|
Post by sid on Sept 17, 2018 14:19:58 GMT
Have they? What's turned out to be duff? The 25 for example, when usage has clearly gone up by around 3M yet TfL have decided to slaughter it. But not until Crossrail opens to be fair. I think it should still got to Holborn Stn or TCR though.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 17, 2018 14:29:35 GMT
So a heap of bus cuts partly based on data that's now turned out to be duff? I think that's a bit harsh. TfL will have far richer and more complex data than is ever released to the public. TfL will use that data for planning purposes as I am sure you will appreciate. Whenever I've quoted the patronage data on here I've been careful to caveat it because you simply can't draw firm conclusions from annualised, route level data. I've actually had to create two spreadsheets - one which uses the old 2016/17 data and the new methodology 2017/18 data and a second one which uses the rebased 2016/17 and 2017/18 data. There are some rather peculiar things going on. Some routes in Outer London - Enfield, Harrow, Bromley and Kingston are notable - have lost some patronage. Certainly not the end of the world but there are losses. In two of those boroughs I assume Mini Holland works are a factor. The Finchley Road corridor is statistically a right old mess because of TfL's reuse of 13/N13. The 13's patronage has leapt but, of course, that's rather stupid because the real comparison is against the old 82. The 113 has put on decent numbers presumably because it actually reaches Oxford Street and from its frequency increase. The 189 has lost patronage because of being curtailed to Marble Arch while the 139 has piled on patronage - partly because it also still serves Oxford St. I still haven't decided what to do with the old 13 / new 13 / 82 data - doing what TfL have done makes no sense to me so I may have to faff around and create records for "old 13 / old N13" to reflect the route run by London Sovereign with 13/N13 being Tower Transit and 82 remaining as a historical record. I'd prefer to keep using the 82 for what Tower Transit operate but it's a bit obscure. The only telling thing for me is that if you take buses out of Oxford St you lose patronage - not rocket science I'll admit but it makes a nonsense of the alleged "fall in demand" on Oxford St itself. Route 6 has lost 1/2 million pass jnys in the last year so that rerouting via Piccadilly been's great - NOT! Where I will agree with your comment is that there are other corridors which have been cut but where patronage seems to be very decent and if you use the rebased numbers patronage has gone up. That makes me scratch my head somewhat. What is more stark is the more marginal routes like the 384 and W12 which have cuts - their patronage is down quite sharply and probably won't recover. The W13 and W14 seem to have picked bits of what I could hazard a guess where former W12 passengers on sections where there's an overlap - largely around South Woodford. Some of the strongest performers are outer London orbital routes like the 123, 182, 183, 140, 407, X26. Perhaps no great shock there but a reminder of their importance. If I was to ENORMOUSLY cynical I'd say the introduction of a new methodology is very conveniently timed in one respect. In most cases the new methodology has effectively put route level patronage up by 7-10%. It has also reversed what looked to be worrying trends of decline on some routes but it does raise questions about what is really going on. If you discount numbers by around the "inflator" factor from the methodology then not much is really happening at all. Some routes remain in decline and many others would be static. It makes it even harder to make even a wild guess as to the effect of the Hopper ticket and fares freeze. Normally things that improve perceived value for money of a product means greater purchases or use of that product. Hard to see much demonstration of that with these numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bigbaddom1981 on Sept 17, 2018 14:42:24 GMT
I notice the 192 is up from 3mill to 3.3mill.
This route is at capacity and if noting changes when Merdian Water opens then this route will suffer even more!
