Calgary Public Transit II

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by Cage

For Calgary Transit to be effective they must be on time, dependable, safe, and comfortable.

What you need to mention is that it has to be these things *relative* to the alternatives. If the alternatives are worse, then Calgary Transit will be more attractive by comparison. If perimeter seating does lead to loses that affect Calgary Transit and their mandate, then it would have to be looked at, but I personally don't see it happening. Also, your list ignores cost. This is a pretty big factor for a great many people.

You mention several times that perimeter seating finds favour with Metro systems all over the world but you mention that the LRT is light rail, and above ground. Why do you feel this is an important distinction? I don't see the difference when it comes to seat configurations.

Having lived in London, I have a very hard time thinking that the LRT will lose people due to perimeter seating. I am not sure why Calgary would be any different to most of the world in this respect. Wer'e not that unique, are we?



(Also, I'm not sure the cost/comfort equation holds as much weight for a transit system as it does for an airline. A 20 minute journey does not call for nearly the comfort a 10 hour journey would require)

Just my 2¢

[YYCguys]

Well those seats look pretty plush and lux and comfy. I wouldn't mind perimeter seating if CT had these seats!

[Ayreonaut]

Yeah, the seats on the tube are really nice for potentially lengthy cross-city trips (or catching the train from Heathrow). Cushions like that would be less necessary in Calgary where most rides are much shorter.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

You use Air Canada as an example, but lots of people still travel on Air Transat - having capacity that is as cheap as possible is more important to most than a bit of numb bum.

Lots of people fly Air Canada and Transat. However zero frequent flyers fly on Transat. The most transat sees a single ticket purchaser is twice in one year, and this person has purchased two package holidays.

Air Canada however has 90% market share for frequent travellers (Westjet and Porter the other 10%). Frequent travel defined as a person flying more than twice per month.

The connection to Calgary Transit and the airlines is that CT needs to define is customer experience a little better and also needs to determine the best way to attract new customers and retain existing customers, especially frequent users of the system.

Each airline in Canada has determined that it must spend a considerable amount of energy to get the best seat experience. Westjet's seats are just as comfortable as AC even although WS operates on a low cost environment. Same with porter, an airline that could reduce legroom and add one additional row of seats has chosen comfort over capacity.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

What you need to mention is that it has to be these things *relative* to the alternatives. If the alternatives are worse, then Calgary Transit will be more attractive by comparison. If perimeter seating does lead to loses that affect Calgary Transit and their mandate, then it would have to be looked at, but I personally don't see it happening. Also, your list ignores cost. This is a pretty big factor for a great many people.

You mention several times that perimeter seating finds favour with Metro systems all over the world but you mention that the LRT is light rail, and above ground. Why do you feel this is an important distinction? I don't see the difference when it comes to seat configurations.

Having lived in London, I have a very hard time thinking that the LRT will lose people due to perimeter seating. I am not sure why Calgary would be any different to most of the world in this respect. Wer'e not that unique, are we?

(Also, I'm not sure the cost/comfort equation holds as much weight for a transit system as it does for an airline. A 20 minute journey does not call for nearly the comfort a 10 hour journey would require)

Just my 2¢

When discussing customer experience, cost should be removed from the equation, IMHO. Customers rarely make the comment that they consistently and frequently suffer through horrible customer service inorder to reduce costs. A cost vs service/experience discussion is generally confined to annual adventures (such as annual vacation on Transat vs weekly biz traveller to Toronto). The same holds true for transit with one exception, the market segment that has no alternative due to extreme cost pressures (e.g. low income, students, elderly, etc.). The big hidden problem for Calgary society and CT mandate, is that once this group has an alternative they will bolt from public transit and never return.

WRT metro vs LRT, its the number of other distinctions that make perimeter seating better option:
- At longer distances, metro systems tend to also have other public transit options. Example in London is that outside zone 3 National Rail becomes a viable option (even some stations are also in zone 2 and 3 for South London areas like Clapham and to Croydon).
- Put 10 additional customers onto each tube car and that is 80-120 people per train, CT transit can only increase capacity by 30 people max and once 4 car trains are reality, the additional capacity by perimeter seating is moot.

Additional point on London vs Calgary (or any major metro system vs Calgary). The alternative to perimeter seating is another form of publiuc transport in major metro areas, in Calgary the major alternative is the car.

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by Cage

Lots of people fly Air Canada and Transat. However zero frequent flyers fly on Transat. The most transat sees a single ticket purchaser is twice in one year, and this person has purchased two package holidays.

And yet Transat carries more people between Canada and Europe than any other airline including Air Canada.

Originally Posted by Cage

Air Canada however has 90% market share for frequent travellers (Westjet and Porter the other 10%).

Where did you get that from?

I find it REALLY hard to believe that perimeter seating is that much of a problem and people would switch to other modes of transport.

[MalcolmTucker]

Reliability and capacity are much better places to focus scarce resources.

As for Porter, the seat capacity has much more to do with weight limits out of the island airport in Toronto than anything else. Air Canada flies a similar set up out of the island.

Some users will make the choice not to ride LRT in Calgary due to perimeter seating, just like some users in Toronto will make the choice not to ride their new streetcars because the seats face backwards, and some are arranged in quads (egads!).

If people that already had a seat (a minority), now have a seat that is slightly less comfortable, and requires them to look across the car at someone (how is this worse than the Quads and side seating alternative on the old U2s), and are now so uncomfortable they are willing to pay much more for an alternative means of transport, who cares. I just don't see this being a widespread issue, and economics will lead to the spot being filled since we are at capacity for both LRT and parking to the main traffic driver.

A lost rider (or even many) is not a problem as long as in aggregate service is improving on core metrics (reliability, including the reliability of being able to board the first train you encounter).

Now if lets say the system was running close to but not at capacity, and we replaced all the trains with a lower number of trains that could carry more people individually (with less comfort), but cut the total number so total capacity stayed the same that would be an issue (since the problem you guys noted would have a material effect on total system usage). But that isn't what is happening.

Adding capacity costs an incredible amount of money, not trying to wring as much use out of our current infrastructure before we need to do the second phase de-bottlenecking (the 8th Avenue Subway, along with major LRV and staffing increases) would be a waste of scarce public resources.

[Blader]

It's wrong to suppose that transit users would disdain perimeter seating. I welcome it. When the line is not busy I get a seat. When the line is busy and I stand, the seat springs up to create more room for those boarding.
When I'm boarding, and its crowded, I'm pleased that seated commuters stand to make room for those boarding.

On a longer trip, I might be seated for a while, and then stand, and then be seated once again.

Comparisons to air travel make no sense.

Edit:
So, for me, it's a gain when it allows me to board a crowded train, a loss when I have to make room. But because the carriage carries more, it's less likely that I have to wait for the next. That matters most to me.

[Ferreth]

I will take slightly less crowding or better chance to get on the train versus slightly more comfortable seating any day, since for work, I never got to sit, and for recreation, I'm traveling at times when it's generally not hard to get a seat. When I last worked downtown three years back, I'd *still* hear people bitching about how the LRT sucked now since they couldn't get a seat anymore at X time. But they still were on the train.

A/C in the middle of summer will do more to retain customers than what is lost to this seating arrangement. I remember a few very hot days that you were almost dieing in the crush of people in a hot, sun baked car. But it got me bike more instead, which was a good thing too!

[DarkKeyo]

Wow. A lot of you are taking a LOT of time to say that the seats are "just fine, thank you very much, I don't care, must be other priorities".

I'll try not to feed the tr- er, people who enjoy feeling superior to anyone who makes what they see as a complaint.

I'll reiterate what I said at the beginning of all this, since I may have accidentally started this. The new trains 1. Are inconvenient to sit in, 2. Are inconvenient to STAND in, and 3. Are apparently inconvenient to operate and maintain. (This is my experience, the experience of some friends, and my observation of other transit threads)

Therefore we should reevaluate whether we spend money on more of the same. And, even more, on this rumour that the old SD-160's would be (expensively) converted. It would be nice to know how the benefits compare to the drawbacks. I bet they're pretty close.

