What is a Subway?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 авг 2021
- Today, Reece strives to answer the age old question: What is a subway? Enjoy!
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
=PATREON & RUclips MEMBERSHIPS=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon or right here on RUclips! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
RUclips Memberships: / @rmtransit
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: reecemartin.ca
Substack: reecemartin.substack.com
=ABOUT ME=
Hi, my name's Reece. I'm a passionate Creator, Transportation Planner, and Software Developer, interested in rapid transportation all around my home base of Toronto, Canada, as well as the whole world!
Subway is a fast-food sandwich restaurant chain. Pretty simple
He’s Out Of Line, But He’s Right.
In Singapore there was a snack cafe called Subway Niche that sued Subway over the trademark/copyright also
I've always thought of metro and subway in this way:
Metro = rapid transit
Subway = any underground section of urban railway
In the olden days, "subway" just meant "any right of way underground". There are towns in the US that still have signs labeling pedestrian tunnels as "subway".
@@NozomuYume here in the UK it's the same thing, a subway is somewhere for pedestrians to pass under a road. For any railway that's high capacity mass transit that isn't a mainline railway, we either use Metro, Underground or Tube (if you're London).
@@tripleseis81 I've usually heard "pedestrian tunnel" here in the states, and in my city the Subway specifically means the underground part of our metro and sometimes the lines they serve too, which are only partially underground
Here in Vancouver, it's all Skytrain, even the part of the Canada line that's underground. Becuase the name is whatever people call it, and that's really all that matters.
Subway can be a section of a transit system
Love this. I wish more people advocated for public transportation. Thank you for the breakdown!!!!
Thank you!
In London (England, not Ontario) a subway is something you walk through, usually to cross from one side of a road to the other..
It's like how in London (UK) they have the Overground, so called because it's mostly above ground; and they also have the Underground, so called because it's... also mostly above ground.
Haha shhhh
@@RMTransit In London they have subways, referring to underpasses for pedestrians. I have also seen this descriptor for passageways connecting below grade between railway station platforms. And right here in New York we have signs at the first landing level down from street read that read Pedestrian Subway Underpass, to invite people into the mezzanine to cross the under the street without needing to pay. Also there are BRT busways in Bogota that have been described by Mayor Penalosa as a subway system on the surface. In San Fransisco there is a subway that carries the Muni Metro and BART. Nobody calls it a subway as that is a New York word, connoting violence and bad odors.
@@trainluvr most people in NYC refer it to as "the train". But if you're a transit enthusiast or a person that has lived in NYC for a long time, we call it a subway.
The Paris Metro is indisputably a subway system. Everything is grade separated and there is frequent service, with a mix of elevated and underground track. Plus the RER and overall SNCF systems are extremely well integrated.
As an English speaking New Yorker (and a transit enthusiast), "New York City Subway" is easy to say, sounds good, and feels like home. But I like the term "Metro" better as a universal descriptor. IMO the prefix "sub" gets too much in the way of what is argued in this video that actually matters (frequency and grade separation).
Agree , metro for metropolitan transportation, makes more sense.
I like the term Metro too, had to use subway so I could use my example ;)
For 99% of Americans, Subway is a chain restaurant specializing in tunafish-salad submarine sandwiches - hence, take the sub-way option and get yourself a fast, convenient and relatively inexpensive meal.
The remaining 1% think of a Subway as an underground means of public transport.
I remember someone once asked me how to get to the Subway and I said you take the bus, etc. and they said "I meant the restaurant" lol
I'm American but I know how to differentiate subway systems and subway restaurants.
@@kiroolioneaver8532 Imagine if you had to tell them to take the subway to get to the Subway! 😝😆😆😆
@@edwardmiessner6502 In Union Station in Los Angeles, there is a Subway restaurant just a few feet from one of the two entrances to the Metro Red/Purple Line subway.
Idk, I do have lot of experiences of people referring to non underground transport as a subway!
Where I live we have 2 lines of a "people mover" system that was first implemented to join an airport to the widest public transit. The vehicules, and stations are the same, it goes underground and on a viaduct, but everybody calls it a metro/subway, because despite its design's original purpose, it's as frequent as a metro, and the stops are not more than 10 min walk appart, it intersects with other public transit sytems, so it's a metro.
Exactly, if the service is that of a subway, I think it's fair to call it one!
Meanwhile in Singapore our subway/metro (MRT) has stations usually 1-1.5km apart (20-30min walk)
1:51 East 105th Street used to cross the Canarsie Line at grade, but this grade crossing was eliminated in 1973.
Also, in Newark, NJ the Newark Light Rail system prior to the Grove Street extension and Broad Street branch being built only had one grade crossing, located at Orange Street, and until 2001 operated with PCC Streetcars. It also used to be called the Newark City Subway.
NJ Transit should be extending it
We will be talking about rapid transit with grade crossings soon ;)
@@edwardmiessner6502 They really should, possibly to Harrison because its annoying to walk to Newark Penn Station, or take a bus from Harrison.
As a Brit my definition of a subway is a pedestrian underpass.
@@wharpblast264 In all likelihood, a pedestrian underpass...
As one of your German viewers, I really have something interesting to tell you. In Germany, many tram/light rail systems that run partially underground are called "U-Bahn", wich means "U-train" or "U-rail". As all real subway systems (Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Nuremberg) are also called "U-Bahn", many people think the U in U-Bahn means "Untergrund" (underground). However, it means "unabhängig", which in this context basically means grade-seperated. Because of this, many not grade-seperated light rail networks call themselves "U-Bahn", like Frankfurt, Stuttgart and Cologne, but the residents of this cities refer to their systems as "the subway" although those are clearly not subway systems, just because they are also called "U-Bahn". However, it does not matter if you are not a transit nerd, who likes to use the expression "Stadtbahn" (which means "city rail" or "urban rail") for those partially underground light rail and tram systems. So, as Reece said, it does not matter which train it is, as long as it runs frequent.
But to be fair, all "Stadtbahn" systems were originally planned to be only a temporary solutions. At first, these systems were ought to be converted to full subway systems later. However, as money became tight, most cities did not bother upgrading the existing Stadtbahn systems.
And last, for cities that have both a classic tram network (which runs mostly overground) and a Stadtbahn network, like Frankfurt or especially Essen, it can be useful to call the latter one "U-Bahn" or subway, as both systems have similar rolling stock and this avoids confusion among people, that are not transit nerds.
Fürth hat die wohl kürzeste Hochbahnstrecke der Welt (100 Meter).
Also das kann nicht sein. Wenn das U wirklich für unabhängig steht, dann wieso werden die Stadtbahnen auch mit U gekennzeichnet? Entweder gibt's keine wahre Einordnung oder die Definition der Bezeichnung ist nie in der Tat festgestellt worden.
@@almerindaromeira8352 So richtig definiert ist das, glaube ich nirgendwo. Ich glaube auch, dass dieses "U steht für unabhängig" einfach nur ein Argument der Stadtbahnbetreiber ist, um ihre Systene als "U-Bahn" zu verkaufen, obwohl es keine Voll-U-Bahnen sind... aber naja, U-Bahn klingt halt besser als Stadtbahn.
Am Ende zählt eh das, was die Mehrheit unter dem Begriff versteht, und das ist halt die Untergrund-Bedeutung. Außer Zugnerds wie mich juckt sowas eigentlich sowieso keinen.
I fully agree, some people live and die on whether Australian train systems are subways or metros or what have you. It doesn't matter, the trains come as frequently as they would even if they were a proper subway and journey times are as fast as they would be if they were a proper metro. Really, the huge distances and suburban sprawl of Australian cities means that something that isn't a metro is probably better suited anyway. Even grade crossings don't really matter (except from a “Safety” standpoint) but subways don't have to be safe for them to be subways. Ultimately all transit systems attempt to achieve certain criteria, none of them specific to a metro or bus or anything.
Even something like the Brisbane metro, which as you have already said isn't a metro; it will run underground in places with platform screen doors, it will show up every 3 minutes with 24 metre vehicles, it's electric, wheelchair accessible, fast and few traffic crossings; ultimately it doesn't matter what it is as long as it fills the criteria of a good transport system - adequate frequency, reliability, safety, capacity and cleanliness. It might as well be a rubber tyred metro with "manual guidance"
Yep exactly, service is really what matters most.
I think we should differentiate between "subway" and the "heavy rail" most people associate with "subways". Capacity is still of relevance from the passenger perspective.
Fun fact that Reece probably already knows: there are apparently (slightly) more Subway restaurants in Manhattan than subway stations.
Subway is an American fast food restaurant franchise that primarily sells submarine sandwiches (subs), salads and beverages. It was founded by the 17 year old Fred DeLuca and financed by Peter Buck in 1965 as Pete's Super Submarines[5] in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The restaurant was renamed Subway two years later, and a franchise operation began in 1974 with a second restaurant in Wallingford, Connecticut.[6] It has since expanded to become a global franchise.
