|
Post by redbus on Jan 25, 2019 23:10:09 GMT
Well Saturday and evenings have now been quoted by TfL in two periodic reports as the times when patronage has fallen. They say they are still investigating why. While I can understand why TfL like to be as certain as possible about statistical trends we've discussed the likely causes of patronage drops on here many times. If TfL reach the same conclusions then it won't surprise me if cuts are made to many bus services at these times. Although it's an unpopular view with some people on here I've long felt Saturdays have been over provided for and Sundays under provided on some routes / corridors. Making a re-adjustment would not necessarily be easy but if it meant a fall in waiting times and reduced overcrowding on Sundays a modest shift of resources might be popular. I certainly think TfL should at least ask people the question. I wouldn't agree that Saturday's are over provided, but definitely agree with Sunday's being under.
I would say however that in most cases I would agree with the trimming out of evening and late night service. Generally on the buses I have used and seen, beyond 8-9pm, there is a lot of over providing. Yes I admit there would be more frustration at having to wait longer for a bus at that time of night, but it is far better to have a bus than to have the service cut, to save money.
We need to be very careful here. Not all routes are the same, of those with some over provision, some are under provisioned on Sundays that is true, some are over provided on Saturdays, others evening, and others Mondays to Fridays off peak daytime. One size does not fit all.
Many 'high frequency' routes have evening frequencies of 12 minutes, on the border of 'high frequency and 'turn up and go service'. Reduce the frequency and you may just accelerate the loss of passengers. Many find it worse to wait late at night than daytime. As for 'low frequency' routes, again cuts may just push passengers way. If bus times aren't regular 'clockface times' each hour, people won't always remember their bus time and that too would also work against keeping them as passengers.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Jan 28, 2019 0:47:32 GMT
I wouldn't agree that Saturday's are over provided, but definitely agree with Sunday's being under.
I would say however that in most cases I would agree with the trimming out of evening and late night service. Generally on the buses I have used and seen, beyond 8-9pm, there is a lot of over providing. Yes I admit there would be more frustration at having to wait longer for a bus at that time of night, but it is far better to have a bus than to have the service cut, to save money.
We need to be very careful here. Not all routes are the same, of those with some over provision, some are under provisioned on Sundays that is true, some are over provided on Saturdays, others evening, and others Mondays to Fridays off peak daytime. One size does not fit all.
Many 'high frequency' routes have evening frequencies of 12 minutes, on the border of 'high frequency and 'turn up and go service'. Reduce the frequency and you may just accelerate the loss of passengers. Many find it worse to wait late at night than daytime. As for 'low frequency' routes, again cuts may just push passengers way. If bus times aren't regular 'clockface times' each hour, people won't always remember their bus time and that too would also work against keeping them as passengers.
