Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

Agreed 90%, with the 10% being that I think instead of having any kind of "seat width", they should just make it a flat bench.

Flat benches make sense in theory, but they'll probably get filled up by people who think their purse, backpack, dog, and extra wide behind all need more space. At least when the seats are defined spaces, it gives those people the message that those spaces are for humans, and your bag can ride in your lap.

Also, people will evenly spread out on a bench, leaving gaps between themselves not big enough to fit another person, where they would sit in the seats if the seats were marked.

[BurningYears]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Flat benches make sense in theory, but they'll probably get filled up by people who think their purse, backpack, dog, and extra wide behind all need more space. At least when the seats are defined spaces, it gives those people the message that those spaces are for humans, and your bag can ride in your lap.

Also, people will evenly spread out on a bench, leaving gaps between themselves not big enough to fit another person, where they would sit in the seats if the seats were marked.

yep this happens all the time on the older buses that have the perimiter seating on the back upper portion. Kind of annoying but I have probably done it before as well.

[Knalus]

I've noticed that with the curved moulded seats the back row has technically 5 seats, but in all practicality there are only ever 3 of them used. With the rear benches that do not have moulded seats, there are usually four people sitting there.

I'm assuming it will be exactly the same with the C-Train. The only possible benefit I could think of for moulded seats instead of benches would be to keep the homeless from sleeping on them. In Calgary during rush hour, however, this is less of a concern.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Flat benches make sense in theory, but they'll probably get filled up by people who think their purse, backpack, dog, and extra wide behind all need more space. At least when the seats are defined spaces, it gives those people the message that those spaces are for humans, and your bag can ride in your lap.

Also, people will evenly spread out on a bench, leaving gaps between themselves not big enough to fit another person, where they would sit in the seats if the seats were marked.

All true, when the train is not busy. As it fills up, in my experience people are pretty good about letting others sit (this happens even with the old facing seats arrangments... people will let their stuff take up a seat until the train gets busier).

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

All true, when the train is not busy. As it fills up, in my experience people are pretty good about letting others sit (this happens even with the old facing seats arrangments... people will let their stuff take up a seat until the train gets busier).

But if it was just a bench, there isn't an obvious amount of people who are "supposed" to fit in that space, so there will be less social compunction for people to move over. The molded backs make it obvious how much space is alloted for one person.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Madman

Have they just got lazy with the very newest cars that have entered service and not put the Coke swoop on them yet? (they have the red tops, but all white on the bottom)

Or are they being prepped for some big ads? Going away from the swish thing?

None of the above.

Apparently the newly arrived trains have been pressed into service earlier than the total paint job could be completed. We may see the next arrivals going into service in all-white. The same thing happened back in 2007-2008 when several of the then current order of 40 SD160s went into service before they could be painted.

In both cases it is because there is a backlog of maintenance to be done on older LRVs, leaving a gap in service that can be filled with new LRVs as soon as they can run.

28 from the order of 38 have arrived so far.

[frinkprof]

Well now that there's been a number of responses, I'll weigh in on the new Series 8 SD160s.

There's been some bugs related to the emergency buttons being pressed in a false alarm and some other technical issues partly related to operators getting used to the different troubleshooting with the new trains. Seems that has been worked out for the most part.

However, it's telling that a lot of the thoughts shared here have been about the seating and poles. I think these could do with a second look. The divided bucket seats need to be one straight bench or some other configuration. In fact I'm not really a big fan of the divided seats on buses either. I think if you make a bench that will fit two (or three, or however many) averaged size people with a couple inches to spare, that the seat divisions become redundant. Being that the divided seats are more uncomfortable and unwelcoming than a cushier bench, the bench should win out and be implemented on future orders and these cars should be retrofitted at some point. Although, to be fair, I have heard that the bucket seats (as seen on the new trains, as well as the fabric-surfaced ones on buses) are a lot easier to maintain because people can't cut or damage them as easily and they are easier to clean.

Regarding the poles, I think these have also been slightly problematic and some tweaks may be needed. There needs to be a balance between providing people with enough to hold onto while not impeding movement within the car. In the aisle between the seats, I think there needs to be either the middle three-pronged pole or the ones attached to the seats - but not both. There's just a few too many of the yellow poles such that movement is impeded. The ones attached to the seats should stay I think due to them acting as a divider for the seats (without the seats being individually divided of course).

Altogether though, perimeter seating as a general principle is definitely the way to go. The seating arrangements in the old LRVs are generally a poor and inefficient design by their very nature.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Altogether though, perimeter seating as a general principle is definitely the way to go. The seating arrangements in the old LRVs are generally a poor and inefficient design by their very nature.

The one downside that hasn't been discussed so far is the lateral Gs. (If I've learnt anything from Roller Coster Tycoon...)

[worth]

A comment about the individualized seating:

They just installed the same type of seating at McMahon in some of the upper decks where there used to be straight aluminum benches. It's nice to have plastic seats in the cold, but I really don't like the molded seats. They force you to sit in a pocket, which I suppose is what they are going for, but they are much less comfortable because of it. The seats are too narrow even for me, and I'm not a big guy at all. I can definitely see an argument for a bench over molded seats.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

The ones attached to the seats should stay I think due to them acting as a divider for the seats (without the seats being individually divided of course).

