|
Post by snoggle on Feb 24, 2017 9:57:55 GMT
Here's the latest bit of commentary from TfL about declining bus patronage (from Q3 Cust Services and Ops Performance report). to which my response is "well duh!!!!" I have been saying this on other forums, but one political correct muppet doesn't seem to understand and thinks dwindling buses are good and 20mph zones etc are welcome. Its that same kind of attitude is the reason why people like Donald Trump, UKIP and Brexit have accelerated, purely on constantly ignoring the majority. We are in a VERY time based society, so if bus journeys are going to take long and we get slower buses and measures like speed adaptive technology, then people would desert buses in droves for UBER. Err given that I see your posts on another forum I think you've called it wrong. I certainly can't make the leap to the political context you cite and who wants to pour oil on the flames of those topics? If I am thinking of the right person I would not describe them as politically correct. I've met them IRL. What I would say is that they simply respond to your sometimes "ranty" arguments and attempt to refute them or at least offer an alternative angle. I don't see that as being politically correct at all. That is simply part of having a "discussion" with other people. No one is obliged to agree with anyone. All they are doing is putting an alternative point of view to set alongside yours. If you stop and consider what they did for a living you would understand why they respond to "emotional" or "populist" or "unsubstantiated" arguments in the way they do. They had a career of having to use data and statistics to explain what went on in a range of activities controlled by government. At the end of the day, whether you or I like it, policies and decisions have to be justified and supported by facts (even uncomfortable ones) and data.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 24, 2017 11:49:38 GMT
I think a lot will be revealed in the finance papers for next meeting (scheduled for 13 March) The papers usually appear on TfL website at least week in advance
Will have the first period of 2017 data (giving 11 of the 13 periods for year to 31 March) and it should be starting to become obvious if bus revenue is recovering or staying down. It covers the very cold January period (and no school holidays) so would expect it to be seasonally one of the highest, if not the highest. As weather improves more are likely to go back to cycling (and walking).
There is a TfL Board meeting on 29 March and the papers for that will make it clear what is expected to happen in the future. Clearly having increased the PVR by about 500 buses in 2 years (about 6 - 7%) and lost a similar percentage in revenue there is now a big hole in surface transport finsnces.
I have not found details on travelcard/oyster apportionment, and when it next updates, but it is based on number of journeys and there has been increases on tube, rail, overground etc so at some stage buses will lose a few more perecentage of their revenue as they will get a smaller share of the travelcard/oyster revenue.
The big question for me is how long can the bus network keep haemorrhaging money before action is taken to better match supply to revenue. For many the buses have simply become too slow to be a viable choice.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Feb 24, 2017 12:19:57 GMT
I have been saying this on other forums, but one political correct muppet doesn't seem to understand and thinks dwindling buses are good and 20mph zones etc are welcome. Its that same kind of attitude is the reason why people like Donald Trump, UKIP and Brexit have accelerated, purely on constantly ignoring the majority. We are in a VERY time based society, so if bus journeys are going to take long and we get slower buses and measures like speed adaptive technology, then people would desert buses in droves for UBER. Err given that I see your posts on another forum I think you've called it wrong. I certainly can't make the leap to the political context you cite and who wants to pour oil on the flames of those topics? If I am thinking of the right person I would not describe them as politically correct. I've met them IRL. What I would say is that they simply respond to your sometimes "ranty" arguments and attempt to refute them or at least offer an alternative angle. I don't see that as being politically correct at all. That is simply part of having a "discussion" with other people. No one is obliged to agree with anyone. All they are doing is putting an alternative point of view to set alongside yours. If you stop and consider what they did for a living you would understand why they respond to "emotional" or "populist" or "unsubstantiated" arguments in the way they do. They had a career of having to use data and statistics to explain what went on in a range of activities controlled by government. At the end of the day, whether you or I like it, policies and decisions have to be justified and supported by facts (even uncomfortable ones) and data. Have to agree to disagree, that person does it to ANYONE and carries on as thou they are holier than thou.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Feb 24, 2017 13:30:38 GMT
I think a lot will be revealed in the finance papers for next meeting (scheduled for 13 March) The papers usually appear on TfL website at least week in advance Will have the first period of 2017 data (giving 11 of the 13 periods for year to 31 March) and it should be starting to become obvious if bus revenue is recovering or staying down. It covers the very cold January period (and no school holidays) so would expect it to be seasonally one of the highest, if not the highest. As weather improves more are likely to go back to cycling (and walking). There is a TfL Board meeting on 29 March and the papers for that will make it clear what is expected to happen in the future. Clearly having increased the PVR by about 500 buses in 2 years (about 6 - 7%) and lost a similar percentage in revenue there is now a big hole in surface transport finsnces. I have not found details on travelcard/oyster apportionment, and when it next updates, but it is based on number of journeys and there has been increases on tube, rail, overground etc so at some stage buses will lose a few more perecentage of their revenue as they will get a smaller share of the travelcard/oyster revenue. The big question for me is how long can the bus network keep haemorrhaging money before action is taken to better match supply to revenue. For many the buses have simply become too slow to be a viable choice. We are already at that point. What are Finchley Road / Liverpool Street / Central London consultations all about if not saving money and reducing the supply of buses to 'match' demand. The West End bus service review document (part of the central London consultation) was quite clear that the main benefit of the proposed changes was to save TfL money.
