Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[officedweller]

Even Toornto, which has bigger crushes than we do, doesn't have all side seating due to passenger preferences.

I have noticed that the low floor buses seem to have a lot of side seating (for the anti-movetotheback crowd).

If on SkyTrain I tend to stand, regardless of whether there are seats, because it's much easier to see out the windows and gawk at the view.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by mr.x

When side seating is implemented, we're talking about a reduction of maybe 5% of a car's capacity to increase the overall car capacity by maybe as much as 30% (through standing room and efficiencies). And that 5% reduction is probably only a reduction of 20% of the total number of seats in a car. For instance, there are about 35 seats on each Canada Line car....the space efficiencies and capacity increase of taking out just 6 of 35 seats out of each car to have transverse/side seating is huge.

When we're talking about the comfort of sitting, we're basically debating about having 12-14 more people being able to sit OR having the physical ability to not have to wait for another train as the train now fits 80-100 more people. 14 more people can sit OR another 80-100 people on the train?

The vast majority of trips on the train are short haul, most people aren't on the train from terminus to terminus. It won't kill them to stand.

Oh I agree. With a train like the west coast express then normal front back seating is needed. You want to promote a more comfortable setting for the longer journey.

While with skytrain because of the constant movement of people and chances are most people aren't going the entire distance. Seating should not be the main priority. What should be a priority is making the train easy to move around it during peak time. As people will be wanting to get around others to get off and on. That is why I prefer the newer MKII over the older MKII. Having only a single seat on one side. Allowed a much bigger isle to allow people to move around more easily.

[Mac Write]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Been watching a little too much Chris Matthews...?

I don't watch/listen to TV, Radio, news etc. All garbage IMO. So I have no clue who your talking about (some politition I assume?)

[easy as pie]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Vancouverites hate people who are not Vancouverites

no way, vancouverites are ultra friendly, i've literally been on trains where strangers were singing together, no joke. you think that sort of thing happens everywhere but it's actually very unusual and unique.

[xd_1771]

^ So many Olympics examples we could make note of here...

Some trains on the Yamamote Line in Tokyo have side-facing seats that can actually be folded up to create even MORE space!

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

As a disabled person with poor balance, I hate the side seating of the Mark I trains due to the trains spotting/starting and loosing my balance going side to side (same on the bus) hence why I prefer forward facing seats. Also, the blind prefer forward facing seats (I was told this as I assume, they have poorer balance sitting sideways and not being able to see the bus stopping/starting.

Your being racist by saying "Vancouverions hate to look at other people"

I don't think you've got your terminology quite figured out.

I do sympathize the needs of the disabled, but not at the expense of the functionality and practicality of expensive infrastructure that many more people benefit from. If there's a middle ground, the space between driver's window front of the train and the first train doors could be designed for disabled uses and row seats. The vast majority of the train, the rest of it, should all be side seating, to allow for increased efficiency and greater capacity.

Originally Posted by cabotp

Oh I agree. With a train like the west coast express then normal front back seating is needed. You want to promote a more comfortable setting for the longer journey.

While with skytrain because of the constant movement of people and chances are most people aren't going the entire distance. Seating should not be the main priority. What should be a priority is making the train easy to move around it during peak time. As people will be wanting to get around others to get off and on. That is why I prefer the newer MKII over the older MKII. Having only a single seat on one side. Allowed a much bigger isle to allow people to move around more easily.

Precisely.

[deasine]

Side seating on the skytrain may not be the most efficient seating configuration due to the low width of the train carriage. Keep in mind with side seating, one must consider knee/leg space and factoring that in, it is most likely that people will still be standing in two asiles as per what is happening with the newer generation MKIIs in its seating configuration, which maximizes the amount of people sitting while ensuring there is adequate room for standing in the aisles.

[TransitFreak]

Originally Posted by deasine

Side seating on the skytrain may not be the most efficient seating configuration due to the low width of the train carriage. Keep in mind with side seating, one must consider knee/leg space and factoring that in, it is most likely that people will still be standing in two asiles as per what is happening with the newer generation MKIIs in its seating configuration, which maximizes the amount of people sitting while ensuring there is adequate room for standing in the aisles.

That's why I'm thinking single seat row configuration would be ideal on both sides, maximize the extra width around the hip level...in between the doors in the MKII.5s is row seating for 3 (single)...if side seating, might squeeze in 5, but lessen the efficiency of the standing crowd...

