Putting transit to the test

Advertisement

Advertise with us

Be it transit systems or tests like provincial or professional certification exams, there exists a classic conundrum.

Read this article for free:

or

Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Monthly Digital Subscription

$1 per week for 24 weeks*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*Billed as $4.00 plus GST every four weeks. After 24 weeks, price increases to the regular rate of $19.00 plus GST every four weeks. Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.

Monthly Digital Subscription

$4.75/week*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*Billed as $19 plus GST every four weeks. Cancel any time.

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional

$1 for the first 4 weeks*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles
Start now

No thanks

*Your next subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $16.99 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $23.99 plus GST every four weeks.

Opinion

Be it transit systems or tests like provincial or professional certification exams, there exists a classic conundrum.

Prior to use, high-stakes tests are designed and assessed to see that they accurately target the intended knowledge, skills, attitudes, etc.; let’s call it “scope.” Also, the scores mean the same regardless of the version of the test being used, the day it is written and who is writing it — its “reliability.”

The conundrum is that these worthy qualities can work against each other.

An ambitious scope (wide in terms of knowledge, skills, mental processes) can mean that scores are less reliable due to trying to represent too much. A more narrow scope, meanwhile, can mean scores are more reliable, though serving a more narrow purpose.

Turning to transit, our system has had a wide scope, trying to meet the interests of as many riders as possible in getting directly (one or two buses) from where they live to where they want to go, with routes tending to have desirable destinations.

So we had routes such as 16, 19, 77, 78 with, in some cases, neighbourhood offshoots. Too few riders resulted in impractical frequency of service, and routes often congregated at certain destinations resulting in congestion and route overlaps (which was good for some riders). Exposure to traffic and other factors could disrupt schedules as buses zig-zagged across the city. The broad scope of service could be tough on reliability.

With transit, as with testing, the right balance between scope and reliability has to be found.

To improve reliability, the scope has been narrowed with less focus on providing 1- or 2-bus access to destinations, in favour of a spine-and-feeder (to/from the spines rather than possible destinations) approach, along with fewer stops.

From the perspective of living about a 12-minute walk to a spine route, of six trips I used to or occasionally take, three are worse, one about the same (it got worse when the Southwest transitway came in), and two are better. For folks who were near to a meandering route with desirable destinations, and for whom a spine route is not nearby, riding the bus now likely involves more walking, waiting and transfers, by design.

By the same design, the expected benefit is improved reliability with more frequent buses that more often run on time, with the hopeful benefit of fewer drive-bys due to overcrowding, regardless of the route, the operator, the riders and the day.

Has the right balance been found? Early returns relate some better or neutral experiences, with most comments reflecting concern or frustration due to extra walking, waiting, transfers and overfilled buses.

To be fair, riders experiencing frustration are more likely to express it, and some may yet discover advantages with more experience. Nevertheless, if we’re reducing the scope of service (that is, moving away from getting as many as possible as directly as possible to where they want to go), then improvements to reliability must be clear and obvious.

The challenges that Winnipeg Transit is addressing are somewhat outside of its control. Winnipeg’s Michel Durand-Wood has clearly and compellingly spelled out, in his occasional Free Press columns and in his recently released book You’ll pay for this, that suburban sprawl is not even close to being financially and structurally sustainable, beginning a long time ago. Yet it continues. Providing adequately frequent and reliable public transit options to ever-more sparsely populated and distant areas using the old broad-scope approach (taking riders fairly directly to destinations) is simply not possible, leaving no choice but to reconsider the scope of service.

It is early days. Experience and time are needed to adapt and for more information to be collected. Making adjustments to habits and identifying issues that can be addressed in the next few weeks are critical, before people return to work and school in large numbers in September.

Whether it’s a high-stakes test delivering reliable scores, or a transit system providing reliable service, the choice of scope is intentional and significant. The choice has been made to give more priority to operational efficiency. Reliability and the impact on practical utility (frequency; accessibility; trip times; safety) will be the test results telling us if the right balance has been found.

Ken Clark writes from Winnipeg. His career track included large-scale educational assessment with which he sees occasional parallels to other topics and issues of the day. He was a regular, and is now an occasional, bus rider.

Report Error Submit a Tip

Analysis

LOAD MORE