Jump to content
cleowin

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

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, dover5949 said:

Just checking the 41st requires 6 buses right now. Can't understand why trolley's can't be used today as there is a surplus of trolleys not required for today being a Saturday?

supposed to be snow tonight (wires), and didn't we discuss construction at Oakridge being a major factor in preventing trolleys from running on 41st?

10 hours ago, DarkKeyo said:

And when the R2 is implemented, they will almost certainly implement the 222 Express from Burnaby and the 245 replacing the Capilano part of the 239, which means that everyone going to Capilano and Lynnmour will have to transfer at Phibbs Exchange, instead of just three quarters of them. 

So from what I'm analyzing, the 222 is/could be the precursor to what might be the Willingdon RapidBus, which is still in 2024 (so 4 years away). 

This link goes to the 10 year plan
This link goes to the Transit Network Review (222)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DarkKeyo said:

 

 It doesn't jog around the Lonsdale area, it goes through the centre of it. 

The map in the RapidBus link from the previous page had the 255 deviating North to LGH and back down. Is that inaccurate to what's actually being implemented? 

10 hours ago, 8010 said:

My one problem with the 245's routing is that it diverts to the 239's current Cap-U terminus before going to Cap-U Exchange, this seems like a waste of time and is gonna increase travel times for a lot of people. I don't go to Cap-U so I could be wrong.

I'm dating myself here... So this may no longer be relevant. But I was working for planning at DNV when the Cap College Exchange came online. It was built to allow for the new 255 and the crazy future thought of the 130 serving the campus at all hours, and at the time a North Shore B Line was almost a certainty needing space for articulated buses. I was pretty heavily involved in 2007/2008 and I think it opened 2009 after some of the usual unforeseen delay stuff. 

 

The terminus of the time, as it still is, was  inadequate for anything beyond the 28/239 and even then there was challenges. 

Cap U Exchanges site was one of those "it's the only option" things. And the intent was for all service to go there, closing the 28/239's terminus. However the terminus site has two important things going on that led to being left in place with the 239: a few supported living venues that had, and I assume still have, a very significant transit using population, and strong pressure from the student side of Cap College as it was at the time. The administration wanted everything to the Exchange too I seem to recall, at least initially. 

Share this post


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

So from what I'm analyzing, the 222 is/could be the precursor to what might be the Willingdon RapidBus, which is still in 2024 (so 4 years away). 

This link goes to the 10 year plan
This link goes to the Transit Network Review (222)

That's what I'm interpreting too

13 hours ago, Dane said:

The map in the RapidBus link from the previous page had the 255 deviating North to LGH and back down. Is that inaccurate to what's actually being implemented? 

I'm dating myself here... So this may no longer be relevant. But I was working for planning at DNV when the Cap College Exchange came online. It was built to allow for the new 255 and the crazy future thought of the 130 serving the campus at all hours, and at the time a North Shore B Line was almost a certainty needing space for articulated buses. I was pretty heavily involved in 2007/2008 and I think it opened 2009 after some of the usual unforeseen delay stuff. 

The terminus of the time, as it still is, was  inadequate for anything beyond the 28/239 and even then there was challenges. 

Cap U Exchanges site was one of those "it's the only option" things. And the intent was for all service to go there, closing the 28/239's terminus. However the terminus site has two important things going on that led to being left in place with the 239: a few supported living venues that had, and I assume still have, a very significant transit using population, and strong pressure from the student side of Cap College as it was at the time. The administration wanted everything to the Exchange too I seem to recall, at least initially. 

The implementation plan is still the same as far as I can tell: https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/rapid_bus/rapid_bus_marine_main.pdf?la=en&hash=0C90AAE509BCCE1E0C4FC24BD0B834A73CCC4A83

You were talking about hubs, though, and serving LGH and then Lonsdale and 3rd hits both those hubs. The 255 staying on Keith would pointlessly miss the hub at LGH, and going further south would duplicate the Rapidbus service. I'm pretty sure that routing would take less than 10 minutes, too. 

Thanks for the background on why Capilano ended up set up the way it is. It makes things a bit clearer. I have noticed that a decent number of people travel to and from the developments at Purcell and Lillooet. I don't understand why the administration would think that it wouldn't be convenient to have a bus stop in the centre of campus beside the Library and student hubs, and only have one at the top of the hill on the north side of Campus. 

Share this post


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

Looks like the confirmed launch date for R2 is April 6th.