[DKaz]

Thinking about it, the 2-1 seating arrangement is a very good compromise, two rows of standees comfortably fit in the aisles. The only thing you gain with sideway seating is one extra seat per section with no gains to standing room. Why not just stick with the 2-1 forward/backward system?

Of course the Canada Line trains can fit two rows of standees with its 2-2 arrangement.

Has anyone been in the side facing section of an MKI train when a rare two row system has formed? Not anyone's idea of comfort.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Thinking about it, the 2-1 seating arrangement is a very good compromise, two rows of standees comfortably fit in the aisles. The only thing you gain with sideway seating is one extra seat per section with no gains to standing room. Why not just stick with the 2-1 forward/backward system?

Of course the Canada Line trains can fit two rows of standees with its 2-2 arrangement.

Has anyone been in the side facing section of an MKI train when a rare two row system has formed? Not anyone's idea of comfort.

In Seoul, where all the trains (huge suckers) had sideways seating only (very comfortable seats) and the trains were so wide the opposite people were comfortably distant, it was easier to get used to.

Here in Paris, on the medium-traffic lines (line 2 and line 5, at present) there are new trains that offer a 2> aisle> 1 configuration that works well.
Also, these trains have sections in each carriage where there is a short sideways seat configuration.
Also, at five cars long, they're open end to end, as on line 1 and phasing in
on line 4, where the trains are wider: 2seats>aisle>2seats + sideways configurations in about a third of each car.

All trains, new generation and the older 1969 trains, are equipped with double, individual sideways seating facing another such set, near the door, that flip up automatically when it's crowded.

But the sideways seating configuration on MKI, given the interior size of the car, and the seating (rather hard), it feels small, almost a "toy train" or shuttle, like OrlyVal, the mini subway that connects Orly Airport to Antony RER
station. Okay for a 7 minute shuttle to an airport, but not as the referential train size for much of the main city rail transit.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by TransitFreak

That's why I'm thinking single seat row configuration would be ideal on both sides, maximize the extra width around the hip level...in between the doors in the MKII.5s is row seating for 3 (single)...if side seating, might squeeze in 5, but lessen the efficiency of the standing crowd...

When I think about it having two rows of people standing in the isle is ideal. But 3 rows might be difficult.

So if you have a configuration of 1(seat)-1(standee)-1(standee)-1(standee)-1(seat)

The problem is that middle standee. Unless they are a relatively tall person they won't be able to hold onto the roof pole easily if at all. They might be able to reach around someone to grab onto a seat pole but that is not guaranteed. So that middle row would only be used by people who could physically use it. Also holding onto a roof pole can get quite tiring over time.

So there really is no point in having that third row where people can stand.

[st7860]

I think its a great idea to have a skytrain to coquitlam.

but what most people don't know is that, unlike the 99b which basically can't fit any more buses along its route, the 97b bus from lougheed station to coquitlam doesn't run anywhere near the maximum capacity most of the time and does not run every 2 minutes like the 99b does during rush hour.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by cabotp

When I think about it having two rows of people standing in the isle is ideal. But 3 rows might be difficult.

So if you have a configuration of 1(seat)-1(standee)-1(standee)-1(standee)-1(seat)

The problem is that middle standee. Unless they are a relatively tall person they won't be able to hold onto the roof pole easily if at all. They might be able to reach around someone to grab onto a seat pole but that is not guaranteed. So that middle row would only be used by people who could physically use it. Also holding onto a roof pole can get quite tiring over time.

So there really is no point in having that third row where people can stand.

Precisely so, because people won't be standing in the middle row/aisle as users may feel it is too squishy in the SkyTrain vehicle. Keep in mind, one also has to factor in knee/leg space so it would still look more like:

1 seat - knee/leg - 1 standee - 1 standee - 1 knee/leg - 1 seat

But the Canada Line is much wider and thus, should have ample room for people to stand in the center. On ROTEM's other vehicles, such as the MTR:


(Online Utility)

A side seating configuration will allow for a centre pole that can allow for the third row of standees, unlike in the SkyTrain vehicle, where a centre pole will restrict movement in the carriage.

