TransLink Future - Dream's and Aspirations

[TranslinkKid]

3 hours ago, 8010 said:

Proposed Kootenay Loop Reroutes:

I'm honestly not a fan of Kootenay Loop and I doubt TransLink is going to ever expand it so I believe that the loop should be discontinued and all of the bus routes should be rerouted elsewhere.

14 - terminate route at Boundary & Hastings (wires will not be on the Burnaby side of Boundary, buses will travel down Boundary to Pender and layover on Pender Street)

27 - extend route to Phibbs Exchange

28 - the 1-2 daily Kootenay Loop trips extend to Phibbs Exchange

130 - all Kootenay Loop trips travel to either Phibbs Exchange or to Pender

131 - maintain current routing as buses do not travel into the bus loop

160 - terminate route at Kootenay & Pender/Hastings via Boundary

Here is my horribly drawn route concept for the layover area that would be used by the 14 (red) & 160 (green):

Absolutely unnecessary. The loop is a perfect place for buses to turn around. Why do you think it's called a "loop?" So buses can loop around and go the opposite direction. Removing street parking for buses will just upset residents in the area. The Ironworkers Memorial Bridge frequently gets clogged during rush hour. Accidents on the bridge will cause traffic to back up on to Hastings St. You mentioned extending the 27 and 130 to Phibbs Exchange. Where will these buses short turn if anything happens on the bridge? Pender St is too narrow to accommodate 40 feet buses. Don't even get me started on Franklin St.

[8010]

29 minutes ago, TranslinkKid said:

Absolutely unnecessary. The loop is a perfect place for buses to turn around. Why do you think it's called a "loop?" So buses can loop around and go the opposite direction. Removing street parking for buses will just upset residents in the area. The Ironworkers Memorial Bridge frequently gets clogged during rush hour. Accidents on the bridge will cause traffic to back up on to Hastings St. You mentioned extending the 27 and 130 to Phibbs Exchange. Where will these buses short turn if anything happens on the bridge? Pender St is too narrow to accommodate 40 feet buses. Don't even get me started on Franklin St.

Sure the loop is perfect for turning buses around, but years from now TransLink is going to have to increase frequency on these routes and there is not enough layover space in that loop to accommdate additional buses. Buses can fit through Pender Street but it's tight as hell right now, perhaps it could become one-way in that area just to keep parking and maintain safety/reliability, I was thinking of having buses have a one-way layover on Kootenay between Hastings and Pender as that parking is never busy. If the 27 and 130 suffer from delays they can travel down to Renfrew Sreet and travel to McGill where the 4 turns around, or they could short-turn via Albert and Esmond as the roads are a little wider, not much though. (This is meant to be a solution that could be implemented 10+ years from now, not something I want done tomorrow)

[TranslinkKid]

53 minutes ago, 8010 said:

Buses can fit through Pender Street but it's tight as hell right now, perhaps it could become one-way in that area just to keep parking and maintain safety/reliability, I was thinking of having buses have a one-way layover on Kootenay between Hastings and Pender as that parking is never busy.

So basically you want to increase the size of the bus loop to a city block?

 

54 minutes ago, 8010 said:

If the 27 and 130 suffer from delays they can travel down to Renfrew Sreet and travel to McGill where the 4 turns around

That is too long of a detour and will add more delays due to distance.

[8010]

6 minutes ago, TranslinkKid said:

So basically you want to increase the size of the bus loop to a city block?

Why not? There are a few bus loops/exchanges in Metro Vancouver that have entire block-sized exchanges or larger, but even having it be the size of half a city block would be better than the current loop, but I can't see TransLink investing in such an expansion because we NEED overpriced Light Rail lines and half of an underground SkyTrain extension that costs almost as much as 3/4 of a full above ground extension.

[TranslinkKid]

5 hours ago, 8010 said:

 but I can't see TransLink investing in such an expansion because

Because it's not necessary and a waste of money. Why would you waste money to relocate trolley wires, bus stops, street parking just because a bus loop is too small? If there were any service expansions, wouldn't it make more sense to add more bus stops on the street instead of relocating an entire loop? Take Marine Drive Station for example, remember all those route extensions you mentioned? Marine Drive is too small to handle more buses. With that logic, they should close Marine Drive bus loop and relocate all the bus stops on to the street.

