[MichaelS]

So with Ric McIver being named the new Transportation Minister today, what do you think the odds of a SE LRT happening any sooner are?

[Cage]

So with Ric McIver being named the new Transportation Minister today, what do you think the odds of a SE LRT happening any sooner are?

Dr No as the Transport Minister, not a chance that SE LRT will be happening. Everyone here thought the Wild Rose government would be bad for infrastructure spending, well Transport projects are going to dry up all over the province.

[MalcolmTucker]

Dr No as the Transport Minister, not a chance that SE LRT will be happening. Everyone here thought the Wild Rose government would be bad for infrastructure spending, well Transport projects are going to dry up all over the province.I don't think you read the promises in the platform, or know that McIver was a huge transit advocate.

Big increases in funding coming in Municipal Affiars. Plus the GreenTrip agreement from Transportation whenever the city finally decides what to spend money on.

So with Ric McIver being named the new Transportation Minister today, what do you think the odds of a SE LRT happening any sooner are?
With the SE LRT, if there was money today, there still isn't even as concrete a plan as the West LRT when it was moved forward to my knowledge, so it couldn't move forward anyways.

To my knowledge MSI or whatever MSI may become in the future isn't allocated further out than the 2017 original 10 year funding envelope. Assuming all the ongoing yearly grant programs that exist today continue (MSI, Basic Municipal Transportation Grant ($114 million this year)) direct funding, assuming no increases from existing commitments or levels of funding, works out to approximately $458,795,573 in MSI, and $114 million in transportation grants.

So $573 million a year? More than enough to pay for the SE LRT and NC LRT up centre st if the city can contain scope creep. A good plan to pay for them over 20 years would still leave close to half of those grants for non-transit projects, which is a lower percentage than the past couple of years.

If the City thinks it needs more than the province can provide, they can raise taxes (which was done last year to fund the library and recreation centres iirc), or ask their voters to implement taxes in new areas to fund the projects.

[ByeByeBaby]

I don't think you read the promises in the platform, or know that McIver was a huge transit advocate.

I think you mean McIver was a huge transit-to-his-ward advocate.

What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall during the first meeting between Minister McIver and Mayor Nenshi. Awkward....

[MalcolmTucker]

Grants are grants, the public perception that personalities matter much on things like this is overblown, at least in Alberta. In Ontario or BC where projects aren't funded through block grants, it is different.

I would expect any Minister to advocate in private for as much grant room as possible, and in public to defend the government's decisions and budget.

I don't think anyone is proposing or wants to upload transit to the province as the ring roads and Deerfoot has been.

[bigcanuck]

Interesting site that lets you see how far you can travel in 30 minutes in several major world cities (including Calgary) by only using public transit:

Mapnificent (http://www.mapnificent.net/)

You can also change the number of minutes to see how far you could go in an hour, etc.

[Aegis]

During the mayoral campaign, McIver was a strong advocate of the SE LRT. It's Nenshi doesn't seem to want to spend the money on SE LRT as LRT.

I recognize the merits of Nenshi's argument that we can move just as many people for less money on BRT, but it doesn't seem like a good use of public funds to build BRT in an LRT right-of-way and then have to rip it up to reconfigure as LRT when funding is available. I think we should just bite the bullet and build the LRT now. Also busses are more prone to service cutbacks by CT Administration which undermines the whole idea of putting in BRT in the first place.

[You Need A Thneed]

During the mayoral campaign, McIver was a strong advocate of the SE LRT. It's Nenshi doesn't seem to want to spend the money on SE LRT as LRT.

I recognize the merits of Nenshi's argument that we can move just as many people for less money on BRT, but it doesn't seem like a good use of public funds to build BRT in an LRT right-of-way and then have to rip it up to reconfigure as LRT when funding is available. I think we should just bite the bullet and build the LRT now. Also busses are more prone to service cutbacks by CT Administration which undermines the whole idea of putting in BRT in the first place.

Nenshi wants the SELRT as much as anyone else. There's currently no money to build even a piece of it that's in any way useful.

[frinkprof]

It's Nenshi doesn't seem to want to spend the money on SE LRT as LRT.False.

I recognize the merits of Nenshi's argument that we can move just as many people for less money on BRTThis has never been claimed or argued, much less by Nenshi.

but it doesn't seem like a good use of public funds to build BRT in an LRT right-of-way and then have to rip it up to reconfigure as LRT when funding is available.I wholeheartedly agree. This has never been a quality of any SE Transitway/BRT talk to date though, so I'm not sure where you are coming from.

Also busses are more prone to service cutbacks by CT Administration as a direct result of council budgetary decisions which undermines the whole idea of putting in BRT in the first place.Fixed.

[fusili]

I think that the SE BRT can have moderate investment to help with trip duration today, but still be used in the future. New bridges that will be used for the LRT but just for buses today fall under this category. Other than that, I agree and I don't think we should be spending much money on something that will be LRT in the future.

[Wooster]

Anyone interested in Transit, I'd recommend attending this event this weekend. It's a customer to customer engagement as part of the RouteAhead Strategic Plan for Transit. The Mayor will be participating (a good chance to meet and talk about transit directly with him) and is being hosted by the Calgary Transit Customer Advisory Group.

www.customer2customer.eventbrite.com.

Saturday Morning at the Telus Convention Centre. It's free.

[Offside_Ref]

I think that the SE BRT can have moderate investment to help with trip duration today, but still be used in the future. New bridges that will be used for the LRT but just for buses today fall under this category. Other than that, I agree and I don't think we should be spending much money on something that will be LRT in the future.

Are there any other BRT lines in other cities that were always planned to be replaced by LRT, and not just as a potential future option? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I don't think there's much potential for building bridges now and using them for BRT. After Lynnwood (inbound), the LRT is planned to run along other rail ROW and grade separated when crossing streets, so you'd probably have to build the entire section to Inglewood to make it worth it, and that would be too much investment IMHO for something right now. Maybe the section between Ogden and Douglasdale in Quarry Park could be built and used...I'm not familiar with the area though, so it's just speculation.

[mersar]

Noticed tonight that the city appears to have acquired all the LRT ties and ballast for I'd guess the XRT extension as theres huge piles of both stockpiled at the Bearspaw Dam Road city yard. That or just stuff for other maintenance work, but I'd bet its for the XRT work.

[suburbia]

I don't know where this fits best ...

City council changes Calgary taxi rules (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/City+council+changes+Calgary+taxi+rules/6692314/story.html)
Council agreed late Monday to issue 55 new accessible taxi plate licenses to eligible drivers — not brokers — and require the plate holder to drive a minimum of 981 hours each year. Drivers would also work between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. Friday and Saturday.

