Favourite and least favourite transit systems/stations - Page 4

ue · #61 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 9:40 AM**

Ah, didn't realize the Chinook rebuild was already done. I think I was mixing up Vic Park and Erlton (seriously why are both hyphenated with Stampede?). Chad, I already told you I'm not very familiar with the NW line, no need to get snarky. The layout may be different for Banff Trail and University, but they both share the same blue, pointed roof design (not identical no, but similar). The Calgary stations do have more of a sense of sameness to them than Edmonton, regardless. But go ahead, argue there isn't any sameness to the C-Train stations.

Chadillaccc · #62 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 9:51 AM**

Neither Erlton nor Victoria Park Stampede Stations have ever been rebuilt. Erlton's 4-car platform addition was completed in 2011, and Victoria Park's was completed a couple months ago.

I wasn't arguing there isn't sameness in the Ctrain, I was arguing the total misinformation you were delivering, and then continuing to deliver. I in fact stated the amount of stations on the Ctrain that are the similar.

ue · #63 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 9:59 AM**

Where was I mistaken? That Chinook was rebuilt 6 months ago? Ok. You got me there. What else? Banff Trail and University? Similar aesthetic despite different layout. Ok.

The Stampede Station thing...I saw the Erlton station was renovated in 2011, but because I was mixing it up with the Vic Park station, I didn't know that station was being renovated. The Vic Park station doesn't look terribly different from the NE stations. That's the one I was meaning all along when referring to Stampede Station.

This really doesn't matter that much. Just a simple remark about the fact that Calgary's C-Train stations do exhibit a degree of sameness not found in say, Edmonton, by comparison. Seems like we can both agree on that.

Chadillaccc · #64 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 10:04 AM**

Oh okay. Well the reason I was refuting it is because neither Victoria Park nor Erlton Station's look anything like the NE stations. You are also incorrect about Banff Trail and University having a similar aesthetic. They both have blue metal roofs, that is all. I explained to you in 4 points where you were mistaken on the previous page, I even provided pictures. It's not a big deal, I just respond to correct when misinformation is presented.

Victoria Park: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Train%29_1.jpg
NE: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Train%29_2.jpg, and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Train%29_1.jpg

ue · #65 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 10:10 AM**

Alright, point by point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

You are incorrect on several counts.

1.The "stampede station" you are referring to being rebuilt in 2011 is actually called Erlton-Stampede Station, and it was not rebuilt. It was modified to accommodate 4-car trains, just as all stations are doing/have done. The stationhouse itself has been the exact same since 1981, try looking it up.

Already went over that I meant the Vic Park stampede station not Erlton, thus nullifying our discussion on Erlton because we were talking about different stations. Swap Vic Park's red for the NE Line's green, and it's pretty similar to me from memory, though based on your photos I can see why you're getting huffy.

Quote:

2. The Chinook Station reconstruction has been complete and open for over 6 months, hence why I didn't mention it.

Again, already went over this one. You got me...

Quote:

3. Have you ever seen University or Banff Trail Stations? One is an island platform with a subustantial stationhouse with heated interior and overpass walkway, the other is a side-loading platform with mere shelters to shield people from the elements, not similar in any way. I travel through both every single day.

University: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...on_Calgary.jpg
Banff Trail: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2629/3...4bf3d42b_o.jpg

Similar aesthetic but completely different layout. Don't see what's to disagree with here. And as mentioned for the third time now, I'm least familiar with the NW Line. I was just adding to our discussion on the South and NE lines based on what I recall and looking at some photos of the stations. But hey, you're clearly the Calgary expert, so I'll concede this one if it's really all that important to you.

Quote:

4. I understand that Edmonton only has a few similar stations. Edmonton also has only 1/3 of the amount of stations that the Ctrain does...

Why do you keep this thought process going on if you don't actually know? The only reason I am responding is to correct misinformation. Just do a bit of research first.

4 isn't really a point against me. You have 2 points against me, not 4. I was correct in that prior to renos, Chinook was uniform with nearby South line stations.

I honestly don't get why this conversation is even happening when we agree on the same base point. I'm just going to walk away from this now...

Chadillaccc · #66 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 10:13 AM**

You win! Uncle!

GreaterMontréal · #67 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 10:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Can someone explain this to me.

Montreal daily ridership - 1.2 million
Montreal annual ridership - 176 million

Toronto daily ridership - 940,000
Toronto annual ridership - 318,000,000

This is strictly subway/RT.

Mtl didn't use unlinked trip in 2012, in 2013 you will see higher numbers,
Q3 already shows 260 648 200.
the 1.2 million is 2013 , 176 million 2012
http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf

SkahHigh · #68 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 1:40 PM**

The Montreal Metro is the most efficient network IMO, hence it's high ridership numbers. Most stations look very nice and with the arrival of the Azur trains, the service on the Orange Line will be much better. As for the frequency, 2-3 minutes at rush hour is pretty good in my opinion.

As for suburban coverage, Vancouver probably succeeds the most... The Metro only has 4 stations off the island. Luckily, Montreal suburbans have the AMT commuter rail.

