News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

superelevation said:
Not because its LRT but because of careless. The "industry" journalists were probably reading the same badly translated press releases.
Click to expand...
Their official website consistently calls it Light Rail. https://rem.info/en

Even at peak they are only scheduling trains every 10 minutes for the Dorval and West Island branches. That's 3,600 passengers an hour. No where near heavy rail territory. Ultimate capacity is 10 trains an hour. 7,200 passengers an hour for both Dorval and West Island. Still light rail capacity.

They officially call it LRT. It's on the low end of LRT capacity for 2 of the 3 branches.
1609019580416.png


And that's for the REM lines with the longer trains. For the new east-west line with the 40-metre trains, assuming they use the same vehicles, Ultimate capacity is 300 passengers per train with 20 trains an hour. That's 6,000 passengers an hour.

If they use the narrow vehicles like they use on most of the Skytrain lines in Vancouver, then that's 175 passengers per train and an ultimate capacity of 3,500 passengers per hour.
 
Last edited:
Essentially, "LRT" as a term is incomprehensible to the average person, given it includes everything from the St Clair Streetcar (and you could argue even the downtown streetcars are technically LRTs) to the REM or Confederation Line.
 
asher__jo said:
Perhaps we need to start a thread to debate the meaning of LRT
Click to expand...
I don't know, it does seem cut and dry to me at least but I guess not to others. I can't really agree with things like REM and the SkyTrain being called LRT when they aren't. They are Light Metro's to me and I don't believe that its a new term. To me LRT implies it can run on the street, and you aren't running SkyTrain vehicles or REM Trains on the road.
 
JSF-1 said:
I don't know, it does seem cut and dry to me at least but I guess not to others. I can't really agree with things like REM and the SkyTrain being called LRT when they aren't. They are Light Metro's to me and I don't believe that its a new term. To me LRT implies it can run on the street, and you aren't running SkyTrain vehicles or REM Trains on the road.
Click to expand...
LRT is a spectrum of different implementations of public transit operations with different priority and vehicle types. It can range from mixed traffic, on street corridor with signal priority, grade separated right of way with some on street operations, all the way to fully grade separated. There just isn't a term to describe any one of these operations individually, thus the media and politicians focusing on the any of these priorities to serve their narrative.
 
JSF-1 said:
I don't know, it does seem cut and dry to me at least but I guess not to others. I can't really agree with things like REM and the SkyTrain being called LRT when they aren't. They are Light Metro's to me and I don't believe that its a new term. To me LRT implies it can run on the street, and you aren't running SkyTrain vehicles or REM Trains on the road.
Click to expand...

True. But kinda pointless to Scarborough in that anything that is different from the subway will be seen as getting the shaft.

I think what would have helped sell LRT was if both the SLRT and SMLRT were built at the same time, as branched extensions of Eglinton, with the SLRT extended along Progress (at-grade if necessary) to Malvern. That would have sold the vision of more service and a one-seat ride to Yonge. Uncoupling the SMLRT and refusing to include an extension of the SLRT (I remember it getting progressively cut back from Malvern Town) basically made this less appealing. Right now, if I have to get on a bus anyway, the subway plan actually looks better, especially with the McCowan/Sheppard extension.

To that end, Sheppard has a real opportunity here, if done right. And there's two essential requirements.

1) Convert the subway.

2) Build two branches. The first into Malvern. The second right to the zoo. Eliminate buses on Sheppard.

Anything less than the above and push back should be expected. People don't seem to understand how linear transfers are seen when you're the person who has to make them. They are seen as second class service: those who don't have to transfer and those who do.
 
Last edited:
Leo_Chan said:
LRT is a spectrum of different implementations of public transit operations with different priority and vehicle types. It can range from mixed traffic, on street corridor with signal priority, grade separated right of way with some on street operations, all the way to fully grade separated. There just isn't a term to describe any one of these operations individually, thus the media and politicians focusing on the any of these priorities to serve their narrative.
Click to expand...
Light Rail Transit explains what the technology is, but not necessarily the implementation. SkyTrain, REM are therefore LRT (but light Metro may seem more coherent).
 
I've seen it as a function of capacity.
I've seen it as a function of vehicle type.
I've seen it as a function of grade separation.
I've seen it as a function of Google translate translating light metro/light train/tram as "light rail".
I've seen it as a function of the media calling anything that doesn't look like the aluminum subway trains in Toronto and NYC as light rail.
I've seen it as a function of branding.
I've seen it as a function of 'it's what we call everything else here'.
I've seen it as a function of 'it worked in Portland!'
I've seen it as a function of 'it's not a monorail, but not a subway, and not a diesel train, so I guess we call it light rail'.

Can we not just accept that these things don't have a standard definition that everyone agrees on? and that's it's highly contextual to the time/place/language it's being used within?
 
kEiThZ said:
To that end, Sheppard has a real opportunity here, if done right. And there's two essential requirements.

1) Convert the subway.

2) Build two branches. The first into Malvern. The second right to the zoo. Eliminate buses on Sheppard.

Anything less than the above and push back should be expected. People don't seem to understand how linear transfers are seen when you're the person who has to make them. They are seen as second class service: those who don't have to transfer and those who do.
Click to expand...
Converting Sheppard is a political non-starter. When push came to shove, no one had the stomach to shut down the Scarborough RT for 2-3 years (probably closer to 5 in real time) for the construction of its LRT replacement. In the case of Sheppard, all three provincial parties more or less supported killing the SELRT. Even Shelley Carroll now supports extending the subway, something I thought I'd never see.
 
GenerationW said:
Converting Sheppard is a political non-starter. When push came to shove, no one had the stomach to shut down the Scarborough RT for 2-3 years (probably closer to 5 in real time) for the construction of its LRT replacement. In the case of Sheppard, all three provincial parties more or less supported killing the SELRT. Even Shelley Carroll now supports extending the subway, something I thought I'd never see.
Click to expand...
You're back again :) I guess you're ready to see the last year transit battles until the 2022 election?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top