Jump to content

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


cleowin
 Share

Recommended Posts

The R5 stop WB at Gilmore will only serve the R5 hereon out, the 130 160 and N35 services will move 1 block west to MacDonald Avenue (though I'm unsure if it's nearside or farside at MacDonald. Will assume it's nearside because there's a fire hydrant farside)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Express691 said:

The R5 stop WB at Gilmore will only serve the R5 hereon out, the 130 160 and N35 services will move 1 block west to MacDonald Avenue (though I'm unsure if it's nearside or farside at MacDonald. Will assume it's nearside because there's a fire hydrant farside)

It’s far side 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving the stop to MacDonald results in some ridiculously close stops.  MacDonald to Ingleton is 200m, then 200m to Esmond, then 300m to Kootenay Loop.  The buses will be stopping on every single block of that stretch; one of those stops should be closed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michael Marriott said:

Moving the stop to MacDonald results in some ridiculously close stops.  MacDonald to Ingleton is 200m, then 200m to Esmond, then 300m to Kootenay Loop.  The buses will be stopping on every single block of that stretch; one of those stops should be closed.

They're local routes - if you want speed, the R5 skips the extra stops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zortan said:

They're local routes - if you want speed, the R5 skips the extra stops.

Even with the R5 present you don't need or want the local buses to have overly close stops.  It still slows down the buses for the people who need to use the local stops. And the issues that are prompting the bus stop consolidation on other routes - buses spending too much time stopped, which drains service hours- are still present.  There is a balance to be had between local access and speed and operational efficiency, and this particular stretch is skewed too far towards local access.  Of note, this three block westbound stretch with a stop every block has uniquely close spacing, even on Hastings St through Burnaby.  The rest of Hastings St, including the corresponding eastbound blocks, has wider stop spacing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 130 and 160 now stops at MacDonald; 129, 131, 132, R5 stops at Gilmore.  So when heading east:

To transfer between R5 and 130, uses Kootenay Loop

To transfer between R5, and 129/131/132, uses Gilmore

To transfer between R5 and 160, uses Willingdon

To transfer between 129 and 130/160, uses Madison

Hmm.... how come this sounds more complicated than what needed to be...

 

But I guess all the buses still stop at Willingdon, as long as the final destination is still further east...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Express691 said:

Same with the feedback form still being down.

As with trip planning/schedule.

Seems like I don't need to do a schedule sneak peak post for June sheet again...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hearing from a reliable source that the 340 is set to begin double decker operation in September of this year, and as such, the route will run out of RTC.

No other information at this point, but that explains why the Height Clearance Test Bus has been seen at 22nd Street Station a few times in recent months.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MCW Metrobus said:

I'm hearing from a reliable source that the 340 is set to begin double decker operation in September of this year, and as such, the route will run out of RTC.

No other information at this point, but that explains why the Height Clearance Test Bus has been seen at 22nd Street Station a few times in recent months.

I'm shock for that~~

I hope 410 will have double decker too with operation back to RTC~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 340 is considered highway work? Gotta wonder what the planner's decision making was when opting for capacity over frequency. I bet it's been in the works since 2012 since now I guess we have better suburban equipment (at least accesdibility-wise) than the Orions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Express691 said:

So 340 is considered highway work? Gotta wonder what the planner's decision making was when opting for capacity over frequency. I bet it's been in the works since 2012 since now I guess we have better suburban equipment (at least accesdibility-wise) than the Orions.

I think it's because of the additional 25 double deckers coming they will have an excess number of double deckers, and they can't run them on the 354 and 601 so they need a place to use them.

The 601 doesn't really need highway buses, regular conventional buses will work because it serves local stops in Ladner and Tsawwassen. The only time it's on the highway is on 17A and 99.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phillip said:

I think it's because of the additional 25 double deckers coming they will have an excess number of double deckers, and they can't run them on the 354 and 601 so they need a place to use them.

The 601 doesn't really need highway buses, regular conventional buses will work because it serves local stops in Ladner and Tsawwassen. The only time it's on the highway is on 17A and 99.

They could put some more deckers on the 311. I’ve noticed in the mornings that at least two trips use deckers because they are interlined with one of the 351 blocks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 8010 said:

They could put some more deckers on the 311. I’ve noticed in the mornings that at least two trips use deckers because they are interlined with one of the 351 blocks.

Yes! 311 could use deckers. I think when the 25 additional deckers are in service they will be more frequently used on those routes. It's just that 57 deckers is more than enough to cover the 301, 351, 620, 555. But 32 deckers is not enough hence why highway coaches still appear on those routes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, 8010 said:

They could put some more deckers on the 311. I’ve noticed in the mornings that at least two trips use deckers because they are interlined with one of the 351 blocks.

I know the first run from Scottsdale & the last run from Bridgeport would be 90% chance with deckers~~

15 hours ago, Express691 said:

So 340 is considered highway work? Gotta wonder what the planner's decision making was when opting for capacity over frequency. I bet it's been in the works since 2012 since now I guess we have better suburban equipment (at least accesdibility-wise) than the Orions.

