The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Chadillaccc]

It's interesting that, even though they're of course not grade separated, the C-Train and Edmonton LRT style systems aren't considered technically "rapid transit"... because the C-train is second only to the Skytrain in the country for average speed (rapid) and carries a comparable amount of people on a daily basis as the Skytrain (transit). I'm sure people will respond with "but the Ctrain has such huge spaces between stations"... but our station spacing is actually only 1.3 km, compared to Vancouver's 1.5, Toronto's 1, and Montreal's 1. So really then, it seems like the term "rapid transit" is sort of invalid by not including mass transit systems that are more rapid than grade separated type systems. Just my two cents, as it seems like a silly distinction to quibble over.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

It's interesting that, even though they're of course not grade separated, the C-Train and Edmonton LRT style systems aren't considered technically "rapid transit"... because the C-train is second only to the Skytrain in the country for average speed (rapid) and carries a comparable amount of people on a daily basis as the Skytrain (transit). I'm sure people will respond with "but the Ctrain has such huge spaces between stations"... but our station spacing is actually only 1.3 km, compared to Vancouver's 1.5, Toronto's 1, and Montreal's 1. So really then, it seems like the term "rapid transit" is sort of invalid by not including mass transit systems that are more rapid than grade separated type systems. Just my two cents, as it seems like a silly distinction to quibble over.

I imagine the phrase was defined prior to the new design theories of LRT, such that the user-experience was tied to the technology more so than today. The phrase retains utility nevertheless, regardless of how satisfying we see the definition.

[Nouvellecosse]

The "rapid" in the phrase rapid transit doesn't refer to how fast it transports individual riders, but rather how fast it can move large volumes of people. Like how the water in a water main may not be flowing as fast as in a garden hose, but a water main transports large payloads of water much faster than a garden hose.

There are many types of mass transit that transports individual riders faster than rapid transit. Commuter rail, some LRT and streetcars (including the once common highspeed interurbans) express buses and highway commuter buses, etc. But these other forms of transit generally can't transport as large of volumes of people because either they can't support as high of frequency, the vehicles aren't as big, or both.

If you read the definition from the The Columbia Encyclopedia (via questia.com) you'll notice it talks a lot about capacity and congestion, but doesn't mention speed or individual trip time at all.

rapid transit
rapid transit, transportation system designed to allow passenger travel within or throughout an urban area, usually employing surface, elevated, or underground railway systems or some combination of these. Rapid transit systems are generally considered to be mass transit systems, capable of moving large numbers of passengers in a single train. The large capacities of such systems make them potentially more efficient, in terms of cost and environmental effects, than automobile transportation. The principal problem to be solved in an urban rapid transit system is that of providing extra capacity to handle the volume of traffic during the morning and evening rush hours without unreasonable delays. Basically a rapid transit train consists of a number of electrically powered, self-propelled cars, each of which draws electricity from a "third rail" that runs near the tracks. Since there is an engine in each car, greater traction is produced than would be generated by a locomotive pulling a series of unpowered cars. The controls for the car motors are arranged so that an operator at either end of the train can control all of them. This arrangement eliminates involved turnarounds at the terminals.
(continued)

[swimmer_spe]

In general,only the TTC's subways and the Montreal Metro have cars that could be then considered rapid transit.
The older Skytrain cars are smaller.
The rest are also smaller.

The term for this then is - Premetro.

[1overcosc]

I would argue that with the emergence of LRT in the past few decades and the many LRT systems designed that have similar utility as traditional rapid transit (such as Ottawa's, Edmonton's, and Calgary's notwithstanding the 7th Ave problems), the traditional term "rapid transit" has largely lost its relevance.

[GreaterMontréal]

Toronto, 706 subway and RT cars; 62 work cars
Montréal, 891 vehicules, (MR-73+Azur)
Vancouver, 302 vehicles
Calgary, 160 vehicules

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Toronto, 706 subway and RT cars; 62 work cars
Montréal, 891 vehicules, (MR-73+Azur)
Vancouver, 298 vehicles
Calgary, 160 vehicules

I meant physical size not number on hand.

[nname]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Toronto, 706 subway and RT cars; 62 work cars
Montréal, 891 vehicules, (MR-73+Azur)
Vancouver, 298 vehicles
Calgary, 160 vehicules

Vancouver, 302 vehicles

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I meant physical size not number on hand.

physical size of the trains in length. more cars = more trains = higher frequency = more people

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

In general,only the TTC's subways and the Montreal Metro have cars that could be then considered rapid transit.
The older Skytrain cars are smaller.
The rest are also smaller.

The term for this then is - Premetro.

Actually, a premetro is an LRT system that runs underground in the city centre like a metro, and then runs above ground outside the centre. An example of this is the Edmonton LRT.

The Skytrain and similar systems is normally referred to as "light metro". A light metro may have not have capacity any greater than a robust LRT system. But the LRT system achieves the capacity with longer trains sometimes 100m or longer, while a light metro achieves it with extremely intense frequency. Automated light metros can have trains as frequently as less than every minute and a half (over 40 trains per hour). A light rail line isn't capable of this intensity due to level crossings.

[Marshal]

I'll apologize right off if this is raining on the transit parade. But you guys are a little crazy. So, here goes nothing - ignore me as you wish.

Does the terminology used matter? There is no worldwide, or North American, or Canadian official definition for any of these terms. Governments, transit agencies, transit system manufacturers, all go by their own terms (legally within their proposal calls and contracts, etc.). Sure they generally tend to align, but there is no authoritative definition for any of them.

