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

[8010]

B-Line Consultation Report is up, not very impressed with the Fraser Highway B-Line's local route changes (502/503) and I would prefer the 595 to be extended to Haney via Lougheed Hwy to provide local service along part of the Lougheed B-Line's route.

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/bline_consultation/TL-B-Line-Summary-2018-09-12.pdf?la=en&hash=D3EF1A6D8509D8719863955D61E887546B379138

[DarkKeyo]

12 hours ago, Thomasw said:

First the Surrey LRT, then this. What next an LRT along kingsway.

What is with Vancouver and loving LRT

The b-line hasn't even begun operation along 41st, why l we all of a sudden need an LRT. I believe they should see how the b-line goes and then they should make the decision for an upgrade like for example; more frenquency or even maybe hi-articulate busses but not and LRT.

Currently there is not enough demand for and LRT on 41st. maybe in about 10 years there will be enough demand for bi-articulate busses but LRT is too much and a waste of money and time. Also the roads in Kerrisdale between West boulevard and Larch street is way too narrow for there to Ben a train track in the middle of the road. 

I'll save any comments on whether LRT is a good idea after I've read the articles, but there is definitely demand everywhere in Vancouver for transit, and B-line corridors, even future ones, are struggling to keep up with crowding and with disruptions caused by traffic. Even the 95, new as it is, can barely keep up with traffic and crowding between the city centre and Burnaby. 

[Millennium2002]

TransLink consultation of late is pretty bad in my opinion. They're rushing to get projects through to implementation. Despite how good my suggestions are, if there isn't enough people saying similar, they're going to stick with their plans. No wonder people still grumble about TransLink to this day.

[Michael Marriott]

10 hours ago, 8010 said:

I would prefer the 595 to be extended to Haney via Lougheed Hwy to provide local service along part of the Lougheed B-Line's route.

Except, you really can't provide local service on that stretch of Lougheed Highway.  There are a limited number of streets that actually meet the highway, most of which don't have pedestrian crossings that would be necessary for bus stops.  Looking at google maps, the only streets that would work for a bus stop that don't have a proposed or future B-Line stop are 207 and 216 streets.  Wasting service hours to extend the 595 to Haney Place for two unique stops is not a good use of resources; if there was demand for those stops they could be added to the B-Line. 

This whole idea of running the 595 to Haney Place keeps cropping up, but it will likely never happen.  The 595 used to run to Haney Place, but it was cut back to Maple Meadows because there was not enough ridership to justify duplicating the 701.  Between the 701, 791 and the new B-Line there is already more than enough service running down the corridor.

[maege]

16 hours ago, Thomasw said:

First the Surrey LRT, then this. What next an LRT along kingsway.

What is with Vancouver and loving LRT

The b-line hasn't even begun operation along 41st, why l we all of a sudden need an LRT. I believe they should see how the b-line goes and then they should make the decision for an upgrade like for example; more frenquency or even maybe hi-articulate busses but not and LRT.

Currently there is not enough demand for and LRT on 41st. maybe in about 10 years there will be enough demand for bi-articulate busses but LRT is too much and a waste of money and time. Also the roads in Kerrisdale between West boulevard and Larch street is way too narrow for there to Ben a train track in the middle of the road. 

I like expanding transit because it is the most space efficient method of helping people move, aside from walking. Expanding transit capacity with more frequency, dedicated lanes, rail, or grade separation is extremely beneficial to achieve this, so I support it. LRT is often the most cost efficient method of increasing capacity beyond that of buses, which can enable a wider spread of expansion vs more costly options. Transportation contributes ~40-50% of our emissions in Metro Vancouver, and to do our part in tackling the crisis, we need to displace private cars with transit, walking, cycling, and other forms of active transportation. As a part of this, we need to electrify our transit system, and moving to electric rail lines can be part of that.

The B-line will be sufficient near-term, but 41st Ave has the highest ridership after Broadway. If we are not planning for higher capacity services there, there is a significant problem with our transportation planning. We should not end up at a point where we have buses at 3 min headways and still can't keep up with demand (99). 

LRT is often the cheapest and most cost-effective option to increase capacity over buses. It can be at-grade, elevated, or tunneled as needed, providing flexibility of options along a route. 

Technically, LRT can operate fine at any level of ridership, but I would agree that, yes, we should have the B-line in place for 3-10 years to further build ridership before the increase of capacity from a train would be worth the investment.  LRT can run just fine at many road widths that are narrower than 41st. 41st has 5 lanes in that section: 3 travel, 2 parking. Remove parking lanes, and you have room for LRT. Super easy. Note that if bus lanes are built, simply replacing the bus lanes with LRT would work perfectly, only changing the type of transit it is used for.