Really good video. Something on a track and frequency is most important.
Interesting take on the matter. I guess I always thought of subways as underground networks and light rail as a mixture of underground and surface stations. Clearly, that distinction doesn’t always hold true.
What I do know is that many Montrealers look at me cross-eyed when I say “subway” instead of “metro” (you know, the French influence on Quebec English). I’m glad Reece let us know that both words essentially mean the same thing. ;)
A really informative video. Thanks for posting, Reece! (-:
Thanks Dwain!
U6 in Vienna is interesting in this regard: from a technical standpoint it's really more of tram, but functionally it's as much of a metro as the other lines
Die U6 gehört betriebsintern zum Straßenbahnnetz es gibt keine Verbindung zum U-Bahnnetz, aber Verbindungsgleise zum Betriebshof, und während E2 Hochflurtrams auf der U6 fahren dürfen dürfen die U6 Wagen nicht auf dem restlichen Straßenbahnnetz fahren.
an interesting aspect I come across when looking at public transit in the Bavarian capital city of Munich: besides "normal" trains, trams and buses, there are also commuter trains (S-Bahn) and subways: both run underground and grade seperated in the downtown area, both run above ground outside the downtown area, both are running long trains with a high capacity, both run on a very frequent schedule and they both are designed to allow quick bording of large amounts of people with only 2 windows between two doors = lots of doors along the train/subway units. But there are some differences:
commuter train: grade seperated in the downtown area but runs on regular and shared use train tracks the more you get out of the city and into neighboring counties. At that point they are mostly, but not 100% grade seperated and there are some level crossings ; The trains get their power from overhead wires
The subway system is 100% seperated from the commuter train or other train networks and the tram network as well. Gets power from third rail and it's 100% grade seperated. The subway has stops much closer to each other, compared to the commuter trains
In Nürnberg dasselbe nur etwas kleiner ausgeführt und nur vier Wagen und in den Anfängen von euerem Geld finanziert (Fördergelder Olympiade die übrig waren)
I always thought that Subway and Metro were just another case of Elevator and Lift where people just call it different things based on where they are
There's also the current Queen Street subway that has no trains at all.
Any underground train is a subway. There are underground light rail lines in Philly, Newark, and Boston based on legacy tram systems from the late 19th century called subways. If you don't call light rail subways, subways, this also means that Boston's Green Line wouldn't be America's oldest subway.
I think subway is a distinct word from Metro or Rapid transit, and just means any underground local rail transit in a north American context.
@@jonathanstensberg but in boston tho we call the greenline a subway
A baguette with filling... 😉
Subway: a pavement/crossing below a road ,tracks and/or building.
Metro: a railway, usually underground, with short(usually) distance between stations, and usually high frequency.(and often has DC third rail electrification)
Metros are often disconnected from other railways, but sometimes they are connected.
Commuter train: a railway, with relatively close stations and frequency, but not as much as a metro, and it's usually attached to the mainline railway, unlike a metro. It either uses AC electricity or its diesel, but in some cases other forms of fuel or direct current. It usually covers bigger distances than metros.
A subway: (1) runs on rails, (2) is high capacity, (3) offers frequent service, and (4) has “stations” at every stop. (A station is a building where you pay to enter/exit the system, rather than paying as you board the train.) The high capacity part is important because if a politician promises to build a subway, you want to know that it will take a large number of cars off the road.
I think it also (5) has to be mostly underground. If it's mostly elevated but has all of the above, it's an L or El. See Chicago.
Very much agree with this. The capacity of the train only matters if it's insufficient. Getting bigger trains than your route needs just to meet some arbitrary cutoff to be a "subway" seems silly.
I do find Alberta's high floor LRTs an interesting in between space, because the rail-priority crossings mean that the service is basically indistinguishable from grade sep, but the lack of separation is very noticeable for drivers. It's like the one time we didn't prioritize driver feelings over all other concerns.
"Subway" in transit really is a branding term. All of MTA trains in New York are the subway, even though about half the lines are above ground. All of Chicago is the 'L'', even though a large part is underground or at surface level. In Los Angeles an underground subway, several light rail lines, and even bus rapid transit are all called "metro". In Vancouver all the rail transit is SkyTrain and in Calgary it's all C-Train. Customers really don't care whether something is grade separated or whether it has platform screen doors. They care whether it gets them where they want to go in a reasonable time.