Maybe you guys should put a list of terms together, settle on some defining characteristics for those terms and then vote. Then you can stop arguing endlessly and focus on the actual issues: equipment, service, capacity, rail gauge, power systems, noise, reliability, comfort, liveries, and so on. Who cares if Skytrain is termed the same kind as the TTC Subway? There are a myriad assortment of systems out there, and almost as many urban geographies to serve. It matters if a system is grade separated, or if it can move 'x' number of people per hour, or if the stations are close/far . . . these are objective fact based things. It matters very little if a system is called rapid, mass, or whatever. Unless everyone agrees to the definition of these words, they aren't much better than subjective references. If the need is to categorize and group, you still have the same problems. One person's/organization's categories/definitions have little priority over any other.

And if your city seems better to you if you call your system 'whatever,' go for it. But your wasting your time trying to get others to do the same. Yes, wasting; because even if they agree, it doesn't actually mean much.

[Marshal]

Again, sorry, I'll give my motivation: I looked and the discusion on this page is the same as 50, 100, 300 pages ago.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I'll apologize right off if this is raining on the transit parade. But you guys are a little crazy. So, here goes nothing - ignore me as you wish.

Does the terminology used matter? There is no worldwide, or North American, or Canadian official definition for any of these terms. Governments, transit agencies, transit system manufacturers, all go by their own terms (legally within their proposal calls and contracts, etc.). Sure they generally tend to align, but there is no authoritative definition for any of them.

Maybe you guys should put a list of terms together, settle on some defining characteristics for those terms and then vote. Then you can stop arguing endlessly and focus on the actual issues: equipment, service, capacity, rail gauge, power systems, noise, reliability, comfort, liveries, and so on. Who cares if Skytrain is termed the same kind as the TTC Subway? There are a myriad assortment of systems out there, and almost as many urban geographies to serve. It matters if a system is grade separated, or if it can move 'x' number of people per hour, or if the stations are close/far . . . these are objective fact based things. It matters very little if a system is called rapid, mass, or whatever. Unless everyone agrees to the definition of these words, they aren't much better than subjective references. If the need is to categorize and group, you still have the same problems. One person's/organization's categories/definitions have little priority over any other.

And if your city seems better to you if you call your system 'whatever,' go for it. But your wasting your time trying to get others to do the same. Yes, wasting; because even if they agree, it doesn't actually mean much.

That was the point that I was trying to make. Yes, it would be great if all cities only built subways. That won't happen.

My post was to show that most of our larger cities have some sort of transit besides buses sitting in traffic.

[Beedok]

If you use electric buses then tunnels are much easier right?

[SkahHigh]

Well, there are categories established by APTA which were posted earlier in this thread and seemed fair to me... Given that APTA is the most knowledgeable organization in North America regarding public transportation.

I won't continue this debate, but I think we've established some pretty fair guidelines to define or at least identify a metro/subway/heavy rail, whatever we want to call it. If some want to ignore these categories and just qualify light rail as RT/HR they can, but to me the difference is pretty big between let's say the CTrain and the Copenhagen Metro (cities of comparable size).

Interesting fact, some systems have both HR/RT and light rail:

Of the two operating lines, the first is a limited-capacity light rail route, while the second is a fully automated metro which opened on 27 October 2008. When this opened, Lausanne replaced Rennes as the smallest city in the world to have a full metro system.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Toronto, 706 subway and RT cars; 62 work cars
Montréal, 891 vehicules, (MR-73+Azur)
Vancouver, 298 vehicles
Calgary, 160 vehicules

Calgary actually currently has 195 vehicles, and will have 258 vehicles by next fall with the delivery of the 63 S200 LRVs currently under construction in Sacramento. With the capacity increase to 4-car trains (1000 passengers per train), I wouldn't be surprised to see another order of vehicles in the fairly near future, if only to get rid of our aging original U2's.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That was the point that I was trying to make. Yes, it would be great if all cities only built subways. That won't happen.

My post was to show that most of our larger cities have some sort of transit besides buses sitting in traffic.

I think it would be great if cities built the most appropriate form of transit for their specific passenger loads and built forms. For a city that doesn't need subways to overbuild and waste millions or billions in funding for a system that might not even work as well (yes metros have their downsides as well) isn't any better than a city under-investing and not building the form of transit that's most suitable. Remember, if you over-invest, you're taking funds away from other things which causes those things to have underinvestment.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think it would be great if cities built the most appropriate form of transit for their specific passenger loads and built forms. For a city that doesn't need subways to overbuild and waste millions or billions in funding for a system that might not even work as well (yes metros have their downsides as well) isn't any better than a city under-investing and not building the form of transit that's most suitable. Remember, if you over-invest, you're taking funds away from other things which causes those things to have underinvestment.

Yep. So cities are not stuck with this:


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...-Yongin_Everline_Innovia_ART_Railcar.jpg

[Nouvellecosse]

And another example would be Alberta itself. If Calgary had taken the Edmonton approach and insisted on having full downtown grade separation, it would have blown its budget on a much smaller system and wouldn't have gotten the continent-leading results that it has. At the same time, if Vancouver had've taken the Portland approach despite being a much denser city, it would also have crippled itself because despite being almost the same length, the Portland system has nowhere near the capacity of the Skytrain. Its LRT just isn't capable of such extremely short headways, and the downtown block sizes are too small for longer trains. Although in Portland's defence, it didn't happen to have a spare downtown railway tunnel laying around like Vancouver did, so who knows what Vancouver would have done otherwise.

[Nouvellecosse]

Does anyone know the actual length of the platforms on the TTC subway? The current trains on the main lines are about 139m long, but in videos I've seen it appears as if they don't occupy the entire platform length.