Calgary Public Transit II

[andasen]

Are you people really complaining that popular routes have a higher stop density in their higher ridership zones.

I feel it stands to be stated that there is limited stop service bypassing the hospital for the large majority of people going to heritage, its called the 306.

The 302... its getting better. Green line transit way will make it better. Looking forward to what impact the green line quick wins that will be going into place this coming year will have.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by andasen

Are you people really complaining that popular routes have a higher stop density in their higher ridership zones.
I feel it stands to be stated that there is limited stop service bypassing the hospital for the large majority of people going to heritage, its called the 306.

The 302... its getting better. Green line transit way will make it better. Looking forward to what impact the green line quick wins that will be going into place this coming year will have.

Yes. That is what I am doing. Having stops one block apart is insane.

Look at the 306, something like 3 stops at MRU. Why?

[joe498]

Originally Posted by andasen

Are you people really complaining that popular routes have a higher stop density in their higher ridership zones.

I feel it stands to be stated that there is limited stop service bypassing the hospital for the large majority of people going to heritage, its called the 306.

The 302... its getting better. Green line transit way will make it better. Looking forward to what impact the green line quick wins that will be going into place this coming year will have.

Until the Glenmore interchange is built which is 2 years+ away, 302 will be pretty much the same still. Nothing like getting stopped by a 10 minute train.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by fusili

Yes. That is what I am doing. Having stops one block apart is insane.

Look at the 306, something like 3 stops at MRU. Why?

Because if there weren't this many stops, then you'd have that other SSP demographic upset about Calgary Transit not meeting the needs of the mobility/physically handicapped.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by speedog

Because if there weren't this many stops, then you'd have that other SSP demographic upset about Calgary Transit not meeting the needs of the mobility/physically handicapped.

Perhaps hospitals are contentious. Give each hospital 3 stops then. But the majority of routes are vastly over populated with stops. A good discussion was blogged by TransitCamp a while back:

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/08/16/stop-spacing-speed-and-simplicity/

"Route 3’s southern segment is around 14 kilometres long, which puts its roughly 50 stops about 300 metres apart. The typical radius planners use for proximity to transit is 600 metres, which means that there is significant overlap of walking distance between stops for this route."

So the difference would be walking 150m at most to walking 300m at most along the route. This is marginal increase is hardly taxing on 99.9% of the users, and provides vast benefits to all users 0- even those that have to walk 150m more. If someone is capable of travelling 150m on their own, but not 300m, there are bigger issues that are outside the scope of what regular transit service should be expected to provide. Alternatives can be provided (i.e. handibus service).

I am only going by averages and maximums, in reality not every stop attracts the same traffic level. The amount of users that are negatively effected to such a degree that they have now have a legitimate accessibility issue at 300m vs. 150m can be minimized. Keeping key stops for transfers, major activity centres and major cross-roads would reduce the level of inconvenience to insignificant numbers of passengers versus the 30,000/day who get an improved ride. Remember, those that brave the extra 150m also get the benefit of improved service, reliability and travel times. Most users won't even notice a change in their stop at all, as the majority of traffic already is boarding at the more important stops.

This kind of improvement costs almost nothing to implement and can yield returns much quicker that larger infrastructure projects. I wish there was more of a push to promote these type of improvements in addition to the push for some of the bigger-ticket items like transitway and LRT infrastructure.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by fusili

Yes. That is what I am doing. Having stops one block apart is insane.

Look at the 306, something like 3 stops at MRU. Why?

Why not have 3 stops? They also serve the hubs north and south of MRU. In my observations most people using the 306 are (un)loading at one of these stops so having a higher density of stops doesn't inconvenience many of the riders. If there were an opportunity to have a more centralized stop (ie under MRU should the 306 get upgraded to full LRT some time beyond the current planning horizon) then yes reduce the number of stops but since the bus has to go around MRU it might as well serve those stops.

The seven... I'm not going to defend that one.

Until the Glenmore interchange is built which is 2 years+ away, 302 will be pretty much the same still. Nothing like getting stopped by a 10 minute train.

Err the 302 doesn't get stopped by trains at Glenmore. The only situation I can think of would be if glenmore was backed up going west bound and the train backed it up east bound blocking both lanes either the Ogden and Sheppard sides of the intersection which would snarl the thru traffic up as well.

