Northern Light
Superstar
Right, that's what I said.
That's also what I said.
I'm not sure what you're saying here at all?
|
|
|
Right, that's what I said.
That's also what I said.
I'm not sure what you're saying here at all?
TRONto
Active Member
I think we see vegetation wherever space allows such as University Avenue, Bloor and I believe College also. The streetscape is much better for it.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
doady
Senior Member
It's not the 90s anymore. People today have smartphones to keep track of bus times. A route doesn't exist in isolation. Riders often have to transfer to and from other buses. Memorizing bus times means nothing if the bus misses a connection.
Northern Light
Superstar
6% of the population does not own a smartphone.
A larger percentage still does not have a transit app installed on their phone.
Additionally, from time to time people who own phones misplace them, forget them, or have insufficient charge for them to work.
Good scheduling hygiene helps cover off the above. Transit authorities that practice it have higher ridership.
The answer to this, is not a smart phone, or an app, its much more frequent service, so that missing a connection isn't a big deal, because another bus will be along in 10 minutes or less.
The above is also a case for shelters, ideally w/heat in the winter, shade in the summer, so waiting is relatively comfortable.
doady
Senior Member
I don't own a smartphone either. So 6% don't own a smartphone? Who cares. That's 6% who will be slightly inconvenienced by a slightly more difficult to memorize schedule vs. 94% who would be inconvenienced by extra 60 minute long wait because the bus missed the connection to another bus.
10-minute service along another route doesn't mean anything because people travel in both directions. 60 minutes would mean 22% less service. Instead of 1.28 buses per hour, you only have 1 bus per hour. Meanwhile a 10 minute bus has 6 buses per hour. That means 5 of 6 buses miss that connection instead of 4 of 5 buses. AND if they do miss that connection, it's 60 minute penalty rather than a 47 minute penalty. More missed connections + higher penalty for each missed connection because of 60 minute service.
And realistically, not many corridors in York Region can support 10 minute service to begin with. Cost recovery of YRT still 39% compared to ~45% for Mississauga and Brampton Transit, and even in those places not many routes can support 10 minute service.
And have already we forgotten that YRT already tried the high frequency thingy with VIVA? In 2005, in an effort to lure riders, York Region massively increased service which gave them more frequent transit service than either Brampton or Mississauga. The buses weren't just more frequent, they were also faster. But we all know how that turned out, don't we?
Increasing frequency from 60 minutes to 47 minutes is much more meaningful than increasing it from 20 to 10 minutes. It's a 6.5 minute reduction in waiting time vs. a 5 minute reduction. And that's a 6.5 minutes reduction in waiting time that requires no extra buses, while the 5 minute reduction would require 5 extra buses on a route of the same length. A zero percent increase in operating cost to save riders 6.5 minutes vs. a 100 percent increase in operating cost to save riders 5 minutes.
Again, cost recovery below 40%, don't expect 100% increase in service anytime soon.
10-minute service along another route doesn't mean anything because people travel in both directions. 60 minutes would mean 22% less service. Instead of 1.28 buses per hour, you only have 1 bus per hour. Meanwhile a 10 minute bus has 6 buses per hour. That means 5 of 6 buses miss that connection instead of 4 of 5 buses. AND if they do miss that connection, it's 60 minute penalty rather than a 47 minute penalty. More missed connections + higher penalty for each missed connection because of 60 minute service.
And realistically, not many corridors in York Region can support 10 minute service to begin with. Cost recovery of YRT still 39% compared to ~45% for Mississauga and Brampton Transit, and even in those places not many routes can support 10 minute service.
And have already we forgotten that YRT already tried the high frequency thingy with VIVA? In 2005, in an effort to lure riders, York Region massively increased service which gave them more frequent transit service than either Brampton or Mississauga. The buses weren't just more frequent, they were also faster. But we all know how that turned out, don't we?
Increasing frequency from 60 minutes to 47 minutes is much more meaningful than increasing it from 20 to 10 minutes. It's a 6.5 minute reduction in waiting time vs. a 5 minute reduction. And that's a 6.5 minutes reduction in waiting time that requires no extra buses, while the 5 minute reduction would require 5 extra buses on a route of the same length. A zero percent increase in operating cost to save riders 6.5 minutes vs. a 100 percent increase in operating cost to save riders 5 minutes.
Again, cost recovery below 40%, don't expect 100% increase in service anytime soon.
drum118
Superstar
Really??? Rarely I see anyone using their phone to check when the next vehicle will be at a stop in the GATH, let along in Toronto for routes over 10 minute headway or streetcars.
i use my phone only to check scheduling for a stop if it is over 15 minute headway, the vehicle hasn't arrived as schedule but more so for streetcars as it may end up me walking faster to where I want to go than wait for it.
People I see with a phone at a stop are glue to other things where a few has miss the bus or are talking on it.
