|
Post by uakari on May 9, 2020 21:54:46 GMT
I doubt the letter from the school will make much/any difference now the decision has been made. If you want to be serious about it i suggest completely dropping all these ever more fantastical alternative ideas involving Deansbrook Road; the 107; changes in Elstree and all the others I have seen on here. Just focus on the core question of patronage on those roads and overall costs. E.g. how could patronage be increased on those roads if the service was kept? How could frequencies on 292, 384 be altered (or 606 resdesigned) for optimum cost/benefit ratio to enable the streets to remain served? or perhaps best of all is there some compromise of serving one or even two of the withdrawn sections but not all? That is really the only hope I would have thought. Plus I've already sent them LOADS of ways patronage could be increased, but they don't care: - coordinate the bus timetable better with that of trains to and from central London at New Barnet station - right now they narrowly miss each other almost every time - move the hail-and-ride post opposite New Barnet station entrance further up the hill where the bus actually stops, and advertise it from within the station grounds like they used to - remind drivers that they can stop in many more places on the hail-and-ride sections than they currently do, when there are no cars in the way (most of York Road, opposite Barnet Hospital A&E, The Avenue eastbound) - allow the northbound 384 to serve the to-be-redeveloped High Barnet tube station grounds so that it becomes the go-to bus for journeys up the hill to Barnet High Street, The Spires, Barnet Hospital and all the residential areas to the north and west. So many positive things they could do instead of deliberately pushing the route into a spiral of decline by reducing the frequency and now trying to kill it off from roads in Barnet altogether.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 9, 2020 22:41:14 GMT
I doubt the letter from the school will make much/any difference now the decision has been made. If you want to be serious about it i suggest completely dropping all these ever more fantastical alternative ideas involving Deansbrook Road; the 107; changes in Elstree and all the others I have seen on here. Just focus on the core question of patronage on those roads and overall costs. E.g. how could patronage be increased on those roads if the service was kept? How could frequencies on 292, 384 be altered (or 606 resdesigned) for optimum cost/benefit ratio to enable the streets to remain served? or perhaps best of all is there some compromise of serving one or even two of the withdrawn sections but not all? That is really the only hope I would have thought. I think that's a little harsh regarding the ideas mentioned - there have been some really good ones mentioned that actually wouldn't be too difficult to implement and would be entirely plausible.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on May 9, 2020 23:04:58 GMT
I doubt the letter from the school will make much/any difference now the decision has been made. If you want to be serious about it i suggest completely dropping all these ever more fantastical alternative ideas involving Deansbrook Road; the 107; changes in Elstree and all the others I have seen on here. Just focus on the core question of patronage on those roads and overall costs. E.g. how could patronage be increased on those roads if the service was kept? How could frequencies on 292, 384 be altered (or 606 resdesigned) for optimum cost/benefit ratio to enable the streets to remain served? or perhaps best of all is there some compromise of serving one or even two of the withdrawn sections but not all? That is really the only hope I would have thought. I think that's a little harsh regarding the ideas mentioned - there have been some really good ones mentioned that actually wouldn't be too difficult to implement and would be entirely plausible. Exactly - everyone would be happy if they just tacked the Edgware extension on at the end, but they clearly want to leave a greater mark (plus they might be too proud to do a complete backtrack), so we're all just trying to find some kind of approach, anything quite frankly, that they might listen to. If anyone knows how to analyse data and could help, I could always try an FOI request and try to base an argument off that - I just don't know if this is the best approach because I don't trust them to be honest, plus to most campaigners it's about much more than numbers. I do appreciate the point about suggesting ways to boost ridership though - I'll definitely keep pushing those points, but no one has heard anything direct from TfL on this for months. They even ignored the local councillors requesting updates, from as far back as last year way before Covid, and the 'Community Partnership Specialist' was conveniently furloughed the same day as the announcement on the website was made.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on May 9, 2020 23:14:48 GMT
