|
Post by danorak on Oct 29, 2018 21:16:12 GMT
Although not for TfL, I do know people who have had to analyse consultation responses. The advice is keep the reply short, focused and relevant. Concentrate on answering the question. Long flowery responses are a nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 30, 2018 20:38:06 GMT
Diamond Geezer's witty and pertinent use of the English language is fantastic. I especially love: 'It must be horrible to have a bus go past your house when you're a misery who'd never dream of catching one.' So exactly on-point as a description of some people's attitude to local buses, and believe me I've heard the full spectrum of views while out campaigning on this issue. I may or may not have made a cameo in DG's tale of his journey on the twiddly but valuable 384 bus.... ahem! Please, no photographs! :-) I wonder which person he was? He also skilfully and succinctly puts across the all the main points and arguments, while clearly recognising the value of the route on all the currently-served roads in Barnet. The only part I'm not sure I agree with is that people shouldn't 'go diving in if this isn't [their] fight'. Of course, people who know and use the route are best placed to respond to the consultation, and of course no one has the time to respond to every consultation that doesn't affect them. But anyone who supports local bus services and is worried that this if this one passes, it will serve as a precedent to justify removing all the 'twiddly' sections of routes in London (can a major railway station and an entire high street really also count as part of a 'twiddle', I wonder?), you might as well write a paragraph or two if you have the time. Or simply take two seconds to sign the petition: www.change.org/p/tfl-consultations-save-the-384-bus-routeI think that every objection must go some way to making it dawn on TfL that people won't stand for their counterproductive 'cuts at all costs' programme forever - eventually there will be a tipping point. And if you happen to be a 'distant bus fetishist sending in crayoned maps detailing how [you'd] run things better' :-), you might as well send one in to TfL about this issue (see my suggestions earlier in the thread for an extended 240 or 340, or a more direct residential route for the 384 extension that could mean it would get to Edgware from Barnet quicker and thus potentially be able to keep serving all the Barnet roads). After all, the bureaucrats at TfL clearly don't know the area or the journeys that people need to make using the 384 either - their proposals are very much based on 'getting the crayons out' (straight lines seem to be en vogue and 'twiddles' dreadfully passé - because after all, those twiddles were designed by someone who had the audacity to know what they were doing in terms of a bus route that would take people in a very hilly area where they actually need and want to go). PS: A tip for Diamond Geezer if you're reading: If you ever find yourself in the Barnet area again and the 384 hasn't been extended, simply take that weird and wonderful-looking purple double-decker 614 bus westbound from The Spires stop or Wood Street/Union Street, and you will be whisked to Edgware in no time at all vs the 107/292 palaver. Ok, it's only every 30 minutes, possibly hourly (?) on Saturdays and in the evening, and not at all on Sundays, and doesn't take Oyster cards, but you can even get to Edgware Community Hopsital, Burnt Oak and as far as Queensbury for the price of your ticket - joy unabounded! Or make a day (ticket) of it and take the same bus in the other direction, braving the wilds of rural Hertfordshire (well, the A1 (M)) and savouring the delights of the University of Hertfordshire and Hatfield town!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 20:44:12 GMT
Diamond Geezer's witty and pertinent use of the English language is fantastic. I especially love: 'It must be horrible to have a bus go past your house when you're a misery who'd never dream of catching one.' So exactly on-point as a description of some people's attitude to local buses, and believe me I've heard the full spectrum of views while out campaigning on this issue. I may or may not have made a cameo in DG's tale of his journey on the twiddly but valuable 384 bus.... ahem! Please, no photographs! :-) I wonder which person he was? He also skilfully and succinctly puts across the all the main points and arguments, while clearly recognising the value of the route on all the currently-served roads in Barnet. The only part I'm not sure I agree with is that people shouldn't 'go diving if this isn't [their] fight'. Of course, people who know and use the route are best placed to respond to the consultation, and of course no one has the time to respond to every consultation that doesn't affect them. But anyone who supports local bus services and is worried that this if this one passes, it will serve as a precedent to justify removing all the 'twiddly' sections of routes in London (can a major railway station and an entire high street really also count as part of a 'twiddle', I wonder?), you might as well write a paragraph or two if you have the time. Or simply take two seconds to sign the petition: www.change.org/p/tfl-consultations-save-the-384-bus-routeI think that every objection must go some way to making it dawn on TfL that people won't stand for their counterproductive 'cuts at all costs' programme forever - eventually there will be a tipping point. And if you happen to be a 'distant bus fetishist sending in crayoned maps detailing