Jump to content

User talk:The Big H 2014/sandbox/Template:TransLink Major Route Diagram

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for Comment

[edit]

I'm just opening up this talk page for this future version of the Template:TransLink Major Route Diagram. @Joeyconnick and @Northwest, since I've made changes to TransLink related articles alongside the both of you, I welcome your feedback and/or input. Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments (it looks really good overall!)
(moved to sections, threaded)
Okay, that's probably waaaay more commentary than you were likely wanting. Thanks for all your work on this Sweetnhappy! Editing the diagrams always freaks me out a bit as the formatting can be very tricky/demanding. Joeyconnick (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Joeyconnick; it gives me a reason to give an equally long response. ... Nah, I doubt mine will be mine's not as long but you do raise several points that I think are important and I realize that I didn't make my intentions clear with this version (which would have addressed some of your concerns). Anyway, here goes, in order:...
@Joeyconnick: I've updated the diagram with interruptions/continuations for the B-Lines and added in the future B-Lines. How does it look? Sweetnhappy (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... sorry, yeah, wasn't sure what to comment initially because I wasn't sure where you were intending to use it. I definitely like having all the B-Line stops left out and just having the transfer points for them included: much better! I didn't realize the four new B-Lines were part of Phase I, so basically if you took out the Arbutus extension of the Millennium line, you could use this diagram in place of the current one. The bottom of the diagram, with the widely-spaced 96, Fraser Hwy, Lougheed Hwy B-Lines and the ever-increasing arrow lengths looks a bit odd... maybe you could do more of the dotted lines there like you've done with the 91 and 99? Oh and I feel like the cardinal arrows for the "connecting to different destinations" for the B-Lines on the right-hand column should come after the text label. I mocked up some of the stuff I've mentioned here at User:Joeyconnick/sandbox/Template:TransLink Major Route Diagram. There all just suggestions, though, since I took out the detailed Arbutus stuff. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I've looked over your mock up and I agree with putting the cardinal arrows after the text labels on the right. I also agree that the long lines are a bit odd looking and will make use of the interruptions more as you did. Though I will not change the cardinal arrows for the Fraser Highway and Lougheed Highway B-Lines since their direction is down relative to other lines on the map (not left as you set them). I will see to making these changes soon. Thanks again for the feedback and doing a mock up based on mine. Sweetnhappy (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure "relative direction" is fairly non-existent in these diagrams. The Marine Drive B-Line is shown going left-right but Expo and Millennium Lines, plus the WCE, are going up-down, and they all go, essentially east-west. Meanwhile the Canada Line goes up-down but runs mainly north-south (except the Airport branch, which is shown up-down also but goes east-west), next to the 91 and 99 which go east-west. So... all that's to say trying to arrange things directionally is pretty pointless. So I was going more for consistency within the diagram i.e. have all non-included routes be shown going off to the sides of the diagram. But that's not really possible with the 91, 95, and 99 given space constraints, so I suppose it doesn't matter. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeyconnick: true, but for most of the B-Lines, their directions are relative to the nearby major lines (present or future), except the 91 B-Line; perhaps it should intersect with the Canada Line near Oakridge–41st...
  • Marine Drive B-Line left to right (east-west) relative to SeaBus down (south)
  • 95 B-Line down (east) relative to West Coast Express down (east)
  • 99 B-Line up (west) relative to Broadway Extension of Millennium Line up (west)
  • 91 B-Line up (west) relative to Oakridge–41st crossing and 99 B-Line UBC Loop destination up (west)
  • 96 B-Line left to right (south-east) relative to Expo Line left to right (north-south)
  • Fraser Highway B-Line down (southeast) relative to Expo Line extension down (southeast)
  • Lougheed Highway B-Line down (east) relative to West Coast Express down (east)
Anyway, I think it's down to personal preference and I don't think there is a singular correct approach. Sweetnhappy (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway extension and relationship to 99 B-Line stops

[edit]

I really think (and this can be seen in my edits and my comments/discussions on my edits) that, in order to maintain simplicity (and not confuse transit neophytes), future stations should not be included on these diagrams until they are at least under construction (actual construction, not pre-construction). In particular, I'm not a fan of the inclusion of roughed-in stations like YVR 3, Falcon, Capstan Way, etc. in their own particular diagrams (thank goodness they aren't included in this one!) because funding for these hasn't even been sorted out, let alone actual construction begun. Including them in the active diagram makes zero sense to me because it gives their potential future existence a definitiveness that I think is misleading (especially to people who aren't well-versed in how transit happens in Metro Vancouver and just want to glance at the diagram). For instance, there's a roughed-in ghost station in Toronto near Queen that's been there, unused, for over 50 years and including it on a route diagram would be insane to me... but the way some people approach the Lower Mainland diagrams, I feel like that's what would happen.

