Jump to content

maege

Member
  • Content count

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

413 profile views
  1. One interesting thing I read recently about commuter rail: it's usually costs a very small amount more to run all day service vs just peak. The reason for this being that you already have vehicles, which are sitting there unused, and usually you have to pay operators more for shifts (split or otherwise) that start and end in different places (eg start in Mission, end in Vancouver). The only extra cost for all day service is then the fuel/electricity and probably a little more in operator wages. As long as the reliability and time agreements can be worked out for the tracks, I don't see any reason why all potential commuter lines shouldn't run at least 30 or 60 min frequency all day. Some questions about your map as I'm always interested in how/why people make their decisions: 1. Why did you choose the False Creek Line to stay on Pacific instead of Davie downtown? 2. For the SFU Extension, do you believe that to be an actual extension of the Hastings line, or a gondola like from Production Way? 3. How/why did you choose routing for presumably tunnelled sections? For example, why did you choose the 41-49 line to route, presumably tunnelled between Fraser and Knight instead of following Knight between 41st and 49th, following 41st to Kingsway, then that to Metrotown, or just routing through Joyce Station? Same goes for a couple sections of the Burnaby N-S line and the Commercial line. Tunnelling is the most expensive option, so the more that it can be avoided (either with elevated or at-grade separate/reserved ROW), the more lines you can build with the same amount of money (quick example, for the same cost of the tunnelled Broadway extension to Arbutus, you could build the line elevated all the way to UBC plus the Arbutus LRT). 4. Why does the Burnaby N-S line avoid Brentwood and go to Gilmore instead? 5. For the Queensborough line, how did you choose your route, and why not have it route along the existing rail ROW the whole way instead of just sections? 6. For the Hastings line, why do you bring it south to Union/Georgia instead of staying on Hastings? 7. More of a recommendation, but for the 4th crossing, I would have it follow Pipeline Rd to Burrard Inlet, then cross jsut east of the Lions Gate to Park Royal since that is planned for a major center and is a main transit exchange. 8. For Richmond B-Line 2, is the line supposed to run along the former rail ROW that is currently a recreational trail? Or do you intend for it to run along Bridgeport or something else? 9. Similar to 3, why do you suggest tunnelling west of Capitol Hill for the Hastings line instead of at-grade or elevated? 10. For the Commercial line, what sections are you referring to when you say LRT won't fit in the corridor, what sections did you have in mind? If it's going to Abbotsford and Chilliwack (and talking about the SRY rail line), I wouldn't worry about going to Surrey Central (assuming there's a line already between Newton and Surrey Central) since most people coming from that far out are probably headed to Vancouver. Ideally, the Fraser rail bridge would get replaced as part of the project so the line could continue to Pacific Central, IMO.
  2. I'm not sure that the exact idea of Commuter rail just to Scott Rd has been proposed, but similar ideas have been around, namely with Rail for the Valley wanting to use the SRY line that runs by Scott Rd station (with a spur to allow transfers to Skytrain there) to provide service from Pacific Central to the Fraser Valley. In my future rapid transit map, I have Scott Rd being a terminus for a line from Marpole, a line from Richmond, and a tram line on Kingsway from Vancouver, as well as a stop for a Fraser Valley line from Pacific Central. This would make Scott Rd a hub of sorts with all the lines coming together. The biggest hold-back to having any more passenger rail service between Surrey and New West/Burnaby/Vancouver is that the current single-track rail bridge which is currently very prone to delays and near capacity. That would need to be upgraded/replaced with a new bridge or tunnel (preferably 3 or 4 tracks to allow for frequent passenger rail in addition to freight) before much of any passenger rail can be added. WCE runs on CP lines, which are double tracked the whole way. That allows for the minimization of delays on WCE. Additionally, multiple railroad companies have access rights for the bridge, including CN, BNSF, Amtrak, SRY, and maybe one more I'm forgetting. This creates a much more complex environment to negotiate exclusive rights during certain times of day for commuter or other passenger rail, especially since the bridge is relatively close to capacity. The other main problematic location is the single-track in the Grandview Cut which combined with the rail yards in the False Creek Flats can be prone to having delays as well. Basically, it is possible, but upgrades to the Fraser River rail bridge and double-tracking the Grandview Cut would be much desired to allow for regularly on-time trains. Also, I would look at following the SRY to Langley at a minimum since it would be relatively minimal extra cost, but would provide a significant upgrade in transit service for people in Newton, Cloverdale, and Langley. Lastly, trains would likely go to Pacific Central and not Waterfront, mainly due to the complexities and slow speeds that are required between the spur for Pacific Central and Waterfront. The CN tracks north of Pacific Central have a number of at-grade crossings and a rail yard to pass by, which greatly limits the speed of any train. Additionally, to get to Waterfront, a train would have to switch from CN tracks to CP tracks, and I'm pretty certain there are no such switches at present, the CN rail just crosses 3 CP tracks, but there are no switches between the two. This adds the complexity of having to work with (and convince) both companies to allow for such a switch to be built. It ends up likely being much cheaper and easier to end at Pacific Central Station instead of Waterfront, and people going to Waterfront could still transfer to Skytrain and be at Waterfront in 10 minutes (including transfer time) which would likely be comparable or even faster than having a train terminate directly at Waterfront.
