Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[MIPS]

I totally dig the plywood flooring.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

"Bikes are just for fun" is the same argument that drivers make when they're mad about having to share a road with them. If you need to access somewhere with poor transit service that's too far to bike the entire way, you shouldn't be forced to just drive.

And I'm sorry, but that example in Japan of having a bike for each station you use is ridiculous. We just need better storage solutions for them on trains. Portland and Seattle's LRTs have hooks for example, so they only take up the space of one standing person. Our Mark trains just weren't designed with them in mind.

Speaking of which, does anybody know anything about that in regards to the Mark IIIs?

Why is that rediculous, if any nation knows something about dense urban living and rail transit it is Japan.

Just because people in Japan are mature enough (and not cracked out) to always steal bikes (therefore making bike storage safe at stations) and the price of bikes is very affordable (again, 70 bucks fro my 3 speed) and the fact that bike infrastrucutre around here is built around slower paced town bikes (instead of street racing bikes) does not make it ridiculous. if anywhere is ridiculous it is Vancouver.

i am not against bike culture, I ride my bike here in Japan every day, I also rode my bike in Vancouver often when i lived there as well, but i was polite enough to never bring my bike onto the train.

Instead, I would use the bus (which has a bike rack outside) or i would simply ride the entire distance.

Bike culutre is great, but Vancouvers style can be annoying and rude.

Bikes on trains (especially during busy times) for me is the same as big jacked up dirty 4X4 trucks on city roads.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Why is that rediculous, if any nation knows something about dense urban living and rail transit it is Japan.

Just because people in Japan are mature enough (and not cracked out) to always steal bikes (therefore making bike storage safe at stations) and the price of bikes is very affordable (again, 70 bucks fro my 3 speed) and the fact that bike infrastrucutre around here is built around slower paced town bikes (instead of street racing bikes) does not make it ridiculous. if anywhere is ridiculous it is Vancouver.

i am not against bike culture, I ride my bike here in Japan every day, I also rode my bike in Vancouver often when i lived there as well, but i was polite enough to never bring my bike onto the train.

Instead, I would use the bus (which has a bike rack outside) or i would simply ride the entire distance.

Bike culutre is great, but Vancouvers style can be annoying and rude.

Bikes on trains (especially during busy times) for me is the same as big jacked up dirty 4X4 trucks on city roads.

Because it doesn't matter how cheap they are, people shouldn't have to give up more money than they need to to get around. Especially in the Canada Line trains, if there's a designated spot for bikes, then why shouldn't people use them? There is of course a question of how to design bike storage on trains so that it minimizes impacts on other riders, but in general, there should be as much done as possible to allow people maximum non-driving mobility. I agree that the current situation on the Mark trains isn't ideal, but we have to make do with what we have.

[Spork]

Bikes are a non-issue 99% of the time. Trying to optimize the 1% of the time is a waste of effort. Negative publicity for Translink, difficult to enforce, discourages multi-modality (as mentioned), and on and on.

[ssiguy]

I love these new SkyTrain cars and the colours are really great.

As far as the bikes are concerned, The Canada Line was not built for them. The cars may have racks but the trains are so small that they simply take up to much room. I agree with multi-modal transportation but as far as the Canada Line goes, I think they should be banned from them.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Because it doesn't matter how cheap they are, people shouldn't have to give up more money than they need to to get around. Especially in the Canada Line trains, if there's a designated spot for bikes, then why shouldn't people use them? There is of course a question of how to design bike storage on trains so that it minimizes impacts on other riders, but in general, there should be as much done as possible to allow people maximum non-driving mobility. I agree that the current situation on the Mark trains isn't ideal, but we have to make do with what we have.

But it all fits together though high lighting the problems with bike culture in Vancouver. Everyone needs the fastest / highest model bike, which makes buying a bike way too expensive.