I doubt the letter from the school will make much/any difference now the decision has been made. If you want to be serious about it i suggest completely dropping all these ever more fantastical alternative ideas involving Deansbrook Road; the 107; changes in Elstree and all the others I have seen on here. Just focus on the core question of patronage on those roads and overall costs. E.g. how could patronage be increased on those roads if the service was kept? How could frequencies on 292, 384 be altered (or 606 resdesigned) for optimum cost/benefit ratio to enable the streets to remain served? or perhaps best of all is there some compromise of serving one or even two of the withdrawn sections but not all? That is really the only hope I would have thought. Thank you for your suggestion, but I doubt that TfL would be willing to share any data they have in an honest manner, and would likely fudge it anyway to make it look like the 384 is less used than it actually is. They've already demonstrated they have no compunction about outright lying, for example about the promise of the public meeting, as well as all those tell-tale signs when the consultation hadn't even closed (bus blinds with 'Edgware' as a destination, widening of road junctions for the new routing, etc). Plus none of us have the necessary expertise in data analysis, unless you or someone else on this forum does? The whole point is that we're trying to get TfL to shift their never-ending focus on cost and see that there are real people that are going to suffer because of this decision - come and meet us on the ground, take the 384 with us along the route, give us that public meeting they explicitly promised us, etc. If they don't listen to campaigners or headteachers and the people who actually pay for and depend on their services, then listen to the London Assembly Member, the MP, all the local councillors speaking with one voice. Are they really that unaccountable to anyone at all? Who do they think they are to lie to us and show us the contempt that they have? The simplest way of course would be to keep the 384 routing exactly as it, with an Edgware extension simply tacked on at the western end, as no one section they want to remove is any more important than the other - the 384 was cleverly designed to hit all the key Barnet destination/origin points that are all separated by steep hills - it really is the comprehensive Barnet route that still has an acceptable running time from one terminus to the other. Providing the Edgware extension but keeping the Barnet roads would likely cost no more money than they are spending on the untested demand for the extended/enhanced 456/W10 and 112 not that far away, and the Edgware extension might prove so popular that the Barnet roads are subsidised anyway. 'Improving bus services in outer London' shouldn't just be a soundbite for the Mayor to real off cynically. With the 384, keeping the current routeing would not be much of an issue in terms of journey times to Edgware, as the route is relatively direct west of Barnet town centre. However, I think the problem is that the Edgware extension could attract increased usage due to this direct link, and the use of short SDs at only every 20 minutes may not cope. A slight frequency increase might help, but may not be needed at the Cockfosters end of the route. I think the changes proposed by TFL are to allow the 384 to upgrade to longer SDs if needed, but at the cost of removing a bus service from some local roads around Barnet. I think the 384 should be kept as a local service, perhaps with a new route introduced to serve Barnet. Or (if cuts need to be made) - even rerouteing the 292 to Barnet, with the Rossington Avenue section covered by the non-TFL network, and the 107 exclusively providing the Edgware-Borehamwood link.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on May 9, 2020 23:21:32 GMT