The quick wins for the project.

Widen 52 Street SE from 130 Avenue to Stoney Trail from four to six lanes to implement transit-only lanes.

Relocate bus routes from Deerfoot Trail SE to 114
Avenue SE using 40 Street SE plus 530 metres of new roadway.

-Widen 130 Avenue SE from 48 Street SE to 52 Street SE from four to six lanes to implement transit-only lanes.

-Widen Ogden Road SE from Millican Road to 69 Avenue SE from two to four lanes to provide two transit-only curb lanes (this project will be reviewed against alternative alignment options prior to proceeding).

-Construct transit queue jumps at various locations

-Reprioritize signals and install transit signal priorities at various locations

[Fuzz]

If you want to talk about to many stops, how about the #2 when it gets to downtown. I'm sure other routes do this to. It stops on centre between 4th and 5th, then about 100m later between 5th and 6th, then goes around the corner onto 6th and stops again! Then it will sit for 5 to 10 minutes and has 3 more stops downtown. I've no problem with the 3 more stops, but why not make the timing point at the end of downtown? 99% of the people are getting off, why make them wait?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If you want to talk about to many stops, how about the #2 when it gets to downtown. I'm sure other routes do this to. It stops on centre between 4th and 5th, then about 100m later between 5th and 6th, then goes around the corner onto 6th and stops again! Then it will sit for 5 to 10 minutes and has 3 more stops downtown. I've no problem with the 3 more stops, but why not make the timing point at the end of downtown? 99% of the people are getting off, why make them wait?

Great example. These three stops could easily be consolidated into a single stop. I think that timing points should never be downtown. It is a congested and busy place, not a place for buses to be stopping. All bus breaks should occur at the suburban ends of the line, not in the middle of downtown.

In general, I think downtown should have dedicated bus lanes (north/south on 4th street, east west on 5th and 6th aves), and we should try and consolidate most of the bus routes on those lanes. Space the stops about 3 blocks apart. This will remove a lot of waiting time. For example, bus stops on 4th street can be at 25th avenue, 21st avenue, 17th avenue, 12th avenue, 8th avenue and 4th avenue.

[bigcanuck]

Originally Posted by fusili

I think that timing points should never be downtown. It is a congested and busy place, not a place for buses to be stopping. All bus breaks should occur at the suburban ends of the line, not in the middle of downtown.

I think the challenge with this logic is that timing points are used to keep buses on schedule instead of ahead of schedule. If the bus has to complete it's entire circuit and get back to a suburban end point before waiting to catch up to the schedule, it could run for greater than half it's route significantly ahead of schedule.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by bigcanuck

I think the challenge with this logic is that timing points are used to keep buses on schedule instead of ahead of schedule. If the bus has to complete it's entire circuit and get back to a suburban end point before waiting to catch up to the schedule, it could run for greater than half it's route significantly ahead of schedule.

But, when headways are 5-10 minutes, does it really matter? It is important to avoid bunching though.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by fusili

Great example. These three stops could easily be consolidated into a single stop. I think that timing points should never be downtown. It is a congested and busy place, not a place for buses to be stopping. All bus breaks should occur at the suburban ends of the line, not in the middle of downtown.

In general, I think downtown should have dedicated bus lanes (north/south on 4th street, east west on 5th and 6th aves), and we should try and consolidate most of the bus routes on those lanes. Space the stops about 3 blocks apart. This will remove a lot of waiting time. For example, bus stops on 4th street can be at 25th avenue, 21st avenue, 17th avenue, 12th avenue, 8th avenue and 4th avenue.

One of the reasons for timing points are transfers though, and downtown is where most of the transfers occur. This is perhaps more important in the evening and morning, when buses might come every half hour (Mr. Biased over here; I regularly catch the last #1 out of downtown). During rush hour, when congestion is worst, time-stop waits are usually at their lowest anyway as nearly every stop is utilized eating up all the slack in the schedule.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by VIce

One of the reasons for timing points are transfers though, and downtown is where most of the transfers occur. This is perhaps more important in the evening and morning, when buses might come every half hour (Mr. Biased over here; I regularly catch the last #1 out of downtown). During rush hour, when congestion is worst, time-stop waits are usually at their lowest anyway as nearly every stop is utilized eating up all the slack in the schedule.

