|
Post by uakari on May 10, 2020 17:29:45 GMT
I'm not going to answer any questions that are framed in terms of language like 'twiddles' or 'circuitous' routing - to me this is just displays an ignorance of the geography and topography of the areas concerned, and is insulting to the passengers who have depended on these sections of the route since 1990 and will have to walk up to 800m uphill to their nearest bus service should the plans go ahead.
Plus there is simply no way it makes sense to describe as a 'twiddle' the whole section of route set to be removed covering New Barnet station entrance, New Barnet Sainsbury's, the entire town centre and shops of New Barnet along East Barnet Road, East Barnet Health Centre, the new Aldi on Brookhill Road, etc etc etc....once again this language just reveals ignorance of the areas concerned.
I don't like to say which of the sections planned to be removed I would like to save the most, because everyone I speak to has their own good reasons for wanting the 384 to continue to serve the sections they use. If pressed I would probably say the Gloucester Road - Lyonsdown Road - Longmore Avenue - York Road - New Barnet station approach section, because it's the hilliest and gives the link to New Barnet station entrance, but then people living off Northfield Road, Crescent Road or Alston Road would probably disagree with me.
And you're wrong that TfL never said the every 15 minutes frequency prior to 2017 was justified: In 2007 a minority of residents round the Alston Road/Strafford Road section actually complained about the bus, and one of their suggestions was that TfL could reduce the frequency. At that time, TfL said that reducing the frequency would not provide sufficient buses to meet demand.
So what happened between 2007 and 2017? I think the most likely thing is that TfL decided it wanted to bring in the changes it has now decided on, and decided deliberately to reduce hourly demand on the route by making that crucial every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes reduction only a year before the consultation then came out. OF COURSE hourly demand reduces when you make a frequency cut like that, so you don't end up with more people per bus, because people are less likely to wait up to 20 minutes than up to 15. It's a calculated method that TfL use of pushing a whole route into a spiral of usage decline, so they can then justify cutting it from roads altogether, as they have done now. Why can't people understand this?
'Positive' ways of increasing ridership, such as the many I have suggested in previous posts and to TfL, require a certain level of risk, investment and proper forward planning - far easier and less upfront cost to kill the route off entirely.
|
|
|
Post by ian on May 10, 2020 18:30:38 GMT
Fine - that's up to you. Diamond Geezer's article that you engaged with at the time with was full of references to 'twiddles' and the route itself being a 'twiddler' so, yeah, whatever.
I think Redexpress's suggestion is a very good one - a 2 bph service on an amended 393 could serve the 'twiddles' aka current circuitous routeings aka whatever else you want to call them, at a level that could probably be justified and wouldn't involve the wholesale redesign of a number of routes like some of the other suggestions, and would also enable the desired 384 extension to go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on May 10, 2020 18:40:18 GMT
Fine - that's up to you. Diamond Geezer's article that you engaged with at the time with was full of references to 'twiddles' and the route itself being a 'twiddler' so, yeah, whatever. I think Redexpress's suggestion is a very good one - a 2 bph service on an amended 393 could serve the 'twiddles' aka current circuitous routeings aka whatever else you want to call them, at a level that could probably be justified and wouldn't involve the wholesale redesign of a number of routes like some of the other suggestions, and would also enable the desired 384 extension to go ahead. Diamond Geezer was using the term lightheartedly, whereas you come across as using it dismissively - the tone is different. Please try to remember that you're talking about real people whose lives will be made considerably harder by TfL's decision. It's not 'circuitous' to them. I agree that the 383 could easily take over the Lysondown section to rejoin its current line of route at New Barnet station, and the 184 would probably be adequate alone for Meadway, Potters Road and Plantagenet Road (might need a very slight frequency increase). But the 383 couldn't easily serve any of the removed roads east of New Barnet station and still rejoin its current line of route - what do you think about an extended 377 or 299 covering those roads, and then either doing the Lyonsdown section too or terminating at New Barnet station and leaving the Lyonsdown section to the changed 383? Is that more realistic?
|
|
|
Post by COBO on May 14, 2020 0:44:19 GMT
I wonder out of all routes in Barnet why was the 384 picked for the extension. 🤔 I think that the extension will become very popular and the DMEs will become unsuitable. Why couldn’t the 307 been picked.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 14, 2020 0:47:19 GMT
I wonder out of all routes in Barnet why was the 384 picked for the extension. 🤔 I think that the extension will become very popular and the DMEs will become unsuitable. Why couldn’t the 307 been picked. Because the 307 would be far too long.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on May 14, 2020 0:49:37 GMT
I wonder out of all routes in Barnet why was the 384 picked for the extension. 🤔 I think that the extension will become very popular and the DMEs will become unsuitable. Why couldn’t the 307 been picked. Because the 307 would be far too long. Oh right but that hasn’t stopped TfL lol 😂 before like example the 88 and now the 112. I can’t think of any other options but I still don’t understand why the 384 with its small DMEs was picked for the extension. And even if the rerouting allowed the route to have DEs and the route was upgraded to DEs they too would be unsuitable for the extension.
