Poll: What Should The New Eglinton/Scarborough LRT/Metro Be Called?

[nfitz]

Let me toss another definition into the discussion:

Subway - Anything with frequency better than every 5 minutes.

I've seen full-fledged subway lines in many cities with frequencies less than every 5 minutes peak!

Using frequency is an interesting metric. However, I still think that the definition for a subway should be "a completely grade-separated rail-based transit line that runs primarily underground".

Would trains like the New York Subway 6 train (or am I thinking 4) (for example) qualify then? I haven't measured, but I think there might be more it it that is elevated, than underground.

 

[gweed123]

Would trains like the New York Subway 6 train (or am I thinking 4) (for example) qualify then? I haven't measured, but I think there might be more it it that is elevated, than underground.

Obviously there isn't much of a need to go out and measure how much is under and how much is over (uh oh, it's 51% above ground, it isn't a subway). I was just saying that if a significant portion of it runs underground, and the above-ground portions are still grade-separated, it should be a subway.

For example, I don't consider Boston's Green Line to be a subway. Yes, it has an underground section, but the above-ground sections are all at-grade (except for the E branch). I wouldn't consider Ottawa's planned LRT to be a subway either, even though it will be tunnelled through downtown.

Eglinton, however, I think should be considered a subway. A substantial portion of the route will run within a tunnel, and the headways of the tunnel are not determined by the non-tunnelled portion (unlike the Green line in Boston).

 

[golodhendil]

For example, I don't consider Boston's Green Line to be a subway. Yes, it has an underground section, but the above-ground sections are all at-grade (except for the E branch). I wouldn't consider Ottawa's planned LRT to be a subway either, even though it will be tunnelled through downtown.

Better tell Boston to change all their documents, dating since the 19th century, that have been calling it a subway. And don't forget to notify all the stadtbahn-type German U-bahn systems to change their names.

By the way, the branch of the Green line that's grade-separated is D, not E.

 

[gweed123]

Better tell Boston to change all their documents, dating since the 19th century, that have been calling it a subway.

Just because they call it something doesn't mean that it is. The rail underpass at Queen and Dufferin is called the 'Queen Subway'. Doesn't mean that from a transit sense it is. And when the Green Line is called a subway, they usually refer specifically to the Tremont Street Subway, not the entire Green line.

And don't forget to notify all the stadtbahn-type German U-bahn systems to change their names.

80% of the U-Bahn is underground. You may be thinking of the S-Bahn.

By the way, the branch of the Green line that's grade-separated is D, not E.

You're right. I always get the branches mixed up. The one I was referring to was the one that ran along the old railway corridor.

 

[golodhendil]

Just because they call it something doesn't mean that it is. The rail underpass at Queen and Dufferin is called the 'Queen Subway'. Doesn't mean that from a transit sense it is. And when the Green Line is called a subway, they usually refer specifically to the Tremont Street Subway, not the entire Green line.

At the end of the day, the terminology is all arbitrary and based on convention. While definitions aren't necessarily democratic, there is an overwhelmingly larger convention/practice of calling these "urban light rails with partial at-grade and partial grade-separated sections" as subways/U-bahns than not calling them as such.
Your second point about the Green line is also demonstrably not true.

80% of the U-Bahn is underground. You may be thinking of the S-Bahn.

You might want to check out the U-bahns of Frankfurt, Stuttgart, the Rhein-Ruhr region and the Rhein-Sieg region.

 

[Mapleson]

At the same time, they should rename the Yonge-University-Spadina Subway to the Yonge-University HRT, and the Bloor-Danforth Subway to the Bloor-Danforth HRT. Subway means underground, portions of the current subway are actually above ground.

Subway actually refers to below grade, not underground, although the terms are often confused. Even the London Underground is 55% above ground.

Calling anything a "metro" here is backwards because Toronto no longer has a metro-area. I'd call it the "Eglinton Subway" just because it will please Rob Ford-types and what most ordinary people would say. Metro only means metropolitan, nothing specific about transit, whether above, at, or below grade.

 

[golodhendil]

Calling anything a "metro" here is backwards because Toronto no longer has a metro-area. I'd call it the "Eglinton Subway" just because it will please Rob Ford-types and what most ordinary people would say. Metro only means metropolitan, nothing specific about transit, whether above, at, or below grade.

Metro, in this context, specifically means "metropolitan railway", from the name of the Parisian system which was the first to use it to describe an underground rapid transit (which was in turn a direct translation of the name of London's initial systems, but this abbreviation never took hold in London itself). It is the most common name used for rapid transit (though historically less so in the English-speaking world), but as I said above I agree it is pointless to introduce new terminology to Toronto's transit at this point, for this one line. (Interestingly, the use of "subway" to describe the underground - not just below grade - railways in Glasgow and Boston actually predates the use of "metro".)

Toronto, from a demographic and official statistics point of view, most definitely still has a metro area.

 

[Dan416]

We're not gonna start calling the subway a metro in Toronto. End of story. A Metro in Toronto is a grocery store or a newspaper.

 

[CDL.TO]

We're not gonna start calling the subway a metro in Toronto. End of story. A Metro in Toronto is a grocery store or a newspaper.

Although I agree that we're not going to start calling our subway a metro, you don't think we're the only place with Metro stores and Metro newspapers, do you?

Metro AG is the third largest retailer in the world (unrelated to the Canadian Metro chain). If the 56 local Metro newspaper editions were counted as one, it would be the most widely circulated newspaper in the world.