You could place the timing points outside the core on both the inbound and outbound sides. The biggest issue this would solve is freeing up the stop space downtown so buses are less likely to have to exit the curb lane to move around bus on a timing break. Also there are typically a couple stops before the timing stop on the inbound leg that get missed consistently (see #2 at 5th Ave and 5th St), if the timing stop was shortly before the route entered the core you could rely on the bus showing close to the expected time rather than up to 20min early or ~60 min late.

[fusili]

I believe timing points should be located where there will likely be no passengers on the bus. Those would be ends of the routes, in the suburban locations. Improving reliability and adherence to schedule should be achieved through proper infrastructure (dedicated lanes etc), not by having buses sit around in traffic full of passengers.

[joe498]

Given the amount of revenue that residential real estate and commercial real estate is generating presently in Calgary, I reckon our public transit park and rides are a waste of precious space.

I personally have long since given up on park and rides for a variety of reasons.

I look at some of the park and rides: http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/park_n_ride_locations.html

Many of which are in prime locations and relative to the general ridership are insignificant, generating no where near the potential revenue that could be obtained from long term 100 year leases to developers for residential / commercial purposes. The city of Atlanta has recently started doing this as a method to fund future infrastructure. Frankly it makes a lot of sense, parking lots are certainly not the future.

[Wooster]

Just previewed the soon to launch new Calgary Transit website - will go from one of the worst on earth to, I think, one of the best. It's really good.

Soon to follow will be launching real time info for the entire system - that will be incredible.

Then of course, connect card early 2015.

It'll be a sea change for customer experience.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Just previewed the soon to launch new Calgary Transit website - will go from one of the worst on earth to, I think, one of the best. It's really good.

Soon to follow will be launching real time info for the entire system - that will be incredible.

Then of course, connect card early 2015.

It'll be a sea change for customer experience.

Looking forward to it, any timeline on the website launch? Realtime info is late this year correct?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Just previewed the soon to launch new Calgary Transit website - will go from one of the worst on earth to, I think, one of the best. It's really good.

Soon to follow will be launching real time info for the entire system - that will be incredible.

Then of course, connect card early 2015.

It'll be a sea change for customer experience.

What a jump all in a short stretch. I hope it goes well. CT has always been two-faced: leading the way on LRT implementation and design for a city of our type in North America, while simultaneously missing all the niceties and soft features like websites, easy payment of fares and connect cards that are so standard everywhere else.

I have no doubt that updating the website will vastly improve the public image of CT as it is a first-stop for many occasional users and is immediately off-putting.

Good on CT! Exciting times ahead (although I still am more excited for 4th Street Bus-lanes).

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by MasterG

What a jump all in a short stretch. I hope it goes well. CT has always been two-faced: leading the way on LRT implementation and design for a city of our type in North America, while simultaneously missing all the niceties and soft features like websites, easy payment of fares and connect cards that are so standard everywhere else.

I have no doubt that updating the website will vastly improve the public image of CT as it is a first-stop for many occasional users and is immediately off-putting.

Good on CT! Exciting times ahead (although I still am more excited for 4th Street Bus-lanes).

That's what RouteAhead has done. Lots of people think of it as a capital/network plan - but more importantly it sets direction on customer experience on every phase of a transit trip. We're seeing the fruits of it now.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Looking forward to it, any timeline on the website launch? Realtime info is late this year correct?

A few weeks. Real time a few weeks after (with very interesting user interfaces for real time soon after again). Connect early in the new year if things go well. So a quick succession of big technological changes.

In my personal opinion, real time will have a transformative impact on the customer experience and how people use the system.

[WaitWhat?]

Originally Posted by Wooster

A few weeks. Real time a few weeks after (with very interesting user interfaces for real time soon after again). Connect early in the new year if things go well. So a quick succession of big technological changes.

In my personal opinion, real time will have a transformative impact on the customer experience and how people use the system.

These are fantastic upgrades and very needed. I hope eventually we can also upgrade the Ctrain real time info at the platforms. It seems to be wrong almost as often as it is right. This includes which train is next, the time for next arrival and the announcer will often tell you the train is arriving and "please stand behind the yellow line" about 10 seconds after the train leaves.

Misinformation is worse than no information.