[Whoaccio]

Is there a reason why North American & European metros often run via third rail while Asian systems often operate via pantograph?

 

[LowerBay]

Just when we were starting to get our hopes up about more subway lines in Scarborough, Transit City comes along and crushes those dreams.

Don't worry -- you'll see subways if you're young enough and live long enough. Things have a tendency to go full circle, and I have a feeling that Sheppard will make St. Clair look like a picnic.

Once the Sheppard line is built, and possibly Finch, that will be the end of TC. I don't think you'll ever see Jane, Don Mills, or Malvern built, especially when Sheppard and Finch don't deliver. By then, Miller and Giambrone will be long gone.

Eglinton will probably go ICTS. Yonge and the DRL will then follow. So, the TC LRT "network" will end up as a single crosstown line in the north.

 

[kettal]

So many predictions. Can you tell me next weeks 6/49 numbers too?

 

[junctionist]

It has happened time and time again. Take the original expressway plan or Network 2011 as examples of ambitious expansion plans for a certain mode of transportation which ultimately stalled. It's too early to speculate though considering that nothing has been built yet.

 

[golodhendil]

Well like it or not that's what the word subway tends to mean in this country. None of the pantograph or linear induction powered systems in Canada are usually called a subway.

Of course, if you can call the pictures you posted subways then you can call the Eglinton line a subway too. Nobody's calling it that so far though. Common uses of the words can change.

The inanity of this post blows my mind. If you think a system like the MTR (which is 90% underground and 10% elevated, operates 8-car HRT trains at up to 80 kph with 2 min headways, has stations 750 m apart, carries 3 million passengers a day fully within the urban core of the city, and whose name is "underground railway") cannot be called a "subway" because you don't like it to, then something is seriously wrong with your mind. And in case you are too lazy to look up pictures of the rest of the MTR, the only reason I chose a picture of the elevated portion is because elevated stations are only just in the process of installing PSD (something our TTC probably won't even dream of installing in our lifetimes) so you can clearly see the overhead wires. Here's a picture of an underground station (the other 90% of the stations), by our very own wyliepoon:

If your's is the way "subway" is defined in Canada, then perhaps it will do you good to look outside of that bubble occasionally.

(The second picture was of Tokyo Metro's fully underground 13-Fukutoshin Line, which runs 10-car trains at an average tunnel depth of 27 m. If that's not a subway, I don't know what else would be.)

Is there a reason why North American & European metros often run via third rail while Asian systems often operate via pantograph?

It's not really an Asian vs North American/European thing. Spanish systems like Madrid and Barcelona's overwhelmingly use overhead wires, and so does Milan, Naples, Budapest, Cleveland, etc. In Asia, while most of Japan's lines, Seoul, HK, and some Chinese cities like Guangzhou and Shanghai use overhead, others like Beijing, Singapore, Taipei and a good number of the lines in Tokyo use third rail, so the choice does seem rather arbitrary. One reason that some systems may choose overhead wires is probably for safety, because it's less likely for passengers to get electrocuted. I think it also has to do with the fact that third rail can only use DC and can only carry lower voltage than wires, and are thus less efficient, but I am not sure of the EE details. Third rail is also a generally older technology and requires less space, so it's common in older systems with smaller tunnels, like London, Berlin and New York. Many newer systems or newer lines of existing systems opt for overhead wires because of the advantages, and some are even phasing out old third rails where possible.

Oh yeah I forgot. I guess we should tell the Spanish and Italians and Koreans and Japanese that their underground railways are not good enough to be considered subways by Canadians.

 

[khris]

Oh yeah I forgot. I guess we should tell the Spanish and Italians and Koreans and Japanese that their underground railways are not good enough to be considered subways by Canadians.

First thing, you shouldn't judge all Canadians on what one person says.
Second, are you seriously getting that upset about this? It's just a discusion about public transit, no need to get your knickers in a twist.

 

[Amphibius]

Not even...

All Montreal has that is better is art, its cleaner...
Toronto subway has a better coverage of the city.

The green line does not include Pointe-Au-Trembles in the far east and stop at Lasalle in the west ignoring Lachine and the rest of the West Island who have very poor service where Bus have to the highway to go to the subway.
Bloor-Danforth and RT goes from Scarborough to Etobicoke.

The only thing Montreal has is a true North crosstown (the Blue line)
The subway trains in Toronto runs more frequently than in Montreal and the bus Service is superior in every way here and we have streetcars with future LRT.

