|
Post by snowman on Mar 8, 2017 11:00:15 GMT
The London datastore still hasn't been updated, but I have combined data with Finance report papers
This is the number of bus journeys (millions) :
Financial Year Period 11 Bus April - March Journeys % change 2010-2011 183.0 2011-2012 181.4 -0.9 2012-2013 178.1 -1.8 2013-2014 186.6 4.8 2014-2015 178.2 -4.5 2015-2016 179.5 0.7 2016-2017 174.0 -3.1
Financial Year Period 1-11 April - March journeys % change 2010-2011 1937.9 2011-2012 1973.8 1.9 2012-2013 1968.2 -0.3 2013-2014 1989.9 1.1 2014-2015 2001.4 0.6 2015-2016 1978.7 -1.1 2016-2017 1909.6 -3.5
As can be seen from the percentages, after being fairly stable for a number of years, there has been a massive percentage drop in bus journeys since 2015, and rate of fall has increased this year
The Financials give £103m fares income for period 11 and £1248m fares for period 1-11
Simply dividing gives average fare of £0.59 for period 11 and £0.65 for p1-11 The hopper ticket has effectively reduced average fares from 68p to 59p (14% decrease)
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 8, 2017 14:47:00 GMT
The London datastore still hasn't been updated, but I have combined data with Finance report papers This is the number of bus journeys (millions) : Financial Year Period 11 Bus April - March Journeys % change 2010-2011 183.0 2011-2012 181.4 -0.9 2012-2013 178.1 -1.8 2013-2014 186.6 4.8 2014-2015 178.2 -4.5 2015-2016 179.5 0.7 2016-2017 174.0 -3.1 Financial Year Period 1-11 April - March journeys % change 2010-2011 1937.9 2011-2012 1973.8 1.9 2012-2013 1968.2 -0.3 2013-2014 1989.9 1.1 2014-2015 2001.4 0.6 2015-2016 1978.7 -1.1 2016-2017 1909.6 -3.5 As can be seen from the percentages, after being fairly stable for a number of years, there has been a massive percentage drop in bus journeys since 2015, and rate of fall has increased this year The Financials give £103m fares income for period 11 and £1248m fares for period 1-11 Simply dividing gives average fare of £0.59 for period 11 and £0.65 for p1-11 The hopper ticket has effectively reduced average fares from 68p to 59p (14% decrease) The datastore has now uploaded P11 data. However it doesn't change what you've calculated above as the P11 number is 174m pass jnys on buses. Not entirely sure I agree with your conclusion that the Hopper alone has pulled down average fares to the extent you suggest. There are multiple elements in the revenue numbers and I expect there is an interraction between elements in the numbers. I'd be very cautious about making such a bold statement from a simple arithmetic calculation. I'd want to see all the underlying aspects of the data and trends before reaching that conclusion. TfL themselves have had to caution Assembly Members who have made statements about the annual cost of the Hopper Ticket being far higher because more people are benefitting from the facility. We also don't even have 6 months of data about the Hopper ticket and we all know the risks of drawing unfounded conclusions from small data sample sizes. Hopefully we will get some facts and trends from TfL later in the year - probably annual report time in May / June.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 8, 2017 16:45:39 GMT
As we've been debating declining patronage over recent posts in this thread here is an interestin Mayor's Question and Answer that shows extent of patronage changes set against changes in bus speeds.
Clearly those numbers are not good. The most worrying aspect is that even where bus speeds are standing still or improving there is still patronage loss on 62 routes. That suggests something else is going on alongside the impact of slower journeys which is clearly have a very damaging impact from the numbers given in the table. When we get the annual numbers in May it should be possible to get a flavour as to which routes have had the greatest slow down given their patronage loss.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 8, 2017 23:12:01 GMT
I suspect much of the 'declining patronage' is down to the amount of people who don't pay anymore and subsequently their journey isn't registered. People with invalid oysters who are still allowed to travel, indeed I suspect some people never top up their oyster knowing full well that they'll get away with it. Passengers boarding by the rear door seems to increasing as well.
As for slower journey times much of it is down to regulating the service. I was on a 185 recently going from Forest Hill to Lewisham (I should have waited for a 122) and on arrival at Rushey Green in Catford the driver apologetically announced that he has to wait for three minutes. Why? There are several other routes between Catford and Lewisham, nobody is going to be specifically waiting for the 185 so what does it matter if its a bit close to its leader?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 23:28:14 GMT
I suspect much of the 'declining patronage' is down to the amount of people who don't pay anymore and subsequently their journey isn't registered. People with invalid oysters who are still allowed to travel, indeed I suspect some people never top up their oyster knowing full well that they'll get away with it. Passengers boarding by the rear door seems to increasing as well. As for slower journey times much of it is down to regulating the service. I was on a 185 recently going from Forest Hill to Lewisham (I should have waited for a 122) and on arrival at Rushey Green in Catford the driver apologetically announced that he has to wait for three minutes. Why? There are several other routes between Catford and Lewisham, nobody is going to be specifically waiting for the 185 so what does it matter if its a bit close to its leader? I suppose what matters is the QSI statistics. I'm not sure whether this emphasis on headways only is good or bad. It's annoying as hell to be on a daudling bus. The bus passengers don't care whether the bus is running early. They just want to get to where they're going as fast as possible. I've missed train connections because of this. And it puts people off going on buses.its worse on high frequency routes , especially in the evenings,
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 9, 2017 0:33:53 GMT
I suspect much of the 'declining patronage' is down to the amount of people who don't pay anymore and subsequently their journey isn't registered. People with invalid oysters who are still allowed to travel, indeed I suspect some people never top up their oyster knowing full well that they'll get away with it. Passengers boarding by the rear door seems to increasing as well. As for slower journey times much of it is down to regulating the service. I was on a 185 recently going from Forest Hill to Lewisham (I should have waited for a 122) and on arrival at Rushey Green in Catford the driver apologetically announced that he has to wait for three minutes. Why? There are several other routes between Catford and Lewisham, nobody is going to be specifically waiting for the 185 so what does it matter if its a bit close to its leader? I suppose what matters is the QSI statistics. I'm not sure whether this emphasis on headways only is good or bad. It's annoying as hell to be on a daudling bus. The bus passengers don't care whether the bus is running early. They just want to get to where they're going as fast as possible. I've missed train connections because of this. And it puts people off going on buses.its worse on high frequency routes , especially in the evenings, It certainly can be infuriating and must put some people off using buses, I can understand it in certain circumstances but not when a bus is near the end of the route, the worst one I experienced was on a 36 just a few stops from NX.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 9, 2017 1:12:22 GMT
I suspect much of the 'declining patronage' is down to the amount of people who don't pay anymore and subsequently their journey isn't registered. People with invalid oysters who are still allowed to travel, indeed I suspect some people never top up their oyster knowing full well that they'll get away with it. Passengers boarding by the rear door seems to increasing as well. As for slower journey times much of it is down to regulating the service. I was on a 185 recently going from Forest Hill to Lewisham (I should have waited for a 122) and on arrival at Rushey Green in Catford the driver apologetically announced that he has to wait for three minutes. Why? There are several other routes between Catford and Lewisham, nobody is going to be specifically waiting for the 185 so what does it matter if its a bit close to its leader? I suppose what matters is the QSI statistics. I'm not sure whether this emphasis on headways only is good or bad. It's annoying as hell to be on a daudling bus. The bus passengers don't care whether the bus is running early. They just want to get to where they're going as fast as possible. I've missed train connections because of this. And it puts people off going on buses.its worse on high frequency routes , especially in the evenings, It isn't really the QSI stats. It's about the contract payments. Operators have now had years of being screwed down tight by TfL about performance levels and the risk profiles. TfL have boasted about how they've improved "value for money". Unfortunately we now have the consequences of the operators reacting to that coupled with the undoubted mess of the last 2-3 years caused by traffic conditions. If you were a bus operator who has lost a lot of money because of "screwed down" contract targets and barely any risk premium in your bids you are not going to make that mistake again in future nor are you going to flush money down the toilet because someone else can't manage road works, traffic lights or enforcement. Therefore what you have now is almost totally risk averse schedules where buses are dawdling along, standing still etc because the recent past has been so shockingly awful for operator earnings. No wonder drivers are being forced to keep to headways in the most pinnickity way - it's about financial survival. You can't blame operators for doing what the customer has demanded and paid for. The fact the specified (not operated) service is cr*p and unattractive is TfL's issue not the operator's. Now at what point do TfL do the sensible thing and have a mature debate with operators about performance levels, risk, bus priority and road network management? It has to come at some point because we have more major road schemes coming that will be massively disruptive to buses (Vauxhall, Old Street, Wandsworth, Oxford Street, Bank) plus HS2 works at Euston. I doubt anyone will tolerate a re-run of the idiocy we had when trying to do Elephant, Aldgate and two major CSHs at the same time. Therefore a different approach is needed but who is prepared to be brave enough to contemplate it and do something about it??
