|
Post by uakari on Oct 20, 2018 21:39:01 GMT
Seems to me like this could be a step towards fully withdrawing the 292. With suggestions of reductions both on cross border routes and on the Edgware Road corridor. Looking at specific journey times, the 107 is actually slightly quicker from Edgware to the town centre in Borehamwood. The 292 is only quicker to the surburbs to the east of Borehamwood. An alternative could be to reroute the 292 from Stirling Corner, with a DD service every 12-15 minutes between Colindale and Cockfosters. However, I think the 251 could be an alternative route to link Edgware to Barnet. It serves Mill Hill, so this would gain a new link to Barnet. Divert the 251 from Whetstone to Barnet Spires, going via the 326 but without the Dollis Valley loop. The section to Arnos Grove from Whetstone to fully duplicated by the 34, so could be unreplaced, plus the 221 links New Southgate to Mill Hill and Edgware. Then divert the 326 through Totteridge Village (providing new links there), then along Barnet Lane (already partly served by the 606) to existing line of route at High Barnet Station. By serving Barnet Lane, the long Dollis Valley loop may not be needed anymore - if there is some demand for a service directly within the estate, the 389 could even be modified to serve it. Then also extend the 326 slightly to terminate at Hadley Green (if stand space can be found), to serve the north end of the high street by a TFL service. This is interesting but it would make it much harder for people to travel between New Barnet and Finchley Central/Hendon/Brent Cross (as they can currently on the 326) - there are quite a few through trips as there is no other obvious alternative. Also Dollis Valley (even in its 'regenerated' form) generates far too much demand throughout the day to be covered by a route like the 389.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 21, 2018 6:50:12 GMT
Seems to me like this could be a step towards fully withdrawing the 292. With suggestions of reductions both on cross border routes and on the Edgware Road corridor. Looking at specific journey times, the 107 is actually slightly quicker from Edgware to the town centre in Borehamwood. The 292 is only quicker to the surburbs to the east of Borehamwood. An alternative could be to reroute the 292 from Stirling Corner, with a DD service every 12-15 minutes between Colindale and Cockfosters. However, I think the 251 could be an alternative route to link Edgware to Barnet. It serves Mill Hill, so this would gain a new link to Barnet. Divert the 251 from Whetstone to Barnet Spires, going via the 326 but without the Dollis Valley loop. The section to Arnos Grove from Whetstone to fully duplicated by the 34, so could be unreplaced, plus the 221 links New Southgate to Mill Hill and Edgware. Then divert the 326 through Totteridge Village (providing new links there), then along Barnet Lane (already partly served by the 606) to existing line of route at High Barnet Station. By serving Barnet Lane, the long Dollis Valley loop may not be needed anymore - if there is some demand for a service directly within the estate, the 389 could even be modified to serve it. Then also extend the 326 slightly to terminate at Hadley Green (if stand space can be found), to serve the north end of the high street by a TFL service. This is interesting but it would make it much harder for people to travel between New Barnet and Finchley Central/Hendon/Brent Cross (as they can currently on the 326) - there are quite a few through trips as there is no other obvious alternative. Also Dollis Valley (even in its 'regenerated' form) generates far too much demand throughout the day to be covered by a route like the 389. Perhaps keep the 326 as it is and reroute the 251 from Whetstone to Barnet directly via the 34. With the option to then reroute the 234 via Totteridge and Barnet Lane.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 21, 2018 10:16:16 GMT
This is interesting but it would make it much harder for people to travel between New Barnet and Finchley Central/Hendon/Brent Cross (as they can currently on the 326) - there are quite a few through trips as there is no other obvious alternative. Also Dollis Valley (even in its 'regenerated' form) generates far too much demand throughout the day to be covered by a route like the 389. Perhaps keep the 326 as it is and reroute the 251 from Whetstone to Barnet directly via the 34. With the option to then reroute the 234 via Totteridge and Barnet Lane. The 251 in its current form is a good orbital route between the Northern Line (Edgware Branch - Edgware and Burnt Oak), Thameslink (MHB), Northern Line (HB branch - Totteridge) and Piccadilly Line (Arnos Grove). Also not a million miles away from Great Northern at New Southgate. I think it is better in its current form, personally. I'm not sure there is much demand for a bus serving the full length of Barnet Lane, rather than going via the Great North Road where there are many more houses and shops. The main source of demand on Barnet Lane is the Totteridge Academy at school times, and this is much more from students travelling towards Barnet and beyond than to Totteridge Village itself (the school is the main secondary school for Dollis Valley, but I doubt very many Totteridge kids actually go there). This is why it seems crazy to me for them to withdraw journeys on the 606, as although JCoSS students do use this, it is a route mainly designed for TA students - TA is nowhere near the 384 route. Why not create a different school service for JCoSS to reduce dependency on the 384 so that it could potentially stay in its current form? Diverting the 234 would be a bad idea IMO, as again there are lots of through trips from all the areas along the Great North Road to Friern Barnet and Muswell Hill (again no tube or other bus alternative). I suppose we should probably be discussing this in the 'New route ideas' thread, but it is relevant to the 384 consultation. I think that extending the 240 or 340 from Edgware to Barnet is a better option, so that the 384 could keep running on all the roads it serves. If it has to be the 384 that's extended, then routing the extension via Chesterfield Road - Mays Lane - Barnet Gate Lane - Barnet Road - Hendon Wood Lane - Marsh Lane to Apex Corner would be much quicker, more direct and reliable between Barnet and Edgware (the 184 could then take over the removed Whitings Road - Quinta Drive section). This alternative routing for the extension might hopefully also mean that as the route would be quicker and less likely to become unreliable, TfL could keep the 384 running on all the roads it currently serves in Barnet.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Oct 21, 2018 21:26:34 GMT
Perhaps keep the 326 as it is and reroute the 251 from Whetstone to Barnet directly via the 34. With the option to then reroute the 234 via Totteridge and Barnet Lane. The 251 in its current form is a good orbital route between the Northern Line (Edgware Branch - Edgware and Burnt Oak), Thameslink (MHB), Northern Line (HB branch - Totteridge) and Piccadilly Line (Arnos Grove). Also not a million miles away from Great Northern at New Southgate. I think it is better in its current form, personally. I'm not sure there is much demand for a bus serving the full length of Barnet Lane, rather than going via the Great North Road where there are many more houses and shops. The main source of demand on Barnet Lane is the Totteridge Academy at school times, and this is much more from students travelling towards Barnet and beyond than to Totteridge Village itself (the school is the main secondary school for Dollis Valley, but I doubt very many Totteridge kids actually go there). This is why it seems crazy to me for them to withdraw journeys on the 606, as although JCoSS students do use this, it is a route mainly designed for TA students - TA is nowhere near the 384 route. Why not create a different school service for JCoSS to reduce dependency on the 384 so that it could potentially stay in its current form? Diverting the 234 would be a bad idea IMO, as again there are lots of through trips from all the areas along the Great North Road to Friern Barnet and Muswell Hill (again no tube or other bus alternative). I suppose we should probably be discussing this in the 'New route ideas' thread, but it is relevant to the 384 consultation. I think that extending the 240 or 340 from Edgware to Barnet is a better option, so that the 384 could keep running on all the roads it serves. If it has to be the 384 that's extended, then routing the extension via Chesterfield Road - Mays Lane - Barnet Gate Lane - Barnet Road - Hendon Wood Lane - Marsh Lane to Apex Corner would be much quicker, more direct and reliable between Barnet and Edgware (the 184 could then take over the removed Whitings Road - Quinta Drive section). This alternative routing for the extension might hopefully also mean that as the route would be quicker and less likely to become unreliable, TfL could keep the 384 running on all the roads it currently serves in Barnet. I can't comment on most of this as my personal knowledge is minimal/non-existent, but my gut feeling is to agree with you on the 251 - a very useful route providing good connections that has really stood the test of time and shouldn't be mucked around with. Loadings have always stood up (in the daytimes, anyway) admittedly aided by being worked by smaller capacity buses over much of its history. One of London bus routes' hidden treasures.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Oct 21, 2018 22:01:01 GMT
