TransLink Future - Dream's and Aspirations

[Marlow1331]

2 hours ago, Xcelsior Bus Fan said:

Would be good if the 160 stays the same as it is now rather that being shortened to Kootney loop

And why is that? ?

[8800GTX]

On ‎2016‎-‎08‎-‎25 at 7:24 AM, Blue Bus Fan said:

I wish that Canada line trains get stronger A/C because it warm has hell in trains with current A/C units on the train. 

It is definitely not strong enough, I recall it being stronger in previous years...

 

[Blue Bus Fan]

I wish that TransLink straighten some routes while it makes sense to do so, because it waste time doing some complete unnecessary detours. 

[cleowin]

Can't really do that in Burnaby. However, the 129 is such a random route, it could be split

[Brando737]

20 minutes ago, cleowin said:

Can't really do that in Burnaby. However, the 129 is such a random route, it could be split

Where could the 129 be split?  They could either have it split at Hastings and Willingdon or have a major restructure of the routes around it to ensure service is kept where it needs to be.

Edit: City hall might actually be a better option as a split point.

[Blue Bus Fan]

25 minutes ago, cleowin said:

Can't really do that in Burnaby.

Sure they can it could be service improve for riders and drivers, just use Community Shuttle or 40 ft buses if route justify them. 

 

The 228 and ever other route that services that go on Grand Blouvard E why do they have make the detour onto Grand Blouvard W and the C9 with detour on Jaimeson Cr, these detours seems unnecessary to the routes schedule or ridership. If these detours are necessary, please explain why? 

[Michael Marriott]

6 hours ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

Sure they can it could be service improve for riders and drivers, just use Community Shuttle or 40 ft buses if route justify them. 

 

The 228 and ever other route that services that go on Grand Blouvard E why do they have make the detour onto Grand Blouvard W and the C9 with detour on Jaimeson Cr, these detours seems unnecessary to the routes schedule or ridership. If these detours are necessary, please explain why? 

The only reason I can think of for the 228 detour is to provide a same stop transfer to the 240.  This should be eliminated and have a cross street transfer at 15 St/Grand Blvd.

The C9 diversion onto Jamieson Court is to provide access to a seniors home that would otherwise face a steep, indirect walk to Columbia St.  As well, the train tracks leave no room for a sidewalk/bus stop on for the NB C9 on Columbia St, meaning without the diversion there would be a long gap in bus stops on the C9.  The C9 will be changing to use Richmond St and Cumberland St in September, since there is poor pedestrian access from the neighborhood to Columbia St.  

[Blue Bus Fan]

1 minute ago, Michael Marriott said:

The only reason I can think of for the 228 detour is to provide a same stop transfer to the 240.  This should be eliminated and have a cross street transfer at 15 St/Grand Blvd.

The C9 diversion onto Jamieson Court is to provide access to a seniors home that would otherwise face a steep, indirect walk to Columbia St.  As well, the train tracks leave no room for a sidewalk/bus stop on for the NB C9 on Columbia St, meaning without the diversion there would be a long gap in bus stops on the C9.  The C9 will be changing to use Richmond St and Cumberland St in September, since there is poor pedestrian access from the neighborhood to Columbia St.  

1. That is bad logic for a route becuase it adds time if there is traffic.

2. Ok thank you that makes sense.

[GORDOOM]

Question for the CMBC people out there:

If funding were made available for purchase of buses and operating subsidy to support running them, what is the fastest that CMBC could actually hire staff to expand operations? What I mean by this is: you could announce tomorrow a purchase of 500 buses in one shot to expand service, but you can't do the same with the operators to run them or the mechanics to maintain them - these need to be recruited and trained. Net of employee retirements, and under the structure of the current CBA, how fast could CMBC reasonably do this?

