Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[logan5]

you get 90% of the projected ridership for Skytrain.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

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.

You've used a Zwei like tactic here.

In the Surrey RT Study:

RRT 1A would run Skytrain along Fraser Hwy out to Langley, and BRT along King George and 104th Ave. Length of BRT is 24 km. Length of RRT is 16 km, for a total route length of 40 km. Capital cost = $2.2 billion. Projected daily boardings (in 2041) = 200 000. Express these numbers in a ratio and you get a cost of $11 000/boarding.

BRT 1 would run BRT on Fraser Hwy, King George, and 104th Ave, for a total route length of 40 km. Capital cost = $0.9 billion. Projected daily boardings (in 2041) = 180 000 for a cost ratio of $5000/boarding.

If you add Skytrain down to Newton to the RRT 1A option, of course you will get higher ridership, but it will bring the capital cost up another $0.6 billion, for a total cost of $2.8 billion. For the same cost as option RRT 1A, you could get 97 km of BRT which would serve far more communities in Surrey, as well as getting far more ridership than the Skytrain option.

[xd_1771]

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.

Charlton Park? Why don't you walk north to 104 @ 154 for a 337, 509 or 590 express then?

In the Surrey RT Study:

One of the big things that matters, actually is how many NEW trips and riders you would attract onto the new transit. All other riders, for whatever reason be it low-income or default choice or transfer-to-SkyTrain riders, would be riding transit anyway and are using the new service in place of other bus routes they used to take - so spending money for these people, while definitely still very important, is somewhat less worth it.

With RRT1A, this number is 24,500. With BRT1, this number is only just over half that at 13,500. The yields a cost of approximately $89,800 per new boarding on RRT1A and $66,666 on BRT1. In a sense, BRT is definitely more cost effective, but one of the things I've always been clear about is that new ridership is going to matter hugely if the results that can be achieved in Surrey with the options available are compared to the regional goal.

In addition, there's doubt in the air at Surrey as to whether BRT can help achieve land use goals. I've talked to city staff; one survey they did on developers found that 70% of them find rail transit a more attractive proposition over bus transit. It was a very vague question (not going into the details over what is rail transit), but it is what it is. Getting some rail transit in would assist in achieving land-use densification goals.

High quality rail transit, hopefully, so that Surrey can compete with the rest of the region. (In 2021, an LRT service at a 5 minute frequency (that is also slower) is not going to cut it vs. Expo Line's 90 second frequencies, Canada and Evergreens' 3 minute frequencies, and the many redevelopable areas near those lines)

[nname]

I think the report state the BRT is clearly inadequate for the Fraser Highway route in 2041. So building all 3 routes as BRT, you're essentially creating a far more expensive version of the 99 B-Line 25 years down the road...

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by DKaz

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

Here is the interesting thing and maybe it is due to the major increase in capacity, but I drive that stretch every day and see the busses.

What I noticed is this:

96-B goes by, mainly empty.
96-B goes by, mainly empty.
321 goes by, FULL with people standing back to front.
96-B goes by, mainly empty.

So I started scratching my head wondering... huh?

Maybe someone can explain but so far every time I see a 321 go by they are still packed full. Then a 96-B goes by and it is near empty.

The only thing I can fathom is that everyone is still on the 321 schedules so they only walk up to the bus stop when the bus arrives. AKA they time it so they only meet a 321 bus. Because it makes no sense to me that you would have a full bus with people standing between 3 major B-Line busses that for the most part stop at the same stops.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Here is the interesting thing and maybe it is due to the major increase in capacity, but I drive that stretch every day and see the busses.

What I noticed is this:

96-B goes by, mainly empty.
96-B goes by, mainly empty.
321 goes by, FULL with people standing back to front.
96-B goes by, mainly empty.

So I started scratching my head wondering... huh?

Maybe someone can explain but so far every time I see a 321 go by they are still packed full. Then a 96-B goes by and it is near empty.

The only thing I can fathom is that everyone is still on the 321 schedules so they only walk up to the bus stop when the bus arrives. AKA they time it so they only meet a 321 bus. Because it makes no sense to me that you would have a full bus with people standing between 3 major B-Line busses that for the most part stop at the same stops.

