Its always the bus driver's fault....

Closed Thread
Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Load Toad:
    ..which he is not. Can you accept that aussiegal? He or she IS NOT under any obligation, pressure or request to drive too fast or in an unsafe manner nor to ignore the laws of the road.
    How do you know? Do you know the pay structure and management of all the bus companies? They could, quite easily, have targets for the time it takes to complete a run with some form of incentive to do it quicker. Just because there is no timetable, does not mean it's not a good idea to keep your capital assets working as hard as possible (quicker routes mean less buses required for the total day).

  2. #62

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    4,151

    KMB do not have incentives to complete trips quicker, that I do know. Due to the changing traffic conditions they also have no particular targets to complete runs. One of our family members is a KMB bus driver who also used to work for Citybus.


  3. #63

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Darkside
    Posts
    1,589

    There is a timetable, there is a schedule. HK buses never set off before the time on the schedule so why would there be pressure to finish faster?

    Minibuses are different - but not buses.

    If there was a job description that said 'Drive 'round fast and get finished quick style' it'd would have been in the media already.


  4. #64

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,419
    Quote Originally Posted by MovingIn07:
    (quicker routes mean less buses required for the total day).
    you just don't get the point do you? there are a set number of trips EVERY day, setting out from the terminus at specified times EVERY day...look at a schedule in a terminus sometime; every start time is listed...finishing faster will not reduce the number of trips or buses required that day, it will only lengthen the 'break time' before the next scheduled departure for the driver during his shift...this is not rocket science...
    Last edited by timklip; 12-11-2009 at 12:52 PM.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,934
    Quote Originally Posted by timklip:
    you just don't get the point do you? there are a set number of trips EVERY day, setting out from the terminus at specified times EVERY day...look at a schedule in a terminus sometime; every start time is listed...finishing faster will not reduce the number of trips or buses required that day, it will only lengthen the 'break time' before the next scheduled departure for the driver during his shift...this is not rocket science...
    You miss my point entirely.

    Sure there is a schedule. It is based around how long it takes to complete the route and how many buses there are. If the route was driven faster (or slower) then the schedule would be different - such difference possibly making the bus company more (or less) profitable.

    I agree, that on any particular day it makes no difference - but in general it does and so it's not unreasonable to assume that going faster might be a trait selected for in bus drivers.

    That's all. Not that it IS, just that there is an argument to show how even big bus co's could make more money this way (and money is everything in HK) so it's not an unreasonable suggestion.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,419

    i understand you point completely, but the fact (backed up by posters with more knowledge than you or I of the working of the companies here) is that your point is wrong...get over it and move on...but for arguments sake, please explain how doing a route more quickly would reduce the number of buses required...if anything, it would allow for MORE trips requiring MORE fuel, MORE maintenance with less full buses...in other words, it would be LESS efficient to run 30 half empty buses as compared to 28 full buses...(i can't believe I would have to explain this...)


  7. #67

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,934
    Quote Originally Posted by timklip:
    i understand you point completely, but the fact (backed up by posters with more knowledge than you or I of the working of the companies here) is that your point is wrong...get over it and move on...but for arguments sake, please explain how doing a route more quickly would reduce the number of buses required...if anything, it would allow for MORE trips requiring MORE fuel, MORE maintenance with less full buses...in other words, it would be LESS efficient to run 30 half empty buses as compared to 28 full buses...(i can't believe I would have to explain this...)
    I wasn't pushing this - another poster was and I was just reacting to the comments that they were completely wrong.

    But as to your point about - you are right only if there is a fixed number of people travelling and no other options (unlikely in HK). If the number of people travelling goes up with more frequent buses (because, for example, they take the bus rather than mtr or drive) then it does not necessarily hold that more buses are less full.... anyway - we digress.

    We are all commenting before the investigation which is quite silly in itself, probably better to wait until the full facts are actually known!

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    434

    This is complete nonsense. What’s the point in buses racing around trying to catch up with the one ahead – to arrive at an empty busstop that’s just been cleared of passengers??

    Buses are scheduled to run at regular intervals – presumably painstakingly calculated – in order for the maximum number of passengers to assemble before the next bus arrives.


  9. #69

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Discovery Bay
    Posts
    5,018

    Hi,

    So we know that if a bus makes it back to the terminus, say 10 mins before the scheduled time of arrival, the next departure will not be earlier but at the same time. So we have a fixed number of departures everyday.

    Consider the possibility that a bus traveling slower and taking longer to reach the next stop provides more time for the length of the queue to grow, so when the bus arrives at the stop there are more pax boarding the bus now than there would have been if the bus reached the stop several minutes earlier. If the bus driver were racing against time to make it to the next stop to pick up more pax, then in the process he will have missed those extra pax he could have had on board driving slowly.

    Therefore, on the same route, he will have picked up more passengers. While the cost may be more or less the same at a lower speed, revenue is maximised for that same run.

    I can see this working on, for instance, the 973 (Citybus) route from Stanley Market to Tsim Sha Tsui East. On much of this route, this is the only service operating between these two destinations. Frequency is mostly p!ss-poor and the buses are sluggish, but it has been operating for years and years. I think it is profitable.

    Now let's take a look at bus services running between Central and Hang Hau. KMB's service is the 692 and they also have a 690 that runs from Central to Tsui Lam. Citybus/NWFB's service on this route is (gasp!)... the 692!!! Suffice it to say that KMB owns this route. Okay there is the MTR, maybe the red minibuses and taxis. But there are no other bus services that operate between these two routes.

    The point is this, driving faster does not equal higher revenue, especially when you do not have other buses picking up your pax, and you operate a fixed number of runs everyday.

    This driver wanted a longer break. Blame him, or blame KMB for not giving drivers longer breaks that they have to resort to speeding. But how long a break is long enough?

    Last edited by Dreadnought; 12-11-2009 at 02:00 PM. Reason: Changed Tseung Kwan O to Hang Hau

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    11,884

    It always amazes me how Geo threads can take a life of their own. This one started of as a post by a conspiracy theorist who'd misplaced his or her tinfoil hat and now it's a discussion the incentives of transport companies and a minor flame war


Closed Thread
Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast