cross border routes

[Deleted]

Admittedly i have a vested interest, but i wonder with the house / rent prices increasingly pushing key workers out of London Boroughs, whether some more should be done with these routes.
Patronage on most of these routes must have increased in recent years. Examples here would be the 81,96,203 & 405.
Recently used a 203 which left Staines on a Sunday afternoon with standing passengers. A few years ago that was an hourly route , Monday to Saturday except evenings !
Having no TfL route between Barnet & Potters Bar seems absurd.
The 233 could be useful if extended to Bluewater via Darent Valley Hospital.
And some restored night links would be useful too.

[vjaska]

Mar 8, 2014 14:23:50 GMT @rgd976 said:

Admittedly i have a vested interest, but i wonder with the house / rent prices increasingly pushing key workers out of London Boroughs, whether some more should be done with these routes.
Patronage on most of these routes must have increased in recent years. Examples here would be the 81,96,203 & 405.
Recently used a 203 which left Staines on a Sunday afternoon with standing passengers. A few years ago that was an hourly route , Monday to Saturday except evenings !
Having no TfL route between Barnet & Potters Bar seems absurd.
The 233 could be useful if extended to Bluewater via Darent Valley Hospital.
And some restored night links would be useful too.

Is the 84 heavily used? Maybe TfL could reintroduce it back into the London bus network.

[snoggle]

Mar 8, 2014 14:53:14 GMT vjaska said:

Mar 8, 2014 14:23:50 GMT @rgd976 said:

Admittedly i have a vested interest, but i wonder with the house / rent prices increasingly pushing key workers out of London Boroughs, whether some more should be done with these routes.
Patronage on most of these routes must have increased in recent years. Examples here would be the 81,96,203 & 405.
Recently used a 203 which left Staines on a Sunday afternoon with standing passengers. A few years ago that was an hourly route , Monday to Saturday except evenings !
Having no TfL route between Barnet & Potters Bar seems absurd.
The 233 could be useful if extended to Bluewater via Darent Valley Hospital.
And some restored night links would be useful too.

Is the 84 heavily used? Maybe TfL could reintroduce it back into the London bus network.

Route 81 - 169% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar one.
Rotue 96 - 58% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar two.
Route 203 - 54% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar three.
Route 405 - 210% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar one.

The problem with wanting more cross boundary routes is that they straddle the regulatory regimes and no operator can match TfL fares inside London so will pick up no passengers inside London. This is why Ensign's brief attempt at a service to Upminster failed - couldn't match the 370's fares. Stuck record time - TfL have no money to fund more cross boundary routes or take over existing ones. The cross boundary routes do reasonably well because they so immensely cheap compared to the commercial routes they run alongside. It's no wonder TfL routes are packed out in Staines - they probably cost less than half what Abellio or First charge.

I agree that the 203 is very well used. I've seen it a couple of times recently and it was packed. I've used it and it was certainly busy. Ditto the 81 but the Bath Road corridor in Hounslow is bonkers for bus demand - every route is over subscribed (222 usage increased by more than 100%).

I've only used the 84 once and while it started out quiet at Barnet it was full and standing as we approached St Albans. I was surprised but it was a Saturday so it was full of people going shopping. School times are apparently ridiculous hence the use of double decks. Hertfordshire still has reasonable bus services in the more densely populated areas so St Albans is reasonably busy for buses and I suspect people haven't yet lost the habit of taking the bus. Nonetheless there are plenty of cars too. I can't see Metroline wanted to relinquish a commercial route nor can I see TfL wanting to spend sparse cash on taking it over.

[jrussa]

There are quite a few successful Cross border routes such as the 167, 20 and 418. The 167 is ridiculously busy during the day. The 20 provides great connections, but the areas it serve are either sparsely populated or have a high level of car usage i.e. Waterworks Corner, Hillyfields (Chester Road catchment area) and Woodford Wells.

