Jump to content
cleowin

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

Recommended Posts

I can't draw any maps right now, so you'll have to imagine what I am describing below...

  • That route 80... peak hours only!? I'm sure a lot of people will want to use that... (rolls eyes).
    • I'm definitely going to ask TransLink to broaden their scope here; see the plan linked in my signature for what I mean.
  • Routes 337 and 338... I'm not sure about this. Route 501 passes close by, but bypasses that area because it takes Highway 1... Hmm...
    • There's an opportunity here to implement an express bus from Central Surrey to Carvolth via Highway 1
    • The 501 could then be re-directed along 104th Avenue and the Golden Ears Connector
    • The 337 could then be extended to Carvolth via 168th Street, Barnston Drive, and 96th Ave
  • I'd advocate for the 368 to be extended to Cloverdale to facilitate better connections to other routes...
  • I think they should re-organize the 322 at the same time that they implement the 368 to avoid duplicating service...
  • I don't quite agree with the southern routing / terminus of the 404/405...
    • 404 should go past Ironwood before the industrial park. Via Steveston, No 5 Road, Machrina Way, Horseshoe Way South to Horseshoe Place
    • 405 then goes via No 5 Rd, Horseshoe Way North, Coppersmith Way, Horseshoe Way East to Horseshoe Place
    • I pick Horseshoe Place as a terminus because holy moly, why do all the streets have the same name down there...

ADDENUM 1 - Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Transit Area Plan

Looks okay to me...

  • I question the northern termini of the 719 and the 722
    • The 719 has no connections to other routes...
    • The 722 is one giant uni-directional loop...
    • The problem seems to be that the RapidBus to Maple Ridge only has a "future planned stop" for Meadowtown and no stop at Park Road
    • Does it make sense for the 719 and 722 to terminate closer to 203rd Street in the interim?
  • IMO, we could optimize the combination of routes to serve McClure Dr, 104th Ave, and 102th Ave...
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows ATP

https://www.translink.ca/Plans-and-Projects/Area-Planning/Maple-Ridge-Pitt-Meadows-Area-Transport-Plan.aspx

I expected more changes though, like new service to YPK and Golden Ears Park... Isn't ATP regularly have a whole lot of changes broken down to short-term, medium-term, and long-term?

This ATP is mediocre to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Millennium2002 said:

I can't draw any maps right now, so you'll have to imagine what I am describing below...

  • I'd advocate for the 368 to be extended to Cloverdale to facilitate better connections to other routes...
    • I also wonder if the 322 should be adjusted at the same time to avoid duplicating service...

If thsts the case then this route might as well have a stop at Newton Exchange. They need to re-organize the service down there - It'll be better for those who need to access 72nd Avenue, and furthermore, KPU. Besides, you already have the 364/342/395 Peak. 

 

1 hour ago, Millennium2002 said:

 

  • Routes 337 and 338... I'm not sure about this. Route 501 passes close by, but bypasses that area because it takes Highway 1... Hmm...
    • There's an opportunity here to implement an express bus from Central Surrey to Carvolth via Highway 1
    • The 501 could then be re-directed along 104th Avenue and the Golden Ears Connector
    • The 337 could then be extended to Carvolth via 168th Street, Barnston Drive, and 96th Ave

1) That's basically the 509. In fact the first trip in the afternoon only goes to Carvolth. 

2) I still think the 501 needs to be split. You can probably split the 501 and have the Surrey/Carvolth portion do the 338.

3) I do generally advocate for a re-organization of service in Fraser Heights. That one-way loop seems inefficient. 

Did you know) if the Guildford/Fraser heights were extended slightly further into the night, that portion would qualify for FTN standards.

A lot of this loop-service can be avoided if they can look further into re-organizing service instead of implementing something new.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

If thsts the case then this route might as well have a stop at Newton Exchange. They need to re-organize the service down there - It'll be better for those who need to access 72nd Avenue, and furthermore, KPU. Besides, you already have the 364/342/395 Peak.

I think the reason they're avoiding that area is because 72nd Avenue and Newton Exchange are quite overcrowded as it is. I was down there the other day and all the buses were struggling to get out of the loop due to all the traffic. I'd argue in this specific case that -  without better transit priority measures - it's not wise to have one central exchange handling all the traffic.

