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

[Express691]

501: 08:20 NB trip from Langley from Sunday has its Langley-Carvolth portion cut, now starts 08:38 from Carvolth. In effect Nov.7

99 EB moves from Arbutus to Yew Nov.15

==========

A few other routes (N9) have had their schedules fixed up along with adjusted arrival/departure times. Possibly done to avoid missed connections

[GoCanGo]

Hearing word we may see major service optimizations soon unless the Feds/Provincial government commit to more funding. Pretty much would halt any service improvements planned and we would see a major reduction in existing service.

Ridership is down, less fuel tax due to more EV's, and it is anticipated more people will once again fuel up south of the border cutting into that.

[Michael Marriott]

The 4 and 7 will be the next routes to undergo bus stop balancing.  Looking at the project page, this will be a bigger, more complex project than was done for the 2, 17 and 25.  On the previous route projects, Translink simply closed stops that were too close together.  For the 4 and 7, however, there will be actual stop consolidation where two adjacent stops close, and a new stop is opened in between them to get consistent stop spacing, particularly along West 4th Ave.  In addition, in summer 2022 (once which stops are staying open following the public consultation) there are plans to build bus bulbs along 4th Ave in Kitsilano to speed buses up.  And you can suggest locations for other transit priority measures in the survey.

Also of note, is that there are no stop closures or consolidations proposed between the Granville Bride and the Powell St overpass; there is a note that Downtown stops will be reviewed as part of a separate project.

 

[Mark Walton]

16 hours ago, Michael Marriott said:

The 4 and 7 will be the next routes to undergo bus stop balancing.  Looking at the project page, this will be a bigger, more complex project than was done for the 2, 17 and 25.  On the previous route projects, Translink simply closed stops that were too close together.  For the 4 and 7, however, there will be actual stop consolidation where two adjacent stops close, and a new stop is opened in between them to get consistent stop spacing, particularly along West 4th Ave.  In addition, in summer 2022 (once which stops are staying open following the public consultation) there are plans to build bus bulbs along 4th Ave in Kitsilano to speed buses up.  And you can suggest locations for other transit priority measures in the survey.

Also of note, is that there are no stop closures or consolidations proposed between the Granville Bride and the Powell St overpass; there is a note that Downtown stops will be reviewed as part of a separate project.

 

Will one of the closed stops on the 7 be at Dunbar and West 22 Avenue?

[dover5949]

3 hours ago, Mark Walton said:

Will one of the closed stops on the 7 be at Dunbar and West 22 Avenue?

That is correct. 

What these planners don't take into consideration are the elderly & people with disabilities!! Think of some elderly person who is unable to walk the extra distance or some disabled person??

[Zortan]

7 minutes ago, dover5949 said:

That is correct. 

What these planners don't take into consideration are the elderly & people with disabilities!! Think of some elderly person who is unable to walk the extra distance or some disabled person??

I agree. I can see the virtue of speeding up the routes, but I don't think it's very fair to everyone to remove so many stops

[Michael Marriott]

24 minutes ago, dover5949 said:

That is correct. 

What these planners don't take into consideration are the elderly & people with disabilities!! Think of some elderly person who is unable to walk the extra distance or some disabled person??

 

6 hours ago, Mark Walton said:

Will one of the closed stops on the 7 be at Dunbar and West 22 Avenue?

The stop at Dunbar and 22nd NB, and the SB 21st Ave stop will remain open.  The stretch of Dunbar between King Edward and 16th has already been "balanced" since it was done as part of the route 25 project.

[9924]

13 hours ago, dover5949 said:

That is correct. 

What these planners don't take into consideration are the elderly & people with disabilities!! Think of some elderly person who is unable to walk the extra distance or some disabled person??

Its transit, not a taxi service - there has to be a balance between accessibility and efficiency.

[8800GTX]

The R4 eastbound at Oakridge is once again boarding on the near side of Cambie (Bay 2), at a temporary stop which includes a shelter built into the construction scaffolding.

No more crossing Cambie to wait for the R4 in the rain in front of some rando's living room!

With this the R4 eastbound has standardized on near side stopping from Cambie Street through Knight Street. I'd hope some of these can switch back to the far side soon (particularly at Knight Street) to get the buses through lights.

[Express691]

slightest preview of Q1 2022 schedules can be found, only in the north van section.

