Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

need a blackline, what's cooler than a black bus?

A white bus.






*thermally speaking, of course, the white bus will be cooler than the black one.

[V]

This kind of racist garbage shouldn’t be allowed on this website.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by V

This kind of racist garbage shouldn’t be allowed on this website.

I can just imagine trying to explain to some foreign tourists what bus they should be taking.

[81MC]

I’m sorry, but colour coding bus lines is really stupid. Like, really really stupid.

[LWcrowfoot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

A white bus.






*thermally speaking, of course, the white bus will be cooler than the black one.

Sure but the black bus can bust a move

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by LWcrowfoot

Sure but the black bus can bust a move

True, but the white bus's signals are more virtuous.

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by 81MC

I’m sorry, but colour coding bus lines is really stupid. Like, really really stupid.

Please elaborate

[Wormius]

I think the colours are fine for the trains, but everybody is already comfortable with numbered bus routes.

[Muta]

What's wrong with coloring bus lines? Using colors for easy identification and wayfinding has been an effective design standard in the graphic design world for decades, if not centuries.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Please elaborate

Numbers/letters are used for everything for a reason. The ‘1’ line or ‘A’ train is a readily recognizable, easily identified, and expandable method of identifying key infrastructure.
Limited expansion ability - you sure don’t want anymore than 8 ‘colours’ before you start the debate between blue/aqua/marine/teal etc. Not to mention, from an accessibility standpoint, what’s the colourblindness rate?
Harder to communicate/undue confusion - A red and white City bus pulls up while your waiting for a yellow one. Clearly it will say ‘yellow’ on the display, but then why bother colour coding anything to begin with? Explain to someone who doesn’t speak English they have to take the naranja to the amarillo to the azure line. Anyone can convey “1” without having to find something the right colour to point to.
Our LRT lines are already coloured. Why not make it he distinction clear between LRT routes and Max routes?
Lastly, it looks like a child playing with crayons, or an elemtary attempt at organization.

I’m not saying any of these on their face are going to lead to epic failure of the system or cause a lot of people distress. It just seems like a really stupid method of ID. I don’t take transit often, but I’m sure glad in my travels abroad I wasn’t trying to remember what the #### ‘teal’ was in Mandarin.

[Huntingwhale]

I'm not a fan of the colored bus thing either. I'll echo what 81MC says. I've taken buses/trains in foreign countries and the whole colored thing adds to the already confusing and stressful state of trying to get on the right transport. There's no mistaking numbers/letters. Colors as the identifier suck if you're a tourist. If you're a local who takes the bus everyday then it's fine. But even then, it's a needless extra step.

Keep it simple.

[frinkprof]

The merits of colours vs numbers vs letters vs named (rare, but they exist - Edmonton and Vancouver as close examples) rapid transit lines is debatable. However, colours isn't so far-fetched an idea as to call it "really, really stupid." Colour coding for rapid transit lines is widely used in practice - Chicago, Washington, Portland, Montreal, Boston, and many more examples. Many of these cities also use colour codes for different modes too - subway, bus, LRT, commuter rail. Their vehicle colours don't necessarily match whichever line they service, either.


Best practice seems to be to have one primary identifier and a secondary one as well. Numbers and colours (Toronto's Line 1 always shown as yellow, their Line 2 is green, etc.), letters and destinations, names and numbers, whatever. In Calgary, it's colours and destinations/directions. Red line South/Somerset, Blue Line Northeast/Saddletowne, Max Purple East Hills, etc. Should be pretty legible.


The biggest step that's been taken in the last 5 years or so with Calgary Transit is to really brand, push and treat differently the rapid transit network. For the longest time they just called the C-Train lines "201" and "202" and the early "BRT" routes "301" and "302" as if they were some nondescript bus service to Pineridge or Woodbine. It really spoke to the culture of the organization and was evident in many other ways for the longest time. Just have to phase out some of the dual names (Somerset-Bridlewood, McKnight-Westwinds, etc.)

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

The merits of colours vs numbers vs letters vs named (rare, but they exist - Edmonton and Vancouver as close examples) rapid transit lines is debatable. However, colours isn't so far-fetched an idea as to call it "really, really stupid." Colour coding for rapid transit lines is widely used in practice - Chicago, Washington, Portland, Montreal, Boston, and many more examples. Many of these cities also use colour codes for different modes too - subway, bus, LRT, commuter rail. Their vehicle colours don't necessarily match whichever line they service, either.


