Travel Mapping
Railway Data Discussion => In-progress Railway Systems & Work => Topic started by: Duke87 on August 31, 2023, 09:50:24 pm
-
In order to keep the number of small systems down, I would like to present the following possibilities for combined systems:
usatr - United States Tourist/Heritage Railroads (tier 2 by current draft rules, but up for debate)
usaair - United States Landside Airport Rail Systems (tier 5)
usasc - United States Streetcars (tier 5)
usair - United States Incline Railways (tier 5)
usapm - United States People Movers (tier 5)
usamono - United States Monorails (tier 5?)
There are a bunch of these things dotted around the country, but the majority of them consist of only one service route.
Similar combination for some or all of these could potentially be done for Canada, Europe, maybe other places (Australia?)
Any objections? Thoughts?
-
This makes sense to me, but I don't know what kind of organization people interested in tracking rail travels would be most interested in seeing.
-
Makes sense to me too, depending on how detailed people want to get. I'm fine with moving the tourist railroads I drafted into a group system.
-
I object to combining streetcars. Why should Portland and San Francisco's streetcar lines be lumped in with random heritage lines in small towns?
With people movers and monorails we get into some problems. The Jacksonville Skyway was built under the federal people mover program, but it's physically a monorail.
Maybe we're going about this wrong and should categorize by function rather than form. We don't split usanp into paved and unpaved roads, for example. There are some of these "special" lines that are fully integrated with the local network (e.g. the Jacksonville Skyway, which has bus bays at several stations). There are some that are clearly meant for tourists. And there are some in between.
-
Why should Portland and San Francisco's streetcar lines be lumped in with random heritage lines in small towns?
Well, both only have two lines so we're still talking small systems here. The point is to find opportunities to combine smaller systems into a bigger system, in order to keep the number of systems from getting unwieldy.
With people movers and monorails we get into some problems. The Jacksonville Skyway was built under the federal people mover program, but it's physically a monorail.
Hrm, yeah that's an issue.
Point about function vs. form does present an alternative there though: there are other small monorail systems that are functionally "People Movers" (e.g. the Seattle Center Monorail). So maybe forget about monorails as a system but keep people movers? This would allow the larger monorails currently in tier 3 (Las Vegas, Disney) to continue standing on their own while giving the smaller ones a home without categorical conflict.
-
Technically, Portland has three streetcar lines, as the the Loop Line is treated as two running in opposite directions.
-
Tourist railroads, incline railways, and airport people movers make sense to combine, making exceptions for systems with multiple lines as necessary. Beyond that, it gets weird.
As neroute2 mentioned, streetcars are both "transit" and "heritage", sometimes in the same city. Transit and heritage do not belong in the same system unless they are explicitly the same system. For example, the San Francisco F Line would be lumped with the rest of MUNI even though it's a heritage line, because it is a normal transit line that just happens to use heritage vehicles. Maybe a better set of distinctions would be "heritage streetcars" and "streetcars". "Heritage streetcars" would include stuff like Memphis and Galveston Island and potentially also include heritage interurban lines, bridging the gap between streetcars and tourist railroads.
Then you get large streetcar systems, like Toronto, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Those are big enough to have their own systems and, in some cases, are integrated with light rail.
-
Just a general thought.... I think that urban systems with own numbering (or naming) system should always be an own system. The same applies to nation-wide or regional systems if the have their own numbering scheme. It's more challenging when it comes to individual routes only or routes without a broader numbering or naming scheme.
Just my 2 cents. I appreciate the discussion to establish a common understanding on it.
-
Technically, Portland has three streetcar lines, as the the Loop Line is treated as two running in opposite directions.
We'd map the AB Loop as one line though, according to current rules.
Then you get large streetcar systems, like Toronto, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Those are big enough to have their own systems and, in some cases, are integrated with light rail.
At the risk of getting in the weeds here, I wouldn't put anything in Philadelphia in a nationwide combined streetcar system because with the exception of the Girard line nothing there is actually purely a streetcar - lines 101 and 102 run largely on independent ROW, and the subway-surface trollies, well, run into a subway.
For the same reason, I wouldn't include MUNI - the system has tunneled sections. It's not a streetcar system.
Toronto is outside the USA and thus is not relevant unless an equivalent "Canada Streetcars" system is created.
You know what though all this does expose another issue here of "define streetcar". Sometimes it's fuzzy.
-
You know what though all this does expose another issue here of "define streetcar". Sometimes it's fuzzy.
Yeah, I think we need to set a relatively narrow definition if we're going to create a grab bag system. The line between streetcar and light rail isn't always clear. Some streetcars, such as New Orleans, have extended segments of track that aren't in the street, while other systems that are clearly light rail or "light metro", such as Buffalo, Minneapolis, and Portland MAX, have street running portions. And that doesn't get into systems like MUNI or the MBTA Green Line, which are their own animals from an era before "light rail" as we know it that combine aspects of interurbans, subways, and streetcars.
