TFL & "Managed Decline"

[stuu]

The route is predominantly on a 50mph road, then a 40mph with the rest 30mph, but yet the bus is now slower than it was a decade ago


I would rather buses just kept moving along the route, not being stuck to stringent slow conditions, as if the bus is scheduled to be every say 10 minutes, it isnt really going to matter if it runs early cos if it comes 2 minutes early and the next one is 10 minutes behind it, you are only going to wait 8 minutes for the bus, and why would you not get to a bus stop a few minutes before the bus is due to arrive incase it ran early? Thats the thing, TFL has put so much onto buses, that they are nearly twice as slow as they used to be, like unneeded pauses along the route "to help regulate the service" even though the bus could sit there for 5 minutes yet passengers onboard may want to get somewhere

Yes it does. If the timetable says the bus leaves at 705 then that is when the bus should leave, regardless of traffic, or frequency of service. Obviously common sense can be applied if the one behind is already there or something, but in general stick to the timetable. No one can be inconvenienced by the bus being on time

 

[Bletchleyite]

Buses are monitored by control far more than they were 10 years ago, you often hear an announcement on a bus saying that the bus is going to wait a couple of minutes to regulate the service, that never used to happen, maybe drivers used to run early on your stretch in order to get a brew, and can no longer get away with it.

I certainly know that "ragging round" to get a longer break was endemic outside London. Some routes in MK used to run 10 or more minutes early late in the evening. Then along came GPS and it stopped suddenly, thank goodness.

 

[urbophile]

No one can be inconvenienced by the bus being on time

Well it's possible, if the previous bus was cancelled, and you were relying on it to get somewhere on time, that you'd be infuriated if the next one to turn up dilly-dallied in order to keep to the timetable. But I agree that the timetable must take priority over individual wishes. I've never known anywhere with a frequent (10 mins or less) service where the buses ran predictably, in London or elsewhere.

 

[matt_world2004]

Well it's possible, if the previous bus was cancelled, and you were relying on it to get somewhere on time, that you'd be infuriated if the next one to turn up dilly-dallied in order to keep to the timetable. But I agree that the timetable must take priority over individual wishes. I've never known anywhere with a frequent (10 mins or less) service where the buses ran predictably, in London or elsewhere.

Controllers don't usually expect buses to keep to wtt when a bus is cancelled on a high frequency route in London. They typically expand headway to cover the gaps in London to try and run an even intervalled service

 

[jumble]

Depends. On a half hourly route, absolutely. On a 5 minute frequency, say, it can be better to just run on headways and just feed in buses as required to maintain frequency based on varying traffic conditions.

Indeed I was a bit miffed when our local bus was not showing on the TFL app at all and was 2 minutes early on the timetable today on our local half hourly route
( Fortunately I have alternative routes and was only delayed by 15 mins or so. )

 

[philthetube]

Well it's possible, if the previous bus was cancelled, and you were relying on it to get somewhere on time, that you'd be infuriated if the next one to turn up dilly-dallied in order to keep to the timetable. But I agree that the timetable must take priority over individual wishes. I've never known anywhere with a frequent (10 mins or less) service where the buses ran predictably, in London or elsewhere.

Burnley to Colne is pretty good.

 

[Goldfish62]

To me every 10 minutes is not enough to dispense with a timetable, so I disagree. TfL does operate headway style services from every 12, though, I believe, as ludicrously Metrolink does.

Yes, I aim to arrive at a bus stop just before the bus departs. Why would I want to stand in the cold and waste my time? If you don't operate to a published timetable, that adds between 1 and 9 minutes to the journey on a 10 minute frequency.

I wouldn't want headway operation on any less than 10 buses per hour.

All TfL routes that run at 5bph or more operate based on headway rather than timetables. That has been established for many many years and it's the appropriate way to run such services.

Try running a timetabled service on most routes and I think you'll find that you get a considerably worse service.

I speak from experience as a current passenger and a former driver, controller and manager.

 

[HSTEd]

Buses running exactly to timetable might have some minor advantages but deliberately slowing buses to cause this to happen renders buses even less attractive to the traveling public.

I'd argue anything 5bph and up should just run on headway as fast as it runs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Buses running exactly to timetable might have some minor advantages but deliberately slowing buses to cause this to happen renders buses even less attractive to the traveling public.

I'd argue anything 5bph and up should just run on headway as fast as it runs.