how [you'd] run things better' :-), you might as well send one in to TfL about this issue (see my suggestions earlier in the thread for an extended 240 or 340, or a more direct route for the 384 that could mean it would be quicker and thus able to keep serving all the Barnet roads). After all, the bureaucrats at TfL clearly don't know the area or the journeys that people need to make using the 384 either - their proposals are very much based on 'getting the crayons out' (straight lines seem to be en vogue and 'twiddles' dreadfully passé - because after all, those twiddles were designed by someone who had the audacity to know what they were doing in terms of a bus route that would take people where they actually need and want to go). PS: A tip for Diamond Geezer if you're reading: If you ever find yourself in the Barnet area again and the 384 hasn't been extended, simply take that weird and wonderful-looking purple double-decker bus westbound from The Spires stop or Wood Street/Union Street, and you will be whisked to Edgware in no time at all vs the 107/292 palaver. Ok, it's only every 30 minutes, possibly hourly (?) on Saturdays and in the evening, and not at all on Sundays, and doesn't take Oyster cards, but you can even get to Edgware Community Hopsital, Burnt Oak and as far as Queensbury for the price of your ticket - joy unabounded! Or make a day (ticket) of it and take the same bus in the other direction, braving the wilds of rural Hertfordshire (well, the A1 (M)) and savouring the delights of the University of Hertfordshire and Hatfield town! Couldn't have put it better
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 30, 2018 23:25:32 GMT
After all, the bureaucrats at TfL clearly don't know the area or the journeys that people need to make using the 384 either - their proposals are very much based on 'getting the crayons out' (straight lines seem to be en vogue and 'twiddles' dreadfully passé - because after all, those twiddles were designed by someone who had the audacity to know what they were doing in terms of a bus route that would take people in a very hilly area where they actually need and want to go). I think you are in danger of making a serious mistake here. You say that it is "bureaucrats" who now endanger the 384 bus but the route was designed by "someone who knew what they were doing". It is actually perfectly possible that entirely the same analytical process has been used and even the same people are involved now as back then. If you pull your criticism down to people rather than understanding the process and the policy backdrop coupled with whatever the prevailing circumstances were in the 1990s and what they are now then you will make a mistake. Without wishing to tell you stuff you probably know the 384's history is one of having more and more "twiddly bits" added. It started off relatively simply but became ever more convoluted in the 1990s. It's then been broadly stable for 20 years. In those 20 years patronage has barely grown - it's been static around the 750k-800k pass jnys a year level which is very much against the prevailing trend on the TfL network over that same time period. Some of that will reflect the fact that Barnet is not exactly the busiest place on earth, it's very much car territory and there hasn't been growth in housing in Barnet in that time so the population growth is unlikely to have been there to fuel more demand. When you throw in the prevailing trends about how and when people shop, revised leisure activities etc etc then much as it pains me to say it I can see why TfL have put the 384 in the "requires attention" category. If TfL's funds were not in such a poor state I strongly suspect TfL might have been perfectly happy to leave the 384 as is "with twiddly bits" and just tack on the extension to Edgware. However the changed funding framework and the objectives have forced their hand. I assume someone, somewhere has been campaigning for a through TfL bus from Edgware to Barnet that doesn't involve the long drag via Elstree? What drives that campaign and how has it managed to somehow gain TfL's attention when the order of the day elsewhere is to require people to change buses rather than provide direct links? The further question is why TfL feel it necessary to put its own service on alongside the 614 which provides a modest level of service on the required corridor at zero cost to TfL. If anyone knows the answers to these questions then they'd be half way to getting into TfL's thinking about the 384 proposal. I also think you are wrong to assume that TfL have not pored over months and months of data to see precisely where people have got on and off buses, how many invidual passes and Oyster Cards are used on the route and how often they are used. Obviously it will not be pin point precise due to the extensive Hail and Ride sections but I suspect surveyors have been out on the buses quietly collecting relevant information. They will have done all of this and they will have tried to assess the impact of the revised route on PTALs (public transport accessibility levels) and walking distances etc. They will also have analysed how much capacity is "spare" on routes like the 326. OK they haven't published all this but it will have been done and all the benefits and disbenefits analysed, understood and a business case prepared. To imagine a "no nothing bureaucrat" has sat with a bottle of Tippex and just crossed out the 384 on an old bus map is to not understand how TfL approach this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 31, 2018 0:05:57 GMT
After all, the bureaucrats at TfL clearly don't know the area or the journeys that people need to make using the 384 either - their proposals are very much based on 'getting the crayons out' (straight lines seem to be en vogue and 'twiddles' dreadfully passé - because after all, those twiddles were designed by someone who had the audacity to know what they were doing in terms of a bus route that would take people in a very hilly area where they actually need and want to go). I think you are in danger of making a serious mistake here. You say that it is "bureaucrats" who now endanger the 384 bus but the route was designed by "someone who knew what they were doing". It is actually perfectly possible that entirely the same analytical process has been used and even the same people are involved now as back then. If you pull your criticism down to people rather than understanding the process and the policy backdrop coupled with whatever the prevailing circumstances were in the 1990s and what they are now then you will make a mistake. Without wishing to tell you stuff you probably know the 384's history is one of having more and more "twiddly bits" added. It started off relatively simply but became ever more convoluted in the 1990s. It's then been broadly stable for 20 years. In those 20 years patronage has barely grown - it's been static around the 750k-800k pass jnys a year level which is very much against the prevailing trend on the TfL network over that same time period. Some of that will reflect the fact that Barnet is not exactly the busiest place on earth, it's very much car territory and there hasn't been growth in housing in Barnet in that time so the population growth is unlikely to have been there to fuel more demand. When you throw in the prevailing trends about how and when people shop, revised leisure activities etc etc then much as it pains me to say it I can see why TfL have put the 384 in the "requires attention" category. If TfL's funds were not in such a poor state I strongly suspect TfL might have been perfectly happy to leave the 384 as is "with twiddly bits" and just tack on the extension to Edgware. However the changed funding framework and the objectives have forced their hand. I assume someone, somewhere has been campaigning for a through TfL bus from Edgware to Barnet that doesn't involve the long drag via Elstree? What drives that campaign and how has it managed to somehow gain TfL's attention when the order of the day elsewhere is to require people to change buses rather than provide direct links? The further question is why TfL feel it necessary to put its own service on alongside the 614 which provides a modest level of service on the required corridor at zero cost to TfL. If anyone knows the answers to these questions then they'd be half way to getting into TfL's thinking about the 384 proposal. I also think you are wrong to assume that TfL have not pored over months and months of data to see precisely where people have got on and off buses, how many invidual passes and Oyster Cards are used on the route and how often they are used. Obviously it will not be pin point precise due to the extensive Hail and Ride sections but I suspect surveyors have been out on the buses quietly collecting relevant information. They will have done all of this and they will have tried to assess the impact of the revised route on PTALs (public transport accessibility levels) and walking distances etc. They will also have analysed how much capacity is "spare" on routes like the 326. OK they haven't published all this but it will have been done and all the benefits and disbenefits analysed, understood and a business case prepared. To imagine a "no nothing bureaucrat" has sat with a bottle of Tippex and just crossed out the 384 on an old bus map is to not understand how TfL approach this stuff. You make some interesting points. I am liaising with someone at TfL in order to try and 'pin them down' as you suggest. My understanding is that they have done an EIA and apparently have also collected trip data, but they have not so far chosen to release either. How accurately can they now ascertain where people get OFF the bus as well as on? They also talk a lot about a 'CRM database' and having contacted passengers via this. What is this and would it include the data of the many Freedom Pass users of the route? If not, that would be a serious oversight in terms of eliciting a truly representative response to the consultation. I find it difficult to accept that TfL have been as thorough in terms of the planning aspect of this consultation as you suggest, when the implementation aspect of the consultation has been so shoddy: failing to leaflet any side roads off the current route; failing to leaflet the northern section of Salisbury Road, which would host a new section of the route, so that the consultation had to be extended by two weeks once this error was realised; choosing not to correct the deadline date on any of the bus stops (they still have the wrong date) and indeed not correcting it online until this error was pointed out to them by a local councillor; and, not least, constructing a highly misleading, dishonest question as the main survey question, which allows them to massage the results to count all respondents that would like an extension to Edgware as also implicitly supporting the removal of the 384 from roads in Barnet, when this may very well not be the case and when the survey does not ask a question relating to that. You will notice that the most twiddly section of the route of all (the