Vancouver general sightings and notes

[8010]

54 minutes ago, Zortan said:

229 would be kinda confusing though, since the 230 also runs primarily on Lonsdale (and combines with 229 up to 29th for the FTN designation for Lonsdale)

You’d think they would call it “229 29th St” to reduce the confusion.

3 hours ago, Express691 said:

Heard of stacked signs:

41 (41st Avenue)

128 (8th Avenue)

406 (Railway) (Finally...)

323 (128th Street)

229 (Lonsdale Ave)

228 (Grand Blvd)

Nooooo

[Translink69]

Why are they adding more they suck

[East Van Fan]

I saw the 41st Avenue stacked signage on my way to work. To me, it worked but my only complaint is their programing.

Do they have to space out on all of the characters on "4 1 S T  A V E N U E" instead of typing "41ST AVENUE" like normal?

[northwesterner]

1 hour ago, Translink69 said:

Why are they adding more they suck

Yeah, it sucks to actually have signs and a wayfinding system that gives you information on where the bus is going.

 

[8010]

13 minutes ago, northwesterner said:

Yeah, it sucks to actually have signs and a wayfinding system that gives you information on where the bus is going.

 

The wayfinding isn’t useful if you can’t read it, which is why they should stop with this stupid pilot and go back to alternating head signs, because I am fine with giving the routes names as they give a better idea where the buses are going.

[northwesterner]

1 hour ago, 8010 said:

The wayfinding isn’t useful if you can’t read it, which is why they should stop with this stupid pilot and go back to alternating head signs, because I am fine with giving the routes names as they give a better idea where the buses are going.

How does anyone get on the correct bus in Toronto, or New York City for that matter, with stacked signs? 

Clearly, the customers are able to read the signs and chose the correct bus, as these are some of the highest ridership systems in North America. 

Perhaps this is not actually a problem ... but a wayfinding improvement that starts to correct an error made in 1986 that has survived for 35 year is a monumental change for this system.

[Michael Marriott]

10 hours ago, Zortan said:

229 would be kinda confusing though, since the 230 also runs primarily on Lonsdale (and combines with 229 up to 29th for the FTN designation for Lonsdale)

You could call the 229 the "Lonsdale Ave-29th St", but knowing the bus goes up Lonsdale Ave from the Quay is important, as it is the main corridor.

You could also make the 229 and 230 branches of the same route, both signed up as the Lonsdale Ave bus.

[Translink69]

3 hours ago, northwesterner said:

Yeah, it sucks to actually have signs and a wayfinding system that gives you information on where the bus is going.

 

It really does when you’re waiting and  an LFR shows up and you can’t read where the bus is going cause 2/3 of the sign is burnt out. 
 

Nothing wrong with “Destination via Road/Station/POI” like we’ve been doing for decades. It’s another needless change by the planning department for the sake of doing something rather than nothing.

[northwesterner]

12 hours ago, Translink69 said:

It really does when you’re waiting and  an LFR shows up and you can’t read where the bus is going cause 2/3 of the sign is burnt out. 
 

Nothing wrong with “Destination via Road/Station/POI” like we’ve been doing for decades. It’s another needless change by the planning department for the sake of doing something rather than nothing.

CMBC not maintaining and repairing their destination signs is a different issue than having a wayfinding strategy.

****

You're right, there is nothing wrong with "Destination via ..." except you're statement is incorrect. CMBC hasn't been doing this for decades. Yes, there are a small handful of routes that have signage constructed this way, but the majority do not.

The majority is set up with the same philosophy that came with the 1986 overhaul, which is route number, and broad destination. This was done to simplify and reduce the number of readings on the roll signs, and was copied verbatim onto the electronic signs. It was a bad set up for the rollsigns (particularly as there was no route number on the side so you'd have a half dozen buses with just "Surrey Ctrl Stn" and no other info), and is inexcusable on the electronic signs.

This bad decision, from 1986, is finally being unwound. We should be applauding that change, not coming up with criticisms of it like "the font is too small." 

As I've noted, if this was really a problem, how have the transit systems with the highest bus ridership in North America like Toronto, San Francisco, and New York been able to function for close to two decades of programming this way? 

This is not a change for the sake of "doing something." This is a true, substantive change being driven with an eye towards improved passenger information and wayfinding. Given the context of how long Vancouver had underperformed in this area, it's a big deal.
 

[Express691]

Not really detracting from this, but the additional routes that underwent the sign change are not trackable on Tcomm/Next Bus as a result due to some technical fault.

The exception is for the 228 which only registered southbound trips.

[8800GTX]

19 hours ago, East Van Fan said:

I saw the 41st Avenue stacked signage on my way to work. To me, it worked but my only complaint is their programing.

Do they have to space out on all of the characters on "4 1 S T  A V E N U E" instead of typing "41ST AVENUE" like normal?