[8010]

3 hours ago, TranslinkKid said:

Because it's not necessary and a waste of money. Why would you waste money to relocate trolley wires, bus stops, street parking just because a bus loop is too small? If there were any service expansions, wouldn't it make more sense to add more bus stops on the street instead of relocating an entire loop? Take Marine Drive Station for example, remember all those route extensions you mentioned? Marine Drive is too small to handle more buses. With that logic, they should close Marine Drive bus loop and relocate all the bus stops on to the street.

So you have a problem with taking away street parking on Kootenay/Pender St but you don't have a problem with taking away street parking on Hastings Street is what I'm hearing?

[Ninja Bus Fan]

5 hours ago, 8010 said:

So you have a problem with taking away street parking on Kootenay/Pender St but you don't have a problem with taking away street parking on Hastings Street is what I'm hearing?

I'm pretty sure due to zoning regulations of what you're proposing with the removal of street parking in a residential neighborhood is't going to go to well compared to a commercial zone. Think of it like this; if you remove street parking along Hastings you still have an abundance of near by parking ( i.e behind commercial retail business, street parking, parking lots ). In the case of a residential neighborhood you're basically removing parking from the people who live in the area. How would you like it if city planners decided to remove all the street parking outside of your home in favor of a bike lane. You'd be upset for sure. It's the same ordeal with this scenario that you're proposing. 

 

I'm not here to bash on your posts or anything, but I just to let you know to put a bit more thought into what you're about to post. A previous post from you stated an extension to whistler which I highly doubt would happen considering how far away Whistler is from Vancouver. Instead of trying to recreate a map from City Skylines or Cities of Motion, just be more realistic with your dreams. Think about the resources, potential zoning issues, impact of daily commuters, how will it affect people, etc.

 

That's just my 2 cents, cheers bud.

[8010]

51 minutes ago, Ninja Bus Fan said:

I'm pretty sure due to zoning regulations of what you're proposing with the removal of street parking in a residential neighborhood is't going to go to well compared to a commercial zone. Think of it like this; if you remove street parking along Hastings you still have an abundance of near by parking ( i.e behind commercial retail business, street parking, parking lots ). In the case of a residential neighborhood you're basically removing parking from the people who live in the area. How would you like it if city planners decided to remove all the street parking outside of your home in favor of a bike lane. You'd be upset for sure. It's the same ordeal with this scenario that you're proposing. 

 

I'm not here to bash on your posts or anything, but I just to let you know to put a bit more thought into what you're about to post. A previous post from you stated an extension to whistler which I highly doubt would happen considering how far away Whistler is from Vancouver. Instead of trying to recreate a map from City Skylines or Cities of Motion, just be more realistic with your dreams. Think about the resources, potential zoning issues, impact of daily commuters, how will it affect people, etc.

 

That's just my 2 cents, cheers bud.

Completely understandable, I know that you're not trying to bash opinions and what not, but something needs to be done with Kootenay Loop as there will inevitably need to be an increased frequency to those routes in about 10 years from now and I don't see any other ideas as to how to loop can be expanded/relocated to accommodate the extra buses as the current loop is too small for anymore buses on layover. Don't get me wrong, I know that some of my ideas are freaking weird and somewhat unrealistic but I just can't see any other possible alternatives.

Going a little off topic to talk about the Whistler route. My idea was to have the 259 run between Caulfield and/or Horseshoe Bay and Whistler, making the 257 a primary connection to travel to/from Vancouver. It may be a bit too long though so maybe that route could end at Squamish instead and create a connection to a BC Transit route that will travel between Squamish and Whistler if there isn't one already (I'm not very knowledgeable about BC Transit's bus services).

(I don't have a car so I can't say I'd be upset about having street parking removed outside of my place, I think I'd be more pissed off if Robertson put in a new bike lane that will barely be used)

Btw I'm currently looking into how South of the Fraser's transit network can be improved, if you have any suggestions for that I'm all ears. I prefer hearing what people have to say before something is presented because as you've seen from some of my other posts I tend to overthink things that aren't a big deal. I'm thinking of this idea as something that would happen after SWATP and the 10-Year Plan are finished.

