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

[Dr. BusFreak]

As a frequent rider of the Canada Line on evenings, I think the 7 minute (3.5 minutes with combined frequencies) are needed until at least 8:15 P.M. After rush hour, TransLink eagerly takes off as many trains as possible, which creates overcrowding. Whenever I take the Canada Line on evenings, it is so overcrowded. Something needs to be done about this...

[Express691]

While on the topic of night market crowds, I'm hoping a few changes will be made on the weekend runs out of HTC especially with 3 road being jammed with night market crowds. 410 simply cant recover and it affects the last trips on 104, 128, 155, and the 101.

Back to Canada Line, how would you keep frequency consistent by adding a shuttle between Brighouse and Bridgeport? 

[Blue Bus Fan]

I agree with @Dr. BusFreak. Personally, I think that Richmond Brighouse Station needs to get dual track with 3 to 4 minute headway during rush hour, 4 minute headway during off peak, 5 minutes headways during evening along with mid-day weekends and 10 minutes headway during late night. 

[buizelbus]

10 hours ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

I agree with @Dr. BusFreak. Personally, I think that Richmond Brighouse Station needs to get dual track with 3 to 4 minute headway during rush hour, 4 minute headway during off peak, 5 minutes headways during evening along with mid-day weekends and 10 minutes headway during late night. 

98 T-Line?

 

hahahahaha

[Blue Bus Fan]

10 minutes ago, buizel10 said:

98 T-Line?

 

hahahahaha

Ok. It seems like a solution to help reduce the problem of overcrowding on the Canada line.

[buizelbus]

3 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

Ok. It seems like a solution to help reduce the problem of overcrowding on the Canada line.

Technically, you could just introduce a "403 EXPRESS" on top of the 403 with less stops and more frequency.

 

EDIT: And have it terminate and Richmond-Brighouse Stn, or route it somewhere like Steveston, Kwantlen or Ironwood after Brighouse Stn.

[Blue Bus Fan]

Just now, buizel10 said:

Technically, you could just introduce a "403 EXPRESS" on top of the 403 with less stops and more frequency.

You could but that would be waste money because so much duplication of services between Richmond Brighouse and Bridgeport and the better investment for TransLink is fix the problem of overcrowding on the Canada line with dual track terminus station at Richmond Brighouse. 

[GORDOOM]

My proposal to relieve peak Canada Line congestion would actually be to restore the pre-Canada Line downtown-express tunnel buses as premium-fare rush-hour services with extremely-limited stops north of the Massey Tunnel, using a similar fare structure to the West Coast Express. I've asked family members who live in south Surrey what they think, and they've agreed that they'd pay the premium fare to bypass congestion on the Canada Line. Then run a B-Line service from Bridgeport Station to Ladner Exchange to South Surrey Exchange (and possibly White Rock), and re-do local services in south Delta and south Surrey/White Rock to connect to the B-Line.

[Dr. BusFreak]

1 hour ago, GORDOOM said:

My proposal to relieve peak Canada Line congestion would actually be to restore the pre-Canada Line downtown-express tunnel buses as premium-fare rush-hour services with extremely-limited stops north of the Massey Tunnel, using a similar fare structure to the West Coast Express. I've asked family members who live in south Surrey what they think, and they've agreed that they'd pay the premium fare to bypass congestion on the Canada Line. Then run a B-Line service from Bridgeport Station to Ladner Exchange to South Surrey Exchange (and possibly White Rock), and re-do local services in south Delta and south Surrey/White Rock to connect to the B-Line.

Or, increase peak frequencies to every 2.5 minutes and extend platforms to 50 metres. This way it is cheaper in the long run than re-introducing the pre-Canada Line buses. 

[Blue Bus Fan]

9 minutes ago, Dr. BusFreak said:

Or, increase peak frequencies to every 2.5 minutes and extend platforms to 50 metres. This way it is cheaper in the long run than re-introducing the pre-Canada Line buses. 

That would be best investment for Canada Line because it help increase capacity on the Canada line with out wasting bus hours on reducing capacity on the trains.

[GORDOOM]

44 minutes ago, Dr. BusFreak said:

Or, increase peak frequencies to every 2.5 minutes and extend platforms to 50 metres. This way it is cheaper in the long run than re-introducing the pre-Canada Line buses. 

In the long run, though, even extending train lengths to 50 m can only go so far. The Canada Line running <2min headways with 50-m consists would still top out at about 15k pphpd, which is about 3/4 of the Expo Line's capacity. Expanding the capacity of the line beyond that will AIUI require extensive modifications to the guideway, to the point where it may not even be feasible.

[Blue Bus Fan]

9 minutes ago, GORDOOM said:

In the long run, though, even extending train lengths to 50 m can only go so far. The Canada Line running <2min headways with 50-m consists would still top out at about 15k pphpd, which is about 3/4 of the Expo Line's capacity. Expanding the capacity of the line beyond that will AIUI require extensive modifications to the guideway, to the point where it may not even be feasible.

Instead of rebuilding the guideway the automated train control could be upgrade to allow 45 secs headways between Bridgeport Station and Waterfront Station. 

