The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Nouvellecosse]

I don't think anyone is thinking there's anything wrong with RER having 15 minute headways. We're just pointing out that it's different than an urban metro system.

15 minutes is perfectly fine for suburban rail, both because the wait time is a small part of the overall trip as previously mentioned, but also because there may not even be much of a wait time since people will have access to schedules and can show up near the departure time. Urban transit needs to allow for spontaneity, letting people show up and go when the urge strikes them because it's often used for a variety of trip types. With suburban commuter transit, people don't tend to just up and travel 30 or 40 km on a whim. Trip are mostly either part of a regular routine or more of a pre-planned outing. 15 minute service may not be "turn up and go", but it gives more options on when to leave and provides a fall back in terms of a missed trip compared to if the headways were longer. It gives more options for personal mobility even though trips require planning.

[caltrane74]

Another benefit of electrification is more stops within the 416 suburbs and the outskirts of downtown.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It's true that service every 15 minutes really doesn't qualify as true rapid transit. Yes the service will be regular and certainly fast but I always sort of consider rapid transit as one where you don't need a schedule and trains run at a maximum of every 8 minutes.

That's a pretty strict standard for rapid transit. By that definition the only rapid transit system in Canada is Toronto. Every rapid transit line in every other city fails to meet that standard. Montreal has headways as high as 11 minutes and Vancouver as high as 20.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't think anyone is thinking there's anything wrong with RER having 15 minute headways. We're just pointing out that it's different than an urban metro system.

15 minutes is perfectly fine for suburban rail, both because the wait time is a small part of the overall trip as previously mentioned, but also because there may not even be much of a wait time since people will have access to schedules and can show up near the departure time. Urban transit needs to allow for spontaneity, letting people show up and go when the urge strikes them because it's often used for a variety of trip types. With suburban commuter transit, people don't tend to just up and travel 30 or 40 km on a whim. Trip are mostly either part of a regular routine or more of a pre-planned outing. 15 minute service may not be "turn up and go", but it gives more options on when to leave and provides a fall back in terms of a missed trip compared to if the headways were longer. It gives more options for personal mobility even though trips require planning.

It's not different though. As I've shown, lots of urban metro systems have trains showing up every 15 minutes or worse. And while you could argue that the cores of those systems have more frequent trains, the same will be true of Toronto's RER. There really is no difference. Systems where you can show up on any line at any time of the day and get a train within a few minutes are very rare.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mister F

That's a pretty strict standard for rapid transit. By that definition the only rapid transit system in Canada is Toronto. Every rapid transit line in every other city fails to meet that standard. Montreal has headways as high as 11 minutes and Vancouver as high as 20.

It isn't an issue of how low service levels can drop for short periods of low traffic times, it's about the typical off-peak service levels. After all, even metro systems with extremely high frequency have periods of low or no service at certain points considering very few run 24/7 and have shut downs overnight. So if it was about always having service about a certain level, almost no systems would qualify.

Originally Posted by Mister F

It's not different though. As I've shown, lots of urban metro systems have trains showing up every 15 minutes or worse. And while you could argue that the cores of those systems have more frequent trains, the same will be true of Toronto's RER. There really is no difference. Systems where you can show up on any line at any time of the day and get a train within a few minutes are very rare.

You haven't shown any such thing. A few exceptions in the form of suburban focused "metro systems" that reach into distant suburbs with low headways on the outer branches at certain times doesn't show this applies to "lots of urban metro systems". It doesn't.

[1overcosc]

It should also be noted that Toronto's RER and Montreal's REM have similar frequencies. It often sounds like REM is more frequent because REM advertises peak frequencies whereas RER advertises off-peak frequencies.. but that's not the case.

[ssiguy]

Both could be real game changers and be stellar successes or dismal failures, it will all depend on the fares. If RER/REM offer the same fares as regular transit going the same distance, they could both have Metro like ridership and especially Toronto as the system will be bigger, serve many more people, and serve more people that have few alternatives now.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It isn't an issue of how low service levels can drop for short periods of low traffic times, it's about the typical off-peak service levels. After all, even metro systems with extremely high frequency have periods of low or no service at certain points considering very few run 24/7 and have shut downs overnight. So if it was about always having service about a certain level, almost no systems would qualify.

