Jump to content

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

cleowin

By cleowin,
in Metro Vancouver

 Share

Recommended Posts

Cathay 888

Cathay 888

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, 8010 said:

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.

I just hope 791 can run all the way in Highway 1 to Mary Hill Bypass, and peak hour trips via United Blvd will be great~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cathay 888

Cathay 888

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Express691 said:

Who remembers that 791 is an express in Mary Hill? I bet not many. 

With more 159 service overall, Cathay's idea makes more sense

Mary Hill By-pass have a lot traffic lights is the other problem, otherwise 791 can become full express service~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InfiNorth

InfiNorth

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Express691 said:

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

That's why I called it a "naive" suggestion, because as nice as it would be, it just doesn't work with the logistics of how a big transit system works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MCW Metrobus

MCW Metrobus

Posted
Posted
On 5/23/2021 at 9:59 AM, InfiNorth said:

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.

I agree with this, wholeheartedly.

Mostly because it's been done before. Before the old artics were retired, five of them had luggage racks installed opposite the centre doors, and it certainly made things easier on the 620, not just because it cut down drastically on the amount of luggage blocking the aisles, but also because it gave people a place to safely stow oversized items. Case in point: one guy once boarded my rack-equipped, crowded 620 at Ladner Exchange with a full-length surfboard. With standees in the aisle, I might have had to tell him I didn't have room to accommodate both him and his board... if not for the fact that the surfboard fit perfectly on the luggage rack atop the many suitcases that were already stowed there. Poof, problem solved. The six seats that were sacrificed to make room for the luggage rack were probably more than offset by the extra standee space created by removing all that luggage from the aisles, vestibules and gangway.

Logistics wise, keeping the rack-equipped buses on the 620 didn't seem to be a problem during the week. Usually at least three of four (or four of five, depending on the season) all-day runs on the 620 that came out of RTC in the morning were assigned a rack-equipped bus. The only weekday run that would consistently not be assigned a rack bus was the overload that only ran on Friday afternoons. The bigger problem arose on the weekends; for some reason, the artics would just get thrown everywhere, the Xcelsiors would be put on the 620 and the luggage rack buses would end up on the 49 until past midnight. I always attributed this to different personnel assigning buses on the weekend. It was clearly possible to keep the rack-equipped buses on the 620 without too much difficulty - it was done consistently for more than a year, at least on weekdays.

Sadly, when the D60LFs were withdrawn from service, the luggage racks went with them.

When the TransLink deckers were first delivered, someone from the training department told me that some discussions had taken place about the possibility of installing luggage racks in the space behind the curbside front wheel well, but the sticking point was that this would result in the loss of one of the two accessible positions, which would be a non-starter.

In sum, I think you're right that we likely won't see luggage racks again for a while, despite how well they worked in the past.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Citaro

Citaro

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, MCW Metrobus said:

When the TransLink deckers were first delivered, someone from the training department told me that some discussions had taken place about the possibility of installing luggage racks in the space behind the curbside front wheel well, but the sticking point was that this would result in the loss of one of the two accessible positions, which would be a non-starter.

I think double deckers are a poor choice for the 620 anyway. There is limited seating on the lower deck, and the installation of luggage racks would further reduce the seat count. I also don’t think anyone is willing to leave their belongings on the lower deck to go sit upstairs, and I think this is its biggest limitation. On that basis, I believe that articulated buses are a better candidate for this configuration, and our 2012 XDE60s are old enough now that they can experiment on them without incurring any unintended or long-term consequences.

In regards to deployment, I think someone is just being lazy. Yes, there is a bit more to consider when assigning buses to a particular run, but I’d do the track sheets for free for a week to show them it can be done! I also feel that RTC is the best-designed yard to accommodate luggage rack buses because of the many short tracks. They don’t need many buses in this configuration, so designating just one track ought to be enough.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
8010

8010

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Citaro said:

I think double deckers are a poor choice for the 620 anyway. There is limited seating on the lower deck, and the installation of luggage racks would further reduce the seat count. I also don’t think anyone is willing to leave their belongings on the lower deck to go sit upstairs, and I think this is its biggest limitation. On that basis, I believe that articulated buses are a better candidate for this configuration, and our 2012 XDE60s are old enough now that they can experiment on them without incurring any unintended or long-term consequences.