  3. TL;DR Ideas and lessons from Barcelona and San Francisco. I just came back from visiting Barcelona and San Francisco for a couple weeks and I wanted to share my observations and ideas that I think would be good here in Vancouver. Barcelona 1. 40ft buses with 3 doors. The extra door at the back helps in spreading people out throughout the whole bus to avoid clumping in certain areas. I definitely think Translink should look into getting buses like this with 3 doors. Also the door swing outward instead of inside the bus when they open. I'm not sure if there is a technical reason why Translink has inward swinging doors, but with the outward swinging ones, they eliminate the opening/closing issues it someone is standing in the way that the doors swing open/closed. 2. Straight lines for transit routes are nice! Vancouver does a fairly good job of keeping straight line on it's routes, both bus and trains. Barcelona's metro lines, by contrast, are a mess, curving all over the place. It causes more switching than necessary (2-4 transfers vs 1-2 for most of metro Vancouver) and can be fairly confusing for people who are unfamiliar with the system. 3. Above-ground systems are better than underground IMO. I hadn't thought about it much before going to Barcelona, but really noticed it riding the all-underground metro so much. Towards the end of my stay, I found myself riding the tram more, even when it would be take somewhat longer than the metro because you weren't stuck in a dark underground hole and could enjoy the view and daylight, providing a much more pleasant experience. Granted being underground minimizes weather impacts and is sometimes necessary (aka in areas of downtown), but at-grade or elevated seems like a better overall user experience and are vastly cheaper to build. This reinforced the view that the Broadway Skytrain should be elevated, not a tunnel. 4. Along the same lines, trams can be quite nice.The Barcelona trams run in a mixture of alignments, from median running on a grass or concrete strip with curbs between the tram and vehicle traffic to side-running along a road with a curb separation from traffic to a short section running in a completely separated ROW in a tunnel with a concrete/fence barrier between the road and tram. Large windows (similar or maybe even larger than Mark III cars) provide a pleasing experience and view. One aspect that I thought would be annoying but I didn't really notice/mind was when the tram stopped at signalled intersections to wait for a light. The tram seemed to have some priority signals, but there was still numerous times where it had to wait 10-20 seconds for a light. The Surrey LRT plan seem to give more LRT priority, so there would be less instances of these waits happening than what I experienced. 5. Funiculars aren't worth it. Gondolas are the way to go. I rode a few funiculars and rack railways up mountains in and around Barcelona. They were all fairly slow, had a significant impact on the land and I couldn't really see any advantages over a 3S gondola. Gondolas can have a more direct route with less land impact as they only need a few support towers while also being able to provide vastly better frequency and can provide the same or higher capacity. 6. Integrated fares Barcelona has a number of different companies/organizations that operate the transit lines, but they are all integrated under a single fare system, which allows you to use one fare across all the different systems. Most of the operators still sell fares that work only on their lines for a slightly cheaper price as well, but the integrated fares are by far the most popular. Also, Barcelona works in zones, although the zones are larger than what we have in Vancouver. 1 zone in Barcelona includes roughly all of zone 1 and 2 here. The integrated system (6 zones) extends to the equivalent of Chilliwack and Squamish, allowing for full regional integration, even though there are numerous different bus and train operators. I would like to see similar fare integration with Translink and BC Transit, where each would still have their own fares, but you could also buy an integrated fare or monthly pass if you travel between the different systems. I feel this is a better idea that the whole Squamish to Chilliwack area coming under a single operator as it allows for local control still while enabling ease of use for passengers. 