|
|
Post by snoggle on May 17, 2014 10:28:50 GMT
I have had a bit of a play around with the TfL bus data to try to see how demand and capacity align on the 125 busiest routes.
I've taken the buses per hour (bph) for M-F peaks, M-S daytimes, Sunday daytimes and daily evenings and then calculated a daily capacity, a weekly capacity and then an annual capacity. The capacity calculation is for both directions on the route. Now before anyone spots the obvious flaw this is a "rough and ready" calculation and I recognise that early morning frequencies are not covered and some timetable nuances like stepped down evening frequencies are not fully reflected. I've then compared the annual capacity with the TfL numbers for demand to see if there is a surplus or deficit. The other interesting aspect is to spot the variances in bph for routes with varying levels of demand.
Now accepting this is not a 100% accurate analysis there are some stark differences in frequencies for routes with similar patronage levels. Ironically, despite the repeated moans about how well East London does, there are some routes (58, 69, 97, 158, 123) which are comparatively under-resourced compared to routes which run into Zone 1 with similar levels of demand. Another route which looks under-resourced is the 47. For example route 16 carries fewer people than route 58 or 123 but is much more frequent every day of the week. Interestingly route 18 has more peak bph than route 25 despite carrying 6m fewer people a year although the 25 has more overlaps with other routes than the 18 has.
Now we do have to be careful as an annualised number can hide all sorts of factors such as demand over a day, by day of the week or whether there are very concentrated peak flows on a route (e.g. out of Victoria Station) which need more buses than other routes. However, and it sticks slightly in my throat to say it, it does seem that some radial routes into Zone 1 do have excess capacity and too many buses for the demand on offer. Meanwhile some suburban route are crying out for more buses. Perhaps TfL are right to look at removing some capacity on Zone 1 routes to shift the money elsewhere?
I have not looked at any single decker routes and have assumed a generic capacity of 87 people in a double decker regardless of the type running on an individual route. I recognise this is a little simplistic but it keeps the calculation simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on May 17, 2014 11:35:46 GMT
I agree, all the routes you have mentioned are under-resourced especially 69, 97 and 123 as I have seen them all overcrowded and they could do with a frequency increase. As for the 47, it has been needing a frequency increase for ages but TFL don't seem to have interest in it. Oh well..  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 17, 2014 11:48:18 GMT
I agree, all the routes you have mentioned are under-resourced especially 69, 97 and 123 as I have seen them all overcrowded and they could do with a frequency increase. As for the 47, it has been needing a frequency increase for ages but TFL don't seem to have interest in it. Oh well.. I expected you to be in favour of a route 47 increase! I just find it quite interesting that demand patterns have clearly shifted on some corridors and yet the long standing approach of high frequencies on radial routes into Zone 1 remains unchallenged with suburban / orbital routes lagging behind in terms of resource. |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on May 17, 2014 11:49:11 GMT
You know what's funny? Contrasting the 47, I think the PVR of the 136 is just a little too high. I was on Lewisham Way yesterday during the peak, and there were 3 x 136s in a row heading towards E&C. About a minute between each other. This just seems like overkill. I'm sure a couple of buses can move to the 47 to help out a little
I also saw another thing to do with the route, but I'll post that in the 'Route 136' thread shortly...
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 17, 2014 12:06:10 GMT
I have had a bit of a play around with the TfL bus data to try to see how demand and capacity align on the 125 busiest routes. I've taken the buses per hour (bph) for M-F peaks, M-S daytimes, Sunday daytimes and daily evenings and then calculated a daily capacity, a weekly capacity and then an annual capacity. The capacity calculation is for both directions on the route. Now before anyone spots the obvious flaw this is a "rough and ready" calculation and I recognise that early morning frequencies are not covered and some timetable nuances like stepped down evening frequencies are not fully reflected. I've then compared the annual capacity with the TfL numbers for demand to see if there is a surplus or deficit. The other interesting aspect is to spot the variances in bph for routes with varying levels of demand. Now accepting this is not a 100% accurate analysis there are some stark differences in frequencies for routes with similar patronage levels. Ironically, despite the repeated moans about how well East London does, there are some routes (58, 69, 97, 158, 123) which are comparatively under-resourced compared to routes which run into Zone 1 with similar levels of demand. Another route which looks under-resourced is the 47. For example route 16 carries fewer people than route 58 or 123 but is much more frequent every day of the week. Interestingly route 18 has more peak bph than route 25 despite carrying 6m fewer people a year although the 25 has more overlaps with other routes than the 18 has. Now we do have to be careful as an annualised number can hide all sorts of factors such as demand over a day, by day of the week or whether there are very concentrated peak flows on a route (e.g. out of Victoria Station) which need more buses than other routes. However, and it sticks slightly in my throat to say it, it does seem that some radial routes into Zone 1 do have excess capacity and too many buses for the demand on offer. Meanwhile some suburban route are crying out for more buses. Perhaps TfL are right to look at removing some capacity on Zone 1 routes to shift the money elsewhere? I have not looked at any single decker routes and have assumed a generic capacity of 87 people in a double decker regardless of the type running on an individual route. I recognise this is a little simplistic but it keeps the calculation simple. Was there any Brixton routes in your calculations - I'd be interested to know the results of whether they are over or under resourced? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 17, 2014 12:35:23 GMT
Was there any Brixton routes in your calculations - I'd be interested to know the results of whether they are over or under resourced? Yes there are Brixton routes in the list. Some are under resourced (250, 2, 109, 159, 37) while others are closely matched (133, 333) while others have spare capacity (3, 59, 45). Obviously you have to be *very* careful as my capacity number is not precise and the TfL number is an annual estimate and doesn't give any geographic spread of demand along any route. As we all know buses in Brixton often look like they are under siege in Brixton itself but may or may not be elsewhere on their route corridors! I am adding some more routes to the list and may post the spreadsheet later but people would need to treat the numbers with caution. |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on May 17, 2014 14:46:57 GMT
You know what's funny? Contrasting the 47, I think the PVR of the 136 is just a little too high. I was on Lewisham Way yesterday during the peak, and there were 3 x 136s in a row heading towards E&C. About a minute between each other. This just seems like overkill. I'm sure a couple of buses can move to the 47 to help out a little I also saw another thing to do with the route, but I'll post that in the 'Route 136' thread shortly... Reliability is a separate issue from planning. TfL don't plan for the 136 to run in bunches of 3. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 19, 2014 0:15:39 GMT
Attachment DeletedI said I might stick up my spreadsheet so here goes. It is pretty big and covers all the current regular day and night routes and uses the previously released TfL data for 12 years worth of patronage. The sheet shows various route details as I've provided before. This time I have made an attempt to calculate the annual route capacity to then compare with 2012/13's total demand for the route. Now before everyone spots the mistakes there are inevitable compromises and a lack of precision in the Capacity calculation. I assumed a capacity of 87 for double deckers, 45 for Midis, 55 for single decks, 69 for RMs and varying numbers for the different batches of NB4Ls. I have assumed the M-F peaks last 6 hours for AM and PM combined, 8 hours for M-F daytime, 10 hours for Saturdays, 5 hours for evenings and 8 hours for Sunday daytime frequencies. Night frequencies last for 4 hours. Clearly I haven't calculated early morning frequencies so the total capacity on a daytime route will be understated. In some cases I have assumed a frequency of less than 1 bus per hour for low frequency or shopping hours only routes but given they are very unlikely to be overcrowded I don't believe this is a fatal flaw. AND JUST TO REPEAT FOR THE PEDANTS THE CAPACITY CALCULATION IS NOT PRECISE AND IS NOT MEANT TO BE. IT IS PURELY ILLUSTRATIVE. MOANS AND COMPLAINTS WILL BE IGNORED. Constructive comments welcome. I have highlighted the overcrowded routes by colouring the number for "demand less capacity 2012" yellow on the main spreadsheet. When you look at the scale of overcrowding on some routes, particularly the busiest, then the numbers are startling. I am not entirely happy that those routes are accurate as I suspect missing the early morning capacity is quite important on those services. Other routes showing as overcrowded will not be a big surprise to many given past discussions on this forum. There is a "look up" box below the main sheet - just enter the route number in the relevant box and all the data for that route will be shown. Don't type over the other boxes as you'll wipe out the formulae.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2014 1:51:44 GMT
