Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, 8010 said:

I gotta ask, who's bright idea was it to put the R3 in the Phase 1 plan instead of the Phase 3 plan as originally planned (IIRC)? The fact that it got temporarily cancelled during the start of the pandemic and that the 701 is still using some artics is clearly showing that the route isn't doing as well in terms of alleviating crowding from the 701 as it probably could have, probably due to the lack of stops along the route compared to other RapidBus routes. Don't get me wrong, being able to go from Coquitlam Central to Haney in about 30 minutes is great and all, but there are definitely other RapidBus routes that should've been pushed to the Phase 1 plan instead of R3.

What would you have preferred to see implemented instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Two weeks sure went by fast...

Well, transit isn't operated to suit your personal tastes, so how about you stop acting like it is and cease whining and derailing threads every time you have some imagined complaint.  

For everyone worrying about whether BTC will be able to handle the 41st Ave B-Line; keep in mind that BTC currently runs the 43, which will be replaced by the B-Line.  Given that the 43 already runs v

Posted Images

2 hours ago, 8010 said:

I gotta ask, who's bright idea was it to put the R3 in the Phase 1 plan instead of the Phase 3 plan as originally planned (IIRC)? The fact that it got temporarily cancelled during the start of the pandemic and that the 701 is still using some artics is clearly showing that the route isn't doing as well in terms of alleviating crowding from the 701 as it probably could have, probably due to the lack of stops along the route compared to other RapidBus routes. Don't get me wrong, being able to go from Coquitlam Central to Haney in about 30 minutes is great and all, but there are definitely other RapidBus routes that should've been pushed to the Phase 1 plan instead of R3.

The R3 was included in order to ensure that every part of the region got some of the benefits of improved service.  Strictly based on ridership the Scott Rd and Commercial-Victoria Rapidbuses should have been implemented before the R3 and even the R2.  But when the 10 year plan was first was first proposed there was grumbling that Vancouver and Surrey were getting most of the investments.  So, the Rapidbus routes selected for phase one were at least partially chosen to ensure political support from across the region.  

The R3 is actually interesting, since it is the first B-Line/Rapidbus since the original 99 to be entirely new service.  The 96/R1 canibalised the 320 and 321 service hours, the R2 outright replaced the 239, the R4 replaced the 43 and took hours from the 41, the 95/R5 replaced the 135, the 97 took over the 147 and the 98 replaced the 400's Downtown express segments.  Meanwhile, the 701 and 791 were unchanged by the R3 introduction.

The best way to improve the R3 would be to invest in improved frequency on the Ridge Meadows shuttles.  Even if your main trunk route is every 15 minutes until midnight, when the off peak frequency on the feeder routes ranges from every 45 to every 120 minutes, and they stop running at 6 or 9pm, it will be a struggle to attract ridership.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will also reiterate that when it comes to larger matters such as RapidBus and new SkyTrain lines, those are in the jurdistiction of the Mayor's Council - if one mayor disagrees on a specific matter, the project is shelved or undergoes significant changes.

It's a double edged sword: good in that stuff actually gets done (generally they agree with each other like in the case of endorsing the Broadway Extension), but bad in that select other projects are put on hold because one mayor disagrees (taking Derrick Corrigan's feedback on Metrotown as well as the Brighouse bus loop as far as I can remember)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Michael Marriott said:

The best way to improve the R3 would be to invest in improved frequency on the Ridge Meadows shuttles.  Even if your main trunk route is every 15 minutes until midnight, when the off peak frequency on the feeder routes ranges from every 45 to every 120 minutes, and they stop running at 6 or 9pm, it will be a struggle to attract ridership.

I definitely agree that the Ridge/Meadows shuttles have some of the worst service in the entire region.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 8010 said:

I definitely agree that the Ridge/Meadows shuttles have some of the worst service in the entire region.

