Talk:Rapid transit in Canada/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 necessarily 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 public) 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)

Sorry final comment: IJBall has added another new criteria, which is the name. I believe that is the 6th criteria now. If you go by name, then Waterloo's light rail should be on this list, it's called "Ion rapid transit" [[2]], but according to your definitions, isn't actually rapid transit even though it has rapid transit in the name. Can you see how I became confused? Mattximus (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think it's useful to twist my words here. There was always a second option in this case – move the article to a more accurate title to include all the systems you wanted included. But leaving it a "Rapid transit in Canada" really ties our hands here. And "rapid transit" is about "transit modes" (i.e. rail rapid transit & BRT), not the "names" of an individual system – Ion can call itself anything it wants, but only the bus portion is "RT" (BRT); the rail portion will be "light rail", by definition (and by Ion's own admission). --IJBall (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"A purist would only include Toronto and Montreal on the list." Why would Vancouver's SkyTrain not be considered Rapid Transit? What is the criteria that it does not meet? Greg Salter (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, each user has their own criteria they use to determine what qualifies as rapid transit. I've been trying to get a clear definition but with no success. Mattximus (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a "clear" definition – if it's on UITP's map here, it's a "metro" (i.e. rapid transit). Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are all on there. Calgary and Edmonton are not. --IJBall (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No that is not a clear definition of Rapid Transit, it doesn't even have the words "Rapid Transit" in the whole article! Mattximus (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As for purists, rapid transit generally equates to subways (heavy rail) - definitions are indicated above, per APTA; also, per the APTA ridership list, this CUTA discussion piece, and this article in the Canadian Encyclopedia, only two cities in Canada have them: Toronto and Montreal. Vancouver (as does Toronto) share the same automated guide rapid transit, which is deemed intermediate rail and, arguably, not a subway per se.

M., I suppose that includes you? For the UITP link, 'metro' is a synonym for 'rapid transit' - see the APTA definitions above, again, or did you lose sight of that through your red herrings? At least I and others here have provided references. Your comments are increasingly/seemingly counterproductive. A glance at comments six years ago reveals similar ... ambiguity/opinion. Throughout this discussion, you have provided no citations I can discern to justify the inclusion of light rail systems. You said you were done, so be done, eh? 70.55.48.123 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The second article you pointed to (the CUTA) calls light rail rapid transit, using waterloo as an example. Does that source work for you? Mattximus (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The third article you pointed to calls the LRTs "light rapid transit" which sure sounds like a type of rapid transit to me. Mattximus (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the CUTA article refers to Vancouver as the "world's longest light rapid transit system" - it is already included here. It indicates several systems were under study in Waterloo ... light rail, but not light rapid transit.

As for the Canadian Encyclopedia, yes it does and the lead explains (emphasis added): "Subways and Light Rapid Transit Subways, sometimes referred to as heavy rail transit, are urban, electric, rapid-transit lines capable of carrying large numbers of people: between 20 000 and 40 000 passengers per hour in each direction." There does seem to be some dissonance with word choice here (like, why LRT Subway and not light subway or light rapid transit), and also a conflation (intentional?) of LRT meaning 'light rapid transit' and 'light rail transit.' This does not wholly satisfy me, but might. Now, can we find any other references or lists that clearly indicate that systems in Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa are 'rapid transit' akin to the TMV systems, or otherwise/reliably categorize all the Canadian systems? 70.55.48.123 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read your own source. I quote: "Region of Waterloo is studying a future rapid transit system" which is the light rail called "Ion rapid transit" which you said is not rapid transit. Even though it's called rapid transit. And your source calls it rapid transit. As for your third reference, I can't be more specific, it says verbatim that light rapid transit include those very systems you mentioned. Mattximus (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have read the sources fully. They studied systems, and settled on a light rail/BRT system (Ion) - it is in the 'Light rail transit' section of that piece. As for the 3rd, per above. Now, can you provide other references to corroborate? 70.55.48.123 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Separately, this comprehensive list seems to segregate the various Canadian systems nicely, and note parallelism with my/the other reckonings above, but appears to be an individual's compilation. 70.55.48.123 (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit has been reverted, without additional references, discussion, or consensus to support including the light rail systems here. Craftwerker (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there's no consensus to include LRT here. Again – if that is to be done, this article will need to be moved to some other article title. --IJBall (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent Change

I noticed this article was a confusing stub, which included out of date information and for some reason bus systems... so I propose an alternative. This can be cut any way other wikipedians see fit, or removed completely and the outdated stub reintroduced. Personally I think this version is imperfect, but vastly better than before. Something to work from. At the very least the data is up to date. Just wanted to start a discussion to see if it is worth keeping, editing, or deleting. Mattximus (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted your additions as being duplicated from and redundant to List of Toronto rapid transit stations, List of Montreal Metro stations, List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations and Light rail in Canada, etc. Please discuss things one at a time. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Of the tables the last 4 are all new and found nowhere else in wikipedia, I think we should let others see the page before deleting it unilaterally without any discussion. Maybe we can get rid of the tables but keep the maps? There are many possibilities. Reverting to a stub before anyone else comments is not in good faith. Mattximus (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the tables should be placed in their respective articles and removed from this article. Otherwise, we'd have to rename this article "List of rapid transit stations in Canada", which seems to be this article's purpose right now. Epic Genius (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What do @Johnny Au: @117Avenue: @Geo Swan: @Ground Zero: @IJBall: @Mindmatrix: @Mtlfiredude: @Natural RX: @Radagast: and @TheTrolleyPole: think about this? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes – several of the things Mattximus has been working on in his Sandbox should actually be either: 1) placed in the relevant "List of ... stations" article, or 2) are the basis for creating new articles (e.g. List of O-Train (Ottawa) stations). As to the rest, I've made my thoughts on this perfectly clear before: if this article is to include the three Canadian light rail systems as well, then it must be moved to another article title, such as Urban rail systems in Canada – but if this article is to stay at Rapid transit in Canada then the three light rail systems must be removed from the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy about moving the lists to their respective pages, however as for the title of the page, you think it should change to Urban rail even though the CTrain, O-Train and the Edmonton LRT are refered to as "rapid transit" in the literature? See [3]. If we changed it to urban rail then all the commuting rail systems must be included as well. Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note that those systems are already fully covered in Light rail in Canada. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

