The TTC has released plans for service cuts in February quite similar to those originally planned for January.
The battle now turns to City Council to restore funding to the TTC’s operating budget so that services can be preserved.
Compared with the original proposals for January 2012, there is one change of note. The new proposed peak period loading standard for buses is to be increased by only 5% rather than 10%. This has the effect of removing a number of proposed peak cuts from the list on routes where the reported average load was already close to the old standard. Where peak loads were not close to the old standard, the proposed service cut remains in place.
With one exception, all of the proposed off-peak service cuts remain because there has been no change in the loading standard against which they are measured.
2012.02.12 Proposed Loading Standards Chart
This chart shows three peak period standards: the existing Ridership Growth Strategy (RGS) standard, the originally proposed 10% increase for bus routes, and the revised proposal of a 5% increase. Note that there is no change in the standards for rail modes because these were not modified under RGS.
For services operating every 10 minutes or better, the new off-peak standard moves from a seated load to seated plus 25%. This has the effect of making the off-peak and peak standards close to each other, and busy routes will feel crowded all day. There is no provision in the standards for service reliability, and where buses operate on irregular headways, most riders are on the crowded vehicles and experience much worse service than the standards would imply.
The following routes where peak service cuts were originally planned will now retain their existing service levels:
- 192 Airport Rocket (PM)
- 7 Bathurst
- 6 Bay (AM)
- 11 Bayview / 28 Davisville (AM)
- 9 Bellamy
- 17 Birchmount (AM)
- 42 Cummer (AM)
- 23 Dawes (AM)
- 25 Don Mills (AM)
- 29 Dufferin
- 32 Eglinton West (AM)
- 39 Finch East
- 41 Keele (AM)
- 54 Lawrence East
- 57 Midland (AM)
- 116 Morningside
- 79 Scarlett Road (AM)
- 85 Sheppard East (AM)
- 24 Victoria Park
- 112 West Mall (AM)
- 95 York Mills (AM)
For the cynical, this means that at least the service won’t get any worse, but offers little hope for improvements where over crowding is already a daily fact-of-life for riders.
As before, the notable changes fall on off-peak services on busy routes including major streetcar and bus routes. The intent of RGS was to give better off-peak service through a tighter loading standard to reflect the system’s latent capacity to operate better off-peak service at lower marginal cost than peak service. Ridership growth came through the additional comfort, such as it was, of the improved service, but the TTC now risks choking off one of its cheaper ways of attracting new riders to the system.
There are some service increases to deal with stronger riding, but these are few beside the long list of service cuts.
There has been no public discussion of the proposed new standards, nor of standards in general including the degree to which the TTC has budget headroom to handle new demand beyond a very modest planned growth over the actual level in 2011.
Steve, not a comment, just a request … will you at any time be going into the labour/management problems we are having up here in York Region? Just curious because part of the problem is privatization. Thanks for everything.
Steve: I was not planning to beyond basic news coverage when/if something significant happens. I’m fascinated by recent articles suggesting that the 905 is becoming more “urban” than Toronto at a time when the current disruption goes on with little or no political effect, and only a transport effect for a minority of the population.
My suspicion is that whenever the “essential” TTC contract is settled, likely by arbitration, it will set a pattern across the region. Meanwhile, the pols in York clearly don’t give a damn.
User fees explained:
User fees on cars (vehicle registration fee, tolls, etc.) bad.
User fees on everything else (bicycles, TTC, community centres, etc.) good.
@ W.K. Lis
> User fees explained
You said it.
No more war on the car. War on everything else.
This is right on target.
I consider seated load plus 25% to be a reasonably comfortable service. But the calculations of that kind are meaningful only if the buses are spaced evenly. If they keep running in packs, then any service reduction will increase the percentage of decidedly uncomfortable trips.
Steve: Actually, seated plus 25% on the current crop of buses can get crowded especially when the tendency of passengers not to use space in the high-floor section behind the doors, and the prevalence of baby carriages and other space-consuming devices during off peak periods is taken into account. The ratio of standee space to seats in high-floor buses and streetcars is greater than in the low-floor bus fleet, and that 25% extra load consumes proportionately more on a bus than on a streetcar. Throw in irregular service and you have a recipe for a very poor off-peak riding experience.
vehicle registration tax = unfair, punative.