Includes Waterfront Station bay assignments

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/translink/documents/schedules-and-maps/schedules-by-region/sept-2021-schedules/nvan_p1-44.pdf?sc_lang=en&hash=44B8741DE286DC992BD54E566206609B

[nname]

22 hours ago, Express691 said:

slightest preview of Q1 2022 schedules can be found, only in the north van section.

Includes Waterfront Station bay assignments

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/translink/documents/schedules-and-maps/schedules-by-region/sept-2021-schedules/nvan_p1-44.pdf?sc_lang=en&hash=44B8741DE286DC992BD54E566206609B

Just realized I haven't download the Sept schedule pdf and add to my archive yet...

Maybe it's time for me to continue working on the Jan schedule change post.  Started a couple of weeks ago, but stopped half way after seeing so much reductions and duplicated runs and I thought the schedule had issues (?) 

[Express691]

23 minutes ago, nname said:

Just realized I haven't download the Sept schedule pdf and add to my archive yet...

Maybe it's time for me to continue working on the Jan schedule change post.  Started a couple of weeks ago, but stopped half way after seeing so much reductions and duplicated runs and I thought the schedule had issues (?) 

I have a hunch that the reductions are more likely - something about emergency funding running out and that sort of stuff.

Now:

in the grapevine, there is a rumbling about route 84 being upgraded to artic service. Take it with a grain of salt. 

[nname]

Jan 2022 service change:

AM and/or PM peak service reduction:
2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 23, 103, 104, 106, 116, 119, 123, 210, 240, 319, 401, 403, 406, 410, 430, 555, R1, R5

For all routes above, the peak service frequency mostly increase by 1 or 2min, lost more than 3 round-trips, or drop one step: 7/8->10, 10->12, 12->15.
No change in off-peak and weekend schedule unless otherwise noted below.  Every service drop below 15min will also noted below.

16 - Mid-day and PM peaks reduce to 12min (from 10min)
19 - AM peak reduce to 12min (from 9-10min), late-morning/early-evening reduce to 15min (from 12min), SAT daytime reduce to 12-15min (from 10-12min)
22 - Mid-day reduce to 15min (from 12min)
23 - AM peak reduce to 10min (from 8min), SAT/SUN Mid-day/early afternoon reduce to 12min (from 10min)
25 - SAT reduce to 15min (from 12min), shurt-turn cancelled
99 - SAT/SUN daytime service reduction
106 - AM peak reduce to 10min (from 7-8min), mid-day reduce to 15min (from 12min), PM peak reduce to 8-9min (from 7-8min), SAT daytime reduce to 12min (from 15min), SUN daytime reduce to 15min (from 12min)
119 - Mid-day reduce to 15min (from 12min), PM peak reduce to 10min (from 8-9min), SAT/SUN daytime reduce to 15min (from 12min)
130 - Weekday early morning reduce to 10min (from 15min)
230 - SAT afternoon reduce to 30min (from 20min)
321 - SUN daytime/evening reduce to 15min (from 12min)
410 - AM peak reduce to 10min (from 7-8min), mid-day reduce to 12-15min (from 8-12min), PM peak reduce to 10-12min (from 7-8min), evening reduce to 12-15min (from 10min), SAT/SUN reduce to 15min (from 12min)
R1 - Mid-day reduce to 10min (from 8min), PM peak reduce to 8min (from 7min), evening reduce to 15min (from 12min), SAT afternoon reduce to 10min (from 8min), evening to 15min (from 12min), SUN morning/evening to 15min (from 12min), afternoon to 10min (from 8min)
R2 - Mid-day/evening reduce to 15min (from 12min), SAT morning/evening to 15min (from 12min)
R4 - SUN morning reduce to 12min (from 10min), mid-day to 10min (from 8min)
R5 - AM/PM peak service reductions, SAT reduce to 10min (from 8min)

Service increases:
31 - MON-SUN increase to 30min (from 35min); 15min service extension in evening
49 - Extra short-turn trips added on weekdays
99 - Additional eastbound AM peak trips
146 - SUN service begin 30min earlier
310 - MON-SUN Additional morning and afternoon trips, service extend to 9pm all days
323 - SAT morning increase to 15min (from 20min)