It’s the first time in recent years the city has agreed to issue new licenses.

But with the extra plates come big changes, and benchmarks that allow the city to ensure cabs are in use when customers need them.

<>

NENSHI: “We’re spreading power more through the industry rather than concentrating it in the hands of a few brokers.”

[fusili]

Thought I should post this here.

A case for bus lanes in downtown Calgary:

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/05/30/bus-lanes-for-downtown-calgary-calgary/

[5seconds]

Thought I should post this here.

A case for bus lanes in downtown Calgary:

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/05/30/bus-lanes-for-downtown-calgary-calgary/

Excellent. Logical, well thought out and well presented. I agree that something needs to be done, and I can't see why this would be a win-win for everyone.

[MMMBeer]

Excellent. Logical, well thought out and well presented. I agree that something needs to be done, and I can't see why this would be a win-win for everyone.

Not sure if you need two on 6 Ave - the right lane with the buses in it is already a de facto bus lane and interestingly moves the fastest. I drive with the buses in that lane getting out of downtown in rush hour every day and trust me it's almost always the fastest lane anyway. Even with the various bus routes slowing each other down by having to stop at diferent stops - things still keep moving. Also some routes don't exclusively travel in the right lane and make lefts at some point on 6 Ave to head SB (e.g. 2, 3) so the bus lane doesn't help those buses when they need to cross 4-5 lanes.

You would still need exceptions to the bus lane to allow for right turns so nothing would change there.

Also where does the westbound capacity go if you take 2 lanes from 6 Ave? 4 Ave clogs right at Bow Trail because naturally it goes down to one lane. Stupid design but not gonna be changed anytime soon. I don't see this working as well as the author thinks it might.

[Cage]

Thought I should post this here.

A case for bus lanes in downtown Calgary:

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/05/30/bus-lanes-for-downtown-calgary-calgary/

Great blog post and the idea is worthy of further study.

Biggest issue, IMHO, is the use of two lanes versus single lane.

Current configuration has 5th and 6th Avenues at 5 lanes each. The far left hand lane has off peak parking, the far right lane is effectively bus only lane with the exception of cars dropping off pedestrians and those making right hand turns. Three middle lanes are used by all vehicle traffic.

For the two bus lane idea to work the far left off peak parking lane would be toast. This will significantly reduce the avialable on street parking Downtown and cause Business Associations to pull their support for the idea.

Cars making a right hand turn would have to be prohibited. Especially if as the OP suggests Busses would make left hand turns from the right hand lane. Any idea having all other vehicle turning right from the center lanes would cause gridlock.

Bicycles are another troublesome point not raised in thr article. Nothing slows down a bus on 5th Avenue like being stuck behind a cyclist taking up the whole lane. To make the process work, bicycles may have to be band from the road.

Finally, Busses turning out of the stop areas usual take up 2.25 to 2.5 lanes of traffic as they swing out extra wide.

[5seconds]

Not sure if you need two on 6 Ave - the right lane with the buses in it is already a de facto bus lane and interestingly moves the fastest. I drive with the buses in that lane getting out of downtown in rush hour every day and trust me it's almost always the fastest lane anyway. Even with the various bus routes slowing each other down by having to stop at diferent stops - things still keep moving. Also some routes don't exclusively travel in the right lane and make lefts at some point on 6 Ave to head SB (e.g. 2, 3) so the bus lane doesn't help those buses when they need to cross 4-5 lanes.

You would still need exceptions to the bus lane to allow for right turns so nothing would change there.

Not sure if 2 lanes is required, but the post mentions enought to make it worth a study.

As for the turns; both left and right turns are dealt with in the post. Again, enough thought is there to make a study worthwhile, IMO.


Also where does the westbound capacity go if you take 2 lanes from 6 Ave? 4 Ave clogs right at Bow Trail because naturally it goes down to one lane. Stupid design but not gonna be changed anytime soon. I don't see this working as well as the author thinks it might.

I assume you mean capacity as referring to westbound traffic? Since there is only 3 lanes after 11th street anyway, and the post is suggesting 3 regular-traffic lanes, I think it could be managed. There would need to be some rejiging at that end, but I'm not sure it would mean the bottleneck you are implying. And if it works the way it's portrayed, then the car-only lanes may well become more efficient, not having to deal with buses. Not sure really.

I do see what you mean about 4th. Just because you free up that road from buses, it all still reduces into a single lane anyway... Maybe 4th couldn't take the buses, and free up 6th. The buses could still filter to 1 lane, and the other traffic would use the larger capacity connection at 6th? Again, not sure!

I'm not saying it's a sure-fire solution to anything, but there is enough merit to warrant a good look at it.

[fusili]

Ok, some responses:

2 lanes vs 1: This is really only to address leap-frogging of buses that can be considerably delayed by waiting for other buses loading/alighting. One way to remedy this would be to consolidate all the stops into 4 or 5 stations that serve all routes. This can pose other problems though, especially with passengers having to move around to get on the right bus, especially for those in wheelchairs. The 2 lanes would only really exist around the stations, and would narrow to one lane to allow for right hand vehicle turn bays.

Bikes: Shouldn't be in the bus lane. Dedicated bike lanes on other streets (8th avenue, 3rd avenue, 2nd street etc) should accommodate bicycles.

Capacity My greatest critique of concerns about capacity and congestion is that often they use the wrong metric. Congestion should be measured in person-hour delays, not vehicle delays. A full bus is equivalent to 80 vehicles (give or take), so a bus should technically be weighted 80 times higher than a vehicle. The whole point is to increase the efficiency of the movement of people. If vehicles are slowed down, but more people on transit improve their travel time, it is a net benefit and we should pursue it.

Turns I will try and clear this up. Vehicle turns first. Obviously left hand turns will not be impacted, as the bus lanes are in the right lane. For right hand turns off of 5th or 6th, there would almost always be a right hand turning bay. Depending on operations, cars would either be able to turn on green (watching for buses obviously) or only on red. I think both could work. For right hand turns onto 5th or 6th from cross streets, the bus lanes can be shortened to 1 lane near those intersections as well to allow for right hand turns onto the avenue (i.e. cars would turn onto the vacated bus lane- this actually facilitates right turns as the lane the cars turn onto will be empty, and they just have to watch for buses). Bus stops should ideally be located at intersections with one ways, so right hand turns are not affected (i.e. where you can't make a right turn because you will be turning into the wrong direction of traffic). I hope that makes sense.

