Victoria Regional Transit System

[ygk]

23 hours ago, InfiNorth said:

See that would have been brilliant if the 88 actually timed with the 70 conveniently. With the current schedule, there are very few times when an airport-bound passenger can make a convenient transfer of less than fifteen minutes. These transfer times are so abysmal that Google Transit usually recommends walking from East Saanich/McTavish or taking the 83 and then walking from the Coast Guard Station to the airport because of how utterly useless the 88 is. Every iteration of a trip that involved transferring to the 88 takes at least ten minutes longer than walking. The 88 is an absolutely horribly planned bus. I get that it's not just there for the airport, but I don't understand why it serves the airport if it is virtually unusable as an airport shuttle. I could understand a fifteen minute wait if you were, say, at Royal Oak, but waiting fifteen minutes for a bus that can't go further than a fifteen minute walk would take you is downright stupid. 

I believe BC Transit lined up the schedules last year to shorten the transfer between 70 and 87/88 at McTavish

[InfiNorth]

12 hours ago, ygk said:

I believe BC Transit lined up the schedules last year to shorten the transfer between 70 and 87/88 at McTavish

Sure isn't effective this year. Minimum fifteen minute wait - a transfer for a bus that exists exclusively for a transfer shouldn't be more than five minutes. 

[CV92]

13 hours ago, ygk said:

I believe BC Transit lined up the schedules last year to shorten the transfer between 70 and 87/88 at McTavish

 

10 minutes ago, InfiNorth said:

Sure isn't effective this year. Minimum fifteen minute wait - a transfer for a bus that exists exclusively for a transfer shouldn't be more than five minutes. 

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. 

[Dane]

Anyone know if you can buy the BC Transit face mask anywhere in town? Was just about to order a TransLink one, but they're sold out! 

[Matt Dunlop]

On 8/5/2020 at 10:58 AM, Dane said:

Anyone know if you can buy the BC Transit face mask anywhere in town? Was just about to order a TransLink one, but they're sold out! 

They gave them out a couple weeks ago. I'd imagine they'll give more out again at some point. Could try phoning or e-mailing transit and asking if they have extra. 

 

EDIT: I just read on Facebook the BC Transit masks are available at their head office

[Urban_96]

On 7/30/2020 at 9:31 PM, jmward said:

Click the link in the post you quoted! (maybe I was too subtle)

In any case, http://bctracker.bumblesquash.com/ 

Thanks!

[Matt Dunlop]

Here's the Transit Commission Meeting on Youtube if anybody is interested in listening in (it's 90 minutes!) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tqbq0vAzZU

 

[InfiNorth]

Just wanted to continue the ever-ongoing debate about infrequent local services. I've endlessly criticized the 13 Ten Mile Point for its infrequency, short route, pointless terminus, non-supplementary service design and service hours, but I have found a new route that I have even more problems with than the 13 Ten Mile Point: 43 Royal Roads University. Currently the service is operating twice daily and only on weekdays. It has oddly positioned stops within Belmont Park, with two stops only 100m apart (according to NextRide) while no stops are at a convenient spot for John Stubbs Elementary. Along with this, there is no "final stop" before leaving Belmont Park - as logic would dictate a stop be placed at College and Thetis. No such stop exists. Meanwhile, the only stop at the bottom of the hill for Royal Roads University (the only logical reason for the existence of this bus route's routing through Royal Roads) is significantly lower elevation than the main instructional buildings - thus negating any benefit the route poses for those with mobility difficulty, as the positioning of the stop forces riders to climb steep stairs or take a horribly roundabout route to access the main instructional buildings. Nor does it serve the former Royal Roads terminus loop where the 39 once conveniently got just that little bit closer to the university. 

 

There is a lot unpack about the 43 and I'd love to hear others' opinions on it - I have a new understanding of the value of the 13 Ten Mile Point thanks to users of the forum. I look forward to being similarly enlightened regarding the 43.

[jmward]

Hey everyone, just announcing that BCTracker has moved to a new (more reasonable) URL:

It is now:  http://bctracker.ca/

The old links will still work for now (and should redirect you to the new link)

Along with this, there are a bunch of improvements! Here are a few:

- View active busses by model and by route

- Maps added on the bus page

- Proper mobile support! It's much nicer on your phone now. 

There's a lot more, and the layouts are generally cleaned up. I owe a lot of thanks to my friend @ThatBusGuy who has put a lot of time into the site with these changes. It is all a lot smoother now. 

