|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 21, 2014 14:17:05 GMT
Just read through and interesting publication on the Yahoo Group that shows the Top 20 Low Frequency Poor Performers
This is the order
289, 201, 314, 353, 160, 203, H11, 356, 215, 372, 336, 322, W19, B15, 290, 357, 225, 293, 15H, 20
15H 8.3% KM Lost to Traffic 160 4.5% KM Lost to Traffic, effectively looses the most mileage across Low Frequency routes in South East London... Not Surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Jul 21, 2014 14:53:46 GMT
No surprise that 160 is there - awful! However I'm not that surprised that 225 is there as the current frequency isn't justified and there's a few traffic hotspots along the route i.e Lewisham, Deptford and New Cross Road which delays the route and makes it unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Jul 21, 2014 15:12:26 GMT
Just read through and interesting publication on the Yahoo Group that shows the Top 20 Low Frequency Poor Performers This is the order 289, 201, 314, 353, 160, 203, H11, 356, 215, 372, 336, 322, W19, B15, 290, 357, 225, 293, 15H, 20 15H 8.3% KM Lost to Traffic 160 4.5% KM Lost to Traffic, effectively looses the most mileage across Low Frequency routes in South East London... Not Surprised. I blame lc1 for the 20
|
|
|
Post by metrobusfan on Jul 21, 2014 15:41:34 GMT
353 isn't that as is it
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Jul 21, 2014 15:55:05 GMT
No surprise that 160 is there - awful! However I'm not that surprised that 225 is there as the current frequency isn't justified and there's a few traffic hotspots along the route i.e Lewisham, Deptford and New Cross Road which delays the route and makes it unreliable. Just to add, I personally think South East London lacks a lot of transport links compared to other parts of London.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jul 21, 2014 15:57:52 GMT
No surprise that 160 is there - awful! However I'm not that surprised that 225 is there as the current frequency isn't justified and there's a few traffic hotspots along the route i.e Lewisham, Deptford and New Cross Road which delays the route and makes it unreliable. Just to add, I personally think South East London lacks a lot of transport links compared to other parts of London. Not really. There's LOADS of links in the South-East. You can go from as far as Thamesmead all the way to Peckham via one bus! There's loads of other links like this too.
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Jul 21, 2014 16:38:15 GMT
Just to add, I personally think South East London lacks a lot of transport links compared to other parts of London. Not really. There's LOADS of links in the South-East. You can go from as far as Thamesmead all the way to Peckham via one bus! There's loads of other links like this too. I agree, but what I meant is that there seems to be routes in South London which are 'struggling' in terms of overcrowding, reliability etc. and they're not really given enough attention compared to routes in North, West, East London which are IMO. The only situation I can think of in South London which was given attention recently was the 136/343 North Peckham situation.
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Jul 21, 2014 17:03:40 GMT
Just read through and interesting publication on the Yahoo Group that shows the Top 20 Low Frequency Poor Performers This is the order 289, 201, 314, 353, 160, 203, H11, 356, 215, 372, 336, 322, W19, B15, 290, 357, 225, 293, 15H, 20 15H 8.3% KM Lost to Traffic 160 4.5% KM Lost to Traffic, effectively looses the most mileage across Low Frequency routes in South East London... Not Surprised. Not suprised with route 160 and 356. I60 looses milage around Chislehurst and somtimes near Hither Green. Route 356 needs a frequent increase or convert to 2 doors thats all. I knew routes 20,322 and 336 would be on
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 21, 2014 17:06:52 GMT
Just read through and interesting publication on the Yahoo Group that shows the Top 20 Low Frequency Poor Performers This is the order 289, 201, 314, 353, 160, 203, H11, 356, 215, 372, 336, 322, W19, B15, 290, 357, 225, 293, 15H, 20 15H 8.3% KM Lost to Traffic 160 4.5% KM Lost to Traffic, effectively looses the most mileage across Low Frequency routes in South East London... Not Surprised. Not suprised with route 160 and 356. I60 looses milage around Chislehurst and somtimes near Hither Green. Route 356 needs a frequent increase or convert to 2 doors thats all. I knew routes 20,322 and 336 would be on Sometimes Near Hither Green? Pretty much always turned there 160 to Hither Green is the legendary curtailment point on the 160 happens daily...
