Jump to content

CV92

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

    434
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,821 profile views
  1. If you Google image search "Routemaster entrance" the results will show that both the front and rear entrance have additional steps to the lower saloon seating area beyond the initial step into the bus.
  2. This is an interesting topic that I never gave much thought before! Based on about 20 minutes worth of poking around the internet, I came up with a few possibilities for the discrepancies... Full disclaimer, I'm no expert on this matter and as I noted above I formulated all of this with about 20 minutes worth of research and thought, so don't shoot me if I get something wrong The most obvious reason I can think is that it's a simple mistake that got lost in translation through years of journalists and bloggers omitting a key part of the statistic that is still referenced presently on BC Transit's website: that the Tridents are the first "low-floor, double deck buses in North America (Victoria)" That's an important distinction to make, but it is an easy fact to gloss over if someone isn't familiar with the industry - this detail may have gotten buried over time due to this reason - even the person who wrote the 20th anniversary FAQ missed that! I honestly think the above is the real reason, but there could be a few other technicalities to get away on - and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with any of these, just to note that I don't think it's implausible that someone could draw these following conclusions: I don't believe any public agency operated double decker buses in the year 2000 specifically, so I suppose they're a "first" just like the 2013 XN40s were BC Transit's "first" CNG powered buses, although I notice that Transit no longer makes this claim on their website. Brampton: Based on was posted above about Brampton's use of their decker, due to it's limited scope of use it may not have been recognized as a full-time revenue vehicle, which could remove it from contention for people eager to claim a "crown" as their own. NYC: Last time deckers operated for the purposes of transit, it was run by the Fifth Avenue Coach Company, which was a private company - historically common but not these days. If one were to limit the definition of "public" transit to those agencies that had direct government involvement, one could rule these ones out. LA: This particular Neoplan vehicle seems to be defined as a "double deck coach" whereas the Dennis Trident is a "double deck transit bus." So again, if one were to grasp at straws, LA may have instead operated an "intercity double deck coach" service as opposed to double decker transit service. Toronto: During the time period when Toronto ran deckers, they were already public if I understand correctly - so this circles me back to my original point, that I think what has happened here is the detail of them being the first modern low floor double deck buses has been lost in the woodwork. I like to overthink things.
  3. With the impending arrival of new double deckers coinciding with the 20-year anniversary of deckers in Victoria, and the retirement of the original 10, Transit has launched a page on their website commemorating the occasion. Of note, the highest mileage of the original 10 is 9004, with 1,232,704km (and counting!). Bus 9001 will also be transferred back to Alexander-Dennis upon retirement and will be preserved in a museum. https://www.bctransit.com/doubledecker20 https://www.bctransit.com/documents/1529710964594
  4. As yesterday was Saturday, it was most likely just on a road test by a mechanic.
  5. In earlier days under previous leadership, there was a lot more encouragement for the individual funding partners to take ownership of their systems (they do provide the majority of funding for conventional systems after all). One of the ways this was done was that BC Transit allowed individual systems to design their own bus stop signs. Some of the systems that had custom designs and/or specific sizes of sign include Kamloops, Kelowna, CFV, Whistler, Penticton, and Revelstoke. This all went the way of the dodo bird when the current branding came in.
  6. https://www.bctransit.com/media/releases-and-advisories?nid=1529710453160 From this morning. End of the Dart era in Victoria. No more Arbocs in conventional service either (for real this time).
  7. Those wishing to acquire a printed copy of the current Riders Guide can do so at the Transit main office during business hours. My sources also say that they will be available at various locations around town such as public libraries, recreation centres, malls, and information centres before the end of the month.
  8. Just my guess, but I suspect it's an effort to soften the sting to the prospective passenger that's just had an empty bus pass them by. It's more of a Canadian thing...not every agency but there's a number of them outside of BC that also include the "SORRY" part. The bus full sign has been "SORRY BUS FULL" for as long as I can remember. We used to have "SORRY DROP OFF ONLY" but was changed to say "DROP OFF ONLY" circa 2015.
  9. As far as I was aware, that stop has closed indefinitely but not permanently. Last time I went through there the sign had only been bagged, has it now been completely removed? They did put the old sign back in 9437, although I think it may have been its original as opposed to from a scrap bus. The 39 will have 15 minute service between UVic and Royal Oak during the AM and PM peak, which I believe is what it was pre-Covid. On another unrelated note - after not being "Sorry" for over a decade, Victoria buses once again align with the rest of the Province and apologize for being out of service.
  10. Further details on the Fall service changes are now available online. Individual route upcoming schedules are viewable, and the document describing the changes is available at the link below: https://www.bctransit.com/documents/1529710225453
