Canada Line races toward capacity

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Plenty of people don't have a phone or don't want to take it out for only a few stops. With this logic why even have mobile devices since we could just plan our trips etc on a home computer beforehand, at some point everything is about increasing convenience.

The use of the word "plenty" is highly misleading. A majority of regular commuters have smartphones, or at least what I see. I don't know what system you're riding on but I have yet to see someone without a phone who rides the C regularly.

[NewfBC]

And please, finally put the seats with your back against the wall. Every large metro does this and allows for so much more capacity.

Ron.

[Metro-One]

For what it is worth the trains that I ride in my area of Japan are pretty bare bones. No screens, no LED maps, just a station scroller similar to that of the Canada Line. Also the seating is similar to the Canada Line, with only about 1/3 of the car having bench seating.

One thing that the Canada Line has that the M/E lines don’t which I really really wish they would implement is train announcements in the stations. For me this is a nearly universal feature I have encountered that is oddly missing on our system, save for the Canada Line. And this feature actually is quite useful for those with vision impairments.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I feel like this is such a weak argument. I hardly hear anybody complain about us using old trains like the mark ones, or mark twos. Do you seriously think people are going to raise hell over screens? In terms of breaking down,how often do you seem the led maps being vandalized etc, its very uncommon so I feel like this is just an empty excuse. (And from a more technical point commercial use LCD's are actually incredibly reliable)

The only one who is demanding for LCD screens is you. Even though you admitted in a previous post that they are not a necessity, you seem to get very hung up on such an insignificant thing. You completely miss the point that Translink has way more important things to worry about. Whether or not the trains have them is inconsequential in the big picture.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

The use of the word "plenty" is highly misleading. A majority of regular commuters have smartphones, or at least what I see. I don't know what system you're riding on but I have yet to see someone without a phone who rides the C regularly.

I ride the Expo Line regularly and don't have a smartphone. I also don't have issues with a lot of transit info being online vs LCD screens all over the transit system. If I really need info on my trip I can check before I leave home.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

One thing that the Canada Line has that the M/E lines don’t which I really really wish they would implement is train announcements in the stations. For me this is a nearly universal feature I have encountered that is oddly missing on our system, save for the Canada Line. And this feature actually is quite useful for those with vision impairments.

Yeah that would be pretty useful to have on all the lines.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The only inconsequential thing is the cost. We are spending 80 million dollars on trains that are no different than ones we got in 2009. I do have a serious problem with that

Why? What's your issue - is it the technology or is it the price?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I feel like this is such a weak argument. I hardly hear anybody complain about us using old trains like the mark ones, or mark twos. Do you seriously think people are going to raise hell over screens? In terms of breaking down,how often do you seem the led maps being vandalized etc, its very uncommon so I feel like this is just an empty excuse. (And from a more technical point commercial use LCD's are actually incredibly reliable)

I have every confidence that people will bitch about anything - remember how everyone got upset when they found out TransLink spends several thousand on coffee at board meetings (never mind that even Tim Hortons costs an arm and a leg these days)?

Here you go for the vandalism. Granted, it's a third world route.

Then there's all the possible glitches (wrong station shown, audio not synced, flickering/frozen displays, malfunction, virus, OS crash) and bad designs to worry about; my guess is that like with the Compass Card, it'll take half a year to work out all the teething issues. If, Eywa forbid, we end up with another tax referendum, all such "debacles" are going to be paraded out front and centre by Bateman and friends - the LAST thing we need is poorly-planned unnecessary spending that sets necessary funding back by yet another five years. Let's at least wait until the Broadway extension's finished.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The words "[this] work[s] just fine" are the reason transit sucks in North America for the most part. Even at best we are just meeting the status quo. It works just fine is why the Canada Line uses tiny trains, and the reason people can argue for not building the Burnaby Mountain Gondola. ]If you really want transit to compete with cars then why not make every single bit of transit as attractive as possible (especially considering things like info screens really aren't that expensive in the grand scheme of things).

