TransLink Future - Dream's and Aspirations

[maege]

5 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

I highly doubt that OMC would be near Highway 1 because it would be difficult to build and operate a LRT since the OMC would need to be develop around highway 1. But if it is possible by all means because it does make sense because very little residents communities would be around it.

I'm not how likely it actually is, but it would be an interesting use for land, most of which would otherwise stay unused. I just see it as solving the issue with Hwy 1 buses connecting to Surrey, and finding a solution for an OMC for only 1-2km extra of track. At a minimum I think it would be an OMC option worth studying the feasibility of in depth, along with Ingledow and the ones around STC.

[GORDOOM]

3 hours ago, cmbc2008 said:

"NEW DEPOT COMING: The next depot to be built will be under the Canada Line Bridge where Translink [sic] owns a large property. It will be called Silvertree."

Push is on for riverfront park near foot of Cambie (Vancouver Sun)

Methinks Larson et al. have the right of it in this case, actually. Between the development around Marine Gateway and the bike/pedestrian ROW on the Canada Line bridge, a waterfront park there makes a lot of sense. And if you thought the brouhaha over the proposed new North Van TC a decade ago was massive, this will make that process look smooth.

Besides, between Vancouver, Richmond, and Hamilton, that whole part of Metro in and around the north arm of the Fraser is IMO pretty set for bus capacity. The next garage really does need to be either on the North Shore or way out in the eastern suburbs.

3 hours ago, cmbc2008 said:

"VTC PROPERTY INFORMATION: Translink's [sic] lease on the additionaly property for parking buses and employee parking expires June 30, 2023. However, if the landlord sells the property — or any part of it — the lease can be terminated with 18 month's [sic] notice any time after June 2018 (December 2019 termination of lease at the earliest)."

Any way TransLink could buy that property if it were to come up for sale? If so, how much would it cost? Or would it be needed with Hamilton being open now?

3 hours ago, cmbc2008 said:

"CHANGES COMING IN SEPTEMBER 2017:

• 049 route goes back to RTC
• 022 and 025 routes increase service all day
• 084 service increases [?] in peak service
• 043 service added [?] to help 041 crush loads

"There will possibly be a slight decrease in operators out of VTC but there are no firm numbers at this time."

Moving the #49 sucks from a deadhead perspective, but something has to give in order to expand capacity on the VTC routes. I presume this means that VTC will be losing all its artics again, and therefore will lose the ability to substitute artics for the #3/#8/#10/#20 when they're dieselized? Or will those buses be staying for routes like the #25/#41/#84 and for trippers on the #3/#8/#10/#20?

Interesting that VTC will be losing service hours. Given that that depot is kind of overloaded right now, this is probably a good thing.

[owo transit fan]

1 hour ago, GORDOOM said:

Moving the #49 sucks from a deadhead perspective, but something has to give in order to expand capacity on the VTC routes. I presume this means that VTC will be losing all its artics again, and therefore will lose the ability to substitute artics for the #3/#8/#10/#20 when they're dieselized? Or will those buses be staying for routes like the #25/#41/#84 and for trippers on the #3/#8/#10/#20?

 

But why did the 49 move to VTC in the first place if they're moving it back a year later?

[GORDOOM]

2 minutes ago, owo transit fan said:

But why did the 49 move to VTC in the first place if they're moving it back a year later?

Because all this increase in service hours was only approved a few months after the September 2016 sign-up that opened Hamilton TC. Running the #49 out of Richmond is absolutely terrible for deadhead costs, so CMBC took advantage of the opportunity to move the #100 to Hamilton and move the #49 back to Vancouver. But then this increase was authorized in December, which will require something to move out of Vancouver so as to allow increased service on the remaining routes.

My question, though, is: does it make more sense to do this, or to move the #22 to Hamilton?

[Blue Bus Fan]

19 minutes ago, GORDOOM said:

My question, though, is: does it make more sense to do this, or to move the #22 to Hamilton?

Stay but if moved most likely to move RTC.

[Brando737]

 HTC could work well for the 49, deadhead to metrotown is short and quick.  Getting to UBC wouldn't be much longer than RTC.  Only issue would be all reliefs would be at metrotown which may not work well for timing of shifts.  The 22 could also work well at HTC, not the most ideal relief location at Marine & Knight, but not horrible.  Easy NIS in/out of service as well, just go into service at 63rd Ave straight off the bridge and same thing back to the yard, 63rd trips would not be affected at all.

[cleowin]

So is silvertree a new transit centre or an expansion of VTC?

if so, i imagine many of btc’s artic operations in vancouver would move there, 43, 44 and 99 to allow expansion of service along the North Shore. Could see 26,27,29 moving to the new silvertree as well perhaps?

