|
Post by snoggle on Dec 14, 2018 12:50:28 GMT
Would TfL really tell Metroline to run the service badly? I wouldn't be surprised at any strategy they come up with nowadays to be quite honest. Public trust of TfL is zero. A quick phone call here and there, who knows? Unless Metroline themselves want to sabotage the service because people have reported seeing bus blinds with new destinations, etc, on them, and they feel resentful at being watched. Unless TfL have given Metroline a waiver from payment deductions for bad service I can't see why Metroline would go out of their way to run any service badly. And to be honest I do not see TfL ever instructing an operator to deliberately run a route badly. It makes no sense for a start and is a breach of the basic premise that applies to all performance based contracts. If TfL were to let contractors "off" for bad services there'd be a queue of operators kicking down their door demanding the same treatment for their "difficult to run" routes. All operators have such routes but they have to bear the risks they signed up for. I understand you're annoyed about the plans for the 384 but I think you may be overreacting somewhat. Poor timetable coverage is not unique to the 384. Some t/t panels not far from where I live have been missing for weeks. I just think resources to get things like this fixed quickly are not there anymore.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Dec 14, 2018 12:55:25 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised at any strategy they come up with nowadays to be quite honest. Public trust of TfL is zero. A quick phone call here and there, who knows? Unless Metroline themselves want to sabotage the service because people have reported seeing bus blinds with new destinations, etc, on them, and they feel resentful at being watched. Unless TfL have given Metroline a waiver from payment deductions for bad service I can't see why Metroline would go out of their way to run any service badly. And to be honest I do not see TfL ever instructing an operator to deliberately run a route badly. It makes no sense for a start and is a breach of the basic premise that applies to all performance based contracts. If TfL were to let contractors "off" for bad services there'd be a queue of operators kicking down their door demanding the same treatment for their "difficult to run" routes. All operators have such routes but they have to bear the risks they signed up for. I understand you're annoyed about the plans for the 384 but I think you may be overreacting somewhat. Poor timetable coverage is not unique to the 384. Some t/t panels not far from where I live have been missing for weeks. I just think resources to get things like this fixed quickly are not there anymore. But the cancelled, late and early running buses seem to have increased dramatically since the consultation was announced. And is isn't just me noticing it otherwise I'd probably put it down to bad luck. When the daytime service was every 15 minutes you could set your watch by it. Couldn't such a dramatic change at this particular time be more than mere coincidence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2018 12:56:41 GMT
Unless TfL have given Metroline a waiver from payment deductions for bad service I can't see why Metroline would go out of their way to run any service badly. And to be honest I do not see TfL ever instructing an operator to deliberately run a route badly. It makes no sense for a start and is a breach of the basic premise that applies to all performance based contracts. If TfL were to let contractors "off" for bad services there'd be a queue of operators kicking down their door demanding the same treatment for their "difficult to run" routes. All operators have such routes but they have to bear the risks they signed up for. I understand you're annoyed about the plans for the 384 but I think you may be overreacting somewhat. Poor timetable coverage is not unique to the 384. Some t/t panels not far from where I live have been missing for weeks. I just think resources to get things like this fixed quickly are not there anymore. But the cancelled, late and early running buses seem to have increased dramatically since the consultation was announced. And is isn't just me noticing it otherwise I'd probably put it down to bad luck. When the daytime service was every 15 minutes you could set your watch by it. Couldn't such a dramatic change at this particular time be more than mere coincidence? Coincidence, end of. Next
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Dec 14, 2018 13:06:41 GMT
But the cancelled, late and early running buses seem to have increased dramatically since the consultation was announced. And is isn't just me noticing it otherwise I'd probably put it down to bad luck. When the daytime service was every 15 minutes you could set your watch by it. Couldn't such a dramatic change at this particular time be more than mere coincidence? Coincidence, end of. Next
Glad you're so sure. Doesn't really put my mind at rest. I think some people on here like to let TfL and/or bus operators off the hook, while passengers continue to suffer from their machinations. Isn't there enough evidence by now of the contempt in which bus passengers are held?
