Canada Line | Completed

[raggedy13]

I think it falls under the definition of mural... not a big deal though. I just decided to look it up because I wasn't sure myself.

mu·ral

1. a large picture painted or affixed directly on a wall or ceiling.

2. a greatly enlarged photograph attached directly to a wall.

3. a wallpaper pattern representing a landscape or the like, often with very widely spaced repeats so as to produce the effect of a mural painting on a wall of average size; a trompe l'oeil.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mural

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it would be interesting to have a photograph along the same lines as that grave one but instead have an image that depicts what it would look like to look up if you were standing on the street directly above where that mural is installed... so like looking up the sides of whatever Vancouver buildings are above the station. But then again you could just walk outside the station and see the real thing...

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

Since SkyTrain doesn't use crush capacity, i don't think it's a fair comparison for the Canada Line (400 is crush load). An articulated bus can hold 110 passengers, and yet not even that is the crush load capacity....that's the normal load.

I'll stick with the original 334 persons capacity figure they released.

just wait for the fireworks to happen then we will be able to see all these crush loads put to the real test

i am not looking forward to seeing waterfront the night of the fireworks when the canada line is open

[Metro-One]

One thing that is noticable in any pics that feature the C-trains and cars (road cars) in one pic is how much larger the C-train cars are compared to sky-train cars (especially mark 1 cars).

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

just wait for the fireworks to happen then we will be able to see all these crush loads put to the real test

i am not looking forward to seeing waterfront the night of the fireworks when the canada line is open

Yes, We'll see. All this debate doesn't hold much water until the system is tested.

Another thing to consider:

What is limiting the trains to 50m? As long as these trains are articulated, they don't need to have the whole train in the station. I don't believe there is anything technical stopping them from using 60m or 70m trains with a set of doors that don't open on each end of the train. Yes, it would be less convenient and likely underutilized, as nobody wants to be that far from the door during rushhour, but for those travelling the whole line, to waterfront, it won't matter.

Where |O| is a door that opens and |X| is one that doesn't:

50m. platform =>    |===============|
train =>        (|X| |O| |O| |O| |O| |X|)
50m. platform =>    |===============|

Given that:

• They're larger than expo line trains, with more space to move around inside.
• They're serving a smaller catchment area.
• They can always remove the transverse seating to create more standing room (end-to-end, it's half the travel time as the Expo line, so many won't mind standing as much)

I think we'll be fine for the life of the line.

Yeah, it lacks... vision... but it'll do.

Btw, what's the potential for "upgrading" the Richmond Single Track segment to double track?

[Whalleyboy]

it was dumb of them to build the stations so small i mean look at the expo line there building the stations bigger so they can eventually use 6 mkII and 8 mkI

the cant even add the third car to the C line trains easily if they may need them down the line. which is pretty much a guarantee they will sure not now but who knows 20 years down the line
plus the trains may be bigger but part of the biggerness is for them to help people who will have bags from getting off at the airport which means the trains will not as easy fit all the people cause some people will have bags on that line taking up room

[Metro-One]

I have explained this a thousand times before, but i guess i should do it again.

The expo line is the SPINE of the current and future metro system of Vancouver. Its catchment area is near triple that of the C-line. Not to mention areas around the expo line, such as surrey city center, are forecasted to have some of the highest population growth rates in the region.

The middle C-cars to be added to the Canada line will be a big help when the time comes for that expansion.

Vancouver is a metro area of 2.5 million people. Stop comparing us to the transit demands of cities where the populations are 5 million and above. By the time Vancouver's population is big enough that the C-line is bursting with people, it will be so old that a major extensive renovation would have been welcomed anyways because of its age.

Also one individual c car is considerably bigger than an e or m car.

As mentioned before there are other cities in the world, such as in europe, that have similar populations as metro van, that have constructed very similar sized systems and they work just fine.

gahhh

[Whalleyboy]

well they should have been thinking ahead of time well spending shit load of cash why not plan ahead instead of going with what currently is gonna be okay
then finding out later on it would have been cheaper to pay for the plan ahead then it is to update later cause construction cost are only gonna go up and its gonna fuck things up cause it will take forever for the updates to be done

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

As mentioned before there are other cities in the world, such as in europe, that have similar populations as metro van, that have constructed very similar sized systems and they work just fine.

I agree - overbuilding a system can create a barrier to construction due to the high costs. i.e. Toronto and full scale subways.

[Metro-One]

I think you missed the point or did not read my post at all Whalleyboy. The line will be sufficient for decades to come. In 30 or 40 years when metro Van is 4 million or so and the C-line needs to be extended, a major overhaul would be needed anyways because of its age even if they did build it twice the length now. Look at the expo line for example. I am glad they built it this way, therefore it gives us an them a better excuse to completely overhaul the line in 30 or 40 years. If there is one thing i hate it is old dingy subway systems.

[Whalleyboy]

i think you're under estimating the growth of the lower mainland is my biggest problem

[jlousa]

I acutally think Vancouver is over estimating it's population growth. Even the suburbs are begining to run out of brownfields to develop, which means the only way will be via densification of existing properties. That is very expensive and we are already the most expensive place in the country. The amount of population growth will begin to decline because they won't be able to afford to move here like they have. I think the very most we'll see is 3 Million by 2031 but probably a little less.

