urbanclient
Senior Member
Maybe they did aim for 37 many moons or years ago? They're aiming for 46 minutes in the future, basically conceding that their current schedule is worthless.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Monarch Butterfly
- Start date
Maybe they did aim for 37 many moons or years ago? They're aiming for 46 minutes in the future, basically conceding that their current schedule is worthless.
Obsidian
Active Member
So the bus beating the LRT by 6 minutes in low traffic is ok??
Shouldn't the LRT always beat the bus regardless of how much traffic there is.
Again Bus in low traffic with more stops takes 31 minutes
Future goal of the LRT in no traffic 37 Minutes.
Also the 36 bus came twice as frequent (every 5 minutes) as the LRT so riders are having both a slower trip and having to wait twice as long for their vehicles.
If you add on the extra time waiting to the 16 minutes longer travel time. then a riders is now spending 21 minutes more on their trip than before in low traffic conditions.
Am i taking crazy pills or this doesn't make sense.
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
I have already stated during the testing phase that buses were a lot faster than the LRVs and not a good sign for the line,
Thaboss
Active Member
Its true you did...and lots of ppl, including myself in secret, where skeptical of you. I will now proceed to eat crow.
Question, when finch was being tested last year was the LRT keeping up with buses ?
T3G
Senior Member
As I said, bus drivers are speed demons. It is fairly regular occurrence for them to drive over the speed limit and weave through traffic quite aggressively, and for reasons unknown to anyone but the top minds of the TTC, there has been no safety crackdown on this mode of transport. So obviously they'll be able to make the journey even faster. The question is, is that behaviour we should want replicated on the Finch line?
And for anyone who doesn't believe me, I just went on TransSee, opened the trip history for a random group of vehicles, and looked at the most recent trip. How does one go from being a minute ahead of schedule to 6+ minutes ahead of schedule, if normal operational protocol is being followed?
At some point, this becomes not only a discourse about LRT speeds, but about the TTC's ability to manage their employees more generally. A fat load of good a bus running faster than the scheduled time does you, if the frequencies are low and you go to the bus stop at the scheduled time like some sort of chump, and find your bus zoomed by 5-10 minutes ago. There was a TTC employee on the CPTDB who openly bragged on the forum a couple of years back about how they managed to run hot on the 123 on every trip and squeeze as much break times out of the trip as possible. It's simply not fair to compare LRT speeds to such buses, the only valid comparison is to the buses that actually followed the printed schedule.
And for anyone who doesn't believe me, I just went on TransSee, opened the trip history for a random group of vehicles, and looked at the most recent trip. How does one go from being a minute ahead of schedule to 6+ minutes ahead of schedule, if normal operational protocol is being followed?
At some point, this becomes not only a discourse about LRT speeds, but about the TTC's ability to manage their employees more generally. A fat load of good a bus running faster than the scheduled time does you, if the frequencies are low and you go to the bus stop at the scheduled time like some sort of chump, and find your bus zoomed by 5-10 minutes ago. There was a TTC employee on the CPTDB who openly bragged on the forum a couple of years back about how they managed to run hot on the 123 on every trip and squeeze as much break times out of the trip as possible. It's simply not fair to compare LRT speeds to such buses, the only valid comparison is to the buses that actually followed the printed schedule.
Obsidian
Active Member
urbanclient
Senior Member
And frankly, I wish more of us believed you. Now there are people on the Eglinton thread that are putting up blinders when I say both the advertised 38 and revised 42 minute travel time for Eglinton are completely unrealistic.
Assuming similar operating practices and lack of strong signal priority.
Is this ignorance or a fifth column?
The bus goes as low as 23 minutes with no traffic. See @T3G 's post. As I showed earlier, 10+8 minutes of time is wasted stopped at red lights and stops, who knows how many minutes are wasted due to the braindead speed limits. Even if driven slowly for safety and lowered maintenance (among other overstated reasons), the LRT should easily average in the low 30s.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Voltz
Senior Member
Low traffic also means fewer riders, how many stops are the buses actually making during that time?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
T3G
Senior Member
If you're on the bus, then sure.
If you're waiting further up the line, I can think of several other, less PG-13 friendly phrases I may choose to use instead.
What's the point of having a schedule if it's not followed?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I see your point, but this fixation on schedule lead to a perverse outcome - padding the schedule so much to ensure apparent conformity to it, at the expense of usability. Remember a schedule only truly mattered from the user's perspective if a line is run infrequently. It mattered when you have a ride coming by every 15 minutes - when it is 3 to 4? Not so much.
AoD
T3G
Senior Member
Well, that's why I specified, in my previous post, routes where the line is run infrequently.
Obviously, it makes no difference if a schedule is followed on a route that runs every 2-3 minutes, but that's not what is happening here - it happens on all types of bus routes. And the late night 36 had a top frequency of 10 minutes, so that's exactly the type of environment in which you don't want drivers running hot. What good is it if one person gets to their destination 10 minutes ahead of the scheduled time, if another person misses that same bus due to these same shenanigans and has to wait longer for the next one? And what if the next one breaks down? Now you've got a 20 minute wait time, all because some jackass prioritized going super fast instead of doing his job properly. All this creates is a two tiered form of transit. If you live on the periphery, you get to your destination faster (assuming said jackass doesn't leave the terminus hot too), but along the line, you're given the short end of the stick.
urbanclient
Senior Member
I think this is a subjective thing for 10-15 min frequencies, I would much prefer the route be run fast and I end up waiting 18-20 minutes than the opposite, where my average wait time might be lower, but my trip times are consistently slower than the heat death of the universe *cough* *Line 6*. Segue: This is SOP for Chinese metros and regional rail that often don't have clockface/perfectly regular scheduling, but are consistently fast.
More to the point, if the bus rider gets to the stop 10-15 minutes early as is usual for any veteran, they might even catch the previous bus which is running early. Yes, there is a problem ~50% of the time if the route frequency is as bad as 15-20-30-60 minutes, but for the 36 bus specifically, this isn't a problem. Let's keep our focus on Line 6 being a turd.
Attachments
T3G
Senior Member
I disagree, 18-20 minute wait times are exactly the sort that would push me to choose the car instead of public transit, and I imagine I'm not the only one. Few people would find it attractive to wait outside that long in the baking heat, freezing cold, or rain.
And getting to the stop 10-15 minutes early strikes me as being fairly excessive for local rapid transit.