|
Post by snoggle on Jun 17, 2018 22:39:28 GMT
I just found this on the 395 page of Bus Routes in London Wiki and I just don't know what to say. "Since this bus service timetable was extended in 2014 the noise pollution has increased immensely. I am a resident of Castle Road and am extremely affected by the noise and pollution, not to mention the damage that must be being done to my property because of this bus route. Local residents were I believe not informed that the timetable would be extended back in 2014, well I certainly wasn’t. I object totally to being woken at 5.40am each morning by this bus rattling past my house and the whole house shakes and vibrates, this continues at regular intervals throughout the day until 12.40am at night. It is particularly worse in the summer months when I can’t keep my windows open because of the noise of the bus. I have put up with this now for 4 yrs and really believe this is unfair, half the time the bus is practically empty , especially after 10am. This route should by pass Castle Road completely and continue from Northolt Station straight down to Oldfield Circus via Mandeville Rd and Whittington Avenue. Castle Road is a narrow residential Street with many parked cars and should not be used as a bus route anymore. I would be very interested to have some feedback from TFL and Metroline. Do any other residents feel the same ?" It's called NIMBY-itis but plastering your complaint all over Wikipedia is surely a borderline breach of the rules for that site. It's supposed to be broadly fact based not a complaints board. It also shows an extreme naiviety on the part of residents. There are very few bus routes in London that once launched do not do sufficiently well to easily justify a full daily service from early to late. If they were that concerned they should have sought binding commitments from TfL NOT to extend the operating hours. The only change that happened in 2014 was that it ran for about 2 hours later in the evening. There has been no change to the times of the first buses. You clearly view buses as a good thing. Some people do not and would happily have them banished from everywhere so they can drive their cars as they please and live in their little suburban paradise where they wilfully ignore the thousands of cars cluttering up said paradise.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 17, 2018 22:44:16 GMT
I wouldn't call the 270 or 430's demand as modest - both routes do get busy, particularly the 270. I know most people would love to remove the 430 but it's much busier than people give it credit for. I do agree that the 123 should be more frequent I’ll take your word for the 430 as I swear down to you I’ve never seen it busy I have seen quite a few well loaded 270s as well but I’m sure you’ll agree both aren’t 109-busy I’d say they are modest comparing them to the 123, which as I said has much lower frequencies than the previous two and is very heavily loaded much of the time, more often than the other two imo. While it isn’t particularly frequent for its demand let’s just say it’s lucky, that considering the state of affairs it hasn’t received a reduction it does annoy me though that there are some routes which I’d say are in need of a trim down but aren’t getting them, being sacrificed by routes that don’t need them but are getting them! In fairness the Roehampton bit of the 430 is reasonably well used but the Putney to South Kensington section is dead.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 17, 2018 23:00:54 GMT
I have to say I’m really surprised the 123 has as low a frequency as it does for such a long and major route as it is, 15 minutes Sundays/evenings and 11 Mon/Fri, it’s ridiculously busy nearly every time I see it at most times of the day. To think there are routes like the 430 and the 270 which have much bigger frequencies but far more modest demand/usage. We've done this one before but the 123, along with the 35, are the lowest frequency routes for a ridership in excess of 7 million pass jnys a year. In years past the 35 had over 9m pass jnys on the same frequency levels as now - goodness knows how it coped. It must have been a living hell from early to late. Without wishing to diss any particular route in London there is enormous variation in service levels when set against total patronage levels. Some of that is down to history and a reluctance to take a knife to radial routes into Zone 1 that have long been generously resourced. The problem is that people expect a service level that they've always had regardless of the actual need for it. It's therefore hard for TfL to cut back as hard as they probably feel is justified. Route 6 now has a ridership below 6m pass jnys a year but is vastly more frequent than either the 35 or 123. That's just one example - there are many, many more. Both the 26 and 388 now carry 2.6m pass jnys a year but are slightly more frequent than the 35 and 123 despite carrying about 1/3 of their loadings. Conversely if TfL think people are "coping" with shoddy service levels on busy routes and no one is complaining then nothing gets done. One small saving grace on the 123 is that it did get, a fair few years back, a generous late finish from both ends of the route. This is pretty rare given some outer London routes pack up at 2330. Other routes will have certain specific loading characteristics which warrant a given frequency or use of double deckers - plenty of forum discussion about this. Have to say, despite one or two remarks on the forum, that I'm not very hopeful for the 123's new contract timetable spec. In theory it should be a beneficiary of the "outer london improvements" from the Mayor but I don't believe they exist and the 123 has been retendered at precisely the wrong time - in the worst year for TfL's finances since 2000. It will be far too tempting for TfL to trim frequencies and knock the PVR down by limiting recovery times in order to save money. If Arriva are the front runner to keep the route then they may have a battle on their hands to keep a generous schedule that allows them to earn bonuses. There are strong rumours that the 20 is getting a frequency cut down to 3 tph and loss of school extra buses. That will bring the pains on again in Essex where the 20 serves a large swathe of the Debden estate. I can see other routes being in the firing line too - does the 275 really need 5 bph daytimes and 3 tph evenings and Sundays?