I said Montreal would have the largest SUBWAY network, not better but bigger.

Okay Ansem, you asked for it. Since you wanted the discussion to veer back OT (on-topic, not Semantics:Transit Lingo 101) so much, here goes...

While Toronto has a more frequently run bus/LRT/HRT network, arguably the subway coverage through the city centre of Montreal leaves something long desired here. This is why we desperately need a DRL line to fulfil aspirations of having most of our downtown core easily accessible by way of subway. I also like how the Green Line there isn't affixed to one single corridor but has the mutability to swing wherever subway accessibility is needed. Ditto their Blue Line.

That said, I have some concerns regarding future expansion. You mentioned extending the metro out to Pointe-Au-Trembles and the West Island. However, just how feasible is such a plan? Could you be more specific about alignments and possible terminii you'd consider?

The image above drawn to scale depicts the existing network surface area in relation to the whole island. Bearing in mind that the island stretches over 50 kilometres across in width. building subways end-end would be the equivalent of the Bloor-Danforth Line running from the West Hill triangle all the way to South Common Mall in Mississauga, increasingly running into large swaths of low-density areas as it radiates further away from the urban core. A more concentrated subway system backed a reliable, on-schedule fleet of rapid bus and light-rail connections is what will make the difference for the outer suburban enclaves of Montreal Island, which already has extensive commuter-rail channels which probably take less time to get commuters into the downtown than a forever meandering on, multiple-stopping metro ever would.

Montreal Est's total population of 3,822 or 306.9 persons/km2 (2006 census) makes it way below the minimum threshold for expansion purposes. At most, the transfer point could be shifted just a few kilometres over to Georges V Ave and then allow the bus network to takeover from there. With a seemingly endless expanse of industrial wastelands to the immediate east of this point, no one in their right mind would entertain extending a subway line through that, especially when an AMT commuter-rail extension through Pointe-Au-Trembles is already in the works (Mascouche- L'Assomption Line). Also to consider is eventually looping the Green Line into the Blue at Galeries d'Anjou via the Côte-St-Leonard neighbourhood whereby intermediate stations east of Honoré-Beaugrand could occur around Rue des Ormeaux/Sherbrooke, Rue Robitaille/Pierre Bernard Blvd, and Wilfrid Pelletier/Joseph Renaud Blvds (Anjou Shopping/Community Centre).

I think in the long-term, both the Green and Blue Lines could again converge, this time at Montréal-Ouest AMT Station; with the Green targeting the commercial areas flanking Newman Blvd/western La Salle and Blue serving the community of Côte Saint-Luc en route. From Montréal-Ouest, a parallel Airport Rocket express train service similar to the planned Union-Pearson AirLink could make limited stop engagements in-between the metro and Trudeau Airport's main public entrance via its own right-of-way spur, northwest of Dorval Stn.

 

[GTS]

Amphibius, that is a dated map you posted there. It shows the eastern arm of the Orange Line terminating at Henri-Bourassa. Montreal already has penetrated the region of Laval and the Orange Line now has 3 stations in that area terminating at Montmorency. Also, that map only shows 2 of the commuter rail lines as well, Deux-Montagnes and Dorian-Rigaud lines, is their a reason that 3 commuter rail lines are ignored on that map?

 

[Automation Gallery]

Amphibius, that is a dated map you posted there. It shows the eastern arm of the Orange Line terminating at Henri-Bourassa. Montreal already has penetrated the region of Laval and the Orange Line now has 3 stations in that area terminating at Montmorency. Also, that map only shows 2 of the commuter rail lines as well, Deux-Montagnes and Dorian-Rigaud lines, is their a reason that 3 commuter rail lines are ignored on that map?

Here is a web site with the most updated world cities subway maps.

http://www.amadeus.net/home/new/subwaymaps/en/

 

[MisterF]

The inanity of this post blows my mind. If you think a system like the MTR (which is 90% underground and 10% elevated, operates 8-car HRT trains at up to 80 kph with 2 min headways, has stations 750 m apart, carries 3 million passengers a day fully within the urban core of the city, and whose name is "underground railway") cannot be called a "subway" because you don't like it to, then something is seriously wrong with your mind. And in case you are too lazy to look up pictures of the rest of the MTR, the only reason I chose a picture of the elevated portion is because elevated stations are only just in the process of installing PSD (something our TTC probably won't even dream of installing in our lifetimes) so you can clearly see the overhead wires. Here's a picture of an underground station (the other 90% of the stations), by our very own wyliepoon:

If your's is the way "subway" is defined in Canada, then perhaps it will do you good to look outside of that bubble occasionally.

