Metra’s overall on-time statistics hide tardy trains## Performance is best measured between the lines
By Richard Wronski, Tribune reporters
7:38 p.m. CDT, June 14, 2011
Metra boasts that its trains run on schedule better than 95 percent of the time, but that’s not the experience of commuter Lisa Clarke. Her line, the Heritage Corridor, tends to run late about once a week.
Apparently the author has never heard the phrase “Lies Damn Lies and Statistics” (Or he has and just doesn’t care.)
Oh man I cant tell you how many times i heard this phrase over the intercom
“May I have your attention please. Metra Passengers awaiting outbound train number _____, your train is operating approximately 10 to 15 minutes late due to waiting on other trains. Metra does apologize for this inconvenience” the reason for trains being late is because of those damn canucks in Montreal, Canadian National, that make 'em late because they have control of the lines. on other lines like the Milwaukee Districts, Metra has control, so instead of freight having top authority, Metra trains do. I always see CP trains waiting for Metra trains.
The problem on both the Heritage and Southwest lines isn’t so much other trains on their own lines as that they cross other heavily used freight lines (especially BRC and IHB) at grade, with cross traffic not always clearing in a timely fashion. Also remember that, prior to the RTA, the Heritage and Southwest lines were each only one inbound AM run and one outbound PM run.
Maybe Heritage Line, but as I recall, the Southwest line(ex-Rock Island) was running more than one train each way prior to RTA in 1975, even though the equipment was mostly pretty old and shabby (Capone cars).
Where is the lie? The analysis showed 1 in 20 trains late. That’s95% the claimed on-time performance. The cost of others maintaining your line is that it is late some time.
The “lie” is isn’t necessarily a lie. Statistics can be used to mislead.
Metra says that 95% of trains are on time. True, but as the article points out, not all trains are on time 95% of the time.
Lisa Clarke(a passenger in the article) says that her train is “Always Late”. Lets accept her statement for the sake of argument. But that her train is always late doesn’t mean that all trains are late, all trains on her line are late, or that all trains everywhere are always late.
Lets take a look at other points the article makes.
“Six other lines, the UP North and West, BNSF, North Central Service, Milwaukee District North, and SouthWest Service, also fared worse than the system average of 4.1 percent in 2010.”
If we think about this statement, you might think seven lines operate worse than the average they quoted. Others will point out that when you have an average, there are bound to be lines that are worse than the average because other lines are better than the average. Averages are nice, but they don’t always give us the best picture.
Or how about this gem:
“Were it not for the Electric District, whose trains were late less than 3 percent of the time in 2010, Metra’s overall performance would have been lower.”
Really?! if we take away Metra’s highest % on time route their average would be worse? I had no idea! What would happen if we ignored their lowest % on time route?
On-time percentages can be misleading based on the size of the service. It doesn’t take a lot of delays to skew the on-time percentage on the Heritage line (3 trains each way M-F) while it would take a lot of delayed trains to come up with a similar percentage on the IC Electric or the Burlington.
Considering the crew issues that have recently cropped up…
Does METRA count a cancelled train as being late? To the customer, having to take other action account of the cancelled train makes it infinately late in his mind.