Talk:Rapid transit in Canada

Rapid transit?

Rapid transit is usually defined as an elevated or underground electric passenger railway which is grade separated from other traffic. The Montreal Metro, Toronto Subway, and Vancouver SkyTrain would qualify as rapid transit, but it also talks about light rail systems, which are not rapid transit because it has intersections with roads. The lines listed under suburban rapid transit are commuter rails, since they have at-grade crossings and use units designed to handle a heavy volume of traffic. See passenger rail terminology for more information on terms. --Apollo1758 (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Although, for example, the C-train intersects roads, I believe it has priority and only shares it's lane with emergency vehicles and busses. The TTC has long streches that are not grade separated. It sounds like the categories suggested is just pigeon-holing, but feel free to reorganize the charts to whatever category you see fit. However, I do think they all belong in one page whether it's rapid transit or "rapid transit".Mattximus (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Other forms of Rapid Transit need to be included

The title and contents of this article are misleading, either the title of the article should be changed to rail rapid transit or the article should be updated to include other forms of rapid transit such as bus rapid transit and some aerial trams as these are generally considered rapid transit by Canadian and international transit authorities.

This is a definition that might better fit: Rapid transit is a form of transit with at least one of the following qualifications: significant grade separation and/or signaling priority over other traffic, higher than local average capacity, higher than local average frequency and designation by the transit authority as being a backbone route of the local transit system.

If a section on bus rapid transit is added, I think this list should be referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems#Canada Argonius2 (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/vancouver/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 09:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove Speculation