I think "heritage streetcars" is easy, provided we exclude New Orleans and MUNI as most of those aren't truly "heritage" at this point. "Streetcars" in general, maybe we need to restrict to systems with only 1 line. That gets us what, a dozen or so lines in the system? Greatly reduces the number of systems but keeps those that are more integral parts of the regional transportation network as their own things. At that point, we're basically excluding Portland, New Orleans, MUNI, MBTA, Pittsburgh, Cleveland RTA, and SEPTA, all of which have several lines or some degree of hybridization that blurs the line with light rail.
On the topic of system consolidation, I do think we can merge all of the NJ Transit light rail lines into a single system. NJT already considers them to be a single "system" to some degree. Call it "NJ Transit Light Rail" and we're good.
-
Yeah, I think we need to set a relatively narrow definition if we're going to create a grab bag system.
I agree, though I find limiting it to heritage streetcars dissatisfying since this excludes a lot of the piddling little things that are specifically what I have in mind here, like the streetcars in Tempe, Dallas, etc.
"Streetcars" in general, maybe we need to restrict to systems with only 1 line. That gets us what, a dozen or so lines in the system? Greatly reduces the number of systems but keeps those that are more integral parts of the regional transportation network as their own things. At that point, we're basically excluding Portland, New Orleans, MUNI, MBTA, Pittsburgh, Cleveland RTA, and SEPTA, all of which have several lines or some degree of hybridization that blurs the line with light rail.
Nah, "only 1 line" is too restrictive since this also excludes places like Oklahoma City and El Paso (both have two lines).
That said I don't think something really counts as a streetcar unless it runs entirely or almost entirely in streets, which means of the cities you listed Portland and New Orleans are the only two where I'd say a "streetcar" exists.
Indeed, "must run entirely are almost entirely in streets" is a fine enough boundary for the grab bag system I'd say, though I'd offer the following clarifications to defuzz:
- if there are multiple lines run by the same operator in the same city, all of them will be checked against this criteria collectively such that either all are in or all are out (and given their own system).
- "in streets" does not necessarily mean "in mixed traffic", dedicated lanes or running in the median of surface streets still counts
- short sections in dedicated ROW are allowed, but any tunnels or elevated structures not shared with automobile traffic are immediate disqualification.
- vehicles must move under their own power (so, no cable cars).
This cuts out all the subway-surface trollies and anything with any nontrivial elements of "light rail" to it while leaving everything else.
On the topic of system consolidation, I do think we can merge all of the NJ Transit light rail lines into a single system. NJT already considers them to be a single "system" to some degree. Call it "NJ Transit Light Rail" and we're good.
Yeah, I intend to do this. Just haven't gotten around to it yet.
-
Yeah, I think we need to set a relatively narrow definition if we're going to create a grab bag system.
I agree, though I find limiting it to heritage streetcars dissatisfying since this excludes a lot of the piddling little things that are specifically what I have in mind here, like the streetcars in Tempe, Dallas, etc.
[...]
- if there are multiple lines run by the same operator in the same city, all of them will be checked against this criteria collectively such that either all are in or all are out (and given their own system).
Which disqualifies both Dallas and Tempe (the same agency operates the streetcars and light rail).
As far as separate structures, that would disqualify Memphis (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zYzLBrViAmL6WbdB7).
-
Those are both problems, okay.
Let's try this again:
- if there are multiple lines in the same city with interconnected tracks, all of them will be checked against this criteria collectively such that either all are in or all are out (and given their own system).
- "in streets" does not necessarily mean "in mixed traffic", dedicated lanes or running in the median of surface streets still counts
- short sections in dedicated ROW are allowed, but any grade separations from parallel automobile traffic are immediate disqualification
- vehicles must move under their own power (so, no cable cars).
-
I generally agree with this, though I'd argue New Orleans should be broken out into its own system. That effectively has 5 lines, making it more extensive than commuter rail systems, plus one line is entirely on dedicated ROW.
I'm gonna hold off on drafting/previewing the rest of the Nevada systems until we get this sorted out. All that are left are either people movers or tourist railroads.
-
Yeah, I noted New Orleans having one line on dedicated ROW but I am okay with it being broken out since it is a substantial enough system in its own right.
Interestingly, the criteria would also exclude Portland from the grabbag system since there is a place where the streetcar and the light rail share tracks, making them interconnected. Buuut I'm also okay with this.
-
So that would mean the S-Line in Salt Lake and the KC streetcar would be in the hypothetical "streetcar" system? Both of these are only one line (although KC might get a branch in the future). Interestingly, despite being labeled a streetcar, the S-Line has its own ROW, which could mean a dedicated system, I have no preference in the matter.
-
The S-Line is a de facto part of TRAX, so I would just lump it in with TRAX. Almost all of it is a dedicated ROW converted from freight rail.