To clarify, I wasn't talking about overnight, but when the system is open. GO RER will be no less frequent at night than most metro and LRT systems in North America. You're right though that almost no systems have service above a certain level (say, ssiguy's 8 minute standard) all day. In Canada there's only one.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You haven't shown any such thing. A few exceptions in the form of suburban focused "metro systems" that reach into distant suburbs with low headways on the outer branches at certain times doesn't show this applies to "lots of urban metro systems". It doesn't.

It does. What I described is not the same as what you described. Montreal doesn't have a suburban focused metro system. Washington's metro lines have frequencies of 12 minutes in the middle of the day and 15-20 minutes at night. Do you consider that a metro system? Its service is no better than what GO is building.

But even if I were comparing to nothing but suburban focused metro system, I'm not sure of the relevance because they're still widely regarded as legit metro systems. And like Washington, GO will have combined lines in the centre of the city. We don't know what the exact arrangement will be, but 2-4 RER lines will combine to create 7.5 minute (or better) service all day through most of Central Toronto. That's comparable to Montreal's Green line.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Both could be real game changers and be stellar successes or dismal failures, it will all depend on the fares. If RER/REM offer the same fares as regular transit going the same distance, they could both have Metro like ridership and especially Toronto as the system will be bigger, serve many more people, and serve more people that have few alternatives now.

If GO keeps the fare the same for it's RER it would still be a game changer. If more stations open as well, then it will be a true game changer.

[1overcosc]

From what I gather, in the GTA the fare integration talk is still ongoing and the file has become a bit of a mess.

I think we're more likely to see free or heavily discounted transfers between GO and TTC than we are to see GO fares reduced to TTC levels.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mister F

To clarify, I wasn't talking about overnight, but when the system is open. GO RER will be no less frequent at night than most metro and LRT systems in North America. You're right though that almost no systems have service above a certain level (say, ssiguy's 8 minute standard) all day. In Canada there's only one.

I realise you weren't talking about overnight; I was just pointing out that at quiet times the systems have low (or no) service. So saying how low the service levels can possibly drop at certain times isn't relevant, and discussion should be the standard off-peak levels provided for most of its operating span. I also wouldn't use the 8 minute figure, as 10 minutes is more widely accepted as the upper limit or normal metro frequency, and can be seen on the individual lines of lots of systems (in this case there actually are lots, I'd estimate no less than 1/3 of metro systems I've seen rather than the odd exception).

Originally Posted by Mister F

It does. What I described is not the same as what you described. Montreal doesn't have a suburban focused metro system. Washington's metro lines have frequencies of 12 minutes in the middle of the day and 15-20 minutes at night. Do you consider that a metro system? Its service is no better than what GO is building.

But even if I were comparing to nothing but suburban focused metro system, I'm not sure of the relevance because they're still widely regarded as legit metro systems. And like Washington, GO will have combined lines in the centre of the city. We don't know what the exact arrangement will be, but 2-4 RER lines will combine to create 7.5 minute (or better) service all day through most of Central Toronto. That's comparable to Montreal's Green line.

Montreal doesn't have a suburban focused system but also doesn't have low frequencies outside peak. I'm not even sure where it comes into this as part has 15 minute frequencies at any time that I'm aware of, and the Green line has its minimum frequencies on all its stations right from downtown to the very end. There are lots of cases worldwide and even in NA (like NYC) where commuter and suburban rail have individual stations in central areas that are very busy with trains from multiple routes. That's a fundamental characteristic of commuter and suburban rail. Very busy in the center, with less, unmetro-like frequency outside that. And of course it's perfectly accurate to say those stations have metro-like service levels.