[CV92]

On 8/20/2020 at 8:39 PM, InfiNorth said:

Just wanted to continue the ever-ongoing debate about infrequent local services. I've endlessly criticized the 13 Ten Mile Point for its infrequency, short route, pointless terminus, non-supplementary service design and service hours, but I have found a new route that I have even more problems with than the 13 Ten Mile Point: 43 Royal Roads University. Currently the service is operating twice daily and only on weekdays. It has oddly positioned stops within Belmont Park, with two stops only 100m apart (according to NextRide) while no stops are at a convenient spot for John Stubbs Elementary. Along with this, there is no "final stop" before leaving Belmont Park - as logic would dictate a stop be placed at College and Thetis. No such stop exists. Meanwhile, the only stop at the bottom of the hill for Royal Roads University (the only logical reason for the existence of this bus route's routing through Royal Roads) is significantly lower elevation than the main instructional buildings - thus negating any benefit the route poses for those with mobility difficulty, as the positioning of the stop forces riders to climb steep stairs or take a horribly roundabout route to access the main instructional buildings. Nor does it serve the former Royal Roads terminus loop where the 39 once conveniently got just that little bit closer to the university. 

 

There is a lot unpack about the 43 and I'd love to hear others' opinions on it - I have a new understanding of the value of the 13 Ten Mile Point thanks to users of the forum. I look forward to being similarly enlightened regarding the 43.

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 

[SomeIslandKid]

Not a problem now with Sooke road experiencing far less congestion than before, but the morning runs of the 43 would have been vastly improved by running it the other way so it didn't just get stuck in this mess every morning

I mean I guess technically this way Belmont Park residents can get to Royal Roads but idk if enough people need that for it to be worth the empty 40ft bus idling in traffic.

Although saying that Ocean Blvd also got pretty bad congestion too, so idk maybe it was a negligible difference time wise

Ngl looking back there's a few times I should've just got off the 48 and walked to the preceding 51. (Both 48s were timed to go down Sooke road right after a 51 did. Hopefully the April 48 changes mean it's fixed once the 51 is reinstated) I could've actually made that transfer with how bad this was lol

[InfiNorth]

9 hours ago, CV92 said:

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 

My main concern still remains with the twice daily schedule. People in Belmont Park would almost be better off just walking to Colwood Exchange than trying to deal with the stress of missing a bus where the next one comes eleven hours later. The route... whatever. It's not great, but yes, it replaces what the 39 once did (I'm still bitter that it doesn't go to Royal Roads proper any more)... but the bus that replaced it along that has to be the most absurd service reduction anyone in BC Transit's service area has seen over the last fifty years, from over a dozen a day to two. 

7 hours ago, SomeIslandKid said:

the 43 would have been vastly improved by running it the other way

Not to mention that it would actually serve the people in Belmont Park trying to connect at Colwood Exchange for the morning commute far better.

[CV92]

8 hours ago, SomeIslandKid said:

Not a problem now with Sooke road experiencing far less congestion than before, but the morning runs of the 43 would have been vastly improved by running it the other way so it didn't just get stuck in this mess every morning 

I mean I guess technically this way Belmont Park residents can get to Royal Roads but idk if enough people need that for it to be worth the empty 40ft bus idling in traffic.

Although saying that Ocean Blvd also got pretty bad congestion too, so idk maybe it was a negligible difference time wise

Ngl looking back there's a few times I should've just got off the 48 and walked to the preceding 51. (Both 48s were timed to go down Sooke road right after a 51 did. Hopefully the April 48 changes mean it's fixed once the 51 is reinstated) I could've actually made that transfer with how bad this was lol

IIRC, the private section of College Dr is a one-way road. 

1 hour ago, InfiNorth said:

My main concern still remains with the twice daily schedule. People in Belmont Park would almost be better off just walking to Colwood Exchange than trying to deal with the stress of missing a bus where the next one comes eleven hours later. The route... whatever. It's not great, but yes, it replaces what the 39 once did (I'm still bitter that it doesn't go to Royal Roads proper any more)... but the bus that replaced it along that has to be the most absurd service reduction anyone in BC Transit's service area has seen over the last fifty years, from over a dozen a day to two. 

Not to mention that it would actually serve the people in Belmont Park trying to connect at Colwood Exchange for the morning commute far better.

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. 

[SomeIslandKid]

1 hour ago, CV92 said:

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. 