Thank you for your suggestion, but I doubt that TfL would be willing to share any data they have in an honest manner, and would likely fudge it anyway to make it look like the 384 is less used than it actually is. They've already demonstrated they have no compunction about outright lying, for example about the promise of the public meeting, as well as all those tell-tale signs when the consultation hadn't even closed (bus blinds with 'Edgware' as a destination, widening of road junctions for the new routing, etc). Plus none of us have the necessary expertise in data analysis, unless you or someone else on this forum does? The whole point is that we're trying to get TfL to shift their never-ending focus on cost and see that there are real people that are going to suffer because of this decision - come and meet us on the ground, take the 384 with us along the route, give us that public meeting they explicitly promised us, etc. If they don't listen to campaigners or headteachers and the people who actually pay for and depend on their services, then listen to the London Assembly Member, the MP, all the local councillors speaking with one voice. Are they really that unaccountable to anyone at all? Who do they think they are to lie to us and show us the contempt that they have? The simplest way of course would be to keep the 384 routing exactly as it, with an Edgware extension simply tacked on at the western end, as no one section they want to remove is any more important than the other - the 384 was cleverly designed to hit all the key Barnet destination/origin points that are all separated by steep hills - it really is the comprehensive Barnet route that still has an acceptable running time from one terminus to the other. Providing the Edgware extension but keeping the Barnet roads would likely cost no more money than they are spending on the untested demand for the extended/enhanced 456/W10 and 112 not that far away, and the Edgware extension might prove so popular that the Barnet roads are subsidised anyway. 'Improving bus services in outer London' shouldn't just be a soundbite for the Mayor to real off cynically. With the 384, keeping the current routeing would not be much of an issue in terms of journey times to Edgware, as the route is relatively direct west of Barnet town centre. However, I think the problem is that the Edgware extension could attract increased usage due to this direct link, and the use of short SDs at only every 20 minutes may not cope. A slight frequency increase might help, but may not be needed at the Cockfosters end of the route. I think the changes proposed by TFL are to allow the 384 to upgrade to longer SDs if needed, but at the cost of removing a bus service from some local roads around Barnet. I think the 384 should be kept as a local service, perhaps with a new route introduced to serve Barnet. Or (if cuts need to be made) - even rerouteing the 292 to Barnet, with the Rossington Avenue section covered by the non-TFL network, and the 107 exclusively providing the Edgware-Borehamwood link. But TfL reduced the frequency of the 384 from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes in 2017. They clearly thought it was used sufficiently to justify every 15 minutes for about 15 years before that, so they could simply go back to the old timetable if they chose? Obviously they know what a killer the every 15 to every 20 drop is in terms of how long people are prepared to wait and thus on hourly demand, and must have known what they would be proposing a year later, so there is obviously a grand plan afoot that we are not entirely privy too, just that it's going to cause a lot of harm. Also, if they do increase the vehicle length, then the Alston Road/The Avenue section might be in further danger too, because the current size of the bus already attracts complaints from some car users there. Give TfL an inch, and they'll take a mile further down the road - literally in this case. And I remember the times I used to admire them as an organisation - it wasn't even that long ago!
|
|
|
Post by ian on May 10, 2020 11:43:51 GMT
Hmm, well except that TfL did not think 'it was used sufficiently to justify every 15 minutes for about 15 years before that'. Their documentation specifically says "The route is not well used, especially where it is most circuitous and parked cars restrict the availability of bus stops. The frequency of the route was reduced from 4 buses per hour to 3 buses per hour in recent years but usage figures still do not justify the frequency of the service". In other words, they got round to cutting it because it could not justify 4bph and still does not justify 3bph.
I don't want to be too difficult and awkward but I just don't think your arguments are going anywhere unless you address the key issues - TfL want a cross-borough direct link. The new route will provide new direct links to Barnet hospital in line with their policies. there are other reasons to imagine demand on the new route. TfL have financial issues and Herts CC have reduced/eliminated support for the 292 IIRC. And the so-called twiddles in Barnet are not well used. You will have to face those points head on to get anywhere.