Bus turns. Buses obviously will be able to make right turns easily, as they are in the right lane. The trick will be to manage the routes through downtown so that they are only ever making right turns. One way to do this would be to facilitate left turns by doing 3 rights instead. For example a eastbound bus on 6th avenue trying to go south on 5th street, instead of turning left from 6th onto 5th, will make a right onto 6th street, then a right onto 5th avenue, and finally another right onto 5th (many delivery companies, such as UPS route all their trucks so they never make a left turn). This is obviously not optimal, but routes can be designed to avoid left turns where possible.

I will draw up a diagram for this eventually to explain how the turns could work.

[Cage]

Bikes: Shouldn't be in the bus lane. Dedicated bike lanes on other streets (8th avenue, 3rd avenue, 2nd street etc) should accommodate bicycles..

Thanks for the clarification. This could be an issue with second bus only lane as bicycles will always be attempting to utilize the road space away from cars.

[Capacity My greatest critique of concerns about capacity and congestion is that often they use the wrong metric. Congestion should be measured in person-hour delays, not vehicle delays. A full bus is equivalent to 80 vehicles (give or take), so a bus should technically be weighted 80 times higher than a vehicle. The whole point is to increase the efficiency of the movement of people. If vehicles are slowed down, but more people on transit improve their travel time, it is a net benefit and we should pursue it.

Got your critique on capacity and congestion metrics. Could you expand as to how commercial vehicles and other cargo transports fit into your revised metric calculations? I believe a bus needs to be weighted more than a car, but what about bus vs delivery van and bus vs 18 wheeler?

[fusili]

Thanks for the clarification. This could be an issue with second bus only lane as bicycles will always be attempting to utilize the road space away from cars.



Got your critique on capacity and congestion metrics. Could you expand as to how commercial vehicles and other cargo transports fit into your revised metric calculations? I believe a bus needs to be weighted more than a car, but what about bus vs delivery van and bus vs 18 wheeler?

In terms of "congestion", which is most pronounced during the rush hours, we need to consider the number of people in a vehicle. During rush hour, it is best to maximize the number of people per unit of road space, because congestion ultimately results from too many people and not enough road space. This is why trains and buses should be prioritized- they are making the best use of space on a per person basis.

Delivery vans and trucks serve different purposes than cars and buses- they are primarily moving freight and packages, not people. As such, their peak periods of use are not during the rush hours, and should be accommodated differently. From my experience in other cities, the best way to deal with large deliveries, is to restrict their hours of operation. Places like New York and Barcelona (IIRC) restrict delivery hours to evenings. This way the roads don't end up clogged with delivery trucks during rush hours. Calgary should consider the same for the downtown.

[fusili]

On another note- if any of you have ideas about ways to improve transit, let me know and I can help you post a blog on our website. Just DM me if you are interested. We are always looking for new ideas and different perspectives.

[Full Mountain]

On a slightly different, but related topic, has the city ever done a study as to the effect that signal prioritization downtown for the C-Train would have? I noticed this on the trams in SF when I was there recently, it seems like it would be a good way to decrease delays and increase capacity until the 8th ave subway can be built, without a significant cost to implement. Does the benefit to the C-Train out weigh the delays that would be caused in the cross street traffic?

[ByeByeBaby]

On a slightly different, but related topic, has the city ever done a study as to the effect that signal prioritization downtown for the C-Train would have? I noticed this on the trams in SF when I was there recently, it seems like it would be a good way to decrease delays and increase capacity until the 8th ave subway can be built, without a significant cost to implement. Does the benefit to the C-Train out weigh the delays that would be caused in the cross street traffic?

Already ahead of you.

The city did a study a few years back that optimized the signals downtown for the train. My understanding is that the signals are now set to the most optimal timing possible for the trains that doesn't totally wreck car traffic. The biggest problem, as far as I know, is where some jackass is holding the train and delaying it enough to miss the green band.

And outside of the downtown, with the gates, the train effectively has signal priority everywhere else.

[You Need A Thneed]

Track testing starts on Monday for the NE LRT extension.

[Jeffsey500]

The biggest problem, as far as I know, is where some jackass is holding the train and delaying it enough to miss the green band.


Somebody has got to do something about those doors... We are way too nice about letting people do that here.

[Offside_Ref]

Somebody has got to do something about those doors... We are way too nice about letting people do that here.

They could start my changing the "please stay clear of the doors" and "one or more of the doors is still open..." to "please do not hold the doors. the next train will arrive shortly".

People are generally responsive to being in the way of the doors, but they don't give a crap about the warnings if they're holding the doors open. Maybe they could get the transit cops to stand at the ends of the train to ticket people delaying the train.

[Full Mountain]

Somebody has got to do something about those doors... We are way too nice about letting people do that here.

They need to change them so that at a certain point the operator presses a button and the doors close, the only override would be the door edge sensors not the optical sensors at the bottom, not many people will be willing to stick their hands into a closing door to get on a train.

[floobie]

Already ahead of you.

The city did a study a few years back that optimized the signals downtown for the train. My understanding is that the signals are now set to the most optimal timing possible for the trains that doesn't totally wreck car traffic. The biggest problem, as far as I know, is where some jackass is holding the train and delaying it enough to miss the green band.

And outside of the downtown, with the gates, the train effectively has signal priority everywhere else.

My experience is consistent with this. The timing is fine, it's idiots un-knowingly blocking the doors, or holding them for other people.

Our doors need to be much more aggressive. I like the more "metro" approach... all of them open when the train stops, then all of them close at once. Throw in a sensor so people don't lose their arms, but make it pretty unforgiving. ie. The sensor prevents the door from closing on a limb/bag/stroller/whatever but doesn't cause it to open all the way allowing the person on the train. It should be a safety feature, but not a "last minute let me on" feature.

[frinkprof]

Some video flyovers (no sound) of the NW line extension.

v4h5oT1ieYU

sFLnRwAeU1M

b8WQVr5cM2s

[mersar]

Nice. I like the look of the station.

[DizzyEdge]

My experience is consistent with this. The timing is fine, it's idiots un-knowingly blocking the doors, or holding them for other people.

Our doors need to be much more aggressive. I like the more "metro" approach... all of them open when the train stops, then all of them close at once. Throw in a sensor so people don't lose their arms, but make it pretty unforgiving. ie. The sensor prevents the door from closing on a limb/bag/stroller/whatever but doesn't cause it to open all the way allowing the person on the train. It should be a safety feature, but not a "last minute let me on" feature.

One possible problem with that is it would be freezing in the winter, but then again, maybe it would actually make people stand in the middle of the cars rather than congregate at the doors.

