Archive for May, 2010
Pride Worth Catching?
Posted by Calvin in Annoyances on May 16, 2010
If there’s one city service that I find especially useful, it’s Calgary Transit. While I use it every day, I tend to take issue with a great deal of the things that the city does with it, to the point that I come off as unfairly beating up on them.
I have good reason though. Despite recent fare hikes and changes, Calgary Transit has actually been reducing service to help keep costs down. My big issue there is that they’re cutting a service that’s overpriced, inefficient and provides an overall level of service that leaves much to be desired. Recently, routes have been cut back to reduce the number of operating hours in a bid to cut costs, which was done while at the same time hiking fares without sparing a thought (as was mentioned above).
Along with the cutbacks on routes, the service was inefficient and lacking in coverage to boot, with come parts of town still only getting service once every 45 minutes-1 hour on weekdays, despite the fact that these are high-traffic commercial areas and even housing developments that have existed for a decade or two (ample time to adapt service to help the people living in them by the way). As mentioned, some areas are barely covered at all, with one such example being the busy Deerfoot Meadows commercial area in the City’s southeast. There’s no doubt hundreds of Calgarians that work there, many of whom could use better transit service. Alas, the only service they get is the circle route that runs once every half hour for most of the day (of course including wiggle room for the almost inevitable delays), which brings me to the next issue.
The Calgary Transit system seems to be almost constantly riddled with delays. Personally I’ve experienced them to be anywhere between 5 minutes and 2 hours (yes, I said hours), making relying on Calgary Transit for getting to work, school or even to pick up groceries a crap shoot at best. Why would I take a bus that could end up being 2 hours late and possibly cost me my job when I could get a car and drive to work, even if transit is cheaper?
As to the issue of cost, why am I paying $85.25/month for a pass to a system the size of maybe a single TransLink fare zone (for which a monthly pass costs $81 (more if you add on more zones)) and getting service I’d expect in a city maybe 1/2 – 3/4 the size of Calgary? That doesn’t even include the fact that routes are all too often riddled with ridiculous delays and lacking service times.
The worst issue of all by far is the pretty serious safety issues with taking transit, which can make one’s commute a living hell. I’ve had to take transit to different parts of the city for commutes to and from work, and it’s almost a sure thing that I could see myself facing a drunk or two, a group of people deciding they want to be assholes, or even downright bizarre stuff like a guy deciding to take a joyride between two C-Train cars (death wish anyone?). There’s been a handful of incidents over the past few years of people being injured or even killed in incidents on Calgary Transit property, with the only thing Transit has had to show for some of the incidents being grainy video from cameras that appear to be few and far between. I’m not saying this is cause for having the police and transit peace officers riding the rails all the time looking for troublemakers, but you would think that safety would be taken a little more seriously.
Of course, this is only the way I view the system, but it’s the culmination of a number of grievances that are impossible to ignore.
UPDATE: It turns out that when Barlow gets closed for a new runway at the airport, that’s it for transit. Calgary Transit says people just aren’t interested in taking public transit to the airport. Tell that to the workers and people that don’t drive. CT, I have to call your bluff yet again. Show me where it says people aren’t interested, or work out a better solution. Prove me wrong.
Red Hot Gadget, Red Hot Blunder
The wait is nearly over in Canada for customers that want the iPad, Apple’s much-awaited tablet device that has been available in the US for some time now.
The pricing in Canada puts it in the same ballpark as higher-end netbooks and lower-end laptops, but in terms of cost, Canadians get some of the best deals across the board for the device according to Macworld, with the 16GB Wi-Fi version selling at $549. The story seems to differ somewhat when it comes to data, which has been the source of a bit of a headache for both Apple and Canadian wireless provider Rogers.
In a post this morning to RedBoard, Rogers’ official blog, they announced the data pricing for the iPad, with customers able to get 250 MB for $15/month or 5 GB for $35, with both including unlimited access to Rogers Wi-Fi hotspots (available at locations such as Second Cup Cafes). A more attractive option appeared to surface on Apple’s website earlier today however, stating that for $20 (it was unclear as to whether this was a recurring monthly cost or one-time fee), customers could link the iPad into their existing Rogers data plan (this has since been removed from the Apple website). Almost immediately in the comments in the RedBoard post, comments started flying asking for details about the option. Soon after the questions started coming, a comment from Rogers quickly shifted people’s enthusiasm. Mary, part of the RedBoard team, commented that the reference was indeed an error.
This prompted a storm of comments, many negative, most surrounding the pricing of the data plans for the iPad and the lack of a data sharing option. Some people have gone as far as to say Rogers “removed” the option (including this article from CBC News), which if true is really not cool on their part, but I like to give people (and companies) the benefit of the doubt.
Let’s say Rogers removed it (which also assumes it existed at all), assuming I even wanted an iPad with 3G, I’d be pretty upset myself. However, if it’s an error on Apple’s end, then I’d be upset at them for getting hopes up before I’d get mad at Rogers for not offering the add-on to begin with. In the event that both Rogers and Apple are at fault, then both are bound to (rightfully) get slagged on by the public, who of course can vote with their feet and their dollar by either not buying the iPad at all, or buying one and taking service with another provider.
At the end of the day, people are right to be upset, but while the data plans may be offered by Rogers, Apple is not immune to making errors in their marketing information. We may never know who was at fault or to what extent they were at fault, but once the dust settles, things are likely to go much smoother.
