Jump to content

TransLink Future - Dream's and Aspirations


cleowin
 Share

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Zortan said:

Haha, I see what you mean. There's always gonna be some demand though I'm sure. For example, the 254 goes through one of the most extreme areas in terms of NIMBYism and extreme wealth, however it can actually have somewhat decent ridership, especially during peak hours. Sure, it may not be the residents of the houses that take the bus, but the construction workers, babysitters, etc. are a good source of ridership in West Van anyway.

I always find the wealthy anti-transit Nimbyism interesting. In Victoria, our only remaining intact streetcar loop is dead centre in the middle of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in the city, and the developers specifically wanted the line brought in because it would make the wealthy want to live there. How times have changed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2020 at 1:56 PM, InfiNorth said:

My main concern is that many people from Brookswood and the Fernridge-corner of Langley head up to Willowbrook for shopping. And by "many" I mean "pretty much all but I haven't done a statistical survey so I can't say for sure." Having a schedule in place that all the buses on one of the routes from Brookswood always continued as a bus on one of the Willowbrook-bound routes would alleviate that somewhat.

Back when the 531 was first running (when I was in high school), it seemed like a miracle that a bus would go down 200th street to Brookswood. I believe it continued that route right up until I graduated, when it started stupidly going past Costco and over the overpass like literally every other bus in Langley... completely bypassing the main area that people need to get to in the shopping area of Langley. Who is taking the bus to Costco? Sure, let me hop on with my palette of Kirkland coffee. In terms of traffic flow, I don't blame TransLink for avoiding 200th in Willowbrook. Between the 8-lane nightmare by the mall and the railway crossing, it is some of the worst traffic design I've ever seen in or around Vancouver. Regardless, it's a corridor that needs service if any of that traffic is ever going to disappear.

Me neither, I consider them a bit of a problem. However, your upgraded system map has provided a drop in service for the highschool I attended - RE Mountain Secondary - along 202 Street. No, it's not a big deal, and no, I have literally no solution for it as 202A as it stands is not in need of better service (or any service). Even when I was in high school, I generally sprinted to 200th St. and caught the bus there instead of waiting for the somewhat inconveniently timed once-a-day 501 reroute.(which arrived a full half-hour after school ended back in 2012).

EDIT: Also, I noticed a lot of rural routes that terminate at TWU. Even disregarding issues with that university in the first place, it really isn't currently or ever going to be a major transit hub. Those buses should logically continue down Glover Road into Langley proper.

The only solution I can think of right now for direct connections between Fernridge, Brookswood, and Willowbrook would be to reroute the 513 along Langley Bypass to Willowbrook, people connecting to Langley Centre could take another route or transfer to the 503 or 504, which would have a combined frequency of every 15 minutes between Langley Centre and Fraser @ Pinegrove.

I've added my suggested reroutes for 320, 501, and 531 to the map. My main issue though is that the 501 no longer provides a direct connection to Willowbrook Exchange, however it is still within the vicinity so I think it should be fine.

I suppose with regards to service connecting to RE Mountain the 501 could be rerouted along 80th, 202A, and 72nd back to 200th Street as the area along 200th between 80th and 72nd is pretty dead. However, some people would lose direct-ish access to transit and would have to walk an extra 500 metres to reach their bus, and my only solution to that would be to add a RapidBus stop on 200th @ 76th, but again that area is pretty dead so I don't see putting a RapidBus stop there making a whole lot of sense.

I made a transit exchange at TWU mainly because Glover Road doesn't need more service and routes 524 and 525 are already long enough without the added route required to connect to either Carvolth or loop back down to Langley Centre, although one could argue some of the other shuttle routes on my network are longer than the two said routes. I don't imagine the exchange to be anywhere near as big as an exchange like Carvolth, probably something closer to the scale of Edmonds.

I'm trying to avoid thinking about NIMBYs when it comes to my map because they usually don't even know what they're talking about when it comes to transit, the truncation of R2 from Dundarave to Park Royal is a clear example.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1WEjh1N0bnU_mzweeO2wG9MS2duHzy5GJ&ll=0%2C0&z=8

I’m bored and transit hasn’t been all that exciting lately aside from the RapidBus Heat Wave Days at HTC (and technically the other 3 RapidBus transit centres as well), so I thought I’d revive this old corpse of a thread and talk about the map I’ll never stop talking about as I would like to hear what people think about any or all aspects of my map.
I’ve decided to go slightly overboard with some rapid transit expansions but I’ll explain why I made those changes. Again, keep in mind that this is envisioned for 30-50+ years from now, so I don’t expect this to come to life tomorrow. Anyway, here’s the list of notable changes (there’s a good chance I altered every route in some way):

• Re-numbered the transit network (making final adjustments). Currently updating formatting for route and station/exchange information to make the information easier to understand, this will take some time.

• Expanded service coverage throughout the entire lower mainland.

• Expanded out to Sea-To-Sky and Fraser Valley to improve regional and local connections. The networks are nowhere near complete.

• Replacing the term “minibus” with “midibus” and “shuttle” to better differentiate the two vehicle types that would be serving lower-demand areas.

• Exploring On-Demand Transit, sort of just going off Edmonton’s pilot model for now until I do more research.

• Exploring CommuterBus, a new demand-based service that only stops at major transit hubs and major destinations to reduce overcrowding and improve speeds for regional commuters. The routes are kind of a mess right now.

• Extended Hastings SkyTrain to Haney and Langley Centre. While the demand may not warrant it now, it could in 30 years. Plus, SkyTrain has proven time and time again to attract ridership and development (even if it’s 20-30+ years later like at some areas around some existing stations).

• Added the 41st-Willingdon SkyTrain line back as I don’t believe the R4 will be able to support the demand, even with a RapidBus along 49th. Converted the 130 (now 120 after renumbering the network) to artics as a result of canceling the Willingdon RapidBus.

• Extended the Canada Line along Railway Avenue to Steveston, mainly in response to their recent plans for major development to support rail rapid transit along that corridor, but also a maxed out Canada Line should probably be able to handle it, in my opinion.

• Redesigned the Burrard Inlet SkyTrain into a loop line serving the Downtown West End and East Side, and basically the entire R2 route without the stop at Lonsdale @ 3rd due to the overall route design. Brought back the SeaBus.

• Currently revising my Canada Line relief strategy. Originally, I was going to have the Arbutus LRT go to Bridgeport, but then I realized LRT isn’t going to attract many SkyTrain riders, especially from Downtown when they have to divert via Main Street Station and South False Creek. So I’m going to revise the LRT to serve False Creek to improve overall capacity and connections, especially between Arbutus, Olympic Village, and Main Street Stations. As for the actual Canada Line relief line, I’m envisioning a deep bored line with 6-8 car trains from Waterfront to Bridgeport via Granville Street (your new and improved 98 B-Line, if you will), as I believe there will definitely be demand along Granville Street. From Bridgeport, the route would exit the tunnel somewhere around Highway 99 and continue down the Highway to four branches connecting to Ladner & Tsawwassen, South Surrey & White Rock, Scottsdale & Newton, and Cloverdale & Langley. Still working on the route, probably the longest rapid transit route I’ve done but I think this is probably the best high-capacity solution to connect the suburbs to Downtown.

• Working on rapid transit routes along Highway 1, King George Boulevard & 104th Avenue, and Scott Road & 72nd Avenue.

• Extending some routes from Marine Drive Station to Marpole Loop/Station to address potential lack of layover capacity expansion.

• Exploring SafeRide; a late-night, on-demand shuttle service that would operate throughout the region from 12am-6am every night, connecting passengers to their neighbourhoods (usually from a designated transit exchange).

• Exploring additional SeaBus routes along the Fraser River.

• Started adding standard bus stops to the map, the rest will be added once the network is closer to 100% complete to avoid PC slow downs while working on the routes. FTN stops will be added first to better show the FTN corridors that are served by combined transit routes every 15 min or better.

• Greatly expanding Bike Parkades and adding new “Bike Repair Stations” (basically DIY bike maintenance stations, saw the idea recently in the recent engagement that I can’t remember the name of) in an attempt to reduce the overall number of bikes being used on transit.

• Increased RapidBus off-peak to every 12 min, might increase it to every 10 min.

• Restructuring transit in the Albion area as I believe there could be a surge in development in the next 5-10 years.

• Exploring new duplicate routes to reduce overcrowding and improve overall network connections.

• Exploring Commuter Rail extensions, including West Coast Express branches to Abbotsford, Chilliwack, and Hope.

• Adding washrooms to all stations and exchanges. These should be within a fare-paid zone or require Compass to enter and be regularly patrolled to ensure highest possible safety for customers.

