Jump to content
cleowin

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

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Translink69 said:

Have you taken the 501? It can get really busy between Guildford and Carvolth at times. Re-routing it through East Fraser Heights is a horrible idea. 338 is the right option.

I'm pretty sure the 501 is not saturated to the same point as the 99 B-Line... If the 501 is busy, then we can add capacity by:

  • Boosting the frequency to compensate, or
  • Use articulated buses for more capacity with each run

And here's another way to look at it: if you boost the frequency of the route, then it becomes much more convenient to use because you can worry less about missing the bus that comes only every half hour.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

And here's another way to look at it: if you boost the frequency of the route, then it becomes much more convenient to use because you can worry less about missing the bus that comes only every half hour.

And this in turn will boost ridership.  Frequent routes always tend to have a decent load on them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cathay 888 said:

I believe so, 28 & 130 will be no longer to terminate at Cap U (Monashee) due to 245 will be terminated there~~

But I hope 28 stay in Cap U and 222 extend to Cap U during peak hour, 130 can totally stay in Phibbs or Kootenay Loop~~

The transit review documents suggest that both the 28 and 130 will end at Phibbs. The 245 has 5 minute peak frequency, which means the same number of buses will travel between Phibbs and Cap U. I'll really miss the no transfer trip on the 130, but the reliability of buses will go way up because the 28/130/239 delays elsewhere won't affect Cap U. 

I do note they didn't increase midday frequency for the 245, which means that crowding and pass up problems at Phibbs between 1030 and 12, which happen 2-3 days a week, will happen more with the R2-245 transfers. I did write a paragraph on that in the feedback survey....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of what is being implemented in the River District. Better concepts for routes to the Expo Line were explored and all they're getting is basically a duplication shuttle route (Route 31) that should've been a reroute of the 146, and a peak-only route (Route 80) that will only run every 30 minutes and will most likely reach overcrowding levels within the first year of operation. Hopefully in the coming years more routes are introduced in the River District.

The 222 is a good precursor to what will eventually become the Willingdon Avenue RapidBus. I still think the route should have a stop at Gilmore Avenue only because it's duplicating the R5 along Hastings Street. Maybe in a couple years they can do what they did with the 43 and have the route run all-day on weekdays.

East Fraser Heights is kind of a mixed bag. I'm fine with the 338 but I think it should be providing more service coverage. Someone also suggested rerouting the 501 along 104th Ave in the Fraser Heights area, which I don't think is a bad idea. However, if the 501 was to travel through 104th Ave I believe a Guildford - Carvolth express (or more service on the 509) should be implemented as a lot of the 501 customers travel to/from Carvolth.

I'm glad to see that the 368 will be traveling through Newton Exchange. It didn't make much sense not to have it connect there in the first place.

Now that the 350 will be using standard buses I'm fine with the White Rock route changes. The 352 may need a slight frequency increase if passengers from the 351 switch over to the 352 to avoid transferring at White Rock Centre.

The much-needed changes to the N10 and N15 will finally bridge the gap between the N10 and NightBus services in South Vancouver, as well as finally provide 24-hour service along the entire Canada Line route.

The 407 split is fine, I'd rather see the 22 extended to Bridgeport Station rather than having a new route introduced, but speed and reliability issues will most certainly arise from the Knight Street Bridge. The 430 isn't much faster than the 407 so I would even argue discontinuing the route and implementing some kind of express service along 49th Avenue.

Having the 408 maintain service along King Road is kinda pointless. 

I've never been fully on-board with the proposed 404, 405, and 416 changes since the SWATP consultation. The 416 is not needed and is a waste of resources. I support straightening out the 405's route and even the 404 when it was originally proposed in the SWATP, as well as introducing all-day service through the Ironwood area. But since everyone was against having the 404 go to Bridgeport rather than Brighouse my only other suggestion would be to extend the 404 from Brighouse to Bridgeport via Westminster Highway and 4 Road. This would replace service lost from both the 405 and 416 as well as provide all-day service along the proposed 416 route between Brighouse Station and Cambie Road. I would even argue that the resources used on the 416 should be moved to a new route along River Drive.

I assume the next round of consultation will include redesigning routes 181, 182, 254, and 256.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, 8010 said:

Having the 408 maintain service along King Road is kinda pointless.

That part was one of the highest rejection rate at more than 40%

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missed from January service change: 

341 - All trips via 150th to 104th to Guildford Exchange (Discontinue NB 150th through 104th)

375 - All trips via 152nd to 104th to Guildford Exchange (Discontinue 150th Street routing) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

341 temporary re-routes via 96 Ave from 148 st to 152 st, 152 st from 96 ave to 100 ave and 100 ave from 152 st to 150 st, typically same re-route as last summer due to construction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some observations I’ve made recently:

It wouldn’t hurt to bump the 68 up to 15 minute frequency during peak hours. 
 