Also, I'm being picky, but the 395 is nowhere near that area. I'm thinking you probably meant the 375. ;)

I've modified my post because the more I think about it the more I'm not sure where the 368 should terminate. Cloverdale is one option; South Surrey Park and Ride is another...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 351/350 changes seem lazy and no better than the previous changes proposed... why is TransLink so against running a shuttle more frequently to make up for the cuts? 

Share this post


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

I think the reason they're avoiding that area is because 72nd Avenue and Newton Exchange are quite overcrowded as it is. I was down there the other day and all the buses were struggling to get out of the loop due to all the traffic. I'd argue in this specific case that -  without better transit priority measures - it's not wise to have one central exchange handling all the traffic.

Also, I'm being picky, but the 395 is nowhere near that area. I'm thinking you probably meant the 375. ;)

actually, yes (that would make a better case) - and now I see the crossed-out point about extending to cloverdale.

If you think about it even further, I guess that's the reason the route spikes up to 70th to at least serve the library. Prevent overcrowding of buses in Newton while still provide that connection (it's not that far of a walk from the library to the bus loop anyways). 

If they have decent frequency on 128th between 72nd and 68th then that might be a better reason to skip Newton altogether. Maybe (or maybe not) run 126th, 72nd, 128th to 68th to at least serve the university

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Orcair said:

The 351/350 changes seem lazy and no better than the previous changes proposed... why is TransLink so against running a shuttle more frequently to make up for the cuts? 

What do you mean it's a "service cut"? It looks like they're maintaining the existing frequency...

If you read the justification, they clearly state that there are not a lot of users on this portion of the route that continue onward to Vancouver; if the demand were there, I think they would have considered alternatives.

In addition, more frequent buses / shuttles equals more operators and fuel required. The cost of switching between vehicle types is peanuts in comparison to the cost of operators and fuel - both of which end up being the biggest expenses that TransLink faces in its day-to-day operations. So your suggestion will end up costing TransLink a lot more than simply splitting the route in two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Millennium2002 said:

What do you mean it's a "service cut"? It looks like they're maintaining the existing frequency...

If you read the justification, they clearly state that there are not a lot of users on this portion of the route that continue onward to Vancouver; if the demand were there, I think they would have considered alternatives.

In addition, more frequent buses / shuttles equals more operators and fuel required. The cost of switching between vehicle types is peanuts in comparison to the cost of operators and fuel - both of which end up being the biggest expenses that TransLink faces in its day-to-day operations. So your suggestion will end up costing TransLink a lot more than simply splitting the route in two.

Non-peak service of 1-2 shuttle(s) /hour is a definite cut in my view compared to the current frequencies. I readily acknowledge that running suburban buses all the way to Crescent Beach when most users only take it to WR Centre wasn't sustainable, but given that shuttle operators make less, and I'm fairly certain shuttles consume less fuel, they'd be more efficient running them 3 or 4x an hour versus the current 18 year old Orion Vs running 4-5 times.  

Furthermore, there are many elderly people using this route... are they going to ensure low-floor shuttles are introduced to combat this issue or is the lift going to be used extensively... delaying the schedule massively since operating the lift takes forever. 

I understand changes need to be made, but TransLink seems keen to not provide a clear proposed schedule (publicly, anyway) or way to respond to major concerns of the community. Very similar changes were proposed last time and they received massive flack, for good reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Orcair said:

Non-peak service of 1-2 shuttle(s) /hour is a definite cut in my view compared to the current frequencies. I readily acknowledge that running suburban buses all the way to Crescent Beach when most users only take it to WR Centre wasn't sustainable, but given that shuttle operators make less, and I'm fairly certain shuttles consume less fuel, they'd be more efficient running them 3 or 4x an hour versus the current 18 year old Orion Vs running 4-5 times.  

Furthermore, there are many elderly people using this route... are they going to ensure low-floor shuttles are introduced to combat this issue or is the lift going to be used extensively... delaying the schedule massively since operating the lift takes forever. 

I understand changes need to be made, but TransLink seems keen to not provide a clear proposed schedule (publicly, anyway) or way to respond to major concerns of the community. Very similar changes were proposed last time and they received massive flack, for good reason...

I find it quite ironic that you mention about the shuttles having stairs when the highway coaches (also with stairs) have been on the same route for forever...

I've also looked at the latest 351 timetable which shows that only every other bus goes to Crescent Beach (apart from weekday rush hour periods):

http://infomaps.translink.ca/Public_Timetables/149/tt351.pdf

Finally we do not know what type of equipment will be implemented in practice. It may be shuttles, but it also may be a low-floor 40' conventional bus...