• Considering renumbering the RapidBus routes to 9XX. I’ll probably end up doing that and just leave NightBus (and maybe On-Demand Transit) routes as the remaining routes that use letters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna be brutally honest here, so please don't be too offended by what I have to say. I honestly think that the network is overthought, overworked and overcomplicated. I can see your logic in a lot of the routes and decisions on the map, but sometimes I think the best route is to just leave things simple, maybe not exactly the same as they are now, but not too complicated either. For example, I don't see a use in a King Edward RapidBus considering that the 25 has a lot of local demand, and has the Broadway and 41st Ave corridors on either side. I also don't think the R4 makes much sense, given that 4th is just a few blocks away from Broadway, and would probably just benefit from increased local service. Another example is the R26 continuing downtown despite stopping at the Park Royal SkyTrain Station. I get that having a direct Horseshoe Bay - Downtown route makes some sense for ferry passengers, but I don't think that it's a good move overall transit-wise, duplicating one mode of rapid transit with another. 

I kind of like the idea of having Translink take over some of the long-distance coach services with the CommuterBus brand. However, I also think that many of those routes don't make a lot of since, for example the YVR - Whistler route, which would easily make more sense using a commuter rail connection to the SkyTrain. 

I don't like seasonal service - I think that for many seasonal routes there is year-round demand, albeit with demand for a summer / winter frequency boost. Sure, it makes sense on your 198 / 199 (current 150 / 179), where the portion of the route that serves people is already duplicated by a local service, but I don't think that the 423, for example, should be seasonal, as there are people who work along Ferguson Road who currently have no transit options. 

I also think you misjudged demand in some areas. In North Vancouver, for example, you left some routes as peak-frequent or just basic that honestly would probably benefit from frequent service, like the 212. Other routes, like the 7 are seeing effectively no frequency increase, despite being important routes. Meanwhile, the 408 is seeing 8-minute peak service. I feel like there's a bit of a disconnect there between demand and frequency.

Finally, I think that the network is just plain complex, confusing, and not helpful for passengers. For example, I don't see any reason for an express bus down Main Street, which is served quite well by the 3 and can continue to be served that way. The express would likely just take passengers from the SkyTrain or other bus routes, and would overcomplicate things for riders. 

I think that your map is something that would make a King County Metro planner proud. There's still a bit of a local bus backbone, but the "premium" bus services (commuters, express, rapid) have completely flown out of control and are now covering the entire map. Not to mention the confusing SkyTrain network, which in my opinion has too much duplication between lines and has some lines in places that I just don't see demand (such as the Carvolth - Langley).

Now, it's not all bad. I love the formatting of your map (I have no idea how you did so much of it haha, I'm very jealous), and I think that you brought some much-needed service increases to places like Maple Ridge and the South of Fraser regions. I'm sorry though, overall I just can't bring myself to like the concept. I really don't mean to insult you, or throw your work out the window, so to speak, but I just think that it's far too complex, and in many cases, less is really more. 

Also, I know that I'm not qualified whatsoever as a planner, and I'm always revising my own maps and work constantly, as I learn and grow more or less comfortable with the aspects of my work. So please take my comments with a grain of salt, I will freely admit that I just do this stuff in my free time and haven't had the education or training in this area that many have been lucky enough to have. That being said, if you would like to discuss this with me, I always love talking about planning, especially in the Translink system, and I'd gladly give more specific feedback. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zortan said:

I'm gonna be brutally honest here, so please don't be too offended by what I have to say. I honestly think that the network is overthought, overworked and overcomplicated. I can see your logic in a lot of the routes and decisions on the map, but sometimes I think the best route is to just leave things simple, maybe not exactly the same as they are now, but not too complicated either. For example, I don't see a use in a King Edward RapidBus considering that the 25 has a lot of local demand, and has the Broadway and 41st Ave corridors on either side. I also don't think the R4 makes much sense, given that 4th is just a few blocks away from Broadway, and would probably just benefit from increased local service. Another example is the R26 continuing downtown despite stopping at the Park Royal SkyTrain Station. I get that having a direct Horseshoe Bay - Downtown route makes some sense for ferry passengers, but I don't think that it's a good move overall transit-wise, duplicating one mode of rapid transit with another. 