Further to your points about late evening travel and low frequency routes, there comes a point at which frequency is low enough to be useless. If a fairly short or local route operates every half hour in evenings, but patronage is very low between 21:00 and 24:00, what little potential demand or convenience there may be disappears if the route goes to hourly, as what distance can be walked in less time than an hour is double that which can be walked in 30 mins, not to mention the allure of a warm and speedy minicab. One other issue that may feed into this is the constant reduction in average route length in response to traffic congestion, reliability, and indirectly fares policy. As time goes on, and routes tend towards being shorter and shorter. A shorter route with low frequency is less attractive/useful to speculative passengers than a longer route, or a higher frequency one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 22:49:47 GMT
From the BBC London news at 10, it appears TfL have confirmed the 15H cutback to weekends only, beginning from some time in March.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 29, 2019 23:22:30 GMT
From the BBC London news at 10, it appears TfL have confirmed the 15H cutback to weekends only, beginning from some time in March. I am not surprised, just find it incredible that they are pushing this through without a proper consultation. How easy would it have been to include in the central London cuts consultation!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 30, 2019 0:20:01 GMT
From the BBC London news at 10, it appears TfL have confirmed the 15H cutback to weekends only, beginning from some time in March. I am not surprised, just find it incredible that they are pushing this through without a proper consultation. How easy would it have been to include in the central London cuts consultation! "It is a timetable change. We are not changing the route. We do not consult on timetable changes." would be the response from TfL. If nothing else it is a warning to other people as to what TfL can do if they decide to work outside the confines of the consultation process. "We are very sorry that we have reduced the timetable on route 146 from a daily service to one where there are three return journeys only on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays." An extreme example but something TfL could clearly do if they wanted to. Obviously there would be some political fall out from this but we have ample evidence of how TfL will just brazen these things out if they need to.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 30, 2019 22:08:37 GMT
I am not surprised, just find it incredible that they are pushing this through without a proper consultation. How easy would it have been to include in the central London cuts consultation! "It is a timetable change. We are not changing the route. We do not consult on timetable changes." would be the response from TfL. If nothing else it is a warning to other people as to what TfL can do if they decide to work outside the confines of the consultation process. "We are very sorry that we have reduced the timetable on route 146 from a daily service to one where there are three return journeys only on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays." An extreme example but something TfL could clearly do if they wanted to. Obviously there would be some political fall out from this but we have ample evidence of how TfL will just brazen these things out if they need to. As you say, most changes could be described as timetable changes. At one extreme we have the 15H which won't run for half the year, and only a couple of days a week for the rest of the year. You might have a long wait if you are looking for a 15H, it will difficult for 15H passengers to miss this change - so surely it is something beyond a timetable change. At the other extreme we have the 46 which is gaining one extra morning peak hour bus. Most 46 passengers won't notice the extra bus, as you have to be travelling at the right time, on the right day to benefit from it. Why do I pick on the 46? Because this one extra peak hour bus qualifies the change to be part of the Central London bus consultation, yet TfL can't be bothered to consult on changing a regular daily service into one which will not run at all on the vast majority of days.
Yes TfL may not have to legally consult, I don't know I am not a lawyer, and no one is going to request a Judicial Review of this. However I would argue TfL are morally obliged to consult over it, and the precedent set by not doing so is truly shocking. It certainly isn't the openness and transparency they claim or that we have a right to expect. Ultimately not consulting on substantial changes will do nothing to endear TfL to the public, and will help lead to clamours for change in the way TfL works and is governed.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 31, 2019 19:34:27 GMT
"It is a timetable change. We are not changing the route. We do not consult on timetable changes." would be the response from TfL. If nothing else it is a warning to other people as to what TfL can do if they decide to work outside the confines of the consultation process. "We are very sorry that we have reduced the timetable on route 146 from a daily service to one where there are three return journeys only on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays." An extreme example but something TfL could clearly do if they wanted to. Obviously there would be some political fall out from this but we have ample evidence of how TfL will just brazen these things out if they need to. As you say, most changes could be described as timetable changes. At one extreme we have the 15H which won't run for half the year, and only a couple of days a week for the rest of the year. You might have a long wait if you are looking for a 15H, it will difficult for 15H passengers to miss this change - so surely it is something beyond a timetable change. At the other extreme we have the 46 which is gaining one extra morning peak hour bus. Most 46 passengers won't notice the extra bus, as you have to be travelling at the right time, on the right day to benefit from it. Why do I pick on the 46? Because this one extra peak hour bus qualifies the change to be part of the Central London bus consultation, yet TfL can't be bothered to consult on changing a regular daily service into one which will not run at all on the vast majority of days.
Yes TfL may not have to legally consult, I don't know I am not a lawyer, and no one is going to request a Judicial Review of this. However I would argue TfL are morally obliged to consult over it, and the precedent set by not doing so is truly shocking. It certainly isn't the openness and transparency they claim or that we have a right to expect. Ultimately not consulting on substantial changes will do nothing to endear TfL to the public, and will help lead to clamours for change in the way TfL works and is governed.