Buses have insufficient priority to make the cost of the necessary road layout changes and bus priority measures to improve journey times important enough to do. When re-designing roads for the road modernisation programme, bus timings are not given sufficient importance. It doesn't have to be that way, the design could be different so as not to adversely impact buses, but there isn't the will to do this. Easier just to cut services.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 4, 2017 14:50:44 GMT
TfL have now added finance papers on website Buses doesn't make pretty reading, for Year to period 11 (44 weeks out of 52) Bus revenue is £80,000,000 under budget Operating Loss is 11% over budget, a staggering £555,000,000 loss, so is losing £2m a day Taken from page 20 of link Bus passenger journeys are 3.3% of 65m below budget. (Page 5 of link) content.tfl.gov.uk/fc-20170313-item05-finance-report.pdfThe Matters Arising section on the agenda includes an section that Leon Daniels has been looking at bus decline, it is going to a committee and will be put to full Board at their May meeting. They are looking at methods to increase patronage, but will it be seen as a lost cause and be a rerun of part of bus reshaping plan of half a century ago?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 4, 2017 17:02:38 GMT
TfL have now added finance papers on website Buses doesn't make pretty reading, for Year to period 11 (44 weeks out of 52) Bus revenue is £80,000,000 under budget Operating Loss is 11% over budget, a staggering £555,000,000 loss, so is losing £2m a day Taken from page 20 of link Bus passenger journeys are 3.3% of 65m below budget. (Page 5 of link) content.tfl.gov.uk/fc-20170313-item05-finance-report.pdfThe Matters Arising section on the agenda includes an section that Leon Daniels has been looking at bus decline, it is going to a committee and will be put to full Board at their May meeting. They are looking at methods to increase patronage, but will it be seen as a lost cause and be a rerun of part of bus reshaping plan of half a century ago? Those numbers are awful. Given LU is also way behind its budget revenue and patronage I'm beginning to wonder if there is something else going on with London's economy. I wonder if we are seeing a reduction in employment and a general tightening of discretionary spending which is impacting patronage on the network. Either that or someone is really dreadful at setting budgets and forecasts in TfL.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 4, 2017 19:02:07 GMT
TfL have now added finance papers on website Buses doesn't make pretty reading, for Year to period 11 (44 weeks out of 52) Bus revenue is £80,000,000 under budget Operating Loss is 11% over budget, a staggering £555,000,000 loss, so is losing £2m a day Taken from page 20 of link Bus passenger journeys are 3.3% of 65m below budget. (Page 5 of link) content.tfl.gov.uk/fc-20170313-item05-finance-report.pdfThe Matters Arising section on the agenda includes an section that Leon Daniels has been looking at bus decline, it is going to a committee and will be put to full Board at their May meeting. They are looking at methods to increase patronage, but will it be seen as a lost cause and be a rerun of part of bus reshaping plan of half a century ago? Those numbers are awful. Given LU is also way behind its budget revenue and patronage I'm beginning to wonder if there is something else going on with London's economy. I wonder if we are seeing a reduction in employment and a general tightening of discretionary spending which is impacting patronage on the network. Either that or someone is really dreadful at setting budgets and forecasts in TfL. If I'm reading page 24 correctly, then period 11 fares income is £20m below budget, so this 4 week period is a quarter of the £80m over 11 periods. The table below covering passenger journeys shows period 11 as 4.6% journeys below budget. This is much bigger than Year to date which suggests the decline is accelerating. Comparing to budget needs to be viewed cautiously (as budget might be poor), I prefer to use London data store and compare same period to each of last 3 or 4 years to give absolute change. I might not be very good at PR spin, but the stuff that was said around the time of the hoppa ticket launch boosting journeys appears to be seriously wide of the mark, if anything the bus ridership is in more of a mess than during the height of construction of the cycle highways a year ago. I personally cannot see anything in these numbers which is showing signs of recovery.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 4, 2017 19:49:20 GMT
