|
Post by ian on Aug 29, 2020 21:36:32 GMT
I've seen some biggish cars struggle to turn from Barnet Rd into Hendon Wood Lane, never mind a bus. Sticking to the A1 enables the 292 frequency reduction whilst increasing the total service as far as Stirling Corner.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Aug 29, 2020 21:40:18 GMT
I've seen some biggish cars struggle to turn from Barnet Rd into Hendon Wood Lane, never mind a bus. Sticking to the A1 enables the 292 frequency reduction whilst increasing the total service as far as Stirling Corner. Wouldn't it make sense to then get rid of the width restriction
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Aug 29, 2020 21:41:01 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. Couldn't the 384 have at least done the diversion up to Borehamwood and then take Rowley Lane or were there roadworks further along?
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Aug 29, 2020 21:56:29 GMT
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. Couldn't the 384 have at least done the diversion up to Borehamwood and then take Rowley Lane or were there roadworks further along? I don't know exactly where the roadworks are, just that they are on Barnet Road supposed to be finished by Monday morning. So it would have made a lot more sense just to run from Quinta Drive to Cockfosters for two days, because this diversion has left even more people without a bus and the new section has the 292. But obviously Edgware is once again prioritised over Barnet by TfL. It's almost like they WANT the route to fail in Barnet...hmm. Regarding Hendon Wood Lane, it would be pretty straightforward to put a bus gate in the width restriction, as exists in Oakleigh Park. This would give a bus service to the Marsh Lane area and the 384 could rejoin the 292 at Apex Corner. Not a lot of patronage on the Barnet Bypass itself. This would also avoid the inevitable delays on the Barnet Bypass, which will likely be another cause of reduced patronage in the Barnet area.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Aug 29, 2020 22:11:49 GMT
The arguments that are being levelled against the new 384 route could be said equally of the 251: why would anyone want to go from Totteridge to Burnt Oak, or from Edgware to Arnos Grove (which is very comparable to Cockfosters). On the face of it, almost no-one would. And yet patronage on the 251 has increased enormously over the last 20-30 years as a 'cross-borough route linking town centres' to the point it is has had several frequency increases, is now often overloaded and really needs double-deckers if that were possible. The way people are using buses is self-evidently changing; where kids go to school has changed radically in the last 20 years and is much more dispersed; health service provision has changed substantially with all kinds of specialisations and continues to evolve and all of population levels, demographics and economic geography are changing too.
In addition, there are multiple specific reasons why people would want to use this specific new routeing. For example, some people in Barnet do want to get to The Hive for Barnet FC/the London Bees etc. - a journey made far easier by this route. People in Edgware & Mill Hill do want and need to get to Barnet Hospital since Edgware Hospital was downgraded and services moved to Barnet. Schools and educational demand (for example) is an obvious one at multiple points along the new routeing, There will be demand for Edgware, not because it is necessarily a massive destination in its own right, but because (for example) getting there also then offers a hop on another bus to get to (say) Harrow, or Wembley Stadium, or a myriad of other places where people who use buses might be employed or want to go for all kinds of reasons.