[Mac Write]

Put out a public survey, Open houses etc in Vancouver and I will guarantee you that the majority will say no to side seating. Western people prefer front facing seating, that's why when the public was asked about the Mark II seating they said no to side seating and hence why we don't have it. and I am so happy we don't have it, as I used side seating and I hate it.

[David]

Originally Posted by st7860

I think its a great idea to have a skytrain to coquitlam.

but what most people don't know is that, unlike the 99b which basically can't fit any more buses along its route, the 97b bus from lougheed station to coquitlam doesn't run anywhere near the maximum capacity most of the time and does not run every 2 minutes like the 99b does during rush hour.

The 97B is a B-Line in name only. It is a slow, convoluted way to get from Coquitlam Centre to Lougheed Station. As a former resident of the Tri-Cities I can tell you for a fact that if anybody is wanting to get from Coquitlam Station to the Skytrain, they would take the 15-minute long 169 bus to Braid Station over the 30-45 minute 97B Line to Lougheed. Using the 97B ridership as a way to gauge potential ridership of the Evergreen Line does not capture the true demand for Skytrain in the Tri-Cities.

[SFUVancouver]

With regard to seating configuration, it's worth noting that looking out the window on SkyTrain is one of the things that makes it a pleasant system. Side seating means you spend your trip staring at the crotch of the person in front of you, or you go full-anti-social by burying your face in a book or a screen.

My preferred seating configuration is what are now found in the Mk2.5 trains.

Seat_________Seat|Seat

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by David

The 97B is a B-Line in name only. It is a slow, convoluted way to get from Coquitlam Centre to Lougheed Station. As a former resident of the Tri-Cities I can tell you for a fact that if anybody is wanting to get from Coquitlam Station to the Skytrain, they would take the 15-minute long 169 bus to Braid Station over the 30-45 minute 97B Line to Lougheed. Using the 97B ridership as a way to gauge potential ridership of the Evergreen Line does not capture the true demand for Skytrain in the Tri-Cities.

Exactly. I used to live in Poco and take the bus, and almost always used the 169 from Braid unless 1) I was going from Commerical-Broadway -> Eastbound AND 2) I knew it was the time of the day that 97-B line would be frequent AND 3) I knew my bus would line up at Coq. Station and together it would be faster than 169. (or #4 I wanted to go look at the cute asian guys in the Korea Town area >.> but that's not a typical factor I think...)

[twoNeurons]

The vast majority of people on trains are buried in their phones. Side seating or forward seating makes no difference.

As for the new M-Line and a portion of the Evergreen line, I'm sure looking out the window will be fascinating... you know, looking at the walls of a tunnel stream past. Many subways have side seating precisely because the inside is more interesting than the outside. Traditional trains have forward seating because they run outside.

If you put out a survey asking people if they preferred increases in fares due to the need to purchase more trainsets or side seating which would better allocate the space we already have in the trains, it would be interesting to see the results.

In the end, side-seating will come when density demands it. Larger cities have done this and Vancouver will eventually do this. No, Vancouver doesn't have to get as large as Seoul or Tokyo or New york or London or Paris for this to happen. Our trains are already quite narrow and we will reach capacity much sooner than these systems.

By the way, can we avoid the "racist" label? There's only one race: the human race.

If we don't go completely side seating, it will be one seat forward-facing. a 40 - 50% reduction in overall seating capacity, but the overall train capacity wouldn't be terribly different from all side-seating.

In this case, you have to ask yourself... would you rather have more seating (side) or less seating (forward-back)

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

...I'm sure looking out the window will be fascinating... you know, looking at the walls of a tunnel stream past.

Despite the penchant for tunnels on the recent lines, the majority of the entire system is still elevated and any new cars we buy will be still used on those elevated sections. I'm in 100% agreement with SFUVancouver that forward-facing seats are a lot nicer way to enjoy the view, and the view is one of the perks of the system that I really appreciate.

[cornholio]

What about side seating where the seats can rotate out and turn in to front facing seating, and the back of each seat has another seat that can fold down. Before peak hours skytrain attendance at the end stations can hop on unlock the seats and close them up against the wall and turn it in to side seating. Can even have the side seating seats fold up as well and have no seating. Then when peak hours end they can pivot the seats out again and set it up for front facing seating.

Doesn't seem like rocket science to set this up so long as they get the seats nice and thin so they take up as little room as possible when folded up.

Just need a pivot point on the wall for every row of front facing seats.