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Sept 17, 2018 15:00:01 GMT
So a heap of bus cuts partly based on data that's now turned out to be duff? I think that's a bit harsh. TfL will have far richer and more complex data than is ever released to the public. TfL will use that data for planning purposes as I am sure you will appreciate. Whenever I've quoted the patronage data on here I've been careful to caveat it because you simply can't draw firm conclusions from annualised, route level data. I've actually had to create two spreadsheets - one which uses the old 2016/17 data and the new methodology 2017/18 data and a second one which uses the rebased 2016/17 and 2017/18 data. There are some rather peculiar things going on. Some routes in Outer London - Enfield, Harrow, Bromley and Kingston are notable - have lost some patronage. Certainly not the end of the world but there are losses. In two of those boroughs I assume Mini Holland works are a factor. The Finchley Road corridor is statistically a right old mess because of TfL's reuse of 13/N13. The 13's patronage has leapt but, of course, that's rather stupid because the real comparison is against the old 82. The 113 has put on decent numbers presumably because it actually reaches Oxford Street and from its frequency increase. The 189 has lost patronage because of being curtailed to Marble Arch while the 139 has piled on patronage - partly because it also still serves Oxford St. I still haven't decided what to do with the old 13 / new 13 / 82 data - doing what TfL have done makes no sense to me so I may have to faff around and create records for "old 13 / old N13" to reflect the route run by London Sovereign with 13/N13 being Tower Transit and 82 remaining as a historical record. I'd prefer to keep using the 82 for what Tower Transit operate but it's a bit obscure. The only telling thing for me is that if you take buses out of Oxford St you lose patronage - not rocket science I'll admit but it makes a nonsense of the alleged "fall in demand" on Oxford St itself. Route 6 has lost 1/2 million pass jnys in the last year so that rerouting via Piccadilly been's great - NOT! Where I will agree with your comment is that there are other corridors which have been cut but where patronage seems to be very decent and if you use the rebased numbers patronage has gone up. That makes me scratch my head somewhat. What is more stark is the more marginal routes like the 384 and W12 which have cuts - their patronage is down quite sharply and probably won't recover. The W13 and W14 seem to have picked bits of what I could hazard a guess where former W12 passengers on sections where there's an overlap - largely around South Woodford. Some of the strongest performers are outer London orbital routes like the 123, 182, 183, 140, 407, X26. Perhaps no great shock there but a reminder of their importance. If I was to ENORMOUSLY cynical I'd say the introduction of a new methodology is very conveniently timed in one respect. In most cases the new methodology has effectively put route level patronage up by 7-10%. It has also reversed what looked to be worrying trends of decline on some routes but it does raise questions about what is really going on. If you discount numbers by around the "inflator" factor from the methodology then not much is really happening at all. Some routes remain in decline and many others would be static. It makes it even harder to make even a wild guess as to the effect of the Hopper ticket and fares freeze. Normally things that improve perceived value for money of a product means greater purchases or use of that product. Hard to see much demonstration of that with these numbers. I had a quick look at the 53 and 171 - 53 very marginally up (even accounting for the 53-week year), but 171 up by nearly a quarter over the year. So something's up there. Point taken on long-term trends: I wonder if TfL publishes similar figures for PHV journeys? The Hopper fare has always struck me as a difficult thing to quantify - obviously it's great for those with a two-bus commute, but beyond work uses, how many buses has the average Jane or Joe got the time or inclination to take in a day, especially when the cap is three journeys anyway? I just wish TfL would start using some of the data it is clearly generating to improve services rather than cut them (govt cuts/ fare freeze aside).
|
|
|
Post by Arriva London Explorer on Sept 17, 2018 15:15:17 GMT
I notice the 192 is up from 3mill to 3.3mill. This route is at capacity and if noting changes when Merdian Water opens then this route will suffer even more! Agreed, but then length of the bus can't be longer, due to backstreet but it's very packed especially Tottenham and Edmonton end, but an frequency increase could work, but knowing TFl
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 17, 2018 15:31:36 GMT
I notice the 192 is up from 3mill to 3.3mill. This route is at capacity and if noting changes when Merdian Water opens then this route will suffer even more! I suspect TfL are hoping against hope that the new rail service, assuming it opens in May next year and is reliable (ahem!), will take a lot of pressure off the lower section of the route. The irony, though, is that it may get far worse from north of Meridian Water as it will be the *only* route from the north to stop within a reasonable walking distance of Meridian Water station. It's not as if the bit between Angel Road and Edmonton Green is underused anyway! If the local highway network was better designed then looping the 444 past Meridian Water would probably be an immensely useful facility - it has some capacity on that section and would pull people in from Hall Lane area as well as Angel Corner / Silver Street / Montagu Road. It's the lack of a road effectively through the IKEA (north) / Tesco car park big enough for a single decker bus that's the problem.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 17, 2018 16:14:55 GMT
I had a quick look at the 53 and 171 - 53 very marginally up (even accounting for the 53-week year), but 171 up by nearly a quarter over the year. So something's up there. Point taken on long-term trends: I wonder if TfL publishes similar figures for PHV journeys? The Hopper fare has always struck me as a difficult thing to quantify - obviously it's great for those with a two-bus commute, but beyond work uses, how many buses has the average Jane or Joe got the time or inclination to take in a day, especially when the cap is three journeys anyway? I just wish TfL would start using some of the data it is clearly generating to improve services rather than cut them (govt cuts/ fare freeze aside). Don't know about PHV data - are operators under any obligation to release data on usage? Looking at the data appendices for Travel in London Report 10 there are numbers about number of taxi / PHV licences, drivers, vehicles and PHV operators. Interestingly the number of PHV operators is falling while the numbers of vehicles and licensed drivers is increasing. No doubt the Uber effect in operation as they slowly reduce the number of competing PHV companies. I can't find anything about PHV trips / modal shares - there is some data for taxis. This suggests that regulation has not yet required the release of data to TfL for analytical purposes. It does though create a weakness in TfL's models and analysis. Looking at more of the bus data it's difficult to discern what's going on. There are weird things happening with night buses - patronage seems to have stablised or even increased on some routes. On others it's not in good shape at all - N5 and N20 for example. No doubt that's partly night tube but also the huge frequency cuts. TfL seem to have taken decisions to get average bus utilisation up where they can hence the cuts in frequencies. This seems to apply to both day and night routes. I dare say at peak times conditions are horrible given actual occupancy will be much higher than the average. Some routes, using my "rough and ready" capacity calculator, remain very pressured. The 38 and N38 continue to see falls in patronage. The 242/N242 looks like carnage after the latest cuts with more to come. The 436 revision looks to have been a right royal mess - another step fall in usage even under the new methodology. And don't even look at the numbers for the Heritage 15 - a 67% drop when the numbers were rebased. I dare say traffic problems right along its route haven't helped either. The 48 and 56 have both lost patronage but the 55 has gained. According to my calculations the 55 is completely overloaded in the peaks so where the heck 6m journeys from the 48 are going to go is anyone's guess. The 171 may prove to be interesting as the new numbers suggest it doesn't warrant a cut to Elephant and Castle. Wonder how that will play if people / politicians get into a battle of numbers over the proposed cut. At some point something has to unravel - either the published numbers are wrong, TfL's analysis is wrong or they're just wilfully going to cut the route despite its patronage remaining healthy. I wonder what a certain blog might have to say about it?
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Sept 17, 2018 17:09:50 GMT
[ The 38 and N38 continue to see falls in patronage. The 242/N242 looks like carnage after the latest cuts with more to come. The 436 revision looks to have been a right royal mess - another step fall in usage even under the new methodology. And don't even look at the numbers for the Heritage 15 - a 67% drop when the numbers were rebased. I dare say traffic problems right along its route haven't helped either. The 48 and 56 have both lost patronage but the 55 has gained. According to my calculations the 55 is completely overloaded in the peaks so where the heck 6m journeys from the 48 are going to go is anyone's guess. A route with a peak frequency of 3-4 mins and declining patronage, would of thought that would be unheard of in 2018 I would expect Tfl is betting on Crossrail abstracting journeys from the 55 as it will create a new direct link between Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon. I have used the 55 on a few occasions during PM this summer and it is very overloaded to the point where passengers are left behind. The other interesting thing about it is there is a strong flow Westbound into Central London.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Sept 17, 2018 18:01:43 GMT
So a heap of bus cuts partly based on data that's now turned out to be duff? I think that's a bit harsh. TfL will have far richer and more complex data than is ever released to the public. TfL will use that data for planning purposes as I am sure you will appreciate. Whenever I've quoted the patronage data on here I've been careful to caveat it because you simply can't draw firm conclusions from annualised, route level data. I've actually had to create two spreadsheets - one which uses the old 2016/17 data and the new methodology 2017/18 data and a second one which uses the rebased 2016/17 and 2017/18 data. There are some rather peculiar things going on. Some routes in Outer London - Enfield, Harrow, Bromley and Kingston are notable - have lost some patronage. Certainly not the end of the world but there are losses. In two of those boroughs I assume Mini Holland works are a factor. The Finchley Road corridor is statistically a right old mess because of TfL's reuse of 13/N13. The 13's patronage has leapt but, of course, that's rather stupid because the real comparison is against the old 82. The 113 has put on decent numbers presumably because it actually reaches Oxford Street and from its frequency increase. The 189 has lost patronage because of being curtailed to Marble Arch while the 139 has piled on patronage - partly because it also still serves Oxford St. I still haven't decided what to do with the old 13 / new 13 / 82 data - doing what TfL have done makes no sense to me so I may have to faff around and create records for "old 13 / old N13" to reflect the route run by London Sovereign with 13/N13 being Tower Transit and 82 remaining as a historical record. I'd prefer to keep using the 82 for what Tower Transit operate but it's a bit obscure. The only telling thing for me is that if you take buses out of Oxford St you lose patronage - not rocket science I'll admit but it makes a nonsense of the alleged "fall in demand" on Oxford St itself. Route 6 has lost 1/2 million pass jnys in the last year so that rerouting via Piccadilly been's great - NOT! Where I will agree with your comment is that there are other corridors which have been cut but where patronage seems to be very decent and if you use the rebased numbers patronage has gone up. That makes me scratch my head somewhat. What is more stark is the more marginal routes like the 384 and W12 which have cuts - their patronage is down quite sharply and probably won't recover. The W13 and W14 seem to have picked bits of what I could hazard a guess where former W12 passengers on sections where there's an overlap - largely around South Woodford. Some of the strongest performers are outer London orbital routes like the 123, 182, 183, 140, 407, X26. Perhaps no great shock there but a reminder of their importance. If I was to ENORMOUSLY cynical I'd say the introduction of a new methodology is very conveniently timed in one respect. In most cases the new methodology has effectively put route level patronage up by 7-10%. It has also reversed what looked to be worrying trends of decline on some routes but it does raise questions about what is really going on. If you discount numbers by around the "inflator" factor from the methodology then not much is really happening at all. Some routes remain in decline and many others would be static. It makes it even harder to make even a wild guess as to the effect of the Hopper ticket and fares freeze. Normally things that improve perceived value for money of a product means greater purchases or use of that product. Hard to see much demonstration of that with these numbers. Are you sure the figures are on the website and not an apparition!!!!!!!
