Jump to content

South Macleod Route Review


Gsgeek540
 Share

Recommended Posts

One of the last route review/redesign to take place.

https://www.calgarytransit.com/news/RouteReview.html?redirect=%2Froutereview&fbclid=IwAR0em6aJvYRct9MsEHvVT8I3Ii1csZ5QT2LAWRtVMbIf2hTbg40hlsWST70
 

Of note

-11/12 minor changes

-15 Milrise to become 102 Shawnessy/Silverado

-78 Minor changes in Sundance, different back way to chaparral to service belmont and yorkville

-402 eliminated in lieu of 102

-167 rerouted away from sun dance. MIDDAY AND WEEKEND service

-168 eliminated in lieu of 167 changes

-178 eliminated in lieu of 78 changes

-444 to become 194. Minor changes to get to chaparral valley. Extended to wolf willow. MIDDAY service

 

14, 75, 79, 153 were apart of the last route review which is why they were not included in this round.

Im a little surprised 52 is not in this review… but it makes sense. It essentially runs the outskirts between Fish Creek and Somerset and many of these changes further reduce route duplication.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very surprised at how little they elected to change the 11/12... I think Evergreen would have been better off having its own linear route dedicated to the community while the other areas that the 11/12 serve (i.e. lesser ridership areas) get some kind of route(s) of their own. The way the 11/12 are currently seems much like the old 72/73 with uneven ridership in different areas, and I'm further annoyed by the fact that the 11/12 still go into Shawnessy station.

Good to see the 14 remain the same though, absolutely nothing wrong with the way the route currently is. Same goes for the 52 although perhaps it would have been nice to just give Midnapore and Somerset their own dedicated routes to Shawnessy/Fish Creek and Somerset stations respectively much like my Evergreen suggestion.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy to see that the 178 is finally being eliminated. If anything, the 14W should have some sort of counter clockwise route during the peak hours instead of the 178. That being said, it's interesting to see the 78 Chaparral go down Sheriff King St instead of Macleod, but good for Silverado and Belmont.

I agree with Nick in that the 11/12 should have been modified further. I took the 11/12 from 2007 to 2019. The ridership is mainly concentrated west of Macleod.

Too bad the 52 wasn't incorporated. I feel like a larger overhaul could have been proposed by modifying the 11/12 and 52 together. 

Amazing to see Walden and Legacy get the service they deserve (mid-day and weekend service). It is a long route, but at least the service is there.

Overall, I'm happy to see these changes come through!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very welcoming changes, especially for added midday and weekend service to Walden and Legacy. The 178 being eliminated is also a good decision, being mostly redundant as it is. 
 

I do think the 102 with proposed changes is a bad idea though. Cutting the 15 and making it serve Shawnessy and Silverado gives an excuse to drop the consistent frequency of service that Silverado gets, and instead i’d like to see the 15 be incorporated somewhere else or changed in a different manner and most importantly if they do, eliminate it from serving Somerset Station.

 

The changes down in Chaparral Valley and Wolf Willow are also welcoming, as midday service is added which will probably see the increase of ridership for the area.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s my ideas for splitting route 52 into separate routes as well as incorporating Silverado with one of them 

I also did a concept route for when Alpine park and Buffalo run (Tsuu’tina) is more developed, I believe at some point there would need to be service to Buffalo run as the shops around there get built although I don’t know how negotiations with Tsuu’tina First Nations would have to go for such a route to work though I do know in the 1990s Calgary transit ran a route to Tsuu’tina First Nations from Anderson station. Personally I think the shops built at Buffalo run would more likely benefit those living in Woodbine, Cedarbrae and Oakridge as those who live south of Fish Creek have easy access to Shawnessy shopping centre (Shawville Blvd) so that would need to be looked at potentially as well 

C7280DD2-F669-42F2-AA21-EE340B7F423E.jpeg

A0A48168-0786-4783-A260-31D956D7CFBD.jpeg

575C7134-1233-4E49-B7FC-D2FDC640651A.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, tctf101 said:

