|
Post by snowman on Sept 4, 2018 12:51:50 GMT
Customer Service and Operational Committee agenda 11 Sept content.tfl.gov.uk/csopp-11-sept-2018.pdfPage 10 has note on bus services to hospitals Page 28 shows bus crime falling but page 32 shows detection rate falling 32% Page 48 (page 62 of pack) has Quarterly bus usage, no explanation for decrease to 521m journeys from previous years 530m Page 65 (page 79 of pack) has bus speeds, increasing in inner London, no improvement outer London (during 2017-18). Also refers to marginal dip in 2018-19 so bus speeds have fallen again Page 72 (page 86 of pack) has some Customer care initatives which will see more PA announcements to encourage offering seats Page 74 (page 88 of pack) there is a reference to Customer Satisfaction of temperature of buses falling due to hot weather. But nothing on plan to fix it Page 86 (page 100 in pack) has some nice graphs showing changes over last few years between paper tickets, oyster and contactless (but beware the graph scales are different) Page 167 suggests the Bus Strategy Update (in Actions) is now scheduled for 14 November meeting
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 4, 2018 13:25:15 GMT
Customer Service and Operational Committee agenda 11 Sept content.tfl.gov.uk/csopp-11-sept-2018.pdfPage 10 has note on bus services to hospitals Page 28 shows bus crime falling but page 32 shows detection rate falling 32% Page 48 (page 62 of pack) has Quarterly bus usage, no explanation for decrease to 521m journeys from previous years 530m Page 65 (page 79 of pack) has bus speeds, increasing in inner London, no improvement outer London (during 2017-18). Also refers to marginal dip in 2018-19 so bus speeds have fallen again Page 72 (page 86 of pack) has some Customer care initatives which will see more PA announcements to encourage offering seats Page 74 (page 88 of pack) there is a reference to Customer Satisfaction of temperature of buses falling due to hot weather. But nothing on plan to fix it Page 86 (page 100 in pack) has some nice graphs showing changes over last few years between paper tickets, oyster and contactless (but beware the graph scales are different) Page 167 suggests the Bus Strategy Update (in Actions) is now scheduled for 14 November meeting Had a look at the hospital bit and it seems the ideas stem around demand responsive services - sounds like another name for these Chariot services that have cropped up in certain parts of London?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 4, 2018 14:15:48 GMT
One thing I find interesting about TFL and its bus strategy is where is it taking into consideration the impact of road improvement schemes such as Mini Holland in LBWF, this makes bus journeys less appealing to the passenger as it is often quicker to walk. Its fine to have transport strategies but one strategy cannot be at a cost to other forms of public transport. LBWF is ruining the transport infrastructure in the borough. This is only one borough from 33 so if all are as bad that is why figures are down and the incumbent TFL gurus need to develop a scheme to reverse the decline in bus usage. I don't disagree with you. However TfL knew they had conflicting strategies when Mini Holland went ahead and it has / had more political priority so it overrode everything else. What has happened in Waltham Forest is what the Mayor wants to see everywhere. The fact bus passengers end up with a worse service is viewed as acceptable collateral damage. It's wrong and stupid and pointless but there you go. TfL would rather you walked than took a bus. The fact that you may be too unwell or temporarily / permanently disabled or too old or too encumbered to walk long distances doesn't seem to factor into any calculations about reducing the bus service. If we are to lose the entire 357 service without compensatory measures - something I now feel is highly likely - then that will be the proof of my theories about a lack of care and consideration.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 4, 2018 19:31:20 GMT
Customer Service and Operational Committee agenda 11 Sept content.tfl.gov.uk/csopp-11-sept-2018.pdfPage 10 has note on bus services to hospitals Page 28 shows bus crime falling but page 32 shows detection rate falling 32% Page 48 (page 62 of pack) has Quarterly bus usage, no explanation for decrease to 521m journeys from previous years 530m Page 65 (page 79 of pack) has bus speeds, increasing in inner London, no improvement outer London (during 2017-18). Also refers to marginal dip in 2018-19 so bus speeds have fallen again Page 72 (page 86 of pack) has some Customer care initatives which will see more PA announcements to encourage offering seats Page 74 (page 88 of pack) there is a reference to Customer Satisfaction of temperature of buses falling due to hot weather. But nothing on plan to fix it Page 86 (page 100 in pack) has some nice graphs showing changes over last few years between paper tickets, oyster and contactless (but beware the graph scales are different) Page 167 suggests the Bus Strategy Update (in Actions) is now scheduled for 14 November meeting Well that was a rather tedious pack of papers. I see TfL