In Los Angeles, the name of the transit agency is the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, usually shortened to MTA or Metro (capital M). So not only are BRT run by Metro, but so are completely normal bus lines (branded as Metro Bus). But nobody refers to the trains themselves as "metros" (small m); they are usually called "subway" for the two heavy rail, entirely underground lines (B/Red and D/Purple (they are transiting from colors to letters)), and "light rail" for all the other rail lines, with the entire rail system branded as Metro Rail.
I think one thing that matters between buses and subways for me is that I get carsick when I have to take the bus for a long time especially during traffic. Also standing on buses is much more unpleasant because buses have to weave in and out of traffic. And a weird thing about the Scarborough RT is that it makes a really loud high pitched noise that’s extremely unpleasant when I don’t have headphones on. All of this makes the regular subway experience better.
Platform screen doors in China are very nice. They do not have tints or very slight black tint. In elevated stations they become platform screen gates
True, it doesn't matter the size of the train or if it is below or above ground.
Great video !
Any rail rapid transit that goes underground for a significant portion of its route, doesn't have to be even half, but more than just one stop, is a subway. Completely underground 10 car train? Subway. 3 Car Copenhagen style light metro? Subway. German style light rail that goes underground downtown for 5 stops? Subway during that part.
In India a subway is the underground passage you use to cross major thoroughfares. All rail-based transit systems are either metro (if run by an independent corporation and are grade separated) or locals (if run by the Indian Railways and at grade). The latter can generally be classified as "commuter rail" in the west but in some places the usage and service density are actually higher than what metro in large western cities have. For example, just by numbers the Mumbai local is probably as used as the moscow metro. And its frequency at rush hours is about a train every 4 minutes. That's not very quick.
I think a subway is a rail line or system where the core of the line or system is mostly underground. While that definition says something about service quality, namely that there's grade separation where it matter the most, it still leaves the service type mostly undefined; it could be anything from fast, heavy metro, to light metro, to slow streetcars with close stop spacing. I would want to say that the term "subway" is useless enough that we shouldn't use it, but most terms for service type are so poorly defined that "subway" is relatively useful.
At least "metro" has a pretty solid definition, so we should probably steer to using that term so that it becomes more common knowledge what a metro is. The problem in the US is that the most iconic metro system is New York's, which is called the subway. Thus, to further the understanding of what a metro is, you have to point to a system called "subway", which makes the two seem like the same thing, and then it muddies the waters when you have subways that aren't metros. Edit: Not to mention that "light metro" also muddies the water, particularly because there is also the term "light rail".
Edit 2: But even "metro" has a huge problem in that it's short for metropolitan, so a lot of transit agencies in the US use "metro" in their name, even though no part of their system is a metro.
Hey guys. I'm your fan from Brazil.
Great video again, thanks
Thank you!
Well, I personally define a system as Metro/Subway by:
1) Serving the main urban/metropolitan area or the greater municipal unit (At a radius of around 30 km max)
2) Running a mandatory minimum of 95% grade-separated (the 5% should only be for any guarded level crossings)
3) Having frequent service of around 2-6 minutes per line in the city core
4) Having a station frequency of about 0.3-2 km maximum
5) Being electrified (mainly because electricity is essential for a clean urban environment, it could also be diesel trains running just as good a service pattern)
Concepts such as automation, platform screen doors are not mandatory, however I root for them. Also, speeds from 60-100 km/h should be ideal.
The way I have thought about it is really a subway is just the english word for rapid rail transit that is generally underground for a decent part of the network. Metro i just think of as the french word for subway
It's also a shortening of "La compagnie du chemin de fer métropolitain du Paris" which which was basically the French translation of "Metropolitan Railway, Ltd." in London.
Platform height not important but level boarding a requirement to be called a "subway" IMHO.
Very good point
Fun fact out of Philly. Routes 10, 11,13, 34, and 36 often are referred as Subway-Surface Trolley Lines as part of their routing goes into the tunnel. Routes 15, 101, and 103 and other routes such as 23 and 56 that for some time are run by busses are/were refereed as trolleys. Also orange line is referred as Subway while blue is referred as EL while both being metro/subway lines.
In my mind a subway always uses a third rail. That would also be one of my criteria to determine if a transport mode is a subway.
I think the better question, rather than "what is a subway?" is "when should a subway be used?". By extension, when is deep-level, sub-surface, trenched, at-grade (separated or in traffic) or elevated the best method for achieving transit goals? I think a lot of places start with a method rather than thinking through the goals then using the appropriate method to achieve them. To me, the term "subway" is fine to use as a convention for any system that employs subterranean transit, even if the strict roots of that definition have long disappeared from the current overall network. Likewise, the Tube only uses traditional tube stock and lines on a portion of its network, but I'll still call it such.