Westbrook Crescent loop) is proposed to remain intact. Here there is demand from pupils travelling to and from the Jewish Community Secondary School (established in 2010). Improving links between the school and pupils' homes in Edgware, is specifically mentioned on the consultation page, so this might give a big clue as to who or what is driving this. In fact, the consultation has been proving very divisive for community relations, with many people I've spoken to believing that TfL consider some journeys (those of JCoSS pupils) to be more important than others (those of people that have used the 384 in Barnet since the route was established). It is hard to argue against this when in the same breath, TfL talk about making the route 'more direct' between town centres. Going via Westbrook Crescent is nobody's idea of a direct route between New Barnet and Cockfosters, and indeed New Barnet town centre (East Barnet Road) would be bypassed entirely in favour of a quicker route to the school. Further, TfL also want to remove a journey each way on the school service 606. While JCoSS pupils do use this bus, it is mainly designed for pupils of the Totteridge Academy, whose school is remote from any other bus service and is nowhere near either the current or proposed 384 route. Quite why TfL cannot create a school service for JCoSS pupils instead of altering the 384 to make their only twice-daily journeys marginally quicker, is unclear.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 31, 2018 0:52:20 GMT
They also talk a lot about a 'CRM database' and having contacted passengers via this. What is this and would it include the data of the many Freedom Pass users of the route? If not, that would be a serious oversight in terms of eliciting a truly representative response to the consultation. I find it difficult to accept that TfL have been as thorough in terms of the planning aspect of this consultation as you suggest, when the implementation aspect of the consultation has been so shoddy: failing to leaflet any side roads off the current route; failing to leaflet the northern section of Salisbury Road, which would host a new section of the route, so that the consultation had to be extended by two weeks once this error was realised; choosing not to correct the deadline date on any of the bus stops (they still have the wrong date) and indeed not correcting it online until this error was pointed out to them by a local councillor; and, not least, constructing a highly misleading, dishonest question as the main survey question, which allows them to massage the results to count all respondents that would like an extension to Edgware as also implicitly supporting the removal of the 384 from roads in Barnet, when this may very well not be the case and when the survey does not ask a question relating to that. "CRM" is Customer Relationship Management - in other words where people have set up a TfL account for their registered Oyster or Contactless Bank Cards. TfL will have the E mail address of the customer as a minimum and may well have a home address. I'll be honest and say it was so long ago that I set mine up I can't remember if they have my address or not. When I was using that Oyster Card regularly I would receive "tailored" E mails relative to the services I used the most. Nowadays hardly anything turns up because I have a different pass that cannot be registered on a TfL account. I believe that is also true for Freedom Pass users but TfL may well have rights to some Freedom Pass data via London Councils or the relevant Borough. I can't believe TfL would have sought to ignore Freedom Pass users of the 384 given they must form a decent proportion of the ridership. I would caution that the people who handle the consultation process are not necessarily the same people who do the service planning. Don't make assumptions that because one bit of the process may not have been wonderfully handled that the rest is somehow flawed. You need to be open to a wider range of possibilities to get behind how this issue has been approached. Just because this place is an "echo chamber" for people who think they can all do a better job than TfL doesn't make that right. I'm just as critical of TfL as many others *but* I have the advantage of having worked for them and their predecessors for a long time even if I never planned a bus route for them. However I know people who did work in buses and who are very experienced as to how things work. I know how methodical and analytical TfL can be so it is simply dangerous to assume that because you disagree with them that somehow they are useless. You are seriously underestimating their ability to come back with a plethora of facts, data and analysis that could crush any argument. I suspect the really big issue here is to make the whole exercise politically poisonous for the Mayor. That is how the battle of the 424 was won - something very similar to the 384 plan. Greg Hands, the local Tory MP and Minister of State, clearly made the issue utterly politically toxic for Boris as Mayor and given the risks around the Putney constituency as well as parts of Wandsworth it was clear these things had some influence even if it was never stated publicly. I doubt the same scenario can be constructed for Barnet given Teresa Villiers is not the same party as the Mayor or Assembly Member Dismore. That's where it's difficult for you (and others) as a local campaigner to create the requisite political "poison" for the Mayor although I may be missing some relevant local factors as I'm not "on the ground".