can't even be bothered to separate the papers out anymore so you have to plough through hundreds of pages whether you wish to or not. How sloppy. I suspect the lack of explanation of the fall in bus usage is because TfL don't know what is going on but are afraid to say so. It is rather concerning that the Customer Services paperwork is now just 2/3s safety and crime stuff and not that relevant. I also note we are being "blinded" with a blizzard of measures and stats which are largely meaningless to the average person who uses TfL services. This feels rather symptomatic of City Hall's approach to things. I note that TfL can't even get their list of consultations correct - they have left the 88 and C2 consultation off their list despite it going live in Qtr 2. They have also stopped showing a look ahead of future consultations - presumably because so many horrific ones are on the way and they didn't want to cause a panic. Not a good precedent though given all the balony in the customer profile presentation about TfL being trusted and being transparent. The other problem in all this data is that it's showing that TfL's old trusted methodologies about better reliability and improving road conditions / higher average speeds are not feeding through into more bus usage. No wonder they aren't commenting because their "world" has been turned on its head. Oh and one other thing - the report shows 9,550 buses in service on the TfL network. However I decided to look at a report from 2017. It shows 9,200 buses in service which suggests an increase of 350 buses in a period when TfL have been cutting services. Anyone tell me what I am missing that gives rise to more buses running now than a year ago
|
|
|
Post by MoEnviro on Sept 4, 2018 19:54:23 GMT
Oh and one other thing - the report shows 9,550 buses in service on the TfL network. However I decided to look at a report from 2017. It shows 9,200 buses in service which suggests an increase of 350 buses in a period when TfL have been cutting services. Anyone tell me what I am missing that gives rise to more buses running now than a year ago Is that 9,550 PVR of the network?
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Sept 4, 2018 20:54:15 GMT
Oh and one other thing - the report shows 9,550 buses in service on the TfL network. However I decided to look at a report from 2017. It shows 9,200 buses in service which suggests an increase of 350 buses in a period when TfL have been cutting services. Anyone tell me what I am missing that gives rise to more buses running now than a year ago Is that 9,550 PVR of the network? I don't have a more up-to-date PVR to hand than LOTS sup 37cc, dated 1/7/17, and as of that date total PVR on TfL contracted services was 8122, down from an all-time high of 8174 on 31/3/17 following the 13's withdrawal etc. The comparable figure for mid 2002 was 6071, after which there was steady and inexorable growth until the process was halted, maybe for the foreseeable future, and went into reverse.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 4, 2018 21:53:15 GMT
Oh and one other thing - the report shows 9,550 buses in service on the TfL network. However I decided to look at a report from 2017. It shows 9,200 buses in service which suggests an increase of 350 buses in a period when TfL have been cutting services. Anyone tell me what I am missing that gives rise to more buses running now than a year ago Is that 9,550 PVR of the network? Honest answer is that I don't know how TfL calculate it. I've never seen a definition of the measures they use for their fancy graphics in their report. As Mr Busaholic has said above the LOTS total PVR calculation has been around the 8,100 or so for a fair while. If you take the PVR and uplift by about 12-13% then you get closeish to what the likely total (TfL) bus fleet is in London. If you uplift 8,174 PVR by 13% you get to 9,237 buses. That would make rough sense in the context of TfL's 2017 number of 9,200 buses. Where the hell they get 9,550 for now given the repeated cut backs I don't know. OK some of the more serious cuts haven't happened just yet but nonetheless the PVR must be going down as by TfL's own admission there is less congestion and TfL have been very reluctant to increase PVR during road works - they've simply cut frequencies instead. One of the reasons for past increases in PVRs was TfL bolstering them to cope with major works like Elephant and Castle and cycle superhighways.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Sept 4, 2018 22:04:02 GMT
