|
Post by vjaska on Jul 21, 2014 19:10:41 GMT
View AttachmentI'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. Again, no surprise about the 450 though I think it's down to how ridiculously busy the route is and traffic through Sydenham. That said, I used it regularly when it had the MPD's and it was far worse then. Also, no surprise about the 417. My brother has now stopped using to get to school simply because it never turns up on time & when it does turn up, it's extremely crowded. The fact it serves at least 7 secondary schools directly & indirectly really doesn't help - I've been saying for years that a new school route needs to run alongside the 417. I'm very shocked though at the 432, never really had issues with the route since it was introduced, always turns up on time when I use it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 21:08:13 GMT
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! I recently had to attend an eye screening at King's College Hospital, which runs the main trust that covers NHS Lambeth. Because the screening can temporarily affect your vision they advise to only use public transport, but from Streatham, a major part of Lambeth, there are no direct links. This makes catching a train from Streatham to Denmark Hill by changing at Elephant & Castle cheaper at £2.20 peak (£1.80 off peak) than the £2.90 for two bus tickets. But it is only a half-hourly service at Denmark Hill plus the wait at Elephant, so because of that and the 20-minute frequency of the 315 it was easiest to walk from Streatham High Road to West Norwood to catch the 68. So I fully agree, and it is not just in Bexley.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jul 21, 2014 22:02:24 GMT
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. Actually, you have a point there. There's loads of routes that could do with some attention. Come to think of it, there's no direct bus journey from Lewisham/New Cross/Deptford areas (and surrounding areas) to Clapham Junction, but there's a half hourly train you can get from New Cross (service from London Bridge). Or even the Overground from Peckham.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 21, 2014 23:18:14 GMT
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. Actually, you have a point there. There's loads of routes that could do with some attention. Come to think of it, there's no direct bus journey from Lewisham/New Cross/Deptford areas (and surrounding areas) to Clapham Junction, but there's a half hourly train you can get from New Cross (service from London Bridge). Or even the Overground from Peckham. I had a proposal which I still stand by: Divert the 345 at Brixton Police Station to serve Brixton Station and to stand with the P4 so becomes South Kensington to Brixton Introduce a 445 running from Clapham Junction to Lewisham via the current 345 to Peckham and then the 136/436 to Lewisham Ok, east of Brixton loses the link beyond Clapham Junction but a much needed east to west link is formed.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Jul 22, 2014 1:33:36 GMT
View AttachmentI'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. There's a lot to take in here. 289 is one of my local routes but I never use it. I used to but it was very unreliable. Thankfully, we now have the countdown timers available to use on the phones so if the 289 is due then great, otherwise I walk. I see the chart says 2 million passengers use the 289 which is more than any of the other low frequency routes in that table. I see the 322 is on the list despite that the timetable has changed only last December. Its easy to see why the 322 has gone form being one of the better routes at BC to one of the worst especially if you look at the timetable before it was changed... mjcarchive.www.idnet.com/times/300to349/322%2020131019.htmAnd the new timetable here... www.londonbusroutes.net/times/322.htmThe running times have been cut down dramatically. I remember the good old days when we had 20 minutes stand time at Clapham Common in the evenings. Now we only get 3 minutes Also, they cut down the running times form Brixton to Clapham by so much that it is now practically impossible to do this journey in the scheduled time. As for the high frequency routes, I mentioned my concerns about the 358 route but I understand that they have changed the timetable only a few months ago. I'm not too sure about the 450 but judging by the amount of people that use the route it looks like they need to increase the frequency again. I spoken to a few drivers at Metrobus who have recently transferred off the 202 and gone on other routes. The majority reasons includes traffic in Catford and Brownhill Road, and the passengers. They said they couldn't cope anymore The 197 is one of my local routes. The frequency is not that great yet I see them bunching more often that I would like. The 60 is in there Personally, I think the frequency should be increased just a little. And I can't believe that the 155 is there? The route has been the same since 2003 when I used to drive it. What could possibly have gone wrong? I can't believe that this route is performing worse than the 157 although admittedly the controllers are doing much better with the 157 as they have stopped turning the buses so much and just let them run like they should.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Jul 22, 2014 1:46:30 GMT
