Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Dengler Avenue]

For 215, it’s understandable to use shuttle buses because the slope on Ellis Road towards Dollarton Highway is too steep for conventional buses anyway, just like Mount Seymour Parkway near Deep Cove Road.

For routes like 23 though, I don’t see why Translink won’t use the normal buses.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Express691

And that's actually illegal according to the safety regulations set in place... driver should be held accountable and online form sent right away.

Depend on which type of shuttle... They are usually 20-24 seats, so that means they can have at most 4 standees on some model, and they usually counted.

Conventional buses, on the other hand, the load were never counted and I've been on a couple that actually goes over the limit. This is on the models where the limit is less than 75 or 77.

Originally Posted by fredinno

WTF are they supposed to do when there's too many passengers due to surge demand? Pass them? Most of these routes come every 30+ minutes!

Sure, it can be Translink's policy to try not to have people standing on Community Shuttles, but having it as a law is dumb.

I've seen a group of more than 30 trying to get on the C26 (now 182) that came once every hour. I remember the driver told them that next time they should phone TransLink first...

And I think that's the limit set by ICBC... Class 4 license can only take at most 24 passengers.

[SpongeG]

Metro Vancouver mayors call on federal parties to establish transit fund

The fund would deliver about $375 million each year to TransLink, starting in 2028, and help complete planned projects and start new ones.

JENNIFER SALTMAN Updated: April 9, 2019


Six months before the federal election, Metro Vancouver’s mayors are calling on all parties to commit to setting up a permanent transportation fund that would see the region receive an estimated $375 million each year.

On Tuesday, the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation — which represents 21 municipalities, an electoral area and Tsawwassen First Nation — released its Cure Congestion campaign, which includes the proposed congestion relief fund.

The idea, mayors say, is to have a consistent, predictable, direct source of direct funding for transit projects in municipalities across the country, instead of project-based funding. The funds — $3.4 billion annually — would be allocated based on ridership.

In its 2017 budget, the feds committed $20 billion to transit system improvements across the country over 11 years, through bilateral agreements with provinces and territories. Metro Vancouver received just over $2 billion for its 10-year plan.

...

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...ederal-parties-to-establish-transit-fund

[Mac Write]

2028? And only $375M they should be lobbying for that to start in 2021 and be at min $750M/yr attached to the inflation index.

[jbrizzy]

https://www.translink.ca/Plans-and-Proje...YC3DByT40OxMt6hnoYjLJ-ekHGMaAqHgEALw_wcB

I went to the Translink open house for the new #80 route and was able to get some additional information not available online...

Because it's part of the next phase of transit improvements, they expect it to be implemented in 2020 or 2021. But because it will be mostly using existing infrastructure from the #100, it will likely be on the sooner end.

It will start at 30 minute frequencies only in peak hours but they will be monitoring ridership closely to see when service should be expanded. Given the number of units coming online in the River District in the next few years I can't imagine that would take too long.

Stop locations haven't yet been finalized. My guess: Main, Fraser, Knight, Victoria, Elliott, and Kerr, and then an unknown number of stops in the River District.

They are also investigating multiple other bus routes to connect to the River District, but are not yet far enough along in the process to share them.
- One route will connect the River District to Metrotown. They weren't sure which route it would take to get up the hill. It would also be a separate route from the 80, not a continuation, though I could see value in that.
- One route will connect the River District to an Expo Line station in Vancouver, and either be a continuation of an existing route, or partially double an existing route, like the #80 will. The person I spoke with wasn't too familiar with the ideas, but thought a route that doubled the #29 but continued all the way down Elliott and on to the River District had been discussed. I suggested a continuation of the #29 down Fraserview, Victoria, and on to Marine as an alternative.
- They have also heard interest in connecting the River District to the Big Bend Crossing shopping area. But that's all I heard about that.
- Also, a diversion of the #116 into the River District, though a possibility, would negatively affect commute times for those travelling from Metrotown to Big Bend, so is less likely.

[Colin4567]

Next train signs up at Lougheed! TV still under wraps though.

http://imgur.com/gallery/H5TnlgK

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by jbrizzy

I went to the Translink open house for the new #80 route and was able to get some additional information not available online...

Because it's part of the next phase of transit improvements, they expect it to be implemented in 2020 or 2021. But because it will be mostly using existing infrastructure from the #100, it will likely be on the sooner end.

They are also investigating multiple other bus routes to connect to the River District, but are not yet far enough along in the process to share them.
- One route will connect the River District to Metrotown. They weren't sure which route it would take to get up the hill. It would also be a separate route from the 80, not a continuation, though I could see value in that.
- One route will connect the River District to an Expo Line station in Vancouver, and either be a continuation of an existing route, or partially double an existing route, like the #80 will. The person I spoke with wasn't too familiar with the ideas, but thought a route that doubled the #29 but continued all the way down Elliott and on to the River District had been discussed. I suggested a continuation of the #29 down Fraserview, Victoria, and on to Marine as an alternative.
- They have also heard interest in connecting the River District to the Big Bend Crossing shopping area. But that's all I heard about that.
- Also, a diversion of the #116 into the River District, though a possibility, would negatively affect commute times for those travelling from Metrotown to Big Bend, so is less likely.

