Jump to content

8800GTX

Member
  • Posts

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 8800GTX

  1. Hey are these here yet? I remember not too long ago that someone tweeted a pic of one of the new blue-top artics hanging out at a Bellingham gas station. I've been kind of connecting the dots re the upcoming January bus service changes (reductions) and quotes from CEO Kevin Quinn. If these are now arriving then it sounds like some routes will be switching from regular buses to artic buses in January 2022...
  2. 321 split, the north segment extended to Scott Road Station, and the south segment combined with 350? OK if anyone has info about this I would certainly like to hear more In my observations a lot of 321 ridership demand now is confined to the segment south of Newton (i.e. coming northbound most of the bus disembarks at Newton, vice versa). That said I wouldn't be in favour of the change if there are no improvements to service and operating hours on the 394 and if service isn't at least returned to previous levels on the R1. Given that this doesn't seem to be part of any operating sheet changes I kinda feel that it'll be part of a new round of "Transit Network Optimization" proposals with public consultations... ----- On a separate note CEO Kevin Quinn spoke to DH about the upcoming cuts, looks like he's decided to come at us honestly and admit there will be some upcoming cuts (along with the context for which the cuts are taking place). https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-ridership-rebound-bus-service-cuts That said it seemed a bit off to me that he's saying that they want to "avoid the busiest routes" with the cuts although as we've found the drop in AM/PM frequency includes the 319, the 410, the 130... I was thinking it over though and remembered that there are murmurs of TL wanting to switch 319 to articulated buses. If that new order arrives on time then I wonder if the adjustment in service is due to the switch to bigger buses on some routes???
  3. In some cases I think it scared away riders. When the 100 got mid day cuts from 12 to 15 minutes, the buses would fill to the point that every time I rode it at that time, we would fill up to capacity and pass up people. Some days we would pass up 1, other days it would be 10. Now those riders seem to have disappeared. I don't know if there's supposed to be a seasonal shift in demand but it's uncanny how un busy the route has become as if to match the drop in service (and reliability). If the planners there think this is going to help, there might need to be a serious rethink.
  4. The R4 eastbound at Oakridge is once again boarding on the near side of Cambie (Bay 2), at a temporary stop which includes a shelter built into the construction scaffolding. No more crossing Cambie to wait for the R4 in the rain in front of some rando's living room! With this the R4 eastbound has standardized on near side stopping from Cambie Street through Knight Street. I'd hope some of these can switch back to the far side soon (particularly at Knight Street) to get the buses through lights.
  5. Actually I really like it, as the spacing between the characters makes long-distance visibility a bit easier. The reduction of long distance visibility is why I really didn't like the Toronto-style stacked signs in the first place (in cases with different routes and fast moving buses it can actually be pretty useful). However, if the signs could use wider spacing like this on the destination row, I would be a bit more tolerant of it.
  6. I believe the #80 was supposed to be a peak-hours only route, with no mid-day service. So for the #100 it's a straight reduction, and it will lead to a horrible rider experience. In my experience the unpredictability of construction delays means that passenger loads on the #100 become quite uneven. I've seen many drivers ignore the temporary "bus lanes" (which are only signed, there's no special paint or cones and that hasn't changed despite several of my emails to the City of Van). You might spend only a couple of minutes merging into a single lane point... or you might be there for 15 freaking minutes behind a line-up of vehicles that all took the 'bus lane'. I just ride end-to-end but for people from in-between it's also been a terrible experience with the changing stop locations, which have been significantly confusing for passengers and in some cases significantly extending walking times (i.e. from the Marine/Argyle stop which has been closed recently). Add pass-ups to that from full buses going by due to delays, and it will be a gong show. I'd be happy at this point with the current service being maintained, if coordination to get transit through the construction zones could improve. The current 12 min mid-day schedule syncs well with our mid-day SkyTrains (6 min freq on each branch, on both the Expo & Canada Lines); a 15 min schedule is not in sync and it will result in more uneven loads from the termini. However, with the return to normal and upcoming increase in passenger loads, they should actually consider a temporary service increase for mid-day (at least until construction ends sometime in December 2022). I would be happy if they delivered that by having mid-day service on the #80.
  7. That 100 reduction will be a massive blow to riders given there are already massive delays arising from the current construction on Marine Drive They had better not go ahead with it. I'm also puzzled by the 301 peak reduction, right as KPU students will be returning to class. Don't they need that capacity???