I wouldn't, because that automatically adds a random value between 0 and 11 minutes to the journey time for wait time. If the service is timetabled and punctual, one only needs to leave one's house precisely the number of minutes before the timetabled bus and so one doesn't lose time.

A 20 minute journey into town near where one is going might compete well with the car and having to walk from the car park after a slower journey. Make that up to 31 minutes and that is much less marked.

It also mucks up connections.

I can see why there's little option in central London due to variable and severe traffic congestion, but in the suburbs with properly placed bus lanes and traffic-light overtakes it really should be possible to get things running on +/- 1 minute all the time. Most European countries manage it.

 

[dm1]

5bph is a bus every 12 minutes. Given a lot of bus journeys are less than 12 minutes long, that means a given journey could suddenly end up taking twice as long as planned. That is not an attractive service.

With appropriate bus priority measures in place, it should be possible to run up to 8bph to a timetable reliably. That is the standard in many European countries. At higher frequencies, there is perhaps an argument for headway running, but 5bph is definitely not frequent enough for this in my view.

Then there's the transport planning perspective that if you are running much more than 8bph on a single route, then it is probably worth upgrading the route to use larger vehicles, or at the upper end even light rail. In London's context doing so is unfortunately extremely difficult, so instead we get stuck with extremely high staffing and operating costs and high PVRs for an objectively worse service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then there's the transport planning perspective that if you are running much more than 8bph on a single route, then it is probably worth upgrading the route to use larger vehicles, or at the upper end even light rail. In London's context doing so is unfortunately extremely difficult, so instead we get stuck with extremely high staffing and operating costs and high PVRs for an objectively worse service.

London to be fair does use largeish vehicles - the Borismasters are really very capacious for example. They aren't quite 16m Berlin style rigids which would be difficult, but they're not small. It's very much not a minibus city.

I'd agree there is room for some trams. Reinstating trams on Kingsway on the busiest sections of the 59/68/168 would be a good start. But not in the context of this thread as there's no money!

 

[HSTEd]

I wouldn't, because that automatically adds a random value between 0 and 11 minutes to the journey time for wait time. If the service is timetabled and punctual, one only needs to leave one's house precisely the number of minutes before the timetabled bus and so one doesn't lose time.

Assuming people are willing to and capable of planning their lives to split second precision, yes.
In reality people trying to catch a timetable bus don't plan to arrive at the instant the bus does for obvious reasons - although it might be different in the German speaking world you speak so highly of!

So the disadvantage is much less than 11 minutes max (5.5 minutes average)

I can see why there's little option in central London due to variable and severe traffic congestion, but in the suburbs with properly placed bus lanes and traffic-light overtakes it really should be possible to get things running on +/- 1 minute all the time. Most European countries manage it.

Infrastructure that does not exist in most of Britain and probably never will?

Dwell times will vary by more than that simply as a result of traffic load densities, let alone variable congestion etc. (They certainly do on Oxford Road in Manchester where even with bus priority buses regularly spend more time stopped than moving) and buses cling absurdly to a timetable even when traffic densities are 30bph on the route or larger.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Assuming people are willing to and capable of planning their lives to split second precision, yes.
In reality people trying to catch a timetable bus don't plan to arrive at the instant the bus does for obvious reasons - although it might be different in the German speaking world you speak so highly of!

I certainly know that when I did live in Germany, the U-Bahn operated every 10 minutes off peak, every 5 peak. In the latter case, if I left my flat as the previous train was visible crossing the bridge, I would walk onto the platform about 1 minute before the next one (allowing for time lost by stumbling or similar). The time it takes people to walk a given distance in a given setting is incredibly consistent - usually within tens of seconds.

Most buses weren't much worse because bus priority was done properly. The 3bph connection on the 208 (if I recall) from U-Hagenbecks-Tierpark to Informatikum (the Computer Science department's separate site) was always bang-on.

So the disadvantage is much less than 11 minutes max (5.5 minutes average)

The disadvantage is between 0 and 11:59:24, essentially. The average is thus a tiny amount below 6 minutes. But it's not the average that matters, it's the worst-case, as that's what you have to plan for in order not to be late for work, the doctor's, the train, whatever. Thus, in effect, unless the journey is completely non-time-critical (e.g. going to the supermarket), the worst is what matters. So on a 12 minute headway, 12 minutes must be added to any time-critical journey.

No, 12 minutes aren't much, but standing 12 minutes in the cold and rain is unpleasant, and both that and the added time renders the bus a poor competitor to even the bicycle in many cases, let alone the Beemer or Merc, as the song goes.