Share this post


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

I find it quite ironic that you mention about the shuttles having stairs when the highway coaches (also with stairs) have been on the same route for forever...

I've also looked at the latest 351 timetable which shows that only every other bus goes to Crescent Beach (apart from weekday rush hour periods):

http://infomaps.translink.ca/Public_Timetables/149/tt351.pdf

Finally we do not know what type of equipment will be implemented in practice. It may be shuttles, but it also may be a low-floor 40' conventional bus...

I'm aware about the timetable, since I take the route 4-5 times a week (between ~11am and ~2pm is where the current large gaps are). My point is that when the bus is running once an hour, delays are more pronounced for the users, whereas if it runs 4-5 times, delays are more manageable - you simply take the next one in 15 minutes and don't have to worry about being severely delayed. 

It also literally says on the public consultation page that they would be using shuttles. Which I'd be ok with, as I said before, if they ran them 4 times an hour and used the low-floor models...

350_desc.thumb.png.2ddaf69d0d37034b8d887fa75d96c94f.png350_freq.thumb.png.12efef82ef63a5877bb5cd8e966116d5.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to imagine there will be significant delay on the 350 portion of the route, once it becomes independent...

If the off-peak is 30-60min, I'm pretty sure it meant mid-day is every 30min and late night is 60min... and evening could be either 30 or 60 or anything in between.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I find it hard to imagine there will be significant delay on the 350 portion of the route, once it becomes independent...

My worry is that the new 350 will be interlined with the 360, 361 and/or 362 which can be delayed relatively quickly as drivers (obviously) need breaks. Given that these routes run every 30 minutes, those delays can snow pile throughout the day. 

Again, I wish TransLink would provide more information on how the route would work, but I know that it's still up-in-the-air until the plan is approved. 

 

Share this post


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

I can't draw any maps right now, so you'll have to imagine what I am describing below...

  • That route 80... peak hours only!? I'm sure a lot of people will want to use that... (rolls eyes).
    • I'm definitely going to ask TransLink to broaden their scope here; see the plan linked in my signature for what I mean.
  • Routes 337 and 338... I'm not sure about this. Route 501 passes close by, but bypasses that area because it takes Highway 1... Hmm...
    • There's an opportunity here to implement an express bus from Central Surrey to Carvolth via Highway 1
    • The 501 could then be re-directed along 104th Avenue and the Golden Ears Connector
    • The 337 could then be extended to Carvolth via 168th Street, Barnston Drive, and 96th Ave
  • I'd advocate for the 368 to be extended to Cloverdale to facilitate better connections to other routes...
  • I think they should re-organize the 322 at the same time that they implement the 368 to avoid duplicating service...
  • I don't quite agree with the southern routing / terminus of the 404/405...
    • 404 should go past Ironwood before the industrial park. Via Steveston, No 5 Road, Machrina Way, Horseshoe Way South to Horseshoe Place
    • 405 then goes via No 5 Rd, Horseshoe Way North, Coppersmith Way, Horseshoe Way East to Horseshoe Place
    • I pick Horseshoe Place as a terminus because holy moly, why do all the streets have the same name down there...

ADDENUM 1 - Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Transit Area Plan

Looks okay to me...

  • I question the northern termini of the 719 and the 722
    • The 719 has no connections to other routes...
    • The 722 is one giant uni-directional loop...
    • The problem seems to be that the RapidBus to Maple Ridge only has a "future planned stop" for Meadowtown and no stop at Park Road
    • Does it make sense for the 719 and 722 to terminate closer to 203rd Street in the interim?
  • IMO, we could optimize the combination of routes to serve McClure Dr, 104th Ave, and 102th Ave...

Ask them to extend that 80 to Metrotown and have it replace the 146. That would make it a lot more useful to everyone involved. Either that, or just extend the 26 or 29 to the River District and don't create the 80 at all.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Large Cat said:

Ask them to extend that 80 to Metrotown and have it replace the C6. That would make it a lot more useful to everyone involved.

146*

I see how that is achievable - send via 116 to 146 routing

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on the following:

Transit Network Review Changes:

Route 68/70 - I'm fine with this change, although I think the 68 should provide two-way service between Thunderbird Boulevard and Lower Mall rather than the one-way loop we have now that connects to Stadium Road.

Route 80 - Not really helpful as it only provides service to the River District during peak times, I think the 26 should be extended to serve the River District all day, every day instead.