7. Regional trains There are numerous suburban and regional train lines, most of which operate on tracks that also carry freight at times. Having similar trains operating to Langley/Abbotsford/Chilliwack/Squamish could be done with mainly using SRY and former BCRail and they would provide for a much more pleasant experience than either transit buses or intercity coaches like Greyhound, while also having the benefit of being fully integrated into the rest of the transit system both fare-wise and station/transfer-wise. If a Fraser Valley line was able to go from Pacific Central with stops/interchanges at Commercial, Willingdon, Braid, Scott Rd, Nordel, and Newton, providing transfers to other rapid/frequent services before continuing to Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack, I think it could be highly successful as a longer distance regional service that could also serve some local traffic as an express service between those stations. 8. Barcelona (and the whole metro area) have few towers, yet has vastly more people than Vancouver. Barcelona has 1.6 million people in an area slightly smaller than Vancouver which only has 600K people. The key to this is that most buildings are 3-10 storey apartment/condo/townhouse buildings and single-family houses are virtually non-existent. This helps create very walkable neighbourhoods, with narrow, one-way streets for cars and roughly the same to even more room for pedestrians than cars. On many busier streets there are bike lanes, most of which are separated with small barriers or curbs. Towers can be nice, but they also can have a detrimental impact at street level when they are poorly designed or if there are too many together and they cast very large shadows, reducing natural light. Having more low to mid-rise housing blocks reduces this negative impact, while providing a level of density that can provide all the nice benefits. I think Metro Vancouver really needs to move away from only transit-oriented development with all the towers to include vast areas of this "missing middle" and low/mid-rise zoning in areas that are single-family houses currently. This would also go a long ways in greatly increasing the housing supply, and hopefully reducing housing costs somewhat to a little more affordable levels. Basically, Burnaby needs to stop tearing down the little it has left of these low/mid-rise buildings for towers and instead focus on replacing some single-family houses with the missing middle and low/mid-rise housing blocks. San Francisco Bay Area 1. BART is crazy expensive and less than ideal for the purpose(s) it attempts to serve. It is all grade separated, with long (8-10 car) trains, but only runs every ~15-20 min for each of the lines (some lines are more frequent during parts of peak hours). This is very noticeable on the weekend when only 3 of the 5 lines run, and only at 20 min frequency (combined 10min frequency in San Francisco and Oakland). The system attempts to serve as a high capacity subway for San Francisco and Oakland, as well as a long distance commuter/regional system. This confliction of priorities leads a big clusterfuck and huge waste of money (>$100M/mile for service very low density singly family houses and miles between stations, providing subpar experience for most people it seems. 2. In San Francisco, they have a local mini-metro system that operates in a subway on different tracks but along the same path as BART in downtown SF, but comes aboveground outside of downtown to operate as a streetcar. This system helps with frequency in downtown but the mixed-traffic streetcar portion and the fact that 3+ lines join into one main line downtown can cause delays, congestion and irregular frequency issues. 3. Streetcars in mixed traffic aren't worth it. I'm beginning to more understanding the gravitation of people to rails over buses. Rail systems, even mixed-traffic streetcars, have the benefit of being easier to understand than bus routes, simply because there is only 1 or 2 sets of tracks in a local area whereas there are countless roads and bus stops that a bus could come to. Essentially they are simpler to understand because they stand out and there is only one possibility instead of 10 or 50. That said, the mixed traffic the streetcars, while being nice to ride (partly because they are older and provide a "classic" look and feeling) they seem to run slower than buses partly because there are often objects protruding into its path and it can't go around. Areas with dedicated lanes seemed to avoid this. So while these steetcars seem to draw higher volumes of people than buses, they should go right to having dedicated lanes and not be in mixed traffic as that would improve both speed and overall experience. 4. There are countless transit systems and operators in the SF Bay area, and you can use a single card (similar to Compass) on all systems, but each system charges a separate fare, making transit an expensive option if you need to go between transit systems (aka if you're travelling from SF to any other city). I found this very annoying, especially after coming from a fully fare-integrated Barcelona. 