[neopasturquoise]

Phase two of the Southwest Area Transportation Plan is now online:

http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Projects/Area-Planning/Southwest-Area-Transport-Plan/Proposed-Options.aspx

[Express691]

Noting "New C" for not using SFPR. Especially on weekends, I think the difference between 640 and new C wont be very much since 640 seldom makes stops past Centre Street/AFB (but I wonder if the route will even need to stop at Ladner exchange)

This is gonna suck. Loss of service to/in front of KPU-R so thats gonna be a long walk from 3 road to Richmond campus. At least re-route the 301 to Lansdowne

[nname]

6 minutes ago, Express691 said:

Noting "New C" for not using SFPR. Especially on weekends, I think the difference between 640 and new C wont be very much since 640 seldom makes stops past Centre Street/AFB (but I wonder if the route will even need to stop at Ladner exchange)

I think it makes more sense for the "New C" to use SFPR between Tannery Road and Hwy 91 Connector... As you said, there is not much demand on River Road over that stretch...

 

Other interesting things I've found:

• 410 is finally broken into 2 routes - although it will no longer use Hwy 91
• 480 is being discontinued
• No more transit service to South Terminal and surrounding areas? (I expect this change to be reversed though...)
• 388 is being converted into all-day service
• TransLink is trying to bring transit service to Sunshine Hill for the 4th time....  (Remember the C77?)
• Not only TransLink is getting rid of the Cxx numbers, they also trying to get rid of one-way loops too...  (C84, C88 will probably split into two, similar to 171/172, 173/174)

[neopasturquoise]

I believe The “New D” between Ladner and Langley will be doing worse than the 531 in terms of ridership.

 

[Express691]

My list of comments:

1) Didn't they cut 311 service by quite a bit for June 2014 sheet?

2) Noting that 606 and 608 will now go to Bridgeport; I suspect we will have our Orion V replacements and express fleet expansion by then

3) I guess they want to re-align 410 to make it more consistent despite there being portions on 6rd south of Hwy 91 needing service on peak hours

4) 604/603 I guess is more simplified, I like that

5) They made the 601 longer again by throwing it down Salish Sea Drive

6) IMO They should just throw the 609 to Ladner Exchange instead of turning it around in the middle of nowhere. Especially if you want to come in from the north.

7) 388 just needs either more frequency or conventional buses. I think its main purpose is to connect to the Port Kells industrial area. There arent really any transfer points aside the termini and maybe Fleetwood at 156th at 88th. 60 minute frequency mid-day is a waste, nobody will wait 60 minutes for a bus in a place where other bues come at least every 15-20 minutes.

8) Never really saw the point of the 602 - all it was was a 601 that went on highway 17 south of Ladner (however it'd be a good alternative now that 601 keeps pulling itself west)

9) 640 may be a typo; T-ferry extension was not listed on its pull down. 

10) I was talking about the 430 becoming a B-line and we thought it may be more feasible to send it to Langara and down to Richmond, skipping Marine Drive.

11) In my dreams I would swing the 301 down to Lansdowne Road instead. With these proposed changes you only have the 430 stopping at KPU-Richmond. I would also move the 430 stop at Cook Road/Lansdowne EB closer to the campus and make that a scheduled 301 stop.

12) I think new D is a waste of money/effort. If its gonna come every 60 minutes then youre better off taking C76->364 or C76->319/301->342 instead.

13) 404/405 now becomes a loop service. However, it will not touch Brighouse or any other major destination aside from maybe Ironwood center.

14) A comparison of Bridgeport Station

• Now: 311, 351, 352, 354, 601, 602, 603, 604, 403, 407, 430, 480, 620, C92, 
• Future: 311, 351, 352, 354, 601, 603, 604, 606, 608, 620, 403E, NewB, 407E, 407W, 402, 430

3 hours ago, nname said:

TransLink is trying to bring transit service to Sunshine Hill for the 4th time....  (Remember the C77?)

I don't seem to remember - perhaps it was short lived?

[Marlow1331]

I like the idea of the N15 going to YVR rather than the N10, that makes sense to me as it is way more direct for those trying to get the Brighouse or in between

[8800GTX]

Honestly while some parts like the addition of more FTN service are great, I feel like those were more expected outcomes - what I didn't expect was everything I dislike about this plan, partially from a personal standpoint as I am frequently in Richmond. To name some...