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 31, 2018 1:25:37 GMT
They also talk a lot about a 'CRM database' and having contacted passengers via this. What is this and would it include the data of the many Freedom Pass users of the route? If not, that would be a serious oversight in terms of eliciting a truly representative response to the consultation. I find it difficult to accept that TfL have been as thorough in terms of the planning aspect of this consultation as you suggest, when the implementation aspect of the consultation has been so shoddy: failing to leaflet any side roads off the current route; failing to leaflet the northern section of Salisbury Road, which would host a new section of the route, so that the consultation had to be extended by two weeks once this error was realised; choosing not to correct the deadline date on any of the bus stops (they still have the wrong date) and indeed not correcting it online until this error was pointed out to them by a local councillor; and, not least, constructing a highly misleading, dishonest question as the main survey question, which allows them to massage the results to count all respondents that would like an extension to Edgware as also implicitly supporting the removal of the 384 from roads in Barnet, when this may very well not be the case and when the survey does not ask a question relating to that. "CRM" is Customer Relationship Management - in other words where people have set up a TfL account for their registered Oyster or Contactless Bank Cards. TfL will have the E mail address of the customer as a minimum and may well have a home address. I'll be honest and say it was so long ago that I set mine up I can't remember if they have my address or not. When I was using that Oyster Card regularly I would receive "tailored" E mails relative to the services I used the most. Nowadays hardly anything turns up because I have a different pass that cannot be registered on a TfL account. I believe that is also true for Freedom Pass users but TfL may well have rights to some Freedom Pass data via London Councils or the relevant Borough. I can't believe TfL would have sought to ignore Freedom Pass users of the 384 given they must form a decent proportion of the ridership. I would caution that the people who handle the consultation process are not necessarily the same people who do the service planning. Don't make assumptions that because one bit of the process may not have been wonderfully handled that the rest is somehow flawed. You need to be open to a wider range of possibilities to get behind how this issue has been approached. Just because this place is an "echo chamber" for people who think they can all do a better job than TfL doesn't make that right. I'm just as critical of TfL as many others *but* I have the advantage of having worked for them and their predecessors for a long time even if I never planned a bus route for them. However I know people who did work in buses and who are very experienced as to how things work. I know how methodical and analytical TfL can be so it is simply dangerous to assume that because you disagree with them that somehow they are useless. You are seriously underestimating their ability to come back with a plethora of facts, data and analysis that could crush any argument. I suspect the really big issue here is to make the whole exercise politically poisonous for the Mayor. That is how the battle of the 424 was won - something very similar to the 384 plan. Greg Hands, the local Tory MP and Minister of State, clearly made the issue utterly politically toxic for Boris as Mayor and given the risks around the Putney constituency as well as parts of Wandsworth it was clear these things had some influence even if it was never stated publicly. I doubt the same scenario can be constructed for Barnet given Teresa Villiers is not the same party as the Mayor or Assembly Member Dismore. That's where it's difficult for you (and others) as a local campaigner to create the requisite political "poison" for the Mayor although I may be missing some relevant local factors as I'm not "on the ground". Your advice is always useful and interesting, so thanks. Do you know whether TfL can now accurately measure where people alight as well as board, especially for a route that is probably at least 2/3 hail-and-ride? I think what you say about making the whole thing politically poisonous for the Mayor is key (but does he care? Isn't the central London cuts consultation equally poisonous?). I have some ideas about this that perhaps I could PM you if you have the time? I would be very grateful for any advice you can give. Interestingly, we seem to have successfully galvanised not only the Labour London Assembly Member and the local Labour councillors (one councillor in particular is working extremely hard on this), but also at least one of the local Conservative councillors and the Conservative MP: Theresa Villiers (see on her website where she asked a question about the consultation in Parliament last week). It is encouraging to have support across the political spectrum, as it should be an issue that goes beyond party politics, and hopefully this will make our case that much stronger. This Thursday 1st November at 2:00 pm, campaigners will also be attending City Hall, in order to pass the paper version of our main petition to Andrew Dismore, who will then pass it on to the Mayor. We are going to leave the online version active a little longer, so people can still sign up until nearer the consultation deadline on 9 November. If you add up all the signatures for the online petition, the paper one, and others with slightly different focuses, we have upwards of 1500 signatures. I was also encouraged to hear from my contact at TfL that they have so far received c. 900 responses to the consultation, compared to the c. 18000 people they contacted. If these are assumed to be the same people, that makes a response rate of 1/20 (5%), which I think might be fairly encouraging from our perspective?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 31, 2018 11:13:15 GMT
