Jump to content

TransLink Future - Dream's and Aspirations


cleowin

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, ThomasW97 said:

WOuld be sweet if they tried it out on the 99

The 99 B-Line is a non-starter for double-deckers unless there are at least three doors... and I'm pretty sure such models are not sold here yet in North America.

2 hours ago, cmbc2008 said:

Double Decker Trial

Coast Mountain Bus Company will be conducting a Double  Decker bus trial this fall 2017 on some routes.

This includes 620 route

If we are seeing the double-deckers on the 620 it might possibly be a low-deck variant given the current constraints imposed by the tunnel...

Quote

George Massey Tunnel: Height 4.05m
Vancouver - Blaine Highway

Direction  Width  Lane  Height
North  
1
2
4.23m
4.05m
South  
1
2
4.25m
4.12m
(Structure #:01509,  ID:608)
 

Do you happen to know how high the demo is going to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Millennium2002 said:

The 99 B-Line is a non-starter for double-deckers unless there are at least three doors... and I'm pretty sure such models are not sold here yet in North America.

If we are seeing the double-deckers on the 620 it might possibly be a low-deck variant given the current constraints imposed by the tunnel...

 

Do you happen to know how high the demo is going to be?

A 14cm gap...should be fun riding in the top-front seats! :)

Would be wonderful to see Enviro500's on the 257, 258, 301, 311, 351, 555, 620, etc. A big improvement! 

Would also be nice to see a combined 555/66FX with Enviro500's.

26 minutes ago, cmbc2008 said:

Alexander Dennis Double Decker 

Super Lo.    

Height of 3.91 M (12'10'')

IMG_3217.PNG

IMG_3218.PNG

Does the SuperLo have a rear door? This photo seems to indicate it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the buses to/from the ferries deserve their own sub-fleet of single-deck articulated diesel buses equipped with luggage racks. The luggage compartment within the SuperLo is surely a nice touch, but I highly doubt TransLink would want its operators to deal with having to load and unload it at possibly every stop, as that will inevitably slow the bus down. And I also can't see passengers being too happy with dragging their luggage upstairs or leaving it unattended should there be no room in either the luggage compartment or the first deck of the bus. Fnally, I can't imagine West Vancouver being too happy about a double decker trying to climb their hills.... That's just asking for all sorts of problems like not enough power, tipping over, climbing hill too slowly, etc. Now don't get me wrong, I'd love to see these on the highway commuter services, but the ferry routes are particular enough that introducing SuperLos to them might be somewhat of a mismatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Millennium2002 said:

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the buses to/from the ferries deserve their own sub-fleet of single-deck articulated diesel buses equipped with luggage racks. The luggage compartment within the SuperLo is surely a nice touch, but I highly doubt TransLink would want its operators to deal with having to load and unload it at possibly every stop, as that will inevitably slow the bus down. And I also can't see passengers being too happy with dragging their luggage upstairs or leaving it unattended should there be no room in either the luggage compartment or the first deck of the bus. Fnally, I can't imagine West Vancouver being too happy about a double decker trying to climb their hills.... That's just asking for all sorts of problems like not enough power, tipping over, climbing hill too slowly, etc. Now don't get me wrong, I'd love to see these on the highway commuter services, but the ferry routes are particular enough that introducing SuperLos to them might be somewhat of a mismatch.

I feel like double deckers are perfect for the ferry routes to Tsawassen at least (I've only rode the 257 once so can't comment on that one). They mainly serve as longer point to points routes with minimal stops in between but the majority of riders are on for the full route. Because there are so few stops (and they usually have few people getting on or off), the small amount of possible extra dwell time stays fairly small for the whole trip. Same is true for buses like the 555 and 351, which is why they are also good candidates. 

There are quite a few people that have large luggage to Tsawassen, but many that just have backpacks, small bags, etc that are easy to get to the upper level, while people with large bags could stay on the lower. It would be no different than the double deckers on the 70x used to serve the ferry in Victoria.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Millennium2002 said:

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the buses to/from the ferries deserve their own sub-fleet of single-deck articulated diesel buses equipped with luggage racks. The luggage compartment within the SuperLo is surely a nice touch, but I highly doubt TransLink would want its operators to deal with having to load and unload it at possibly every stop, as that will inevitably slow the bus down. And I also can't see passengers being too happy with dragging their luggage upstairs or leaving it unattended should there be no room in either the luggage compartment or the first deck of the bus. Fnally, I can't imagine West Vancouver being too happy about a double decker trying to climb their hills.... That's just asking for all sorts of problems like not enough power, tipping over, climbing hill too slowly, etc. Now don't get me wrong, I'd love to see these on the highway commuter services, but the ferry routes are particular enough that introducing SuperLos to them might be somewhat of a mismatch.

