|
|
Post by mark on Jan 13, 2024 8:16:53 GMT
Top 20 least used double deck routes: 20: 405 - 1,388,941 (+1) 19: 496 - 1,343,530 (-1) 18: 418 - 1,330,996 (+3) 17: 401 - 1,324,745 (new) 16: 313 - 1,319,070 (-1) 15: 292 - 1,316,312 (-3) 14: 372 - 1,270,479 (-2) 13: 335 - 1,227,336 (+1) 12: 357 - 1,183,293 (-2) 11: 353 - 1,165,801 (-2) 10: 406 - 1,117,460 (+1) 9: 428 - 1,083,684 (-2) 8: 492 - 1,070,354 (-2) 7: 215 - 956,420 (-1) 6: 498 - 840,967 (-1) 5: 317 - 764,552 (-) 4: 412 - 698,837 (-) 3: 481 - 505,713 (-) 2: X68 - 328,173 (-) 1: 467 - 130,456 (-) The 129 jumped off this list after it was extended to Lewisham. It was previously at no. 6. Does TfL receive funds from Herts for the 292? If not, I can easily see it being withdrawn or severely reduced now that the 384 covers the Edgware to Stirling Corner section. Perhaps complimented by a fiddle with the 107 around Manor Way/Balmoral Drive. The only financial support for “out country” routes is from Surrey County Council for part of routes 166, 216 and 465. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 13, 2024 9:16:15 GMT
Does TfL receive funds from Herts for the 292? If not, I can easily see it being withdrawn or severely reduced now that the 384 covers the Edgware to Stirling Corner section. Perhaps complimented by a fiddle with the 107 around Manor Way/Balmoral Drive. The only financial support for “out country” routes is from Surrey County Council for part of routes 166, 216 and 465. Which is a bit of a joke really when you think of the freqs on the County sections. Every 8 mins to Caterham on the Hill, 15 mins to Redhill, 12 mins to Caterham on the 407 etc. Plus the 107 and 292 through Borhamwood. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 13, 2024 9:23:47 GMT
The only financial support for “out country” routes is from Surrey County Council for part of routes 166, 216 and 465. Which is a bit of a joke really when you think of the freqs on the County sections. Every 8 mins to Caterham on the Hill, 15 mins to Redhill, 12 mins to Caterham on the 407 etc. Plus the 107 and 292 through Borhamwood. The 466 to Caterham-on-the-Hill however is a very short distance over the border into Surrey and between Old Coulsdon & Westway Common serves a number of highish-density houses and schools within the GLA boundary. There's nowhere else you could logically spin around a bus, same example is the 279. The 405 and 407 are similar examples, the former admittedly not passing a huge amount in the way of GLA households after Coulsdon South, but there are a number of Croydon residents who study at East Surrey college. They run to the next logical traffic objective after boundary appropriate for the sort of route they are. The 434 will also soon run to Caterham Valley. The 107 links GLA households both sides of Borehamwood within Barnet borough in a pretty efficient manner. I wouldn't support TfL paying for a bus to somewhere like Netherne however, which is a small estate where a bus service would largely benefit Surrey ratepayers and not London ones, whereas other examples do benefit London ones. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 13, 2024 10:48:23 GMT
The only financial support for “out country” routes is from Surrey County Council for part of routes 166, 216 and 465. Which is a bit of a joke really when you think of the freqs on the County sections. Every 8 mins to Caterham on the Hill, 15 mins to Redhill, 12 mins to Caterham on the 407 etc. Plus the 107 and 292 through Borhamwood. The 466 is ridiculously over bussed at both ends, I think it only has such a high frequency for Oasis Academy, formerly Taunton Manor High School. The 166 on the other hand could really justify a half hourly frequency to Epsom and an evening and Sunday service. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 13, 2024 10:54:05 GMT
Which is a bit of a joke really when you think of the freqs on the County sections. Every 8 mins to Caterham on the Hill, 15 mins to Redhill, 12 mins to Caterham on the 407 etc. Plus the 107 and 292 through Borhamwood. The 466 is ridiculously over bussed at both ends, I think it only has such a high frequency for Oasis Academy, formerly Taunton Manor High School. The 166 on the other hand could really justify a half hourly frequency to Epsom and an evening and Sunday service. The 466s can get really busy. Obviously TfL think it justifies it and given they have no hesitance in cutting outer London route frequencies (eg 57, 62, 64, 213, H32 in recent times to name a few) I suspect it definitely does justify it even in their eyes. I'd like to see the 166 run fully to Epsom but SCC only have a limited budget for bus services improvement and an already small BSIP+ settlement and sadly I'd doubt the business case for enhancing the 166 would be that viable. Maybe an evening and Sunday service at best. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 13, 2024 11:14:27 GMT
