I’m not sure quite how TfL come up with their stats about usage. Perhaps they’ve been using CCTV near some selected bus stops and collected detailed timings of users interacting with bus stop information? Perhaps they have been a-b testing them?
I suspect that the problem with the “1%” figure here is that when you look at itL
- Many people have been using bus route XX for years, possibly decades and don’t need to look at spider diagram;
- Another cohort use the XX bus from time to time and just need a momentary reminder that it’s the XX from stop SS
- Quite a few people don’t really know (or care, at least) about the geographical relationship between stop SS, and at most need to make sure they are getting the XX to their destination
- Another pile of people use Google Maps and/or the TfL website to work out to get the XX from the SS stop and have no need of a Spider map
- There’s more people who just don’t think Visually and are quite happy with a bus timetable but a diagram is as good as a timetable in Greek ordinals.
So, the question you have left is … the 1% of people who ARE using the Spider maps, which includes me, you and DG are quite capable of switching to Google Maps and/or the TfL website, which is a considerable cost saving for TfL.
I can see their point here - these Spider Maps need highly competent graphic designers, who are quite expensive given they can do App UI or GCI Animation these days for $$$$.
Look at the fighting between the London Assembly and TfL’s graphic designers about what goes on the tube map. The logic that says yes, yes, yes to Reading and no, no, no the Thameslink is one that has lost the high ground.