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jun 17, 2018 23:01:06 GMT
I’ll take your word for the 430 as I swear down to you I’ve never seen it busy I have seen quite a few well loaded 270s as well but I’m sure you’ll agree both aren’t 109-busy I’d say they are modest comparing them to the 123, which as I said has much lower frequencies than the previous two and is very heavily loaded much of the time, more often than the other two imo. While it isn’t particularly frequent for its demand let’s just say it’s lucky, that considering the state of affairs it hasn’t received a reduction it does annoy me though that there are some routes which I’d say are in need of a trim down but aren’t getting them, being sacrificed by routes that don’t need them but are getting them! In fairness the Roehampton bit of the 430 is reasonably well used but the Putney to South Kensington section is dead. The Putney to South Ken bit is the bit I do use 😉 May have something to do with it lol
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 17, 2018 23:06:02 GMT
I have to say I’m really surprised the 123 has as low a frequency as it does for such a long and major route as it is, 15 minutes Sundays/evenings and 11 Mon/Fri, it’s ridiculously busy nearly every time I see it at most times of the day. To think there are routes like the 430 and the 270 which have much bigger frequencies but far more modest demand/usage. We've done this one before but the 123, along with the 35, are the lowest frequency routes for a ridership in excess of 7 million pass jnys a year. In years past the 35 had over 9m pass jnys on the same frequency levels as now - goodness knows how it coped. It must have been a living hell from early to late. Without wishing to diss any particular route in London there is enormous variation in service levels when set against total patronage levels. Some of that is down to history and a reluctance to take a knife to radial routes into Zone 1 that have long been generously resourced. The problem is that people expect a service level that they've always had regardless of the actual need for it. It's therefore hard for TfL to cut back as hard as they probably feel is justified. Route 6 now has a ridership below 6m pass jnys a year but is vastly more frequent than either the 35 or 123. That's just one example - there are many, many more. Both the 26 and 388 now carry 2.6m pass jnys a year but are slightly more frequent than the 35 and 123 despite carrying about 1/3 of their loadings. Conversely if TfL think people are "coping" with shoddy service levels on busy routes and no one is complaining then nothing gets done. One small saving grace on the 123 is that it did get, a fair few years back, a generous late finish from both ends of the route. This is pretty rare given some outer London routes pack up at 2330. Other routes will have certain specific loading characteristics which warrant a given frequency or use of double deckers - plenty of forum discussion about this. Have to say, despite one or two remarks on the forum, that I'm not very hopeful for the 123's new contract timetable spec. In theory it should be a beneficiary of the "outer london improvements" from the Mayor but I don't believe they exist and the 123 has been retendered at precisely the wrong time - in the worst year for TfL's finances since 2000. It will be far too tempting for TfL to trim frequencies and knock the PVR down by limiting recovery times in order to save money. If Arriva are the front runner to keep the route then they may have a battle on their hands to keep a generous schedule that allows them to earn bonuses. There are strong rumours that the 20 is getting a frequency cut down to 3 tph and loss of school extra buses. That will bring the pains on again in Essex where the 20 serves a large swathe of the Debden estate. I can see other routes being in the firing line too - does the 275 really need 5 bph daytimes and 3 tph evenings and Sundays? Something I do wonder and worry for the 123 is for the reason you stated, Arriva have years of experience running the 123 and I doubt they'd bid with an unrealistic schedule. Other operators however may not have this experience and will probably try to put in the cheapest bid possible to win the route. This could potentially be a huge factor in the outcome of the tender result.