Other adjustments:
640 - PM peak service service increase to every 10min early, then reduce to 20min late afternoon/evening (from 15min throughout afternoon/evening)

 

Probably miss some of the changes that hidden within all the reductions

[Express691]

8 hours ago, nname said:

Jan 2022 service change:
321 - SUN daytime/evening reduce to 15min (from 12min)

Probably miss some of the changes that hidden within all the reductions

Also heard rumblings that there will be a peak hour extension to Scott Road to alleviate congestion at surrey central. 
Scott Road Station called back the 1990s and asked for its 321 back lol

555: I'm confident it can survive at 4 buses/hr peak at least in the afternoon. The line can swing behind the crewroom at Lougheed and stretch to the 152 bay and everyone will still be able to get on board.
 

[dover5949]

So Translink has been quoting that ridership has been been going up system wide, but come January they reduce the service level on the above mentioned routes. So how do you attract ridership when you reduce the service level?

[Dane]

6 hours ago, dover5949 said:

So Translink has been quoting that ridership has been been going up system wide, but come January they reduce the service level on the above mentioned routes. So how do you attract ridership when you reduce the service level?

Chicken and the egg philosophical debate a bit. TransLink isn't getting the fare revenue they need to sustain current service levels, let alone increase service. Some other sources of revenue are also generally on the decrease, and costs are going up for fuel, labour and infrastructure.

 

Currently TransLink has emergency funding from both the Provincial and Federal governments, the first ending December 31 and the second March 31. 

 

Who knows if there will be additional funding to keep service up? So far those reductions look relatively tepid. 

[Michael Marriott]

These reductions by themselves don't look that bad, but when combined with other service reductions that have occurred over the last two years it means some routes during some periods have half as much service as they did pre-Covid.

The other issue is what routes and services aren't being cut.  All the cuts seem to be focused on all day frequent routes, which are the routes that are actually carrying riders.  Meanwhile, there are no cuts on the peak hour peak directional routes despite them being very poor performers.  The 241 and 247 were specifically singled out in the 2020 system performance review as having very low ridership recovery, the 352 and 354 were only carrying 200 riders a day, the 602 was at 100 a day and the 603 and 604 had no data reported because they were getting less 100 riders a day.  Yet these routes have been left untouched, while riders on routes like the 3 or the R1 are expected to cram themselves a little tighter into the artics.  Despite Downtown demand continuing to be lower, the 214's Downtown trips aren't on the cutting block, even though the 210/211 are available as alternate routes with spare capacity.  And even though every other Rapidbus route gets a frequency cut in some time period, the R3 (which is the one with the lowest ridership) manages to escape unscathed; not even getting a reduction in peak frequency from 10 to 12 or 15 minutes. 

There also have been no restructures to streamline service, or remove duplicative service.  The 50 is still doing its giant, pointless loop through Gastown and Chinatown, the 214 (and the 253 and 254) still have their peak hour extensions duplicating other routes.

I'm not under the illusion that cutting the service I listed above would be enough to prevent the cuts elsewhere in the system, but the fact that these service have been left alone does make it seem like the cuts aren't connected to ridership, and that Translink is prioritizing the theoretical return of 9 to 5 white collar Downtown workers over the riders who are actually using the system now.

[nname]

Well, some of the cuts aren't really as bad as it seems.  With capacity available, would it really matter that much to an average rider when a bus now comes every 6min instead of 4min?  Even though that's a gigantic 30% cut in service.

Maybe going from 12 to 15min will hurt a bit, but seems like all but 2 the cuts are on routes that runs every 12min or better.  None of the route dropped below FTN service level, and none of the route have service span reduced.

[DarkKeyo]

That list of 'AM and/or PM peak service reduction' routes is pretty much the same as 'routes I've had to wait a bus or two because bus is too full' over the last few months. Most the routes I've been riding that are on their reduction list feel as busy as they did pre-pandemic (even at currently reduced schedules), so after the cuts they'll be very crowded. 

[Zortan]

On 11/27/2021 at 12:30 PM, nname said:

Well, some of the cuts aren't really as bad as it seems.  With capacity available, would it really matter that much to an average rider when a bus now comes every 6min instead of 4min?  Even though that's a gigantic 30% cut in service.