14 hours ago, buizelbus said:

BLine service now requires a mandatory bus lane. I guess TransLink is getting scared of BRT creep.

Transit planning is NOT about any particular technology. Technology should be one of the very last decisions for a route, not something pre-determined at the beginning.

Bus lanes, signal priority, queue jumpers, and other transit priority are features of building a high-quality transit system. It is sad that it took so long to get them implemented on many routes (and there will still be many others that should have various forms of transit priority), but it hasn't been very long that transit has been widely accepted as a public good and priority. 

14 hours ago, Brando737 said:

I think Vancouver is expecting the development in the Oakridge area to drastically increase the need for better rapid transit and I'm sure the Oakridge development is just the beginning of the 41st corridor being revamped in some way.  They should at least start with a dedicated bus lane to get an initial improvement.

And not just that, but 41st Ave is already by far the second busiest bus corridor in Metro Vancouver after Broadway with almost 11 million ridership. 

[Millennium2002]

7 hours ago, maege said:

I like expanding transit because it is the most space efficient method of helping people move, aside from walking. Expanding transit capacity with more frequency, dedicated lanes, rail, or grade separation is extremely beneficial to achieve this, so I support it. LRT is often the most cost efficient method of increasing capacity beyond that of buses, which can enable a wider spread of expansion vs more costly options. Transportation contributes ~40-50% of our emissions in Metro Vancouver, and to do our part in tackling the crisis, we need to displace private cars with transit, walking, cycling, and other forms of active transportation. As a part of this, we need to electrify our transit system, and moving to electric rail lines can be part of that.

The B-line will be sufficient near-term, but 41st Ave has the highest ridership after Broadway. If we are not planning for higher capacity services there, there is a significant problem with our transportation planning. We should not end up at a point where we have buses at 3 min headways and still can't keep up with demand (99). 

LRT is often the cheapest and most cost-effective option to increase capacity over buses. It can be at-grade, elevated, or tunneled as needed, providing flexibility of options along a route. 

Technically, LRT can operate fine at any level of ridership, but I would agree that, yes, we should have the B-line in place for 3-10 years to further build ridership before the increase of capacity from a train would be worth the investment.  LRT can run just fine at many road widths that are narrower than 41st. 41st has 5 lanes in that section: 3 travel, 2 parking. Remove parking lanes, and you have room for LRT. Super easy. Note that if bus lanes are built, simply replacing the bus lanes with LRT would work perfectly, only changing the type of transit it is used for.

Transit planning is NOT about any particular technology. Technology should be one of the very last decisions for a route, not something pre-determined at the beginning.

Bus lanes, signal priority, queue jumpers, and other transit priority are features of building a high-quality transit system. It is sad that it took so long to get them implemented on many routes (and there will still be many others that should have various forms of transit priority), but it hasn't been very long that transit has been widely accepted as a public good and priority. 

And not just that, but 41st Ave is already by far the second busiest bus corridor in Metro Vancouver after Broadway with almost 11 million ridership. 

I can't help but think of all the promotional hypocrisy that's been jammed into one post. Cost efficient LRT along 41st Avenue? Hmm... we're already starting to have doubts about Surrey LRT being any better than improvements to road infrastructure in support of existing bus routes...

[maege]

13 hours ago, Millennium2002 said:

I can't help but think of all the promotional hypocrisy that's been jammed into one post. Cost efficient LRT along 41st Avenue? Hmm... we're already starting to have doubts about Surrey LRT being any better than improvements to road infrastructure in support of existing bus routes...

If you actually read it and didn't attempt to only take select parts of a phrase, you would see that I said it is often the most cost efficient when capacity expansion is needed beyond that of buses.

Quote

LRT is often the most cost efficient method of increasing capacity beyond that of buses

Quote

LRT is often the cheapest and most cost-effective option to increase capacity over buses. 

Trains can have a drastically higher capacity than buses. At-grade systems are usually the cheapest to build.

As for being "promotional" I definitely promote more and better transit. As for hypocrisy, you would have to point out where I was being hypocritical.

Regarding Surrey LRT, "better" is a highly subjective term. If you are referring specifically to travel time, then the planned LRT would not be much better than BRT. As for capacity, and using it as a "city-building" piece of infrastructure, LRT would perform "better" on those accounts.