[Full Mountain]

One possible problem with that is it would be freezing in the winter, but then again, maybe it would actually make people stand in the middle of the cars rather than congregate at the doors.

What if the closing of the doors was automatic but they only opened if someone pressed the button, this would eliminate the issue of the cold, but still allow for a more aggressive approach to closing the doors

[You Need A Thneed]

I can confirm that there is a LRV on the new NE extension for testing. Car 2036 was around the switches here in Martindale (http://goo.gl/maps/Sz7M) this morning.

[DizzyEdge]

What if the closing of the doors was automatic but they only opened if someone pressed the button, this would eliminate the issue of the cold, but still allow for a more aggressive approach to closing the doors

I think the problem with that is if they're programmed to be open for 10 seconds, and someone presses the button at second #8 then they will only open for a second or two. I think the cold issue might not be as bad as I thought.

[You Need A Thneed]

Pictures of the test LRV on the new NE extension:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/2787b228.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/4545e6a2.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/2296d634.jpg

[Full Mountain]

I think the problem with that is if they're programmed to be open for 10 seconds, and someone presses the button at second #8 then they will only open for a second or two. I think the cold issue might not be as bad as I thought.

You could avoid that with the buttons only being active for the first 3 seconds of a 10 second dwell time and then they are disabled, that way the door cycle time is reduced and only the doors that have people at them when the car arrives open.

Something like this:
Train Arrives
Buttons Enabled
Button Pressed = Option 1
or
Button NOT Pressed = Option 2

Option 1
Door Opens
Depart Warning
Door Closes
Reset

Option 2
Button Enable Timer = Done
Button Disabled
Depart Warning
Reset

This achieves the objective of giving the trains the ability to leave on time and keeps the doors from opening when not needed.

[JayCortese]

This is good, we've really needed these extensions for a very long time:tup:

[JayCortese]

I can confirm that there is a LRV on the new NE extension for testing. Car 2036 was around the switches here in Martindale (http://goo.gl/maps/Sz7M) this morning.

I live at hamptons, so i'm not very aware of the transit projects.

[floobie]

You could avoid that with the buttons only being active for the first 3 seconds of a 10 second dwell time and then they are disabled, that way the door cycle time is reduced and only the doors that have people at them when the car arrives open.

Something like this:
Train Arrives
Buttons Enabled
Button Pressed = Option 1
or
Button NOT Pressed = Option 2

Option 1
Door Opens
Depart Warning
Door Closes
Reset

Option 2
Button Enable Timer = Done
Button Disabled
Depart Warning
Reset

This achieves the objective of giving the trains the ability to leave on time and keeps the doors from opening when not needed.

I think a slightly psychological approach needs to be taken. People need to feel like they don't have any control over the doors on the train. If they feel that way, they won't get in the way of them. They won't try to negotiate with them to get on. They'll just be an unyielding barrier that opens for a while, then closes, only stopping if it's about to chop your arm off. I like how it behaved on the Skytrain in Vancouver. The fact that the trains are completely automated adds to the effect. There isn't some potentially nice guy sitting at the front of the train who might help you out. There's just a cold, inflexible computer that doesn't give a shit if you don't get on, and won't make any efforts to accommodate you.

It all sounds a bit cruel, but this is a transportation system that moves hundreds of thousands of people around on a weekday. Right now, along 7th avenue, it's entirely too regular of an occurrence for one or two people to throw off the schedule, having cascading effects for thousands of other riders, because they have too much control over the doors.

It could be a bit cold in the winter... but I think it would be worth increasing the efficiency of the trains. And that's coming from someone who finds cold and snow practically vomit-inducing.

[floobie]

Twitter saw fit to show me this this morning:



Nenshi: Hailing the benefits of a reformed taxi system

Saturday, June 2, 2012
By Naheed Nenshi

One of the most difficult issues any city faces is regulation of the taxi industry.

Evidence shows that pure deregulation of this industry rarely works in the developed world. In addition to making it difficult to protect the safety, cleanliness and effectiveness of the system, the economics of supply and demand can result in a system where it is difficult for drivers to earn any money, so they exit, resulting in fewer cabs than before.

But most cities also struggle with the nature of regulation. Whether cabs are restricted through knowledge tests, as in London, England, or through the number of plates, as in most North American cities — from New York to Calgary — cities are always trying to improve the system.

Calgary is no exception. While the taxi system is, for the most part, safe and reliable, there are many areas in which it is under performing.

The rest here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/mobile/story.html?id=6717695

[fusili]

If anyone has any suggestions for Calgary Transit's long term plan (Route Ahead), let me know, and I will try and pass suggestions along to their team. Either DM me or just post here.

[mersar]

Cool video of inside Anderson garage shot by a former LRT operator showing the inside of the garage as he takes a train out to service: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7oLBKo99Tk&feature=related

[DizzyEdge]

So what will it take to get all night transit service in this city? like once an hour after midnight routes, likely the BRT and LRT? That could greatly take care of the taxi crunch.

[You Need A Thneed]

Test Train Crossing the street at Martindale Station:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/c97b40fc.jpg

[fusili]

Here is another blog post by the TransitCampYYC group:

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/06/06/transit-dotmocracy/

[frinkprof]

So what will it take to get all night transit service in this city? like once an hour after midnight routes, likely the BRT and LRT? That could greatly take care of the taxi crunch.In no particular order:

1. A substantial (double perhaps? More?) boost to operational funding.

2. For there to be a ridership market case for it that trumps the need for additional operational funding to be spent on mainline (LRT, BRT, crosstown trunk routes) weekday peak service.

3. For there to be a ridership market case for it that trumps the need for additional operational funding to be spent on mainline (LRT, BRT, crosstown trunk routes) weekday daytime off peak service.

4. For there to be a ridership market case for it that trumps the need for additional operational funding to be spent on mainline (LRT, BRT, crosstown trunk routes) weekday evening off peak (7 PM - midnight) service.

5. For there to be a ridership market case for it that trumps the need for additional operational funding to be spent on mainline (LRT, BRT, crosstown trunk routes) weekend service.

6., 7., 8., 9. Repeat 2., 3., 4., 5., except insert a good chunk of the community feeder and community shuttle routes in place of the mainline/crosstown trunk routes.

10. For there to be a case for all night service that trumps the case for route/service growth to new communities, and/or network and crosstown connectivity service growth.

11. A champion on council.

12. Satiating the union concerns (quality of life, security, etc.) over members working nights.

I guess the main point to take away from all this is that the need/demand for all-night service takes a back seat to the need and demand for service improvements during the day, especially in light of recent cuts. By a wide margin.

[MalcolmTucker]

:banana:By the time we get even close to having substaintial late night service, we will have enough google automated taxis it will serve no purpose.

[DizzyEdge]

Frinkprof

- Would it be cheaper or more expensive to run some articulated busses as shuttles along the LRT lines between midnight and 2am rather than the train?


Also, as far as the doubling of operational finding, I was only thinking of a scenario where there are only maybe 5 routes between midnight and 5am, not the whole system.
So think Routes 301, 302, 201, 202, and maybe 305. That's it, and 201/202 would be bus unless it's still cheaper to run the train.

[frinkprof]

Frinkprof

- Would it be cheaper or more expensive to run some articulated busses as shuttles along the LRT lines between midnight and 2am rather than the train?

- Wouldn't another item missing from your list simply be "political will", ie if council decided it is a good idea outside of the general funding for the rest of the system?

Also, as far as the doubling of operational finding, I was only thinking of a scenario where there are only maybe 5 routes between midnight and 5am, not the whole system.
So think Routes 301, 302, 201, 202, and maybe 305. That's it, and 201/202 would be bus unless it's still cheaper to run the train.- My guess is that it would be cheaper to run the train.

- Political will, yes. I included a "champion on council" to account for this, but for the purposes of the exercise, "political will" could be used instead.

- 200 routes, 5 routes, half a route, whatever. The point is that until such a time that the budgeted operating hours (the metric that council approves and allocates Calgary Transit to operate the system) couldn't be better used in umpteen other ways that would be of far more benefit to the system and city, all night transit service ranks right up there with an airport LRT line as a poor thing to be setting at the top of a priority list.

[frinkprof]

It's perhaps a matter of different approaches. Again like airport LRT, I'm not against the notion in and of itself. It's just that other things have to come first.

What I would like to see is service on mainline, BRT and LRT routes gradually expanded to end later and start earlier. Eventually you would end up with all-night service by doing this a half hour of service or so at a time, all while hopefully expanding service during the day/weekends and adding more frequency and more routes as well.

[DizzyEdge]

so it sounds like for it to happen, it would have to not be from the angle of "we're increasing transit service" and more some other angle like "we're going to cut down on drinking and driving/we're going to make the taxi issue less important" based on direction from council, because as you say Calgary Transit itself has higher priorities than late night service.

[Full Mountain]

so it sounds like for it to happen, it would have to not be from the angle of "we're increasing transit service" and more some other angle like "we're going to cut down on drinking and driving/we're going to make the taxi issue less important" based on direction from council, because as you say Calgary Transit itself has higher priorities than late night service.

How much effect is an hourly bus/train really going to have on drunk driving? Don't get me wrong I'd love to have it, I just doubt that someone is going to wait up to a hour for a bus or train when they can drive drunk, remember these are the people that won't wait for a cab for 15-20 min.

If you said 20-25 minute service intervals, I would think it would have a larger effect, then the train is at most as far way as a cab. Maybe it could be a Friday thru Sunday thing they could make the higher frequency work.

[DizzyEdge]

How much effect is an hourly bus/train really going to have on drunk driving? Don't get me wrong I'd love to have it, I just doubt that someone is going to wait up to a hour for a bus or train when they can drive drunk, remember these are the people that won't wait for a cab for 15-20 min.

If you said 20-25 minute service intervals, I would think it would have a larger effect, then the train is at most as far way as a cab. Maybe it could be a Friday thru Sunday thing they could make the higher frequency work.

Well I look at it like this, you can't drive home drunk if you never brought your car to begin with. If you know that the only way home is to HOPE you can catch a cab, and be outside trying to hail one not knowing if you'll get one in 10 mins or over an hour, then you might just drive to the bar. If you know that a bus is for sure going to be leaving hourly, then you can just time your exit from the bar so that you don't have to wait for the bus very long, and will feel comfortable leaving your car at home. The whole "driving drunk thing" was also in relation to the potential new 0.05% limits which will turn the crappy taxi situation into one where you had might as well assuming taxis won't be an option. So yes, I think the difference between "I wonder if I'll be able to get home if I don't drive" to "I know I can get home on the bus" would be effective.

[frinkprof]

How much effect is an hourly bus/train really going to have on drunk driving? Don't get me wrong I'd love to have it, I just doubt that someone is going to wait up to a hour for a bus or train when they can drive drunk, remember these are the people that won't wait for a cab for 15-20 min.

If you said 20-25 minute service intervals, I would think it would have a larger effect, then the train is at most as far way as a cab. Maybe it could be a Friday thru Sunday thing they could make the higher frequency work.One issue I've always foreseen with the "vomit comet" late night train service is that a lot of people would use it to get to the station nearest to their residence, but then what? Certainly the people that balked at getting a cab from the bar aren't going to call a cab to the station. Walking would be an option for some. What I think you'd see a lot of is people parking at the station, taking the train to the bar, taking the train back to the station and then driving the rest of the way home drunk where they are less likely to get stopped by the police. I suppose in one sense that it diminishes the distance that people are driving drunk.

What about the people that are sure to pass out on the train on the way home? The operator/transit cops probably kick them off at the terminal station, and then what? Are they really that much better off if, say, their "home" station is Marlborough and they are way up in Saddletownehillsridgelakevillewood? This exact situation is something the union would bring up as a safety concern too, I'm sure.

[CTrainDude]

Plus, the benefits of said overnight train service would have to outweigh the importance of the nightly track/system maintenance that takes place when trains aren't running. There's quite a bit of work that goes on after hours, and believe it or not, the other daytime/weekend closures only happen when the work absolutely cannot happen during the non-revenue period.

[elconsulto]

Plus, the benefits of said overnight train service would have to outweigh the importance of the nightly track/system maintenance that takes place when trains aren't running. There's quite a bit of work that goes on after hours, and believe it or not, the other daytime/weekend closures only happen when the work absolutely cannot happen during the non-revenue period.

How about a late night BRT service (of whichever frequency that would be necessary) that goes along the train route?

edit: looks like someone already asked this

[RyLucky]

How about a late night BRT service (of whichever frequency that would be necessary) that goes along the train route?

edit: looks like someone already asked this

There might be a case for a handful of special bus roots that carry people away from the Beltline at 2:30-3:00 AM on Friday/Saturday, but I think it would be difficult to sell this idea to taxi drivers and the communities where drunk people are to be delivered. Like Frink mentioned, there are also other concerns like driver safety and where funding should come from. Perhaps a non-CT service that shares some of CT's resources? Because this market is different than daytime transit riders, I don't think it would be unreasonable for unique routes, security, employees, and pricing that are specialized for the late-night market.

Anything that will reduce drunk-driving and get people home safely will be a good idea. If the market comes to embrace the idea, like some other cities have embraced late-night bus service, it would be great news for the entertainment/service industry in Calgary.

[fusili]

How about more cabs?

[MalcolmTucker]

How about more cabs?
Best thing would be to deregulate, but putting that aside, Nenshi's additional licenses aren't a bad idea at all. Basically the new cars will have to serve weekend nights, and are precluded from pickups at the airport (I guess the owners could join whoever has the contract if they take independents).

[fusili]

Best thing would be to deregulate, but putting that aside, Nenshi's additional licenses aren't a bad idea at all. Basically the new cars will have to serve weekend nights, and are precluded from pickups at the airport (I guess the owners could join whoever has the contract if they take independents).

One of the things I disagree with Nenshi on, and perhaps most people as well, is that taxis should be completely deregulated, and other than passing a driving test, and a regular safety inspection, there should be no restriction on that service.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

What I think you'd see a lot of is people parking at the station, taking the train to the bar, taking the train back to the station and then driving the rest of the way home drunk where they are less likely to get stopped by the police.

sounds like a great opportunity for cabs to congregate around the stations to provide the 'rest of the way' type service. short, fast trips that might tip well because they didn't have to wait for a cab.

[Full Mountain]

One of the things I disagree with Nenshi on, and perhaps most people as well, is that taxis should be completely deregulated, and other than passing a driving test, and a regular safety inspection, there should be no restriction on that service.

I'm with you on this one, I think the market would determine how many cabs exist and when they are on the road, baring that I think what Nenshi is doing is the next best thing, if a driver doesn't want to work nights they shouldn't take the license.

[artvandelay]

Twitter saw fit to show me this this morning:

Nenshi: Hailing the benefits of a reformed taxi system
Saturday, June 2, 2012
By Naheed Nenshi

The rest here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/mobile/story.html?id=6717695

I commend the city's action on this, but Mayor Nenshi's a smart guy, surely he must know that this is a half assed solution that will do nothing to solve the problems in Calgary's taxi market.

Evidence shows that pure deregulation of this industry rarely works in the developed world. In addition to making it difficult to protect the safety, cleanliness and effectiveness of the system, the economics of supply and demand can result in a system where it is difficult for drivers to earn any money, so they exit, resulting in fewer cabs than before.

False, 10 minutes of research yields plenty of examples where deregulation has improved the number of cabs, the level of service, and market innovation. New Zealand has enjoyed fantastic results from deregulation, along with Singapore, Japan, and Ireland. All developed nations. Perhaps Nenshi is simply looking at the U.S., where deregulation has failed because it did not go far enough. Most American cities maintained regulations that favored existing cab companies and others continued to regulate fares while eliminating the cap on licenses. This cannot be considered true deregulation.

With regards to safety and cleanliness issues, these can be mitigated by a far simpler licensing system that ensures cars are in working order and drivers are competent. As for his point about drivers exiting the market due to lower earnings, I don't buy it. Drivers who own their own medallion right now earn a very comfortable living (my friends dad was a cab driver/owner and he was able to provide an upper middle class lifestyle for his family).

When passengers complained they get busy signals when they call dispatchers, the brokers indicated that drivers refused to drive at peak periods. Drivers, for their part, claim that the brokers have simply not invested in their dispatch systems and don’t have enough people to answer the phones. Drivers tell stories of waiting an hour or more to be dispatched while passengers are desperately trying to get through.

I tried to get a cab in the suburbs last Saturday night. After waiting on a busy signal for half an hour I finally got through and requested a taxi. I did this twice - neither cab showed up, and I spent the night on a (fcking uncomfortable) 4 foot long couch. So why don't the taxi companies hire more people to work in their call centers (it's obviously easy to estimate high demand periods), or better yet develop an iPhone app to request a cab? Easy - there's no incentive. The protected monopoly we have now leads to poor service and a lack of innovation.

Nenshi doesn't even mention the cost of fares in his article. I recently spent some time in Hong Kong and Singapore, and I was shocked at how cheap the fares were there. Keep in mind that these cities have a cost of living that is similar to Calgary (CPI within 5%), and higher gas prices (50-100% higher). Singapore also has some of the highest levels of vehicle ownership taxes in the world. However taxi fares are 30-60% lower than they are here. This leads me to beleive that significant price gouging is occurring at the present (regulated) fare.

Reducing barriers to entry is the key to what needs to happen. Allowing entrepreneurial drivers to easily set up their own businesses will drive market innovation, service and lower prices.

So why aren't we seeing any change? The current cab companies (Checker, Associated etc.) are very entrenched in the market, and will fight to protect their position. I wouldn't be surprised to see them on the donor lists of every member of city council. They're smart guys, and they're obviously making lots of money. Also there's the problem of what to do with the existing licenses. The City has created these objects with artificial values in excess of $100,000 - lift the cap on licenses and these would be worthless. The City would have to compensate existing owners of these somehow, which would have the potential to turn into a political gongshow. So we are stuck with the current, crappy, inefficient, and expensive system.

Sorry for the rant, it was inspired by my weekend taxi experience. :)

[DizzyEdge]

The City has created these objects with artificial values in excess of $100,000 - lift the cap on licenses and these would be worthless. The City would have to compensate existing owners of these somehow

Why?

[DizzyEdge]

And yes, more cabs would be great, my late night BRT idea was going with the assumption that the taxi system will be broken here for another another decade. I'm curious how much it would cost CT to run BRT's just Fri and Sat nights.

[artvandelay]

Why?

:haha:Well technically the city could do whatever they want - I'd prefer that they don't compensate owners. I just doubt that would go over well with some of the bleeding hearts on council. And I'm sure the media would pick up the stories of some poor bastard spending his life savings on a taxi medallion, only to have it become worthless - bad PR for politicians.

[Full Mountain]

Why?

Unless the city wrote some sort of value guarantee into the medallion agreements, which would have been stupid, they have no reason to keep the value in them.

[DizzyEdge]

Maybe we need a taxi thread. Does anyone know how the taxi system works in Toronto? (there there seems to always be 5 taxies per block at all times of the day.)

[5seconds]

I was just looking on the West LRT site, and the bus route changes. http://www.westlrt.ca/contentreports/calgarytransit.cfm

There are a few changes from the previous 'Final' bus routes published in May. Also, the SW BRT is now called the 306, starting from Westbrook, and I think going to Heritage.

