Zortan

Not really. Battery buses require more electricity, more weight and a lot more infrastructure. Trolleys don't hinder the efficiency of any system. In fact, they encourage agencies to offer more frequent service along trolley lines as the infrastructure is already there. And, in the long run trolleys are far cheaper to maintain and keep on the road, since the buses themselves need far less work and the overall infrastructure is less maintenance-heavy than a full network of chargers. It also allows us to take advantage of what we have now, which is a fairly large and effective trolley network.

They are better, but there is likely no physical way to make them as efficient and as safe as trolleybuses. Sure, you can get a better battery, but it'll still weigh more than the tiny backups in the trolleys. Sure, you can make the batteries more efficient, but you can't make them as efficient as directly delivering the power from the grid to the bus. Trolleys may not be the newest technology, but remember that the most effective carbon capture technology is a tree. Newer doesn't mean better in every case.

Construction costs for trolley wires may be higher, but I believe that they have lower maintenance and operational costs than battery-electric once they get built.

It wouldn't really cost much of anything to run the R4 as trolleys, assuming we dieselize the 41. All they'd need to do is purchase a few buses, which isn't that significant, especially considering our aging trolley fleet overall. The XDEs coming off the R4 could pretty easily be put onto the R6 or some other new service.

Or, make the 41 a diesel, considering that it runs every 15 minutes while the R4 is far more frequent, meaning that electrifying the R4 has a much better impact than the 41.

The 5/6 have been diesel yesterday and today

If there isn't some sort of last-minute resolution to this I bet we'll be seeing pretty significant ridership boosts to the 405, 407, 22 and 15...

Pierce Transit 192, wrapped in the Sound Transit Livery, is seen here entering Bellevue Transit Center on Sound Transit route 560E to Bellevue via Sea-Tac Airport.

I spotted both of those 240 blocks today I think. Cool to see it in place, the ridership does warrant it.

That's fair, although I'd still see a 66 frequency increase as more valuable for passengers personally

Connections aren't necessarily a bad thing tho, like sure they can add time but the cost savings from not extending to SkyTrain could just be put towards increasing the 66's frequency, especially with expanding service hours on weekends, etc. instead of extending its length and duplicating an already popular, convenient and successful route IMO

Not quite sure why they'd want to, considering that the 555 runs far more frequently than the 66 and is effectively nonstop between Lougheed and Carvolth. If you ask me, there's more potential extending it east, since east of Chilliwack has relatively limited transit service.

The concept seems a little strange to me, I get that using the DMUs would be simpler than implementing a new form of rapid transit, but personally I'd rather see a SW Marine RapidBus or LRT.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but Burrard got the new platform screens for Expo Line, although they're not operational right now.

There are people who use the stops, I've seen people get on and off along Willard. I'd personally say it's useful.

I believe YVR trains were also running at 3-minute frequencies due to the Richmond closure.

Interesting. I think it was a Daily Hive article about the Broadway station names that stated that they'd just keep the B-Line. Not sure what the plan is now, I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. I'm personally hoping for a B-Line since it would probably indicate the possibility of the UBC subway in the near-ish future.

From what I've heard, the B-Line will just be truncated to Arbutus Station.

The first ones have moved from Vancouver mostly within 2020, with the only exception being the 246 I believe. As for the 25x series, I think that's mostly just West Van being West Van, from what I've heard there's no significant reasoning for it.

What would you have preferred to see implemented instead?

Haha, I see what you mean. There's always gonna be some demand though I'm sure. For example, the 254 goes through one of the most extreme areas in terms of NIMBYism and extreme wealth, however it can actually have somewhat decent ridership, especially during peak hours. Sure, it may not be the residents of the houses that take the bus, but the construction workers, babysitters, etc. are a good source of ridership in West Van anyway.

IMO having an empty bus is better than no bus at all. I don't know the area and I know I sound way too optimistic but sometimes people learn to do good things like take the bus ;)

That's actually a great point, now that I think of it. I'd imagine maps could be a good feature, they're currently included on Sound Transit and other agency route pages so I personally think it could work for Translink.

I thought what they said was that Brighouse was second and the 620 was fourth, but I definitely could've misheard.

I think I heard something once about the tracks and something to do with power supply messing with the Mark I trains. I don't think width or other sizing things would be a factor, though, as all three types of Bombardier trains run on the Expo Line without any issues.