Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

That attitude pisses me off. I'm not required to do it so I won't do it. If that is the case here I would be upset with the driver not spending 15 minutes extra to finish his route. However in this case from the scattered reporting I do not think it is the case and likely to due safety policies.

Get over it, rules work both ways. He can be forced to stay those 12 hours even if he's only scheduled for 8 hours, which may even have been the case in this incident. So because someone who does the scheduling at CT didn't get his replacement there on time this driver has to take on a number of potential personal risks if something goes wrong?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Imagine the ####storm if there was an incident in those last 15 minutes. Then it's "Greedy driver makes risky decision to bank some OT hours"

CT's PR statement in this case: "The driver broke protocol by operating the vessel past 12 hours."

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Get over it, rules work both ways. He can be forced to stay those 12 hours even if he's only scheduled for 8 hours, which may even have been the case in this incident. So because someone who does the scheduling at CT didn't get his replacement there on time this driver has to take on a number of potential personal risks if something goes wrong?

You didn't read what I wrote.

I'm not advocating he take any safety risks or break protocol. If that is the case it's perfectly fine.

If however someone just screwed up scheduling he just stopped working because he had met is contracted hours for the day that's crap. You can put in an extra 15 minutes of work for the good of the company. I'm not limiting this to this case either. In general this attitude of it's not my specific task so I'm not doing it causes those who actually want to accomplish things much more pain to do anything.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Imagine the ####storm if there was an incident in those last 15 minutes. Then it's "Greedy driver makes risky decision to bank some OT hours"

Did you read my post? I said if it was safety related then I have no issue. It's the attitude of the specific bolded portion that pisses me off.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

You didn't read what I wrote.

I'm not advocating he take any safety risks or break protocol. If that is the case it's perfectly fine.

If however someone just screwed up scheduling he just stopped working because he had met is contracted hours for the day that's crap. You can put in an extra 15 minutes of work for the good of the company. I'm not limiting this to this case either. In general this attitude of it's not my specific task so I'm not doing it causes those who actually want to accomplish things much more pain to do anything.

I get what you are saying, I just feel it's a two way street. Employers can take the same stance on a lot of issues. I don't cast judgement on either side, it's their choice and their right. I wasn't suggesting he(or either side) shouldn't ever go the extra mile when it makes sense, but in a situation like this one especially where there could be severe consequences for going that extra mile, I don't think anyone has a right to cast judgement. Even if you were stuck waiting "stranded" on that train.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The union should never have to defend this. What is CT going to discipline this driver for not putting their passengers in danger and not violating employment standards?

Notice what about the driver saying his "shift"? It doesn't matter if he's been operating a train or sitting in an office for 12 hours, he is obligated by law to stop working at that point.

He's not obligated by law to stop at that point, he can easily (and legally) choose to carry on. That's the issue. He's just upset that he got crappy work and is trying to make a point.

The other thing here is that everyone seems to believe that he's being truthful when he says he worked 12 hours. What if he didn't?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

He's not obligated by law to stop at that point, he can easily (and legally) choose to carry on. That's the issue. He's just upset that he got crappy work and is trying to make a point.

The other thing here is that everyone seems to believe that he's being truthful when he says he worked 12 hours. What if he didn't?

What's crappy about driving the C-Train?

I think most people are reasonably assuming that he was suppose to be replaced by another driver at Sunnyside.

Is he just going to leave before the replacement gets there? How long should the driver keep going? If the replacement isn't there when he comes back down from Tuscany - keep going all the way back south to Somerset? Maybe the replacement will be at Sunnyside when he changes direction again? It seems kind of ridiculous.

Why would he lie about working 12 hours?

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

He's not obligated by law to stop at that point, he can easily (and legally) choose to carry on. That's the issue. He's just upset that he got crappy work and is trying to make a point.

The other thing here is that everyone seems to believe that he's being truthful when he says he worked 12 hours. What if he didn't?

How do you know this? Perhaps that's what happened, but he's taking a big risk with his job if that's the case. How do we know that he didn't truly reach the end of his allowable hours and need to stop and was just explaining the delay?

Truck drivers / pilots have an allowable number of hours they can drive / fly per day. Wouldn't c-train drivers be the same?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

He's not obligated by law to stop at that point, he can easily (and legally) choose to carry on. That's the issue. He's just upset that he got crappy work and is trying to make a point.

The other thing here is that everyone seems to believe that he's being truthful when he says he worked 12 hours. What if he didn't?

It's a violation of employment standards, anyone could make a complaint over it, so no he can't easily AND legally make that choice. Is anyone going to go to jail over it? Not likely, however depending on the circumstances of how any potential accident that happens during the time over 12 hours into his shift occurs, there could be major consequences. For both himself and/or the employer.

Upset that he got crappy work? Lol, yeah he worked 12 hours at the job he hates and then decided it was time to "make a point".

Haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that he was disciplined for leaving his post. Do you think with all the press this story has been getting that that would not have been reported yet? The fact that he hasn't been disciplined should give you a pretty good indication that he legitimately worked his full 12 hours and stopped at that time.

[sleepingmoose]

The City of Calgary never releases information on employees and discipline, so unless released by the driver, it likely won't ever be released.

And employment standards confines work to 12 hours, unless you're granted an extension by the Alberta Government - of which an example for Calgary Transit can be found here, granting employees the ability to choose to work up to 15 hours a day.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

The City of Calgary never releases information on employees and discipline, so unless released by the driver, it likely won't ever be released.

And employment standards confines work to 12 hours, unless you're granted an extension by the Alberta Government - of which an example for Calgary Transit can be found here, granting employees the ability to choose to work up to 15 hours a day.

Given the circumstances, if he was disciplined for job abandonment that would have most likely gotten out to the media one way or another.

That extension letter is expired and may not have even been renewed for all we know. But let's assume it was, it still clearly indicates that the employee has the right to go after 12 hours. We don't know any of the details about what his motives were to leave so again I don't think it is fair to make a judgement on his actions, even if he just didn't want to work more than 12 hours, it's his choice and CT should be more than accommodating in allowing him to exercise that right.

[Sainters7]

I moved here in mid-2013 so i prob just missed out on the preliminary civic discussions when it was first built, but what's with the zero parking opportunities at any of the 69th St line stations? On the red line, even the very minor stops like 39th St station, which is essentially just a platform, provides ample parking for commuters. Meanwhile, a massive central hub on the West line like Westbrook station with its own building tower has ZERO parking lot for the public. They're all like that on 69th, I don't get it.

What really drives me crazy is right next to said massive central hub with zero parking spots is a Wal-Mart/mall, which even during Stampede week / work wk is at never more than maybe 75-80% capacity at best. Don't park there though!! (Unless you own a motorhome. Then stay for the week!) It's borderline entrapment.

I sincerely don't understand what the plan was when they decided West line LRT stops will not offer parking in any capacity. It's just bizarre. Not everyone that takes the train downtown also has to take a bus, it adds an extra 20min+ to my commute doing that

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

I moved here in mid-2013 so i prob just missed out on the preliminary civic discussions when it was first built, but what's with the zero parking opportunities at any of the 69th St line stations? On the red line, even the very minor stops like 39th St station, which is essentially just a platform, provides ample parking for commuters. Meanwhile, a massive central hub on the West line like Westbrook station with its own building tower has ZERO parking lot for the public. They're all like that on 69th, I don't get it.

What really drives me crazy is right next to said massive central hub with zero parking spots is a Wal-Mart/mall, which even during Stampede week / work wk is at never more than maybe 75-80% capacity at best. Don't park there though!! (Unless you own a motorhome. Then stay for the week!) It's borderline entrapment.

I sincerely don't understand what the plan was when they decided West line LRT stops will not offer parking in any capacity. It's just bizarre. Not everyone that takes the train downtown also has to take a bus, it adds an extra 20min+ to my commute doing that

Isn't that big parkade at 69th and 17th for transit users? (I have re-read your post, and I see that you are referring to the whole line - not just the 69th station.) I think that a lot of it also came down to nimby-ism and the fact that much of the line cuts through fairly built-up areas without much space for parking, or the desire of residents to have parking in their neighbourhoods.

That being said, I do think that the overall goal is to have people use feeder buses to get to the stations, instead of cars. The station near me (Tuscany) was designed with enough parking for local people, but deliberately made them difficult to access for dirty non-Tuscanites in their cars, hoping that they would continue on to Crowfoot instead. But being a newer area, the land for the station and parking had been set aside from the very beginning.

Westbrook is a different beast. The long term plan is for that whole area to be a high density "transit oriented development", so in theory, the people using it would be living and working within a very short walk of it. The issue with Wal-Mart and the mall is probably because it is private property, so they don't want to encourage free parking there as there is no benefit to them, plus they are on the hook for maintenance and that sort of thing.

[Sainters7]

Oh yeah I certainly get why Wal-Mart doesn't want us parking there. It's just that combination of such a central hub stop providing zero parking whatsoever, combined with the fact that right next to it is a massive, sprawling parking lot that's always pretty sparse that sticks in my craw a bit. You'd think maybe they'd contract just the rarely used part of it next to the train for the City, but maybe that's not practical.

You can kinda tell the area still has lots more to go to build up the development, it's definitely got a "half finished" look to it. I just figured in the meantime they'd try and be more accommodating to their commuters who drive to the train, instead of just issuing out parking tickets.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Oh yeah I certainly get why Wal-Mart doesn't want us parking there. It's just that combination out such a central hub stop providing zero stops, combined with the fact that right next to it is a massive, sprawling parking lot that's always pretty sparse that sticks in my craw a bit. You'd think maybe they'd contract just the rarely used part if it next to the train for the City, but maybe that's not practical

Good point. They could also put a bunch of parking on the vacant land land around Westbrook until the time comes to redevelop it. Make some of it reserved and charge for it, and they could be making some money with that land in the mean time.