By splitting rapid transit systems into two categories you run into issues. For example, the TTC will soon become integrated light rail and heavy rail with no distinction between them. Which page would it go to? It already includes a pseudo-light rail line, but it seems to be ignored. Mattximus (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• The correct procedure for that would have been for you to nominate merging the two articles, to find a consensus. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel that Rapid transit in Canada should include only metro/subway systems and light metro systems(Skytrain/SRT) - i.e. systems using third rail requiring a total separation of the ROW from traffic. Any systems using tram technology (i.e. light rail/Stadtbahn) should be in Light rail in Canada. These 2 articles should only contain brief overviews of various systems with details such as station lists being in referenced articles. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What about mixed systems, that are complete integrated? For example, the TTC will have light rail and heavy rail and intermediate rail (whatever that means) all integrated into a single unified rapid transit system. They also have a tram system but I believe everyone agrees that those are not to be included as they mostly share the roads with cars. Shouldn't that be the division? Rapid transit vs transit in mixed traffic? Mattximus (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The split (subway vs light rail) is not based on fare integration or ease of connections but on the technology used (metro versus tram) for specific lines. Other Wikipedia articles use the same type of split: (List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership, Rapid transit in Germany). So, your suggestion breaks the convention. Since a number transit authorities consider LRT to be "rapid transit" either because under the right circumstances it could run as fast as a metro or simply because it is faster than the buses replaced, perhaps, we should add a brief explanation of terminology to the rapid transit article, and then leave all LRT overviews in the Light rail in Canada article.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a list of every rapid transit station in Canada in this article. The other articles serve their purpose. There can be articles for List of O-Train stations as well. This article pertains to heavy rail technology, as well as those pertaining to Line 3 Scarborough in Toronto and the Vancouver Skytrain. Stuff pertaining to the Eglinton Crosstown line, the O-Train, the C-Train, and similar belong in Light rail in Canada. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove the lists of stations, no one is looking for a list of train stations in Canada. There's Category:Rapid transit stations in Canada if you really want one. According to the article, rapid transit is a subway. This article should only mention the three rapid transit systems in Canada, and have a summary of each, similar to Light rail in Canada. Also, is "rapid transit" the preferred name in Canada, or do we borrow the American name "subway"? Since I've never lived in one of these three cities, I don't know. 117Avenue (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits are a rehash of a prior debate (in Apr.) perpetuated by M. regarding rapid transit in Canada. As demonstrated earlier, this applies only to the 'big three' heavy/intermediate rail systems and BRT. Unless demonstrated otherwise, everything else is a segue and will be reverted as such. Thanks. Craftwerker (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well as you wish. Your definition of what is "rapid transit" isn't backed up by references, but my list is ([4]). The choice to include both the TTC subway and some random bus systems (many of which aren't true BRTs), and NOT the CTrain which is far more rapid than the BRTs, is random and unsourced. No other countries' lists have this but Canada... but sure, if you prefer this stub, have it your way. Mattximus (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What is supporting the inclusion of buses? 117Avenue (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No idea, but take a look at the article now since they reverted my changes... Mattximus (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course the definition herein is supported by references and you have an idea, but continue to obfuscate and segue. Alas, your reference supports little more than prior verbiage: the latter pages of your Pembina reference (pp. 3-5) spell out the various modes rather clearly, with a precis (emphasis retained): "This report examines both rapid and express transit infrastructure — transit systems that are capable of moving riders quickly, frequently and reliably. The distinction between rapid, express and other forms of transit is not always clear, and it has become increasingly blurred in recent years as new technologies and hybrid systems have proliferated." And, Edmonton isn't listed. Anything else? Craftwerker (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry talk, can you explain to me how Zum, which has infrequent buses operating in mixed traffic for at least part of their route, is rapid transit, but a light rail that is completely separated from traffic, faster, and carries more people is not considered rapid? Mattximus (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not contingent on me to explain why a bus rapid transit system is included in this article -- it is explicit given the mode. BRT is also included in your Pembina article -- so, you parse this, but not that? We have already been down this road. Provide something new and authoritative for review regarding including the other systems and garner consensus for including them, or you will receive the same or no retorts. Craftwerker (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Without regard to the TTC, most of the TTC's streetcar system is not grade separated, but no one in Toronto considers it rapid transit.
• I've ridden the Viva system, which has lovely comfortable vehicles, that can request a green light when they approach a traffic light. But since it used the same traffic lanes as all other vehicular traffic -- did not have dedicated lanes -- I question whether it should count as a "bus rapid transit" system. Geo Swan (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Warden Viva Station

@Geo Swan: Vivanext provides BRT on dedicated roadways. Portions of the Yonge Street Rapidway and Highway 7 Rapidway are in operation, and Davis Drive Rapidway will open later this year. The Warden station illustrates that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good to know! I am out of date. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The thread title as it pertains to the contents has placed in into contradiction with the main Rapid Transit article for some time now. When is this going to be resolved? My suggestion would be to use the title "Rapid Transit and Bus Rapid Transit in Canada" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.25.198 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)