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Jul 21, 2014 17:19:10 GMT
Just read through and interesting publication on the Yahoo Group that shows the Top 20 Low Frequency Poor Performers This is the order 289, 201, 314, 353, 160, 203, H11, 356, 215, 372, 336, 322, W19, B15, 290, 357, 225, 293, 15H, 20 15H 8.3% KM Lost to Traffic 160 4.5% KM Lost to Traffic, effectively looses the most mileage across Low Frequency routes in South East London... Not Surprised. Quite a few that serve Walthamstow Central, with the W12 the only low frequency bus missing. Hoe Street has been quite hell in the last 12 months, but cant tell if that is the issue without knowing the time period for the data.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 21, 2014 17:27:12 GMT
Just read through and interesting publication on the Yahoo Group that shows the Top 20 Low Frequency Poor Performers This is the order 289, 201, 314, 353, 160, 203, H11, 356, 215, 372, 336, 322, W19, B15, 290, 357, 225, 293, 15H, 20 15H 8.3% KM Lost to Traffic 160 4.5% KM Lost to Traffic, effectively looses the most mileage across Low Frequency routes in South East London... Not Surprised. Quite a few that serve Walthamstow Central, with the W12 the only low frequency bus missing. Hoe Street has been quite hell in the last 12 months, but cant tell if that is the issue without knowing the time period for the data. The time period is Jan - Mar 2014. Therefore traffic issues will have figured at the Bakers Arms and on Hoe St. However the full table of info includes mileages losses due to traffic and not every route in Walthamstow has a bad number for that (e.g. routes 20 and 357).
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Jul 21, 2014 17:33:13 GMT
I don't think we can entirely blame the 160s mileage losses on traffic. Even if accountants can put it down to traffic, I think the route is cut so far down to the bone with the scheduling, that a few minutes of traffic has significant ramifications for drivers' hours that the knock on effect on mileage is far greater than with other routes. Just to add, I personally think South East London lacks a lot of transport links compared to other parts of London. Not really. There's LOADS of links in the South-East. You can go from as far as Thamesmead all the way to Peckham via one bus! There's loads of other links like this too. Who actually wants to travel between Peckham & Thamesmead? Instead, crucial links with hospitals are poorly joined up (Darenth Valley, increasingly a hospital of choice for the entire borough of Bexley is ridiculously poorly served by TfL services. People's health does not respect administrative boundaries like TfL/City Hall accountants do! Other key infrastructure isn't served mighty well either. The south of the borough lacks a timely, frequent service to Bluewater or Surrey Quays, key entertainment areas. One bus links to the tube network aren't great either, largely funnelled through New Cross. The bus links may be there in SE London but I think they aren't the best match to people's journey requirements.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 21, 2014 18:12:44 GMT
The problem with South & South East London is a lack of alternative transport or a lack of decent transport. There are only three Underground stations in South East London, and a handful in South London. The train service in the South East is horrendously overcrowded and apparently, very unreliable & there are a severe lack of East to West bus routes that cross through South London (the 37 being the nearest one to acting as a 'cross South London' route.
Regarding the results, no surprise to see the 201 in there, hasn't been great under East Thames Buses or Go-Ahead London. Be interesting to see how Abellio does with the route.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 21, 2014 18:37:41 GMT
I'm amazed that the 492 isn't there although quite what the criteria is for these lists and how reliable they are I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 21, 2014 18:56:46 GMT
Attachment DeletedI've cut and pasted the info from the Yahoo Group into the attached spreadsheet. That is all that has been shared but TfL do publish more data internally. The info is published internally in TfL and I assume sent to operators. What it does is show the worst and best performing routes. Worst is determined by the largest variances between recorded performance and the performance target for Excess Wait Time (high frequency) and On Time performance (low frequency). Clearly a negative number for the variance is bad and positive is good. TfL typically ranks the routes by multiplying the variance by the annual patronage for the route. For the worst performing routes I have actually done the calculation of variance x patronage. TfL use this process to "weight" the data to reflect the total extra weight time suffered by passengers on the route. On the spreadsheet the best performing routes are unweighted. TfL do publish weighted and unweighted info so this is not unusual.
|
|