|
Post by busaholic on Apr 14, 2019 22:53:20 GMT
The cutting of the 48 means that, for the first time since early horse bus days, there will be no direct bus connection between Leyton, Lea Bridge Road, Clapton and Liverpool Street/London Bridge, which should cause anyone from TfL contemplating the wielding of this long knife to at least pause before the fatal blow. Liverpool Street and Bishopsgate, if not London Bridge, have had connections to Hoe Street in Walthamstow for almost as long with trolleybus route 557, then replacement bus routes. I cannot see how other transport options that have become available in recent decades would have any significant abstraction on such journeys: if there has been a huge decline in bus passenger figures, it must be because TfL have made travelling by bus so unattractive, whether by deliberate policy or default. They should hang their heads in shame. I know you don't need telling about the point I'm about to make but TfL's subtle policy is to shove as many people on the tube, Overground, DLR and Crossrail as possible. It's unstated but it's there because it's the only way they can practically grow revenue as any caps involving rail modes are now high relative to TfL's frozen fares. Buses are very low yield and non surplus generating so are not worth promoting. The 48 has fallen from 69th busiest route in 2012/13 to 135th busiest in 2017/18. Its patronage is about 2 million pass jnys down from its absolute peak in 2008/09. It is the last few years where patronage has fallen steeply. I have compared to other Hackney routes but I'd not be shocked to see something similar on other routes in that borough. We've done the possible reasons for these declines lots of time before but TfL's "alarm bell" tends to get triggered in terms of frequency cuts or route withdrawals when they get multiple years of patronage falls in the hundreds of thousands or even over a million per year. There are a lot of such routes but bizarrely the 38 has had very large falls but is even now relatively unscathed. I assume TfL have decided that Hackney Council may mutiny if that was to be severely reduced. Instead the 48 goes in its entirety despite the 38 losing more ridership (over 6m pas jnys) than the 48's annual patronage (last year 5.7m pass jnys) since 2010. In no way has 6m journeys worth of capacity been taken off the 38. I don't get to Central London very often but the 38s I have seen have been pitifully loaded relative to the very high frequency that is operated. It does seem very strange that both the published figures and plenty of anecdotal evidence from users of this forum might lead the unprejudiced to think the 38 is being protected from swingeing cuts in some way. I know TfL can't 'do a 25' with it and suddenly lop off one end of the route, but even so. Hackney Council must be having an influence here, but what about Islington? The 476 is often mentioned on here as being overbussed and, other than the cutback from Euston to Kings Cross, seems unscathed too. I'm aware of the annoyance caused by the 277 removal, but that seems more to do with poor traffic management planning than anything else. Just been taking a look once again at the 'Reshaping London's Buses' book, including the detailed appendices, and I've noticed that one proposal on the opening of Walthamstow Central and the first stage of the Victoria Line never happened. Instead of being cut back to Hackney Station, the 35 would have continued as a trunk route to Leyton, still with a (small) Leyton Garage allocation to supplement Camberwell's: presumably it was thought that 38s from Walthamstow and 48s from Whipps Cross would be too full on reaching Baker's Arms to pick up City-bound passengers. They got away with it, though, but it might be that the 55's emergence started with that late change.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 15, 2019 0:19:34 GMT
I know you don't need telling about the point I'm about to make but TfL's subtle policy is to shove as many people on the tube, Overground, DLR and Crossrail as possible. It's unstated but it's there because it's the only way they can practically grow revenue as any caps involving rail modes are now high relative to TfL's frozen fares. Buses are very low yield and non surplus generating so are not worth promoting. The 48 has fallen from 69th busiest route in 2012/13 to 135th busiest in 2017/18. Its patronage is about 2 million pass jnys down from its absolute peak in 2008/09. It is the last few years where patronage has fallen steeply. I have compared to other Hackney routes but I'd not be shocked to see something similar on other routes in that borough. We've done the possible reasons for these declines lots of time before but TfL's "alarm bell" tends to get triggered in terms of frequency cuts or route withdrawals when they get multiple years of patronage falls in the hundreds of thousands or even over a million per year. There are a lot of such routes but bizarrely the 38 has had very large falls but is even now relatively unscathed. I assume TfL have decided that Hackney Council may mutiny if that was to be severely reduced. Instead the 48 goes in its entirety despite the 38 losing more ridership (over 6m pas jnys) than the 48's annual patronage (last year 5.7m pass jnys) since 2010. In no way has 6m journeys worth of capacity been taken off the 38. I don't get to Central London very often but the 38s I have seen have been pitifully loaded relative to the very high frequency that is operated. It does seem very strange that both the published figures and plenty of anecdotal evidence from users of this forum might lead the unprejudiced to think the 38 is being protected from swingeing cuts in some way. I know TfL can't 'do a 25' with it and