|
Post by lonmark on Aug 28, 2020 7:16:17 GMT
I thought I give a go to ride on that route 384 for last time as it was not my local area anyway. I have to say not many people get on my bus as one trip as I see. However, one man asks the bus driver the question about where is a bus stop and which route it go when it all changes from Saturday 29th. It didn't seem busy to me but I may be at different times! Did you notice any signs on the bus stops or hail-and-ride posts advising of the changes to the route and informing passengers where to go? I am afraid I didn't see any notes at the bus stop about bus changes service at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 11:37:52 GMT
Did you notice any signs on the bus stops or hail-and-ride posts advising of the changes to the route and informing passengers where to go? I am afraid I didn't see any notes at the bus stop about bus changes service at all. There's nothing on the Edgware side, though journey planner has been updated. For some strange reason the only 384 e-tile I've seen is at Cloister Gardens in the Eastbound direction, the 'towards' tile has been changed to include Barnet.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 29, 2020 4:38:37 GMT
Does the 384 with its extension to Edgware and reroutings have any restrictions to prevent longer single deckers or double deckers to go on it?
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Aug 29, 2020 7:16:30 GMT
Online map not yet updated
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Aug 29, 2020 8:20:11 GMT
At Edgware bus station there is no tiles on any of the stops heading towards Mill Hill or Apex Corner showing 384. I see them serving the same stop as the 292 but I'm surprised there is no tiles. Also they seem to park on the multistand or the 221 stand.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Aug 29, 2020 8:46:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ian on Aug 29, 2020 13:24:55 GMT
Well I thought I would try a ride on the new 384 today to test it out. Boarded at Mill Hill, Green Man, (aka The Hale or Cloister Gardens stop). All good and as far as I could see all the e-tiles were in place throughout. A handful of passengers including a teenager going from Edgware to Barnet town centre and me through to Cockfosters. Various people at different stops enquiring about the new route from the driver or other passengers. Seemed to be all ok for a first day of operation, despite lack of publicity. I have to say that for making a through journey like I was making, I don’t think retaining the various additional twists and turns would leave it as a plausible journey option time-wise, it would just be too long. The one major glitch I discovered en route as we headed up the A1 towards Stirling Corner… surely, I thought to myself, the driver must get into the middle lane or even right-hand lane…? No…. no… still no… at Stirling Corner… how’s he going to turn right… oh no. where is he going! We head straight on up the A1…. No announcement, iBus just goes silent… after momentarily thinking he had not learnt the route and he was lost I realised we were on diversion… past Borehamwood…right up the Barnet Way to Bignalls Corner, then St Albans Road fast to Barnet town centre. Just as well I wasn’t going to Barnet Hospital! I found it a bit poor that there was no announcement of ‘This bus is on diversion’ etc. Not brilliant for customer servie But overall, I thought it worked well as a route, decent length, can see it getting more popular. I look forward to using it more. Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 29, 2020 15:58:36 GMT
Well I thought I would try a ride on the new 384 today to test it out. Boarded at Mill Hill, Green Man, (aka The Hale or Cloister Gardens stop). All good and as far as I could see all the e-tiles were in place throughout. A handful of passengers including a teenager going from Edgware to Barnet town centre and me through to Cockfosters. Various people at different stops enquiring about the new route from the driver or other passengers. Seemed to be all ok for a first day of operation, despite lack of publicity. I have to say that for making a through journey like I was making, I don’t think retaining the various additional twists and turns would leave it as a plausible journey option time-wise, it would just be too long. The one major glitch I discovered en route as we headed up the A1 towards Stirling Corner… surely, I thought to myself, the driver must get into the middle lane or even right-hand lane…? No…. no… still no… at Stirling Corner… how’s he going to turn right… oh no. where is he going! We head straight on up the A1…. No announcement, iBus just goes silent… after momentarily thinking he had not learnt the route and he was lost I realised we were on diversion… past Borehamwood…right up the Barnet Way to Bignalls