Jump to content

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


cleowin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems like the case study is the Vancouver region, especailly the Trolley Network.

Theres really only one route I want to emphasize in Burnaby: The 144. I think due to the fact it services SFU/Sperling STN/Metrotown STN that it should have increased service of 20 Minutes Saturday/Sunday during the busier periods of the day. Some may disagree, but half hour service on that route all weekend long? Doesn't really make much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knight Street service... good thing you mention as I'm a regular commuter.

As I see it, there's a bit of an issue at the moment with scheduling... when I usually leave the house at 7 in the morning I generally encounter two 22s after another with a minute or less of separation, one towards Downtown only and the other towards Macdonald via Terminal. The first bus (Mcd via T) is usually full, the second... maybe a bit deserted. =O

Maybe you could take a few buses that run the deserted shuttles and shuffle them over to the other end of the network (and your ideas for 32 and 2 integration to 2 sounds good as well) but that could possibly leave Chinatown without service... although I frankly haven't seen a lot of people head that way based on the emptiness of the Downtown shuttles compared to the Terminal deviations.

In addition, as a SFU student I consider the service to SFU to be horrendous and should be replaced with a gondola! =P Unfortunately the transit attendant I spoke to at Production Way Stn today wasn't so supportive of that idea (nor was he friendly about SkyTrain either, ironically enough).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knight Street service... good thing you mention as I'm a regular commuter.

As I see it, there's a bit of an issue at the moment with scheduling... when I usually leave the house at 7 in the morning I generally encounter two 22s after another with a minute or less of separation, one towards Downtown only and the other towards Macdonald via Terminal. The first bus (Mcd via T) is usually full, the second... maybe a bit deserted. =O

Bunching is awful on the 22--it's not uncommon for them to pass through downtown in packs of three or four. I don't know what the cause is (well, traffic and high passenger volumes, but maybe there's something more specific). The smart passenger lets the first bus go by and catches the second one :D.

Maybe you could take a few buses that run the deserted shuttles and shuffle them over to the other end of the network (and your ideas for 32 and 2 integration to 2 sounds good as well) but that could possibly leave Chinatown without service... although I frankly haven't seen a lot of people head that way based on the emptiness of the Downtown shuttles compared to the Terminal deviations.

There are only two 22s that end downtown in the morning, and I think they already go and become 2s afterward. I don't know about morning rush hours, but the 22 is packed through Chinatown for most of the day. How many people on the 22 via Terminal are actually going places on Terminal?

In addition, as a SFU student I consider the service to SFU to be horrendous and should be replaced with a gondola! =P Unfortunately the transit attendant I spoke to at Production Way Stn today wasn't so supportive of that idea (nor was he friendly about SkyTrain either, ironically enough).

Well, that would be a problem if Skytrain Attendants were also transit planners. The gondola makes a lot of sense, but as always it's a matter of funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surrey:

-Artics should be running along 104th (320) and King George Highway (321). Not uncommon to see a 2-3 bus wait during peak hours.

-319 should run every 6-7 min

-335 every 15 min during peak hours.

-c74 should run conventional buses all day.

The most mingboggling routes are the; 595, 388, and 364. These buses are even empty during peak hours...Most of these routes go through uninhabited farmland, especially the 388. Perhaps try shuttles or shorten the route?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... if you have ever heard of the political side of things, the South of Fraser regional politicians are quite frustrated and angry at how all their tax dollars are flowing towards funding transit in Vancouver, and have threatened to pull out and stall new projects on a number of occasions. TransLink has tried to respond to that with some new routes and improved frequency (388 being one of them)... but the biggest problem is the fact that many of these suburban places weren't even designed well for transit to begin with... therefore the market share and revenue that TransLink is trying to gain is painfully low while operating costs skyrocket.

Unfortunately I'm not sure of what could be done to alleviate this. Perhaps its an image problem and we need to emphasize transit more? I doubt so... it seems that the car culture phenomena will never escape Surrey. Maybe we should just invest in a large and comfortable park and ride instead at Scott Road Station? (shrug) Maybe the politicians can be less demanding too, although I see little hope in them being able to look at the big picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most mingboggling routes are the; 595, 388, and 364. These buses are even empty during peak hours...Most of these routes go through uninhabited farmland, especially the 388. Perhaps try shuttles or shorten the route?

Wow wow wow there, when was the last time you rode one of those routes? The 595 and 364 are far from empty even though they run through "uninhabited farmland"

The 502 and 321 run though "uninhabited farmland" yet they're some of the busiest routes in the system. They, along with the rest of the routes, have to go through this "uninhabited farmland" to get to were the residents are.