Rico Rommheim · #69 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 1:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

As for suburban coverage, Vancouver probably succeeds the most... The Metro only has 3 stations off the island. Luckily, Montreal suburbans have the AMT commuter rail.

5 stations, actually.

I keep forgetting about the commuter trains. If Montreal's metro had the reach of the commuter trains, I'd be insanely far-reaching. Sadly with soon 6 lines, the AMT will still have less than 100,000 daily riders, and that includes AMT bus service. Seriously, the AMT needs to seriously increase its ridership.

SkahHigh · #70 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 1:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilippeMtl

I think Montreal metro is overrated. It needs major renovations and extensions. Also, STM have probably the worst employees in this country.

That's not true. I guess people in Toronto or Vancouver would say the same about their transit system, it's just a question of personal experiences. Since we live in Montreal and use the Metro more often, we have more contact with the staff than we would riding the TTC Subway during a trip in TO.

Nouvellecosse · #71 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 1:54 PM**

Personally I don't consider a lack of suburban coverage to be a real draw back for a metro system as a full length, high capacity metro service really isn't needed and not very cost-effective for low density suburban areas. And unless there is express service, have a system cover both dense inner area and far-flung outer areas means there are far too many stops to have to sit through.

The lack of suburban rail coverage is really the issue. Montreal should ideally have at least 5 or 6 electrified, high-frequency (6tph peak, 3-4 tph off peak) suburban trains.

SkahHigh · #72 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 1:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

5 stations, actually.

I keep forgetting about the commuter trains. If Montreal's metro had the reach of the commuter trains, I'd be insanely far-reaching. Sadly with soon 6 lines, the AMT will still have less than 100,000 daily riders, and that includes AMT bus service. Seriously, the AMT needs to seriously increase its ridership.

Oh right... Forgot about Longueuil. I don't consider Jean-Drapeau a "suburban station" though.

What we forget is, the AMT is only 17 years old, while GO Transit is 30 years older. AMT's ridership keeps increasing year after year and the agency keeps improving it's infrastructure, which is promising. Some commuter rail systems in major U.S cities (LA's Metrolink notably) barely get 50,000 riders daily.

I'm sure GO Transit's system wasn't much better than AMT's in it's first 20 years of existence.

Tone · #73 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Montreal Metro

Disadvantages:
- Fully underground

Im not sure I understrand why be fully underground should be a disadvantage when its the very definition of a subway?

Is having an electrical system fully protected from the outside elements considered a disadvantage.

feepa · #74 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 3:16 PM**

ue - Corona and Bay station also look very similar to each other.

Corona - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...4717027587.jpg

Bay - http://www.urbanrail.net/am/edmo/Edm...ay_Station.JPG

240glt · #75 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 5:03 PM**

Corona is my favorite station of any metro/ rapid transit I've ever been on. It's really cool.

I love the Sky Train for the frequency and coverage. Have the vehicles themselves, they're small and dated. Also hate how sometimes you board obn the left, sometimes on the right. Makes it a pain if the train is crowded

Calgary's system is very good except for the mess downtown. That part is simply awful, but the system covers a lot of the city

Edmonton's LRT is very limited in where it goes, but at least has the tunnel through the downtown and has some realyl neat stations.

Mikemike · #76 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 5:15 PM**

I love Corona (and bay) station in Edmonton too. Great simple design.

I like to look outside, so I like sky train a lot, edmonton's river crossing is the best view but in Vancouver you get great views for the whole elevated. Very pleasant.

Most impressive station is Beri-UQAM in Montreal. Nothing like triple-stacked concrete goodness with people everywhere.

Chadillaccc · #77 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 5:18 PM**

Bay-Enterprise Square and Corona Stations are my favorite underground stations in the country as well, love the retro reflective chrome and huge chandeliers.

GreaterMontréal · #78 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 5:24 PM**

Lionel-Groulx in Montréal is also a nice station.

MonkeyRonin · #79 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tone

Im not sure I understrand why be fully underground should be a disadvantage when its the very definition of a subway?

Is having an electrical system fully protected from the outside elements considered a disadvantage.

Personally, I find being stuck in a tunnel the whole time rather grim and just plain boring. More importantly though, tunneling is more expensive than building at or above grade. Which means that a larger system could exist today for the same cost, or the existing system could have been built at a lower cost, with the savings translating into lower fares or improved service. Tunneling makes sense in the city centre and in more established neighbourhoods, but otherwise building above ground is the more practical solution.

Being shielded from the elements might be advantageous in an extreme climate, but I don't that would include Montreal. Even Edmonton's trains run mostly above ground and it's significantly colder (albeit less snowy), and it seems to operate just fine.

Chadillaccc · #80 Posted **Jan 27, 2014, 6:15 PM**

I agree with MonkeyRonin. That's why I love the Skytrain and Calgary's West Line so much. A variety of elevations, views, and tunnels. The view of the mountains from both systems is of particular awesomeness.