Having grown up in Langley in the 2000s, and seeing as the shuttles on the North side of the river are even more convoluted than the rubbish in Langley... I can't imagine they are particularly useful to anyone. 

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

More 701 service or just artics on the route until demand warranted the need for RapidBus.

From what I can see, the R3 is doing its job of providing Express service to Haney Place and alleviating pressure off the 701. The ridership just does not warrant artics at the moment. What could happen is use 40ft buses until the ridership justifies the use of artics just like they did with the 97.

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

I will give a bit of credit for getting at least some sort of coverage done, in routes 733/741

Aren’t those the only two shuttle routes in Ridge that don’t fall under “limited service?”

4 hours ago, Orion6784 said:

From what I can see, the R3 is doing its job of providing Express service to Haney Place and alleviating pressure off the 701. The ridership just does not warrant artics at the moment. What could happen is use 40ft buses until the ridership justifies the use of artics just like they did with the 97.

I will agree with that, they could’ve done a 43 or 222 with that route and let ridership transition over to the route before just plopping a frequent express service down IMO.

12 hours ago, InfiNorth said:

Having grown up in Langley in the 2000s, and seeing as the shuttles on the North side of the river are even more convoluted than the rubbish in Langley... I can't imagine they are particularly useful to anyone. 

I’ve taken most of the routes, they really aren’t that useful to most people. 60-120 minute frequencies that just encourage people to drive and mostly flag stops so no one with disabilities can even use the shuttles so they probably have to use HandyDART. I think the only two shuttles I haven’t taken in Ridge are the ones with somewhat decent service (733 & 741).

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCeroaXnfkE

Here's a video of the new Brighouse Station bus loop
enjoy!

The left turn out of the loop looks flawed - I saw drivers pulling right up to the crosswalk instead of keeping the intersection clear for the bus to enter with its green light. Is there no offset stop line to leave the intersection open for buses or was this just some typical high-quality Richmond driving?

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

The left turn out of the loop looks flawed - I saw drivers pulling right up to the crosswalk instead of keeping the intersection clear for the bus to enter with its green light. Is there no offset stop line to leave the intersection open for buses or was this just some typical high-quality Richmond driving?

I'll argue that they should have widened the north crosswalk instead of having the 2 smaller crosswalks. That way there's less interference.

Cadillac-Fairview/City of Richmond should also do something about that small parking lot in front of the Shoppers drug mart and turn that into a public space.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2020 at 8:17 PM, Express691 said:

Cadillac-Fairview/City of Richmond should also do something about that small parking lot in front of the Shoppers drug mart and turn that into a public space.

I know it's not possible for them to completely get rid of it as that double door that's outside the Shoppers on the right is quite literally their receiving dock for when they get trucks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it looks like the 402 and 404 technically don’t serve a Brighouse Station-designated stop (old Bay 7) due to construction next to the loop, but why doesn’t the N10 use the new loop now? It’s not like it needs its own separate stop considering it’s the only late-night route serving Richmond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Buzzer Blog has a post about the stacked destination signs: https://buzzer.translink.ca/2020/10/metro-vancouver-bus-routes-pilot-stacked-destination-signs/

Is the northbound 10 still displaying "Downtown / to Waterfront"? 


Other bus signage that has bugged me recently:

210 BURRARD STN (and 209/211/214)
240 DOWNTOWN (and 241/246/247)
250 VANCOUVER (and 253/254/257)

The first two have changed from VANCOUVER in the last couple of years. I think I know why they're moving away from that descriptor, but does anyone know the official reason for the changes, and why they were inconsistently applied?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rickie22 said:

The Buzzer Blog has a post about the stacked destination signs: https://buzzer.translink.ca/2020/10/metro-vancouver-bus-routes-pilot-stacked-destination-signs/

Is the northbound 10 still displaying "Downtown / to Waterfront"? 


