Transpo Stats Mask Bad Service: LO
Collected service data is only as good as how it’s presented.
Data, KPIs (key performance indicators), and metrics are vital tools for transparency and to guide decisions, but the effectiveness of the data is limited by its presentation and interpretation.
OC Transpo staff regularly present performance metrics at Transit Committee meetings, including ridership, trip delivery, punctuality/regularity, safety, and call centre wait times, among others.
—
This newsletter excerpt from Barrhaven East Councillor Wilson Lo is courtesy of the city-wide community group Your Applewood Acres (And Beyond) Neighbours
—
Though I believe the data staff share is generally accurate, I have repeatedly questioned the way it’s presented, as I believe it is an inaccurate representation of the average transit experience.
For example, OC Transpo staff routinely boast percentages of trip delivery (trips not cancelled) in the high 90s. While that percentage may be accurate, combining the wildly varying statistics of weekday peak, weekday off-peak, overnight, and weekends into a single data point hides and invalidates the poor experiences of weekday peak passengers.
Over the last few years, I have repeatedly asked for further breakdowns in the data presented at Transit Committee to help paint a more accurate picture. Alas, transit staff finally shared granular data for afternoon peak trips from Tunney’s Pasture to Barrhaven for May and June.
Routes 74, 275, 277, and 279 have had no cancelled trips in May and June. On the surface, that would indicate excellent service, but the percentage of trips departing within five minutes of its schedule paints a more dismal (but realistic) picture.
For example, the 3:24 pm 74 Limebank departed Tunney’s Pasture within five minutes of its schedule only 19 per cent of the time in May and June, even though there were no cancellations.
An example showing the inverse, the 5:56 pm 75 Barrhaven Centre, was cancelled 26 per cent of the time in May and June, but was usually departed within five minutes of its schedule when the trip did run.
The point of this exercise (other than validation) is to show that even true and accurate data does not tell the full story. It would be quite insulting as a passenger whose trip is cancelled and/or delayed regularly to learn OC Transpo has been publishing data that’s not representative of their experience.
Even then, this exercise also shows one dataset is insufficient. As shown in the two examples above, a trip could never be cancelled but always late or cancelled often but run on time when it’s not cancelled.
Based on resident feedback, afternoon service from Tunney’s Pasture continues to be frustrating and stressful. In the morning, the 7:26 am 277 Tunney’s Pasture seems to be the worst trip this schedule cycle (so far) for various reasons.
For You:
Return To Office All About Politics: STANKOVIC
Councillors Explain Their Votes On Plante Issue
Reader Doubts Leiper Infrastructure Sincerity
Tierney Doesn’t Understand NIMBY
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
This is brilliant!
As noted, different people can interpret data in different ways, that is, spin the data to support their stance. We can circumvent this by surveying users, asking them 4 or 5 questions with a yes/no response then allowing them to make meaningful comments. For example, “Overall, are you pleased with the service you receive from OC Transpo?” Comment: “OC Transpo sucks” is not meaningful or helpful, however, “The service was acceptable until “New Ways to Bus” was introduced because since its introduction, my travel time to and from work has almost doubled. I’m considering getting back in my car and driving to work” is meaningful. This comment identifies the problem the rider is experiencing and provides a timeframe for when the problem began. If OC Transpo is to be taken seriously people should not be expected to search online for a survey, representatives of OC Transpo should be handing out flyers containing a url to riders as they’re leaving their buses at key hubs.