In regards to deployment, I think someone is just being lazy. Yes, there is a bit more to consider when assigning buses to a particular run, but I’d do the track sheets for free for a week to show them it can be done! I also feel that RTC is the best-designed yard to accommodate luggage rack buses because of the many short tracks. They don’t need many buses in this configuration, so designating just one track ought to be enough.

I remember having to put a request in via the feedback form telling them to please stop booking out the rack-equipped D60LFs on the 49 and was given a response along the lines of “there were new book-out people and they didn’t know about the luggage racks,” then they usually never showed up on the 49 again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Millennium2002

Millennium2002

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 8010 said:

I remember having to put a request in via the feedback form telling them to please stop booking out the rack-equipped D60LFs on the 49 and was given a response along the lines of “there were new book-out people and they didn’t know about the luggage racks,” then they usually never showed up on the 49 again.

I still remember seeing them on the 49... and I know someone here made a joke back then about how students can sleep in it... those were the days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Express691

Express691

Posted
Posted

More Hastings/Gilmore shenanigans:

The EB stop is now split in 2 according to alerts - 130 131 160 use a new stop slightly west of the RapidBus stop location (in front of SunGiven), while I think the 129 still shares the stop with the R5.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
8010

8010

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Express691 said:

More Hastings/Gilmore shenanigans:

The EB stop is now split in 2 according to alerts - 130 131 160 use a new stop slightly west of the RapidBus stop location (in front of SunGiven), while I think the 129 still shares the stop with the R5.

Service Planners at their finest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
8800GTX

8800GTX

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

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.

In my mind the (regional) contextual purpose of the 791 is to serve as a connection to the Expo Line corridor, particularly for commuters headed to/from New Westminster, Metrotown, and perhaps even Richmond via 410. As such, Braid is the better connection point.

To move the 791 terminus to Lougheed would provide a connection to the Millennium Line that is in theory already provided by both the 701 and R3 at Coquitlam Centre, and is faster on both of those routes.

As a sample if you take a look at the three different buses (701/791/R1) departing at the Lougheed/Harris Road WB stop between the hours of 7AM and 7:30AM, the 791 is scheduled to take 30 minutes to reach Braid Station. The 701 to Coquitlam Centre takes 23 minutes, the R3 is even faster with a runtime of just 17 minutes, and both the 701/R3 are aided by the bus lane infrastructure on Lougheed Highway (whereas the MHB has none). Note that the ride on the M-Line is 12 minutes between Coquitlam Central to Lougheed, every 3 mins during peak hours.

If you're connecting to anywhere on the Millennium Line itself, the R3/701 + Evergreen Ext come out superior, whereas the 791 offers some time savings if you are headed to New West or Metrotown. The only gap to fill is a more direct route into Surrey (my idea would be for a route that takes the GEB, 96 Ave, and then 160 St, terminating at the future 160 Street Station on the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
8010

8010

Posted
Posted

Looks like from June 7-27 the R2 and 231 will be relocated from inside Lonsdale Exchange to Carrie Cates Court due to construction while 229 is relocated to Bay 4. Carrie Cates Court is a much better RapidBus stop location than the current exchange routing or the proposed Esplanade routing during consultation. Not sure why the 231 couldn’t have just been reassigned to another bay, it’s not like the current local routes that connect to Lonsdale Quay are all that frequent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Express691

Express691

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, 8010 said:

Looks like from June 7-27 the R2 and 231 will be relocated from inside Lonsdale Exchange to Carrie Cates Court due to construction while 229 is relocated to Bay 4. Carrie Cates Court is a much better RapidBus stop location than the current exchange routing or the proposed Esplanade routing during consultation. Not sure why the 231 couldn’t have just been reassigned to another bay, it’s not like the current local routes that connect to Lonsdale Quay are all that frequent.

Need to confirm this but the word I have is that the wrong sand is under the pavement

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThatBusGuy

ThatBusGuy

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Express691 said:

Need to confirm this but the word I have is that the wrong sand is under the pavement

They foolishly took sand from inside the great pyramid instead of outside as originally planned, and have brought the wrath of the mummies upon us all!

  • Haha 4
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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...