TransLink Future - Dream's and Aspirations

[buizelbus]

4 hours ago, NotQuite said:

As a Richmond Resident that spends many hours walking around Richmond, I haveto wonder whether your idea would work.  I find trash tossed on the ground often within feet of trash receptacles.  Not that there are alot of said trash receptacles.

I've found most Richmond bus stops have them; even if it's just the small ones. Still I find a lot of garbage on the ground beside trash cans/receptacles.

[ThatBusGuy]

5 hours ago, NotQuite said:

As a Richmond Resident that spends many hours walking around Richmond, I haveto wonder whether your idea would work.  I find trash tossed on the ground often within feet of trash receptacles.  Not that there are alot of said trash receptacles.

There's a bin at the stop I usually use in Tsawwassen, a pretty big one at that. People are generally good at putting their trash in it, which is good. The problem is that sometimes it goes weeks without being emptied, resulting in overflowing garbage getting all over the place. There's also nothing attaching it to the ground, so every once in a while it'll get knocked over and spill, which isn't pleasant. Would be nice if those issues could be addressed too at some point.

[buizelbus]

Just now, ThatBusGuy said:

There's a bin at the stop I usually use in Tsawwassen, a pretty big one at that. People are generally good at putting their trash in it, which is good. The problem is that sometimes it goes weeks without being emptied, resulting in overflowing garbage getting all over the place. There's also nothing attaching it to the ground, so every once in a while it'll get knocked over and spill, which isn't pleasant. Would be nice if those issues could be addressed too at some point.

I like the new Richmond cans; they are nice and modern, made of wood, have garbage, recycling and food waste bins. They are also attached to the ground.

[Express691]

I dont know how possible this would be, or if someone came up with it already, but I think Commuter rail is possible in Surrey.

Build a spur track to Scott Road, and send trains over via the AmTrak route to either Waterfront or Pacific Central. Scott Road becomes a major station like Waterfront.

[maege]

1 hour ago, Express691 said:

I dont know how possible this would be, or if someone came up with it already, but I think Commuter rail is possible in Surrey.

Build a spur track to Scott Road, and send trains over via the AmTrak route to either Waterfront or Pacific Central. Scott Road becomes a major station like Waterfront.

I'm not sure that the exact idea of Commuter rail just to Scott Rd has been proposed, but similar ideas have been around, namely with Rail for the Valley wanting to use the SRY line that runs by Scott Rd station (with a spur to allow transfers to Skytrain there) to provide service from Pacific Central to the Fraser Valley. 

 

In my future rapid transit map, I have Scott Rd being a terminus for a line from Marpole, a line from Richmond, and a tram line on Kingsway from Vancouver, as well as a stop for a Fraser Valley line from Pacific Central. This would make Scott Rd a hub of sorts with all the lines coming together.

The biggest hold-back to having any more passenger rail service between Surrey and New West/Burnaby/Vancouver is that the current single-track rail bridge which is currently very prone to delays and near capacity. That would need to be upgraded/replaced with a new bridge or tunnel (preferably 3 or 4 tracks to allow for frequent passenger rail in addition to freight) before much of any passenger rail can be added. WCE runs on CP lines, which are double tracked the whole way. That allows for the minimization of delays on WCE. Additionally, multiple railroad companies have access rights for the bridge, including CN, BNSF, Amtrak, SRY, and maybe one more I'm forgetting. This creates a much more complex environment to negotiate exclusive rights during certain times of day for commuter or other passenger rail, especially since the bridge is relatively close to capacity. 

The other main problematic location is the single-track in the Grandview Cut which combined with the rail yards in the False Creek Flats can be prone to having delays as well. 

Basically, it is possible, but upgrades to the Fraser River rail bridge and double-tracking the Grandview Cut would be much desired to allow for regularly on-time trains. Also, I would look at following the SRY to Langley at a minimum since it would be relatively minimal extra cost, but would provide a significant upgrade in transit service for people in Newton, Cloverdale, and Langley.

