Originally Posted By MPierce >> Also, whether GPS is used or not, the notion that busses are dynamically assigned routes based on demand is certainly the way to go to increase service levels and guest satisfaction. Yet the union seems against this because it requires drivers to know more than one route. Again, heaven forbid that a union employee be required to learn something new in order to serve the customer better. << It's the Unions job to complain like that. How else can they justify their high salries, and excellent retirement benefits, and pensions, that the members are paying for. To bad the members don't get the same benefits. SuperDry which would you rather do. drive the same route for 8 to 10 hours or drive all over property for 8 to 10 hours? I know I would rather drive all over property, and see different things. I bet most people would rather do that too.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> That brings me ever so briefly to another topic. Public transit has turned me sour on people in general. What a bunch of whiny, lying, finger pointing dorks so many of them are. But that's another thread. << And those are the good ones.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Yet the union seems against this because it requires drivers to know more than one route. Again, heaven forbid that a union employee be required to learn something new in order to serve the customer better.<<< I don't believe that is true. Most large transit companies create interlocking runs. All drivers must know all routes or they become valueless to the company. They don't do the same thing every trip. They go one place one trip and some other place the next. That is done to keep things running as much on time as can be. If you were to run the same bus on the same trip constantly and they have a breakdown or traffic slow down then that route will be late all day long. It just not done that way. My question is where do these extra buses come from that everyone so easily assumes can be called in to help out in another area? There are X number of buses out there and they all are assigned to a specific set of instructions. If you take one off route, then someplace else is left without any bus service. No one can reasonably expect them to have a large contingency of buses just running around the property in the off hand event that one route gets hit harder than expected. That is a waste of manpower and a whole damn lot of fuel, for those of you that are ecology minded. Buck up...it's FREE transportation, you get what you pay for.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Most large transit companies create interlocking runs. All drivers must know all routes or they become valueless to the company. They don't do the same thing every trip. >>> But, some bus drivers are arguing against this very thing. From the original article: <<< Some critics also argue that it was safer when buses followed the same route over and over again, allowing drivers to become intimately familiar with the idiosyncrasies of their itinerary. "I just think when you have a dedicated route, you have more familiarization," said a former bus driver who now works in another department for Disney. "You're familiar with the turns and the little dips in the road." >>> <<< My question is where do these extra buses come from that everyone so easily assumes can be called in to help out in another area? >>> Who said anything about extra buses? <<< There are X number of buses out there >>> Yup. <<< and they all are assigned to a specific set of instructions. If you take one off route, then someplace else is left without any bus service. >>> No - that's where I think you're mis-understanding the system. When fully implemented, it seems that the plan is to have each bus be dynamically assigned a new route at the end of each route. They would not start their shift with any assignment other than their first run. Then, based on demand at the time, when that run ends, it would get a new assignment. This would allow them to dynamically assign buses per demand. Take for example Route A that was tentatively scheduled to have 6 buses per hour, or 1 every 10 minutes. Demand is lighter than forecast, so they pull one bus off Route A and put it on Route B because that route has more than one bus's capacity of passengers waiting. This takes Route A from 6 buses to 5 per hour. But this doesn't mean that when this happens, one slot is skipped and those unfortunate passengers have to wait 20 minutes. Instead, the bus that was going to be the next one for Route A gets assigned to Route B, and then 2 minutes later another bus from another route gets assigned to Route A, switching the interval from 10 to 12 minutes, or from 6 to 5 per hour. When you talk about how "most large transit companies" do it, well, they don't do it this way for a variety of reasons. One is that municipal buses generally run on a fixed schedule, so that people commuting to work for example, can know exactly when the bus will depart and arrive (except for traffic issues). There's no set schedule for WDW buses, so they have the flexibility to introduce a system of dynamic scheduling.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< SuperDry which would you rather do. drive the same route for 8 to 10 hours or drive all over property for 8 to 10 hours? I know I would rather drive all over property, and see different things. I bet most people would rather do that too. >>> I agree. Odd that a former bus driver said the opposite. Maybe we'll feel differently when we're 81!
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Buck up...it's FREE transportation, you get what you pay for.>> I would HAPPILY pay if Disney were to replace all those ugly, dirty buses with a nice, clean, eco-friendly monorail system. But somehow I just don't think that's ever gonna happen.
Originally Posted By MPierce I still think the best way for WDW to go is a computer operated system. Even though the bus drivers I talked with said it was a nightmare when they tried to implement it. I also think it would be far more efficent to have a room key or ticket activated machine at each bus station. It takes the guess work out of dispatching.
Originally Posted By SuperDry I don't think there's any question that their first attempt at automated dispatching a few years ago was an abysmal failure. Hopefully they've learned from their mistakes. I haven't really heard any complaints this time around like there was last time.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I don't think there's any question that their first attempt at automated dispatching a few years ago was an abysmal failure. Hopefully they've learned from their mistakes. I haven't really heard any complaints this time around like there was last time. << Do you know when it went into effect this time around?
Originally Posted By MPierce My last trip to WDW was January 2009. I had never seen a better functioning transportation sytem than we did on that trip. That or we were just really lucky the eight days we were there.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 You were probably lucky. We stayed at WL in 2008, we had a couple 20 minute waits for busses. My daughter's family stayed there at the same time, and they hardly ever had to wait at all. All in timing. We rarely had more than a 5 minute wait for the boat tho.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> You were probably lucky. We stayed at WL in 2008, we had a couple 20 minute waits for busses. My daughter's family stayed there at the same time, and they hardly ever had to wait at all. All in timing. << That was normal for me before, but this last trip was exceptional everywhere we went. We also came back to the resort at lunch time, and sometimes transfered from park to park. Definetly the best I've ever seen it.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost "I just think when you have a dedicated route, you have more familiarization," said a former bus driver who now works in another department for Disney. "You're familiar with the turns and the little dips in the road." >>> You also get a bus driver that is tediously bored and when that happens, accidents happen. Familiarity is not always an asset. Case in point, ask anyone that works in Small World if they would like to burn all copies of "It's a small world after all". The auto industry learned years ago that if you want productivity to slow up keep the same person on the same job continuously. >>>No - that's where I think you're mis-understanding the system. When fully implemented, it seems that the plan is to have each bus be dynamically assigned a new route at the end of each route. They would not start their shift with any assignment other than their first run. Then, based on demand at the time, when that run ends, it would get a new assignment.<<< Oh, I understand the new system but it completely goes against having anything but unadulterated confusion and inefficiency. >>>When you talk about how "most large transit companies" do it, well, they don't do it this way for a variety of reasons. One is that municipal buses generally run on a fixed schedule, so that people commuting to work for example, can know exactly when the bus will depart and arrive (except for traffic issues). There's no set schedule for WDW buses, so they have the flexibility to introduce a system of dynamic scheduling.<<< You as a consumer may not realize that they have timepoints to deal with but you do know that it is usually said that the buses run every 20 minutes during regular times and larger contingencies develop in evening hours or special events. The drivers know they have a schedule, it's just not as rigid as a fixed route type. With as many buses as WDW runs daily it is classified as a pretty large transportation center. Maybe not a New York, Boston, Chicago or L.A. but it is big. Communications are handled by humans and there is your weak point. Humans make mistakes when rapidly trying to figure out what goes where. Disneys bus system, as far as I can see, is pretty well put together...if it ain't broke, don't fix it. In my experienced opinion...it definitely ain't broke.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>But, some bus drivers are arguing against this very thing.<<< I don't know where they got those drivers, but I'm willing to bet that they are few and far between. Almost all drivers I have ever known absolutely hate doing circle driving. The day drags on, the scenery never changes and it is just plain hard to stay awake and alert. The only one's that might like that would be part timers that only work a few hours per day and don't want to have to learn new places to go. No company in it's right mind would ever agree to such a limiting and disastrous set up. If you looked at nothing else other than who would drive the route when the regular drivers were out sick or on vacation to Universal or whatever. Somethings and some systems are tried and true and are set up the way they are because over the years it was found that this was the most efficient way of doing things. Ask yourself, in any situation that you might have been associated with, did the advent of computer control ever really work out. I don't think so, and it never will until computers are completely capable of logic and not just logic by probabilities. >>>Who said anything about extra buses?<<< Maybe you're correct but if you have 25 areas to serve and you have 25 buses to serve them and then 3 are diverted to other areas to help with overload, what happens to the 3 places that needed an actual physical bus to be there? Most places and I'm sure Disney is one of them will have backup buses available for just such an event but one would have to be clairvoyant to know how many and be correct every time. There are too many unknown factors.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 Pooh, I don't know how to copy and paste on an iPod so this is in answer to #33. They should have known I a bigger spender than my daughter, and I go to WDW more often than she does. Can anyone help me with copy and paste?
Originally Posted By MPierce I can't help Bobbelee, I'm just finally getting use to using a microwave oven.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Maybe you're correct but if you have 25 areas to serve and you have 25 buses to serve them and then 3 are diverted to other areas to help with overload, what happens to the 3 places that needed an actual physical bus to be there? >>> In a dedicated model, I suspect that most routes have more than one bus. For example, TTC<->AKL might have 4 buses during an anticipated peak period. If for some reason there's light demand at the moment for that route, then that could be reduced to 3 and the extra one added to another route. So, it's not as if each route has only one bus and moving one elsewhere means that one will be without service. <<< if it ain't broke, don't fix it. >>> I don't think the current system is broken. And, if you take the anecdotal reports from MPierce, it might actually be running rather well from a guest standpoint. But I think you're missing something: If guests are satisfied with the current system, the most likely reason to implement a new system is not to improve guest satisfaction - it's to improve efficiency. What if they could reduce the number of buses on average by 5% but maintain the same level of guest service by removing the slack from the system and automatically redeploying it to fill in the gaps from the 5% reduction? Note that I'm pulling the 5% figure out of the air. But whatever the efficiency increase is, that's what I see the underlying reason for the new system. A secondary benefit is that in addition to cutting slack out of the system and reducing costs, it *could* provide an easy way to handle unexpected surges in demand: As described, once fully integrated, the driver really doesn't have to do anything with the computer: the computer spiels, the computer changes the signboards, and the computer assigns the next route at the end of the current route. What if the driver had a button that they pressed if and only if they take on passengers at a stop and not everyone waiting can board their bus? That's really the only extra information that the master computer would need to completely manage the routes.
Originally Posted By MPierce The bottom-lines always have to be cost, and efficency. Any good corporation has to strive to be more efficent, do more for less cost, and stive for better customer service. If you over look pleasing the customer, all the money savings, and efficency really won't matter. I really am curious how other are experiencing the bus transportation now. I definetly had no complaints on my last trip. That was a first.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Note that I'm pulling the 5% figure out of the air. But whatever the efficiency increase is, that's what I see the underlying reason for the new system. A secondary benefit is that in addition to cutting slack out of the system and reducing costs, it *could* provide an easy way to handle unexpected surges in demand:<<< IF is the big statement. I'm not one to want to stand in the way of progress and I guess it is the reason. Try away I guess and hopefully it will be good. I still don't think it is possible for airplanes to fly!
