Canada Line | Completed

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by deasine

5 months after a reply from the Premier's message, I finally got a message from the e-mail from the Minister of Transportation:



The "name and design" of the Canada Line is referring to do my idea about splitting the Canada Line into 2: Canada Line (Waterfront - Richmond) and YVR Line (Waterfront - YVR). On the system map, the Canada Line would be light blue and the YVR Line would be light green, colours from the Canada Line logo and train design.

But isn't the future Evergreen Line going to use green for its colour for the line? I much much prefer the red colour for C-Line's line route. And you should tell them that the C-Line should be branded as Skytrain Canada Line!!

[mr.x]

YVR Line? I'd much prefer it as Airport Line.

[NetMapel]

I don't know why Translink like to have multiple "lines" going through the same skytrain track. Too many times have I been eagerly anticipating an E line car only to find the M line car coming straight at me Makes me cry a little inside everytime. Now they're doing it again with Canada line.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

But isn't the future Evergreen Line going to use green for its colour for the line? I much much prefer the red colour for C-Line's line route. And you should tell them that the C-Line should be branded as Skytrain Canada Line!!

Evergreen Line = dark green. Canada Line = light green, the shade that is found on the Canada Line Train (well a little bit darker). The SkyTrain thing isn't as important to me anymore... everyone's going to call it SkyTrain anyway. Canada Line, part of the regional rapid transit network, isn't owned/operated/whatever you call it by TransLink, and isntead by InTransit BC so to me, it's understandable that it's not labeled SkyTrain/

Originally Posted by mr.x2

YVR Line? I'd much prefer it as Airport Line.

The reason I chose YVR was because I wanted to recognize the airport authority for their contribution to the Canada Line project. Airport line does sound much better though.

Originally Posted by NetMapel

I don't know why Translink like to have multiple "lines" going through the same skytrain track. Too many times have I been eagerly anticipating an E line car only to find the M line car coming straight at me Makes me cry a little inside everytime. Now they're doing it again with Canada line.

Technically they are seperate lines... you'll still cry inside if a SkyTrain car heading to VCC/Clark is coming instead of a SkyTrain car heading to King George ~__~"

And let's not get ahead of ourselves, it's an idea. Translink/Provincial Government/InTransit BC might not like it and not go for it. But I think it's better... especially since we already have that for the Expo Line and Millennium Line. Might as well be consistent with it.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by deasine

The reason I chose YVR was because I wanted to recognize the airport authority for their contribution to the Canada Line project. Airport line does sound much better though.

If they actually name it YVR Line, I'm coming after you.....it's terrible.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

If they actually name it YVR Line, I'm coming after you.....it's terrible.

=) I live at the Penthouse of Shangri-La Suite... come find me =P

[MistyMountainHop]

Originally Posted by deasine

=) I live at the Penthouse of Shangri-La Suite... come find me =P

Okay, I just talked with a guy in an orange vest and he told me how I can get up there.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by deasine

=) I live at the Penthouse of Shangri-La Suite... come find me =P

I'll apply for a job at the hotel....or as a window washer.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by deasine

Evergreen Line = dark green. Canada Line = light green, the shade that is found on the Canada Line Train (well a little bit darker). The SkyTrain thing isn't as important to me anymore... everyone's going to call it SkyTrain anyway. Canada Line, part of the regional rapid transit network, isn't owned/operated/whatever you call it by TransLink, and isntead by InTransit BC so to me, it's understandable that it's not labeled SkyTrain/

I don't know. I just find that the red colour for the C-Line can have a much bigger contrast from blue for E-line, yellow for M-Line and green for ev-line, so it's much easier to tourists and unfamiliar commuters to differentiate and be less confused.

[Unregistered]

Does it not makes sense that the Canada Line should be split into a red line, and a white line? Or is that too eye-rollingly predictable?

Arr

[The_Henry_Man]

IMO, the C-Line should stay as is, both for airport and Richmond portions because there's only 3 unique stations that the separate name of "YVR Line" or "Airport Line" will be carried and used, and both of the lines have trains traveling on the same tracks and arrive at virtually the same stations north of Bridgeport. This makes it very redundant and makes commuters/travelers too confused (I was very confused the first time I traveled on the Skytrain after the M-Line was opened). They don't appear different enough to warrant two separate naming of the lines.

The notion of naming two separate lines on the same route but eventually split up and have branch routes is appropriate if one of them is an exclusive express and have more luxurious service, like the HK's Tung Chung Line and the Airport Express. Both travel on the same ROW and route, but the Airport Express only shares 3 stations with the Tung Chung Line, is much faster, uses different trains and is much more expensive. Heck, it doesn't even use the same set of tracks (The entire ROW has 4 parallel tracks).

