|
Post by foxhat on Jul 16, 2020 12:13:44 GMT
These changes will commence on 29-August According to what information? They previously said vehicle route tests were not even scheduled until September, but if true this confirms what we already knew about JCoSS being TfL's only concern, plus they want to try to do things under the radar while the pandemic is still active. TFL are reprehensible. TfL and internal service change bulletins
|
|
|
Post by ian on Jul 16, 2020 13:02:53 GMT
These changes will commence on 29-August According to what information? They previously said vehicle route tests were not even scheduled until September, but if true this confirms what we already knew about JCoSS being TfL's only concern, plus they want to try to do things under the radar while the pandemic is still active. TFL are reprehensible. As i understood it - but could be wrong - it is part of wider changes being implemented that day including 112 etc.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Jul 16, 2020 13:08:43 GMT
I think it is also to do with the fact that lots of health services are suspended for the time being at Edgware Hospital re Covid 19, so increased need for access from Edgware & MIll Hill to Barnet Hospital (and FMH ref 383).
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Jul 16, 2020 19:24:27 GMT
No one has a problem with the extension of the 384 to Edgware - the widespread opposition is to the rerouting in Barnet, leaving people up to 630 metres from the bus network. Clearly some areas are more important to TfL than others and they don't even hide their bias - it's pretty obvious who and where their priorities are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 9:00:47 GMT
No one has a problem with the extension of the 384 to Edgware - the widespread opposition is to the rerouting in Barnet, leaving people up to 630 metres from the bus network. Clearly some areas are more important to TfL than others and they don't even hide their bias - it's pretty obvious who and where their priorities are. You've definitely been vocal about your opinion on this forum, so I do look forward to your comments and questions to PTSP at the webinar on Monday. I know it seems like the changes are set in stone but surely they wouldn't just do this meeting out of courtesy? Perhaps to cover their legal backside with regards to consulting the local community before a change is implemented etc. We shall see.
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Jul 17, 2020 9:06:09 GMT
No one has a problem with the extension of the 384 to Edgware - the widespread opposition is to the rerouting in Barnet, leaving people up to 630 metres from the bus network. Clearly some areas are more important to TfL than others and they don't even hide their bias - it's pretty obvious who and where their priorities are. You've definitely been vocal about your opinion on this forum, so I do look forward to your comments and questions to PTSP at the webinar on Monday. I know it seems like the changes are set in stone but surely they wouldn't just do this meeting out of courtesy? Perhaps to cover their legal backside with regards to consulting the local community before a change is implemented etc. We shall see. I cannot see how that meeting would be anything other than a legal backside cover out of courtesy. Everything is set for the 29-Aug change and we are rapidly approaching the iBus Caesar upload date. Personally, I don't agree with any of the changes because half of hilly Barnet will now be unserved and the route's reliability could go down the pan on the A1 Barnet Way.
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Jul 17, 2020 9:08:14 GMT
No one has a problem with the extension of the 384 to Edgware - the widespread opposition is to the rerouting in Barnet, leaving people up to 630 metres from the bus network. Clearly some areas are more important to TfL than others and they don't even hide their bias - it's pretty obvious who and where their priorities are. The way I see it, the rerouting is purely to save the extra cost of the Edgware extension, which already costs two extra buses.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jul 17, 2020 9:58:45 GMT
You've definitely been vocal about your opinion on this forum, so I do look forward to your comments and questions to PTSP at the webinar on Monday. I know it seems like the changes are set in stone but surely they wouldn't just do this meeting out of courtesy? Perhaps to cover their legal backside with regards to consulting the local community before a change is implemented etc. We shall see. I cannot see how that meeting would be anything other than a legal backside cover out of courtesy. Everything is set for the 29-Aug change and we are rapidly approaching the iBus Caesar upload date. Personally, I don't agree with any of the changes because half of hilly Barnet will now be unserved and the route's reliability could go down the pan on the A1 Barnet Way. No one has a problem with the extension of the 384 to Edgware - the widespread opposition is to the rerouting in Barnet, leaving people up to 630 metres from the bus network. Clearly some areas are more important to TfL than others and they don't even hide their bias - it's pretty obvious who and where their priorities are. The way I see it, the rerouting is purely to save the extra cost of the Edgware extension, which already costs two extra buses. The annoying thing is, if done the right way this quick Edgware - Barnet link would actually be really good and useful. But I really don't think the 9.6m low