The 466 is ridiculously over bussed at both ends, I think it only has such a high frequency for Oasis Academy, formerly Taunton Manor High School. The 166 on the other hand could really justify a half hourly frequency to Epsom and an evening and Sunday service. The 466s can get really busy. Obviously TfL think it justifies it and given they have no hesitance in cutting outer London route frequencies (eg 57, 62, 64, 213, H32 in recent times to name a few) I suspect it definitely does justify it even in their eyes. I'd like to see the 166 run fully to Epsom but SCC only have a limited budget for bus services improvement and an already small BSIP+ settlement and sadly I'd doubt the business case for enhancing the 166 would be that viable. Maybe an evening and Sunday service at best. I've only ever seen the 466 busy at the outer ends at school times although the Brighton Road to East Croydon link can be busy at peak times. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 13, 2024 12:44:25 GMT
The 466 is ridiculously over bussed at both ends, I think it only has such a high frequency for Oasis Academy, formerly Taunton Manor High School. The 166 on the other hand could really justify a half hourly frequency to Epsom and an evening and Sunday service. The 466s can get really busy. Obviously TfL think it justifies it and given they have no hesitance in cutting outer London route frequencies (eg 57, 62, 64, 213, H32 in recent times to name a few) I suspect it definitely does justify it even in their eyes. I'd like to see the 166 run fully to Epsom but SCC only have a limited budget for bus services improvement and an already small BSIP+ settlement and sadly I'd doubt the business case for enhancing the 166 would be that viable. Maybe an evening and Sunday service at best. The 57 is an anomaly in your list in that a sizeable chunk of the route runs in Inner London - the others are all fully Outer London routes so I think we can say the 57 was cut back for running into the latter more than the former given when it was cut in comparison to the other routes on that list. The 466 can get busy but I don’t think it’s get busy enough to justify an every 8 minutes frequency. On the other hand, the 37 does and is still stuck at every 10 minutes but because it’s an Inner London route, TfL could not give two hoots |
|
|
|
Post by ucm131 on Jan 13, 2024 15:06:14 GMT
The 466 is ridiculously over bussed at both ends, I think it only has such a high frequency for Oasis Academy, formerly Taunton Manor High School. The 166 on the other hand could really justify a half hourly frequency to Epsom and an evening and Sunday service. The 466s can get really busy. Obviously TfL think it justifies it and given they have no hesitance in cutting outer London route frequencies (eg 57, 62, 64, 213, H32 in recent times to name a few) I suspect it definitely does justify it even in their eyes. I'd like to see the 166 run fully to Epsom but SCC only have a limited budget for bus services improvement and an already small BSIP+ settlement and sadly I'd doubt the business case for enhancing the 166 would be that viable. Maybe an evening and Sunday service at best. 57 is literally supported by many routes. 131 (Literally the Entire thing except Coombe Lane and Norbition), 85&213 (Kingston to Norbiton), 219 (Wimbledon to Tooting) and 333 (Tooting to Streatham Hill) mainly throughout it's routing so it kind of does justify a short cut in route frequency (10 min -> 12 Min) if 131 219 and 333 got a frequency boost but im not too sure) Had 57 runs all these sections alone without any support it probs gonna run a 3 min frequency. the frequency cut of 213 was also reasonable considering SL7 (X26) got a double frequency boost by serving 213‘s major points along the way. I cannot comment on 62 because I'm not a north local, but doesnt the 64 parallel the tramway? H32 and 482 share the same routing until Hounslow West, but with the 120 directly going towards southall and hounslow as well as the parallel for Hounslow west to hounslow (81, 222, H98) so I would foresee the cut for the common route rather than cutting the frequency of the 482. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jan 13, 2024 15:15:34 GMT
The 466s can get really busy. Obviously TfL think it justifies it and given they have no hesitance in cutting outer London route frequencies (eg 57, 62, 64, 213, H32 in recent times to name a few) I suspect it definitely does justify it even in their eyes. I'd like to see the 166 run fully to Epsom but SCC only have a limited budget for bus services improvement and an already small BSIP+ settlement and sadly I'd doubt the business case for enhancing the 166 would be that viable. Maybe an evening and Sunday service at best. 57 is literally supported by many routes. 131 (Literally the Entire thing except Coombe Lane and Norbition), 85&213 (Kingston to Norbiton), 219 (Wimbledon to Tooting) and 333 (Tooting to Streatham Hill) mainly throughout it's routing so it kind of does justify a short cut in route frequency (10 min -> 12 Min) if 131 219 and 333 got a frequency boost but im not too sure) Had 57 runs all these sections alone without any support it probs gonna run a 3 min frequency. the frequency cut of 213 was also reasonable considering SL7 (X26) got a double frequency boost by serving 213‘s major points along the way. I cannot comment on 62 because I'm not a north local, but doesnt the 64 parallel the tramway? H32 and 482 share the same routing until Hounslow West, but with the 120 directly going towards southall and hounslow as well as the parallel for Hounslow west to hounslow (81, 222, H98) so I would foresee the cut for the common route rather than cutting the frequency of the 482. The first frequency cut on the 213 happened in 2019 and again during the pandemic, well in advance of the SL7 so no it wasn’t justified at the time. It still isn’t now. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jan 13, 2024 15:28:03 GMT