Infrastructure that does not exist in most of Britain and probably never will?

Dwell times will vary by more than that simply as a result of traffic load densities, let alone variable congestion etc. (They certainly do on Oxford Road in Manchester where even with bus priority buses regularly spend more time stopped than moving) and buses cling absurdly to a timetable even when traffic densities are 30bph on the route or larger.

It's not absurd because Oxford Road is an aggregate of somewhere around 10 routes to different places, none of which are particularly high-frequency. If you separated it out as a single route or at most two (say a 42 and a 43, with everything else either connections or going down parallel roads), then headways would work. They could arguably be used northbound, but it'd be quite hard to manage headways in one direction only, because you need your buses to get to Piccadilly Gardens on time so you can turn them back on time.

Then you throw in people being priced onto single-operator tickets.

Also bear in mind that while the route is very frequent during the day, it isn't very frequent on e.g. a Sunday morning - when I was a student it was only a half hourly 42 until about 9am Sunday. That caused a missed train once. After that once I always walked at that sort of time. So the bus was a poor competitor to walking. That isn't a great place for the industry to be, is it?

 

[Dstock7080]

funding package extended to 24 June 2022:

Following discussions and negotiation over the last few weeks, I’m pleased that the Government has today (25 February 2022) confirmed an extension of its funding support for TfL through until 24 June 2022. This new arrangement will see the DfT help us cover our operational costs for the next four months by providing base funding of around £200 million.

This funding package is good news. I have always said that we would not accept terms that are unfair to TfL, our customers, or our city. And our tough negotiation, in which we refused to accept conditions that would have been intolerable, meant that we have got to this far better result after two very short extensions.

The funding guarantees the operation and maintenance of essential and safe transport services in London, allowing us to continue our full and vital contribution to the Government’s economic recovery programme as well as its national priorities on decarbonisation, air quality and making transport better for users.

It also confirms Government’s intent to continue to support with the cost of operations beyond June (on our way to achieving financial sustainability by April 2023), and with longer-term capital investment, recognising the need for certainty and stability over our capital investment pipeline. The Government has agreed to set out a proposal on longer-term capital funding support during this funding period. Reaching agreement on this is crucial for the coming years if the ‘managed decline’ of London’s transport network is to be avoided.

My team and I will continue to meet regularly with the DfT to work together to agree operational and capital funding beyond June so that London's transport network can remain safe, efficient and reliable, support the jobs and new homes that rely upon it, and help drive the economic recovery of the capital and the country as a whole.

Andy Byford TfL Commissioner

 

[MikeWh]

I wouldn't, because that automatically adds a random value between 0 and 11 minutes to the journey time for wait time. If the service is timetabled and punctual, one only needs to leave one's house precisely the number of minutes before the timetabled bus and so one doesn't lose time.

To an extent this is mitigated by live bus running apps. I know it takes 8 minutes to walk to the bus stop so I leave when the next bus is estimated at 10 minutes away.

 

[Horizon22]

To an extent this is mitigated by live bus running apps. I know it takes 8 minutes to walk to the bus stop so I leave when the next bus is estimated at 10 minutes away.

As an aside, transport planners average out a “generalised wait time” for public transport which impacts transport models. So the growth of more accurate apps might alter this going forward.

Most buses I catch seem to turn up whenever and at poor intervals, probably due to local road congestion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To an extent this is mitigated by live bus running apps. I know it takes 8 minutes to walk to the bus stop so I leave when the next bus is estimated at 10 minutes away.

Helps in a "not standing in the cold" sense, but not in a "planned journey to something time-critical" one. So only solves half of the problem.

The actual problem is solved by a combination of precision timetabled operation AND real-time tracking apps, but that of course is a bit fanciful in central London (but totally feasible in many suburbs).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

funding package extended to 24 June 2022:

Andy Byford TfL Commissioner

Andy Byford would be a great candidate to lead GBR as he believes in public transport and would have the vision and wherewithal to support the Metro mayors in delivering TfL style services to all our major cities.

 

[endicomark69@g]

funding package extended to 24 June 2022:

Andy Byford TfL Commissioner

Without being in the room we aren't ever going to know if this really is a "good result" for TfL and actually standing up to Central Govt, but from the drift of what I've heard it tends to track with DfT having to go tell Schapps that Byford (and not just the Mayor) wasn't going to play ball beyond a certain "unpleasant" point.

