Ford probably hasn't been to St. Clair since it was completed; he likely got caught in construction years ago and that's his evidence as to it being a disaster. That, or a taxpayer phoned him. 
Last edited:
|
|
|
Rob Ford's Toronto
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
- Status
CDL.TO
Moderator
Copenhagen doesn't have an LRT.
neubilder
Banned
Yes smartypants, Copenhagen does have an LRT. I've used it many times.
Copenhagen has a metro system. It is lighter, and accelerates and decelerates faster than a standard GO style commuter train. It travels mainly above ground. It is very similar to Vancouver's skytrain and Berlin's S-Bahn. It has frequent stops and travels underground where necessary in the urban core, and is primarily above ground as soon as it is practical for it to do so.
LRT defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail
Copenhagen's Metro system: http://intl.m.dk/Drive+the+Metro/Maps.aspx
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,540
- Reaction score
- 9,538
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Copehagen's system is a light metro system, like Skytrain (or the SRT), Canada Line, or the various VAL systems in France. It is not light rail in the definition that we know it here in North America or in most places. Skytrain is not LRT.
Wikipedia defines this well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_metro
I also suggest you refrain from ad hominem attacks.
Wikipedia defines this well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_metro
I also suggest you refrain from ad hominem attacks.
neubilder
Banned
"Denmark's capital city, København (Copenhagen), took light rail and metro technology to another level in October 2002 by opening an extensive system capable of being operated entirely without drivers. The project gained momentum through the area to be covered not being on the city's S-tog suburban heavy rail network.
From: http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/copenhagen/
This debate about railroad semantics misses the point, which is that LRT doesn't necessarily equate to streetcars. LRT's are flexible, they can be run at grade alongside sidewalks etc, but they can also be used in dedicated rights of ways. This point is important because it's an obstacle to many people's perceptions in Toronto, that proposed LRT lines are going to obstruct their SUV's.
From: http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/copenhagen/
This debate about railroad semantics misses the point, which is that LRT doesn't necessarily equate to streetcars. LRT's are flexible, they can be run at grade alongside sidewalks etc, but they can also be used in dedicated rights of ways. This point is important because it's an obstacle to many people's perceptions in Toronto, that proposed LRT lines are going to obstruct their SUV's.
Tulse
Senior Member
I don't think the issue is whether an LRT will run in traffic, but whether it will remove current road lanes for a dedicated right of way.
neubilder
Banned
These are all relevant issues. But some people do have the misconception that the 'pinkos' want more on-street streetcars, which is false.
Personally I think a combination of on-grade and elevated line, independent of traffic congestion, makes the most sense. It's still far more cost effective, and a far better passenger experience, than subway.
Personally I think a combination of on-grade and elevated line, independent of traffic congestion, makes the most sense. It's still far more cost effective, and a far better passenger experience, than subway.
Last edited:
CDL.TO
Moderator
I've used it many times as well. Taken it end-to-end-to-end.
You're highlighting the ongoing issues with semantics. After all, we've had people argue that the Toronto subway is light rail (since it can't share tracks with mainline "heavy rail").
But generally the Copenhagen Metro would be considered a Metro, just like the Toronto Subway. Most importantly, the Copenhagen Metro technology is limited in its operating environments. It could not operate in a transit city-style median, or in mixed traffic, it has to be fully grade separated. This is what usually separates "light rail" from "metro", including "light metro".
It's best not to get caught up on marketing terms. "Light Rail" as a term is very popular these days. This is the Binhai "Light Rail" line in Tianjin, China:
It might seem like a minor point, but I think that pointing to what exists in Copenhagen as an example of what "light rail" might mean for Toronto is just as damaging as pointing to Spadina and saying that's what Transit City means. (And, frankly, Spadina is closer to Transit City in execution than Copenhagen.)
UT has a pretty good breakdown of transit mode terminology: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/6508-Transit-Glossary
Last edited:
CanadianNational
Senior Member
Well, the clock seems to be ticking towards a lockout / strike. Any predictions?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Doesn't look too good:
http://www.thestar.com/news/article...hreatening-final-offer-rejected-by-union?bn=1
AoD
http://www.thestar.com/news/article...hreatening-final-offer-rejected-by-union?bn=1
AoD
cdr108
Senior Member
Electrify
Senior Member
Brother posted this on my Facebook. Enjoy:
Electrify
Senior Member
I've used it many times as well. Taken it end-to-end-to-end.
You're highlighting the ongoing issues with semantics. After all, we've had people argue that the Toronto subway is light rail (since it can't share tracks with mainline "heavy rail").
But generally the Copenhagen Metro would be considered a Metro, just like the Toronto Subway. Most importantly, the Copenhagen Metro technology is limited in its operating environments. It could not operate in a transit city-style median, or in mixed traffic, it has to be fully grade separated. This is what usually separates "light rail" from "metro", including "light metro".
It's best not to get caught up on marketing terms. "Light Rail" as a term is very popular these days. This is the Binhai "Light Rail" line in Tianjin, China:
It might seem like a minor point, but I think that pointing to what exists in Copenhagen as an example of what "light rail" might mean for Toronto is just as damaging as pointing to Spadina and saying that's what Transit City means. (And, frankly, Spadina is closer to Transit City in execution than Copenhagen.)
UT has a pretty good breakdown of transit mode terminology: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/6508-Transit-Glossary
Really, rail is rail. If our subways were powered by overhead wires, technically they could run in the road as well. Even the capacity argument is flawed, for example look at Cleveland. Their "heavy rail" trains are two cars long, and have on-board fare collection. The Eglinton LRT, even under the Transit City proposal, is "heavier" than that!
adma
Superstar
Maybe even bloodshed, given the regime in charge. (And of course, bloodshed would serve the regime's interests.)
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Why would the city lock out the workers? The city can impose the new terms of employment immediately without a negotiated contract with the union. The workers are expected to show up for work as usual. Now, if the workers go on strike, only then might we see a lock out.
I don't know about everyone else, but during the last strike the only city service I noticed that was missing was garbage collection. Here in Cabbagetown the neighborhood association hired a dumpster, so we didn't miss the collectors. Volunteers mowed the parks and tended the gardens in CT. I have no need for anything else at city hall, don't need any permits issued or have any municipal issues. It'll be a long strike since the people will notice that they didn't need these workers anyway. Sort of like a Canada Post strike.
- Status