... you realize these same riders get onto a Decker in Victoria without issue, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen the luggage rack on 8060 has been a big success - every time I see it there's a lot of luggage on it. From what I understand, that's not exactly what the deckers would have but I think ferrygoers would appreciate more buses with that ability

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When riding the Victoria deckers, there is signage instructing passengers to stay on the lower deck with their large luggage (suitcases etc.), if they have any. I haven't seen any people so far trying to lug their giant suitcases up and down the stairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ThatBusGuy said:

From what I've seen the luggage rack on 8060 has been a big success - every time I see it there's a lot of luggage on it. From what I understand, that's not exactly what the deckers would have but I think ferrygoers would appreciate more buses with that ability

Hoping WVMT will follow suit one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kinda weird to see 250 testing double deckers. Maybe they only test on 250A.

I'm not a fan of luggage compartment, especially for a non-direct route. Even for 620 luggage racks sound better. For routes like 351, 555 the compartment might be left unused throughout the trip, wasting many space.

I wonder if Translink will test other models, maybe a 2-door variant. I like those in Ottawa (but might be too high for 620).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Express691 said:

Hoping WVMT will follow suit one day.

I agree - it would be back to the future though because West Van's three D60s had luggage racks which were well utilized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I agree, two tracks would suffice as there isn't a huge amount of freight, but three would be nice to prevent possible delays to both freight and passenger service. Also, the new rail bridge should include a bike/pedestrian portion as well, as noted here:

Quote

The report also suggests adding a four-metre wide pathway to the existing rail bridge should it ever be replaced.

That would allow for easy active transportation options between Queensborough and the Quay as well as very good transit service.

I don't know if the Chilliwack line would ever be "via Queensborough" as it would most likely end as Scott Rd, or if the New West rail bridge was replaced with 3-4 track service, cross over to New West and run to downtown via the Grandview Cut, or follow the line around Marine Way/Dr to Arbutus and the Arbutus corridor to downtown.

I do agree with the EMU with pantographs though, and could see the new Queensborough rail bridge being used for service to Richmond as an east-west route with an express section through the farm land in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, maege said:

I agree, two tracks would suffice as there isn't a huge amount of freight, but three would be nice to prevent possible delays to both freight and passenger service. Also, the new rail bridge should include a bike/pedestrian portion as well, as noted here:

That would allow for easy active transportation options between Queensborough and the Quay as well as very good transit service.

I don't know if the Chilliwack line would ever be "via Queensborough" as it would most likely end as Scott Rd, or if the New West rail bridge was replaced with 3-4 track service, cross over to New West and run to downtown via the Grandview Cut, or follow the line around Marine Way/Dr to Arbutus and the Arbutus corridor to downtown.

I do agree with the EMU with pantographs though, and could see the new Queensborough rail bridge being used for service to Richmond as an east-west route with an express section through the farm land in the middle.

What about:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rZhFuhRv3m__uSkpX02xRT7XMxg&usp=sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, buizel10 said:

Ehhhhh..... It looks like this is a general idea, not at a specific detail level, but here are the detail things that I would change:

1. I would have the New West Station along the current rail lines, not deviating along a street. I would put the station at the River Market/historic train station right by Hyack Square, providing easy access across Columbia to Skytrain and buses. Alternately, I would put the station at the Quayside Dr bridge with escalators/elevators up to the bridge as just across the bridge is the south entrance into New West Skytrain station.

2. After crossing Boundary Rd into Richmond, I would have the tracks follow Westminster Hwy either to Hwy 91, or to Gilley Rd (after which it would follow alongside the slough to Hwy 91). Your current route has it cutting through a number of houses and the middle of some fields (granted I presume that is just because it was a general idea, and not a more detailed plan)

3. I could see the tracks following either Hwy 91 or Westminster Hwy (or Hwy 91 until No 5 Rd, then down to Westminster Hwy). For the Richmond terminus, I agree that it would be Brighouse, but I don't think it would use Lansdowne Rd, as it would be duplicating service between Lansdowne and Brighouse. I think it would use Westminster Hwy instead, and may possibly make a loop via Granville and Garden City as well for the terminus. Note that none of these are idea termini, due to the poor placement of Canada Line stations in Richmond. Those poor placements will make everything in Richmond going forward harder and costlier than it should be. A very poor long-term decision to save a few meagre dollars during Canada Line construction.