Which 'current twiddle' would be the most valuable to save do you think? And why?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 10, 2020 12:41:02 GMT
Hmm, well except that TfL did not think 'it was used sufficiently to justify every 15 minutes for about 15 years before that'. Their documentation specifically says "The route is not well used, especially where it is most circuitous and parked cars restrict the availability of bus stops. The frequency of the route was reduced from 4 buses per hour to 3 buses per hour in recent years but usage figures still do not justify the frequency of the service". In other words, they got round to cutting it because it could not justify 4bph and still does not justify 3bph. I don't want to be too difficult and awkward but I just don't think your arguments are going anywhere unless you address the key issues - TfL want a cross-borough direct link. The new route will provide new direct links to Barnet hospital in line with their policies. there are other reasons to imagine demand on the new route. TfL have financial issues and Herts CC have reduced/eliminated support for the 292 IIRC. And the so-called twiddles in Barnet are not well used. You will have to face those points head on to get anywhere. Which 'current twiddle' would be the most valuable to save do you think? And why? Could you clarify what a twiddle is? You can tell me to go away as I'm not local but like it has been said before by more local people, no one is against the new link but is against the removal of roads it currently uses in residential areas. I've seen no evidence why the current 384 routing could not remain and still meet the objective of the Edgware extension without issue and no locals has said it's not possible at all.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on May 10, 2020 12:49:32 GMT
Hmm, well except that TfL did not think 'it was used sufficiently to justify every 15 minutes for about 15 years before that'. Their documentation specifically says "The route is not well used, especially where it is most circuitous and parked cars restrict the availability of bus stops. The frequency of the route was reduced from 4 buses per hour to 3 buses per hour in recent years but usage figures still do not justify the frequency of the service". In other words, they got round to cutting it because it could not justify 4bph and still does not justify 3bph. I don't want to be too difficult and awkward but I just don't think your arguments are going anywhere unless you address the key issues - TfL want a cross-borough direct link. The new route will provide new direct links to Barnet hospital in line with their policies. there are other reasons to imagine demand on the new route. TfL have financial issues and Herts CC have reduced/eliminated support for the 292 IIRC. And the so-called twiddles in Barnet are not well used. You will have to face those points head on to get anywhere. Which 'current twiddle' would be the most valuable to save do you think? And why? Could you clarify what a twiddle is? You can tell me to go away as I'm not local but like it has been said before by more local people, no one is against the new link but is against the removal of roads it currently uses in residential areas. I've seen no evidence why the current 384 routing could not remain and still meet the objective of the Edgware extension without issue and no locals has said it's not possible at all. Probably because as we have stated previously in bus regulation threads, people want a quick journey. If they think a more direct journey will increase the passenger numbers, which option would be better, the one that attracts the most passengers, or the least?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 10, 2020 12:56:12 GMT
Could you clarify what a twiddle is? You can tell me to go away as I'm not local but like it has been said before by more local people, no one is against the new link but is against the removal of roads it currently uses in residential areas. I've seen no evidence why the current 384 routing could not remain and still meet the objective of the Edgware extension without issue and no locals has said it's not possible at all. Probably because as we have stated previously in bus regulation threads, people want a quick journey. If they think a more direct journey will increase the passenger numbers, which option would be better, the one that attracts the most passengers, or the least? It would still be far more direct than the 107 and the whole journey time would still only be roughly 1h end to end - currently max time is 45 minutes so I don't see that as any reason for passenger numbers not to increase.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on May 10, 2020 12:58:47 GMT
Hmm, well except that TfL did not think 'it was used sufficiently to justify every 15 minutes for about 15 years before that'. Their documentation specifically says "The route is not well used, especially where it is most circuitous and parked cars restrict the availability of bus stops. The frequency of the route was reduced from 4 buses per hour to 3 buses per hour in recent years but usage figures still do not justify the frequency of the service". In other words, they got round to cutting it because it could not justify 4bph and still does not justify 3bph. I don't want to be too difficult and awkward but I just don't think your arguments are going anywhere unless you address the key issues - TfL want a cross-borough direct link. The new route will provide new direct links to Barnet hospital in line with their policies. there are other reasons to imagine demand on the new route. TfL have financial issues and Herts CC have reduced/eliminated support for the 292 IIRC. And the so-called twiddles in Barnet are not well used. You will have to face those points head on to get anywhere. Which 'current twiddle' would be the most valuable to save do you think? And why? Could you clarify what a twiddle is? You can tell me to go away as I'm not local but like it has been said before by more local people, no one is against the new link but is against the removal of roads it currently uses in residential areas. I've seen no evidence why the current 384 routing could not remain and still meet the objective of the Edgware extension without issue and no locals has said it's not possible at all. Coming from a local you are right, best way to go about it would be to leave the 384 on its current routing, adding the extension to the end and possibly at the Edgware end tweaking it (or the 240 or something) to serve Deansbrook Road, another link they cut, as Hale Lane is already over-bussed, making the 384 serve it as well seems pointless - they'd attract more patronage restoring the old link in some way. And before anyone says it adding Deansbrook Road back is a "fantastical idea" its not really, it'll just involve a small tweak the the planned 384 routing, where instead of serving the over-bussed Hale Lane it can include Mill Hill in the new Barnet link as well as restoring the 303s lost connections from its changes back in September 2018 as well as actually linking Edgware Community Hospital and Barnet Hospital, which is one of TfLs aims - to link hospitals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 13:37:49 GMT