So I see the proposed Broadway extension stations here and it gives me the heebee-jeebees 😀 because we are so far away from those maybe happening—they're not expecting to have completed community consultation and "pre-construction" (whatever that means, exactly) for the Broadway extension until 2019, at the end of Phase I of the new 10-Year Plan that just got approved. Including the proposed locations on the diagram before Phase I is even finished seems premature to me. I'd prefer we went with the style currently in Template:TransLink Major Route Diagram, where the only bit that refers to the proposed Broadway extension is a little faded yellow arrow.

Oh, also... it's likely inaccurate to have the 99 running alongside the proposed Broadway extension because they will surely shorten the 99 service and have it terminate at Arbutus if and when SkyTrain gets to Arbutus. That seems like another good reason to leave it out of this diagram. (I still can't believe they're going to stop at Arbutus but that's a whole other story. 😂 I mean, if you're going to stop before UBC—which is crazy to start with—surely you'd at least go to Macdonald, right?) —Joeyconnick (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • So my initial intention with this version was for distant future updates (not meant to integrate into the existing diagram yet). I agree that future stations (no matter the circumstances surrounding them or their current status) should not be included until at the very least the names are definitively specified and/or construction is about to begin (maybe a month out at most). So you need not be concerned with anything in this sandboxed diagram being copied over to the actual diagram until such time as it is warranted. Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the 99 running alongside the proposed Broadway extension, it would remain there in its current state until the extension was opened (similar to how the 97 was still in place until the Evergreen Extension opened). Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so I went back and looked at Template:TransLink Major Route Diagram in September (here, for example) and my issue with the 99 stops being paired with the future Broadway extension stops is my overall issue with confusing current state with future state: before the Broadway extension opens, only the 99 route is "current", and after the Broadway extension opens, the 99 route will not go to those stops (from all indications). So showing Arbutus, Granville, Heather/Willow, etc. paired is a configuration that, if it ever exists, will only exist like the current 97 overlapping with Evegreen: for a pretty brief transition window. Also, we don't know that Cambie on the Broadway extension will actually be an interchange with Broadway–City Hall... it might end up like Granville on the Expo Line and Vancouver City Centre on the Canada Line: close but not an interchange. And my understanding is that the Broadway extension will stop at Oak, so again that might not really be an official transfer point with Heather/Willow.
But I guess if this is just a future diagram, it probably doesn't matter. I was just assuming if it was going to show the future, it wouldn't show the 99 stops as interchanges with the Broadway extension stops, because if that ever happens, it will likely only be for a transition period like we're in now with the 97 and Evergreen. I was thinking it would show a 99 that terminates at Arbutus. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to mention this earlier, but I've read (I think it was on Skyscraperpage) that the 99 may continue to serve the entire corridor as it does presently (though with a lower frequency for the section that overlaps with the extension). I'm sure this is purely speculation but if true then the pairings make sense. However, I will concede that the pairings should not be included until such time that they are confirmed so I will remove them. Sweetnhappy (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh... that's really interesting. I would have thought the 9 service would be enough; I have this vague notion that doing a single line with varying frequencies is tricky. Or if they were going to continue to have express service along Broadway east of Arbutus, they'd do from Main to Commercial since from Arbutus to Main the Broadway extension would travel along (or near) Broadway. I guess we'll see... hopefully! —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, while Arbutus might not be ideal, it is over halfway if you are counting stations on the extension (6 of 11), which might be why it was decided as the initial terminus. I've seen a bunch of arguments on the Skyscraperpage forum's Millennium Line - Broadway Extension thread, but I haven't seen anything definitive (just speculation). I think it should go all the way to UBC in one go rather than splitting it up into phases, but that's just my opinion. Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Stop Names

[edit]

Another thing that stood out to me (from the current one and this one) is "Clark Drive" and "Fraser Street" for the 99 stops. I was going to change it on the basis of the fact that we don't call the other stops "Sasamat St", "Alma St/W 10th Ave", "Burrard St", etc... and then I noticed the diagram does refer to "Granville Street" and "Main Street" in the 99 context. And, from the 99 perspective, "Cambie" is missing. I guess this maybe strengthens my case for not liking the inclusion of the B-Lines in these diagrams. But anyway, I get that the use of "Granville Street" is to try to distinguish the 99 stop from actual Granville station, but even in the current one, we have "Granville Street" for the 95 and "Granville Street" for the 99, which are both vastly different locations (one downtown, one on Broadway). We also have "Cambie Street" for the 95, and "Main Street" for both the 95 and 99.

