|
Post by snowman on Sept 18, 2018 4:50:18 GMT
I do wonder if the 25 has been affected by the alternative rail route changing from the reliable class 315s to the breakdown prone 345s and crossrail upgrades.
During 2017-18 there was an awful lot of weekend rail closures, and it’s likely that if passengers had to take bus part (or all) of the journey the 25 gained as its stops might have been more convenient for many. Effectively the patronage is distorted due to multiple closures of alternatives during the period.
TfL would have a lot more detail, but the annual total won’t show when the boosts to 25 happened, was it normal weekday, or was it during rail closure. Without this info wouldn’t make any conclusions about 25s patronage holding up
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 18, 2018 9:48:58 GMT
I do wonder if the 25 has been affected by the alternative rail route changing from the reliable class 315s to the breakdown prone 345s and crossrail upgrades. During 2017-18 there was an awful lot of weekend rail closures, and it’s likely that if passengers had to take bus part (or all) of the journey the 25 gained as its stops might have been more convenient for many. Effectively the patronage is distorted due to multiple closures of alternatives during the period. TfL would have a lot more detail, but the annual total won’t show when the boosts to 25 happened, was it normal weekday, or was it during rail closure. Without this info wouldn’t make any conclusions about 25s patronage holding up A fair observation but 3m uplift is an awful lot of passengers generated over essentially weekend closures. It's worth saying that, from limited observations in Ilford, that the 86 is also hit hard during TfL Rail closures, the Rail Replacement services are also busy *and* people do divert to Gants Hill by bus to take the tube into tube. Gants Hill is never exactly quiet in terms of people waiting for buses to Ilford but you can tell when there's a TfL Rail closure. I haven't checked the 86's numbers so don't know what's happened there. Several of the "branded" routes in the Barkingside area have had an increase in usage but the numbers don't allow you to identify a cause.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Sept 18, 2018 9:55:30 GMT
I don't have Excel, However can I mind to ask anyone of you, How much are usages on bus route 162/336 since the increase to every 15 minutes instead of every 20 minutes. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 18, 2018 10:22:04 GMT
I don't have Excel, However can I mind to ask anyone of you, How much are usages on bus route 162/336 since the increase to every 15 minutes instead of every 20 minutes. Thank you I have used the new calculation numbers for the last two years in these answers. Route 162 - 2015/16 - 1,476,886 2016/17 - 1,883,043 27.5% increase 2017/18 - 1,903,494 1.09% increase The 162 has seen patronage increase every year since 2006. That's a good record. Route 336 - 2015/16 - 1,259,211 2016/17 - 1,550,425 23.13% increase 2017/18 - 1,800,482 16.13% increase The 336 has also grown strongly since 2006 but did have patronage falls for a couple of years. However the last two years have seen very strong patronage growth as is typical when you increase frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Sept 18, 2018 11:40:18 GMT
I don't have Excel, However can I mind to ask anyone of you, How much are usages on bus route 162/336 since the increase to every 15 minutes instead of every 20 minutes. Thank you I have used the new calculation numbers for the last two years in these answers. Route 162 - 2015/16 - 1,476,886 2016/17 - 1,883,043 27.5% increase 2017/18 - 1,903,494 1.09% increase The 162 has seen patronage increase every year since 2006. That's a good record. Route 336 - 2015/16 - 1,259,211 2016/17 - 1,550,425 23.13% increase 2017/18 - 1,800,482 16.13% increase The 336 has also grown strongly since 2006 but did have patronage falls for a couple of years. However, the last two years have seen very strong patronage growth as is typical when you increase frequencies. Thank you for kind of this information. It must be busier ever than before. Glad to see that it is in the right direction. I hope TfL not going to cut both of my local two routes in anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 18, 2018 11:44:16 GMT
To get the initial out of the way here are the top 10 busiest routes 25: 20,280,388 18: 17,074,644 29: 15,238,913 149: 14,079,824 140: 13,301,159 207: 12,970,139 243: 12,735,555 86: 12,464,759 36: 12,094,600 279: 11,539,282 Something also worth mentioning is TfL introduced a new methodology last year and its led to an increase on most routes for last year's numbers. A bit shocked to see the 29 that high up in the list, despite its pvr reduction. I would probably expect the LT's still have a higher passenger take, just it wouldn't be documented properly due to its high proportion of people not tapping in.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 18, 2018 11:46:39 GMT
My word, the 25 is still London's most-used bus route... ...now with a 3 million margin over the 18, rather than last year's ½ million. Not really surprising given the length of the route. Plus the higher pvr on the 25. On that basis you would probably easy get a seat on the 25 than on the 18
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 18, 2018 11:53:40 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. Not surprised at the W12, they may as well scrap it now, pointless imo at 30 mins. I would never bother with a W12 again, simply do not have 30 mins of my life to waste standing up waiting for a bus in this part of London; it is not the sticks! I would rather get the W13/14 and 257 instead. Or the W11 then 123 then W14.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 18, 2018 11:54:39 GMT
Thank you for kind of this information. It must be busier ever than before. Glad to see that it is in the right direction. I hope TfL not going to cut both of my local two routes in anytime soon. You're welcome. I suspect both routes are safe from TfL interference as they are putting on passengers. The only issue will be if the overcrowding becomes severe. TfL may not have the money to fund further improvements despite all the baloney about "improving outer London bus services".
