Talk:List of bus routes in Metro Vancouver/Archive 1

Archive 1

List of routes from 10 years ago

This is kind of pointless, but interesting, but I found an old bus route list from an archive of the BC Transit website from late 1996, thanks to the Wayback Machine. See here: [1] --FlyingPenguins 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but as a transit enthusiast, I can access route lists far older than that. 1988 1987 1984 1973 1949

are some of them. Stormscape 08:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Route 25

Actually I did the math and 6.5% of weekday 25 trips eastbound terminate at Nanaimo Station. 3.84% of Saturday Trips terminate at Nanaimo station and 2.2% of Sunday/Holiday trips terminate at Nanaimo station. Overall, 5.93% of all trips every week terminate there. It's not one of those destinations where only 7 trips a week terminate there. 33 trips out of 556 do every week. Stormscape 08:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's still not a very high number (actually, it's even lower than my estimates). If it was something like 25%, then it might be significant. But if you're going to use a number like that, it deserves a tiny mention in the "notes" section but not anything more than that, I think, because there are too many routes out there that do weird short runs like that on a regular basis (ie. some #10 buses end at 63rd, some #20 buses end at 54th, some #410 buses end at Richmond Centre, some #407 buses end at Richmond Centre, some runs of #98 terminate at Airport Station... just to name a few). Besides, the list is based primarily on the official schedule, and it shows Brentwood and UBC as the main start/endpoints. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Route name and intermediate point

I've noticed that the destination sign on the newer bus now display not only the destination, but also an intermediate point on the route (for example, 152 Lougheed Station via Mariner; C28 Port Moody Station Via Noon's Creek). Should we add this info to the route name, in the note area, or ignore them all together? I have update the routes in the Coquitlam area and add the info in the note. I think this clear up a bit for routes that have the same destination points (like 151, 152; C27, C28), but maybe too much info for some other route (like C37 and C38)?64.180.239.213 03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably too much information. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Former route 330 and Current Route 320

There have been two discontinued route #330 buses in the past 15 years:

"330 Surrey Central Station / Scott Road Station" is the more recent one which was brought in around '96-97ish and lasted for several years.

"* Trip continues to Vancouver before Skytrain extended to Surrey." Is a reference to the previous one (discontinued early 90s, around when Skytrain was extended past Scott Road.) I remember taking it to Scott Road station, and am 90% sure that the other terminus was Fleetwood (Fraser Hwy at 156th or 160th). Prior to the Skytrain, the 330 did continue on from Guildford to Vancouver. After Skytrain and before the Skytain to extension to Surrey - I don't remember if it was still running to/from Vancouver, or to New West Station instead.

Current route 320: During the Victoria Day long weekend, there are extra "special" runs between Surrey Central and Cloverdale. These buses are labelled "320 Special" or "320 Cloverdale" and run in addition to the regular 320 buses during those three days. I added a note on this but am not sure if the wording accurately conveyed what I meant to say. Ccg 1 08:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Route 345

Although it is listed as King George Station / White Rock in the timetable, I have seen 345 buses departing for White Rock from Guildford Exchange. I have not seen, but have also heard of 345 buses arrive at Guildford. Both examples are on weekday mornings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccg 1 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I notice that there isn't a turnaround point at King George, so I guess the just unofficially continues there. Canadianshoper 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop ID

Is it too much information? I think it made the table look more confusing, plus it'll require a lot of work later on to keep the list updated... 64.180.9.209 04:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TransLink (British Columbia) logo.png

Image:TransLink (British Columbia) logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Route 340

340 used to go all the way to Newton Exchange and even Cloverdale [2], now it just stops at Scotsdale, does anyone know what happened to the rest of the line? Because that information is not on this page. _dk (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Scottsdale to Newtown segment becomes route 319, and the rest becomes route 341. 64.180.237.213 (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

9 Broadway Express

In adding the "Main St to Kootenay Loop" explanation for the Hastings Express, it occurred to me to look for the 9 Broadway Express, which isn't in the list yet. Unlike its Hastings counterpart, it stopped at all major streets but I can't remember what its range was - Commercial to Granville? or did it go to Alma on the one end and the Renfrew Loop on the other? Used to be a lifesaver in rush hour, though almost as crowded as the 9...Skookum1 (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