The 46 would be an example, I suggest, of putting something into a consultation that you know won't be opposed by anyone, other than an odd iconoclast. Then you can tweak the figures to show overall satisfaction with the overall changes is better than it would have been otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 22:56:21 GMT
"It is a timetable change. We are not changing the route. We do not consult on timetable changes." would be the response from TfL. If nothing else it is a warning to other people as to what TfL can do if they decide to work outside the confines of the consultation process. "We are very sorry that we have reduced the timetable on route 146 from a daily service to one where there are three return journeys only on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays." An extreme example but something TfL could clearly do if they wanted to. Obviously there would be some political fall out from this but we have ample evidence of how TfL will just brazen these things out if they need to. As you say, most changes could be described as timetable changes. At one extreme we have the 15H which won't run for half the year, and only a couple of days a week for the rest of the year. You might have a long wait if you are looking for a 15H, it will difficult for 15H passengers to miss this change - so surely it is something beyond a timetable change. At the other extreme we have the 46 which is gaining one extra morning peak hour bus. Most 46 passengers won't notice the extra bus, as you have to be travelling at the right time, on the right day to benefit from it. Why do I pick on the 46? Because this one extra peak hour bus qualifies the change to be part of the Central London bus consultation, yet TfL can't be bothered to consult on changing a regular daily service into one which will not run at all on the vast majority of days.
Yes TfL may not have to legally consult, I don't know I am not a lawyer, and no one is going to request a Judicial Review of this. However I would argue TfL are morally obliged to consult over it, and the precedent set by not doing so is truly shocking. It certainly isn't the openness and transparency they claim or that we have a right to expect. Ultimately not consulting on substantial changes will do nothing to endear TfL to the public, and will help lead to clamours for change in the way TfL works and is governed.
And on top of that the 46 idea seems to be a dead duck. It almost certainly won't be the double deck journey as consulted, if it ever happens. Can't see anyone paying for an additional electric bus for one trip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 22:58:20 GMT
The TCR - British Museum - Russell Square link looks like it could be restored with a diverted 98, subject to a satisfactory TfL route test.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 31, 2019 23:04:59 GMT
The TCR - British Museum - Russell Square link looks like it could be restored with a diverted 98, subject to a satisfactory TfL route test. Do you know why it has to be route tested again? Didn't the route previously make it before? I wonder what route TfL will cut to the vacant Red Lion Square stand.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 31, 2019 23:29:00 GMT
Maybe the 14 will divert to Red Lion Square.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 31, 2019 23:32:36 GMT
The TCR - British Museum - Russell Square link looks like it could be restored with a diverted 98, subject to a satisfactory TfL route test. I think that would be the worst possible way to restore the link between those places, as the 98 is needed more than ever to Red Lion Square (and a little beyond, but that one's lost for the moment.)
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Feb 1, 2019 0:02:50 GMT
The TCR - British Museum - Russell Square link looks like it could be restored with a diverted 98, subject to a satisfactory TfL route test. I think that would be the worst possible way to restore the link between those places, as the 98 is needed more than ever to Red Lion Square (and a little beyond, but that one's lost for the moment.) Yes - ofall the routes the 98 is the worst option post the hack back of the 25
|
|
|
Post by richard on Feb 1, 2019 0:04:57 GMT
Maybe the 14 will divert to Red Lion Square. The 14 is mentioned on the constitution but nothing confirmed yet
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 5, 2019 21:24:38 GMT
In the Bus Strategy update there is a reference to the "first part" of changes taking place "in the Spring" shortly after the consultation results are released. Therefore, to my surprise, looks like the changes will be done in more than one phase. It is also clear that TfL are intent on removing buses where they duplicate rail capacity in Zone 1. Buses will only remain on "non rail" served corridors. That means there will be next to no buses in Central London in a few years time as almost everywhere can be reached by tube or in rarer cases National Rail. So much for accessible transport options.
|
|