DarkKeyo

I wonder what "Plus improved connections to Capilano U" means. Because right now the 239 every 10 min is barely enough to get students to campus from Phibbs, and has full bus passups at peak student travel times. Not having a direct bus from Lynn Valley to Capilano is going to cut off a lot of students from where they live, too... I should probably email Translink and ask some of these questions. The B-line is going to make travelling everywhere other than Capilano much easier, though

I'd be fully on board with Hastings, UBC-Capilano,and North Shore Rapid Transit, but I don't see how the Canada line could or needs to go under the inlet, or why low density Steveston needs the Canada line, why the airport needs a second line, or why the Expo line, the busiest, should go to low density Langley when an LRT will.

It's good to hear that. That part of the 95 route is very crowded.

The buses I was on today on routes 99, 130, and 239 had them, and I may have seen one at one of the stations. I wasn't really looking. They were on most buses yesterday too, front and back. They seem to be putting some effort into promoting this switch.

There have been a lot of tweets, and a post on the buzzer blog, about it today. I've seen a number of ads around too. I'm expecting a period of people fumbling with cards at fare gates even more than usual, once this starts. It seems awkwardly thought out.

There are places near the second narrows along the tracks that aren't crossings but can still be accessed by pedestrians

The B-lines having their own consistent numbering system would help, especially with the focus on 'branding' that Translink seems to be going for. But the best and most efficient numbering system for any transit system is 'the one that's already there, unless it is totally disorganized'. Changing the numbering system costs money and causes confusion, and I have no idea why Translink, who can barely keep up with the current system and the 10 year plan, is changing so many numbers right now. Half of the B-lines cross between areas of the geographic numbering system, eg. the 95

Yes, since they have plans for more B-lines than there are numbers left that start with '90'

But, since they run in a circle, they switch from 5 to 6 and 6 to 5, but it's the same bus going around. It's not intuitive Neither of those alternatives make any more sense than Holdom.

Not really. Those signs are for high frequency, high ridership routes. Translink provides bus GPS data to app developers so that people like me can deal with rapidly changing conditions using our phones as we go. I have wondered why only the 3 got those signs, and if they might add them to the B-lines as well, especially the new ones next year. Edit: I don't understand, in general, why Translink has different route numbers for continuous routes, sometimes. The 5 and 6 is confusing. Making the 129 into two numbers is confusing. The 15/50 being two routes can't be less confusing than the 14 going from UBC to the edge of Vancouver as one route.

Given that the Green Line is low floor, in the median of Centre St, and generally designed to 'integrate' into everything around it, I can't imagine speeds being faster than the Red and Blue lines. Especially given the speed limits imposed on the Martindale section of the Blue line

Something from this topic that's maybe more relevant: There used to be plans to completely redo Heritage station, including the bus loop. Has anyone heard of anything coming of that, or is it still dead?

I'm hoping that Calgary Transit doesn't forget that the new BRT routes are not just a bypass of downtown between quadrants of the city. They are also access to areas that currently don't have LRT, i.e. the hospitals, 16 ave, 52 st (for the North BRT), Mount Royal, Rockyview, Odgen, Douglasdale, Southland, Woodbine, etc (South and SW BRT)

I've been wondering how much of the Anderson station head will be rebuilt. It's small, narrow, and at an odd angle. The stairs beside the bus loop are hard to use sometimes because of the angle...

The problem with Kootenay loop, other than the fact all the bus bays are being used, is that traffic from the Cassiar Connector interchange interferes with bus access to it on a daily basis. Any time you see 28/130 detour tweets on Translink twitter, there is also trouble at Kootenay loop. The Safeway at Hastings and Willingdon works well for the 130 Pender turn around, but it seems a lot of people ride the 129 through along Hastings. In fact, if there's anywhere I can think of that most people get onto it and off of it (and there are always people other than me riding it through any of the stations etc), its Holdom. To me, it's an inconvenience having the 129 be two routes, if only for the reason that if the 129 'starts' at Holdom, the route map with gps bus locations won't show if there's a delay coming from Edmonds. I would have been half an hour late for something yesterday if I hadn't known that the 129 had problems near Edmonds. This is an effect of Burnaby having very poorly planned transit routings