151 and 152

These started out as the "Lougheed FastBus" and their Barnet counterpart was the 160, which is still in operaton. The 151 went all the way to the far end of Prairie Street in PoCo, and up Cedar a ways to a small "ring" up there ("ring" was the new term for a "loop"). They made only stops, from Main onwards, at Kootenay Loop, Willingdon, Brentwood, Lougheed Mall; from there the 151 continued along Lougheed with the next stop at Essondale, then went in as a local to "the back way" (the old Mary Hill Bypass) to Shaughnessy; after a while the 151 was run along Brunette Highway as a local; the 152 screwed around on the Coquitlam Plateau for a while, can't remember how it got to Shaughnessy; I swear after various route adjustments it used to go in a virtual circle around the community centre complex and was a dog of a run, especially after it was fudged with. Not sure when they started making more stops between Brentwood and Lougheed Mall....Skookum1 (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

North Shore transit plan

Should somebody add some of the routes identified in this plan to the "future routes" section, but they are still in evaluation phase... also, the 231 (Lonsdale-Harbourside, replacing the 236 trips as of December 12, 2011) should be put up. Oh, and most of the reference links at the bottom of the page don't work; you just end up at a "page not found" page. 173.180.181.29 (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleting former bus routes section

Reasons below:

• Hard to source
• We can't list all of them
• Wikipedia is not an archive

Langdon (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, Wikipedia is nothing BUT an archive; . We also can't list absolutely everything about every single subject - but we make a damn good go of it. 207.6.238.190 (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Connection icon order

@Northwest: can I ask why you moved the WCE icons to the first position in the list (if there are multiple connections)? of all the various modes of public transport in the Lower Mainland, the WCE is extremely infrequent, only goes one way (based on time of day), and isn't first alphabetically by name... so, I'm confused as to why we'd list those connections first. I would pick Canada Line, Expo Line, Millennium Line, SeaBus, WCE as the order—but if you have a different rationale, feel free to share. Joeyconnick (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm also interested in hearing the reasoning behind the change (didn't even notice it at first until I updated my sandbox version and checked the diff). As for the order, I would say it should go Expo, Millennium, Canada, SeaBus, and WCE (first by most used type of transit, then age of given line – that's why Millennium is before Canada). Sweetnhappy (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

When I was adding the Millennium Line icons to Coquitlam Central, I thought it looked better to place to West Coast Express icon ahead of the Millennium Line. To keep things consistent, I changed the order for the Waterfront connections. My only argument to keep it there is that the West Coast Express serves two regional districts and not one like the other modes of transit. That said, I would agree that the West Coast Express is not that important compared to other services. There's really no consistency with other articles either. For example, on the Waterfront station (Vancouver) article, under services on the infobox the order goes: SeaBus, West Coast Express, SkyTrain Expo Line, SkyTrain Canada Line.

My personal preference, I would order SkyTrain lines by age, Expo, Millennium and Canada. For all modes, I would put commuter rail first: West Coast Express, SkyTrain (rail first), SeaBus. If not, I would go with Sweetnhappy's suggestion. Northwest (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: which would you (and anyone else interested) prefer? Northwest's order (WCE, Ex, Mi, Ca, SB) or mine (Ex, Mi, Ca, SB, WCE)? Or something else (perhaps Ex, Mi, Ca, WCE, SB)? I'll need an answer for my sandbox version, which will be copied over (not renaming/moving articles) the existing content on the 19th. Thanks! Sweetnhappy (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I favour SkyTrain, SeaBus, WCE. For SkyTrain order, I'm fine with either by age or alphabetical. The benefit of going alpha by SkyTrain line with that approach is that then the icons in total are alpha by name: Canada, Expo, Millennium, SeaBus, WCE. But I don't mind going chrono: Expo, Millennium, Canada. The only hill I would die on (LOL) is that I don't think WCE should be first. Although I appreciate the service covers a more extensive area, it's too limited in frequency and number of users served to give that kind of prominence (in my opinion, of course). —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I was riding the Canada Line on Wednesday, when I looked up at the route diagram and noticed that the icon order for Waterfront was (Expo, SeaBus, WCE). The order should be left as it was, (Expo, Millennium, Canada, SeaBus, WCE). Northwest (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then that's the order I'll go with. Sweetnhappy (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A solid source for community shuttle vs. conventional routes (particularly in Coq, PoMo, and PoCo)

@Cganuelas and Joeyconnick: In my updates of the routes, I have been using the route maps provided by TransLink to determine whether a route is a conventional vs. community shuttle route. However it seems that an anonymous editor has reversed some of my updates without providing a source. Is there a solid source out there that can differentiate the routes besides the route maps (that I have been adding as cited sources)?