The great thing about around here is that the majority of people on bikes are students and older people. Riding (not racing) their bikes for local commutes (to the corner store, local schools, local train stations). Thats how I use my bike.

And sorry, but having to always worry about leaving your bike at a station (and the chance of it being stolen) is huge problem in Vancouver that should be fixed.

In all honesty having bikes on our metro isnt the biggest problem in the world and I usually dont care enough to dabate it, but it has been something Ive noticed lately about how nice it is not having bikes on trains here in Japan.

I feel right now it is not a problem in Vancouver, but what happens in the future if say 10 or 20 people with bikes (or more) want to board the same train? I feel then things will start to get more annoying for other transit riders.

And at the least dirty bikes should get tickets.

Nothing like having a muddy bike tire rub up against your leg on a crowded train

[nname]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I feel right now it is not a problem in Vancouver, but what happens in the future if say 10 or 20 people with bikes (or more) want to board the same train? I feel then things will start to get more annoying for other transit riders.

The rule is maximum 2 bikes per car (8 per train) outside of peak hours, and bikes are banned in/out of metrotown. Although I've seen this rule being broke many many times.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by nname

The rule is maximum 2 bikes per car (8 per train) outside of peak hours, and bikes are banned in/out of metrotown. Although I've seen this rule being broke many many times.

Really? I didn`t know that. Thats a good rule (if enforced).

Either way I would like to see super dirty bikes recieve tickets, and more bike locker options at more stations (again, it would be great for bike theft to be greatly reduced as well so more people would be comofortable leaving their bikes at a station).

[xd_1771]

RapidKL (Malaysia) has beat Vancouver to introducing next-generation Mark III trains

Prasarana unveils 14 new LRT trains to boost service on Kelana Jaya line

Prasarana Malaysia Bhd today unveiled 14 new-generation trains called the Innovia Metro 300 for the light rail transit (LRT) service on the Kelana Jaya line.

The new four-car trains will increase the rail's capacity by 10% for each car, in addition to higher efficiency and minimum carbon emissions.

Prasarana chairman Tan Sri Ismail Adam said the first train from the fleet will start operating by May, with the addition of one new train every month after that until June next year.

See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/cityn...on-kelana-jaya-line#sthash.7Xuu9ZNq.dpuf

Here's a video (in Bahasa Malaysia)

http://www.astroawani.com/video-malaysia...-kelana-jaya-103266#.VpyW55gfc7M.twitter

[nname]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Really? I didn`t know that. Thats a good rule (if enforced).

Either way I would like to see super dirty bikes recieve tickets, and more bike locker options at more stations (again, it would be great for bike theft to be greatly reduced as well so more people would be comofortable leaving their bikes at a station).

Additional rules:
Bike not permitted on escalators
Dismount inside train and station
Always let passengers board and disembark first
Bike must be clean
Hold onto the bike at all time while inside train and station
Bike need to remain near doorway and keep aisles free

Again, it would be nice if all of these are enforced. However, I did saw a transit police asked someone to take his bike off the train because he put it in the aisle and did not hold onto it (he was sitting in the window seat enjoying the view outside).

Originally Posted by xd_1771

RapidKL (Malaysia) has beat Vancouver to introducing next-generation Mark III trains

We'll be the first to see them in service though

[xd_1771]

There are a number of pictures from the release that show everyone standing inside looking thru the front window.



Now that we have some people for scale, it's becoming clear to me that that is one humongous front window...

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Taxpayer subsidizing people bringing bikes on Skytrain? It costs nothing for a person to bring something on board.

It may be annoying to some, but multi-modality is a very conscious decision, and forcing people to pay more for this would hinder it. Bikes on Skytrain provides non-drivers with a much greater level of mobility, and they shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

It is not conscientious, it is selfish.

In essence, you are saying: "transit alone is insufficient for my needs, so I will take up space other people can be occupying and hinder their movement to make it better suit my needs."

Selfish.