On a related note, I've ridden on the Toronto Subway and the Vancouver Skytrain(s) in the last year, and found that the mix of side, forward, and backward seating, worked.

[You Need A Thneed]

The station head at Whitehorn LRT appears to be open as of this morning. The fencing blocking it off has been removed. The platform shelters were finally open earlier this weekend.

[5seconds]

I think we all agree that all customers have their tipping-point where the prospect of taking Transit is so unappealing that they give it up.

For some, nothing short of broken glass on the seats will keep them off, for others, perimeter seating might be enough to make them re-think transit. Still others think that anything short of door-to-door in 20 minutes with a seat everytime is too inconvenient (and those are the ones who have already given up, or never tried in the first place).

The real discussion is what level of service constitutes the tipping-point for a large enough group, that it would negatively affect Transit and it's mandate. For me, perimeter seating is not it, but without data, we are just having a debate, nothing more. In fact, nothing short of trying perimeter-only seating would settle the debate.

I don't think anyone is being a troll here.

Just my 2¢

[freeweed]

I think some of you have got to get off this "it's just perimeter seating, plenty of cities do that" and actually SIT in these seats some time. Look at the picture of the seats above from London, with the arm rests clearly delineating the space for each person. Then sit in one of the (seemingly) 18" wide seats on a new C-Train car. There is simply no comparison.

This isn't "perimeter" vs "non-perimeter". This is "holy shit, CT really picked a shitty design". It's the same with the whole "people will more into the centre of the cars easier with perimeter seating" - this is NOT the case with these new cars, because of the incredibly stupid design of that very wide central pole right next to the doors. People naturally still congregate right by the doorways even when there's plenty of room inside the train.

I think it's telling that many of the "pfft, shut up, you'll learn to love perimeter seating just like the rest of the world" folks either don't even live in Calgary or don't take the C-Train regularly. I actually have little problem with the new cars, but I'm a fairly small person. Looking at other people, though - it looks damned uncomfortable. And yes, I've already seen many people choose alternate modes of transport because of it (what you "believe" is irrelevant, what people DO is).

[Radley77]

I am curious if any of the perimeter style seating might be a bit more accomodating and reserved for pregnant soon to be moms?

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Radley77

I am curious if any of the perimeter style seating might be a bit more accomodating and reserved for pregnant soon to be moms?

The same section as on all the SD160's (in between the middle doors) has the reserved for pregnant and disabled persons stickers on the window from what I've noticed.

[mersar]

Pictures of the new stationhead for Whitehorn can be found here (courtesy Tallis on CPTDB)

[YYCguys]

The upgrades to Whitehorn Station are very nice! I'd like to see more of that to other stations in need.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Canadian74

And yet Transat carries more people between Canada and Europe than any other airline including Air Canada.

Not true, AC international market share (in revenue dollars) is 39% to Air Transat's 8%. Source is Official Airline Guide for 2010.

To get a Canada to Europe perspective the percentage of european flying to total international flying for AC is 40% (Source AC 2010 Annual Report), so 39% market share translates to 17% European market share to Transats total European and Sun destination market share of 8%.

Originally Posted by Canadian74

Where did you get that from?

The number (90%) is compiled by my own observations consulting (at various times over the past 15 years) for three major Canadian airlines. Also informal discussions with marketing execs for the Air Canada Elite program, Aeroplan, and Frequent Guest. Also noted some frequent traveller figures and passenger analysis when consulting on the business model for major Canadian charter company.

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by Cage

Not true, AC international market share (in revenue dollars) is 39% to Air Transat's 8%. Source is Official Airline Guide for 2010.

It is indeed true. It has been discussed and confirmed on Airliners.net, even by AC employees. Of course revenue will be higher for AC. Transat has no J class, their economy tickets are cheaper than AC.

But to get back on topic, it makes no sense to compare air travel with Ctrain's perimeter seating.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Canadian74

It is indeed true. It has been discussed and confirmed on Airliners.net, even by AC employees.

did you see the

(in revenue dollars)

?