Most of Belmont Park is military housing too eh? I've seen a gov of Canada couch bus that seem to go between CFB Esquilmalt and Belmont Park at rush hour which would definitely take away a nice chunk of potential ridership, leaving mainly just families. As for John Stubbs, it's an SD62 school which means school buses are a thing unlike all the SD61 schools further limiting ridership potential. Especially as an elementary school with smaller scale enrolment numbers and as parents are generally less willing to let their 6 year old kid ride transit alone than they would a middle or high schooler.

So that leaves the few non-military housing units in the area, and families of military members as riders. Many of those families own cars too since I think it's all family housing as well. There's also the case that a decent chunk of Belmont Park is within a 10 minute walk of stops along Sooke Road and Goldstream which further lowers potential local trip ridership as it becomes easier to just walk to Sooke road for the able bodied living on that side of it. 20+ minutes at the far end certainly makes the case for the 43's existence, but as you said it's just nearly impossible to service well without compromising service for the rest of the Westshore.

[InfiNorth]

1 hour ago, CV92 said:

 

 

24 minutes ago, SomeIslandKid said:

 

Thanks both for the responses. CV92 excellent points - I still can't wrap my head around what purpose if any the morning 43 serves except for those with mobility difficulties, as (as both myself and SomeIslandKid pointed out) it is faster to just walk from most of the stops to the exchange even if you're there on time to catch the bus. For evening returns from downtown, it makes a convenient (if not difficult to time) service. Regardless, it just seems like a bit of a blundered service. 

[Matt Dunlop]

On 8/20/2020 at 8:39 PM, InfiNorth said:

Just wanted to continue the ever-ongoing debate about infrequent local services. I've endlessly criticized the 13 Ten Mile Point for its infrequency, short route, pointless terminus, non-supplementary service design and service hours, but I have found a new route that I have even more problems with than the 13 Ten Mile Point: 43 Royal Roads University. Currently the service is operating twice daily and only on weekdays. It has oddly positioned stops within Belmont Park, with two stops only 100m apart (according to NextRide) while no stops are at a convenient spot for John Stubbs Elementary. Along with this, there is no "final stop" before leaving Belmont Park - as logic would dictate a stop be placed at College and Thetis. No such stop exists. Meanwhile, the only stop at the bottom of the hill for Royal Roads University (the only logical reason for the existence of this bus route's routing through Royal Roads) is significantly lower elevation than the main instructional buildings - thus negating any benefit the route poses for those with mobility difficulty, as the positioning of the stop forces riders to climb steep stairs or take a horribly roundabout route to access the main instructional buildings. Nor does it serve the former Royal Roads terminus loop where the 39 once conveniently got just that little bit closer to the university. 

 

There is a lot unpack about the 43 and I'd love to hear others' opinions on it - I have a new understanding of the value of the 13 Ten Mile Point thanks to users of the forum. I look forward to being similarly enlightened regarding the 43.

The 43 is basically a useless run - NOBODY takes it. Belmont Park used to have much much better frequency - weekdays only - but every 30-60 minutes back when the 39 went through it. However to increase service to Langford, they re-routed the 39, and in order to service Royal Roads, they had the 52 do a little section of it. 

I know an operator who does the 43 for one trip right now, he has not picked up ONE PERSON the whole signup, and for a little bit of this signup, it was on detour. 

Belmont Park is mostly military families, and as we know, a good majority of military workers drive to the base. 

In all honesty, it would make more sense to have the 52 go through Royal Roads the entire way (turn off Sooke Rd like it does now) and bypass the stop at Aldeane and Goldstream. Same thing in reverse. 

On 8/21/2020 at 6:41 PM, jmward said:

Hey everyone, just announcing that BCTracker has moved to a new (more reasonable) URL:

It is now:  http://bctracker.ca/

The old links will still work for now (and should redirect you to the new link)

Along with this, there are a bunch of improvements! Here are a few:

- View active busses by model and by route

- Maps added on the bus page

- Proper mobile support! It's much nicer on your phone now. 

There's a lot more, and the layouts are generally cleaned up. I owe a lot of thanks to my friend @ThatBusGuy who has put a lot of time into the site with these changes. It is all a lot smoother now. 

Your site is great so far! I really hope Transit doesn't make their GTFS data private or in some way try to shut your site down. I know they don't like the public knowing about their paddles and their buses where-abouts. 

[InfiNorth]

50 minutes ago, Matt Dunlop said:

I know they don't like the public knowing about their paddles and their buses where-abouts. 

All their GTFS data (and live feeds) are open data, and since it's technically a public service I would be shocked if they pulled it. What is the background for them not liking that? I can kind of understand paddles as that's just internal information, but bus locations?

[CV92]

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

[Dane]

I just realized I haven't seen the Nova with the white destination display. Is it still equipped with the white sign? 

