|
Post by uakari on Apr 24, 2020 13:54:20 GMT
This is appalling and I'm so angry.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Apr 24, 2020 13:58:32 GMT
Sadly it was a similar deal with the 303/305 changes - Now takes me 10-12 minutes to walk to Mill Hill Broadway to get the 221 or 240 to Edgware, or 6 minutes to Watling Avenue to get the 186 or 251, compared to 2 minutes to get the 303 - which allowed me to time it up with leaving the house, and it also took the most direct route for me. I like the fact there will now be a direct Edgware to Barnet link, but I feel the 292 suffering because of it shouldn't happen - I also think they could do more with the 384 at the Edgware end of the route i.e. route it via Mill Hill Broadway and Deansbrook Road replacing the old 303 link. I feel like at the Barnet end they should also maybe replace some of the worst affected 384 roads either with a re-route of the 234 or with the 389/399 having extra journeys added during the daytime and re-routed to serve some of the 384s roads. I think the 384 idea is a good idea, but TfL could of done a lot more thinking to make it more useful for existing and new users. The Edgware link is a nice idea but for me, it shouldn’t be at the cost of existing 384 users. Also, I could be wrong but it seems to me they’re slowly killing off the 107 & 292. I’m actually a bit confused as to why the 384 couldn’t simply stay as it is but extend to Edgware as most of its current route is away from traffic so I wouldn’t of thought reliability would be affected that much. Oh no I agree with you on that - I do think TfL could've gone better about this. Also I'm not surprised TfL are slowly killing off the 107 & 292 - HCC cut their funding for them and the 142/258 - I remember a few years ago there was a rumour they were going to fully withdraw the 107 and 258 and cut the 142 back from Watford Junction. Of course this did not happen because of the large opposition and back lash it got. But it seems the 107 and 292 are slowly being killed off by being hacked back. I agree though the 384 should be left as it is with the extension plonked on top - and also do more at the Edgware end like I mentioned, which would actually bring it closer to Edgware Community Hospital (Within walking distance of the Blood Transfusion Centre bus stop) so would actually link with their idea of linking hospitals! I feel like the plan should go ahead, but a revised plan that allows current users to remain happy (i.e. keeping it serving side roads) and also for the Edgware end to be amended to serve Mill Hill and Deansbrook Road as Hale Lane is already over-bussed anyway.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 24, 2020 16:50:49 GMT
I didn't know anything was happening with the 107. I'm guessing the suggestions made to tfl were that the 384 could extend and still keep all the back street sections but they needed the money to fund the extensions. Does make it hard to swallow that over £5 million for the Croydon area and I know I'll get shouted out but I still don't feel the 154, 466 needed all day increases. Even the 249. By all means add an extra school journey but did they really need an extra bus and hour at 11am. I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 24, 2020 17:25:54 GMT
I didn't know anything was happening with the 107. I'm guessing the suggestions made to tfl were that the 384 could extend and still keep all the back street sections but they needed the money to fund the extensions. Does make it hard to swallow that over £5 million for the Croydon area and I know I'll get shouted out but I still don't feel the 154, 466 needed all day increases. Even the 249. By all means add an extra school journey but did they really need an extra bus and hour at 11am. I doubt it. My mention of the 107 was down to the fact that potentially, the 384's extension could take people away from the 107. The 249 certainly did, it's very busy route anyway before you add in the amount of schools whilst I can understand the 154 as well but the 466 one is odd - I thought the old frequency was perfect but all of sudden, the Brighton Road corridor does seem a little overbussed with the increased frequency of the 60 & 466 and decker conversion of the 407.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 24, 2020 17:26:58 GMT
Believe me when I say that users of the 384 are still going to fight this right till the end, even if we are unsuccessful - we have a Facebook group 'Save the 384 Bus route' that anyone can join if you're interest to see how.
It is absolutely egregious that the creepy unaccountable Stalinist mandarins at TfL think they can force through this incredibly unpopular change (almost 80% opposition) during a global health crisis, when they think our minds are otherwise occupied, having kept us in limbo for over a year. What they don't realise is that many of us have more time right now to fight to the bitter end. Their 'consultation process' is a sham from beginning to end.
I have email proof of TfL's promise that they would attend a public meeting to discuss 384 bus users' opposition to the removal of the service from roads in Barnet before any changes to the route were finalised, a meeting which cannot possibly take place in a time of enforced isolation. TfL have lied to us and we are going to make sure that is known. If the extension to Edgware were to go ahead but all the roads in Barnet kept as currently, I know that the opposition would dramatically decrease.