If I'm reading page 24 correctly, then period 11 fares income is £20m below budget, so this 4 week period is a quarter of the £80m over 11 periods. The table below covering passenger journeys shows period 11 as 4.6% journeys below budget. This is much bigger than Year to date which suggests the decline is accelerating. Comparing to budget needs to be viewed cautiously (as budget might be poor), I prefer to use London data store and compare same period to each of last 3 or 4 years to give absolute change. I might not be very good at PR spin, but the stuff that was said around the time of the hoppa ticket launch boosting journeys appears to be seriously wide of the mark, if anything the bus ridership is in more of a mess than during the height of construction of the cycle highways a year ago. I personally cannot see anything in these numbers which is showing signs of recovery. Datastore hasn't been updated - I checked before I posted earlier. It should really have been done late last week. I think fares income is very hard to deal with because I doubt the impact of the Hopper ticket will have been reflected in the budget that applied in April 2016 as that was prior to the Mayoral election. It is therefore inevitable the numbers may be adrift to some extent. There is certainly a downward trend over the years. The difficulty is in really knowing what the underlying causes of the decline are. I am increasingly sceptical about the "slow speeds" argument and if TfL make the serious cuts they are contemplating in Central London then I expect there will be a further massive drop in patronage which won't have been reflected in the budget numbers. The other structural change may be a decline in shopping frequency if people are swapping to online shopping with home deliveries. This may well be pulling down patronage across London. If there are structural changes happening then no manner of snazzy campaigns will get people to ride buses if the journey purpose has gone away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 23:08:57 GMT
I think there are numerous factors at play.
1. Rise of Uber. 2. Associated change in travelling habits of those on higher incomes. Look at historic videos on you tube of buses in Central London, people in suits en masse using Routemasters to travel to/from BR and tube stations to places of work. Now more likely to walk from stations to offices. 3. Increase in cycling, cycle hire facilities all over Central & Inner London. 4. Traffic congestion, now quicker to walk than sit on a stationary bus stuck in traffic. 5. Slow erosion of knowledge of bus route network due to dropping use. 6. Constant frequency reductions and route shortening to mitigate roadworks. 7. Closure of many London Transport travel centres which used to help promote bus travel in London. 8. No "line diagrams" inside buses . These are very useful in places like Paris, so if in unfamilar area, you can track your progress along the route and help plan your onward journey.
Economic migrants are more likely to use buses I think, maybe because in other parts of Europe , bus travel is not seen as a third class form of transport. This helps explain why routes like the 81 are seeing continued growth, whereas routes like the 94 are reportedly seeing substantial drops. The Slough area, albeit outside London, has a continued growing migrant population, and the bus network has got better and now operates longer hours.
I also feel the use of LT's have backfired. We've had constant bad press during summer months over the heat inside these buses making travelling extremely uncomfortable. I fear the damage is done, window retrofitting may not be able to persuade people back on them.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 5, 2017 0:12:27 GMT
I think there are numerous factors at play. 1. Rise of Uber. 2. Associated change in travelling habits of those on higher incomes. Look at historic videos on you tube of buses in Central London, people in suits en masse using Routemasters to travel to/from BR and tube stations to places of work. Now more likely to walk from stations to offices. 3. Increase in cycling, cycle hire facilities all over Central & Inner London. 4. Traffic congestion, now quicker to walk than sit on a stationary bus stuck in traffic. 5. Slow erosion of knowledge of bus route network due to dropping use. 6. Constant frequency reductions and route shortening to mitigate roadworks. 7. Closure of many London Transport travel centres which used to help promote bus travel in London. 8. No "line diagrams" inside buses . These are very useful in places like Paris, so if in unfamilar area, you can track your progress along the route and help plan your onward journey. Economic migrants are more likely to use buses I think, maybe because in other parts of Europe , bus travel is not seen as a third class form of transport. This helps explain why routes like the 81 are seeing continued growth, whereas routes like the 94 are reportedly seeing substantial drops. The Slough area, albeit outside London, has a continued growing migrant population, and the bus network has got better and now operates longer hours. I also feel the use of LT's have backfired. We've had constant bad press during summer months over the heat inside these buses making travelling extremely uncomfortable. I fear the damage is done, window retrofitting may not be able to persuade people back on them. This is a bit of an old chestnut but the heat inside LT's has been grossly exaggerated by those with a vested interest! I'm not surprised that revenue is down, not only open boarding on LT's but even on conventional routes there is very little enforcement since cash payments ceased.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Mar 5, 2017 0:38:38 GMT
Oh my, shocking figures for period 11, which I presume is basically February. I think a particularly worrying factor shown on page 24 is the fare yield per passenger, which has declined by nearly 12% whilst passenger numbers have only fallen 4.6% in period 11. Some thoughts on all this.
