Proposal to combine some USA systems

[Duke87]

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?

[Jim]

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.

[the_spui_ninja]

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.

[neroute2]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[Bickendan]

Technically, Portland has three streetcar lines, as the the Loop Line is treated as two running in opposite directions.

[cl94]

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.

[michih]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[neroute2]

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.

[Duke87]

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).

[cl94]

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.

[Duke87]

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.