4. I find your notes.... interesting....

Quote
Streetcar along Number 3 and Lansdowne (No dedicated lanes). Dedicated tramway in Garden City Lands (edge only, replaces current trail), along Alderbridge/Hwy 91 tunneled or elevated, ground level track through farmland, elevated or tunneled in Queensbourgh, across bridge  to New West Stn,

Why are you going from a mixed traffic streetcar in the busiest/slowest section in Richmond to an elevated or tunnelled section in an area with lots of ROW room and with few crossings.... I fail to comprehend the logic of that. As for tunnelling... It's expensive, especially in Richmond where everything is silt or infill and you have no bedrock and very high water table's to worry about.

I would see it running on an at-grade ROW separated from other traffic the whole length. In New West and Queensborough, it would follow existing SRY rail ROW. In Hamilton along Westminster Hwy, it would likely be similar design to Surrey LRT. Between Hamilton and Garden City Rd, it would run either alongside Westminster Hwy/Hwy 91, separated like a normal freight rail line with full priority and railway arms for all at-grade crossings, or in the median, separated/protected by concrete barriers, similar to what exists in the Hwy 91 median currently. Along Westminster Hwy/No 3 Rd/Garden City Rd/Granville Ave, I would have a dedicated tramway, again likely similar to the Surrey LRT. This keeps the costs vastly lower by not having any tunnelling or elevated sections needed, while still allowing for the high speeds from Hamilton to central Richmond.

5. As for the bus routes you propose, I don't find them very convincing or productive. The 302 is combining the 340 with the 104, and seems a pointless, redundant route as the 104 has fairly low ridership, and I don't see how a slower 340 would be of any benefit. The 499 would already be essentially covered with the route I proposed above, and even if it weren't, what makes this route deserving of a b-line? There's nowhere near the density or ridership to necessitate one. A small bus route may exist in the far future along No 6 Rd, but I wouldn't place money on it. It's not a bad idea per se, but if there is money to pay for a route that only goes by ~100 houses and farms in the near future, it would be much better spent on other priorities. The idea for connecting Riverport and the tram line isn't a bad idea either, but I would think it would be a better investment to have a stop around Hwy 99(bus/BRT)/Shell rd(tram/LRT) and connect to a line on that would take you to the Steveston Hwy, then transfer to Riverport. The 430 will become a B-line within a few years, so that is reasonable. By the time a train/tram/LRT is built between Queensborough and Richmond though, I don't think the 430 will exist due to being supplanted by a line along 41st Ave in conjunction with the Canada Line.

Just for reference, here is my long-term map for rapid transit in Vancouver (I do alter it some from time to time as ideas/improvements arise).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to decide whether it would be fun to post any of my dream maps. Now that I've moved here, I alter it based on what I see while riding certain routes, both for how busy it is, how long it takes, where stations would actually fit... I try to stay grounded to reality; It's fun but very unrealistic to imagine, for example, gondolas crisscrossing the lower mainland. It's interesting he more I learn about route patterns, the more my ideas match a hyped up 10 year vision...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DarkKeyo said:

I'm trying to decide whether it would be fun to post any of my dream maps. Now that I've moved here, I alter it based on what I see while riding certain routes, both for how busy it is, how long it takes, where stations would actually fit... I try to stay grounded to reality; It's fun but very unrealistic to imagine, for example, gondolas crisscrossing the lower mainland. It's interesting he more I learn about route patterns, the more my ideas match a hyped up 10 year vision...

That's what I was thinking. Maybe some, but I think there is too much in that map. I have about 300-400 bus route in a map right now, really messy though. Curves are horrible so I'm going to reset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DarkKeyo said:

I'm trying to decide whether it would be fun to post any of my dream maps. Now that I've moved here, I alter it based on what I see while riding certain routes, both for how busy it is, how long it takes, where stations would actually fit... I try to stay grounded to reality; It's fun but very unrealistic to imagine, for example, gondolas crisscrossing the lower mainland. It's interesting he more I learn about route patterns, the more my ideas match a hyped up 10 year vision...

Post it. I'm always interested to see different ideas that people come up with. The sharing and critiquing of ideas is the best way to get better ideas for everyone ;) 

I would encourage you to take a look at the map I made for rapid transit lines and let me know what you think, or if you have any questions, comments, critiques, ideas for improvement, etc.

It is good to stay grounded in reality, but also note that there are two different types: what will likely occur based on finances, politics, biases, etc, and what would logically make the most sense from a financial/ridership perspective. I lean towards making things aligned with the latter as I think its good to challenge the status quo if things can and should be better.

