Jump to content

Zortan

Wiki Editor
  • Posts

    242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zortan

  1. I was out biking today, and I also noticed that - I stopped for a bit at a few transit hubs. I think that it most likely has to do with the service reduction.
  2. Saw 19023 on the 257 this afternoon. Not sure how rare it is to see a RapidBus on the 257 at this point, but still thought it was worth pointing out.
  3. Once again, ignoring the benefits of free transit and pointing out the issues: Funding shortfalls are because drivers are always so over-funded. Why are roads free? Why is the entire oil / gas industry subsidized? Because the government has decided it's more important to fund road users than transit users. If transit was funded as much as cars are funded by the government, it could be completely free and they'd have money left over for pretty big expansions. Blaming homeless people on transit is just not acceptable at all. The homeless problem has nothing to do with the availability of transit and/or free transit, and complaining that homeless people are on buses is like complaining that homeless people are walking down the street. It is our responsibility to deal with the homeless crisis, and considering it a terrible thing to have homeless people on transit is really sad. Imagine if your life had gone so wrong that you ended up on the street, and then people didn't even let you get on a bus so you could go try and get help. The issue with transit we're having now should never be happening. It's because people are treating transit agencies as companies. They were never meant to be profitable - that's not their purpose. The purpose of transit is to provide efficient and effective transportation to everyone in the service area. Denying that basic right to people by charging them money to use it is pretty unacceptable. Imagine if someone told you it would cost $3 to open the door of your house and walk outside. Charging for transit is the same thing. Free transit is not unfeasible - all it requires is a reasonable amount of government funding - still far, far less than car-based transportation gets. Transit isn't meant to make money - it isn't meant to be a business. Transit is there as a mobility solution for the millions of people who live here - and it needs to start being available as one to everyone. However, the most important argument is that transit is an essential service if we want to ever survive through the climate crisis. Having an ineffective network and high fares means more people in their cars, and there is no way to have an environmentally responsible city with cars in it. Cars take up more room, create congestion and worst of all are stinky pollution machines contributing to the climate crisis and therefore the eventual downfall of human civilization.
  4. What a horrible thing to hear - both in terms of the layoffs and the service cuts. I can understand many of the routes, such as the 44 and 251, But a lot of these, especially the NightBuses really don't have much of an alternative.
  5. Unfortunately, I doubt it. Translink isn't owned by the municipal government (it acts as an independent public organization from what I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong) so it can't really ask Vancouver / Metro Vancouver for money all the time. Additionally, both Horgan and Trudeau have said that they will not be bailing out transit systems - sound ridiculous but unfortunately it's true.
  6. Sad to hear. Honestly it's pretty disappointing that an agency that claims to want to be zero-emission by 2040 still can't figure out how to run a trolleybus on a weekend. In Vancouver, the trolleybus system is far from perfect, but at a minimum it runs 7 days a week and (I think) all trolley routes are part of the Frequent Transit Network, which is 15 minutes or better for some number of hours a day, 7 days a week.
  7. I'm glad to see a listing of routes on the KCM page :) However, since it's so long, maybe it could be made into a separate article?
  8. That's pretty strange - I can understand having some routes for construction in various areas, but every single route? Why? Especially with the current fleet where they can skip sections that have issues.
  9. I was looking on the Pantograph tracker and I'm seeing that all trolley routes are being operated by hybrids - is that normal? Sorry I don't usually look at trackers and stuff, but typically I would think that trolleys would operate trolley routes...
  10. Really hope it isn't. With their large 787 and 777 fleets, ordering a similar-sized aircraft from another family entirely makes absolutely no sense. I really don't understand AC's fleet plans, but seriously they are messing up IMO by canceling the MAX orders and then by increasing the Airbus fleets. Remember that their first major batch of Airbuses was received unwillingly...
  11. It is still a horrible ad to see. I believe they started putting it up as part of their campaign to stop the R2 going past Park Royal. Honestly I've gotta say it's ridiculous that someone would be so short-sighted to think that a few spaces of parking is more important than high-quality, high-frequency mobility for thousands of people.
  12. Zortan

    Westjet

    Quite a time to get a brand-new expensive plane delivered. Surprised they didn't / weren't able to defer.
  13. Well, that is effectively a West Van route, despite who operates it.
  14. So the 240 now goes to Lynn Valley - saw it today when I was out for a walk. Also, the destination sign on the return trip now says Downtown rather than Vancouver. I know the 246 has been doing this for a while - has it happened to the other North Van buses as well?
  15. Pardon my ignorance on this - but why all the canceled trips? Are they because of COVID or some other issue? And if they're because of COVID - why? I thought Translink was going to maintain the current schedule.
  16. I don't believe Transat will be re-branded. From what I heard, part of the merger deal is that AC will retain the Transat brand for X number of years (can't remember how many). On the other hand, it may make more sense to fold Rouge into Transat, given Transat's better reputation and better recognition.
  17. Still quite an improvement For me - I travel to the eastern side of the British Properties (near where the route name changes from British Properties to Vancouver / Park Royal), so having a more direct route over there would be super nice, especially in the afternoons when I've had to ride all the way around
  18. Yeah - I simply sugested the service increase on the 250 just because of the frequency gap that not having it would create. Additionally, the stop spacing on the RapidBus is pretty large (which is ofc the goal haha), but that does make it difficult for things like the distance between Denman and Burrard - a high-density area, and a really large gap between those two stops means that people living at say the Broughton Street stop will have to either walk all the way down to Denman or all the way up to Burrard, both of which are decently far away. So that's where the 250 would come in. Although I totally understand that a lot of passengers would be connecting from Vancouver City Centre, Granville, Stadium-Chinatown or Burrard Stations, so the RapidBus is definitely a better idea for them. Having a more direct 254 would be so awesome, so honestly if they split it in two or something and then did shuttles I wouldn't mind especially since traffic is typically for either one half or the other going to or from PR/Downtown. However, If they switch to shuttles I'd certainly hope for a frequency increase (which in turn could bring more passengers, which would be awesome as well).
  19. This is actually a great plan - I really like it! A few thoughts / notes just from my observations: The Vancouver/Dundrave (current 250a) service maybe should run a little more frequently. 10-12 minutes combined with 8-12 on the RapidBus means that frequencies might not be super great. Currently, service runs between Park Royal and downtown every 1-5 minutes during rush hour. I'd say increase this 250a service to allow for a similar, if not higher frequency. I cannot speak for 253 ridership, as I've never ridden it past Park Royal, but the 254 definitely shouldn't be a community shuttle. There have been times when I've been on that bus and it's had all seats taken before arriving to Park Royal from the British Properties. There are definitely emptier runs, but overall I'd say the loads are enough for a 40-foot. I really like your idea for the Rapidbus - and while I agree that NIMBYs would make the 14 and 15 street, as well as the Headland stops difficult, those would be super cool to see. While the bus could run by Taylor way, it would then be taking a bunch of passengers off the 254, while currently those traveling to the 257 stops on Marine and 15th just tend to take the 257 instead of the 251 already. Just a few of my thoughts on it, but overall I really love this idea!
  20. Haven't ridden a bus in a while lol - why is this happening? The 250s I've seen haven't been exactly full, although I also haven't been out much during rush hour.
  21. From what I've heard, the final KLM 747 flight recently landed at AMS. End of an era for sure. Qantas' last 747 flight landed last night in SYD, so within a few hours of KLM. Sad to see two iconic airline/aircraft combinations go at the same time.
  22. Thing is, cars are only more "convenient" simply because people refuse to pay money for better transit. That's really the only reason. But if we did do that, you wouldn't feel like you needed a car, neither would anyone else. Global warming is a crisis, one which will spell the end of human civilization if we do nothing about it. Having more people on the roads is exactly the opposite of what we need to be doing. In major cities such as Vancouver, there really is no need to own a car. Transit may be slightly slower, but at the end of the day it's more than convenient enough to get people where they need to go 99% of the time. Two years ago, I decided I'd stop using cars, and told my parents that same thing - I haven't looked back. Sure, there is the occasional time when the half-hourly bus from my school doesn't come and I'm stuck freezing at the bus stop, but it's just like when a car breaks down - rare and unavoidable. At this point, why should we be asking what people want to do with their cars? Inside cities, there really is no need for it, and the city should have the freedom to tell people that they aren't allowed their cars within city limits. Plain and simple, and the only solution that really should have ever been implemented.
  23. OK fine - car owners complain. Regardless, transit is an essential service, and making it cost money is essentially discriminating against those who are choosing to live a more environmentally responsible, lower-cost life by not owning or using a car. People don't expect to pay for roads or sidewalks - why should they expect to pay for an extension of that - an extension which is vital to having a healthy city? Transit is the only environmentally responsible way to get around, and many car owners don't take it because it's "more expensive" even when it isn't. If it was free - no one would have to worry about zone fares, if they have enough loaded on their card, etc. Those would be worries of the past, and people would be able to choose a method of transport that is essential to having a good city and a good lifestyle. Sorry this is getting quite off topic oops!
  24. We already pay for transit - fares honestly don't cover that much of the operating cost. And, at the end of the day, transit isn't there to make money. Car owners pay far more for the cost of driving, including gas, maintenance, etc., but they don't complain about that. Even if transit were completely free, the cost to the taxpayer would be far less than even coming close to owning a car. And, to be honest, in areas that Translink serves with few exceptions, car ownership really isn't necessary.
×
×
  • Create New...