View AttachmentI'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. Again, no surprise about the 450 though I think it's down to how ridiculously busy the route is and traffic through Sydenham. That said, I used it regularly when it had the MPD's and it was far worse then. Also, no surprise about the 417. My brother has now stopped using to get to school simply because it never turns up on time & when it does turn up, it's extremely crowded. The fact it serves at least 7 secondary schools directly & indirectly really doesn't help - I've been saying for years that a new school route needs to run alongside the 417. I'm very shocked though at the 432, never really had issues with the route since it was introduced, always turns up on time when I use it. I don't used the 432 that much but I wouldn't be surprised if Arriva are having problems in running the route as the traffic in Brixton, West Norwood and Crystal Palace isn't great. The traffic in Anerley Hill can be plentiful as well. The 417 and 450 are also in there and the three all use Central Hill. Also, it can be a pain trying to drive along Westow Street due to the parked cars and the silly lorry that's parked up in the loading bay next to the furniture shop, with its trailer open but no one loading/unloading anything
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jul 22, 2014 7:06:53 GMT
*cough* 375 every 90 minutes
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 22, 2014 8:35:12 GMT
For those commenting on specific routes that are in the league tables I'd just be a tad wary about one quarter's worth of data especially one that covers Winter as this data does. There may be all sorts of issues like the severe flooding in and around Purley, that lasted for weeks, that could have destroyed the performance of the 289 and affected the 60. I looked at the 432's individual chart and its performance has been going down for months so perhaps there is more of a trend there but as to the cause?
The various routes in Waltham Forest may have been affected by protracted works, in Hoe St and at the Bakers Arms, that overran by weeks. Some Stagecoach routes did have emergency schedules. The 179 and 275 have been poor for months and months (based on my anecdotal observations) and it's noteworthy that several routes on the "worst" list are those with new contracts and possibly won on tight schedules with little recovery / resilience built in. Other of the "worst" routes are those that were being retendered so perhaps the operators have taken their eyes off the ball (e.g. 34 and 212)?
It is virtually impossible to *know* what is causing the poor performance just from looking at the stats. I can only say for certain that there have been roadworks in Waltham Forest and I know there were floods in South London but whether they are the root cause of the performance issues I can't say for certain, only speculate.
TfL have the concept of an "recovery programme" for the very worst performing routes. They don't publish this externally but it does demonstrate that they do keep an eye on routes with persistently poor performance and try to get revised schedules or route structures in place to try to recover performance. Obviously there is something of a reluctance on the part of TfL to fund extra resources and we know they won't do so on recently won contracts where the operator may have been overly optimistic about the PVR / running times. Some routes, though, have persistent problems - I can recall that the W12 under First operation was forever in the "recovery room" but TfL wouldn't fund the required extra bus. The schedule was simply too tight and the slightest delay meant curtailments and 40 minute gaps. CT Plus now have a PVR of 6 whereas I believe First only had 5. I suspect all bidders for the W12 put in bids with 6 buses so TfL had no scope to reject all the bids!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 22, 2014 9:05:50 GMT
Again, no surprise about the 450 though I think it's down to how ridiculously busy the route is and traffic through Sydenham. That said, I used it regularly when it had the MPD's and it was far worse then. Also, no surprise about the 417. My brother has now stopped using to get to school simply because it never turns up on time & when it does turn up, it's extremely crowded. The fact it serves at least 7 secondary schools directly & indirectly really doesn't help - I've been saying for years that a new school route needs to run alongside the 417. I'm very shocked though at the 432, never really had issues with the route since it was introduced, always turns up on time when I use it. I don't used the 432 that much but I wouldn't be surprised if Arriva are having problems in running the route as the traffic in Brixton, West Norwood and Crystal Palace isn't great. The traffic in Anerley Hill can be plentiful as well. The 417 and 450 are also in there and the three all use Central Hill. Also, it can be a pain trying to drive along Westow Street due to the parked cars and the silly lorry that's parked up in the loading bay next to the furniture shop, with its trailer open but no one loading/unloading anything As much as there is traffic in Brixton & West Norwood, the 2 & 196 don't have any problems and yes, Crystal Palace can be annoying to get through but it was much worse when the roundabout was there and Westow Hill was two way - it took an age just to reach Central Hill. As well as Anerley Hill, you've also got the traffic lights at Gypsy Hill Police Station on Central Hill where traffic easily backs up but all these issues have been present for years and the 432 was running fine before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 12:45:28 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. 353 is forever unreliable. One time I was waiting at AVI, the bus changed blinds and went straight back out in service avoiding the first stop at AVI...
