Canada Line | Completed

[Spork]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Nobody. I'm just trying to determine who could possibly misunderstand the term "Way Out". Seems like pretty basic English to me.

The problem is that it is different from what Skytrain and everybody else uses. I'm sure that we could get used to it in time, but why force people to get used to it when you can already use what is standard in the region? I am sure that they used it in the first place as a way to make the Canada Line more "international", such that "Way Out" is used as a standard (as was stated before by somebody?) in the UK and Australia.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The dude running for the door in green is the standard all over Europe.

Everywhere except in North America. Oddly enough though, San Francisco Int'l Airport uses those for its emergency exits.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Nobody. I'm just trying to determine who could possibly misunderstand the term "Way Out". Seems like pretty basic English to me.

hippies might get it confused with "far out"

[nova9]

I like 'way out' as it reminds me of international locations but what was wrong with 'exit'?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by deasine

Everywhere except in North America. Oddly enough though, San Francisco Int'l Airport uses those for its emergency exits.

Notice I said "everywhere in Europe". Your comment makes no sense. No need to get your — in a bunch.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Notice I said "everywhere in Europe". Your comment makes no sense. No need to get your — in a bunch.

I'm just pointing out even Asian countries use it as well, thus "everywhere except in North America". BUT, I added that San Francisco Airport, the only place I know in North America, which uses those signs for its emergency exits. Someone needs to go chill out.

[Metro-One]

So what happened to Richmond's ideas of using lights and LED screens on the guideways?

Did these good ideas kind of just fizzle out?

Or are they still in the works?

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

I have a solution for everybody:

why not have rush hour Express B-Line service? Have the service as a true BRT (as possible) with stops ONLY at say Richmond-to-Downtown, Delta-to-Downtown, White Rock-to-Downtown, Tsawassen-to-Downtown (no stops in-between). Have this during the morning and evening rush, and give the handfull of busses doing it, signal priority. Furthermore, have it go down Cambie instead of the B-Line Granville.

To me, this would augment Canada Line yet provide crush rush flexibility that Translink could shift once people got comfortable with Canada Line and/or moved closer to work.

I am very surprised that Translink got rid of the B-Line so quickly

The Canada line came into service on August 17th and B line out on September 7th. In th meantimes, buses was running almost empty:

people have spoken, and massively shifted on Canada line in despite of all the whiner's prediction...

then someone has to pay for the Translink service, the route you mention had among the poorest fare box recovery...Why taxpayer should subsidize direct service for an hand-full of commuter?

Originally Posted by cabotp

The complainers you will notice are not going downtown. Their stop is somewhere along Granville. So if a bus went directly downtown it still would not help them and they would still be complaining.

End as illustrated by the press articles referred in this thread. All the complainer could have had a similar if not more difficult journey before the Canada line.

[twoNeurons]

We'll likely see a direct to downtown route once we're closer to 100,000 / day. In this case, where there are arterials, it may be a good idea. After all, just because we have the M-Line, it doesn't mean that the 135 to SFU is discontinued. That bus goes down Hastings. There are lots of local buses down Hastings which do the same route. People aren't forced onto the M-Line and they're not forced to ride local buses.

Unfortunately, we're at a point where we have to question whether it's a good idea to subsidize these riders twice. Once for the lost rider on the Canada Line and once for the almost empty buses.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Vonny

In the same spirit, Delta Optimist had a similar weird story
....

That's DMJ's/zweisystem's letter. He's been pumping out letters and blog posts similar to that, he lives in south delta and always ends with the 'sacfrificing transit planning to the olympics' bit.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Nobody. I'm just trying to determine who could possibly misunderstand the term "Way Out". Seems like pretty basic English to me.

Way-Out is more british english. People from HK, singapore and probably south asia would not have problems understanding. People more used to american english (USA, philippines, current ESL training in PRC, taiwan, japan) will likely do a double take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences

[metroXpress]

Originally Posted by CLC

As far as accessibility concerns for wheelchair , you have to look further away from MTR example. As far as I know, the Kaohsiung Rapid Transit Metro is one of the most accessible new system.
Detail: http://www.krtco.com.tw/en/service/service-1_3.aspx

Disabled access and slope to elevator:


A pity is that the Kaohsiung Metro has poor ridership since opened last year, ~120,000 per day.

I rode the line...and hated how people are complaining about the fare rates.
They are super low compared to what they have in Taipei or even what we have here.

Most of their stations were built in clusters. Their only problem is stopping people from riding motorcycles and get them to use the public transit.

[metroXpress]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Way-Out is more british english. People from HK, singapore and probably south asia would not have problems understanding. People more used to american english (USA, philippines, current ESL training in PRC, taiwan, japan) will likely do a double take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences

I've asked a bunch of those people and they understand what way out is. Canadian English is mainly comprised of British English and there is no need to change those.

Unless they are thinking that we are the "gateway to the Pacific" and should use a language that can be understood globally.

[mezzanine]

^^fair enough, but you don't see the term 'way out' too much in north america. we wouldn't even be having this discussion if the term 'way-out' was crystal clear. if we are aiming for absolute clarity and simplicity, why not use the term 'exit'?

my guess is that 'way-out' as a coumpound noun is more idiomatic. If you are new to english, you would parse out 'way' and 'out' and then think of a meaning as opposed to immediately recognizing the compound noun.

Are we losing a bit of our british roots by not using the term 'way out'? perhaps. is it important to stick with it? For me i would understand either term and i am neutral about either term, but imo there is a reason why some people who would understand 'exit' would not immediately understand 'way-out'.

[deasine]

I'm quite neutral about this too, but the reason why I don't like "way out" is that it's not used throughout the system. I'll be happy with it if TransLink changes everything else though.

[metroXpress]

It's funny how all of us are trying to prove a point..

When I see "way-out", I take it as "a way to get out!!" I do agree with you that "exit" is more common and a larger population would understand it immediately.

We certainly don't want people to think that we are abandoning our British roots and creating a new "Canadian English" - a mixture of everything perhaps? (Some American English, some British English, some French, some of this and some of that...) ^_^"

[metroXpress]

Originally Posted by deasine

I'm quite neutral about this too, but the reason why I don't like "way out" is that it's not used throughout the system. I'll be happy with it if TransLink changes everything else though.

There are lots of other things that Translink needs to change, and I don't see this as no.1 on the list.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Allen

When I see "way-out", I take it as "a way to get out!!" I do agree with you that "exit" is more common and a larger population would understand it immediately.

That's quite interesting. I always thought "way-out" was started in the London Underground because Exit was to be confused with Emergency Exit, and "This Way Out" is too long for a sign, so "this" for "way-out" was dropped so it's shorter =P

[mezzanine]

Ok really this is the last time i talk about this...

in spoken english, way out sounds more friendly and less awkward. "where's the way out?" vs "where is the exit?" take it out of conversation and put it on a sign without the context, [way out] and you introduce a little less clarity.

IIRC, expo and m-line uses the term 'out'.

I agree that there should be uniformity thru-out the system. 'out' would be good, 'exit' even a little more clear.

my personal bias? 'way-out reminds me of that stupid flintstones episode. I blame fred.....

[metroXpress]

^ what I really care about know is have a standard signage for our whole system.

We could just drop the "WAY". I hope people understand what OUT is.