Seriously your comments about the Finchley Road corridor match what I see on a day to day basis. I'll do some analysis of the figures and look forward to your spreadsheet snoggle . I have a very busy period in the next few weeks, so you'll hear less from me (hurray you will all cheer!!), so it may be a short while before I can analyse the figures and post my thoughts here (second hurrah I hear!!!).
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Sept 17, 2018 21:14:44 GMT
I have so much to say about this after looking at it all afternoon. 1) I’m shocked that the 25 is the still busiest bus route, but I’m so happy about it. Not only that but its usage actually went up last year, which again I didn’t expect. Also even with this new methodology I do believe its true usage did go up and its back into the 20 millions, for which I’m so happy for it. HOWEVER with the 25’s patronage on the mend then WHY THE HELL ARE TFL DAMAGING IT?!?!!!!? More on this topic in a minute. 2) I do actually really trust this methodology, after having a moment of real cynicism about TfL just wanting to ‘pad’ their dwindling numbers to make them look so much better than they actually are. However I’ve had a real change of heart after a lightbulb moment. I took two routes where the patronage had remained virtually exactly constant every year from 2010-17, and they are the 20 and the 61. If TfL’s new methodology was really trying to make their numbers look better, then the revised passenger figures for the 20 and 61 would be dramatically off of the virtually constant figure they’ve always had. But they HAVEN’T. Even with the new system the 20 and 61’s patronage is still virtually the same as with the old system, which genuinely would say to me that TfL’s new methodology is more accurate. It also concurs with a theory I’ve always had, which is that LT routes have always had disproportionate falls in patronage (ie bigger falls than they really have done) due to increased fare dodging, now with this new method that should be taken into account, and any falls in patronage should be an actual loss of ridership rather than increased faredoding. 3) Oh my word, look at the 73!! That route’s patronage has absolutely fallen off a cliff (3.5 million journeys lost!!!!!!!). I’m putting this nearly entirely down to its curtailment to OX. That’s the consequence of when you hack a route back. TfL take note when you release these Central London consultations absolutely ripping the network to pieces!!!! 4) Continuing on from point 1 why the hell are TfL proposing these route cuts on routes where patronage is increasing? Obviously apart from the 25 which I’ve very clearly vocalised the 53 and the 134 spring to mind. They’re on the mend so leave them the hell alone!! Late EDIT: a couple of very interesting bits I missed earlier and have only just spotted. The 100’s patronage has also absolutely crashed into 6 figures due the route being massacred coincidentally at the start of the new year of patronage recordings. Also the 388’s patronage has jumped by a whopping 1 million journeys, of which it’s E&C extension was probably a factor. So why the hell are they proposing to cut it when its extension is clearly proving successful? Back to the drawing board there ...