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Does it not makes sense that the Canada Line should be split into a red line, and a white line? Or is that too eye-rollingly predictable?

Arr

Exactly like that... just different colours. I just thought blue and green would make more sense because they are the colours of the Canada Line. If we kept the original red, I think red would make more sense. And to this day, I still think we should've kept the same logo - or at least the same colours.

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

I don't know. I just find that the red colour for the C-Line can have a much bigger contrast from blue for E-line, yellow for M-Line and green for ev-line, so it's much easier to tourists and unfamiliar commuters to differentiate and be less confused.

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

IMO, the C-Line should stay as is, both for airport and Richmond portions because there's only 3 unique stations that the separate name of "YVR Line" or "Airport Line" will be carried and used, and both of the lines have trains traveling on the same tracks and arrive at virtually the same stations north of Bridgeport. This makes it very redundant and makes commuters/travelers too confused (I was very confused the first time I traveled on the Skytrain after the M-Line was opened). They don't appear different enough to warrant two separate naming of the lines.

The notion of naming two separate lines on the same route but eventually split up and have branch routes is appropriate if one of them is an exclusive express and have more luxurious service, like the HK's Tung Chung Line and the Airport Express. Both travel on the same ROW and route, but the Airport Express only shares 3 stations with the Tung Chung Line, is much faster, uses different trains and is much more expensive. Heck, it doesn't even use the same set of tracks (The entire ROW has 4 parallel tracks).

I don't agree HAHA but people have different opinions of course. I always thought metros with same line ending up in different locations makes me more confused. =P

Most commuters are already used to our current SkyTrain format with two lines (which is used in many places like BART in San Francisco). Also with giving a different designation to trains heading to YVR - Airport, tourists know immediately that the trains will be heading to the Airport.

Lovers and haters of this, it's only an idea still. Nothing's confirmed. I'll definetly update you when I get a response (and hopefully that's not like another five months -__-")

[Metro-One]

I think its a good idea. Metros all over the world have multiple lines running along the same track that eventually branch into two or more separate lines. Many of them only have a few stations separate to themselves. So it is not uncommon and it keeps continuity with the M/E line. I also agree that having one line with two terminus destinations is confusing. I can see countless tourists hoping onto the train downtown "oh, this is the Canada line, its the one that goes to the airport" and having no idea that there is a split in the line ending up in downtown Richmond.

[Chikinlittle]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Does it not makes sense that the Canada Line should be split into a red line, and a white line? Or is that too eye-rollingly predictable?

Arr

That's a great looking map! Nice job.

[Metro-One]

That is a good map, i didn't see that last time. With all of those lines completed Vancouver will actually have a good metro system.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by arashi_1987

I'd actually prefer the whole train to be NOT painted to be honest...but I agree they shouldn't leave the train half painted. Either finish it or don't do it.

And I am so excited to see downtown's Granville Street is finally reappearing......i miss it so much...

is the construction on schedule? any chances it will open early? (even just by a month or two)

rumours going around that it will be in operation by august 2009 instead of november 2009 as planned

[SpongeG]

just call it the "604" line yo homies

[Jared]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

I don't know why Translink like to have multiple "lines" going through the same skytrain track. Too many times have I been eagerly anticipating an E line car only to find the M line car coming straight at me Makes me cry a little inside everytime. Now they're doing it again with Canada line.

Think of the "Expo Line", "Millenium Line" etc. of being routes that the trains take, rather than anything to do with when the tracks were constructed. By having the system we have now, it lets people know that if you want to go to Surrey, you should be advised that some trains aren't heading in that direction, they'll go to VCC instead, as shown by the map.

The mapping convention just reflects a reality. Unless you built in a forced transfer at Columbia, trains would still go from Waterfront to VCC, its just that the maps wouldnt reflect that if you had Expo as Waterfront-KG, and Millenium as Columbia-VCC.

For consisteny's sake, I think it would make sense for the Canada Line to follow the same convention. Otherwise you may get people thinking they can go from the Airport to Richmond centre without transfering.

[SpongeG]

its a pretty common way to name lines that way as he said above - you think its confusing here try londons system it will throw you for a loop

[NetMapel]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Does it not makes sense that the Canada Line should be split into a red line, and a white line? Or is that too eye-rollingly predictable?

Arr

So it's confirmed that E line will be merged with M line and be extended to UBC ? Nice map, send it to Translink !

Also, I think it'd be easier if they display the line name on the actual car, you know... preferrably colour-coded too. Like, the front of a car that goes to King George should display a blue "Expo line" on some sort of digital display.