Yes it's confirmed. I had a feeling it would be the next sheet, I don't see how they could introduce a new route in the middle of a sheet sign up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking through a bunch of online documents and I've found CoV's Rapid Transit Priorities, which includes Main/Fraser as a priority corridor. I think Main Street has more ridership than Fraser Street but Fraser would make more sense to have rapid transit as it's not as close to the Canada Line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-mayors-council-federal-funding-request

"Additionally, the Mayors’ Council is seeking $225 million to accelerate the conversion of TransLink’s bus fleet to electric-battery bus models starting in 2021. The public transit authority is looking to acquire 591 zero-emission electric buses by 2029, including new replacement electric-trolley buses."

Get ready to possibly start seeing a lot more electric buses in the next few years. I'm personally hoping for a wide variety of different electric bus models, which is unlikely but at least we'll have a mix of trolleys and battery-electric buses.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are jumping the gun on this technology. The current fleet of 4 was commissioned coming up on 5 months & spends more time sitting at HTC then it does in revenue service. It seems as if the current fleet has been plagued with nothing but problems. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-mayors-council-federal-funding-request

"Additionally, the Mayors’ Council is seeking $225 million to accelerate the conversion of TransLink’s bus fleet to electric-battery bus models starting in 2021. The public transit authority is looking to acquire 591 zero-emission electric buses by 2029, including new replacement electric-trolley buses."

Get ready to possibly start seeing a lot more electric buses in the next few years. I'm personally hoping for a wide variety of different electric bus models, which is unlikely but at least we'll have a mix of trolleys and battery-electric buses.

Why the f**k are we rushing into this so quickly? As @dover5949 said, we haven’t even had our fleet for 6 months and we’re already planning on going full scale with something that has seen very limited use over this short timeframe.

i understand the politics of the region and how electric = good, and the “climate change is the #1 issue” agenda that every city council has nowadays, but come on, considering how buses already are good for emissions, are CNG/Hybrids not cutting it anymore?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the two preceding posts, there’s a lot of cities around the world that are confident in the technology. Milan, Paris and Warsaw cumulatively have well over a thousand electric buses on order. I’m sure our four buses present TL/CMBC with a significant learning curve, but it’s just a matter of adapting to the differences. I also think North American manufactures were quite late to start developing this technology, which may explain some of the reliability issues, but if other cities can make it work, why can’t we?


Lastly, I think funding for electric vehicles may also be easier due to the increasing amount of climate strategies and the increasing amount of money allocated to pertinent initiatives (TL is smart to tap in on this, no pun intended).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 50% of that number, 591, would also presumably be trolleys. 

Long term, assuming the 41 stays trolley and the 9 returns to some semblance of what it is today post-Broadway SkyTrain there would be need for a bit of trolley fleet growth. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

About 50% of that number, 591, would also presumably be trolleys. 

Long term, assuming the 41 stays trolley and the 9 returns to some semblance of what it is today post-Broadway SkyTrain there would be need for a bit of trolley fleet growth. 

Once the subway opens the 9 will be main bus route along Broadway east of Arbutus, so the requirement may be similar to now. Its market is passengers who just want to go a few blocks where it's quicker/ more convenient than going down into the subway and back up.

More generally, with the advent of battery-trolleybus hybrids using in motion charging, there will be scope for extensions beyond the existing wiring network.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the 368's routing has been adjusted from its proposed routing to travel via 68th Ave, 128th St, 72nd Ave, Newton Exch, 138th St, 70th Ave, regular route.

It also looks like some trips on the 640 will be extended to Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal as part of Phase 2.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Looks like the 368's routing has been adjusted from its proposed routing to travel via 68th Ave, 128th St, 72nd Ave, Newton Exch, 138th St, 70th Ave, regular route.

It also looks like some trips on the 640 will be extended to Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal as part of Phase 2.

We hope 640 can back to Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal like 17 years ago~~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure anybody has posted this yet. My information is that the diversionary trolleybus routing off Broadway for the 14,16 and 17 will begin operation at the start of the summer sheet from 22 June - possibly that's well in advance of the likely start of construction work for the  Broadway subway.

When exactly construction will begin I don't know. Does anybody know anything more precise that second half of 2020?  

As for the change of the 9 over to diesel,  I always assumed it would be at the September sheet change but if work is planned to start a bit earlier e.g. August, CMBC may prefer to convert the 9 at the June sheet change  rather than do a mid-sheet change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2020 at 6:56 AM, martin607 said:

Not sure anybody has posted this yet. My information is that the diversionary trolleybus routing off Broadway for the 14,16 and 17 will begin operation at the start of the summer sheet from 22 June - possibly that's well in advance of the likely start of construction work for the  Broadway subway.