A tax should be equally applied, not targeting just one sector. IF bicycles are taxed (as they should be) then and only then can you implement a vehicle tax.
Communty centres = yes, use and you should pay, maybe even a token fee, but you should have to pay!
Steve, how does the QUEEN midday reduction affect the east end SAC cars? I would presume not much since they are sort of the same thing as the KING Broadview/Queen coffee break cars but you never know. Have they mentioned the SAC cars?
Steve: The SAC cars are not mentioned in the memo. I didn’t believe that there are specific cars (as opposed to operators) for coffee breaks on King. There is no place to store such vehicles, and I have never seen any lurking in the neighbourhood.
David Vereschagin says:
Moaz: Actual, it’s really the cars that control Toronto. Ford and Denzil Minnan-Wong (DMW) are their human proxy.
Bicycles don’t pollute, have zero operational and very small manufacturing carbon footprint, and their impact on the road pavement is very minor as well. A fair value of a bicycle tax would be perhaps 10 c per year, but that is not worth collecting because of the administration cost.
Taxation on bicycles is useless to discuss without a more important first step: License plates. Bicyclists are in high notoriety for their very large minority that is convinced traffic laws don’t apply to them, as they run red lights, run stop signs, ride the wrong way on a one-way street, ride counterflow to car traffic in the lane they’re using on a two-way street, ride on the sidewalk when their wheel diametre is greater than 2′ (and clocking 30-40km/hr on the sidewalk), and lane splitting between moving cars. Bicycles can’t be forced to comply with traffic laws if there is no identifying mechanism to report offences with, else enforcement is impossible. I don’t believe in bicycle licenses in the sense of drivers’ licenses, but bicycle license plates registered to an address (a process which can by design generate revenue as well) is overdue for the amount of on-street bike lanes in this city (disconnected as that network is).
Once that is in place, then you have a foundation with which it becomes practical to tax bicycles, although I think enforcing ticket penalties for offenders is the best way to go. Law-abiding cyclists do society a lot of good and should not be taxed since they put such a low strain on infrastructure wear and tear.
Steve, you commented about the “essential” TTC CBA. The CBA has actually gone to arbitration. The parties met with the arbitrator in early December and presented their respective positions. The arbitrator is now considering his decision, which should be handed down in early March (or before) under the terms of Bill 150, unless the arbitrator requests more time.
Steve: Thanks for the update. It’s good to know that we will have a decision soon on which to base budget and political planning for the years ahead.
Steve, I agree with P. Coulman concerning the community centers. We always have paid up here in York Region. But there were some who found ways to get around paying for it. How? Well, a few years ago I knew someone who registered their kids in programs in Toronto under their grandmother’s name and address. Why? It was free and these were people who had extremely well paying jobs.
Steve, if YRT had an overnight bus running on Yonge, I would not take my car. However, I must be gone by 4AM. There are new rules concerning the parking lots run by TTC before 5AM. And there are many more like me. Too bad we couldn’t make this a regional system because there is more of a reality in that (maybe we’re approaching it with Metrolinx).
As a byline, I just wonder how many councillors use transit at any time as their means of transport. Then, these schedules would mean more than just sheer numbers to them. Thanks!
A question: It’s clear the TTC has a problem with route management. Bunching streetcars / buses, which to a certain degree are to be expected; Can even be seen on routes with 10min+ head ways.
I’d be really curious, if magically bunching could be eliminated, or brought to a reasonable level; Would that not result in a HUGE boost to ridership capacity at no cost whatsoever (remember, I said it was magic). So what I’m asking is, does bunching really make a huge difference like I believe?
Many times what you’ll see is 2/3 jam packed buses / streetcars followed by one or more nearly empty ones, basically you’ll be getting new buses!
A second question is in regards to other transit agencies in North America. Do the rest suffer from bunching as much as the TTC, or is the TTC the worst offender in this regard.
Steve: Bunching is a universal problem, but the real issue is what each system does about it. I agree that eliminating, or at least managing, bunching is a way to get free capacity and improve the overall riding experience for all passengers. The TTC is so set on the idea that this is an intractable problem, together with accepting that there is a three minute window on the definition of “on time” (imagine what this does to a route with frequent service), that it’s hard to imagine them really tackling this. We hear a lot about “Customer Service” these days, but too often it’s coupled with telling passengers how to behave and complaining about funding and/or traffic congestion.