Route 338 - Not really needed since the 337 could easily be extended to serve that area.

Route 350 - No.

Route 351 - Reduce peak service to/from Crescent Beach to every 30 min

Route 352 - I'd rather see it go down 20th Avenue to White Rock Centre

Route 368 - The route is fine, but I'd rather see it extended to Cloverdale.

Route 404 - Convert to shuttles and extend it to Bridgeport Station along Westminster, 4 Road, Cambie Road, Shell Road, River Road.

Route 405 - Convert to shuttles, route is good.

Route 407 - Good.

Route 408 - Good.

Route 416 - Cancel it.

Route N10 - Have route travel along Oak Street Bridge to Bridgeport rather than Arthur Laing as the N15 will already provide connections to Sea Island.

Route N15 - Good.

 

Maple Ridge ATP Changes:

Note: I'm fine with the service increases to all the routes.

Route 701 - Good.

Route 719 - No.

Route 722 - I'm all for a B-Line connection, but removing a service option to/from Meadowtown is a dumb idea. Also, leave the service along Bonson alone, there is little to no ridership demand along Harris beyond Hammond.

Route 743 - Good.

Route 744 - No. Making Port Hammond residents walk further for their bus makes no sense.

Route 745 - No. This change will worsen shuttle connections along 240th Street.

Route 746 - Good.

Route 748 - No.

Route 749 - Leave it alone and introduce a new route along Lougheed Highway between Haney and Mission.

Route 791 - Needs to run all day, every day.

This ATP is overall not well put together as there are no medium or long-term changes provided, and the solution to fixing the shuttle network is removing service areas. Why the hell isn't the 791 even mentioned aside from how to get to the Expo Line? That's a pretty big regional connector for Maple Ridge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a completely separate conversation from the bus improvements, but I recently realized something. With the new Mark III trains coming in, TransLink has said that they'll start using 4-car trains on the Millennium Line while increasing capacity by 23%. There was no explicit mention that the new cars would be used on the M-line (they only said 4-car trains will be used on the M-line soon), but there was an assumption that the 4-car trains to be used on the M-line will be Mark II/III. That made no sense to me, since using 4-car Mark II/III trains compared with the current 2-car Mark II setup would yield an increase in capacity by 100% or so, unless frequency is reduced (from 1 train every 3m20s at peak to 1 train every 5m30s ish).

And then it hit me, so I ran some numbers. A 2-car Mark II train holds around 2×130=260 passengers. A 4-car Mark I train holds around 4×80=320 passengers. And what is 320÷260? Just about 1.23.

(If this is mentioned before already, I sincerely apologize.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, briguychau said:

This is a completely separate conversation from the bus improvements, but I recently realized something. With the new Mark III trains coming in, TransLink has said that they'll start using 4-car trains on the Millennium Line while increasing capacity by 23%. There was no explicit mention that the new cars would be used on the M-line (they only said 4-car trains will be used on the M-line soon), but there was an assumption that the 4-car trains to be used on the M-line will be Mark II/III. That made no sense to me, since using 4-car Mark II/III trains compared with the current 2-car Mark II setup would yield an increase in capacity by 100% or so, unless frequency is reduced (from 1 train every 3m20s at peak to 1 train every 5m30s ish).

And then it hit me, so I ran some numbers. A 2-car Mark II train holds around 2×130=260 passengers. A 4-car Mark I train holds around 4×80=320 passengers. And what is 320÷260? Just about 1.23.

(If this is mentioned before already, I sincerely apologize.)

FYI, Mark I trains cannot run through Lougheed side at this time - they all time out (they commented this on the radio during the snow issues this year when they sent a Mark I train up there only because it had a driver).  So I somehow doubt they will use Mark I trains.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows ATP

https://www.translink.ca/Plans-and-Projects/Area-Planning/Maple-Ridge-Pitt-Meadows-Area-Transport-Plan.aspx

I expected more changes though, like new service to YPK and Golden Ears Park... Isn't ATP regularly have a whole lot of changes broken down to short-term, medium-term, and long-term?

The last few ATP's have been smaller in scope than the previous ones.  I get the feeling Translink is focusing more on immediate changes within the existing budget after the improvements put forward in older ATP's never materialized due to funding issues.  This was most notable with the 2008 South of Fraser ATP.  The 2002 Burnaby/New Westminster ATP was the last one done, and it called for upgrading the 135 to a B-Line within 2 to 4 years, which obviously took longer.  And we're still waiting for the 43 to be extended to BCIT. 