I note that TfL can't even get their list of consultations correct - they have left the 88 and C2 consultation off their list despite it going live in Qtr 2. They have also stopped showing a look ahead of future consultations - presumably because so many horrific ones are on the way and they didn't want to cause a panic. Not a good precedent though given all the balony in the customer profile presentation about TfL being trusted and being transparent. When you refer to the ‘horrific ones’, are you referring to all of the leaked ones on the 853 blog? Route 311 and 11, 19, 45 curtailment etc. I wonder what other dreaded consultations will be on the way that didn’t manage to get leaked. The infamous 357 is a given seeing as it hasn’t been retendered, but will need to be consulted on first. You mentioned earlier it’s worringly likely the 357 could get withdrawn but without replacement, but surely if the consultation is purely just kill the 357 no one would support it? (is it possible TfL could maybe fudge the results of consultations so they can just do what they want anyway?) One on the 130 is probably in the pipeline and I also predict one regarding the 460 may arise next year, which is the year before its renewal if not extended. Are road conditions and higher average speeds actually starting to improve now? Definitely would be a concern if conditions are getting better but bus usage is still falling. However even though usage is falling, it’s falling at a considerably lower rate now so I like to think it’s somewhat a good sign.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 4, 2018 22:42:02 GMT
I note that TfL can't even get their list of consultations correct - they have left the 88 and C2 consultation off their list despite it going live in Qtr 2. They have also stopped showing a look ahead of future consultations - presumably because so many horrific ones are on the way and they didn't want to cause a panic. Not a good precedent though given all the balony in the customer profile presentation about TfL being trusted and being transparent. When you refer to the ‘horrific ones’, are you referring to all of the leaked ones on the 853 blog? Route 311 and 11, 19, 45 curtailment etc. I wonder what other dreaded consultations will be on the way that didn’t manage to get leaked. The infamous 357 is a given seeing as it hasn’t been retendered, but will need to be consulted on first. You mentioned earlier it’s worringly likely the 357 could get withdrawn but without replacement, but surely if the consultation is purely just kill the 357 no one would support it? (is it possible TfL could maybe fudge the results of consultations so they can just do what they want anyway?) One on the 130 is probably in the pipeline and I also predict one regarding the 460 may arise next year, which is the year before its renewal if not extended. Are road conditions and higher average speeds actually starting to improve now? Definitely would be a concern if conditions are getting better but bus usage is still falling. However even though usage is falling, it’s falling at a considerably lower rate now so I like to think it’s somewhat a good sign. Let's do the last thing first. I am just remarking on what is in the report. TfL's report say road congestion is easing in inner London, there are fewer road work schemes and average bus speeds are higher. The operators are running a higher percentage of schedule and excess wait time is the best number ever for Q2. Given TfL's past understanding of these metrics that should translate into bus patronage improvements. It is not happening. In short either the old methodological linkages are broken or they are temporarily impeded by unknown factors. Whichever way round you put it TfL don't know which it is. On your first point I think TfL will try and get away with no replacement for the 357. The main problem they have is no direct link, except on the once a day SDO 657 service, from Chingford Mount to Chingford Hatch. The walking environment from the Larkshall Road roundabout (from the 444 / W16) is not very nice and I can't see how TfL could argue "hopper ticket" for breaking what is a very long established local link. There are two options - have the 444 do a loop down to the Hatch and back or have the W16 do the same thing. The 444 is probably the better idea as the W16 would double on a link provided by the 212. However that is still more mileage and cost and it depends on how brutal TfL want to be. I suspect we may get some stupid sop of some extra peak time 215s in the peak direction only but we shall see. I don't see the 97 getting extra buses. Any way round the 215 is going to be mullered at Walthamstow Bus Station as it will be the only bus from there to Chingford Mount once TfL take out the 97 and cancel the 357. You will note I am assuming this is all a fait accompli. On other consultations we know Richmond is to be reviewed. That will probably be a bit of a blood bath. We have Central London due too (the leaked one) but I suspect TfL may be tweaking that a bit before it emerges but not in a major way. As I have said before I expect places like Hounslow, Kingston, Croydon, Harrow, Bromley and Romford are all due the "simplification" treatment as it is far too easy for "the unthinking youthful mega brains" at TfL to say "ooh look TOO MANY BUSES, EXTERMINATE!" OK maybe not those exact words but that's the meaning. I would argue Kingston is particularly vulnerable because it is a Mini Holland borough, has horrible traffic conditions and if you dismantle elements of Kingston network you actually make savings in quite a number of other places because of the long routes that run from Kingston. I am less sure about Enfield (the third Mini Holland borough) because its network is not that dense and quickly fans out into single trunk or local routes. Southbury Road is the busiest link but even there you can't take much out without breaking links to obvious nearby locales.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Sept 4, 2018 23:54:19 GMT
