Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group

44 North said:
o_O LOL



Yes, Pembina doesn't use "pre-metro" in their classification. And perhaps like you've said the Crosstown may not qualify as a technical pre-metro because the at-grade portion won't ever be upgraded. But the takeaway is that it's not a subway/metro, so my post where I said that it's not an expansion of our subway system is apt. And yes, $6bn for a line that can be easily lumped into the same category as St Clair or Spadina is a lot of money.

Having said that, I really don't get the problem with the term "pre-metro", nor why it needs derision. It's actually a fairly smart concept and IMO worthy of being a quasi-classification of its own. If we're spending subway-level amounts of money for something that's not a subway, I think it would've been wise to have left the door open for a conversion at a later date, and/or when ridership warrants it. Obviously "some LRT advocates" might not like the idea, but that means nothing.

*I may be wrong on this, and I'm only going on memory, but during the TC days I thought a component of the Crosstown was to have the SLRT and central tunnel connected by the at-grade portion - which would've/could've been upgraded/grade-separated when ridership on the line grew. Obviously that turned out to be an operational impossibility, but was that ever considered?​
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty inaccurate to say that Eglinton "can be easily lumped into the same category as St Clair or Spadina", considering for one thing Eglinton is more than half underground.

There are also many other differences such as stop spacing, vehicle size, and the environment it runs on at surface.

People love categorizing, but in reality there are lots of shades of grey and multiple factors involved.
 
ehlow said:
I think it's pretty inaccurate to say that Eglinton "can be easily lumped into the same category as St Clair or Spadina", considering for one thing Eglinton is more than half underground.

There are also many other differences such as stop spacing, vehicle size, and the environment it runs on at surface.

People love categorizing, but in reality there are lots of shades of grey and multiple factors involved.
Click to expand...

No, I somewhat agree - which is why I made use of the term pre-metro. Because IMO with $6bn spent on a line, and with half of it bored through the centre of the city, I think there should be some attempt at differentiation between it and other LRT lines. Or at the very least an acknowledgement that it's not a typical LRT line. I believe in Germany such a system would be called a stadtbahn (as opposed to an ordinary tram).

But although the Crosstown is one of the world's costliest transit projects, and has a 10km tunnel with deep stations, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any classification standard that would put it into the subway/metro category. And for the many who are staunchly opposed to the use of a category between subways and LRT, the Crosstown would invariably be classified the same as the FWLRT or 512.
 
44 North said:
No, I somewhat agree - which is why I made use of the term pre-metro. Because IMO with $6bn spent on a line, and with half of it bored through the centre of the city, I think there should be some attempt at differentiation between it and other LRT lines. Or at the very least an acknowledgement that it's not a typical LRT line. I believe in Germany such a system would be called a stadtbahn (as opposed to an ordinary tram).

But although the Crosstown is one of the world's costliest transit projects, and has a 10km tunnel with deep stations, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any classification standard that would put it into the subway/metro category. And for the many who are staunchly opposed to the use of a category between subways and LRT, the Crosstown would invariably be classified the same as the FWLRT or 512.
Click to expand...

The definition of "subway" is "underground electric railway". ECLRT qualifies as a subway. There's no ambiguity about that.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
The definition of "subway" is "underground electric railway". ECLRT qualifies as a subway. There's no ambiguity about that.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the underground parts of Green line in Boston and Muni in SF are called "subways" no? Both of them are basically streetcar lines with large tunnelled parts. Although our new streetcars being longer and low-floor are more subway-like than the vehicles in Boston.
 
yup, the casual observer considers those subway lines. They are aware of the difference between Muni and BART, but they certianly consider MUNI to be a subway line for where it runs underground. SF even has a high profile MUNI extension underway right now formally called the "Central Subway".
 
TheTigerMaster said:
The definition of "subway" is "underground electric railway". ECLRT qualifies as a subway. There's no ambiguity about that.
Click to expand...

Which definition are you using, a dictionary's? Metrolinx says that a subway has to be "fully grade-separate". So according to our regional transportation authority, and the ones actually building the Crosstown, it isn't a subway. It would be LRT, which again according to them would be "streetcar trains...[G]enerally at-grade, possibly with some sections operating in mixed-traffic and/or in tunnels." Colloquially, people may call it a subway. Or a streetcar. But the issue of IDing modes and services is obviously a bit more complex than informal slang.

Perhaps the TTC may refer to the Crosstown as Line 5 now, several years from its opening. But if their history with LRT is any indicator, we may very well see changes in nomenclature and classification. The 509 was once ID'd as 604 (our fourth rt "line"), and given an orange colour just like Eglinton is planned to have. Then it got reclassified as a streetcar. Spadina and St Clair were also LRT, now they're not. And if our last major transit vote is any indicator, titles are important. I believe the SRT rebuild should never have been called LRT because such a title created a false notion for much of the voting public that the line would compete with traffic.

IMO the best way to avoid confusion is to adopt a simple classification. So rather than having a dozen ambiguously-identified "lines" presented as if each offered the same service and which are left for the rider to figure out what's what, we'd have different classes. Possibly similar to Germany - i.e S-Bahn (e.g SmartTrack), U-Bahn (Lines 1-4), Stadtbahn (Line 5 Crosstown), Tram (501-512, Line 6 FWLRT). But whatever, this discussion obviously crops up from time to time and means very little.
 