Plus, right now there is the Mayor's 10 year vision which gives the big picture planning, the ATP's at this point seem to be more about the fine details for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 8010 said:

Why the hell isn't the 791 even mentioned aside from how to get to the Expo Line? That's a pretty big regional connector for Maple Ridge.

I think TransLink may want to get rid of the 791... probably just leave it there and let it die slowly.

Between the new B-Line, FTN 701 service, and the shiny new Evergreen extension, why would they want people to take the 791 when there are already a huge excess of capacity in other routes?

 

As for the 749 to Mission... I don't think that will happen since Mission is paying for the service. Unless... they don't want to pay for it anymore (which they discussed about letting BC Transit or a private charter taking over because they figured $130/hr is too expensive).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, nname said:

I think TransLink may want to get rid of the 791... probably just leave it there and let it die slowly.

Between the new B-Line, FTN 701 service, and the shiny new Evergreen extension, why would they want people to take the 791 when there are already a huge excess of capacity in other routes?

One seat ride? E.g. adding up all the time lost waiting while transferring when that time can be spent moving on the 791 express.

How much time do you save anyways, taking the 791 compared to 701 + SkyTrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Express691 said:

One seat ride? E.g. adding up all the time lost waiting while transferring when that time can be spent moving on the 791 express

But no one is going to Braid... You'll need to have at least 1 transfer anyways. In fact, if your destination is anywhere along Millennium Line or Downtown, it will be actually faster taking the B-Line even for the one extra transfer.

Let's face it, once the B-Line is implemented, both the B-Line and 701 is going to be pretty empty outside of peak hours (and I've been taking the 701 for at least 10 years). It would cost TransLink $0 by putting more people on those routes, rather than spending $$ to adding even more service that may not be faster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As for the 749 to Mission... I don't think that will happen since Mission is paying for the service. Unless... they don't want to pay for it anymore (which they discussed about letting BC Transit or a private charter taking over because they figured $130/hr is too expensive).

Where did you hear this rumor? :huh:

Share this post


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

Where did you hear this rumor? :huh:

Mission council meeting last year or the year before.

There was a plan to add more service (from saving of converting TrainBus to regular bus route), but seems like it's being put in the back burner now as it no longer in the agenda during the past 6-9 months at least.

The main issue is the council wondered why they're paying the full cost to TransLink whereas they could only pay half of the cost if it was run by BC Transit and the province will subsidize the rest... but BCT's priority is to add more service to FVX and not interested in running Mission-Maple Ridge Link for now. There was no response when TransLink asked for additional weekday/weekend service or additional stop, until the cost is settled I guess...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I was trying to look up Mission council minutes and only saw a brief mention of it...

If I recall correctly, the Fraser Valley - being a separate region of its own - doesn't participate in any of the taxes that are collected to fund TransLink... But of course, any losses or shortfalls that occur on a bus leaving regional borders has to be recouped somehow....

I do wonder if the change to the 749 will lower the cost of running this inter-regional connection. Instead of the 701 running non-stop to Mission, this new 749 route can now serve local Maple Ridge customers en route. And in addition to that, you can have one slightly fuller bus do the work of two lesser-used ones.

(Conspiracy theory time: is TransLink secretly trying to help subsidize a link to Mission? Hmmmmm... But on a serious note, the regional boundaries are quite an artificial nuisance, so I personally wouldn't mind if TransLink tried to find some way of lowering the overall cost of getting outside cities connected to the region.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But no one is going to Braid... You'll need to have at least 1 transfer anyways. In fact, if your destination is anywhere along Millennium Line or Downtown, it will be actually faster taking the B-Line even for the one extra transfer.

If no one goes to Braid then just reroute the 791 to Lougheed like they did with the 555 a few years back, connections to a busier Expo/Millennium Line station rather than a less busy Expo Line station would most likely boost ridership a bit.

16 hours ago, Millennium2002 said:

I've modified my post because the more I think about it the more I'm not sure where the 368 should terminate. Cloverdale is one option; South Surrey Park and Ride is another...

If it was extended to Cloverdale it could interline with the 370 or have it replace the 370 and have the 368 continue all the way to Willowbrook, or if it was extended to South Surrey Park and Ride they could extend the 363 there for another possible interline.

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

×
×
  • Create New...