This is also going to be disaster for community relations - it seems that the Jewish Community Secondary School has been putting pressure on TfL to provide a faster link between Edgware and the school in New Barnet, completely disregarding the wider community of people using the 384. The school is already widely resented because of hugely disruptive coach and private car parking in the surrounding roads. If the butchering of the 384 is indeed implemented, I don't think relations between the school and the wider community will ever recover, and TfL will absolutely be responsible for this.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 24, 2020 17:58:32 GMT
I didn't know anything was happening with the 107. I'm guessing the suggestions made to tfl were that the 384 could extend and still keep all the back street sections but they needed the money to fund the extensions. Does make it hard to swallow that over £5 million for the Croydon area and I know I'll get shouted out but I still don't feel the 154, 466 needed all day increases. Even the 249. By all means add an extra school journey but did they really need an extra bus and hour at 11am. I doubt it. My mention of the 107 was down to the fact that potentially, the 384's extension could take people away from the 107. The 249 certainly did, it's very busy route anyway before you add in the amount of schools whilst I can understand the 154 as well but the 466 one is odd - I thought the old frequency was perfect but all of sudden, the Brighton Road corridor does seem a little overbussed with the increased frequency of the 60 & 466 and decker conversion of the 407. And throw in 5 bph on the 312 rather than 3 bph on the 166 of that change goes ahead it really will be a wall of buses between Swan and Sugar loaf and Purley. The 154 is an odd one for loadings as some journeys are rammed full at different times of the day then some in the daytime have about 3 people on board as it crosses Sutton. I do still think a 12 mins service was enough thou.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 22:03:04 GMT
I had a feeling that this was going to happen.
It's an odd time to push through this change; from the wording of the consultation report released back in February 2019, it seemed that TfL we're going back to the drawing board and would come back with a new set of proposals. It seems slightly strange that it took them over a year to deliberate, only to decide to go with what was originally planned and not revise anything based on feedback from local stakeholders.
In principle, I agree with the 384 extension to Edgware though of course removing buses from back roads in Barnet is far from ideal. The routeing via the A1 can be plagued with traffic and disruption, but when there aren't any issues it's a quick and direct road. The use of Hale Lane is wrong in my opinion, with TfL missing a trick by not thinking more carefully about penetrating Mill Hill/The Hale. For example, A1 then via Marsh Lane (doesn't have a bus service at present and useful for Mill Hill County High School/Courtlands), Highwood Hill, The Ridgeway/Hammers Ln, The Broadway, Deansbrook Road and Burnt Oak Broadway/High St to Edgware to replace the old 303/305 link. I feel like at TfL the project teams work on their individual proposals and don't give enough consideration to the wider area, draw on local knowledge or identify missing links (created by their service changes!).
There's no doubt that the 107 and 292 will come under scrutiny soon, especially due to the funding cut from HCC. At present due to the hopper fare, people don't mind changing between the 107 and 292 at Stirling Corner for a quicker journey between Edgware and Arkley/Barnet, though the new direct link will remove the need for this. This will inevitably decrease patronage on both routes.
The 384 being extended to Edgware and 324 to Centennial Park essentially remove the need for the 107. The route is nearly fully duplicated from Elstree through Borehamwood by Sullivans 306, 358 and 398. The 107 will almost certainly be withdrawn, HCC simply don't provide enough money to TfL for them to run the service outside the Greater London boundary. The 292 will likely also be withdrawn or severely cut in the future, now with the 303 serving Colindale ASDA, it's duplicated with high frequency routes up Burnt Oak Broadway and the 384 up to Stirling Corner, then the 358 and 823 essentially cover it's Borehamwood section. TfL will no doubt leave it up to HCC to run services for their residents.
Transport for London have been clever here by dropping in little changes here and there, giving them the justification needed to remove both routes or else severely cut them down in frequency. Fair play to them, their plan seems to be working.
|
|
|
Post by 10121ddo on Apr 24, 2020 23:44:35 GMT
Having used the 107/292 Stirling Corner interchange three times in the 18 months, I'm in no way an expert. And yes there is demand the more direct Barnet - Edgware route (as mentioned in the thread, and based on observations at Stirling Corner for both directions). But is Cockfosters - Edgware a link that is really all that needed in hopper fare times? New Barnet I reckon has room for 384 to share a space with the 107. I did the route on that exact same path back in Feb 2019: Cockfosters 384 > New Barnet 107 > Stirling 292 > Edgware. The H&R section was most certainly used, patronage in the single figures. But used nonetheless. The 292's frequency was pretty dire each time I caught it. Connections always 10-15 minutes, but loads were fairly high for three different times of day and days of the week.
Further afield, I reckon W12 is soon for a Wanstead / Snaresbrook H&R chop and shortening of the route, with its already abysmal PVR cuts.
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Apr 25, 2020 7:16:57 GMT
"For example, although easier access to northbound buses from the station is welcome, I think that it would be better to keep the existing northbound bus stop as well as adding a new bus stop further down the hill closer to the station access road, as otherwise there would be a very long gap between stops until Barnet Church, and the current northbound bus stop is also useful for people connecting with QE Girls' School and the surrounding roads. Prioritising the pedestrian crossing across Barnet Hill more in favour of pedestrians is also needed, as the lights take far too long to turn red currently. if they add another bus stop for the station aswell as the current stop, then this new stop and the current stop would almost be on top of eachother.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Apr 25, 2020 9:28:26 GMT
TfL have already taken too long over this so I do not have a problem with them releasing the results now. If we have to wait until CV19 is over we could be waiting until next year or beyond. Business has to continue.