suddenly lop off one end of the route, but even so. Hackney Council must be having an influence here, but what about Islington? The 476 is often mentioned on here as being overbussed and, other than the cutback from Euston to Kings Cross, seems unscathed too. I'm aware of the annoyance caused by the 277 removal, but that seems more to do with poor traffic management planning than anything else. Just been taking a look once again at the 'Reshaping London's Buses' book, including the detailed appendices, and I've noticed that one proposal on the opening of Walthamstow Central and the first stage of the Victoria Line never happened. Instead of being cut back to Hackney Station, the 35 would have continued as a trunk route to Leyton, still with a (small) Leyton Garage allocation to supplement Camberwell's: presumably it was thought that 38s from Walthamstow and 48s from Whipps Cross would be too full on reaching Baker's Arms to pick up City-bound passengers. They got away with it, though, but it might be that the 55's emergence started with that late change. The 476 received a frequency cut either last year or the year before
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 15, 2019 0:46:08 GMT
Great news the 11 which still in truth still run to shepherds bush keeps the routemaster beyond Victoria to Fulham and the 311 plan is scrapped. Should not mess with a famous route anyway. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 15, 2019 1:58:10 GMT
Great news the 11 which still in truth still run to shepherds bush keeps the routemaster beyond Victoria to Fulham and the 311 plan is scrapped. Should not mess with a famous route anyway. The 11 is too long in it's current form without adding an extension to Shepherd's Bush to it. Also, just because it might be a famous route doesn't mean it can't be altered providing a good proposal comes along - me personally, the 11's cutback was the only sensible cut in order to make it more reliable but I didn't particularly like the 311 heading off to Oxford Circus and instead would of simply ran it to Trafalgar Square/Whitehall to Fulham Broadway allowing the 11 to concentrate on Liverpool Street to Victoria. If the overlapping section was laid out correctly, you end up with two far more reliable routes than the current 11 and TfL can still bang on about their hopper fare.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 15, 2019 7:56:11 GMT
Great news the 11 which still in truth still run to shepherds bush keeps the routemaster beyond Victoria to Fulham and the 311 plan is scrapped. Should not mess with a famous route anyway. The 11 is too long in it's current form without adding an extension to Shepherd's Bush to it. Also, just because it might be a famous route doesn't mean it can't be altered providing a good proposal comes along - me personally, the 11's cutback was the only sensible cut in order to make it more reliable but I didn't particularly like the 311 heading off to Oxford Circus and instead would of simply ran it to Trafalgar Square/Whitehall to Fulham Broadway allowing the 11 to concentrate on Liverpool Street to Victoria. If the overlapping section was laid out correctly, you end up with two far more reliable routes than the current 11 and TfL can still bang on about their hopper fare. I agree. The traffic the 11 encounters is apalling. I stupidly decided to do the route end to end during rush hour and the route took over 100 minutes to get from Fulham Broadway to Liverpool Street. I think that there is certainly scope the cut the 11, the route's reliability is so poor right now. I speculate that TFL are hoping the Liverpool Street Bus Station demand is dead now so they could pull the 11 out of the city and make people change on the 26 at Aldwych.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 15, 2019 8:21:29 GMT
The 11 is too long in it's current form without adding an extension to Shepherd's Bush to it. Also, just because it might be a famous route doesn't mean it can't be altered providing a good proposal comes along - me personally, the 11's cutback was the only sensible cut in order to make it more reliable but I didn't particularly like the 311 heading off to Oxford Circus and instead would of simply ran it to Trafalgar Square/Whitehall to Fulham Broadway allowing the 11 to concentrate on Liverpool Street to Victoria. If the overlapping section was laid out correctly, you end up with two far more reliable routes than the current 11 and TfL can still bang on about their hopper fare. I agree. The traffic the 11 encounters is apalling. I stupidly decided to do the route end to end during rush hour and the route took over 100 minutes to get from Fulham Broadway to Liverpool Street. I think that there is certainly scope the cut the 11, the route's reliability is so poor right now. I speculate that TFL are hoping the Liverpool Street Bus Station demand is dead now so they could pull the 11 out of the city and make people change on the 26 at Aldwych. Although 100 minutes would only be about 10 minutes late, I'm not sure that the 11 does desperately need to be changed although I'm not suggesting it should be set in stone. I don't think the Liverpool Street section could be withdrawn without replacement, maybe the 87 could be extended there although that might be deemed to be too long as well?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 15, 2019 8:22:34 GMT
