Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Its crazy painful if you dont already know exactly which bus you need to take from exactly which stop.

I find the Google Transit planner is way better, but even it makes stupid recommendations - which I only know about because of the routes that I know of (e.g. three transfers goes way quicker with the LRT as one than two transfers on a bus).

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Its crazy painful if you dont already know exactly which bus you need to take from exactly which stop.

I've stopped trying to use CT's trip planner. It is horrible. And trying to view that giant list of stop numbers and stop times on a mobile browser is even worse. I have a Blackberry that's a couple years old so web browsing on that isn't ideal to begin with and only compounds the problem.

Whenever Calgary Transit does revamp their website and trip planner, they need to sit down and consider the mobile user who might be trying to access this information.

I cannot wait for real-time bus information to become available too. That would make Teleride much more useful. I'd like to know when the next bus will actually be at the stop more so than when it's scheduled to be there. So many times drivers are late or they are speeding along to the next time point so they can take a break/leak.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Whenever Calgary Transit does revamp their website and trip planner, they need to sit down and consider the mobile user who might be trying to access this information.

Not sure if there is a BB version, but CT's "Next Stop" app for the iPhone is solid.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Apparently it's supposed to be replaced with something else, and the whole website will see a revamp as well. Not sure when though.

Based on how long it's taking the City to get their new website up and running, I would guess that we won't see this for a couple more years.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Not sure if there is a BB version, but CT's "Next Stop" app for the iPhone is solid.

Google Maps for BB works pretty good. Only issue is the GPS lags a bit more than BB Maps.

[Bunk]

Fortunately, the Calgary Transit website, including the trip planner are in the process of being totally redone. They know both suck right now.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Fortunately, the Calgary Transit website, including the trip planner are in the process of being totally redone. They know both suck right now.

Why? Just link to Google, and make sure you feed them up to date information.

[burtreynolds]

Originally Posted by SebC

Why? Just link to Google, and make sure you feed them up to date information.

/agree. From my experience, a lot of organizations would be better off taking advantage of Google Maps and Google search technology in general. Google Maps is well known, and will always be more effective than Calgary Transit at designing a public transit information system, at least in terms of generating transit trips.

Obviously, Calgary Transit would probably have a better idea of when a train/bus/whatever is going to show up next, but that's a different thing altogether.

[Bunk]

They may have turned to google - much like Calgary.ca has for its new search-based main site. I'm not 100% sure though.

[frinkprof]

In the latest of a series of our Transit Camp blogs, the following long-term system has been proposed:



Downtown Map:

Spoiler!

http://www.civiccamp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Downtown-1024x791.jpg

Read more here:

http://www.civiccamp.org/2011/09/the...sion-the-plan/

Previous blog entry "The 8 Pillars of Transit" here:

http://www.civiccamp.org/2011/09/the...rs-of-transit/

Feedback and commentary encouraged.

[frinkprof]

Now, on to something less dreamy, more boring, but also more immediate.

Tomorrow is the first council meeting after the summer break, and there are a few transit-related items on the agenda.

- The first is the Funding and Fare Strategy. We discussed it awhile back when it went to LPT committee. At that time they voted on the various recommendations and added some amendments. Now is when the decisions will be made. So, fare zone systems could be investigated, fare increases, revisions to the seniors' pass, etc.

- Also up at council is a notice of motion by Ald. Keating to make it so LRT stations can have their naming rights sold to private interests, in order to increase revenue. For example, "ATB Chinook Station," "Superstore Rundle Station," etc.

- Finally, and this is a bit tangential, is the Banff Trail Station Area Plan. The plan is up for approval.

I have pulled a few more images from the pdf and I'll post them if asked, but I'll just leave this one for now. The concept of the built out plan area:



Link to the plan:

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Docum...tation-arp.pdf

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

- Finally, and this is a bit tangential, is the Banff Trail Station Area Plan. The plan is up for approval.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Docum...tation-arp.pdf

Interesting. Thanks for posting that. I definitely agree with removing the service road along 16th avenue, it's a gong show in there. It also seems like a great place to put a higher density node. I'm actually a little disappointed the FARs (Floor Area Ratios) in the plan aren't higher. It seems like that area could support something akin to a secondary commercial core with no new infrastructure, which helps the city grow with a lower economic/environmental cost.

I would also love to see some rezoning in the area to the east of Banff Trail Station. I don't agree that land fronting onto a C-Train station (Capital Hill Crescent NW) should be zoned R-C1. The vast majority of that neighbourhood is zoned R-C2. (http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Docume...1p2007/29C.pdf) so there's no reason the edge near mass transit should be single family. The zoning map looks like that was a NIMBY change to me.

I definitely think higher density residential zoning would be appropriate there. Make it contextual, so nobody puts up a 4 storey building overlooking someone's backyard. But thoughtful infills around hugely expensive existing infrastructure makes sense.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

In the latest of a series of our Transit Camp blogs, the following long-term system has been proposed:

<sweet map>

Downtown Map:

Spoiler!

http://www.civiccamp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Downtown-1024x791.jpg

Read more here:

http://www.civiccamp.org/2011/09/the...sion-the-plan/

Previous blog entry "The 8 Pillars of Transit" here:

http://www.civiccamp.org/2011/09/the...rs-of-transit/

Feedback and commentary encouraged.

Does the City know (or have a suggestion) where those LRT stations are going to be on the 203 north line? Particularly, I'm wondering about those all along centre street and on the last two or three stops at the end of the line.

[chemgear]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Reserve...152/story.html

But in scraping the fee, council also took away a source of money that transit was using to pay for upkeep and security of the lots, an effort that costs $4 million a year.

The new reserve system is expected to bring in just $1 million next year, compared to five times that when the park and ride fee was in place.

Last year, transit’s operating costs totalled $227.5 million. Property taxes are supposed to pay for 45 per cent of that, while fares and other revenue, like advertising, take up the bulk.

The problem is that right now transit is not able to support that ratio.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

- Also up at council is a notice of motion by Ald. Keating to make it so LRT stations can have their naming rights sold to private interests, in order to increase revenue. For example, "ATB Chinook Station," "Superstore Rundle Station," etc.

I really hope this never happens.

[bomber317]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I really hope this never happens.

Why is that?

I'm ok with it because it should pay for some of the costs of running the LRT and expanding it. The other alternative are tax payers and LRT customers paying for it. Why not have a corporation subsidize a little?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by bomber317

Why is that?

I'm ok with it because it should pay for some of the costs of running the LRT and expanding it. The other alternative are tax payers and LRT customers paying for it. Why not have a corporation subsidize a little?

The amount the city would gain from the sponsorships vs what may be lost is the useability of the system (system more confusing), would likely not be worth it.

This would bring in around $100,000 a year at most, in all likelihood, based on what other cities have got by doing similar things.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I really hope this never happens.

While I do agree with you to a certain extent, how it is any different that selling massive advertising that covers large portions of the station.

Like the University has had Wind advertising everywhere, including the fronts of all the steps for a long time. I remember some stations were totally devoted to Disneyland (or world?) a couple years back.

The only thing that changes is the sign.

[ken0042]

Keating brought up the Saddledome as an example; which is a bad example. That naming give the Flames hundreds of thousands if not millions per year, and Scotiabnak pays that because it is a cheap way to get advertizing on TV and radio.

As far as I know, the only time this will be on TV is when somebody gets killed at the "K-Mart Southland Station."

If nothing else; this will bring in a few thousand per station per year- but increases the cheeseyness factor tenfold.

[Rathji]

^

True, but it will also be announced at every stop.

"Next Stop is French Maid Chinook Station"