In terms of the DC metro, that's pushing it in terms of metro systems vs suburban systems. But what gives it the nod is that the vast majority of the stations have service higher than 10 minutes or better throughout the day. There are 91 stations, with 27 of those from the Red line which by itself has higher frequency throughout the day and only drops to 12min in the evening. So not counting the higher frequency Red line, there are only 29 stations not served by more than one line. So 29 out of 91 or less than 1/3. But if it were, say 1/2 or more, I'd have to go in the other direction. That's the only thing that allows BART to squeak by as a metro. 3 out of 5 lines are paired with at least 1 other line the entire length, and 1 of the two that isn't has boosted stand-alone frequency, while the other only has 3 stations on its stand-alone section.

But if the majority of the stations on GO RER have consistent metro level service, then it will certainly make sense to round it up to being a metro system as well.

[nname]

I think the distinction of metro and non-metro is what it serves. I'd say the GO RER is closer to regional rail than metro (even the name says that!) due to the limited number of stops in the inner city. A metro should have closer stops, while regional rail have stations far away.

I can a good comparison could be Seoul Line 1. The full line is over 200km long, fully electrified, station closer apart than the RER, and there is a train every few minutes. However, only the 7.8km through the city (with station spacing <1km) is considered metro, while the rest is just suburban rail.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by nname

I think the distinction of metro and non-metro is what it serves. I'd say the GO RER is closer to regional rail than metro (even the name says that!) due to the limited number of stops in the inner city. A metro should have closer stops, while regional rail have stations far away.

I can a good comparison could be Seoul Line 1. The full line is over 200km long, fully electrified, station closer apart than the RER, and there is a train every few minutes. However, only the 7.8km through the city (with station spacing <1km) is considered metro, while the rest is just suburban rail.

The problem is there is a wide variety of transit types and they all want their own label.

For example, in Canada:
Subway
Metro
Skytrain
RT
Commuter rail
RER
REM
LRT
Streetcar
BRT
Transitways

The list can get annoying when you try to categorize it. There is international words like:
Intercity
Regional rail
Commuter Rail
Metro
Pre metro
Light Metro
Light Rapid Transit
Light Rail Transit
Busways
Bus Rapid Transit.
Etc
Etc...

There is no world body that says what one is and one isn't, or where one is now something else.

The current TTC Streetcars are a prime example. Some of them are now built to Crosstown standards, yet are not called LRT.

Its enough to make a person drink.... thank goodness tis the season to mix eggnog with something strong.

[ssiguy]

Add to that mix monorail which is becoming increasingly popular as a mass transit system.

[LeftCoaster]

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I realise you weren't talking about overnight; I was just pointing out that at quiet times the systems have low (or no) service. So saying how low the service levels can possibly drop at certain times isn't relevant, and discussion should be the standard off-peak levels provided for most of its operating span. I also wouldn't use the 8 minute figure, as 10 minutes is more widely accepted as the upper limit or normal metro frequency, and can be seen on the individual lines of lots of systems (in this case there actually are lots, I'd estimate no less than 1/3 of metro systems I've seen rather than the odd exception).

Hold on, the goalposts are moving here. The discussion isn't whether or not GO will become a metro system, but whether it will become a rapid transit system. The latter tends to be more loosely defined than the former.

Montreal doesn't have a suburban focused system but also doesn't have low frequencies outside peak. I'm not even sure where it comes into this as part has 15 minute frequencies at any time that I'm aware of, and the Green line has its minimum frequencies on all its stations right from downtown to the very end.

The Green line has frequencies ranging from 4-11 minutes outside rush hours. The central part of GO RER will probably be in the 5-8 minute range depending on how it's set up. That's comparable, as I said.

There are lots of cases worldwide and even in NA (like NYC) where commuter and suburban rail have individual stations in central areas that are very busy with trains from multiple routes. That's a fundamental characteristic of commuter and suburban rail. Very busy in the center, with less, unmetro-like frequency outside that. And of course it's perfectly accurate to say those stations have metro-like service levels.

You just described Chicago's Green line, Vancouver's Canada line, and almost the entire DC system. And these aren't cherry picked examples either; the cities I've mentioned in this thread are literally the only ones I've bothered to look up. If the characteristics you describe separated rapid transit from suburban rail, these three wouldn't be considered rapid transit at all. But of course they are, and their service levels are very RER-like.

