Jump to content

Talk:Light rail in North America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Toronto's streetcars are not an LRT system

[edit]

Toronto's streetcars are not an LRT system plain and simple. This is an article about light rail. It has been removed. 64.229.247.225 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have repeatedly tried to tell you, what you are doing is against the current consensus. That said, thank you for finally bringing it to the Talk page...
This issue isn't as simple as you are making it. There's a "narrow" definition of light rail, and then there's the "broad" definition of light rail: the "narrow" definition of "light rail" limits the term to only those systems using modern LRT trainsets running in exclusive rights-of-way; but the "broad" definition of "light rail" includes all systems that use LRT-type vehicles, either as single LRT-vehicles or in trainsets, and those that have street running as well as run in their own rights-of-way – this definition is from APTA, and states: "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..." Note the "(also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley)" part. This definition clearly includes "streetcar" systems including Toronto's. And, indeed, Toronto is included in APTA's Ridership rankings for light rail systems, which is why it is included here. In other words, sources support the inclusion of Toronto here.
So, considering that all of this was covered by the article, there is zero justification for removing Toronto from this article – Toronto's system is clearly included in APTA's broader definition of "light rail", and should be restored to the article. Removing it strikes me as a clear case of Original research. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with IJBall here. North America in particular has a number of systems that do not fall cleanly in or out of the narrow definition - look at the MBTA Green Line which has everything from a dedicated subway and grade-separated surface ROW to unprotected street running, or the old interurbans which used conventional streetcar trackage in cities and high-speed rights-of-way in the country. The broad definition is clearly superior here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue here is – if you try and enforce the "narrow" light rail definition, where do you draw the line? You wouldn't just be removing Toronto (which, it's worth pointing out, actually has some light rail lines) and the other labeled "streetcar" systems: some labeled "light rail" systems have some "street running" portions too. So – do you drop Muni Metro? Houston's METRORail? San Diego Trolley?!... Trying to impose the "narrow" definition on this article is a road no one probably wants to go down, as it would likely require removing more than half of the systems currently listed here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. Let's stretch the definition of a streetcar to suit our our views of the Toronto system. Anything to include Toronto. 64.229.247.225 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, APTA categorizes Toronto as "light rail". IOW, including Toronto here is supported by reliable sourcing. Meanwhile, your desire to exclude Toronto seems to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list for the USA includes streetcar systems, and some that are purely heritage systems. As a transit system with a ridership value of close to 100 million, the case for keeping Toronto is very clear. If we delete Toronto, then this page must also remove all the systems that are categorized as Streetcars, and also the Heritage Trolleys. This page may not be perfect, but I'd sooner see a comprehensive list of the systems. KirksKeyKard (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much anyone who comprehends light rail knows Toronto street cars are trams and not Light Rail. You'd really have to bend the definition beyond recognition to include them. 50.100.252.149 (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not that simple – there's a "narrow" definition of "light rail" and a "broad" one – the "narrow" one covers only modern LRT systems, but the "broad" definition also includes trams. It turns out that APTA, which we uses as one of the primary sources for these articles, uses the "broad" definition of light rail. So that includes systems such as Toronto's. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you'd have to lack the basic understanding of light rail and use such a broad definition (i.e. A motorized cart that runs on rail) to consider Toronto's street car system light rail. It's inclusion discredits this entire article. 50.100.252.149 (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tell it to APTA. We follow sourcing on Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even your precious APTA describes "on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often separated from other traffic for part or much of the way" which the Toronto system definitely is not. This is a street car. And a pretty basic one at that. 50.100.252.149 (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto's system is a streetcar. It does not have stations, it does not have the speed/capacity of an LRT, it is the exact definition of a streetcar, it is a bus on rails. In no way should it be included in a list of LRT's. Toronto's new Eglington line is an LRT and should be included once complete. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC) I would also suggest that it is being included as more of a boast or bragging right. Toronto and Torontonians are the worlds most insecure and it's visible throughout Toronto related articles. "We're the best, the most". It's become an epidemic and it's really sad. Again I'm suggesting that the inclusion of a non-LRT system is simple self-promotion. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the above discussion: 1) consensus here is to include all systems labeled "LRT" in the broad sense, and 2) the sourcing we use at this article explicitly includes systems such as Toronto's. The rest of your point boils down to WP:IDONTLIKE which is not policy-based. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see a consensus? I see a discussion of which you were one of the only participants, which you abandoned when relevant facts were delivered 64.229.245.159 (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some reading from Toronto media admitting the streetcar system is not an LRT, which is reapeated Here
Yes, that's the narrow definition of LRT. You aren't saying anything that everyone doesn't already know. (If you like, you can add your sources to the Toronto section of this article, to further source that Toronto's system is a traditional "streetcar" system.) But you're ignoring the broad definition of LRT that APTA uses, and they're one of the major sources used at this article (esp. for systems riderships). For informational purposes, it has been preferred that this article uses the broad definition, while still indicating which systems are predominantly "modern LRT" and which are traditional "streetcars". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the APTA definition. Your theory for inclusion is simply I want it included. APTA disagrees with you. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the definition I quoted near the start of this Talk section? You might want to read it again... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bahahaha, you took the one quote out of the definition that supports your ludicrous ideology. Please re-read the entire definition. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how even the APTA has National Light Rail & Streetcar Conferences. If they were the same they would just have a National Light Rail Conference. There are so many articles you can read that will enlighten you to the difference between streetcars and LRT. [1], [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.245.159 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been almost one month with no reply to several reputable references provided disproving the streetcar theory. Can I assume that your wacky theory of inclusion has successfully been disproven and the content you added can be reverted? 64.229.245.159 (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can assume that you are a disruptive troll that no one will engage with, and any further attempts to derail the article will get you banned mighty quick. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who the fuck are you to talk to someone like that? Sounds like you are the troll. Any further attacks like that and you will be reported and banned immediately. No one is derailing the article. I have provided numerous reasons and references why a streetcar system is not LRT. Perhaps instead of being a keyboard warrior you should review the references. It is an absolute embarrassment that an encyclopedia has such gross errors in an article. As someone who works in the light rail development field I could be considered an expert in the subject. Yet editors who clearly have little to no knowledge in the field have contributed fallacies simply because "they want it included". I am trying to fix the article. What are you doing ? Besides trying to act tough behind a computer screen. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Way to prove his point... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look who finally pipes up. At this point I think have an arbitrator/admin look into this is best. Severe article ownership is more than apparent. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The APTA definition is clearly a "broad" definition inasmuch as it treats streetcar as a synonym for light rail and admits no separate definition. 64.229.245.159; your mode of engagement on this talk page is unhelpful and disruptive. No one disagrees that you can define "streetcar" differently from "light rail." What everyone's saying is that the APTA doesn't make that distinction, and that the APTA definition is in use here. The discussion that needs to be had, perhaps after a suitable interval, is whether there's a better approach to defining light rail. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that APTA's general definition (which is less than a paragraph) may not differentiate the two. What I am saying is further APTA readings make it cleat that they are different. Furthermore Toronto's streetcar system is only listed in this article because User:IJBall added it himself! 64.229.245.159 (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The state of that article before I first edited it in late July 2013 was this – Toronto was included before I ever edited here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, it was added several days before that edit. It has been brought up numerous time by numerous editors. Toronto's system is simply not light rail. Whether the one paragraph APTA definition elaborates on this or not. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the two systems or bothers to read further APTA materials can see how painfully obvious this is. Including it because of the ignorance of the vacuous is not very encyclopaedic. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
64.229.245.159, making falsifiable accusations doesn't move this forward. Again, you're making a point that no one disagrees with. If there are "further APTA materials" that contradict their own definition, please bring these forward so that we can evaluate them. If there's a better definition to work with, then that's another way forward. That Toronto is discussed both here and at Streetcars in North America is odd, but we need a reliable external definition to work from. Mackensen (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto's streetcar system is basically a heritage streetcar system which has been upgraded by using modern rail vehicles. This is evidenced by its nonstandard track gauge, which is slightly wider than normal to allow horse-drawn carts to be pulled along on the inside flanges of the rails, thereby avoiding having to plow through the mud on 19th century Toronto's dirt streets. Toronto paved its streets long ago, and horse-drawn carts haven't used the streetcar tracks for over 100 years, but the nonstandard track gauge still remains. If they pay enough money they can buy modern LRV's modified to run on their nonstandard tracks, but the smart thing would have been to re-gauge the tracks to standard gauge a century ago. If they had done it then, and widened the turn radiuses as well, they could have saved themselves a lot of money. Instead, when they built the Toronto subway system, they used the same non-standard gauge because they thought they might run their nonstandard streetcars on the subway tracks. Of course, they never did. It's just all bad planning, refusing to change when the world changes. They can't adapted themselves to the modern LRT concept, which is to run longer trains at higher speeds, on elevated tracks or in tunnels when necessary, but mostly at grade in a separate ROW, and only use them in streetcar mode in the downtown core when appropriate. LRV's can be used in a wide variety of modes, but Toronto is stuck with streetcar mode on its system. I think it's really just a streetcar system updated with modern LRT technology, kind of like putting lipstick on a pig.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:RockyMtnGuy unfortunately the owners of this article are not interested in common sense. Only a vague two sentence APTA definition which basically includes everything electric on rails. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this APTA document which talks about the differences between streetcars and light rail transit. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the document, it is obvious that the Toronto streetcar system is a classic streetcar system, not an LRT system. If you compare it to a true LRT system, such as Calgary has, there are some obvious differences despite the fact that the two systems have about the same ridership (although Toronto has four times the population of Calgary). Toronto uses a nonstandard track gauge intended to allow horse drawn carts to run on the inside flanges of the rails to avoid getting stuck in the mud on the streets. That hasn't happened in over 100 years but the tracks haven't been changed. Calgary uses standard gauge tracks. Toronto's streetcars have to negotiate short 11 metre radius turns on its streetcar tracks. Calgary's LRT has a minimum 25 metre turning radius. Toronto uses single-point switches (they only switch one rail). Calgary uses standard railway switches. Toronto's streetcars use old fashioned trolley poles to get their power. Calgary's LRV's use modern pantographs. Toronto's streetcars have a cab on one end only. Calgary's LRV's have cabs at both ends to allow bidirectional operation. Toronto's streetcars have doors on one side only, Calgary's LRV's have doors on both sides to allow centre-loading platforms. Toronto's streetcars are single unit only, Calgary runs LRV's in four-car trains giving four times the capacity. Toronto runs its streetcars exclusively in streets mixed with traffic, Calgary does run its LRV's in streetcar mode through the middle of downtown, but in a dedicated transit mall with no private cars, and just to put off the cost of building a downtown subway for a few more years. For the rest of the system, Calgary's LRT runs in freight railway rights of way, the medians of freeways, and in streets closed to traffic, and has underground and elevated sections and stations. The reality is that Toronto just refuses to upgrade its old streetcar system to modern light rail standards, and also to extend it out to its far-flung suburbs like Calgary does with its LRT system. Unfortunately, some people want to call the old Toronto streetcar system a modern light rail system regardless of its obvious shortcomings.19:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I am just going to add this quotation from the aforementioned document because I think anybody in Toronto should take it to heart:

Because of the inherent flexibility of the light rail/streetcar mode, it is possible to operate over extremely demanding alignments in terms of curvature and gradient. However, minimizing the use of such extremes brings numerous benefits in terms of passenger comfort, higher operating speeds, lower operating costs and the ability to purchase “standard” vehicles from multiple suppliers.

In other words, rebuild your streetcar system to modern light rail standards (including standard track gauge) and you can have a much better system at much lower cost in future.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So a clear APTA distinction between streetcar and LRT has been provided. This is what the owners of this article were asking for. Correct? 64.229.245.159 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has been discussed before. Reading through these comments I can see that some links to articles explaining the difference between light rail and streetcars were provided and were either overlooked or ignored. Saboteurest (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to this very article it is eligible for inclusion. "Light rail... to describe new streetcar transformations", and from the article Light rail, "There is no standard definition, but in the United States (where the terminology was devised in the 1970s from the engineering term light railway), light rail operates primarily along exclusive rights-of-way and uses either individual tramcars or multiple units coupled to form a train that is lower capacity and lower speed than a long heavy passenger train or metro system." Since there is no standard definition, and light rail by itself is an ambiguous term, you can't argue that the TTC by definition isn't light rail. Operate on exclusive right of ways? Sometimes yes. Individual or multiple units coupled to form a train that is lower capacity and lower speed than a longer passenger train or metro? Check. No sure what definition you're claiming it doesn't meet. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the American Public Transportation Association would disagree with your explanation. They're a bit more of an expert in the field than amateur train enthusiasts. I think we should go with their definitions. Saboteurest (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately they don't have any exclusive rights to define this term, and the TTC isn't in the US. Anyway can you please point to exactly their definition, as I read the PDF linked previously and they're not excluding them. Additionally many TTC streetcar routes fall directly into the definitions they seem to be putting forward. Canterbury Tail talk 22:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So here is the APTA definition that you say excludes Toronto's system from being called Light Rail. "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." TTC streetcars and routes meet that definition. So please explain how they don't. Canterbury Tail talk 23:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well here is one of the APTA guidelines people provided above. Saboteurest (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reading over this thread and archived threads, this seems to always be the end point of the discussion. Someone provides proof that light rail and streetcar systems are by definition separate and then the argument for keeping them together suddenly goers quiet and disappears. Saboteurest (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to believe that the APTA definition is the defining statement on what a streetcar or light rail is, when it is not. There is nothing that states that APTA definitions of the terms are binding to the world, it's just one organization. Anyway as has been shown above the APTA definition is not clear and they even use the terms interchangeably. People have posted their definitions and the vagueness and ambiguity of them, but you keep posting the same PDF link without saying what they say. Reading that PDF (yet again), other than they saying light rail is generally faster than streetcars, the definitions of streetcars and light rail overlap constantly and are not exclusive. Anyway if the TTC streetcar system is not light rail, and you argue that the APTA definitions prove it's not light rail, then why do the APTA ridership reports classify it as light rail? And why are there multiple documents on the APTA stating it as light rail?
It should be noted that you are the only one arguing against it, everyone else is for how things are. If people are no longer replying then it's possible they just don't want to be involved in this endless round and round and that persuading you isn't working. Consensus here is very obviously that the TTC belongs on this page.
Anyway the main issue here isn't about what you or I think the definition of a light rail is. On Wikipedia as editors we cannot define things ourselves, and to do so and dig out these definitions is original research. All that matters is what reliable sources are stating. If reliable sources states that the TTC Streetcar system is light rail then it's light rail. As editors, nothing else matters and our views on it are irrelevant. Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I keep posting the same PDF? I posted it once. Not sure why you are fabricating instances. Yes the definition is somewhat vague, but not that vague. Numerous references have been provided above to exclude streetcars while none have been provided to include them. I agree that on Wikipedia as editors we cannot define things ourselves, and to do so and dig out these definitions is original research. That is exactly my point. We should not be including systems that clearly have no place in this article by definition by industry leaders. I think you're having difficulties comprehending the subject matter here. Saboteurest (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been operating under the assumption that the IP 64.229 above was yourself before registering an account. If not, then I apologise. As for references, try the APTA's own ridership reports that has the streetcars allocated as light rail. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2014-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf Canterbury Tail talk 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Light rail in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is trash

[edit]

This article is trash and plagued with inconsistencies and factual errors. It needs a major overhaul or rewrite. Much of the info belongs in the Tram article. Saboteurest (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, we've been over this – "light rail" encompasses both modern light rail and tram/streetcars. This is a general overview article. It's fine. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this is a general overview article, not an encyclopedia? My mistake. You're right, it's "fine". Saboteurest (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if streetcar/trams are light rail than why have two separate articles? I will propose a merger. Saboteurest (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