5) The 139 did have a big spike in usage as I predicted EDIT: the 36, 42, 158, 188, 277, 333 and 390 have had huge jumps as well. The 308’s decking has also given it a good increase. I’m certainly not expecting the 277 increase to last after its hacking. The 113 has had a jump of over 3 million!!!! What on earth caused that!! I think maybe the biggest jump ever observed?6) I’m actually quite encouraged with these figures, as it does show a lot of routes starting to recover a bit. This does concur with TfL’s statement in one of their publications which was close to ‘Bus usage has started to stabilise as the more affordable benefits have been felt’ etc etc, and that yes there has still been falls in patronage, but smaller falls than before. Statistically, with usage starting to stabilise that does mean that there will be a lot more routes with increased patronage as they are starting to recover. I hope with these slightly more promising figures than last year, that cuts to the bus network will be easing up a little. I have attached here an interesting document that I put together myself, which is every route’s patronage figure from all years amalgamated into one big table, well two actually. The first table is patronage figures under the old system so includes all years up until 2017, and the second table is the figures under the new system so only includes 2016/17 and 17/18. A relevant key is provided at the bottom of the table. But the really interesting bit is that I’ve calculated an *estimate* of what the 2017/18 figure would be IF it was calculated under the old system, which I do actually believe to be quite accurate for the vast majority of routes. This enables us to estimate a proper comparison against all years rather than just last year, something which resolved my (and I’m sure quite a few others’) frustration over not having proper comparisons that we would have liked. This column is entirely red. Here’s how I calculated this estimate: Luckily TfL kindly gave us revised numbers for the year 2016/17 year as well as the 2017/18 year, so I worked out the percentage difference between the new system’s 2016/17 year and the 2017/18 year. Ie the sum I did is [new 2017/18 figure / new 2016/17 figure.]. Here’s two examples: Route | New meth. 2016/17 | New meth. 2017/18 | %age change | 25 | 18 581 231 | 20 280 388 | 1.09144 | 109 | 11 002 822 | 10 845 850 | 0.98573 |
With this percentage difference between then new 2017/18 figure and the new 2016/17 figure I simply multiplied this percentage change by the OLD 2016/17 figure to get an estimate for the 2017/18 figure if it was done under the old system. So we get this: Route | Old meth. 2016/17 | %age change | Est. for old meth. 2017/18 | 25 | 17 145 134 | 1.09144 | 18 712 967 | 109 | 10 121 622 | 0.98573 | 09 977 222 |
So yes this is an estimate but let’s not forget calculating a patronage figure for a route is never completely accurate. However there are a few routes where these estimates may be inaccurate, and these are likely to be routes without a full years’ data like the 483 (and the 83 as it had a dramatic rerouting because of the 483), as this is it’s first full year. And the 13, for obvious the obvious reason it used to be the 82. Anyway by and large I do reckon these estimates are similar to what they’d be if TfL still used the old system. Here is the amalgamated spreadsheet, hope you like it Attachment DeletedSomeone may want to convert this to an excel spreadsheet as I can’t. And there is a very well hidden column in between the two main tabeles which contains the percentage changes as shown about but for every route. But for presentation purposes I tried to obscure this table as best as possible
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 17, 2018 21:27:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 17, 2018 22:47:21 GMT
OK folks I think I've got my spreadsheets knocked into shape. Send me a DM with a real world E Mail address and I'll send one or both of the spreadsheets. Before DM-ing please read the following.
As TfL have changed the methodology for calculating the patronage numbers I have created two sheets.
- one which uses the old 2016/17 numbers and the new numbers for 2017/18 - one which uses the updated 2016/17 and new 2017/18 numbers
If people want a copy of each that's not a problem.
To use the sheets you just need to enter the route number in the relevant box on the "look up" box. If you overtype anywhere else you will delete forumlae or text. I have NOT protected the sheets this year.
The datasheet contains all the data and calculations. That can be kept up to date if you wish as contracts, operators and frequencies change. The sheets are up to date to last weekend with a small caveat about routes 9, N9, 965 as I don't know what their revised contract expiry dates are.
As things stand I haven't fiddled with the 13/N13, 82, 139 issue. Therefore the 13/N13 still refers to London Sovereign as operator but has the updated data. I know it's a mess but that's what TfL have created.
There is also a "Chart" sheet. This has a bar chart facility to show the patronage by route. There is a drop down menu which MUST be used to select the route as it looks across to an adjacent table. If you type a route number you'll overwrite the drop down menu. Given the huge spread of patronage across routes I have opted NOT to have a fixed axis scale. The scale will adjust for each route to reflect that route's patronage level.
I am not an Excel expert so you may find what I've created somewhat inelegant. If you find errors then I'm happy to have the feedback. Naturally enough you will need Excel to read the sheet(s).