5. Distance/displacement based fares suck if implemented poorly. BART works solely on distance-based fares, but the only way I found to figure out how much a trip would cost is to use the calculator on their website to make sure I had enough money on my card to pay for the trip. They also do not offer and daily or monthly passes, so it seems to be a very expensive transit option. Seattle's LRT system by comparison shows fares front and center on their machines at stations. Seattle also has small differences between the lowest and highest fares ($2.25-$3.25) and almost works in a zone type system as stations are clumped in groups at the different price points, while BART has much larger variations ($1.95-$7.80 excluding airport surcharges). To me it seems that if Translink is going to go with distance based fares for Skytrain, it should be set at the price of a bus fare on the low end, with small increments upwards. At the same time, enlarging the zones and keeping a zone based system doesn't seem like a bad way to go either after what I saw in Barcelona. This would likely be more relevant with an integrated fare system to Abbotsford and Squamish, as at present there would likely only be two fare zones. To summarize everything : -Use Barcelona's buses here -Prefer above ground over tunnelling -Gondolas, elevated systems and trams with their own lanes are the way to go -Bring regional trains here -Fare integration with surrounding BC Transit systems -Maybe just larger zones and not distance based fares -Replace single-family homes with missing middle and low/mid-rise housing
  4. That is what I assumed as well, and is what I was using to attempt to calculate the speed. Based on this, the Newton-Guildford line is 10.5km with a travel time of 27 min (.45 hrs). 10.5km/.45hr = 23.333 km/h. Older documents show 23-25 minutes, so it would be even faster with those numbers. Based on the numbers on page 260 of this pdf, the Broadway Extension from VCC to Arbutus is 35.24 km/h with 5.11km taking 8.7min. Alternately, using page 38 of the same report, VCC-UBC, the 12.4km would take 17.3min, giving a speed of 43km/h. For the Langley line, using this report, on page 72, the Langley line is 17.1km (using LRT 5a length to get only the Langley line). As times are measured from Surrey Central, we are unable to use the 15.8km figure shown for RRT as that is only King George to Langley, not Surrey Central. Skytrain takes a route ~100-200m shorter than LRT between Surrey Central and King George, so I'll 16.9-17.1km seems to be a valid range to use for RRT. With the times on Page 45, RRT would take 22min from Surrey Central to Langley, and LRT would be 29-30min. For LRT that gives us 34.2-35.38 km/h - note that the 35.17 km/h listed by @8800GTX falls within this range For RRT, we have 46.09-46.64 km/h. On a different note, one thing I noticed while going through this document is that on page 57, it indicates that LRT/BRT would not have dedicated lanes through Green Timbers, but instead share road space with cars. From the newer documents and information, this seems to have changed, and LRT will have dedicated lanes through Green Timbers, which it should.
  5. Thanks for putting that together. One question I did have is exactly what numbers and calculations you used for the proposed lines ( Broadway extension and the Surrey lines)? I was just going back through both the documents you mentioned as well as others from each project, and I was unable to duplicate your speed numbers for those proposed lines, no matter which numbers I used.
  6. Night buses generally suck here, especially since some routes don't run bi-directional all night (I'm looking directly at you, N19). So I made a rough map, which will not be implemented anytime soon if ever The only thing that seems missing to me is a north-south route from the Tri-cities/Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows to New West/Surrey/Langley, but I'm not sure what the best option would be for that. Coquitlam Central to New West via Lougheed Hwy/Brunette? To Surrey Central or Guildford via Lougheed and Port Mann? Pitt Meadows-Langley via Golden Ears? Also, should the N250 extend to Horseshoe Bay? My main goal was to provide overall connectivity, serving the most people, that could get you most places, even if you have to walk a little farther (up to 1.5-2km). Generally this meant using the FTN and the pre-2001 night bus network as a basic framework, with alterations for more access for people (such as the 320 instead of the 502). Many of them are probably only mini-buses, at least at the start. All buses run both directions all night at least every 30 minutes. Bi-directional is key for me as it allows people to access services or enable them to utilize first thing in the morning long-distance planes/trains/buses before the normal transit system is up and running fully. As always, thoughts, opinions, changes?