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 18, 2018 12:00:07 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? The 242 had a lot of people using the route between Hackney and TCR, when it was cut back, most of the people started to use the 38/55 instead. Now the 242 is near enough pointless from Hackney to St. Pauls and I am not surprised it has lost a lot of people. To reroute it to Aldgate would be just as pointless.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 18, 2018 12:03:22 GMT
Not surprised at the W12, they may as well scrap it now, pointless imo at 30 mins. I would never bother with a W12 again, simply do not have 30 mins of my life to waste standing up waiting for a bus in this part of London; it is not the sticks! I would rather get the W13/14 and 257 instead. Or the W11 then 123 then W14. Well you can take that position but sadly the older people for whom the route is a lifeline have no choice but to sit and wait 30 mins for their bus. Despite the lower frequency I've still seen reasonably loaded buses on the route so some people haven't given up on it yet. I still think part of the problem with its declining patronage - it's been falling for a few years - is that TfL were never willing to properly resource the route. It needed an extra bus and TfL wouldn't fund it so reliability was dreadful meaning curtailments and people waiting 30-40 mins for a bus. In some respects a more reliable half hourly route might be better for people but the root cause sits with TfL here. It was the same with the W11 where they refused to resource an extra bus during First's tenure which meant buses were chasing their tails all day long to deal with any delays. Arriva got a better PVR but were then clobbered by years of road works. We then went to the opposite extreme with CT Plus being allowed to buy too many buses and having a ridiculously slack schedule and then the frequencies being cut. You couldn't make it up.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 18, 2018 12:27:03 GMT
I do wonder if the 25 has been affected by the alternative rail route changing from the reliable class 315s to the breakdown prone 345s and crossrail upgrades. During 2017-18 there was an awful lot of weekend rail closures, and it’s likely that if passengers had to take bus part (or all) of the journey the 25 gained as its stops might have been more convenient for many. Effectively the patronage is distorted due to multiple closures of alternatives during the period. TfL would have a lot more detail, but the annual total won’t show when the boosts to 25 happened, was it normal weekday, or was it during rail closure. Without this info wouldn’t make any conclusions about 25s patronage holding up I wouldn't say the TfL rail is unreliable. I find it very good to be honest. The problem with it was so many weekend block closures over the past 2 years, that must have bumper up the 86/25 count a bit.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 18, 2018 12:30:54 GMT
I just noticed that the W13 figures is near that of the W12 in terms of passengers. Surely then on that basis W13 doesn't even warrant long single decks or a 15 min headway.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 18, 2018 14:44:10 GMT
I just noticed that the W13 figures is near that of the W12 in terms of passengers. Surely then on that basis W13 doesn't even warrant long single decks or a 15 min headway. I've never quite understood how Woodford Green to South Woodford justifies 9 buses an hour on weekdays. I've yet to see a really well loaded bus there outside of school times.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 18, 2018 14:47:17 GMT
While continuing to dig round in the new data one route that has suffered an enormous "correction" under the new calculation methodology is route 423. It has seemingly lost half of its patronage which feels ridiculous to me. I know it has a large section in the "Heathrow free travel zone" but how can a methodology designed to *better* capture "non payment" result in the loss of 50% of route patronage? The 482 and 350 have also had a bit of a drop - I assume for similar reasons. Looks like an error to me.
|
|