Calgary Transit

[1604]

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgary-council-transit-priorities-route-ahead-report

The report notes that transit is planning a “strategic shift to focus investment on frequency over coverage” as it works to implement a primary transit network. It says this change means “some customers may have to travel farther to a transit stop, but service will come more often.”

 

Link to the documents on the city's website: https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=8873da23-c7d4-4882-9639-7027ec4fb48a&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=21&Tab=attachments

[yvarushin]

CT is really bent on trying to make the 305 a success  

Love the updates though! Curious to see how a “301 MAX” would greatly differ from the 301 BRT besides upgraded bus stops.

[DB 1999]

On 11/28/2022 at 1:17 PM, downbeat said:

Winter service revisions are now listed on the Calgary Transit website:

https://www.calgarytransit.com/content/transit/en/home/news/winter-service-changes-2022.html

The Winter service changes are posted on transit55 too

 

[downbeat]

1 hour ago, 1604 said:

Link to the documents on the city's website: https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=8873da23-c7d4-4882-9639-7027ec4fb48a&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=21&Tab=attachments

The linked PDFs are great! The highlighted public engagement comments in Attachment 4 are interesting, as are the planning priorities in Attachment 3.

55 minutes ago, yvarushin said:

CT is really bent on trying to make the 305 a success  

Interesting comments from the City in Attachment 3: "Currently operates as peak-only service. Route 1 currently provides all-day service along the same route. Capacity exists along both routes. Coordination and consideration required on the effect of upgrading Route 305 on Route 1."

It's almost as if they've forgotten Route 305 used to have more service. So my question is this: What has changed in the last decade that would make Route 305 work now vs. how things were 10 years ago?

If frequency is king (which it should be) why not just run more short-turn Route 1's (where the route doesn't overlap with MAX Purple) but still add more transit priority and improve amenities at busy stops along its west leg? Despite having fewer stops, Route 305's time benefit over Route 1 is rather small. If you're travelling outside of downtown, I'd say it's almost nil. From experience, all the time saved is from bypassing the nightmare Kensington Road/10th Street/Memorial Drive multi-intersection. 

[Transit Fan]

Thanks for sharing, pretty exciting stuff. Happy to see there seems to be a big push to improve the BRT/MAX network.

Surprised that a MAX 302 is one of the short term projects listed. Depending on what kind of improvements they plan on making, it seems like a waste when the Green line is on the way. Technically, you could argue that the MAX 301 is a waste too but at least with that one, the Green line north extension is still up in the air.

For the 52 St E BRT, one of the considerations listed is that the current 23 is "at or near capacity". That is actually quite surprising to see. Is the 23 doing that good these days? Once the BRT is complete, I wonder if the existing 23 would still exist in its current form serving all stops along 52nd St while the BRT services limited stops. We've had a taste of parallel running routes in the form of the 1 and 305 and we all know how that turned out.

On that note, I too am puzzled as to how they plan on improving the 305. Skipping a few stops here and there without any additional improvements isn't actually a very big incentive to taking the "faster" bus, epecially when the faster bus has worse frequency and service hours compared to the slower bus. Even back in the day when the 305 had respectable and comparable frequency to the 1, i'm pretty sure the average person would just hop on whichever bus arrived first if they were at a 305 stop.

[R. Meu]

 

9 hours ago, downbeat said:

The linked PDFs are great! The highlighted public engagement comments in Attachment 4 are interesting, as are the planning priorities in Attachment 3.

Interesting comments from the City in Attachment 3: "Currently operates as peak-only service. Route 1 currently provides all-day service along the same route. Capacity exists along both routes. Coordination and consideration required on the effect of upgrading Route 305 on Route 1."

It's almost as if they've forgotten Route 305 used to have more service. So my question is this: What has changed in the last decade that would make Route 305 work now vs. how things were 10 years ago?

If frequency is king (which it should be) why not just run more short-turn Route 1's (where the route doesn't overlap with MAX Purple) but still add more transit priority and improve amenities at busy stops along its west leg? Despite having fewer stops, Route 305's time benefit over Route 1 is rather small. If you're travelling outside of downtown, I'd say it's almost nil. From experience, all the time saved is from bypassing the nightmare Kensington Road/10th Street/Memorial Drive multi-intersection. 

Honestly, the time savings nowadays between the 305 and the 1 is minimal, If it had much better frequency I'd say the 1 would be better off that way. It is quite wasteful for trying to transform the 305 into a MAX route, and the benefits from the idea of doing this would be menial at best imo.

 

 

9 hours ago, Transit Fan said:

For the 52 St E BRT, one of the considerations listed is that the current 23 is "at or near capacity". That is actually quite surprising to see. Is the 23 doing that good these days? Once the BRT is complete, I wonder if the existing 23 would still exist in its current form serving all stops along 52nd St while the BRT services limited stops. We've had a taste of parallel running routes in the form of the 1 and 305 and we all know how that turned out.

The 23 is really busy nowadays, id say to an extent on weekends as well. During rush hour going up north to Saddletowne it is common to see any bus having crush loads (artic and regular 40 foots). When the 52 Street MAX is complete, I suspect they could shorten the route or provide less frequency to the south leg of the route (between 17th Avenue heading towards the hospital, It's common seeing that section during peak to be less busy, especially past the industrial areas).

[Calgary transit fan]

Deleted

Edited December 9, 2022 by Calgary transit fan
Deleted

[downbeat]

I have a few thoughts about comments from city councillors opposed (at the moment anyway) about prioritizing frequency over coverage, as reported in these articles and possiblty others.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9334925/calgary-transit-strategy-update/

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgary-primary-transit-network-route-ahead-concerns

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-city-council-transit-1.6679963

• Some of the questions asked by councillors clearly show they either don't use transit regularly or haven't kept up with the system's development. One of them even claimed the PTN was geared toward bringing people downtown and had to be corrected on that point by the transit rep at the council committee meeting.

• One of them is quoted as saying: "What is the trade off, what happens when you do need to walk further to catch the bus, who's better off?" Perhaps Calgary Transit could have been clearer about it it means by people having to walk farther away to get to their stop. If it's going to make people walk 2 km to a stop, that might have me worried, But if it's going up from 400 metres to 500 or even 800 metres, that doesn't seem so bad. That said, the councillor speaking there clearly has never to to arrange their whole lives around limited bus departures. There is real freedom from not having to be locked to a schedule.

• Another quote was focused on how a seniors residence has been negatively impacted from the upcoming December 19 service changes due to route realignment. This is perhaps a valid concern. I wonder if some accommodate can be made without negatively affecting the PTN concept.

• In the end, transit has to juggle coverage vs. frequency due to limited resources. Politicians could do something about that if they wanted, just sayin' …

• Apart from the news stories, I LOL'd hard on Reddit the other day when I saw someone complain about the new Route 102 serving not just Silverado but other neighbourhoods as well. They seem to have got into their mind that this meant reduced service and coverage, where in fact the route hasn't changed in Silverado at all (except for getting a new route number) and buses should be coming more frequently during the peak. Just goes to show that people love to complain about service changes even when things will literally be better afterwards. Councillors need to keep this in mind when they get complaints from misinformed constituents.

[D40LF]

1 hour ago, downbeat said:

I have a few thoughts about comments from city councillors opposed (at the moment anyway) about prioritizing frequency over coverage, as reported in these articles and possiblty others.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9334925/calgary-transit-strategy-update/

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgary-primary-transit-network-route-ahead-concerns

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-city-council-transit-1.6679963

• Some of the questions asked by councillors clearly show they either don't use transit regularly or haven't kept up with the system's development. One of them even claimed the PTN was geared toward bringing people downtown and had to be corrected on that point by the transit rep at the council committee meeting.

• One of them is quoted as saying: "What is the trade off, what happens when you do need to walk further to catch the bus, who's better off?" Perhaps Calgary Transit could have been clearer about it it means by people having to walk farther away to get to their stop. If it's going to make people walk 2 km to a stop, that might have me worried, But if it's going up from 400 metres to 500 or even 800 metres, that doesn't seem so bad. That said, the councillor speaking there clearly has never to to arrange their whole lives around limited bus departures. There is real freedom from not having to be locked to a schedule.