The 466 is ridiculously over bussed at both ends, I think it only has such a high frequency for Oasis Academy, formerly Taunton Manor High School. The 166 on the other hand could really justify a half hourly frequency to Epsom and an evening and Sunday service. The only section of the 466 which probably justifies its existing frequency is along Brighton Road. When the Sutton/Croydon changes happen in March, the 312 will support the 466 all the way from East Croydon to Reedham, so I reckon the 466's frequency could then easily be dropped to every 10 mins without any problems. The simplest solution for the 166 would be to just run all 3bph to Epsom, as running half hourly to Epsom doesn't work with its frequency. One suggestion I previously had for the 166 was to have 4bph to Banstead and 2bph to Epsom, but this would overbus the Coulsdon to Banstead section and would actually require a higher PVR than just running 3bph to Epsom, so running all 3bph through to Epsom would be much simpler and cheaper. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 13, 2024 15:52:14 GMT
The 466 is ridiculously over bussed at both ends, I think it only has such a high frequency for Oasis Academy, formerly Taunton Manor High School. The 166 on the other hand could really justify a half hourly frequency to Epsom and an evening and Sunday service. The only section of the 466 which probably justifies its existing frequency is along Brighton Road. When the Sutton/Croydon changes happen in March, the 312 will support the 466 all the way from East Croydon to Reedham, so I reckon the 466's frequency could then easily be dropped to every 10 mins without any problems. The simplest solution for the 166 would be to just run all 3bph to Epsom, as running half hourly to Epsom doesn't work with its frequency. One suggestion I previously had for the 166 was to have 4bph to Banstead and 2bph to Epsom, but this would overbus the Coulsdon to Banstead section and would actually require a higher PVR than just running 3bph to Epsom, so running all 3bph through to Epsom would be much simpler and cheaper. How much of the 166 actually needs the direct Croydon link? The 166 doesn't take the most direct route for longer journeys, for example from Banstead to Croydon it is quicker to take the S1 to Sutton then change. Plus Southern services from Croydon to Chipstead, Woodmansterne, Epsom, Banstead, Epsom Downs etc. Perhaps the 166 could focus on just linking Croydon to the Coulsdon/Chipstead area, maybe also giving the Cane Hill area a direct link to Croydon? Then a less frequent route like the 404 (or 359 or 434) could take over the section through to Epsom at about every 30 minutes? Or alternatively from the other end, the 467 could take over Epsom-Banstead? I also wonder if a more direct Croydon-Banstead link might be useful, maybe going via Roundshaw and Woodcote Green (which would also link Woodcote to Croydon)? |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 13, 2024 15:59:02 GMT
The only section of the 466 which probably justifies its existing frequency is along Brighton Road. When the Sutton/Croydon changes happen in March, the 312 will support the 466 all the way from East Croydon to Reedham, so I reckon the 466's frequency could then easily be dropped to every 10 mins without any problems. The simplest solution for the 166 would be to just run all 3bph to Epsom, as running half hourly to Epsom doesn't work with its frequency. One suggestion I previously had for the 166 was to have 4bph to Banstead and 2bph to Epsom, but this would overbus the Coulsdon to Banstead section and would actually require a higher PVR than just running 3bph to Epsom, so running all 3bph through to Epsom would be much simpler and cheaper. How much of the 166 actually needs the direct Croydon link? The 166 doesn't take the most direct route for longer journeys, for example from Banstead to Croydon it is quicker to take the S1 to Sutton then change. Plus Southern services from Croydon to Chipstead, Woodmansterne, Epsom, Banstead, Epsom Downs etc. Perhaps the 166 could focus on just linking Croydon to the Coulsdon/Chipstead area, maybe also giving the Cane Hill area a direct link to Croydon? Then a less frequent route like the 404 (or 359 or 434) could take over the section through to Epsom at about every 30 minutes? Or alternatively from the other end, the 467 could take over Epsom-Banstead? I also wonder if a more direct Croydon-Banstead link might be useful, maybe going via Roundshaw and Woodcote Green (which would also link Woodcote to Croydon)? Someone's gone a bit far with the crayons (saying a lot...) |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 13, 2024 16:02:40 GMT