 

Lastly, trains would likely go to Pacific Central and not Waterfront, mainly due to the complexities and slow speeds that are required between the spur for Pacific Central and Waterfront. The CN tracks north of Pacific Central have a number of at-grade crossings and a rail yard to pass by, which greatly limits the speed of any train. Additionally, to get to Waterfront, a train would have to switch from CN tracks to CP tracks, and I'm pretty certain there are no such switches at present, the CN rail just crosses 3 CP tracks, but there are no switches between the two. This adds the complexity of having to work with (and convince) both companies to allow for such a switch to be built. It ends up likely being much cheaper and easier to end at Pacific Central Station instead of Waterfront, and people going to Waterfront could still transfer to Skytrain and be at Waterfront in 10 minutes (including transfer time) which would likely be comparable or even faster than having a train terminate directly at Waterfront.

[DarkKeyo]

I haven't had a chance to think about how commuter rail may or may not be possible, so thank you for those thoughts. 

I did have a chance to finish my own dream map, which I've been working on for the last few months. Mainly inspired by improving ideas that are already out there, eg. the 10 year vision. I'll update it as new ideas come. Including commuter rail. It is meant to be realistic in every way except cost, because that gives me something to do when I'm stuck on a bus somewhere. 

 

[buizelbus]

I'm currently working on my own dream map, with a rail line that runs every 15 mins peak, 30 mins off peak running from 5 am to 11 pm from Scott Road down to Chiliwack. Or potentially make it a tram train and run it as a streetcar down to Surrey Central.

[maege]

19 hours ago, DarkKeyo said:

I haven't had a chance to think about how commuter rail may or may not be possible, so thank you for those thoughts. 

 

I did have a chance to finish my own dream map, which I've been working on for the last few months. Mainly inspired by improving ideas that are already out there, eg. the 10 year vision. I'll update it as new ideas come. Including commuter rail. It is meant to be realistic in every way except cost, because that gives me something to do when I'm stuck on a bus somewhere. 

One interesting thing I read recently about commuter rail: it's usually costs a very small amount more to run all day service vs just peak. The reason for this being that you already have vehicles, which are sitting there unused, and usually you have to pay operators more for shifts (split or otherwise) that start and end in different places (eg start in Mission, end in Vancouver). The only extra cost for all day service is then the fuel/electricity and probably a little more in operator wages. As long as the reliability and time agreements can be worked out for the tracks, I don't see any reason why all potential commuter lines shouldn't run at least 30 or 60 min frequency all day.

Some questions about your map as I'm always interested in how/why people make their decisions:

1. Why did you choose the False Creek Line to stay on Pacific instead of Davie downtown?

2. For the SFU Extension, do you believe that to be an actual extension of the Hastings line, or a gondola like from Production Way?

3. How/why did you choose routing for presumably tunnelled sections? For example, why did you choose the 41-49 line to route, presumably tunnelled between Fraser and Knight instead of following Knight between 41st and 49th, following 41st to Kingsway, then that to Metrotown, or just routing through Joyce Station? Same goes for a couple sections of the Burnaby N-S line and the Commercial line. Tunnelling is the most expensive option, so the more that it can be avoided (either with elevated or at-grade separate/reserved ROW), the more lines you can build with the same amount of money (quick example, for the same cost of the tunnelled Broadway extension to Arbutus, you could build the line elevated all the way to UBC plus the Arbutus LRT).

4. Why does the Burnaby N-S line avoid Brentwood and go to Gilmore instead?

5. For the Queensborough line, how did you choose your route, and why not have it route along the existing rail ROW the whole way instead of just sections?

6. For the Hastings line, why do you bring it south to Union/Georgia instead of staying on Hastings?

7. More of a recommendation, but for the 4th crossing, I would have it follow Pipeline Rd to Burrard Inlet, then cross jsut east of the Lions Gate to Park Royal since that is planned for a major center and is a main transit exchange.

8. For Richmond B-Line 2, is the line supposed to run along the former rail ROW that is currently a recreational trail? Or do you intend for it to run along Bridgeport or something else?

