News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

mdrejhon said:
Have you opened an urban dictionary lately?
Click to expand...
I just followed the Wikipedia definition, since, like all forms of transit, the terms that describe them are extremely loosely defined. View attachment 144406
Key words: "Cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort". All other dictionary definitions define them as subways. Yes, these aren't urban dictionaries, but again, everything has limits and is subject to an interpretation by the reader. An LRT line is not an MRT line, and I think it's fair to say that the surface LRT east of Don Mills cannot be classified as rapid transit. Also, we don't even know that the crosstown will reach speeds of 28km in this area. There are so many stops there and we don't know how the train will operate (whether it's with signal priority or not) so I have my doubts.
 
Streety McCarface said:
I just followed the Wikipedia definition, since, like all forms of transit, the terms that describe them are extremely loosely defined. View attachment 144406
Key words: "Cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort". All other dictionary definitions define them as subways. Yes, these aren't urban dictionaries, but again, everything has limits and is subject to an interpretation by the reader. An LRT line is not an MRT line, and I think it's fair to say that the surface LRT east of Don Mills cannot be classified as rapid transit. Also, we don't even know that the crosstown will reach speeds of 28km in this area. There are so many stops there and we don't know how the train will operate (whether it's with signal priority or not) so I have my doubts.
Click to expand...

That means Chicago's L trains are not rapid transit, by your definition.

 
Streety McCarface said:
Key words: "Cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort". All other dictionary definitions define them as subways. Yes, these aren't urban dictionaries, but again, everything has limits and is subject to an interpretation by the reader. An LRT line is not an MRT line, and I think it's fair to say that the surface LRT east of Don Mills cannot be classified as rapid transit. Also, we don't even know that the crosstown will reach speeds of 28km in this area. There are so many stops there and we don't know how the train will operate (whether it's with signal priority or not) so I have my doubts.
Click to expand...
That is badly worded, the distinction should probably be "fenced off right-of-way". Which brings up the question, will it make the line "rapid transit" if they install sound walls along the entire length of the LRT on-street right-of-way? (Yes it will be aesthetically unpleasing.)
 
W. K. Lis said:
That means Chicago's L trains are not rapid transit, by your definition.

Click to expand...

One could argue that section of the Purple line is not rapid transit (Let's be fair, a lot of the L in this stage really isn't rapid transit). Like I said, no system is really defined. Nevertheless, this gets away from the argument against the crosstown, which will not have gates whatsoever. You can have a line that is considered rapid transit in one section while not "rapid transit" in the other. It can still be heavy rail transit or vice versa.
 
I'd say this conversation of whether or not the surface section of the Eglinton Crosstown is "Rapid Transit" doesn't really result in anything.

What I think does matter is how the TTC will market the Crosstown on the its subway maps.
There are a few ways they can show it:
  • Named: Subway Map, Subway and LRT Map, Subway and RT Map, Rapid Transit Map
  • Labeled: 5 Eglinton Line, 5 Eglinton LRT Line, N/A
  • Displayed: Solid Orange Line, Solid and Dashed Orange Line, Not Displayed
I'd say the one I like the most is: "Rapid Transit Map, 5 Eglinton LRT Line, Solid Line". This makes it unambiguous as it clearly marks the Crosstown as a LRT, it doesn't distinguish between the tunneled and at-grade sections, it leaves the opportunity to add the GO lines, can label the subways as Subway Lines, and conveys that it is an option to take.
 
Leo_Chan said:
I'd say this conversation of whether or not the surface section of the Eglinton Crosstown is "Rapid Transit" doesn't really result in anything.

