequency (at least 6 trains per hour for most of the day), and electric is a metro or light metro (depending on the train length), not an LRT. Surface, elevated, or underground makes no difference.

[Chadillaccc]

I don't know why you continue with this argument. If LRTs, such as Calgary and Edmonton's, have higher average speeds than "metros", such as Toronto's, they are "rapid transit".... more rapid than some metros, in fact. That's why there are several types of transit under the umbrella that is Rapid Transit.

[GreaterMontréal]

to be called rapid transit, it has to be grade separated. Like a highway.

[Chadillaccc]

That is a pretty stupid and pointlessly semantic distinction, considering many non-separated systems are faster (sometimes significantly faster) than many "metros".


But regardless, I will continue to correctly refer to the Ctrain as a Rapid Transit System.

[milomilo]

The fact we are debating it shows how there are no black and white definitions, clearly the owners of some systems have different definitions. There isn't even a consensus on whether LRT means light rail transit or light rapid transit. For every example you could give as a defining feature, a counter example could be found to disprove it.

I have seen this debate come up time and time again, often between posters from different cities trying to one up one another about some statistic.

[GreaterMontréal]

it's not the speed. rapid doesn't = speed,
transport large numbers of people often short distances at high frequency

[Chadillaccc]

and that's exactly what LRT does, so again, I don't understand your point.

We have headways downtown of less than 60 seconds. In the outer suburbs, we have headways of 120 seconds during rush hour. That is high frequency, and being able to carry 516 people per 3-car train, and 688 per 4-car train (once they are introduced later this year), is high capacity. Thanks for helping to prove my point


From the Ctrain Website:

Maximum PRACTICAL single direction capacity at design capacity of 162 pass./car and 2 min. headway:
3-car train (present) 14,580
4-car train (future) 19,440

Maximum THEORETICAL single direction capacity (pass./hr/dir) at 256 pass./car and 2 min. headway:
3-car train 23,040
4-car train 30,720

[GreaterMontréal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_light_rail_systems_by_ridership

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The fact we are debating it shows how there are no black and white definitions, clearly the owners of some systems have different definitions. There isn't even a consensus on whether LRT means light rail transit or light rapid transit. For every example you could give as a defining feature, a counter example could be found to disprove it.

I have seen this debate come up time and time again, often between posters from different cities trying to one up one another about some statistic.

The differences are about as clear as between child/minor and adult. Yes, there is disagreement at the actual age a child become an adult, jurisdictions vary, and yes some adults are no more mature than minors and vice versa. But for the vast majority of people, it's clear in which category they fall. We still use the terms and in most cases they work just fine despite the grey areas.

There's no "consensus" (zero disagreement) or 100% black and white definition for anything and there's always exceptions to every rule. But on the suggestion that this is somehow less clear than typical we'll have to agree to disagree. If anything I find it more clear than most situations.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

and that's exactly what LRT does, so again, I don't understand your point.

We have headways downtown of less than 60 seconds. In the outer suburbs, we have headways of 120 seconds during rush hour. That is high frequency, and being able to carry 516 people per 3-car train, and 688 per 4-car train (once they are introduced later this year), is high capacity. Thanks for helping to prove my point


From the Ctrain Website:

Maybe the signalling can handle 60 second headways but that is not what they are scheduled at - there are not 60tph going down 7th Ave! I believe the max timetable is something like 27tph and 7th Ave is at breaking point and the single weakest point of the system with the (often realized) potential to break the whole thing.

I would say the C-train is a rapid transit system using light rail technology. I think it is an excellent system mainly with a few big flaws - Downtown and crossings on 36 St NW, Bow Trail, 17 Ave SW and across Heritage are the main ones that come to mind.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Maybe the signalling can handle 60 second headways but that is not what they are scheduled at - there are not 60tph going down 7th Ave! I believe the max timetable is something like 27tph and 7th Ave is at breaking point and the single weakest point of the system with the (often realized) potential to break the whole thing.

I would say the C-train is a rapid transit system using light rail technology. I think it is an excellent system mainly with a few big flaws - Downtown and crossings on 36 St NW, Bow Trail, 17 Ave SW and across Heritage are the main ones that come to mind.

I think you've got something mixed up here. The C-Train doesn't cross Bow Trail or 17th SW.

[GreaterMontréal]

rapid transit is profitable when you can move A to B, and B to A at the same time.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Allan83

I think you've got something mixed up here. The C-Train doesn't cross Bow Trail or 17th SW.

Sorry, I mean as it runs alongside those roads there are quite a few at grade crossings with side streets. There was the potential to create a very high quality line there, but instead it is merely good.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Sorry, I mean as it runs alongside those roads there are quite a few at grade crossings with side streets. There was the potential to create a very high quality line there, but instead it is merely good.

There's only one crossing on Bow, at 26th, but I've heard that the crossings farther west on 17th have caused some problems. It would have been a lot more expensive to bury it way out there though.

[GreaterMontréal]

Rising number of CTrain collisions is major headache for Calgary Transit, commuters

http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Risi...ary+Transit+commuters/9280178/story.html

[logan5]

The light rail advocates here in Vancouver try to tell anyone who will listen that light rail on Broadway would be just about as fast as subway. If the average speed of c train is at 35 kph vs 45 kph for Skytrain with same station spacing, there is a clear difference between lrt and metro. And I believe Calgary is one of the faster lrt systems.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Rising number of CTrain collisions is major headache for Calgary Transit, commuters

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&e...Wk_xB91Udf5hZ8SCNQ&bvm=bv.59026428,d.b2I

Yeah, strange year. A lot of people have been driving into trains for some reason.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by logan5

The light rail advocates here in Vancouver try to tell anyone who will listen that light rail on Broadway would be just about as fast as subway. If the average speed of c train is at 35 kph vs 45 kph for Skytrain with same station spacing, there is a clear difference between lrt and metro. And I believe Calgary is one of the faster lrt systems.

The skytrain is an exceptionally fast system, faster than any other metro in this country, which I'm sure everyone here realizes. I certainly would never, in my right mind, advocate for a tram on Broadway... having lived there for 2 years. Skytrain subway from VCC-Clark Station to UBC is the only option in my mind.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Allan83

Yeah, strange year. A lot of people have been driving into trains for some reason.

People who just arrived in Calgary maybe ? not used to C-Train ?