Even though it means duplication in some cases, I'd favour the following: For the 99:

  • UBC Loop
  • Allison
  • Sasamat
  • Alma / W 10th
  • Macdonald
  • Arbutus
  • Granville
  • Heather / Willow
  • Cambie
  • Main
  • Fraser
  • Clark
  • Commercial (or Commercial–Broadway... I mean technically it's called N Grandview Hwy I think but...)

For the 95:

  • Burrard
  • Granville (unless the bus stop indicator calls it "Waterfront" in which case this one gets a LOT simpler)
  • Cambie (oh... just checking out the image here: maybe it could be "Cambie / Abbott")
  • Main
  • Commercial
  • Nanaimo
  • Renfrew
  • Kootenay Loop
etc.

Not sure if there's a good principle to address this issue... you could argue that if we call the end of the 99 "Commercial" or "Commercial–Broadway" then what's wrong with collapsing "Cambie" into "Broadway–City Hall", to which I think I'd say Cambie is a major street/intersection so leaving it out means we're chucking out info whereas "N Grandview Hwy" doesn't seem (to me) like important/crucial info to know about Commercial–Broadway... because it being at both Commercial and Broadway seem like the salient facts. —Joeyconnick (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see your point about the duplicate stop names and the stop names that are overridden by station/interchange names. For any stop/station with a duplicate name, I think the best resolution would be to label them with both streets that intersect the stop. So Granville on the 99 would become "Granville @ Broadway" and Granville on the 95 would become "Granville @ W Hastings". Would this be better in your opinion? Removing the road type names does look better so I'd be behind doing that for the B-Line stops. Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this would make the diagram too big but I see you've made those changes and I actually really like it, personally. The only thing that is making it a little wider is "Cambie / Broadway–City Hall" but I'm fine with that label. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I was looking up on which street the 95 Granville stop intersected, I noticed that Google Maps has already added the 95, despite it not being in service yet. It still lists the 135 at least. Also seems like there are some inconsistencies on the Evergreen Extension (don't see Lincoln station currently). Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With labeling the Cambie stop on the 99, I think the existing Broadway–City Hall label can be amended to be "Cambie / Broadway–City Hall". And I agree that Commercial–Broadway doesn't need any additional clarification because the stop is at the crossroads of Commercial & Broadway. Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming new B-Lines

[edit]

There's one other thing I would like to bring up as I just thought of it this morning:

  • The recently approved plan to increase service levels, etc. includes the addition of four more B-Lines (five if you include the 95). I can foresee that including any more lines is going to make the diagram a real mess and difficult to understand. To remedy this, I was thinking of removing the B-Lines except where they intersect a major line/station (SkyTrain, WCE, or SeaBus) and using the {{Enlarge}} template (which shows a magnifying glass icon that links to another route diagram template) which would link to the given B-Line's template. See the example on Wikipedia:Route diagram template#Enlarge. Thoughts? I also briefly had the idea of making a separate B-Line only diagram, but I don't think such a diagram would be very useful (considering the B-Lines go east-west, north-south, and other directions or combinations thereof). Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you already know I'm not a big fan of the SkyTrain/B-Line equivalence, so I'm all in favour of something that takes them out of the diagram. 😀 But I think your argument is sound: once the new 4 are added, this diagram becomes way too complex, and there is very limited utility (read: probably none) in having a "B-Line"-only diagram. I think then the only thing that becomes useful is an opensource "major routes map" (as opposed to a diagram). So like this one but which includes B-Lines. So I'm happy to support the use of the {{Enlarge}} template in the way you describe. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it's not purely complexity that I'm concerned with but also how the additional lines would fit. Even though the current lines (read: all lines) don't go north-south or east-west consistently, they can still fit together because of the locations of interchanges and having a central hub from which most originate/terminate (Waterfront). Anyway, I will also update the template to use {{Enlarge}} as I am fairly certain those additional B-Lines will be in service before any extensions (either Broadway, PoCo, or Expo to Langley (still hoping)). Sweetnhappy (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow... Expo to Langley, huh? You are a huge optimist. 😀 I'm just hoping I don't die before they get rapid transit to UBC. LOL
I look forward to seeing the template with {{Enlarge}} used. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 icons for SkyTrain legend

[edit]

I wanted to ask... do you know why there are two icons in the legends for the non-Canada Line SkyTrain lines in all these diagrams? I just noticed that today on all the B-Line articles. We should pick one and stick with it. It wastes space and it's not like there are two types of techs used for the linear-motor lines. I mean really, we should probably use one icon for the entire rail-based system, including Canada Line, but at least the tech for the Canada Line is completely different so you can see there is some rationale for having a different icon. But more than one? Very weird. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Big_H_2014/sandbox/Template:TransLink_Major_Route_Diagram&oldid=1183037577"