The 251 in its current form is a good orbital route between the Northern Line (Edgware Branch - Edgware and Burnt Oak), Thameslink (MHB), Northern Line (HB branch - Totteridge) and Piccadilly Line (Arnos Grove). Also not a million miles away from Great Northern at New Southgate. I think it is better in its current form, personally. I'm not sure there is much demand for a bus serving the full length of Barnet Lane, rather than going via the Great North Road where there are many more houses and shops. The main source of demand on Barnet Lane is the Totteridge Academy at school times, and this is much more from students travelling towards Barnet and beyond than to Totteridge Village itself (the school is the main secondary school for Dollis Valley, but I doubt very many Totteridge kids actually go there). This is why it seems crazy to me for them to withdraw journeys on the 606, as although JCoSS students do use this, it is a route mainly designed for TA students - TA is nowhere near the 384 route. Why not create a different school service for JCoSS to reduce dependency on the 384 so that it could potentially stay in its current form? Diverting the 234 would be a bad idea IMO, as again there are lots of through trips from all the areas along the Great North Road to Friern Barnet and Muswell Hill (again no tube or other bus alternative). I suppose we should probably be discussing this in the 'New route ideas' thread, but it is relevant to the 384 consultation. I think that extending the 240 or 340 from Edgware to Barnet is a better option, so that the 384 could keep running on all the roads it serves. If it has to be the 384 that's extended, then routing the extension via Chesterfield Road - Mays Lane - Barnet Gate Lane - Barnet Road - Hendon Wood Lane - Marsh Lane to Apex Corner would be much quicker, more direct and reliable between Barnet and Edgware (the 184 could then take over the removed Whitings Road - Quinta Drive section). This alternative routing for the extension might hopefully also mean that as the route would be quicker and less likely to become unreliable, TfL could keep the 384 running on all the roads it currently serves in Barnet. I can't comment on most of this as my personal knowledge is minimal/non-existent, but my gut feeling is to agree with you on the 251 - a very useful route providing good connections that has really stood the test of time and shouldn't be mucked around with. Loadings have always stood up (in the daytimes, anyway) admittedly aided by being worked by smaller capacity buses over much of its history. One of London bus routes' hidden treasures. The 251 is definitely a busy route, only ever used it between Edgware and Totteridge & Whetstone Station but every time the bus has gotten full by the time it gets to Burnt Oak. It really is a route that needs deckers, but sadly trees prevent this from happening. But yes the 251 is not a route that should be mucked around with by any means.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Oct 22, 2018 21:20:54 GMT
I'd go further than that, having now read some of the posts on this thread. Not only should the 251 not be mucked around with, but neither should the 240 or 114.
The 240 is an extremely long-established route, locally very well known and understood for decades. Diversion/s and extensions as proposed here would produce all kinds of local lost links to various schools and community places, for example. It absolutely should not be tampered with.
Ditto the 114. The Mill Hill- Burnt Oak - Queensbury - Kenton - Harrow corridor is very long-established and popular and busy, and frankly the idea of taking the 114 off Watling Avenue (as described above) and leaving that sole;y to the 251 is surely absurd - the 251 is already packed to the rafters at peak times and it is acknowledged it really needs double deckers itself. Removing the double deck 114 and placing even more strain on s/d 251 is a non-starter!
