|
Post by VWH1414 on Apr 25, 2020 11:14:54 GMT
Come to think about it there isn't much stand space as Edgware as it is at the moment (even prior to covid 19) and especially in the evenings when our buses are parked in the stand spaces around the station. I guess there may be space for one bus in the main parking area where the 32, 113, 204, 240, 251 & 303 stand - as the 305 would've stood there too and nothing replaced it. Either that or the 240 returns to standing inside EW again like it used to - or the 32/113 could do this to create more space. Will be interesting to now have PB thrown into the mix at Edgware though - it'll mean EW, HD, ON and PB will serve it - with AC and UX serving routes down the road in Mill Hill. Though it won't beat the area around Cricklewood where I believe someone said a while ago had about 8 different Metroline garages serving the area. I still think the 384 should go via Mill Hill and Deansbrook Road though - seems pointless sending it down Hale Lane when theres already 3 routes going the same way serving it and none going to Edgware serving Deansbrook Road.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 11:43:50 GMT
I had a feeling that this was going to happen. It's an odd time to push through this change; from the wording of the consultation report released back in February 2019, it seemed that TfL we're going back to the drawing board and would come back with a new set of proposals. It seems slightly strange that it took them over a year to deliberate, only to decide to go with what was originally planned and not revise anything based on feedback from local stakeholders. In principle, I agree with the 384 extension to Edgware though of course removing buses from back roads in Barnet is far from ideal. The routeing via the A1 can be plagued with traffic and disruption, but when there aren't any issues it's a quick and direct road. The use of Hale Lane is wrong in my opinion, with TfL missing a trick by not thinking more carefully about penetrating Mill Hill/The Hale. For example, A1 then via Marsh Lane (doesn't have a bus service at present and useful for Mill Hill County High School/Courtlands), Highwood Hill, The Ridgeway/Hammers Ln, The Broadway, Deansbrook Road and Burnt Oak Broadway/High St to Edgware to replace the old 303/305 link. I feel like at TfL the project teams work on their individual proposals and don't give enough consideration to the wider area, draw on local knowledge or identify missing links (created by their service changes!). There's no doubt that the 107 and 292 will come under scrutiny soon, especially due to the funding cut from HCC. At present due to the hopper fare, people don't mind changing between the 107 and 292 at Stirling Corner for a quicker journey between Edgware and Arkley/Barnet, though the new direct link will remove the need for this. This will inevitably decrease patronage on both routes. The 384 being extended to Edgware and 324 to Centennial Park essentially remove the need for the 107. The route is nearly fully duplicated from Elstree through Borehamwood by Sullivans 306, 358 and 398. The 107 will almost certainly be withdrawn, HCC simply don't provide enough money to TfL for them to run the service outside the Greater London boundary. The 292 will likely also be withdrawn or severely cut in the future, now with the 303 serving Colindale ASDA, it's duplicated with high frequency routes up Burnt Oak Broadway and the 384 up to Stirling Corner, then the 358 and 823 essentially cover it's Borehamwood section. TfL will no doubt leave it up to HCC to run services for their residents. Transport for London have been clever here by dropping in little changes here and there, giving them the justification needed to remove both routes or else severely cut them down in frequency. Fair play to them, their plan seems to be working. Your overall analysis here I agree with, but I just wanted to point out that people living in Barnet do feel the need to visit Borehamwood sometimes too (no jokes about 'Boring Wood' please :-)). Those people pay for TfL too. This is the problem with TfL's approach to the Greater London boundary as if it were some impenetrable international frontier - London is not an island and north London crossing into Herts is probably the worst served by buses of all the border areas of London/the Home Counties. This issue is also coming up in relation to the High Barnet tube station redevelopment proposals - the station is often used as a 'park and ride' and the dramatic cut in car parking spaces may well lead to more people driving further into central London instead, if they do not have the alternative of a bus service running at a reasonable frequency and allowing fare capping with the tube. Even Hadley Green and the west of Mays Lane are beyond the current scope of TfL bus services, let alone across the border into Herts (since the 383 was cut back, 84 went fully commercial, etc).
