Robbat2 (robbat2) wrote,

NightBus isn't really all night long

The province is saying that there is sufficient Nightbus service, so they aren't going to extend the SkyTrain hours:

TransLink's Ken Hardie says they can't run SkyTrain later because the tracks need maintenance. "We have night bus routes that basically follow Canada Line, the Expo Line and the Millennium Line, so they duplicate those routes and they run all night."

I don't disagree that the maintenance is needed, but my objection in your claim that the NightBus routes "run all night".

Almost all of the NightBus routes have a final bus leaving the downtown core at 03h09. The first buses in the morning then start leaving the downtown area between 05h00 and 06h30. The exceptions: the N10, with downtown departures up to 04h39 (1 hour gap to the start of normal service). The N16, which stops at 03h28.

This means that if you are downtown and want to leave AFTER that, perhaps because your job had you working downtown, or you were chatting with friends, then you're stuck.

I would like to ask Translink to add the few more trips that it would take to continue to run 30-minute service intervals until the resumption of regular morning service. The N10 is almost there, it just needs one more set of Downtown departures. Make our transit system really 24-hours!

Tags: 24 hours, translink
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

Possibly at those hours the bus travel with only one or two persons onboard.
Then it could be cheaper to signo some agreement with taxi service where the customer pay as much as a bus ticket. This way you could have coverage even in night hours, no empty and consuming bus travelling and happy taxi drivers.
No, the existing NightBuses are very busy.

I've had the N8 Fraser not stop to pick me up, at 03h20 on a Friday morning, because it was full (of people that had gone up on Thursday).
But their are budget constrained. They have hundreds of millions to spend on that new fare system, including replacing all the collection machines in the just-year-old Canada Line. They couldn't possibly dedicate that to actually be providing service to their customers.
*Proudly supporting spouses that don't want to have to rescue their wives from the 'core at ridiculous hours!


September 19 2010, 07:24:08 UTC 7 years ago

Blame the union for making the cost of running the company so high
Why do you feel that's valid?


September 20 2010, 00:46:32 UTC 7 years ago

Lower the cost of running, might get some higher service freq. Look at the RAV, they're not running more trains cause of budget/contract reason. Fine, it's P3, but bottom line, still budget reason
I also hear that the RAV is having a lot more maintenance difficulties and breakdowns than the older Skytrain tech.

I ballpark that my proposal above would require adding approximately 85 trips daily (basically make existing nightbus routes have 30 minute service in both directions until start of normal service). If it was made unidirectional, and frequency was reduced to hourly, it could be done with as few as 25 additional trips.


September 20 2010, 14:30:26 UTC 7 years ago

It is quite apparent that you're speaking out of your ass when you mention that unions are the sole reason that Translink has funding issues. Because I give a shit and actually pay attention to the organization's funding problems, I'll educate you and everybody else.

Translink's main funding woes are the fault of the provincial government and the federal government. What has happened is that both levels of government have interfered with the operation of the agency by forcing certain projects upon them and by getting upset when Translink has issues with how they infringe on their attempts to improve elsewhere--see the shitty turnstiles project or the Canada Line.

The Canada Line and the turnstiles are and were low priority projects for Translink and if neither had come to materialize, it would still be at that level. With the turnstiles costing around $150 million (at least) and fare evasion being around $2-5 million (these are the likely numbers), it becomes quite apparent that the Liberals are forcing this project down the agency's throat to make themselves look like they're tough on crime.

In fact, the Canada Line is the main reason why the Liberals interfered in 2007 and reformed the whole governance model because they were not happy on how the board in 2005 had hissy fits over the line. The line was lowest priority and the (N)Evergreen Line was next on the list of projects to complete--in fact, it was supposed to begin in 2002, 2005, and then 2009. Amazingly it has JUST gone to the RFQ process in the past two weeks.

When you add all of that and then you add into account that Translink has been trying to offer better service south of the Fraser without additional funding from the upper levels of government (whether or not this is wise is a whole different topic), you start to get an idea of where the problems are; they're not because of unions.

In fact, the average transit employee earns much less now than they did thirty years ago when you adjust for inflation. God forbid someone makes a wage that lets them live a decent life.

Or should bus drivers work 500-hours under the $6/hour training wage and then get paid $8/hour after that? Oh. And let's get rid of benefits too.


September 21 2010, 19:39:56 UTC 7 years ago

Disclaimer: I do not support unions.

So what? Disband Translink? People would go up in arms saying they don't want private service, but when this public service is falling apart, nothing is being done to it.
I think I'd rather go back to HK now....



September 21 2010, 21:39:20 UTC 7 years ago

It's government policy to run down a public service to the point to basically permit them to go and make the statement that the government has no business in operating it because it is not making a profit and is mismanaged. Services such as Translink, BC Hydro, BC Rail, and BC Ferries (all who have had the threat of being privatized) shouldn't be required to make a profit because the spinoffs in economic development they create generally make up for any shortfall. Of course, being that you immediately attack unions indicates to me that you're incapable of understanding this fact.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


September 23 2010, 11:18:31 UTC 7 years ago

Oh I wouldn't worry about the doors. I welcome them.
So you're saying that government run things should run a deficit and then take the money out of thin air. Is that what I'm understanding?


September 24 2010, 02:28:38 UTC 7 years ago

Are you saying that bus drivers shouldn't earn an honest wage?

And I guess you probably support tax cuts and yet expect the government to come through on providing services?

Enjoying being the uneducated dolt that you are. It's quite telling of your intelligence when you immediately attack unions, cannot comprehend what I state and retort with one-liners, and then make ludicrous statements. Prove me wrong by giving something that is more than that. Being that you're following a blog post by robbat2, I would anticipate that even you should be more than capable of such.

If you feel that things are better in Hong Kong than here, then go. It's apparent that you're no benefit to any of us here.
Excellent article and easy to understand explanation. How do I go about getting permission to post part of the article in my upcoming news letter? Giving proper credit to you the author and link to the site would not be a problem.
Please identify yourself, and your relation to my posting.
What newsletter do you publish?