As I have documented through many articles reviewing actual operating data, it is common for routes to operate with ragged headways originating from terminals even when there is ample layover time to allow this to be evened out. The inevitable result is bunching as the cars on the shorter headway catch up with their leaders. I have requested data for four streetcar and four bus routes for November 2011 and will also ask for the same routes once winter weather is out of the way (probably April). My intent is to review actual operations including the effects of service cuts, if they are implemented.
I agree with Michael Forest about what he said. There is no point in taxing the bicycles or any means of transport that don´t harm people or pollute environment. I really like the idea of Car2GO in Vancouver, because you never know when you need a car and this could be a great solution for your problem.
And for those who are complaining that you cannot tax one sector, I think you are wrong. Healthier, not polluting solutions should always be preferred by authorities!
Steve: The tax system is full of examples of differential taxation of classes of activity, and “tax expenditures” to achieve various political goals are a large drain on governments.
W.K. Lis says:
Of course, reducing transit and penalising cyclists is, indirectly, a war on cars as these ‘policies’ will force more people to use (or keep using) their cars so there will be more traffic, longer commutes etc etc. If the current City administration were rational they could be convinced by arguments like this but they aren’t. They either do not try (or are too stupid) to understand things or, like the federal Tories, actually reduce the amount of information they can think about (census, Statistics Canada) so that decisions are based on “ideology” and “gut feeling” rather than fact.
Minor quibble: it’s a 6-minute window, because it is plus or minus 3 minutes. But especially in the days of GPS, the idea that there is a practical or moral equivalence between being 3 minutes behind schedule and blowing through a stop 3 minutes before the proper time is idiotic.
Steve: Yes, yes, 3 minutes either way. Apologies for my inaccuracy. 😉
Being 3 minutes behind schedule can happen due to almost anything—a slightly higher loading time at a stop due to a group of people, then just missing the end of the green, could be enough. On the other hand, there is no legitimate reason to be 3 (or even 1) minute ahead of schedule—just wait for the GPS to say it’s time to go!
It’s frustrating that the only solutions to our problems that will actually be considered by some are the solutions that would cost billions of dollars, ignoring the ones that cost millions, thousands, or a negligible amount.
If the TTC sets the loading standards for routes based on the type of buses that are supposed to be assigned to them, what happens when those higher capacity buses (high floors) are not assigned?
The RTS’ (7200’s) are supposed to be assigned to the 96 and 165 at all times. These buses have a higher capacity than the low floors that commonly run in their place weekday evenings and on all weekend runs.
The same can be said for Dufferin on weekends, as the high floor V’s (9400’s) are no longer used.
My point is, if the higher capacity buses aren’t going to be used when they are scheduled to be, should the service not be adjusted to reflect this? These cuts scheduled for February will affect Dufferin the weekend, if the service is planned based on the use of higher capacity buses and lower capacity buses are used this will only serve to increase the hardship on this line.
Steve: The off-peak standards are all based on low-floor buses on the assumption that the high floors have (or soon will be) all retired. There is a similar, but much worse, problem on 501 Queen where CLRVs substitute for ALRVs with a 1/3 loss of capacity.
What ever became of that new Customer Service chief? Never see or hear from him. Only person you ever see is Karen Stintz. Pretty ineffective. And, what of those of Subway Managers? Never see or hear about them either. More ineffective management.
Steve: Chris Upfold is still around and has been involved in some recent public events. As for the Subway Managers, they are supposed to be increasing in number in 2012, but I will believe this when I actually start running into them regularly.
Regarding P. Coulman’s comments on user fees for community centres, that’s a complicated debate. Up here in Kitchener, we pay for some programs, others are offered for free (particularly if they’re operated by the library). I bring this up because the divisions between community centres and libraries are blurring, as cities realize that combining the two in common buildings helps reduce capital costs.
Library services must be provided for free. That’s the law. I know this because my father wrote the actual law (while working for the minister of Culture and Communications back in 1984). And this is because the library is, first and foremost, a font of information, and free information is as important as a free basic education in a functioning democracy. If we put in economic barriers to information, we keep the poor poor, and that’s wrong. Free access to information, and the education required to use it, is a basic human right.