  7. Crescent Beach Bypass meaning something like this? Or just upgrades to the existing track/ROW around Crescent Beach? I'm assuming you're referring to the moving of the ROW to a different route as with the existing ROW, there isn't really space in many sections to add 2 additional tracks, and the curves that the ROW takes are too much for HSR at speed. The benefits to terminating at YVR would be lower cost due to less elevated or tunnelled track being needed. There would still need to be a whole new station built for the train, which would of course have CPB/CBSA, so there wouldn't really be any benefit from that perspective for having a YVR terminus . However, at Pacific Central there is already a station with a CPB/CBSA facility as well, so that would just need to be expanded for HSR. There would be a couple downsides for having the station at YVR: 1. It's still 30min from downtown and eliminates what is often one of the central benefits of HSR over planes - they take you much closer to downtown, where more people would be going, compared to getting to an airport than still having a significant amount of travel to ones destination. That is both extra time savings from being on the faster HSR and convenience savings by not having to go all the way to the airport. 2. You would need a whole new station, whereas Pacific Central would just need some upgrades (which would be cheaper than a whole new station). The cost of a new station definitely doesn't cancel out the savings for the Knight elevated/tunnelled section, but it does eliminate some of the savings. 3. Why would you end at YVR instead of Bridgeport? As a whole new station and customs facility would be needed anyway (it doesn't matter if customs was 500m or 5km from the YVR customs as they would still need a whole new location and staffing), why not save some money and just end at Bridgeport? There is room for a new station, and it would have better integration with transit, especially important as there would be 300-1200 people getting off of HSR about the same time, so the combined capacity of the two Canada line legs would be very beneficial, vs just having one leg at YVR. I did some quick calculations for what may be needed for HSR frequency/capacity. HSR carries anywhere from 350 to 1300 people per train, depending on configuration, etc. On a random Friday in September, there is 10 flights in each direction between YVR and SEA/PDX, with a rough total capacity of 1800 people. QuickShuttle, Greyhound, Boltbus, and Amtrak Bus have a combined ~20 trips each way per day between SEA nad YVR, with a rough total capacity of ~1200 people. Twice a day Amtrak trains have a capacity of ~600 people per day, giving a total capacity between all three modes of ~3600 per day. With the low end of HSR capacity per train, there would be ~10 trains each direction per day that would be needed to replace existing capacity from these sources that would likely be replaced by HSR. Adding in additional capacity for people who would switch from driving or other means not included above, and there would be about one train per hour per direction every day (~12-15 train per day per direction). That would probably be about ideal as once per hour trains be just frequent enough to provide flexibility and convenience for people relative to the existing ~20 flights per day.
  8. With the possibility of a future Vancouver-Seattle/Portland high-speed train, what the routing would be through BC? I came up with two likely routes that seem most likely: 1. Basically the current Amtrak route from Pacific Central Station through the Grandview Cut, across a new New West rail bridge/tunnel, and along the BNSF alignment to Hwy 99, then Hwy 99 to the border. 2. Hwy 99 from the border to somewhere around Hwy 91 or Westminster Hwy where it would cut over to Knight St, and follow Knight/Clark (either elevated or tunnelled) to where the Expo and Millennium lines cross Clark, then along the existing rail ROW to Pacific Central Station. The first option may have issues with limited space through the Grandview Cut, especially if the current rail gets double tracked for improved movement of freight and passengers. That's probably the main obstacle, but could be the undoing of the whole route. It would probably use the new rail bridge/tunnel across the Fraser with separate tracks from freight. Option 2 would likely be more expensive, specifically if it is tunnelled in Vancouver along Knight/Clark, but elevating it, while being significantly cheaper and very competitive with option 1, would face some local opposition (the question is how much opposition). A second Massey tunnel would provide the south Fraser crossing (the tunnel would also have sections for pedestrians and bikes, possibly car lanes and local/regional rail). A significant portion of the tracks/ROW could potentially be shared with local/regional trains, depending on the exact configuration and design. Thoughts? Are these probably the best/most likely routes? Are there other options or alterations to these routes that should be considered?
  9. I would argue New West Station is already the hub. Columbia is a secondary station and seems to serve mainly for people changing trains, as well as the people that live a little closer to Columbia than New West. All the buses go to New West station, with only some shuttle routes passing by Columbia. I would prefer to have the Glenbrooke station around Mcbride Blvd/Victoria Hill instead of Columbia. It would more evenly spread the stations in New Westminster, and serve an area with significant density that doesn't have all that great transit service now. Additionally, New West and Columbia Stations are some of the closest together at ~600m apart. Only Granville-Burrard on the Expo line and Broadway City Hall-Olympic Village and Vancouver City Center-Waterfront on the Canada line have stations that are closer together.