Here’s my ideas for splitting route 52 into separate routes as well as incorporating Silverado with one of them 

I also did a concept route for when Alpine park and Buffalo run (Tsuu’tina) is more developed, I believe at some point there would need to be service to Buffalo run as the shops around there get built although I don’t know how negotiations with Tsuu’tina First Nations would have to go for such a route to work though I do know in the 1990s Calgary transit ran a route to Tsuu’tina First Nations from Anderson station. Personally I think the shops built at Buffalo run would more likely benefit those living in Woodbine, Cedarbrae and Oakridge as those who live south of Fish Creek have easy access to Shawnessy shopping centre (Shawville Blvd) so that would need to be looked at potentially as well 

C7280DD2-F669-42F2-AA21-EE340B7F423E.jpeg

A0A48168-0786-4783-A260-31D956D7CFBD.jpeg

575C7134-1233-4E49-B7FC-D2FDC640651A.jpeg

In terms of an efficiency standpoint, your drawing of the concept 52 (in my opinion) is ineffective for serving Somerset. It makes zero sense feeding that area to Fish Creek station (this isn’t 2001 you know, especially when there is a station called Somerset-Bridlewood). The current 14 and 52 imo serve the area well, especially the north section of the neighbourhood where it sees good frequency during peak and long service span 24/7, and most importantly are effective in serving as a feeder to the LRT.


Silverado imo should only have a route to serve for itself (and not with other neighbourhoods in a single route), especially when a lot of feeders now serve too many areas making them ineffective and inefficient (whether it be frequency or reliability of the service *stares at the current Route 123*, but thats for a different time). I personally think the current route serving Silverado is golden because it represents what a feeder should be - effective at moving passengers from the neighbourhood to the closest train station in a timely manner (until the red line gets extended in the future, of course).

 

If Tsuu Tina ever got service, chances are I’d say it’s more effective to serve it from Woodbine where the MAX yellow is (in the future over Fish Creek) but thats just my 2 cents on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the route redesigns over the last several years, I wonder if they were driven, even slightly, by a desire to make suburban bus routes more than just CTrain "feeder routes" and perhaps help people get to other places within their own neighbourhoods and nearby.

As much as the current Routes 15 and 402 are perfect for bringing people along the routes to the train, the replacement Route 102 (assuming it does end up running at a similar or better headway) would theoretically make it easier for people who work/shop in the various shopping centres east of Somerset-Bridlewood station because a transfer will no longer be required to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, agott said:

kind of unrelated, but it seems CT wants to get rid of the route numbers starting with 4XX, maybe to make space for other future routes as the city continues to  grow…

Historically, ever since the late 1980s, the 400 series numbers were always accociated with STRICTLY community shuttle routes.  As those routes continue to grow, gain ridership and also get 40-foot buses, the 400 series designation doesn't really make sense.  Which is why many 400 series routes that get bus bus at some point eventually get a new number as a result of a route change.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, agott said:

kind of unrelated, but it seems CT wants to get rid of the route numbers starting with 4XX, maybe to make space for other future routes as the city continues to  grow…

I was told by a planner years ago they want to slowly phase out the 400 series altogether with a few exceptions, such as the 404 and 449

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Danielmuscleguy said:

Wait 167 Route is doing the weekend service because 167 don't do weekend service. The new routes will replace 15, 168, 444, 178, and 402, on September 9

I'm not sure where you're getting this information as it was clearly stated in the post that these are proposed routes and not finalized.  You will not see these changed on September 9th (besides, the signup starts September 5th).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TechSpotlight said:

I'm not sure where you're getting this information as it was clearly stated in the post that these are proposed routes and not finalized.  You will not see these changed on September 9th (besides, the signup starts September 5th).

Oh right my bad September 5th is Labour Day long weekend 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Danielmuscleguy said:

Wait 167 Route is doing the weekend service because 167 don't do weekend service. The new routes will replace 15, 168, 444, 178, and 402, on September 9

As insider, can obviously confirm that this is #fakenews. Maybe December? But i think more likely the spring.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2022 at 8:55 PM, R. Meu said:

If Tsuu Tina ever got service, chances are I’d say it’s more effective to serve it from Woodbine where the MAX yellow is (in the future over Fish Creek) but thats just my 2 cents on the matter.