(The second picture was of Tokyo Metro's fully underground 13-Fukutoshin Line, which runs 10-car trains at an average tunnel depth of 27 m. If that's not a subway, I don't know what else would be.)

Oh yeah I forgot. I guess we should tell the Spanish and Italians and Koreans and Japanese that their underground railways are not good enough to be considered subways by Canadians.

lol...is smoke coming out of your ears? Look, this thread is about Toronto and Montreal. In that context, for the time being, third rail means subway. That's all I'm saying. No need to start throwing out insults because you don't like it.

Surely you'd agree with my second point that if you don't go by third rail definition that the Eglinton line could be considered a subway, at least in the tunnel portion. Your posts have proven my earlier point: the lines are blurred between technologies and terminologies.

 

[golodhendil]

First thing, you shouldn't judge all Canadians on what one person says.
Second, are you seriously getting that upset about this? It's just a discusion about public transit, no need to get your knickers in a twist.

First of all, that's something called hyperbole Surely, there is at least one exception to this "generalization" (me) so I couldn't possibly think it applies to "all" Canadians now can I?
And second, if you think that was me being upset, you should see when I am actually upset.

Surely you'd agree with my second point that if you don't go by third rail definition that the Eglinton line could be considered a subway, at least in the tunnel portion. Your posts have proven my earlier point: the lines are blurred between technologies and terminologies.

Of course I agree with that, I pointed it out 30 posts before yours.

 

[SimonP]

According to the wiki Toronto already has a shorter subway system than Montreal by a few km. It also has fewer riders. Montreal has about 10,000 more subway riders per day. The important caveat is that the Wikipedia article classes the SRT as light rail rather than a subway. This distinction seems to be in keeping with the American Public Transit Association's definition.

It makes sense that Montreal would have a somewhat more developed mass transit network, as it's geography is much more confined. This leads to higher population densities, and more transit users.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think the best way to define a 'subway' is to assess what level of service it provides. Does it provide quick and frequent service while moving significant amounts of riders on rail? If so then I don't see why it can't be defined as a subway. Delving deeper I would define a subway as:

1) Using rail technology - No BRT but Montreal's rubber tired metro would count.
2) Fully grade separated - Yes, this would leave room to define the Eglinton tunnel as a subway.
3) Frequent service. You can define 'frequent' in many ways. But I would exclude anything where the wait time is longer than 5 minutes.
4) All day service. A rush hour service is not a subway system.
5) Mid-sized stop intervals. Somewhere between 600m and 2km would be acceptable.

Achieving these criteria would for me allow for fast and frequent service, sufficient to allow it to be defined as a 'subway'. I would call my criteria the tourist criteria. If you were to ask a tourist anywhere what they would call a subway this list would probably come close. They would not care if it were third rail powered or used a catenary or even a diesel locomotive, as long as the service was quick, frequent and persistent (all day).

 

[doady]

A true subway/metro should have fare-paid boarding zones, and yes that (usually) means grade separation. In Toronto, subway stations also have bus terminals that are fare-paid zones, and I think that is a important part of what defines subway in Toronto as well. So in these respects, the Scarborough RT should be considered part of the subway system as well, and the Eglinton LRT likely not.

Third rail is irrelevant. Riders don't pay attention to such things, it doesn't affect how they use the system, and it is not a requirement for subway/metro. Though other types of rail systems probably cannot use third rail.

lol...is smoke coming out of your ears? Look, this thread is about Toronto and Montreal. In that context, for the time being, third rail means subway.

There is no 'subway' in Montreal. If you ask someone in Montreal for directions to the nearest subway station, they probably wouldn't know what you are talking about. They might direct you to a mall food court instead, or something.

 

[SimonP]

Here are the APTA definitions:

Heavy rail (subway):

An electric railway with the capacity for a "heavy volume" of traffic and characterized by exclusive rights-of-way, multi-car trains, high speed and rapid acceleration, sophisticated signaling and high platform loading. Also known as "rapid rail," "subway," "elevated (railway)" or "metropolitan railway (metro)."

Light rail:

An electric railway with a "light volume" traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars. Also known as "streetcar," "trolley car" and "tramway."

The only reason the RT might not qualify is it isn't of the capacity that APTA requires.