Canada Line | Completed

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Allen

Even though we are able to use only the west side platform when it has a 4-min frequency.....I personally think that we should use both side of the platform.

West side platform has a train parked...passengers please board the train.
East side platform has a train coming in....passengers exit the train.
Please board the east side platform now...the train on the westside platform will be leaving.
Oh, now here comes the train on the west side platform......etc.

They wouldn't have to worry about people falling down to the tracks when you always have a train waiting to depart the station.

I agree we should use both platforms exactly like that. It would work out so that one platform always departs for YVR, and the other departs for Brighouse (as long as they always alternate 1:1). So people with luggage for YVR can stand around the West platform while people for Richmond can stand around the East platform. Staff wouldn't need to worry about controlling crowding on the platform as now all the space is better used, and there is always a train in the station with people on it.

It would keep crowds from forming and grouping on one side of the platform and it would give plenty of time for people to get off the train before anyone gets on.

And if there is a delay Northbound on the system, trains can leave Waterfront as scheduled, and 2 trains can enter Waterfront at the same time in an attempt to return trains to normal frequency and remove bunch ups.

[Vancity]

It's weird. I haven't taken the Canada Line just yet. I do cross the Oak St. Bridge often, and when I do, I take a quick glance of Bridgeport Station (the one connected to RiverRock - that's the name of the station, right?). Is it me, or does that station seem almost always empty?

[NetMapel]

Originally Posted by Vancity

It's weird. I haven't taken the Canada Line just yet. I do cross the Oak St. Bridge often, and when I do, I take a quick glance of Bridgeport Station (the one connected to RiverRock - that's the name of the station, right?). Is it me, or does that station seem almost always empty?

It won't be starting Sept 7

[mr.x]

^ it's relatively empty, but only for a few more days...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ it's relatively empty, but only for a few more days...

We'll see what happens chicken little. The C-Line will be much better than the 99 B-Line has been for the last 3-4 years.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I love how worried everyone is. I have been riding the line (due to a work project) everyday over the past 5 days and I have not had 1 overcrowding problem on a platform and i have been able to get a seat every time.

but isn't it more dramatic to say that "the sky is falling, the sky is falling..."

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

but isn't it more dramatic to say that "the sky is falling, the sky is falling..."

It is if you don't do it in every post... which brings to mind another fairy tale.

[CLC]

LETTER—Canada Line a positive ride

Published: September 03, 2009 12:00 PM

Although I have never heard Carol Vignale call herself a Translink expert, as Malcolm Johnston would lead you to believe (Canada Line Boondoggle, South Delta Leader, Aug. 21, 2009) I know that she is a TransLink user.

As the coordinator of Safe Route Tsawwassen, the group is working with TransLink to improve the local service. I’m not sure what Malcolm Johnston’s qualifications are as he only provided some statistics and didn’t mention if he has ever even used TransLink services.

Politicians will never make everyone happy. Their job is to make difficult decisions based on facts with a vision of the future. There will always be those who are negative and resist change, but the fact remains the Canada Line is here. I took it the other day and in spite of the extra transfer in Richmond, I was impressed and found it to be a very positive experience. Once the 601 goes to the Bridgeport Station I believe the transfer process will improve.

I disagree with Johnston’s statement the speed of the overall journey is the important factor. There are those of us who also consider the fact public transit is sometimes the only option (not everyone owns a car) as well as a greener option. I also see the Canada Line as a viable option over taxies for the many tourists who come to Vancouver. They can now easily transfer to/from planes at the airport and cruise ships at Canada Place as well as travel to the sights of Vancouver, Richmond and other surrounding communities like Delta. This translates to fewer cars on the road.

I for one will use the Canada Line every opportunity I can and enjoy the ride, while others, perhaps like Malcolm, continue to have a speedier journey in their cars.

Joyce Schmidt,

Delta

http://www.bclocalnews.com/richmond_southdelta/southdeltaleader/opinion/letters/56950627.html

[CLC]

Originally Posted by Vancity

It's weird. I haven't taken the Canada Line just yet. I do cross the Oak St. Bridge often, and when I do, I take a quick glance of Bridgeport Station (the one connected to RiverRock - that's the name of the station, right?). Is it me, or does that station seem almost always empty?