157 afternoon conventional service needs to start on the 2:45 trip from Burquitlam, rather than the 3:00 trip from Lougheed. Shuttle doesn’t cut it when passing by 2 high schools, a rec centre, and a middle school around dismissal time. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 222 begins service on April 6th but the 125 won't be discontinued until May 25th. Okay then.

Share this post


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

So the 222 begins service on April 6th but the 125 won't be discontinued until May 25th. Okay then.

All due to BCIT semester schedule

Even with the COVID-19 crisis and most, if not, all courses moved online for the rest of the semester, I guess it may be hard now to cancel those runs which drivers have already signed for the next sheet.

It's interesting as this is mentioned, especially with regards to what is going on right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beginning tomorrow (March 20), customers will be asked to board buses using the rear doors only. Given TransLink cannot collect cash fares at the rear doors, and some buses aren’t equipped with Compass Card readers at that entrance, we are also suspending fare collection on the bus system.

We are taking this step to allow greater social distancing to protect our Coast Mountain Bus Company operators at this time. Customers requiring mobility assistance can continue to use the front doors if needed. Regular fares still apply on other TransLink modes.

TransLink has also implemented the following changes:

  • Customers will not be able to use seats close to operators on certain buses.
  • Accelerating the installation of operator protection barriers on buses.
  • Customers will not be able to use seats close to crew on SeaBus vessels.
  • Launching an education campaign promoting hygiene and asking customers to allow extra space for fellow passengers and transit staff.
  • Increasing cleaning and disinfecting on all modes of transit.

As extraordinary social distancing measures are being put into place across the region, TransLink has also seen a commensurate and significant decline in ridership.  This means there are far fewer passengers using the system, which allows for greater social distancing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess this means Translink will find out how much it costs to run a free service - which IMO is a good thing - free buses are notably good for communities in many ways.

Of course, it is sad though that we're going through this COVID-19 situation in the first place and are having to figure out how to remain safe during this time.

I'm really hoping Translink doesn't cut too much service - some people still really need to get around and I'm really not a fan of the cuts some other agencies have made.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to the drop in Ridership Translink is reducing service on Seabus which will run at 15 mins at rush hour, reduced service on Skytrain & on some bus routes as well starting tomorrow.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2020 at 5:05 PM, Zortan said:

Well, I guess this means Translink will find out how much it costs to run a free service - which IMO is a good thing - free buses are notably good for communities in many ways.

Unless you're a tax payer 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 9924 said:

Unless you're a tax payer 

We already pay for transit - fares honestly don't cover that much of the operating cost.

And, at the end of the day, transit isn't there to make money. Car owners pay far more for the cost of driving, including gas, maintenance, etc., but they don't complain about that. Even if transit were completely free, the cost to the taxpayer would be far less than even coming close to owning a car. And, to be honest, in areas that Translink serves with few exceptions, car ownership really isn't necessary.

Share this post


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

We already pay for transit - fares honestly don't cover that much of the operating cost.

And, at the end of the day, transit isn't there to make money. Car owners pay far more for the cost of driving, including gas, maintenance, etc., but they don't complain about that. Even if transit were completely free, the cost to the taxpayer would be far less than even coming close to owning a car. And, to be honest, in areas that Translink serves with few exceptions, car ownership really isn't necessary.

The majority of the population doesn’t take transit in Metro Vancouver. A transit referendum held in 2015 saw a 62% No vote for an increase in tax (0.5% increase in sales tax) to help fund future transit developments. 
 

People who drive don’t want to pay for a service that they won’t/don’t want to use.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Car owners pay far more for the cost of driving, including gas, maintenance, etc., but they don't complain about that

Ask any person who drives and they'll give you a speech on how expensive gas, maintenance, and ICBC is. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

We already pay for transit - fares honestly don't cover that much of the operating cost.

And, at the end of the day, transit isn't there to make money. Car owners pay far more for the cost of driving, including gas, maintenance, etc., but they don't complain about that. Even if transit were completely free, the cost to the taxpayer would be far less than even coming close to owning a car. And, to be honest, in areas that Translink serves with few exceptions, car ownership really isn't necessary.

Car owners don't complain about the cost of ownership? 🤣

Where were you when I renewed my insurance this past fall and it went up $400 a year?  Where were you every time I hit the gas pumps and have to pay an extra 18.5 cents per litre for transit tax?  I assure you, car owners complain a lot over the price of ownership.  I'll make you a deal, my 60000kms service is coming up later this year, it costs $1200, I'll PM you and let you know what time to meet me at the dealership so you can see me "not complain" 🤣

As for not collecting fares, 44% of Translink's revenue comes from fares and advertising.  That is a lot of money, if you take fares out, where do you think that money is going to come from?  Taxpayers.  Do you honestly think that they'll just shrug their shoulders about a massive increase in taxes?  Not everyone is a transit fan.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK fine - car owners complain.