Just interesting. It seems the changes were due to budgetary constraints.

Interestingly, the Roads department have already built (or are building) the new bus asphalt zones for the newly re-routed number 47 in Lakeview, but now they will not be used, because the number 47 is not being re-routed after all.

[DizzyEdge]

:previous:
So if the 301 is being replaced by the WLRT, what about the north leg of the 301? Maybe some combination of the 301 and the 302 is in order?

[Bassic Lab]

:previous:
So if the 301 is being replaced by the WLRT, what about the north leg of the 301? Maybe some combination of the 301 and the 302 is in order?

I'm not sure if combining the 301 and the 302 makes sense at this point. The capacity requirements are just too different. It would just be awkward if half the 301s head down to Seton while the other half turn around downtown and head back north. If anything the 300 would probably be a closer match to the 302 in capacity needs, especially if the city goes ahead and replaces #3 busses with 301s. I suppose it depends on how successful the 300 trial ends up being and how much ridership growth on the 302. Perhaps the SE BRT improvements will go ahead, though I have my doubts about how much of that infrastructure would be reusable for LRT, and ridership will increase to a level approaching that which requires 301 level frequencies.

[MalcolmTucker]

Toronto has lots of taxis in certain places because there are lots of offices, entertainments, hotels and residences compressed. There are issues with multiple classes of medallions (human rights complaint on racial discrimination of all things).

Sure, taxis would be great to fix. But it is worth the political capital to fix it, especially when by the end of the decade the problem may have fixed itself?

[DizzyEdge]

Toronto has lots of taxis in certain places because there are lots of offices, entertainments, hotels and residences compressed. There are issues with multiple classes of medallions (human rights complaint on racial discrimination of all things).

Sure, taxis would be great to fix. But it is worth the political capital to fix it, especially when by the end of the decade the problem may have fixed itself?

What are you referring to?

[MichaelS]

I assume self driving Google cars. Seriously. And I can definitely see it within 10 years.

[Cage]

Toronto has lots of taxis in certain places because there are lots of offices, entertainments, hotels and residences compressed. There are issues with multiple classes of medallions (human rights complaint on racial discrimination of all things).

Sure, taxis would be great to fix. But it is worth the political capital to fix it, especially when by the end of the decade the problem may have fixed itself?

Toronto and other cities have lots of taxis because they have increased the number of leases over the past 20 years while Calgary has consistently focused on limiting the number of medalions.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Calgary had an over supply of medalions, I don't think we are under served per capita compared to Toronto and others, but I could be wrong. (remember for comparisons that Toronto's ambassador class medlions are only allowed on the road 12 hours a day)

[Aegis]

One of the things I disagree with Nenshi on, and perhaps most people as well, is that taxis should be completely deregulated, and other than passing a driving test, and a regular safety inspection, there should be no restriction on that service.

100% agreed. The quota system has made a small group of people (those who own the taxi licenses) very wealthy, at the expense of everyone else in the economy.

At the very least, the new cab licenses are a step in the right direction, because they can't be transferred or sold.

[Wooster]

Or, how about simply an extension of Calgary Transit?

[DizzyEdge]

Toronto has lots of taxis in certain places because there are lots of offices, entertainments, hotels and residences compressed. There are issues with multiple classes of medallions (human rights complaint on racial discrimination of all things).

Sure, taxis would be great to fix. But it is worth the political capital to fix it, especially when by the end of the decade the problem may have fixed itself?

^ Calgary had an over supply of medalions, I don't think we are under served per capita compared to Toronto and others, but I could be wrong. (remember for comparisons that Toronto's ambassador class medlions are only allowed on the road 12 hours a day)

I think you actually nailed it in the first comment. Yes, Calgary might have a comparable number of taxis where there's lots of busineses/hotels/houses compressed. The key is ALL of 'old toronto" is like that, and hence it seems like there are loads of taxis everywhere in Toronto, because there is, whereas the only parts of Calgary similar is the centre city and perhaps one community adjacent to it.

I think per capita isn't a useful comparison, as imagine this ridiculous scenario, where Calgary is the size it is now, but only has 1000 people all living on acreages. If that Calgary only had one taxi, it might be ahead of the game 'per capita' compared to Toronto, but the service would be much worse. Per capita makes partial sense, but it fails to take into account that the less dense the city is, the longer rides are likely to be. I would guess (and this is just a guess), that most cab rides in Toronto are under 10 mins. I wouldn't expect that to be the case here.

I supposed the best metric would be average wait per taxi call / hail attempt, as that is really what anyone cares about.

[DarkKeyo]

I was reading about the new Herald Square development in the construction thread, and realized that any construction where the Bow Parkade currently is would be right beside the 7th Ave underground station planned for the SELRT. And, looking at the map, the new City Centre development is adjacent to the planned Eau Claire station.

Would either of those developments be required to take into account a subway station in the basement, as hearsay says that Bankers Hall and Eigth Avenue Place have?

[fusili]

Transitcamp blog post:

Why Transit Needs to be Like a Good Restaurant

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/06/13/branding-why-transit-needs-to-be-like-a-good-restaurant-2/

[You Need A Thneed]

Final Bus Routes for NE extension:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/ne_lrt_extension.html

Confirms an opening date of August 27th.

I think there's at least two places that the roads still have be be finished and opened so that the busses can do the route - both in Saddlestone.

[You Need A Thneed]

I've looked at those bus routes before, and wondered whether combining the 95 and 71 into one route would work, and the 71 would continue on Falton Drive instead of turning onto 64th ave, then use falconridge drive to meet up with Westwinds drive.

You could even combine the 95, 85, and 71 into a loop route in the area. (you would need CW and CCW routes). This would connect Saddletowne circle, Falconridge, Westwinds business park, and Martindale all together with one bus route (and no need for a transfer.

[suburbia]

I've looked at those bus routes before, and wondered whether combining the 95 and 71 into one route would work, and the 71 would continue on Falton Drive instead of turning onto 64th ave, then use falconridge drive to meet up with Westwinds drive.

You could even combine the 95, 85, and 71 into a loop route in the area. (you would need CW and CCW routes). This would connect Saddletowne circle, Falconridge, Westwinds business park, and Martindale all together with one bus route (and no need for a transfer.

I haven't looked at all the routes you mentioned, but combining too many routes can make it too long a loop - and you'd have to run frequent large buses on the entire route. Splitting them, you can make each route quicker, and you can run different frequencies, change things up one route to another based on time of day, and run smaller buses for some.