There is clearly demand for a direct link to Barnet from Edgware & Mill Hill. It is not just about the School. For example, this also provides a direct link right into Barnet hospital grounds for people in Arkley, parts of Mill Hill and most of Edgware. The fact that services were shifted from Edgware to Barnet hospital some years ago has never really been addressed. The new route also provides a very useful link for people in Barnet wanting to go and watch Barnet Fc who now play at The Hive (288 or 186/384 will be much quicker than current options). So there are multiple reasons to imagine it will be quite well used.
I agree that traffic on the 107 is likely to wane, but the 107 has always been hopeless for Edgware to Barnet - it only really works for Elstree & Borehamwood journeys either To/from Edgware or Barnet.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 9:40:07 GMT
"For example, although easier access to northbound buses from the station is welcome, I think that it would be better to keep the existing northbound bus stop as well as adding a new bus stop further down the hill closer to the station access road, as otherwise there would be a very long gap between stops until Barnet Church, and the current northbound bus stop is also useful for people connecting with QE Girls' School and the surrounding roads. Prioritising the pedestrian crossing across Barnet Hill more in favour of pedestrians is also needed, as the lights take far too long to turn red currently. if they add another bus stop for the station aswell as the current stop, then this new stop and the current stop would almost be on top of eachother. Not exactly on top of each other and Milton Avenue is in between them. There are many examples of stops at least as close together around London - even in the local area, Potters Lane and Barnet Everyman Cinema stops are really close. There would be a huge gap right up to Barnet Church with just the new proposed stop.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 9:45:59 GMT
TfL have already taken too long over this so I do not have a problem with them releasing the results now. If we have to wait until CV19 is over we could be waiting until next year or beyond. Business has to continue. TfL have already taken too long over this so I do not have a problem with them releasing the results now. If we have to wait until CV19 is over we could be waiting until next year or beyond. Business has to continue. I'm sorry but TfL explicitly promised objectors a public meeting before they would EVER possibly implement the proposed changes, and I have email proof of this. They can't just use the excuse of 'exceptional circumstances' to sneak this through without being held accountable for the harm this will do and the sham that is their 'consultation process' generally. It's deceitful, cynical and deliberate and they should not be allowed to get away with it. Who do they think they are? And this isn't business, it's the wholesale destruction of London's bus network by TfL and a Mayor who would rather score a few cheap political brownie points by promising yet another fares freeze when their finances are already shot. No one is objecting to the extension to Edgware - yes the A1 route will cause delays etc but it's not the main issue. The main issue is all the people in Barnet who will now be left without a bus -in some cases TfL have admitted that alternative routes will be up to 800m away. It's egregious and contrary to everything TfL should be doing to meet their supposed aim of a comprehensive bus network in outer London.
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Apr 25, 2020 10:24:43 GMT
if they add another bus stop for the station aswell as the current stop, then this new stop and the current stop would almost be on top of eachother. Not exactly on top of each other and Milton Avenue is in between them. There are many examples of stops at least as close together around London - even in the local area, Potters Lane and Barnet Everyman Cinema stops are really close. There would be a huge gap right up to Barnet Church with just the new proposed stop. I never said they would be exactly I said almost. I know there are many examples of stops close to each other in the area, I drive the 326. There is another at Hendon war memorial where you have the Burroughs and then Hendon war memorial is literally as you go through the lights and around the corner.
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Apr 25, 2020 10:25:53 GMT
Come to think about it there isn't much stand space as Edgware as it is at the moment (even prior to covid 19) and especially in the evenings when our buses are parked in the stand spaces around the station.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 10:54:11 GMT
Not exactly on top of each other and Milton Avenue is in between them. There are many examples of stops at least as close together around London - even in the local area, Potters Lane and Barnet Everyman Cinema stops are really close. There would be a huge gap right up to Barnet Church with just the new proposed stop. I never said they would be exactly I said almost. I know there are many examples of stops close to each other in the area, I drive the 326. There is another at Hendon war memorial where you have the Burroughs and then Hendon war memorial is literally as you go through the lights and around the corner. The way I see it, the advantage of retaining the existing stop as well as the new one are: - Avoiding the long uphill gap to the following stop at Barnet Church. - Avoiding safety issues for QE Girls pupils having to cross Milton Avenue to get to the school - Milton Avenue only has a pedestrian traffic island and the cars turn very aggressively into Barnet Hill. - Keeping a close bus stop on that side of the road for Beford, Milton and Normandy avenues. Disadvantages are: - Increased running times for routes to serve an extra stop - might have costs implications if this affects timetables if more buses are needed on any of the passing routes (not sure if the increase would be significant enough for that though). But I agree that if there can only be the one bus stop, it should be the one they are proposing in the new place, because trying to get from High Barnet station to the current northbound stop is a real, literal uphill struggle.
|
|