  11. IIRC, the private section of College Dr is a one-way road. Let me preface what I'm going to say below is that I don't disagree with you, and I'm not trying to defend the route. As someone with training in urban planning, I personally think the service is a pretty horrible. However, I try to caution myself to not be overly critical of transit routes through solely the planner's lens. What makes no sense from an academic's perspective may just "work" in a particular unique situation. We don't know what sort of consultation or data transit had when they made the decision they did, and why they chose to keep the two trips that they did. It did run marginally more often, but was reduced with the rest of the service reductions before. Not that it ran very often before. At its most, I think it ran 5 times per day. My sources tell me that one trip has been reinstated for Fall, bringing the number of daily trips up to 3. Will they reinstate more if and when Royal Roads goes back to more in-person instruction? Time will tell. It is quite a significant service reduction versus what the 39 provided, but I wouldn't want the current iteration of the 39, with its increased service levels, running through there. It would be an inefficient one-way deviation for a route that they eventually want to become FTN status, and the private road throws another wrench into the equation as Royal Roads can and does occasionally close it. Belmont Park is a near impossible neighbourhood to service efficiently. There's no major trip generator, it's low density, and there's no through roads to effectively link it up with another route (and that's ignoring the limitations of Ocean Blvd bridge at the bottom of Fort Rodd Hill). I suspect one of two things is happening here: 1) There is virtually zero transit demand from this neighbourhood, but BCT knows how difficult it is to reinstate service to an area once it's been removed entirely. They've put the bare minimum service expecting it to carry very few if any passengers, but want to have the infrastructure established should travel patterns change in the future, and save them the process of public consultation that can often be quite long and time consuming. 2) There's a strong NIMBY vs YIMBY contingent living here. Perhaps they receive a number of complaints of buses going through the neighbourhood, but there are also residents that have made it known that they depend on the service. The NIMBYs said no way to increased service when they improved the 39, but the YIMBYs needed something, so they created a new route with trips that would allow someone working some form of standard hours to commute to and from work, and a few extra trips to account for the occasional Royal Roads student.
  12. The entire 43 is the old 39 routing before it was extended to Westhills. It's not there to be efficient, it's there to provide coverage service as Belmont Park is not within what most would consider a reasonable walking distance to other transit service. The stretch was obviously better utilized when it was part of the 39, but the need to streamline that route to allow for ramped up service levels dictated that Belmont Park got the axe. Removal of service altogether from Belmont Park is not a desirable alternative, but given the limited number of residents and lack of any major trip generator it's also not high on the priority list for increased investment. One could argue that the "meeting partway" option is to provide a basic level of service to ensure that those that absolutely need the bus will still have one available. I agree with you that I always thought there should a stop on College Dr. by the school. Probably something about parking prevented that 😆
  13. Efforts have been made to minimize the wait time between the 72 and 87/88, not the 70. Not as ideal as having them line up with the 70, but from the accessibility perspective I understand why. The 70 involves the walk over the fairly long pedestrian overpass which could be strenuous for someone who's mobility isn't 100%, especially in only 5 minutes (and that's if the bus is on time - not a guarantee when a full bus of ferry and airport passengers is thrown into the mix). On that note, it also has potential to help address crowding issues by sending the airport bound passengers to the 72 instead of the 70. This is even more pertinent for the duration of the Covid world we are in. Is it ideal? No, definitely room for improvement with more resources and I can write my ideas here when I have more time.
  14. You described exactly what I just did 😉 Precisely. The 19 (formerly the 16 but was renumbered to 19 when the existing 16 began service) ended at Hillside Mall because there's not really anywhere else to end the run. They could have ended it at Vic High which could have theoretically given them more options for where to send the bus after (IE back downtown), but Hillside Mall is only a few minutes farther, and if the bus was to be headed towards UVic to start a route there, it would end up passing by Hillside anyways. As you state, the end of a School Special coincides with an increase of service on regular routes that renders the specials unnecessary. The 29 ended following a significant bump in service to the 12, and the 19 ended when the current configuration of the 2 took effect. I don't remember offhand when the 18 ended but I imagine it would have ended under the same premise. Every other part of your response I completely agree with you as more than sufficient justification to keep the Riders Guides on board. I see so many people in a day do exactly this, though. There's no doubt in my mind that you know proper transit hygiene etiquette (you are on this site after all!), but not everyone does, and the amount of people I'd see in a day take a Riders Guide while coughing into it and their hands which are turning the page, licking their finger to turn pages, etc, only to put the guide back in the rack, is discouraging to say the least. At the end of the day, if I have to choose public health or individual convenience, I'll prioritize public health. A number of non-BCT transit systems that I've ridden in the past couple years (Vancouver, Regina, Portland, Honolulu, Reykjavik, London, Dublin) do not generally have their printed timetables available on board the bus. Removing printed timetables from vehicles seems to be the direction agencies are going, especially with the recent health pandemic. I think you have said it as well as others, the ultimate goal is to have a system that runs so frequently and reliably that a passenger does not require a timetable. Until that happens, at some point there may have to be a higher degree of passenger responsibility for planning their trips in advance, and also having alternative routes planned in the event of delays. While I haven't seen it in more recent Riders Guides, in the past the guides would advise passengers to do exactly that. Yep, a number of those trips still exist to assist with capacity issues. The 26A, as it was turning itself around via Oak and Cloverdale, serviced two stops that the regular 26 did not. It made sense to number those trips differently. I'm not sure why you're suggesting a 30/31/83/32/35 be pulled off that route in order to run a 6? That's the exact reason why there's another bus coming out to run that trip on the 6 - so that there is no lost service on other routes. Northwesterner hit the nail on the head. You can't look at an individual paddle and judge the system's effectiveness. You have to see how it interacts with the system as a whole. Subject to the priorities of the agency, what doesn't make sense individually is more than likely justifiable in the broader picture.
×
×
  • Create New...