One of the things that surprised me was how much of the Tube runs outdoors
The term "Metro" is much more universal and internationally known
Yep, but not really the question posed!
My definition:
Metro: An entirely grade separated rapid transit system that is automatically run or is capable of automatic operation. It may be run in tunnels, viaducts or surface ROWs.
Subway: The mainly North American name for a metro.
Metro, being more international, is probably the better word for defining a system.
A Subay is what makes boomers yell "But you can save so much money by using light rail!" And because they're most of the property owners, the City is forced to listen to their opinions. This is how the Eglinton Crosstown LRT was born.
I'm one and I think they missed an opportunity not making it a light metro tied into the Scarborough RT (refurbished)
Well ... to me, if it's low-floor, or if it has steps from the doors to the main floor, than it's not a subway; it's a tram.
As long as it's an electric-powered train that goes underground, then it's a subway! Doesn't matter if the electricity comes from a third rail, overhead lines, or a squirrel on a wheel!
@ Tuomas Leone: I LOVE the image of an acorn-powered underground railway! Squirrels go "nuts" over acorns.
That poor squirrel in a wheel better be unionized. That's a hard job and she needs all the benefits to keep from being overworked and exploited. ;-)
What about mainline trains that go into tunnels?
@@gwyneddboom2579 Squirrel powered or not? But I think no matter what the bulk of the line would have to be underground.
Exactly! Its kind of ridicolous how these terms change.
The kookiest platform doors are those in one or two of the St. Petersburg Russia metro stations. These are opaque heavy steel doors set in deep recesses in a marble wall. They look like elevator doors and you do not see any train movement, but you hear them and feel wind currents. I believe I saw this in a video about a different obscure soviet metro as well.
I think the question of 'what is a subway' is well worth discussing, and maybe more important then you're making it. I think of the hullaballoo in Toronto over what to build where: subways are seen as 'legit' and other options (on-street LRT) are crapped on. Clearly the desire for grade separation (and better speed and reliability) is important, but much of the Ford Nation backlash to LRT/ trams was that it was on-street and took lanes away from cars. Hence, outer areas of Toronto 'deserve' subway: good transit + no lanes lost for cars. Suffice it to say, this has laid to some terrible politic fights and bad decision making (Scarborough Subway, elevating future phases of Eglington cross-town instead of running in reserved on-street right of ways). These projects create needless costs for minimal benefits, all to get closer to the ideal of 'subway'. Interestingly, Doug Ford pulled the plans for Downtown Relief Line (a true subway) and replaced them with a lower capacity light-metro system. This might be a fine technology for the corridor (I don't know the details), but is a head-scratcher alongside the other decisions. Perhaps it's to give a finger to the downtown 'elites' who already have enough 'subways', while sending the TTC subway further into the Burbs where a different tech (higher speed, lower capacity, wider stop spacing like Regional Rail)would likely be better.
I think another dynamic worth discussing is the REM de l'Est in Montreal, which is proposed as a light metro, like the first REM phase. On balance I don't think this is a bad tech for the corridor, but I do think the original proposal for LRT with lots of reserved ROW was superior - much less expensive, less disruptive downtown, easier to expand the stations, good performance. Yes it would have less performance on speed and reliability, but the ability to run on street would add huge flexibility for future expansions and dramatically lower costs. Running automated trains with support from a central command centre is not out of the question either, enabling high frequencies and good reliability if paired with signal priority and reserved lanes for on-street sections. On balance, this would have been more bang for transit buck, which is important considering just how expensive construction is in North American contexts. Alon Levy at pedestrianobservations has done great work showing that our transit investments are multiple times more expensive per km than comparable projects in Europe and Asia. Canada needs to do a better job at lowering costs and selecting low cost, on-street projects on the right corridors. I don't think REM de l'Est, or any Toronto project is really doing either.
Similar to Toronto, Montreal is sending a lot of quality rail transit to suburbs, while ignoring higher density neighbourhoods where 'metro' type systems would thrive. This is entirely political and predictable, but not ideal. In Montreal, the Pink Line, Blue line extension (on both ends) would be very strong transit projects and priorities. Similarly, in Toronto, both legs of the Downtown Relief line (or the Ontario Line, whatever) should be huge priorities. But ... politics.