The only section of the 466 which probably justifies its existing frequency is along Brighton Road. When the Sutton/Croydon changes happen in March, the 312 will support the 466 all the way from East Croydon to Reedham, so I reckon the 466's frequency could then easily be dropped to every 10 mins without any problems. The simplest solution for the 166 would be to just run all 3bph to Epsom, as running half hourly to Epsom doesn't work with its frequency. One suggestion I previously had for the 166 was to have 4bph to Banstead and 2bph to Epsom, but this would overbus the Coulsdon to Banstead section and would actually require a higher PVR than just running 3bph to Epsom, so running all 3bph through to Epsom would be much simpler and cheaper. How much of the 166 actually needs the direct Croydon link? The 166 doesn't take the most direct route for longer journeys, for example from Banstead to Croydon it is quicker to take the S1 to Sutton then change. Plus Southern services from Croydon to Chipstead, Woodmansterne, Epsom, Banstead, Epsom Downs etc. Perhaps the 166 could focus on just linking Croydon to the Coulsdon/Chipstead area, maybe also giving the Cane Hill area a direct link to Croydon? Then a less frequent route like the 404 (or 359 or 434) could take over the section through to Epsom at about every 30 minutes? Or alternatively from the other end, the 467 could take over Epsom-Banstead? I also wonder if a more direct Croydon-Banstead link might be useful, maybe going via Roundshaw and Woodcote Green (which would also link Woodcote to Croydon)? The link to and from Croydon would have to be maintained at least as far as Chipstead Valley although ideally Cane Hill should have a direct link to Purley and Croydon. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 13, 2024 16:04:21 GMT
The 466s can get really busy. Obviously TfL think it justifies it and given they have no hesitance in cutting outer London route frequencies (eg 57, 62, 64, 213, H32 in recent times to name a few) I suspect it definitely does justify it even in their eyes. I'd like to see the 166 run fully to Epsom but SCC only have a limited budget for bus services improvement and an already small BSIP+ settlement and sadly I'd doubt the business case for enhancing the 166 would be that viable. Maybe an evening and Sunday service at best. 57 is literally supported by many routes. 131 (Literally the Entire thing except Coombe Lane and Norbition), 85&213 (Kingston to Norbiton), 219 (Wimbledon to Tooting) and 333 (Tooting to Streatham Hill) mainly throughout it's routing so it kind of does justify a short cut in route frequency (10 min -> 12 Min) if 131 219 and 333 got a frequency boost but im not too sure) Had 57 runs all these sections alone without any support it probs gonna run a 3 min frequency. Considering the parallels with the 57, perhaps it might be worth considering cutting back to Raynes Park (also improving reliability), instead extending the 200 in place to Kingston? The 131 would maintain links from Kingston to Wimbledon Chase, South Wimbledon and Tooting Broadway, while the 200 would offer new direct links to Kingston from areas like Copse Hill and Haydons Road. I'm also unsure if the 57 is needed through to Clapham Park (with the 50 available for links to Streatham, and the 355 to Tooting), and perhaps terminating at Streatham Hill Station (former 255 stand) would be adquate? |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jan 13, 2024 16:09:36 GMT
57 is literally supported by many routes. 131 (Literally the Entire thing except Coombe Lane and Norbition), 85&213 (Kingston to Norbiton), 219 (Wimbledon to Tooting) and 333 (Tooting to Streatham Hill) mainly throughout it's routing so it kind of does justify a short cut in route frequency (10 min -> 12 Min) if 131 219 and 333 got a frequency boost but im not too sure) Had 57 runs all these sections alone without any support it probs gonna run a 3 min frequency. the frequency cut of 213 was also reasonable considering SL7 (X26) got a double frequency boost by serving 213‘s major points along the way. The 213 has had its frequency reduced twice, from 7.5bph (every 8 mins) to 6bph in 2019, then from 6bph to 5bph last year (and that was way before the X26/SL7 was doubled in frequency). The first reduction in 2019 was reasonable, but the more recent one was not justified and honestly a bit ridiculous. The 57 has also had both of the exact same reductions as the 213, and again the first reduction was fine but the second one was unnecessary. In my opinion, there are a lot of outer London routes that desperately need frequency increases, some examples being the 57, 81, 117, 120, 157, 213, 267, 278, 281, 406, 418, 481, 493, H28, K3, R68 and U7. |
|