On the other hand, ballet lessons are not a basic human right, and so it’s just common sense for the costs of providing ballet lessons (the teacher, the space, et cetera) to be bourne, at least partly, by the user. The argument for subsidy is that, by providing these services for the poor, you are helping to enrich them, culturally. They learn better, they have things to do rather than rattle around, and you know how idle hands are the devil’s playground. So, community centres, which serve everyone in the community, shouldn’t price themselves completely out of the reach of the poor, but they’re not a necessity the way that libraries are.
But where do you draw the line? There is a societal benefit to swimming lessons (it saves lives). There is a societal benefit to physical education (if only to deal with the medical costs our own obesity will be putting on the economy in a few years’ time). There’s a societal benefit to CPR training. Maybe the benefit doesn’t exactly exist for knitting, but karate or wendo certainly offers other societal benefits.
In this regard, user fees are rather like transit fares. It’s been decades since anyone has proposed that all transit in Toronto be free year round. It just will not politically fly. I’m less concerned about rising user fees for services, so long as the services are maintained. There are other ways to help the poor have access to these services if they need them.
@ P. Coulmand & Karl Junkin
I take strong issue with both taxing and licensing bicycles. In our current system, local roads (ie, the ones bicycles use) are funded through property taxes which everyone save the homeless and creatively transient pay. Google the report “Whose Roads” (Litman 2004) and you’ll see that the average motorist underpays $236 per annum while the average cyclist overpays $252 per annum for their respective use of the road, both because cars wear down the road faster, cause more congestion, etc. and because the average trip for the same purpose is longer in a car than on a bike (ie, big box store vs. local grocer.) The author of the report comes across as a bit biased, but interestingly his hard data come from the likes of the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA – eg, dollar figures above), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and for Canadian examples KPMG. None of these organizations is particularly well known for championing the cause of cycling as a mode of transport and yet their conclusions roll up to the same point: cars get massive and increasing subsidies from everyone, bikes underpay.
Every time you hop on your bike instead of taking the car, you are subsidising the rest of society according to how we pay for roads. Tax bicycles? How about we eliminate all the blatant and not-so-blatant subsidies to cars first. Why is it that when I build a house or a condo or a restaurant it is illegal to do so without so many parking spots per 100 square feet of building, yet cycling, transit, and pedestrian facilities come as an afterthought if at all? Convenient how the discussion of transportation funding omits mention of the $11 BILLION bailout GM got from our provincial and federal governments, or the $100 billion+ spent on the 407, subsequently sold for $6 billion. Those darn bikes, let’s tax them instead!
There are fuzzier issues too, which would require more in-depth debate: the impact on health care (obesity epidemic), the environment, land use (parking), or road deaths. I’ll merely point out that the stats for how many people are killed directly by cars (collisions) each year remain grim: over 2000 deaths in 2009 and 120 000+ injuries in Canada (Statscan). This is considered good news as the number (and rate) is decreasing. Even assuming every cyclist is a maniac and 100% at fault where they appear in such tragic cases, only 41 of those 2000 road deaths are accounted for by bicyclists. Yep, time to license and slap a tax on those dangerous bikes!
Licensing: nobody has yet to show me in any convincing way that human behaviour dramatically alters when riding a bike. Pedestrians break the law far more than any road user I know as a group when they begin crossing against a flashing hand. Does this mean we should license pedestrians? I think not, because the laws of physics and the established convention among road users mean such an act is virtually harmless; such conventions and the laws of physics pay no heed to the Highway Traffic Act.
Cyclists are not blameless do-gooders who deserve everyone’s undying admiration. But their infractions and negative impacts on society are minuscule, not even worth mentioning even, in the context of the vast problems caused by the dominance of auto transport in North America. We have to stop ignoring the bull in the china shop.
Steve, I have been reading the comments re: bunching, route management, being behind / ahead of schedule (schedule adherence), use of GPS, etc. There is talk (I have heard this from several Route Supervisors) that TTC management is moving toward “Zero Deviation” route management, whereby vehicles cannot operate ahead of schedule. The supervisors are concerned about this because the technology being used is out of date. Although the vehicles are equipped with GPS (used for the stop calling and Next Bus), it is not used for vehicle tracking as we are still using the 70’s TRUMP system that relies on timing points and “signposts” to update the CIS monitors as well as the TRUMP units in the vehicles. This system relies on sensors detecting axle revolutions to determine position of the vehicle after it has passed the last signpost.
There will also have to be agreement between TTC management and ATU113 over this issue as schedule adherence is covered in the CBA and through several Letters of Agreement as this matter is subject to the discipline process. This has been an extremely contentious issue in the past.
I can foresee that this will lead to vehicles consistently running late, because no operator will want to subject themselves to the chance of being disciplined for running “hot”. This will lead to bunching as no operator will pass a slow bus, again because of the danger of being caught running “hot” and of being disciplined. As happened the last time there was a crackdown on schedule adherence, there will be numerous greivences filed against management and labour relations will go down the toilet again (and they are not the greatest as it stands right now).
Sorry for the long post, but the basic point I am trying to make is that the TTC does not have the basic equipment on the vehicles to make this type of route management reliable.
Steve: It is really disgusting that such a basic thing as simply keeping vehicles properly spaced (as opposed to “on time”) has eluded TTC management for so many years. It’s ironic that someone with a smartphone has more info about the workings of any route than the people responsible for managing it. And why, oh why, have they not at least built an interface between Nextbus and CIS so that position info is derived from the GPS data?
Taxation on pedestrians is useless to discuss without a more important first step: License plates. Pedestrians are in high notoriety for their very large minority that is convinced traffic laws don’t apply to them, as they run red lights, run stop signs, walk the wrong way on a one-way street, jaywalk, walk on roads when their wheel diameter is zero (and runners clocking 15-20 km/hr on the sidewalk), and dashing between moving cars. Pedestrians can’t be forced to comply with traffic laws if there is no identifying mechanism to report offences with, else enforcement is impossible. I don’t believe in pedestrian licenses in the sense of drivers’ licenses, but pedestrian license plates registered to an address (a process which can by design generate revenue as well) is overdue for the amount of sidewalks in this city (disconnected as that network is at intersections missing crosswalks).
Once that is in place, then you have a foundation with which it becomes practical to tax pedestrians, although I think enforcing ticket penalties for offenders is the best way to go. Law-abiding pedestrians do society a lot of good and should not be taxed since they put such a low strain on infrastructure wear and tear.
The Zero deviation idea was mentioned by a couple of drivers talking on my bus the other day. I was somewhat disheartened to hear that the discussion is still about being late or being early when it should be about time between buses arriving.
Gord said: Sorry for the long post, but the basic point I am trying to make is that the TTC does not have the basic equipment on the vehicles to make this type of route management reliable.
Steve has mentioned this absurd situation several times in the past and it is really ridiculous that those who are supposed to supervise things have less information than ordinary users, or voyeurs living in Antarctica! It is news to me that drivers get penalised for running ‘early, but not for running ‘late’. As Gord says, this surely leads to everyone running late just to be sure they do not get punished. Customer Service anyone?
In the service changes list, does “services will be blended” mean that the mentioned additions/removals will only apply where the two respective routes overlap?
Steve: Where two routes (e.g. Malton and Lawrence West) overlap and operate at the same headway, they will be scheduled so that trips on each route alternate at one-half of the common headway. There are locations where multiple routes serve the same corridor, but with no co-ordination between schedules resulting in platoons of buses departing a terminal together.
Thanks for the responses regarding bunching !
I’m curious, how long has the current TTC route management philosophy been in place? I ask as I wonder, 15/20 years back was bunching a problem like it is today?
Anyway, the day this is addressed, is the day I consider ‘customer service’ issues with the TTC just about completely resolved … for the many non-issues people bring up, this is by far and large the worse problem the TTC has today.
One only needs to take a look at the Viva route (well, a really hard look, as it may be hard to remember now); Viva blue in particular has sub 10 min frequencies at various times of the day yet they manage to due a decent job managing it. The point is, it is possible.
Steve: Bunching has always been a problem, but the TTC has a serious problem with its own self image — problems are almost always external to the organization, not the result of its own action or inaction. “Congestion” is a mantra invoked to explain every service problem even though in many cases the scheduled running times on major routes have not changed much over the years.
Line management went through a big change when online vehicle monitoring was added decades ago. Not only was an entire set of skills of route supervisors having an “on the ground” feel for how routes work lost, the now-archaic software was riddled with problems and information about vehicle locations was not always reliable. Concerns about paying overtime translated to a setting in which keeping operators on time took precedence while spacing service was supposed to magically happen simply by having everyone stay to schedule, an impossible task. As we hear in another comment from an operator, the TTC may be attempting to move to rules requiring operators to stay “on time” even though managing to a headway would likely provide better service.
