Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,058 profile views
  1. I mean, no. Cars are private and personal, totally on demand, and a break down happens far less often than a bus no-show. It would be hard to imagine a world where taking a car isn't faster than transit for most north americans/vancouverites, just because of how spread out our communities are. After major investment, even if fewer people *needed* them, cars would still be an upgrade. Transit would have to be so unobtainably good for that not to be the case. Theres still plenty of cars in europe and japan, etc. Certainly, it would not be convenient enough "99% of the time" for everyones' trips. Try making the trip from somewhere in south delta to somewhere in surrey (our fastest growing community) by transit, even in 20-30 years time, and then by car. It's just the nature of the way its set up, really. Having said that, You make good points about the benefit of more transit and less car usage, and yes, car usage is subsidized just like transit, perhaps even more. But this isn't as simple as you make it seem. We need better transit and more money for it, and yeah it'll help, but it won't replace personal vehicles any time soon outside of the innermost core of the city no matter what happens.
  2. Aside from the 41st and Oak trips, I've seen them do in service training extra trips on the 41 rarely over the last few years. Not on tcomm of course, not sure if this would count for revenue service. I've got a photo of one that turned the wrong way into dunbar loop... (going left from westbound 41st avenue)
  3. Thanks for the insightful response! I didn't know about that effect.
  4. My guess is a possible name for the burnaby mountain (SFU) gondola, which has been brought up a lot recently. Certainly nothing confirmed of course.
  5. You know, I've been using that feature for a while and I've never noticed that. Maybe I'm the only one... I guess it doesn't apply to that many stops.
  6. Rapidbus posts also spotted on wesbrook at thunderbird, ubc hospital, and ubc loop
  7. It ain't no D40LF sofa, but imo its comfier than nearly all of our fleet (including nosubs), so I'm glad for that.
  8. Although, its back out today. So far, its been assigned to an all day block but then swapped off before 1pm. We'll see about this time
  9. If you mean Vancouver, ~250 total E40LFRs and E60LFRs from New Flyer of Winnipeg. Mostly built 2006-7 and 2007-9. We have a couple historical trolleys at TRAMS that run on special occasions too.
  10. That is 100% incorrect. The project is an extension of the current millennium line, trains will run through.
  11. Haha, I was the last passenger on 994's last trip then (255 to capilano mall). I'm sad to see these guys go.
  12. I should add that current thinking at translink is it would be best to operate trolleys alongside battery technology for the foreseeable future. They aren't planning any trolley expansion, but they won't be going anywhere especially downtown. (Their presentation noted charging stations downtown are infeasable and overnight charging doesn't allow enough distance for many routes) Subject to change though, as always!
  13. As you might experience if you visit the PNE's decker on display, the deckers we're getting don't perform so well when you have lots of passengers getting on and off all the time. The single narrow stairway is a bottleneck that would make it hard to get up and down. Deckers and artics are both capacity improvements over a standard coach, but they specialize differently: The decker's strength is the hugely increased seating - ideal for busy routes that have long runs between stops and long overall trip times. This allows plenty of time for people to get settled and to prepare to exit. However, the decker has only 2 doors, relatively limited manoeuvring room, and less accessible space. An artic, however, has a large amount of standing space compared to seating, is mostly low floor and has 3 doors. This makes it ideal for routes with lots of people hopping on and off (especially if all door boarding is used), and for fairly short journeys. The large low-floor space is well suited for folks with less mobility. The 130, 106 and 49 are busy routes that would be/are well served by artics, but would not be a good match for deckers. These routes are local services making many stops with constant passenger turnover, and the 106 has many seniors (in my experience). Deckers wont work on all our busy routes and so a huge fleet wouldn't help so much. It's possible to create a north American decker better suited to local service (like london has with the two staircases) but I think articulated busses would still do that job better anyway.
  14. Why do you say that? The trip seems to be about 6 km each way (crown to ubc loop via wesbrook village), so that's 12/20 km range both ways. Surely that's a wide enough margin of error - and even if it isn't, for whatever reason, there are the 14 9 and 4 routes at ubc. Busses could interline with these routes, bringing the gap down to 6 km each time. I don't see how you can dismiss using IMC to bring the 41 to ubc as impossible or impractical. Sure, something like this isn't currently implemented in Vancouver, but neither are battery busses. Both technologies are new to the area and would need development, but exist elsewhere.
  • Create New...