Corner, then St Albans Road fast to Barnet town centre. Just as well I wasn’t going to Barnet Hospital! I found it a bit poor that there was no announcement of ‘This bus is on diversion’ etc. Not brilliant for customer servie But overall, I thought it worked well as a route, decent length, can see it getting more popular. I look forward to using it more. View AttachmentView AttachmentAgain I'm not local but no one has provided anything to suggest to me that it couldn't do Edgware to Cockfosters and retain the twisty bits as well - it's max previous running time didn't even hit the hour mark and the only major obstacle it now faces is the A1. If I compare it to the 410, a lengthy South London route that uses a number of back roads between town centres, it has a much higher max running time of 74 minutes & has to deal with Purley Way, terrible traffic around West Croydon Bus Station & Norwood Junction yet it manages to do so the majority of the time. If start removing all those useful twiddly bits for locals, then we are on a dangerous path. I don't think TfL is in any sort of position to pick & choose what passengers it wants to cater for when it needs all the revenue it can get - oh well, those residents can't be blamed now if they switch to cars and other methods.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Aug 29, 2020 16:28:28 GMT
Well I thought I would try a ride on the new 384 today to test it out. Boarded at Mill Hill, Green Man, (aka The Hale or Cloister Gardens stop). All good and as far as I could see all the e-tiles were in place throughout. A handful of passengers including a teenager going from Edgware to Barnet town centre and me through to Cockfosters. Various people at different stops enquiring about the new route from the driver or other passengers. Seemed to be all ok for a first day of operation, despite lack of publicity. I have to say that for making a through journey like I was making, I don’t think retaining the various additional twists and turns would leave it as a plausible journey option time-wise, it would just be too long. The one major glitch I discovered en route as we headed up the A1 towards Stirling Corner… surely, I thought to myself, the driver must get into the middle lane or even right-hand lane…? No…. no… still no… at Stirling Corner… how’s he going to turn right… oh no. where is he going! We head straight on up the A1…. No announcement, iBus just goes silent… after momentarily thinking he had not learnt the route and he was lost I realised we were on diversion… past Borehamwood…right up the Barnet Way to Bignalls Corner, then St Albans Road fast to Barnet town centre. Just as well I wasn’t going to Barnet Hospital! I found it a bit poor that there was no announcement of ‘This bus is on diversion’ etc. Not brilliant for customer servie But overall, I thought it worked well as a route, decent length, can see it getting more popular. I look forward to using it more. View AttachmentView AttachmentAgain I'm not local but no one has provided anything to suggest to me that it couldn't do Edgware to Cockfosters and retain the twisty bits as well - it's max previous running time didn't even hit the hour mark and the only major obstacle it now faces is the A1. If I compare it to the 410, a lengthy South London route that uses a number of back roads between town centres, it has a much higher max running time of 74 minutes & has to deal with Purley Way, terrible traffic around West Croydon Bus Station & Norwood Junction yet it manages to do so the majority of the time. If start removing all those useful twiddly bits for locals, then we are on a dangerous path. I don't think TfL is in any sort of position to pick & choose what passengers it wants to cater for when it needs all the revenue it can get - oh well, those residents can't be blamed now if they switch to cars and other methods. Whats quite interesting is how there's discussions of how students need to adapt to route changes - it's actually funny that the only benefitting are those who live en route on the new route, or the people who got the bus going into the new areas and roads. It's really ironic how they said "better connection to JCoSS" what happens to those who used to live en route but now cannot get to school!! Worse yet, what if there are children who's parents have already gone to work and can't get a lift!!! Very bad planning from tfl. Totteridge Academy now suffers with one less journey.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Aug 29, 2020 18:46:22 GMT
With regard to the TfL need for revenue in their difficult financial circumstances, they have addressed that point specifically in that they’ve said that the package of 384/292 changes is estimated to deliver a 30% increase in revenue for the same overall costs. So if they’re even only approximately correct, it’s a clear win on that front.