• Another quote was focused on how a seniors residence has been negatively impacted from the upcoming December 19 service changes due to route realignment. This is perhaps a valid concern. I wonder if some accommodate can be made without negatively affecting the PTN concept.

• In the end, transit has to juggle coverage vs. frequency due to limited resources. Politicians could do something about that if they wanted, just sayin' …

• Apart from the news stories, I LOL'd hard on Reddit the other day when I saw someone complain about the new Route 102 serving not just Silverado but other neighbourhoods as well. They seem to have got into their mind that this meant reduced service and coverage, where in fact the route hasn't changed in Silverado at all (except for getting a new route number) and buses should be coming more frequently during the peak. Just goes to show that people love to complain about service changes even when things will literally be better afterwards. Councillors need to keep this in mind when they get complaints from misinformed constituents.

Politicians never understand the basics of life. If you cut off the routes (or should that be roots) that feed the main trunk then the whole system will die. Seen this before and not just in buses but also railways.

[downbeat]

1 hour ago, D40LF said:

Politicians never understand the basics of life. If you cut off the routes (or should that be roots) that feed the main trunk then the whole system will die. Seen this before and not just in buses but also railways.

Is there any truth to the idea people will accept walking a greater distance for better bus service?

I know I’ve done this in real life: More than once, while in suburbia in a few places, I haven’t bothered waiting for the next feeder bus if I’ve just missed it. I’ll walk to the light rail/train/rapid bus instead. 

I don’t know if I’m the exception or the rule. 

[green_line_26]

I think the idea is over time, with a reliable high frequency network, development will be concentrated along those corridors so it goes from 50% of calgarians within 400m to 60-80% 

[R. Meu]

3 hours ago, downbeat said:

Is there any truth to the idea people will accept walking a greater distance for better bus service?

I know I’ve done this in real life: More than once, while in suburbia in a few places, I haven’t bothered waiting for the next feeder bus if I’ve just missed it. I’ll walk to the light rail/train/rapid bus instead. 

I don’t know if I’m the exception or the rule. 

There probably is….., personally I’d rather walk a little further to a bus stop knowing it comes within 15 mins or less over walking less and waiting a bus that might come every 25-30 minutes. This is especially apparent when you’re in a situation of just missing the bus.

 

In the suburbs, yeah if you miss a feeder, you’d be better off walking most of time, especially when frequencies can be as bad as 45-50 minutes.

 

[D40LF]

17 hours ago, downbeat said:

Is there any truth to the idea people will accept walking a greater distance for better bus service?

I know I’ve done this in real life: More than once, while in suburbia in a few places, I haven’t bothered waiting for the next feeder bus if I’ve just missed it. I’ll walk to the light rail/train/rapid bus instead. 

I don’t know if I’m the exception or the rule. 

It's -40c, you need a mobility aid to walk to the stop or you have a stroller. Previously you could just walk down the street to the stop but now you have to go three blocks. What would you do?

The problem is if you remove the feeders people will find another way, perhaps they have a friend with a car willing to pick them up or you have a car and while gas is expensive it is easier than having to walk so far to a bus stop. By the time you get to the bus stop you could already be at work and be nice and warm if it is a cold day. Yes I realize that this would not be realistic if you go to the core as parking is very expensive. They say the first time is the hardest but after three times it is a habit and transit is forgotten.

In the UK, in the 1960's, they decided to cut non profit railway routes (the Beeching cuts.) The idea was that if people were willing to drive to the nearest station to catch a train on a branch and then transfer to another train on the mainline they would be willing to drive to the mainline station or still go to their nearest station to catch a feeder bus, which was much cheaper to run. However after the cuts they found that the people no longer went to the old station so the bus service was pulled, but they also did not go to the mainline station because once they were in the car they decided to drive the remaining distance to their destination.

For the record I have walked long distance to catch a train, even if there was a bus service, but that was because I wanted the exercise and could also stop to do some shopping on the way.

