[crs1026]

How about classifying mass transit by how fast it can get you to where you're going, and how many people it can accommodate.

A couple views on the differentiating factors:

http://www.heritagetrolley.org/Definitions.htm
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/streetcars-vs-light-rail-is-there-a-difference.html

I guess the 501 streetcar morphs into an LRT when it passes Sunnyside!

At the end of the day, it's a bit like classifying snowflakes. And once you hit the political level, look out - waxing poetic prevails. Drives me crazy when any proposal on steel wheels that runs faster than a Mennonite buggy on tracks that have at least some ballast gets called "High Speed Rail".

To get back to Sheppard East - I think the debate was about whether the design should retain some semblance to high floor vehicles, in hopes of compatibility with the existing subway; and/or some semblance to the ITCS vehicles, in some hopes of adopting linear propulsion.

I wonder whether these lines (and Eglinton, even moreso) may actually be so successful that they outpace the capacity of a pair of coupled Flexities. Will the second Flexity have an operator? (Boston's Green line has trailing-car personnel, mostly for fare collection) Maybe a touch of overbuild would be prudent.

- Paul

 

[ehlow]

I wonder whether these lines (and Eglinton, even moreso) may actually be so successful that they outpace the capacity of a pair of coupled Flexities. Will the second Flexity have an operator? (Boston's Green line has trailing-car personnel, mostly for fare collection) Maybe a touch of overbuild would be prudent.

- Paul

Eglinton can fit 3 flexities running as a train, but will likely only need 2 for a long time. They operate as one vehicle with only one driver, just like you'd see in Los Angeles or anywhere else. It's the same thing as a subway train, which is 6 cars run by one driver.

Way too late to change anything about Eglinton.

 

[44 North]

LRT is definitely still the most common due to the flexibility offered by the wide range of ways it can be implemented. But the growth of light metro in Europe and worldwide over the past couple of decades is an interesting trend.

This is one of the reasons I think it’s good to differentiate between types of light rail. I don’t think it’s fair to lump, say, St Clair, into the same category as LA’s Green Line (completely grade-separated), or even Vancouver's Skytrain (if one were to incl it as "light" rail). And another thing is that the use of the word ‘right-of’way’ seems to be used quite freely, but with starkly different meanings. When we hear ROW here, many think in-median operation. But when used elsewhere, it can mean a completely grade-separated section like Eglinton’s tunnel. Or perhaps an at-grade section, but involving gated crossings where road traffic is significantly more prohibited than a stoplight (which may or may not give transit priority).

For me, there's basically three types of light rail:

-mixed traffic/in-median (e.g SELRT, St Clair)
-pre-metro (e.g Eglinton Crosstown)
-complete grade-separated light metro / metro / rapid transit (e.g SRT)

Eglinton can fit 3 flexities running as a train, but will likely only need 2 for a long time. They operate as one vehicle with only one driver, just like you'd see in Los Angeles or anywhere else. It's the same thing as a subway train, which is 6 cars run by one driver.

Way too late to change anything about Eglinton.

I thought Eglinton's underground was designed to have four car operation someday, with platforms that could be easily extended.

 

[ehlow]

This is one of the reasons I think it’s good to differentiate between types of light rail. I don’t think it’s fair to lump, say, St Clair, into the same category as LA’s Green Line (completely grade-separated), or even Vancouver's Skytrain (if one were to incl it as "light" rail). And another thing is that the use of the word ‘right-of’way’ seems to be used quite freely, but with starkly different meanings. When we hear ROW here, many think in-median operation. But when used elsewhere, it can mean a completely grade-separated section like Eglinton’s tunnel. Or perhaps an at-grade section, but involving gated crossings where road traffic is significantly more prohibited than a stoplight (which may or may not give transit priority).

For me, there's basically three types of light rail:

-mixed traffic/in-median (e.g SELRT, St Clair)
-pre-metro (e.g Eglinton Crosstown)
-complete grade-separated light metro / metro / rapid transit (e.g SRT)



I thought Eglinton's underground was designed to have four car operation someday, with platforms that could be easily extended.

SE LRT or St Clair should not be called "mixed traffic". Mixed traffic is like the King, Queen, Dundas or College streetcars, or any regular bus route. Mixed traffic means the transit vehicle is in the same lane as cars.

Re: Eglinton, it can easily be extended to 3-car, but they're projecting only needing 2-car in 2031. Anything beyond that I don't know, but they're designing for 90m platforms which is 3 30m cars. Anything more and I'd recommend looking at the reports on the Crosstown website or emailing/tweeting them.

