Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion - Page 774

Tfreder · #**15461** Posted **Oct 11, 2016, 10:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Thanks for sharing! I believe the current 135 can't be called a b-line because it does local stops east of Boundary.

Skygazer · #**15462** Posted **Oct 11, 2016, 11:15 PM**

I'm surprised they're looking at a Metrotown/Brighouse B-Line, I take the 430 from Metrotown to Richmond every once in a while and it doesn't seem that crowded to me.

On the other hand the 130 is ridiculously busy and there should've been an express bus on that route years ago. It's a bit strange that they're not seriously considering that at this point. A Metrotown/Kingsway/Deer Lake Parkway/BCIT/Brentwood express bus would be amazing and do wonders for the crowding on that line.

Also, perhaps an uncommon opinion, but I think we could really use an express bus of some sort going down Kingsway. The 19 has so many people getting on and off that it has to pull in and out of traffic at nearly every block and ends up taking forever to get anywhere. I know the SkyTrain sort of runs parallel to Kingsway but it's still a fair distance away a lot of the time.

Sheba · #**15463** Posted **Oct 11, 2016, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skygazer

I'm surprised they're looking at a Metrotown/Brighouse B-Line, I take the 430 from Metrotown to Richmond every once in a while and it doesn't seem that crowded to me.

On the other hand the 130 is ridiculously busy and there should've been an express bus on that route years ago. It's a bit strange that they're not seriously considering that at this point. A Metrotown/Kingsway/Deer Lake Parkway/BCIT/Brentwood express bus would be amazing and do wonders for the crowding on that line.

Also, perhaps an uncommon opinion, but I think we could really use an express bus of some sort going down Kingsway. The 19 has so many people getting on and off that it has to pull in and out of traffic at nearly every block and ends up taking forever to get anywhere. I know the SkyTrain sort of runs parallel to Kingsway but it's still a fair distance away a lot of the time.

Well hopefully you filled out the survey and included those comments then. I added in a few things on pertinent questions. Sometimes I wonder if they curse me for pretty much always adding comments in the text boxes.

ilikeredheads · #**15464** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 12:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skygazer

I'm surprised they're looking at a Metrotown/Brighouse B-Line, I take the 430 from Metrotown to Richmond every once in a while and it doesn't seem that crowded to me.

The 430 can get really packed during rush hours. However, I don't understand why they want to consider converting it to a B Line. It's already an limited stop express. Just increase the frequency off peak and extend service hours into late evening and you'll have similar B Line level service.

Millennium2002 · #**15465** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 1:07 AM**

Another thing that I feel was left out: There are a ton of buses streaming from the North Shore towards Downtown and back via the Lions Gate Bridge... but we know how busy the crossing already is. I'm surprised they haven't thought of isolating the local networks from the bridge congestion by keeping them at Park Royal and then running a B-Line from there. The same can also be said of the routes crossing the Second Narrows Bridge as well...

Mac Write · #**15466** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 4:46 AM**

I was thinking, (transit related give me a sec). What if the government approved oil rigs off of the BC coast? Elimination of the P.S.T.

Now here's the question, how would transit expansion increase if this came a reality? Think about it. The Mayors council's dream plan for transit would come true, Skytrain to Surrey, UBC, North Shore, Hastings, and other lines, and so on, also road projects etc, all completed by 2030.

Would our "Dream transit system" happen if the BC government allowed oil drilling off of the BC Coast?

Migrant_Coconut · #**15467** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 5:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I was thinking, (transit related give me a sec). What if the government approved oil rigs off of the BC coast? Elimination of the P.S.T.

Now here's the question, how would transit expansion increase if this came a reality? Think about it. The Mayors council's dream plan for transit would come true, Skytrain to Surrey, UBC, North Shore, Hastings, and other lines, and so on, also road projects etc, all completed by 2030.

Would our "Dream transit system" happen if the BC government allowed oil drilling off of the BC Coast?

That's assuming that that rigs would generate billions, and that it would directly translate into tax revenue, and that it would all be spent on infrastructure upgrades. Chances are that all we'd end up with is the setting for Deepwater Horizon 2: Oil's Well That Ends Well.

Xrayal · #**15468** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 5:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

TransLink has released a collection of documents relating to their 10-year plan today.

Interesting pulls from my quick scans. In the Phase One Plan: Draft Technical Documentation -pg 21. Major Capital Projects listed.
-Replacement of Skytrain MKI Vehicles - Start date-2021 - Cost 233mill. (so much for the 15 years of extended life)
My math based upon our current cost of mk3 is that would get us 80 mk3. Would 80 mk3 cars be suffice replacements for 150 mk1 cars?
-Skytrian OMC Replacement/Relocation? -Start date -2017 -Cost 50mill.
Any guess on what this really means?

Sheba · #**15469** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 6:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xrayal

Interesting pulls from my quick scans. In the Phase One Plan: Draft Technical Documentation -pg 21. Major Capital Projects listed.
-Replacement of Skytrain MKI Vehicles - Start date-2021 - Cost 233mill. (so much for the 15 years of extended life)

Have they actually refurbished all the original Mark 1 cars (114 cars)?
The later 1990 cars (16 + 20) were not part of the refurb plan.

Mac Write · #**15470** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 6:26 AM**

I wish they would keep 1 set of 8-car (spare) in Expo colour and Translink 1.0 colours.

How many cars would be replaced for 233m? and how many new cars to old cars?

dpogue · #**15471** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 6:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xrayal

Interesting pulls from my quick scans. In the Phase One Plan: Draft Technical Documentation -pg 21. Major Capital Projects listed.
-Replacement of Skytrain MKI Vehicles - Start date-2021 - Cost 233mill. (so much for the 15 years of extended life)
My math based upon our current cost of mk3 is that would get us 80 mk3. Would 80 mk3 cars be suffice replacements for 150 mk1 cars?