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jun 17, 2018 23:18:03 GMT
I have to say I’m really surprised the 123 has as low a frequency as it does for such a long and major route as it is, 15 minutes Sundays/evenings and 11 Mon/Fri, it’s ridiculously busy nearly every time I see it at most times of the day. To think there are routes like the 430 and the 270 which have much bigger frequencies but far more modest demand/usage. We've done this one before but the 123, along with the 35, are the lowest frequency routes for a ridership in excess of 7 million pass jnys a year. In years past the 35 had over 9m pass jnys on the same frequency levels as now - goodness knows how it coped. It must have been a living hell from early to late. Without wishing to diss any particular route in London there is enormous variation in service levels when set against total patronage levels. Some of that is down to history and a reluctance to take a knife to radial routes into Zone 1 that have long been generously resourced. The problem is that people expect a service level that they've always had regardless of the actual need for it. It's therefore hard for TfL to cut back as hard as they probably feel is justified. Route 6 now has a ridership below 6m pass jnys a year but is vastly more frequent than either the 35 or 123. That's just one example - there are many, many more. Both the 26 and 388 now carry 2.6m pass jnys a year but are slightly more frequent than the 35 and 123 despite carrying about 1/3 of their loadings. Conversely if TfL think people are "coping" with shoddy service levels on busy routes and no one is complaining then nothing gets done. One small saving grace on the 123 is that it did get, a fair few years back, a generous late finish from both ends of the route. This is pretty rare given some outer London routes pack up at 2330. Other routes will have certain specific loading characteristics which warrant a given frequency or use of double deckers - plenty of forum discussion about this. Have to say, despite one or two remarks on the forum, that I'm not very hopeful for the 123's new contract timetable spec. In theory it should be a beneficiary of the "outer london improvements" from the Mayor but I don't believe they exist and the 123 has been retendered at precisely the wrong time - in the worst year for TfL's finances since 2000. It will be far too tempting for TfL to trim frequencies and knock the PVR down by limiting recovery times in order to save money. If Arriva are the front runner to keep the route then they may have a battle on their hands to keep a generous schedule that allows them to earn bonuses. There are strong rumours that the 20 is getting a frequency cut down to 3 tph and loss of school extra buses. That will bring the pains on again in Essex where the 20 serves a large swathe of the Debden estate. I can see other routes being in the firing line too - does the 275 really need 5 bph daytimes and 3 tph evenings and Sundays? THANK YOU for mentioning the 35!! I was going to mention it at the end of the post you quoted, as you quite rightly said the frequency is ludicrous for its loadings, 15 minutes on Sundays compared to the 26/388’s 12 minutes Sunday freq, which carries more than the 26&388 combined!!! Spot on with this being the wrong year for retendering the 123 as well, a frequency reduction for that route would be ridiculous but there have been other ridiculous frequency reductions too so I don’t think this will stop TfL trimming it. However, “reluctance to take a knife to radial routes into Zone 1 that have long been generously resourced. The problem is that people expect a service level that they've always had regardless of the actual need for it.” don’t people expect that with every route? As I’m sure you do, regular users of the 123 would hardly want their service cut Mind you the 94 bucks this trend, that’s a hugely busy, hugely prestigious radial Zone 1 route through Notting Hill but that got the chop. I also really don’t see the point of the 388 having such a generous frequency, that’s definitely a route where I’d say a trim down wouldn’t go amiss, yet they chopped the 94 instead which definitely doesn’t! Soon to be the 134 as well I surely can’t see how TfL can get away with stating how ‘outer London services will see improvement’ when they know they won’t. That’s deceit and it shouldn’t be on, and they shouldn’t be allowed to mislead the public like that. I just wish people would take action on all of the BS big corporations spout off just to keep customers happy.