When you refer to the ‘horrific ones’, are you referring to all of the leaked ones on the 853 blog? Route 311 and 11, 19, 45 curtailment etc. I wonder what other dreaded consultations will be on the way that didn’t manage to get leaked. The infamous 357 is a given seeing as it hasn’t been retendered, but will need to be consulted on first. You mentioned earlier it’s worringly likely the 357 could get withdrawn but without replacement, but surely if the consultation is purely just kill the 357 no one would support it? (is it possible TfL could maybe fudge the results of consultations so they can just do what they want anyway?) One on the 130 is probably in the pipeline and I also predict one regarding the 460 may arise next year, which is the year before its renewal if not extended. Are road conditions and higher average speeds actually starting to improve now? Definitely would be a concern if conditions are getting better but bus usage is still falling. However even though usage is falling, it’s falling at a considerably lower rate now so I like to think it’s somewhat a good sign. Let's do the last thing first. I am just remarking on what is in the report. TfL's report say road congestion is easing in inner London, there are fewer road work schemes and average bus speeds are higher. The operators are running a higher percentage of schedule and excess wait time is the best number ever for Q2. Given TfL's past understanding of these metrics that should translate into bus patronage improvements. It is not happening. In short either the old methodological linkages are broken or they are temporarily impeded by unknown factors. Whichever way round you put it TfL don't know which it is. On your first point I think TfL will try and get away with no replacement for the 357. The main problem they have is no direct link, except on the once a day SDO 657 service, from Chingford Mount to Chingford Hatch. The walking environment from the Larkshall Road roundabout (from the 444 / W16) is not very nice and I can't see how TfL could argue "hopper ticket" for breaking what is a very long established local link. There are two options - have the 444 do a loop down to the Hatch and back or have the W16 do the same thing. The 444 is probably the better idea as the W16 would double on a link provided by the 212. However that is still more mileage and cost and it depends on how brutal TfL want to be. I suspect we may get some stupid sop of some extra peak time 215s in the peak direction only but we shall see. I don't see the 97 getting extra buses. Any way round the 215 is going to be mullered at Walthamstow Bus Station as it will be the only bus from there to Chingford Mount once TfL take out the 97 and cancel the 357. You will note I am assuming this is all a fait accompli. On other consultations we know Richmond is to be reviewed. That will probably be a bit of a blood bath. We have Central London due too (the leaked one) but I suspect TfL may be tweaking that a bit before it emerges but not in a major way. As I have said before I expect places like Hounslow, Kingston, Croydon, Harrow, Bromley and Romford are all due the "simplification" treatment as it is far too easy for "the unthinking youthful mega brains" at TfL to say "ooh look TOO MANY BUSES, EXTERMINATE!" OK maybe not those exact words but that's the meaning. I would argue Kingston is particularly vulnerable because it is a Mini Holland borough, has horrible traffic conditions and if you dismantle elements of Kingston network you actually make savings in quite a number of other places because of the long routes that run from Kingston. I am less sure about Enfield (the third Mini Holland borough) because its network is not that dense and quickly fans out into single trunk or local routes. Southbury Road is the busiest link but even there you can't take much out without breaking links to obvious nearby locales. Thanks for that detailed post. One last point I’d like to make is that if the congestion is actually easing like TfL say it is, I’d personally say the reason why bus usage isn’t increasing could be two possible factors, 1) it’s not easing fast enough and 2) it’ll take time for customers to have faith in buses again, if that’s what you want to call it. Even if it is marginally better I still would definitely not take an 11 to get from Victoria to Liv. St for example, and I would need to see evidence that the time to make that journey is actually getting better for me to actually make that journey by bus. I think a lot of normal passengers may have that same thought process, they need to see for themselves that journey times are getting better in Zone 1 so they can have faith in using them again.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 5, 2018 1:37:33 GMT