No offense. You should have more awareness about our transit system (considered you're reading this thread), bus service changes do not go into effect until next Monday.
But even after Bridgeport Station got all the bus integrations, it may still look empty during daytime depends on the exact moment you see it, because the platform is cleared very frequently (every 3.5-minute each way).

[WarrenC12]

How many train sets are in operation for the C-Line? Do they have the same rules regarding "spare" trains?

How many would be max capacity for the line? This doesn't include and "C" middle cars.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by lightrail

The security goons are over-done. Welcome to the Olympic Games - we'll reveal the location, time and place of the event on a need to know basis. Talking about what you saw at the games is a felony and an act of terrorism.

Tell me why we're holding the games again? Because we like living in a police state?

Almost all of the security features that will be in place at the games are already in use in Vancouver. just that durign the games, with a mass influx of people, mostly foreigners, the already established security measures will be implimented on mass.

So if you are worried about living in a police state, you better move to a 3rd world country, because the government at all levels already has all the tools they need to survey every little aspect of your life, and should they so choose jail you for your political opinions. If they haven't yet, then they probably wouldn't even if security was permanently like what it will be during the games... Or continue to live in paranoia, I really don't give a damn.

Ultimately the security at the olympics is not there to oppress you. It is there to protect you, and all of our guests from around the world from both domestic and foreign threats. There are people in the world who would get a serious hard-on from knowing they or their buddies were responsible for the deaths of you and hundred, if not thousands of other people at the winter games.

[NucksFanInVan]

Long-time lurker, first-time poster...

I recently spent some quality time with Schedule 6 of the Concessionaire agreement, and I have to agree with Mr. X that the peak period ridership projections seem <ahem> a bit low. From what I read:

- the system had to be designed to carry a peak capacity of ±6,400 pphpd by the end of the Concession Term. At commissioning in 2010, it only had to carry ±3,800 pphpd. InTransit's proposal offered to provide a static capacity at 6,300 for the entire Term.

- It takes 18 2-car train sets at 4 min headways Bridgeport-Waterfront to provide a capacity of 6,300 pphpd. That means that what we've got right now is the final sum total of what our $2.05B got us. Translink has to negotiate and pay 100% of the cost to add more trains, extend the 40m platforms, or add the 'C' cars.

- I had (naively, I guess) assumed that the Concessionaire would have to increase capacity over the next 30 years to meet growing demand. But no - Translink thought the Canada Line would be carrying half as many people as the Expo line carries today (4-car mark I's at 2 min headway) ...but 30 years from now in 2040!!

Can you imagine if they had built the system an initial capacity equal to 60% of existing? Can you imagine running the current number of A-B trains for 30 years?

Um, whoops?

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Almost all of the security features that will be in place at the games are already in use in Vancouver. just that durign the games, with a mass influx of people, mostly foreigners, the already established security measures will be implimented on mass.

So if you are worried about living in a police state, you better move to a 3rd world country, because the government at all levels already has all the tools they need to survey every little aspect of your life, and should they so choose jail you for your political opinions. If they haven't yet, then they probably wouldn't even if security was permanently like what it will be during the games... Or continue to live in paranoia, I really don't give a damn.

Ultimately the security at the olympics is not there to oppress you. It is there to protect you, and all of our guests from around the world from both domestic and foreign threats. There are people in the world who would get a serious hard-on from knowing they or their buddies were responsible for the deaths of you and hundred, if not thousands of other people at the winter games.

?? So you're being paranoid if you know that "the government at all levels already has all the tools they need to survey every little aspect of your life, and should they so choose jail you for your political opinions."

Logic much?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by NucksFanInVan

Long-time lurker, first-time poster...

I recently spent some quality time with Schedule 6 of the Concessionaire agreement, and I have to agree with Mr. X that the peak period ridership projections seem <ahem> a bit low. From what I read:

....

Welcome to the forum.