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jun 17, 2018 23:22:28 GMT
We've done this one before but the 123, along with the 35, are the lowest frequency routes for a ridership in excess of 7 million pass jnys a year. In years past the 35 had over 9m pass jnys on the same frequency levels as now - goodness knows how it coped. It must have been a living hell from early to late. Without wishing to diss any particular route in London there is enormous variation in service levels when set against total patronage levels. Some of that is down to history and a reluctance to take a knife to radial routes into Zone 1 that have long been generously resourced. The problem is that people expect a service level that they've always had regardless of the actual need for it. It's therefore hard for TfL to cut back as hard as they probably feel is justified. Route 6 now has a ridership below 6m pass jnys a year but is vastly more frequent than either the 35 or 123. That's just one example - there are many, many more. Both the 26 and 388 now carry 2.6m pass jnys a year but are slightly more frequent than the 35 and 123 despite carrying about 1/3 of their loadings. Conversely if TfL think people are "coping" with shoddy service levels on busy routes and no one is complaining then nothing gets done. One small saving grace on the 123 is that it did get, a fair few years back, a generous late finish from both ends of the route. This is pretty rare given some outer London routes pack up at 2330. Other routes will have certain specific loading characteristics which warrant a given frequency or use of double deckers - plenty of forum discussion about this. Have to say, despite one or two remarks on the forum, that I'm not very hopeful for the 123's new contract timetable spec. In theory it should be a beneficiary of the "outer london improvements" from the Mayor but I don't believe they exist and the 123 has been retendered at precisely the wrong time - in the worst year for TfL's finances since 2000. It will be far too tempting for TfL to trim frequencies and knock the PVR down by limiting recovery times in order to save money. If Arriva are the front runner to keep the route then they may have a battle on their hands to keep a generous schedule that allows them to earn bonuses. There are strong rumours that the 20 is getting a frequency cut down to 3 tph and loss of school extra buses. That will bring the pains on again in Essex where the 20 serves a large swathe of the Debden estate. I can see other routes being in the firing line too - does the 275 really need 5 bph daytimes and 3 tph evenings and Sundays? Something I do wonder and worry for the 123 is for the reason you stated, Arriva have years of experience running the 123 and I doubt they'd bid with an unrealistic schedule. Other operators however may not have this experience and will probably try to put in the cheapest bid possible to win the route. This could potentially be a huge factor in the outcome of the tender result. Erm one crumb of comfort is that Arriva was reawarded the 78 back in late 2015 (in the same pretty tough financial conditions) even though they weren’t the lowest bidder because of their excellent operation of the service. At least this is one case where TfL do care about service levels more than a low bid, I just hope the 123 follows suit. But I’ve heard snoggle mention the 123 can have its, let’s say off days? Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 17, 2018 23:54:06 GMT
I wouldn't call the 270 or 430's demand as modest - both routes do get busy, particularly the 270. I know most people would love to remove the 430 but it's much busier than people give it credit for. I do agree that the 123 should be more frequent I’ll take your word for the 430 as I swear down to you I’ve never seen it busy I have seen quite a few well loaded 270s as well but I’m sure you’ll agree both aren’t 109-busy I’d say they are modest comparing them to the 123, which as I said has much lower frequencies than the previous two and is very heavily loaded much of the time, more often than the other two imo. While it isn’t particularly frequent for its demand let’s just say it’s lucky, that considering the state of affairs it hasn’t received a reduction it does annoy me though that there are some routes which I’d say are in need of a trim down but aren’t getting them, being sacrificed by routes that don’t need them but are getting them! The 430 does load well and thats along the whole route - my last ride on the route, it was rammed from Roehampton High Street to somewhere not far from South Kensington and it's not the only journey I've seen this on. The 270 isn't on the level of the 109 but thats like comparing Brazil & Costa Rica in terms of how good their football teams are. The 109 is the third busiest route in South London and runs along arguably the busiest corridor in South London along the A23 linking two major places together at either end and running through a third. Which routes need a trim down in their frequency as none spring to mind off the top of my head that actually deserve to be cut back apart from the D8 - I'd much rather have a progressive bus network myself
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 17, 2018 23:57:10 GMT
I have to say I’m really surprised the 123 has as low a frequency as it does for such a long and major route as it is, 15 minutes Sundays/evenings and 11 Mon/Fri, it’s ridiculously busy nearly every time I see it at most times of the day. To think there are routes like the 430 and the 270 which have much bigger frequencies but far more modest demand/usage. We've done this one before but the 123, along with the 35, are the lowest frequency routes for a ridership in excess of 7 million pass jnys a year. In years past the 35 had over 9m pass jnys on the same frequency levels as now - goodness knows how it coped. It must have been a living hell from early to late. Without wishing to diss any particular route in London there is enormous variation in service levels when set against total patronage levels. Some of that is down to history and a reluctance to take a knife to radial routes into Zone 1 that have long been generously resourced. The problem is that people expect a service level that they've always had regardless of the actual need for it. It's therefore hard for TfL to cut back as hard as they probably feel is justified. Route 6 now has a ridership below 6m pass jnys a year but is vastly more frequent than either the 35 or 123. That's just one example - there are many, many more. Both the 26 and 388 now carry 2.6m pass jnys a year but are slightly more frequent than the 35 and 123 despite carrying about 1/3 of their loadings. Conversely if TfL think people are "coping" with shoddy service levels on busy routes and no one is complaining then nothing gets done. One small saving grace on the 123 is that it did get, a fair few years back, a generous late finish from both ends of the route. This is pretty rare given some outer London routes pack up at 2330. Other routes will have certain specific loading characteristics which warrant a given frequency or use of double deckers - plenty of forum discussion about this. Have to say, despite one or two remarks on the forum, that I'm not very hopeful for the 123's new contract timetable spec. In theory it should be a beneficiary of the "outer london improvements" from the Mayor but I don't believe they exist and the 123 has been retendered at precisely the wrong time - in the worst year for TfL's finances since 2000. It will be far too tempting for TfL to trim frequencies and knock the PVR down by limiting recovery times in order to save money. If Arriva are the front runner to keep the route then they may have a battle on their hands to keep a generous schedule that allows them to earn bonuses. There are strong rumours that the 20 is getting a frequency cut down to 3 tph and loss of school extra buses. That will bring the pains on again in Essex where the 20 serves a large swathe of the Debden estate. I can see other routes being in the firing line too - does the 275 really need 5 bph daytimes and 3 tph evenings and Sundays? I got to admit, the 35 does cope well despite the stat you mentioned in the above post - my assumption is the 45 assists it well between Brixton & Elephant with the 40 covering it at the northern end whilst the 37 has to pick up it's slack at the southern end.