Hopper ticket This can have an impact in three ways :- 1. Passengers who make the same two bus journeys, but now only pay for one will decrease the yield, but keep passenger numbers constant and reduce overall income. 2. Passengers now encouraged to use buses more than they previous did, or didn't use buses. This will reduce the overall yield where there is a second hopper journey, but increase both passengers and income. 3. Passengers who following the various cuts will now have to take two buses instead of one. This will increase passenger numbers, but fare income will remain constant, so reducing the overall yield.
Given the reduction in passengers and the cuts haven't yet really kicked in, point 2 and 3 are not significant. Point 1 will impact the yield, but I don't think it is the whole story and anyway I don't see why it would impact matters significantly more in period 11 than any of the immediate previous months.
Increased journey time, slow speeds I really do think this is a significant factor. The number of times I have seen buses in traffic jams, and people being let off the bus is numerous. This doesn't give a good impression of buses and will passengers want to keep making such journeys to be stuck in traffic. To be honest, for many trips overall journey time is important to me, so I am one of those that travels by bus less as journey times increase, I am sure other may well feel the same. I would also reference the notes on the right of page four of the report which state 'Routes experiencing the highest decline in journey time also have the highest decline in patronage.'
Presumably the reason why the average fare yield is so much less than the £1.50 oyster / contactless pay as you go fare, is that the notional amount received for a bus journey from freedom passes, travel cards etc is vastly less. Children of course are free, and there's daily / weekly fare capping all further reducing the yield. If the fare yield is going down substantially more than the number of passengers (as in period 11), this suggests a disproportionate reduction in oyster / contactless pay as you go passengers. who probably undertake more discretionary journeys. These passengers are also more likely to change travel modes away from buses, and longer journey times may well help encourage this shift. They are more likely to use cycles and private hire such as Uber. I think Uber is becoming a real competitor to buses, particularly with Uber pool or when several people are travelling together.
The proposed central London bus cuts is something done in desperation to try and manage decline. It's something done when you throw in the towel and expect decline in passengers to continue. If you want to increase patronage you make buses more attractive, not cut them. I absolutely agree these cuts will lead to a massive drop in patronage, quite possibly costing TfL more in lost fare revenue than the money the cuts will save.
'Interesting' times ahead, but for those of us who want to see lots of high quality bus services in London, I kind of feel I am watching a slow car crash, whilst those in control are oblivious to what's going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 5, 2017 1:14:23 GMT
Oh my, shocking figures for period 11, which I presume is basically February. I think a particularly worrying factor shown on page 24 is the fare yield per passenger, which has declined by nearly 12% whilst passenger numbers have only fallen 4.6% in period 11. Some thoughts on all this.
Hopper ticket This can have an impact in three ways :- 1. Passengers who make the same two bus journeys, but now only pay for one will decrease the yield, but keep passenger numbers constant and reduce overall income. 2. Passengers now encouraged to use buses more than they previous did, or didn't use buses. This will reduce the overall yield where there is a second hopper journey, but increase both passengers and income. 3. Passengers who following the various cuts will now have to take two buses instead of one. This will increase passenger numbers, but fare income will remain constant, so reducing the overall yield. Increased journey time, slow speeds I really do think this is a significant factor.
The proposed central London bus cuts is something done in desperation to try and manage decline. It's something done when you throw in the towel and expect decline in passengers to continue. If you want to increase patronage you make buses more attractive, not cut them. I absolutely agree these cuts will lead to a massive drop in patronage, quite possibly costing TfL more in lost fare revenue than the money the cuts will save.