Splitting that route is a horrible idea. I really hope it's just a number change with the same bus continuing. I live near Hastings and Willingdon, and frequently use the 129 as a less crowded, less delayed alternative to the 130 when travelling to the Millennium line, but also anywhere in Burnaby along the western and eastern side, eg. Burnaby hospital, Burnaby City Hall area, and Highgate area. It's one of the few routes in the area that functions properly as-is. Extending any half of the 129 to Kootenay loop or Kensington, as some of you have suggested, would be useless and impractical. Kensington is well served by the 130 and 95, and Kootenay Loop has problems that I could write an essay about, which would be made worse by another route terminating there. Re: speculating about demand on the 129, from my observations, the existing schedule does a very good job of meeting demand on all parts of the route. Edit: The 130's recent increase in frequency was good, but it doesn't work very well as a frequent route. It has problems at Kootenay loop, Brentwood, BCIT, and near Metrotown. I wish that modifying it/implementing the B-line that was suggested for the first Mayor's vision was part of the 10 year vision upgrades coming next year.

This is nice to read right after a horrible trip to Burnaby on an overcrowded 95. I'm predicting it will still end up bunching, however. There was a sign at the Burrard Stn. 95 stop explaining the Jan 1 all door boarding

I'm happy to answer in order to help make sure my thought process makes sense. 1. Why did you choose the False Creek Line to stay on Pacific instead of Davie downtown? Less traffic, continuity with the current route 23, and possible time savings over the 6, which is crowded and slow. I would love to connect it to the station at Denman, but Denman isn't ideal for streetcars with narrow blocks and fairly high traffic. I’ve heard of a plan to also have a streetcar go into Chinatown, but I haven’t thought about how that could work yet. 2. For the SFU Extension, do you believe that to be an actual extension of the Hastings line, or a gondola like from Production Way? An extension of the Hastings line would be better, but I don't know how 'realistic' going up the side of Burnaby Mountain is compared to a gondola. In the south, a gondola is more practical, but that’s a steeper slope with development along it. I also want to balance the need to serve students with the need to relieve crowded routes, and the 95 west of central Burnaby is always crowded with, but east of it is crowded mainly at student peak times. 3. How/why did you choose routing for presumably tunneled sections? For example, why did you choose the 41-49 line to route, presumably tunneled between Fraser and Knight instead of following Knight between 41st and 49th, following 41st to Kingsway, then that to Metrotown, or just routing through Joyce Station? Same goes for a couple sections of the Burnaby N-S line and the Commercial line. Tunneling is the most expensive option, so the more that it can be avoided (either with elevated or at-grade separate/reserved ROW), the more lines you can build with the same amount of money (quick example, for the same cost of the tunneled Broadway extension to Arbutus, you could build the line elevated all the way to UBC plus the Arbutus LRT). I planned this route to work the high ridership on the 25, 41, 43/future B-line, 49, 430N (the commercial line handles 430S), and 100, as well as provide faster travel time E-W across the south half of Vancouver (and Burnaby). ~5 routes become one heavy rail line, rather than, for example, one B-line and 3 articulated high frequency routes as in the 10 year vision. It then becomes connecting the dots for trip generators along those routes, which include connections with north-south FTN routes, UBC, the Canada Line, etc. However, Metrotown is a bigger centre than Joyce, and this is where the Burnaby N-S line connects. If the E-W route ended at Joyce, there would be a lot of transfers on at Joyce and off at Metrotown, and the Expo line’s capacity is a more immediate problem than these ultimate rail lines. This is why there is a switch between 41st and 49th. If the route is LRT, it should probably interline with the Commercial line instead of tunneling under the park, although that adds travel time. Surface LRT would be somewhat slow, and out of place in the higher end housing along parts of 41st and 49th, but a tunnel may be too much. The Burnaby N-S line mainly replaces the 130, and must connect to BCIT and Metrotown, which don’t line up north-south. The next question covers why it crosses between major roads. The Commercial Line, if LRT, could probably make a couple of awkward turns between Argyle and Knight, but those have an effect on operation and maintenance, which is also expensive. I guess it could go down Victoria and then over the Fraser River, but that is a two lane road surrounded by housing. The tunneling vs elevated in your Broadway example comes up in a later question. 