Stephen makes a good point with regards to the single-tracking at both ends. While I’m not so worried about at YVR, the portion between Richmond is quite long. At both ends, the Canada Line can sustain a maximum frequency of 2min 30sec because of the single guideways. Keep in mind though, capacity can be increased between Waterfront and Bridgeport, the point where the line splits off and that portion of the line can handle trains arriving every 90 sec. Short turning trains in Vancouver isn’t new and is done on some portions of the Expo Line.

As with Corey’s point, while platforms are small at 40 metres, expandable to 50 metres, I think that can easily be dealt with more trains. ProTrans actually runs about 16 trains per day, when they actually have 20.

It’s a great line. Too bad it couldn’t be compatible with Skytrain, but the routing of the Canada Line vs. the Skytrain in the area likely makes this a moot point.

If P3 was the only way to get it done, so be it.

A few other points:
-Lack of platform extendability is really going to hurt in about 10 years, maybe less.
-Trains are spacious and the ride is smooth
-Stations are bland looking and seriously lack seats. They also completely lack bathrooms.

But, at the end of the day, it exists. We can argue about the might-have-beens, but the point is that it existing is a good thing. Expect major land use changes near stations in the near future, something Vancouver has already done quite well with.

The important lesson here is that if you’re building a subway line, and you want, someday in the future, for a second line to connect with it, you have to plan where that second line will be, and reserve the underground space it will need, as part of the design of the first line. If you don’t, other stuff will get built underground that prevents you from bringing a new line’s station close enough to your existing station. (This has turned out to be an important issue on the metro project in Sydney, where I live now.)

For all the disappointments and legitimate objections around the P3, everyone involved deserves credit for the early opening.

The line was built down to a price, so there are severe restrictions on its future capacity. The most noticeable is the use of single track at the outer ends of both branches. Since trains have to traverse this track, unload, reload and then go back to the next station where double track starts, the maximum frequency is both low and fixed.

Some of the original trains ordered from Rotem were cancelled as a cost saving measure. Many stations only have one escalator. Trains are only two cars long and fill the present station platforms.

The majority of the ridership will come from people displaced from curtailed bus routes – who in many cases will have a longer overall journey with transfers than the direct ride they have now.

I know there was also some controversy over the selection of incompatible track and vehicle technology for the Canada Line (vs. existing SkyTrain). The bidding process didn’t account for efficiencies derived from a uniform fleet of vehicles. So instead we got a completely different system that’s incompatible with all the existing infrastructure. Seems terribly inefficient.

(Of course, said BRT was no longer rapid once it crossed the Fraser into Vancouver, and ran on the surface streets…)