[Fuzz]

The city should offer free property tax on the parking lot to the mall in exchange for a number of spots to be shared with transit users. It is mostly unused space, plus it would drive business to the mall for after work shopping.

[FurnaceFace]

As I recall, Jimmy has it correct, feeder buses. Mrs. Furnace was on the committee for the station near us (Shaganappi) and parking wasn't really a consideration given, as Jimmy also said, the areas are established. It would have cost an awful lot to buy up part of a community to pave it...plus the hue and cry from that would have been immense. The expectation is people in the areas are generally close enough to walk or bike to a station or take a feeder. There is ample bike parking at Shag, it's even covered! It does appear they attempted to place stations at somewhat strategic spots get get the largest catch possible. I would imagine if AMA were to move, that area would become parking.

[Sainters7]

Exactly. Sometimes after work I'll go shopping in Wal-Mart, or even poke around the mall in Sport Chek or the EB Games in there. Or just grab a coffee at Starbucks in the mall. I would never do that if I'm waiting for a bus at the station, out of fear I'll miss it. Commuters parking there absolutely generates business for that mall (at least for me), and it doesn't appear parking spots are at a premium in that lot either. I just don't get it.

EDIT: Didn't see the comment directly above this one when I wrote that. Yeah I'm guessing AMA would become transit parking as well, if they moved. That's actually the closest station to me, but due to no parking there, I've always just gone to Westbrook instead.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

As I recall, Jimmy has it correct, feeder buses. Mrs. Furnace was on the committee for the station near us (Shaganappi) and parking wasn't really a consideration given, as Jimmy also said, the areas are established. It would have cost an awful lot to buy up part of a community to pave it...plus the hue and cry from that would have been immense. The expectation is people in the areas are generally close enough to walk or bike to a station or take a feeder. There is ample bike parking at Shag, it's even covered! It does appear they attempted to place stations at somewhat strategic spots get get the largest catch possible. I would imagine if AMA were to move, that area would become parking.

Fair points. Yeah the more minor stops like Shag Point, 45th Street, etc, I get why they don't offer parking. I guess my complaint has more to do with specifically Westbrook station; a large, central hub, built on a bit of a land island with plenty of unused space. For Somerset riders, it's the equivalent of Anderson station providing zero public parking spots. Like, seriously??

When I first started taking that train just under 3 years ago, I saw that massive dirt patch right beside the station and figured "Meh, it's a new station. That's where the new parking spots are probably going to go". But here we are 3 years later, and it's still just a dirt patch. I figured the City was being laid back about looking the other way on parking in the back empty corner of Wal-Mart parking lot right by the station in a "we know we goofed with the parking situation" kind of way. But judging by the $40 City-issued ticket I received on Friday, that's not the case.

Just seems like not much thought was put into parking for such a central transit hub, or worse yet, no thought at all. It's just kind of weird to me

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Fair points. Yeah the more minor stops like Shag Point, 45th Street, etc, I get why they don't offer parking. I guess my complaint has more to do with specifically Westbrook station; a large, central hub, built on a bit of a land island with plenty of unused space. For Somerset riders, it's the equivalent of Anderson station providing zero public parking spots. Like, seriously??

When I first started taking that train just under 3 years ago, I saw that massive dirt patch right beside the station and figured "Meh, it's a new station. That's where the new parking spots are probably going to go". But here we are 3 years later, and it's still just a dirt patch. I figured the City was being laid back about looking the other way on parking in the back empty corner of Wal-Mart parking lot right by the station in a "we know we goofed with the parking situation" kind of way. But judging by the $40 City-issued ticket I received on Friday, that's not the case.

Just seems like not much thought was put into parking for such a central transit hub, or worse yet, no thought at all. It's just kind of weird to me

It was thought of. It's all part of the transit oriented development the city is using. They don't want to build stations surrounded by parking lots. The City doesn't own the land surrounding the station anymore. It was sold to a developer to be built into a mixed use property. Honestly the land is waaay more valuable and useful to be used as residential, commercial and retail than a parking lot. I can almost guarantee if they were build Anderson station today it wouldn't have the massive parking lot. If you are wondering why it isn't a temporary parking lot to make money. The City isn't fond of temporary parking lots. They want a fully built parking lot that is paved with curbs, drainage etc. Not worth it for a developer to build temporarily.

The redevelopment of the 53-acre Westbrook Village site is
intended to shift from its current uses as an auto-oriented,
low-density, commercial shopping mall and high school site,
into a vibrant pedestrian-oriented community with a high mix
of residential, retail and office uses within close proximity
to public transit.

http://www.calgary.ca/CS/OLSH/Docume...f?noredirect=1