9. Similar to 3, why do you suggest tunnelling west of Capitol Hill for the Hastings line instead of at-grade or elevated?

10. For the Commercial line, what sections are you referring to when you say LRT won't fit in the corridor, what sections did you have in mind?

22 hours ago, buizel10 said:

I'm currently working on my own dream map, with a rail line that runs every 15 mins peak, 30 mins off peak running from 5 am to 11 pm from Scott Road down to Chiliwack. Or potentially make it a tram train and run it as a streetcar down to Surrey Central.

If it's going to Abbotsford and Chilliwack (and talking about the SRY rail line), I wouldn't worry about going to Surrey Central (assuming there's a line already between Newton and Surrey Central) since most people coming from that far out are probably headed to Vancouver. Ideally, the Fraser rail bridge would get replaced as part of the project so the line could continue to Pacific Central, IMO.

[DarkKeyo]

20 hours ago, maege said:

Some questions about your map as I'm always interested in how/why people make their decisions:

I'm happy to answer in order to help make sure my thought process makes sense.

 

1. Why did you choose the False Creek Line to stay on Pacific instead of Davie downtown?

 

Less traffic, continuity with the current route 23, and possible time savings over the 6, which is crowded and slow. I would love to connect it to the station at Denman, but Denman isn't ideal for streetcars with narrow blocks and fairly high traffic. I’ve heard of a plan to also have a streetcar go into Chinatown, but I haven’t thought about how that could work yet.

 

2. For the SFU Extension, do you believe that to be an actual extension of the Hastings line, or a gondola like from Production Way?

 

An extension of the Hastings line would be better, but I don't know how 'realistic' going up the side of Burnaby Mountain is compared to a gondola. In the south, a gondola is more practical, but that’s a steeper slope with development along it. I also want to balance the need to serve students with the need to relieve crowded routes, and the 95 west of central Burnaby is always crowded with, but east of it is crowded mainly at student peak times. 

 

3. How/why did you choose routing for presumably tunneled sections? For example, why did you choose the 41-49 line to route, presumably tunneled between Fraser and Knight instead of following Knight between 41st and 49th, following 41st to Kingsway, then that to Metrotown, or just routing through Joyce Station? Same goes for a couple sections of the Burnaby N-S line and the Commercial line. Tunneling is the most expensive option, so the more that it can be avoided (either with elevated or at-grade separate/reserved ROW), the more lines you can build with the same amount of money (quick example, for the same cost of the tunneled Broadway extension to Arbutus, you could build the line elevated all the way to UBC plus the Arbutus LRT).

I planned this route to work the high ridership on the 25, 41, 43/future B-line, 49, 430N (the commercial line handles 430S), and 100, as well as provide faster travel time E-W across the south half of Vancouver (and Burnaby). ~5 routes become one heavy rail line, rather than, for example, one B-line and 3 articulated high frequency routes as in the 10 year vision. It then becomes connecting the dots for trip generators along those routes, which include connections with north-south FTN routes, UBC, the Canada Line, etc. However, Metrotown is a bigger centre than Joyce, and this is where the Burnaby N-S line connects. If the E-W route ended at Joyce, there would be a lot of transfers on at Joyce and off at Metrotown, and the Expo line’s capacity is a more immediate problem than these ultimate rail lines. This is why there is a switch between 41^st and 49^th. If the route is LRT, it should probably interline with the Commercial line instead of tunneling under the park, although that adds travel time. Surface LRT would be somewhat slow, and out of place in the higher end housing along parts of 41^st and 49^th, but a tunnel may be too much.

The Burnaby N-S line mainly replaces the 130, and must connect to BCIT and Metrotown, which don’t line up north-south. The next question covers why it crosses between major roads.

The Commercial Line, if LRT, could probably make a couple of awkward turns between Argyle and Knight, but those have an effect on operation and maintenance, which is also expensive. I guess it could go down Victoria and then over the Fraser River, but that is a two lane road surrounded by housing.

