Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau
Some are, sure. That's a design choice or constraint. It's also something that says nothing about whether the technology is "outdated". The wheel is thousands of years old - does that make all transit outdated?
|
The wheel is thousands of years old, yet we can't even get that right!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau
There are too few doors? Too few for what or whom?
|
Have you ever taken the Confederation Line at rush hour? I once missed my stop because the door was too far down the narrow aisle and crowds of people, and almost missed my stop a few other times. Now they've overcompensated by increasing the dwell times to ridiculous levels.
Look at the Mark III in Vancouver: 68 meters, 12 doors. We have 100 meter trains with 14 oddly spaced doors. Both trains have roughly the same capacity. Embarking and disembarking is much more fluid in Vancouver than it is here. The platform space in Ottawa is poorly utilized because of the door spacing.
That's more of a low-floor light-rail issue, and I guess that's my biggest complaint. Using low-floor lrt vehicles along a high capacity transit line makes little sense. Had we gone with a high floor model, might as well go all the way and build the most modern system available. The City loves to use the term "world-class", but it's shortsightedness and cheapness always results in mediocre at best.
Now I'm not quite sure why you're defending the system so much. Could you explain your position on the matter? Do you believe the Confederation Line, if ever functional, will be as good as the Skytrain or REM? Do you believe it's the absolute best system for Ottawa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend
The C-Line probably would still not have opened if we added full automation and platform screens into the mix. More possibilities for failure.
We will see how REM launches.
|
It might not have been launched, but Confed was over a year late and still nowhere near reliable after two years from the original anticipated opening.
Threaded Mode