Your advice is always useful and interesting, so thanks. Do you know whether TfL can now accurately measure where people alight as well as board, especially for a route that is probably at least 2/3 hail-and-ride? I think what you say about making the whole thing politically poisonous for the Mayor is key (but does he care? Isn't the central London cuts consultation equally poisonous?). I have some ideas about this that perhaps I could PM you if you have the time? I would be very grateful for any advice you can give. Interestingly, we seem to have successfully galvanised not only the Labour London Assembly Member and the local Labour councillors (one councillor in particular is working extremely hard on this), but also at least one of the local Conservative councillors and the Conservative MP: Theresa Villiers (see on her website where she asked a question about the consultation in Parliament last week). It is encouraging to have support across the political spectrum, as it should be an issue that goes beyond party politics, and hopefully this will make our case that much stronger. This Thursday 1st November at 2:00 pm, campaigners will also be attending City Hall, in order to pass the paper version of our main petition to Andrew Dismore, who will then pass it on to the Mayor. We are going to leave the online version active a little longer, so people can still sign up until nearer the consultation deadline on 9 November. If you add up all the signatures for the online petition, the paper one, and others with slightly different focuses, we have upwards of 1500 signatures. I was also encouraged to hear from my contact at TfL that they have so far received c. 900 responses to the consultation, compared to the c. 18000 people they contacted. If these are assumed to be the same people, that makes a response rate of 1/20 (5%), which I think might be fairly encouraging from our perspective? Not sure why Ms Villiers is wasting parliamentary time about a TfL consultation. Is that to make her look good? "I raised this in Parliament" - bully for you love! She'd do far better going to see the Mayor in person along with other politicians to make the case face to face and to raise concerns over the consultation with him. Parliament has no jurisdiction over TfL and the minutiae of bus changes. Let me spin your last statistic another way - "TfL spent thousands of pounds leafleting the area covered by the bus route. We delivered over 18,000 leaflets and yet 95% of those contacted didn't respond. We leave you to draw your own conclusions about whether this was a worthwhile use of scarce public money and whether the residents of Barnet really care about their bus services. Furthermore our analysis shows that even the 900 responses we did get are only "x" (where x is a small number) percent of people who actually use the 384 bus". Now OK I'm being a little brutal there but that's precisely how TfL could spin the response data. Also worth noting that petitions are routinely ignored by TfL in how they judge the weight of feeling about a change proposal. I therefore wonder why people are even bothering with petitions given TfL's stance. Sorry but it seems a bit pointless to me. In terms of alighting data then what TfL do is "impute" where people get off by looking at journey patterns to see where people later board the same bus route. I fully recognise that on hail and ride it is difficult but the bus ETM updates with stop positions (including pseudo stops or hesitation points) as the bus moves along a route. Therefore each validation of a card or pass is recorded against a stop code or route section on hail and ride routes. While it can never be pin point accurate to a specific address on a hail and ride route the simple fact of the matter is that most H&R routes have regular stopping places where people board and alight. The drivers know where all these places and any TfL surveyor would not need long to work out where on each road the "usual" stop is. Looking at LVF I note that the 384 has a lot of named Hail and Ride timing points so TfL will get rather more defined data for the 384 than other routes. Given some of the stop codes are in the 9xxxx series this means they are relatively recent additions which suggests to me they did this to get rather better boarding data. If Mrs Smith gets on Lyonsdown Road H&R section TfL will know where that is and let's assume she gets off in Barnet town centre. Assuming she later gets back on in Barnet town centre and alights on the same road then TfL will look at the timings and impute that Mrs Smith made a return trip from the Lyonsdown Rd H&R section to the town centre. That's just the same as they will do for my little return trip from the Bell to the Bakers Arms yesterday afternoon - the only difference being I boarded at defined stops which will be in the data. As an aside I was once yelled at by a 384 driver because I had the temerity to wait for a 384 opposite the stand at New Barnet Station. I wanted to get to Cockfosters and I thought it was a sensible place to wait. When the 384 eventually turned up I stuck my hand and the driver deigned to stop but gave me a right old mouthful as to how that was not a regular stopping point and how I should have trekked round the corner and past the railway bridge to catch the bus. How the heck was I supposed to know all that as a non local? I assumed that a stop opposite a normal TfL stop would be perfectly sensible. You can send me a DM if you wish but I'm not a seasoned campaigner and TfL never pay any attention to anything I put in consultations so you may be asking the wrong person!
