Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

1,417 profile views
  1. Agreed. The core area (Victoria, Saanich, Esquimalt) is able to support enough frequency for significant redraw of routes that have a couple ultra-frequent corridors (basically the 50, 15, 40, and 70 to Royal Oak) with most other routes being frequent, direct routes that intersect those. There would be very minimal overlapping of any routes (opposite of routes like the 21 which has exactly zero parts of its route where it's not duplicating another route) which would allow for almost all routes to be frequent, leading to minimal time cost for any transfer needed.
  2. Feedback is open for Broadmead/Cordova Bay and Esquimalt/View Royal area transit plans. Here are the open houses: Or you can complete the online survey here: https://form.simplesurvey.com/f/l/EsquimaltBroadmeadLATP Proposed changes for Broadmead/Cordova Bay 1. Eliminate 6A and 6B, making all 6 buses direct to Royal Oak exchange. I would like to see the 6 extend one stop east to Broadmead village to allow easier transfer from the 70x, but don't think that will happen. 2. Turning the 32 into this confusing disaster. I literally ha
  3. Coupling Mark II's, reduced frequency, but same overall capacity. This allows for fewer attendants being required to maintain overall capacity.
  4. I have the sense that the RapidBus will likely route close to the 410 routing, instead of the 430, based on what I've seen/heard from people at Translink.
  5. I wouldn't be surprised. South Burnaby/Southeast Vancouver is in need of a loop between Marine Dr Stn and 22nd Stn, at least until the existing rail line there gets passenger rail running on it. It's a good location, with the highest density along the Marine Dr corridor between Cambie and New West, and is well positioned to connect all the current N-S services there (26, 29, 116, 146 and maybe 20 depending on what happens with the future B-line/Rapidbus)
  6. Not until they get good transit priority to avoid delays. A good bit of the issue with going to Cap, and even Phibbs to a lesser extend is all the cars slowing things down, hence the dedicated bus to Cap now. As for the 31 proposal, it provides too much redundancy and very little benefit, because of that redundancy and minimal frequency. For this area of Vancouver and south Burnaby, routes do need to be simplified to make them more legible, efficient, and direct, which should increase ridership and allow frequency improvements. Edit: I have the updated 26 extending to Boundary
  7. Does anyone know why there have been a bunch of new hybrid artics from BTC on the 20 the past week or so? I've seen ocassional non-trolleys before but they are rare and usually from VTC. Is the 20 being moved to BTC, or maybe this is a trial to prevent the 20's from always being bunched in groups of 3 in the afternoon?
  8. Capacity can't really be expanded in any reasonable fashion beyond the 5 car trains and maybe a small bump in headway, all of which is accounted for with the mid-2030 at/over max design capacity. Could Translink theoretically spend billions (likely tens of billions) of dollars to lengthen stations, reconfigure tracks and allow longer trains? Yes, but that makes zero sense financially when there are other options to provide better transit to other places while relieving capacity from the Expo line. Additionally that would entail completely shutting down the Expo line for weeks, if not
  9. The Expo line can not handle any more extensions or branches unless or until alternate or reliever routes for the Expo line are built. Even right now, before any extension in Surrey, the Expo line is expected to be at/above the max build-out capacity (5 car trains, lowest possible headway) within ~15 yrs (mid 2030's). Unless there is other options built to take some ridership from the Expo line (such as a Kingsway line, regional/express rail to Surrey and SoF or other???), we are just building an even worse disaster for 15-20 yrs from now (pass-ups, overcrowding, station and line shutdown
  10. Bi-articulated bus is 24m, and most modern LRV in North America are about 30m to start, and can be extended up to 50m or 60m fairly easily, so there is still double the capacity potential at a minimum. Would have to be a double-ended bus
  11. Just curious, why not existing side-of-road bus lanes with zero cars allowed with right-turns happen from the second lane? Same end result without the cost of adding bus stops since they can drop off on sidewalk like now, and also safer for people waiting for the bus, especially if it gets crowded due to delays, etc. So, leave out Commercial for example, which would cover the cost many of busways, but not all. Busways on Hastings, Commercial, etc. You increase ridership (partly from organic growth, partly as the city continues to densify) on these already high ridership routes and, wit
  12. Cost-benefit rations can be helpful, but they are limited by what someone determines should be included or excluded (for example, opportunity-cost isn't part of a CBR; how would that ratio change, if it looked at the combination of the 2-5 LRT lines that would exist as part of the CBR if LRT was chosen over Skytrain?). It is also hard to assign a monetary value to qualitative metrics such as reducing the road space for cars, and therefore the number of cars on the road, which often increasing walkability and liveability. You can assign values to portions like pollution reduction impacting over
  13. Clarity and basis in fact is great. That is all. Great, can you point me to what models they have that are compatible with our current lines as I haven't been able to find any? Also, will they actually be bidding on the proposed Fraser Hwy extension then, and if not, why? The reason for that the year$ difference is simple: the time of construction is different. Fraser Hwy was always going to be built later, and even now, it will still be a couple years behind the proposed SNG line. Also, money guaranteed now, doesn't increase in value, hence having to set money at/close-to YoE
  14. I would envision the LRT most likely being in the median on it's own ROW (see image below), possibly with some elevated sections if needed to help with grade or particularly problematic areas (maybe around Hwy 1?) Note, that the main purpose of this LRT system would be as follows: 1. Massively increase capacity to avoid the over-crowding that already exists. 2. Somewhat improve travel time due to more priority and further separated ROW 3. Further segregate transit from traffic with to minimize disruptions from cars and make it more reliable. 4. Grow the existing medium-dens
  15. Solution: Use the ROW from PoCo down to Braid, then through the Grandview Cut. We need more tracks there for express/regional service to Surrey/Langley, and the valley anyway (Expo line reliever), so why not make use of them for the current/expanded WCE as well? Have high capacity LRT on Hastings from Tri-cities to downtown, and serve the regional purpose with a dedicated regional corridor serving both SoF and the Valley along with the PoCo/Coquitlam and out to Mission.
  • Create New...