Jump to content

Transit Service Discussion (Articulated/Conventional/Shuttle/Skytrain/Seabus)


cleowin

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Express691 said:

In the 1980s, 232 went all the way to kootenay loop. Don't see why couldnt they just do that instead. 

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/rider_guide/Buzzer Vault/1980s/1986/VOL 71_NO 5_FEBRUARY 28 1986.pdf

Maybe it's a different routing? Like stay on the freeway all the way to Capilano...

Actually, now thinking about this, rather than deadheading buses to Grouse early in the morning, maybe they can run them in service via the freeway to get some extra revenue with minimal cost, as there may be people who want to get there very early to do the Grouse Grind...

Well, we'll know more detail once the schedule is added, or when they gets published in March if it's indeed a seasonal service (the peeking method doesn't work for seasonal route :()

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2018 at 12:17 PM, nname said:

Well, maybe Holdom is the only place they can stop for recovery if the bus is running early... Ideally the split should be somewhere on Hastings, but the stops are probably too busy there...

Well, there's Kootenay Loop...

Now you are probably right, the loop is getting full with the 160 now terminating there too. But that reminded me... we have the 130 doing short-turn trips to the Safeway at Willingdon and Dawson... so why not set the 129 / 133 terminus to that? Maybe label it "Burnaby Heights Exchange" or something...

Also, is it necessary to set the relief point to be the same as the terminus? I know many routes are designed like that, but there are also many exceptions to that rule... For some time, the 49 stood out as being one of the biggest outliers, with the relief point being at Langara - 49th Avenue Station.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Millennium2002 said:

Well, there's Kootenay Loop...

Now you are probably right, the loop is getting full with the 160 now terminating there too. But that reminded me... we have the 130 doing short-turn trips to the Safeway at Willingdon and Dawson... so why not set the 129 / 133 terminus to that? Maybe label it "Burnaby Heights Exchange" or something...

Also, is it necessary to set the relief point to be the same as the terminus? I know many routes are designed like that, but there are also many exceptions to that rule... For some time, the 49 stood out as being one of the biggest outliers, with the relief point being at Langara - 49th Avenue Station.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DarkKeyo said:

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

It may be possible to show the 129 and 133 at once on the route map...

But then again, this will always be a problem with interlined runs, of which there are many throughout the network. In fact, last night, I fell asleep on a 144 from SFU to Metrotown and woke up later to find it doing a 119 to Metrotown... and when it got to that terminus it changed to a 116 to Edmonds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Express691 said:

It's super tricky to re-number Burnaby/New west shuttles because anything between 101-139 is or was a route within the past 20-30 years.

I don't think that matters anymore... see how fast they reused 189...

I think as long as it's not within the past 5 years, it's probably okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Express691 said:

It's super tricky to re-number Burnaby/New west shuttles because anything between 101-139 is or was a route within the past 20-30 years.

Maybe C5 C6 C7 can become 124 126 127?

C3 C4 can perhaps become 103 108.

C9 can maybe take 109.

In my opinion, 126 should be reserved for the 155.  I'm surprised they haven't changed it yet to follow what they did with the 154 becoming the 128.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brando737 said:

In my opinion, 126 should be reserved for the 155.  I'm surprised they haven't changed it yet to follow what they did with the 154 becoming the 128.  

I'd agree, only because I forgot about a "better" and "more consistent" block of route numbers in the 120s range in 120-121-122.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Express691 said:

I'd agree, only because I forgot about a "better" and "more consistent" block of route numbers in the 120s range in 120-121-122.

What about 113-114-115? That falls nicely with 116 that's already serving the area.

I'm surprised they didn't renumber C70 this time. I already had a feeling that they will make it 370 after the 372 was introduced.

Have to wait and see what happen to C75... obviously they couldn't make it 375 :P

Notice they had not renumbered any of the contracted shuttle routes yet...

 

Few more speculations:

C10, C11 may use the 270-271, as the WV routes may end up using the 26x numbers if the plan to shuttle and turn the 253-254-256 into two way loops (253-263, 254-264, 256-266?)

C12 the plan was to merge it with 259...

C15 would naturally become 215 again

C41 would need two or even three(!) numbers and split like what happen to all the loop or loop-like routes so far.. yeah.... C41 is a complete mess right now...

C45-C46 will probably merge and split too; C43-C44-C48-C49 just re-number, but they may be waiting for the new B-Line before making any change there, as it most likely involves some modest network change. I suppose two of the route will end up as 731-732 (probably the C45-C46 split?) as I still feel the 733 ended up being the 733 for a reason other than it happens to run on 133b St for a short section, or a random draw from a bag...

C60-C61 would need the same splitting treatment at Langley Hospital, as proposed all the way back in 2010 but shelved due to funding shortfall. C62 may get a split at Fort Langley, as that loop there is a bit too close for comfort :P.. other than that, so many numbers they can use but I wouldn't surprised if they end up being just 560-564

C76... who knows what will happen, maybe it won't become 376 as it being left out this round it seems

C84 and up... might have to wait till the ATP is finished to see what happens...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when it comes to route numberings, which ones are being reused and whoch ones are not? Is it just simply routes that were discontinued as CMBC routes that made it from the BC Transit era that cant be reused or are all ex BC Transit numbers unusable?  Because i know it messes with the systems when they go to use old numbers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK this will be the 3rd time there will be a route 133. I'm sure 131 and 132 were old 1980s routes. One reply I saw was a choice not to renumber what is now the 119 to the 108, because of the old 108's significance.

One thing we could probably ask is why the C74 was renumbered to 337 while its counterparts C71 and C73 get 371 and 373.

C75 C76 could be 346/347 or 343/344. I personally associate 34x with Surrey-Panorama-Sullivan. If they want the Sunshine Hills community shuttle then I don't see why they could use 346-347-348 (though they could also go with 313-314-315).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they get around to renumbering the C75, I hope they also take the opportunity to clarify its routing in the name. Even though it's technically between Scottsdale and Newton, it goes well out of its way compared to the 301 and 319 which I feel could be made clearer. They could do that simply by adding 'Via Panorama Ridge' or something. Splitting the route and interlining it (like the 171/172, 173/174, etc) could also be an option but it's not all that long of a route so there's probably no point in that.

As for the C76, I think it would be nice to see it numbered in the 600s, since most of it runs through Delta and the border between Delta and Surrey - particularly if they go through with the option to extend it to Ladner Village. But hey, that's just my opinion :P 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2018 at 11:39 AM, Express691 said:

That being said, what did the old-old 133 Kootenay Loop-Lougheed Station do? (Im not asking about 133 SFU-Metrotown express)

I don't know it's whole history, but on a 1985 map I have it started at Kootenay Loop, ran east on Hastings to Sperling, then south to Broadway, then via Broadway, Bainbridge, then following the 110 route along Government to the current site of Production Way Station.  At that point, it ran west on Lougheed to Underhill, when it turned north.  It turned onto Forest Grove, serving part of the current 136, before turning onto Eastlake and serving that road and Cameron as the 110 does now before ending at Lougheed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ThatBusGuy said:

When they get around to renumbering the C75, I hope they also take the opportunity to clarify its routing in the name. Even though it's technically between Scottsdale and Newton, it goes well out of its way compared to the 301 and 319 which I feel could be made clearer. They could do that simply by adding 'Via Panorama Ridge' or something. Splitting the route and interlining it (like the 171/172, 173/174, etc) could also be an option but it's not all that long of a route so there's probably no point in that.

That's definitely possible... now you mention it, I can see them split that route too, as the segment that runs parallel on 128th and 132th are close enough to get confusing. The route is definitely longer than the 184/185, and much longer than the 68/70.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2018 at 11:43 PM, Michael Marriott said:

I don't know it's whole history, but on a 1985 map I have it started at Kootenay Loop, ran east on Hastings to Sperling, then south to Broadway, then via Broadway, Bainbridge, then following the 110 route along Government to the current site of Production Way Station.  At that point, it ran west on Lougheed to Underhill, when it turned north.  It turned onto Forest Grove, serving part of the current 136, before turning onto Eastlake and serving that road and Cameron as the 110 does now before ending at Lougheed.

If I recall, in the 1970's, the 133 had two legs... one that followed a route similar to above (no detour through Forest Grove) that ended at North Road & Sullivan (the Lougheed Mall section was an extension of the route), and one that split off at Government & Brighton and went up Cariboo Rd. to the vicinity of Tenth Ave.

 

edit: rusty memory, that was the 33 (before the Burnaby/New West renumbering), not the 133

Edited by jgfarrell
accuracy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2018 at 3:59 PM, Brando737 said:

In my opinion, 126 should be reserved for the 155.  I'm surprised they haven't changed it yet to follow what they did with the 154 becoming the 128.  

This, and the merge of the 15 and 50 that hasn't happened either.

I tweeted @translink when Denis the Planner briefly took over the feed last year about the changeover from the old Cxx numbers:

image.thumb.jpg.1e3bf3b57b64bc77c8cbda79e2b61cec.jpg

 

This was Denis' reply: "the 35x's were taken! Had to start fresh with 36x's. We try to stay consistent where possible, like the C23 -> 23. … We want to keep all the White Rock/South Surrey shuttles consistent, so they can all be in the 360's."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/1/2018 at 9:30 AM, DarkKeyo said:

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

Couldn't they use the electronic signs like they have along Main St, and at Main Station and South Surrey Park & Ride

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Translink69 said:

Couldn't they use the electronic signs like they have along Main St, and at Main Station and South Surrey Park & Ride

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 15/50 split makes no sense to me either (nor does the useless Chinatown/Gastown portion with a break in the middle), but I guess there are historical reasons for this, kind of. It just seems like a "secret" for new users of the system that it really functions as one route, and I don't get why such secrets have to exist at all.

I also don't think splitting the 129 at Holdom makes much sense. It would make more sense to split it on Hastings somewhere if it's really necessary, or to run both portions to Kootenay like someone suggested.

5/6 isn't so bad just because everyone has been used to it for such a long time. Still, there are people that get confused about how it takes a break at the Cambie terminus but not at Davie/Denman. Really an unavoidable problem, as recovery time has to happen somewhere.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 8800GTX said:

5/6 is pretty simple for me. 5 runs on Robson, 6 runs on Denman. The routes also traverse some other streets but generally you can refer to the routes as belonging to those respective corridors.

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

1 hour ago, Large Cat said:

 

I also don't think splitting the 129 at Holdom makes much sense. It would make more sense to split it on Hastings somewhere if it's really necessary, or to run both portions to Kootenay like someone suggested.

 

 

Neither of those alternatives make any more sense than Holdom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...