Jump to content

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


cleowin
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, 8010 said:

From what I've heard September 1st is the opening day for Brighouse Loop, can't confirm that myself though.

Seeing that none of the paddles are built to access and depart the loop, I find that unlikely especially since the new sheet starts only a few days later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Express691 said:

Someone in another forum speculated that the recurring phrase "We’re adjusting the frequency in response to changing customer demand" is PR doublespeak for "decreased frequency". For the routes I usually take, I know the old and new headways, but for almost all the others, not so much. 

It would be nice to know what the previous headways were for the various time periods listed. Example – the changes for the 245 do have them:

Quote
  • Every 15 minutes from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. (previously every 10 minutes)
  • Every 30 minutes from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. (previously every 10 minutes)

<snip>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, rickie22 said:

Someone in another forum speculated that the recurring phrase "We’re adjusting the frequency in response to changing customer demand" is PR doublespeak for "decreased frequency". For the routes I usually take, I know the old and new headways, but for almost all the others, not so much. 

 

Oh it definitely is; any route with an actual frequency increase is prefaced with "we're adding service".

The 130 is a little troubling; it is being cut from every 7-8 minutes to every 10 minutes.  Given that on the current headways the buses are crowded enough that the 222 was changed to run local to provide relief that seems likely to be an issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Michael Marriott said:

Oh it definitely is; any route with an actual frequency increase is prefaced with "we're adding service".

 

I poked around a few more routes, and I see that phrase. I also read the prologue at the top of the page: 18 routes with increased frequency, 26 with decreased frequency (mostly for the FTN services and/or in peak hours).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 min service on the 175 seems like overkill IMO, I’m pretty sure before COVID it was still running every 30 min.

I don’t really see the point in downsizing the 183 to shuttles on weekends if the 40-footers aren’t being used elsewhere.

I thought the 301 was supposed to have a stop added on No. 4 Road, but I think May Drive is a better location.

They’re still saying we’ll see deckers on the 351, I still don’t get why the 350 is operating out of RTC when STC is closer, I guess the same could be said about the 388’s proximity to HTC.

Not sure why the 562 is serving the new TWU stops Mon-Sat but not Sunday. I can’t imagine the university seeing much ridership on Saturdays.

We also don’t need the 617 anymore, I think this would’ve been a good time to axe the route and shift the resources over to the 310.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 8010 said:

15 min service on the 175 seems like overkill IMO, I’m pretty sure before COVID it was still running every 30 min.

I don’t really see the point in downsizing the 183 to shuttles on weekends if the 40-footers aren’t being used elsewhere.

Not sure why the 562 is serving the new TWU stops Mon-Sat but not Sunday. I can’t imagine the university seeing much ridership on Saturdays.

175: I was at Coquitlam Central a couple weeks ago, and the 175 arrived with a full seated load.  So, the route is likely brushing up against the capacity limit of a shuttle, meaning either more frequency or a conversion to big bus was needed.  Keep in mind, the 175 was one of the routes that would have retained full weekday service had the May 18 cuts gone through.  Given industrial jobs are less likely to allow for working from home, routes serving industrial areas have likely seen smaller losses of ridership.

183: Even though the big buses may not be needed elsewhere, there is still a savings in drivers wages from switching to shuttle.

562: This is some speculation, but given that the new stops will be on TWU's property, they may not allow use of the stops on Sunday.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Marriott said:

Oh it definitely is; any route with an actual frequency increase is prefaced with "we're adding service".

The 130 is a little troubling; it is being cut from every 7-8 minutes to every 10 minutes.  Given that on the current headways the buses are crowded enough that the 222 was changed to run local to provide relief that seems likely to be an issue.

Looks like I'll be avoiding the 130 for a while so I'm not jammed in a full bus...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Phillip said:

And the 480 will continue to be suspended. I wonder if the 480 will ever return because they been trying to eliminate that route for quite some time. 