As a selfish act, you can pay to indulge yourself in it. Just like being multi modal with your car costs you money for parking at a park and ride. Driving to Skytrain is a selfish act because bus service isn't "good enough" for you. And I admit that I do that plenty of times and I'm willing to pay for parking for the privilege. But really, why should we encourage people to not use the bus service our taxes go to providing?

Transit serves almost every trip possible. If your particular trip is too slow for your liking so you want to speed it up with your bike at either end, then pay for your bike, or live with it like the rest of us.

Nothing against people who chose to ride a bike, but if you chose a bike, ride your bike. Don't wuss out and take the Skytrain. Either pay to bring your bike on it or pay to move closer to your destination so you can use only your bike, or chose to ride the bus. The only reason people live too far from transit and feel like they need to use their bike is because they have chosen to live there to save money on rent. That's not everyone else's fault. They shouldn't subsidize that choice.

Skytrain is getting busier and busier off peak, and I have seen plenty of instances of bikes being a hindrance to other paying passengers. If you want to hinder other passengers, pay for the privileged.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

It is not conscientious, it is selfish.

In essence, you are saying: "transit alone is insufficient for my needs, so I will take up space other people can be occupying and hinder their movement to make it better suit my needs."

Selfish.

As a selfish act, you can pay to indulge yourself in it. Just like being multi modal with your car costs you money for parking at a park and ride. Driving to Skytrain is a selfish act because bus service isn't "good enough" for you. And I admit that I do that plenty of times and I'm willing to pay for parking for the privilege. But really, why should we encourage people to not use the bus service our taxes go to providing?


Transit serves almost every trip possible. If your particular trip is too slow for your liking so you want to speed it up with your bike at either end, then pay for your bike, or live with it like the rest of us.

Nothing against people who chose to ride a bike, but if you chose a bike, ride your bike. Don't wuss out and take the Skytrain. Either pay to bring your bike on it or pay to move closer to your destination so you can use only your bike, or chose to ride the bus. The only reason people live too far from transit and feel like they need to use their bike is because they have chosen to live there to save money on rent. That's not everyone else's fault. They shouldn't subsidize that choice.

Skytrain is getting busier and busier off peak, and I have seen plenty of instances of bikes being a hindrance to other paying passengers. If you want to hinder other passengers, pay for the privileged.

This is silly, saying it's selfish to have a multimodal system makes no sense, sure there are times when people shouldn't have bikes on the train but their are rules and as long as the rules are enforced there should be no problem

Suggesting bus service is adequate makes no sense big parts of Langley and Surrey face service that's infrequent so the only way to reach your destination in a timely manner is cycling and transit

[s211]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

It is not conscientious, it is selfish.

In essence, you are saying: "transit alone is insufficient for my needs, so I will take up space other people can be occupying and hinder their movement to make it better suit my needs."

Selfish.

As a selfish act, you can pay to indulge yourself in it. Just like being multi modal with your car costs you money for parking at a park and ride. Driving to Skytrain is a selfish act because bus service isn't "good enough" for you. And I admit that I do that plenty of times and I'm willing to pay for parking for the privilege. But really, why should we encourage people to not use the bus service our taxes go to providing?

Transit serves almost every trip possible. If your particular trip is too slow for your liking so you want to speed it up with your bike at either end, then pay for your bike, or live with it like the rest of us.

Nothing against people who chose to ride a bike, but if you chose a bike, ride your bike. Don't wuss out and take the Skytrain. Either pay to bring your bike on it or pay to move closer to your destination so you can use only your bike, or chose to ride the bus. The only reason people live too far from transit and feel like they need to use their bike is because they have chosen to live there to save money on rent. That's not everyone else's fault. They shouldn't subsidize that choice.

Skytrain is getting busier and busier off peak, and I have seen plenty of instances of bikes being a hindrance to other paying passengers. If you want to hinder other passengers, pay for the privileged.