Lots of other places can manage to have multiple things named metro and operate just fine. I'm sure we could too if we wanted to.

Besides, if we renamed the subway to metro, I won't have to be worried about being directed to a sandwich shop when asking for directions.

 

[drum118]

Although I agree that we're not going to start calling our subway a metro, you don't think we're the only place with Metro stores and Metro newspapers, do you?

Metro AG is the third largest retailer in the world (unrelated to the Canadian Metro chain). If the 56 local Metro newspaper editions were counted as one, it would be the most widely circulated newspaper in the world.

Lots of other places can manage to have multiple things named metro and operate just fine. I'm sure we could too if we wanted to.

Besides, if we renamed the subway to metro, I won't have to be worried about being directed to a sandwich shop when asking for directions.

I asked where the Metro was in the area and you pointed me to the subway when I want to get some grocery in the first place.

It's a no winning for those name, but then the subway lines where here long before the Subway sub show up and therefore it will win hands down for the name in the first place.

 

[Mapleson]

Metro, in this context, specifically means "metropolitan railway", from the name of the Parisian system which was the first to use it to describe an underground rapid transit (which was in turn a direct translation of the name of London's initial systems, but this abbreviation never took hold in London itself). It is the most common name used for rapid transit (though historically less so in the English-speaking world), but as I said above I agree it is pointless to introduce new terminology to Toronto's transit at this point, for this one line. (Interestingly, the use of "subway" to describe the underground - not just below grade - railways in Glasgow and Boston actually predates the use of "metro".)

Toronto, from a demographic and official statistics point of view, most definitely still has a metro area.

I agree, in the Francophone world 'subway' would be translated to 'metro'. The original London Tube name however was "Underground" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Tube_map_1908-2.jpg) with Metropolitian Rail being only one of the formative companies. However, as French is only spoken by 1.4% of people in Toronto, that arguement doesn't carry much weight; might as well call it the Eglington U-Bahn.

Now that people bring up the stores of Subway and Metro, I realised that I at least just call it all 'The TTC' and 'Sheppard across to Yonge and down'. If I'm talking to someone new to the area, I'll say bus, subway, or streetcar to clarify, but I don't even use SRT as a reference term.

 

[SlickFranky]

I asked where the Metro was in the area and you pointed me to the subway when I want to get some grocery in the first place.

I just send people to Yonge and College. It's got a Subway, a Metro, a Subway Station, and a Metro Station...problem solved!

 

[golodhendil]

I agree, in the Francophone world 'subway' would be translated to 'metro'. The original London Tube name however was "Underground" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Tube_map_1908-2.jpg) with Metropolitian Rail being only one of the formative companies. However, as French is only spoken by 1.4% of people in Toronto, that arguement doesn't carry much weight; might as well call it the Eglington U-Bahn.

Except, of course, the DC Metro, the LA Metro, the SF Muni Metro, the Tyne-and-Wear Metro, the Tokyo Metro, the Seoul Metro, the Shanghai Metro, the Madrid Metro, the Rome Metro, the Moscow Metro, the Amsterdam Metro, and the "metro" used in almost every language in almost every country with rapid transit, including English-speaking ones. So no, it could carry a lot of weight (were it not for the fact that it would be stupid to introduce a new term to Toronto at this point). U-bahn, on the other hand, is genuinely only used in German-speaking cities, so no, it would not be the same as calling it the Eglinton U-bahn.

Also, "the Underground" was not used until the 1900s when the various underground railways began to consoldiate, almost half a century after "the Metropolitan" and "the District" came into being, and later than when terms such as "subway", "metro" and even "the tube" were first used. So no, it's far from being the "original London Tube name".

 

[Mapleson]

Except, of course, the DC Metro, the LA Metro, the SF Muni Metro, the Tyne-and-Wear Metro, the Tokyo Metro, the Seoul Metro, the Shanghai Metro, the Madrid Metro, the Rome Metro, the Moscow Metro, the Amsterdam Metro, and the "metro" used in almost every language in almost every country with rapid transit, including English-speaking ones. So no, it could carry a lot of weight (were it not for the fact that it would be stupid to introduce a new term to Toronto at this point). U-bahn, on the other hand, is genuinely only used in German-speaking cities, so no, it would not be the same as calling it the Eglinton U-bahn.

Also, "the Underground" was not used until the 1900s when the various underground railways began to consoldiate, almost half a century after "the Metropolitan" and "the District" came into being, and later than when terms such as "subway", "metro" and even "the tube" were first used. So no, it's far from being the "original London Tube name".

You've reverted to my comment about Metro meaning Metropolitan, like the DC Metro is shorted from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, such systems do not refer exclusively to an underground right-of-way. Also, I highly doubt Russia, Japan, China, and Korea use the English/French term of Metro, but have their own native language term, which we replace with what Westerns might call it.

Until the 1890s there were not underground railroads, unless you count the Thames Tunnel or other Brunel rail bridges, so what a surface railroad called itself is immaterial to the question of what subsurface transit was called after the innovation of tunnelling supportive shields. To take that tact, the Tower Subway was built in 1869, which was the template used by C&SLR in the 1890s for the first 'tube'.

 

[Ed Drass]

I say "Blue Line" + mother of all semantic smackdowns

Other: Blue line, since the SRT is currently blue. (DRL is therefore Red line)

Oh, BTW: metro means mom

metropolitan

early 15c., as a noun, "bishop having oversight of other bishops," from L.L. metropolitanus, from Gk. metropolis "mother city" (from which others have been colonized), from meter "mother" + polis "city"