[DKaz]

If they expand the trains to three car articulated sets and run the trains every 3 minutes on each branch, at 167 passengers per car that's 10,020 PPPHD on each branch and 20,040 PPPHD between Bridgeport and Waterfront. I wouldn't worry about capacity at the moment.

I can tell you one reason the Expo line is very well used... A lot of the Vancouver area roads and buses are on a grid system while the Expo Line cuts through that grid diagonally. The Millenium Line is enjoying a good amount of development around the stations and I have no doubt the Canada Line will as well but the fact of the matter is if you have a choice between getting on one bus that runs perpedicular to the Canada Line and then transferring over to the Canada Line to your destination, or just hopping on one bus that runs parallel and directly to your destination, which would you choose? This is why the 135 Burrard/SFU route is still very well used.

This is why I feel the Interurban will also be popular as it cuts through Surrey diagonally and feed a lot of people who are heading north/south already. Now if only they'd build the thing...

[deasine]

Trains to Oakridge Station!

http://www.canadaline.ca/uploads/NewsReleases/News649.PDF

[sacrifice333]

I was just in SF and flew out of SEA.

The platforms for the Seattle 'skytrain' must be at least 120M+.

The platforms for the various San Fran stations must have been at least 140-200M!!! 9 & 10 Car trains... I know it's got more folks, but wow, what a difference...

[Metro-One]

Seattle has far less frequencies and that would have been their main line (their expo line so to speak).

People also tend to forget that train systems with longer platforms often have shorter frequencies.

Even in Japan if you were not on the main lines in the downtown cores it is not uncommon to wait 10 or more minutes at a station for a train.

PS - San fran's metro population is well over 7 million, a big difference from metro Van.

[nname]

Originally Posted by sacrifice333

I was just in SF and flew out of SEA.

The platforms for the Seattle 'skytrain' must be at least 120M+.

The platforms for the various San Fran stations must have been at least 140-200M!!! 9 & 10 Car trains... I know it's got more folks, but wow, what a difference...

Would you rather want a 10 cars train that comes every 15 minutes (as in BART to SFO) or a 2 cars train that come every 2 minues (as in trains on the expo line)?

[Metro-One]

Really long platforms can actually be annoying in metros (they are good for long distance commuter trains). I hate it when you disembark and the exit you need to use is at the other end of the platform. Just a small notion but it does get annoying when it happens all the time. Especially if it is a side platform station and you realize you are on the wrong side, if feels like forever to walk all the way around to the other side and good old Murphy's law sends a the train you need when you are in the middle of crossing over.

[officedweller]

I think BaRT platforms are 700 ft long.
That's ... ummmm... longer than Shangri-La is tall.

You'd have two platforms downtown and that's it.

Here's the bulletin linked by Deasine:

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Seattle has far less frequencies and that would have been their main line (their expo line so to speak).

People also tend to forget that train systems with longer platforms often have shorter frequencies.

Even in Japan if you were not on the main lines in the downtown cores it is not uncommon to wait 10 or more minutes at a station for a train.

PS - San fran's metro population is well over 7 million, a big difference from metro Van.

Right, I get the difference... long platforms, long durations between service.

But the Canada line is going to see fairly significant volume even though it doesn't serve the same area as does the Millenium & Surrey Lines. It will be fed into from much of the White Rock/ South Surrey, South Delta transit, as well as Richmond, much of Vancouver and the Airport.

I think the platforms probably should have been a little larger... maybe 60-80 meters instead of 40-60, granted we don't need 200m platforms for sure.

[SpongeG]

Canada Line’s foreign workers faced discrimination: tribunal

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that temporary foreign workers who helped build the underground tunnel in Vancouver for the Canada Line were discriminated against by their employers.

In a 218-page ruling issued today (December 3), a tribunal panel states that the complaint filed on behalf of the mostly Latin American workers by Local 1611 of the Construction and Specialized Workers’ Union was “justified”.

“We conclude that CSWU has established that members of the Complainant Group were discriminated against by the Respondents on the grounds of race, colour, ancestry and place of origin”, the ruling states.

Named respondents in the case were SELI Canada Inc., a subsidiary of the Rome, Italy-based SELI SPA; SNC Lavalin Constructors (Pacific) Inc., a subsidiary of SNC Lavalin Canada Inc.; and SNCP-SELI Joint Venture, which is the tie-up company responsible for the tunnel part of the Canada Line project.

As the panel summarized, there were four aspects of the complaint.

First, the Latin Americans were paid less than Europeans employed to do the same work.

Second, the workers were housed in inferior accommodations compared to most of the Europeans.

Third, the Latin Americans were a given different meal arrangement.

Lastly, the Latin Americans were given expense arrangements less favourable than those for the European workers.

The panel ordered the respondents to pay the complainants the differences between the salaries and expenses paid to them and those that were paid to their European counterparts.

The panel also ordered the respondents to pay the Latin American workers $10,000 each as “compensation for injury to dignity”.

http://www.straight.com/article-173335/canada-lines-foreign-workers-faced-discrimination-tribunal