|
|
|
Post by grubbysa on Dec 14, 2018 13:59:41 GMT
Unless TfL have given Metroline a waiver from payment deductions for bad service I can't see why Metroline would go out of their way to run any service badly. And to be honest I do not see TfL ever instructing an operator to deliberately run a route badly. It makes no sense for a start and is a breach of the basic premise that applies to all performance based contracts. If TfL were to let contractors "off" for bad services there'd be a queue of operators kicking down their door demanding the same treatment for their "difficult to run" routes. All operators have such routes but they have to bear the risks they signed up for. I understand you're annoyed about the plans for the 384 but I think you may be overreacting somewhat. Poor timetable coverage is not unique to the 384. Some t/t panels not far from where I live have been missing for weeks. I just think resources to get things like this fixed quickly are not there anymore. But the cancelled, late and early running buses seem to have increased dramatically since the consultation was announced. And is isn't just me noticing it otherwise I'd probably put it down to bad luck. When the daytime service was every 15 minutes you could set your watch by it. Couldn't such a dramatic change at this particular time be more than mere coincidence? I used to have the 384 as a local for a good 10 years and the route was very reliable back then, especially back in the DMS days. I still travel to Barnet on a daily basis and I will admit that the service has become less reliable recently, however that's more down to the worsening traffic conditions in High Barnet from what I can see. Also don't forget all 384 changeovers run dead from Cockfosters to PB so if the M25 has a hiccup then the bus will be late arriving at PB for the changeover then leaving late as well just to enter the traffic again making it even later. All before its even started passenger service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2018 14:02:24 GMT
Glad you're so sure. Doesn't really put my mind at rest. I think some people on here like to let TfL and/or bus operators off the hook, while passengers continue to suffer from their machinations. Isn't there enough evidence by now of the contempt in which bus passengers are held? Services are never run deliberately badly, even when they run badly. Everything is audited these days, regularly and thoroughly. If there ever was any service collusion going on, offenders would be fined and contracts ripped up.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 14, 2018 14:25:36 GMT
Glad you're so sure. Doesn't really put my mind at rest. I think some people on here like to let TfL and/or bus operators off the hook, while passengers continue to suffer from their machinations. Isn't there enough evidence by now of the contempt in which bus passengers are held? "Some people on here"? I do hope I am not lumped into this nondescript group. I am as critical of TfL and operators as the next person - that usually earns me sneering remarks on here. However I have worked on the other side of the fence as I have explained multiple times. I'm also sufficiently aware that sometimes "sh*t happens" that no operator can instantly cope with. Routes can run brilliantly and then they can be dire - things change for a wide variety of reasons. Some are within the operator's control - staffing, vehicles, reliability, maintenance etc. Others are not such as accidents, road works, incidents elsewhere on the transport network causing a diversion of demand to routes that don't normally have such loadings. That can cause all sorts of unanticipated delays that the driver and controller have to cope with. Sometimes schedules aren't as good as they could be, sometimes TfL won't sanction extra resources if a route is going to be retendered. Similarly operators won't fund extra resource if they won't recoup the cost via better performance payments. The system is not perfect and will never deliver perfect 100% reliable services. If recognising the reality of life and the system makes me an "apologist" (on your definition) then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Dec 14, 2018 15:43:30 GMT
Glad you're so sure. Doesn't really put my mind at rest. I think some people on here like to let TfL and/or bus operators off the hook, while passengers continue to suffer from their machinations. Isn't there enough evidence by now of the contempt in which bus passengers are held? "Some people on here"? I do hope I am not lumped into this nondescript group. I am as critical of TfL and operators as the next person - that usually earns me sneering remarks on here. However I have worked on the other side of the fence as I have explained multiple times. I'm also sufficiently aware that sometimes "sh*t happens" that no operator can instantly cope with. Routes can run brilliantly and then they can be dire - things change for a wide variety of reasons. Some are within the operator's control - staffing, vehicles, reliability, maintenance etc. Others are not such as accidents, road works, incidents elsewhere on the transport network causing a diversion of demand to routes that don't normally have such loadings. That can cause all sorts of unanticipated delays that the driver and controller have to cope with. Sometimes schedules aren't as good as they could be, sometimes TfL won't sanction extra resources if a route is going to be retendered. Similarly operators won't fund extra resource if they won't recoup the cost via better performance payments. The system is not perfect and will never deliver perfect 100% reliable services. If recognising the reality of life and the system makes me an "apologist" (on your definition) then so be it. I didn't mean you particularly.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Dec 14, 2018 23:26:04 GMT