[Express691]

So on the 49 moving back to RTC

GUESS WHO IS GETTING THEIR XDE60'S BACK

[GORDOOM]

16 minutes ago, Express691 said:

So on the 49 moving back to RTC

GUESS WHO IS GETTING THEIR XDE60'S BACK

If we start hearing about how they're so ideal for highway running and how the D60LFs are the perfect urban buses, I swear that I will start throwing things.

[buizelbus]

59 minutes ago, cleowin said:

So is silvertree a new transit centre or an expansion of VTC?

if so, i imagine many of btc’s artic operations in vancouver would move there, 43, 44 and 99 to allow expansion of service along the North Shore. Could see 26,27,29 moving to the new silvertree as well perhaps?

the only problem is:

what prefix would it have? S is surrey.

1 minute ago, GORDOOM said:

If we start hearing about how they're so ideal for highway running and how the D60LFs are the perfect urban buses, I swear that I will start throwing things.

D60LFs are the perfect urban buses and the XDE60s are very ideal for highway running.

[cleowin]

15 minutes ago, buizel10 said:

the only problem is:

what prefix would it have? S is surrey.

D60LFs are the perfect urban buses and the XDE60s are very ideal for highway running.

I'd call it LTC, or SVTC?

Routes operated out of SVTC (My guess):

2/22/26/27/29/41/43/44/49/99/Replacement of 430 (Richmond/Metrotown B-Line)?

 

 

[Blue Bus Fan]

On 2017-06-09 at 9:27 PM, cleowin said:

I'd call it LTC, or SVTC?

Routes operated out of SVTC (My guess):

2/22/26/27/29/41/43/44/49/99/Replacement of 430 (Richmond/Metrotown B-Line)?

Maybe we might see an "L" prefix. 

In my opinion routes to be operated by LTC:

All yours routes including 

100, 311, 351, 601, 602, 603, 604, 606, 608,

620 just to eliminate the need for 60 ft buses at RTC. 

60 ft buses for when 3, 8 and 20 are dieselized. 

 

 

[cleowin]

17 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

Maybe we might see an"L" prefix. 

In my opinion routes to be operated by LTC:

All yours routes including 

100, 311, 351, 601, 602, 603, 604, 606, 608,

620 just to eliminate the need for 60 ft buses at RTC. 

60 ft buses for when 3, 8 and 20 are dieselized. 

 

 

I would almost rather transfer all the RTC routes that are in Richmond and leave the 311,351, 6xx routes out of RTC in that case, considering the proximity to each bus depot.

[Dr. BusFreak]

12 minutes ago, cleowin said:

I would almost rather transfer all the RTC routes that are in Richmond and leave the 311,351, 6xx routes out of RTC in that case, considering the proximity to each bus depot

Actually, it would be best if all the current routes in Richmond remain at RTC due to relief points. 

[Blue Bus Fan]

49 minutes ago, cleowin said:

I would almost rather transfer all the RTC routes that are in Richmond and leave the 311,351, 6xx routes out of RTC in that case, considering the proximity to each bus depot.

I do see your reasoning behind the 311, 351, 352, 354, 601, 602, 603, 604, 606 and 608 not going to SVTC. If routes 60X don't get transferred to I could see 405 and 407. If this service charge happens I could see the 403, New B, 404, 405. 

The main buses operating on the 620 will come from SVTC and RTC will supply support trips on the 620. 

[Michael Marriott]

Everyone needs to look over all the screenshots; the whole reason this new depot is being considered is because there is the potential for Translink to lose the lease on parts of VTC.  If that were to happen, then this new depot would take over the routes kicked out of VTC.  Given that, as well as the fact that RTC has plenty of room, it is completely illogical to think that any Richmond local routes or Highway 99 routes will be moved to the new depot.  If there was a need to add more routes to the new depot beyond what it takes from VTC, it would almost certainly be taking the 49 or 100, as those are the routes that operate closest to the new site and would not have to fight their way across a congested bridge to start service. 

[GORDOOM]

7 hours ago, Michael Marriott said:

Everyone needs to look over all the screenshots; the whole reason this new depot is being considered is because there is the potential for Translink to lose the lease on parts of VTC.  If that were to happen, then this new depot would take over the routes kicked out of VTC.  Given that, as well as the fact that RTC has plenty of room, it is completely illogical to think that any Richmond local routes or Highway 99 routes will be moved to the new depot.  If there was a need to add more routes to the new depot beyond what it takes from VTC, it would almost certainly be taking the 49 or 100, as those are the routes that operate closest to the new site and would not have to fight their way across a congested bridge to start service. 

But wouldn't it still make more sense to force the issue re: a new garage on the North Shore, eliminating all the problems with North Shore buses fighting their way across the Second Narrows, and then let Burnaby TC act as a reliever to Vancouver TC? And is it not possible that all the problems with having North Shore buses based out of Burnaby TC might have overcome the NIMBYism that killed the previous attempts?