frequency 384 is the way to go. If anything they could do with a brand new route, but of course TfL in its current form are in no state to do so sadly. Realistically it should also be a DD route, as once people realise the link is there, it could easily become a hit, especially during peaks. However considering they seem hell bent on doing it to the 384, I feel like they should at least utilise another route such as the 234 or 377 (Or any others I remember people suggesting a while ago) to replace the 384s lost links. The 384 should also get a much better frequency, considering its being extended all the way from Barnet to Edgware and its only getting 2 extra buses, that says a lot. It could also at least do with full size SDs too. Another thing here is that its annoying the 292 has to suffer as a result. Especially considering TfL are acting like the main link is Edgware - Stirling Corner which it is not, the main link is Borehamwood - Edgware which will now just become packed during peak times. If they want to fiddle with the 292 they should just cut it back from Rossington Avenue to Elstree and Borehamwood Station for a start.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 17, 2020 10:09:45 GMT
I cannot see how that meeting would be anything other than a legal backside cover out of courtesy. Everything is set for the 29-Aug change and we are rapidly approaching the iBus Caesar upload date. Personally, I don't agree with any of the changes because half of hilly Barnet will now be unserved and the route's reliability could go down the pan on the A1 Barnet Way. The way I see it, the rerouting is purely to save the extra cost of the Edgware extension, which already costs two extra buses. The annoying thing is, if done the right way this quick Edgware - Barnet link would actually be really good and useful. But I really don't think the 9.6m low frequency 384 is the way to go. If anything they could do with a brand new route, but of course TfL in its current form are in no state to do so sadly. Realistically it should also be a DD route, as once people realise the link is there, it could easily become a hit, especially during peaks. However considering they seem hell bent on doing it to the 384, I feel like they should at least utilise another route such as the 234 or 377 (Or any others I remember people suggesting a while ago) to replace the 384s lost links. The 384 should also get a much better frequency, considering its being extended all the way from Barnet to Edgware and its only getting 2 extra buses, that says a lot. It could also at least do with full size SDs too. Another thing here is that its annoying the 292 has to suffer as a result. Especially considering TfL are acting like the main link is Edgware - Stirling Corner which it is not, the main link is Borehamwood - Edgware which will now just become packed during peak times. If they want to fiddle with the 292 they should just cut it back from Rossington Avenue to Elstree and Borehamwood Station for a start. The 340 could've always been extended to Barnet if anything with a stand situation set up on Underhill or Fairfield Way or even in Dollis Valley Estate.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 17, 2020 10:21:20 GMT
I cannot see how that meeting would be anything other than a legal backside cover out of courtesy. Everything is set for the 29-Aug change and we are rapidly approaching the iBus Caesar upload date. Personally, I don't agree with any of the changes because half of hilly Barnet will now be unserved and the route's reliability could go down the pan on the A1 Barnet Way. The way I see it, the rerouting is purely to save the extra cost of the Edgware extension, which already costs two extra buses. The annoying thing is, if done the right way this quick Edgware - Barnet link would actually be really good and useful. But I really don't think the 9.6m low frequency 384 is the way to go. If anything they could do with a brand new route, but of course TfL in its current form are in no state to do so sadly. Realistically it should also be a DD route, as once people realise the link is there, it could easily become a hit, especially during peaks. However considering they seem hell bent on doing it to the 384, I feel like they should at least utilise another route such as the 234 or 377 (Or any others I remember people suggesting a while ago) to replace the 384s lost links. The 384 should also get a much better frequency, considering its being extended all the way from Barnet to Edgware and its only getting 2 extra buses, that says a lot. It could also at least do with full size SDs too. Another thing here is that its annoying the 292 has to suffer as a result. Especially considering TfL are acting like the main link is Edgware - Stirling Corner which it is not, the main link is Borehamwood - Edgware which will now just become packed during peak times. If they want to fiddle with the 292 they should just cut it back from Rossington Avenue to Elstree and Borehamwood Station for a start. I agree with your comments about the 384, but there you go. Regarding the 292, it had to suffer in some way following the ending of funding from Hertfordshire County Council. TfL have clearly taken the view that an overall frequency reduction is preferable to cutting back the Rossington Avenue leg. It could have been worse - TfL could simply have rerouted the 292 to Barnet instead of Borehamwood, withdrawn the 107 and left it up to Sullivan's and Uno to cover Borehamwood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 10:42:33 GMT