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Nov 1, 2018 0:55:58 GMT
Thank you Snoggle - informative and useful as ever. I'll try and send you a DM this evening (Thursday), just in case you might be able to give some advice on a particular sensitive aspect of this whole thing, which I'm struggling with.
If I'm understanding you correctly, TfL don't actually KNOW where people get off either a hail-and-ride or a fixed stop section of a route, they just make an educated assumption in the way you describe, which has a fairly high chance of being correct?
I know that TfL will spin the consultation responses how they want to (you only have to look at the misleading main survey question to know that). But personally, do you think a 5% response rate is good, bad, or average? It seems fairly typical to me, as people have to really care even to take any notice of the leaflet/email (and some of the people contacted are business and other organisations, who may feel it is somehow not their place to reply), but I'm not sure.
Regarding your grumpy driver encounter, I had one myself today: 'No flyers on my bus!' Most of the day shift are really pleasant and it seems like they support our campaign, but I think once darkness falls the later shift are primed to expect trouble, even if none is meant.
You were correct of course: the hail-and-ride post on Station Approach opposite New Barnet Station towards Cockfosters is indeed a defined, announced stopping place, and it should really be hail-and-ride all the way down to the junction with Station Road. Unfortunately, the post is usually obscured by cars parked in front of it (there is also a gentle curve of the road), so the bus can't pull in there - another question: do buses need to be able to pull in for TfL to consider a hail-and-ride stopping place safe enough (obviously what the driver thinks is another matter), as clearly not all fixed stops are pull-in and buses stop in the middle of traffic at those?
In this case, locals know to board (or press the bell in time to alight) slightly further up the hill and slightly to the south of opposite the station entrance, where there are no cars allowed to park it seems. Because of this confusion of having a hail-and-ride post in a location that the bus won't stop, I have previously asked TfL whether they would consider moving the post further south to where the bus does stop. They said they would be liaising with the London Borough of Barnet, with a view to doing this, but I have heard nothing since. It may sadly become academic if the 384 does get diverted away from New Barnet station, as none of the other buses serve that side of Station Approach, or indeed York Road at all.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Nov 9, 2018 6:35:12 GMT
The consultation being conducted by Transport for London proposing the removal of the 384 bus from roads in High, New and East Barnet ends TODAY (Friday 9 November) - last chance to get your views in and save the 384 bus! You can either: - complete the survey at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-384/- email: consultations@tfl.gov.uk (referring to the 384 bus consultation) - write to: FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS (referring to the 384 bus consultation) - have your response taken down over the telephone by calling: 0343 222 1155 (local rate charged). This number comes through to the (TfL) customer services team who will record the comments and pass them onto the Consultation Team. PS: Sorry for lack of PMs to people - the particular situation I needed help with seems to have resolved itself, but hopefully you would be happy for me to PM again if there is anything else I need help with? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Nov 10, 2018 17:51:00 GMT
The consultation being conducted by Transport for London proposing the removal of the 384 bus from roads in High, New and East Barnet ends TODAY (Friday 9 November) - last chance to get your views in and save the 384 bus! You can either: - complete the survey at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-384/- email: consultations@tfl.gov.uk (referring to the 384 bus consultation) - write to: FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS (referring to the 384 bus consultation) - have your response taken down over the telephone by calling: 0343 222 1155 (local rate charged). This number comes through to the (TfL) customer services team who will record the comments and pass them onto the Consultation Team. PS: Sorry for lack of PMs to people - the particular situation I needed help with seems to have resolved itself, but hopefully you would be happy for me to PM again if there is anything else I need help with? Thanks Tbh when TfL have their heart set on doing something, they normally do it. With the 303 consultation there was a negative response but that still went ahead, and here we are roughly 2 months after the change and the link is still broken and there is no plans to replace it, with the 303s patronage almost certainly much lower then before. Sadly TfL don't listen to the people, so it looks like the residents of Barnet will just be the next victims.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Nov 10, 2018 17:56:28 GMT
