Talk:Light rail in Canada

Proposal to merge

Can we merge this article with the one called Rapid Transit in Canada. It would only mean the inclusion of the Toronto and Montreal subway. That article has a nice chart that would fit nicely at the start of the merged one, the rest can be straight from here.

There are some fundamental differences between light rail and rapid transit, mainly that the latter have higher capacity, higher speed, and are grade separated from other traffic, whereas light rail systems generally have lower capacity, lower speed, and operate mostly at-grade, often mixed with other traffic. The systems in Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa don't really qualify as rapid transit. Vancouver's Skytrain and Toronto's Scarborough RT are borderline because they are grade-separated, but don't have the capacity or speed to qualify as true rapid transit. They fall into an intermediate area sometimes called light metro. The only Canadian systems that you could classify as true rapid transit are the Montreal and Toronto subways.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the capacity differences between light rail and rapid transit formalized anywhere? I've gone over both the Light Rail and Rapid Transit articles, their references, and a Google search, and I can't come up with what the capacity and speed limits are. I find it hard to believe that SkyTrain wouldn't qualify as "true rapid transit", when according to the List of North American rapid transit systems by ridership, SkyTrain would rank 10th in North America (8th if ranked by ridership by mile). Greg Salter (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with classifying the Vancouver SkyTrain as "true rapid transit" is that the Siemens light rail vehicles which are the de-facto standard for light rail systems in North America are as fast or faster (up to 105 km/h) and can carry more passengers than the SkyTrain vehicles. They are also more flexible since they can operate as streetcars when desired, whereas the SkyTrain vehicles must be grade-separated because of the hot rail power system. The Calgary LRT system carries more passengers than the Vancouver SkyTrain, so capacity is not a difference. It is questionable why anybody else would want to use the SkyTrain vehicles since they appear to be something of a technological dead-end.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your argument isn't making sense. You say that SkyTrain doesn't have the speed or capacity to be "true rapid transit", but Montreal's does. Yet SkyTrain has an average speed of 45 km/h and a top speed of 90 km/h, while Montreal's has an average speed of only 40 km/h and a top speed of only 72 km/h. SkyTrain's cars hold between 80 and 200 people (compared to Montreal's 160), and of course the cars are often linked together to make longer trains carrying hundreds of people. Grade separated, higher speed than Montreal, significant capacity... how again doesn't SkyTrain qualify? Greg Salter (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you wouldn't mention Montreal. Unfortunately its vehicles are smaller and slower than the light rail vehicles used in Calgary and Edmonton, which somewhat violates the usual standard that "Rapid transit is faster and has a higher capacity than trams or light rail". Calgary is currently running three-car trains, but I've seen them string six cars together when they were moving them around. Six of those LRVs could carry 1200 people if full. The operating constraint is platform length, not anything technical to do with the vehicles.

I guess Montreal was trying to emulate the Paris Metro, but the Paris system was built over 100 years ago, has unusually narrow tunnels, and has the shortest distance between stations of any rapid transit system in the world (average 500 metres). With the short distance between stations, acceleration and deceleration are more important than top speed because the trains are never going to reach top speed between stations. Also, Paris only uses rubber-tired trains on the lines where acceleration is more important than top speed. The rest use steel wheels.

Cities designing new rapid transit systems normally build them with wider tunnels and put stations farther apart in the suburbs, so they specify wider vehicles with more capacity and higher speeds. Because it was trying to emulate Paris, Montreal is stuck with the Paris design parameters.

It's kind of sad, actually. Montreal is stuck with archaic technology and huge costs when they want to buy new vehicles, whereas Calgary and Edmonton can just pick up the telephone and call the Siemens factory in California when they want new vehicles. If they want them to go faster, they can just specify bigger motors and bigger brakes. I'm sure if they asked for light rail vehicles that could go 160 km/h, the manufacturer would tell them that they would study it and get back to them with a price quote.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years later, but I cannot forget this thread. I'm sorry, but you say SkyTrain isn't rapid transit because they use Bombardier cars vs Siemens "de-facto standard" cars? Please back that up with actual documentation of that being a standard. I did some research, the average speed of Bloor-Danforth subway is 30 km/h. According to the Toronto Star, the average speed of the overall Toronto Subway system is 32 km/h. So unless I've done my math wrong, SkyTrain has the fastest average speed of any system in the country. And again... with its speed, completely grade-separated routes and over 400,000 daily riders last year, I would like to see a documented justification why SkyTrain doesn't qualify as "true rapid transit". Perhaps you have an image that it is some type of slow airport people-mover because it's automated. Greg Salter (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Details don't belong in this article

The artilce uses the {{main}} template to direct readers to more detailed articles:

But then this article then goes into a lot of details about these systems, anyhow.

This is a big mistake. Going into a lot of detail about a topic in multiple articles merely guarantees a maintenance nightmare. The different versions are likely to drift out of synch, if they aren't already contradictory.