Well the consultation has been removed from the TFL consultation page, so maybe soon we'll get another update with TFL considering people's opinions mainly on the rerouting away from the Back roads of Barnet.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Jul 17, 2020 12:15:30 GMT
No one has a problem with the extension of the 384 to Edgware - the widespread opposition is to the rerouting in Barnet, leaving people up to 630 metres from the bus network. Clearly some areas are more important to TfL than others and they don't even hide their bias - it's pretty obvious who and where their priorities are. You've definitely been vocal about your opinion on this forum, so I do look forward to your comments and questions to PTSP at the webinar on Monday. I know it seems like the changes are set in stone but surely they wouldn't just do this meeting out of courtesy? Perhaps to cover their legal backside with regards to consulting the local community before a change is implemented etc. We shall see. It's because they explicitly promised us a public meeting if they ever did decide to implement the proposals. What we thought they meant by that was that they would hold a public meeting before publishing a decision, in case what they heard could change their minds. What actually happened is they lulled us into a false sense of security by saying that they would be coming up with alternative options (Feb 2019 consultation report), so a public meeting shouldn't be scheduled until they'd told us what those alternative options were. But in fact, they then kept us in limbo for over a year before choosing to publish their decision to go ahead with the original proposals at the height of the pandemic, when they hoped objectors would be otherwise occupied, so they could rush implementation through still during the pandemic and use it as an excuse not to hold a proper public meeting (we've had to push and push even for this fig leaf online meeting). If they felt they had no other ideas for alternatives that would be viable, the right thing to do would have been to hold the public meeting at that stage/delay publishing the decision until a public meeting could be held safely, in case what they heard could change their minds. But still, it's not too late for them to do the right thing and keep the existing routing in Barnet, or at least delay implementation until a proper public meeting can take place. It wouldn't even be embarrassing to reverse that part of the decision: they could still talk up the extension to Edgware and demonstrate they were listening to the community/route users by making a change to the Barnet aspect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 15:30:59 GMT
This email was just sent out and includes an updated (JULY 2020) report: Good afternoon I am writing further to Transport for London’s recent update regarding our proposed package of changes to bus routes 384, 292 and 606. Thank you for your interest in our proposals. We received a substantial amount of feedback, which raised concerns around a number of common themes. We have today published a report which provides our responses to the key areas of concern raised and you can read the report here: consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-384/ Thank you for your interest in our proposals, and I hope you find this report useful.
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Jul 17, 2020 15:54:15 GMT
This email was just sent out and includes an updated (JULY 2020) report: Good afternoon I am writing further to Transport for London’s recent update regarding our proposed package of changes to bus routes 384, 292 and 606. Thank you for your interest in our proposals. We received a substantial amount of feedback, which raised concerns around a number of common themes. We have today published a report which provides our responses to the key areas of concern raised and you can read the report here: consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-384/ Thank you for your interest in our proposals, and I hope you find this report useful. Question is having read it, does that actually answer any of the questions and does it provide any new information? The attitude of the text feels to be one of "we're doing this anyway to save cost and don't value your concerns" rather than "we fully appreciate your concerns and have best tried to accommodate them".
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 17, 2020 16:24:18 GMT
This email was just sent out and includes an updated (JULY 2020) report: Good afternoon I am writing further to Transport for London’s recent update regarding our proposed package of changes to bus routes 384, 292 and 606. Thank you for your interest in our proposals. We received a substantial amount of feedback, which raised concerns around a number of common themes. We have today published a report which provides our responses to the key areas of concern raised and you can read the report here: consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-384/ Thank you for your interest in our proposals, and I hope you find this report useful. Question is having read it, does that actually answer any of the questions and does it provide any new information? The attitude of the text feels to be one of "we're doing this anyway to save cost and don't value your concerns" rather than "we fully appreciate your concerns and have best tried to accommodate them". It also seems to contradict certain things such as well - if I was a local and read that report, I'd feel like I've been taken into account at all.
|
|