Finally - thanks for the shout-out on BRT. If done well, it can have speed and frequency comparable to LRT. The capacity may be lower (smaller vehicles) but this should be less of a concern on secondary or tertiary routes. I am interested in how Montreal's Pie-IX Blvd. BRT system works out. I hope it leads the way to more BRT in central city contexts. Again, we need to look beyond rail for cost and coverage reasons. Canadian cities have so many transit gaps - we don't have the money or time to fill them all with rail.
I believe you are overthinking it. "Subway" is an Americanisation thing. The terminology for the rest of the world is either historic (London Underground) or branding by operator (Sydney Metro) in order to differentiate it from other forms of transport from a users perspective. I don't think any operator has labelled a network based primarily on the Engineering aspects of the system. By the way, as others have pointed out the word "Subway" in the UK and Australia has a negative connotation as it usually refers to an underground passageway for pedestrians.
I’d be interested to see your thoughts on Crossrail / Elizabeth line. It is a mainline train either side of London but runs underground with platform screen doors within the core.
I'd say it's an RER style system!
In Greece, we call μετρό(metró) any rapid transit.
South Korea
MRTs are generally called jihacheol (지하철; 地下鐵; underground, subway) despite some lines rarely go underground.
Jeoncheol (전철; 電鐵), shortened from jeon-gi-cheoldo (전기철도; 電氣鐵道; electric railway), is also used.
Dosi-cheoldo (도시철도; 都市鐵道; urban rail, metro) and 메트로 (transliterated "metro") are official terms used in most Korean cities as of the late 2010s.
LRTs are called gyeong-jeoncheol (경전철; 輕電鐵; light electric rail).
North Korea
Pyongyang Metro is called chihach'ol (지하철; 地下鐵; underground, subway; note the different romanization from the South) by the locals. This time the North did it right; this capital subway system is known for dual-purpose stations/underground shelters thus stays underground.
Japan
Japan's rail system is huge and complex; locals usually call densha (電車; electric train) for MRTs, a very broad term.
Toshi-tetsudo (都市鉄道; urban rail) is rather formal term including MRTs and LRTs. The latter is called shin-kotsu system (新交通システム; new transit system).
Despite "not having clear definition" according to the ministry, many municipal subway systems include the word chikatetsu (地下鉄; underground, subway) in their names. (e.g., Toei Subway 都営地下鉄 and Yokohama Municipal Subway 横浜市営地下鉄)
Some local operators use the word kosoku-tetsudo (高速鉄道). This also means high-speed rail like Shinkansen, but in this context it's "underground rapid transit (地下高速鉄道)."
メトロ (transliterated "metro") is used only in Tokyo Metro and Osaka Metro, thus indicates either of two subway systems.
Mainland China
Di tie (地铁; underground, subway) is a general term for MRTs, sharing the same ideographs with Sino-Korean (Hanja) and Sino-Japanese (Kanji) equivalents. Used in similar fashion with Korean jihacheol.
Taiwan
Taiwan uses translated word jie yun (捷運) for (massive) rapid transit.
This is kind of an interesting case for Montréal. The Réseau Express Métropolitain in a lot of ways. Is technically a *Métro* because of the grade separation, the frequency and the trains being the Alstom Métropolitain which is metro grade train. But we literally already have the exact same thing that we opened back in 1966. The Métro de Montréal. It's entirely underground, frequent service and trains being the MR-63, MR-73 and MPM-10 which were built for this system.
So in a way, when I'm taking the Réseau Express. I'm technically taking the *Métro*. It's just kinda strange when I think about it. But I don't think any time soon I will hear anyone saying that. If there taking the Métro de Montreal. It would be "Je prend le métro". But if someone is taking the Réseau Express Métropolitain. It would be "Je prend le REM" or my personal favorite "Je prend le Réseau Express". No one will refer it a metro or "Le métro". Just a way to differentiate the two systems.
Sounds like The JR Inner Suburban Services in Tokyo. They look like subway lines with subway trains that have occasional grade crossings even though it's not part of Tokyo's "subway" or "metro" network
Reece going all philosophical today!
Philosophy is very useful for figuring out details for new plans
I think it matters depending on where it will serve. I don't know how people in Scarbrough were able to ride that tightly spaced RT. Brutal.
The word "Metro" comes from the Metropolitan Railway Commpany of London, which built what now is the Metropolitan line of the London Underground. It is also the best word to describe high-capacity heavy-rail rapid transit systems. Meanwhile the word "Subway" in the rapid transit context is ppobably a contraction of "subterrain railway", whoch iis a term probably brought over by the German diaspora derived from the German term "U-Bahn".
As far as the Eglington Crosstown is concerned, it's best referred to as a premetro line or a "Stadtbahn" for using a German term which I am particularly fond of.