Quite what those points were perhaps somebody better plugged in could enlighten. But essentially this is still more kick-the-can stuff, even if it wasn't the Kick-the-Mayor measures they wanted so another partial success.

And as to the Bus Services Headway Vs Precise Timetable debate.....since I retired Bus Journeys around South and West London have gotten LESS reliable, generally slower and that's before things were thinned for the Pandemic.

Adding on "the Driver has been asked to remain at this stop to even out the service" with depressing regularity regardless of road/weather/traffic hasn't helped. All it actually does is piss off a bus full who actually want to get the timely benefit of the journey they paid for, not lose actual time for the theoretical benefit of those that haven't started a journey yet.

And real time apps/countdown? Anyone that's stood at a bus stop for anything up to 9 minutes when the next service has clicked down to "due" and then disappears from the list can tell you how useful they are at times.

A friend of mine that also retired from Transport Planning put it this way " Trying to run a bus service to rigid timetables in London is like trying to keep Spaghetti nicely lined up straight while in the tin, it doesn't happen."

 

[SynthD]

Andy Byford would be a great candidate to lead GBR as he believes in public transport and would have the vision and wherewithal to support the Metro mayors in delivering TfL style services to all our major cities.

A genius and an empty magical pot of money can hardly be distinguished from an idiot and an empty magical pot of money. However, if the red wall seats needed to be bought off again then maybe he’d have a chance to do some great work.

 

[Snow1964]

The Government announcement of TfL funding deal

Government agrees £200 million deal to keep vital Transport for London services running

Announcing a fourth extraordinary funding and financing package for TfL ensuring the continued running of London’s transport network.

www.gov.uk

The government has today (25 February 2022) agreed a fourth extraordinary funding settlement for Transport for London (TfL) worth £200 million, allowing the capital’s transport network to continue to operate while representing value for money for all taxpayers.

The settlement will run until 24 June 2022, reaffirming the government’s commitment to the network as it recovers from the pandemic and continues to work towards long-term financial sustainability.

Recognising the need for stability and forward planning, the new deal also includes the potential for a longer-term capital investment settlement for TfL. This would be agreed ahead of the next financial year and will be dependent on the Mayor and TfL’s cooperation with the government, including providing sufficient information regarding its capital investment plans and meeting conditions set out in the previous settlement.

This follows 3 previous emergency funding packages and takes the government’s support for TfL, since March 2020, close to £5 billion. This is on top of an additional pledge to provide over a billion pounds of capital investment every year in October’s Spending Review.

In this funding settlement, the Mayor will consult on the options he believes will raise between £500 million and £1 billion of additional yearly revenue from 2023. He will also be outlining options to achieve operating cost savings of up to £400 million in 2022 to 2023 and delivering against TfL’s accelerated modernisation plan while making significant progress in moving the pension fund into a financially sustainable position.

Throughout this period, government will continue to work closely with the Mayor and TfL to ensure London’s transport system delivers for Londoners and contributes to the entire country’s economic recovery while maintaining the interests of national taxpayers.

• includes the potential for a longer-term capital settlement dependent on the Mayor and TfL’s cooperation with the government.

This statement suggests the mayor and/or TfL were not prepared to do certain things to get a longer capital settlement. My guess is mayor was blocker.

 

[boiledbeans2]

All TfL routes that run at 5bph or more operate based on headway rather than timetables. That has been established for many many years and it's the appropriate way to run such services.

Is this still true? I ride 607 quite regularly, from end to end in both directions (White City to Uxbridge).

According to the TFL website, it runs every 8-12 mins in the daytime, so it satisfies 5bph.

Usually before i board the bus, i check Google Maps for the departure time. Google Maps also provides the arrival time at each bus stop along the route.

I have found the arrival times on Google Maps to be very accurate (within 3 mins), even with heavy traffic, as obviously, the timetable has already factored the traffic. Almost always, the driver will stop at 'Iron Bridge' bus stop in Southall for a few minutes to 'even out the service' as there seems to be a buffer in the timetable there. The driver waits till the time specified on Google Maps.

So in summary, there does seem to be a timetable on Google Maps.

 

[Busaholic]

Is this still true? I ride 607 quite regularly, from end to end in both directions (White City to Uxbridge).

According to the TFL website, it runs every 8-12 mins in the daytime, so it satisfies 5bph.

Usually before i board the bus, i check Google Maps for the departure time. Google Maps also provides the arrival time at each bus stop along the route.