Hope that's OK for people.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Sept 17, 2018 23:27:45 GMT
I have so much to say about this after looking at it all afternoon. 1) I’m shocked that the 25 is the still busiest bus route, but I’m so happy about it. Not only that but its usage actually went up last year, which again I didn’t expect. Also even with this new methodology I do believe its true usage did go up and its back into the 20 millions, for which I’m so happy for it. HOWEVER with the 25’s patronage on the mend then WHY THE HELL ARE TFL DAMAGING IT?!?!!!!? More on this topic in a minute. 2) I do actually really trust this methodology, after having a moment of real cynicism about TfL just wanting to ‘pad’ their dwindling numbers to make them look so much better than they actually are. However I’ve had a real change of heart after a lightbulb moment. I took two routes where the patronage had remained virtually exactly constant every year from 2010-17, and they are the 20 and the 61. If TfL’s new methodology was really trying to make their numbers look better, then the revised passenger figures for the 20 and 61 would be dramatically off of the virtually constant figure they’ve always had. But they HAVEN’T. Even with the new system the 20 and 61’s patronage is still virtually the same as with the old system, which genuinely would say to me that TfL’s new methodology is more accurate. It also concurs with a theory I’ve always had, which is that LT routes have always had disproportionate falls in patronage (ie bigger falls than they really have done) due to increased fare dodging, now with this new method that should be taken into account, and any falls in patronage should be an actual loss of ridership rather than increased faredoding. 3) Oh my word, look at the 73!! That route’s patronage has absolutely fallen off a cliff (3.5 million journeys lost!!!!!!!). I’m putting this nearly entirely down to its curtailment to OX. That’s the consequence of when you hack a route back. TfL take note when you release these Central London consultations absolutely ripping the network to pieces!!!! 4) Continuing on from point 1 why the hell are TfL proposing these route cuts on routes where patronage is increasing? Obviously apart from the 25 which I’ve very clearly vocalised the 53 and the 134 spring to mind. They’re on the mend so leave them the hell alone!! Late EDIT: a couple of very interesting bits I missed earlier and have only just spotted. The 100’s patronage has also absolutely crashed into 6 figures due the route being massacred coincidentally at the start of the new year of patronage recordings. Also the 388’s patronage has jumped by a whopping 1 million journeys, of which it’s E&C extension was probably a factor. So why the hell are they proposing to cut it when its extension is clearly proving successful? Back to the drawing board there ...
5) The 139 did have a big spike in usage as I predicted EDIT: the 36, 42, 158, 188, 277, 333 and 390 have had huge jumps as well. The 308’s decking has also given it a good increase. I’m certainly not expecting the 277 increase to last after its hacking. The 113 has had a jump of over 3 million!!!! What on earth caused that!! I think maybe the biggest jump ever observed?6) I’m actually quite encouraged with these figures, as it does show a lot of routes starting to recover a bit. This does concur with TfL’s statement in one of their publications which was close to ‘Bus usage has started to stabilise as the more affordable benefits have been felt’ etc etc, and that yes there has still been falls in patronage, but smaller falls than before. Statistically, with usage starting to stabilise that does mean that there will be a lot more routes with increased patronage as they are starting to recover. I hope with these slightly more promising figures than last year, that cuts to the bus network will be easing up a little. I have attached here an interesting document that I put together myself, which is every route’s patronage figure from all years amalgamated into one big table, well two actually. The first table is patronage figures under the old system so includes all years up until 2017, and the second table is the figures under the new system so only includes 2016/17 and 17/18. A relevant key is provided at the bottom of the table. But the really interesting bit is that I’ve calculated an *estimate* of what the 2017/18 figure would be IF it was calculated under the old system, which I do actually believe to be quite accurate for the vast majority of routes. This enables us to estimate a proper comparison against all years rather than just last year, something which resolved my (and I’m sure quite a few others’) frustration over not having proper comparisons that we would have liked. This column is entirely red. Here’s how I calculated this estimate: Luckily TfL kindly gave us revised numbers for the year 2016/17 year as well as the 2017/18 year, so I worked out the percentage difference between the new system’s 2016/17 year and the 2017/18 year. Ie the sum I did is [new 2017/18 figure / new 2016/17 figure.]. Here’s two examples: Route | New meth. 2016/17 | New meth. 2017/18 | %age change | 25 | 18 581 231 | 20 280 388 | 1.09144 | 109 | 11 002 822 | 10 845 850 | 0.98573 |
With this percentage difference between then new 2017/18 figure and the new 2016/17 figure I simply multiplied this percentage change by the OLD 2016/17 figure to get an estimate for the 2017/18 figure if it was done under the old system. So we get this: Route | Old meth. 2016/17 | %age change | Est. for old meth. 2017/18 | 25 | 17 145 134 | 1.09144 | 18 712 967 | 109 | 10 121 622 | 0.98573 | 09 977 222 |
So yes this is an estimate but let’s not forget calculating a patronage figure for a route is never completely accurate. However there are a few routes where these estimates may be inaccurate, and these are likely to be routes without a full years’ data like the 483 (and the 83 as it had a dramatic rerouting because of the 483), as this is it’s first full year. And the 13, for obvious the obvious reason it used to be the 82. Anyway by and large I do reckon these estimates are similar to what they’d be if TfL still used the old system. Here is the amalgamated spreadsheet, hope you like it Someone may want to convert this to an excel spreadsheet as I can’t. And there is a very well hidden column in between the two main tabeles which contains the percentage changes as shown about but for every route. But for presentation purposes I tried to obscure this table as best as possible I am of the opinion that the loss of patronage on the buses is just the excuse to cut them and this is because there are far more important factors in play. This is why routes which have kept their patronage up are being cut. As I have said in other posts the combination of the loss of grant, fares freeze and hopper fare have put TfL in a financial bind. Even if bus usage had increased across the board by say 2%, the financial pressure on TfL combined with today's priorities would mean there would still bus cuts not hugely less than is happening. The sad fact is that buses aren't a priority, the current thinking is that there are too many of them and that they can be cut and patronage increased at the same time. This is live experiment with the poor people of London and let's see what happens.