[Matt Dunlop]

On 8/23/2020 at 3:59 PM, InfiNorth said:

All their GTFS data (and live feeds) are open data, and since it's technically a public service I would be shocked if they pulled it. What is the background for them not liking that? I can kind of understand paddles as that's just internal information, but bus locations?

I have heard drivers say they do not like all that information being public (paddles, bus history, etc) even though it doesn't have their NAME or SENIORITY # attached to the bus, just the bus and paddle. 

9 hours ago, Dane said:

I just realized I haven't seen the Nova with the white destination display. Is it still equipped with the white sign? 

BCT took the white sign out of 9437 around the time the XN40s showed up (or just after) 

[InfiNorth]

On 8/25/2020 at 7:13 AM, Matt Dunlop said:

I have heard drivers say they do not like all that information being public (paddles, bus history, etc) even though it doesn't have their NAME or SENIORITY # attached to the bus, just the bus and paddle. 

BCT took the white sign out of 9437 around the time the XN40s showed up (or just after) 

Do you know why they'd bother? Did they happen to have a Flyer that they were scrapping with an old orange sign? I didn't think they cared that much about aesthetic.

On 8/24/2020 at 11:21 AM, CV92 said:

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

Any idea if the 39 will be a frequent route again this year or will it be left at half-hourly service as it historically was as UVIC will see a drastic reduction of attendance? It's a bit sad to see the 16 out of service, it was a lot more convenient to get to Uptown for a transfer to the 70/71/72 for the ferry than the slow and ponderous 26 and 39 (to Royal Oak).

[Matt Dunlop]

1 hour ago, InfiNorth said:

Do you know why they'd bother? Did they happen to have a Flyer that they were scrapping with an old orange sign? I didn't think they cared that much about aesthetic.

Any idea if the 39 will be a frequent route again this year or will it be left at half-hourly service as it historically was as UVIC will see a drastic reduction of attendance? It's a bit sad to see the 16 out of service, it was a lot more convenient to get to Uptown for a transfer to the 70/71/72 for the ferry than the slow and ponderous 26 and 39 (to Royal Oak).

I can't say why they took the white sign out of 9437. Maybe they were just "borrowing" it from Luminator as a trial? @CV92 would have more info about that. 

[InfiNorth]

Took the 27 (Southbound) and 24 (Northbound) today. Noticed that the stop across from Victoria Conservatory of Music is closed - is that a part of our city's brilliant solution of forcing homeless people from one part of town into an identical situation in another part of town? It leaves a sizable gap in the route. 

Also, BC Transit doesn't appear to be taking the mask mandate seriously in the least. At least half the people on the 27 and about a quarter on the 24 had no mask or simply had it pulled down. Drivers were not even asking boarding passengers if they had a mask on hand. I politely asked a person with it pulled down who sat right next to me to "please put your mask on" and got screamed at by their friend for being an authoritarian puppet or something. 

Update: I reached out to BC Transit about the face coverings. Their official response is that their "mandate" is only a recommendation. Not so much as guidelines...

Transit is weird now. Also, the 27 I was on originated at Shelbourne and McKenzie due to a breakdown somewhere else, I believe at Shelbourne wnd Pear where there were two buses with four-ways flashing and a service truck.

[Dane]

2 hours ago, InfiNorth said:

Took the 27 (Southbound) and 24 (Northbound) today. Noticed that the stop across from Victoria Conservatory of Music is closed - is that a part of our city's brilliant solution of forcing homeless people from one part of town into an identical situation in another part of town? It leaves a sizable gap in the route. 

 

If this is the stop I'm thinking, it's just moving. There's three or four in the Quadra/Johnson area that don't allow pedestrian flow because of there rather archaic placement. The one at Ming's is supposed to move to the other end of the block in the Fall. 

On 8/26/2020 at 12:28 PM, InfiNorth said:

Do you know why they'd bother? Did they happen to have a Flyer that they were scrapping with an old orange sign? I didn't think they cared that much about aesthetic.

I am surprised it was a real trial too! 

Also in this week's surprises, hadn't seen the 9753 for a week or so, but saw it yesterday in service going on! 

[InfiNorth]

34 minutes ago, Dane said:

If this is the stop I'm thinking, it's just moving. There's three or four in the Quadra/Johnson area that don't allow pedestrian flow because of there rather archaic placement. The one at Ming's is supposed to move to the other end of the block in the Fall. 

48.427491, -123.358140

The BC Transit sign has been completely removed but the shelter and timetable are still in place.