Inconsistencies:

• Routes 153, 157, 173, 174, and 179 are conventional bus routes according to their route maps
• Route 191 is a community shuttle route according to its route map

Sweetnhappy (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The TransLink website is as solid as it gets. http://www.translink.ca/en/Schedules-and-Maps/Transit-Service-Changes.aspx. P.S. If it's not prefixed with a "C" and operated with those minibuses, then it must be a conventional route. Cganuelas (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sweetnhappy and Cganuelas: I think, given the answer to my question here (which I asked last night because I had the same questions as Sweetnhappy, we need to stop making the distinction (at least in the Tri-Cities). Kinda annoying, if you ask me, and it's not lost on me that this "flexibility" conveniently obscures actual service provided to the region. Certainly a single person's "observations" cannot be used to determine what category of service is being provided. This link provides a collection of all the recent articles they've done on the service changes in the Tri-Cities, and should list all the existing Cnn routes converted to regular NNN routes... of course, it won't necessarily clear up which of the new NNN routes might be serviced by community shuttles sometimes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I honestly agree with that. Community Shuttle routes are just regular bus routes, usually shorter, usually operated with minibuses. I saw a C92 operating with a regular bus, the kind that the 84 operates with, at Bridgeport station when I was waiting for the bus. Cganuelas (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There are many sites and apps that uses TransLink's APIs that tell you exactly which bus is assigned to which route on which day at which time. Even TransLink's own next bus site tells you that. You'll just have to know which bus number corresponds to which type of bus. For example, this and this shows that those routes are shuttle at least for part of the day, while this and this shows the routes that uses conventional bus. The way I figured out before the service change is to use download the GTFS data and analyze it at the bus assignment level. For instance, if a 153 is going to change to 186 at Coquitlam Station and then change to every other shuttle route in the region, then its obviously a shuttle. If a 183 becomes a 701 at the end of the trip, then it would have to be a conventional bus. Analyze enough samples for each route and we can figure out which type of bus they intend to put onto which route. Beside these methods, there is no other straightforward way to distinguish the type of bus, and this is the path that TransLink is heading to, as the C numbers will eventually be phased out. Snowystar (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So first, we would need a source on and this is the path that TransLink is heading to, as the C numbers will eventually be phased out—I certainly haven't seen or heard anything about that. But again, this all just makes me think we need to stop making the distinction, because trying to interpret the data like that feels a lot like OR (specifically Analyze enough samples for each route and we can figure out which type of bus they intend to put onto which route.). And I don't see how it's useful to know what vehicles are conventional buses and what are community shuttles, especially if they are going to be swapping them up more and more. —Joeyconnick (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

see the comment on May 7, 2013 @ 11:59 am. So far, most of the new shuttle route since then do not have Cxx number (for instance 227, 251, 252, 590). And now I've noticed there are some mentions of bus type in the pamphlet about bus service changes (not the "Evergreen means go" one). so far I cannot find a copy of it online. Under 153 and 157 it says "Uses a Community Shuttle bus" (although peak period in 157 is conventional)... Under 180 it says "operates with a 40-foot bus and 15-min frequency during peak period"... Under 188 it says "with larger bus at all time"... and for the rest of the shuttle route "[...] to provide higher capacity bus during peak times and smaller Community Shuttle when less service is required. [...] Make sure to look for the new bus number as opposed to the type of vehicle at their stop." They do eventually have bus type information in the Transit Service Review. But since the review is done in every Sept and publish next year, information about these new routes probably won't be released until June 2018. Snowystar (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to remove the C and just use numbers. The image that the C routes bring to my mind, at least in my opinion, are that they are for old or disabled people due to the fact that they operate those minibuses on them. Honestly hope Richmond follows suit because sometimes the bus I normally take, the 404, has hardly any people on it. Sometimes, I'm the only one. Cganuelas (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So what I'm gathering from the above is that removing the Community Shuttle sub-sections would be the best way to go. I think that using the Notes column to indicate that the given routes do use the Community Shuttle minibuses (as is the case for some routes currently) would be a sufficient way to delineate vehicle types/service levels. I'll have an example ready on my sandbox version soon. Sweetnhappy (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was thinking, so I'm all for it. I would order the sections with the numbered buses first and then the remaining Cnn numbers at the end of the list.

