micheal_can
Senior Member
For a line that was the pride of someone touting Subways, Subways, Subways, this is very much not sounding like a subway.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
robmausser
Senior Member
Its funny how language has such a huge effect on policy and culture.
If we had adopted the phrase Metro instead of subway, perhaps people wouldn't have an obsession and fetishization of tunneling our mass transit.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Not really. For example, if they had referred to the SRT as a Subway line, then the public would understand how a tunnel is not the only way to go. It is just like if they had labeled all new LRTs as Streetcars, there would not be the confusion.
robmausser
Senior Member
Ok but if my grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle.
Why would anyone refer to the SRT as a subway? Thats exactly my point, they wouldn't. Which creates a linguistic distinction between the subway system and the SRT.
If however we called the subway system a Metro, you could more logically call the SRT a Metro as well, and there would not be such a compartmentation between the two systems.
The words we use affect our patterns of behaviors and how we view the world.
asher__jo
Active Member
I deserve a Starbucks because I'm a millennial.
ARG1
Senior Member
Please no, Ottawa choosing what are basically low floor trams for its metro system was a shot in the foot for the whole network
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Actually London nearly got an Underground, or at least a mini one.
Part of the original rapid transit proposal was a three-quarter km LRT tunnel with 2 stations under Richmond but the blow-back was huge. It would have required the demolition of many historic buildings and would have taken ages to build because of it. In the process it would have demolished much of the the street which is the city's premier entertainment, shopping, and restaurant district. The area further up would have been at-grade along thin Richmond Street thru the city's tony Old North. Even Western fought against it. It was so politically unpalatable that they never even managed to get a BRT down the route.
Part of the original rapid transit proposal was a three-quarter km LRT tunnel with 2 stations under Richmond but the blow-back was huge. It would have required the demolition of many historic buildings and would have taken ages to build because of it. In the process it would have demolished much of the the street which is the city's premier entertainment, shopping, and restaurant district. The area further up would have been at-grade along thin Richmond Street thru the city's tony Old North. Even Western fought against it. It was so politically unpalatable that they never even managed to get a BRT down the route.
afransen
Senior Member
Language definitely has that power to shape perceptions. Like most people support estate tax but hate the death tax (despite being the exact same policy).
robmausser
Senior Member
I deserve a subway because im a Scarberian. And subways ALWAYS run underground. Its in the name, SUBway. Duh.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Metro is simply the French term for Subway. Why do you think Montreal does not have a Subway?
Ironically, Vancouver did things right. All likes are referred to as Skytrain, even though the Canada Line is different than the rest.
Tuck
Active Member
Seriously. Choosing a low floor tram for a fully grade separated line would be idiotic.
Not to mention the issues Ottawa is having with that particular vehicle....
mdu
Active Member
For all it's value engineering flaws, the fact that the Canada Line cost just two billion dollars is simply astonishing compared to how expensive the Ontario Line is projected to be.
afransen
Senior Member
Is the cost apples to apples? Canada Line includes 30 year operating cost?
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
Next up, Toronto mandates all Subway sandwich stores must be located below grade.
syn
Senior Member
Yet for some reason the same rationale doesn't apply to other projects.