Other bus signage that has bugged me recently:

210 BURRARD STN (and 209/211/214)
240 DOWNTOWN (and 241/246/247)
250 VANCOUVER (and 253/254/257)

The first two have changed from VANCOUVER in the last couple of years. I think I know why they're moving away from that descriptor, but does anyone know the official reason for the changes, and why they were inconsistently applied?

The first ones have moved from Vancouver mostly within 2020, with the only exception being the 246 I believe.

As for the 25x series, I think that's mostly just West Van being West Van, from what I've heard there's no significant reasoning for it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if there's a specific thread for GTFS errors, but unless I'm mistaken, the 620 Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal does in fact stop southbound at Ladner Exchange. Google does not believe this no matter how much I try to convince it as such. Is there currently some construction reroute that I'm not aware of that would prevent buses from Bridgeport to the ferries to use Ladner Exchange? Google Maps wants me to either use the 601 then transfer, or take a 620 to Bridgeport, then turn around, and come back to get to the ferry. Something is very wrong with this. I have now tried nearly 20 different departure times to ensure it wasn't just a weird "actually the 601 is faster right now" thing.

Edit: Apparently TransLink's own trip planner has some, uh, interesting ideas about what a suitable alternate route looks like. They data is definitely better than Google's but their planning capabilities... not so much. They are definitely using a transfer time limiting variable rather than a trip distance limiter. Obviously the 620 is option 1, but there is no universe where this should be your second choice (see second photo from TransLink route finder).

Capture.PNG

Capture.PNG

Edited by InfiNorth
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna let this out the bag:

Lynn Valley is receiving bay designations, however to a bit of confusion (but as this is being typed up, the posting on the alerts page was done half an hour ago)

Bay 1 is designated ID 59526 NB Lynn Valley Rd at Mtn Highway. 229/240 NB
Bay 2 is designated ID 54182 SB Lynn Valley Rd at Mtn Highway. 228 SB
Bay 3 is designated ID 53977 NB Mtn Highway at Lynn Valley Rd. 210 NB
Bay 4 is designated ID 54003 SB Mtn Highway at Lynn Valley Rd. 210/229/240 SB, 227 NB
Bay 5 is designated ID 58314 WB 27 Street at 1200 Block. This is currently the layover for 227 and 229. 
There is a hidden bay 6 which is closer to Library Lane and is the layover for the 240.

From what I was told, the setup for bay 5/hidden bay 6 only runs from start of service until 2100 as these are stops right in front of an apartment complex. No kneeling the bus because of the loud beeping noises. However, construction around the area of bay 1 is not done yet last time I checked. Under normal operation, after 21:00, the layover would be moved to Bay 1. N24 retains its layover in bay 1 once construction is complete.

Meanwhile I'm under the impression that construction is complete.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else hear about this or have better sources than DailyHive? https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/scott-road-rapidbus-r6-delta-surrey-translink

I just can't believe that Surrey is getting a second RapidBus line while Fraser Highway to Langley maintains conventional express buses. I have to say, it's very TransLink of them to take two years to plan a bus route that is already pretty well established. DailyHive (not the most reliable source) isn't listing any sources other than publishing a weirdly sideways map of the proposed route.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, 8010 said:
1 hour ago, InfiNorth said:

 

I just can't believe that Surrey is getting a second RapidBus line while Fraser Highway to Langley maintains conventional express buses.

Fraser Highway B-Line/RapidBus was scrapped because half the route will be  replaced with skytrain in ~5 years, same reason we still have the 99.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Translink69 said:

Fraser Highway B-Line/RapidBus was scrapped because half the route will be  replaced with skytrain in ~5 years, same reason we still have the 99.

 

41 minutes ago, Express691 said:

They also elected not to dilute the brand of "RapidBus" so as to keep the brand for routes that are not seeing conversion to rail in at least the next 5 years

At this point, is there any likelihood at all that we will see a SkyTrain to Langley Centre before 2030? I understand that the Fleetwood extension is pretty much ready to start proper planning, but I thought extension out to Langley was on perma-backburner. 

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...