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jun 18, 2018 0:08:09 GMT
I’ll take your word for the 430 as I swear down to you I’ve never seen it busy I have seen quite a few well loaded 270s as well but I’m sure you’ll agree both aren’t 109-busy I’d say they are modest comparing them to the 123, which as I said has much lower frequencies than the previous two and is very heavily loaded much of the time, more often than the other two imo. While it isn’t particularly frequent for its demand let’s just say it’s lucky, that considering the state of affairs it hasn’t received a reduction it does annoy me though that there are some routes which I’d say are in need of a trim down but aren’t getting them, being sacrificed by routes that don’t need them but are getting them! The 430 does load well and thats along the whole route - my last ride on the route, it was rammed from Roehampton High Street to somewhere not far from South Kensington and it's not the only journey I've seen this on. The 270 isn't on the level of the 109 but thats like comparing Brazil & Costa Rica in terms of how good their football teams are. The 109 is the third busiest route in South London and runs along arguably the busiest corridor in South London along the A23 linking two major places together at either end and running through a third. Which routes need a trim down in their frequency as none spring to mind off the top of my head that actually deserve to be cut back apart from the D8 - I'd much rather have a progressive bus network myself Okay so Routes I think could do with a trim down: D8 - no explanation needed 388 - I think it would manage more than fine with a 15-minute Sunday frequency D7 - definitely not in the peaks as I’ve seen how busy it gets, but it’s ridiculously overbussed off-peak 56 - more inclined towards Sundays for this one, I don’t see why this one has a sub-10 minute Sunday frequency when there are more deserving routes than this one for that kind of service 242 - this has a very superfluous service imo now the Overground has sucked out a lot of its patronage 135 - off peak I’d say 12 minutes M-S and 20 on Sunday is perfectly adequate, and I use this route A LOT so I’d say I’m very well rounded and accustomed to this route’s loadings 38 - it’s an 8-figure patronage route but the PVR is so enormous that all of the passengers are dispersed so much that they mostly carry air!! (Although I have seen a few heavily loaded journeys on this route too) Those are the main ones on my hit list, I’d say those should have had cuts before the 31, 94 and 134
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 18, 2018 0:25:20 GMT
Something I do wonder and worry for the 123 is for the reason you stated, Arriva have years of experience running the 123 and I doubt they'd bid with an unrealistic schedule. Other operators however may not have this experience and will probably try to put in the cheapest bid possible to win the route. This could potentially be a huge factor in the outcome of the tender result. Well yes that is another concern. We have been relatively lucky with the 123 in that we haven't had the "5 year churn" of operators that afflicts some routes. We've basically had London Buses, Capital Citybus / First London and now Arriva London. Each operator have had their fair share of issues with the route - some in their control like garage location and route management tactics and some not like ridiculous traffic and road works plus regular accident hotspots which dislocate the route (Monument Way, Ferry Lane / Forest Rd, A406). Nonetheless each operator has had time to build operational experience. It would be *far* too easy for someone like Go Ahead or CT Plus to put in a brash "efficient" bid that rapidly unravels when put to the test of running the route day in, day out. It is telling that the CT Plus answer to bad performance seems to be "screw the passengers" and give them a worse timetable (W11, 385, W12, 397 are all examples of this). No sign of them ever putting in their own resources to fix things. No need to remark about Go Ahead - there's enough dissenting comment about them on this forum to last for the remainder of the century. We shall, of course, find out in due course what TfL have opted to do.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 18, 2018 0:42:39 GMT
However, “reluctance to take a knife to radial routes into Zone 1 that have long been generously resourced. The problem is that people expect a service level that they've always had regardless of the actual need for it.” don’t people expect that with every route? As I’m sure you do, regular users of the 123 would hardly want their service cut Mind you the 94 bucks this trend, that’s a hugely busy, hugely prestigious radial Zone 1 route through Notting Hill but that got the chop. I also really don’t see the point of the 388 having such a generous frequency, that’s definitely a route where I’d say a trim down wouldn’t go amiss, yet they chopped the 94 instead which definitely doesn’t! Soon to be the 134 as well The problem, though, is that many formerly busy routes