• 410 getting taken off of Hwy 91 completely, in favour of a few extra stops that service farms on a road where you travel at half the speed
  • If you think that's not going to be a big issue travel-time/reliability wise, try telling yourself that the next time you're on a 410 during off-peak hours and you get stuck at the railway crossing between No. 9 and McMillan
  • This is also despite the 410 being actually taken out of Fraserwood - and the added service basically amounts to a few industrial complexes south of the 91 and farms. No one lives there, probably few people go there, and the furthest warehouse is a max 10 min walk from the existing stops on the 410 (if that's such an issue, get a new stop built on the 91 on-ramp to save that extra 100m)
  • Paired with the loss of the through service to Steveston.. understandable reasons, but I guess I will no longer be going to Steveston.
• Plan does not include a regional express service from Richmond to 22nd St
  • Self-explanatory
  • With 410 being taken off of Hwy 91, this is going to really hurt commuters to/from the SoF, New West, Coquitlam and SFU
• Changes to 601/cancellation of 602 are a double whammy to Tsawwassen commuters
  • If one reroute to the west was probably bad enough, two is madness. Pairing that with the total cancellation of the 602 is a double-whammy to Tsawwassen commuters who will now have to budget 15-30 minutes of extra travel time to actually go anywhere. I get that there is a trade-off that the 601 will join FTN but with the 609 there and the 10-year vision mandate to expand service, I think they can do a lot better than this.
• Scott Rd to Ferries express route does NOT use SFPR for any portion of route
  • . . .
  • Come on, even the portion from Nordel to Scott Rd has to use River Road? Seriously?
  • With the route coming every 60 minutes and offering a service like the 620, anyone trying to head to Tilbury (or even Ladner Exchange) is probably not going to find a lot of usefulness from this route. The vast majority will either be ferry passengers or Tsawwassen Mills shoppers. Put it on the SFPR where it belongs.
• No service on Lansdowne Street, no routes connecting to Lansdowne Station
  • This is a big missed opportunity IMO, Lansdowne has potential to be a transit corridor esp. with redevelopment plans.
  • Also a shame that KPU-Richmond is losing essentially all local bus service serving the campus.
• Is there a need to have so much (FTN) bus service converging in the Aberdeen-Bridgeport area given the opening of Capstan Way Stn?
  • I dunno, I just think it would make a lot more sense to bring the 402 down Lansdowne (see above) and terminating in a loop that connects KPU and Central at Garden City (if not continuing), rather than to where there is plenty of extremely good transit service within walking distance...
• Honestly not sure if the new 404/407 routing is that great
  • I realize that this may have to do with overcrowding at Brighouse and giving commuters the opportunity to use the empty YVR trains, but ultimately I think it results in worse access for residents who might be heading to/from destinations in Richmond.
  • 407: If the point is to increase connections to areas like Russ Baker Way, then there's definitely a better way to do it. i.e. service to the Russ Baker Way corridor might be better provided with an extension of the C94 shuttle north
  • 407: If the point is provide a better connection to the North of Fraser and get commuters to Bridgeport so they can board empty YVR trains, why not a 49X style peak hour route? It worked well before, it can work again.
  • 404: At least 407W riders to Richmond Centre can transfer to the FTN 410 or 401 very easily, but 404 riders get fewer transfer opportunities. The trek just to get to Richmond Centre/area will become outrageously long relative to other options, and I strongly feel that 404 ridership will go down with more people in the area choosing to drive it.
  • Both: Reducing services to Brighouse kinda defeats the point of that new bus exchange - they're not building it for nothing (I'm also guessing that the business slots at grade-level facing the new loop will include a Timmie's and other useful shops and amenities that make waiting for the bus a pleasant experience - Bridgeport has nothing of the sort).
  • Both: Difficulties in general reaching the rest of the city and region due to detours/added transfers (i.e. because of the 410 split, 407W riders must transfer twice to access Cambie corridor or go to 22nd Station)

[nname]

They could have the 601 FTN to as far south as 28th Ave, and then split into 2 with "601" going down Salish and "602" down 56th. The 601 could replace the 609 down 52nd so the 609 can take the shortest route to South Delta Exchange... This should provide the same service to most area with less service hours required, except for the segment in the middle of farmland...

[cleowin]

the Langley/Ladner route should be a good one to have. I also don't see the purpose of the New 'C'... it's an express version of the same route? I agree with an above poster, put it on SFPR.

Not impressed with the change to the 410 either, it should stay on Hwy 91.

I don't use any of these services, but I can see potential problems with these changes.

[Blue Bus Fan]

The purpose changes are good:

1.I think the routes they split should get a different number. 

2. 410 should stay on highway 91 permanently, 30 minutes during peak hours to Fraserwood. 

3. 410 routing from 22nd st Station to Richmond Brighouse Station should instead head to Bridgeport Station. 

4.  If the 388 gets off peak service in should switch to Scott Road Station instead of 22nd St Station. 

5 I am glad that TransLink is eliminating the 480 because it not needed.

6. I am glad that finally decided to put an off street transit exchange in Steveston. 

 

[Express691]

Id get really pissed if the 410 Steveston portion doesnt get renumbered back to 406 like it should be.

[buizelbus]

Just now, Express691 said:

Id get really pissed if the 410 Steveston portion doesnt get renumbered back to 406 like it should be.

I'm pissed 480 is discontinued. I'm the type of guy that would transfer 3 times and take an extra hour to avoid 2 or 3 zone fare.

[nname]

4 minutes ago, buizel10 said:

I'm pissed 480 is discontinued. I'm the type of guy that would transfer 3 times and take an extra hour to avoid 2 or 3 zone fare.

Take 430 and then transfer to the 49