Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Gordon]

Has there been any mention of the findings of the public consultations on the various routing changes because some of them make alot of sense

Changes to the north East trolley routes & the downtown stop consolidations for the 44 UBC.

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I disagree. There are plenty of sections of the south slope east and west of Champlain that are just as steep (Patterson, Royal Oak) where the streets are still in a grid pattern. The grid is less complete in Burnaby because they didn't pave over the creeks to the same extent that Vancouver did, but most streets are still essentially straight and oriented east/west or north-south.

Champlain was designed as it was because it's a relatively new addition to Vancouver that was built during the "suburbia" craze where grids were seen as boring. Boring they may be, but far easier to service with decent transit.

You are partially correct but are forgetting that the South Slope of Burnaby and Champlain Heights isn't completely the same as that of Vancouver's South Side. OF special consideration is the former City landfill that lies where Everett Crawley Park is today. And though I agree that some aspects of a grid could easily have been accommodated, there are more complexities involved than a simple comparison to say Fraser Street to the West.

Both Champlain and Fraserview were intentionally made with curvy streets to appeal to aesthetics, although there are technical and practical advantages of this too.

But I digress, my point was simply that the decision to not go with a grid has made for a more challenging task of making transit efficient, to which I'm sure you can concur.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Has there been any mention of the findings of the public consultations on the various routing changes because some of them make alot of sense

Changes to the north East trolley routes & the downtown stop consolidations for the 44 UBC.

Apparently, the changes that make the most sense are the ones that meet the most oppositions.

Top 3:

49th Ave - Champlain Heights (55% opposed)
Straighten #49 and add detour to #26

Central Tri-Cities (49% opposed)
Discontinue #97 and #190, shorten #160 to Brentwood and makes it local service

West Vancouver - Downtown (42% opposed)
Discontinue #258, increase service on #250 and stop consolidations for the #44

[xd_1771]

I can see the justification for keeping the #258 - if it becomes a premium, multi-zone service that has its passengers pay appropriately higher fares to offset the taxpayer subsidy.

West Van's opposition does seem to have to do with a conflict of data, so I'd like to see them bring that forth to prove that the 258 trips are as "well used" as they claim.

[Gordon]

The Changes I was asking about should be done any how because they increase efficiency. The people who run the the system know what needs to be done & should do it. it looks like 58% support changes to the #44 U.B.C.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I can see the justification for keeping the #258 - if it becomes a premium, multi-zone service that has its passengers pay appropriately higher fares to offset the taxpayer subsidy.

West Van's opposition does seem to have to do with a conflict of data, so I'd like to see them bring that forth to prove that the 258 trips are as "well used" as they claim.

It might not be a conflict of data. West Vancouver says most of the buses are full and Translink says its a route with a "high cost per boarded passenger."

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by nname

Apparently, the changes that make the most sense are the ones that meet the most oppositions.

Top 3:

49th Ave - Champlain Heights (55% opposed)
Straighten #49 and add detour to #26

Central Tri-Cities (49% opposed)
Discontinue #97 and #190, shorten #160 to Brentwood and makes it local service

West Vancouver - Downtown (42% opposed)
Discontinue #258, increase service on #250 and stop consolidations for the #44

Is there a way to find the report online? Looking around and haven't seen anything.

[WBC]

Build a Gondola from River district to 49th. This region needs more Gondolas...One for SFU and one for New West...

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by WBC

Build a Gondola from River district to 49th. This region needs more Gondolas...One for SFU and one for New West...

It would probably be easier just to go straight for the Patterson Skytrain Station, then you'd actually connect to something.

[waves]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It might not be a conflict of data. West Vancouver says most of the buses are full and Translink says its a route with a "high cost per boarded passenger."

As a rider of the 258 myself. Every bus they run usually has every seat taken with a few people standing. They even have 2 buses running side by side at 8am to meet the passenger demand.