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on May 14, 2020 18:47:42 GMT
I did look at an old bus map that the Non TFL route 306 use to go to New Barnet Station from Borehamwood so maybe the TFL can save that link by get HCC to exdened it and then with wtihdrawn the 107 from New Barnet and Elstree and Borehamwood Station
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on May 14, 2020 22:23:50 GMT
I did look at an old bus map that the Non TFL route 306 use to go to New Barnet Station from Borehamwood so maybe the TFL can save that link by get HCC to exdened it and then with wtihdrawn the 107 from New Barnet and Elstree and Borehamwood Station A Watford to Barnet service could be very useful, linking between Bushey, Elstree and Borehamwood. Would be good if TFL were to introduce a few more cross border services in this part of London. TFL services could also be useful to Carpenders Park or Rickmansworth.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on May 14, 2020 22:25:09 GMT
I wonder out of all routes in Barnet why was the 384 picked for the extension. 🤔 I think that the extension will become very popular and the DMEs will become unsuitable. Why couldn’t the 307 been picked. The only other alternative would be to extend a route from Edgware instead. Perhaps the 288 could be rerouted from Edgware to Barnet, with the 303 extending from Edgware to replace the Broadfields section.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on May 14, 2020 23:07:12 GMT
I wonder out of all routes in Barnet why was the 384 picked for the extension. 🤔 I think that the extension will become very popular and the DMEs will become unsuitable. Why couldn’t the 307 been picked. The only other alternative would be to extend a route from Edgware instead. Perhaps the 288 could be rerouted from Edgware to Barnet, with the 303 extending from Edgware to replace the Broadfields section. The trouble with diverting/extending the 288 to Barnet and diverting a longer route like the 303 to serve the Broadfields Estate, is that the Broadfields Estate 'terminus' is actually a hesitation point, with the bus continuing round the loop to return to Queensbury after waiting two minutes. This is so that passengers can board and alight anywhere along the loop, only paying once. A longer route like the 303 would probably require a proper terminus in the estate, so this advantage would be removed, meaning passengers having to walk quite a lot further.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on May 14, 2020 23:39:45 GMT
The only other alternative would be to extend a route from Edgware instead. Perhaps the 288 could be rerouted from Edgware to Barnet, with the 303 extending from Edgware to replace the Broadfields section. The trouble with diverting/extending the 288 to Barnet and diverting a longer route like the 303 to serve the Broadfields Estate, is that the Broadfields Estate 'terminus' is actually a hesitation point, with the bus continuing round the loop to return to Queensbury after waiting two minutes. This is so that passengers can board and alight anywhere along the loop, only paying once. A longer route like the 303 would probably require a proper terminus in the estate, so this advantage would be removed, meaning passengers having to walk quite a lot further. I don’t think that will be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on May 14, 2020 23:43:27 GMT
I wonder out of all routes in Barnet why was the 384 picked for the extension. 🤔 I think that the extension will become very popular and the DMEs will become unsuitable. Why couldn’t the 307 been picked. The only other alternative would be to extend a route from Edgware instead. Perhaps the 288 could be rerouted from Edgware to Barnet, with the 303 extending from Edgware to replace the Broadfields section. And terminate where in Barnet?
|
|
|
Post by uakari on May 15, 2020 4:27:17 GMT
The trouble with diverting/extending the 288 to Barnet and diverting a longer route like the 303 to serve the Broadfields Estate, is that the Broadfields Estate 'terminus' is actually a hesitation point, with the bus continuing round the loop to return to Queensbury after waiting two minutes. This is so that passengers can board and alight anywhere along the loop, only paying once. A longer route like the 303 would probably require a proper terminus in the estate, so this advantage would be removed, meaning passengers having to walk quite a lot further. I don’t think that will be a problem. Why not? The 303 has a much longer end to end running time already that the 288 as counted between Queensbury and Broadfields.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on May 15, 2020 8:18:20 GMT
The only other alternative would be to extend a route from Edgware instead. Perhaps the 288 could be rerouted from Edgware to Barnet, with the 303 extending from Edgware to replace the Broadfields section. The trouble with diverting/extending the 288 to Barnet and diverting a longer route like the 303 to serve the Broadfields Estate, is that the Broadfields Estate 'terminus' is actually a hesitation point, with the bus continuing round the loop to return to Queensbury after waiting two minutes. This is so that passengers can board and alight anywhere along the loop, only paying once. A longer route like the 303 would probably require a proper terminus in the estate, so this advantage would be removed, meaning passengers having to walk quite a lot further. Buses operating around terminal loops is quite common outside London (a.k.a. "The Real World"). And passengers are usually allowed to board and alight at all stops and can stay on the bus at the stand point where there is one.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on May 15, 2020 8:30:04 GMT
I did look at an old bus map that the Non TFL route 306 use to go to New Barnet Station from Borehamwood so maybe the TFL can save that link by get HCC to exdened it and then with wtihdrawn the 107 from New Barnet and Elstree and Borehamwood Station 306 is a commercial service so doubt HCC will have any interest in extending it beyond it’s own border, especially competing against a TfL service in the London side. Don’t see 107 getting its Barnet end cut as it has been mentioned, Barnet to Borehamwood link is popular with shoppers and workers. Also cutting the 107 at the station will sever the direct link to the high street, Tesco and studios from the areas south of Elstree village
|
|