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Mar 9, 2017 1:58:49 GMT
It isn't really the QSI stats. It's about the contract payments. Operators have now had years of being screwed down tight by TfL about performance levels and the risk profiles. TfL have boasted about how they've improved "value for money". Unfortunately we now have the consequences of the operators reacting to that coupled with the undoubted mess of the last 2-3 years caused by traffic conditions. If you were a bus operator who has lost a lot of money because of "screwed down" contract targets and barely any risk premium in your bids you are not going to make that mistake again in future nor are you going to flush money down the toilet because someone else can't manage road works, traffic lights or enforcement. Therefore what you have now is almost totally risk averse schedules where buses are dawdling along, standing still etc because the recent past has been so shockingly awful for operator earnings. No wonder drivers are being forced to keep to headways in the most pinnickity way - it's about financial survival. You can't blame operators for doing what the customer has demanded and paid for. The fact the specified (not operated) service is cr*p and unattractive is TfL's issue not the operator's. Now at what point do TfL do the sensible thing and have a mature debate with operators about performance levels, risk, bus priority and road network management? It has to come at some point because we have more major road schemes coming that will be massively disruptive to buses (Vauxhall, Old Street, Wandsworth, Oxford Street, Bank) plus HS2 works at Euston. I doubt anyone will tolerate a re-run of the idiocy we had when trying to do Elephant, Aldgate and two major CSHs at the same time. Therefore a different approach is needed but who is prepared to be brave enough to contemplate it and do something about it?? Exactly. What I don't really get is why TfL are allowing the operators to "get away" with such a level of risk aversion. Like you I don't blame the operators - they're doing what I would expect them to do in order to maximise their profits. That's what private companies are supposed to do. It is TfL's responsibility, as the contracting authority, to set the correct parameters. Now TfL have access to oodles of data about bus speeds and general traffic speeds. They must surely be aware that on many routes, bus speeds are now being kept artificially low because of the obsession with even headways above anything else? The optimist in me hopes that both TfL and the operators realise that the current situation is not in anyone's interests. Operators might be protecting their profits in the short term but that's not much good in the long term if the bus network is decimated in the process. It's not surprising that even routes that haven't seen a drop in speeds have seen drops in patronage. The perception of the bus network as a whole has been damaged by the mess of the past couple of years. When buses crop up in conversation with non-enthusiasts, I used to hear all sorts of reasons why people didn't like using buses. Nowadays I pretty much only hear one reason - they're just too slow.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 9, 2017 19:34:54 GMT
As we've been debating declining patronage over recent posts in this thread here is an interestin Mayor's Question and Answer that shows extent of patronage changes set against changes in bus speeds. Clearly those numbers are not good. The most worrying aspect is that even where bus speeds are standing still or improving there is still patronage loss on 62 routes. That suggests something else is going on alongside the impact of slower journeys which is clearly have a very damaging impact from the numbers given in the table. When we get the annual numbers in May it should be possible to get a flavour as to which routes have had the greatest slow down given their patronage loss. One word... UBER
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 9, 2017 19:42:12 GMT