I’ve no idea if the 384 is comparable with the 410 or other similar routes. I assume that must depend on a whole myriad of factors like the balance of short and longer journeys; the actual volume of journeys on the 'twiddly bits' (which they said was very low on existing 384, for example, which may not apply on 410); what and where the trip generators are; where alternative stops and routes are and so on. It could be, for example, that an attempt to ‘straighten out’ the 410 might lose revenue, but clearly TfL believe these changes on 384 significantly increase it.
With regard to educational institutions, there are quite a few impacted, not just JCSS. For example, Mill Hill County High, a large catchment large intake school, now benefits from 6bph instead of previous 4bph at The Fairway stop. The Wood Street site of Barnet College, an important A Level Centre, gets much improved connections to a potential catchment in Edgware & Mill Hill. And other potential journeys benefit - e.g access to Barnet Hospital or people living in Barnet getting to the new Barnet FC ground in Edgware and so on.
If there is a level of demand - however small TfL think it is - on the now unserved roads then perhaps a less frequent local service like 399 might be more suitably diverted there in future at a lower level of cost.
In any case, i look forward to using the useful new links provided by the 384.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 29, 2020 18:57:38 GMT
With regard to the TfL need for revenue in their difficult financial circumstances, they have addressed that point specifically in that they’ve said that the package of 384/292 changes is estimated to deliver a 30% increase in revenue for the same overall costs. So if they’re even only approximately correct, it’s a clear win on that front. I’ve no idea if the 384 is comparable with the 410 or other similar routes. I assume that must depend on a whole myriad of factors like the balance of short and longer journeys; the actual volume of journeys on the 'twiddly bits' (which they said was very low on existing 384, for example, which may not apply on 410); what and where the trip generators are; where alternative stops and routes are and so on. It could be, for example, that an attempt to ‘straighten out’ the 410 might lose revenue, but clearly TfL believe these changes on 384 significantly increase it. With regard to educational institutions, there are quite a few impacted, not just JCSS. For example, Mill Hill County High, a large catchment large intake school, now benefits from 6bph instead of previous 4bph at The Fairway stop. The Wood Street site of Barnet College, an important A Level Centre, gets much improved connections to a potential catchment in Edgware & Mill Hill. And other potential journeys benefit - e.g access to Barnet Hospital or people living in Barnet getting to the new Barnet FC ground in Edgware and so on. If there is a level of demand - however small TfL think it is - on the now unserved roads then perhaps a less frequent local service like 399 might be more suitably diverted there in future at a lower level of cost. In any case, i look forward to using the useful new links provided by the 384. Maybe the 410 has different circumstances but it was designed to show that these routes can & do work. In regards to the 399, I suspect it's a good suggestion (you are more local than myself) but by then, the damage has been done - the worst thing TfL could of done is left these roads without replacement and I suspect they could of mitigated some damage by extending the 399 in that direction. I don't see residents waiting for years in the hope these roads will be served again - they'll likely vote with their feet and more patronage is lost. Hedging bets on patronage that may or may not come considering the pandemic and potential long term effects on public transport over patronage that is already there is a big gamble.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Aug 29, 2020 19:25:09 GMT
With regard to the TfL need for revenue in their difficult financial circumstances, they have addressed that point specifically in that they’ve said that the package of 384/292 changes is estimated to deliver a 30% increase in revenue for the same overall costs. So if they’re even only approximately correct, it’s a clear win on that front. I’ve no idea if the 384 is comparable with the 410 or other similar routes. I assume that must depend on a whole myriad of factors like the balance of short and longer journeys; the actual volume of journeys on the 'twiddly bits' (which they said was very low on existing 384, for example, which may not apply on 410); what and where the trip generators are; where alternative stops and routes are and so on. It could be, for example, that an attempt to ‘straighten out’ the 410 might lose revenue, but clearly TfL believe these changes on 384 significantly