Let's do the last thing first. I am just remarking on what is in the report. TfL's report say road congestion is easing in inner London, there are fewer road work schemes and average bus speeds are higher. The operators are running a higher percentage of schedule and excess wait time is the best number ever for Q2. Given TfL's past understanding of these metrics that should translate into bus patronage improvements. It is not happening. In short either the old methodological linkages are broken or they are temporarily impeded by unknown factors. Whichever way round you put it TfL don't know which it is. On your first point I think TfL will try and get away with no replacement for the 357. The main problem they have is no direct link, except on the once a day SDO 657 service, from Chingford Mount to Chingford Hatch. The walking environment from the Larkshall Road roundabout (from the 444 / W16) is not very nice and I can't see how TfL could argue "hopper ticket" for breaking what is a very long established local link. There are two options - have the 444 do a loop down to the Hatch and back or have the W16 do the same thing. The 444 is probably the better idea as the W16 would double on a link provided by the 212. However that is still more mileage and cost and it depends on how brutal TfL want to be. I suspect we may get some stupid sop of some extra peak time 215s in the peak direction only but we shall see. I don't see the 97 getting extra buses. Any way round the 215 is going to be mullered at Walthamstow Bus Station as it will be the only bus from there to Chingford Mount once TfL take out the 97 and cancel the 357. You will note I am assuming this is all a fait accompli. On other consultations we know Richmond is to be reviewed. That will probably be a bit of a blood bath. We have Central London due too (the leaked one) but I suspect TfL may be tweaking that a bit before it emerges but not in a major way. As I have said before I expect places like Hounslow, Kingston, Croydon, Harrow, Bromley and Romford are all due the "simplification" treatment as it is far too easy for "the unthinking youthful mega brains" at TfL to say "ooh look TOO MANY BUSES, EXTERMINATE!" OK maybe not those exact words but that's the meaning. I would argue Kingston is particularly vulnerable because it is a Mini Holland borough, has horrible traffic conditions and if you dismantle elements of Kingston network you actually make savings in quite a number of other places because of the long routes that run from Kingston. I am less sure about Enfield (the third Mini Holland borough) because its network is not that dense and quickly fans out into single trunk or local routes. Southbury Road is the busiest link but even there you can't take much out without breaking links to obvious nearby locales. Thanks for that detailed post. One last point I’d like to make is that if the congestion is actually easing like TfL say it is, I’d personally say the reason why bus usage isn’t increasing could be two possible factors, 1) it’s not easing fast enough and 2) it’ll take time for customers to have faith in buses again, if that’s what you want to call it. Even if it is marginally better I still would definitely not take an 11 to get from Victoria to Liv. St for example, and I would need to see evidence that the time to make that journey is actually getting better for me to actually make that journey by bus. I think a lot of normal passengers may have that same thought process, they need to see for themselves that journey times are getting better in Zone 1 so they can have faith in using them again. I can't see how bus speeds are rising in Inner London unless it's in an area where there was works and they've risen back to their pre works figure - still, hardly a pat on the back moment as many bus journey's are still blighted by too much congestion and no one will tackle it because you can't be seen to punish motorists too much. Very little bus priority is being implemented and some of the existing priority is blighted by poor planning - a good example being the contraflow bus lane on Stockwell Road - a useful but at the same time frustrating bit of road because of the light phasings at the Brixton Police Station junction.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 5, 2018 6:07:15 GMT
What if the reasons for declining bus usage are beyond the ability of TfL to understand or control? We have been in a period where London has experienced continuous population growth. I wonder if the population has now reached equilibrium following the Brexit result is 2016. In my industry I have seen jobs and people leave the capital and relocated to the EU. That along with telecommuting *might* be why we are seeing no net growth in public transport usage across London. Yes, I realise that my theory can’t be tested until the next census in 2021, but I just wanted to throw the thought out there that maybe the lack of growth in public transport use isn’t entirely TfL’s fault.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 5, 2018 6:55:39 GMT