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Jul 22, 2014 12:56:21 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. 353 is forever unreliable. One time I was waiting at AVI, the bus changed blinds and went straight back out in service avoiding the first stop at AVI... Having driven the 353 on numerous occasions the problem is Keston Mark, it mucks the service up majorly in the peaks, but off peak the 353 runs nicely with decent amounts of recovery at AVI and Ramsden Estate.
|
|
|
Post by eggmiester on Jul 22, 2014 18:06:39 GMT
I'm surprised the 225 is in there seeing as it's hit target for pretty much every period this year bar one I think.....
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Jul 22, 2014 18:18:22 GMT
I'm surprised the 225 is in there seeing as it's hit target for pretty much every period this year bar one I think..... But the current frequency of the route isn't really justified IMO. What I've seen this year, more people have been using the route and it's been getting overcrowded recently and not to mention that Sanford Street and Trundleys Road are only served by 225 in which most people who live along those roads only have 225 as their local route. There are also a few traffic hotspots which delay the route aswell such as New Cross being an example.
|
|
|
Post by eggmiester on Jul 22, 2014 19:02:30 GMT
for all the traffic hotspots it hits, Lewisham, New Cross, Deptford the 225 actually does have a pretty robust schedule. I have controlled the 225 on many occasions now and only had a few days where the service has been bad due to problems, like Lewisham when an ATS sensor at courthill road was bringing Lewisham to a stand still in the peaks and the odd road closure to boot causing problems (I remember a recent Saturday where I effectively ran an overlapping service - Hither Green to NX and Lewisham to Canada Water due to multiple road closures), but generally the route hits it's QSI targets which I must add is one of the lowest targets I've seen on a low frequency route in recent times.
I will add though, I agree it's a very busy route and you do have daily delays particularly in Lewisham during the peaks (anything from 10 to 20 mins) where as a controller I may have to exercise a Lewisham or Surrey Quays turn.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Jul 23, 2014 4:18:14 GMT
I don't used the 432 that much but I wouldn't be surprised if Arriva are having problems in running the route as the traffic in Brixton, West Norwood and Crystal Palace isn't great. The traffic in Anerley Hill can be plentiful as well. The 417 and 450 are also in there and the three all use Central Hill. Also, it can be a pain trying to drive along Westow Street due to the parked cars and the silly lorry that's parked up in the loading bay next to the furniture shop, with its trailer open but no one loading/unloading anything As much as there is traffic in Brixton & West Norwood, the 2 & 196 don't have any problems and yes, Crystal Palace can be annoying to get through but it was much worse when the roundabout was there and Westow Hill was two way - it took an age just to reach Central Hill. As well as Anerley Hill, you've also got the traffic lights at Gypsy Hill Police Station on Central Hill where traffic easily backs up but all these issues have been present for years and the 432 was running fine before. Yes, I would like to think the traffic in Crystal Palace is a lot better than before when the roundabout was there. The traffic in Anerley Hill is unpredictable however and I can't figure out why although there seems to be an issue somewhere near Anerley Station with the traffic there. Tbh, I was surprised to see the 432 in this list of shame but the 322, 417 and 450 are also in this list and they all run in the Crystal Palace area. The 249 is not in that list so maybe GAL are running their routes better or maybe Arriva's standards are slipping hence why they lost so many routes
|
|