No, the Canada Line has tiny trains because TransLink was railroaded into a lowest-bid PPP and had to compromise with Brodie, Corrigan (who's also the only reason we can't get the SFU Gondola built) and all the other NIMBY douchenuggets, whilst simultaneously trying to finish in time for the Winter Games. They planned the whole thing the best they could, given the situation.

Transit becomes attractive by being fast, frequent and reliable, so that it's as convenient as the car and less stressful. Everything else is analogous to elevator music: pleasant, but ultimately a distraction from the slow ride.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The only inconsequential thing is the cost. We are spending 80 million dollars on trains that are no different than ones we got in 2009. I do have a serious problem with that

You'll note that there's generally a 15-year gap between generations of trains (Mk I, 1984; Mk II, 2000; Mk III, 2016). It's not like we're getting ripped off, it's the same kind of interior Hyundai Rotem is building for Delhi and Jaipur.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Totally common sense way to add capacity but, for some reason we don't do it. We'd rather have a poor arrangement that requires removing seat... smh

We've already had that argument, yes? Not only does it not make a difference once you factor in leg room, Vancouverites seem to like front-back configurations better.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

One thing that the Canada Line has that the M/E lines don’t which I really really wish they would implement is train announcements in the stations. For me this is a nearly universal feature I have encountered that is oddly missing on our system, save for the Canada Line. And this feature actually is quite useful for those with vision impairments.

Now there's an idea.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[BlackSpade741]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I have every confidence that people will bitch about anything - remember how everyone got upset when they found out TransLink spends several thousand on coffee at board meetings (never mind that even Tim Hortons costs an arm and a leg these days)?

Here you go for the vandalism. Granted, it's a third world route.

Then there's all the possible glitches (wrong station shown, audio not synced, flickering/frozen displays, malfunction, virus, OS crash) and bad designs to worry about; my guess is that like with the Compass Card, it'll take half a year to work out all the teething issues. If, Eywa forbid, we end up with another tax referendum, all such "debacles" are going to be paraded out front and centre by Bateman and friends - the LAST thing we need is poorly-planned unnecessary spending that sets necessary funding back by yet another five years. Let's at least wait until the Broadway extension's finished.



No, the Canada Line has tiny trains because TransLink was railroaded into a lowest-bid PPP and had to compromise with Brodie, Corrigan (who's also the only reason we can't get the SFU Gondola built) and all the other NIMBY douchenuggets, whilst simultaneously trying to finish in time for the Winter Games. They planned the whole thing the best they could, given the situation.

Transit becomes attractive by being fast, frequent and reliable, so that it's as convenient as the car and less stressful. Everything else is analogous to elevator music: pleasant, but ultimately a distraction from the slow ride.



You'll note that there's generally a 15-year gap between generations of trains (Mk I, 1984; Mk II, 2000; Mk III, 2016). It's not like we're getting ripped off, it's the same kind of interior Hyundai Rotem is building for Delhi and Jaipur.



We've already had that argument, yes? Not only does it not make a difference once you factor in leg room, Vancouverites seem to like front-back configurations better.

I've been watching this conversation for a while and I wanted to comment: you don't seem to have much evidence, just a litany of anecdotes. You keep comparing Vancouver's transit systems to third world countries'. Last time I checked we're in Canada. I live in Montreal and I haven't seen a single LCD screen that's been vandalized since we got the new trains. With regard to Corrigan and the construction of Canada Line, you are proving his point for him. The fact that these people were complacent with having a substandard system is the reason why we're having this conversation in the first place. It's well known that longitudinal seating is higher capacity, why are you arguing that it's not? Even Calgary has it.

Tl;dr: the whole argument you're making is based on your personal opinion and examples from random cities in the third world. Last time I checked, having nice trains doesn't preclude us from having fast trains. If you're so concerned about people complaining, we might as well not build anything since there's always complaining.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Vancouver getting the same trains as Delhi, right there thats the problem.

Why is that a problem?