increase it. With regard to educational institutions, there are quite a few impacted, not just JCSS. For example, Mill Hill County High, a large catchment large intake school, now benefits from 6bph instead of previous 4bph at The Fairway stop. The Wood Street site of Barnet College, an important A Level Centre, gets much improved connections to a potential catchment in Edgware & Mill Hill. And other potential journeys benefit - e.g access to Barnet Hospital or people living in Barnet getting to the new Barnet FC ground in Edgware and so on. If there is a level of demand - however small TfL think it is - on the now unserved roads then perhaps a less frequent local service like 399 might be more suitably diverted there in future at a lower level of cost. In any case, i look forward to using the useful new links provided by the 384. The 384 is certainly a controversial change however I still think that the 384 could've always gone via Hendon Wood Lane & Marsh Lane instead of the A1.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Aug 29, 2020 19:39:25 GMT
The 384 is certainly a controversial change however I still think that the 384 could've always gone via Hendon Wood Lane & Marsh Lane instead of the A1. I’m certain someone said in the past that parts of Hendon Wood Lane is a bit narrow for a bus to negotiate
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Aug 29, 2020 20:44:00 GMT
With regard to the TfL need for revenue in their difficult financial circumstances, they have addressed that point specifically in that they’ve said that the package of 384/292 changes is estimated to deliver a 30% increase in revenue for the same overall costs. So if they’re even only approximately correct, it’s a clear win on that front. I’ve no idea if the 384 is comparable with the 410 or other similar routes. I assume that must depend on a whole myriad of factors like the balance of short and longer journeys; the actual volume of journeys on the 'twiddly bits' (which they said was very low on existing 384, for example, which may not apply on 410); what and where the trip generators are; where alternative stops and routes are and so on. It could be, for example, that an attempt to ‘straighten out’ the 410 might lose revenue, but clearly TfL believe these changes on 384 significantly increase it. With regard to educational institutions, there are quite a few impacted, not just JCSS. For example, Mill Hill County High, a large catchment large intake school, now benefits from 6bph instead of previous 4bph at The Fairway stop. The Wood Street site of Barnet College, an important A Level Centre, gets much improved connections to a potential catchment in Edgware & Mill Hill. And other potential journeys benefit - e.g access to Barnet Hospital or people living in Barnet getting to the new Barnet FC ground in Edgware and so on. If there is a level of demand - however small TfL think it is - on the now unserved roads then perhaps a less frequent local service like 399 might be more suitably diverted there in future at a lower level of cost. In any case, i look forward to using the useful new links provided by the 384. Geoff Hobbs wasn't actually able to say what the estimated increase in the cost recovery percentage would be, or what the average total walking distance for those who will have to a walk further will be. Both figures one might have thought TfL would have wanted to establish before making these changes. So the first day - what a mess! I understand that the rather than delay implementation of the new routing by two days until roadworks on Barnet Road were complete (by the start of Monday?) the bus went all the way from Stirling Corner up to the M25 and back down again, thus missing out even more areas: Quinta Drive to Barnet Hospital to The Avenue to The Spires! Added to which I'm hearing that TfL has not put information advising of the changes on the hail-and-ride posts on the removed roads, so there are going to be a lot of people waiting for a bus that will never come. Also take a look at the new timetable, all working round the inevitable delays on the A1 and Stirling Corner. Think your bus is coming every 20 minutes at the same times past each hour, and it will be easy to remember? Think again: www.londonbusroutes.net/times/384.htmWith this standard of implementation, difficult to learn timetable and the bus missing out key roads and destinations in High and New Barnet, I think TfL's expectation of higher passenger numbers is very optimistic. I expect usage to tank in the High and New Barnet areas in particular, as the route is simply no longer useful or practical for many of its previous passenger base - people will simply gravitate to cars. I imagine TfL will be unlikely to admit responsibility however, and will be more likely to pull the route altogether rather than restore it to the removed roads, where it actually served a purpose of