Same can be said about the 258. Not sure why West Van wants to keep funding a bus route that barely has any ridership and is probably the most expensive to operate compared to their other routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of university routes, UPASS to return sep 1

https://new.translink.ca/rider-guide/coronavirus-precautions

1 hour ago, Michael Marriott said:

183: Even though the big buses may not be needed elsewhere, there is still a savings in drivers wages from switching to shuttle.

Considering the 116 is upgrading to conventional on sat/sun/hol, perhaps it's some sort of tradeoff going on (and ultimately maybe pointing to allocation of hours rather than saving drivers wages)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, 8010 said:

Same can be said about the 258. Not sure why West Van wants to keep funding a bus route that barely has any ridership and is probably the most expensive to operate compared to their other routes.

Some West Van residents are very vocal in their support of the 258 just because it's a bit more convenient for them instead of heading downtown and taking the 44. (Tbh I don't really understand it myself, but West Van clearly thinks it's an important customer base).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 8010 said:

15 min service on the 175 seems like overkill IMO, I’m pretty sure before COVID it was still running every 30 min.

I don’t really see the point in downsizing the 183 to shuttles on weekends if the 40-footers aren’t being used elsewhere.

I thought the 301 was supposed to have a stop added on No. 4 Road, but I think May Drive is a better location.

They’re still saying we’ll see deckers on the 351, I still don’t get why the 350 is operating out of RTC when STC is closer, I guess the same could be said about the 388’s proximity to HTC.

Not sure why the 562 is serving the new TWU stops Mon-Sat but not Sunday. I can’t imagine the university seeing much ridership on Saturdays.

We also don’t need the 617 anymore, I think this would’ve been a good time to axe the route and shift the resources over to the 310.

1) I'm not familiar with the 175, but passenger dynamics have changed with the pandemic so maybe they've been seeing extra demand on it.

2) Using a shuttle instead of a conventional bus is a big savings in fuel and labour costs.

3) 350 is running out of RTC because they have buses allocated for that run where STC may not have extra capacity for extra buses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 9924 said:

3) 350 is running out of RTC because they have buses allocated for that run where STC may not have extra capacity for extra buses.

Forgot to mention: HTC assumes operation on route 388, despite school special work staying at STC

That said, the deadhead to white rock from RTC/STC apparently is not much different from each other in terms of drive time.

Regarding 350/351: terminus remains at Oxford/Vine. Could be because of limited space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Express691 said:

Regarding 350/351: terminus remains at Oxford/Vine. Could be because of limited space.

I kind of get why the 351 will remain there, though poor drivers being stuck in the middle of nowhere... but the bay only fits 1 bus so I wonder if they're going to expand it now for the 350 layover too?


Speaks to a bigger issue, imo, of the layout of the WR Centre Exchange

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Orcair said:

I kind of get why the 351 will remain there, though poor drivers being stuck in the middle of nowhere... but the bay only fits 1 bus so I wonder if they're going to expand it now for the 350 layover too?


Speaks to a bigger issue, imo, of the layout of the WR Centre Exchange

Unless they’re gonna make the 350 run clockwise and keep the 351 running counterclockwise, I have no idea what the terminus routing looks like though. I do agree that White Rock Centre’s layout is questionable from a long-term perspective in terms of layover space, but I think the on-street exchange is fine. IMO they should do something similar to Guildford Exchange and have a separate off-street layover area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 8010 said:

Unless they’re gonna make the 350 run clockwise and keep the 351 running counterclockwise, I have no idea what the terminus routing looks like though. I do agree that White Rock Centre’s layout is questionable from a long-term perspective in terms of layover space, but I think the on-street exchange is fine.

That's a fair point about the ccw/cw routing and one I didn't consider, so appreciate that! Agree (and should have made it clear that my comments were more directed long-term) -- I realize having buses needing to go in 4 directions makes bus loops on or off-loop a challenge but dedicated space for buses (even their own lane) would make the area a lot easier IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...