I agree. The traffic the 11 encounters is apalling. I stupidly decided to do the route end to end during rush hour and the route took over 100 minutes to get from Fulham Broadway to Liverpool Street. I think that there is certainly scope the cut the 11, the route's reliability is so poor right now. I speculate that TFL are hoping the Liverpool Street Bus Station demand is dead now so they could pull the 11 out of the city and make people change on the 26 at Aldwych. Although 100 minutes would only be about 10 minutes late, I'm not sure that the 11 does desperately need to be changed although I'm not suggesting it should be set in stone. I don't think the Liverpool Street section could be withdrawn without replacement, maybe the 87 could be extended there although that might be deemed to be too long as well? The replacement would be the 26's frequency increase
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 15, 2019 8:24:19 GMT
Although 100 minutes would only be about 10 minutes late, I'm not sure that the 11 does desperately need to be changed although I'm not suggesting it should be set in stone. I don't think the Liverpool Street section could be withdrawn without replacement, maybe the 87 could be extended there although that might be deemed to be too long as well? The replacement would be the 26's frequency increase But the link to Trafalgar Square and Westminster would be lost so I don't think that would be satisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 15, 2019 8:27:23 GMT
Although 100 minutes would only be about 10 minutes late, I'm not sure that the 11 does desperately need to be changed although I'm not suggesting it should be set in stone. I don't think the Liverpool Street section could be withdrawn without replacement, maybe the 87 could be extended there although that might be deemed to be too long as well? The replacement would be the 26's frequency increase That only adds two buses an hour.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 15, 2019 9:28:05 GMT
The 26 could be under pressure thou with the loss of the 4 and 172 along Fleet Street to Waterloo.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 15, 2019 9:32:28 GMT
The 26 could be under pressure thou with the loss of the 4 and 172 along Fleet Street to Waterloo. The 341 replaces the 172 routeing to Farringdon, plus the 26 will get a frequency increase. I think the 4 should have just been diverted via Blackfriars Bridge and Southwark Street instead, rather than cut back.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 15, 2019 17:18:33 GMT
Did the 45 end to end today before it's too late.
I have to say the busiest section of the route was Brixton Hill-Camberwell. Most banks of seats were taken (this was on the upper deck) and I was quite impressed with the loading for 2pm on a Monday afternnon. Passengers were thinning out as we went up Walworth Road to the point where the top deck had 8 people leaving Elephant and Castle. The traffic on Blackfriars Road was apalling, obviously the Extinction Rebellion protest on Waterloo Bridge displaced a lot of traffic, there was a never ending stream of cars coming out of The Cut. Many people asked the driver to let them off as our bus was going nowhere, we took around 10-15 minutes to get between St George's Circus and Southwark Station because of all the congestion going up towards Blackfriars Bridge. Meanwhile the 63 infront of us was picking up most of the punters who wanted the City and King's Cross.
I admit this trip was off peak and am prepared to be proven wrong but it seems the 45 is a fresh air carrying route. Its not for me to say whether the route is needed north of the Elephant during rush hour but from what I saw today, few people will miss the 45 north of the Elephant and one Elephant-King's Cross route is sufficient. However, the 63 should get a frequency increase because it will have slack to pick up once the 45 is gone. I think turfing 45 passengers off on Newington Causeway is a decision TFL made in the hope passengers for King's Cross won't bother walking across to London Road for the 63 and will instead just get on the Northern Line.
The interchange at Elephant is poor. It is understandable that TFL are moving the 171 to the Lambeth Road stand to provide same stop interchange predominantly for the 68 but routes from Elephant to Waterloo are in no short supply. That logic should have been transferred to the 45 so passnegers who want King's Cross can transfer on to the 63 but TFL are expecting people to change to the 40 elsewhere with no regard for passengers who want to continue to King's Cross. Let us not forget Gray's Inn Road commuters who get a very raw deal out of the 45 cut. They'll have to get the 17 to Farringdon Street, then the 40/63 to Elephant then te 45 to their destination. No one is going to bother doing that
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 15, 2019 18:05:58 GMT
Did the 45 end to end today before it's too late. I have to say the busiest section of the route was Brixton Hill-Camberwell. Most banks of seats were taken (this was on the upper deck) and I was quite impressed with the loading for 2pm on a Monday afternnon. Passengers were thinning out as we went up Walworth Road to the point where the top deck had 8 people leaving Elephant and Castle. The traffic on Blackfriars Road was apalling, obviously the Extinction Rebellion protest on Waterloo Bridge displaced a lot of traffic, there was a never ending stream of cars coming out of The Cut. Many people asked the driver to let them off as our bus was going nowhere, we took around 10-15 minutes to get between St George's Circus and Southwark Station because of all the congestion going up towards Blackfriars Bridge. Meanwhile the 63 infront of us was picking up most of the punters who wanted the City and King's Cross. I admit this trip was off peak and am prepared to be proven wrong but it seems the 45 is a fresh air carrying route. Its not for me to say whether the route is needed north of the Elephant during rush hour but from what I saw today, few people will miss the 45 north of the Elephant and