Kinda funny, english-hating French people are so proud of their "métro", which gets its name from the metropolitan line in London
Subway interestingly seems to occasionally mean makeshift bomb shelter.
Subway is a place where you can get a foot long sandwich for 5 dollars.
To me I think that the term "Subway" should be exclusively used to describe an underground rapid transit as the "Sub" in the word eludes to. I really dislike the fact that transit systems such as the New York City Subway still calls surface level and elevated parts as "Subway" as it dilutes the term's orginal meaning (Which is probaly why people today ubiquitously call rapid transit "Subway"). I think the term Metro is a way better description for rapid transit as it does not inherently suggest an underground system.
Metro is not subway in French!
@@coastaku1954 it is not. "Passage sous-terrain" is the literal denotation. Métro is the connotation, which is why a "disreputable" source like Google Translate will give you that reference. Etymology is important here.
@@jtsholtod.79 etymology doesn't matter when actual people are using the words, language is not reduced to a dictionnary. Ask any frecnh person to translate "métro" in english, and they will answer "tube" or "subway". The travelling system those 3 words evoke is the same. Mostly underground but the most important is grade separation, with frequents trains and lots of stops. "tramways" are on street level, with less frequent trains.
@@coastaku1954 and I studied French language through University, what's your point? You know that "literal", as you put it, does not equal one dictionary connotation? Métro is an abbreviation from the "Chemin de Fer Métropolitain". LITERALLY translated as Metropolitan iron road (or railway). Subway and Métro are connotations, but are not literal equivalents.
@@ouicertes9764 you and I are actually saying the same thing. It doesn't really matter what you call a system, all that matters is how people use it in their respective contexts. My point to the other poster was that they are not LITERAL translations. Each has its own interesting etymology, which was the whole reason for the video in the first place. But I could care less what a place calls its actual system and whether that name reflects the actual engineering involved.
Builds a platform screen door BRT based system, but tells everyone it's LRT, so it gains all the TOD around it that LRT gives.
(Because Ottawa proves an LRT line that has barely any higher capacity than a normal bus route gets more TOD than a BRT system that can handle massive loads, is significantly faster, and a good 5x more frequent...)
That´s why i always preffer the term rail rapid transit, even tough is kinda of complex of a name, maybe the RRT?
Subway to me means a rail vehicle that is separated from the street and usually but not always runs in a tunnel. So Ottawa O Train is basically a tram that runs underground or on its own right of way instead of the streets. Just as much a subway as Toronto that does the same thing, except the rolling stock looks much more like a rail car.
This channel is so underrated
Speaking of screen doors, Seoul pulls it off really well in their subway network.
And here I am, thinking about underground BRT.
What is your opinion on the term "Light Rapid Transit"?
In India we use the word Metro.
We know ‘subway’ as restaurant chain.
Subway is a restaurant selling high fidelity sandwiches.
In the UK, a subway is a pedestrian route that crosses under a road
If a transit system decides it's a subway, then it's a subway. If they decide to call it by another name, such as a metro or an underground etc., then that's what it's called. Why would anyone get into a huge debate over it? These systems all serve the same purpose which is to move large numbers of people around in a subsurface environment on rails in an urban setting.
The only thing a subway full of trams costs you is the ability for the subway to use the same platforms as mainline rail stations. Other than that it seems to me that so long as you can gang multiple units together on higher-traffic routes there's no reason to have a different vehicle for street-running and grade-separated services. I can see a lot of benefits to it, actually. Smaller pool of vehicle types means the same techs and depots can work on all of them easily, you can substitute a subway tram for a street tram at any time with nothing but a crane, if you design the system right you can make it so subway trams could drive themselves to the tunnels.
In the UK a Subway is a pedestrian tunnel. We use the terms "Underground train" (or line) or Metro usually. Ironically, most of the London Underground is actually at or above ground level, or at least exposed to the sky above, but yes, it's all grade separated. An interesting case is lines in German speaking countries, like the Frankfurt U-Bahn or the trams in Vienna that run along or alongside roads (with level crossings) for a lot of the journey and then go into tunnels in the city centre, where they are obviously grade separated. Is that a subway? Not really in my book. Also, one factor you didn't mention is comfort. Some people say that trams aren't subways because of the uncomfortable ride when the trams go along the street vs dedicated tracks.
subway = sub-surface railway
although the detention has probably changed from (parts of) a train line being underground to just being grade-separated, although fully elevated train lines are often referred to as being a metro
El in Chicago since most legacy lines are elevated
I always thought a subway is literally a train that has a third rail
Subway is a dumb term that needs to be grandfathered. We should just use the term Metro. Whether the grade separation is underground (Subterranean) or not has little to do with, well much of anything. Fully Grade separated express service with large capacity = Metro. Small Capacity at-grade service with more local stops = LRT
To me subway and metro are the same thing, some cities choose to call its system metro and others subway.