So for Vancouver non-trolleys: 2, 15, 22, 23, ..., 99, C18, C19, C20 (with a note that the 23 uses shuttles). Maybe an overall note that all Cnn routes are shuttle-only? (that is the case still, right?) —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

But that's not exactly true for all Cnn routes. Some of them do use conventional 40' buses (as mentioned above by Cganuelas regarding the C92 and I have seen this myself too) so I think it would be inappropriate to include an overall note that contradicts actual vehicle assignments. Or at the very least, the note should read something to the effect of most C labeled routes typically use shuttle minibuses except where noted specifically. Sweetnhappy (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously?! (sorry, I'm losing track as this discussion is super-long) Okay then why are we even noting routes that use or don't use community shuttles? It seems like it's all up for grabs and that TransLink is just gonna do what it wants to do. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they were separated. I think it may have made sense in the past, when the C designation actually corresponded more closely to minibus usage. But now it's become less clear and that may also be why TransLink is phasing out the C designation. Maybe they shouldn't be noted any longer as being separate and any remaining Cnn routes should just be ordered after conventional routes as you suggested. Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Holy shit snacks this thread is long. I think we should also get rid of the trolleybus routes subsection because I have seen diesels on trolley routes, but only once. Maybe we should put a note on the trolley routes saying "usually served by trolleys" or something like that. Maybe even nix the B-Line subsections because there is nothing special about them other than that they are limited stop express buses that run with the 60 foot articulated buses. The only things bus rapid transit about them are having a partly exclusive right of way and limited stops. Cganuelas (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I support getting rid of trolleybus and express bus section too if we're going to remove the community shuttle section. It is actually more common for TransLink to substitute a trolley or express bus with regular bus, as it share the same driver pool. For instance, the summer-only 19 trips between downtown and Stanley Park on weekends are only served with conventional buses; most of the 4 & 7 are not trolley during construction on Powell a couple of years ago; 5 & 6 does not use trolley on days with special event; the 555 sometimes use conventional bus to provide more capacity; the 601 now uses articulated buses on some trips to carry more shopper to/from Tsawwassen Mills... Right now, TransLink only seems to maintain 2 distinctive brands - B-Lines and Nightbuses. I think it is a good idea for the article to follow that, and everything else about bus assignment should go to the note section. Snowystar (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Might I ask what makes the B-Lines distinct other than partial bus lanes (though that is highly doubtful) and limited stops (which in my opinion do not make them distinct)? Cganuelas (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The B-Lines are high capacity routes with higher frequency service when compared to other express routes (debatable for the 97, but that one is now defunct). They also have an elevated status because of their inclusion on SkyTrain maps (i.e. the platform maps/diagrams) and other maps/diagrams that contain TransLink's major routes. Sweetnhappy (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I have now completed my update of the entire list and copied it over. This update includes merging the community shuttle and coach routes into conventional routes with additional 'tags' to show which routes use minibuses, articulated 60 ft. buses, and suburban coaches. The only section not updated is the Future Routes section. Please feel free to comment on the changes. Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Noticed that someone added [ARTICULATED] in some of the routes notes. I have seen routes that are usually run with articulated buses sometimes run with rigid buses. Should we amend this? Cganuelas (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I added that. Please refer to the legend at the bottom of the Routes by Region section which says 'Operates mostly or always with 60 ft. articulated buses.' I see that other tags have been added too (and I corrected the legend descriptions to also use similar wording). Sweetnhappy (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering who did that. All I saw was an IPv6 address. I have edited the legend because for one of the descriptors, you used the brand of bus while all the other ones didn't, so I removed the branding for consistency. Hope you don't mind. Cganuelas (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I started that and it has been continued by the person who's behind that IPv6 address. Seems to make a bunch of small changes, sometimes breaking ones, without previewing or leaving summaries. He/she has been doing that a lot on a few of the TransLink pages.

Anyway, I don't mind removing the branding – I only had it in there because unlike the other bus types which have mixed/varied manufacturers, the coaches are all made by Orion. Sweetnhappy (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A few things to add to notes

I've been thinking about this today and I feel the notes are missing some info. On some routes, some stops are only served at certain times (i.e. the eastbound stop on Steveston Highway and Coppersmith Place by Ironwood Plaza isn't served between 14:30 and 18:30 on weekdays). Also, maybe even adding route length and number of stops would be fun to add. Thoughts? Cganuelas (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

401 Express?

Yesterday around 0600, I was riding the 401 One Road to brighouse on my way to work and passed a 401 Garden City to Riverport Express. Does anyone know anything about it and should we add it to the list? Cganuelas (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There would be two reasons why the bus would be displaying an express sign.
The first reason (and probably the most probable) would be that it did a route that is an express route, such as the 480 or something like that before turning into the 401, and the driver forgot to get rid of the express sign on the destination sign.
The second reason would be it was running extremely late, and phoned control (T-Comm) about it, and they told the driver to skip some stops or areas where the 401 would normally go to make up time therefore justifying the express sign being displayed. This does happen, but it's rare. —Saltn'Pepper (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

including garage information

Saltn'Pepper wonders why I reverted his edit here. First and foremost, that information is not sourced. Second, it created an error with at least one of the tables. Third, I believe this information is trivial. It also clutters an already complicated set of tables and I feel like it should be placed elsewhere if (and only if) consensus is to keep it.

He's reverted back; I'll be undoing that based on the first two points: unsourced and introduces errors. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I have spotted the errors you were talking about. If we decide to keep this information, the errors are easily fixable.
For others who are unaware of previous actions on this page, the reason I added garage info on the page is I feel it is crucial info for those that are studying transportation in Metro Vancouver, or are just curious and want to learn more about the transportation in Metro Vancouver.
Another reason why I added garage info is because many other articles that list the bus routes for many cities in North America also state the garage the route runs out of. So why not Vancouver? Saltn'Pepper (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHER is never a good reason to add something. "Crucial" is debatable... we're a general encyclopedia, not Transitopedia; I'm not convinced the preponderance of readers need to know or care what garage a bus comes out of. I certainly believe that little "except every 3rd Tuesday after a full moon"-style notations are HUGELY trivial.

But beyond all that, this information is not sourced—like quite a bit of super-specific "down to the coach number" I-would-argue-minutiae-style information in various TransLink articles. I've let that slide for existing info because I think it's rude to just come in and strip people's contributions, even if they are not verifiable, but there is no way we are even considering putting this new info in this article without proper, reliable sourcing. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine. We won't add it in. I just thought that it would be nice if we included it in the article. But yes, you do have a valid argument that it is not sourced, and I am not disputing it. I never said that "We are definitely going to add it in, regardless if it follows proper Wikipedia guidelines, or if the general concensus agrees with it or not." Saltn'Pepper (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't meant to suggest you were insisting we add it without sourcing. And it's not you, in particular: I just edit a fair number of transit-related articles (for TransLink and the TTC mainly) and often the very detailed info is provided without sourcing, I assume by insiders or aficionados who maybe have informal sources. I feel like that level of detail, especially if it's not verifiable by others, belongs in a different venue, kinda like how I think some TV-related info is so detailed that it belongs more in source devoted to entertainment (IMDb) or fans (say a Wikia wiki). Basically I favour asking: even though we can add this, should we add it? But yeah, I think one way we can improve the quality of the TransLink-related articles here is to be a bit more stringent on sourcing. Like I said, I don't think it's productive to start going through and ripping out huge chunks of articles but maybe doing some {{cn}} tagging and asking for good sourcing for new stuff will slowly improve them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Bus schedule and map links

These need to be updated every few months; TransLink removes the older documents when they post new ones.

MacsBug (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Why do we need them. The contant can be found on the Translink URL. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Ajf773 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)