It is typical. A new route usually takes 3 years to build to its expected ridership. It's unusual to start a new service with a high frequency, such as the 96. Usually when a new rail line opens, bus routes are rerouted to feed into it and some are cancelled - nothing like that happened here, expect a few schedule adjustments and some service reduction.

And the 96 has no major anchor at the south end - it really needs to go to White Rock to be of any use. None of the stops have any density around them, so it laves me wondering, what's the point?

I'm scratching my head wondering why Translink is spending so much on a bus route that is clearly not needed, when there are capacity issues elsewhere in the system.

I like the B-lines, but this one seems poorly implemented.

[xd_1771]

It is typical. A new route usually takes 3 years to build to its expected ridership. It's unusual to start a new service with a high frequency, such as the 96. Usually when a new rail line opens, bus routes are rerouted to feed into it and some are cancelled - nothing like that happened here, expect a few schedule adjustments and some service reduction.

That's correct. This happens all over the world, actually. Transit improvements are strictly turned into replacements by way of actually replacing the original service; i.e. Portland's Yellow Line MAX replaced the bus #5.

The 96 is a bit of a special case; with the exception of the 104 Ave corridor (and the 337 will still exist, and is extremely popular), it's not really replacing any main express services that previously existed. It IS the first express service.

That was different in the case of the other B-Lines. I'm pretty sure that before the #99, there was another express bus of sorts that made its way to Broadway (I think it was the #85). In the case of the #98, it took over many direct-to-Vancouver 400-series express services from Richmond (and some were later reintroduced during peak hours only). The #97 completely replaced the express bus route #147, and its introduction was aided by the new Millennium Line.

The issue here is that riders are still seeing the #96 as a complement and not as the main service. There's been a definite need for this B-Line, however, and so this should change as time goes by. People need to be given time to make discoveries of how there are benefits. The 96 will be heftily more reliable than the 321 as the service is far more predictable with less stops. Ridership moving onto the 96 will eventually improve conditions for those who insist on continuing to use 321.

Neither TransLink nor the City of Surrey have done well on the part of marketing. The City of Surrey could have lauded its introduction in a press release of sorts (with a Mayor or Councillor speech maybe) and that would have hugely helped introduce the bus route to the entire city. TransLink could put some signage at the 320 and 321's major terminals to direct riders onto the 96. Also, destination signs; 96 is labelled as Guildford Exchange/Newton Exchange, and so it might not be immediately clear to 321/320/etc riders that this bus also services riders headed to SkyTrain. Those appear to be the primary issues that are preventing the 96 from gaining huge traction.

I think it's not that bad, though. I was particularly pleased a few weeks ago to see a fellow high school alumni knowing and using the #96.

[nname]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The #97 completely replaced a local bus route (this local bus route used to take a longer and circuitous route, however, that has since been replaced by the C24) and its introduction was aided by the new Millennium Line.

Actually, the route the #97 completely replaced the #147, which was a frequent semi-express route (similar to the #169), and was faster during any time of the day except late evening. The #C24 replaces the actual "local" route #148. TransLink also swapped routing with the #160 so the #160 now takes the "faster" route while the #97 takes the slower one. And since it completely replaced local route, the #97 also have to do local service on 2 segments (Como Lake to Lougheed on North Road; Falcon to New Port Drive on Guildford/Ioco). So really, beside the B-Line branding and late evening service improvement, the #97 is pretty much a worse route in any way compared to the original local route.

I don't know, but the #96 will sure looks very bad on the next performance review, which is happening right now. Well, maybe next year they would found some inefficiencies in the route, and they'll optimize it through service optimization and reallocate the extra service to start the extension down to White Rock?

[xd_1771]

^ Ah, must've read the CPTDB description wrong? Anyways, though, that proves that the 96 is the first B-Line that is coming on its own and not replacing other regular express routes (noting that #394 is not that frequent and peak only (and not replaced as 96 doesn't head to WR), and the #337 is not that frequent off-peak, services a whole 'nother market and is not being replaced).