-
Tourist railroads, incline railways, and airport people movers make sense to combine, making exceptions for systems with multiple lines as necessary. Beyond that, it gets weird.
It seems like there is a consensus on those three, should we move forward with combining those while the streetcar discussion continues?
-
Tourist railroads, incline railways, and airport people movers make sense to combine, making exceptions for systems with multiple lines as necessary. Beyond that, it gets weird.
It seems like there is a consensus on those three, should we move forward with combining those while the streetcar discussion continues?
I don't think any inclines are drafted yet but for the others, sure - if you wanna do it go ahead, else I might be able to take care of it later.
-
Technically, Portland has three streetcar lines, as the the Loop Line is treated as two running in opposite directions.
We'd map the AB Loop as one line though, according to current rules.
TriMet defines each loop as its own line and color; Google reflects this on the transit layer. 3/4 of the loop are on separate alignment/opposing couplets, with a crossover section in the Lloyd District.
-
TriMet defines each loop as its own line and color; Google reflects this on the transit layer. 3/4 of the loop are on separate alignment/opposing couplets, with a crossover section in the Lloyd District.
Per the current draft manual (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5635.0)...
- If a service takes a slightly different route in different directions at some point in the middle (e.g. light rail/streetcar runs one-way down adjacent streets) the mapped path should split the difference between the physical paths the two directions follow, same as with road routes following one-way pairs. All stations along the one-way pair should be included as distinct points even if they are only served in one direction. Stations with different names in each direction that serve the same cross street may be combined into a single waypoint with a slash separating their names in the waypoint label.
(emphasis added)
Now the manual is draft, so if there's a desire to handle this situation differently feel free to propose a revision.
I don't think it makes sense to expect users to clinch the A and B loop separately, since they really are just opposite directions of the same thing.
Of more pragmatic concern though, there's also an issue where the concurrency with the NS Line cannot be mapped properly if the A and B loops are separate, since one is concurrent with each direction of the NS Line through downtown.
-
I'd map the A&B loops as separate services because they are treated as separated services, but concurrent (maybe not entirely so, but certainly mostly) as they aren't really.
The important thing, IMV, is to get the networks drafted, and then move them if needbe, rather than worrying about whether it would be put in a grabbag and not drafting it until that's sorted!
-
usatr - United States Tourist/Heritage Railroads (tier 2 by current draft rules, but up for debate)
usaair - United States Landside Airport Rail Systems (tier 5)
usair - United States Incline Railways (tier 5)
These three should now be live at the next site update. I added in the Lookout Mountain incline in Chattanooga so there's not an empty system.
-
usatr - United States Tourist/Heritage Railroads (tier 2 by current draft rules, but up for debate)
usaair - United States Landside Airport Rail Systems (tier 5)
usair - United States Incline Railways (tier 5)
These three should now be live at the next site update. I added in the Lookout Mountain incline in Chattanooga so there's not an empty system.
Sweet. I'll throw the Virginia and Truckee (already drafted locally) in the heritage system later today. All of the Vegas people movers are drafted as well, but it might be best to just wait for those until we make a decision about where to put them.
-
Continuing the trend of combining systems, I propose to combine all of the Las Vegas casino trams into a single system. I have had all 3 of these drafted locally for a while, but I have been hesitant to give a bunch of single lines with 2-4 stops their own systems.
The combined system would be a tier 5 system called Las Vegas Casino Trams (usalvt), which would combine the following systems:
usaae - Aria Express
usambt - Mandalay Bay Tram
usamti - Mirage-Treasure Island Tram
Once we have consensus on this, I'll have the files ready to go so they can go preview quickly.
-
Well, those are all people movers. But, since the proposal to combine all US people movers ran into a little trouble with "define people movers", maybe we just drop the idea of doing that. In which case, this is a less bold but logical combination and I support it.
-
Yeah, I was holding off on these because of said people mover system. If we're going to have it, these go in there. If not, it makes sense to just combine all of the casino people movers into one thing and reduce clutter.
-
The Vegas people movers are a coherent concept for a system. A nationwide grab-bag of all of them is less so.
-
At least for the time being, I'm going to upload the Vegas people movers as a single system so they're in the browser. If we decide to make a nationwide grab-bag, it can be merged into said system. The monorail is staying its own system, as it is a transit system owned by a county agency as opposed to a private business.
The Circus Circus Sky Tower tram in Reno is currently defunct, so no need to worry about how that would factor into all of this. If it is ever reactivated, this system can be expanded to cover casino trams statewide. Similarly, if the Primm Valley Monorail is ever reactivated, it would belong in the casino trams system being as it was a tram operated by the casino.
-
In line with the proposal to combine US and Canada for airport people mover (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5698.msg36667#msg36667)s, can we also combine US and Canada for tourist railroads, effectively renaming ustr to natr?