Jump to content
cleowin

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

Recommended Posts

In a way, I like the stacked text because it does display more information, but I think that more specificity could be better achieved by expanding the utilization of different frames (i.e. destination VIA street/location). I think that some people may have a hard time making out the signage now that it’s dramatically smaller.

Further, as demonstrated by the 10 showing “Downtown to Waterfront”, I think they need to be more mindful of what these signs display. Even with the 119 showing “Kingsway to Edmonds“, I don’t see it as being of much use to anyone boarding a bus on Kingsway. I think that both the 10 and 119 are good examples of routes that don’t need this sort of thing because they’re direct. There are, however, plenty of complex routes that are better candidates for this programming change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one issue I have is that because it's smaller, you have to be closer to see it. Other than that it's a good idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Since the start of the new sheet, various signs that used a tall and wide font have been altered.

 

Apart from new stacked sign exposures, the 84 UBC EXPRESS sign has been updated again:

 

76CDED4D-961F-4BEC-8D4E-BDF03953F0AE.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, KINGSTER200 said:

Apart from new stacked sign exposures, the 84 UBC EXPRESS sign has been updated again:

 

76CDED4D-961F-4BEC-8D4E-BDF03953F0AE.jpeg

It's been like that for awhile, same as the 44.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KINGSTER200 said:

Here's the 119, 151, and 325:

 

Coast Mountain Bus Company 14002-c.jpg

Coast Mountain Bus Company 16016-b.jpg

Coast Mountain Bus Company 18187.jpg

IMO these are better than the 10 since they list a street that the route mainly runs along plus a destination, while the 10 (at least on Downtown) just lists the old destination plus the terminus of the route.

Share this post


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

It's been like that for awhile, same as the 44.

How long ago did they change it from this? I’m pretty sure I saw this last week on the 84.

image.thumb.jpeg.cc58b50169230e97d6a3642b682406c8.jpeg

(cred. @Jeffrey Ngai)

Share this post


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

In a way, I like the stacked text because it does display more information, but I think that more specificity could be better achieved by expanding the utilization of different frames (i.e. destination VIA street/location). I think that some people may have a hard time making out the signage now that it’s dramatically smaller.

Further, as demonstrated by the 10 showing “Downtown to Waterfront”, I think they need to be more mindful of what these signs display. Even with the 119 showing “Kingsway to Edmonds“, I don’t see it as being of much use to anyone boarding a bus on Kingsway. I think that both the 10 and 119 are good examples of routes that don’t need this sort of thing because they’re direct. There are, however, plenty of complex routes that are better candidates for this programming change.

The inbound 10 would be exponentially improved with "Granville to Downtown".

They could also change the signs of the 323 and 324 for uniformity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small historical note:

If it persists, some of these routes will in fact go back to old names from more than 40 years ago. This was the case for the 325 140 Street, and will be the case for the 316 116 Street (whenever that happens).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KINGSTER200 said:

How long ago did they change it from this? I’m pretty sure I saw this last week on the 84.

image.thumb.jpeg.cc58b50169230e97d6a3642b682406c8.jpeg

(cred. @Jeffrey Ngai)

Since before the 44 stopped running, the 84 may have been updated after but I do remember seeing the updated destinations for the route.

Share this post


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

Since before the 44 stopped running, the 84 may have been updated after but I do remember seeing the updated destinations for the route.

The 84 recieved a second change, he's saying. A couple of months ago, the 84 said "84 U B C EXPRESS" now it says "84 UBC EXPRESS" with a smaller font.

We know that the 44 got the same treatment, we're just wondering if it got its' signs updated for a 2nd time.

Share this post


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

The inbound 10 would be exponentially improved with "Granville to Downtown".

Very much improved, yes, especially since the other pictures (of the 119/151/325) are displaying "Street Name to Destination".

If I had a request on which route should next get this treatment, it's the 9: "Broadway (local) to" Alma/Granville/Commercial/Boundary. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Since before the 44 stopped running, the 84 may have been updated after but I do remember seeing the updated destinations for the route.

Ah interesting, I guess whatever i saw last week just didn't have its signs updated or something. It's certainly an improvement from the spaced out UBC characters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2020 at 10:48 AM, Orcair said:

A few thoughts from the 350/351 split:

I was surprised how busy the 350 was. N=1, but using 40’ seems to have been a good choice. 
 

