Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Dave2]

[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Hf5lAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WowNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3987%2C1933575]

ALRT is a political experiment? Hmmm, did 'avowed communist" Bruce Yorke live to see the fall of Communism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Yorke

http://cope.bc.ca/?s=Bruce+yorke

Nothing Found

Sorry, but nothing matched your search criteria. Please try again with some different keywords.

Spoiler: Vancouver did buy new trolleys in '83.

[GeeCee]

I'm surprised that Malcolm Johnston isn't mentioned in the article.

[logicbomb]

96 B-Line

Saturday 12:30pm
Guildford to Surrey Central - 3 passengers on the entire stretch.

Saturday 8:30pm
Surrey Central to Guildford.....well it looked like this the entire stretch.

[xd_1771]

^ By far I have seen significant 96-B ridership growth, with buses now carrying at least 40 people (all seats on a 40 ft bus) during weekday mid-day and peak periods. I think the full effects will come after 1-2 months, so don't worry too much about the initial emptiness.

Ridership takes time to grow. Unless, of course, it's a SkyTrain line that's introduced.

[DKaz]

Every 96 b-line bus I've seen has been near empty.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Dave2

[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Hf5lAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WowNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3987%2C1933575]

ALRT is a political experiment? Hmmm, did 'avowed communist" Bruce Yorke live to see the fall of Communism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Yorke

http://cope.bc.ca/?s=Bruce+yorke

Nothing Found

Sorry, but nothing matched your search criteria. Please try again with some different keywords.

Spoiler: Vancouver did buy new trolleys in '83.

To be honest, ALRT was probably at least partially a political experiment.

However, it was also at least partially the best and only choice for significant cost-savings in the downtown area, through the reuse of the Dunsmuir rail tunnel. Linear induction motor trains are very low height, and they really fit the low-height double decker tunnels downtown. There was (and might still be) no other technology option that would have allowed for a reuse of this tunnel.

Any other technology option would have required a new, more expensive and probably deeper bored tunnel, with inferior connections compared to our current setup The original 1975 plan. (there's some graphics on Voony's Blog, and I also borrowed a book from KPU's library about it and have read extensively into it) had the line using Cambie to get to Cordova, which would not have allowed it to service the office districts at Granville and Burrard today nearly as well.

Whatever advocates of the time didn't realize that, but I don't blame them.... LIM propulsion was a very new concept at the time, one not well discussed, and these benefits would have not been obvious to the general public.

-----------------------

In other news, DMJ seems busy getting some consultants to make some Canadian rapid transit system platform length graphics right now. I find this attempt hilarious, as he's trying to justify that these systems have higher capacity because of their longer trains and platform lengths, yet completely fails to take into account SkyTrain's automatic train control and max theoretical 75 seconds frequency.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Every 96 b-line bus I've seen has been near empty.

I suppose it takes a while for a new routes ridership to gain traction in Surrey, but this doesn't bode well for even BRT. Give it time I guess. I know most people in Surrey want more Skytrain but the numbers below clearly favour BRT. For 40% of the cost of the Skytrain option, you get 90% of the projected ridership for Skytrain.

[Millennium2002]

Well, a B-Line helps, but this single improvement does rather poorly by itself...

The problem here is that there's not a lot of services that connect to it in any relatively convenient manner.

I mean, most services in Surrey are still stuck in the same frequency as they were before... and assuming more people lived closer to those routes than say the 96, it'd provide little benefit overall.

Of course there's also a few stops missing here and there that could also help in boosting passenger numbers.

[GlassCity]

I've always thought you should always test out a market with BRT before building RRT. LRT is a non-starter for me. Let the city use the BRT for a while, then once it starts to meet capacity, you can start building RRT. Especially in a city like Surrey that doesn't have much of a transit culture—it has to be built up first, and it makes a lot more sense to build it up gradually.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by logan5

I suppose it takes a while for a new routes ridership to gain traction in Surrey, but this doesn't bode well for even BRT. Give it time I guess. I know most people in Surrey want more Skytrain but the numbers below clearly favour BRT. For 40% of the cost of the Skytrain option, you get 90% of the projected ridership for Skytrain.