Now it may be that TfL are a disaster and don't have the first clue what they are doing, or it may be that their huge amounts of multiple types of data give them some idea of what new routeings might actually work. I suspect the latter.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Aug 29, 2020 22:56:00 GMT
The arguments that are being levelled against the new 384 route could be said equally of the 251: why would anyone want to go from Totteridge to Burnt Oak, or from Edgware to Arnos Grove (which is very comparable to Cockfosters). On the face of it, almost no-one would. And yet patronage on the 251 has increased enormously over the last 20-30 years as a 'cross-borough route linking town centres' to the point it is has had several frequency increases, is now often overloaded and really needs double-deckers if that were possible. The way people are using buses is self-evidently changing; where kids go to school has changed radically in the last 20 years and is much more dispersed; health service provision has changed substantially with all kinds of specialisations and continues to evolve and all of population levels, demographics and economic geography are changing too. In addition, there are multiple specific reasons why people would want to use this specific new routeing. For example, some people in Barnet do want to get to The Hive for Barnet FC/the London Bees etc. - a journey made far easier by this route. People in Edgware & Mill Hill do want and need to get to Barnet Hospital since Edgware Hospital was downgraded and services moved to Barnet. Schools and educational demand (for example) is an obvious one at multiple points along the new routeing, There will be demand for Edgware, not because it is necessarily a massive destination in its own right, but because (for example) getting there also then offers a hop on another bus to get to (say) Harrow, or Wembley Stadium, or a myriad of other places where people who use buses might be employed or want to go for all kinds of reasons. Now it may be that TfL are a disaster and don't have the first clue what they are doing, or it may be that their huge amounts of multiple types of data give them some idea of what new routeings might actually work. I suspect the latter. I suspect the former. And I suspect you work for TfL. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 29, 2020 23:24:04 GMT
The arguments that are being levelled against the new 384 route could be said equally of the 251: why would anyone want to go from Totteridge to Burnt Oak, or from Edgware to Arnos Grove (which is very comparable to Cockfosters). On the face of it, almost no-one would. And yet patronage on the 251 has increased enormously over the last 20-30 years as a 'cross-borough route linking town centres' to the point it is has had several frequency increases, is now often overloaded and really needs double-deckers if that were possible. The way people are using buses is self-evidently changing; where kids go to school has changed radically in the last 20 years and is much more dispersed; health service provision has changed substantially with all kinds of specialisations and continues to evolve and all of population levels, demographics and economic geography are changing too. In addition, there are multiple specific reasons why people would want to use this specific new routeing. For example, some people in Barnet do want to get to The Hive for Barnet FC/the London Bees etc. - a journey made far easier by this route. People in Edgware & Mill Hill do want and need to get to Barnet Hospital since Edgware Hospital was downgraded and services moved to Barnet. Schools and educational demand (for example) is an obvious one at multiple points along the new routeing, There will be demand for Edgware, not because it is necessarily a massive destination in its own right, but because (for example) getting there also then offers a hop on another bus to get to (say) Harrow, or Wembley Stadium, or a myriad of other places where people who use buses might be employed or want to go for all kinds of reasons. Now it may be that TfL are a disaster and don't have the first clue what they are doing, or it may be that their huge amounts of multiple types of data give them some idea of what new routeings might actually work. I suspect the latter. To be fair, I don't remember one argument on here being against any extension of the 384 to Edgware - the argument has been that people should not lose their local route because TfL have seemingly altered the distance between bus stop and homes by 50m to subsequently get this change through. There is has been no explanation as to why it was changed for this consultation alone when consultations after this have continued with the 400m distance. As for TfL being a disaster, it's very clear to see they have made a number of extremely questionable decisions over the last few years that have been detrimental to buses be withdrawing entire routes that had no need to be lost, cutting other routes back, reducing frequencies and making a number of interchanges much more difficult to achieve by resiting bus stops or removing them altogether. They have huge data analysis but I'd argue they don't have the expertise or appetite to use it effectively.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Aug 30, 2020 8:23:04 GMT
I suspect the former. And I suspect you work for TfL. Haha, now that is genuinely 'LOL' funny. Naturally because I disagree with you... hey presto, I work for TfL! That's absolutely of a piece with your starting point that TfL has a list of areas they want to especially favour (Edgware) and a list of areas to damage. The idea that I work for TfL will genuinely keep me chuckling all day so thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Aug 30, 2020 8:54:14 GMT