The tunneling vs elevated in your Broadway example comes up in a later question. 

 

4. Why does the Burnaby N-S line avoid Brentwood and go to Gilmore instead?

 

The condo developments along Willingdon south of Lougheed, and at Brentwood itself, don't really leave space for an elevated train. The wide empty corridor on Willingdon is being turned into a bike path and park. I would have chosen Willingdon if not for those two factors, and had it interline somehow with the Hastings line (I suppose elevated rail could still go over the pathway). Using Gilmore takes advantage of the wide ROW at Boundary, even with the power lines there, as well as the open space around Still Creek (which would probably be unrealistic environmentally, so I may not stick with that idea.) Any station at Brentwood (Or Gilmore) would have to be incorporated into the developments being planned at those locations. The line would also have to dive underground south of Hastings on Willingdon (see my answer to question 9). It's not apparent from the map, but the N-S line is intended to be mostly elevated between Hastings and Moscrop, even if LRT, and Boundary has better space for a tunnel portal than Willingdon.

 

5. For the Queensborough line, how did you choose your route, and why not have it route along the existing rail ROW the whole way instead of just sections?

I don't have enough information about Queensborough to know where the best route is, so I guessed. I have it as a tram because the City of New Westminster hopes that it could be a tram one day, and I wanted a connection between the express highway buses and Skytrain. I will eventually have time to go to more of Queensborough in person to get a sense of where things could go. 

 

6. For the Hastings line, why do you bring it south to Union/Georgia instead of staying on Hastings?

 

Originally, it was because Hastings doesn't connect smoothly with West Georgia, and then it was to connect with the Canada and Expo lines while keeping a central route through downtown. If Dunsmuir could handle two tunnels, I would route it there. It has a station at Union and Gore to be in between Southeast False Creek development, the new Hospital, Chinatown, and Strathcona. It crosses at Raymur to avoid as many buildings in East Vancouver as possible, even as a fully tunneled route from Stanley Park to Capitol Hill. It's also intended to avoid digging up any part of East Hastings since 

 

7. More of a recommendation, but for the 4th crossing, I would have it follow Pipeline Rd to Burrard Inlet, then cross just east of the Lions Gate to Park Royal since that is planned for a major center and is a main transit exchange.

 

I originally had it connected in that way, and then realized that Stanley Park and First Narrows are complicated obstacles, as is the sharp turn west towards Park Royal. It's also very odd imagining a high end mall as a transit exchange, which is an impression I got after I went there for the first time since the mall's redevelopment.

 

8. For Richmond B-Line 2, is the line supposed to run along the former rail ROW that is currently a recreational trail? Or do you intend for it to run along Bridgeport or something else?

 

I originally had the Commercial route turn west and connect to Bridgeport Station, which meant not using Bridgeport Rd itself. I'm not sure if that's still a good idea. It depends how much this route needs to be separated from traffic, as Bridgeport Rd is fairly busy. Initially a B-line here would go along Bridgeport Rd just as the 430 does. 

 

9. Similar to 3, why do you suggest tunneling west of Capitol Hill for the Hastings line instead of at-grade or elevated?

 

For the same reason that the Millennium Line has to be tunneled under Broadway rather than LRT or Elevated. 4 lane streets with parking, high car and pedestrian usage, and lots of mixed use/commercial development, and which have no parallel street to shift most traffic to, usually require a tunnel to avoid massive disruption, and even then you have to avoid what happened on the equivalent parts of Cambie with the Canada Line. There's a term for that type of street, I just have to remember what it is. On Hastings, that type of street is continuous up until the west slope of Capitol Hill, and then it's probably easier to tunnel under the side of the hill, like the Evergreen line does with Clarke.

