When is enough transit infrastructure enough?

[mdrejhon]

To follow up on my previous comment about how Metrolinx has diminished the RER system by stating it was `minimum 15 minute frequency`.................... Language matters and by Metrolinx referring to RER this way greatly reduces people`s expectations and hence support of the system.

They use this phrase "15-minute service or better" in many places -- like on this page.

So I interpret that as the minimum-quality (good) rather than minimum interval (bad).

Even if they're spinning it the other way, "15-min or worse" -- it does not preclude gradual incremental upgrades (e.g. to 10-minute and 5-minute) or interleaving multiple routes to get high frequencies in core sections.

Indeed people will be more excited about 5-minute service. But we'll have to cross the 15-minute goal before reaching the 5-minute goal.

 

[Streety McCarface]

That was a shame, as it eliminated a useful connection to Metra and the South Shore Line. It wasn't for lack of funding or use but a very vocal local landowner (a megachurch) didn't want the section of elevated by his property on 63rd Street rebuilt, as per the CTA's plans to improve accessibility and reliability.

Chicago eliminated and demolished several L branches in the 1940s and 1950s - the Stockyards Branch, the Kenwood Branch, the Normal Park Branch. There are also many ghost stations - some still very visible today - as stops were consolidated over the years. Some of that was simple cost-cutting, but some of it was in the name of modernization.

Can't forget all the interurbans lost throughout Chicago and all the US.

 

[rbt]

They use this phrase "15-minute service or better" in many places -- like on this page.

So I interpret that as the minimum-quality (good) rather than minimum interval (bad).

I think your interpretation is correct as 15 minute frequencies on Lake Shore during rush would be a pretty significant capacity reduction.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

To follow up on my previous comment about how Metrolinx has diminished the RER system by stating it was `minimum 15 minute frequency`.................... Language matters and by Metrolinx referring to RER this way greatly reduces people`s expectations and hence support of the system.

How many of you consider Vancouver`s Canada Line as rapid transit? Well I would hazard a guess that all of you do with good reason as it`s an electrified, grade separated system, with high frequencies. and Vancouverites view it that way. I did however do a little fact checking and it was quite interesting.

Those of you that are familiar with the CL know that at Bridgeport Station the line divides in 2 with half the trains going to Richmond Centre and half heading to YVR. Well it turns out that early Sunday mornings and late Sunday evenings, the split service to both Richmond and YVR run every 20 minutes. That is less than what is promised by RER but you don`t hear them calling it RER. If, before the line was built, Richmond was told it wouldn`t get SkyTrain/Metro but rather a regional rail connection there would have been blood on the streets and Richmondites would have complained that they were not getting treated fairly by Translink with other populated areas getting SkyTrain. Sound familiar?

RER would get real excitement by the population if it were referred to as a Metro/subway. The entire Brampton and UPX line to Union and back up to Finch is already grade separated so why don`t they just call it a subway? If there were `subway construction` signs all over the place then Torontonians would be exstatic as opposed to indifferent.

Do one better and begin putting the RER lines on the subway map.

 

[44 North]

RER would get real excitement by the population if it were referred to as a Metro/subway. The entire Brampton and UPX line to Union and back up to Finch is already grade separated so why don`t they just call it a subway? If there were `subway construction` signs all over the place then Torontonians would be exstatic as opposed to indifferent.

I don't think calling UPX a subway would be accurate, whether as a colloquialism or from an engineering perspective. And is UPX, or RER for that matter, fully grade-separated as you write frequently? Perhaps from roads, but not other rail. If freight trains, GO trains, and Via trains pass over sections of its tracks that doesn't seem grade-separated.

 

[Leo_Chan]

I don't think calling UPX a subway would be accurate, whether as a colloquialism or from an engineering perspective. And is UPX, or RER for that matter, fully grade-separated as you write frequently? Perhaps from roads, but not other rail. If freight trains, GO trains, and Via trains pass over sections of its tracks that doesn't seem grade-separated.

You get a flyover, you get a flyunder, everyone gets a grade separated grade separation!

 

[44 North]

Awesome. Thought I felt something under my seat. Love flyovers. And unders.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I don't think calling UPX a subway would be accurate, whether as a colloquialism or from an engineering perspective. And is UPX, or RER for that matter, fully grade-separated as you write frequently? Perhaps from roads, but not other rail. If freight trains, GO trains, and Via trains pass over sections of its tracks that doesn't seem grade-separated.

You can easily denote RER lines with a different pattern. IE the crossrail or Overground lines on the Tube map.

 

[ssiguy2]

A grade separated transit line is one that has no access to the public.............there are no at-grade crossings whether they be pedestrian walkways, bikeways, roads, or FREIGHT lines unless the freight line is completely physically separated from the passenger lines themselves such as with concrete barriers.

Any form of passenger rail ie HSR, suburban, commuter, heavy, LRT, tram-train or commuter can be used and the line is still considered grade separated. This is why many once commuter or suburban rail lines in many cities with large rail systems now have Metro designation............the grade separations and electrification brought the routes up to Metro standards and yet those lines still run commuter and inner-city rail.

If Metrolinx would simply re-name RER as a Metro/subway system it would get a lot more public attention and backing. As I said earlier, the Canada Line has Sunday late/early service to Richmond & YVR of every 20 minutes which is less frequent than RER but Translink wasn`t stupid enough to call it a regional rail line but rather a subway/SkyTrain which is what 100% of the population correctly views it as.

 

[Streety McCarface]

A grade separated transit line is one that has no access to the public.............there are no at-grade crossings whether they be pedestrian walkways, bikeways, roads, or FREIGHT lines unless the freight line is completely physically separated from the passenger lines themselves such as with concrete barriers.

Any form of passenger rail ie HSR, suburban, commuter, heavy, LRT, tram-train or commuter can be used and the line is still considered grade separated. This is why many once commuter or suburban rail lines in many cities with large rail systems now have Metro designation............the grade separations and electrification brought the routes up to Metro standards and yet those lines still run commuter and inner-city rail.

If Metrolinx would simply re-name RER as a Metro/subway system it would get a lot more public attention and backing. As I said earlier, the Canada Line has Sunday late/early service to Richmond & YVR of every 20 minutes which is less frequent than RER but Translink wasn`t stupid enough to call it a regional rail line but rather a subway/SkyTrain which is what 100% of the population correctly views it as.

GO RER is going to be more like an overground network, SEPTA's Regional Rail System, the Heavy Rail commuter lines of Tokyo (ie Keihin-Tohoku line), or a Stadtschnellbahn than a metro. I would just call it the Regional Rail like they do in Philadelphia