GO Transit

[tomh009]

I find buses very confusing to figure out the schedules so I avoid them. Trains are simple.

Honestly, I am so sick of hearing this "buses are confusing and trains are simple" argument. Complexity of service patterns and route branching have nothing to do with the mode. Rail service patterns can be just as confusing (see RER/Transilien services in Paris, National Rail in London area, JR-East commuter lines in Tokyo etc.) and bus services can be straight-forward and easy to understand (see BRT services like Viva, Züm, MiExpress, even our iXpress...)

Technically, you are correct.  But having eight different routes all called "25" can indeed be confusing to some -- and the likelihood of eight different train routes for the same line is fairly low.
It has been a while since I used RER or National Rail, but JR commuter lines are very straight-forward, in that each line has very much a fixed route, and every scheduled train runs along that same route.  This is Iain's point, I believe.

[KevinL]

We even have a local example - the long-derided 'alphabet soup' that is GRT route 7. Would you guess that the 7A and 7F are almost identical, the 7B goes to the same destination, the 7C is up the other way, and the 7D and 7E are mirrors of each other? Not if you're not a regular user, I'd bet.

[jwilliamson]

While trains all have to follow the same route, they can also have variations you need to be aware of. The Westbound service on the Kitchener line has an all stops service to Mount Pleasant, an all stops to Kitchener, and a fast to Bramalea then all stops to Kitchener

[tomh009]

Yes, this is the express/local variation, which can still catch you out. (Some lines in Japan have local, semi-express, express and limited express variations!) Still the destination stays the same.

This really isn't a bus vs train problem as such, it's all about planning and communication.

[MidTowner]

"This really isn't a bus vs train problem as such..."

I think that was yige_t's frustration. Saying "trains or simple" or "buses are too complicated" suggests that one technology is inherently better or more straightforward than the other. That's not at all the case. Schedules for both can either be straightforward, or overly complex.

[yige_t]

Saying "trains or simple" or "buses are too complicated" suggests that one technology is inherently better or more straightforward than the other. That's not at all the case. Schedules for both can either be straightforward, or overly complex.

That was exactly my point. Thank you.

I won't say that the existing GO route classification is perfect, or even desirable (I do, however, understand the unique circumstances behind it). I'm all for supporting simplifying the GRT network and have supported the removal of route 7 branches from day one. 

But to say that complex route structure/patterns are intrinsic to bus technology only is utterly false:


(JR Shonan-Shinjuku and Ueno-Tokyo line map)

Related but off topic... As an aspiring planner/bus (and rail) enthusiast, it hurts to see buses being looked down upon in this forum (by a small number of members), with comments like "it's just buses, LRT is more important" or "buses are too confusing, trains are better..." Many of the perceived rail-bus differences have nothing to do with the mode itself*. Trains are not inherently better than buses all the time. Just because LRT was chosen over BRT for the ION route (I am pro-LRT myself), doesn't mean we should have LRT everywhere in the Region. Merits of each mode should be examined on a route-by-route basis. Many of the best transit projects in Canada are bus-based (see Ottawa Transitway, Vancouver B-Line, Viva, Züm, our very own iXpress...) so I hope we can cut the "trains are always better" BS once and for all, because every transit mode has a place where they belong.

*Human Transit blog has a nice list of perceived rail-bus differences: read here and here.

~End rant~

[DKsan]

As someone who recently started in *transit* customer service in the GTA, at the biggest one of them all, branching is terrible and confuses everyone everywhere. And it's not just buses, like yige_t mentioned. After all, many Toronto streetcar routes are rail and have branches.

From a transit perspective, branching is important. It keeps service on a core portion of the line (without short-turning which is truly a bane) and can serve different needs.

But from a customer service perspective, it can confuse people and I'm not sure how we solve this without just being like "GOOGLE MAPS/TRIPLINX." Because while all of us here have the internet and smart phones, not everyone does.

[chutten]

My personal branching pain point is the Eastbound Rt 29 - Keatsway (pdf) as it approaches Laurier. A random sampling of equivalently marked buses will either drop off at Laurier on University Ave as will turn left on Hazel and drop off adjacent to the park.

There is no letter, no destination or route naming differences. The first clue I get is if the bus slides over to the left lane after its stop just after Albert. So unfortunately it's not 100% germane to the numbering/branching/routing discussion at play. So bringing it around...

The one inherent benefit to mapping/numbering/routing trains is that there are, in our part of the world, an extremely limited number of places a train can be. If we assume bad decisions of routing/naming/numbering are equally likely to be made evenly throughout the transit networks, then the rail network just has far fewer options for unreadably-complex mistakes.

So it's less a "good design" question than it is a "having fewer opportunities for humans screw up" question.

[SammyOES2]

I don't think anyone is claiming "Trains are inherently better than buses all the time", but a claim like "trains are inherently simpler to understand than buses" seems pretty true to me.

Like chutten mentions, there's fewer places for a train to go and there are fewer places a train can stop. A train's stops are almost certainly better signed than bus stops because there are fewer of them and they're generally built to support more people. These aren't even inherent advantages (there's a clear loss of flexibility), but it definitely makes a train inherently simpler. And yes, yes,there are still some train systems more complex than some bus systems...

[Canard]

I don't think anyone is claiming "Trains are inherently better than buses all the time", but...

I am!

[SammyOES2]

I don't think anyone is claiming "Trains are inherently better than buses all the time", but...

I am!

Hah.  I don't think I want to live in the city that doesn't have buses and only has trains.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if you do.

[Canard]

Buses are noisy, dirty and offer poor ride quality. Trains are quiet, fast and smooth. Kind of a no-brainer to me! But whatever floats your boat...

[SammyOES2]

Unless it's the GO trains giving you cancer.... (just trolling...)

Buses offer a flexibility that trains can never offer and are WAY more efficient (cost, environmentally, basically any metric you can think of) for a certain range of transit usage.

[Canard]

We should use buses everywhere and rip up trains... oh wait, we already did that in the 50's.

[KevinL]

Both have their place. I'm trying to think of a city that has trains but does not also have buses, and can't come up with one.