No one should be surprised at the increase in passengers on the 113. The 13 and 113 now have the patronage of three routes following the axing of the old 13. More passengers going beyond Selfridges want the West End not Victoria, so the 113 will pick up many of those passengers. It will also pick up some of the 189 passengers following its curtailment to Marble Arch. The reliability of the 13 has hardly been exemplary so the 113 will have benefitted from it's unreliability. Also don't forget its frequency increase which will have helped as well. Now let's watch and see what happens when it get curtailed to Marble Arch. You may well find it will lose a vast chunk of that increase in passengers, particularly if the reliability of the 13 is sorted out.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Sept 17, 2018 23:35:27 GMT
The 242/N242 looks like carnage after the latest cuts with more to come. The 436 revision looks to have been a right royal mess - another step fall in usage even under the new methodology. And don't even look at the numbers for the Heritage 15 - a 67% drop when the numbers were rebased. I dare say traffic problems right along its route haven't helped either. The 48 and 56 have both lost patronage but the 55 has gained. According to my calculations the 55 is completely overloaded in the peaks so where the heck 6m journeys from the 48 are going to go is anyone's guess. I’d say the 73 has suffered by far the worst! Absolutely shattered into oblivion, lost 3+ million even with the new methods
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 18, 2018 0:39:14 GMT
I have so much to say about this after looking at it all afternoon. 1) I’m shocked that the 25 is the still busiest bus route, but I’m so happy about it. Not only that but its usage actually went up last year, which again I didn’t expect. Also even with this new methodology I do believe its true usage did go up and its back into the 20 millions, for which I’m so happy for it. HOWEVER with the 25’s patronage on the mend then WHY THE HELL ARE TFL DAMAGING IT?!?!!!!? More on this topic in a minute. 2) I do actually really trust this methodology, after having a moment of real cynicism about TfL just wanting to ‘pad’ their dwindling numbers to make them look so much better than they actually are. However I’ve had a real change of heart after a lightbulb moment. I took two routes where the patronage had remained virtually exactly constant every year from 2010-17, and they are the 20 and the 61. If TfL’s new methodology was really trying to make their numbers look better, then the revised passenger figures for the 20 and 61 would be dramatically off of the virtually constant figure they’ve always had. But they HAVEN’T. Even with the new system the 20 and 61’s patronage is still virtually the same as with the old system, which genuinely would say to me that TfL’s new methodology is more accurate. It also concurs with a theory I’ve always had, which is that LT routes have always had disproportionate falls in patronage (ie bigger falls than they really have done) due to increased fare dodging, now with this new method that should be taken into account, and any falls in patronage should be an actual loss of ridership rather than increased faredoding. 3) Oh my word, look at the 73!! That route’s patronage has absolutely fallen off a cliff (3.5 million journeys lost!!!!!!!). I’m putting this nearly entirely down to its curtailment to OX. That’s the consequence of when you hack a route back. TfL take note when you release these Central London consultations absolutely ripping the network to pieces!!!! 4) Continuing on from point 1 why the hell are TfL proposing these route cuts on routes where patronage is increasing? Obviously apart from the 25 which I’ve very clearly vocalised the 53 and the 134 spring to mind. They’re on the mend so leave them the hell alone!! Late EDIT: a couple of very interesting bits I missed earlier and have only just spotted. The 100’s patronage has also absolutely crashed into 6 figures due the route being massacred coincidentally at the start of the new year of patronage recordings. Also the 388’s patronage has jumped by a whopping 1 million journeys, of which it’s E&C extension was probably a factor. So why the hell are they proposing to cut it when its extension is clearly proving successful? Back to the drawing board there ...
