Jump to content

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


cleowin

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Michael Marriott said:

http://infomaps.translink.ca/Public_Timetables/144/tt020.pdf

New schedules are up, and the devil is in the details for the 20 layover project.  Looking over the schedule, it appears that the 20 won't be taking layovers at Georgia and Richards during all time periods.  On the weekday schedule, arrival and departure times are the same at Georgia/Richards during the AM rush hour.  The trip arriving at 8:51 leaves at 8:53, 8:56 at 9:00, 9:04 at 9:08, then starting at the 9:10 arrival all buses get 5 minutes of recovery time throughout the day.  But, the layover times start shrinking with the 4:56pm arrival, which gets 4 minutes layover leaving at 5:00, then the 5:03 arrival leaves at 5:06.  Starting with the 5:13pm arrival, all trips once again have the same arrival and departures.  The Saturday and Sunday schedules have similar lengths of time for when the layover is in effect.  I think it is acceptable to have buses not taking layover during all time periods, particularly during early morning and late night when ridership and traffic is lighter and reliability is not such a big issue.  Even the lack layover in the AM rush hour is acceptable, given that the AM rush is better behaved and has less traffic delay than the PM rush hour.  However, I feel that the layover stops way too early in the PM, before PM rush hour is even over.  Given that there is still a high volume of traffic in the early evening, I would think the Downtown layover should be in effect until 8 or 9 pm.  This is admittedly anecdotal, but my experience as a regular transit user is that some of the worst reliability issues occur between 6 and 7 pm, when traffic volumes are still at near peak levels, but there is less road capacity as on street parking is permitted again and bus lanes are not in effect. 

Thanks, but do you know this for sure? For example there could be a kind of "buffer system" where a bus is always laying over. So when the bus arrives at 8.51 there is already a bus waiting and that is the bus that departs at 8.53. I guess we need to see the working schedules rather than the public timetable to be sure. Or go down there and watch for half an hour at least!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Marriott said:

This is admittedly anecdotal, but my experience as a regular transit user is that some of the worst reliability issues occur between 6 and 7 pm, when traffic volumes are still at near peak levels, but there is less road capacity as on street parking is permitted again and bus lanes are not in effect. 

But wouldn't the ideal solution then be to extend the times of the bus lanes and parking restrictions? This is one of those areas where IMO TransLink shouldn't be at the mercy of the individual municipalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brando737 said:

The layovers for the 20 at downtown are 2-5 minutes during the times where the trial is taking place.  I looked over the block reports and that 8:51 arrival does leave at 8:53.

Thanks. That raises the question how building in a layover of between 2 and 5  minutes is going to help much if the current unreliability is really bad. I guess it is a good first step and CMBC will review its effectiveness and adjust if necessary.

Do you know whether this means that the allocation of buses to the 20 has been increased, or has layover  time at Harrison loop been cut a bit to compensate for the extra time downtown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, martin607 said:

Do you know whether this means that the allocation of buses to the 20 has been increased, or has layover  time at Harrison loop been cut a bit to compensate for the extra time downtown?

Not sure, but layovers at Harrison loop look to be ok.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is TransLink keeping the C96/416 route in the finalized SWATP? It's such a pointless route to keep, the 404 should've been extended to Bridgeport Station from Brighouse Station via Westminster Highway and No.4 Road instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 8010 said:

Why is TransLink keeping the C96/416 route in the finalized SWATP? It's such a pointless route to keep, the 404 should've been extended to Bridgeport Station from Brighouse Station via Westminster Highway and No.4 Road instead.

I kinda want a complete redesign of Richmond shuttle routes... Some of them are really pointless, some of them go really out of their way to serve an existing service area. For example, the C94. Minoru is one block from No. 3 Road, and Elmbridge is barely a block from Westminster. It's completely unnecessary. Meanwhile, there are places with significant job numbers/residents barely served. River Road. Works Yard. Seafair.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2018 at 5:13 PM, 8010 said:

It's strange that half the route never got renamed, I would assume that it would cause some passenger confusion.

.... and, the route will get split in September:

282 - Mt Gardner / Snug Cove

Maybe they are reading this thread.... Now, the only thing left is probably the 618 (C88) split?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nname said:

.... and, the route will get split in September:

282 - Mt Gardner / Snug Cove

Maybe they are reading this thread.... Now, the only thing left is probably the 618 (C88) split?

That would be nice if the C88 is split in September, since there is currently no way of telling the difference between the clockwise and the counterclockwise routes unless you're at a stop with a schedule panel, which may just be Ladner Exchange if I remember correctly.

It may be too early to know but will routes 280, 281, and 282 have frequency increases? From what I know they run every 60-120+ minutes, which is pretty bad if you ask me. I understand that the reason their frequencies are so bad is probably due to low ridership (even though I can't find any ridership data), but the ridership won't increase if the frequencies remain at this beyond minimal level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 8010 said:

That would be nice if the C88 is split in September, since there is currently no way of telling the difference between the clockwise and the counterclockwise routes unless you're at a stop with a schedule panel, which may just be Ladner Exchange if I remember correctly.