My comment on this is that the changes to the 44 and 258 need to be considered separately. The 44 badly needs improving and the 258 works fantastically as is for what really is a dime in Translink's operational budget (There are only about 8 bus trips made per day on the route, only on weekdays and only when school is in session).

https://westvancouver.ca/sites/default/f...4/258-UBC-Westvan-Peak%20-Hours-only.pdf

[nname]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Is there a way to find the report online? Looking around and haven't seen anything.

Should be somewhere in this document. There's not much info though, as final report won't be available until later this year.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It might not be a conflict of data. West Vancouver says most of the buses are full and Translink says its a route with a "high cost per boarded passenger."

Full bus doesn't mean the cost per passenger is low. The problem for #258 is that is it a one-way non-stop express. This is a very expensive service to run. There is no passenger turnover for the entire trip, and for every bus that goes to UBC, it has to deadhead back to West Vancouver empty. So even if every bus ran full at 50 passengers, it only going to yield 25 boardings/hour, which equate to the lowest 20% of all service.

EDIT: checked the 2014 bus service performance, this is the stat for #258:
Average peak load: 55% (42/212)
Average capacity used: 58% (97/212)
Average boarding/hr: 16 (190/212)
Cost per passenger: $6.32 (200/212)

So in summary, the load isn't best, but the cost effectiveness is pretty much one of the worse in the system.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

It would probably be easier just to go straight for the Patterson Skytrain Station, then you'd actually connect to something.

That would make sense but would create a very long Gondola over essentially nothing (cemetery / park?). The whole area down on Fraser is tricky, as they have created an island of density separated from the rest of the city by Marine Way / ravines and parks.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by nname

Should be somewhere in this document. There's not much info though, as final report won't be available until later this year.




Full bus doesn't mean the cost per passenger is low. The problem for #258 is that is it a one-way non-stop express. This is a very expensive service to run. There is no passenger turnover for the entire trip, and for every bus that goes to UBC, it has to deadhead back to West Vancouver empty. So even if every bus ran full at 50 passengers, it only going to yield 25 boardings/hour, which equate to the lowest 20% of all service.

EDIT: checked the 2014 bus service performance, this is the stat for #258:
Average peak load: 55% (42/212)
Average capacity used: 58% (97/212)
Average boarding/hr: 16 (190/212)
Cost per passenger: $6.32 (200/212)

So in summary, the load isn't best, but the cost effectiveness is pretty much one of the worse in the system.

Sometimes I wonder if it would be more cost-efficient that some of these peak hour routes didn't dead-head back but would be in revenue service. yes, ridership would be lower, but it could probably generate some trips/revenue.

Have the same thought about the 509 between Surrey Central and Walnut Grove. Definitely bet there is some reverse trips that would be generated between Carvolth Exchange and Surrey Central that would work well as an express. At the Walnut Grove end, it loops around so it could reverse going back.

[xd_1771]

^ Nname pretty much summarizes it. It's not the kind of service that would typically be cost-effective as a transit route, and the end result is that it costs more than every route to operate since you're asking buses to do a lot of deadheading. Which is why I maintain my position that the bus service could stay, but run at a premium fare. I just think back to Japan and all of the buses and trains I used there that exist and help build the country's excellent transportation system, but cost much more to ride than you'd think acceptable if it were in North America.

Have the same thought about the 509 between Surrey Central and Walnut Grove. Definitely bet there is some reverse trips that would be generated between Carvolth Exchange and Surrey Central that would work well as an express. At the Walnut Grove end, it loops around so it could reverse going back.

Any 509/590 buses heading into Surrey Central are probably transitioning back into those extra eastbound trips onto the 501 (and vice-versa in the PM) to service local demand to/from jobs in Port Kells. I was curious for a bit why reverse-peak trips would be running more frequently than peak-trips on the 501, but it didn't take me that long to put it together.

In any case since the 509/590 is staying within the same depot's service area, you can transition any of those runs into revenue runs throughout the rest of the system to improve cost efficiency. The 258 is leaving the West Van service area so you'd probably need to have some sort of agreement between WVMT and CMBC if the 258 buses were to transition to another CMBC route for the mid-day (kind of like how the #480 transitions to the 49 and delivers artics to it). It seems like it could be done, although there could be other practical hold-backs to it.