Starting in 2021 probably means starting with the 36 Mark I cars that have not been refurbished. The VP of Maintenance at BCRTC had previously said that Mark Is would likely start being phased out around 2026 (if funding was available to replace them).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xrayal

-Skytrian OMC Replacement/Relocation? -Start date -2017 -Cost 50mill.
Any guess on what this really means?

There is a plan to do a "[c]omplete repair/replacement plan to restore the yard track to a state of good repair (project is planned for 2018)."

The main concern with the Edmonds Yard is lack of space. It's been expanded twice, and they've run out of room. That's one of the main reasons the Evergreen extension includes a Vehicle Storage Facility and small maintenance shop. This would be a very limiting factor for the Broadway extension.

Mac Write · #**15472** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 6:41 AM**

So what does the OMC move mean? use OMC 2 with more mataiance buildings, take down older buildings for more storage tracks?

Why did they have to put the road in in the first place which split up the OMC, if that road hadn't been put in, the OMC could easily double or triple track storage.

How nice would it be to have 34 Mark III trains (based on 80 car order). 14 trains by next year!!!

So we will have
Mark II - 15 4-car trains
Mark II.5 - 12 4-car trains
Mark III - 14 4-car trains

Would be nice if they continued to order more trains so we keep getting new ones (may 20/yr) starting in 2018 would give us 80 cars in 2021.

One can dream.

Kisai · #**15473** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 11:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Write

So what does the OMC move mean? use OMC 2 with more maintenance buildings, take down older buildings for more storage tracks?

My guess is that OMC1 was not designed for a connected 5-car MKIII train, which is why we got 4-car models. I have to wonder why they don't build "parking garage" style train storage, that's something that the LIM trains could certainly do.

Or maybe OMC2 has multiple phases planned. Or maybe if/when the Broadway line is built there will be another OMC at the UBC end. Who knows.

GlassCity · #**15474** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 6:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

The 430 can get really packed during rush hours. However, I don't understand why they want to consider converting it to a B Line. It's already an limited stop express. Just increase the frequency off peak and extend service hours into late evening and you'll have similar B Line level service.

The primary motive behind converting the 430 to a B-Line is to connect Metro Vancouver's regional centres with some form of "rapid" transit. This is the same reason a B-Line is planned between Langley Centre and Maple Ridge. It's much more about creating quick links between all these centres and less about upgrading busy routes. Not that I'm against this approach.

Aroundtheworld · #**15475** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kisai

My guess is that OMC1 was not designed for a connected 5-car MKIII train, which is why we got 4-car models. I have to wonder why they don't build "parking garage" style train storage, that's something that the LIM trains could certainly do.

Or maybe OMC2 has multiple phases planned. Or maybe if/when the Broadway line is built there will be another OMC at the UBC end. Who knows.

I can't see an OMC near UBC, but I could see one between Surrey and Langley if they extend the Expo Line out there.

trofirhen · #**15476** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The primary motive behind converting the 430 to a B-Line is to connect Metro Vancouver's regional centres with some form of "rapid" transit. This is the same reason a B-Line is planned between Langley Centre and Maple Ridge. It's much more about creating quick links between all these centres and less about upgrading busy routes. Not that I'm against this approach.

What about B-line frequencies please, if you know. Thanx

twoNeurons · #**15477** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 10:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The primary motive behind converting the 430 to a B-Line is to connect Metro Vancouver's regional centres with some form of "rapid" transit. This is the same reason a B-Line is planned between Langley Centre and Maple Ridge. It's much more about creating quick links between all these centres and less about upgrading busy routes. Not that I'm against this approach.

It's also about branding. There are people who won't take a 'slow' bus, but will take a 'fast' B-Line.

I think the 169 was faster than the 97 B-Line, but lots of people took the B-Line. The 99 B-Line from commercial was about the same speed as the 84 from VCC, but the 99 B-Line got way, way more traffic.

Also, once a route is B-Lined, it gets a place on transit maps. It becomes a predictable mainline route, especially for visitors and infrequent transit users.

It also makes people less angry when it doesn't stop for them. The B-Line is a brand. It's supposed to be a faster, more premium service.

Mac Write · #**15478** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 10:41 PM**

Why not add a B-Line along side the 84. It would help move people off crowded broadway and offer an even faster route along 4th avenue.

Geof · #**15479** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 10:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I think the 169 was faster than the 97 B-Line, but lots of people took the B-Line.

Was it ever (at least it was a decade ago when I took it). I found the 97 shockingly slow - though my impression was that most people figured it out and took the 169.

GlassCity · #**15480** Posted **Oct 12, 2016, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

It's also about branding. There are people who won't take a 'slow' bus, but will take a 'fast' B-Line.

I think the 169 was faster than the 97 B-Line, but lots of people took the B-Line. The 99 B-Line from commercial was about the same speed as the 84 from VCC, but the 99 B-Line got way, way more traffic.

Also, once a route is B-Lined, it gets a place on transit maps. It becomes a predictable mainline route, especially for visitors and infrequent transit users.

It also makes people less angry when it doesn't stop for them. The B-Line is a brand. It's supposed to be a faster, more premium service.

The transit map point is the one in my head when I was writing my response. A 430 B-Line would have a thick orange line connecting Richmond City Centre and Metrotown on a map, and that's why it would exist. I mean, that's not a bad reason, but to me it's very clear that this was a Mayor's priority and not so much a TransLink one.