It's only a matter of time before the SoF leaves Translink, and they should.

Chris Cassidy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As easy as it sounds, a transit split in this region would spell possible chaos in the sense that a whole lot of agreements would have to be worked out as to how buses are allocated, transfer schemes, governance, inter-agency routes, etc. This is especially true with TransLink's Expo Line and the possible new agency's Surrey buses as well as Canada Line and the express buses from Delta and White Rock.

Then again, all the rivers make everything easier I guess. =O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As easy as it sounds, a transit split in this region would spell possible chaos in the sense that a whole lot of agreements would have to be worked out as to how buses are allocated, transfer schemes, governance, inter-agency routes, etc. This is especially true with TransLink's Expo Line and the possible new agency's Surrey buses as well as Canada Line and the express buses from Delta and White Rock.

Then again, all the rivers make everything easier I guess. =O

Here's some numbers for you then.

- The City of Surrey contributes $140 million/year to Translink in fuel and property taxes

- Translink says it would cost around $8 million/year to operate the 399

Do the math, that equals about 17 399's. (10 minutes service for most of the day ect.)

Now I know Translink also does HandyDART, roads, and other services but once you add in what the rest of the SoF region pays, they're getting royally screwed.

Do you continue doing what's being done simply because it's "easy" or do you go ahead and get your money's worth?

Chris Cassidy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow wow wow there, when was the last time you rode one of those routes? The 595 and 364 are far from empty even though they run through "uninhabited farmland"

The 502 and 321 run though "uninhabited farmland" yet they're some of the busiest routes in the system. They, along with the rest of the routes, have to go through this "uninhabited farmland" to get to were the residents are.

It's only a matter of time before the SoF leaves Translink, and they should.

Chris Cassidy

I took both routes last week during rush hour (3pm-5pm) as my car broke down. The 364 was pretty full until King George, then it became empty around 148th. 595 was largely empty heading over the GEB.

I think the main issue here is that these 'new' routes go through areas which lacked any form of transit service over the past 15 years. People along 64th east of King George have become extremely reliant on cars . The 321 and 502 connects many commuters from White Rock/Langley to Surrey Central (most head downtown), hardly fair to make a comparison there.

The built form of Surrey (nature of Suburban sprawl) simply is not favorable for transit network. Saying that the SOF needs a rapid transit line running down Fraser Highway and King George to utilize these feeder routes. Status quo isn't going to work..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One route that I think that needs to be severed is the 22 Knight/MacDonald.

There is to much service for Knight and not enough for the Kits/MacDonald corridor. Right now it has 5-7 minutes service during peak hours which is to much for Knight street. I think it could be 7-9 minutes or even 10 minutes on Knight street and whatever resources are left over put on through Kits.

The 22 could be split, and then the Knight portion could serve the Knight Industrial in Richmond during the peak hours. I suggested that more 22s do this at one time, and the response was that it was impossible because of the length of the route. You could run either alternating trips or every third trip to the Knight Industrial portion during the peak hours. Then again, the suggestion I made about a Community Shuttle to Bridgeport works as well.

I say have the 22 be Knight/Downtown and then have the 2 be just a MacDonald. The 2 really does not need to go down 16th as the 33 can service the small portion of 16th but maybe still have every third bus or so only go to 16th during peak hours only.

The 2 could be routed through Chinatown and go to serve Terminal Ave and 1st Avenue on the east side. I discussed this once before, and the reason given for there being no bus along 1st Ave was that there was peat under the road, and NIMBYs. The NIMBYs issue is a non-issue -- there were NIMBYs on 16th as well, and they're getting used to it now. I don't know about the peat issue, but I have seen trucks and tour buses use 1st Avenue on a regular basis. If there was peat under the roadway, why aren't there signs preventing trucks from using the route? The road is set up in such a way that it looks like it was meant for transit at some point. This could take the pressure off Broadway because there is no east-west route between Broadway and Hastings St.

Here's another possible option that may work better, so let me know what you think. Run the 2 as the full MacDonald/MacKenzie route (to/from Dunbar Loop) and run it to Burrard Stn during the off-peak hours only. During the peak hours, the 2 could run through Chinatown and go via Terminal Ave. and 1st Ave. to either Gilmore Stn or Brentwood Stn. During the off-peak hours, the C21/C23 could run along 1st Ave. and Terminal Ave. to/from either Gilmore or Brentwood (C23 eastbound, C21 westbound).

I also think the 32 should be finished. I do not know what it is like during the am peak going down Dunbar but in the pm peak it usually half empty going up Dunbar. Only time I have noticed it really busy is if there has not been a 7 for awhile. Take whatever buses that the 32 uses and put them on the 2.