I can understand the concerns about the side-roads in East and New Barnet, and also about the lost Deansbrook Road - Edgware link. But there is no sense in spreading the carnage around elsewhere too.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 22, 2018 21:32:38 GMT
I'd go further than that, having now read some of the posts on this thread. Not only should the 251 not be mucked around with, but neither should the 240 or 114. The 240 is an extremely long-established route, locally very well known and understood for decades. Diversion/s and extensions as proposed here would produce all kinds of local lost links to various schools and community places, for example. It absolutely should not be tampered with. Ditto the 114. The Mill Hill- Burnt Oak - Queensbury - Kenton - Harrow corridor is very long-established and popular and busy, and frankly the idea of taking the 114 off Watling Avenue (as described above) and leaving that sole;y to the 251 is surely absurd - the 251 is already packed to the rafters at peak times and it is acknowledged it really needs double deckers itself. Removing the double deck 114 and placing even more strain on s/d 251 is a non-starter! I can understand the concerns about the side-roads in East and New Barnet, and also about the lost Deansbrook Road - Edgware link. But there is no sense in spreading the carnage around elsewhere too. It's not just side roads in Barnet that would be removed - it's entire high streets, shopping centres and stations. I take your point, but I would then ask: - Can you think of an alternative to link Barnet and Edgware that would keep the 384 serving the roads that are proposed to be removed? What about extending the 340 instead, or my suggested alternative routing for extending the 384? - How would you resolve the broken links from Deansbrook to ECH and Edgware, and between Dean's Lane and Burnt Oak? I'm not insisting that you have the answers to these questions - I'm just interested in solutions so that I can arm myself with some practical knowledge when TfL inevitably fob me off about the 384.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Oct 23, 2018 21:26:47 GMT
The obvious answer would be to just have the 384 serve these roads as currently and extend through to Edgware anyway although obviously that would cost more money. I don't in all honesty know sufficiently well the 384 to know how much it is used on those side roads to make detailed alternative suggestions.
I have commented on these threads before that my preferred solution for the Deansbrook Road issue would have been having the 303 going between MHB and Edgware via Deansbrook Rd (east) Deans lane, The Hale and Hale Lane (west) which logically connects all the key small centres, with perhaps 292 via Deansbrook Road west, Orange Hill and Burnt Oak station. However, now that 384 is going to serve Hale Lane west I can't see my solution would work in the future as that would leave 5 buses going down Hale Lane. Perhaps they knew they intended to put 384 down there when the 303 plan was sharpened up. Also don't forget that 221 is going to be subject to change proposals.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 24, 2018 0:19:21 GMT
The obvious answer would be to just have the 384 serve these roads as currently and extend through to Edgware anyway although obviously that would cost more money. I don't in all honesty know sufficiently well the 384 to know how much it is used on those side roads to make detailed alternative suggestions. I have commented on these threads before that my preferred solution for the Deansbrook Road issue would have been having the 303 going between MHB and Edgware via Deansbrook Rd (east) Deans lane, The Hale and Hale Lane (west) which logically connects all the key small centres, with perhaps 292 via Deansbrook Road west, Orange Hill and Burnt Oak station. However, now that 384 is going to serve Hale Lane west I can't see my solution would work in the future as that would leave 5 buses going down Hale Lane. Perhaps they knew they intended to put 384 down there when the 303 plan was sharpened up. Also don't forget that 221 is going to be subject to change proposals. These ideas would seem to leave ECH less served though. I appreciate you don't know the 384 that well, but I think it is important to point out that the 384 would not just be removed from 'side roads' (not that removing it from side roads is a good thing either). East Barnet Road is a high street with a huge Sainsbury's, not a side road. Brookhill Road would have a new Aldi without any bus access - not a side road. New Barnet station: Station Approach...can you really call a road where hundreds of commuters enter and exit a station every day a side road? Longmore Avenue is a main road, not a side road either. Strafford Road may be a side road but it's also where people get off and on when using the major shopping centre of The Spires, Waitrose, Chipping Barnet Library and Barnet Market.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 24, 2018 1:35:47 GMT
As an outsider looking in, probably the best way to do it as actually tamper with the 389 & 399, something along the lines of:
Divert the 384 at Barnet to follow the current 389 down to Western Way Withdraw the 389 between Western Way & Barnet, The Spires Remove the 389/399 interworking and terminate both routes at Barnet, The Spires - restructure the 389 to run Barnet to Edgware via the proposed routing with a 20 or 30 minute frequency whilst the 399 continues plying between Barnet, The Spires & Hadley Wood hourly.
This way, the 384 remains serving it's current purpose and whilst the removal of the 389/399 interworking would inconvenience some, I feel it might be less than the 384.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 24, 2018 6:44:53 GMT
As an outsider looking in, probably the best way to do it as actually tamper with the 389 & 399, something along the lines of: Divert the 384 at Barnet to follow the current 389 down to Western Way Withdraw the 389 between Western Way & Barnet, The Spires Remove the 389/399 interworking and terminate both routes at Barnet, The Spires - restructure the 389 to run Barnet to Edgware via the proposed routing with a 20 or 30 minute frequency whilst the 399 continues plying between Barnet, The Spires & Hadley Wood hourly. This way, the 384 remains serving it's current purpose and whilst the removal of the 389/399 interworking would inconvenience some, I feel it might be less than the 384. I do think the 389 and the 399 deserve some attention (in a positive way - like frequency increases) but I'm not a fan of the idea of diverting the 384 via Western Way. Although people there would benefit from a more frequent service, this really is a huge diversion between High Barnet and New Barnet, which the current route isn't (despite what TfL would have us believe). There are lots of through trips, for example between Barnet Hospital and New Barnet station, or between the High Barnet residential roads and New Barnet station, Sainsbury's or even as far as Cockfosters for Trent Park. While diverting the 384 to Western Way would keep it being a Barnet local service, it makes the above trips much less viable and I fear would lead to a reduction in patronage more than TfL seem to think has already occurred.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 29, 2018 11:14:59 GMT
I see Diamond Geezer has been for a ride on the 384 and encountered some of the campaigners fighting against TfL's plan to restructure the route. diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Oct 29, 2018 12:28:48 GMT
I see Diamond Geezer has been for a ride on the 384 and encountered some of the campaigners fighting against TfL's plan to restructure the route. diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/"distant bus fetishists sending in crayoned maps detailing how they'd run things better"... he's been reading this forum again hasn't he
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 29, 2018 14:35:10 GMT
I see Diamond Geezer has been for a ride on the 384 and encountered some of the campaigners fighting against TfL's plan to restructure the route. diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/"distant bus fetishists sending in crayoned maps detailing how they'd run things better"... he's been reading this forum again hasn't he He made a good point there in that leave it to locals - exactly why I don’t reply to the actual consultations away from my area.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 29, 2018 20:27:55 GMT
I see Diamond Geezer has been for a ride on the 384 and encountered some of the campaigners fighting against TfL's plan to restructure the route. diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/"distant bus fetishists sending in crayoned maps detailing how they'd run things better"... he's been reading this forum again hasn't he I'm sure he does read here. He certainly reads District Dave because he's quoted one of my posts there on his blog. I actually agree with his comment about consultation responses work better when people who are directly affected are those who respond. I could respond to the 384 consultation as I have used the route a few times including on sections that will lose service. However I can't describe any impact or adverse effects from a personal point of view as it's not a bus I use regularly. I suspect TfL take rather less notice of those who live far away from a route and have extremely low usage of the services. I responded to the Walthamstow bus stops consultation because I will be directly affected by that calamity. I probably won't respond to the Central London one because I've effectively stopped travelling to Central London plus they're going to implement all the changes anyway so I could write the best critique in the world of their proposals and they'd take no notice. The money is the issue for Central London as well as establishing the precedent of large scale change - far too important for TfL to water down or cancel. Once they've done it once they'll do it another 20-30 times.
|
|