 

It's not apparent in the map, but I suspect that the Cassiar connector would complicate tunneling, so I would elevate the line alongside Hastings Park if I knew how to get it back underground again in time for Kootenay Loop. Kootenay Loop itself, and its location in the turn lane for the right turn lane to Cassiar from Hastings, is the major cause of transit delays and vehicle traffic problems for the entire area. I'm getting very familiar with the morning rush hour problems heading north onto Ironworkers, and, dream rail lines aside, something needs to be done soon to separate buses from vehicle traffic between Boundary, Hastings Park, and Cassiar (aside from the daily detour buses heading to Phibbs take along Renfrew and McGill).

I also just realized that I need to redraw the map at Kootenay Loop because changes I made don’t seem to be there now.

 

10. For the Commercial line, what sections are you referring to when you say LRT won't fit in the corridor, what sections did you have in mind?

 

Similar to answer 9, the type of street. However, I’m not sure Skytrain (above ground or underground) is required just for Commercial Drive from Hastings to northern Richmond (and it would have trouble crossing Skytrain at Broadway.) But then you run into the same problem LRT had with West Broadway because of the type of street, especially north of Broadway.  Having a rail route here would be dealing with the crowds on the 20 and 430 and getting buses off of the Knight St Bridge, but I’m not sure how to do so “realistically” yet.

 

The build order for my ideas after the 10 year vision, including 4 new B-lines on routes I have here as rail, would start with the Hastings line from Denman to Kootenay, along with the crossing from Kootenay to Phibbs, plus a B-line on the Burnaby N-S route. Also, Skytrain from UBS to Arbutus.

That ended up being a very long post. Sorry.

[buizelbus]

Here's a crudely constructed Richmond dream map. 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ByZKXOaKun-CzxY5cIHRTDcP66c2yFYU&usp=sharing

 

Basically some new shuttles, and buses on Sea Island.

[KINGSTER200]

Giving this a slight revival. Stole this from Reddit, but anywho, any thoughts?

 

[Citaro]

2 hours ago, KINGSTER200 said:

Giving this a slight revival. Stole this from Reddit, but anywho, any thoughts?

 

Not a chance a train can climb Lonsdale up to 29th... nevertheless, I do like the idea of a train crossing Burrard Inlet.

[ThatBusGuy]

4 hours ago, KINGSTER200 said:

Giving this a slight revival. Stole this from Reddit, but anywho, any thoughts?

 

Main thing I'm not so sure about is the lines to YVR. Assuming the "Marine Line" is on the existing tracks past 22nd Street, there would have to be completely new tracks built on Sea Island since the Skytrain technology wouldn't be compatible with the Canada Line. Now, I don't find myself in that area too often but from what I can recall, having to build all-new tracks and stations in that area seems like it would be a tight squeeze. But hey, if it could work, I wouldn't be opposed to it...

[DarkKeyo]

13 hours ago, KINGSTER200 said:

Giving this a slight revival. Stole this from Reddit, but anywho, any thoughts?

 

I'd be fully on board with Hastings, UBC-Capilano,and North Shore Rapid Transit, but I don't see how the Canada line could or needs to go under the inlet, or why low density Steveston needs the Canada line, why the airport needs a second line, or why the Expo line, the busiest, should go to low density Langley when an LRT will. 

[Express691]

The line up lonsdale should be an extension of the SFU Gondola.

(((Laugh react only)))

[maege]

17 hours ago, Citaro said:

Not a chance a train can climb Lonsdale up to 29th... nevertheless, I do like the idea of a train crossing Burrard Inlet.

Trains can and have climbed that (there used to be a streetcar up Lonsdale), albeit quite slowly. Needless to say, a gondola would definitely be a faster and cheaper option while providing vastly higher frequency. 

6 hours ago, Express691 said:

The line up lonsdale should be an extension of the SFU Gondola.

(((Laugh react only)))

It should be an extension of a gondola from Granville and Broadway, along Granville through downtown, and across the inlet.

20 hours ago, KINGSTER200 said:

Giving this a slight revival. Stole this from Reddit, but anywho, any thoughts?