My guess is that within the context of municipalities competing against each other and not wanting to have a white elephant, the ridership estimates were on the low side. Also recall that ridership estimates are used as benchmarks for payments to InTransitBC/ProTrans - so if ridership estimates were high, TransLink would be taking additional risk if those targets were not met. Being conservative with the estimates would ultimately benefit TransLink from a financial perspective under the contract.

Although any expansion of the current capacity on the line will likely be sidelined by TransLink's current financial woes, if that capacity had been implemented up front we would have had to find funding for it back then - at the time when other aspects of the line (single track, station deletion, etc.) were being trimmed to bring it within the "funding envelope".

There's an option that should be mentioned somewhere in the agreement for the purchase of either one or two additional trains - that option was allowed to lapse without being exercised. Would have been nice if that option had extended past the commissioning date, but oh well...

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

?? So you're being paranoid if you know that "the government at all levels already has all the tools they need to survey every little aspect of your life, and should they so choose jail you for your political opinions."

Logic much?

Yea, logic is that if you are goign to be paranoid durign olympics, might aswell be paranoid all the time. I basically said that in my very first line.

Reading comprehension?

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by NucksFanInVan

Long-time lurker, first-time poster...

I recently spent some quality time with Schedule 6 of the Concessionaire agreement, and I have to agree with Mr. X that the peak period ridership projections seem <ahem> a bit low. From what I read:

- the system had to be designed to carry a peak capacity of ±6,400 pphpd by the end of the Concession Term. At commissioning in 2010, it only had to carry ±3,800 pphpd. InTransit's proposal offered to provide a static capacity at 6,300 for the entire Term.

- It takes 18 2-car train sets at 4 min headways Bridgeport-Waterfront to provide a capacity of 6,300 pphpd. That means that what we've got right now is the final sum total of what our $2.05B got us. Translink has to negotiate and pay 100% of the cost to add more trains, extend the 40m platforms, or add the 'C' cars.

- I had (naively, I guess) assumed that the Concessionaire would have to increase capacity over the next 30 years to meet growing demand. But no - Translink thought the Canada Line would be carrying half as many people as the Expo line carries today (4-car mark I's at 2 min headway) ...but 30 years from now in 2040!!

Can you imagine if they had built the system an initial capacity equal to 60% of existing? Can you imagine running the current number of A-B trains for 30 years?

Um, whoops?

ummmm...whawhaWHAWHAT???

[whatnext]

A friend who's been taking the C-Line regularly out to YVR confirms what I thought: the cars are a nightmare for people with luggage. They're piling it on seats beside them, or putting it beside them in the aisle, blocking access for everyone else. There should have been proper racks installed, or the seating should have been one long row so you could put baggage in front of you, without blocking the aisle.

[teriyaki]

Originally Posted by whatnext

A friend who's been taking the C-Line regularly out to YVR confirms what I thought: the cars are a nightmare for people with luggage. They're piling it on seats beside them, or putting it beside them in the aisle, blocking access for everyone else. There should have been proper racks installed, or the seating should have been one long row so you could put baggage in front of you, without blocking the aisle.

A lot of people would agree that side-facing seats are generally more efficient with space, and have been advocating for them for sometime now, not only with the Canada Line but with SkyTrain as well. The seating arrangement in the C-line trains are just mediocre at everything since it is a line that was supposed to serve all types of travellers (airport travellers, commuters, and people with bikes, etc).

[mr.x]

Years ago, I remember saying the same thing would happen...and suggested a luggage rack as well, just like the one on the Athens metro trains bought for the 2004 Olympics (same model of train, made by Rotem):

And of course, the nicer interior finishings the Greek trains have have been mentioned a zillion times.



Given the size of the trains, space inside should have been designed more efficiently to allow maximum usage of space. I still recall InTransitBC saying they would be using row seating as Vancouverites like their seats and don't like facing each other....that was their reasoning for the row seating arrangement we have today. o_o And of course, more bars to hold onto - what bars we have is not proportional to the amount of standing space available.

[Metro-One]

I dont find those Athens trains any nicer, if fact i think they look cluttered and messy inside.