have lost millions of passenger journeys. This means the current route spec is way too generous. However long term residents and bus users on these corridors will still expect their buses to be as frequent as ever and will no doubt be able to find one journey a day when buses are "packed to the doors" while carefully ignoring the hundreds of other trips where things are nowhere near as busy as before. People aren't logical, they will just see something worse and complain about it. It's the same as Hackney Council allegedly demanding all the bus cuts be reversed in Hackney despite all of the policy decisions they've taken that have DIRECTLY caused people to stop using buses. The fact remains that TfL still have vastly over resourced routes in Hackney and more painful cuts will be on the way. All I am really saying is that TfL do (within limits) have to be logical about what they're doing and let's be frank they really have not cut back a load of routes that have lost tens of millions of pass jnys over the last 4-5 years. It's tough and I don't like it but I can sort of see where they're coming from. However as someone remarked to me recently the planners in TfL are not used to making cuts. They have only really experienced continued growth since about the mid 1990s and have not really had to take a surgeon's knife to the network. This means there is a knowledge / experience gap as to how to effectively take cost of the system in an efficient manner and in places where the public may not actually notice. It would, though, mean TfL being vastly more flexible about how it frames its specifications and allowing for some routes to have shorter ramp up / ramp down periods each side of the peaks in order to take out rostered workings and thus save on drivers. Does every route really need to switch to evening frequencies around 2000 M-F? Could some ramp down from 1830 in some parts of London? With some careful co-ordination of bus and train times commuters may not notice any real difference in wait times. It does, though, require a lot of local knowledge and supporting analysis to allow this nuanced approach and I doubt the computer models give this sort of clever detail. What we are now seeing is "oh we have to cut the service right across the day because that's the only way to save money" which may be right for some routes but probably isn't for many of them - hence remarks about people being left behind at peak times when previously things were OK.
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Jun 18, 2018 7:48:08 GMT
does the 275 really need 5 bph daytimes and 3 tph evenings and Sundays? Yes it does, due to the fact that a large section of the route between Hale End Road all the way to Barkingside where 275 is the only route serving those areas. I have been on couple of well loaded 275 during the weekday off-peak as well.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 18, 2018 12:39:03 GMT
For everyone agitating about the updated patronage numbers I've had a reply from TfL having sent them a slightly pointed reminder. Apparently the relevant staff are on leave at present but the FOI team (who handle all General Counsel queries) will update me when they get a response from the relevant team.
Have to say I'm slightly surprised that the data team is seemingly so lightly resourced that no one can answer for someone who's on leave. I'm also surprised that no one twigged this data is always updated at this time of the year and ensured it was ready before allowing people to go on holiday but that's just me being overly organised. I'd never have allowed that sort of thing to happen on my team - all the regular data stuff had to be done or else covered by another competent person if the relevant person was going on holiday (and that included me if I was off on leave).
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jun 18, 2018 13:32:03 GMT
For everyone agitating about the updated patronage numbers I've had a reply from TfL having sent them a slightly pointed reminder. Apparently the relevant staff are on leave at present but the FOI team (who handle all General Counsel queries) will update me when they get a response from the relevant team. Have to say I'm slightly surprised that the data team is seemingly so lightly resourced that no one can answer for someone who's on leave. I'm also surprised that no one twigged this data is always updated at this time of the year and ensured it was ready before allowing people to go on holiday but that's just me being overly organised. I'd never have allowed that sort of thing to happen on my team - all the regular data stuff had to be done or else covered by another competent person if the relevant person was going on holiday (and that included me if I was off on leave). The days of having staff at TfL to cover for colleagues on holiday have long gone. I know of one department where they made offers to all staff on very favourable terms. Too many applied and offers had to be withdrawn. Even so the best part of 80 years of specialist experience did walk out of the door before Christmas.
|
|