The more you get to know an area, the more defined your ideas become as you have more information and knowledge. Another great resource I have found in addition to first-hand knowledge is the Transit Service Performance Review, which details all the ridership and cost numbers into good detail by line, time of day, etc, and provides tons of other useful information.

36 minutes ago, buizel10 said:

That's what I was thinking. Maybe some, but I think there is too much in that map. I have about 300-400 bus route in a map right now, really messy though. Curves are horrible so I'm going to reset.

I always say post it, but it's up to you. For transit lines in general, it is usually best (most efficient) to have lines be as direct as possible and in a grid like pattern as much as possible, allowing for easy transfers. Of course there are always exceptions to this, but it is a good general rule to follow, keep routes in a fairly straight, perpendicular/parallel lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, maege said:

I always say post it, but it's up to you. For transit lines in general, it is usually best (most efficient) to have lines be as direct as possible and in a grid like pattern as much as possible, allowing for easy transfers. Of course there are always exceptions to this, but it is a good general rule to follow, keep routes in a fairly straight, perpendicular/parallel lines.

May be dumb in some places, wasn't thinking in a lot of places, not done yet, but here would be my map (at the moment)

really messy:

https://docs.zoho.com/file/3ckb05f5d027088304bcfaefd83263b8c988b

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EczueOoWu9ERJLwo0SKkwMRy9EU&usp=sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, buizel10 said:

May be dumb in some places, wasn't thinking in a lot of places, not done yet, but here would be my map (at the moment)

really messy:

https://docs.zoho.com/file/3ckb05f5d027088304bcfaefd83263b8c988b

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EczueOoWu9ERJLwo0SKkwMRy9EU&usp=sharing

A few comments/suggestions:

There are some routes that duplicate other routes for almost the whole length of the route. It would be better to use the resources that would be used for that line into improving the lines that it is copying, allowing for easy and quick transfers if someone needs to use said alignment. The 302 is an example of this as it duplicates other routes for the entire length except for a short section north of Scott Rd Stn in Bridgeview. I would be a better use of resources to serve Bridgeview as a loop extension of a line currently ending at Scott Rd Stn, or as a short shuttle loop from Scott Rd Stn. 

The second suggestion ties in with the 302 as well: Avoid longer and slower bus routes by tying in with the rapid transit network. For the 302, it serves Surrey Central and Scott Rd to Richmond, following the SFPR from Scott Rd to Hwy 91 (aka minimal to no stops between Scott Rd and Alex Fraser), after which it duplicates the 301. For people that may use the bus from Surrey to Richmond, it would be faster and shorter to take Skytrain from Scott Rd or Surrey Central to 22nd St Stn, then catch the 410/408 to Richmond. For the 302, if we just ignore other bus routes for a minute, it would be faster to have it split into two sections, Brighouse to 22nd (aka 410/408), and Scott Rd to Surrey Central (which could be routed through Bridgeview). That would allow people to take the faster route of transferring at 22nd, instead of following a longer and slower route from Lulu Island to Scott Rd. Also, because less resources would then be needed due to the shorter routes and bus trip times, those resources could be invested back into those two split routes to provide higher frequency and better service than they otherwise would have.

To summarize for the 302 as the example, I would kill it. Use those resources to extend the Z4 from Scott Rd in a loop around Bridgeview, and improve service on the Z4 and 410/408 with the former 302 resources. The only other adjustment I would suggest for those routes would be to run the Z4 along SFPR between Old Yale Rd and Tannery Rd (instead of Timberland) with stops at Old Yale and Tannery. The reason for this is that it provides a more direct (and slightly faster) routing, and the areas that would have been served along Timberland are still within an easy 5-10 minute walk, at worst, from bus stops at SFPR and Yale or Tannery. 

One comment I have would be the placement of the Nordel Loop. I would have it around the Nordel/Hwy 91 interchange or Planet Ice (similar to Phibbs Exchange) as there isn't really room around Nordel/84th for a loop. Also, having one around Hwy 91 allows for an easy, on route exchange between buses coming from Nordel, those travelling along SFPR/River Rd to South Delta/Scott Rd, and those travelling along Hwy 91 either to 22nd/Richmond, or south to other parts of North Delta/Surrey/White Rock.

Lastly, to help improve the legibility of the map, I might try using different colours (instead of just black). Maybe something like a red for north-south lines, green for east-west, pink for loop/U lines, and purple for L lines? I would still keep the lines fairly thin so they don't block each other, but the different colours that would mostly avoid crossing other lines of the same colour would probably help readability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...