Could you clarify what a twiddle is? You can tell me to go away as I'm not local but like it has been said before by more local people, no one is against the new link but is against the removal of roads it currently uses in residential areas. I've seen no evidence why the current 384 routing could not remain and still meet the objective of the Edgware extension without issue and no locals has said it's not possible at all. Coming from a local you are right, best way to go about it would be to leave the 384 on its current routing, adding the extension to the end and possibly at the Edgware end tweaking it (or the 240 or something) to serve Deansbrook Road, another link they cut, as Hale Lane is already over-bussed, making the 384 serve it as well seems pointless - they'd attract more patronage restoring the old link in some way. And before anyone says it adding Deansbrook Road back is a "fantastical idea" its not really, it'll just involve a small tweak the the planned 384 routing, where instead of serving the over-bussed Hale Lane it can include Mill Hill in the new Barnet link as well as restoring the 303s lost connections from its changes back in September 2018 as well as actually linking Edgware Community Hospital and Barnet Hospital, which is one of TfLs aims - to link hospitals. I understand that the aim is to link Edgware Community Hospital and Barnet Hospital which is not being done by the current proposals, but I'm sure the hopper fare and the plethora of routes going down the A5 from Edgware Station will be used to justify not implementing a further extension. I think the Deansbrook link should be seen as a separate issue entirely, with the primary focus here being on providing a link from Edgware Station to Barnet which is more direct than the current 107. Yes, Hale Lane will be over-bussed (providing the 292 isn't fiddled with too much), though it should be a route such as the 240 which should be moved away and rerouted, not an extended 384. If the 384 were to be rerouted at the Mill Hill end, surely this would negate the financial benefit of removing it from a circuitous routing in Barnet and override the primary aim of a direct Edgware to Barnet link? Although there are some amazing ideas on this forum, the only options I can see TfL going for in the short-term is attaching the Edgware extension to the current route following pressure from Barnet locals, scrapping the proposals in their current form and coming back with a fresh set of ideas later on (providing Coronavirus doesn't cause a mass review and streamlining of the bus network which would no doubt have an effect on this), or continuing to argue their case and go ahead with the changes as planned, promising to 'review and monitor demand' etc.
|
|
|
Post by ian on May 10, 2020 13:49:52 GMT
Hmm, well except that TfL did not think 'it was used sufficiently to justify every 15 minutes for about 15 years before that'. Their documentation specifically says "The route is not well used, especially where it is most circuitous and parked cars restrict the availability of bus stops. The frequency of the route was reduced from 4 buses per hour to 3 buses per hour in recent years but usage figures still do not justify the frequency of the service". In other words, they got round to cutting it because it could not justify 4bph and still does not justify 3bph. I don't want to be too difficult and awkward but I just don't think your arguments are going anywhere unless you address the key issues - TfL want a cross-borough direct link. The new route will provide new direct links to Barnet hospital in line with their policies. there are other reasons to imagine demand on the new route. TfL have financial issues and Herts CC have reduced/eliminated support for the 292 IIRC. And the so-called twiddles in Barnet are not well used. You will have to face those points head on to get anywhere. Which 'current twiddle' would be the most valuable to save do you think? And why? Could you clarify what a twiddle is? You can tell me to go away as I'm not local but like it has been said before by more local people, no one is against the new link but is against the removal of roads it currently uses in residential areas. I've seen no evidence why the current 384 routing could not remain and still meet the objective of the Edgware extension without issue and no locals has said it's not possible at all. By a 'twiddle' I was referring to the phrase used in 2018 (after the Diamond Geezer blog on the subject of the 384), to refer to the various bits of lightly used circuitous routeing in Barnet. There are clearly three problems with maintaining the current route and doing the extension. I assume it would cost more and probably add a bus. And it makes the end to end journey time less attractive. And as there is insufficent usage to justify the 384 frequency on the 'twiddles' you have mismatch in that those bits might warrant 1bph tops, but that frequency would be useless for a new orbital link directly running Edgware-Barnet. And that goes in spades for keeping the Barnet 'twiddles' AND in addition adding a new one by running via Deansbrook Road. That would probably add 15 minutes at each end; maybe 30 minutes or more overall to each journey! More buses would be needed, there would be far more cost, and making an Edgware to Cockfosters type of jounrey hopelessly unattractive. (And probably not permitting the reduction in the 292 either since the routes would diverge). .