[KINGSTER200]

8 hours ago, 8010 said:

Going a little off topic to talk about the Whistler route. My idea was to have the 259 run between Caulfield and/or Horseshoe Bay and Whistler, making the 257 a primary connection to travel to/from Vancouver. It may be a bit too long though so maybe that route could end at Squamish instead and create a connection to a BC Transit route that will travel between Squamish and Whistler if there isn't one already (I'm not very knowledgeable about BC Transit's bus services).

Here: BC Transit: Sea to Sky Study

 

Skip to Page 17.

[8010]

What changes do you people want to see on the Bus Network in South of the Fraser? I'm currently making a list of changes that I want to see implemented once the SWATP and 10-Year Plan are complete. (Service increases/decreases, route cancellations, new routes/service areas, etc.)

[ThatBusGuy]

2 hours ago, 8010 said:

What changes do you people want to see on the Bus Network in South of the Fraser? I'm currently making a list of changes that I want to see implemented once the SWATP and 10-Year Plan are complete. (Service increases/decreases, route cancellations, new routes/service areas, etc.)

My thoughts for changes in Delta are a few pages back. Currently working on Richmond, might move on to Surrey and White Rock after.

[Ninja Bus Fan]

15 hours ago, 8010 said:

What changes do you people want to see on the Bus Network in South of the Fraser? I'm currently making a list of changes that I want to see implemented once the SWATP and 10-Year Plan are complete. (Service increases/decreases, route cancellations, new routes/service areas, etc.)

Well this isn't really a bus network fantasy map, but more so a fantasy rail map. If I was given unlimited money and was in charge of how transit in SoF would look like, this is basically what I would have in mind.

First of extending the Expo Line to Langley Ctr but also having the line extend up towards Carvolth Exch via 200th Street. I would  also have an LRT Line running along Highway 1 between Guildford and Carvolth Exch with a future possibility of an extension towards Abbotsford if the demand is there. I would scrap the Newton - Guildford LRT Line in favor of an underground subway line operating between Guildford and White Rock Ctr. The only time the line would be exposed is between Highway 10 and 34th Ave on an elevated guide way where it would head back underground until it reaches the terminus at White Rock Ctr. Lastly from this subway Line I would have an extension from Newton Exch towards Scott Road Station. Between 99th Avenue and Scott Road Station would be an elevated guide way and I'd build a new station platform right above the current bus loop.  

 

I know this idea is far fetched but hey this thread is basically about dreams and fantasies. 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1SxLgOFo3_0glRzAxNWbSsybOtRVcG3NP&ll=49.12950773156521%2C-122.83645030894775&z=13

Link to the map I made ^^^ 

[maege]

9 hours ago, Ninja Bus Fan said:

Well this isn't really a bus network fantasy map, but more so a fantasy rail map. If I was given unlimited money and was in charge of how transit in SoF would look like, this is basically what I would have in mind.

First of extending the Expo Line to Langley Ctr but also having the line extend up towards Carvolth Exch via 200th Street. I would  also have an LRT Line running along Highway 1 between Guildford and Carvolth Exch with a future possibility of an extension towards Abbotsford if the demand is there. I would scrap the Newton - Guildford LRT Line in favor of an underground subway line operating between Guildford and White Rock Ctr. The only time the line would be exposed is between Highway 10 and 34th Ave on an elevated guide way where it would head back underground until it reaches the terminus at White Rock Ctr. Lastly from this subway Line I would have an extension from Newton Exch towards Scott Road Station. Between 99th Avenue and Scott Road Station would be an elevated guide way and I'd build a new station platform right above the current bus loop.  

 

I know this idea is far fetched but hey this thread is basically about dreams and fantasies. 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1SxLgOFo3_0glRzAxNWbSsybOtRVcG3NP&ll=49.12950773156521%2C-122.83645030894775&z=13

Link to the map I made ^^^ 

Jut curious, what's the big draw to subways?