I already sent them my feedback on this idea. To be honest, even as a a big transit supporter on the inside, I was not impressed and actually down-voted it. They've had a long time to plan for this neighbourhood and yet this was what they came up with? You've got to be kidding me. The area could probably sustain a full bus service already if it weren't for the awkward geography, and it will only get worse with more units coming online in the years to come.

I've had this concept floating around on another forum for some time, and I probably already shared it here as well. But to refresh, here it is:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=11ClZKWZrspcxg8aMl4uw0MZk5Hc&usp=sharing

So, in my head, the phasing of everything goes like this:

1. Immediate extension of 146 to Knight Street, either via Marine Drive or Kent Avenue, along with conversion to a regular bus. Right off the bat, the area gets 30 minute frequency all day every day and has connections to SkyTrain, a bus route that heads downtown, AND a bus route to the Canada Line.
2. In the medium term, split the 26 into two halves and extend both to River District centre. Now you have three routes serving the area that head to four or more different destinations. At the same time, consider extending the 146 down Marine Drive if extra service to supplement the 100 is needed.
3. Long term or beyond, consider improving connections to isolated routes up on the hill like the 20 or 29 so that even more destinations are within easy reach.

I should stress that none of this requires any extra initial infrastructure... I mean, I did pick a route that uses a currently-blocked-off portion of Kent Avenue to account for accessibility concerns arising from the steep slope between the Fraser River and Marine Drive, but it could also stay on Marine Drive if people felt that augmenting the existing 100 bus is more important.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

2028? And only $375M they should be lobbying for that to start in 2021 and be at min $750M/yr attached to the inflation index.

Would the congestion charge be in addition to or replace existing federal funding?

[nname]

Originally Posted by Millennium2002

I should stress that none of this requires any extra initial infrastructure...

Not for Kent Ave. Some area have barely enough room for 2 cars to pass each other, let alone 2 full-size buses.

Plus there is currently no place on the curb to place any bus stop. So trying to run a route there will require lots of $$$.

The issue I see with your new 146 is... by Knight street, the 100 buses are already quite full, and it probably can't take any more passenger from the 146. If the 146 is going that way, it should go all the way to Marine Drive station. And then, by breaking the 146 loop in the middle, some Burnaby resident will lose direct access to or from Metrotown without having to walk a long way for one of the direction. The street is probably too narrow for a 2-way service.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jbrizzy

I went to the Translink open house for the new #80 route and was able to get some additional information not available online...


- One route will connect the River District to an Expo Line station in Vancouver, and either be a continuation of an existing route, or partially double an existing route, like the #80 will. The person I spoke with wasn't too familiar with the ideas, but thought a route that doubled the #29 but continued all the way down Elliott and on to the River District had been discussed. I suggested a continuation of the #29 down Fraserview, Victoria, and on to Marine as an alternative.

Originally Posted by Millennium2002

3. Long term or beyond, consider improving connections to isolated routes up on the hill like the 20 or 29 so that even more destinations are within easy reach.

The problems with extending the 20 and 29 to the River District are 1) the hills south of Marine, and 2) where are you going to turn the buses around to go back up the hill? The 26 doesn't have the latter problem but still has some pretty steep hills to deal with.

This is one of two routes they proposed that make me shake my head and wonder if they've even skimmed Managing the Transit Network (pdf). A couple basic principals are: avoid route overlap as much as possible, and place routes about 800m apart from each other - the proposed #80 fails on both counts.

[Dengler Avenue]

“A couple basic principals are: avoid route overlap as much as possible, and place routes about 800m apart from each other”

430 overlaps 49 east of Knight Street though. Is that a bad thing?

Ps: Because of that overlap, I’ve fantasized a prolonged 407 that goes from Steveston Harbour to Metrotown Station via 54th Avenue as a replacement of 430. A “modernized” version of the fantasy will be 54 BRIDGEPORT STN/METROTOWN STN or 454 BRIGHOUSE STN/METROTOWN STN.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

This is one of two routes they proposed that make me shake my head and wonder if they've even skimmed Managing the Transit Network (pdf). A couple basic principals are: avoid route overlap as much as possible, and place routes about 800m apart from each other - the proposed #80 fails on both counts.

I think that document is more of a mission statement than an actual rulebook. Planners are somewhat powerless against very loud citizens and the officials that represent them.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Sheba

This is one of two routes they proposed that make me shake my head and wonder if they've even skimmed Managing the Transit Network (pdf). A couple basic principals are: avoid route overlap as much as possible, and place routes about 800m apart from each other - the proposed #80 fails on both counts.