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on May 10, 2020 14:02:12 GMT
Coming from a local you are right, best way to go about it would be to leave the 384 on its current routing, adding the extension to the end and possibly at the Edgware end tweaking it (or the 240 or something) to serve Deansbrook Road, another link they cut, as Hale Lane is already over-bussed, making the 384 serve it as well seems pointless - they'd attract more patronage restoring the old link in some way. And before anyone says it adding Deansbrook Road back is a "fantastical idea" its not really, it'll just involve a small tweak the the planned 384 routing, where instead of serving the over-bussed Hale Lane it can include Mill Hill in the new Barnet link as well as restoring the 303s lost connections from its changes back in September 2018 as well as actually linking Edgware Community Hospital and Barnet Hospital, which is one of TfLs aims - to link hospitals. I understand that the aim is to link Edgware Community Hospital and Barnet Hospital which is not being done by the current proposals, but I'm sure the hopper fare and the plethora of routes going down the A5 from Edgware Station will be used to justify not implementing a further extension. I think the Deansbrook link should be seen as a separate issue entirely, with the primary focus here being on providing a link from Edgware Station to Barnet which is more direct than the current 107. Yes, Hale Lane will be over-bussed (providing the 292 isn't fiddled with too much), though it should be a route such as the 240 which should be moved away and rerouted, not an extended 384. If the 384 were to be rerouted at the Mill Hill end, surely this would negate the financial benefit of removing it from a circuitous routing in Barnet and override the primary aim of a direct Edgware to Barnet link? Although there are some amazing ideas on this forum, the only options I can see TfL going for in the short-term is attaching the Edgware extension to the current route following pressure from Barnet locals, scrapping the proposals in their current form and coming back with a fresh set of ideas later on (providing Coronavirus doesn't cause a mass review and streamlining of the bus network which would no doubt have an effect on this), or continuing to argue their case and go ahead with the changes as planned, promising to 'review and monitor demand' etc. Thats why in brackets I suggested they do something with the 240 instead - overall the 384 going down Deansbrook Road wouldn't add much more journey time though - especially as Hale Lane can become filled with traffic sometimes in the mornings. Overall I think either the 221 or 240 needs to be removed off Hale Lane and go along Deansbrook - I don't find it fair that they have the 221, 240 and 303 at one end and the 221, 240, 292 & 384 at the other... Especially as I've never witnessed too much demand for it down that road - So I definitely think something needs to be done by that as rerouting the 221 or 240 wouldn't lengthen anything out too much - the 240 especially could handle it - and frequency wise it would be an adequate replacement for the 303.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on May 10, 2020 14:51:45 GMT
Hmm, well except that TfL did not think 'it was used sufficiently to justify every 15 minutes for about 15 years before that'. Their documentation specifically says "The route is not well used, especially where it is most circuitous and parked cars restrict the availability of bus stops. The frequency of the route was reduced from 4 buses per hour to 3 buses per hour in recent years but usage figures still do not justify the frequency of the service". In other words, they got round to cutting it because it could not justify 4bph and still does not justify 3bph. I don't want to be too difficult and awkward but I just don't think your arguments are going anywhere unless you address the key issues - TfL want a cross-borough direct link. The new route will provide new direct links to Barnet hospital in line with their policies. there are other reasons to imagine demand on the new route. TfL have financial issues and Herts CC have reduced/eliminated support for the 292 IIRC. And the so-called twiddles in Barnet are not well used. You will have to face those points head on to get anywhere. Which 'current twiddle' would be the most valuable to save do you think? And why? To say that the "twiddles" are not well used depends on the criteria. There are many parts of the London bus network that are not "well used" if the 384 is anything to go by, but TfL provide a bus service because it is deemed necessary.