(On the 509 by the way - I think the proposed Lougheed reroute may also mean a PCTC takeover of the 509, 501 staying STC. From an efficiency standpoint it actually makes a lot of sense since it would just integrate with the 555 runs and reduce deadheads. STC would then have the additional buses to redirect to an improved 337 service on 104 Ave - which is pretty badly needed in its own right - and existing 509 users can take the 337 to Surrey Central from the new off-ramp stops. In the consultations I advised TL about the need to up 337 frequencies to compensate, and since then I believe someone on CPTDB declared that a 337 peak service improvement to every 10 mins is an unwritten part of the official plan so I look forward to it )

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

^ pretty much summarizes it. It's not the kind of service that would typically be cost-effective as a transit route, and the end result is that it costs more than every route to operate since you're asking buses to do a lot of deadheading.

The only way they can avoid deadheading is not having the buses leave until it's time to do the reverse route. This is where a tech solution can sometimes solve an operational/maintence cost problem, but that would only be viable with driverless buses and a bus yard/parking is then required.

I'm not sure if a gondola is a fit for anywhere except SFU or climbing a steep grade since it would achieve net cost savings from no more bus maintenance. But gondolas are point to point, and have to be short.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The only way they can avoid deadheading is not having the buses leave until it's time to do the reverse route. This is where a tech solution can sometimes solve an operational/maintence cost problem, but that would only be viable with driverless buses and a bus yard/parking is then required.

Fully autonomous vehicles is likely under 10 years away. The issues will be more around the legality of them on our roads. The biggest hurtle to autonomous buses beyond legality will be unions. Look at the resistance taxi drivers have to Uber. Can't wait to see the resistance that Uber and taxi drivers will have to automated fully electric cars taking their part-time/full-time jobs away. I figure 10 years past full automation for BC legal to catch up and another 15 years beyond that for replacement to automated buses.

Certainly not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by nname

Should be somewhere in this document. There's not much info though, as final report won't be available until later this year.




Full bus doesn't mean the cost per passenger is low. The problem for #258 is that is it a one-way non-stop express. This is a very expensive service to run. There is no passenger turnover for the entire trip, and for every bus that goes to UBC, it has to deadhead back to West Vancouver empty. So even if every bus ran full at 50 passengers, it only going to yield 25 boardings/hour, which equate to the lowest 20% of all service.

EDIT: checked the 2014 bus service performance, this is the stat for #258:
Average peak load: 55% (42/212)
Average capacity used: 58% (97/212)
Average boarding/hr: 16 (190/212)
Cost per passenger: $6.32 (200/212)

So in summary, the load isn't best, but the cost effectiveness is pretty much one of the worse in the system.

And remember, this route has recently become less cost effective with the change to one zone fare on all busses. Although I'm sure the majority of riders use $38/month UPass.

Ron.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by SOSS

Can't wait to see the resistance that Uber and taxi drivers will have to automated fully electric cars taking their part-time/full-time jobs away. I figure 10 years past full automation for BC legal to catch up and another 15 years beyond that for replacement to automated buses.

Certainly not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

Uber's plan has been to fully automate from the start. Drivers are just a short-term gap fill until then. They will eliminate drivers as soon as they can.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by waves

Surrey needs to avoid LRT at all costs.

There's a pretty damning article about Edmonton's LRT in the National Post this morning.

The chief problem is that the train was built at grade and cleaves through several major intersections. Traffic needs to be halted well in advance of its arrival, leading to the Kafkaesque nightmare of an intersection where all sides are given a red light for up to 90 seconds before a train arrives (if it does at all).

I’ve personally clocked a six-minute wait. A co-worker clocked an incredible 12 minutes. Online, disbelieving drivers have taken to Reddit to report waits of 15 minutes.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by WBC

Build a Gondola from River district to 49th. This region needs more Gondolas...One for SFU and one for New West...

And funiculars! We need more funiculars. How about one up lonsdale... with a Ferris wheel as a destination somewhere along the route.