Mapleson
Active Member
The 10% of people who do read them however can agree on common terms and express them to the other 90% as standard.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Dan416
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
Not once in my life, in any city where I've spent a lot of time, London, New York, Seoul, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, etc., have I ever heard anyone say "Meet me at the HRT station". It might be technical; but it ain't common!
If you want to have technical papers, call it what you want. But if the media starts telling people that they are building a streetcar under Eglinton instead of subway, it's misleading.
Remember the fuss when the Toronto Star talked about LRT being built down Spadina, and pictures started to appear of SRT trains running down the median of Spadina? It might have been technically correct, but it set back the project, and confused the public.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it is a duck. I don't really care if the scientific community concludes that it genetically not a duck; it's a duck! Do you know anyone who goes up to a grebe, and says "Oh look, it's a grebe". Well, there's probably a couple ... but it's a duck!
If we called the tunnel on King Street under the railway tracks a subway 100 years ago, and we called the proposed streetcar tunnel under Queen 60 years ago a subway, then we can call an HRT-sized tunnel under Eglinton a subway.
Besides, if you were going to do it properly, we'd call them tubes or undergrounds.
Last edited:
GenerationW
Senior Member
Except for the fact that we wouldn't, we don't, and we never will. In rejecting the terminology of the mother country, our past leaders showed great foresight, wisdom and maturity during a time when Toronto was not the multicultural mecca it is today.
Makes me a bit teary-eyed.
Dan416
Senior Member
In general, I think we use a lot more American terminology than British, although we use British spellings for the most part (but not always).
doady
Senior Member
LRT: a pretty vague term since streetcars/tram are also light rail... I personally think the term "tramway" should be used instead (like "busway" for buses, and "subway" for urban heavy rail trains) as it implies some major rapid transit measures (see def. of rapid transit below) that old-fashioned streetcars do not have
Subway and metro: completely grade-separated rail lines with limited and fixed stops; they don't have to be underground, they just have to be true rapid transit lines.
Rapid transit: fast, high frequency, limited and fixed stops (i.e. no stop requests)
BRT/busway: bus service that fits above description of rapid transit
HRT: I've never heard this term used anywhere; I don't think it mean anything.
Light rail vs heavy rail: just indicator of capacity, but not just the size of the trains (because the Montreal Metro trains are no wider than Toronto's streetcars), but also the amount of speed, priority and separation measures (i.e. rapid transit measures), which also significantly increase capacity.
Of course, the meaning of the terms depends on the context as well. For example, for the TTC, subway and rapid transit both mean fare-paid boarding zones for trains, and fair-paid boarding zones for connecting buses. So the Eglinton LRT, with its honour fare system, is neither subway or rapid transit, by Toronto's standards. It cannot be included on Toronto's subway map as its fare policy would not fit with the rest of the system. Sometimes what puts a line into a completely separate category its functionality, instead of the capacity or the technology.
Subway and metro: completely grade-separated rail lines with limited and fixed stops; they don't have to be underground, they just have to be true rapid transit lines.
Rapid transit: fast, high frequency, limited and fixed stops (i.e. no stop requests)
BRT/busway: bus service that fits above description of rapid transit
HRT: I've never heard this term used anywhere; I don't think it mean anything.
Light rail vs heavy rail: just indicator of capacity, but not just the size of the trains (because the Montreal Metro trains are no wider than Toronto's streetcars), but also the amount of speed, priority and separation measures (i.e. rapid transit measures), which also significantly increase capacity.
Of course, the meaning of the terms depends on the context as well. For example, for the TTC, subway and rapid transit both mean fare-paid boarding zones for trains, and fair-paid boarding zones for connecting buses. So the Eglinton LRT, with its honour fare system, is neither subway or rapid transit, by Toronto's standards. It cannot be included on Toronto's subway map as its fare policy would not fit with the rest of the system. Sometimes what puts a line into a completely separate category its functionality, instead of the capacity or the technology.
Last edited:
Fresh Start
Banned
Yes, grade separation whole route length is key if you want to start talking about Transit City LRT as a form of real rapid transit. One could even accept an at-grade ROW that ducks underground at major intersections as exemplar of rapid transit. It's the aspect of mixed traffic operations with far too many minor stops (which a limited service parallel bus route could handle a la the 85A) that disqualifies much of TC from that designation.
Mapleson
Active Member
Which mother country you speaking of, England or France? What terminology did we reject rather than has developed independantly over the past 200 years? Technology that existed prior to colonization is still called by the same names (railways, locomotives, canals, locks, transits). Technology that developed prior to globalization and the internet generally is known by localized terms. Modern technology has standard terms regardless of regional dialect (CD-ROM, DVD, modem, website).
What foresight, wisdom and maturity is there is calling a spade a shovel? It still does the same job.
GenerationW
Senior Member
^ Well that went completely over someone's head.
nfitz
Superstar
Not necessarily ... it's not like we call our subways a metro (though you'll notice that French-language advertising in Toronto often does).
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
The Montréal Metro train cars are narrower that Toronto's subway train cars, but are about the same width as Toronto's streetcars. The new low-floor light rail vehicles will be longer than a Montréal train car, as well. So the Montréal Metro cannot be a subway, even though I think they are used as subways.
I think that the Eglinton, using light rail vehicles, is a subway. It will run underground in an exclusive right-of-way, using underground stations, hopefully similar to Montréal's station design. The only difference should be the low level platforms of the Eglinton, vs the high level platform of the Montréal Metro, and the power source overhead vs third rail.
I think that the Eglinton, using light rail vehicles, is a subway. It will run underground in an exclusive right-of-way, using underground stations, hopefully similar to Montréal's station design. The only difference should be the low level platforms of the Eglinton, vs the high level platform of the Montréal Metro, and the power source overhead vs third rail.
nfitz
Superstar
Are you saying that the Montreal Metro isn't a subway?
golodhendil
Active Member
^ I think he's trying to be sarcastic.
Dan416
Senior Member
Eglinton isn't a subway if it stops at red lights.
Justin10000
Banned
This obsession with defining a subway must be eating you up inside. Eglinton LRT will provide enough capacity well into the future. That's all what matters.
nfitz
Superstar
Surely if the subway doesn't stop at the red lights in the tunnel, there will be an accident!