Glad you're so sure. Doesn't really put my mind at rest. I think some people on here like to let TfL and/or bus operators off the hook, while passengers continue to suffer from their machinations. Isn't there enough evidence by now of the contempt in which bus passengers are held? "Some people on here"? I do hope I am not lumped into this nondescript group. I am as critical of TfL and operators as the next person - that usually earns me sneering remarks on here. However I have worked on the other side of the fence as I have explained multiple times. I'm also sufficiently aware that sometimes "sh*t happens" that no operator can instantly cope with. Routes can run brilliantly and then they can be dire - things change for a wide variety of reasons. Some are within the operator's control - staffing, vehicles, reliability, maintenance etc. Others are not such as accidents, road works, incidents elsewhere on the transport network causing a diversion of demand to routes that don't normally have such loadings. That can cause all sorts of unanticipated delays that the driver and controller have to cope with. Sometimes schedules aren't as good as they could be, sometimes TfL won't sanction extra resources if a route is going to be retendered. Similarly operators won't fund extra resource if they won't recoup the cost via better performance payments. The system is not perfect and will never deliver perfect 100% reliable services. If recognising the reality of life and the system makes me an "apologist" (on your definition) then so be it. Agreed. I may differ from TfL over all sorts of things, but I really don't think they would instruct an operator to run a route badly. If this did happen and it ever came out, I think those involved would have more trouble than they could ever imagine.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Feb 13, 2019 12:37:04 GMT
The consultation report has been published but the decision deferred until 'spring', with TfL apparently needing more time to 'consider alternative proposals' - what should be read into this? Interesting that there is no mention of the bus stop part of the proposals and that they still think the 384 is underused since they reduced it to 3 buses per hour (do they not see how reducing frequency actually leads to reduced usage?): Dear Stakeholder Between 10 September and 9 November 2018, we consulted on proposals for changes to bus routes 384, 292 and 606. We received 1,378 responses (including 18 stakeholder responses). Thank you to all those you provided their views – we appreciate your patience in waiting for our reply. Of the 1,378 public responses, we identified the following key themes of support and opposition to the proposed changes Supportive themes · Proposals would provide a quicker connection from New Barnet to Edgware via public transport Opposing issues Concern about older people and less mobile people being able to walk 450+ metres to access the 384 or alternatives Concern that the backroads of New Barnet would be left unserved by local bus routes Concern about the appropriateness of roads that would be used by an extended and more direct 384 Victoria Road Salisbury Road Park Road Station Road Concern that a reduced 292 service would result in a longer journey time and Borehamwood being disadvantaged We received rich and varied feedback from many local people and key stakeholders throughout the consultation. Views expressed included concerns with our current proposals for the routes as well as a number of alternative suggestions that would still allow for an extension to Edgware. We are considering and reviewing the proposals again in light of this feedback and we will conclude our findings this Spring. If we develop alternative proposals, these may be subject to further consultation. For more details including a full consultation report, please go to: consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-384/. Yours faithfully Zoe Murphy Local Communities & Partnerships Transport for London
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 13, 2019 17:00:57 GMT
The consultation report has been published but the decision deferred until 'spring', with TfL apparently needing more time to 'consider alternative proposals' - what should be read into this? I'd say the local campaigning has at least made TfL take pause and go back to the drawing board. In that sense it's a small but significant victory. I wouldn't like to predict the conclusion but my guess is that TfL are going back to see if they can flex the budget somehow to perhaps keep the 384 intact *and* extend it to Edgware. I don't see the cut to the 292 being reversed as that's depdendent on HCC and there's no money coming from there to keep the 292 at current frequencies in the longer term. I don't know Barnet well enough to work out if there is some other combination that is feasible - such as taking part of the 384 route and adding it to another route and using the rump of the 384 as the basis for a new route through to Edgware. There aren't any obvious candidates that match up on frequency - the 383/9/99 are all the wrong frequency or too limited in scope to provide a suitable alternative to the 384. Sending on the 326 to Edgware would make it very long, prone to delays and it's overly frequent. In a sense, and it won't happen, the best thing to do would be to restructure the local Barnet network completely.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 13, 2019 17:32:22 GMT