Maybe going from 12 to 15min will hurt a bit, but seems like all but 2 the cuts are on routes that runs every 12min or better.  None of the route dropped below FTN service level, and none of the route have service span reduced.

The riders might not notice the frequency change very much, but they will definitely notice the capacity decrease and the resultant overcrowding.

[8800GTX]

On 11/28/2021 at 12:18 PM, DarkKeyo said:

That list of 'AM and/or PM peak service reduction' routes is pretty much the same as 'routes I've had to wait a bus or two because bus is too full' over the last few months. Most the routes I've been riding that are on their reduction list feel as busy as they did pre-pandemic (even at currently reduced schedules), so after the cuts they'll be very crowded. 

In some cases I think it scared away riders.

When the 100 got mid day cuts from 12 to 15 minutes, the buses would fill to the point that every time I rode it at that time, we would fill up to capacity and pass up people. Some days we would pass up 1, other days it would be 10.

Now those riders seem to have disappeared. I don't know if there's supposed to be a seasonal shift in demand but it's uncanny how un busy the route has become as if to match the drop in service (and reliability).

If the planners there think this is going to help, there might need to be a serious rethink.

[Zortan]

I feel like if service cuts are required, Translink would be better off cutting some of the lower ridership peak services, such as the 241, 354 and the 253 / 254 peak extensions to downtown, instead of hurting riders on the core frequent services, and probably discouraging many of them from riding transit at all. 

[brianc1981]

Another idea I have floated around in the past even pre-covid would be to run the Ladner/South Delta peak routes all day, but keep them local. That would be all the different variations of the 601 and the 602-618 routes. They should all run locally and then feed to some express buses that run from Tsawwassen area, maybe the mall, maybe the south Delta exchange (whatever its called across from McDonalds) and it should run express to Bridgeport station with no stop at Ladner Exchange. They could run more service locally with less buses and then use attics to operate express to Bridgeport. Also customers would have the option of taking the 620 as well. 

A change like that would be similar to reducing the 241, 354 and the 253 / 254. It could save some buses and then they could slow the cuts on other routes. 

I have heard in the past that Scott Road would be getting more service. 321 was one of the routes I had heard would get extended and also to provide some local service on King George. Is there any word yet on the proposed changes to the 321 between Newton and White Rock. I heard a couple years back that they were going to run the 321 only between Newton and the Skytrain and there would be a new route that would run locally from White Rock to Newton. I actually heard it would be tied into the route that operates from White Rock centre to Crescent Beach. 

 

[8800GTX]

On 12/2/2021 at 11:56 AM, brianc1981 said:

321 was one of the routes I had heard would get extended and also to provide some local service on King George. Is there any word yet on the proposed changes to the 321 between Newton and White Rock. I heard a couple years back that they were going to run the 321 only between Newton and the Skytrain and there would be a new route that would run locally from White Rock to Newton. I actually heard it would be tied into the route that operates from White Rock centre to Crescent Beach.

321 split, the north segment extended to Scott Road Station, and the south segment combined with 350? OK if anyone has info about this I would certainly like to hear more

In my observations a lot of 321 ridership demand now is confined to the segment south of Newton (i.e. coming northbound most of the bus disembarks at Newton, vice versa). That said I wouldn't be in favour of the change if there are no improvements to service and operating hours on the 394 and if service isn't at least returned to previous levels on the R1.

Given that this doesn't seem to be part of any operating sheet changes I kinda feel that it'll be part of a new round of "Transit Network Optimization" proposals with public consultations...

-----

On a separate note CEO Kevin Quinn spoke to DH about the upcoming cuts, looks like he's decided to come at us honestly and admit there will be some upcoming cuts (along with the context for which the cuts are taking place).

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-ridership-rebound-bus-service-cuts

That said it seemed a bit off to me that he's saying that they want to "avoid the busiest routes" with the cuts although as we've found the drop in AM/PM frequency includes the 319, the 410, the 130... I was thinking it over though and remembered that there are murmurs of TL wanting to switch 319 to articulated buses. If that new order arrives on time then I wonder if the adjustment in service is due to the switch to bigger buses on some routes???

[Express691]

Dunsmuir St Entrance at Granville Station is back open since God knows how long ago. 

In time for imminent closure of Burrard St Station for 2 years (IDK when exactly that's gonna start but the print schedule suggests it's happening sometime in the next schedule rotation)