Regardless, transit is an essential service, and making it cost money is essentially discriminating against those who are choosing to live a more environmentally responsible, lower-cost life by not owning or using a car.

People don't expect to pay for roads or sidewalks - why should they expect to pay for an extension of that - an extension which is vital to having a healthy city?

Transit is the only environmentally responsible way to get around, and many car owners don't take it because it's "more expensive" even when it isn't. If it was free - no one would have to worry about zone fares, if they have enough loaded on their card, etc. Those would be worries of the past, and people would be able to choose a method of transport that is essential to having a good city and a good lifestyle.

Sorry this is getting quite off topic oops!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

OK fine - car owners complain.

Regardless, transit is an essential service, and making it cost money is essentially discriminating against those who are choosing to live a more environmentally responsible, lower-cost life by not owning or using a car.

People don't expect to pay for roads or sidewalks - why should they expect to pay for an extension of that - an extension which is vital to having a healthy city?

Transit is the only environmentally responsible way to get around, and many car owners don't take it because it's "more expensive" even when it isn't. If it was free - no one would have to worry about zone fares, if they have enough loaded on their card, etc. Those would be worries of the past, and people would be able to choose a method of transport that is essential to having a good city and a good lifestyle.

Sorry this is getting quite off topic oops!

Most car owners don’t take it because they don’t want to take it, plain and simple. 

Monthly 3 Zone Compass card costs you what?  $175 or around there?  Gas alone will easily cost you twice that in a month, plus wear and tear on your car, plus insurance.  You honestly think folks really wanna give up the convenience of their own car?  Not gonna happen any time soon.  Give it around 20 years time, by then maybe half the cars on the road will be EVs and people will drive even more.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, cars are only more "convenient" simply because people refuse to pay money for better transit. That's really the only reason. But if we did do that, you wouldn't feel like you needed a car, neither would anyone else.

Global warming is a crisis, one which will spell the end of human civilization if we do nothing about it. Having more people on the roads is exactly the opposite of what we need to be doing. In major cities such as Vancouver, there really is no need to own a car. Transit may be slightly slower, but at the end of the day it's more than convenient enough to get people where they need to go 99% of the time.

Two years ago, I decided I'd stop using cars, and told my parents that same thing - I haven't looked back. Sure, there is the occasional time when the half-hourly bus from my school doesn't come and I'm stuck freezing at the bus stop, but it's just like when a car breaks down - rare and unavoidable.

At this point, why should we be asking what people want to do with their cars? Inside cities, there really is no need for it, and the city should have the freedom to tell people that they aren't allowed their cars within city limits. Plain and simple, and the only solution that really should have ever been implemented.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Thing is, cars are only more "convenient" simply because people refuse to pay money for better transit. That's really the only reason. But if we did do that, you wouldn't feel like you needed a car, neither would anyone else.

I mean, no. Cars are private and personal, totally on demand, and a break down happens far less often than a bus no-show. It would be hard to imagine a world where taking a car isn't faster than transit for most north americans/vancouverites, just because of how spread out our communities are. After major investment, even if fewer people *needed* them, cars would still be an upgrade. Transit would have to be so unobtainably good for that not to be the case. Theres still plenty of cars in europe and japan, etc. Certainly, it would not be convenient enough "99% of the time" for everyones' trips. Try making the trip from somewhere in south delta to somewhere in surrey (our fastest growing community) by transit, even in 20-30 years time, and then by car. It's just the nature of the way its set up, really.

Having said that,

You make good points about the benefit of more transit and less car usage, and yes, car usage is subsidized just like transit, perhaps even more. But this isn't as simple as you make it seem. We need better transit and more money for it, and yeah it'll help, but it won't replace personal vehicles any time soon outside of the innermost core of the city no matter what happens.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Zortan said:

Thing is, cars are only more "convenient" simply because people refuse to pay money for better transit. That's really the only reason. But if we did do that, you wouldn't feel like you needed a car, neither would anyone else.

Um no, people don’t want to take the bus because they want to get where they want to go in peace and quiet, on their own schedule and not wait outside for a bus, transfer to another bus, transfer to a train, etc. 

I don't have to pay for the bus, I get to ride for free, yet I still drive to/from work because after my shift, I have no interest walking 20 mins, wait 30 min for a bus and walk another 15 min.  If I take my car, I'll be home, showered and sitting down for my dinner by the time I would normally be getting on the bus.

That is why car will always be king in North America.

Anyway, back on topic, be aware transit users, bus cancellations loom ahead, keep an eye on those transit alerts.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2020 at 5:29 AM, 8010 said:

So the 222 begins service on April 6th but the 125 won't be discontinued until May 25th. Okay then.

Now the 125 is being discontinued tomorrow apparently, although it looks like there's no service today.

All school special routes were cancelled as of Tuesday and the 258 has been cancelled since the 17th.

Routes 42, 150, and 179 are cancelled until further notice.

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...