'Interesting' times ahead, but for those of us who want to see lots of high quality bus services in London, I kind of feel I am watching a slow car crash, whilst those in control are oblivious to what's going to happen. A couple of comments. P11 usually has a large "bounce back" factor as people return to work and kids go back to school. There is a big jump up from P10 but the quantum for P11 is the lowest value since 2010. I'm not entirely convinced that "slowest routes see biggest losses" is the full story. It *is* a factor but if TfL have implemented 100+ bus priority schemes as they claim why are buses still so slow? Answer - their own policies and those of local councils have reduced the applicable speed limit. These policies won't be reversed so TfL are completely stuck as to how to speed buses up. If buses could previously get up to 30 mph but now have to crawl at 20 mph even if roads are clear and it's safe what's the point? Worse every new bus is going to be fitted with automatic speed control which will compound the problem. This is where "safety" arguments about buses don't work - no point making an already safe mode of travel safer if the consequence is people won't use that mode. Mr Comadad and certain politicians have an awful lot to answer for. A monstrous failure to see the "big picture" effect of their micro level policy demands and no one brave enough to stand up to them. Back to the yield point it is worth noting that TfL themselves are suggesting people trade away from Travelcards and Bus / Tram Passes since the Hopper ticket was introduced. This will be having some impact on the sales of these higher value tickets and people may well be saving money but it's depriving TfL of cash. Furthermore Travelcard apportionment factors, at modal level, will be affected by the decline in bus patronage. Buses will get a smaller slice of a shrinking Travelcard "cake". That has to be having some impact on "yield". I don't think senior people are "oblivious". I think they are powerless within the political regime at TfL and within the one at City Hall. As I have said before - no policy priority from the politicians means nothing of substance happens. That's fine when things are ticking over in a positive fashion. It's a complete disaster when your patronage and revenue numbers are "going to hell in a hand cart" as is happening now. I also don't think Mike Brown as Commissioner really "gets" buses. He's a railwayman not a "rubber tyred" person. There is a difference in how the modes operate. Furthermore there has long been a view, including from Val Shawcross, that Buses were too dominant in Surface Transport and had to be reduced to give room for cycling and walking. Now we have a new "Commissioner" for the latter modes I expect there will be more infighting and petty politics going on inside TfL. Some will look on that as a positive step. I have always viewed internal politics as a pathetic waste of time but that's just me. I am just waiting for some senior TfL heads to be placed in the sacrificial guillotine. Can't be too long given the new Board Members are demanding action and the London Assembly will no doubt deliver a withering attack on current policies, especially bus safety, in a few weeks time. Someone must get to the point where they say "s*d this, I've had enough" and then we have a big bunfight to see if an internal or external candidate would be favoured. I can see some of the bus industry's "bright young things" from deregulation land wanting to "have a go" at knocking London into shape. I can see that being smiled on by City Hall.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 5, 2017 6:49:20 GMT
Couple of points of Clarity,
period 11 is the 4 weeks to 4 February so is normally a full work and school period as it after everyone has gone back after Christmas and New Year beaks.
The financials use 13 periods of 4 weeks, the first period starts 1st April, 13th always ends 31 March, so end ones might be few days more or less as periods 2-12 are Sunday-Saturday
The dreadful numbers are not only suggesting a big revenue gap, but it's blatantly obvious that as PVR has increased by few hundred buses in 2-3 years that costs must have risen. In blunt terms journeys are down about 6-8% and direct costs must be up about 6-7% so it's effectively around 13% worst financially than 2 or 3 years ago. (Exact figures depend on how many months numbers you include)
If similar falls happen in periods 12 and 13 (February and March) then going to be in excess of £100m below budget. Period 13 won't compare easily to last year as there was an early Easter last year, this year it will affect period 1 of 2017-18
The reason why I mentioned the Actions part is the review going to full TfL Board in May. Like snoggle I find office politics just stops serious step change as the just carry on muddling through seems to be easy compromise. There are now so many policies that have had negative effect on journey times that only a bold leader can sort out. There are even some bus priority measures that actually seem to cause a bigger problem by causing other traffic to queue which delays buses elsewhere, there is really no point in speeding a journey by 2 minutes if the queue results in it taking 5 minutes longer to get to the start of the priority area.