<snip>

This is an extremely good point. It seems to me that the only argument against bench seating is that people spread out and reduce the capacity. If there's a pole every 2 or 3 "average +2 inches" space, the number of people who should be able to fit in the space becomes obvious, and there's no need for the booty re-shaping injection molded plastic.

[yads]

Why do the new trains not indicate which side to exit from the train like the older trains?

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by yads

Why do the new trains not indicate which side to exit from the train like the older trains?

A good rule of thumb to follow is to exit on the side that has the platform.

[Madman]

Originally Posted by yads

Why do the new trains not indicate which side to exit from the train like the older trains?

If the button lights up, you are on the correct side.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Barnes

A good rule of thumb to follow is to exit on the side that has the platform.

This had me laughing so loud my boss came in to see what was happening.

[frinkprof]

News and Notes

Transit Commissioner?

There was a notice of motion at council yesterday put forth by Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart to investigate best practices in other cities with regard to transit governance and the study the viability of a transit commission. Every city in Canada that is larger than Calgary and also other big cities in North America have a much a transit governance structure that resembles something like this (and is often more regional in scope - something we could also see in Calgary as a result of this process but perhaps not). Right now Calgary Transit is basically a mostly internally-overseen subset of the transportation department that lies somewhere between bicycle paths and pothole fixing.

So anyway, it's just being studied now, but we'll hear more about this in the coming months.

Here's an article in today's Calgary Sun about it: http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/11/08...mmission-study

WestLRT bus route changes open houses

There are some upcoming open houses for the latest rendition of the West LRT bus service plan.

For Beltline residents: Thursday, November 10, 2011 from 4:30-9:00 p.m.
First Baptist Church of Calgary
1311 - 4 Street SW

For Shaganappi residents: Thursday, November 24, 2011 from 4:30-9:00 p.m.
Shaganappi Community Hall
2516 - 14 Avenue SW

Here's the latest plan.

Spoiler!

And the Beltline-specific one:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/We...an_Oct2011.pdf

Transit Customer Advisory Group

The Transit Customer Advisory Group has been selected from among 120+ applicants. I believe there are 12 members who will meet quarterly with Calgary Transit to advise on customer-service related issues. The first meeting is December 1st.

Park and Ride Customer Survey Results and Summary of Findings

I haven't gone over these yet myself, but here they are:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Pa...nal_Report.pdf

[frinkprof]

Oh yeah, I knew I was missing something.

Latest TransitCamp Blog

You may recall we released a blog post about our long-term vision for the rapid transit network. It's detailed in this map:

Spoiler!

Well this latest blog post goes into detail about our proposed 16th Avenue Crosstown BRT route (304 on the above map). It goes into how it could operate (with diagrams), where it would go, why it is important, etc.

Anyway, here's the link: http://www.civiccamp.org/2011/11/the...osstown-route/

[WilsonFourTwo]

It's been more than 10 years since I commuted via transit (always by train), however my new job finally makes it practical.

The CT website says my trip (Route 18 into Downtown) should only take 21 minutes. Are these estimates generally reasonable or should I plan on an extra 10-15 minutes?

I know that everything is weather/accident dependent.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by fotze

I used to take that bus, where will you get on? I was only 2 stops from downtown so it was pretty accurate.

Also, I think that route will be eliminated with the new LRT.

I'll be getting on at either Mount Royal Circle or 50Ave/Richard Rd.

I saw that Route 18 is being completely altered with the new LRT. Not sure how I feel about going down 14th Street, but we'll see when the time comes.

Thanks for the response.

[browna]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

I'll be getting on at either Mount Royal Circle or 50Ave/Richard Rd.

I saw that Route 18 is being completely altered with the new LRT. Not sure how I feel about going down 14th Street, but we'll see when the time comes.

Thanks for the response.

Looks like the #18 was changed from a previous plan. 33rd Ave to 14St? Gracious.

And what road is it on that its cutting right through the CFB? And then loops around the exterior of Lakeview (I think), but back to Crowchild (or vice versa) on Glenmore? There's a waste as well and just more delays when Glenmore is backed up in the rush hours..keeping the loop inside Lakeview means more people are served (there's no stops on Glenmore) and means less chance of getting backed up with traffic.

Thankfully for me, the 63 isn't changing routes, hopefully they'll add one or two buses, or shift the times of the four am and pm buses around, on that route.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Oh yeah, I knew I was missing something.

Latest TransitCamp Blog

You may recall we released a blog post about our long-term vision for the rapid transit network. It's detailed in this map:

Spoiler!

Well this latest blog post goes into detail about our proposed 16th Avenue Crosstown BRT route (304 on the above map). It goes into how it could operate (with diagrams), where it would go, why it is important, etc.

Anyway, here's the link: http://www.civiccamp.org/2011/11/the...osstown-route/

I really wish they'd keep the 301 where it is, it would be a faster alternative than the LRT and those who don't want to cram into the trains when they hit Westbrook and Shaganappi. I don't want to be one of those people who stand around 26th waiting for a bus and have to miss every third one because they're full!