Many editors feel that streetcars/trams should be included in this article despite being different systems. Therefor this article should be merged with Streetcars in North America if they are in fact the same as is being claimed. The alternative being taking the streetcar/tram information from this article and moving it to the Streetcars in North America article. Saboteurest (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you're the strongest proponent that streetcars are light rail. Now you're saying they are different? Saboteurest (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained elsewhere on this Talk page why streetcars are included here in the discussions here, so I will not rehash that. That doesn't mean that the focus and scope of the two articles isn't different, because it is. A merger of these two articles is both a bad idea, and unnecessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – "Light rail" originated as a definition of new streetcars. The streetcar article says "a greater number of North American cities have built light rail systems in recent decades, some of which operate partially in the right-of-way of city streets, but which mostly operate in exclusive rights-of-way." There is no standard that specifies a certain right-of-way being a key definition for interchangeable terms. Another thing to note, the light rail article prominently features the Toronto Streetcar System as the leading light rail system in North America. We can't go around claiming the two are not interchangeable. Discuss. Cards84664 (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Against - Per IJBall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphenniel (talk • contribs) 13:04, January 10, 2018 (UTC)
Remember that Wikipedia policy is that consensus should not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. No policy-related points have been made by keeping the articles separate. You cannot claim that streetcars are light rail in one instance, then in another instance that streetcars are entirely different and not light rail and when it suits you. Saboteurest (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A note listed for the San Francisco cable car on the streetcar article: "It is debatable whether this system truly qualifies as "light rail" (or as a true "transit" system either), but it is included in the table anyway for completeness." If you don't even know what it is, why are the articles split? (The short answer is that the cable car qualifies as neither.) Cards84664 (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – If streetcars are to be included in this article with a few editors claiming they are light rail, then there is no reason for them to have a separate article. I support either merging the streetcar article with this one, or removing the streetcar info from this article and keeping them completely separate. Saboteurest (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is currently about 78 kB in size. Per WP:SPLITSIZE, any article over 60 kB should be considered for splitting, and if it gets above 100 kB, then it would certainly meet the criteria for being split. This information suggests to me that a merger would not make sense, as it would make the article too large. - Morphenniel (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I one hundred percent support a split. Saboteurest (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier in this discussion you were all for a merger. What's changed your mind? - Morphenniel (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was originally suggesting separating the streetcar info as the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and other agencies defines them as different systems. A few editors argued (against referenced material while providing none to support their claims) that they are the same. So I suggested the merger as a compromise. Saboteurest (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that Saboteurest has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the community-banned UrbanNerd. Perhaps some of the long-term watchers of this page recall UrbanNerd. In fact Saboteurest refers above to certain things being discussed here before. Perhaps referring to this by UrbanNerd.

    If IPs or newly registered users suddenly appear to make edits to the article or talk page similar to those of Saboteurest, please consider listing the IPs or users at User:UrbanNerd. Speaking of IPs, 64.229.247.225 and 64.229.245.159 both sure quack.

    Also strange to note that Saboteurest cautions about vote-counting then votes in favour own proposal. Hwy43 (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the very hostile 62.229 IP's seemed likely to be socks of Saboteurest, and thus likely of UrbanNerd then... Based on all of this, the merger tag should probably be removed from this from the article, as it was clearly added in bad faith. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully an admin can comment on the appropriateness of the proposed removal, unless a consensus is achieved quickly by other editors to remove. Hwy43 (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel light rail

[edit]

Although technically they could better be described as suburban/commuter service operated on main railway with lightweight, FRA non-compliant DMU trains, some systems (Ottawa O-Train, Oceanside Sprinter and NJ River Line) have been listed for ages under the “diesel light rail” label basically because - I'm freely resuming - APTA said so. However, this is no longer completely true: we should better say because APTA's ridership reports said so, since in other APTA sources - e.g. its other main statistics publication, the annual Fact Book - they are classified Hybrid Rail (YR), a transit mode which definition is ... a mode of transit operated on the routes of intercity railroads and has operating characteristics of commuter rail. This service typically operates diesel multiple-unit vehicles with characteristics of light rail vehicles. Hybrid rail vehicles are operated with temporal separation from railroad traffic.[1] and which is aggregated along with Commuter Rail (CR) - and Alaska Railroad (AR) - in the Regional Rail group; conversely, Light Rail (LR) and Streetcar Rail (SR) modes sit in the Surface Rail group. It's clearly explained by APTA itself, in their 2015 Fact Book Appendix A: Beginning in 2011 the NTD allowed differentiated reporting of three categories of bus service: "bus" (which is all bus service that is not commuter bus or bus rapid transit), "commuter bus," and "bus rapid transit." The NTD also allowed the differentiation of commuter rail as two modes: "commuter rail" and "hybrid rail". The Fact Book continues a summary value for these two modes beginning in 2011 called "regional railroad." A third new requirement allowed the differentiation of light rail as two modes: "light rail" and "streetcar." The Fact Book continues a summary value for these two modes called "surface rail." A further complication, that some systems now reported as hybrid hail were previously reported commuter rail and others now reported as hybrid rail were reported as light rail, is not adjusted for in previous years' Fact Book data. All three of these modal differentiations were voluntary for 2011 and 2012 NTD reporting but are required beginning with reporting of 2013 NTD data.[2] Between 2011 and 2013, FTA's National Transit Database changed the classification of transit modes, and APTA, which uses NTD data and mirrors its taxonomy, followed but, for some unclear reason, didn't conformed the ridership reports to this new classification, still putting the aforementioned systems among LRTs in these reports. The reason, however, it's probably the same why they put also some streetcars system (opened before 2011) among LRTs, whereas systems opened after 2013 that FTA and other APTA publications do/would classify either as streetcars (Tucson, Cincinnati, Kansas City, etc.) or hybrid rail (eBART) aren't even included.[3] It's noteworthy that the previous collocation among light rail (Ottawa O-Train and Oceanside Sprinter) or commuter rail (Austin Capital MetroRail and Denton A-Train) of systems now sorted as hybrid rail - in absence of both a specific transit mode and a mandatory policy from NDT - was up to the operators/authorities' own will.