351 driver was confused about the route, the fareboxes on the Enviro500s and had no A/C on the upper floor. 
 

Pax don’t know how to use the pushbars for the Enviro500 rear doors. They kept pushing the middle section instead of near the privacy dividers. Driver didn’t know either and just had them exit from front door. 
 

Transferring at WR Centre Bay 1 isn’t clear yet. TL should add announcements to transfer on the 351 and what bus to take to Crescent Beach.
 

It’s weird seeing non-Suburban NOVAs in South Surrey 😂 

As a follow up to this, wrote into TransLink with these comments and got the following response:

"We are aware of the scheduling misalignment for transfers between these two routes. This was a scheduling error, and we are currently making adjustments to address the issue. We will also be fully rewriting the schedule in January to account for any outstanding schedule misalignments that we are unable to address immediately."

Seems like an important oversight, but at least they're addressing it I guess?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As a follow up to this, wrote into TransLink with these comments and got the following response:

"We are aware of the scheduling misalignment for transfers between these two routes. This was a scheduling error, and we are currently making adjustments to address the issue. We will also be fully rewriting the schedule in January to account for any outstanding schedule misalignments that we are unable to address immediately."

Seems like an important oversight, but at least they're addressing it I guess?

That or there will be a mid-sheet timing change.

This probably will have an effect on the 351 as well. As far as I know, the timing for highway 99 routes into South Surrey are a mixed bag since those routes can easily be impacted by delays on highway 99. For that reason, it is normal to see buses 8-10 minutes ahead of schedule once reaching SSP&R heading south.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2020 at 7:59 PM, Translink69 said:

4 trips added to the 509, however they follow the 562’s routing. 

To Langley Centre:

8:05 from Carvolth Exchange

15:19 from Trattle/88th (57246)

To Carvolth Exchange:

8:06 from Langley Centre

15:21 from Trattle/9000 Block (57248)

 

19128 left Carvolth Exchange this morning as 562.

562 19128.png

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

19128 left Carvolth Exchange this morning as 562.

562 19128.png

Good, was very confused about those trips being 509s, glad they aren’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why the conventional 562 trips are falling under the 509 since it doesn't look like any 509 blocks include the 562.

Share this post


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

Not sure why the conventional 562 trips are falling under the 509 since it doesn't look like any 509 blocks include the 562.

https://dark.sorrybusfull.com/route/509

probably put under 509 to keep it seperate from the 562 service operated by First Transit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that no one was noticed for it, Steveston terminal in Chatham Street was already renamed to Steveston Exchange~~

Bay 1 - Drop off point at Eastbound of Chatham Street

Bay 2 - Eastbound of Chatham Street to serve 401, 402 & 413

Bay 3 - Westbound of Chatham Street to serve 406, 407 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor note for route 430

EB trips return to Bay 1 Brighouse

EB trips moved to Bay 4 Bridgeport

In fact, Bay 1 is now served by 416, 430. No 301

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2020 at 2:36 PM, neopasturquoise said:

10 2504.png

This one makes no sense... It should have been 10 GRANVILLE TO WATERFRONT STN or 10 GRANVILLE TO DOWNTOWN...

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

Not sure if this is the place to share opinions on it, but to be honest I kinda think it would be nice to have the Downtown-Phibbs-Lonsdale and the Downtown - Park Royal - Lonsdale together. Imo it would basically continue the two main transit corridors between downtown and the North Shore without severely competing with the SeaBus.

To be honest I don't really understand the middle one - why do that when you already have Seabus tbh?

Share this post


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

Not sure if this is the place to share opinions on it, but to be honest I kinda think it would be nice to have the Downtown-Phibbs-Lonsdale and the Downtown - Park Royal - Lonsdale together. Imo it would basically continue the two main transit corridors between downtown and the North Shore without severely competing with the SeaBus.

To be honest I don't really understand the middle one - why do that when you already have Seabus tbh?

Extend the Canada line to Lonsdale and Central Lonsdale and have 2 branches. One to Park Royal, the other to Phibbs. Scrap the Seabus or use it as a tourist attraction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Orion6784 said:

 Scrap the Seabus or use it as a tourist attraction.

Screw that.  Seabus is one of the best things that Translink has going for it.  People need to learn to slow down, stop being in such a rush and just enjoy a 15 minute trip across the water.

  • Like 2

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...