The reality is that things don't always fit neatly into a pre-defined box. There are subway systems that have suburban rail characteristics. There are suburban lines that function like a metro line. There are hybrids that resemble a commuter train on one end and an underground metro on the other. Every category blends into another and the names we give them are only general descriptions. The term "rapid transit" isn't restricted to heavy rail metros and can be used to describe what GO is working towards.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Hold on, the goalposts are moving here. The discussion isn't whether or not GO will become a metro system, but whether it will become a rapid transit system. The latter tends to be more loosely defined than the former.

Perhaps that's where the confusion originates. I am indeed using the terms rapid transit and metro system interchangeably and have done so since the beginning of the discussion (and in any related discussion that precedes this one). There's no "goalpost moving", you simply failed to recognise that these are different terms for the same thing and that I was treating them as such.

Originally Posted by Mister F

The Green line has frequencies ranging from 4-11 minutes outside rush hours. The central part of GO RER will probably be in the 5-8 minute range depending on how it's set up. That's comparable, as I said.


You just described Chicago's Green line, Vancouver's Canada line, and almost the entire DC system. And these aren't cherry picked examples either; the cities I've mentioned in this thread are literally the only ones I've bothered to look up. If the characteristics you describe separated rapid transit from suburban rail, these three wouldn't be considered rapid transit at all. But of course they are, and their service levels are very RER-like.


The reality is that things don't always fit neatly into a pre-defined box. There are subway systems that have suburban rail characteristics. There are suburban lines that function like a metro line. There are hybrids that resemble a commuter train on one end and an underground metro on the other. Every category blends into another and the names we give them are only general descriptions. The term "rapid transit" isn't restricted to heavy rail metros and can be used to describe what GO is working towards.

If the majority of the stations on those systems have off-peak service levels below metro standards, then they wouldn't accurately be classified as rapid transit or metro systems either. That is correct. If a large proportion (like 1/3) of them fail to meet metro/RT service standards, then it clearly isn't an urban metro system and is likely a commuter/suburban oriented metro system. The fact that I have repeatedly recognised and discussed this makes it pretty clear that i understand the concept of nuance since such a discussion would be impossible if I didn't recognise there were different types of metro systems.

But again, I think the misunderstanding is simply not recognising that rapid transit is simply another term for metro system as you seem to be using it to mean something different or "looser" as you put it.

[ssiguy]

There a 5 requirements of being defined a Metro and only 5, they are:
1} Must be for local/regional transit { long distance grade-separated HSR doesn't qualify}
2} It must be electric
3} It must be 100% grade separated
4} It must offer "frequent" all day, two way service, 7 days a week
5} It cannot share tracks with freight {it can share rail corridors but not the track}

The technology choice or whether it's elevated, trenched, tunnelled, or at-grade makes no difference in whether a system is a Metro or not.

Ottawa's Confederation line is a full Metro while Edmonton's, although going underground downtown, is not. If Ottawa extends the line to have some grade crossings in the West it will no longer be a Metro. Conversely Montreal's new REM will be a full Metro but Toronto's RER will not be, at least for the next 10 to 15 years, due to not having complete grade separation and still having freight using some of the tracks. If Toronto gets rid of these issues over the next decades then Toronto will have a Metro/subway system of over 300km. Within about 5 years, Montreal will have by far the largest Metro system in the country.

[flipv]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

There a 5 requirements of being defined a Metro and only 5, they are:
1} Must be for local/regional transit { long distance grade-separated HSR doesn't qualify}
2} It must be electric
3} It must be 100% grade separated
4} It must offer "frequent" all day, two way service, 7 days a week
5} It cannot share tracks with freight {it can share rail corridors but not the track}

The technology choice or whether it's elevated, trenched, tunnelled, or at-grade makes no difference in whether a system is a Metro or not.