  10. Vancouver general sightings and notes

    The stops for the 430 in the new schedule look the same as previously, so it does seem to be just the C7 as @Express691 noted. http://infomaps.translink.ca/Public_Timetables/136/tt430.pdf
  11. 2018 SkyTrain Procurement

    Tunnelled lines should allow for easy expansion far beyond any estimated ridership in 30 years or whatever. Tunnels will be around for 100+ years, nobody will be able to even remotely project ridership levels in 100 years. When a tunnel is built, the stations should allow for easy expansion and lengthening, whether it is 15, 50, or 90 years from now. Allow extra room in the station area for additions and expansions when the time comes, because it will come. I don't necessarily have an issue with how long the platforms were made initially, but they should have allowed for easy lengthening when needed, and they didn't. So I somewhat agree with you, but take a slightly different perspective. For the Canada line specifically, there was a lot of questioning and derision saying the ridership projections were far too optimistic. It probably wouldn't have been very beneficial or productive to have higher estimates as there likely would have been even more opposition saying they were completely unreliable and challenging the whole process and project as incompetent. Stupid politics. Yep, Canada Line was a long-term P3 (DBFOM - Design, build, finance, operate, maintain) and the Evergreen a short-term P3 (DBF). Two notes: I am not suggesting that Translink or others should build the lines themselves, but that a simpler fixed-cost contract with requirements for work and quality can achieve the same thing as a P3 (I view a project as a P3 when a private company finances at least some of the project). Second, I'm really not against P3's as a whole, but more precisely, that the operations and maintenance should not be part of the P3. Lastly, I agree, politics should have very minimal to zero involvement in transit planning and construction. Politics and political motivation is what screws over transit agencies much of the time and makes them much less efficient.
  12. 2018 SkyTrain Procurement

    Of course there are statistical ridership projections, but as most other projections, it can be counted on that they will be wrong. The only question would be wrong by how much and in which direction. They can serve to provide a vague idea, but it is virtually impossible to get an accurate ridership projection. I don't think the Canada Line projections were necessarily bad (conservative estimates are usually not a bad problem to have), the fact that stations weren't designed to easily allow for extra growth, no matter if that growth was within 10 years or 30 is the issue. P3's don't inherently protect against capital cost overruns. They definitely can be written up to do that, and often are, but it isn't an inherent trait. Similarly, regular design-build and similar contracts can be written to put cost overruns on the contractor(s), and they are sometimes. It all just depends on how it is written in the contract.
  13. Would it be reasonable/possible to have some artics on the 319? It seems like the extra capacity could be used, I'm just not sure if they would have trouble with the hill on Scott Rd when fully loaded, or if there would be other potential issues (Scottsdale Exchange not being made for artics?) I don't think that will happen before the B-line is implemented, but when it is, I think there may also be a stop at 104 Ave, then 96 Ave and one roughly every 4 blocks (800m) thereafter. I agree with the improved night service. Even 15 minute service until midnight, and 20 minute service until 2am would be a decent start and then increase it from there if still needed. I also want to see a night-bus for 24 hour service when the B-line starts. The night bus should have bi-directional 30 minute service.
  14. Nah, it's only running every 15 minutes during peak now. It would be more beneficial to just have regular buses at a higher frequency if additional capacity is needed.
  15. Agreed. With the current night-bus network, I think FTN buses should run 0500-2500 or 2600 during the week, with a few starting at 0600 on weekends, but most still at 0500. If we had a good night-bus network (more or less a night bus on every FTN route with a few exceptions), I would be alright with buses ending at midnight or 1 am, and having the night-buses start then. One thing I don't believe was in the 10 year plan but should be implemented is more night bus routes. If a corridor has a B-line or better (Skytrain, Canada Line, LRT, gondola, etc), it should have at least 30 minute frequency for night-bus service in both directions. Surrey is definitely lacking, and should have a night bus for the 96 at a minimum (the 319, 321 and 502 have a good argument as well). Others like the N19 need to be made bi-directional all night. As there are supposed to be something like 11? new B-lines added over the course of the 10-year vision, I think they should add night bus routes for each of those lines as the B-lines come online.
×