[captaintrolley]

6 hours ago, GORDOOM said:

Question for the CMBC people out there:

If funding were made available for purchase of buses and operating subsidy to support running them, what is the fastest that CMBC could actually hire staff to expand operations? What I mean by this is: you could announce tomorrow a purchase of 500 buses in one shot to expand service, but you can't do the same with the operators to run them or the mechanics to maintain them - these need to be recruited and trained. Net of employee retirements, and under the structure of the current CBA, how fast could CMBC reasonably do this?

Not just recruited and trained. Postings for the positions have to go out, and stay up for a few weeks. Applications have to be pored over and a short list made up of whom they are going to contact. Then the initial interviews and subsequent interviews (sometimes in front of a panel with questions).  The whole paring down process in itself might take two or three months depending how many people are being hired. Then some more testing, possibly with a video test. Then health physicals and waiting for the results to come back. I would say, if they rushed through it, six to eight months.  Of course I am not a CMBC person... so let's hear from them....

[ConventionalMan]

2 hours ago, captaintrolley said:

Not just recruited and trained. Postings for the positions have to go out, and stay up for a few weeks. Applications have to be pored over and a short list made up of whom they are going to contact. Then the initial interviews and subsequent interviews (sometimes in front of a panel with questions).  The whole paring down process in itself might take two or three months depending how many people are being hired. Then some more testing, possibly with a video test. Then health physicals and waiting for the results to come back. I would say, if they rushed through it, six to eight months.  Of course I am not a CMBC person... so let's hear from them....

Bang on. Technically speaking, if we were talking about conventional only, and if there were 500 people in the pipeline, and instructors to handle them all at once, it would take 6 weeks. That is how long the training takes. But that's a lot of "ifs" lol

[Dane]

I'd imagine part of this isn't hypothetical. Isn't Translink the recipient of the pretty big cash for bus service expansion next year from the Federal Infastructure Program? 

 

In in any event I'm sure the buses take longer to arrive than anything else! Seems to get a bit slower every order. 

[Brando737]

For me, it took 6 months from submitting my application to 1st day of training.  Some operators said it only took a few months, but I think they applied at the job fair so that would've helped.  I've also heard up to a year for some yo go through the whole process. 

[captaintrolley]

29 minutes ago, ConventionalMan said:

Bang on. Technically speaking, if we were talking about conventional only, and if there were 500 people in the pipeline, and instructors to handle them all at once, it would take 6 weeks. That is how long the training takes. But that's a lot of "ifs" lol

Training is only a small part of the big picture. A lot goes on behind the scenes before we even get to training.

[GORDOOM]

You guys are getting towards what i'm asking, I think. It's not a matter of, "how long does it take to hire an operator?" but rather, "how long would it reasonably take to grow our workforce enough to add another 500 buses to the fleet and expand service hours accordingly?" I figured it would be on the order of months, if not a couple years.

[Brando737]

The other thing to consider is that even if we got the money tomorrow, it could take up to 5 years to get 500 buses built and delivered.  The first delivery's would most likely be 6 months to a year, at the earliest, after the funding and orders were in place.  Buses would probably would be delivered in batches of 50 to 100 per year.  

However, it would probably take about 2 to 3 years of planning before the company expected the buses to be delivered and service implemented and hiring would be part of that process.

[ConventionalMan]

2 hours ago, Brando737 said:

For me, it took 6 months from submitting my application to 1st day of training.  Some operators said it only took a few months, but I think they applied at the job fair so that would've helped.  I've also heard up to a year for some yo go through the whole process. 

6 months for me too.

2 hours ago, captaintrolley said:

Training is only a small part of the big picture. A lot goes on behind the scenes before we even get to training.

Of course. That's why I said 500 in the pipeline, ready to hit the classroom, all other thing aside. Like it's been mentioned, just the process to GET to training can be many months. That also assumes that EVERY student passes, which sometime doesn't happen. 2 in my class never made it. So, yes GORDOOM, it would realistically be somewhere in the area of a year to 18 months before the workforce ALONE would be ready. Of course others have already mentioned the other factor involved that would make this a lot longer.