 

1. There are way too many L shaped lines for me. I definitely prefer having lines with solid start and end points, with a direct, fairly straight connection between them. The long L lines can make it difficult to right-size the frequency, especially when Downtown towards SFU won't be nearly  nearly as busy as Kerrisdale towards downtown in the AM peak.

2. Some of the routes and technology specified make some of the lines shown crazy expensive for what they would serve, especially when there is existing tracks or ROW that allow an efficient at-grade line that fits much better into the area. 

Examples: 

 - The extensions of the Canada line. For the north end, a tunnel that deep would be both technically challenging and many billions of dollars for just 3.5km. For only a couple hundred million (~10% of the cost), a high-speed, high capacity gondola could be built. that would provide similar or possibly better benefits due to the higher frequency. For the extension to Steveston, there is existing ROW most of the way. Soil in Richmond does not allow for tunnelling, and putting elevated guideway through all the lower density would probably be killed by the local community. That would basically preclude such an extension. An at-grade solution, especially only that could connect via mainly old ROW to the Arbutus line at Marpole would be both cheaper, and likely much more widely accepted locally.

 - For the Marine Line, there is existing minimally used track and ROW from Marpole to 22nd St station (it continues to New West, then splits to Surrey or towards Braid). Instead of spending ~$80-100Million per km, it could use the existing ROW for an at-grade route at ~30-50% of the cost.

3. It's missing some key regional pieces for me:

 - Extending the Arbutus line via Bridgeport to the Shell Rd ROW or Hwy 99, from where it could provide regional service to Ladner, Tsawassen, and the ferry terminal on one leg, and to South Surrey, Langley, and White Rock on another.

 - An express line (only 2-5 stops between the Fraser River and the downtown) from Pacific Central via the CN ROW to the Fraser River and Scott Rd Stn, then continuing along the SRY ROW to Newton, Langley, and potentially beyond. This express service would eliminate the need to over-extend the Expo line to Langley (LRT would serve everything locally quite well).

 - A Victoria/Commercial line. One of the busiest routes in the region and a key N-S connector. 

There's more, but those are the main things for now.

[8010]

I think a new bus exchange is needed at Marine Drive Station so that there are less transfers between SkyTrain and other bus routes. Obviously there would need to be a lot of route changes which I think could actually improve service.

Route Changes:

2 - discontinue service along 16th Ave and 41st Ave, extend route to Marine Drive Station via MacKenzie, 41st (very small portion), Macdonald, Marine, 70th, Hudson, Marine

3 - all short-turn trips at Marine & Main would extend to the station

4 - restructure to travel between UBC and VCC Station, discontinue service to Downtown

5/6 - use double-deckers (more would need to be purchased obviously) to increase capacity and move trolleys over to other routes

7 - increase frequency, restructure to travel only between Downtown and Nanaimo Station

8 - extend to Marine Drive Station (there is already a wire switch at SE Marine & Ontario which leads towards Fraser)

9 - extend all westbound trips to UBC all-year round to replace  some of the service provide by the 14.

14 - restructure to travel between Downtown and UBC and reduce frequency for more trolleys to be used on other routes. Possible discontinuation of route.

15/50 - simple rename to 15 Downtown/Cambie, no route changes

16 - restructure to travel between Downtown and Arbutus, extend to Marine Drive Station via 63rd, Granville (discontinue 63rd Ave Loop)

17 - increase frequency during peak between Sept. and June to reduce overcrowding during school times, or begin using artics during peak-only

20 - extend to Marine Drive Station, including all short-turn trips at 54th, discontinue Harrison and 54th Ave loops

22 - extend to Marine Drive Station via Knight St Bridge ramps, discontinue terminus under Knight St Bridge 

29 - discontinue service along Muirfield Dr, extend along Renfrew Street, McGill, Powell to Downtown, extend to Marine Drive Station via Elliott, increase frequency

32 - increase frequency, restructure to travel along the 7's current routing between Dunbar and Downtown, extend to Marine Drive Station via Dunbar, Marine, Granville

44 - increase frequency to make up for service lost by the 4, possible upgrade to B-Line with reduced stops Downtown

84 - discontinued

100 - shorten route to travel between Marine and 22nd Street Stations, service along Hudson will be increased to 2-way service provided by the 2

160 - extend back to Burrard Station and increasing frequency to every 5-7 minutes during peak and 10 minutes off-peak, artics would most likely be used during peak to ease overcrowding

If any of this is confusing let me know and I'll try to clear it up as best as I can. I'm still debating on whether the 14/160 changes are a good choice since Hastings experience a bit of congestion and a lot of people use the 14.