The "twiddles" may not justify a full daily service at 3bph but that does not mean that they should lose their service altogether. It is hard to escape the feeling that TfL's wording regarding usage of the "twiddles" has been crafted in order to jutsify a decision that they'd already taken, i.e. to withdraw the service. TfL's aim is supposed to be to provide a bus service within 400m of every home; by their own admission this change goes against that, and is especially damaging when the topography of the area is taken into account.
I'd agree that many of the proposals in this thread are unrealistic in the current financial situation, but that does not mean that TfL should be allowed to get away with withdrawing a bus service altogether (which is effectively what they are doing with the "twiddles"). I'd say the most realisitic option would be to tweak the 383 to cover some of the withdrawn section of the 384. A 2bph Mon-Sat daytime service would be easier to justify for the "twiddles". Even if this adds one extra bus on the 383 schedule it might still provide value for money, in the context of keeping to the 400m aim. But proposing several other route extensions, or adding myriad new links, is likely to be dismissed out of hand by TfL, no matter how well thought-out these ideas may be.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 10, 2020 16:14:36 GMT
Could you clarify what a twiddle is? You can tell me to go away as I'm not local but like it has been said before by more local people, no one is against the new link but is against the removal of roads it currently uses in residential areas. I've seen no evidence why the current 384 routing could not remain and still meet the objective of the Edgware extension without issue and no locals has said it's not possible at all. By a 'twiddle' I was referring to the phrase used in 2018 (after the Diamond Geezer blog on the subject of the 384), to refer to the various bits of lightly used circuitous routeing in Barnet. There are clearly three problems with maintaining the current route and doing the extension. I assume it would cost more and probably add a bus. And it makes the end to end journey time less attractive. And as there is insufficent usage to justify the 384 frequency on the 'twiddles' you have mismatch in that those bits might warrant 1bph tops, but that frequency would be useless for a new orbital link directly running Edgware-Barnet. And that goes in spades for keeping the Barnet 'twiddles' AND in addition adding a new one by running via Deansbrook Road. That would probably add 15 minutes at each end; maybe 30 minutes or more overall to each journey! More buses would be needed, there would be far more cost, and making an Edgware to Cockfosters type of jounrey hopelessly unattractive. (And probably not permitting the reduction in the 292 either since the routes would diverge). . Thank you for explaining the twiddles reference. Given how the resources are meant to moving from the centre to the outer parts of London, you think it would be relatively easy to fund an extra bus from the awful cuts made elsewhere especially after partly admitting that the frequency decrease was an error by adding extra journeys for the route. Just to be clear, my idea is as follows the consultation which is to simply link Barnet & Edgware together more directly than the 107 currently does and has no reference to Deansbrook Road or Edgware Community Hospital but my difference is the retention of the side roads so the proposed running would be less than you propose. Max running time should be around 1h end to end which a lot of TfL routes currently meet except some of the more lengthier ones by todays standards and the 384 isn't a route you'd use end to end because that's not it's purpose to begin with - it's current form is designed to tackle the residential areas between Barnet & Cockfosters as well as offering a link to Barnet Hospital rather than have people do end to end journeys from Cockfosters. I can't say for certain about the loadings on those sections but I'm dubious they're as lightly loaded as you seem to imply - as redexpress says, a number of bus routes in London wouldn't exist based on this assertion and other than the financial impact, there is also a social impact that TfL must consider in making such changes and potentially the impact of losing passengers for good to cars, something TfL doesn't seem to have much grasp on anymore.
|
|