I kind of like the idea of having Translink take over some of the long-distance coach services with the CommuterBus brand. However, I also think that many of those routes don't make a lot of since, for example the YVR - Whistler route, which would easily make more sense using a commuter rail connection to the SkyTrain. 

I don't like seasonal service - I think that for many seasonal routes there is year-round demand, albeit with demand for a summer / winter frequency boost. Sure, it makes sense on your 198 / 199 (current 150 / 179), where the portion of the route that serves people is already duplicated by a local service, but I don't think that the 423, for example, should be seasonal, as there are people who work along Ferguson Road who currently have no transit options. 

I also think you misjudged demand in some areas. In North Vancouver, for example, you left some routes as peak-frequent or just basic that honestly would probably benefit from frequent service, like the 212. Other routes, like the 7 are seeing effectively no frequency increase, despite being important routes. Meanwhile, the 408 is seeing 8-minute peak service. I feel like there's a bit of a disconnect there between demand and frequency.

Finally, I think that the network is just plain complex, confusing, and not helpful for passengers. For example, I don't see any reason for an express bus down Main Street, which is served quite well by the 3 and can continue to be served that way. The express would likely just take passengers from the SkyTrain or other bus routes, and would overcomplicate things for riders. 

I think that your map is something that would make a King County Metro planner proud. There's still a bit of a local bus backbone, but the "premium" bus services (commuters, express, rapid) have completely flown out of control and are now covering the entire map. Not to mention the confusing SkyTrain network, which in my opinion has too much duplication between lines and has some lines in places that I just don't see demand (such as the Carvolth - Langley).

Now, it's not all bad. I love the formatting of your map (I have no idea how you did so much of it haha, I'm very jealous), and I think that you brought some much-needed service increases to places like Maple Ridge and the South of Fraser regions. I'm sorry though, overall I just can't bring myself to like the concept. I really don't mean to insult you, or throw your work out the window, so to speak, but I just think that it's far too complex, and in many cases, less is really more. 

Also, I know that I'm not qualified whatsoever as a planner, and I'm always revising my own maps and work constantly, as I learn and grow more or less comfortable with the aspects of my work. So please take my comments with a grain of salt, I will freely admit that I just do this stuff in my free time and haven't had the education or training in this area that many have been lucky enough to have. That being said, if you would like to discuss this with me, I always love talking about planning, especially in the Translink system, and I'd gladly give more specific feedback. 

My response to the “overthought” comment is this: we don’t know how dense Metro Van is going to get in the next 30-50 years. We just don’t. So I’m overdoing it in a somewhat realistic sense in terms of ridership and end-to-end and all that. The 25 is busy and slow, RapidBus and a reduced 25 makes more sense to me, regardless of the Millennium Line and 41st-Willingdon’s existing. One thing people seem to miss when pointing out adjacent rapid transit routes is the actual demand along the corridor itself. 

 

In terms of SkyTrain expansion, I tried to look at it from more of a fast, frequent, one-seat ride perspective that has the highest overall potential to attract development to build up the ridership. Obviously, plonking a SkyTrain line down in Maple Ridge tomorrow would be a stupid and money-wasting idea, but that could change 20-30 years down the road. The Canada Line is a perfect example of this, although some will argue the Canada Line “isn’t SkyTrain,” even though both systems are automated light metros.

 

In terms of service frequencies, just disregard those for now as I plan on updating the formatting to show more than just “Peak” and “Off-peak” frequencies, which will result in frequency adjustments across the board. Most of the frequencies listed are based off 2019 schedules and the TSPR, so there will be some adjustments required. 

 

I will look into off-seasonal service for the 423 (and possibly the 261 with the roller coaster-thing being built on Cypress (it’s not a roller coaster but I can’t remember the name of it at the moment) as I do remember that area being served by the C91 at one point.

 

The CommuterBus routes are nowhere near done and many of the routes are just ideas for now, but I agree Whistler - YVR doesn’t make much sense. I just threw that there as a replacement for the Skylinx (idk if that’s how it’s spelled) current service.

 

Just cut the Main Street Express off the ideas list because it really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

 

I think people going from UBC to Downtown would probably want a fast one-seat ride with the R4 4th Ave, I also put the R4 down to replace the 84’s frequent express portion while also repurposing the express potion to be a bit more than just a mere 99 B-Line mirror.
 

I’ll improve the 212 to FTN as a frequent connection between Lonsdale and Deep Cove would encourage more North Shore residents to commute to Deep Cove.