The first attachment is a report that London TravelWatch formulated in 2008, in regards to Cross border travelling by bus.
The second attachment is a report formulated by former Councillor, GLA and Croydon Central MP, Andrew Pelling
(NB - Andrew Pelling served all roles at once for a year or two)

[Deleted]

It is, of course, explicitly in TfL's charter (It is called a charter isn't it?) to provide and maintain established cross boundary routes, but as has been pointed out theres little incentive for TfL to run buses in an area where they don't get a subsidy from. Crossing the Border has always played second fiddle irrespective of whatever duties TfL have. Indeed Cross Border TfL services have decreased in terms of scope, though granted have increased on specific routes.

Areas that Red Buses have served but no longer do include: Maple Cross, Ricky, London Colney, St Albans, Clare Hall, South Mimms, Kitts End, Northaw, Cuffley, Goffs Oak, Hammond Street, Cheshunt, Waltham Abbey, Upshire, Epping Forrest, Epping, Theydon Bois, Ivychimneys, Abridge, Passingford Bridge, Ongar, Stapleford Abbots, Lambourne End, Farningham, Tattenham Corner, Lower Kingswood, Walton-on-the-Hill, Ashstead, Downside, Chobam, Ripley, Weybridge, Hersham, Walton on Thames, Chertsey, Shepperton, Laleham, Egham, Old Windsor, Wraysbury, Thopre Park, Horton, Stanwell Moor....

Theres supposed to be an assembley report into it at some point in the future.

[snoggle]

Mar 9, 2014 0:56:39 GMT @benedict said:

It is, of course, explicitly in TfL's charter (It is called a charter isn't it?) to provide and maintain established cross boundary routes, but as has been pointed out theres little incentive for TfL to run buses in an area where they don't get a subsidy from. Crossing the Border has always played second fiddle irrespective of whatever duties TfL have. Indeed Cross Border TfL services have decreased in terms of scope, though granted have increased on specific routes.

Areas that Red Buses have served but no longer do include: Maple Cross, Ricky, London Colney, St Albans, Clare Hall, South Mimms, Kitts End, Northaw, Cuffley, Goffs Oak, Hammond Street, Cheshunt, Waltham Abbey, Upshire, Epping Forrest, Epping, Theydon Bois, Ivychimneys, Abridge, Passingford Bridge, Ongar, Stapleford Abbots, Lambourne End, Farningham, Tattenham Corner, Lower Kingswood, Walton-on-the-Hill, Ashstead, Downside, Chobam, Ripley, Weybridge, Hersham, Walton on Thames, Chertsey, Shepperton, Laleham, Egham, Old Windsor, Wraysbury, Thopre Park, Horton, Stanwell Moor....

Theres supposed to be an assembley report into it at some point in the future.

TfL's duties are typically set out in the GLA Act and any other legislation that has been cross referenced (inherited duties from predecessor organisations).

I fear another Assembly Report on the subject will have zero effect. I think the difference between regulated and unregulated regimes is now so huge that any "gap" at the Greater London is unbridgeable. If TfL is forced to cut its bus budget then I expect some cross boundary routes would be in the firing line.

[Deleted]

Mar 8, 2014 15:54:58 GMT snoggle said:

Route 81 - 169% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar one.
Rotue 96 - 58% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar two.
Route 203 - 54% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar three.
Route 405 - 210% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar one.

Snoggle, you don't happen to know the percentage increases for routes such as the 20, 167, 397, 549 or 498, do you? Would be very interesting to see if you do.

167 is a very busy route, but I would say the 20 hasn't really increased much - except in the school rush.

[snoggle]

Mar 14, 2014 20:32:00 GMT @truffles1234 said:

Mar 8, 2014 15:54:58 GMT snoggle said:

Route 81 - 169% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar one.
Rotue 96 - 58% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar two.
Route 203 - 54% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar three.
Route 405 - 210% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar one.

Snoggle, you don't happen to know the percentage increases for routes such as the 20, 167, 397, 549 or 498, do you? Would be very interesting to see if you do.

167 is a very busy route, but I would say the 20 hasn't really increased much - except in the school rush.