Still, TransLink could have better signage in place (i.e. a temporary cardboard sign mounted on the bus stop post telling people at Surrey Central bus loop that #96 is faster)

[GMasterAres]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having issues with the 96-B line. I just found it odd was all and all your explanation as to the others replacing existing routes with adjustments makes sense to why the B line here would be underused so early.

I do think if it says "Guildford" on it when you're in Newton or along King George it will probably confuse a lot of people. It should probably read Surrey Central until it is as Surrey Central, then change. So from Newton it says "Surrey Central" then when it gets to the station it changes to Guildford. That would make more sense because it really isn't "Newton -> Guildford" it is "Newton -> Surrey Central -> Guildford."

As for the lack of notice, I think it may be a few things.

1. Translink wants to put a B-Line down in order to sell something more down the road. We constantly hear people say "No RRT until there is a B-Line" so this may be them going "Well look there is one haha!"

2. It could also be Translink trying to stop the City of Surrey from continuing to look at LRT. It seems interesting that out of all the routes they picked the 2 main routes CoS keeps talking about putting their own LRT down. If Surrey did put LRT down those roads (as much as people say it wouldn't solve anything), it cuts off a potential revenue route for Translink. Not only could Translink not run their own rapid transit down there without huge arguments but it would most likely kill their major bus routes too and put money in the city's pocket allowing them to compete with Translink SoF. They don't want that.

3. City of Surrey may not want to sell it for the reason given in #2, because they would like their own LRT and disagree with the ideas Translink has with regards to BRT and RRT. They also feel that BRTs don't help encourage dense development compared to rail lines (LRT/RRT) which I would have to agree with seeing as we only see regionally, major densification start around SkyTrain lines not BRT. Broadway doesn't count because of its close proximity to Downtown imo, but all other dense areas for the most part outside of Lougheed, have developed after RRT has reached the area. Many of which had BRT service before the RRT was introduced.

Either way, I've been a proponent for improving transit South of Fraser and this B line regardless will improve transit accessibility even if it takes a year or 3 years to bump up to much higher usage. While there are certainly kinks, I have to praise Translink for implementing it and helping transit out here.

[xd_1771]

Perhaps a "via Surrey Central" will do, but hey.... through routes in Vancouver like the #22, #16, etc. never read "downtown" on their callsigns and switching after reaching it. Listing the end destination, regardless of a major point on the way, is a standard practice. Surrey riders should also get used to this, as such a system could become workable with local bus routes. Perhaps a "via Surrey Ctrl Stn", but I think that special signage at the major terminals would do.

I don't think Surrey has the authority to build their own LRT system... that would of course mess up the major road network, which would require at least partial TransLink involvement. (In addition, that would actually be kinda dumb, as it would defeat the point of 'affordability' - the system would then completely require its own staffing, support and admin, at a larger expense over potentially shared staffing with CMBC or even BCRTC).

Speaking of that, the 96 is actually currently scheduled to be faster than future LRT (i.e. to Guildford, 6-8 minutes vs. 9 minutes proposed) - likely a flexibility of how a bus makes stops (i.e. if 5 people board, a train would still wait for more passengers and close after a predefined time). Sure, it's in shared traffic and can be delayed, but then again both the B-Line and LRT will have traffic-related weaknesses - the volume at some major intersections will most certainly dictate that an LRT stop at least at a few red lights on the route as well. Plus, the first day an accident blocks the tracks, the "benefits" will completely disappear.

Back to the B-Line, I think word will slowly but surely spread. A clever rider on, say, 335 could transfer into a 96 and save time (maybe a train or two) if it arrives/departs within 4 minutes (plus make room for 108th Ave boardings). I used to do that all the time with 337 during peak hours. Sometimes when the opportunity arises (i.e. at Guildford Exch), the driver on the 335 would announce that the 337 was behind it, and a few people - aside from me even - would follow suit. They probably continue to do that even without a driver reminder nowadays.

[Whalleyboy]

I still think they messed up a bit with the stops for this route. While whalley blvd is nice its a completely useless stop. there isnt really anything there. The stop should have been at 104 and 140th. there is much higher amount of people in that area.

also while i know it would have increase time i think 80th ave would have been a good extra stop on its route as its nears lower income housing area. So likely people who would take transit.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

That was different in the case of the other B-Lines. I'm pretty sure that before the #99, there was another express bus of sorts that made its way to Broadway (I think it was the #85).