I do understand many people are opposed to the Surrey LRT for many reasons, some founded in reality, some not. Sadly, that debate seems to driven many people to become anti-LRT or pro-BRT at the cost of all else, and the technology is now more important than the improvement of transit. Loving or hating transit for some route just because it is a particular technology is not rational and does not lend itself to rational discussion.

As I mentioned in my post you quoted, we need bus lanes and transit priority of all types much more widespread than we have currently. This is the "low-hanging fruit" to improve transit quickly and relatively cheaply (it may actually save money due to faster, more reliable travel times, so less buses are needed for the same service) and we need more of it.

[Express691]

 https://www.translink.ca/Schedules-and-Maps/Alerts.aspx 

410 WB to Brighouse reverts to Ewen -> Boundary routing on Wednesday

[8800GTX]

13 hours ago, Express691 said:

https://www.translink.ca/Schedules-and-Maps/Alerts.aspx 

410 WB to Brighouse reverts to Ewen -> Boundary routing on Wednesday

EB to remain on the straight routing?

[Express691]

8 minutes ago, 8800GTX said:

EB to remain on the straight routing?

EB same as since August 13... making the setup faster than normal routing as of Wednesday

On another note, it looks like that the revision of WB routing is only for Wednesday..

 Hmmmm

[nname]

Just noticed something that wasn't mentioned in the service change.

As of September, the following stations and exchanges now have numbered bus bays:

Columbia (Bay 1-3)
Yaletown-Roundhouse (Bay 1-4)
Olympic Village (Bay 1-3)
Broadway-City Hall (Bay 1-6)
King Edward (Bay 1-4)
Oakridge-41st (Bay 1-6)
Langara-49th (Bay 1-4)
Aberdeen (Bay 1-3)
Lansdowne (Bay 1-4)
Pitt Meadows (Bay 1-4)
Port Haney (Bay 1-3)

[nname]

On 9/15/2018 at 12:41 PM, Michael Marriott said:

This whole idea of running the 595 to Haney Place keeps cropping up, but it will likely never happen.  The 595 used to run to Haney Place, but it was cut back to Maple Meadows because there was not enough ridership to justify duplicating the 701.  Between the 701, 791 and the new B-Line there is already more than enough service running down the corridor.

Now thinking about this, I wonder routing the 595 from GEB -> 113b Ave -> 203 St -> Lougheed Hwy -> Maple Meadows would be a better idea. At least the route won't be terminate in the middle of nowhere, while providing new service to 113b and allow the #743 to take a more direct route out of Maple Meadows.

[FlyingPig]

4 hours ago, nname said:

Now thinking about this, I wonder routing the 595 from GEB -> 113b Ave -> 203 St -> Lougheed Hwy -> Maple Meadows would be a better idea. At least the route won't be terminate in the middle of nowhere, while providing new service to 113b and allow the #743 to take a more direct route out of Maple Meadows.

That's actually a really good idea. You could even send the idea to Translink

And, if the 595 really does end at 203, where will it turn around?

[Thomasw]

5 hours ago, nname said:

Just noticed something that wasn't mentioned in the service change.

As of September, the following stations and exchanges now have numbered bus bays:

Columbia (Bay 1-3)
Yaletown-Roundhouse (Bay 1-4)
Olympic Village (Bay 1-3)
Broadway-City Hall (Bay 1-6)
King Edward (Bay 1-4)
Oakridge-41st (Bay 1-6)
Langara-49th (Bay 1-4)
Aberdeen (Bay 1-3)
Lansdowne (Bay 1-4)
Pitt Meadows (Bay 1-4)
Port Haney (Bay 1-3)

Yes, as of recently Canada Line stations have been getting bay numbers which I think should have existed since the start of the Canada Line

[8010]

The 16 remaining stations that still don't have Bay Numbers (yes I count Granville and City Centre Stations as 1 Station):

Waterfront

Granville/City Centre

Stadium-Chinatown

Main Street

Commercial-Broadway (certain stops)

Royal Oak

Sapperton

Renfrew

Rupert

Gilmore

Holdom

Lake City Way

Templeton

Sea Island Centre

YVR-Airport

Mission City

[cleowin]

There’s a couple signs on 56 st in tsawwassen that still show “C89” on the bus signs, why arent they updated?

[Translink69]

29 minutes ago, cleowin said:

There’s a couple signs on 56 st in tsawwassen that still show “C89” on the bus signs, why arent they updated?

I’m pretty sure the 132 hasn’t been updated either 

[nname]

On 9/13/2018 at 7:31 AM, cleowin said:

Sounds like the plan is for just a direct trolley for trolley replacement? Assuming xcelsior is the current branding for nfi, i expect xt40’s?