[PartiallySD]

19 hours ago, downbeat said:

Is there any truth to the idea people will accept walking a greater distance for better bus service?

I know I’ve done this in real life: More than once, while in suburbia in a few places, I haven’t bothered waiting for the next feeder bus if I’ve just missed it. I’ll walk to the light rail/train/rapid bus instead. 

I don’t know if I’m the exception or the rule. 

The problem is, if Calgary Transit forces people into walking further, then you will be walking through suburbia, it will become the rule.

Walking further would be a massive blow to me. I already walk 600m, frequently with my school bag, sports bag, and sports med bag, and it is a little bit of a chore, but I’m an athletic person and my destination is only 1 bus trip and I don’t have to walk far at all there. I know it’s truly not much, but an extra 200/300 metres would be awful.

I hate to say this, but if I’m going to need to walk further, then I’m just going to start driving. My commute on one bus from NW to NW takes 40 minutes, including the walk time. I’m okay with this because I don’t really have to worry about gas or parking, and it gives me some time to study if I need it. However, I’m approaching the point where I personally think that the slight increase in expenses for gas is worth it for the 20 minute time saving and the minimal amount of walking I have to do with several pounds of kit in cold weather.

I also feel like replacing nominal service routes with feeder routes in the suburbs (where feeder already doesn’t exist) creates additional points of transfer, which is another issue. For example, let’s say you’re commuting from Symons Valley (Sage, Nolan, Sherwood) to Bowness, something that can be accomplished in 2 buses (The 82 and 53, in one transfer). In this new primary transit universe, the Shaganappi BRT has inevitably replaced the 82 and 129. 

Symons Valley feeder bus > Shaganappi BRT > 53 at market mall( provided it still exists.)

OR

Symons Valley feeder bus > Shaganappi BRT > Route 1/40 

OR (forbid the BRT not go all the way to Bowness Rd…)

SVFB > SBRT > Max Orange at Childrens > 40 at FMC

I know the last trip seems redundant, however this could easily become reality for someone who doesn’t have a car, can’t drive one, or is disabled and needs to use transit, or even someone like me, who uses transit to just avoid the hassles associated with driving, even on just simply a weekend where service is slightly more neglected.

To conclude, I personally don’t feel like frequency is attractive when it’s at the expense of accessibility, even for some average Calgarians.

[Nick B]

A question I have to ask though is, whatever happened to our nice minimalistic Blue Arrow concept where a balance of frequency, route efficiency, and decent (but not excessive) coverage of select key communities, all without much if any fancy/expensive infrastructure, inspired massive ridership and success? I feel like the current 82 (already a successful route as it is), if upgraded to be one of these so called “PTN” routes could easily serve as the backbone service for that whole area while still serving Nolan Hill and playing a role similar to the old 101/104/108 in West Calgary. The same could be said for the 305 (hmm almost as if something like that existed before in Bowness/Montgomery!)

Honestly, while I do think the whole backbone-and-feeder type model (LRT, 301) they keep trying to implement everywhere is good in certain situations, I think it’s often not the best option at all. Maybe it is for a corridor like our existing CTrain Red Line where not only is it a massively high traffic corridor to begin with, but you also have massively high traffic destinations along the route (BMOC, malls, universities etc). However if you have a corridor that just leads to residential neighbourhoods (i.e. Shaganappi, Bowness, West LRT) perhaps keeping strategic bus service like the old Blue Arrow model is all that you need. I know that it might look more disorganized and confusing on paper, but from a practical standpoint I would think that’s a lot better for the overall rider experience. 

[D40LF]

1 hour ago, Nick B said:

A question I have to ask though is, whatever happened to our nice minimalistic Blue Arrow concept where a balance of frequency, route efficiency, and decent (but not excessive) coverage of select key communities, all without much if any fancy/expensive infrastructure, inspired massive ridership and success? I feel like the current 82 (already a successful route as it is), if upgraded to be one of these so called “PTN” routes could easily serve as the backbone service for that whole area while still serving Nolan Hill and playing a role similar to the old 101/104/108 in West Calgary. The same could be said for the 305 (hmm almost as if something like that existed before in Bowness/Montgomery!)

Honestly, while I do think the whole backbone-and-feeder type model (LRT, 301) they keep trying to implement everywhere is good in certain situations, I think it’s often not the best option at all. Maybe it is for a corridor like our existing CTrain Red Line where not only is it massively high traffic corridor to begin with, but you also have massively high traffic destinations along the route (BMOC, malls, universities etc). However if you have a corridor that just leads to residential neighbourhoods (i.e. Shaganappi, Bowness, West LRT) perhaps keeping strategic bus service like the old Blue Arrow model is all that you need. I know that it might look more disorganized and confusing on paper, but from a practical standpoint I would think that’s a lot better for the overall rider experience. 

Even though Blue Arrow service was gone by the time I started with CT they still told us how it worked, this was in 2011. I don't know offhand when the Blue Arrow was stopped but I do remember seeing old Blue Arrow signs including one on Bow Trail for the 101 / 104 routes.

[vicinity]

1 hour ago, D40LF said:

Even though Blue Arrow service was gone by the time I started with CT they still told us how it worked, this was in 2011. I don't know offhand when the Blue Arrow was stopped but I do remember seeing old Blue Arrow signs including one on Bow Trail for the 101 / 104 routes.

The trouble with the 101,104,108,112 was the frequency wasn’t great off peak, weekends evening and some signups midday were around 40 minutes.

[J. Ho]

OMG  i hear Calgary Transit order 185 New GM Artic SOF27G shuttle bus with air Conditioned ??

I love Arboc !!!

[J. Ho]

33 minutes ago, Polistes said:

Stfu and stop ruining things for the rest of us. Don't you have anything better to do with your life, hds?

i use my phone for cptdb when im bored im so sorry

[captaintrolley]

40 minutes ago, Polistes said:

Stfu and stop ruining things for the rest of us. Don't you have anything better to do with your life, hds?

So he's young and a bit excitable.  Nothing to get your beak in a knot over.

[LRT]

59 minutes ago, Polistes said:

Stfu and stop ruining things for the rest of us. Don't you have anything better to do with your life, hds?

This is unacceptable.. I really don’t appreciate seeing this.

Everyone is welcome and it’s free to express themselves in this hobby, in a positive way.

If you don’t like it.. leave 

 

27 minutes ago, J. Ho said:

i use my phone for cptdb when im bored im so sorry

You have nothing to be sorry about. You’ve done nothing wrong.

[D40LF]

14 hours ago, J. Ho said:

OMG  i hear Calgary Transit order 185 New GM Artic SOF27G shuttle bus with air Conditioned ??

I love Arboc !!!

I thought they were going for electric Vicinities, of course I am way out of the loop since I no longer live in Calgary.

For the record I hate the Arbocs. Having sat on the rear bench I found the suspension to be hard. I once asked VP diesel if the rear suspension is a 2x4 and he said 'pretty much'.

[green_line_26]

9 hours ago, D40LF said:

I thought they were going for electric Vicinities, of course I am way out of the loop since I no longer live in Calgary.

For the record I hate the Arbocs. Having sat on the rear bench I found the suspension to be hard. I once asked VP diesel if the rear suspension is a 2x4 and he said 'pretty much'.

Yes, it's a pilot with 14 vicinity lightning buses.

"Hard" is an understatement to me

[downbeat]

I can’t remember if I ever shared the spec sheet for those. They look decent from the outside. 

https://vicinitymotorcorp.com/modelsm/vicinity-lightning-ev.html

The specs say “air ride suspension” … I imagine these won’t “ride” much different from the last batch of Vicinity buses piloted here several years ago. 

[green_line_26]

1 hour ago, downbeat said:

I can’t remember if I ever shared the spec sheet for those. They look decent from the outside. 

https://vicinitymotorcorp.com/modelsm/vicinity-lightning-ev.html

The specs say “air ride suspension” … I imagine these won’t “ride” much different from the last batch of Vicinity buses piloted here several years ago. 

How was the ride quality on those? I've seen them but never got a chance to ride one when they were here