[cleowin]

4 hours ago, GORDOOM said:

But wouldn't it still make more sense to force the issue re: a new garage on the North Shore, eliminating all the problems with North Shore buses fighting their way across the Second Narrows, and then let Burnaby TC act as a reliever to Vancouver TC? And is it not possible that all the problems with having North Shore buses based out of Burnaby TC might have overcome the NIMBYism that killed the previous attempts?

If a new NVTC was built instead, what would btc do? Take over more vtc routes? Maybe take back some burnaby routes? Then maybe take some richmond/surrey routes and pass them to htc?

[Brando737]

As of right now, the Silvertree depot is intended only to take all deisel routes from VTC so the current VTC would only be trolleys.  It is classified as a satellite depot at the moment although they may add some of the Vancouver artic routes to relieve BTC if needed, but not planned at this point.  The main issues from what I've heard is that the leased land at VTC could need to be vacated by December 2018 so they don't necessarily have the time to plan for other options than this.  And since they already own the land, it's also the cheapest option.

Currently, VTC has two "codes".  VTC and VTCT, one for deisel and the other for trolley so I think they could keep to this as is for the new depot.  Or just call the new one VTCS.

[GORDOOM]

1 hour ago, cleowin said:

If a new NVTC was built instead, what would btc do? Take over more vtc routes? Maybe take back some burnaby routes? Then maybe take some richmond/surrey routes and pass them to htc?

Burnaby would take back from Hamilton some routes out of Metrotown, and would also take from Vancouver... probably the #25 (which could run with artics), and also possibly the #84 or #41 or #33. Depending on where the new North Van TC is, you might also transfer the #44 and/or #2/#32 to that garage.

In the end, you want the non-trolley fleet at VTC to be about 1/3 artic and 2/3 40-footer, so as to have a good mix for trippers and weekend dieselizations.

1 minute ago, Brando737 said:

As of right now, the Silvertree depot is intended only to take all deisel routes from VTC so the current VTC would only be trolleys.  It is classified as a satellite depot at the moment although they may add some of the Vancouver artic routes to relieve BTC if needed, but not planned at this point.  The main issues from what I've heard is that the leased land at VTC could need to be vacated by December 2018 so they don't necessarily have the time to plan for other options than this.  And since they already own the land, it's also the cheapest option.

Currently, VTC has two "codes".  VTC and VTCT, one for deisel and the other for trolley so I think they could keep to this as is for the new depot.  Or just call the new one VTCS.

Could this be built as a temporary facility, then? I'm still not convinced that bus storage is a better use for this site than parkland, given its proximity to three other garages (two of which have space to spare), and especially given how much of a CF the North Shore situation is.

[cleowin]

1 hour ago, GORDOOM said:

Burnaby would take back from Hamilton some routes out of Metrotown, and would also take from Vancouver... probably the #25 (which could run with artics), and also possibly the #84 or #41 or #33. Depending on where the new North Van TC is, you might also transfer the #44 and/or #2/#32 to that garage.

In the end, you want the non-trolley fleet at VTC to be about 1/3 artic and 2/3 40-footer, so as to have a good mix for trippers and weekend dieselizations.

Could this be built as a temporary facility, then? I'm still not convinced that bus storage is a better use for this site than parkland, given its proximity to three other garages (two of which have space to spare), and especially given how much of a CF the North Shore situation is.

Rather than build a whole new garage, why not transfer the 25 to htc, then transfer 2/22 to rtc? That frees up so much space alone.

[GORDOOM]

2 hours ago, cleowin said:

Rather than build a whole new garage, why not transfer the 25 to htc, then transfer 2/22 to rtc? That frees up so much space alone.

Another garage will be needed within the next decade, assuming TransLink's plans come to fruition. But does it make sense to have so many garages in such a small area?

[Translink69]

On 6/5/2017 at 11:39 PM, Express691 said:

^ Agree, I see the 49 mainly for people going to Metrotown and Langara. Maybe for those west of Granville street going to UBC. If I lived along 49th Avenue I would use the Canada line to connect to the 43/44/84/99. You would need the extra bus for capacity. 

 

I mostly agree, but for those like me, who don't want to pay 2 zones, the 49 is crucial

[GORDOOM]

15 minutes ago, Translink69 said:

I mostly agree, but for those like me, who don't want to pay 2 zones, the 49 is crucial

The whole fare structure is being redesigned anyway in the next few years. Besides, we really need to be planning the best network we can and designing the fare structure around it, not vice-versa. Ultimately, the goal is to move people rather than to make money.

[buizelbus]

5 hours ago, cleowin said:

Rather than build a whole new garage, why not transfer the 25 to htc, then transfer 2/22 to rtc? That frees up so much space alone.

Why not a 2 and 22 EXPRESS from Ironwood up Hwy 99?