As per wiki is not a crystal ball (WP:Crystal), I wonder if we should remove the potential future systems from this list? Especially the Vancouver street car (not rapid transit) and the Edmonton LRT expansion (otherwise we have to include every single other expansion project in the country, like the Eglinton Crosstown in Toronto). Also, the TTC streetcar system is in no way a rapid transit system. Mattximus (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted this, with an opposite tack: the edits clearly indicate the Toronto streetcar system as a light rail line ... and we should not exclude it if we include the various other LRTs listed. It carries 291k riders daily ... almost as many as the C-Train which, per that article, is light rail transit. If we objectify the various systems, really only two systems/cities in Canada have 'rapid transit' (heavy rail, in essence): Toronto and Montreal; Vancouver if we stretch it to include intermediate rail. I see no reason for the article to be that restrictive and, instead, should be more inclusive and comprehensive -- this was alluded to four years ago. This article entitled 'Rail transit in Canada' seems to capture an adequate title and article direction for me, BRTs notwithstanding. (Also note how they classify the various modes.) Perhaps refactor into rail transit or public transit in Canada? 142.46.224.77 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In no way are the TTC streetcars considered rapid transit. No serious publication refers to them as such. They absolutely do not fit on this list. Now you do bring a valid criticism for the Edmonton and Calgary LRTs, as well as the O-Train/future Ottawa LRT, whether they should be included on this list. Also it's curious as to why there are suburban transit and speculative future routes that are not even in the approval stage. I think we agree that Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are definite rapid transit systems. Edmonton, Calgary, and Ottawa as modern LRTs probably fit the bill and I would argue should be included but that could be up for debate. Would you like to start the debate there? Mattximus (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As I have made clear, the TTC streetcar system is not rapid transit but light rail transit that merits inclusion in a list about Canadian urban rail systems. (My edits were clear on that.) I believe the debate should start with the scope of this article, with a change in title. I believe it should be retitled -- emphasizing rail transit or, more broadly, public transit in Canada -- and expanded to include all the systems of note, i.e., any on the APTA list, and perhaps ones under construction or which have been approved. If the article cannot be changed or renamed, then only the TM(V) systems should be included since the others are all technically light rail systems, and I will create one more encompassing. 70.55.48.123 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well there can easily be a new page called Rail Transportation in Canada, or something like that. But as it stands, this page is called "Rapid Transit" and so we should strive for including what is externally accepted as rapid transit. Mattximus (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I will create one when able called 'Public transit in Canada,' as there is no need to parse and be restrictive. (The CUTA article refers to 'Rail transit in Canada,' which would exclude BRT.) For this article, really only the TMV systems should be included, and possibly those of Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton -- nothing more really (and I will purge those in time) since those and other systems are not bona fide rapid transit. (The article listing North American RT systems includes only the Canadian big three, and the same could be said here.) 70.55.48.123 (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. I agree that TMV systems should be included, and possibly Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton. For now I think we should keep these 6 systems until we reach a consensus. I am also ok leaving in the Ion rapid transit as it is under construction, but no other system (the Ottawa confederation line will be integrated with the O-train, so no need for separate mention). Mattximus (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Given the existence of an article about Light rail in Canada, it would make sense - and my preference - is to purge the article of the three light rail systems with only spartan reference here, leaving only the TMV systems. Otherwise, we are being willy nilly and, again, go back to comments made years ago about the focus of the article. 70.55.48.123 (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to keep those 3 LRTs as they are functionally rapid transit, but perhaps we can ask others their opinion? What do you think of the inclusion of the BRT systems? Mattximus (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on the definition of rapid transit. If we refer to the Wikipedia article on rapid transit (i.e., rail/subways), only the TMV systems should be included; I suppose purists would only include the systems for Toronto (less the RT) and Montreal, and not Vancouver's at all. If we opt to include the light rail systems, we should also include the BRT systems which, IMO, also poses challenges (different mode) ... which is why I think this article needs a rethink/retitling or, barring that, wider feedback. 70.55.48.123 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite simply: LRT ≠ rapid transit. The definition of "rapid transit" effectively excludes LRT systems. Ergo, this article should remove any LRT systems, though it can certainly mention any rapid transit systems that have transfer opportunities with LRT lines. --IJBall (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: The commuter rail table should also be stricken from the article, as being similarly not germane (commuter rail ≠ rapid transit). If all that stuff is kept, then this article should definitely be moved to Public transit in Canada or, like, Public transportation systems in Canada, or something... --IJBall (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hang on now, such a blanket statement doesn't work for all systems. Specifically, the Toronto rapid transit system is primarily a heavy rail metro system, but has a light rail component which is always considered as integral to the system as it is completely grade separated. All statistics mention ridership from that line, and in common usage it's completely integrated. What would you do in that case? The problem is that there is no absolute barrier between heavy rail and light rail. Another example: what is the Skytrain? Mattximus (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"Heavy rail", "metro" or "rapid transit" is most specifically defined by passenger volumes. Skytrain, with 5–6 car trainsets, and high frequencies, certainly qualifies as "rapid transit". Most sources consider the Scarborough Line to be "light metro", so it too qualifies. But Edmonton has grade-crossings which means it doesn't qualify. Neither does Calgary. The O-Train is too low-frequency (with too short trains) to be "rapid transit". Regardless of all of that, commuter rail certainly does not qualify as "rapid transit" – the inclusion of those systems here is ludicrous if the article is to stay at "Rapid transit in Canada"... --IJBall (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, if the article is not to be moved, and the light rail systems aren't going to be pulled (as I think they should), then they should at least be segregated out in to a separate table – with a title something like "Higher capacity light rail systems", or some such. They should definitely not be "bundled" in with the three true "heavy rail" systems as they are now. --IJBall (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You are being contradictory, first you said that rapid transit is defined specifically by passenger volumes. Then you say that Edmonton LRT is not rapid transit because it has at grade crossings. Which one is it, and do you have a source to back that up? Or is it the size of the trains? Or is it the frequency? Mattximus (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine, Mattximus – it's all of the above: segregated and reserved rights-of-way (with no track sharing, and no grade-crossings), with high passenger volumes (which means high frequencies and large trainsets). But high passenger volumes is ultimately the main point (the reserved right-of-way, etc. is ultimately to allow for high passenger volumes – e.g +30,000 PPHPD). And, no, I'm not going to regurgitate the last 2+ years I've spent on the subject looking up references for you – they are readily available at articles like the List of metro systems, Light rail, Medium-capacity rail transport systems and Passenger rail terminology articles. The bottom line is light rail is, by definition, not "rapid transit" or "metro" because of things like at-grade crossings, smaller trainsets, and lower frequencies, all of which lead to lower passenger volumes (generally 10,000–18,000 PPHPD). This can be most starkly seen at this very article with the meager passenger numbers displayed by the O-Train, which is so "light rail" that it borders on being "commuter rail" (and, indeed, even uses diesel multiple units, not electric, as its vehicles). --IJBall (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the answer is as concrete as you are leading us to believe. For example, if you consider ridership: the Calgary LRT has about 113 million riders per year and you don't consider it rapid transit, but the Red Line (Cleveland) which is comparable in size and you consider it a rapid transit even though it moves just 6 million people per year. It moves more than 10x fewer people. Do you have a single authoritative source for your definition? It seems like it's just been researched by you and not some authority. Mattximus (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is APTA good enough for you?! APTA categorizes Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa, as "light rail" in their Ridership Reports. So does LRTA. (In the case of APTA, they categorize Vancouver as something odd – "Automated guideway" – so neither "light" or "heavy rail"; LRTA categorizes Vancouver as "Light metro".) In any case, is too much to ask to assume good faith here, and assume I'm not just talking out my ass?! Geez... --IJBall (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the APTA online definitions (emphasis retained) below, Vancouver's...:

• Automated Guideway Transit (also called personal rapid transit, group rapid transit, or people mover) is an electric railway (single or multi-car trains) of guided transit vehicles operating without an onboard crew. Service may be on a fixed schedule or in response to a passenger activated call button.

So, that merits inclusion here. 142.46.224.77 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a few guiding/notable definitions; per APTA, 'rapid transit' is defined as (from 1994 transit glossary):

• Rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way.

and per APTA online definitions (emphasis retained):

• Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail) operating on an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails; separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded; sophisticated signaling, and high platform loading.

Consulting the light rail definition (at same link above):

• Light Rail is a mode of transit service (also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley) operating passenger rail cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or three-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often separated from other traffic for part or much of the way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph; driven by an operator on board the vehicle; and may have either high platform loading or low level boarding using steps.

Also observe the article here on terminology. (Curiously, 'light rapid transit' is unspecified and undefined.) So, unless I am mistaken and there is an authoritative definition for 'light rapid transit', all light rail does not count as rapid transit, and the only systems that belong in this article are the systems from Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver (if intermediate rail is conceded) and the BRTs; the systems in Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton (and the Ion rail component), while functionally rapid transit, are not rapid transit (as they certainly are not heavy rail) but light rail and, with the commuter rail systems, should be nixed. I think that is a fairly...concrete answer. This would also parallel what is included in the continental list of RT and light rail systems. 142.46.224.77 (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The way you have it now does not make any sense. You have a system in Kelowna that runs a bus in mixed traffic every 30 minutes, but not the Calgary LRT which is almost entirely on a right of way, and functionally similar to heavy rail...?? But you include the Scarborough RT, which is pretty much the same thing as the Edmonton LRT... there is no consistency here. Mattximus (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

So, I think this where we're at: if we want to keep everything currently included in the article, it should be moved to something other than "Rapid transit in Canada". On the other hand, if we want to keep the article where it is, then the commuter rail table needs to be deleted (no one has proffered any objection to this, so far). At the very least, if the light rail is kept, it should be moved into a separate table with a text preamble noting that these systems don't meet the definition of "rapid transit". (My preference would be to just remove those systems from the article entirely – they are already covered at Light rail in North America, etc.) On the Bus rapid transit (BRT) systems, I have no real horse in that race – I'll just note that lots of systems "self-label" as BRT, but only those that run in separate rights-of-way (e.g. the Orange Line (Los Angeles Metro)) really probably qualify as "true BRT"... --IJBall (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

M, my edits are rather reasoned. Is the Kelowna system a bona fide BRT? If it is, keep it; if not, delete it and others that are not bona fide BRTs. (I am not fully in the know on those systems, but feel free to prune.) Not make sense? One section includes rail rapid transit, the other BRT - unsure how that does not make sense. To wit, the light rail systems do not belong any more than the TTC streetcar system entry did - none are rapid transit as defined. (The SkyTrain and Scarborough RT, as intermediate systems, are debatable, but they are generally not considered light rail.) On the flipside, would you attempt to add the Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton systems to the North American RT list or Canadian heavy rail list? I presume there would be resistance. This section is entitled 'Removing Speculation'...so, let's keep moving forward on that premise. And, yes, I agree with IJBall - a more inclusive list merits a more inclusive or new article, or we keep it more or less as is. 207.164.79.107 (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Just so we are clear here:

• 1. Light/intermediate rail, but considered "rapid transit":

• 2. Light rail, but not considered "rapid transit", even though it moves 8 times more people per hour:

• Is this the consensus? Mattximus (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The prior article certainly did not embrace or reflect one: in this discussion so far, two editors believe the light rail systems should be excluded (rightly because they are not rapid transit), you do not. If even the concept of 'light rapid transit' can be validated and referenced authoritatively, that can provide wiggle room. Can you cite that the other systems are bona fide rapid transit, instead of simply and functionally trying to be or marketed as such? The photos appear oversized, but one does not have a pantograph atop. Anyhow, I will go with whatever a consensus indicates. 70.55.48.123 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh: the Scarborough RT is a 6-station grade-separated line with a daily ridership of 40k; the C-Train is a 45-station, 2-line system with 310k daily ridership with portions that have only semi-exclusive right of way. And, the systems are designated as such on their respective articles/infoboxes. So....70.55.48.123 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Now there is a new criterion: exclusivity of right of way. There are, without exaggeration, 5 or more different criterion in this thread alone trying to tell me what rapid transit means. This tells me that there is not a universally accepted definition of rapid transit. So why not just err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion? Mattximus (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, if exclusive right of way is your definition of rapid transit, then Chicago doesn't have rapid transit [[1]]

Go tell that to the American editors, then. (Grade separation is indicated in the APTA definitions above for Heavy Rail (rapid transit) and Light Rail.) You also indicated above it is not a cut-and-dry issue ... you seem to want the status quo while citing nothing or doing almost as much to retain it. 70.55.48.123 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on which systems to include or exclude

I will say keep Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver as heavy rail and a separate list for light rail keep Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, and the future Kitchener-Waterloo. They are all forms of rapid transit and should all be included in this page. The reasons to include/exclude a particular system are varied and changing in this thread (just read some of the comments above: Is it ridership numbers this time? Or is it grade crossings? Or is it the frequency of trips?) and so I would err on the inclusive side rather than the exclusive side especially considering there is no specific definition of what constitutes rapid transit. If you have an exact referenced definition for rapid transit, then please share. Above just seems like a laundry list of people's personal biases. Mattximus (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it did seem like a laundry list beforehand. I have been fairly consistent in what should or should not be placed in this article...or transitioning it to something more inclusive, which is partly why I included the various definitions. A purist would only include Toronto and Montreal on the list. And please do not conflate the various opinions as a reason to be more inclusive -- the burden of proof is on someone who adds content to justify keeping content with references -- you have not really provided any references to support including the light rail systems. Keep the TMV systems and the bona fide BRT systems (the current list may need to be pruned more); only include the light rail systems if it can be reliably referenced that they are bona fide RT systems. 70.55.48.123 (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm going to give up this argument, I've said my piece. I will end with the notion that it is crazy to include BRT and not include LRT. BRT have lower capacity, are not grade separated, and go through traffic lights. Most BRT's on this list just use HOV lanes on normal city streets. LRT are functionally almost identical to heavy rail, and are, literally a rapid form of transportation. Light rail, as oppose to streetcars, do not stop and wait for cars or pedestrians to cross, they are functionally separated from them, have similar capacities, similar vehicles, similar timing... Mattximus (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on this point. The problem, of course, is that the BRT people were clever, and put the words "rapid transit" right there in the name. But the difference between rail rapid transit, and BRT, is vast, even for BRT lines such as L.A. Metro's Orange Line. So I'd certainly support spinning off the BRT portion into its own article. --IJBall (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, IMO, I am also not keen on including BRTs herein, and agree that rail systems should be dealt with in the same article. And if only there was a bona fide category for 'light rapid transit.' But, c'est la vie. I will concoct a 'Rail (or rapid) transit' article soon, which will have it all so we needn't split hairs so much. 70.55.48.123 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)