What I think does matter is how the TTC will market the Crosstown on the its subway maps.
There are a few ways they can show it:
  • Named: Subway Map, Subway and LRT Map, Subway and RT Map, Rapid Transit Map
  • Labeled: 5 Eglinton Line, 5 Eglinton LRT Line, N/A
  • Displayed: Solid Orange Line, Solid and Dashed Orange Line, Not Displayed
I'd say the one I like the most is: "Rapid Transit Map, 5 Eglinton LRT Line, Solid Line". This makes it unambiguous as it clearly marks the Crosstown as a LRT, it doesn't distinguish between the tunneled and at-grade sections, it leaves the opportunity to add the GO lines, can label the subways as Subway Lines, and conveys that it is an option to take.
Click to expand...
Easy, just say "Passenger Rail System Map", done! Wait! What about the damned streetcars?
 
Streety McCarface said:
One could argue that section of the Purple line is not rapid transit (Let's be fair, a lot of the L in this stage really isn't rapid transit). Like I said, no system is really defined. Nevertheless, this gets away from the argument against the crosstown, which will not have gates whatsoever. You can have a line that is considered rapid transit in one section while not "rapid transit" in the other. It can still be heavy rail transit or vice versa.
Click to expand...

The entire L isn't rapid transit as far as i'm concerned. The downtown elevated portion is slow as hell, and constantly stopping for other trains.

L is a mess and the only people that compare it to the TTC's system and say its better have only seen it on a map, and not actually ridden it.
 
robmausser said:
The entire L isn't rapid transit as far as i'm concerned. The downtown elevated portion is slow as hell, and constantly stopping for other trains.

L is a mess and the only people that compare it to the TTC's system and say its better have only seen it on a map, and not actually ridden it.
Click to expand...

Plenty of it has sections where speeds exceed 40 km/h with stopping. Red line and Blue lines are examples of this.
 
Which are the two newer lines that run primarily in the middle of freeway corridors.

Transit in Chicago is generally much worse than Toronto, actually. The city is way more auto reliant - but it also has a much, much larger capacity to handle automobiles with something like 28 lanes of freeways into the downtown (toronto has 6) and an extensive double/triple level road system in downtown to distribute the vehicles.
 
robmausser said:
Arent the Red and Blue lines underground?
Click to expand...

Through downtown, yes, but further out they're elevated.

The L can be slow through the loop – I'd never take it for a couple of stops, it's almost always faster to just walk – but it moves quite well out of that area, in my experience, and it covers the city much better than our subway. The CTA also seems better with making announcements on trains in a timely fashion than the TTC is. I'd rank their rapid transit above ours. However, that's just one piece of the puzzle, and I've found their bus service to be frequently... challenging.
 
robmausser said:
The entire L isn't rapid transit as far as i'm concerned. The downtown elevated portion is slow as hell, and constantly stopping for other trains.

L is a mess and the only people that compare it to the TTC's system and say its better have only seen it on a map, and not actually ridden it.
Click to expand...

I have ridden the L several times and wouldn't kid myself by saying the TTC's system (I assume you mean subway only) is better than the L. TTC subway is more frequent on less trackage and I notice that L seems to primarily be a way of transporting the poor and suffering, while most of those with money don't consider it as a serious option. I've seen bad things on the TTC subway, but nothing like what goes on on the L.

Besides that, the L provides better coverage and has stations at 2 airports, has express and local sections, and blue/red lines run 24 hours/day. As far as I can tell, the TTC subway, which again is a nicer riding experience, has trouble staying open more than 5 days/week, nevermind 24 hours/day.

I would still pick coverage and 24 hour service as the winner though.
 
I've always wondered why on the subway and in the future Crosstown LRT that they close the entire line for 6-8 hours a night. Only a small portion of a line would be under maintenance on any given night. Why not use shuttles for that small portion of the line and continue to use trains on the remainder?
 
muller877 said:
I've always wondered why on the subway and in the future Crosstown LRT that they close the entire line for 6-8 hours a night. Only a small portion of a line would be under maintenance on any given night. Why not use shuttles for that small portion of the line and continue to use trains on the remainder?
Click to expand...
Trains need to rest :D
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top