|
Post by busaholic on Sept 15, 2019 11:26:26 GMT
In realilty the 3 probably has more customers. Two words. Open boarding. Yes, very probably, but the decline can also be put down to four further words ''cutback from Oxford Circus'', to which I'd now add ''to an inappropriate dumpimg place just off Whitehall''.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 15, 2019 11:38:06 GMT
In realilty the 3 probably has more customers. Two words. Open boarding. Yes, very probably, but the decline can also be put down to four further words ''cutback from Oxford Circus'', to which I'd now add ''to an inappropriate dumpimg place just off Whitehall''. The cutback from Oxford Circus will doubtless have driven people away, also when one remembers that it was a pre-hopper cutback. I don't think the Whitehall cutback will have hit patronage too badly though as its still walking distance from Trafalgar Square, but the damage had already been done.
Its sad how much decline bus services along Regent Street have seen. Whilst Oxford Street's buses have been virulently attacked by TfL for the last few years, poor Regent Street has been adversley affected losing the 3, 6, 13, 15, 23, and C2. (I've probably forgotten one, such is the number of routes which have been cut)
EDIT: Although its only temporary, and day time only, Regent Street has lost the 12 too.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 15, 2019 11:40:23 GMT
The quickest way to improve journey times is to have more bus priority traffic lights. Have you ever approached a red light on a bus and waited 2-4 minutes for a green light? Even if you save a minute at a traffic light, it counts as a lot if you sum up he total number of traffic lights on the route. That would be a start but IMO, more needs doing such as removing parking spaces from bus lanes and converting certain roads to bus only or to a similar way like Rye Lane in Peckham which has certain restrictions in place at times.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Sept 15, 2019 11:45:56 GMT
In realilty the 3 probably has more customers. Two words. Open boarding. I beg to differ. I thought that the patronage figures were re-based last year so as to be much more accurate and take such things into account. t would therefore not surprise me if it were true that the 170 really had more passengers than the 3.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 15, 2019 16:17:50 GMT
After a few hours work I think I have correctly updated my usual spreadsheet to reflect TfL's updated annual numbers.
As ever I cannot guarantee it is 100% accurate especially given my brain is not as sharp as it was. However it looks broadly correct. I may not have some of the recent contract and service changes correctly reflected having been "out of the loop" while in hospital.
If people want a copy of the sheet then send me a DM with a valid email address and I'll send you a copy. Happy to receive feedback if you spot errors. It may take a while for me to respond to requests so please be patient.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 15, 2019 20:25:56 GMT
Yes, very probably, but the decline can also be put down to four further words ''cutback from Oxford Circus'', to which I'd now add ''to an inappropriate dumpimg place just off Whitehall''. The cutback from Oxford Circus will doubtless have driven people away, also when one remembers that it was a pre-hopper cutback. I don't think the Whitehall cutback will have hit patronage too badly though as its still walking distance from Trafalgar Square, but the damage had already been done.
Its sad how much decline bus services along Regent Street have seen. Whilst Oxford Street's buses have been virulently attacked by TfL for the last few years, poor Regent Street has been adversley affected losing the 3, 6, 13, 15, 23, and C2. (I've probably forgotten one, such is the number of routes which have been cut)
EDIT: Although its only temporary, and day time only, Regent Street has lost the 12 too.
What I really liked when the 3 was temporarily* cut back to Trafalgar Square was that it still managed to pick up quite a few passengers after departing the faux stand on the south of Waterloo Place. Now granted if it was a real stand with markings then I think the 3 will handsomely benefit in patronage rather than the relative obscurity that is Whitehall. Countenance to the 3's terminating arrangements at Trafalgar Square would be the 15 night bus routes** standing on Northumberland Avenue and Whitehall Place with cages that barely fit 8 buses in total. TfL could've really left the 3 standing at Waterloo Place to better serve Trafalgar Square for passengers if they wanted to; but they didn't and they don't. * the very rare time a temporary curtailment had been made where TfL didn't make it permanent! They further withdrew from the original route and then made it permanent ** Seventeen bus routes terminate around Trafalgar Square at night. The N550 and N551 were excluded as they use Charles II Street and Haymarket to stand.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Sept 15, 2019 22:34:25 GMT
Hurting my elderly eyes a bit gazing at those numbers, but impressed by numbers on the 243, 65, 185 and 41, although the 185 can be part explained by withdrawal of the 436 over part of the shared route. The frequency of the 185 in particular though seems too low for the custom presenting, which seems to me to have always been the case since the disastrous incursion of Durham District Services into the London bus market. There are precious few realistic rail alternatives to this route.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 16, 2019 8:12:08 GMT
The 185 probably copes as although it carries alot of passengers, they're probably not on the route at the same time as I doubt even without the 436 there are many end to end journeys. From Lewisham it's a great link to Stanstead Road and Forest Hill (thou looses out to the 122 to Forest Hill) then a large number on the middle section would get off at King's College then would load up again at Camberwell and Oval to head to Vauxhall and Victoria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 8:56:11 GMT