I know a lot of people seem to at least subconsciously think they are better, but why subways instead of at-grade (LRT, tram or regional rail) or elevated (Skytrain, monorail, LRT) for most of your new lines?

[8010]

4 minutes ago, maege said:

Jut curious, what's the big draw to subways?

I know a lot of people seem to at least subconsciously think they are better, but why subways instead of at-grade (LRT, tram or regional rail) or elevated (Skytrain, monorail, LRT) for most of your new lines?

When they're in service they're less disruptive to the general public than the other alternatives you've mentioned.

[DarkKeyo]

2 hours ago, maege said:

Jut curious, what's the big draw to subways?

I know a lot of people seem to at least subconsciously think they are better, but why subways instead of at-grade (LRT, tram or regional rail) or elevated (Skytrain, monorail, LRT) for most of your new lines?

For me, it depends where it is. I've been on the Skytrain, Calgary and Edmonton LRT, Toronto subway, etc, and seen places where things work well or don't work. I tend to suggest subways for dense urban areas where nothing else will fit, and high ridership areas where a surface route would be slow and crowded (Eg. Broadway, Hastings). I use LRT for medium density areas, places there is a dedicated ROW, light suburban areas (eg. Surrey, Langley, probably much of Burnaby, Arbutus), but my experience in Calgary showed me that LRT needs to not cross busy roads at grade in awkward locations (eg. Surrey, Langley). 

[8010]

South of Fraser Transit Plan:

Before you read the following changes I am proposing please note that these are changes I would like to see happen AFTER the 10-Year Plan and SWATP are completed. I also don't give a flying f*ck if you think these changes are farfetched/unrealistic/etc. I will not have anything in regards to Surrey/Newton/Guildford rapid transit as I am awaiting to see which technology will be chosen (BRT or LRT) or the Fraser Highway rapid transit.

Proposed Changes:

301 - FTN service

311 - 2-way peak service, 30-60 minute off-peak frequency

312 - 20 minute weekday frequency, 30 minute weekend frequency

314 - extend route to serve Scottsdale, then back to regular route via Scott Road, Scottsdale, 75th Ave, 124th St, 84th Ave, regular route to Sunbury. Extend all Scott & 96th trips to Sunbury

316 - 30 minute Sunday frequency (up from every 60 minutes)

319 - frequency will probably be reduced to every 15 minutes once the Scott Road B-Line is implemented

320 - extend all Fleetwood trips to Langley Centre (FTN service)

321 - extend to Scott Road Station, discontinue service South of White Rock Centre

323 - 20 minute weekend frequency from start of service until 11 pm

324 - increase weekday off-peak frequency to every 20 minutes (up from every 30 minutes)

325 - increase weekday off-peak frequency to every 20 minutes (up from every 30 minutes)

326 - increase span of service to operate earlier on Sundays

329 - discontinue route to reduce route duplication with the 314

335 - extend all Guildford trips to Newton Exchange

337 - FTN service. Extend route from WB 108th Ave & 160th St to travel along 160th St, 112th Ave, 154th St, 110th Ave, regular route to Surrey Central/Guildford Exchange

341 - increase weekday off-peak frequency to every 20 minutes

345 - discontinue route to reduce route duplication with the 375 & 502

351 - end route at White Rock Centre (this is from the proposed service changes from 2015). Increase off-peak frequency to every 12 minutes (up from every 15 minutes)

352 - Reroute from 128th St via 20th Ave, 148th St, North Bluff Rd to White Rock Centre. Increase off-peak frequency to every 30-60 minutes and introduce 2-way peak service

354 - increase off-peak frequency to every 30-60 minutes and introduce 2-way peak service

360 - Reroute from White Rock Centre via North Bluff Rd, 124th St, 25th Ave, Crescent Park. Increase span of service to operate until 9 pm every day. Increase weekend frequency to every 30 minutes (up from every 60 minutes)

361 - increase span of service to operate until 9 pm every day. Increase weekend frequency to every 30 minutes (up from every 60 minutes)

364 - increase span of service to operate until 9 pm on weekends, increase peak frequency to every 20 minutes