[pic removed]

The numbers do not necessary favour BRT. Surrey is still a sprawling city, seeing some, but not really any expansive densification outside of the city center. Also you have to take into account the demography; you have more families living out in the suburbs, and less youth that are willing to take public transportation (lack of transit culture). Step on a bus in Surrey, and you won’t see as many 18-40 year olds as you do in Vancouver.

The frequencies and the presence of articulated buses do not necessarily fit the demand for the corridors. What's amazing here is that Translink opted to not improve service on the 502 which is seeing overcrowding issues, and a high number of pass-ups. Perhaps the artics could be better utilized on this route.

[splashflash]

It is shocking that Surrey advocates for poorly performing LRT. If Translink builds this, So of Fraser ratepayers should be livid.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by splashflash

It is shocking that Surrey advocates for poorly performing LRT. If Translink builds this, So of Fraser ratepayers should be livid.

Even if I didn't live south of the Fraser I'd be furious. Would be a huge missed opportunity.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

What's amazing here is that Translink opted to not improve service on the 502 which is seeing overcrowding issues, and a high number of pass-ups. Perhaps the artics could be better utilized on this route.

Perhaps that's because the provincial government spent several billion dollars upgrading the bridge and highway while claiming transit service as a benefit, but failed to provide any money for it - telling Translink instead to "find efficiencies" (doublespeak for "cut other routes") in order to fund it.

[xd_1771]

you get 90% of the projected ridership for Skytrain.

Actually, no. On a corridor-by-corridor basis, both King George Blvd and Fraser Highway are predicted to get about 53% higher peak passenger loads with SkyTrain service over BRT or LRT, according to the study. The issue is that in the SkyTrain option, only one of the corridors is upgraded to SkyTrain, meaning the gains seem quite small overall. On the corridor in particular, though, this is far from a small deal.

[GlassCity]

Why didn't they send a B-Line down Fraser highway?

[xd_1771]

^ I think that in particular may have to do with little things such as stop infrastructure. Fraser Highway still isn't exactly complete, for one. Using artics on a local 502 service would certainly be impossible, meaning service improvement is either an increase in frequency (at higher cost) or an express B-Line service would have to be introduced in addition to 502 - that would take a lot of money, and given there's a 503 coming and that a lot of money is already being redirected to 555, it's questionable whether some 502 demand could be attracted away. Even moreso if the 555 gets a stop or exchange in Surrey, where it could take on some 502 ridership via the 326/335.

[GlassCity]

I haven't heard of the 503, what is its route gonna be like?

[xd_1771]

Basically like a 394 or less frequent 337 but on Fraser Highway. Every 13 minutes, dedicated express bus with limited stops doing PICK UP ONLY on the 502 Aldergrove route. Drop-offs only at Langley Centre or beyond. Vice-versa opposite direction.

It was discussed in last fall's consultations.

[GlassCity]

Thanks, that clears it all up

[memememe76]

For this Guildford resident, ideally, I would leave my condo, walk to the bus stop outside the McDonald's for the 320, and the 320 would arrive right away. If I don't see the 320 on the 152nd St. horizon, I would walk over to the Guildford bus loop, and wait for another bus heading to Surrey Central. But I live close enough to the loop to do this without much fuss. The thing with the Guildford bus loop--for relatively very few Guildford residents, the bus loop is their closest bus stop. And once you're on the 320 or 501 or 332, the time incentive to get on the 96B is not good enough. If you live in Fleetwood, you're not gonna get off the 320 at Guildford and get on the 96B. And in reverse--that Fleetwood resident is not going to get on the 96B at Surrey Central, then depart at Guildford and then get on the 320.

Meanwhile, if you live in a stop between Guildford and Surrey Central, I don't know if enough people will walk to the 96B bus stop. Bus stops are quite far apart.

The 96B is helping with the frequencies and reducing the overloadedness of the 320 (and the 321, I would imagine), etc., but I don't think the 96B will generate new riders for awhile.