I agree. I think that a beefed up 2 could replace the 32. I have ridden on the 32 before, and it has been packed along Burrard St. through downtown, but then empties out on Cornwall Ave. There are hardly any people riding it along Dunbar St. Maybe it could be changed to run as an express service (like it used to be) but along MacDonald St. and MacKenzie St. instead -- and full-express, not just express for a certain portion. It could make only Burrard Stn, Robson St., and Davie St. downtown, then the first stop over the Burrard Bridge, then the stop at Kits Beach, then 4th Ave., Broadway, 16th Ave., King Edward Ave., maybe 33rd Ave., and then 41st Ave., and finally Dunbar Loop. It could also be changed to route via Howe St. instead of Burrard St. since Burrard is so busy.

There should definitely be some sort of case study done on the routes in ALL of the lower mainland. Surrey included. I'm sure there are many places that routes could be shortened, or service reduced, etc. and move the resources to Surrey. If the new Hamilton Transit Centre thing is real, then it could run many Surrey routes too if there is an issue of capacity at the Surrey depot. In addition, Abbotsford and Mission should be included in Translink and their resources augmented. They have a couple empty routes too, and very few shuttles for them -- so they just use big buses.

On a slightly unrelated topic, could Translink operate "dial-a-ride" service in certain areas (Spanish Banks/West UEL is one that comes to mind immediately) instead of shuttles? There are still some shuttle routes that run empty, and this is still a waste of a bus that could be used elsewhere. Many places SoF could probably benefit from such a service as well (88th Ave., North Delta, Tsawwassen, White Rock South, etc.). One shuttle (or big bus if needed) could be scheduled to sit at a layover location, and take phone calls from customers who want to be picked up at designated bus stops. Then, at a certain leave time, go and follow an the best route to pick up all those who have asked to be picked up, and drop them off at the layover location. Winnipeg has a service like this, and it works like a charm. You call the number, speak directly to the driver who takes down your bus stop number. Then, at say 2:30, leaves to get those people who have phoned. The trip time depends on the number of people being picked up. If the drivers here don't want to be taking the calls themselves, they could be sent the information on the TMAC just before their leave time, if possible. If there are no passengers to pick up, the bus would just stay put. Yeah, sure, you are paying a driver to sit around, but at least it's only one vehicle and driver instead of multiple. Plus, the bus could be left off saving fuel. You would just have to designate a specific bus to a specific area to avoid lengthy trips.

I would love to be involved in a case study of transit in the Lower Mainland. If anyone on here knows how a member of the general public can get involved, could you please let me know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was me, I live here and take the 239 everyday, 15 minute service was fine during midday, the 10 minute service thing is only a couple months old. The 239 needs higher capacity per trip, not more trips, especially with NVTC in the state it's in, any more buses get transferred here and they'll have to park them on the street... really the only reason not to atricify (is that a word?) the 239 is they got nowhere in North Van to keep em and BTC can't spare any.

(Note: I like having 10 minute service on the 239 but I'd also like having 3 mansions and a Ferrari... just don't need it)

Anyway another service change that NEEDS to happen is VTC (or use OTC if there isn't room) needs diesel artics, for use on artic trolley routes if they have to be dieselized, getting crammed into a nova on the 3 isn't fun and running 2 buses per trip is just a waste. Yes they only had 40 footers prior to the E60LFRs but it was a problem even back then and ridership has gone up since.

The 10 minute headways at peak hours is several years old now - because I lived there for at least 18 months of it and I've been gone for 14 months now. For a very brief period there was de facto 10 minute service when it was technically 15, with a couple extra buses wedged in for good measure.

I worked with the depot issue 2007-2008, so you're preaching to the choir lol

10 minute service on the 239 is important for three reasons:

1. Youir casual observation of ridership doesn't correspond with the ridership figures. It is true there are other routes that are far busier, however sometimes problems are solved at a more local level so you may fix problems that are less severe in one area at the expense of another. North Vancouverites are, generally speaking, well served by TL but consistently think they're getting the colloquial shaft.

2. 10 minute service is "frequent enough" in the minds of most people that they'll stop reading a schedule and just head out to a bus stop. The North Shore municipalities pushed hard for this to develop even more ridership and create the North Shore's first "transit corridor, even though it is a bit contrived.

3. As you know the 239 cannot keep its schedule easily, even at 1am with almost nill ridership and no traffic. So the 10 minute service is also an attempt to fight fire with fire, so to speak. an't get the bus there? Just add more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was me, I live here and take the 239 everyday, 15 minute service was fine during midday, the 10 minute service thing is only a couple months old. The 239 needs higher capacity per trip, not more trips.

So you're suggesting cut back service and instead run artics?