The arguments that are being levelled against the new 384 route could be said equally of the 251: why would anyone want to go from Totteridge to Burnt Oak, or from Edgware to Arnos Grove (which is very comparable to Cockfosters). On the face of it, almost no-one would. And yet patronage on the 251 has increased enormously over the last 20-30 years as a 'cross-borough route linking town centres' to the point it is has had several frequency increases, is now often overloaded and really needs double-deckers if that were possible. The way people are using buses is self-evidently changing; where kids go to school has changed radically in the last 20 years and is much more dispersed; health service provision has changed substantially with all kinds of specialisations and continues to evolve and all of population levels, demographics and economic geography are changing too. In addition, there are multiple specific reasons why people would want to use this specific new routeing. For example, some people in Barnet do want to get to The Hive for Barnet FC/the London Bees etc. - a journey made far easier by this route. People in Edgware & Mill Hill do want and need to get to Barnet Hospital since Edgware Hospital was downgraded and services moved to Barnet. Schools and educational demand (for example) is an obvious one at multiple points along the new routeing, There will be demand for Edgware, not because it is necessarily a massive destination in its own right, but because (for example) getting there also then offers a hop on another bus to get to (say) Harrow, or Wembley Stadium, or a myriad of other places where people who use buses might be employed or want to go for all kinds of reasons. Now it may be that TfL are a disaster and don't have the first clue what they are doing, or it may be that their huge amounts of multiple types of data give them some idea of what new routeings might actually work. I suspect the latter. The 251 is also something called direct which the new revised 384 struggles at being. If you wanted such a Cross town centre link route you would've been much better off extending the 340 from Edgware where there would likely be demands to areas like Canons Park where you can catch the Jubilee Line and Harrow. This is how I would have revised Route 340 to run and the 384 would be kept the same. I would start the route at Dollis Valley Estate where there are many new developments and can give residents links to Barnet Hospital. There is also a reasonable amount of stand space. The 340 would then run on the Route 326 to High Barnet Station, where it would now follow Route 107 to Hendon Wood Lane. Hendon Wood Lanes gate would be replaced by a bus gate and now the route would run express down Hendon Wood Lane, however an H&R system could be implemented where people can flag the route down. It would then serve Highwood Hill, before then taking Marsh Lane where there's likely lots of patronage, gives Barnet a proper link to Mill Hill County & Courtland Schools. It would then follow Route 292 to Edgware where the 340 continues on its normal line of route.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Aug 30, 2020 9:09:50 GMT
I've seen some biggish cars struggle to turn from Barnet Rd into Hendon Wood Lane, never mind a bus. Sticking to the A1 enables the 292 frequency reduction whilst increasing the total service as far as Stirling Corner. Wouldn't it make sense to then get rid of the width restriction The road itself is extremely narrow. Most vans struggle to stay in their own lane. A bus definitely wouldn’t be able to fit in one lane. The bend in the road may also prevent a bus from using it, depending on how tight the turning circle of the bus is.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Aug 30, 2020 10:57:53 GMT
Wouldn't it make sense to then get rid of the width restriction The road itself is extremely narrow. Most vans struggle to stay in their own lane. A bus definitely wouldn’t be able to fit in one lane. The bend in the road may also prevent a bus from using it, depending on how tight the turning circle of the bus is. I think you've outlined good points, however I still don't deem it that difficult to navigate a bus down there, we've seen narrower roads with DDs such as those in Slade Green on the 89 and probably quite a lot elsewhere. I will at a push say Totteridge Common is roughly the same width as Hendon Wood Lane and that has the 251, as well as scheduled DD journeys on Routes 605, 628 & 688
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Aug 30, 2020 11:00:06 GMT
The arguments that are being levelled against the new 384 route could be said equally of the 251: why would anyone want to go from Totteridge to Burnt Oak, or from Edgware to Arnos Grove (which is very comparable to Cockfosters). On the face of it, almost no-one would. And yet patronage on the 251 has increased enormously over the last 20-30 years as a 'cross-borough route linking town centres' to the point it is has had several frequency increases, is now often overloaded and really needs double-deckers if that were possible. The way people are using buses is self-evidently changing; where kids go to school has changed radically in the last 20 years and is much more dispersed; health service provision has changed substantially with all kinds of specialisations and continues to evolve and all of population levels, demographics and economic geography are changing too. In addition, there are multiple specific reasons why people would want to use this specific new routeing. For example, some people in Barnet do want to get to The Hive for Barnet FC/the London Bees etc. - a journey made far easier by this route. People in Edgware & Mill Hill do want and need to get to Barnet Hospital since Edgware Hospital was downgraded and services moved to Barnet. Schools and educational demand (for example) is an obvious one at multiple points along the new routeing, There will be demand for Edgware, not because it is necessarily a massive destination in its