5) The 139 did have a big spike in usage as I predicted EDIT: the 36, 42, 158, 188, 277, 333 and 390 have had huge jumps as well. The 308’s decking has also given it a good increase. I’m certainly not expecting the 277 increase to last after its hacking. The 113 has had a jump of over 3 million!!!! What on earth caused that!! I think maybe the biggest jump ever observed?6) I’m actually quite encouraged with these figures, as it does show a lot of routes starting to recover a bit. This does concur with TfL’s statement in one of their publications which was close to ‘Bus usage has started to stabilise as the more affordable benefits have been felt’ etc etc, and that yes there has still been falls in patronage, but smaller falls than before. Statistically, with usage starting to stabilise that does mean that there will be a lot more routes with increased patronage as they are starting to recover. I hope with these slightly more promising figures than last year, that cuts to the bus network will be easing up a little. I have attached here an interesting document that I put together myself, which is every route’s patronage figure from all years amalgamated into one big table, well two actually. The first table is patronage figures under the old system so includes all years up until 2017, and the second table is the figures under the new system so only includes 2016/17 and 17/18. A relevant key is provided at the bottom of the table. But the really interesting bit is that I’ve calculated an *estimate* of what the 2017/18 figure would be IF it was calculated under the old system, which I do actually believe to be quite accurate for the vast majority of routes. This enables us to estimate a proper comparison against all years rather than just last year, something which resolved my (and I’m sure quite a few others’) frustration over not having proper comparisons that we would have liked. This column is entirely red. Here’s how I calculated this estimate: Luckily TfL kindly gave us revised numbers for the year 2016/17 year as well as the 2017/18 year, so I worked out the percentage difference between the new system’s 2016/17 year and the 2017/18 year. Ie the sum I did is [new 2017/18 figure / new 2016/17 figure.]. Here’s two examples: Route | New meth. 2016/17 | New meth. 2017/18 | %age change | 25 | 18 581 231 | 20 280 388 | 1.09144 | 109 | 11 002 822 | 10 845 850 | 0.98573 |
With this percentage difference between then new 2017/18 figure and the new 2016/17 figure I simply multiplied this percentage change by the OLD 2016/17 figure to get an estimate for the 2017/18 figure if it was done under the old system. So we get this: Route | Old meth. 2016/17 | %age change | Est. for old meth. 2017/18 | 25 | 17 145 134 | 1.09144 | 18 712 967 | 109 | 10 121 622 | 0.98573 | 09 977 222 |
So yes this is an estimate but let’s not forget calculating a patronage figure for a route is never completely accurate. However there are a few routes where these estimates may be inaccurate, and these are likely to be routes without a full years’ data like the 483 (and the 83 as it had a dramatic rerouting because of the 483), as this is it’s first full year. And the 13, for obvious the obvious reason it used to be the 82. Anyway by and large I do reckon these estimates are similar to what they’d be if TfL still used the old system. Here is the amalgamated spreadsheet, hope you like it Someone may want to convert this to an excel spreadsheet as I can’t. And there is a very well hidden column in between the two main tabeles which contains the percentage changes as shown about but for every route. But for presentation purposes I tried to obscure this table as best as possible I am of the opinion that the loss of patronage on the buses is just the excuse to cut them and this is because there are far more important factors in play. This is why routes which have kept their patronage up are being cut. As I have said in other posts the combination of the loss of grant, fares freeze and hopper fare have put TfL in a financial bind. Even if bus usage had increased across the board by say 2%, the financial pressure on TfL combined with today's priorities would mean there would still bus cuts not hugely less than is happening. The sad fact is that buses aren't a priority, the current thinking is that there are too many of them and that they can be cut and patronage increased at the same time. This is live experiment with the poor people of London and let's see what happens.
No one should be surprised at the increase in passengers on the 113. The 13 and 113 now have the patronage of three routes following the axing of the old 13. More passengers going beyond Selfridges want the West End not Victoria, so the 113 will pick up many of those passengers. It will also pick up some of the 189 passengers following its curtailment to Marble Arch. The reliability of the 13 has hardly been exemplary so the 113 will have benefitted from it's unreliability. Also don't forget its frequency increase which will have helped as well. Now let's watch and see what happens when it get curtailed to Marble Arch. You may well find it will lose a vast chunk of that increase in passengers, particularly if the reliability of the 13 is sorted out.
Most likely I will upset someone by this comment but I'll actually go further than an experiment and say this could be another form of gentrification but in a different way to how we know it. Normally, loads of middle & upper class people flock to an area causing prices to rise in the local shops and pricing the poor out leaving them little choice but to move out of the said area - the bus cuts which are being more concentrated, though not limited, to inner London, will force the poor further out to outer London and even outside London which would then allow TfL to have a reduced network long term.
|
|