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/council_minutes_and_reports/2018/september/2018_09_21_public_agenda.pdf

From page 30 of this document, seems like it is the current plan.  Trolleys will be replaced with trolley in 2027-28.

Page 7-29 are also an interesting read.

[martin607]

1 hour ago, nname said:

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/council_minutes_and_reports/2018/september/2018_09_21_public_agenda.pdf

From page 30 of this document, seems like it is the current plan.  Trolleys will be replaced with trolley in 2027-28.

Page 7-29 are also an interesting read.

Let's hope so. A new trolleybus fleet is assumed in Electrification Scenario 1, but Electrification Scenario 2 assumes replacement by battery electric buses. 

On a quick read the consultant's report recognises a lot of issues with battery buses e.g. costs of installation of charging systems, requirement for a higher number of buses etc. It obviously needs a lot of deeper consideration but one thing seems clear. The report contains a lot of optimistic assumptions about much lower costs for batteries  and for battery buses as a whole by the middle of the next decade. But what if battery costs drop by a lower percentage than expected? Or what if the worldwide increase in battery use actual causes cost pressures on lithium, cobalt etc.?

On a first reading they don't seem to have recognised that trolleybuses with batteries and In Motion Charging. With only 50% of route needing wiring, there could be an electrification strategy where there is both an increase in the trolleybus fleet (say to 400 or more) and the introduction of a much larger fleet of battery electric buses.

[buizelbus]

7 hours ago, cleowin said:

There’s a couple signs on 56 st in tsawwassen that still show “C89” on the bus signs, why arent they updated?

AFAIK there's a few 410 signs left near Steveston.

[Unloading Only]

4 hours ago, nname said:

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/council_minutes_and_reports/2018/september/2018_09_21_public_agenda.pdf

From page 30 of this document, seems like it is the current plan.  Trolleys will be replaced with trolley in 2027-28.

Page 7-29 are also an interesting read.

Looking at page 17 of that pdf, trolley buses are way more expensive to buy than any of the other options. Is that just because they have such low production volumes compared with the diesels? The "adjusted" trolley bus metric is also interesting. That seems to imply that trolleybuses typically have a lot more service hours per day than the diesels?

[cleowin]

14 minutes ago, Unloading Only said:

Looking at page 17 of that pdf, trolley buses are way more expensive to buy than any of the other options. Is that just because they have such low production volumes compared with the diesels? The "adjusted" trolley bus metric is also interesting. That seems to imply that trolleybuses typically have a lot more service hours per day than the diesels?

While this pdf document is interesting, the reality is that i dont think 100% electrification will be fully possible. But we will see

[martin607]

5 hours ago, Unloading Only said:

Looking at page 17 of that pdf, trolley buses are way more expensive to buy than any of the other options. Is that just because they have such low production volumes compared with the diesels? The "adjusted" trolley bus metric is also interesting. That seems to imply that trolleybuses typically have a lot more service hours per day than the diesels?

I think you are right that trolleybuses are expensive because they are a "special order". Until recent times they were about the only electric road-going vehicles.

But with the advent of a big market for battery electric buses, this could be an opportunity to reduce the price of a trolleybus to something similar to a battery bus. After all there is a huge overlap in components. Both have the body, an electric motor and electronic power controller. Most modern trolleybuses are built with auxiliary batteries and on-board charger. So the communality of parts is huge.  If a manufacturer was willing, it could have a common unit that would be available either as 100% battery bus or with a battery-trolleybus variant.  One example is in Switzerland where Hess AG makes both the TOSA battery bus (it uses opportunity charging plus flash charging at intermediate stops) and the Swiss Trolley Plus. The bodies are the same (except for the trolley poles/electric pantograph) and they have the same electric traction package supplied by ABB.

I think that the adjustment of the trolleybus metric is made because the diesel fleet has a mix of duty cycles: Heavy, medium and light  routes, whereas the trolleys are almost entirely on heavy duty stop-go routes in the centre of the system. Otherwise they would be comparing apples and oranges.

[Brando737]

CMBC testing double decker clearance for the 257 next Thursday the 27th.  Leaving downtown at 0930.

https://westvancouver.ca/news/look-out-unusual-looking-bus-thursday-september-27

[cleowin]

 Also, all this talk of replacing CNG with Battery buses, seems like a waste of infrastructure to replace our newest buses with electric after their service life considering all the investments translink has made for CNG, I sure hope they stick to baseline, and even continue ordering diesels for depots serving hilly routes, like BTC and WVMT