Ottawa's Confederation line is a full Metro while Edmonton's, although going underground downtown, is not. If Ottawa extends the line to have some grade crossings in the West it will no longer be a Metro. Conversely Montreal's new REM will be a full Metro but Toronto's RER will not be, at least for the next 10 to 15 years, due to not having complete grade separation and still having freight using some of the tracks. If Toronto gets rid of these issues over the next decades then Toronto will have a Metro/subway system of over 300km. Within about 5 years, Montreal will have by far the largest Metro system in the country.

I think that's silly.

I would look at it from the perspective of the end user. If I show up to the station without consulting the schedule, how long will I wait for the train? Chances are it'll be less than 10 mins. That is rapid transit whichever way you spin it. Plus the capacity is higher than traditional heavy rail systems and so are the speeds. Suddenly the 905 has inner-416 speed in accessing downtown.

Things will be clearer once the choice of rolling stock becomes apparent. I can see a fleet of existing diesel coaches/locos for serving the outer portions of the lines (non-RER, but hourly AD2W), a fleet of starfleet KISS bilevel EMUs for peak service and a single level fleet of EMUs for off peak.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Perhaps that's where the confusion originates. I am indeed using the terms rapid transit and metro system interchangeably and have done so since the beginning of the discussion (and in any related discussion that precedes this one). There's no "goalpost moving", you simply failed to recognise that these are different terms for the same thing and that I was treating them as such.



If the majority of the stations on those systems have off-peak service levels below metro standards, then they wouldn't accurately be classified as rapid transit or metro systems either. That is correct. If a large proportion (like 1/3) of them fail to meet metro/RT service standards, then it clearly isn't an urban metro system and is likely a commuter/suburban oriented metro system. The fact that I have repeatedly recognised and discussed this makes it pretty clear that i understand the concept of nuance since such a discussion would be impossible if I didn't recognise there were different types of metro systems.

But again, I think the misunderstanding is simply not recognising that rapid transit is simply another term for metro system as you seem to be using it to mean something different or "looser" as you put it.

No they're not completely interchangeable. Rapid transit is routinely used to describe subways, light rail, S-bahn style rail, and even BRT. It's right there in the acronym. This isn't just by the general public, but by transit agencies themselves.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

There a 5 requirements of being defined a Metro and only 5, they are:
1} Must be for local/regional transit { long distance grade-separated HSR doesn't qualify}
2} It must be electric
3} It must be 100% grade separated
4} It must offer "frequent" all day, two way service, 7 days a week
5} It cannot share tracks with freight {it can share rail corridors but not the track}

The technology choice or whether it's elevated, trenched, tunnelled, or at-grade makes no difference in whether a system is a Metro or not.

So Chicago doesn't have a metro system then? This is the problem with trying to fit everything into neat, pre-determined boxes. Not everything fits. Every rule has exceptions.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Ottawa's Confederation line is a full Metro while Edmonton's, although going underground downtown, is not. If Ottawa extends the line to have some grade crossings in the West it will no longer be a Metro. Conversely Montreal's new REM will be a full Metro but Toronto's RER will not be, at least for the next 10 to 15 years, due to not having complete grade separation and still having freight using some of the tracks. If Toronto gets rid of these issues over the next decades then Toronto will have a Metro/subway system of over 300km. Within about 5 years, Montreal will have by far the largest Metro system in the country.

Assuming it gets built, kudos to Montreal for continued expansion of its metro.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mister F

No they're not completely interchangeable. Rapid transit is routinely used to describe subways, light rail, S-bahn style rail, and even BRT. It's right there in the acronym. This isn't just by the general public, but by transit agencies themselves.

That is false, and the BRT analogy makes about as much sense as saying a streetcar, railcar and a car are the same thing since streetcar and railcar has car in the name. And yes, terms are sometimes used inaccurately for the sake of marketing, but that doesn't suddenly make them correct. But if you prefer to use inaccurate terms, then I obviously can't stop you nor is it worth the effort to try and persuade you. I would just suggest that you provide some clarification when using the terms so that people will know what you're talking about as to avoid future confusion.