Line 31 used to run express during peak hours from Broadway Station to UBC. It ran every 15 minutes in the morning peak and every 30 minutes in the evening peak using standard 40ft buses. The trolley bus 9 used to run every few minutes to UBC in all time periods, complemented west of Granville by the 10 UBC to Hastings Express trolley bus, which also ran every few minutes.

Contrast this with today, in the peak, the 99 runs every 2 minutes and every 4 minutes during the day, at no time is it less than every 12 minutes. The trolley bus 9 still runs every few minutes to UBC, but when UBC is in session, otherwise it terminates at Alma; and the trolley bus 14 has replaced the 10 west of Granville - it is still UBC to Hastings, but now it runs local on Hastings.

Line 85 ran from downtown to UBC every 60 minutes in the morning peak only. This service was replaced by the expanded 44.

[lightrail]

Just looking at the Metro Vancouver transit map, why not extend the 96 B-line over the Port Mann Bridge to Coquitlam Centre using the bus lanes. Now that would create a useful link. And extending south to White Rock would complete it as a major b-line route.

[lightrail]

Would love to see something like this one day:

On XX date, Translink will be making the following service changes:

Skytrain:
Evergreen Line - with the opening of Broadway tunnel to UBC, all Evergreen services will extend to UBC in all time periods.

Expo Line - with the opening of the Fleetwood extension, all Expo Services will be extended to Fleetwood in all time periods.

Millennium Line - service between Waterfront and Columbia will be discontinued. With the opening of the new Platform at Columbia, all Millennium line trains will now terminate at Columbia. With the opening of the Broadway tunnel, Millennium trains will be extended west from Lougheed to UBC in all time periods.

Valley Line - NEW - service operates from Waterfront to Newtown on the new guideway extension. Service runs every 6 minutes in the day and every 8 minutes at night - replaces the Millennium line between Waterfront and Columbia and combines with the Expo Line from Waterfront to King George to provide service every 100 seconds in the peak, every 3 minutes in the day and every 4 minutes at night.

Canada Line - to be consistent with other operations, on printed material, this line is split into two. Canada Line will run from the Airport to Waterfront. Service to Richmond Brighouse will be named "Richmond Line". Service levels have increased and longer 3-car trains will be in operation during most hours to accommodate the almost 200,000 people a day using the line.

[st7860]

i know the 99 is crowded but i didn't know it was this bad.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by st7860

i know the 99 is crowded but i didn't know it was this bad.

Thank goodness the Evergreen line is being built!

Sorry, troll mode off.

I cross Broadway (at Ontario) on my way to work every day. Today I saw a packed 99 followed (10 seconds later, same red light I was waiting at) by a 1/3rd full 99.

Do they all start at Broadway & Commercial or is there some kind of staggered start? I can't imagine one being less than full at that time of day, around 8:20am.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Thank goodness the Evergreen line is being built!

I walked out of Broadway-CityHall station on Saturday afternoon and watched how the lineup for 99 B-line forms, grows, and self-organizes in real time. This was on a weekend. It's quite remarkable to watch.

I simply can't believe that the new, nearly empty, 96 B-line's route is considered to be of equal regional importance for a rail upgrade.

[MetroRailRoad]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I walked out of Broadway-CityHall station on Saturday afternoon and watched how the lineup for 99 B-line forms, grows, and self-organizes in real time. This was on a weekend. It's quite remarkable to watch.

I simply can't believe that the new, nearly empty, 96 B-line's route is considered to be of equal regional importance for a rail upgrade.

Probably because most people are still unaware of the new B-Line. Ridership will probably grow over time, as more people who hear about it get out of their cars and on to the new B-Line.

[Mac Write]

Now that's also been a year, how is the 555 ridership?

[nname]

Last time I checked, the bus is about 60-80% seated during late pm-peak, and having the 4th longest lineup at the station behind the #169, #159, and #791, which are all passing up like no tomorrow...