I believe someone in Edmonton could shed more light on this but didn't ETS try something like this when they got their artics? Where they cut back service frequency and ran artics using the same logic and ridership actually dropped?

Chris Cassidy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a former daily rider of route 9, where Edmonton runs artics on wide headways, I can personally attest to that sillyness. If a route needs artics, it should have so much demand that it needs closer headways - otherwise the investment is essentially wasted. That 10 minute point I brought up earlier also comes into play....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting that the 239 needs artics ALL the time, during peak hours though it certainly does, It's often full by the time it turns off Lonsdale in the mornings and at Capilano U there's often 2-3 trip wait around 4PM. 10 minutes is not excessive by any means during rush hour, 5 minute or artics would be a good idea, however NVTC can't support either in its current state...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have no concrete proof...I'm pretty sure Translink is removing runs from the 145. My wait on Thursdays at 9:30-10am has been noticeably longer this year (compared to the years prior). 8-10 minute waits between buses, when the schedule states 2-5 min. Few of my friends have noticed this as well.

Worst part is the lines. Translink supervisors have been pairing us into two's and sometimes even three's.... Seen a few times where the lines will run back into production way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have no concrete proof...I'm pretty sure Translink is removing runs from the 145. My wait on Thursdays at 9:30-10am has been noticeably longer this year (compared to the years prior). 8-10 minute waits between buses, when the schedule states 2-5 min. Few of my friends have noticed this as well.

Worst part is the lines. Translink supervisors have been pairing us into two's and sometimes even three's.... Seen a few times where the lines will run back into production way.

Translink wouldn't pull runs without updating the schedule. What's more likely is the drivers have very little time and are having to cut runs out to try and remain on schedule.

Chris Cassidy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have no concrete proof...I'm pretty sure Translink is removing runs from the 145. My wait on Thursdays at 9:30-10am has been noticeably longer this year (compared to the years prior). 8-10 minute waits between buses, when the schedule states 2-5 min. Few of my friends have noticed this as well.

Construction on various parts of Hastings (plus Howe Street Downtown) has been slowing the 135s down--they've been later and more bunched up than usual. Many 135s are scheduled to pull a 145 trip or two after they arrive on the mountain, so a late 135 often means a cancelled 145 trip. The last few weeks have also seen a whole bunch of 135s short-turned at Kootenay Loop or Hastings & Duthie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Construction on various parts of Hastings (plus Howe Street Downtown) has been slowing the 135s down--they've been later and more bunched up than usual. Many 135s are scheduled to pull a 145 trip or two after they arrive on the mountain, so a late 135 often means a cancelled 145 trip. The last few weeks have also seen a whole bunch of 135s short-turned at Kootenay Loop or Hastings & Duthie.

That explains it.

Ugh, when is Hastings not under construction? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting that the 239 needs artics ALL the time, during peak hours though it certainly does, It's often full by the time it turns off Lonsdale in the mornings and at Capilano U there's often 2-3 trip wait around 4PM. 10 minutes is not excessive by any means during rush hour, 5 minute or artics would be a good idea, however NVTC can't support either in its current state...

At this point what NVTC can support is a non-issue. It hasn't fully supported North Van's needs for 10 years +

Link to comment
Share on other sites

239: 10 Minute service does seem like a stretch but I dont think Phibbs Exchange can support Artics, nor does NVTC have the room.

SoF: Its a shame the Surrey/Delta/Langley mayors want to drop out of Translink's control: As much as they lack the service they need, it'll be such a huge political war when it all boils down to it. I think if they where to seperate, ValleyMAX of BC Transit should just expand into the Surrey/Langley/Delta Area and somehow allow a direct TransLink/BC Transit partnership for managing fares and road work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

239: 10 Minute service does seem like a stretch but I dont think Phibbs Exchange can support Artics, nor does NVTC have the room.

SoF: Its a shame the Surrey/Delta/Langley mayors want to drop out of Translink's control: As much as they lack the service they need, it'll be such a huge political war when it all boils down to it. I think if they where to seperate, ValleyMAX of BC Transit should just expand into the Surrey/Langley/Delta Area and somehow allow a direct TransLink/BC Transit partnership for managing fares and road work.

perhaps you should read this

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...-translink.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.. To be truly honest, I dont see Delta/Surrey/Langley opting out of TransLink due to political and economical reasons. If that does in fact happen, The only reasonable replacement I can see is BC Transit. Actually I just found an article that shows a study from the FVRD showing potential service expansion into Surrey and Langley for connections to SkyTrain stations as part of the 2011 Central Fraser Valley BC Transit Plan.

http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/business/bo...8374/story.html

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...