Jump to content
cleowin

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

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, 8010 said:

I'm pretty sure that the whole RapidBus name is just going to be used to distinguish B-Lines as a different service type, similar to how ExpressBus is used on Suburban/Highway routes. We don't see "351 Crescent Beach ExpressBus" or "555 Port Mann Exp - Carvolth Exchange ExpressBus" on the destination signs and I have high doubts we'll see "95 SFU RapidBus" or "96 Guildford RapidBus".

I don't think that's what most of us take issue with. It's that a successful brand, which is REALLY rare to have in transit, is being dumped for no discernable reason. And adding a sub-scheme back into the mix which had already been stopped because it didn't make sense. 

 

And honestly, the buses just look bad. A sharp contrast to some of the best branding in Canada which other CMBC vehicles carry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On December 23, 2018 at 11:42 AM, ThatBusGuy said:

My guess is 18510-15 or 16 will go to FT in Langley to replace S302-4 and S1311-13, the rest to HTC to replace the remaining S1300s there and the S500s in worse condition

18516 is the end. Saw it today along with a couple others driving up and down Highway 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Brando737 said:

Did anyone read the new release for why they made the changes?  I agree the B-Line is established and doesn't need to change, but they did a study on colours and what kind of reactions they got from people.  I'm not saying I agree with it, but there is some science and research to all of this.

I have read that Buzzer news release, and while I don't mind the research findings, I still think they did a poor job on the design and marketing front. Like really, they just superimposed new colours on top of the old sweep design that we've had for the past 18 years. It looks very boring and uninspired, especially when you consider the heavy use of green and blue throughout the West Coast. Also note that they even made a point about orange being a colour that stood out among the crowd; the only explanation for it failing was because they did a mock-up of an all-orange bus and then passed that around for review...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Millennium2002 said:

I have read that Buzzer news release, and while I don't mind the research findings, I still think they did a poor job on the design and marketing front. Like really, they just superimposed new colours on top of the old sweep design that we've had for the past 18 years. It looks very boring and uninspired, especially when you consider the heavy use of green and blue throughout the West Coast. Also note that they even made a point about orange being a colour that stood out among the crowd; the only reason it failed to pass was because they did a mock-up of an all orange bus and then passed that around for review...

What? How did they not test a orange B-Line livery or a orange Sweep?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This RapidBus livery thing is going to end up being a repeat of the B-Line livery on the D60LFs, they'll realize it was a bad idea having different liveries on the exact same bus model and repaint all 63 XDE60s to the standard charcoal livery.

I read that these B-Lines are supposed to have updated seating yet these new XDE60s have the exact same Aries seats as every other conventional bus from 2005-present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Express691 said:

Some of the better ideas released to date. West Vancouver has always been a stick in the mud. It's like they never left the 1950s. West Vancouver isn't a small town anymore, and JFK isn't president. Should West Van not be okay, I say Translink goes for plan B and end it at Park Royal. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go to West Van and do a sit in blocking all of the parking spots by camping out in lawn chairs. If anyone waits 15 minutes for a spot (the minimum not having the bus lanes or the extended route to Ambleside would rob the relevant riders daily, who far outnumber the parkers), we will let them in. But as they get out of the car we will crowd them and hit them with backpacks as they walk to their destination so they know a little of the suffering of the proletariat.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, translink said:

Some of the better ideas released to date. West Vancouver has always been a stick in the mud. It's like they never left the 1950s. West Vancouver isn't a small town anymore, and JFK isn't president. Should West Van not be okay, I say Translink goes for plan B and end it at Park Royal. 

I don't want to criticize West Vancouver too much because I do like to see the retention of the WVMT, but I totally agree that, if they can't agree on bus priority measures to Dundarave, the North Shore RapidBus should end at Park Royal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkyTrain said:

Overheard a couple of RTC ops earlier today saying the 257 will be operating out of RTC using double-deckers.

Yes, I heard right. 

Wow. Who came up with that ludicrous idea... I would not want to be on one of those buses if and when it tries to make a turn on those mean West Vancouver hills...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Millennium2002 said:

Wow. Who came up with that ludicrous idea... I would not want to be on one of those buses if and when it tries to make a turn on those mean West Vancouver hills...

Good luck when sea breeze picks up (winds from water toward the land) and alters the center of balance when driving on highway 1 - it's already tricky enough when you have an artic.

In any sign, grain of salt, folks... need I say more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Express691 said:

Good luck when sea breeze picks up (winds from water toward the land) and alters the center of balance when driving on highway 1 - it's already tricky enough when you have an artic.

In any sign, grain of salt, folks... need I say more?

I think someone is dreaming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention, the #257 sees a lot of luggage, and single-deckers make more sense for that. It’s the same reason I expect the #620 to stay artic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to drive the 257 and can say a double decker bus could work, they use them in Victoria. Having said that the artic buses work better especially given the ability to do all door borading at horseshoe Bay and certain stops along Georgia Street. Also I'd imagine an artic bus could better handle luggage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few more updates:

