Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

https://new.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/projects/bus-stop-balancing

It looks like the route 2 stop consolidation will become permanent.  The only cancelled stops being reinstated are the stops at MacDonald and 13th Ave both ways, all other closed stops are gone for good.  And, starting Monday all NB weekday trips on the 2 will leave the terminus at either Dunbar Loop or Carnarvon/16th two minutes later than they do now.

  • Like 2
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...

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

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.  

Posted Images

36 minutes ago, Michael Marriott said:

https://new.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/projects/bus-stop-balancing

It looks like the route 2 stop consolidation will become permanent.  The only cancelled stops being reinstated are the stops at MacDonald and 13th Ave both ways, all other closed stops are gone for good.  And, starting Monday all NB weekday trips on the 2 will leave the terminus at either Dunbar Loop or Carnarvon/16th two minutes later than they do now.

And it looks like they're expanding the bus stop balancing project to other corridors starting in Winter 2021.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://new.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/programs-and-studies/translink-tomorrow#copper-and-organosilane-pilot

New copper and organosilane surfaces/spray pilot being launched. According to the Periscope live stream, the pilot starts on Saturday for four weeks.
Two trolleybuses and two SkyTrains cars are being used to pilot the products.

301-302 have been wrapped to launch the pilot, with some stanchions and poles wrapped in the copper coating. 2124 is one of the trolleybus pilots.

More details in the Buzzer article:
https://buzzer.translink.ca/2020/11/translink-first-in-north-america-to-test-copper-coating-on-transit/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just picked up the new future RapidBus routes page on the TransLink website. It confirms the lack of a stop at Scottsdale exchange.
https://new.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/projects/future-rapidbus-routes

Tried to predict frequency:

Currently: Northbound 319 is 15/16 buses per hour (assume all trips start at newton)

Best case scenario: 
Assume 319 peak frequency is no less than 15 minutes (4 buses)
Re-organize the capacity -> 16 standards carry the same passengers as 4 standard buses + 8 artics (assuming 77pax standard bus 120pax artic)
4x 319 8x R6 -> R6 can be no less than 8 buses per hour (every 7.5 minutes)
4x 319 9/10x R6 results in 319 every 15min, R6 every 6-6.5min (assuming subtle increase of 120-240pax/hr)

Worse case scenario:
319 is every 10 minutes post-implementation
Re-organize the capacity -> 16 standards carry the same passengers as 6 standard buses + 7 artics (assuming 77pax standard bus 120pax artic)
6x 319 7x R6 > R6 can be no less than 7 buses per hour (every 8.5 minutes)
6x 319 8/9x R6 results in 319 every 10 min, R6 every 6-7.5 minutes (assuming subtle increase of 120-240pax/hr)

Opinion: I believe 319 will maintain 6buses/hr with R6 every 6 to 7.5 minutes. Hard to believe that 319 will drop to as low as every 15 minutes.
Consensus: Peak frequency for the R6 is greater than every 10 minutes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote in regards to the R6 not stopping at Scottsdale Exchange:

"The new R6 RapidBus route does not enter Scottsdale exchange to ensure fast and reliable travel times. The R6 will not loop behind the mall or go around the bus loop and will therefore be able to provide a more direct service. Customers can still connect to other local routes as the R6 will stop at the Scott Rd and 72nd stop, or other along the route that share the stop.
By not stopping in Scottsdale exchange the R6 RapidBus is able to stop on 72nd and Scott road whilst keeping to an 800M distance between stops. This means there is a shorter walking distance to access major destinations such as the Guru Nanak Gurdwara or the Scottsdale Centre mall."

The R6 would connect to every local route that stops at Scottsdale Exchange, but I still think having a single key transfer location is better than 3 separate areas (84th Ave for 329, Scott Rd @ 72nd Ave for 310, 311, 312, 316, 340, 364, 391, and 124th St for 322).

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

Just picked up the new future RapidBus routes page on the TransLink website. It confirms the lack of a stop at Scottsdale exchange.
https://new.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/projects/future-rapidbus-routes

Tried to predict frequency:

Currently: Northbound 319 is 15/16 buses per hour (assume all trips start at newton)

Best case scenario: 
Assume 319 peak frequency is no less than 15 minutes (4 buses)
Re-organize the capacity -> 16 standards carry the same passengers as 4 standard buses + 8 artics (assuming 77pax standard bus 120pax artic)
4x 319 8x R6 -> R6 can be no less than 8 buses per hour (every 7.5 minutes)
4x 319 9/10x R6 results in 319 every 15min, R6 every 6-6.5min (assuming subtle increase of 120-240pax/hr)

Worse case scenario:
319 is every 10 minutes post-implementation
Re-organize the capacity -> 16 standards carry the same passengers as 6 standard buses + 7 artics (assuming 77pax standard bus 120pax artic)
6x 319 7x R6 > R6 can be no less than 7 buses per hour (every 8.5 minutes)
6x 319 8/9x R6 results in 319 every 10 min, R6 every 6-7.5 minutes (assuming subtle increase of 120-240pax/hr)

Opinion: I believe 319 will maintain 6buses/hr with R6 every 6 to 7.5 minutes. Hard to believe that 319 will drop to as low as every 15 minutes.
Consensus: Peak frequency for the R6 is greater than every 10 minutes

I think the R6 will be running every 10 min or better throughout the day, that being said the 319 shouldn’t be running any less frequent than every 10 min. However, judging from the R4/41 planning, the 319 will probably be reduced to every 12-15 min and experience overcrowding in an effort to push the new RapidBus route. The R6/319 relationship will probably be somewhat similar to R3/701 in terms of the 701 clearly having more demand than the R3, partially because the R3’s stop spacing is so imbalanced that the route isn’t particularly useful to a lot of people, but also the fact that more people do use the local stops along Scott Rd/72nd Ave (much like Lougheed Hwy/Dewdney Trunk Rd) compared to people using the local stops along 41st Ave, as the 41st Ave corridor is mainly used to transfer to various North-South routes. The main reason why Scott Rd/72nd Ave isn’t necessarily used to connect to other routes is because there really aren’t many routes to connect to in the first place (due decades-long neglect from planners, like the North Shore) and Scottsdale Exchange is the main connection hub along the 319’s route, so the demand is mainly for local transit users.

