TransLink Future - Dream's and Aspirations

[Xcelsior Bus Fan]

18 minutes ago, Dane said:

So don't recycle because a small group of people will screw it up? Maybe not the best idea lol

Recycling is good bus since the bins get messed up by stupid people that boat care/or bother to read, I have feeling most of the bins get emptied into dumpsters and sent to the landfill rather then actually having the cans and bottles recycled. I have actually seen crews emptying garbage and recycling bins at bus loops and shopping centres where the bins have been mixed up by people and have even asked them what happens with the recycling since there has been garbage mixed in. The answer: the recycling ends up going in the garbage as there is garbage mixed in and would not be accepted by recycling depots with garbage mixed in and there is not enough man hours to short it back out and remove the garbage. 

[Blue Bus Fan]

I wish that TransLink would redesign the rear of 2009 Nova LFS and Nova LFS HEV to how BC Transit design has them set up with side ways facing seats instead of current TransLink layout seating because they are terrible designed interiors. 

[Millennium2002]

Err... grammar?

Also, I don't recall TransLink changing seat layouts ever on buses in active service... apart from the time they were toying with the articulated joints on the restyled New Flyer buses after their delivery. But that was only one seat...

[Blue Bus Fan]

I wish that TransLink did study's on every bus route with all door boarding to see if fare evasion goes up. I feel like it wouldn't because people seem to trap in if they board thru any door. 

[Brando737]

1 hour ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

I wish that TransLink did study's on every bus route with all door boarding to see if fare evasion goes up. I feel like it wouldn't because people seem to trap in if they board thru any door. 

I think Translink is keeping all door boarding in mind for the busiest routes at least.  If not all stop's, they should at least allow it at major stops for every bus that stops at those locations.  

As for fare evasion, I have noticed that when people do board at the back door, most of them will tap in and it's usually a positive beep.  So at least people seem to be honest about it for the most part.

[Millennium2002]

It really depends... I personally still see people getting on at the back without acknowledging the fare paid zone. Usually happens at a sketchy and yet busy place (e.g. Downtown Eastside or Commercial-Broadway Station), or on a route that connects to such.

Seeing people push their way in through the back for a free ride really makes me want to put enclosed and gated fare paid zones at some of the most heavily used bus stops. 

[TranslinkKid]

Don't forget it's kind of rude to board at the rear doors because you are cutting queue at the front door 

[Blue Bus Fan]

57 minutes ago, TranslinkKid said:

Don't forget it's kind of rude to board at the rear doors because you are cutting queue at the front door 

But if all routes where all door boarding that would mean less time spent at each stop since any door can used to enter. 

[Express691]

Living along an FTN corridor, I'll be completely honest about entering the back door.

I only do it when theres enough space at the back of the bus and if there's a wheelchair at my stop with a long lineup. I always tap in of course. Stops are rather busy in my area. 

[brzyski]

Never entering from the back door(s) except for the #99 (where all door boarding is implemented). 

I think for compass users it totally makes sense for them to board thru any door as long as they tap in, but all door boarding is most ideal for 1) artics and 2) busy lines/stops. Invasions are the most obvious concern.

I also wonder if the back doors of all vehicles can be held open without closing automatically (like the #99). Is that an option on the door control handle?

[northwesterner]

41 minutes ago, brzyski said:

I also wonder if the back doors of all vehicles can be held open without closing automatically (like the #99). Is that an option on the door control handle?

The artics had to be reprogrammed to do that (well, the multiplex coaches, anyways ... I'd presume the older ones had to be rewired). 

I'd assume no, at this point, for the 40ftrs. 

[Brando737]

3 hours ago, northwesterner said:

The artics had to be reprogrammed to do that (well, the multiplex coaches, anyways ... I'd presume the older ones had to be rewired). 

I'd assume no, at this point, for the 40ftrs. 

All New Flyers, cant say for sure for the XD40's, have a switch for "Rapid Mode" which opens the rear doors when the driver activates them.  The Nova's don't have that option though.

[ConventionalMan]

 

13 hours ago, brzyski said:

I also wonder if the back doors of all vehicles can be held open without closing automatically (like the #99). Is that an option on the door control handle?

