Jump to content
cleowin

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

Recommended Posts

TransLink threw a curveball and released these bay re-assingnments at Burrard Station
 

Quote

The following routes departing from Burrard Station will have their bus bays/stops re-assigned as follows:

2 Macdonald: Bay 1 (#50043)

44 UBC: Bay 5 (#58099)

In addition the following bus stops at Burrard Station have now been assigned bay numbers:

Stop #58099: Bay 5

Stop #56558: Bay 6

Stop #50530: Bay 7

Basically the 2 and 44 switched places and the stop installed in April 2017 now has a bay assignment.

Share this post


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

TransLink threw a curveball and released these bay re-assingnments at Burrard Station

Basically the 2 and 44 switched places and the stop installed in April 2017 now has a bay assignment.

 

I thought there was something unusual when I was walking north of Burrard Stn on NYE and saw the 44 bus bay is now just north of Dunsmuir. Hopefully it makes sense for the route.

Share this post


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

Another route is getting a split this April:

129 Patterson Stn/Holdom Stn

133 Holdom Stn/Edmonds Stn

Thats strange, they should just send both routes to Kootenay Loop. Holdom is not the ideal layover place IMO, and IDK how buses will turn around.

What will probably be the case is that they have blocks on the 123 linegroup that do 129-133 back and forth. 

Should they extend both buses to Kootenay Loop, I think they should remove the 130 from Kootenay loop altogether and increase frequency on trips to Phibbs and to Pender. The 160 already does local service along Hastings. (((Honestly I think this should have been done when they fixed all the bus routes for the Evergreen extension. Taking out the trips to Kootenay Loop would only create space for more routes and maybe increase frequency from 7.5 minutes to 6.5 minutes for mid-day and weekend trips)))

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

Share this post


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

Thats strange, they should just send both routes to Kootenay Loop. Holdom is not the ideal layover place IMO, and IDK how buses will turn around.

Could you run the #129 to Kootenay Loop and the #133 to Hastings and Kensington or thereabouts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GORDOOM said:

Could you run the #129 to Kootenay Loop and the #133 to Hastings and Kensington or thereabouts?

Maybe the portion between Edmonds and Holdom has more demand, and may need additional frequency. Also I dont think that there's enough service hours to do that yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's news to me, I haven't seen or heard of any official plans for the 129.  This could be something for within the next year or so or just an idea to see if it could improve the 129.  

It is strange to terminate at Holdom Stn, there's no turn around so the only thing I can think of right now is the bus will still continue on, but have a layover to accommodate different frequencies.  Or terminating the 136 at Holdom as well and Interline it with the 129 & 133.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brando737 said:

It is strange to terminate at Holdom Stn, there's no turn around so the only thing I can think of right now is the bus will still continue on, but have a layover to accommodate different frequencies.  Or terminating the 136 at Holdom as well and Interline it with the 129 & 133.

That may not work for the 134. Perhaps its best to keep 134/136 at Brentwood. 

Share this post


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

It is strange to terminate at Holdom Stn, there's no turn around so the only thing I can think of right now is the bus will still continue on, but have a layover to accommodate different frequencies.  Or terminating the 136 at Holdom as well and Interline it with the 129 & 133.

As far as I can see, that's most likely the case. The 129 arrive at Holdom will just change sign to 133 and continue on. There is not a single change in schedule so far for the April 129+133 compared to the current 129 schedule.

Maybe this is just like the 5/6, 171/172, 173/174, 184/185, 186/187 and the proposed 404/405 combo to avoid confusion, although the two legs of 129 are quite far away compared to the other cases...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Splitting that route is a horrible idea. I really hope it's just a number change with the same bus continuing. I live near Hastings and Willingdon, and frequently use the 129 as a less crowded, less delayed alternative to the 130 when travelling to the Millennium line, but also anywhere in Burnaby along the western and eastern side, eg. Burnaby hospital, Burnaby City Hall area, and Highgate area. It's one of the few routes in the area that functions properly as-is. 

Extending any half of the 129 to Kootenay loop or Kensington, as some of you have suggested, would be useless and impractical. Kensington is well served by the 130 and 95, and Kootenay Loop has problems that I could write an essay about, which would be made worse by another route terminating there. 

Re: speculating about demand on the 129, from my observations, the existing schedule does a very good job of meeting demand on all parts of the route. 

Edit: The 130's recent increase in frequency was good, but it doesn't work very well as a frequent route. It has problems at Kootenay loop, Brentwood, BCIT, and near Metrotown. I wish that modifying it/implementing the B-line that was suggested for the first Mayor's vision was part of the 10 year vision upgrades coming next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's likely to be a thru-service and just splitting the numbers to increase clarity of the route. Cause as is, 129 Patterson Station when you're at Edmonds isn't very helpful. Wouldn't be surprised if it was also to reduce service levels on one portion though by giving them the option to turn around every Xth bus.

 

EDIT: Made a quick look at the schedules for the 129 and 133, definitely thru-service. 129 arrives at Holdom at 5:58am, and the 133 departs from Holdom at 5:58am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nname said:

Another route is getting a split this April:

129 Patterson Stn/Holdom Stn

133 Holdom Stn/Edmonds Stn

Why are they splitting the 129 up like this... The remaining portion of the 129 still ends up being a U-shape... So much for achieving the clarity that they wanted...

 

Share this post


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

I think it's likely to be a thru-service and just splitting the numbers to increase clarity of the route. Cause as is, 129 Patterson Station when you're at Edmonds isn't very helpful. Wouldn't be surprised if it was also to reduce service levels on one portion though by giving them the option to turn around every Xth bus.

 

EDIT: Made a quick look at the schedules for the 129 and 133, definitely thru-service. 129 arrives at Holdom at 5:58am, and the 133 departs from Holdom at 5:58am.

Seems kind of pointless to me especially if the schedule happens to be the same.  But we will see what the official word will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7215 spent most of its day doing 430s yesterday, but the run number for its block was 05/123. I'm curious if this is the result of the 119 starting operations. What happened to the 106 linegroup? I thought anything doing 110/144/430 was usually a 106.

Share this post


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

7215 spent most of its day doing 430s yesterday, but the run number for its block was 05/123. I'm curious if this is the result of the 119 starting operations. What happened to the 106 linegroup? I thought anything doing 110/144/430 was usually a 106.

The 106 line group is only for the 106 and 119 for weekdays except for maybe a few interlines at the beginning or end of peice and the 123 line group is everything else.  For weekends and holidays the 106 line group is as it was before with the exception of the 106 itself being on its own.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Why are they splitting the 129 up like this... The remaining portion of the 129 still ends up being a U-shape... So much for achieving the clarity that they wanted...

 

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...

 

By the way, speaking of Kootenay Loop, there seems to be another new route going there (seasonal?), but I can't get a lineid for it so far :P

EDIT: I'll just post all the new, modified or re-numbered routes here... seems like they're abandon the old route numbers when renumbering shuttles :(

129 Patterson Stn/Holdom Stn

131 Hastigns & Gilmore/Kootenay Loop

132 Capitol Hill/Hastings & Gilmore

133 Holdom Stn/Edmonds Stn

222 Kootenay Loop/Grouse Mountain

371 Surrey Central Stn/Scott Road Stn

373 Guildford/Surrey Central Stn

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

222, what an odd connection? 28 to 232 is already quite direct albeit not a one seat ride. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :()

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like C18/C20 will get the same re-number and loop-splitting treatment?

68 UBC Exchange/Lower Mall
70 UBC Exchange/Wesbrook Mall

I guess C19 will be 69 then...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

×