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

I think the R6 will be running every 10 min or better throughout the day, that being said the 319 shouldn’t be running any less frequent than every 10 min. However, judging from the R4/41 planning, the 319 will probably be reduced to every 12-15 min and experience overcrowding in an effort to push the new RapidBus route. The R6/319 relationship will probably be somewhat similar to R3/701 in terms of the 701 clearly having more demand than the R3, partially because the R3’s stop spacing is so imbalanced that the route isn’t particularly useful to a lot of people, but also the fact that more people do use the local stops along Scott Rd/72nd Ave (much like Lougheed Hwy/Dewdney Trunk Rd) compared to people using the local stops along 41st Ave, as the 41st Ave corridor is mainly used to transfer to various North-South routes. The main reason why Scott Rd/72nd Ave isn’t necessarily used to connect to other routes is because there really aren’t many routes to connect to in the first place (due decades-long neglect from planners, like the North Shore) and Scottsdale Exchange is the main connection hub along the 319’s route, so the demand is mainly for local transit users.

IMO now is the opportunity to expropriate some of the under-used land around Scott/72 and build a new Scottsdale Exchange at the intersection proper. The NE corner in particular is suitable, as I’m sure a new restaurant space could be built alongside the exchange, and ITMT it might be better to compensate the franchisee for a temporary shutdown than for him to continue trying to operate under pandemic restrictions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Looks like TL is looking for the best options for describing the occupancy within their buses (eg. not crowded, some crowding, crowded) for use on their website as well as mobile apps on their recent TransLink Listens survey.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/white-rock-tree-pruning-translink-double-decker-buses-rejected

White Rock doesn't want double-deckers because they'd have to pay their gardeners more or something. I love this quote:

"I get the reason behind this and the intentions are good, but I feel that TransLink has not given South Surrey good service… They’re giving us the option of a double decker versus a community bus, and double decker means trimming trees. And trees should come before convenience for TransLink"

Let me translate that:

"TransLink needs to give us better service and double deckers are better service but we would have to trim our trees back a little bit for them to give us better service but we don't want to trim our trees back so it's TransLink's fault."

I get that counsellors can be annoying but come on.

 

  • Haha 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, InfiNorth said:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/white-rock-tree-pruning-translink-double-decker-buses-rejected

White Rock doesn't want double-deckers because they'd have to pay their gardeners more or something. I love this quote:

"I get the reason behind this and the intentions are good, but I feel that TransLink has not given South Surrey good service… They’re giving us the option of a double decker versus a community bus, and double decker means trimming trees. And trees should come before convenience for TransLink"

Let me translate that:

"TransLink needs to give us better service and double deckers are better service but we would have to trim our trees back a little bit for them to give us better service but we don't want to trim our trees back."

I get that counsellors can be annoying but come on.

 

Personally, I prefer this quote:

Quote

In my opinion, there’s also the double lengthy (60-ft-long articulated) buses

Double Lengthy buses, love it 😆

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In all seriousness:

Off the bat. 

1) Artic Suburbans in WA State *seat* as many as 52-57 passengers. Can be stretched to 60 if they go with modified Aries seats. That's 16 more than the Novas but 27 less than the double deckers.

2) Lengthening or bay reassignment would need to take place at Bridgeport

3) Not to mention, stop modifications at key locations along the 354 for safety reasons.

4) You can assume the pandemic will delay ridership for a tiny bit longer (this is happenning basically everywhere)

5) But to have such a niche fleet for one route means that their service will be extremely limited (unless they somehow find a way to also book them out on 620 - that's also very very unlikely.)

Won't get too much into LCFS as I believe the highway fleet is exempt at least for now. I believe some are wondering why the current LCFS options are not viable for highway work just yet.

You can see how trimming the trees is a far more economical option than worrying about all these other factors.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Express691 said:

Won't get too much into LCFS as I believe the highway fleet is exempt at least for now. I believe some are wondering why the current LCFS options are not viable for highway work just yet.

Sorry as a filthy casual I don't know what LCFS means. 🙃

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

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/north-fraser-rapid-transit-line-vancouver-translink
 

Interesting idea but I’m not sure how much ridership potential there is for the route.

The concept seems a little strange to me, I get that using the DMUs would be simpler than implementing a new form of rapid transit, but personally I'd rather see a SW Marine RapidBus or LRT.

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

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/north-fraser-rapid-transit-line-vancouver-translink
 

Interesting idea but I’m not sure how much ridership potential there is for the route.

I know it's literally seventy years out of date, but I'd be curious to see how the Marpole Interurban used to line up against the likes of the Burnaby Lake, Steveston, or Fraser Valley lines. I do find it pretty funny that it's probably going to take a hundred years to rebuild the skeleton of a passenger rail network that existed in the 1930s. Imagine how much it would have developed if it had never been shut down - would we have SkyTrain along all the corridors? Multiple WCE lines? Streetcars like Toronto? Mixed-alignment rapid transit on the North Shore? Really makes you wonder 

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...