[UpLift Vancouver]

Here is a concept I did in OMSI 2 if we were to ever end up with 80 foot long "bi-articulated" buses (which has no chance of coming to fruition).

[brzyski]

I think "80 footers" might be best for all-door boarding and BRT fashion, and (only) the #99 would be best candidate. On the other hand, The double turn at Alma is a headache.

Speaking of 80 footers, OMSI 2 is about to release a DLC featuring a Van Hool double articulated bus, and I'm not going to buy it (but maybe try once and ask for refund).

[Blue Bus Fan]

I think that TransLink should consider splitting the some routes:

1.

I would split the 129 into three routes that all terminated at Brentwood because it is such a long route. I am had a hard time finding a good terminus for the Hasting portion of the route.

127 via the current routing for the 129 to Lougheed Highway then follow it to Brentwood Station

The Hasting portion of the 129 will be come the 126. This route will follow the Lougheed highway, back to Gilmore ave then follow the current route follow it until it gets back down to Lougheed Highway then heads back to Brentwood Station. This route will be a square with two way service via the 126A clock wise routing and 126B anti clock wise routing for this route.

129 will operate from Brentwood Station via Lougheed Highway to Holdom Ave then follow the current routing to Edmonds Station minus the city hall routing at all times. This detour would be axed because it has not point that I can see. 

The 127 and 129 could be interlined with each other if CMBC choose to do so.

2.

The 405 would be just be split at Richmond Brighouse Station due to different ridership demands on both portions on the route.

3. 

The 410 will be split in two routes with a new express route. 

406 will taking over the Railway portion of the 410 with the terminus at Bridgeport Station.

410 will operate from 22nd Street Station to Bridgeport via the current route to Aberdeen Station then turns right onto NO. 3 road to with a right turn on Bridgeport Road then left on Great Canadian Way to Bridgeport Station.

411 would be an express from Richmond Brighouse to 22nd Street Station via Highway 91 with C98 routing.

406 and 410 these routes will be part of Frequent Transit Network.

The 411 will have a least 20 minutes frequency all day seven days a week. 

I would also create another Community Shuttle via Moncton Street to Railway Ave then onto Steveston Highway. The terminus for this route would be Steveston - Chatham @ 2nd Ave.  and Riverport Recreation Complex. 

 

 

[Citaro]

1 hour ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

The Hasting portion of the 129 will be come the 128. This route will follow the Lougheed highway, back to Gilmore ave then follow the current route follow it until it gets back down to Lougheed Highway then heads back to Brentwood Station. This route will be a square with two way service via the 128A clock wise routing and 128B anti clock wise routing for this route.

While I agree that the 129 should be split, we already have a route 128; I also think splitting the route into two is sufficient (splitting it into three is a bit excessive and complicated).

[Blue Bus Fan]

On 2016-10-12 at 9:29 PM, Citaro said:

While I agree that the 129 should be split, we already have a route 128; I also think splitting the route into two is sufficient (splitting it into three is a bit excessive and complicated).

I can see your point, so here is my question for where would be good terminus for both routes.

My version of 128 could be come the 126.

[Citaro]

10 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

I can see your point, so here my question for where would have good terminus for both route. 

My version of 128 could be come the 126.

I'm not too sure, but I think I would have the east portion (between Edmonds and Hastings) loop around Kensington Plaza, and the west portion (between Patterson and Hastings terminate at Kootenay Loop or Hastings and Willingdon.

[Blue Bus Fan]

19 minutes ago, Citaro said:

I'm not too sure, but I think I would have the east portion (between Edmonds and Hastings) loop around Kensington Plaza, and the west portion (between Patterson and Hastings terminate at Kootenay Loop or Hastings and Willingdon.

Kooteney loop is reasonable for terminus for West Portion. Where is Kensington Plaze? Is called Kengsinhton square shopping centre? Yes I did google maps it. 

[Citaro]

Yes, Kensington Plaza = Kensington Shopping Centre.