Don’t worry about offending me with your comments, there’s pretty much nothing that can offend me. Well, maybe TransLink’s overall planning and their somewhat lack of transparency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Zortan said:

Finally, I think that the network is just plain complex, confusing, and not helpful for passengers. For example, I don't see any reason for an express bus down Main Street, which is served quite well by the 3 and can continue to be served that way. The express would likely just take passengers from the SkyTrain or other bus routes, and would overcomplicate things for riders. 

I think that your map is something that would make a King County Metro planner proud. There's still a bit of a local bus backbone, but the "premium" bus services (commuters, express, rapid) have completely flown out of control and are now covering the entire map. Not to mention the confusing SkyTrain network, which in my opinion has too much duplication between lines and has some lines in places that I just don't see demand (such as the Carvolth - Langley).

Now, it's not all bad. I love the formatting of your map (I have no idea how you did so much of it haha, I'm very jealous), and I think that you brought some much-needed service increases to places like Maple Ridge and the South of Fraser regions. I'm sorry though, overall I just can't bring myself to like the concept. I really don't mean to insult you, or throw your work out the window, so to speak, but I just think that it's far too complex, and in many cases, less is really more. 

Which aspects of my map are complex/confusing? I’ll be more than happy to address those concerns, I will add that many less-frequent routes are duplicating each other on certain corridors to provide FTN service, the stops will better reflect that when I get around to adding them, which will be fairly soon as I can see the confusion about some corridors looking like they don’t have frequent service.

Oddly enough, I drew some inspiration from King County Metro, as well as other systems around BC, Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal, Toronto (no, I am not going to make a giant streetcar network, but some areas could benefit from it), Ottawa & GO Transit, New York (not a shining star in the “state of good repair” department to say the least), London (somewhat better with the state of good repair compared to New York, just a bit less accessible with big gaps that you’re told to mind), Riyadh’s metro system, and a few others I can’t recall at the moment.

I honestly think Metro Van needs a widespread RapidBus network as well as an extensive SkyTrain network to meet 2050’s demand. TransLink has been short-sighted on nearly every project since the Canada Line (probably even before, though I don’t know how much oversight TL had over the line) and I wouldn’t be surprised if their “1 million” additional residents is a short-sighted estimate as well. Look at how the transit network was prior to the lockdowns, most buses were packed to hell during peak times (quite a few off-peak as well), even with the continuous 10-Year service expansion rollouts.

In terms of formatting: ctrl or shift + enter. There’s also little drop boxes in the data table where you can add and edit columns of information, but it’s a bit tedious to get the information to go from one layer to another and once you choose the spot for your new column, you’re either committed to it or you’ll have to delete it and make it in a different spot because you can’t move columns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2021 at 9:12 PM, 8010 said:

I honestly think Metro Van needs a widespread RapidBus network as well as an extensive SkyTrain network to meet 2050’s demand. TransLink has been short-sighted on nearly every project since the Canada Line (probably even before, though I don’t know how much oversight TL had over the line) and I wouldn’t be surprised if their “1 million” additional residents is a short-sighted estimate as well. Look at how the transit network was prior to the lockdowns, most buses were packed to hell during peak times (quite a few off-peak as well), even with the continuous 10-Year service expansion rollouts.

Hard to create a vast RapidBus network when you’re constantly short of a budget. The issue is that you have dozens of mayors bickering at each other demanding they get their share of rapid transit, and ONLY theirs, which gets nothing done. cough Burnaby cough

The Canada Line was the result of cost-cutting measures by the BC Libs (why do you think it’s privately run right now), since the reason is they didn’t care about rapid transit, it served the Richmond ridings (which are Liberal strongholds), and they want to get it running before the Olympics. It’s no surprise that peak ridership numbers were much higher than expected, pre-covid of course.

Many of the busy bus routes haven’t been “upgraded” since it’s often due to mismanagement. The Scott Rd corridor would’ve gotten its RapidBus route by now if Poco, Pitt Meadows, and Maple Ridge demanded they get one first, since their mentaliy can be read as “Surrey already got its own B-Line, why should it need a 2nd one when we haven’t gotten ours at all?” The suburban mayors tend to be out of touch when it comes to bus routes since they mostly drive to work, and most routes they’ve seen are often empty and at low frequencies.