The section on the Ion system is about the right length. Geo Swan (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get no objection from this editor if you wish to shorten some of the sections listed. --IJBall (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the wordiness of the Toronto streetcar system description while retaining the more important points made by the original writer(s) but added more white space. Is the resulting length OK? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the Hurontario-Main LRT description up-to-date while reducing its wordiness to 2 sentences. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the Calgary/C-Train description with a very nice concise description from the article "Light rail in North America". Editors had flagged the old description for several complaints. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the Edmonton description to emphasize the 2 lines of the LRT system. When the Metro Line opens, the article will need updating. The new description gives an overview but is not much briefer than the old. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the Ottawa section to better describe the 2 lines but the new length is not much shorter. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of article

I have observed that this article classifies light rail systems as follows:

(current) Light rail systems by city
- Text description for existing streetcar/LRT operations.
- Text description for new LRT lines (planned and under construction) for transit organizations already having existing streetcar/LRT operations.
Proposed light rail systems (by city)
- Text description for new LRT lines (planned and under construction) for transit organizations having no existing streetcar/LRT operations.

Have I correctly interpreted the intended structure of the article?

Would it be better to combine both sections (current and proposed) into one section by city?

TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and combined the 2 sections. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Light rail in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Light rail in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence in lead

@Walter Görlitz: MOS:BOLDAVOID specifically says: If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy. It is hard to come up with a more awkward or grammatically incorrect inclusion of "Light rail in Canada" than "Light rail in Canada entails three light rail systems in urban areas...". I would strongly suggest we consider reverting to the wording here, i.e. There are light rail systems in three Canadian urban centres—Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa—and one streetcar system in Toronto. as it is does not attempt to awkwardly include the article title simply so that it is included. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed sentence avoids the overarching principle in MOS:LEAD, which is MOS:BOLDTITLE. You're assuming the first sentence is awkward, just like you're assuming that you need to ping me (as if this article isn't on my watch list). Neither assumption is correct. The sentence is perfectly fine. It addresses the subject, light rail in Canada, and it then breaks it down into light rail lines and one streetcar line. It makes it clear that light rail can be either one of those. Your sentence avoids that and completely ignores BOLDTITLE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see you are very much against WP:AGF. I pinged you because a) that's courteous and b) I wanted to make it clear I was addressing your revert of my edit while still having a discussion where others interested in the article could see it. I am not "assuming" the first sentence is awkward: it is awkward. "Entail" is entirely the wrong word to use, which can be easily determined by consulting a dictionary for a definition. Maybe "encompasses" would be slightly more suited but even there, to say something as generic as "light rail in Canada" is then distinctly made up of X, Y, or Z implies that's all it is or ever could be, which is a stretch. Really this page's title should be "List of light rail systems in Canada" and then we wouldn't be having this discussion. MOS:LEAD does not give precedence to MOS:BOLDTITLE over MOS:BOLDAVOID... in fact it specifically says: "Avoid these common mistakes" and then lists, as I mentioned previously, that if the article's title does not lend itself to be included naturally and easily, we shouldn't be distorting the first sentence in an attempt to include it. Incorrect use of a verb (i.e. entail) is clear distortion.

Also, you seem to imply I have something against including Toronto's streetcars in the list of light rail systems, and I don't. I understand some do but my suggestion that we use better language to introduce the article was not an attempt to make a distinction between what some call light rail and what some call streetcars. I would be fine with "There are four light rail systems in Canada—in Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Toronto—with several more under construction or planned." or "There are four transit systems in Canada—in [list of cities]—that fall under the umbrella of 'light rail.'" —Joeyconnick (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against AGF. Thanks for pinging me. It clearly wasn't necessary to ping me as I have seen every edit you've made here and reverted, even when you didn't use the correct revert process. I also adjusting your spacing was per WP:THREAD.

I didn't state that you assumed the first sentence is awkward. I stated that you reverted it for that very reason, but I erred. You called it extremely awkward wording. My mistake.

You need a better dictionary: to make something necessary, or to involve something 1 Involve (something) as a necessary or inevitable part or consequence. If that one word needed to be changed, why did you reword the entire sentence? "Comprises" would be the correct choice.

If this article didn't list proposed light rail systems, the move would be merited, and I would support a move discussion.

I have not made any statement about including Toronto's streetcars or not. I simply pointed out the grammar. However to separate "transit systems" from light rail in the way you did is simply asking for problems. It makes it seem as though there are only four transit systems in Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the opening sentence

Should the first sentence be "There are light rail systems" and not contain any bold because other wording is too awkward, "Light rail in Canada entails" and have a potentially award wording after that, or can another alternative be found that respects BOLDTITLE, and isn't awkward? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

It works as is, no need to force a violation of WP:BOLDAVOID. --John, AF4JM (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

WP:BOLDAVOID states: If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy. AdA&D 03:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Skytrain mention

This article is oriented towards light rail systems but also mentions the Toronto streetcar as it's thematically similar. Why then is the Skytrain left out? It may not be a light rail but is the only Canadian urban rail transit system not mentioned on this page. Ekips (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The SkyTrain, Montreal Metro, and Toronto subway are all left off this page because they are considered metro systems and not light rail. They are included in Rapid transit in Canada. BLAIXX 03:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]