Best practice seems to be to have one primary identifier and a secondary one as well. Numbers and colours (Toronto's Line 1 always shown as yellow, their Line 2 is green, etc.), letters and destinations, names and numbers, whatever. In Calgary, it's colours and destinations/directions. Red line South/Somerset, Blue Line Northeast/Saddletowne, Max Purple East Hills, etc. Should be pretty legible.


The biggest step that's been taken in the last 5 years or so with Calgary Transit is to really brand, push and treat differently the rapid transit network. For the longest time they just called the C-Train lines "201" and "202" and the early "BRT" routes "301" and "302" as if they were some nondescript bus service to Pineridge or Woodbine. It really spoke to the culture of the organization and was evident in many other ways for the longest time. Just have to phase out some of the dual names (Somerset-Bridlewood, McKnight-Westwinds, etc.)

The BRTs are still numbered though. I would admit its not a big enough deal to really do anything beyond complain on a message board about, but we still have the 301, so why not rebrand that at the same time as unveiling these new MAX lnes? Why the inconsistency? Is the 301 going to be retired when the Green Line is fully finished?

[Mazrim]

I don't have any particular issue with the MAX service colours as names. I got around Tokyo just fine because each Metro subway line had a colour to go with the name, so I used the colours to find my way around. I didn't need to memorize the Marunouchi line name, I just needed to keep an eye out for the red circle on the signage in the stations and at the platforms.

The trains themselves didn't have the colour coding, but the timetable at the platform did so it wasn't necessary. If the new MAX stations all have the colour coding present, it doesn't matter if the bus has it.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Wormius

The BRTs are still numbered though. I would admit its not a big enough deal to really do anything beyond complain on a message board about, but we still have the 301, so why not rebrand that at the same time as unveiling these new MAX lnes? Why the inconsistency? Is the 301 going to be retired when the Green Line is fully finished?

Yes, the 301 and 302 will be phased out once the Green Line comes into (full) service.


It's a bit unfortunate that there's two conventions right now (301, 302 and MAX), but the MAX routes are meant to be longer term and have more BRT-like features. The 301 and 302 routes are little more than express buses. The MAX service doesn't have all the features of a BRT (not totally exclusive right of way, no off-vehicle fare payment), but it is a lot closer. They are precursors to future rail service though - especially the purple and yellow (SWBRT) lines.


One issue with the MAX routes from a branding/uptake perspective is that there are several local routes that will use the same stations/corridors. The MAX Purple in particular will take awhile for people to get used to since the Route 1 has been a main trunk route for so long and is still running for local service along 17th Avenue SE.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Yes, the 301 and 302 will be phased out once the Green Line comes into (full) service.


It's a bit unfortunate that there's two conventions right now (301, 302 and MAX), but the MAX routes are meant to be longer term and have more BRT-like features. The 301 and 302 routes are little more than express buses. The MAX service doesn't have all the features of a BRT (not totally exclusive right of way, no off-vehicle fare payment), but it is a lot closer. They are precursors to future rail service though - especially the purple and yellow (SWBRT) lines.


One issue with the MAX routes from a branding/uptake perspective is that there are several local routes that will use the same stations/corridors. The MAX Purple in particular will take awhile for people to get used to since the Route 1 has been a main trunk route for so long and is still running for local service along 17th Avenue SE.

That make sense. I guess they could have renamed the 301 the MAX Green until then? Or still confusing?

That said - can we talk about the bench seats on the new trains? Are these what is now commonly considered, "hostile design"? The backrests feel like somebody pushing their knuckles into your backbone. It would probably be more comfortable with no backrests. They're the reason I try to find a spot in the standing area.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Wormius

That make sense. I guess they could have renamed the 301 the MAX Green until then? Or still confusing?

That said - can we talk about the bench seats on the new trains? Are these what is now commonly considered, "hostile design"? The backrests feel like somebody pushing their knuckles into your backbone. It would probably be more comfortable with no backrests. They're the reason I try to find a spot in the standing area.

I like the new seats, the big problem is the pole placement. It makes it to narrow for two people on the outside and without the butt indentations usually only 3 people end up in the middle instead of 4. So just moving the pole about 4-6” towards the middle would make it a much more comfortable 2 - 3 - 2 set up.

[RedHot25]

A challenge to remember with the poles is accessibility issues, especially in terms of placement.

[Wormius]

I haven't noticed the poles so much as the uncomfortable seats - and the slooowww doors. Can that at least be fixed? It seems like it is using a 286 computer trying to run Windows 10 to check if it's okay to allow the doors to open. I am sure the time is actually very negligible, but it feels like a long time compared to even the very old trains, that actually seem to allow the doors to open even before the train comes to a full stop.

[jwslam]

Since when did the City have an interest in making transit more usable?