Agree 100%.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Nothing against people who chose to ride a bike, but if you chose a bike, ride your bike. Don't wuss out and take the Skytrain.

Easy enough to say from the sidelines.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

There are a number of pictures from the release that show everyone standing inside looking thru the front window.



Now that we have some people for scale, it's becoming clear to me that that is one humongous front window...

I guess this dispels the notion that there is an operators cab in these MkIII trains.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

RapidKL (Malaysia) has beat Vancouver to introducing next-generation Mark III trains







Here's a video (in Bahasa Malaysia)

http://www.astroawani.com/video-malaysia...-kelana-jaya-103266#.VpyW55gfc7M.twitter

RapidKL may have introduced their new MkIII trains to the media there before Translink has done the same here, but with "the first train from the fleet will start operating by May", it's likely Translink will get their first MkIII in revenue service first.

Rumours have the new MkIII here in service sometime January.

Meanwhile, it might be seen 'in the wild' being tested over-night when the rest of the system is closed.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

It is not conscientious, it is selfish.

In essence, you are saying: "transit alone is insufficient for my needs, so I will take up space other people can be occupying and hinder their movement to make it better suit my needs."

Selfish.

As a selfish act, you can pay to indulge yourself in it. Just like being multi modal with your car costs you money for parking at a park and ride. Driving to Skytrain is a selfish act because bus service isn't "good enough" for you. And I admit that I do that plenty of times and I'm willing to pay for parking for the privilege. But really, why should we encourage people to not use the bus service our taxes go to providing?

Transit serves almost every trip possible. If your particular trip is too slow for your liking so you want to speed it up with your bike at either end, then pay for your bike, or live with it like the rest of us.

Nothing against people who chose to ride a bike, but if you chose a bike, ride your bike. Don't wuss out and take the Skytrain. Either pay to bring your bike on it or pay to move closer to your destination so you can use only your bike, or chose to ride the bus. The only reason people live too far from transit and feel like they need to use their bike is because they have chosen to live there to save money on rent. That's not everyone else's fault. They shouldn't subsidize that choice.

Skytrain is getting busier and busier off peak, and I have seen plenty of instances of bikes being a hindrance to other paying passengers. If you want to hinder other passengers, pay for the privileged.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. Trust me, I've been impacted by people bringing their bikes on SkyTrain many more times than I have impacted others. I've taken my bike on the SkyTrain one time: this past August. But I respect the right of the people that do to continue doing it. I really don't see it as a huge deal either. If the train is too full, I have never seen a cyclist force anybody off to make room for their bike. They'll just wait for the next one. It might be annoying to have to make room for them as they exit if it fills up afterwards, but this may take up a few extra seconds at most. I know it's probably not this smooth on the Marks given that they don't have a designated place to put it, but that's why I'm going to continue to insist that the problem is with the train design and not the concept.

I also have no problem with park and ride, depending on the context. I think you're right—as long as they're paying for it, it's an important tool in the overall transportation network. Bikes on SkyTrain is a whole other matter however, since it carries many less negatives than park and rides do. I can acknowledge that it can be annoying, but realistically we're talking about a minor inconvenience for very few people that occurs very infrequently.

Finally, not everyone has a choice in where they live. There are many reasons why someone may be forced to live somewhere with terrible transit service, for example like young people still living with their parents. As far as slow transit goes, I personally have no issue waiting 25 minutes for the bus to take me to my low-density neighbourhood. But you don't know other peoples' circumstances, and a bike on the SkyTrain really may be a necessity. And even if it's not, I've just never seen it cause enough of an issue to get so worked up over it.

[ssiguy]

Is it only the Evergreen/Mill Line that will get the new cars or will the Expo line also get them?

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Is it only the Evergreen/Mill Line that will get the new cars or will the Expo line also get them?

I believe only the expo line is getting new trains, since it's the only line that needs the capacity of a fully articulated four car set, while the other line can make do with less