Realistically the only way to restore traffic speeds is to reopen all the blocked off turnings that were done to stop rat runs before speed limits were dropped to 20mph. It would allow the other traffic (including uber and delivery vans) to avoid making traffic clogging loops on the limited number of roads still open (many of which are bus routes). If you don't believe me then look at aerial photo and you will see miles of deserted roads, whilst some are jammed because policy is to restrict through traffic to about quarter of the roads. Wether anyone has the guts to do so, remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 5, 2017 7:28:45 GMT
Couple of points of Clarity, period 11 is the 4 weeks to 4 February so is normally a full work and school period as it after everyone has gone back after Christmas and New Year beaks. The financials use 13 periods of 4 weeks, the first period starts 1st April, 13th always ends 31 March, so end ones might be few days more or less as periods 2-12 are Sunday-Saturday The dreadful numbers are not only suggesting a big revenue gap, but it's blatantly obvious that as PVR has increased by few hundred buses in 2-3 years that costs must have risen. In blunt terms journeys are down about 6-8% and direct costs must be up about 6-7% so it's effectively around 13% worst financially than 2 or 3 years ago. (Exact figures depend on how many months numbers you include) If similar falls happen in periods 12 and 13 (February and March) then going to be in excess of £100m below budget. Period 13 won't compare easily to last year as there was an early Easter last year, this year it will affect period 1 of 2017-18 The reason why I mentioned the Actions part is the review going to full TfL Board in May. Like snoggle I find office politics just stops serious step change as the just carry on muddling through seems to be easy compromise. There are now so many policies that have had negative effect on journey times that only a bold leader can sort out. There are even some bus priority measures that actually seem to cause a bigger problem by causing other traffic to queue which delays buses elsewhere, there is really no point in speeding a journey by 2 minutes if the queue results in it taking 5 minutes longer to get to the start of the priority area. Realistically the only way to restore traffic speeds is to reopen all the blocked off turnings that were done to stop rat runs before speed limits were dropped to 20mph. It would allow the other traffic (including uber and delivery vans) to avoid making traffic clogging loops on the limited number of roads still open (many of which are bus routes). If you don't believe me then look at aerial photo and you will see miles of deserted roads, whilst some are jammed because policy is to restrict through traffic to about quarter of the roads. Wether anyone has the guts to do so, remains to be seen. It's not a question of somebody having the guts to do it, rat runs through residential areas have been blocked off for good reasons and reopening would only encourage more traffic into the area and we would soon be back to square one again.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 5, 2017 8:12:46 GMT
Couple of points of Clarity, period 11 is the 4 weeks to 4 February so is normally a full work and school period as it after everyone has gone back after Christmas and New Year beaks. The financials use 13 periods of 4 weeks, the first period starts 1st April, 13th always ends 31 March, so end ones might be few days more or less as periods 2-12 are Sunday-Saturday The dreadful numbers are not only suggesting a big revenue gap, but it's blatantly obvious that as PVR has increased by few hundred buses in 2-3 years that costs must have risen. In blunt terms journeys are down about 6-8% and direct costs must be up about 6-7% so it's effectively around 13% worst financially than 2 or 3 years ago. (Exact figures depend on how many months numbers you include) If similar falls happen in periods 12 and 13 (February and March) then going to be in excess of £100m below budget. Period 13 won't compare easily to last year as there was an early Easter last year, this year it will affect period 1 of 2017-18 The reason why I mentioned the Actions part is the review going to full TfL Board in May. Like snoggle I find office politics just stops serious step change as the just carry on muddling through seems to be easy compromise. There are now so many policies that have had negative effect on journey times that only a bold leader can sort out. There are even some bus priority measures that actually seem to cause a bigger problem by causing other traffic to queue which delays buses elsewhere, there is really no point in speeding a journey by 2 minutes if the queue results in it taking 5 minutes longer to get to the start of the priority area. Realistically the only way to restore traffic speeds is to reopen all the blocked off turnings that were done to stop rat runs before speed limits were dropped to 20mph. It would allow the other traffic (including uber and delivery vans) to avoid making traffic clogging loops on the limited number of roads still open (many of which are bus routes). If you don't believe me then look at aerial photo and you will see miles of deserted roads, whilst some are jammed because policy is to restrict through traffic to about quarter of the roads. Wether anyone has the guts to do so, remains to be seen. It's not a question of somebody having the guts to do it, rat runs through residential areas have been blocked off for good reasons and reopening would only encourage more traffic into the area and we would soon be back to square one again. Given the overall traffic issues ... Can you really say this policy has been a success, or is it something that fundamentally needs to re-examined from ground zero up. So if you can get a motor vehicle from A to B in 5 minutes rather than 20 ... there has to be some pluses ... Maybe now is the time to re-examine if the pluses outweigh the negatives.
|
|