The consultation report has been published but the decision deferred until 'spring', with TfL apparently needing more time to 'consider alternative proposals' - what should be read into this? I'd say the local campaigning has at least made TfL take pause and go back to the drawing board. In that sense it's a small but significant victory. I wouldn't like to predict the conclusion but my guess is that TfL are going back to see if they can flex the budget somehow to perhaps keep the 384 intact *and* extend it to Edgware. I don't see the cut to the 292 being reversed as that's depdendent on HCC and there's no money coming from there to keep the 292 at current frequencies in the longer term. I don't know Barnet well enough to work out if there is some other combination that is feasible - such as taking part of the 384 route and adding it to another route and using the rump of the 384 as the basis for a new route through to Edgware. There aren't any obvious candidates that match up on frequency - the 383/9/99 are all the wrong frequency or too limited in scope to provide a suitable alternative to the 384. Sending on the 326 to Edgware would make it very long, prone to delays and it's overly frequent. In a sense, and it won't happen, the best thing to do would be to restructure the local Barnet network completely. Or perhaps an Edgware route could instead be extended to Barnet? Maybe reroute the 288 to operate between Barnet and Queensbury, then extend the 303 from Edgware to Broadfields?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 13:36:33 GMT
I'd say the local campaigning has at least made TfL take pause and go back to the drawing board. In that sense it's a small but significant victory. I wouldn't like to predict the conclusion but my guess is that TfL are going back to see if they can flex the budget somehow to perhaps keep the 384 intact *and* extend it to Edgware. I don't see the cut to the 292 being reversed as that's depdendent on HCC and there's no money coming from there to keep the 292 at current frequencies in the longer term. I don't know Barnet well enough to work out if there is some other combination that is feasible - such as taking part of the 384 route and adding it to another route and using the rump of the 384 as the basis for a new route through to Edgware. There aren't any obvious candidates that match up on frequency - the 383/9/99 are all the wrong frequency or too limited in scope to provide a suitable alternative to the 384. Sending on the 326 to Edgware would make it very long, prone to delays and it's overly frequent. In a sense, and it won't happen, the best thing to do would be to restructure the local Barnet network completely. Or perhaps an Edgware route could instead be extended to Barnet? Maybe reroute the 288 to operate between Barnet and Queensbury, then extend the 303 from Edgware to Broadfields? I am sure there is a reason but logically the 389 and 399 should be one route.
The 383 I feel could be the underused link, maybe I'm wrong? It is a short route an there is potential there.
I quite like the idea of putting the 303 at Broadfields, however the 288 at every 10mins is not in the right form to be extended to Barnet.
Basically a new direct Barnet - Edgware link would be good however I'm not sure any local route in its current form works, 614 excluded.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Feb 14, 2019 15:38:08 GMT
The consultation report has been published but the decision deferred until 'spring', with TfL apparently needing more time to 'consider alternative proposals' - what should be read into this? I'd say the local campaigning has at least made TfL take pause and go back to the drawing board. In that sense it's a small but significant victory. I wouldn't like to predict the conclusion but my guess is that TfL are going back to see if they can flex the budget somehow to perhaps keep the 384 intact *and* extend it to Edgware. I don't see the cut to the 292 being reversed as that's depdendent on HCC and there's no money coming from there to keep the 292 at current frequencies in the longer term. I don't know Barnet well enough to work out if there is some other combination that is feasible - such as taking part of the 384 route and adding it to another route and using the rump of the 384 as the basis for a new route through to Edgware. There aren't any obvious candidates that match up on frequency - the 383/9/99 are all the wrong frequency or too limited in scope to provide a suitable alternative to the 384. Sending on the 326 to Edgware would make it very long, prone to delays and it's overly frequent. In a sense, and it won't happen, the best thing to do would be to restructure the local Barnet network completely. Call me cynical, but there’s an election next year. Barnet swung massively to the Conservatives in the local government elections last year and it wouldn’t surprise me if we see TfL adopt a less aggressive approach to consultation responses overall in the run up.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 14, 2019 15:47:33 GMT
Call me cynical, but there’s an election next year. Barnet swung massively to the Conservatives in the local government elections last year and it wouldn’t surprise me if we see TfL adopt a less aggressive approach to consultation responses overall in the run up. Hello Cynical, how are you today??
|
|