[Cathay 888]

5 hours ago, 8010 said:

5/6 - use double-deckers (more would need to be purchased obviously) to increase capacity and move trolleys over to other routes

I hope so for this idea, but I think 5/6 have to use 3 doors double decker for more convenient of the passenger boarding and alighting, Alexander Dennis should consider bring the 3 doors version from Switzerland to North America for demo~~

alde6 by Gordon Scott

[Large Cat]

The 5/6 is the least good route for deckers in the entire system. 

[8010]

1 hour ago, Cathay 888 said:

I hope so for this idea, but I think 5/6 have to use 3 doors double decker for more convenient of the passenger boarding and alighting, Alexander Dennis should consider bring the 3 doors version from Switzerland to North America for demo~~

alde6 by Gordon Scott

 

51 minutes ago, Large Cat said:

The 5/6 is the least good route for deckers in the entire system. 

Large Cat these deckers are better if they have stairs at the rear as well as the front. Whenever I take the 5/6 route I notice that most people get on/off at SkyTrain stations and along Denman street so passenger flow wouldn't be too much of a challenge. Artics won't really work on the route because of the sharp turns so that's the only reason why I suggested it. Although I did see an artic going up Davie from Denman as a training vehicle last year so I may have just contradicted myself there.

[captaintrolley]

1 hour ago, Large Cat said:

The 5/6 is the least good route for deckers in the entire system. 

Trolleys are still the best for 'stop & go' routes that are downtown. They are fast on take-off and not belching smoke every other block while doing so. Downtown has a high concentration of people and the main reason downtown Vancouver is so pleasant is the lack of noise and emissions that would otherwise be caused by a plethora of diesel buses.

[8010]

6 minutes ago, captaintrolley said:

Trolleys are still the best for 'stop & go' routes that are downtown. They are fast on take-off and not belching smoke every other block while doing so. Downtown has a high concentration of people and the main reason downtown Vancouver is so pleasant is the lack of noise and emissions that would otherwise be caused by a plethora of diesel buses.

If only double decker trolleys were still a thing, but those haven't been in service anywhere in the world since '97. I wonder if the Enviro500H deckers are quieter.

[DarkKeyo]

 

7 hours ago, 8010 said:

If any of this is confusing let me know and I'll try to clear it up as best as I can. I'm still debating on whether the 14/160 changes are a good choice since Hastings experience a bit of congestion and a lot of people use the 14.

Capacity per bus isn't really the problem with the 5/6. It's more the fact that downtown is really busy limits frequencies even when they are as high as they are. That said, future rapid transit from the north shore stopping at Denman is a good future dream. 

I understand the idea of splitting more routes in half downtown, as the 2 and 22 were, but if that would solve problems, it would surely have been done already?

I don't understand why having the 160 (which is not a trolley) go all the way from Coquitlam to Downtown would improve anything, apart from getting buses out of Kootenay Loop. I don't understand how having every bus feed into Marine Dr is an improvement.

I assume as the Skytrain goes towards UBC, the 4, 9, 14, 44, and 84 will be modified to support it. 

 

[anyfong]

30 minutes ago, captaintrolley said:

Trolleys are still the best for 'stop & go' routes that are downtown. They are fast on take-off and not belching smoke every other block while doing so. Downtown has a high concentration of people and the main reason downtown Vancouver is so pleasant is the lack of noise and emissions that would otherwise be caused by a plethora of diesel buses.

