Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend
As a result of route optimization, buses are running more crowded than they have ever been likely since World War II.
I have made the observation that OC Transpo appears to have implemented a new practice in order to deal with crowding. Maybe I am wrong but I am seeing this far too often lately.
What I am observing is the running of buses in tandem in the suburbs, including the inner suburbs. What I am referring to is running local and express buses essentially at the same time, so that OC Transpo can manipulate passenger loads to minimize overcrowding. From the perspective of vehicle useage, this is highly desireable. However, from the passenger's perspective, running two buses every half hour is much less desireable than having a bus every 15 minutes.
OC Transpo would get fewer complaints by making passengers wait at the bus stop substantially longer than having a bus pass them by overcrowded. Unfortunately, in the long run, this also makes trip times longer and the transit system less desireable and will drive passengers away.
I have observed this in the southeast repeatedly, on Routes 8 and 41, Routes 98 and 114 and Routes 144 and 40. On one occasion in the past week, the 98 waited 3 or 4 minutes at Greenboro during the evening rush hour until the 114 departed ahead of it. I was incredulous watching this happen. I kept asking myself, why is that full bus waiting and waiting? And then 114 appeared, and the 98 left immediately afterwards.
Maybe it is pure coincidence but I have seen it over and over again. Even at night, I have seen the 98 and 114 leave about the same time, whereas in the past they were designed to run at alternate times.
|
On less-frequent corridors, there should not be two routes running like that. In those cases:
8/41 - The 41 only runs during peak periods, and the 8 is fairly frequent, so scheduling is difficult especially since they operate to downtown from different directions. My proposal was to combine the southern part of the 8, the 41(82), the 141 and the 192 all into a single route 110 from Hurdman/Billings Bridge to Herongate on the 41 routing (all day), and on to Hawthorne during peak periods. That probably would have been easier to understand (and no need for all the 112 branches), but it would force a transfer to go downtown.
98/114 - The 143 nearby should have been eliminated and the 114 moved onto a large part of that routing, separating the two routes. There would need to be extra 98's during low periods, but the savings from the removal of the 143 would pay for that - at most other times, the 98 is frequent enough that it would be able to carry the load.
40/144 - Again, the 40 is peak periods only. That one is tough due to the large-scale situation, and the whole area as a whole needs to be considered. To move the 144 off its current routing and separate them, another route would need to be introduced (such as extending the 1 allowing for a straighter 144, or shortening the 144 and giving Findlay Creek a separate route, such as a 99F branch).
In the outer suburbs: it might be time to combine the local and express routes, meaning put them on the same routing. Such would create a single route during peak periods in the peak direction for all uses, but would only charge the express fare once it crosses the Greenbelt (at the last stop, passengers would have to show proof of express fare paid - either an express transfer or express pass). My 2011 proposals redrew the suburban local routes to effectively match the expresses, but using two separate numbers (i.e. 61 and 161, 70 and 170).