Jump to content

Coastal Transit Fan

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Coastal Transit Fan

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Prince George-Vancouver-Comox
  • Interests
    Photography and British Columbia's Mass Transportation infastructure

Recent Profile Visitors

3,300 profile views
  1. Further to northwesterner's comments, TransLink makes their route planning primers and standards available to the public. If you want to come across as enlightened/informed: 1) don't propose a route to Landsdowne or the Outlet Malls; and 2) read up on the route design guidelines before making ridiculous suggestions.
  2. You have effectively tried to plan transit based on your own travel habits. This idea is confusing for a number of reasons, the foremost being the severence of a well-used direct connection between New Westminster and Richmond. It also flies in the face of many transit planning standards, as well as TransLink's own route planning primer guidelines of having strong anchor points for consistent ridership. Brighouse is a strong anchor point that generates ridership... the C96 terminus, by contrast, definitely is not.
  3. Ok, what? Your post makes zero sense... but I suppose that is to be expected. I foresee the end of the "C" prefix on new routes... it makes more sense to have those routes branded as standard transit routes as opposed to a separate community shuttle brand, since said shuttles are operating on conventional routes. The reality is that, in principle, it would make more sense to just renumber all shuttle routes that currently have that C prefix, but unfortunately the traveling public reacts poorly to route number changes, therefore making it a marketing-intensive endeavour. The "N" prefix makes more sense, as that is a separate type of service for a specific purpose.
  4. I advocate for a reduction in letters on route numbers. The only context in which letters make sense is (as seen in Victoria) with alternative routing or with express services, and even then, different route numbers should be applied, not letters. On-route termini do not warrant the addition of letters.
  5. The VTC N9 is believed to be a typo. Makes for an interesting discussion, though.
  6. Given emerging battery technology, TransLink's reluctance to expand trolley infrastructure makes sense. Battery powered buses offer the flexibility and speed of operation that their diesel counterparts offer, while still being "zero-emissions." I think by the time the existing trolley fleet will come up for replacement within the next decade or so, we will have a clearer idea of the role that battery powered buses can play (i.e. if they will work, or be another hydrogen-style dud), and if they will be a feasible replacement to the relatively archaic trolley infrastructure. Following the precedence of many, many other North American cities, there's certainly a fincancial case to be made.
  7. The press release references specific projects that CMBC has undertaken since 2008 (i.e. hybrid bus implementation, etc), so I am not sure that the trolleys had much to do with the award given the many decades precedence of service; however they do definitely keep emissions down, no question.
  8. Squamish operated the Whistler Commuter for many years, I can't see why this wouldn't be feasible. It all comes down to funding, though. If BC Transit can justify a project of this nature with funding that might be region-specific, than that is what will happen.
  9. I don't think this is meant to be anything technical, certainly not a "report" by any means. Simply just meant for information. It's arranged similar to the fleet profiles of BCFS (similar errors) or an airline.
  10. There is a 480 driver out of RTC who regularly plays around with the signs during deadheads/layovers. Intentional.
  11. The ambiguity of the SCBCTA's operating area has always made it kind of frustrating to understand, but I am sure it is intentional to give them some level of flexibility. In terms of firm boundaries of operation, I am pretty sure you're right Dane. My understanding was that the City of Abbotsford had expressed interest in being a part of TransLink, but didn't want to implement the gas/property taxes for fear of political unpopularity, so the idea was shelved. Since then there has been a municipal election and a failed referendum, so I expect the appetite is less so now. I am not sure of the positions of the other municipalities, but I am sure the province's 3-year funding freeze on BC Transit is putting those munis in a tough spot.
  12. I will just voice my agreement with the majority here and say that the FVX's largest barrier is the lack of fare integration with TransLink and BC Transit. I have expressed this to my contacts at FVRD, to which the response seems to be "yeah, we know..." ...so it's a work in progress, I gather. I don't think it's quite as easy as this board seems to think, given the inter-jurisdictional nature of the service, however that certainly does not undermine the need for fare integration (i.e. Compass integration) to happen. Just as a quick point of reference, BC Ferries is currently revamping their fare payment system and structure, and are evaluating Compass integration. I haven't heard anything beyond "we're giving it serious consideration", but it is worth noting. At present, BC Ferries has their own version of Compass called the Experience Card, which is essentially a swipe-Compass card that gives 20%-40% discounts on most minor routes.
  13. The timeline of events was that TELUS had previously agreed to TransLink sometime last year that a 0.3 second process time would be feasible and sufficient, from the 1 second it was at last spring. TELUS was only able to deliver a 0.5 second process time as of this August, and TL's own modeling showed that this would cause a reasonable to significant delay on busier routes such as the 99, so they had to go hunting for a solution.
  14. I can't speak to the legal concerns, but the single-zone bus concept has been implemented in a few other cities without issue. I expect TransLink looked at those models before implementation.Additionally, this is an issue concerning the speed (or lack thereof) of cellular networks in Vancouver. They had a choice to either: 1) wait for cell networks to be upgraded to make for a better processing time on the units; or 2) eliminate the need to tap-out on buses.
  15. Roof is TBA....yes, the buses on order will indeed come with an enclosed roof...
  • Create New...