Knowing how things go in this region, I won’t be surprise if Poco gets its Skytrain first before UBC gets it once the extension to Arbutus is done, despite the latter deserving it more than the former.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Firebrand said:

Hard to create a vast RapidBus network when you’re constantly short of a budget. The issue is that you have dozens of mayors bickering at each other demanding they get their share of rapid transit, and ONLY theirs, which gets nothing done. cough Burnaby cough

The Canada Line was the result of cost-cutting measures by the BC Libs (why do you think it’s privately run right now), since the reason is they didn’t care about rapid transit, it served the Richmond ridings (which are Liberal strongholds), and they want to get it running before the Olympics. It’s no surprise that peak ridership numbers were much higher than expected, pre-covid of course.

Many of the busy bus routes haven’t been “upgraded” since it’s often due to mismanagement. The Scott Rd corridor would’ve gotten its RapidBus route by now if Poco, Pitt Meadows, and Maple Ridge demanded they get one first, since their mentaliy can be read as “Surrey already got its own B-Line, why should it need a 2nd one when we haven’t gotten ours at all?” The suburban mayors tend to be out of touch when it comes to bus routes since they mostly drive to work, and most routes they’ve seen are often empty and at low frequencies.

Knowing how things go in this region, I won’t be surprise if Poco gets its Skytrain first before UBC gets it once the extension to Arbutus is done, despite the latter deserving it more than the former.

They wouldn’t always be falling short on their budgets if they were actually handling their money properly, and judging by how their planners implement service changes, how their entire online network can be fried (and half is still offline today), how a transit agency is being overlooked by both a board and mayor’s council with majority of the members having no background in transit or urban planning, I don’t think they’re putting their funds to the best use possible. If the mayors would stop acting like children and just let TransLink implement the changes needed the most, there’s a good chance they’ll make farebox/Compass revenue back much quicker, which would most likely speed up the implementation of the lower-demand service expansions (someone can correct me if I’m wrong).

Broadway/UBC extension should’ve been done before Evergreen (how busy was the 97 if it was using mainly 40-footers?), but politics comes before actual “expertise” from the people operating and monitoring the transit network.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 8010 said:

They wouldn’t always be falling short on their budgets if they were actually handling their money properly, and judging by how their planners implement service changes, how their entire online network can be fried (and half is still offline today), how a transit agency is being overlooked by both a board and mayor’s council with majority of the members having no background in transit or urban planning, I don’t think they’re putting their funds to the best use possible. If the mayors would stop acting like children and just let TransLink implement the changes needed the most, there’s a good chance they’ll make farebox/Compass revenue back much quicker, which would most likely speed up the implementation of the lower-demand service expansions (someone can correct me if I’m wrong).

We would’ve gotten more skytrain lines and extensions built if the mayors weren’t so obsessed with LRTs first (specifically, the on-street type like the downtown segment of Calgary’s C-Train). For some reason, they always pick LRT in areas where there’s clearly a spur pointing at a specific direction—thus ending with an unnecessary transfer—and the fact that they think it’s more “community friendly” because it doesn’t involve looking at concrete pillars.

15 hours ago, 8010 said:

Broadway/UBC extension should’ve been done before Evergreen (how busy was the 97 if it was using mainly 40-footers?), but politics comes before actual “expertise” from the people operating and monitoring the transit network.

It’s a bit of a double-edged sword. On one hand, you’re building a new extension that’ll relieve the busiest bus route in North America, but you’re leaving out the suburbs, which more and more people are moving towards at this current housing climate, causing more traffic backups. On the other hand, you’re serving the suburbs but you still unaddressed capacity issues on growth-serving routes. Someone will have to lose unless you delivered them a lot of money.

The Broadway and Langley extension is probably the closest thing we can get of building two extensions at once.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, here are my specific complaints about the map. Do what you will with them:

  1. Don't model yourself after King County Metro. As someone who rides Metro, it lags behind Translink in almost every way (no offense to them haha).
  2. R4  - likely to just be a low-ridership SkyTrain duplicator. I think that the vast majority of commuters would rather take two SkyTrains than one bus, especially if the trip is going to be the same amount of time or even faster since there is no traffic. 
  3. 32 / 33 - Why not just have individual routes along 33rd and 16th, instead of the weird zig-zag crossover. I get that the Canada Line doesn't have a 16th ave station, but I think that the routes would just be more logical even without the 16th ave bus connecting to the train at that spot
  4. R49 - Having a 49th Ave RapidBus isn't a terrible idea, but having it continue past Dunbar to UBC doesn't make sense since it's quite literally duplicating that 41st ave SkyTrain from there on
  5. R45 - I don't see the value of a 410 RapidBus when the 410 is not really meant to be a quick, direct connection. Cambie road is pretty far out of the way and your R38 could cover that corridor. 
  6. Every place where a RapidBus duplicates a SkyTrain. Just trust that people know how to connect at interchanges. 
  7. So many of the local routes are left as loopy services, and super slow, indirect coverage routes, similar to the current system. As an example, look at Coquitlam north and west of the M Line. I honestly think that that area has potential for many frequent routes that aren't exactly straight lines, but are as straight as possible given the road network, allowing riders to connect between routes on a grid system. I noticed this in North Van as well - for example look at Keith Road - that road has 3 routes serving different parts of it when one route would make more sense. 
  8. One specific thing that's always bothered me - Grouse Mountain. Getting there from downtown is honestly quite difficult - like why connect onto the 246 (on your map) or 236 (IRL) when you could just have a bus up Cap Road all day and then have the other routes connect to it?
  9. I don't see the purpose of the Pemberton Commuter Rail going to Downtown Vancouver - it would make more sense to me for it to just connect to SkyTrain at Park Royal
  10. 52, 213, 623 all certainly have some demand off-season, which isn't being addressed. 
  11. I get your motivation behind the 30-minute or better frequencies on every route, but I just don't see the demand. Like I get that you want to offer decent frequencies to everyone, but there just aren't enough people in rural Pitt Meadows or Maple Ridge to take a half-hourly bus, Some of those routes I'd bring down to hourly or every two hours. I know that it's not ideal for prospective riders, but economically it makes a lot more sense and consolidates riders onto one bus instead of having several very low-ridership trips.
  12. This is an issue I have with current Translink as well - the amount of service duplication on Hastings. In addition to rapid services, there are so many frequent locals running down that street as well.
  13. SFU SkyTrain - I don't see how a train is going to work in a mountain of that size, but best of luck to you if you can figure out a way to make it work.
  14. I'd get rid of the majority of, if not all of the commuter buses. I get your motivation behind them, but they just overcomplicate the network, and factoring in wait times won't increase speed. Riders would probably be much happier just having one choice of bus to get from A to B - it makes the trip easy and simple, with no confusion at all. 
  15. The 80 (and other such expresses, I might have missed some when looking) doesn't really make much sense. Whether or not you do put that Highway 99 SkyTrain down Granville, the 10 really isn't all that slow, and the 80 would just overcomplicate the network, not to mention it would be competing with the Canada Line.
  16. I know I've kind of said this already, but so much of the local network is untouched. I'd highly recommend at looking into rerouting buses to make a faster, more effective network. 
  17. I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of BRT lines. In my view, RapidBus (which can be seen as a BRT) should only be used on corridors where people travel from end to end, or at least for long distances on the line. However, you seem to have just converted a bunch of high-ridership routes into RapidBus with little  consideration for how people travel on those corridors. For example, the 25 is super high-ridership, yes, but a lot of that ridership is from people accessing local stops, not at major intersections. Plus, my previously mentioned concerns about duplication SkyTrain
  18. I'd like to see some good streetcars implemented. i think that Ambleside has good potential for it (NIMBYs aside), as do some areas of Surrey and some other fairly straight line popular routes. Whether you call it a streetcar or some form of LRT I don't mind, I just think that it's important to implement more rail transit. 
  19. I won't comment on the BC transit areas you seem to have taken over, but I just think that those networks are already starting to look very overcomplicated

My biggest takeaway from this map is that you need to rethink the priorities here. In my view, the most effective transit networks are those that are simple and frequent. Don't have a million routes, and a million premium services - just keep it simple with the highest-demand corridors becoming rapid transit and the rest being served with good old-fashioned local buses, running at high frequencies. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2021 at 9:17 PM, 8010 said:

• Re-numbered the transit network (making final adjustments). Currently updating formatting for route and station/exchange information to make the information easier to understand, this will take some time.