What if the reasons for declining bus usage are beyond the ability of TfL to understand or control? We have been in a period where London has experienced continuous population growth. I wonder if the population has now reached equilibrium following the Brexit result is 2016. In my industry I have seen jobs and people leave the capital and relocated to the EU. That along with telecommuting *might* be why we are seeing no net growth in public transport usage across London. Yes, I realise that my theory can’t be tested until the next census in 2021, but I just wanted to throw the thought out there that maybe the lack of growth in public transport use isn’t entirely TfL’s fault. I'm not suggesting that TfL are perfect by any means but I think the decline in bus usage is largely due to circumstances beyond their control, declining population, more people working and shopping from home etc in fact it seems much the same nationwide, even worldwide. There was a link on here recently about a similar decline in bus usage in New York.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 5, 2018 11:23:24 GMT
What if the reasons for declining bus usage are beyond the ability of TfL to understand or control? We have been in a period where London has experienced continuous population growth. I wonder if the population has now reached equilibrium following the Brexit result is 2016. In my industry I have seen jobs and people leave the capital and relocated to the EU. That along with telecommuting *might* be why we are seeing no net growth in public transport usage across London. Yes, I realise that my theory can’t be tested until the next census in 2021, but I just wanted to throw the thought out there that maybe the lack of growth in public transport use isn’t entirely TfL’s fault. I suspect economic factors are part of the mix. TfL are a very data and evidence based organisation *except* when forced to be irrational by Mayoral demands. TfL therefore will not say anything with any sort of certainty until they have enormous amounts of data amassed over a long time period that they have analysed and tested. They are also heavily reliant on external sources for key bits of data such as those you refer to. They certainly don't have their own model of the national economy. There is not yet enough evidence to say shopping habits have *permanently* changed because of internet shopping / home delivery. Ditto for job losses and population and the impact of cycle lanes and and and ...... the list is endless because things are still changing. It's also why they've kept quiet about the Hopper ticket - it's only been in for 2 years but within that period its scope changed so that interrupts the data sequence due to the way passengers respond to the revised offer. At some point they will reach conclusions in these areas but they're not saying much now because the data doesn't give them certainty. There may also be implications for how they model passenger benefits etc and it will take them even longer to review their own methodologies and enact changes. To be fair that's not the sort of thing you do lightly because it could have very considerable impacts on how the various networks are run and changed. It could also undermine the Mayor's published strategies and plans so that's another big issue.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Sept 5, 2018 21:05:23 GMT
I think there is a multitude of reasons for declining bus usage, and while I think I know many of the causes, if I were Mayor I'd want a proper investigation and report into this unless of TfL already know or have done this. I suspect that some of the results of this would be difficult to act upon because it would be in conflict with other higher priorities the Mayor and TfL currently have.
I have no doubt that congestion and journey times are important factors but I would like to understand more about these improved bus speeds. Are they across the board or relevant to just some central routes? What has happened to patronage on those routes which have benefitted from lower congestion? There is also a very large elephant in the room. Of the routes which have improved speeds has the timetable been changed to reflect this? Is there a lower PVR? If not I suspect any improvement in bus speeds won't matter a 'diddly squat' unless the timetable changes. Why? Because buses can't run too early and have to have even headways and this will translate into waits at bus stops to regulate the service. So any benefit in time from reduced congestion may well be spent at bus stops waiting to regulate the service. I have been subjected to this many times. If this happens the poor passenger won't have a shorter journey time so any increase in bus speed will be irrelevant.
I would also point out that any increase in journey times will quickly translate into lost patronage as passengers will immediately suffer the longer journey times. Once bus speeds improve it will take time for patronage to return as people won't know bus speeds have improved as they are no longer using the bus. Once they find out, the bus will also need to be more attractive to them than whatever form of transport they now use if they are to swap back. Now if in the interim bus are hacked back and frequencies cut, passengers may find they can no longer make the direct journey they once did, waits for buses may be longer and so on, so making the bus service unattractive to them. They will then no longer return to the buses irrespective of improved bus speeds.
|
|