  8. In my mind the (regional) contextual purpose of the 791 is to serve as a connection to the Expo Line corridor, particularly for commuters headed to/from New Westminster, Metrotown, and perhaps even Richmond via 410. As such, Braid is the better connection point. To move the 791 terminus to Lougheed would provide a connection to the Millennium Line that is in theory already provided by both the 701 and R3 at Coquitlam Centre, and is faster on both of those routes. As a sample if you take a look at the three different buses (701/791/R1) departing at the Lougheed/Harris Road WB stop between the hours of 7AM and 7:30AM, the 791 is scheduled to take 30 minutes to reach Braid Station. The 701 to Coquitlam Centre takes 23 minutes, the R3 is even faster with a runtime of just 17 minutes, and both the 701/R3 are aided by the bus lane infrastructure on Lougheed Highway (whereas the MHB has none). Note that the ride on the M-Line is 12 minutes between Coquitlam Central to Lougheed, every 3 mins during peak hours. If you're connecting to anywhere on the Millennium Line itself, the R3/701 + Evergreen Ext come out superior, whereas the 791 offers some time savings if you are headed to New West or Metrotown. The only gap to fill is a more direct route into Surrey (my idea would be for a route that takes the GEB, 96 Ave, and then 160 St, terminating at the future 160 Street Station on the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain).
  9. A major update on the KL Incident from The Star: So the driver of the manually-driven train (Train 40) quite literally went into the wrong side of the train and began driving it the wrong way, opposite of the direction which he was instructed to go... One thing I'm going to add but if y'all have ever seen a map of the KL system, the segment where the collision occurred between KLCC and Kampang Baru is in a tunnel with sharp grades and curves (check out a YouTube video if y'all are curious). If a train coming for you is around the corner, there are no clear sightlines.
  10. I have a few contacts in Malaysia that pointed me to the right sources for details. I found this graphic on English-language Malaysian media: According to The Star the KJL has resumed service today, with the affected segment single tracking while there is a clean-up as well as "sanitization to prevent the spread of COVID-19". There is apparently little or no damage to the tracks, which will permit full resumption of ops in just 3 days. (Kelana Jaya LRT line resumes operation - The Star) --- There is also a discussion thread on Lowyat (a popular online forum used by Malaysians) which I am using to source the latest info. A lot of people on this thread believe that the emergency brakes on one or both of the trains were functional, and that the damage would have been worse without them. Meaning that the automated control system likely reduced the severity of the crash versus if both trains were being manually driven. Per a news report, according to one passenger who was on board, train 181 (the Mark 3 with the passengers on board) did in fact emergency brake prior to the collision, and had either slowed down significantly or was completely stationary when it was hit by train 240. (LRT Passenger Tweets About Accident - Rojak Daily) Lastly, in the Lowyat thread there was a picture posted of the empty train (Train 240, the Mark 2) showing that it sustained far more damage than the one with the passengers. Train 240 (Mark 2, empty/manually driven): driver console is completely destroyed. Train 181 (Mark 3, 213 passengers aboard) (left image): driver console is still on and displaying "0" km/h!
  11. This is from Malaysia's The Star: Huge numbers for injuries, with 210 people injured; however, the incident was a result of human error. The ops centre sent a manually driven empty test train onto the wrong track, where it seems to have driven into the in-service train. There still hasn't been an incident in more than 35 years on systems based on this tech, where both trains were in driverless mode.
  12. You're actually both wrong though So I'm about to derail this whole trolley discussion but, uh, trolley buses are in fact heavier than battery-electric buses—not the other way around. Even then, the weight difference is probably not significant enough to seriously affect road wear or acceleration/braking time. My guess? The fact that trolley buses still need to have large batteries (maybe not the kind that will run hundreds of km, but they are there for off-wire operation on all NF-built trolleys). See: Seattle XT40 spec sheet (32,878 lbs) and Philadelphia E40LFR spec sheet (31,500 lbs). NFI's 2021 spec sheet lists a 40 ft Xcelsior Electric battery model at 30,500 lbs. Another 2015 test (on an XE40 model built around that time) came out to around 32,770 lbs.
  13. Because the Mayors Council's original plan highlighting the 430 as a B-Line candidate route was dumb and TL has long acknowledged it?? The 430, at this time, is commanding neither high frequencies nor late running times (last bus from Richmond at 9:13 PM weekdays, and before 9PM on weekends). Over the last 5 years, service increases have decidedly focused on the 410 and even the 301 instead of the 430. This, in my opinion, is a reflection of its unpopularity, which is a combination of both running times, poor reliability (Knight St Bridge), and historically low frequencies. I lived in Metrotown for awhile and commuted to Richmond daily to get to Kwantlen University, and never took the 430 because every other option I had (including those w/multiple bus transfers) was actually tangibly faster. We know from Surrey's eventual rejection of SNG LRT that the original Mayors' 10-year vision would not be perfectly followed, and that new mindsets would shift the course of our expansion. It's not like we do the same for any other plan touted in this region anyway (the 2008 Provincial Plan, SOF ATP, etc etc). Yeah this ambiguity has been a thing for a long time. I recall seeing some TL presentation maps (it might've been the one that conceptualized 24-hour RapidBus routes, when they were looking at extending SkyTrain running times) that outright highlighted the 410's route as the future RapidBus candidate. In more recent official documentation, they've settled on simply labelling it as the "Richmond Centre to Expo Line" RapidBus, so it's been long clear that the terminus station and route are now undetermined. There have been no objections from Richmond council or staff, so my assumption at this point is that it will change and R7 will not be on the 430 routing. The 410 is also still slated to get a major downgrade per the SWATP (410 will be taken off of Highway 91 and put onto the slower, single lane, 50km/h Westminster Highway incl. a railway crossing) so I imagine that the consultant is expected to take this into consideration.
  14. From what I've read previously, the original plan from TransLink was to conduct the first Mark I retirements around 2026 (operations year 40) and that the refurbishment of Mark Is was meant to have the cars last about that long. I further read that the initial retirement wave would have been the 114 original Mark Is (circa 1985); the 36 1990-1995 cars could theoretically go on even further, to 2030-2035 respectively. I don't know if they still intend on following this schedule; but at any rate, the carrying capacity of the new trains reaches parity with the original 114 Mark Is upon delivery of about 14 train sets, and with all 150 Mark Is upon delivery of 18 train sets (90 cars); meaning within the initial 125 cars, 35 cars form the surplus needed for the MLBE, which is about right (this is about 9 4-car trains; at a 3 min frequency, approximately 8 trains are needed to support MLBE operations, based on the estimated end-end travel time each way of 11 minutes). If the 36 1990-1995 Mark Is (forming 6 6-car Mark I trains) do stay through 2030-2035, that creates some built-in surplus to support the SLS, and there will still be another 80 of the new Mark IV/III-b cars in the "service expansion" pool to draw upon. Based on the delivery schedule, 14 trains will have been delivered by July 2025; 18 by November 2025; and 20 (100/205 cars) by the turn of 2026. I don't think the original Mark Is will necessarily be retired all at once at that time, since that will leave only around 30 surplus train cars (6 trains) for the Broadway subway and none for either SLS or service expansion; so my presumption is that the Mark I retirements will happen on a more gradual schedule, and that the combined presence of new Mark IVs (Mark III-bs?), 1986 Mark Is and 1990-1995 Mark Is will create the necessary surplus in trains to supply our extensions.
  15. I actually always wanted to know about this! I assumed it to be merely the lack of connecting buses, but that makes even more sense. I ended up on one of those last trains to New Westminster only before and then took a combination of the 123 and the 144 to get home to the Royal Oak Stn area when I lived there. The 109 having a super late night run on weekdays (thus offering that connection to Lougheed TC) I actually had no idea of. Super interesting. Though it doesn't leave that long after the last Expo train to Lougheed (which the last Expo train to New West does connect to at Columbia) and seems to be out of sync with the last N19 to downtown as well.
  16. Maybe these are 562s but interlined with the full-sized bus 509 from Carvolth Exchange? It would seem almost as if a school special or a TWU special with added capacity.
  17. I submitted some suggestions for stop consolidation on route 100 into TL's standard feedback form, and got a response in which I was given a dedicated email address that they've made for this whole initiative Just a big hint that if y'all have any pointers on which stops might be too close, send them over to TL!!! They also mentioned that the #2 stop consolidation is a pilot project which means that it will serve as a testbed for other routes that get route-wide consolidation.
  18. There has been plenty of trolley testing along 41st in preparation for this. Trolleys also going through Joyce Collingwood Station.
  19. I think that was a common practice during the time when the 49 turned off of 49th to Champlain Heights. The tripper runs would be signed as "express". They weren't limited stop runs and served all stops as usual, but proceeded straight on 49th rather than turning onto Kerr. I believe this was to handle the commuter crunch in the PM of people leaving Langara to head east. There was no equivalent 'express' run going westbound.
  20. Actually I have to wonder if the proposed B-Line route has changed from 430 to 410 in internal planning. If you've paid attention to recent 10-year-vision documents and maps, they are tending to describe this line as "Richmond to Expo Line" rather than "Richmond to Metrotown".
  21. Toronto is now getting their battery electric buses from New Flyer, according to a FB ad, so ours should be here in short order
  22. You're going to anger the entirety of Fraser Heights if you nix the 337's popular nonstop service, lol
  23. KCM's route 150 to Southcenter Mall also takes I5 rather than connecting to light rail. As well, from what I have seen in the current schedules, Link is not faster, held back considerably by the lower speeds running on-street on MLK way. The 150 either matches or beats Link even in rush hour, staying in I-5 HOV lanes or the parallel SODO busway for most of the route. Link will only get a speed advantage when buses move out of the Seattle Transit tunnel at the end of next month and have to run on-street thru DT Seattle.
×
×
  • Create New...