Jump to content


CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CV92

  1. I believe they were built in reverse order 1232-1213 It's not due to weight but you are correct that the 53 is not to run anything larger than a 35 footer.
  2. As Infinorth stated above, it's not just the 70. None of the SB buses coming off of Carey Road service Douglas at Boleskine/Saanich. It's a matter of safety, it's too risky to have buses try to maneuver across 3 lanes of traffic in such a short distance.
  3. My mistake. That was the Route 16. Brain fart because I had Route 13 on my mind I've edited the original post. To clarify, there was no Route 13 in 1976. Regarding the timetables, some day I would like to digitize them although I'm short on time and resources right now.
  4. The transfers from Central Fraser Valley have started to arrive. 9288, 9301, and 9306 arrived on property earlier this week. This likely spells the end for a significant number of the 9800 Flyers still left in service. Route 16 outbound: From Yates and Douglas via Broad, Johnson, Douglas, Hillside, Lansdowne, Cadboro Bay, Telegraph Bay, Arbutus, Finnerty to Sinclair. Route 16 inbound: From Finnerty and Sinclair via Finnerty, Arbutus, Telegraph Bay, Cadboro Bay, Lansdowne, Hillside, Douglas to Yates. Present day, the 11 covers this portion of the route. However, at this point in time, the 11 did not continue beyond the Uplands. There are only 2 stops on Sinclair that are not served by other routes, and these 2 are in relatively close proximity to other routes. It's fine to point out the limited nature of the current Route 13, but you shouldn't neglect to acknowledge that Cadboro Bay has a far higher level of service now than it did in the past. The current setup allows far more residents in the area to have access to a higher level of transit service than the system of the 1970s did.
  5. Route 26 Westbound: From Sinclair at Cadboro Bay Road via Sinclair, Finnerty, McKenzie, Saanich, Vernon, Douglas, Boleskine, Harriet, Burnside, Tillicum, Transfer, Lampson, Esquimalt, to HMC Dockyard. Route 26 Eastbound: From HMC Dockyard via Esquimalt, Lampson, Transfer, Tillicum, Burnside, Harriet, Boleskine, Douglas, Vernon, Saanich, McKenzie, Finnerty, Sinclair, Hobbs, Penrhyn, Cadboro Bay to Sinclair.
  6. I don't think the route was without purpose. I think it was intended to provide service to the multiple mobile home parks along this stretch of the road. The route looks to be the most logical deadhead route for buses going to/from the garage from Crestline and Fleetwood. The bus would be travelling this route regardless, so they just changed those deadheads to in service trips. It was a no-cost way of providing introductory level coverage service to an area that had no transit service. And again, the route did continue on through to downtown. It's probably better to think of it as an extension of Route 2, as opposed to a standalone route. As the system expanded, it probably made sense to cancel those trips in order to allow more flexibility in terms of vehicle utilization by no longer forcing those specific Route 2 trips into a deadhead to or from the yard. There was the 11 Lorne. The oldest Riders Guide from Kamloops I have is from 2006.
  7. With the exception that the route no longer services the former Thrupp Manor, the route hasn't changed. In the AM, the bus would leave the yard and go into service as a Route 15 from Ord and Singh, continue down Ord where it would make a left on to Tranquille, and another left on to Crestline, from which point it would continue as an inbound Route 2 from Crestline and Fleetwood. In the PM, the route would do the opposite. The bus would depart Lansdowne Exchange as a Route 2 as far as Crestline and Fleetwood, but from Fleetwood would turn left (instead of right) onto Crestline and continue as a Route 15 to Tranquille where it would turn right and follow through to Ord and Singh, and back to the garage. The PM Route 15s only operated when the 1/2 Tranquille Parkcrest Night Route was operating. This way, coverage to the Crestline and Briar portion of the Route 2 was ensured. During these times of day, if a passenger needed to go to Briar, they would board a Route 1/2. Passengers disembarking along Parkcrest Ave would continue to board a standard Route 2. After the last Route 15 departed, the Route 1/2 replaced the Route 1 and Route 2 for the remainder of the evening, which essentially covered the two daytime routes as part of a one way loop: Tranquille on the outbound, Parkcrest on the inbound.
  8. Route 15 Ord Road. The route started in 2004 and was discontinued in September 2009 due to low ridership. The route was a coverage route and only ran sporadically. IIRC correctly it utilized deadheading buses from the Route 2.
  9. Some good news for the Province, details of the transit portion of the Safe Restart funding was released this morning, which will help all systems maintain essential levels of service. Based on the funding distribution in the release, it looks like this will allow all systems to maintain their current level of service, and allow the systems that cut service due to Covid to return to or close to pre-Covid levels when ready. This will also set a cap on how much fares can be raised. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2020TRAN0063-002006
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. As yesterday was Saturday, it was most likely just on a road test by a mechanic.
  14. 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.
  15. 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).
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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...