Actually I really like it, as the spacing between the characters makes long-distance visibility a bit easier.

The reduction of long distance visibility is why I really didn't like the Toronto-style stacked signs in the first place (in cases with different routes and fast moving buses it can actually be pretty useful). However, if the signs could use wider spacing like this on the destination row, I would be a bit more tolerant of it.

[jmward]

I think this is a step in the right direction - whether it comes from stacking or alternating sign exposures, more routes need to get some better wayfinding beyond simply stating the eventual destination.

406 is a perfect example - if you're in steveston, you could take the...

401 Brighouse Stn, 402 Brighouse Stn, 406 Brighouse Stn or even the 407 Brighouse Stn. Nothing tells you where each bus will take you along the way! 406's new sign is much improved.

Interesting to hear that this convention dates back to 1986. There's a few other spots where the current system is especially ridiculous (newton exchange im looking at you) and the 323 is another improvement there too.

Not quite s o l d on the s p a c i n g yet though, the TTC does that, but the TTC does a lot of s t r a n g e things. Maybe it'll grow on me.

[Express691]

On 6/22/2021 at 1:36 PM, Express691 said:

Not really detracting from this, but the additional routes that underwent the sign change are not trackable on Tcomm/Next Bus as a result due to some technical fault.

The exception is for the 228 which only registered southbound trips.

this issue has been fixed

[8010]

Looks like they’re installing the standard low-hanging ceiling lights as well as finally pigeon-proofing at Marine Drive Station.

[Vancouvers Trolleys]

Diesels, diesels, and more diesels: route 41.

[9924]

1 minute ago, Vancouvers Trolleys said:

Diesels, diesels, and more diesels: route 41.

Could have been swapped out with AC units because of the warm temperatures.

[Vancouvers Trolleys]

1 minute ago, 9924 said:

Could have been swapped out with AC units because of the warm temperatures.

Just what I thoughts!

[Citaro]

52 minutes ago, 9924 said:

Could have been swapped out with AC units because of the warm temperatures.

You’re most likely correct; at the time of this posting, there’s only two D40LFRs out in service and six C40LFRs. I rode on 9503 yesterday and the heat was insane; I feel for the drivers who are stuck with a non-AC bus.

[Phillip]

2 hours ago, Vancouvers Trolleys said:

Diesels, diesels, and more diesels: route 41.

The 41s are diesels because their prioritizing air conditioned buses, there's nothing along the 41 route that requires taking trolleys off so it's obvious. I'm driving 18329 on the 41 today and it's nice! 

 

Yesterday I had 2165 on the 41 and it was very uncomfortable as I work a straight afternoon piece.

2 hours ago, 9924 said:

Could have been swapped out with AC units because of the warm temperatures.

Correct

[Zortan]

I feel terrible for the 19 riders right now, that route is a total oven going up Kingsway in the sun, I can't imagine what it's like during a heat wave

[captaintrolley]

1 hour ago, Zortan said:

I can't imagine what it's like during a heat wave

This is a heat wave right now.

[anyfong]

How feasible would it be to install AC on the trolleys, compared to purchasing a new trolley fleet with AC?

[Citaro]

25 minutes ago, anyfong said:

How feasible would it be to install AC on the trolleys, compared to purchasing a new trolley fleet with AC?

It would obviously be cheaper to install on existing trolleys, but it would also be a waste of money since they’re nearing the end of their service lives.

[8010]

3 hours ago, Zortan said:

I feel terrible for the 19 riders right now, that route is a total oven going up Kingsway in the sun, I can't imagine what it's like during a heat wave

I took it in the sun yesterday. Not pleasant. Honestly, they should have all 104 A/C Novas out and use any remaining buses as backup. I think they would’ve been more useful on routes like the 5/6 or 19 today rather than the 41. I’m sure RTC could’ve swapped some of their local Novas with Orions or Nova Suburbans since it doesn’t seem too uncommon for suburbans to end up on local routes.

[Zortan]

17 minutes ago, Opal said:

These new signs will take some getting used to but is the way it should be.  Except they've already made a mistake with the 10...  It should be "10 Granville / to Waterfront Stn" (or the "to Davie" exposure used for some AM trips) not "10 Downtown / to Waterfront Stn"...  Anyway, still better than the existing and gives MUCH more information to the riders.

 

Now, wonder how they'll name the 33?  33rd Avenue or 16th Avenue?  It travels along 16th Avenue for longer than 33rd, but was numbered for 33rd...  I suppose "33 33rd Avenue / to U B C via 16th" would be best, but doubt they'll do that...

Definitely agreed about the 10, I don't get why it says downtown to Waterfront, I think most people know that Waterfront is in downtown.

Anyway, about the 33 - I don't know if this would work but it would be cool to see the sign just read something like "33 33rd - 16th" so as to include both of the streets it travels along. That might bring its own confusion, but I think it would probably still be more helpful than the current signs.