365 - new route that will replace the local portion of the 351 between White Rock Centre and Crescent Beach (based on proposed service changes from 2015)

373 - 30 minute off-peak and weekend service (up from every 40 minutes)

375 - increase weekday frequency to every 20 minutes (up from every 30 minutes)

388 - increase off-peak frequency to every 30 minutes

391 - discontinue route to reduce route duplication with the 312 & 316

393 - discontinue route to reduce route duplication with the 323, 364, & C75

394 - will probably be discontinued once the White Rock B-Line is implemented

395 - discontinue route to reduce route duplication with the 320 & 364

501 - FTN service

503 - extend to Abbotsford

509 - discontinue route to reduce route duplication with the C62

510 - new route that will replace the western part of the C60/C61 (No changes to service)

511 - new route that will replace the eastern part of the C60/C61 (no changes to service)

531 - end route at Langley Centre, discontinue service to/from Willowbrook

555 - FTN service

602 - introduce 60 minute weekend service 

603/604 - 60 minute off-peak and weekend service 

606/608 - 60 minute off-peak and weekend service 

609 - extend to Ladner Exchange via 41b St, River Rd, 47a Ave, Arthur Dr, 44th Ave

620 - add additional trips where/when needed

8XX School Specials - discontinue services to reduce route duplications and to improve transit frequencies on other routes, schedules to adjacent routes will be adjusted to follow school special trip departures

C60/C61 - discontinue routes and replace with the new 510/511

C62 - reroute to replace coverage from the 509 with 20 minute peak service and 30 minute off-peak service. Increase Sunday span of service to operate until 9 pm

C63 - increase Sunday span of service to operate until 9 pm

C64 - increase Sunday span of service to operate until 9 pm

C70 - extend to Langley Centre via 64th Ave, 204 St, Logan Ave. Increase span of service to operate until 9 pm every day

C75 - Reroute from Scottsdale Exchange via 121a St, 75th Ave, 76th Ave, 128th St, regular route

C76 - reroute all trips to serve Delta View. Increase span of service to operate until 9 pm every day

C84 - increase span of service to operate until 9 pm on weekends 

C86 - increase span of service to operate until 9 pm every day. Increase Sunday frequency to every 30 minutes

C88 - increase span of service to operate until 9 pm every day. Increase Sunday frequency to every 30 minutes

Ladner/Langley route - increase peak frequency to every 30 minutes

Bridgeport/Boundary Bay route - 60 minute off-peak and weekend service

West Coast Express - extension to Abbotsford

Edited April 19, 2018 by 8010

[captaintrolley]

1 hour ago, 8010 said:

301 - FTN service

What is FTN ??? Thanks

[8010]

5 minutes ago, captaintrolley said:

What is FTN ??? Thanks

Sorry, probably should've defined that. FTN stands for Frequent Transit Network (Service that runs every 15 minutes or better)

[captaintrolley]

1 hour ago, 8010 said:

Sorry, probably should've defined that. FTN stands for Frequent Transit Network (Service that runs every 15 minutes or better)

Thanks.  That phrase is unheard of in Edmonton    I miss Vancouver, the whole city is FTN compared to Edmonton. I wish we had a fraction of the service you have.

[buizelbus]

13 minutes ago, captaintrolley said:

Thanks.  That phrase is unheard of in Edmonton    I miss Vancouver, the whole city is FTN compared to Edmonton. I wish we had a fraction of the service you have.

It's a service term used by TransLink and they want to expand the network. They have a whole map of FTN routes and it's pretty large all the way out to Maple Ridge and Langley.

[captaintrolley]

4 minutes ago, buizelbus said:

It's a service term used by TransLink and they want to expand the network. They have a whole map of FTN routes and it's pretty large all the way out to Maple Ridge and Langley.

You'd never hear that 'service term' in Edmonton.  ETS is all about improving service by implementing reductions. Only ETS can do that and get away with it.

[Ninja Bus Fan]

20 minutes ago, buizelbus said:

It's a service term used by TransLink and they want to expand the network. They have a whole map of FTN routes and it's pretty large all the way out to Maple Ridge and Langley.