Questions:

1) what was the old Route 156 for?

2) can Route 156 be revived and revised to serve Tsuu Tina, along with Woodbine and the MY connection/transfer point as well?

3) can 56, MY and 125/126/99 etc, be timed so they can all feed the revived 156 route?

4) Route 150 currently terminates at Anderson... if it was extended west from Anderson, took over former 156 routing along Woodland Drive, AND also serves Tsuu Tina... would that not also boost ridership enough to give CT serious thought about extending the 150 further West, to make up for lost 156 service in Woodbine, serve Tsuu Tina & also help feed some service on the other SW feeders? Along with obvious employment benefits of being able to have direct bus service to the SE from Woodbine, also reducing traffic jams along Deerfoot/Anderson, and filling up the 150 to the point where it will finally get full sized buses as well? 

Win-win situation. CT needs to start thinking about more than just short loops and endless layovers lol, like what happened with the 111, if it exists - people WILL use it. And if it means getting to leave the car home in lieu of direct bus service from Woodbine to Douglasdale/SE via Anderson Station, it also reduces pressure on the 92/96, and speeds up transit as well to the point where it's actually attractive to bus to work. 

Other SW routes & route review opinion:

I do like it, however the 78 really didn't need to be routed through the newer suburbs when it could've been serviced by the 102 (402) or a community shuttle route instead. A rush hour shuttle would've probably sufficed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, armorand said:

Questions:

1) what was the old Route 156 for?

2) can Route 156 be revived and revised to serve Tsuu Tina, along with Woodbine and the MY connection/transfer point as well?

3) can 56, MY and 125/126/99 etc, be timed so they can all feed the revived 156 route?

4) Route 150 currently terminates at Anderson... if it was extended west from Anderson, took over former 156 routing along Woodland Drive, AND also serves Tsuu Tina... would that not also boost ridership enough to give CT serious thought about extending the 150 further West, to make up for lost 156 service in Woodbine, serve Tsuu Tina & also help feed some service on the other SW feeders? Along with obvious employment benefits of being able to have direct bus service to the SE from Woodbine, also reducing traffic jams along Deerfoot/Anderson, and filling up the 150 to the point where it will finally get full sized buses as well? 

Win-win situation. CT needs to start thinking about more than just short loops and endless layovers lol, like what happened with the 111, if it exists - people WILL use it. And if it means getting to leave the car home in lieu of direct bus service from Woodbine to Douglasdale/SE via Anderson Station, it also reduces pressure on the 92/96, and speeds up transit as well to the point where it's actually attractive to bus to work. 

Other SW routes & route review opinion:

I do like it, however the 78 really didn't need to be routed through the newer suburbs when it could've been serviced by the 102 (402) or a community shuttle route instead. A rush hour shuttle would've probably sufficed. 

The 156 was a loop route out of Anderson station to Woodbine to complement the all day Woodbine service that would become the modern 56. Bringing it back in any form probably wouldn’t be necessary as it was cancelled due to low ridership to begin with and even the modern 56’s ridership is nothing close to what it used to be a mere 10 years ago. For the sake of discourse though, the 156 was a good route in concept, I don’t think extending it anywhere would have been a good idea (as I’ve said before, IMO it’s better to have shorter feeder routes with good frequency and connectivity to other services than long drawn out routes designed to reach multiple potential destinations). Having a crosstown route from deep suburbia to SE industrial would be problematic unless at bare minimum, the data was there suggesting a 56-150 transfer at Anderson being highly popular, and even then the most logical solution to that would be having a directional rush hour express route. That concept was tried back in 1995-1996 with express routes between NW residential and NE industrial but failed due to lack of ridership.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, armorand said:

Questions:

1) what was the old Route 156 for?