I wish 410 will do the same thing, should put some deckers to Hamilton make it easier for both 340 & 410, as well as 555~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also argue that at least a couple blocks on the 701 could probably use deckers rather than artics, including the Mission City Stn trips, since there’s already a RapidBus route somewhat mirroring the route and to me it would make more sense to have long-haul commuters (250th St to Coquitlam Central for example) sit at the upper deck while having local travellers use the bottom deck. I suppose a similar argument could be made about busier trips/blocks on the 601, but we all know Tsawwassen has no intention on adjusting their power lines to allow clearance for deckers. It’s funny, people in Metro Van constantly complain about our bus service, and when TransLink provides possible solutions (deckers on the 354 and 601, or R2 to Dundarave) the people tell them to screw off. Does anyone know if they’re still pondering deckers on the 257?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2021 at 1:12 PM, Cathay 888 said:

I know the first run from Scottsdale & the last run from Bridgeport would be 90% chance with deckers~~

The first few 311s out of Scottsdale in the morning are pretty much always deckers. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2021 at 6:19 AM, 8010 said:

I would also argue that at least a couple blocks on the 701 could probably use deckers rather than artics, including the Mission City Stn trips, since there’s already a RapidBus route somewhat mirroring the route and to me it would make more sense to have long-haul commuters (250th St to Coquitlam Central for example) sit at the upper deck while having local travellers use the bottom deck. I suppose a similar argument could be made about busier trips/blocks on the 601, but we all know Tsawwassen has no intention on adjusting their power lines to allow clearance for deckers. It’s funny, people in Metro Van constantly complain about our bus service, and when TransLink provides possible solutions (deckers on the 354 and 601, or R2 to Dundarave) the people tell them to screw off. Does anyone know if they’re still pondering deckers on the 257?

257 has a problem on the Lion's Gate Bridge underpass in West Van side~~

I'm agree for 701 can use the double decker, at least 555 can go back to PoCo, however I think they have to do the test at the roundabout on Golden Ears Bridge underpass at between Hammond & Maple Meadows, as well as 791 switch the west side terminal to Lougheed instead of Braid to accommodate the deckers~~

For 601, it's no longer necessary with the double decker, 601 & 620 are overlapping at between Bridgeport and Ladner, the busier portion is Ladner to Tsawwassen~~

But unfortunately 354 was banned by White Rock City council as I heard~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Cathay 888 said:

I'm agree for 701 can use the double decker, at least 555 can go back to PoCo, however I think they have to do the test at the roundabout on Golden Ears Bridge underpass at between Hammond & Maple Meadows, as well as 791 switch the west side terminal to Lougheed instead of Braid to accommodate the deckers~~

For 601, it's no longer necessary with the double decker, 601 & 620 are overlapping at between Bridgeport and Ladner, the busier portion is Ladner to Tsawwassen~~

I’ve always found it odd that the 791 goes to Braid rather than Lougheed, if it was rerouted to Lougheed I would advocate for deckers on the route as I believe that would generate some ridership on the route. Completely forgot about the underpass by Maple Meadows, I think the clearance may be too short for deckers but I could be wrong.

As for Ladner/Tsawwassen, I think the 620 should go back to artics with luggage racks (they’re still booking out artics on the route anyway) because of spacing issues with luggage, and the 601 should use deckers to address the overcrowding to/from Tsawwassen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2021 at 10:33 PM, Express691 said:

The R5 stop WB at Gilmore will only serve the R5 hereon out, the 130 160 and N35 services will move 1 block west to MacDonald Avenue (though I'm unsure if it's nearside or farside at MacDonald. Will assume it's nearside because there's a fire hydrant farside)

Now that WB R5 stop is moved to Carleton with no real time info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2021 at 1:43 PM, 8010 said:

As for Ladner/Tsawwassen, I think the 620 should go back to artics with luggage racks (they’re still booking out artics on the route anyway) because of spacing issues with luggage, and the 601 should use deckers to address the overcrowding to/from Tsawwassen.

I think they should put 640 back to Tsawwassen Ferry with options for the pax heading to the east without transfer, also 640 can give some help for 620 as well~~

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 8010 said:

As for Ladner/Tsawwassen, I think the 620 should go back to artics with luggage racks (they’re still booking out artics on the route anyway) because of spacing issues with luggage, and the 601 should use deckers to address the overcrowding to/from Tsawwassen.

Personally, I'd say that the 601 should simply run more frequently before we start throwing deckers on it. It's pretty infrequent at the moment, so I think adding it to FTN would make more sense than adding deckers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Cathay 888 said:

I think they should put 640 back to Tsawwassen Ferry with options for the pax heading to the east without transfer, also 640 can give some help for 620 as well~~

 

It still bothers me a lot that there are no options for getting to South Surrey/Langley easily from Tsawwassen.

14 hours ago, Zortan said:

Personally, I'd say that the 601 should simply run more frequently before we start throwing deckers on it. It's pretty infrequent at the moment, so I think adding it to FTN would make more sense than adding deckers.

I would also naively argue that TransLink needs to consider having a few dedicated artics with luggage racks that operate on the 620 but I know well that it will never happen. Deckers are great... but come with that problem of luggage. In Victoria, dealing with luggage in the summer is a nightmare when the deckers are packed solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument against luggage racks is that the depot managers/yard workers have no time and resources to set aside separate tracks to keep them apart, adding to how they need these deckers on other routes

In Vancouver, 351, 555, and 301

In Victoria, 26, 4, 14, and 50/61

In the end it's more cost efficient to have buses running on as many routes as possible.

I.e. who knew depot managers have a more firm decision with regards to luggage racks, rather than municipalities and the higher executives

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
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...