Captaintrolley knows about that as she used to live in Vancouver before moving back to Edmonton a year or so ago. 

 

13 hours ago, maege said:

Jut curious, what's the big draw to subways?

The reason why I'm pushing a subway system over at grade or above grade transit options is because I'm trying to be as least destructive as possible. For instance if a Skytrain line was built from Guildford to White Rock Ctr via Surrey Central Stn, one lane from each direction would have to be blocked off for construction and removed once construction has been completed. It would most likely be the same ordeal with the LRT line. With the underground subway option, tunnel boring would most likely be the method used in this scenario and because of that 104th will still keep it's 4 lanes. Another example would be the Scott Road line where having anything above ground would result in a lane losses.

If you'd like me to thoroughly explain this I'd be more than gladly to do so as I had to quickly type this out before I had to do something important.  

[buizelbus]

23 minutes ago, Ninja Bus Fan said:

Captaintrolley knows about that as she used to live in Vancouver before moving back to Edmonton a year or so ago. 

 

The reason why I'm pushing a subway system over at grade or above grade transit options is because I'm trying to be as least destructive as possible. For instance if a Skytrain line was built from Guildford to White Rock Ctr via Surrey Central Stn, one lane from each direction would have to be blocked off for construction and removed once construction has been completed. It would most likely be the same ordeal with the LRT line. With the underground subway option, tunnel boring would most likely be the method used in this scenario and because of that 104th will still keep it's 4 lanes. Another example would be the Scott Road line where having anything above ground would result in a lane losses.

If you'd like me to thoroughly explain this I'd be more than gladly to do so as I had to quickly type this out before I had to do something important.  

If you didn't read some three posts ago, he had no idea what it was.

[captaintrolley]

1 minute ago, buizelbus said:

If you didn't read some three posts ago, he had no idea what it was.

I know what a Frequent Transit Network is, just never heard it called by that term / acronym.  It's as if I called it a HFC you would not know that it stood for High Frequency Corridor unless I referred to it as such.  In proper writing, when you use an acronym or unfamiliar abbreviation, the polite thing to do is to explain it in brackets the first time it appears so readers will know what it means when they encounter it further along in the text. Nowadays there are so many acronyms and many of the same ones can have multiple meanings. If I am not sure of one, I Google it. If that comes up empty then I ask.

[maege]

 

13 hours ago, 8010 said:

When they're in service they're less disruptive to the general public than the other alternatives you've mentioned.

 

11 hours ago, DarkKeyo said:

For me, it depends where it is. I've been on the Skytrain, Calgary and Edmonton LRT, Toronto subway, etc, and seen places where things work well or don't work. I tend to suggest subways for dense urban areas where nothing else will fit, and high ridership areas where a surface route would be slow and crowded (Eg. Broadway, Hastings). I use LRT for medium density areas, places there is a dedicated ROW, light suburban areas (eg. Surrey, Langley, probably much of Burnaby, Arbutus), but my experience in Calgary showed me that LRT needs to not cross busy roads at grade in awkward locations (eg. Surrey, Langley). 

 

18 minutes ago, Ninja Bus Fan said:

The reason why I'm pushing a subway system over at grade or above grade transit options is because I'm trying to be as least destructive as possible. For instance if a Skytrain line was built from Guildford to White Rock Ctr via Surrey Central Stn, one lane from each direction would have to be blocked off for construction and removed once construction has been completed. It would most likely be the same ordeal with the LRT line. With the underground subway option, tunnel boring would most likely be the method used in this scenario and because of that 104th will still keep it's 4 lanes. Another example would be the Scott Road line where having anything above ground would result in a lane losses.

If you'd like me to thoroughly explain this I'd be more than gladly to do so as I had to quickly type this out before I had to do something important.  

Thanks for all the replies. The general sense I'm getting is that subways are preferred because they allow lane space to continue to be reserved for cars. Is that more or less accurate?

@DarkKeyo Do you pretty much think that lines should be either at grade or below, and elevated is almost never the best way (based on your omission of elevated)?

@8010 Disruptive in what ways? Do you mean taking up road-space, as I mentioned above, and having some crossing of roads?