I happen to use a route this past week that I haven't used in months after coming off another route that I haven't used in a month and check when the bus was to arrive and was floor that the headway has gone from 20 minutes to 30 with a 27 minute wait. Even when the bus arrived, it was 7 minutes ahead of schedule which mean the driver was running hot or was late.
Those who do check when the next vehicle is to arrive are most younger than the normal riders as well those who use the tracking system to get to where they want to go in the first place as well the stop.
Normally I don't use the phone for most TTC routes based on the quality of service other than streetcar lines and a few bus route compared to any system outside of Toronto. A few systems has the next bus arrival time in place for stops and Mississauga was to have one 5 years ago with some test one out there but behind the time for it.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
The connection between not one, but two incredibly infrequent routes is statistically insignificant in terms of riders affected. You'll have to show us all how this 47 minute headway leads to any number of convenient connections or avoids several bad ones.
I get it, you can do basic math. You might do well to assume the rest of us can too.
How full is that bus at 47 minute headways? My guess, no fuller than at 60. You're not an elective rider at those frequencies very often.
Brampton and Mississauga have higher fare recovery because they have more frequent service. Its that additional convenience that wins additional ridership. Which in turn boosts fare revenue per trip.
No we don't...do enlighten us on the impact.........but careful.......read the reports properly....... and understand the implications.
Absolutely incorrect. Not ambiguous or debatable. The increase in ridership when you get to sub-15M headways is substantially higher than virtually any improvement at greater intervals.
Again, you're completely and utterly wrong.. And I've already posted the YRT multi-year service plan which shows that you're wrong.
Last edited:
chrisw
Active Member
Lots of people check when the next bus is coming. The bus might only come every 30-45 mins but you see people showing up 5 mins before the bus comes. It's sort of a necessity to know we when the next bus is coming before walking to the bus stop.
I think transfers are very important for a bus network. It can be common to need two buses to get somewhere. Frequency is a big boost to the transit network and enabling more convenient transfers.
I think transfers are very important for a bus network. It can be common to need two buses to get somewhere. Frequency is a big boost to the transit network and enabling more convenient transfers.
Northern Light
Superstar
I don't really disagree with anything above.
But important to say. The evidence shows a frequency improvement from 60M+ service to slightly under 60M induces very little ridership, and what ridership it does induce is reduced by schedules that are not predictable intuitively (meaning service stops at the 'x' stop at the following times each hour).
Transfers are important, but I have yet to see evidence (I'm open to this) that the non-clockface adhering schedules actually improve transfer connections.
Doady is prone to odd rants that don't seem to have a foundation in facts. If this is an exception, great...........but I await proof.
Frequency is ultimately the key, but when infrequent, predictably is of high value as well.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
I think it's a matter of mindset.
If the bus leaves at a certain interval it's easier to keep track.
It's a mental thing.
If it's too complicated it's easier to drive.
If the bus leaves at a certain interval it's easier to keep track.
It's a mental thing.
If it's too complicated it's easier to drive.
Last edited:
Bordercollie
Senior Member
And why 47minutes? They couldn't choose 45 minutes or 50 minutes? At least that way at every departure it's at a consistent time. By having 47 minute headways you may as well have random departure times.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
"The Cheapening"! Say what you will about VIVA. Some of the station design elements were positive. Moving from curved glass to flat, and removing the planter boxes are steps back.
doady
Senior Member
You just reiterate my point. Most people don't give a shit about the stop times. That is why reducing the frequency by 13 minutes to make the times easier to memorize makes no sense. If they cared that much, they could check the schedule with their phone.
Is that really so hard to understand? Or are you just trying to argue just for the sake of arguing?
doady
Senior Member
Burden of proof is on you.
You're the one being condescending here, not me.
Of course the bus is not going to be more full at 47 minutes. The frequency is higher. More buses per hour. I thought you can do basic math?
You really think corridors like Derry or Eglinton had 10 minute service in 2005? It took them 15-20 years to gradually grow to 10 minute service. Britannia only got 19 minute service in 2023, AFTER the ridership tripled.
Mississauga had 58% cost recovery in 2004. So the cost recovery has actually declined 12% even though ridership has increased by 70%. That's why they started looking at LRT.
More ridership = lower cost recovery. Slower buses (more riders waiting at stops, more riders requesting stops, longer time spent at each stop) means more buses to provide the same frequency of service.
And what exactly is there to enlighten you about? Did 7.5 minute service of Orange/Purple in Vaughan and Purple/Green in Markham bring ridership of York Region to the Mississauga and Brampton level? Perhaps you can enlighten me if it did.
Again, burden of proof is on you. 7.5 minutes service in York Region in 2005 is ultimate case study. Even going from 20 minutes to 7.5 minutes barely matches the increase from 60 to 47 minutes. Basic math, right?
Completely and utterly wrong about what? That YRT has worse cost recovery than MiWay and Brampton? It was not below 40% in 2023 and 2024? Maybe quote different numbers for us.