It isn't really the QSI stats. It's about the contract payments. Operators have now had years of being screwed down tight by TfL about performance levels and the risk profiles. TfL have boasted about how they've improved "value for money". Unfortunately we now have the consequences of the operators reacting to that coupled with the undoubted mess of the last 2-3 years caused by traffic conditions. If you were a bus operator who has lost a lot of money because of "screwed down" contract targets and barely any risk premium in your bids you are not going to make that mistake again in future nor are you going to flush money down the toilet because someone else can't manage road works, traffic lights or enforcement. Therefore what you have now is almost totally risk averse schedules where buses are dawdling along, standing still etc because the recent past has been so shockingly awful for operator earnings. No wonder drivers are being forced to keep to headways in the most pinnickity way - it's about financial survival. You can't blame operators for doing what the customer has demanded and paid for. The fact the specified (not operated) service is cr*p and unattractive is TfL's issue not the operator's. Now at what point do TfL do the sensible thing and have a mature debate with operators about performance levels, risk, bus priority and road network management? It has to come at some point because we have more major road schemes coming that will be massively disruptive to buses (Vauxhall, Old Street, Wandsworth, Oxford Street, Bank) plus HS2 works at Euston. I doubt anyone will tolerate a re-run of the idiocy we had when trying to do Elephant, Aldgate and two major CSHs at the same time. Therefore a different approach is needed but who is prepared to be brave enough to contemplate it and do something about it?? Exactly. What I don't really get is why TfL are allowing the operators to "get away" with such a level of risk aversion. Like you I don't blame the operators - they're doing what I would expect them to do in order to maximise their profits. That's what private companies are supposed to do. It is TfL's responsibility, as the contracting authority, to set the correct parameters. Now TfL have access to oodles of data about bus speeds and general traffic speeds. They must surely be aware that on many routes, bus speeds are now being kept artificially low because of the obsession with even headways above anything else? The optimist in me hopes that both TfL and the operators realise that the current situation is not in anyone's interests. Operators might be protecting their profits in the short term but that's not much good in the long term if the bus network is decimated in the process. It's not surprising that even routes that haven't seen a drop in speeds have seen drops in patronage. The perception of the bus network as a whole has been damaged by the mess of the past couple of years. When buses crop up in conversation with non-enthusiasts, I used to hear all sorts of reasons why people didn't like using buses. Nowadays I pretty much only hear one reason - they're just too slow. Its not a matter of operators keeping their profits, more the case of them trying to stay above water. The amounts operators makes is no way near as much around 15-20 years ago. Headways may play a part. But not every route is on headway. i.e. low frequency still gets messed up with these delays and slow speeds. Even high frequency routes, not all of them are run of headway display.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2017 11:02:30 GMT
I'm currently watching hoards of tourists and other visitors to London using paper travelcards to board central London bus routes.
Unless TfL can accurately verify and examine travel patterns of such travellers, any statistics solely based on Oyster card use is not painting the full picture.
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Mar 11, 2017 14:43:30 GMT
I'm currently watching hoards of tourists and other visitors to London using paper travelcards to board central London bus routes. Unless TfL can accurately verify and examine travel patterns of such travellers, any statistics solely based on Oyster card use is not painting the full picture. Good point. It is easy for us in London to forget that, from a huge number of stations outside the Oyster area, you can get a Z1-6 Travelcard added onto your return ticket to London for a few £ extra, usually making it cheaper than using Oyster on arrival in London. Random example: Slough to London Terminals Off Peak Day Return £9.60 Slough to London Zones 1-6 Off Peak Day Travelcard £13.70 Therefore, in this case, for just £4.10 extra (less than the daily bus cap remember!) you get unlimited travel in Z1-6 thrown in. The extra for the Travelcard can differ depending on where you start from, but usually it is cheaper than using a simple return ticket and Oyster.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 31, 2017 8:09:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ben on Apr 2, 2017 1:04:50 GMT
Can't read the full article, but how do they plan to cover revised income/expenditure?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Apr 5, 2017 7:44:26 GMT
|
|