Yes I do have the info - see below

20 - 21.2% increase in 13 years. Patronage has gone up in 7 years and down in 6.
167 - 21.5% increase in 13 years. Patronage has gone up in 7 years and down in 6.
397 - 80% increase in 13 years. Patronage has gone up every year bar three.
549 - 19.5% increase in 10 years. Patronage has gone up in 7 years and down in 3. The 549 is odd because it only became a TfL service in 2003.
498 - 59.5% increase in 12 years. Patronage has gone up every year since 2005 bar one. The 498 only became a TfL service part way through 2005 which means a low base number for that year.

I am not hugely surprised by these numbers given the older routes have mature levels of ridership. I suspect the 397 does well largely because of school and college journeys plus the addition of a Sunday service in 2006. That always bumps up the numbers. We know the 498 has long had a strong schools peak but again the provision of a daily service and recent frequency increases will have helped fuelled the increase in ridership.

[Deleted]

That's very interesting snoggle, thanks!

I know the 397 has increased a lot, but didn't expect it to be 80%! One of the largest factors in this is Epping Forest College, which attracts a lot of students from north-east London (with the locals mostly going to Harlow college instead!). The buses are packed in the school/college peak (which is during lunchtime, in addition to morning/afternoon), but the route is relatively quiet at other times.

I'm surprised the 20 has similar increases to the 167 - I would of thought the 167 would be higher than the 20. Like the 397, the route only tends to get packed during school peaks, whereas the 167 is all day.

With the 549, I'm surprised there has been an increase - it is a quiet route! I presume the withdrawal of a journey on school route 804 (Essex CC contract, operated by Go-Ahead London) to Roding Valley Station from Loughton (which follows the same route as the 549 within Essex) may have had an impact.

[snoggle]

Mar 14, 2014 21:59:19 GMT @truffles1234 said:

That's very interesting snoggle, thanks!

I know the 397 has increased a lot, but didn't expect it to be 80%! One of the largest factors in this is Epping Forest College, which attracts a lot of students from north-east London (with the locals mostly going to Harlow college instead!). The buses are packed in the school/college peak (which is during lunchtime, in addition to morning/afternoon), but the route is relatively quiet at other times.

I'm surprised the 20 has similar increases to the 167 - I would of thought the 167 would be higher than the 20. Like the 397, the route only tends to get packed during school peaks, whereas the 167 is all day.

With the 549, I'm surprised there has been an increase - it is a quiet route! I presume the withdrawal of a journey on school route 804 (Essex CC contract, operated by Go-Ahead London) to Roding Valley Station from Loughton (which follows the same route as the 549 within Essex) may have had an impact.

When I did a full ride on the 397 recently I got to Debden about school kicking out time and it was evident that the college was an obvious draw on the 397. As I'm sure you know there is an enhanced frequency to cater for the education traffic.

The 167 has had a couple of big surges in demand over the years, one in 2011/12, which may be what we remember. I've certainly seen plenty of well loaded 167s but the buses are only medium sized and every 20 mins so not a massively busy corridor when set beside similar routes that might load as well but run every 10 minutes. I suspect that if TfL pushed the 167 to every 15 mins M-S and x20 on Sundays there'd be another surge in demand.

I rode the 549 last week for the first time. Despite it being off peak there was a little line of people turn up at South Woodford a few mins before departure time and there were people at the stops further on. I'd never claim it was massively busy but it offers a life line for people and that's good enough for me. Clearly the northern bit of the route in Buckhurst Hill is "well off" territory and plenty of people will drive but not everyone.

[Deleted]

These figures are really interesting. Just in news yesterday was plans for a new "garden city" at Ebbsfleet. As things stand, it will fall to Arriva to provide the bus services commercially in that area. They do a good job, but provide localised links at decent frequencies in the main.
But the bigger picture, is people don't just want to get to the nearest high street or railway station.

I wonder how the figures compare with routes of similar make up that don't cross boundary... Such as the 105,412,482 ?