What you are calling 'Platform Doors', I've always called 'Suicide Doors'. I understood suicide prevention was the key reason they were originally added.
Where, when and why were they first included in subway planning?
They surely add significantly to the cost of construction...
There is a general safety aspect to them too, it's rare, but not unknown, for people to fall onto tracks on crowded platforms by accident. They tend to be more likely to survive of course, because they happen fairly randomly, unlike suicides, so there's a good chance the train can be stopped before they hit them.
Here in india Subway is underground pedestrian tunnel. Rapid transit is metro
I think I'd also add a lower limit on passenger capacity for the definition of a subway.
I don't think that many transit systems will have screen doors anytime soon.
liked video
Its where you get sandwhiches ya dingus.
I think trams/low floor light rail (and busses excluding the Adelaide O-Bahn) do have a distinctly different rider experience in the ride quality. Even on fantastic modern tracks or roadways, the vehicles have distinct qualities that make the ride significantly less smooth than a heavy rail or high floor light rail system. For me, even if I wasn't an enthusiast, it would make me think twice about calling these lighter vehicles a black box subway.
(That, and I associate the word subway with underground, so a subway system would be predominantly underground; but that's not quite the argument of this video.)
fast, frequent, reliable, and fully grade separated... would this quality the DFW Airport Skylink as a subway? jkjk
A subway is a path which goes under a road, innit?
Metro with platform screen doors = sideway elevator.
the vehicle doesn't matter
unless it's a gadgetbahn then i'd be outraged
Visit Las Vegas - there you will find America's NEWEST SUBWAY - an underground set of tunnels carved out by Elon Musk's Boring Company under Las Vegas' casino strip, through which you can ride in one of his Tesla Automobiles! THIS is truly the exciting FUTURE of public transportation in America.
I eagerly await the day when pioneering space-rocket inventor Musk takes over the MTA in New York City and converts all the rapid transit lines to his Boring Company technology, so we can then ALL commute in style in one of his beautiful Teslas.
I wonder if platform screen doors can fool ppl into thinking a brt is a subway
I have my own definitions of a subway. For light rail/trolley/tram/streetcar lines, it must have a minimum of 3 consecutive underground stations. This way, Newark, Ottawa & Alicante qualify. St. Louis, The Hague & Linz just miss because they have 2 underground & in open cut. For heavy rail, only one underground is needed for Cleveland's sake. This disqualifies Miami's all-elevated line. Underground commuter lines don't qualify if they are part of a mainline rail system i.e. Liverpool & Leipzig. Even though San Francisco's BART has commuter rail distances, it is a subway because it can't connect to conventional lines because of the track gauge difference.
US systems built from the 70s onward used the word "metro" because "subway" had a negative connotation when associated with the older systems considered dirty, dangerous and unreliable. French seems to be more refined. As a rail enthusiast, I'm not fond of screen doors because they make photography difficult if not impossible. However, the case for heating cooling and safety is also valid.
The line about not counting Miami “as a subway” is terribly pedantic. You’re discounting an entire metropolitan heavy rail system due to its not having a single underground station? It’s an El or an Elevated.
The water table was too high for them to tunnel and have sub-surface lines. It was also because Florida is almost practically ancient coral and brittle limestone. San Juan’s Elevated Metro on Puerto Rico in the Caribbean had the same type of geologic issues.
I always thought a subway was just another word for metro in the same way as hoagie and sub
A subway is a train that runs underground. Not a difficult question. Any part of the train that runs underground is a subway, even if part or most of it runs above ground.
I thought subways must be heavy rail.
No fear, Wikipedia is here
Your desired service should dictate the mode more than anything else! Choosing a mode and shoehorning it in to everything is not a way to build a transit system.
To everyone who’s commenting about Subway the restaurant
The thumbnail asks “what is A subway” not “what is subway”?
Silly people
I think they’re just trying to be comedians
@@AmericansAlwaysFree I know and so was I
It was sarcasm
Ok, i definitely didn't understand your categorisation
But if I can't foam, what's even the point???
Subways are like pornography:
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
I cannot define a subway, but I know when I see one ☝🏻. I rest my case.