2) can Route 156 be revived and revised to serve Tsuu Tina, along with Woodbine and the MY connection/transfer point as well?

3) can 56, MY and 125/126/99 etc, be timed so they can all feed the revived 156 route?

4) Route 150 currently terminates at Anderson... if it was extended west from Anderson, took over former 156 routing along Woodland Drive, AND also serves Tsuu Tina... would that not also boost ridership enough to give CT serious thought about extending the 150 further West, to make up for lost 156 service in Woodbine, serve Tsuu Tina & also help feed some service on the other SW feeders? Along with obvious employment benefits of being able to have direct bus service to the SE from Woodbine, also reducing traffic jams along Deerfoot/Anderson, and filling up the 150 to the point where it will finally get full sized buses as well? 

Win-win situation. CT needs to start thinking about more than just short loops and endless layovers lol, like what happened with the 111, if it exists - people WILL use it. And if it means getting to leave the car home in lieu of direct bus service from Woodbine to Douglasdale/SE via Anderson Station, it also reduces pressure on the 92/96, and speeds up transit as well to the point where it's actually attractive to bus to work. 

Other SW routes & route review opinion:

I do like it, however the 78 really didn't need to be routed through the newer suburbs when it could've been serviced by the 102 (402) or a community shuttle route instead. A rush hour shuttle would've probably sufficed. 

I’m curious what pressure you are talking about when you mention the pressure on the 92 and 96? Also Tsuu Tina is outside the city limits so transit would need council approval for that. Also when you say extending the 150 would reduce endless layovers, I disagree, the longer the route the more recover time required. The old route 10 is a good example of that. Lastly the 78 being routed down sherif king is a great idea IMO. You can do it with existing service hours, your connecting the shops in Silverado to the SE side of Macleod tr. If you live in Silverado and want to shop at 194 Ave now it’s a 5 minute ride instead of and 20 minute ride with a transfer. Your adding 7 day a week service to new Neighbor hoods with high density dwellings and hopefully  increasing ridership on the 78 with no additional cost. Didn’t you say, “if it exists people WILL use it?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nick B said:

The 156 was a loop route out of Anderson station to Woodbine to complement the all day Woodbine service that would become the modern 56. Bringing it back in any form probably wouldn’t be necessary as it was cancelled due to low ridership to begin with and even the modern 56’s ridership is nothing close to what it used to be a mere 10 years ago. For the sake of discourse though, the 156 was a good route in concept, I don’t think extending it anywhere would have been a good idea (as I’ve said before, IMO it’s better to have shorter feeder routes with good frequency and connectivity to other services than long drawn out routes designed to reach multiple potential destinations). Having a crosstown route from deep suburbia to SE industrial would be problematic unless at bare minimum, the data was there suggesting a 56-150 transfer at Anderson being highly popular, and even then the most logical solution to that would be having a directional rush hour express route. That concept was tried back in 1995-1996 with express routes between NW residential and NE industrial but failed due to lack of ridership.

I’ll add a little more to the 156, as someone who lived in Woodlands growing up. The one thing that really turned me off taking the 156 to anderson vs the 56 to southland was how long it took to get to/into the station. If im at 24th and woodview, before the south extention opened, where you entered anderson from 109 avenue, im taking the 156 all day long. However, when the south extention opened to fish creek, and anderson station was reconfigured the way it is now, forcing vehicles from anderson to enter via southport road, it became more time effective to take the 56 to southland.

The ridership didnt justify its existance, as the 56 was really starting to slump in ridership at that time as well, aside from maybe a trip or 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add onto other members, the rerouted 78 Chaparral, realistically, is probably only going to add 5-7 minutes to/from Chaparral if you factor in the slower speeds travelling on the west part of 194 & Sheriff King as well as all the bus stops.  This scenario will be much better than a crappy rush-hour only community shuttle route that's gonna be slow, inconvenient, have very little ridership to justify and will serve very few people besides the few that don't drive and need to connect to the CTrain.  Belmont is so small right now as is that a decision like this is probably the best decision at this time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...