All this given, I see the case for removing these systems from this list and from other related wiki articles and templates, adding or emending a specific paragraph or note which explain this classification issues, and for editing each system's articles accordingly (specifically, I'd replace the “type” in infoboxes with commuter rail (hybrid rail). The only exception should be NJ River Rail that, due to its full-tramway operations in Camden, can be seen as a the only US tram-train (properly, a train-tram, more akin to the “Zwickau model” than to the “Karlsruhe model”).[4] Yak79 2.0 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – "diesel light rail" systems are best dealt with here. They aren't "commuter rail" in any meaningful sense of the word, and are simply light rail systems that operate with DMU's rather than electric trolleys. But aside from that, they're mostly indistinguishable from light rail systems. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, Federal Transit Administration and APTA (outside its ridership reports) seem to think exactly the opposite way, classifying these systems in a transit mode, hybrid rail, which is always defined as really close to commuter rail; even putting this aside, if I think to Sprinter or eBART services, I'll find them clearly distinguishable from US LRTs for a lot more than being diesel-powered: type of rolling stock, station spacing, headway, type of serviced area, operations, etc. Conversely, these system are truly indistinguishable from the Austin's and Denton's ones, which are classified "commuter rail" in APTA ridership reports and in Wikipedia. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The APTA Ridership reports put "Oceanside", etc. under "Light rail", not "Commuter rail" – that's good enough for me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other APTA sources don't: what makes ridership reports prevail over them? And anyway, ridership reports don't consider eBART at all, putting it neither under "Light rail" (as the rather similar Oceanside system) nor under "Commuter rail" (as the rather similar Austin and Denton systems): should we hence leave it in limbo? Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
eBART just opened, so we don't even know how APTA is going to "count" it. Regardless, for a change this big, consensus in favor of the change needs to be demonstrated, so let's see what other editors have to say... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, newly opened systems were added in the first-occurring issue: for example, The Tide, opened on August 19, 2011, is already present in the Third Quarter 2011 Report.
But I agree with you about the need of a broader discussion, I've already informed SJ Morg Yak79 2.0 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, guys, but I essentially have to abstain from this discussion, because I have almost no familiarity with the specific, non-standard transit systems being discussed, and do not have enough interest to be willing to take time to familiarize myself. (I also, currently, have very little time for any Wikipedia editing or commenting; I have, reluctantly, spent quite a bit of time editing a few articles this month only to prevent their becoming badly out-of-date – articles on three new U.S. streetcar systems that all opened within just this month, more than a year's worth of new openings within less than three weeks.) I do agree that there can be such a thing as "diesel light rail", but I have no opinion on which of the systems under discussion here should be classified as such, nor have I given much though to exactly what constitutes "diesel light rail". I'll just say that, if any of these systems have station spacing that's closer to 4-5 miles than to ½-to-1 mile, I'd find it hard to consider that to be light rail, and not commuter rail. But there are other factors to consider, as noted in comments above. SJ Morg (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "APTA Fact Book Glossary" (pdf). American Public Transportation Association (APTA). p. 6. Retrieved 2018-11-12.
  2. ^ Neff, John; Dickens, Matthew. "2015 Public Transportation Fact Book – Appendix A: Historical Tables" (pdf). American Public Transportation Association (APTA). p. 6.
  3. ^ Dickens, Matthew. "Transit Ridership Report – Second Quarter 2018" (pdf). American Public Transportation Association (APTA). Retrieved 2018-11-12.
  4. ^ Kuehn, Axel (June 2006). "Zwickau, Riverline, Seetalbahn: Three countries, Three approaches - but so much in common" (pdf). Tramways & Urban Transit. No. 822. LRTA Publishing Ltd. p. 226. Retrieved 2018-11-12 – via www.tramtrain-generation2.com.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Light_rail_in_North_America&oldid=1203549918"