4. Why does the Burnaby N-S line avoid Brentwood and go to Gilmore instead? The condo developments along Willingdon south of Lougheed, and at Brentwood itself, don't really leave space for an elevated train. The wide empty corridor on Willingdon is being turned into a bike path and park. I would have chosen Willingdon if not for those two factors, and had it interline somehow with the Hastings line (I suppose elevated rail could still go over the pathway). Using Gilmore takes advantage of the wide ROW at Boundary, even with the power lines there, as well as the open space around Still Creek (which would probably be unrealistic environmentally, so I may not stick with that idea.) Any station at Brentwood (Or Gilmore) would have to be incorporated into the developments being planned at those locations. The line would also have to dive underground south of Hastings on Willingdon (see my answer to question 9). It's not apparent from the map, but the N-S line is intended to be mostly elevated between Hastings and Moscrop, even if LRT, and Boundary has better space for a tunnel portal than Willingdon. 5. For the Queensborough line, how did you choose your route, and why not have it route along the existing rail ROW the whole way instead of just sections? I don't have enough information about Queensborough to know where the best route is, so I guessed. I have it as a tram because the City of New Westminster hopes that it could be a tram one day, and I wanted a connection between the express highway buses and Skytrain. I will eventually have time to go to more of Queensborough in person to get a sense of where things could go. 6. For the Hastings line, why do you bring it south to Union/Georgia instead of staying on Hastings? Originally, it was because Hastings doesn't connect smoothly with West Georgia, and then it was to connect with the Canada and Expo lines while keeping a central route through downtown. If Dunsmuir could handle two tunnels, I would route it there. It has a station at Union and Gore to be in between Southeast False Creek development, the new Hospital, Chinatown, and Strathcona. It crosses at Raymur to avoid as many buildings in East Vancouver as possible, even as a fully tunneled route from Stanley Park to Capitol Hill. It's also intended to avoid digging up any part of East Hastings since 7. More of a recommendation, but for the 4th crossing, I would have it follow Pipeline Rd to Burrard Inlet, then cross just east of the Lions Gate to Park Royal since that is planned for a major center and is a main transit exchange. I originally had it connected in that way, and then realized that Stanley Park and First Narrows are complicated obstacles, as is the sharp turn west towards Park Royal. It's also very odd imagining a high end mall as a transit exchange, which is an impression I got after I went there for the first time since the mall's redevelopment. 8. For Richmond B-Line 2, is the line supposed to run along the former rail ROW that is currently a recreational trail? Or do you intend for it to run along Bridgeport or something else? I originally had the Commercial route turn west and connect to Bridgeport Station, which meant not using Bridgeport Rd itself. I'm not sure if that's still a good idea. It depends how much this route needs to be separated from traffic, as Bridgeport Rd is fairly busy. Initially a B-line here would go along Bridgeport Rd just as the 430 does. 9. Similar to 3, why do you suggest tunneling west of Capitol Hill for the Hastings line instead of at-grade or elevated? For the same reason that the Millennium Line has to be tunneled under Broadway rather than LRT or Elevated. 4 lane streets with parking, high car and pedestrian usage, and lots of mixed use/commercial development, and which have no parallel street to shift most traffic to, usually require a tunnel to avoid massive disruption, and even then you have to avoid what happened on the equivalent parts of Cambie with the Canada Line. There's a term for that type of street, I just have to remember what it is. On Hastings, that type of street is continuous up until the west slope of Capitol Hill, and then it's probably easier to tunnel under the side of the hill, like the Evergreen line does with Clarke. It's not apparent in the map, but I suspect that the Cassiar connector would complicate tunneling, so I would elevate the line alongside Hastings Park if I knew how to get it back underground again in time for Kootenay Loop. Kootenay Loop itself, and its location in the turn lane for the right turn lane to Cassiar from Hastings, is the major cause of transit delays and vehicle traffic problems for the entire area. I'm getting very familiar with the morning rush hour problems heading north onto Ironworkers, and, dream rail lines aside, something needs to be done soon to separate buses from vehicle traffic between Boundary, Hastings Park, and Cassiar (aside from the daily detour buses heading to Phibbs take along Renfrew and McGill). I also just realized that I need to redraw the map at Kootenay Loop because changes I made don’t seem to be there now. 10. For the Commercial line, what sections are you referring to when you say LRT won't fit in the corridor, what sections did you have in mind? Similar to answer 9, the type of street. However, I’m not sure Skytrain (above ground or underground) is required just for Commercial Drive from Hastings to northern Richmond (and it would have trouble crossing Skytrain at Broadway.) But then you run into the same problem LRT had with West Broadway because of the type of street, especially north of Broadway. Having a rail route here would be dealing with the crowds on the 20 and 430 and getting buses off of the Knight St Bridge, but I’m not sure how to do so “realistically” yet. The build order for my ideas after the 10 year vision, including 4 new B-lines on routes I have here as rail, would start with the Hastings line from Denman to Kootenay, along with the crossing from Kootenay to Phibbs, plus a B-line on the Burnaby N-S route. Also, Skytrain from UBS to Arbutus. That ended up being a very long post. Sorry.