 

10 hours ago, Brando737 said:

All New Flyers, cant say for sure for the XD40's, have a switch for "Rapid Mode" which opens the rear doors when the driver activates them.  The Nova's don't have that option though.

The Novas actually do have a switch to hold open the rear doors, it just doesn't work automatically with the door open/close control like the rapid-mode does.

[MCW Metrobus]

Some of the 40 foot trolleys have the Rapid Mode switch. Not sure if it's all of them.

7375-7446 do not have that switch. I am not sure if the XD40s have it or not (didn't look the one time I drove one, and I picked it up on the road so didn't pre-trip).

[Renee]

When is the 100 going to terminate at Marine Drive Stn?  Or at least get rid of that inane service duplication on the 100 Marpole?  There are only 3 stops that aren't serviced by other routes, and they seem to be in the middle of nowhere and are within walking distance of stops on the 10.  As far as I've seen, the only reason why this part of the route still exists is because Marpole residents complain every time TransLink tries to change it.  They seem to be still living in this fantasy world where Marpole is so underappreciated and underdeveloped, when that is no longer the case.  I really hope TransLink does something about it soon; I can just imagine how much more frequent the 100 could be if it didn't go to Marpole.  The route has already been shortened multiple times (it used to be one of the longest I can think of).

Also, there is an interesting turnover of people on the 100 when it arrives or departs Marine Drive Stn.  It seems that the vast majority get off, and then an entirely new group of people get on.  On the 100 Marpole, it's usually not very many.  But the point is that people from Marpole seem to be using this bus only as a way to get to/from Marine Drive Stn.  I think the 10/17 are better suited for this purpose, and if necessary, why not create a community shuttle route to service the 3 stops that would become defunct?  Perhaps that would be counterproductive because it's easiest to just keep the route like it is, but at least conventional buses would still be freed up to increase frequency on the 100.

I think changes like this might be more likely to occur now, because the 49 got straightened out even after receiving criticism.  It is a very similar case to the 100, even the detour was of similar form.  There is alternate service for both, and they are cross-town routes which would highly benefit from route optimization.

[Brando737]

Another thing to consider is that many people who get on the 100 from Granville & 70th area and Hudson Street will stay on to continue east on Marine drive, enough to make it worth keeping it the way it is in my opinion and probably why Translink may not change it.  

As a driver, I wish I could just turn into marpole loop and not go up and around, but at least there are always passengers to pick up.  And at times, there are way to many people going west of Marine station for a shuttle to handle.  Operators from VTC also use the 100 to get to the various relief points along Marine drive which could be another strong reason for the route to at least stay going to marpole loop.  Maybe in the future, later trips could only go to marine station and have a 10 scheduled to leave shortly after the scheduled arrival of the 100 or have a meet where the 10 can't leave until that 100 pulls in.

[Renee]

Perhaps a compromise could be made with every second trip terminating at marine.  Of course, I'd prefer for it to be similar to Trapp service, like maybe every third trip goes to marpole, so terminating at marine would be the norm.  But it'd be a start.  

[Blue Bus Fan]

I don't mind the all 100's going to Marpole loop becuase ridership seems to justify since they seem like full routes. I feel the 480 needs to be terminated at Marine Drive Station because ridership doesn't seem to justify going over Oak Street Bridge and 60 ft buses. 

[brzyski]

I used to doubt if the 71st & Oak stop on #480 (and the Hudson-71-Oak "detour") is necessary, but there's always one or two passengers getting on/off.

I think lots of people choose #480 because of a 1-zone fare from UBC to Richmond, not connecting to Marine Drive Stn (99-Canada Line will do).

The artic usage of #480 is a kind of waste. Maybe things will "get better" when the XDE60's are transferred to VTC along with #49. 

[8800GTX]

On 8/2/2016 at 8:52 AM, Brando737 said:

Another thing to consider is that many people who get on the 100 from Granville & 70th area and Hudson Street will stay on to continue east on Marine drive, enough to make it worth keeping it the way it is in my opinion and probably why Translink may not change it.  