 

[CDL.TO]

This is one of the reasons I think it’s good to differentiate between types of light rail. I don’t think it’s fair to lump, say, St Clair, into the same category as LA’s Green Line (completely grade-separated), or even Vancouver's Skytrain (if one were to incl it as "light" rail). And another thing is that the use of the word ‘right-of’way’ seems to be used quite freely, but with starkly different meanings. When we hear ROW here, many think in-median operation. But when used elsewhere, it can mean a completely grade-separated section like Eglinton’s tunnel. Or perhaps an at-grade section, but involving gated crossings where road traffic is significantly more prohibited than a stoplight (which may or may not give transit priority).

This is why subways versus LRT is such a frustrating debate. It's essentially meaningless.

Perhaps expecting a more nuanced debate from the general public is unreasonable but I'd like to think that we can raise the level of discourse among the more politically informed. Bringing in more nuance, discussing design of the line rather than focussing on the rolling stock, will help overcome the subways versus LRT false dichotomy.

 

[CDL.TO]

SE LRT or St Clair should not be called "mixed traffic". Mixed traffic is like the King, Queen, Dundas or College streetcars, or any regular bus route. Mixed traffic means the transit vehicle is in the same lane as cars.

Even though he didn't call those mixed traffic. He clearly said "mixed traffic/in-median" covering both design cases.

 

[ehlow]

Even though he didn't call those mixed traffic. He clearly said "mixed traffic/in-median" covering both design cases.

My mistake.

 

[W. K. Lis]

North America's first subway opened on September 1, 1897, in Boston, using the streetcars of the time. It has since grown in length, and is now called the Green Line. See link.

[video=youtube;x9a45W3HTgw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9a45W3HTgw[/video]

It operates underground (as a subway), on the surface (on a right-of-way), and in mixed traffic (like a streetcar). It had a daily weekday ridership of 210,000 in early 2014.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Those are among the least attractive transit vehicles I've ever seen (not that it matters).

 

[W. K. Lis]

Those are among the least attractive transit vehicles I've ever seen (not that it matters).

Boston's Green Line rolling stock is of three types. The oldest was built in 1986, while the newest was built in 2007. See link.

 

[ehlow]

Those are among the least attractive transit vehicles I've ever seen (not that it matters).

They're old, but not as ugly as some others. Portland, Calgary and LA LRTs have some uglier vehicles in my opinion. All the newer LRT vehicles look good though. The new streetcars in the US like Washington DC and Portland look really good as well (not saying they're good projects, just that the vehicles look good).

Watching that footage of Boston's Green line makes me wish our streetcar system had some longer underground sections as well. Imagine of the Queen streetcar subway happened, where it ran on street in the east & west and through the core in a tunnel.

 

[44 North]

North America's first subway opened on September 1, 1897, in Boston, using the streetcars of the time. It has since grown in length, and is now called the Green Line. See link.

Ah, cool. I wish we had something like that here. Here’s a short vid near the end of the Green Line’s D Branch (the only one that is completely grade-separate). I believe it’s the longest branch, but it runs mostly on an old rail line (so somewhat like a tram-train).

[video=youtube;JtwceDN8pHQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtwceDN8pHQ[/video]

***
As well, I stumbled across this article from January on RailForTheValley, while reading about BC’s referendum. I hadn’t heard about this, and I thought it was interesting in that it deals with what’s been discussed on the last page (i.e - Bombardier, Skytrain, proprietary modes). But I also found it interesting because it touches on the issue of inflated ridership projections being used as the basis to (over)build transit.

Bombardier Transportation accused of corruption in South Korea
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...ccused-of-corruption-in-south-korea-1.2935567

-18km line
-$3.5bn over thirty years (incl maintenance)
-projected ridership of 183,000 (actual ridership 10k)
-possible bribery involved, but no charges

 

[M II A II R II K]

It's too bad they didn't build a streetcar line like that for Queen in addition to the BD subway.

 

[W. K. Lis]

While the Boston LRV's/streetcars are about 22.5m in length, the new Toronto Flexity Outlook streetcars are 30.2m in length, however the Transit City Flexity Freedom light rail vehicles will be about 30.8m in length.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It's too bad they didn't build a streetcar line like that for Queen in addition to the BD subway.

That was the original plans for building both a Yonge heavy rail subway and a Queen light rail subway, except that the promised federal funding in the 1950's didn't happen.