It may be too early to know but will routes 280, 281, and 282 have frequency increases? From what I know they run every 60-120+ minutes, which is pretty bad if you ask me. I understand that the reason their frequencies are so bad is probably due to low ridership (even though I can't find any ridership data), but the ridership won't increase if the frequencies remain at this beyond minimal level.

Having been to the island a couple times, I can say passenger levels definitely fluctuate... Sometimes there were only a few people on board, another time there was an entire class of children on it (which of course, wouldn't be affected by a schedule increase). Currently the schedule is more or less timed to the arrival of the ferry, which is approximately hourly. During peak hours both routes will leave around the same time, and off peak/weekends they alternate for an approximately 2 hour interval. I think first step for an increase would be to maintain the peak system at all times. With three routes I'm not sure exactly what they'll do, other than stick with the current system for now and just change the sign.

As for the C88/618 split, I'm all for it, tho personally I would prefer to see it interlined with the C86/616 in Ladner Village and have the 310 extend along Ladner Trunk. (That's for all you Translink planning people spying on this thread ?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2018 at 5:56 PM, 8010 said:

Isn't the C70 supposed to be renamed to the 370 in the June changes?

Buzzer Blog's post today about the service changes included the C70 in the list of routes being renumbered, even though the official page still doesn't include it. Has anyone checked with Translink as to whether it's actually being done this sheet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2018 at 5:09 AM, GORDOOM said:

But wouldn't the ideal solution then be to extend the times of the bus lanes and parking restrictions? This is one of those areas where IMO TransLink shouldn't be at the mercy of the individual municipalities.

On the subject of people in power supposedly getting ideas from this thread, the bus lanes on Broadway have been extended by one hour for both peak periods.  The bus lanes are now in effect 7-10am and 3-7pm.  :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Michael Marriott said:

On the subject of people in power supposedly getting ideas from this thread, the bus lanes on Broadway have been extended by one hour for both peak periods.  The bus lanes are now in effect 7-10am and 3-7pm.  :D

Same with Hastings got extended hours, only to Boundary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ThatBusGuy said:

Buzzer Blog's post today about the service changes included the C70 in the list of routes being renumbered, even though the official page still doesn't include it. Has anyone checked with Translink as to whether it's actually being done this sheet?

I checked a few days ago and it is being done, it just seems to be a typo or something.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, 8010 said:

It may be too early to know but will routes 280, 281, and 282 have frequency increases?

No schedule change, just a split.

 

And... the June schedule pdf had been uploaded:

http://infomaps.translink.ca/Public_Timetables/144/tt560.pdf

 

They seems to be really late this time... The signup had started but the new schedule for 410 still haven't been fully entered (401, 406, 408 are done, and they will be running at different frequency as per SWATP meaning they will no longer be interlined), and the individual trips haven't been renamed for those renumbered shuttle routes besides the 418...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, nname said:

No schedule change, just a split.

 

And... the June schedule pdf had been uploaded:

http://infomaps.translink.ca/Public_Timetables/144/tt560.pdf

 

They seems to be really late this time... The signup had started but the new schedule for 410 still haven't been fully entered (401, 406, 408 are done, and they will be running at different frequency as per SWATP meaning they will no longer be interlined), and the individual trips haven't been renamed for those renumbered shuttle routes besides the 418...

I recieved an email from the planners for SWATP this morning and they said that the C98 is going to be extended when the 410 is split, I was wondering if this could be confirmed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Phillip said:

And just so everyone knows, the September sheet for BTC was posted for the last week. The 257 is in it with the 239 line group and the 130 is still BTC.

Not sure when the 130 is supposed to move to HTC, but it and the 555 are both planned to move, as HTC will be housing deckers. If HTC will be holding the Willingdon B-Line isnt clear yet. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a quote from an email I recieved from the CMBC Maintenance Devision in regards to upcoming Community Shuttles: (I didn't know which thread this falls under so I thought I'd put it here)

"Later this fall, TransLink will be placing 27 new community shuttles into service including 9 additional low-floor shuttles for West Vancouver transit.  The new low-floor shuttles are continuing to go through minor seating layout refinements and TransLink is in discussion with the vehicle manufacturer regarding the angled front door including investigating alternate options."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 8010 said:

Here's a quote from an email I recieved from the CMBC Maintenance Devision in regards to upcoming Community Shuttles: (I didn't know which thread this falls under so I thought I'd put it here)

"Later this fall, TransLink will be placing 27 new community shuttles into service including 9 additional low-floor shuttles for West Vancouver transit.  The new low-floor shuttles are continuing to go through minor seating layout refinements and TransLink is in discussion with the vehicle manufacturer regarding the angled front door including investigating alternate options."

There's a thread I made about this RFP, a few months back.

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...