Yep, myself included. I think there's a real value in having the route continue through from 22nd St to Marpole. It's true that there is service duplication but that doesn't mean it couldn't be taken advantage of (i.e. piling up new density on that portion of Marine). I reckon Marpole-area users, particularly those heading from the dedicated stops, appreciate the access to the Marine corridor. I also think, from my experience of occasionally being on the 10, that there are probably more 100 through-riders than 10 through-riders wanting to go from points north of Marpole through to Marine (per bus). So if any route should be given partial truncation (i.e. every 2nd bus terminating) if it matters for efficiency, it's the 10. However, with the duplicate segment being so short, I don't think that's necessary at this point.

23 hours ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

I don't mind the all 100's going to Marpole loop becuase ridership seems to justify since they seem like full routes. I feel the 480 needs to be terminated at Marine Drive Station because ridership doesn't seem to justify going over Oak Street Bridge and 60 ft buses. 

Then you might as well cancel the 480 and redirect the service to 49 short-turns. I reckon the Bridgeport connection is important to South-of-Fraser riders coming up on the 351, 601, etc.

3 hours ago, brzyski said:

I used to doubt if the 71st & Oak stop on #480 (and the Hudson-71-Oak "detour") is necessary, but there's always one or two passengers getting on/off. The artic usage of #480 is a kind of waste. Maybe things will "get better" when the XDE60's are transferred to VTC along with #49. 

Again myself included. Coming from work towards Richmond or a SOF route like the 311 I might walk up to this stop rather than go through Marine on the 10/100, and usually there are a couple other people getting on with me. I do agree that artic usage on the 480 is a waste at most times of day (I've discussed this in length before, I feel like it would be more efficient to run 49/43 short turns, although the current 1-zone bus fare system does create a strong point for the Bridgeport connection...)

[Blue Bus Fan]

2 hours ago, 8800GTX said:

Then you might as well cancel the 480 and redirect the service to 49 short-turns. I reckon the Bridgeport connection is important to South-of-Fraser riders coming up on the 351, 601, etc.

Again myself included. Coming from work towards Richmond or a SOF route like the 311 I might walk up to this stop rather than go through Marine on the 10/100, and usually there are a couple other people getting on with me. I do agree that artic usage on the 480 is a waste at most times of day (I've discussed this in length before, I feel like it would be more efficient to run 49/43 short turns, although the current 1-zone bus fare system does create a strong point for the Bridgeport connection...)

I agree with you. But, how are you excepting Marpole residents to have a direct route to UBC? 

[brzyski]

50 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

I agree with you. But, how are you excepting Marpole residents to have a direct route to UBC? 

It's not possible to provide one seat route between any two arbitrary points. They can take the more frequent Canada Line-99 rather than a line with a 20-min frequency and don't run on weekends. 

But again the fate of 480 might ultimately be decided when the new fare system comes out.

[Blue Bus Fan]

12 minutes ago, brzyski said:

It's not possible to provide one seat route between any two arbitrary points. They can take the more frequent Canada Line-99 rather than a line with a 20-min frequency and don't run on weekends. 

But in my opinion that 480 routing is valid and servers point but Bridgeport terminus should change because it's doesn't seems to see that much ridership. 

They could extend every fourth bus off peak and every second bus in peak on 100 to UBC via Marine drive and bring services to that area. 

[Xcelsior Bus Fan]

8 hours ago, brzyski said:

I used to doubt if the 71st & Oak stop on #480 (and the Hudson-71-Oak "detour") is necessary, but there's always one or two passengers getting on/off.

I think lots of people choose #480 because of a 1-zone fare from UBC to Richmond, not connecting to Marine Drive Stn (99-Canada Line will do).

The artic usage of #480 is a kind of waste. Maybe things will "get better" when the XDE60's are transferred to VTC along with #49. 

Why would having artics on the 480 be a waste? I've seen pass ups on the 480 where buses (artics) were completely packed. Having the XDE60's on the route makes total sense. I use the 480 and every run that is on a conventional is completely packed and I've seen packed artics on the 480. 

[Marlow1331]

8 minutes ago, Xcelsior Bus Fan said:

Why would having artics on the 480 be a waste? I've seen pass ups on the 480 where buses (artics) were completely packed. Having the XDE60's on the route makes total sense. I use the 480 and every run that is on a conventional is completely packed and I've seen packed artics on the 480. 

We know .. You don't have to explain yourself again.