Question:

What is Route 85 supposed to achieve. It simply runs directly between two adjacent LRT stops. Am I missing something here?

[Full Mountain]

I haven't looked at all the routes you mentioned, but combining too many routes can make it too long a loop - and you'd have to run frequent large buses on the entire route. Splitting them, you can make each route quicker, and you can run different frequencies, change things up one route to another based on time of day, and run smaller buses for some.

Question:

What is Route 85 supposed to achieve. It simply runs directly between two adjacent LRT stops. Am I missing something here?

Make that all 3! Hardly seems a good use of resources.

[You Need A Thneed]

Make that all 3! Hardly seems a good use of resources.

To serve the people along Martin Crossing Drive and Martindale Drive that aren't within 400m from other routes. Such as myself.

Also, to provide one bus route that brings people to the Superstore, and other things in that area.

[You Need A Thneed]

Make that all 3! Hardly seems a good use of resources.

I imagine for times when here is maintenance at Saddletowne station, Trains will only go as far as MKWW, shuttles will go between MKWW and Saddletowne, and the 85 will serve Martindale Station.

[Full Mountain]

To serve the people along Martin Crossing Drive and Martindale Drive that aren't within 400m from other routes. Such as myself.

Also, to provide one bus route that brings people to the Superstore, and other things in that area.

I imagine for times when here is maintenance at Saddletowne station, Trains will only go as far as MKWW, shuttles will go between MKWW and Saddletowne, and the 85 will serve Martindale Station.

It seems you could eliminate the section between MKWW and Martindale except in case of maintenance and just run the section between Martindale and Saddletowne for regular services something like this (http://goo.gl/maps/EyaR) and this (http://goo.gl/maps/oEVA) during maintenance

[You Need A Thneed]

It seems you could eliminate the section between MKWW and Martindale except in case of maintenance and just run the section between Martindale and Saddletowne for regular services something like this (http://goo.gl/maps/EyaR) and this (http://goo.gl/maps/oEVA) during maintenance

That would overserve the North side of Martindale, and underserve the middle, and forces people to ride further around either to or from the station.

Plus, it really saves very little. Either way, there's probably only going to be one bus on the route when it's running every 15 minutes.

Also, like I said, there's no route that takes people in Martindale to Superstore, etc - and I think there's a significant number of riders that do this. They would have to bus to Martindale, Train to MKWW, and then walk further from the end of the transit ride than before.

[suburbia]

Makes sense. Clearly there are more subtleties and also more science than the drive by route mapper might recognize. The Superstore has a lot of people in and out over the course of a day / week - and you're right about the additional people along that path. Additionally, the great thing about transit systems is they are always a work in progress. They'll run the numbers and the audits and if things aren't right, it will get adjusted.

To those commenting about combining and more gung-ho about eliminating routes than myself, would hate to see what you'd do with the downtown transit map and a red marker!

[mersar]

Summer service revisions (http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/summer_service_revisions_2012.html) are now posted. Nothing too major but the usual scale back of service for the summer on many routes. Some permanent changes too, the 402 extended further into Silverado and 406 also has changes to serve the new South Hospital better.

[Radley77]

Transitcamp blog post:

Why Transit Needs to be Like a Good Restaurant

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/06/13/branding-why-transit-needs-to-be-like-a-good-restaurant-2/

Great article! A transit wayfinding system should be designed with the end user in mind. Station names should be truncated, thicker lines for LRT and use of colour coding, and interchange stations should be bolded.

[fusili]

Transitcamp Blog Post: The Red Bus Goes Fast- Mistakes in Branding.

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/06/21/the-red-bus-goes-fast-mistakes-in-branding/

Feedback always appreciated. ;)

[Full Mountain]

Transitcamp Blog Post: The Red Bus Goes Fast- Mistakes in Branding.

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/06/21/the-red-bus-goes-fast-mistakes-in-branding/

Feedback always appreciated. ;)

I like it!

[Cage]

I was under the impression the reason for changing the Ctransit livery to Red, Grey, White was to highlight all the new equipment hitting Calgary streets and railways.

I like the idea of using color coding for the bus network on BRT, however I feel the BRT network would have to be expanded to accomodate the fleet reassignent. To put it more succintly, BRT fleet would have to be completely separate from the rest of the bus network. I am not sure there is sufficient BRT network to completely separate.

Airlines have expiremented with this concept before. Air Canada Tango and ZIP were examples. Others included Continental Lite, Shuttle by United and Ted, Delta's Song, BMI Baby, Jetstar. Air Canada LCC concept is also looking to provide this different brand concept to go along with the differentiated expirence.

The airline experience teaches that Zip,Shuttle by United and Continental Lite were all failures while Air Canada Tango, Song, and Ted were sucess stories. Ultimately the sucessful airlines transformed the legacy parent airlines to compete with the low cost carriers. People often say that AC Tango was a failure, however AC of today bears more resemblence to Tango that AC mainline of 1990's.

[DizzyEdge]

Transitcamp Blog Post: The Red Bus Goes Fast- Mistakes in Branding.

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/06/21/the-red-bus-goes-fast-mistakes-in-branding/

Feedback always appreciated. ;)

I agree with the BRT comment, our "BRT" is really just an express bus with some signal prioritization.

[fusili]

I was under the impression the reason for changing the Ctransit livery to Red, Grey, White was to highlight all the new equipment hitting Calgary streets and railways.

I like the idea of using color coding for the bus network on BRT, however I feel the BRT network would have to be expanded to accomodate the fleet reassignent.To put it more succintly, BRT fleet would have to be completely separate from the rest of the bus network. I am not sure there is sufficient BRT network to completely separate.


You hit the nail on the head. We need a to expand the "BRT" (hate that term) network. We have the 300, 301, 302 and 305 currently, and will be implementing the 306 (Westbrook to Heritage via MRU and Rockyview Hospital). With a few more routes (16th Avenue N, 52nd ST E, 14th ST SW), we will start to create a real network of these routes. That is where the branding would be useful. I do admit that with only limited routes being "BRT" having a distinct set of vehicles does cause problems.

[Wooster]

I would much prefer if the BRT was simply rebranded along with other routes as "fast & frequent" services. Perhaps unique liveries are useful, but more than that I think things like the stop/station amenities need to go beyond the bus stop painted red. It needs things like real-time arrival information embedded at the station, enhanced waiting areas, wayfinding, better route information etc. Also operationally, much more dedicated bus lanes, signal priority etc.

Look at TransLink for how they've really effectively branded, communicated that kind of service - "B-Line"

We've been talking a lot about that in RouteAhead planning.