View AttachmentI said I might stick up my spreadsheet so here goes. It is pretty big and covers all the current regular day and night routes and uses the previously released TfL data for 12 years worth of patronage. The sheet shows various route details as I've provided before. This time I have made an attempt to calculate the annual route capacity to then compare with 2012/13's total demand for the route. Now before everyone spots the mistakes there are inevitable compromises and a lack of precision in the Capacity calculation. I assumed a capacity of 87 for double deckers, 45 for Midis, 55 for single decks, 69 for RMs and varying numbers for the different batches of NB4Ls. I have assumed the M-F peaks last 6 hours for AM and PM combined, 8 hours for M-F daytime, 10 hours for Saturdays, 5 hours for evenings and 8 hours for Sunday daytime frequencies. Night frequencies last for 4 hours. Clearly I haven't calculated early morning frequencies so the total capacity on a daytime route will be understated. In some cases I have assumed a frequency of less than 1 bus per hour for low frequency or shopping hours only routes but given they are very unlikely to be overcrowded I don't believe this is a fatal flaw. AND JUST TO REPEAT FOR THE PEDANTS THE CAPACITY CALCULATION IS NOT PRECISE AND IS NOT MEANT TO BE. IT IS PURELY ILLUSTRATIVE. MOANS AND COMPLAINTS WILL BE IGNORED. Constructive comments welcome. I have highlighted the overcrowded routes by colouring the number for "demand less capacity 2012" yellow on the main spreadsheet. When you look at the scale of overcrowding on some routes, particularly the busiest, then the numbers are startling. I am not entirely happy that those routes are accurate as I suspect missing the early morning capacity is quite important on those services. Other routes showing as overcrowded will not be a big surprise to many given past discussions on this forum. There is a "look up" box below the main sheet - just enter the route number in the relevant box and all the data for that route will be shown. Don't type over the other boxes as you'll wipe out the formulae. very well laid out and comphensive document. It looks really good and extremely useful. Thanks for posting this. Sure others will agree. Looking at the spreadsheet, i was surprised how low some of the routes ranked as well as how high on others. The mobilty route figures surprise me, as well as routes like the 468. If anyone is using an iphone to view this thread, if you download the app "ispreadsheet" makes viewing the document easier! |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 19, 2014 11:44:47 GMT
You know what's funny? Contrasting the 47, I think the PVR of the 136 is just a little too high. I was on Lewisham Way yesterday during the peak, and there were 3 x 136s in a row heading towards E&C. About a minute between each other. This just seems like overkill. I'm sure a couple of buses can move to the 47 to help out a little I also saw another thing to do with the route, but I'll post that in the 'Route 136' thread shortly... The 136 now has a lot more running time, curtailments have reduced which is a good thing. The stand time at Elephant is quite lengthy at least 15 mins per bus. Pre extension I used to see the same turns to New Cross & New Cross Gate pretty much all the time. The extension and PVR has made the route a lot better imo. Bunching on the 136 is certainly not unusual has been happening since my school days simply because school kids allover delay the buses. During the consultation I wrote a short essay mentioning that a sensible PVR is given and I used the 320 as a example of a service that became diabolical when it was extended to Catford, plus mentioned that Downham Way over the last few years has become a traffic town. The extra two crosslinked buses still work the 136 214 & 230 increasing the PM peak the 21 buses, for the amount of delays which happens on the 136 daily that PVR is deserved from 3pm Onwards the 136 gets busier and moves slower, serves about 8 different schools across the whole route. Has been problematic since my school days and is now better than before from having used it on Monday during the PM peak I did not see 1 curtailment, not even Downham. The 47 just serves some of the worst places in London. I think the routing in Shoreditch for both the 35 & 47 isn't really required from Shoreditch High Street Station onwards. |
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on May 22, 2014 0:24:37 GMT
Ive also been comparing the journeys made and operated mileage. Using this data, I have got the busiest routes (in order) as: W7,330,507,69,104,58,238,EL1,29,149,271.
The least busy are R5, R10, H3, R8, 146, 347, 399, 375, 359, 246.
I need to separate double and single deck routes to get true picture, but thats for another day!!
|
|