I have found the arrival times on Google Maps to be very accurate (within 3 mins), even with heavy traffic, as obviously, the timetable has already factored the traffic. Almost always, the driver will stop at 'Iron Bridge' bus stop in Southall for a few minutes to 'even out the service' as there seems to be a buffer in the timetable there. The driver waits till the time specified on Google Maps.

So in summary, there does seem to be a timetable on Google Maps.

It could be that the 607 is an exception in view of its unique status i.e. not replicated anywhere else in the London bus network.

 

[Cesarcollie]

Is this still true? I ride 607 quite regularly, from end to end in both directions (White City to Uxbridge).

According to the TFL website, it runs every 8-12 mins in the daytime, so it satisfies 5bph.

Usually before i board the bus, i check Google Maps for the departure time. Google Maps also provides the arrival time at each bus stop along the route.

I have found the arrival times on Google Maps to be very accurate (within 3 mins), even with heavy traffic, as obviously, the timetable has already factored the traffic. Almost always, the driver will stop at 'Iron Bridge' bus stop in Southall for a few minutes to 'even out the service' as there seems to be a buffer in the timetable there. The driver waits till the time specified on Google Maps.

So in summary, there does seem to be a timetable on Google Maps.

Whilst high frequency TfL routes are managed on a headway basis, they still start the day with a published timetable that forms the basis of bus workings, driver duties etc. In theory the whole day could run as per plan if conditions allowed. In practice, things fall apart due to traffic conditions and other problems fairly quickly, and that’s where controllers come in to their own. At this point they will generally move to managing EWT (excess waiting time) rather than keeping every bus and driver exactly as per schedule - as that would usually be impossible to achieve.

 

[XAM2175]

To an extent this is mitigated by live bus running apps. I know it takes 8 minutes to walk to the bus stop so I leave when the next bus is estimated at 10 minutes away.

Helps in a "not standing in the cold" sense, but not in a "planned journey to something time-critical" one. So only solves half of the problem.

Yes - it's nice to know that a bus is coming, but not especially helpful when the timetable says I should already be aboard one.

One particularly memorable occasion is of waiting for a bus to work and having First's app tell me that four buses on the same route were all due in two minutes. It was comforting to have that level of certainty, but it didn't help with the fact that I'd already been waiting at the stop for over ten minutes and there were people around me who appeared to have been waiting for longer. Thankfully I escaped my manager's wrath by virtue of the fact he was one of the others waiting with me!

 

[cjmillsnun]

The level of traffic in London suggests that motorists don’t find the current regime of congestion and parking charges to be onerous, so I would keep increasing and expanding these until they pay for the public transport improvements London needs.

Something easy on this would be to bring forward the ending of the exemption of EVs from the congestion charge. Whilst they would still be exempt from ULEZ, they still cause congestion and should pay the charge.

 

[Busaholic]

Something easy on this would be to bring forward the ending of the exemption of EVs from the congestion charge. Whilst they would still be exempt from ULEZ, they still cause congestion and should pay the charge.

Absolutely, and their owners are in general much more financially able to pay the charge.

 

[jon0844]

Absolutely, and their owners are in general much more financially able to pay the charge.

Perhaps now, but I am sure there are people who want an EV and already find it expensive enough to switch.

 

[317 forever]

I bus also tells the driver exactly how far ahead on headway they are. The skilled drivers slow down slightly to lose a minute here or there.

There is also an incentive in the contract to bid for longer running times. You are fined if late .so you bid a longer running time to add redundancy and avoid being late.

Except that a bid with longer running times increases the operator's chance of being undercut by another operator and losing the tender. Admittedly with so few bus contractors, this need not often mean many if any net losses.

 

[NorthKent1989]

All London Buses seem to run slower now than they did 10 years ago, recently i used a 66 Bus from Newbury Park to Romford when traffic was light just before 7am, and the bus took around 20 minutes to do the journey, however years back, i did Romford to Newbury Park on a 66 bus in around 13 minutes with the bus doing a clear run, so buses are slower than ever, possibly down to the buses being forced to stick to their timetables which has slowed them down, or a Wright Gemini Bus built maybe 5 or so years ago, has a poorer speed ability to a Plaxton Pointer built 10 years before it

On Friday I was on the 390 from Victoria to Euston, a journey that usually takes just 20 mins, was nearer to 40 mins, there was little traffic and the lights were in favour of road vehicles, the only bit of traffic was toward the end of my journey on the Euston Road, but that’s always heavy in traffic anyway and wouldn’t have added any more than 5 mins usually, I agree that buses are moving much slower.