Please provide the following information regarding changes to the 384 bus route: a) All minutes of meetings held or attended by TfL discussing the 384 bus routing from 2016 until present. This includes meetings with the local Member of Parliament, local councillors, London Assembly, the Jewish Community secondary school and other schools, the Barnet Residents' Association and other local interest groups, plus internal meetings at TfL. b) All emails relating to the 384 bus routing from 2016 until present. This includes email correspondence with the local Member of Parliament, local councillors, London Assembly, the Jewish Community secondary school and other schools, the Barnet Residents' Association and other local interest groups, plus internal email communication at TfL. c) A data comparison of the number of passengers using the 384 in the section between the Barnet Everyman Cinema stops (B, 3807 and T, 3808) and the Cockfosters Station stops (B, 17763 and BP1317) in both directions, for periods before and after the change in routing of this section. This would include both the number of passengers overall in this section over a set period (eg a month) and the average number of people on a bus in this section at any one time. For a fairer comparison, please could comparison data be shown for a period after the change in routing but prior to Tier 2 restrictions, alongside a period in 2019 prior to the change in the routing and prior to the pandemic. We believe you will have such information, as TfL were previously able to advise of total passenger numbers/average number of people per bus as justification for changing the routing, and also stated that the eastern section of the route was the least busy. d) A data comparison of the 50 LONGEST journey times eastbound on the 384 between the Union Street/Wood Street stop (M, 12088) and the Salisbury Road stop (T, 80002), for periods before and after the change in routing in this area. For a fairer comparison, please could comparison data be shown for a period prior after the change in routing but prior to Tier 2 restrictions, alongside a period in 2019 prior to the change in the routing and prior to the pandemic. We believe you have this information because you previously able provide a comparison of the AVERAGE journey times before and after the change in routing. For these 50 LONGEST journey times between these stops, please could any data you have as to the cause of the delay also be provided. e) Details of all recorded instances (total number, dates, times, vehicle registration), since the change in routing, of the 384 diverting to its old routing eastbound via Alston Road, Strafford Road and Stapylton Road, rather than Salisbury Road (western section). Also the reasons for the diversion in each case, if recorded. We believe you will be able to provide this from bus GPS data. f) All comments received from Metroline drivers, other employees or senior management, about the new routing of the 384. This would especially include any hazards and difficulties drivers have encountered driving on particular roads along the new routing, and how they feel the change in routing has impacted safety, passengers, and driver experience. These comments would be either have been passed via Metroline or submitted directly to TfL, or can you please ask Metroline to pass on all comments they have received.

---

TfL Ref: FOI-2085-2021

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 17^th January 2021 asking for information about changes to the 384 bus route.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. 

Specifically you asked:

“Please provide the following information regarding changes to the 384 bus route:

a) All minutes of meetings held or attended by TfL discussing the 384 bus routing from 2016 until present. This includes meetings with the local Member of Parliament, local councillors, London Assembly, the Jewish Community secondary school and other schools, the Barnet Residents' Association and other local interest groups, plus internal meetings at TfL.

b) All emails relating to the 384 bus routing from 2016 until present. This includes email correspondence with the local Member of Parliament, local councillors, London Assembly, the Jewish Community secondary school and other schools, the Barnet Residents' Association and other local interest groups, plus internal email communication at TfL.

c) A data comparison of the number of passengers using the 384 in the section between the Barnet Everyman Cinema stops (B, 3807 and T, 3808) and the Cockfosters Station stops (B, 17763 and BP1317) in both directions, for periods before and after the change in routing of this section. This would include both the number of passengers overall in this section over a set period (eg a month) and the average number of people on a bus in this section at any one time. For a fairer comparison, please could comparison data be shown for a period after the change in routing but prior to Tier 2 restrictions, alongside a period in 2019 prior to the change in the routing and prior to the pandemic. We believe you will have such information, as TfL were previously able to advise of total passenger numbers/average number of people per bus as justification for changing the routing, and also stated that the eastern section of the route was the least busy.

d) A data comparison of the 50 LONGEST journey times eastbound on the 384 between the Union Street/Wood Street stop (M, 12088) and the Salisbury Road stop (T, 80002), for periods before and after the change in routing in this area. For a fairer comparison, please could comparison data be shown for a period prior after the change in routing but prior to Tier 2 restrictions, alongside a period in 2019 prior to the change in the routing and prior to the pandemic. We believe you have this information because you previously able provide a comparison of the AVERAGE journey times before and after the change in routing. For these 50 LONGEST journey times between these stops, please could any data you have as to the cause of the delay also be provided.

e) Details of all recorded instances (total number, dates, times, vehicle registration), since the change in routing, of the 384 diverting to its old routing eastbound via Alston Road, Strafford Road and Stapylton Road, rather than Salisbury Road (western section). Also the reasons for the diversion in each case, if recorded. We believe you will be able to provide this from bus GPS data.

f) All comments received from Metroline drivers, other employees or senior management, about the new routing of the 384. This would especially include any hazards and difficulties drivers have encountered driving on particular roads along the new routing, and how they feel the change in routing has impacted safety, passengers, and driver experience. These comments would be either have been passed via Metroline or submitted directly to TfL, or can you please ask Metroline to pass on all comments they have received.”

I can confirm that we hold some of the information you require. However, it is not possible to source it all within the costs limit for responding to requests as set out in section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act. Under section 12, a public authority such as TfL is not required to provide information if it would cost more than £450 to determine if that information is held, and to then locate, retrieve or extract it from elsewhere. This is calculated at a rate of £25 per hour, equivalent to 18 hours work. There is no quick or efficient way of sourcing all of the material that falls within the scope of your questions. Under question (b), for example, while we can run an automated search of all TfL emails for those containg a keywords such as “384”, over a 5 year period this will return a vast number of results, all of which would have to be reviewed to see whether they fall within the scope of your request.  This alone would trigger the costs limit. Trying to ascertain exactly what is and is not held in relation to your other questions, and then sourcing it where it is held, would take a considerable amount of further time.

In order to bring your request within the costs limit you may wish to consider narrowing its scope to focus on the information that is of most importance to you. Before doing so you may wish to review the advice and guidance offered by the Information Commissioner on how best to access information from public bodies, published on its website here (I would, in particualr, point you to the table of “Dos and Don’t’s” that can be found halfway down the page):

https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/

The narrower and more specific the scope of your request the more likely it is we will be able to respond positively within the costs limit. Please be aware also that the FOI Act pertains to recorded information only. There is no requirement to create new information nor to source information from third parties (for example, from the private operators that run bus services in London). Finally, note that we proactively publish large amounts of information on our website. For example, data on the peformance of buses in London can be found via the following link:

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/buses-performance-data

If you are considering submitting a further FOI request please think carefully about whether the request is essential at this current time, as answering FOI requests will require the use of limited resources and the attention of staff who could be supporting other essential activity. Where requests are made, please note that our response time may be impacted by the current situation.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

Yours sincerely,

David Wells

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Back to top

---