getting the residents of New and High Barnet to their local town centres, supermarkets and stations. It's a great shame. There is a great irony in TfL saying it wants to improve 'connections between town centres' while cutting out the entirely of New Barnet town centre along East Barnet Road, plus New Barnet station, plus The Spires/Chipping Barnet Library eastbound. No offence to the residents of Cockfosters, but it's barely a 'town centre', compared to New Barnet town centre which has been cut out. Cockfosters has a tube station and a couple of small shops - it's not a major destination for people from anywhere in Barnet west of Westbrook Crescent (it's still quicker to access the Piccadilly Line at Oakwood or Arnos Grove anyway). In contrast, people from Cockfosters are drawn to destinations of Aldi/East Barnet Village and the high street of New Barnet along East Barnet Road, which they now can't get to on the bus. And again, no offence to the residents of Edgware, but I don't know anyone from High or New Barnet who needs to go to Edgware on a regular basis. What is there that isn't in Barnet? It's like TfL consider Edgware to be some kind of Shangri-la on which all buses must converge because it happens to have a bus garage, when really it's just a place with a shabby high street that isn't a pull destination from Barnet. So where are all these passengers wanting to 'travel between town centres' supposed to be coming from? Just the ones who want to go from Cockfosters to Edgware, with Barnet being the inconvenience in between that TfL seem to think it is? Just school kids twice a day? I am really sceptical that there are that many people desperate to get from Edgware and High Barnet to Cockfosters, or from High Barnet to Edgware, especially while missing out the town centre and station of New Barnet.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Aug 29, 2020 21:13:18 GMT
With regard to the TfL need for revenue in their difficult financial circumstances, they have addressed that point specifically in that they’ve said that the package of 384/292 changes is estimated to deliver a 30% increase in revenue for the same overall costs. So if they’re even only approximately correct, it’s a clear win on that front. I’ve no idea if the 384 is comparable with the 410 or other similar routes. I assume that must depend on a whole myriad of factors like the balance of short and longer journeys; the actual volume of journeys on the 'twiddly bits' (which they said was very low on existing 384, for example, which may not apply on 410); what and where the trip generators are; where alternative stops and routes are and so on. It could be, for example, that an attempt to ‘straighten out’ the 410 might lose revenue, but clearly TfL believe these changes on 384 significantly increase it. With regard to educational institutions, there are quite a few impacted, not just JCSS. For example, Mill Hill County High, a large catchment large intake school, now benefits from 6bph instead of previous 4bph at The Fairway stop. The Wood Street site of Barnet College, an important A Level Centre, gets much improved connections to a potential catchment in Edgware & Mill Hill. And other potential journeys benefit - e.g access to Barnet Hospital or people living in Barnet getting to the new Barnet FC ground in Edgware and so on. If there is a level of demand - however small TfL think it is - on the now unserved roads then perhaps a less frequent local service like 399 might be more suitably diverted there in future at a lower level of cost. In any case, i look forward to using the useful new links provided by the 384. Maybe the 410 has different circumstances but it was designed to show that these routes can & do work. In regards to the 399, I suspect it's a good suggestion (you are more local than myself) but by then, the damage has been done - the worst thing TfL could of done is left these roads without replacement and I suspect they could of mitigated some damage by extending the 399 in that direction. I don't see residents waiting for years in the hope these roads will be served again - they'll likely vote with their feet and more patronage is lost. Hedging bets on patronage that may or may not come considering the pandemic and potential long term effects on public transport over patronage that is already there is a big gamble. Geoff Hobbs said that TfL will be reviewing the new routing of the 384 'after one year', but as you say the damage will have already been done. I sent him lots of suggestions such as adapting the 389/399 or 383, extending the 377, or even a separate route number at a lower frequency over the same corridor but serving the removed roads. He said that TfL would consider these but that cost was the primary factor. He did not give any indication that they would be considering anything to serve the removed roads before a year has passed.
|
|