own right, but because (for example) getting there also then offers a hop on another bus to get to (say) Harrow, or Wembley Stadium, or a myriad of other places where people who use buses might be employed or want to go for all kinds of reasons. Now it may be that TfL are a disaster and don't have the first clue what they are doing, or it may be that their huge amounts of multiple types of data give them some idea of what new routeings might actually work. I suspect the latter. To be fair, I don't remember one argument on here being against any extension of the 384 to Edgware - the argument has been that people should not lose their local route because TfL have seemingly altered the distance between bus stop and homes by 50m to subsequently get this change through. There is has been no explanation as to why it was changed for this consultation alone when consultations after this have continued with the 400m distance. As for TfL being a disaster, it's very clear to see they have made a number of extremely questionable decisions over the last few years that have been detrimental to buses be withdrawing entire routes that had no need to be lost, cutting other routes back, reducing frequencies and making a number of interchanges much more difficult to achieve by resiting bus stops or removing them altogether. They have huge data analysis but I'd argue they don't have the expertise or appetite to use it effectively. A lot of people were for an extension but not via the A1 due to reliability issues it encounters in the peaks. Given what happened to the 398 when it was cut between Borehamwood and Watford due to reliability problems which no doubt was correlated with its use of the A1 between East Borehamwood & Bignells Corner. My idea for either the 340 or 384 to use Hendon Wood Lane would mean avoiding the A1 and serving Marsh Lane & Mill Hill County, which do not have regular bus services except the 605.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Aug 30, 2020 11:04:13 GMT
I suspect the former. And I suspect you work for TfL. Haha, now that is genuinely 'LOL' funny. Naturally because I disagree with you... hey presto, I work for TfL! That's absolutely of a piece with your starting point that TfL has a list of areas they want to especially favour (Edgware) and a list of areas to damage. The idea that I work for TfL will genuinely keep me chuckling all day so thanks for that. Well you certainly seem to share their contempt/dismissive attitude for people who'll be left without a bus for 630m+. I'm glad you find it amusing that people are trying to fight for those people. You also share TfL's habit of completely ignoring points that people continue to make (such as the fact that New Barnet has a large town centre that is now completely bypassed) and just repeating the same irrelevant points: no one actually ever said they had a problem with the bus going to Edgware; no one even said there definitely wouldn't be some (not clearly quantified) economic benefit. This is about actual people in Barnet losing a bus service that they have depended on for many years. I know that's not what it's about for you or for TfL, but you don't have to be so dismissive. Or maybe you do, in which case you should definitely see if there are any job vacancies going at ersatz London Transport.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Aug 30, 2020 11:26:03 GMT
The road itself is extremely narrow. Most vans struggle to stay in their own lane. A bus definitely wouldn’t be able to fit in one lane. The bend in the road may also prevent a bus from using it, depending on how tight the turning circle of the bus is. I think you've outlined good points, however I still don't deem it that difficult to navigate a bus down there, we've seen narrower roads with DDs such as those in Slade Green on the 89 and probably quite a lot elsewhere. I will at a push say Totteridge Common is roughly the same width as Hendon Wood Lane and that has the 251, as well as scheduled DD journeys on Routes 605, 628 & 688 The road is far narrower than Totteridge Common. This photo shows how narrow it can get. The Barnet end of the road is narrower than the other end. There are no places to safely pull over other than in people’s driveways to let a wide vehicle come through and the side of the road on the west has no driveways or pavement alongside it for most of the road. Having driven down there many times and had countless near misses with vans struggling to stay in their lane, I can’t see how a longer and wider bus would drive down that road without obstructing oncoming traffic without anywhere safe to pull over.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Aug 30, 2020 11:46:18 GMT
I think you've outlined good points, however I still don't deem it that difficult to navigate a bus down there, we've seen narrower roads with DDs such as those in Slade Green on the 89 and probably quite a lot elsewhere. I will at a push say Totteridge Common is roughly the same width as Hendon Wood Lane and that has the 251, as well as scheduled DD journeys on Routes 605, 628 & 688 The road is far narrower than Totteridge Common. This photo shows how narrow it can get. The Barnet end of the road is narrower than the other end. There are no places to safely pull over other than in people’s driveways to let a wide vehicle come through and the side of the road on the west has no driveways or pavement alongside it for most of the road. Having driven down there many times and had countless near misses with vans struggling to stay in their lane, I can’t see how a longer and wider bus would drive down that road without obstructing oncoming traffic without anywhere safe to pull over. Looks less narrow than the western section of of Salisbury Road, which also has lack of visibility from one end to the other, plus cars parked tight both sides, but that will be hosting the eastbound bus from tomorrow.
|
|