“It’s ironic that someone with a smartphone has more info about the workings of any route than the people responsible for managing it.”
I’ve thought about adding features to TransSee for drivers and supervisors.
For example, drivers they could enter their vehicle number and you’ll have information about the vehicles gaps between the vehicles ahead and behind you. I’m not sure what information would be useful for supervisors in the field beyond what TransSee always provides (location, vehicle numbers and run numbers).
I’d be interested in feed back on what would drivers and supervisors actually would like to know.
Steve: TTC is experimenting with handheld units for Supervisors, but I don’t think the rollout is very extensive yet.
I’ve looked at your programme and it is very interesting how it shows vehicle numbers. As a bus operator, I would love to know the information about gaps, etc. on the line. However, as you are most likely aware, operators can/will be (and have been) disciplined for using cell phones while operating their vehicles. Personally, I am not interested in being relieved of duty and having to go through the various steps of the discipline process. This “crime” automatically starts at Step 2 (Step 1 is with the Divisional Superintendent; Step 2 is with the General Superintendent) and ends up being a loss of pay for at least a week, provided you are able to be reinstated. I am afraid that operators are not willing to take the chance of being caught using a cell phone for this info! I know that I am not. I am of the opinion that the TTC management will never be willing to provide this information to the operators.
Steve: Once upon a time, in talk of a new improved CIS, I believe that I saw (or at least heard of) an onboard display that would show this sort of thing on every vehicle.
I can’t recall noticing any electronic units in use by the Supervisors I have seen. I did, however, notice that the 2009 Transit City Bus Plan report you linked in Rebuilding A Transit City mentions on tpage number 16 (pdf page 23) that “Prototype mobile tracking units are being tested presently, and further development in this area will continue.” There is even a photo of a supervisor with such a device.
That is two and a half years ago, so apparently things are ‘continuing’ at a glacial pace.
Steve: I saw one in use late last year, but didn’t get a look at the details of what it could do.
I would like to know why it is only certain routes which have bunching problems.
I hope me saying this does not ruin my bus route now :). But overall the bus routes that go by my house (95, 38, & 133) operate almost like clockwork and to the printed schedule.
Yet two other routes I use on a regular basis, the 116, and 86 almost never operate on time, and I use these routes on weekends, when there is no traffic excuse. Yet these two routes always bunch no matter the time. And the question is why?
Have you ever checked the schedule? The 86 runs every 7 minutes mid day Saturday while the 86D runs every 30 minutes. Sometimes just 1 minute ahead or behind an 86.
The 116 on Saturdays is supposed to run 9 buses an hour or 6 to 7 minutes. When the headways get this close it is not hard for one bus to get behind if it misses a light, gets hit with a large number of transfers or someone with a stroller. During the week though there are two branches, the 116 and 116A. The TTC in its wisdom schedules the 116A to leave at the same time as a 116. Their are 13 116’s and 5 116A’s per hour so I guess that they just schedule them as 2 separate lines. Bunching is not always the fault of the operators or traffic. It is often caused by management.
I once had dinner at the Swiss Chalet on Eglinton across from the GO station. Every time I saw a 116A it was right behind a 116 so I checked the schedule. That was the way it was supposed to be.
The service summary is now up on the TTC website.
I’m trying to understand what’s up with the 501 Queen.
If you go back to October 2011 summary, the run time were all faster than they were for January 2012. However the new summary is reverting the run times back to October 2011.
Any idea what that is all about Steve?
Steve: Running times were increased in November for the planned diversion around work at Queen and Dufferin by GO Transit. If you look at the October schedule summary, you will see that there are two sets of schedules for 501 Queen with the increased times starting November 20, 2011. This was originally to change back in January, but all planned schedule changes in January were reversed by the Commission’s decision to maintain 2011 service levels for one board period as part of the debate over 2012 service changes. This was done simply by reusing all schedules in effect for November-December. For February, the running times go back to the “normal” values, although there are service cuts during many periods.
For example, midday service Monday to Friday was 11’30” on each branch, and this is now changed to 13’00”. There are now 5 fewer cars on the line.