please empty your brain below
Phew, they've targeted 92 and 94, therefore, 93 is safe, for now.

And, no, I don't mind highlighting this, as from prior DG posts, no-one from TfL reads this anyway, and even if they do... (/sarc)

Ken | 28.12.18 - 7:55 a.m. | #

Some of the cuts are also due to TfL not having the resources to maintain the frequency with the existing allocation, either due to increased traffic congestion or roadworks.

Still Anon | 28.12.18 - 8:21 a.m. | #

There have been more cuts than that - for example, only last month you recorded that route 10 has disappeared altogether - so it's rather more than 72 buses an hour lost in total.

There have been a few routes bucking the trend, such as the modest increase in frequency on the 425 you mentioned in September.

timbo again | Homepage | 28.12.18 - 8:36 a.m. | #

I wonder how well TfL models the effect of changes to its services, and tracks the actual impact (compared to that expected) after implementation of changes. There may be unexpected results.

For example, Braess's paradox shows that improving connections can have adverse results. So perhaps fewer buses could be a good thing - if for example nearly empty ones are removed, reducing congestion, while the remaining ones are fuller.

On the other hand, the progressive damage to the bus network may mean that people choose to travel by another means instead, resulting in a vicious cycle of reduced services and reduced ridership.

Andrew | 28.12.18 - 8:36 a.m. | #

Daytime frequency increased this year: 112, 425

Daytime frequency reduced two years running: 24, 31, 452

diamond geezer | Homepage | 28.12.18 - 9:19 a.m. | #

How can they cut the 25 by 8 buses when it's supposed to be the busiest route in London.

dg writes: How? See this post.

Boxer | 28.12.18 - 10:32 a.m. | #

Where can I find details on the 102 cuts?

dg writes: From the link in the last sentence.

Leo | 28.12.18 - 11:33 a.m. | #

Questionable to use the term 'empty buses' in any planned cuts, or reporting of those. Full buses may not have significant traffic on the return leg.

Were those buses 'empty' throughout that trip or just at the point(s) observed? Can't rely on bus card readers because of mis-reads, evasions (especially 'BorisBuses') or stages not set correctly, let alone readers not working.

Bus passenger counts for the big cutbacks leaked / published earlier in 2018 were boarding passengers only (admitted by a TfL Director), not transits nor alighters, and at limited locations as well as only being in peak hours.

London's population is growing, so the demand for public transport will rise incrementally if not proportionately. Cutting services now, for perceived lack of traffic is short-term, only alleviating driver shortages.

Take what TfL does with a pillar of salt - "consultations are not referendums" - that's their quote! Why 'consult' at all when 72% opposed the cutback at the western end of route 27, they still went ahead?

Joel | 29.12.18 - 1:20 p.m. | #

They went ahead with the cut to the 25 at the start of December, it now only goes to City Thameslink which means more buses cut to add to your list.

dg writes: That wasn't a frequency cut, so it doesn't go in the list.

Robert Taylor | 29.12.18 - 11:32 p.m. | #

Re passenger counting:

Although severely inexact, the load can be measured automatically by adding sensors to the suspension. It will of course not be able to tell the difference between one 100kg person or two 50kg persons or even ten 10kg packages.

MiaM | 30.12.18 - 9:32 a.m. | #

Don't get me started! Presumably due to cut funding. At least £1.4bn between the Mayor and Government combined I understand.

To the casual observer, they surely must have something to gain in bringing TFL to its knees - this is re-enforced in my mind by the seemingly relentless (and often unwarranted) negative press re Crossrail and Grayling, never seen the tide turn so quickly. I smell money.

Mark | 04.01.19 - 7:05 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy