Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Buses & Coaches' started by telstarbox, 5 May 2017.
''Crazily infrequent'' at the weekend - none whatsoever.
As there's no touching out on London buses there can never be definitive answers as to actual journeys made, although assumptions can be made by analysing an individual's Oyster or bank card usage. Of course, if the only usage is on the 59, say, there's no evidence where the individual left the bus. Treat all TfL figures in 'consultations' with scepticism.
They have software called odx It assumes where you touch in on the return journey is where you got off on the outward journey. It will also link buses so for example if you changed bus. It will guess you got off based on where you touched in on the next bus
As you say, assumptions. In the case that's been spoken of, the 59 between Kings Cross and Waterloo, and my hypothesis of a train traveller using those two stations with the bus link between, that may well be the only time that day they use Oyster or (more likely) a contactless card, in which case the software has no assumptions to go on, just guesswork at best, so TfL may well have underestimated the usage made, but they wouldn't be concerned about that.
If they make a return journey on the 59 they will infer where they got on onnthe return journey is where they get off on the outward journey. So far yet there is no cross modal linking in odx.
The greatest falls in demand have been recorded on new bus for london routes and generally coincides with removal of conductors on these routes. The 148 for example has seen a loss of 500 passengers per day. I speculate that demand on these routes probably not fallen to that extent. The amount of paying passengers on the otherhand.
Since the well-publicised "manipulation (let's say)" of its consultation results a couple of years ago for proposed changes on the 100 and 388, I am not sure I have any confidence in the objectivity of their so-called "consultation".
I also can't quite believe the claims someone made earlier that a direct link created to improve accessibility between two of the busiest railway stations in this country is rightly curtailed because those people needing it most can "change buses", or that a main thoroughfare is over-bussed simply because it had eight routes running through it.
Changing is controversial in the UK, where public transport has low status and where traditionally changing means paying again, but not in places like Switzerland where people understand that changing is essential in order to have high public transport modal share in a country with high car ownership.
The frequency of buses between Waterloo and Holborn is extremely high and it is hard to believe that frequency is necessary to avoid overcrowding, at least outside peak hours. And at peak hours, the 521 is massively ramped up, running every 2-3 minutes. If that's not enough, they could try articulated buses on the 521!
I'm not the only one on this thread who thinks this corridor is overbussed. Even Mr French on his blog said "but alternatives are provided by the 68 as well as many other buses on parts of that route."
What's the frequency of buses between Waterloo and Holborn got to do with a direct link between Waterloo and Kings Cross? In case you haven't noticed, the 59 still makes a contribution to what you call the 'overbussing' of Kingsway, it's only the Euston to Kings Cross section that's gone.
I know you like to hark on about other countries' ways of doing things, but I think (a) you misinterpret or, even, misrepresent practice in many and (b) some of your favoured comparisons are invidious because in, say, Amsterdam or Zurich such corridors would be tram operated (or trolleybus in the latter too.) I may seek out examples from a more representative selection of cities worldwide where the realisation that forcing passengers to change every 'block' to get to their destination is a disincentive to getting people out of their cars, which should be the intention of every city public service provider.
Cars aren't an alternative in Central London anyway BUT where things seem to have changed from 10 years ago is that whereas back then buses were highly encouraged as a way of easing pressure on the tube, now buses seem almost to be regarded as part of the "road traffic" problem preventing more walking and cycling.
Walking and Boris Biking are now peddled as the alternatives to short tube journeys it seems.
I was contributing to the ongoing discussion about overbussing on Kingsway. It should not matter whether vehicles are buses, trolleybuses or trams and there are examples of bus only networks achieving high modal share in Switzerland. Legacy tram systems in mainland Europe tend to operate similarly to buses with frequent stops and are mostly street running. Modern tram systems in Britain, on the other hand, tend to have stops more spread out compared to buses and tend to have a lot of segregated track and are therefore considered to be a more express and premium form of transport.
Had Cross River tram been built, I wonder whether people would be complaining about the lack of direct bus routes as there would have been an inevitable rationalisation of bus services.
In the early days of the Ken Livingstone mayoralty, buses were expanded dramatically because it was the only thing that could be done quickly. Ken also started the process of upgrading the Tube and what is now London Overground but the lead time for such schemes are much longer. Now that those rail improvements have happened, plus Crossrail to come, plus a huge increase in central London cycling, there is less need for buses to do the "heavy lifting" for travel in and around central London.
The central London rail improvements are pretty insignificant though. Many of the lines (Central, Piccadilly, Bakerloo) are basically running the same service as they were 15 years ago, Crossrail hasn't happened and the Overground doesn't affect much of central London anyway.
Air quality is an issue clearly, but it does seem that TfL does have far more of a pro cycling anti bus attitude nowadays. It will be interesting if this becomes an issue at future Mayoral elections
Well for whatever reason, and there are probably various factors, bus usage has visibly declined. I suspect London Overground expansion is a significant factor on routes such as the 47 and 345.
Coach and Bus Week is reporting that the first Enviro400EV entered service on route 43 from 1st July. It isn't clear whether this is the start of a gradual introduction or little more than a one-off - I'd have expected a bit more noise for the latter, if you'll pardon the pun.
Five out at the moment and seven have been used since the start of the week. David
Thanks. And to correct my original post, I'd have expected more "noise" for a gradual introduction than a one-off.