Hurting my elderly eyes a bit gazing at those numbers, but impressed by numbers on the 243, 65, 185 and 41, although the 185 can be part explained by withdrawal of the 436 over part of the shared route. The frequency of the 185 in particular though seems too low for the custom presenting, which seems to me to have always been the case since the disastrous incursion of Durham District Services into the London bus market. There are precious few realistic rail alternatives to this route. Probably a case of being careful what you wish for, the 185 is pretty quiet through Catford and I would think a frequency reduction is more likely than an increase. There are various rail options from Denmark Hill including the recently increased Thameslink service on the Catford loop line. A better use of resources might be a 6 minute headway Victoria to Forest Hill and a 12 minute headway to Lewisham?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 16, 2019 10:00:52 GMT
Hurting my elderly eyes a bit gazing at those numbers, but impressed by numbers on the 243, 65, 185 and 41, although the 185 can be part explained by withdrawal of the 436 over part of the shared route. The frequency of the 185 in particular though seems too low for the custom presenting, which seems to me to have always been the case since the disastrous incursion of Durham District Services into the London bus market. There are precious few realistic rail alternatives to this route. Probably a case of being careful what you wish for, the 185 is pretty quiet through Catford and I would think a frequency reduction is more likely than an increase. There are various rail options from Denmark Hill including the recently increased Thameslink service on the Catford loop line. A better use of resources might be a 6 minute headway Victoria to Forest Hill and a 12 minute headway to Lewisham? As logical as it may be TFl will never allow split freqs. They'd rather withdraw an entire service then reduce freq along some sections (151 to Worcester Park springs to mind).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 10:52:58 GMT
Probably a case of being careful what you wish for, the 185 is pretty quiet through Catford and I would think a frequency reduction is more likely than an increase. There are various rail options from Denmark Hill including the recently increased Thameslink service on the Catford loop line. A better use of resources might be a 6 minute headway Victoria to Forest Hill and a 12 minute headway to Lewisham? As logical as it may be TFl will never allow split freqs. They'd rather withdraw an entire service then reduce freq along some sections (151 to Worcester Park springs to mind). Yes and I think this inflexible attitude is absurd, there are a lot of routes where a higher frequency is justified only on one part of the route.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 16, 2019 12:11:41 GMT
Hurting my elderly eyes a bit gazing at those numbers, but impressed by numbers on the 243, 65, 185 and 41, although the 185 can be part explained by withdrawal of the 436 over part of the shared route. The frequency of the 185 in particular though seems too low for the custom presenting, which seems to me to have always been the case since the disastrous incursion of Durham District Services into the London bus market. There are precious few realistic rail alternatives to this route. Probably a case of being careful what you wish for, the 185 is pretty quiet through Catford and I would think a frequency reduction is more likely than an increase. There are various rail options from Denmark Hill including the recently increased Thameslink service on the Catford loop line. A better use of resources might be a 6 minute headway Victoria to Forest Hill and a 12 minute headway to Lewisham? Can't remember the last time I've seen a quiet 185 in Catford, always fairly loaded when I've passed through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 12:37:36 GMT
Probably a case of being careful what you wish for, the 185 is pretty quiet through Catford and I would think a frequency reduction is more likely than an increase. There are various rail options from Denmark Hill including the recently increased Thameslink service on the Catford loop line. A better use of resources might be a 6 minute headway Victoria to Forest Hill and a 12 minute headway to Lewisham? Can't remember the last time I've seen a quiet 185 in Catford, always fairly loaded when I've passed through. Just about every 185 I see in Catford is quiet, that end of the route certainly doesn't need an 8 minute headway. Lewisham to Forest Hill area, the 122 or P4 are the better option and there is also the 171 from Catford along Stanstead Road.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 16, 2019 14:06:01 GMT
Can't remember the last time I've seen a quiet 185 in Catford, always fairly loaded when I've passed through. Just about every 185 I see in Catford is quiet, that end of the route certainly doesn't need an 8 minute headway. Lewisham to Forest Hill area, the 122 or P4 are the better option and there is also the 171 from Catford along Stanstead Road. I'm very aware of all that, just stating my own observations and I've never said nothing about whether 8 minute frequency is correct or not.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 17, 2019 19:01:03 GMT
Can't remember the last time I've seen a quiet 185 in Catford, always fairly loaded when I've passed through. Just about every 185 I see in Catford is quiet, that end of the route certainly doesn't need an 8 minute headway. Lewisham to Forest Hill area, the 122 or P4 are the better option and there is also the 171 from Catford along Stanstead Road. Could I ask what time of day you’ve seen empty 185s in Catford? I’ve seen the route very busy there during the peaks, decently loaded off peak. Rushey Green is a very busy bus corridor, and I’d rather it had too much bus capacity than an insufficient level.
|
|