Others have highlighted issues with the overall design, but I'd also like to comment on this aspect of your proposal. Unless you're introducing new routes, there is no reason to rename stops and stations or renumber routes. Looking at North Vancouver, for example, you've introduced a lot of potential confusion by reusing route numbers but placing them on different routes. There's also no reason to rename Lonsdale Quay to "Lonsdale Station" or Phibbs Exchange to "Phibbs Station". The renumbering feels like change for the sake of change, rather than from any demonstrated real-world need.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tvisforme said:

Others have highlighted issues with the overall design, but I'd also like to comment on this aspect of your proposal. Unless you're introducing new routes, there is no reason to rename stops and stations or renumber routes. Looking at North Vancouver, for example, you've introduced a lot of potential confusion by reusing route numbers but placing them on different routes. There's also no reason to rename Lonsdale Quay to "Lonsdale Station" or Phibbs Exchange to "Phibbs Station". The renumbering feels like change for the sake of change, rather than from any demonstrated real-world need.

I was going to add the same point, I totally agree. However, I can see the value of calling them stations, as I believe both Lonsdale and Phibbs will be on SkyTrain lines. For example, we don't call Bridgeport or Metrotown exchanges, so I think that those are fair names. But overall, I totally agree with you - there's no reason to change the route numbers that have been there (in some cases) for a very long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

It would be nice if you could offer some context because this seems to be a mixed bag of official changes and your own proposals. It’s generally a good idea to keep these things separate so as not to create any confusion.

I’m also not sure why you created three separate threads for each of these documents if you put them all together in this one. On that note…

@MCW Metrobus, could we please move this clutter into the Dreams and Aspirations thread?

  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 6:35 PM, Citaro said:

It would be nice if you could offer some context because this seems to be a mixed bag of official changes and your own proposals. It’s generally a good idea to keep these things separate so as not to create any confusion.

I’m also not sure why you created three separate threads for each of these documents if you put them all together in this one. On that note…

@MCW Metrobus, could we please move this clutter into the Dreams and Aspirations thread?

Fixed. @Nathan Davidowiczperhaps you could re-insert your original thread titles into the post body, because they don't appear in this thread. The links to the original threads are still on the main forum page.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, UprisingCanadian said:

I believe that there should be a route that goes from Scottsdale (or even Scott Rd Stn) to White Rock. 

 

I also think the 312 should get articulated service during school hours. I go to one of the schools along the route, and holy, is it dangerously overcrowded.

I'm sorry, but the first one would probably just end up being a lot of route duplication, and it's not that difficult to get from Scott Road or Scottsdale to either Surrey Central or Newton Exchange to then catch the 321. 

Also yes, lots of routes are overcrowded, but Translink doesn't exactly have extra artics, sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zortan said:

I'm sorry, but the first one would probably just end up being a lot of route duplication, and it's not that difficult to get from Scott Road or Scottsdale to either Surrey Central or Newton Exchange to then catch the 321. 

Yes the transfer isn't that bad but you can shave off a lot of time if you had a route between Scottsdale and White Rock. It'll be a much more convenient route for people living in the North Delta area without having to make multiple transfers just to get on the 321. It doesn't have to be an all day route but it could just start out as a peak hour route to test the waters. If the demand is there then you can make it an all day service route. 

=======================================================

Also is it possible to make your signature smaller ? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a limit to how large a signature can be ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ninja Bus Fan said:

Yes the transfer isn't that bad but you can shave off a lot of time if you had a route between Scottsdale and White Rock. It'll be a much more convenient route for people living in the North Delta area without having to make multiple transfers just to get on the 321. It doesn't have to be an all day route but it could just start out as a peak hour route to test the waters. If the demand is there then you can make it an all day service route. 

=======================================================

Also is it possible to make your signature smaller ? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a limit to how large a signature can be ? 

You're right about the signature, it's gotten out of hand haha, I'll go and cut it down. 

As for the route, in the world (or at least North America) we live in, transit funding is hard to come by. And the option in the case of the Scottsdale - White Rock route would basically just be to either have that route or keep frequencies on frequent core routes like the 319 and 321. Overall, if you just keep the frequencies, the trip for passengers will work out to be faster, since the overall total wait times will be lower. 

That's the beauty of Translink, in my opinion, and also in my opinion why it's been so successful compared to other systems (even just King County Metro right across the border). Most trips are made on frequent, all-day routes with easy connections. And I do realize that isn't the case in many places, like Surrey and Maple Ridge, that have far fewer FTN services, but it's still a successful model and IMO should be kept and expanded rather than just duplicating services so people don't have to spend a couple minutes waiting at an exchange.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...