I haven't had a chance to think about how commuter rail may or may not be possible, so thank you for those thoughts. I did have a chance to finish my own dream map, which I've been working on for the last few months. Mainly inspired by improving ideas that are already out there, eg. the 10 year vision. I'll update it as new ideas come. Including commuter rail. It is meant to be realistic in every way except cost, because that gives me something to do when I'm stuck on a bus somewhere.

Hastings and Willingdon, particularly westbound where there is a fenced empty lot, doesn't have one for the 95, 130, etc. Phibbs barely does.

Some of that doesn't make sense. That sounds like the planner you talked to was guessing... I really want to ask them now for more concrete info. If they were doing that big of a change, I would expect the same level of public information given out that the Green Line got. I'm a bit far away at the moment though

Why would they change anything for the BRT, other than cut frequency a bit on the 19 (which they already did) and other parallel routes? They aren't adding in that much service, based on the BRT info online

They only need that bus at all because someone, presumably the city, decided that a place in the middle of nowhere , blocked by a freeway interchange, was a good place to relocate a mobile home park.

Ok, here is a longer answer. Even my transit 'fantasies' have to be practical, realistic, or helpful. Particularly since I usually imagine them to distract me from a frustrating transit trip I'm doing at the time. So, I imagine the False Creek Streetcar would be useful in the future, same with the Arbutus LRT, but they're low priority compared to 10 other things. I also can't imagine the use for high capacity grade separated heavy rail like Skytrain or Canada Line being needed in Steveston/Richmond, Ladner, or most of suburban or rural Surrey. I actually can't imagine there being any point in extending the Expo or Canada lines at all, particularly since they are at capacity. I mostly fantasize how we would solve the current problems if money were less of a limit than, say, geography. When I lived in Calgary, a group of people with similar ideas developed a plan and presented it as part of the public consultation for Calgary's transit plan. Because it was realistic in what was needed, it helped inspire and is similar to Calgary's actual plan. But, since this is a thread for ideas, and I enjoy ideas, here they are: I would love to have the Arbutus LRT extend somehow across Burrard Bridge in the way Largecat suggested the 99 B-line could be. But tying it into a False Creek Streetcar could be useful too. I don't see the point of connecting that to VCC-Clark instead of the Stadium area of downtown, because the Millennium line will already do that. I imagine that a B-line following the 410 route (except along No. 1 road) to Steveston, and one along Steveston Highway to the area of the interchange to connect with long distance express services along HWY 99 from Vancouver to Ladner, Tsawwassen, etc. I don't imagine it would need to be converted to LRT for a while. But then, I rarely go to Richmond so I don't know where the problems are. I imagine the Arbutus LRT could cross the river to Bridgeport, and then go back across the Knight St Bridge and up towards Commercial. Or, go along Marine Drive. There isn't anywhere on Commercial/Victoria for an LRT, though, although the 20 has high ridership. A train crossing would give a nice alternative to Knight st bridge when it is backed up.

I've assumed that apart from removing the 99 east of Arbutus, it would mostly stay the same. However, I agree with 1 and 3. 3 particularly to offset some of the evening crowding on the 95. With 2, I'm not sure that the 50 and the eastern part of the 84 need to exist together. The 84 is used enough that I don't think it could just be deleted, eg. between Main and Cambie. I didn't think they were going to build any of the 'extra' Canada Line stations. I don't know how busy the 33 gets; maybe I should try riding it today.