[CanSpice]

During the transit referendum TransLink got raked over the coals for spending money on screens in SkyTrain stations. Never mind the cost was essentially a rounding error and that TransLink made a little bit of money from them in advertising, the "TransLink is wasting money on screens" trope played well. I could easily see spending money on screens in trains treated the same way.

What would the screens display that isn't already displayed in the newest trains?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

As was so kindly stated our train interiors are very similar to Delhis, which happens to be in one of the poorest countries in the world (India is at less than $2000 gdp/c canada is $40,000+). We can and should be aiming just a little higher imo.

OK, so you feel that the trains are substandard, not that they're too expensive.

What other Translink services or projects would you have us cut in order to afford the fancier trains you'd like to see?

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It was not an argument regarding leg room, It 100% does make a difference factoring leg room or whatever, its totally unambiguous that a seated person takes up less space knees included than the width of the seats on the Canada Line. And that standees are a more efficient use of space, thats not a debate. Theres a reason you don't see forward facing seats on any of the busiest routes in Tokyo, London, New York, Hong Kong, etc...

Originally Posted by BlackSpade741

It's well known that longitudinal seating is higher capacity, why are you arguing that it's not? Even Calgary has it.

New York. London. Let's not bring Tokyo up unless we reach the point of having to physically squeeze people into the train.

Watch the passengers next time you take the metro. Vancouver, London, NYC, Singapore, doesn't matter; people generally only form two rows of standees between seats, whether longitudinal or front/back. Nobody wants to be sandwiched in the middle row.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Just because Translink shit the bed with Compass does not mean we can't use turn key solutions for these other features. (In fact if you look what cause delays in Smart Card systems it always comes down to the extraneous "needs" of the implementing authority, clearly the technology itself works fine)

Actually, TransLink subcontracted to a US company called Cubic, and they crapped the bed. That's my point - the blame always ends up on TransLink.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

As was so kindly stated our train interiors are very similar to Delhis, which happens to be in one of the poorest countries in the world (India is at less than $2000 gdp/c canada is $40,000+). We can and should be aiming just a little higher imo.

India also successfully sent a probe to Mars orbit on their first try - not even NASA managed that. No need to drag India down for your argument, not everything in the country looks like a scene from Lion; they're simultaneously in the first world and third world right now, with skyscrapers next to slums.

Originally Posted by BlackSpade741

I live in Montreal and I haven't seen a single LCD screen that's been vandalized since we got the new trains...

... Tl;dr: the whole argument you're making is based on your personal opinion and examples from random cities in the third world. Last time I checked, having nice trains doesn't preclude us from having fast trains. If you're so concerned about people complaining, we might as well not build anything since there's always complaining.

That's fair. It's also fair to note that Montreal, Quebec and the STM seem to get along reasonably well... whereas in Vancouver, the city and province are often at loggerheads with each other, and both like to use TransLink as a scapegoat when things go south. If your Premier held a grudge against Montreal and said any additional funding required a referendum, in which petty BS like poodle statues and LCD screens and sound walls were heralded as "wasteful spending by the STM" and caused a majority to vote No and set the Réseau Express Métropolitain back by five years, you might see things our way.

I was using Hyundai Rotem clients, many of which are cities in India and Southeast Asia. If you want first world examples, try San Fran, NYC, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Beijing, Singapore (also a Hyundai client), or most cities on the planet; no screens, no problem. TransLink already installed several in the Canada Line stations, so I don't see why the trains need them too... especially when half the riders are already busy staring at their phones or looking out the window.

Originally Posted by BlackSpade741

With regard to Corrigan and the construction of Canada Line, you are proving his point for him. The fact that these people were complacent with having a substandard system is the reason why we're having this conversation in the first place.

"Substandard" - which is also debatable - refers to limited line capacity stemming from short platforms and insufficient trains. Lack of fancy TV screens on the trains has nothing to do with people moving, it just makes transit look prettier, and if that's the issue, let's beautify the stations instead. Damn things look like bomb shelters.