The consultation being conducted by Transport for London proposing the removal of the 384 bus from roads in High, New and East Barnet ends TODAY (Friday 9 November) - last chance to get your views in and save the 384 bus! You can either: - complete the survey at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-384/- email: consultations@tfl.gov.uk (referring to the 384 bus consultation) - write to: FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS (referring to the 384 bus consultation) - have your response taken down over the telephone by calling: 0343 222 1155 (local rate charged). This number comes through to the (TfL) customer services team who will record the comments and pass them onto the Consultation Team. PS: Sorry for lack of PMs to people - the particular situation I needed help with seems to have resolved itself, but hopefully you would be happy for me to PM again if there is anything else I need help with? Thanks Tbh when TfL have their heart set on doing something, they normally do it. With the 303 consultation there was a negative response but that still went ahead, and here we are roughly 2 months after the change and the link is still broken and there is no plans to replace it, with the 303s patronage almost certainly much lower then before. Sadly TfL don't listen to the people, so it looks like the residents of Barnet will just be the next victims. I'm not particularly optimistic but I know that we've done absolutely everything we can to try to keep the 384 on the roads it currently serves in Barnet, and there has been a huge groundswell of opposition with a very high number of personal responses and involvement from local politicians and the London Assembly member. In contrast, mostly because it was badly handled by TfL in terms of publicising it and also because of the somewhat different demographics of the affected area, many people weren't even aware of the 303 consultation until it was already over and a decision made. I have a slim hope that because of the furore over the 303 broken links and now over the 384 proposed removed roads, TfL might decide to do something like I suggested to them and divert the 240 via Deansbrook and ECH and also extend it to Barnet, and leave the 384 alone. But of course the would have to be a new consultation.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Nov 10, 2018 18:07:23 GMT
Tbh when TfL have their heart set on doing something, they normally do it. With the 303 consultation there was a negative response but that still went ahead, and here we are roughly 2 months after the change and the link is still broken and there is no plans to replace it, with the 303s patronage almost certainly much lower then before. Sadly TfL don't listen to the people, so it looks like the residents of Barnet will just be the next victims. I'm not particularly optimistic but I know that we've done absolutely everything we can to try to keep the 384 on the roads it currently serves in Barnet, and there has been a huge groundswell of opposition with a very high number of personal responses and involvement from local politicians and the London Assembly member. In contrast, mostly because it was badly handled by TfL in terms of publicising it and also because of the somewhat different demographics of the affected area, many people weren't even aware of the 303 consultation until it was already over and a decision made. Maybe TfL will listen this time as when polititians got involved with the 13, they "extended" the route to North Finchley and "curtailed" the route to Victoria. I'm quite pessimistic about the 384 residents being listened to but there is a chance that they will be listened to.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Nov 10, 2018 18:12:02 GMT
I'm not particularly optimistic but I know that we've done absolutely everything we can to try to keep the 384 on the roads it currently serves in Barnet, and there has been a huge groundswell of opposition with a very high number of personal responses and involvement from local politicians and the London Assembly member. In contrast, mostly because it was badly handled by TfL in terms of publicising it and also because of the somewhat different demographics of the affected area, many people weren't even aware of the 303 consultation until it was already over and a decision made. Maybe TfL will listen this time as when polititians got involved with the 13, they "extended" the route to North Finchley and "curtailed" the route to Victoria. I'm quite pessimistic about the 384 residents being listened to but there is a chance that they will be listened to. I'm certainly not holding my breath for a good outcome, but I know that I would personally have felt worse if I hadn't fought like I have and always wondered 'what if?' It definitely won't be easy to pull the wool over the public's eyes on this though, as everyone is very aware of the tactics TfL use and there is no fudging removing those roads - either they're removed or they aren't, and if you keep one lot of roads, it stays as a 'round-the-houses' route rather than a trunk road route, so there is little justification for not keeping the other lots as well.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Nov 10, 2018 18:47:57 GMT
Maybe TfL will listen this time as when politicians got involved with the 13, they "extended" the route to North Finchley and "curtailed" the route to Victoria. I'm quite pessimistic about the 384 residents being listened to but there is a chance that they will be listened to. I'm certainly not holding my breath for a good outcome, but I know that I would personally have felt worse if I hadn't fought like I have and always wondered 'what if?' It definitely won't be easy to pull the wool over the public's eyes on this though, as everyone is very aware of the tactics TfL use and there is no fudging removing those roads - either they're removed or they aren't, and if you keep one lot of roads, it stays as a 'round-the-houses' route rather than a trunk road route, so there is little justification for not keeping the other lots as well. They'll probably say that 384 will be rerouted and that locals can use Dial-a-Ride. OR They'll tell locals to use the Elizabeth Line (I don't even know why I thought of this)
|
|