Work has started inside the 22nd street station area. I dont know if the kiss-and ride at the west end of the station will be moved. Does anyone know if any of the bays will be extended to accommodate artics? I also assume part of the electric bus charging stations will be installed at 22nd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reliable source high up at Translink head office has informed me that 8060 8063 8064 8065 8066 will no longer be used on the 49 Metrotown/UBC. Their customer relations received numerous complaints of luggage racks buses being assigned on the 49 as well as drivers were complaining. Apparently RTC operations was unaware of this situation. From what this source tells me RTC has some new people doing bus assignments & they were unaware they were assigning luggage racks buses on 1 of the busiest crosstown routes. This person goes on to tell me effective mid January is when this was issue resolved. These 5 coaches are to be strictly assigned to 620 with the exception of morning trips interlined with the 354, 403 & 480. Since Fridays, weekends, stat holidays & overloads when more then 5 buses are required to fill the route, standard 60 foot coaches will be assigned along with the 5 luggage rack equipped coaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dover5949 said:

A reliable source high up at Translink head office has informed me that 8060 8063 8064 8065 8066 will no longer be used on the 49 Metrotown/UBC. Their customer relations received numerous complaints of luggage racks buses being assigned on the 49 as well as drivers were complaining. Apparently RTC operations was unaware of this situation. From what this source tells me RTC has some new people doing bus assignments & they were unaware they were assigning luggage racks buses on 1 of the busiest crosstown routes. This person goes on to tell me effective mid January is when this was issue resolved. These 5 coaches are to be strictly assigned to 620 with the exception of morning trips interlined with the 354, 403 & 480. Since Fridays, weekends, stat holidays & overloads when more then 5 buses are required to fill the route, standard 60 foot coaches will be assigned along with the 5 luggage rack equipped coaches.

8063 was on the 49 two days ago on Feb 4...

On a related note, since the D60LFs are being retired soon, will these 5 stay, or will 5 other buses be fitted with the luggage racks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, briguychau said:

8063 was on the 49 two days ago on Feb 4...

On a related note, since the D60LFs are being retired soon, will these 5 stay, or will 5 other buses be fitted with the luggage racks?

My source advises me that if any of the 5 outfitted with luggage racks end up being retired due to a serious mechanical issue, the racks will be reinstalled in another coach.

As for 8063 being assigned on the 49 I'm told it is being investigated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight change of topic. With new RapidBus coming to 41st Ave, City of Vancouver is currently holding consultations on corridor upgrades. One problem spot that is being looked at is at the West Blvd intersection.

Here is the city's proposal:

41st-avenue-b-line-kerrisdale-february-2

I'm not impressed with what they came up with. It was pointed out on another forum that the westbound bus may have to cross numerous traffic lanes and the paths of vehicles turning right when departing from the proposed stop. In addition, a single lane westbound after the intersection may become a chokepoint.

My response looks something like this:  (North faces the  right  left)

ufVvdLA.png

Basically I've moved the westbound stop onto a new bus-only road. Local access retained via extension of 40th Ave. Traffic lights will ensure RapidBus has priority getting back onto 41st Ave. The left turn lane to West Blvd northbound is removed in favour of having the vehicles loop around the block (sort of like a cloverleaf).

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Millennium2002 said:

Thoughts?

The elephant is still in the room. And by “elephant”, I’m referring to the c******f*** caused by on-street parking on 41st between Larch and West Blvd. and how it reduces 41st EB to one badly-congested lane. AIUI there are no changes being contemplated in this regard, and until you fix that the 41st Ave. B-Line will still have severe problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Millennium2002 said:

Thoughts?

There's no silver bullet with this area. With your solution, I'm immediately worried that you're taking eastbound left-turning cars that would be avoiding the greenway altogether and causing them to cross it twice, plus the new 40th cut-through. Would certainly take away some of the novelty of the greenway having so few road crossings, and it makes it more difficult to implement light rail in the future. I do definitely agree that the single receiving lane for westbound traffic could be a choke point, though. I expect the traffic modeling folks have their reasons for prioritizing the EBL lane.

Also, north is to the left :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pepper said:

There's no silver bullet with this area. With your solution, I'm immediately worried that you're taking eastbound left-turning cars that would be avoiding the greenway altogether and causing them to cross it twice, plus the new 40th cut-through. Would certainly take away some of the novelty of the greenway having so few road crossings, and it makes it more difficult to implement light rail in the future. I do definitely agree that the single receiving lane for westbound traffic could be a choke point, though. I expect the traffic modeling folks have their reasons for prioritizing the EBL lane.

Also, north is to the left :)

Thank you for correcting me there regarding the orientation.

I think one conversation that should happen concurrently is what to do with East Blvd in general on the north side of West 41st Ave. Part of me feels like they could make a bigger park or greenway in that area by removing East Blvd altogether; however, I imagine residents will still want road access to the local ice rink and nearby businesses. This was part of the inspiration behind the dedicated B-Line bay - it retains road access to the local arena / and businesses; both it and the westbound RapidBus bay can be controlled by a single set of lights; and those lights could also be synchronized with the main intersection if desired.

Another alternative to the jughandle idea would be to simply restrict left turns onto West Blvd northbound during weekday hours... Given the number of alternative roads nearby (e.g. Granville, Oak, Cambie, etc.), I can't see this being too disruptive... but at the same time, as the City of Vancouver opted to make room for it anyhow, I do wonder if there is strong demand for keeping the left turn to the north.

As much as I would like to see a streetcar run down the Arbutus Greenway, I'm not sure if it makes economic sense right now when it comes at the expense of the nearby frequent trolleybus route. There would have to be a really good business case for it - like up-zoning many of the lots surrounding the corridor - and while that may happen in the long term, I don't see that happening immediately. On the other hand, the RapidBus changes can be easily undone to make way for the streetcar if and when we get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×