When exactly construction will begin I don't know. Does anybody know anything more precise that second half of 2020?  

As for the change of the 9 over to diesel,  I always assumed it would be at the September sheet change but if work is planned to start a bit earlier e.g. August, CMBC may prefer to convert the 9 at the June sheet change  rather than do a mid-sheet change.

 

Only info I could find so far is construction of the extension is anticipated to start in the fall of 2020.

Since Mount Pleasant Station is going to be located on the southwest corner of Broadway & Main, I wonder if the 8 and 19 will be rerouted to Main & Broadway as part of the bus integration once the extension is complete.

Most of the Phase 2 changes have been added to the 10-Year Vision website, although they're all vague (ex. Route 2's description just says "Reduce overcrowding"). The only changes that aren't on the website are the new Phase 2 routes like the 80 and 368.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2020 at 6:01 AM, 8010 said:

Since Mount Pleasant Station is going to be located on the southwest corner of Broadway & Main, I wonder if the 8 and 19 will be rerouted to Main & Broadway as part of the bus integration once the extension is complete.

What I’d love to see is a trolleybus loop at Main Street station.

 

Next question: with the Mark III fleet now up to 18 trains on the property, at what point will we see the M-Line switch, say, to 4-car consists of Mark Is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GORDOOM said:

Next question: with the Mark III fleet now up to 18 trains on the property, at what point will we see the M-Line switch, say, to 4-car consists of Mark Is?

I would also like to see this happen as it would be better to gradually increase capacity on the M Line, but I believe someone has previously said that Mk 1s time out on the switch just east of Lougheed Town Centre station going towards Burquitlam. Not sure if that issue still persists or not.

If it does happen I believe it will happen September 2020, as that's when the next service increase is scheduled for according to previous press releases.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, any update for the bus service for the River District area??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 8:16 PM, 8010 said:

Looks like the 368's routing has been adjusted from its proposed routing to travel via 68th Ave, 128th St, 72nd Ave, Newton Exch, 138th St, 70th Ave, regular route.

It also looks like some trips on the 640 will be extended to Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal as part of Phase 2.

I’m pretty happy about the 368. I live close to the proposed routing (as in Scottsdale Exch)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is from a while ago but in response to the electric bus complaints:

cities around the world have been using electric buses for years, in pretty widespread use. Heck, even King County Metro has had the Proterras for years, and appears pretty pleased. 

any issues with the new buses most likely are just due to the fact that they have batteries and motors instead of engines, which is quite a change for the crews operating and fixing them - it requires some learning but will eventually make them much more reliable than their fossil counterparts - fewer moving parts to break and no engine to wear out. 
 

And finally, in terms of emissions, Hybrids and CNG doesn’t really cut it. King County Metro has found that on average their hybrids get around 4 mpg, while diesels on average get 3.5. I can’t find a number on CNG at the moment but I believe it’s around 4 MPG as well diesel equivalent. Meanwhile, KCM’s Proterras are getting the diesel equivalent of 20 mpg - 5x better than the hybrids and none of that in GHG emissions. I imagine our XE40s and LFSes get a similar rating - that’s why they’re better for the environment by a long shot. Hybrids and CNG have always been a stopover while we waited for better batteries. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next thing that could be coming would be dual-mode trolleybuses similar to Dayton's... if only New Flyer was willing to join the bandwagon (odd how this company never made a similar vehicle in the past - the extended-range hybrids being the closest they ever got):

https://www.urban-transport-magazine.com/en/first-new-imc-trolleybuses-in-dayton-ohio-with-in-motion-charging/

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Next thing that could be coming would be dual-mode trolleybuses similar to Dayton's... if only New Flyer was willing to join the bandwagon (odd how this company never made a similar vehicle in the past - the extended-range hybrids being the closest they ever got):

https://www.urban-transport-magazine.com/en/first-new-imc-trolleybuses-in-dayton-ohio-with-in-motion-charging/

One of Gillig’s traditional strengths has been their willingness to go the extra mile to get orders from small- and medium-sized systems. It doesn’t shock me that they’d be willing to do an IMC battery-electric custom vehicle for Dayton’s tiny little trolleybus network.

As for NFI and TransLink... we’re still at least three to four years off from even starting the procurement process for the ExxLFR replacements. That said, though, I do think thought should be given to making Burnaby TC a trolleybus rather than a battery-only depot, using something like IMC to support a massive trolleybus fleet expansion with minimal overhead requirements.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

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...