The 100 is local, and the 80 is express... so they server somewhat different mission and does not qualify for "overlap"?

Otherwise tons of routes will fail on this criteria... for instance
4/44/84
4/210/211/214
41/43
7/32
9/14/99
14/95
49/480
95/160
96/321/394
96/320/337
250/257
407/430
502/503
601/602
701/791

And pretty much every new B-Line proposed...

So how is the 100/80 different from... say 41/43...?

The planner clearly read their network design principle for not running the 80 as local all the way to Marine Drive station.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I think that document is more of a mission statement than an actual rulebook. Planners are somewhat powerless against very loud citizens and the officials that represent them.

I know it's not a strict rulebook but it is a guidebook - and they're completely ignoring it with their proposed 80 (and 338). They try to shoehorn in some short routes when they could adjust / extend existing routes and get almost the same end result. It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

430 overlaps 49 east of Knight Street though. Is that a bad thing?

The 430 is almost a B-Line and is planned to be made into one while the 49 is a local route - so it's not quite the same thing. There are areas where it makes sense to have both a local and an express route.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by nname

The 100 is local, and the 80 is express... so they server somewhat different mission and does not qualify for "overlap"?

Otherwise tons of routes will fail on this criteria... for instance


And pretty much every new B-Line proposed...

So how is the 100/80 different from... say 41/43...?

The planner clearly read their network design principle for not running the 80 as local all the way to Marine Drive station.

That's what I get for walking away for a few mins...

Well we agree on local vs express, which chops out quite a few of your examples. Beyond that extended route overlap does tend to be a fail.

I still think they're better off creating a B-Line alongside the 100, and not the 80 express that only covers a portion of the route and then dips into a new development to turn around - that seems to me to be catering to one specific crowd instead of the population as a whole.

Anyway that's how I see it - if you feel differently then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

EDIT: YES TRANSLINK'S FINALLY INCREASING FREQUENCY ON 301 ON SATURDAYS! THAT'S A HUGE IMPROVEMENT IMO!

And frequency increase on Sunday for the 301 will happen for June service change.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by nname

And frequency increase on Sunday for the 301 will happen for June service change.

Is this from the 10-Year Vision or just insider information? I only cared about 3-digit bus routes that start with a 4 so I didn’t really pay attention to the rest.

[nobutoshi]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BwNkUvNHjI4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_linkI made a fantasy map to share. Go to my Instagram @nashbills Go straight from Waterfront to Lonsdale costs too much!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I know it's not a strict rulebook but it is a guidebook - and they're completely ignoring it with their proposed 80 (and 338). They try to shoehorn in some short routes when they could adjust / extend existing routes and get almost the same end result. It makes no sense.

Again, planners don't always get what they want - I suspect that a lot of indignant old people want a stop right beside their house.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by nname

Not for Kent Ave. Some area have barely enough room for 2 cars to pass each other, let alone 2 full-size buses.

Plus there is currently no place on the curb to place any bus stop. So trying to run a route there will require lots of $$$.

The issue I see with your new 146 is... by Knight street, the 100 buses are already quite full, and it probably can't take any more passenger from the 146. If the 146 is going that way, it should go all the way to Marine Drive station. And then, by breaking the 146 loop in the middle, some Burnaby resident will lose direct access to or from Metrotown without having to walk a long way for one of the direction. The street is probably too narrow for a 2-way service.

I mentioned this on the map, but the Kent Avenue routing IS an optional long-term plan. Having said that, it's a very steep slope between Marine Drive and the river at some points, so running a bus along Kent Avenue will make it less of a challenge to access transit for older folks or folks with disabilities.

I only picked the one-way route around Suncrest because the 116 and 146 follow the exact same routing as of today. There is also a rumor that buses are unable to climb Patterson Avenue. Having said that, I will agree that in an ideal world, only one route would be going up/down Joffre and Patterson Avenues respectively.

Originally Posted by Sheba

The problems with extending the 20 and 29 to the River District are 1) the hills south of Marine, and 2) where are you going to turn the buses around to go back up the hill? The 26 doesn't have the latter problem but still has some pretty steep hills to deal with.

As I had mentioned on the map, that part of the proposal is an optional, long term plan for a more complete exchange in Southeast Vancouver. I had to look at Google Street View to gauge the slope, and the particular route of Argyle and East 61st Ave / East 63rd Ave seemed to be the most gentle. It's better than a previous version... at one point, I had the 20 / 29 drawn to climb up the short stretch between Harrison and Marine. Ouch!

In any case, thank you both for letting me know that people are struggling to read and understand the fine print. I have reviewed my proposal to account for these misunderstanding.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=11ClZKWZrspcxg8aMl4uw0MZk5Hc&usp=sharing