Totally agree. So many cities are committing the grave mistake of shutting down trolleybus systems. Look at Montreal for instance, where I live, and the large amount of old diesel buses really makes the air choke and making downtown very noisy. On a related note, I was once in a car going southbound on the A-15 towards Montreal and we were stuck in traffic for an hour, and unknowingly, we were breathing fumes from other cars and I actually was very close to fainting, which shows how bad the air in Montreal really is. The STM is also testing fast-charging battery buses, but they are in the garage 90% of the time despite them being very reliable, in which their electric bus program really looks like a scam to me as every time I go on the 36 Monk, there aren't any electric buses there. The new hybrids are excellent and emit so much less fumes and noise, but unfortunately, there aren't enough to cover the whole city and that they bought them too late and made the mistake previously of buying too much diesel buses to begin with.

[8010]

On 21/03/2018 at 5:15 PM, DarkKeyo said:

 

Capacity per bus isn't really the problem with the 5/6. It's more the fact that downtown is really busy limits frequencies even when they are as high as they are. That said, future rapid transit from the north shore stopping at Denman is a good future dream. 

 

I understand the idea of splitting more routes in half downtown, as the 2 and 22 were, but if that would solve problems, it would surely have been done already?

I don't understand why having the 160 (which is not a trolley) go all the way from Coquitlam to Downtown would improve anything, apart from getting buses out of Kootenay Loop. I don't understand how having every bus feed into Marine Dr is an improvement.

I assume as the Skytrain goes towards UBC, the 4, 9, 14, 44, and 84 will be modified to support it. 

 

Because of the Cambie corridor plan Marine could be a new major transit hub and also the route extensions would alleviate crowding from the 100, which is normally packed during peak, as well as introduce new bus services to areas that currently have little or none.

I was thinking of extending all other Kootenay buses elsewhere like Phibbs, Cap U, or Brentwood but it wouldn't make much sense. I do think that the 160 route would be way to long, so maybe that idea should be scrapped since I wasn't all that sure of it to begin with.

I came up with the idea of splitting the Downtown routes in half because of reliability issues along certain corridors due to congestion and delays, and since some of the Richmond routes are finally getting split in the coming years I assume that this concept is relatively new to the TransLink planners or something.

In regards to the 5/6, if bus lanes replaced on-street parking (multi-level parking lots would need to be built) I could see the route be more efficient than it currently is. I hope that one day the 257 is upgraded to a B-Line and will connect at Denman, although there is a plan for a Downtown/Lynn Valley via Lions Gate B-Line to be introduced in Phase 3 of the 10-Year Plan, we'll have to wait and see.

I chose to reroute the 4 to VCC station because I read that the 84 was supposed to be discontinued once the 99 is fully replaced by the Millennium Line, I do understand the problem with losing a major Downtown connection which is why I thought it would be best if the 44 would be upgraded to a B-Line to replace that connection.

On 21/03/2018 at 5:16 PM, anyfong said:

Totally agree. So many cities are committing the grave mistake of shutting down trolleybus systems. Look at Montreal for instance, where I live, and the large amount of old diesel buses really makes the air choke and making downtown very noisy. On a related note, I was once in a car going southbound on the A-15 towards Montreal and we were stuck in traffic for an hour, and unknowingly, we were breathing fumes from other cars and I actually was very close to fainting, which shows how bad the air in Montreal really is. The STM is also testing fast-charging battery buses, but they are in the garage 90% of the time despite them being very reliable, in which their electric bus program really looks like a scam to me as every time I go on the 36 Monk, there aren't any electric buses there. The new hybrids are excellent and emit so much less fumes and noise, but unfortunately, there aren't enough to cover the whole city and that they bought them too late and made the mistake previously of buying too much diesel buses to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, I love the trolley network in Vancouver and I wish TransLink would order trolleys more like the XT40s and XT60s as well as expand the network. It's just that one route that is plagued with congestion and overcrowding that I thought double deckers would solve the problem, but I think bus lanes and more trolleys would be a more cost-effective and more environmentally friendly solution to the current route issues.