one Elephant-King's Cross route is sufficient. However, the 63 should get a frequency increase because it will have slack to pick up once the 45 is gone. I think turfing 45 passengers off on Newington Causeway is a decision TFL made in the hope passengers for King's Cross won't bother walking across to London Road for the 63 and will instead just get on the Northern Line. The interchange at Elephant is poor. It is understandable that TFL are moving the 171 to the Lambeth Road stand to provide same stop interchange predominantly for the 68 but routes from Elephant to Waterloo are in no short supply. That logic should have been transferred to the 45 so passnegers who want King's Cross can transfer on to the 63 but TFL are expecting people to change to the 40 elsewhere with no regard for passengers who want to continue to King's Cross. Let us not forget Gray's Inn Road commuters who get a very raw deal out of the 45 cut. They'll have to get the 17 to Farringdon Street, then the 40/63 to Elephant then te 45 to their destination. No one is going to bother doing that Yes the 45 is pretty much a fresh air route, north of E&C it's only really needed during peak hours and at other times the existing 63 service is more than adequate and I can't see that changing when Crossrail opens. I suspect it was seen as too controversial to withdraw the whole service in one go and the rather pointless E&C to Clapham Park will continue but it's surely doomed to withdrawl at a later date? May as well withdraw the entire route and extend the 118 to Camberwell Green to maintain the hospital link. All a far cry from the halcyon days of the 45 when it went all the way from Archway to South Kensington.
|
|
|
Post by Ted Barclay on Apr 15, 2019 18:21:57 GMT
The cutting of the 48 means that, for the first time since early horse bus days, there will be no direct bus connection between Leyton, Lea Bridge Road, Clapton and Liverpool Street/London Bridge, which should cause anyone from TfL contemplating the wielding of this long knife to at least pause before the fatal blow. Liverpool Street and Bishopsgate, if not London Bridge, have had connections to Hoe Street in Walthamstow for almost as long with trolleybus route 557, then replacement bus routes. I cannot see how other transport options that have become available in recent decades would have any significant abstraction on such journeys: if there has been a huge decline in bus passenger figures, it must be because TfL have made travelling by bus so unattractive, whether by deliberate policy or default. They should hang their heads in shame. I know you don't need telling about the point I'm about to make but TfL's subtle policy is to shove as many people on the tube, Overground, DLR and Crossrail as possible. It's unstated but it's there because it's the only way they can practically grow revenue as any caps involving rail modes are now high relative to TfL's frozen fares. Buses are very low yield and non surplus generating so are not worth promoting. The 48 has fallen from 69th busiest route in 2012/13 to 135th busiest in 2017/18. Its patronage is about 2 million pass jnys down from its absolute peak in 2008/09. It is the last few years where patronage has fallen steeply. I have compared to other Hackney routes but I'd not be shocked to see something similar on other routes in that borough. We've done the possible reasons for these declines lots of time before but TfL's "alarm bell" tends to get triggered in terms of frequency cuts or route withdrawals when they get multiple years of patronage falls in the hundreds of thousands or even over a million per year. There are a lot of such routes but bizarrely the 38 has had very large falls but is even now relatively unscathed. I assume TfL have decided that Hackney Council may mutiny if that was to be severely reduced. Instead the 48 goes in its entirety despite the 38 losing more ridership (over 6m pas jnys) than the 48's annual patronage (last year 5.7m pass jnys) since 2010. In no way has 6m journeys worth of capacity been taken off the 38. I don't get to Central London very often but the 38s I have seen have been pitifully loaded relative to the very high frequency that is operated. It does seem a shame that TfL has chosen to blitz a route like the 48 and leave other routes bobbing along without any change. Some sensible pruning of frequencies at the shoulders of the peaks on many routes could yield some useful savings. Talking to each operator could help to realise those economies. It would seem that taking any such action Is regarded as fraternising with the enemy! it will certainly leave a lot of passengers feeling browned off.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 15, 2019 21:05:39 GMT
It does seem a shame that TfL has chosen to blitz a route like the 48 and leave other routes bobbing along without any change. Some sensible pruning of frequencies at the shoulders of the peaks on many routes could yield some useful savings. Talking to each operator could help to realise those economies. It would seem that taking any such action Is regarded as fraternising with the enemy! it will certainly leave a lot of passengers feeling browned off. "Not invented here" syndrome coupled with planners who are unlikely to have scheduling knowledge / experience or any time in bus operations. I do wonder how much more expensive the 123's new timetable is compared to the old one. It has eliminated the old short runs to / from Tottenham meaning buses have more dead runs and you possibly need more buses overall for the same service. The peak buses or run time extras at weekends seem to run for longer as well. I know we have a marginally more frequent daytime service now but it feels somewhat less efficient than before.
|
|