44 North said:
Which definition are you using, a dictionary's? Metrolinx says that a subway has to be "fully grade-separate". So according to our regional transportation authority, and the ones actually building the Crosstown, it isn't a subway. It would be LRT, which again according to them would be "streetcar trains...[G]enerally at-grade, possibly with some sections operating in mixed-traffic and/or in tunnels." Colloquially, people may call it a subway. Or a streetcar. But the issue of IDing modes and services is obviously a bit more complex than informal slang.

Perhaps the TTC may refer to the Crosstown as Line 5 now, several years from its opening. But if their history with LRT is any indicator, we may very well see changes in nomenclature and classification. The 509 was once ID'd as 604 (our fourth rt "line"), and given an orange colour just like Eglinton is planned to have. Then it got reclassified as a streetcar. Spadina and St Clair were also LRT, now they're not. And if our last major transit vote is any indicator, titles are important. I believe the SRT rebuild should never have been called LRT because such a title created a false notion for much of the voting public that the line would compete with traffic.

IMO the best way to avoid confusion is to adopt a simple classification. So rather than having a dozen ambiguously-identified "lines" presented as if each offered the same service and which are left for the rider to figure out what's what, we'd have different classes. Possibly similar to Germany - i.e S-Bahn (e.g SmartTrack), U-Bahn (Lines 1-4), Stadtbahn (Line 5 Crosstown), Tram (501-512, Line 6 FWLRT). But whatever, this discussion obviously crops up from time to time and means very little.
Click to expand...

The idea you're implying that Eglinton Crosstown will be "reclassified as a streetcar" or would be removed from the rapid transit map is extremely unlikely. There's a huge difference between Eglinton and any of the streetcar lines you've mentioned: a 10km tunnel (and many additional differences as well). That's a tunnel roughy twice as long as the Sheppard subway. The majority of ridership will be along the fully underground section.

In general LRTs are part of rapid transit maps along with subways, Los Angeles & Boston for example.
 
Debates about semantics never end well.

Here's my challenge: Could we discuss transit design without depending on the over-generalizing terms of "subway" and "LRT"?
 
CDL.TO said:
Debates about semantics never end well.
Click to expand...

That's because they do silly things like say Eglinton is not rapid transit but the Chicago Brown Line is, and the Quebec funicular (electric, runs on rails, entirely segregated) is not, but perhaps the Carmelit funicular is a metro because tile walls change everything!

Metro Alpin is fun for mucking up these definitions: 1.7km long, 2 stops, electric, fully grade separated, entirely underground, multiple-car train, hits peak speed of 36 km/h, and has a total capacity around 1,500 ppdph.

Some people arguing semantics state definitions which they (the definition stater) reject by saying systems which fit their definition don't count and others which don't fit do count. How can you even debate with someone who clearly shows their arguments are entirely emotional and based on what feels right?

If someone came up with a definition they were willing to follow, I'd happily follow it too just to ensure consistent communication.

All that said, maps show the best route through a region. Whether Eglinton is or is not rapid/metro/subway by your definition, it's still going to be the best route through that region of the city and should be on the main map.
 
Last edited:
Eglinton will be on the map. We've already seen it on the map. As far as Eglinton it's not a question of IF it'll be on the maps, so much as whether the non-tunnelled portions will be shown and if so, how?
 
ehlow said:
The idea you're implying that Eglinton Crosstown will be "reclassified as a streetcar" or would be removed from the rapid transit map is extremely unlikely. There's a huge difference between Eglinton and any of the streetcar lines you've mentioned: a 10km tunnel (and many additional differences as well). That's a tunnel roughy twice as long as the Sheppard subway. The majority of ridership will be along the fully underground section.

In general LRTs are part of rapid transit maps along with subways, Los Angeles & Boston for example.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of how the Crosstown differs from streetcars, which I think should be apparent considering my acknowledgment of it being a step above is basically what started this discussion. That doesn't mean that I (or Metrolinx) will call it a subway. And AFIK unlike Boston we don't have a "rapid transit map" but a "Subway Map". However I don't believe for one second that the Crosstown will be excluded from this map, nor did I say it will be. What I do think however is that there's potential for it to be shown/classified different than Lines 1-4 (particularly the surface portion).

And think about it for a sec: on the existing map, is it even possible to ID all of TC Phase 1's lines/stops if shown like a subway? I don't think it is. This is another reason that I believe we'll adopt some kind of classification for LRT and subways (and possibly hybrids like the Crosstown).

rbt said:
That's because they do silly things like say Eglinton is not rapid transit but the Chicago Brown Line is, and the Quebec funicular (electric, runs on rails, entirely segregated) is not, but perhaps the Carmelit funicular is a metro because tile walls change everything!
...
All that said, maps show the best route through a region. Whether Eglinton is or is not rapid/metro/subway by your definition, it's still going to be the best route through that region of the city and should be on the main map.
Click to expand...

I never said Eglinton isn't rapid transit, and we're not specifically talking about transit maps (nor funiculars for that matter). Perhaps some would prefer to rely on AskJeeves or Webster's to tell us that we'll have a subway line rolling down the centre of Eglinton East. But Metrolinx and I'm sure many others don't consider the Crosstown a subway. However unlike Metrolinx, it seems we're all in unanimous agreement that the Crosstown is a step above typical LRT. So what's the issue? Am I being argued with, or are you arguing with Metrolinx?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top