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Apr 25, 2020 16:04:01 GMT
Come to think about it there isn't much stand space as Edgware as it is at the moment (even prior to covid 19) and especially in the evenings when our buses are parked in the stand spaces around the station. I guess there may be space for one bus in the main parking area where the 32, 113, 204, 240, 251 & 303 stand - as the 305 would've stood there too and nothing replaced it. Either that or the 240 returns to standing inside EW again like it used to - or the 32/113 could do this to create more space. Will be interesting to now have PB thrown into the mix at Edgware though - it'll mean EW, HD, ON and PB will serve it - with AC and UX serving routes down the road in Mill Hill. Though it won't beat the area around Cricklewood where I believe someone said a while ago had about 8 different Metroline garages serving the area. I still think the 384 should go via Mill Hill and Deansbrook Road though - seems pointless sending it down Hale Lane when theres already 3 routes going the same way serving it and none going to Edgware serving Deansbrook Road. Trust me, there isn't space generally speaking. The 240 does stand in the garage, I guess the 107 would have to stand in the garage aswell.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Apr 25, 2020 16:20:28 GMT
I guess there may be space for one bus in the main parking area where the 32, 113, 204, 240, 251 & 303 stand - as the 305 would've stood there too and nothing replaced it. Either that or the 240 returns to standing inside EW again like it used to - or the 32/113 could do this to create more space. Will be interesting to now have PB thrown into the mix at Edgware though - it'll mean EW, HD, ON and PB will serve it - with AC and UX serving routes down the road in Mill Hill. Though it won't beat the area around Cricklewood where I believe someone said a while ago had about 8 different Metroline garages serving the area. I still think the 384 should go via Mill Hill and Deansbrook Road though - seems pointless sending it down Hale Lane when theres already 3 routes going the same way serving it and none going to Edgware serving Deansbrook Road. Trust me, there isn't space generally speaking. The 240 does stand in the garage, I guess the 107 would have to stand in the garage aswell. Could work - 107 stands in the garage with 384 taking its stand in front of the London Underground staff car park. Having the bus garage round the back is useful though as something can stand in there. I also wonder what stop the 384 will use? Possibly either stop E or F would be most logical - more likely stop F because the 292 going towards Stirling Corner/Apex Corner stops there - so using the 107 stop would be ideal as then the buses won't have to do a circuit of the bus station to reach the stop.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Apr 25, 2020 16:24:58 GMT
Your overall analysis here I agree with, but I just wanted to point out that people living in Barnet do feel the need to visit Borehamwood sometimes too (no jokes about 'Boring Wood' please :-)). Those people pay for TfL too. This is the problem with TfL's approach to the Greater London boundary as if it were some impenetrable international frontier - London is not an island and north London crossing into Herts is probably the worst served by buses of all the border areas of London/the Home Counties. This issue is also coming up in relation to the High Barnet tube station redevelopment proposals - the station is often used as a 'park and ride' and the dramatic cut in car parking spaces may well lead to more people driving further into central London instead, if they do not have the alternative of a bus service running at a reasonable frequency and allowing fare capping with the tube. Even Hadley Green and the west of Mays Lane are beyond the current scope of TfL bus services, let alone across the border into Herts (since the 383 was cut back, 84 went fully commercial, etc). I don’t think the people of Borehamwood contribute to TfL considering it’s not part of London. You are right that TfL does consider the border as something impenetrable but unfortunately they won’t fund a service that has little or no benefit for Londoners and also having low fares make a commercial service from an operator from outside London not viable. I’m curious why you think Herts is worst served by TfL services. There are currently 13 TfL routes (excluding school routes) that cross the border into Herts and it is the only county outside of London with a TfL night route. All the border towns in Herts (Watford, Bushey, Borehamwood, Potters Bar & Waltham Cross) has a TfL bus service except for Rickmansworth but that has the met line.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 16:57:49 GMT
Your overall analysis here I agree with, but I just wanted to point out that people living in Barnet do feel the need to visit Borehamwood sometimes too (no jokes about 'Boring Wood' please :-)). Those people pay for TfL too. This is the problem with TfL's approach to the Greater London boundary as if it were some impenetrable international frontier - London is not an island and north London crossing into Herts is probably the worst served by buses of all the border areas of London/the Home Counties. This issue is also coming up in relation to the High Barnet tube station redevelopment proposals - the station is often used as a 'park and ride' and the dramatic cut in car parking spaces may well lead to more people driving further into central London instead, if they do not have the alternative of a bus service running at a reasonable frequency and allowing fare capping with the tube. Even Hadley Green and the west of Mays Lane are beyond the current scope of TfL bus services, let alone across the border into Herts (since the 383 was cut back, 84 went fully commercial, etc). I don’t think the people of Borehamwood contribute to TfL considering it’s not part of London. You are right that TfL does consider the border as something impenetrable but unfortunately they won’t fund a service that has little or no benefit for Londoners and also having low fares make a commercial service from an operator from outside London not viable. I’m curious why you think Herts is worst served by TfL services. There are currently 13 TfL routes (excluding school routes) that cross the border into Herts and it is the only county outside of London with a TfL night route. All the border towns in Herts (Watford, Bushey, Borehamwood, Potters Bar & Waltham Cross) has a TfL bus service except for Rickmansworth but that has the met line. A few points in response: - Read back and you'll see that I was talking about the people of Barnet, in London, paying for TfL. Trust me - Borehamwood is still a popular shopping and leisure destination for people from Barnet. It's also the quickest way of getting to Luton Airport from Barnet. Getting rid of the 107 TfL link would be egregious. - There used be multiple TfL services between Barnet and Potters Bar (another place that people from Barnet need to get to). Now there are zero. Even Hadley Green seems to be considered too far for TfL to provide a service, and that's in London. - Waltham Cross is the exception because it is effectively a satellite town of Enfield. Besides, none of the TfL routes properly penetrate Waltham Cross or even go as far as its station. The only reason that TfL routes enter the town at all is because the bus station is just beyond the London boundary and the only convenient place in the area to terminate and turn.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Apr 25, 2020 17:23:10 GMT
I don’t think the people of Borehamwood contribute to TfL considering it’s not part of London. You are right that TfL does consider the border as something impenetrable but unfortunately they won’t fund a service that has little or no benefit for Londoners and also having low fares make a commercial service from an operator from outside London not viable. I’m curious why you think Herts is worst served by TfL services. There are currently 13 TfL routes (excluding school routes) that cross the border into Herts and it is the only county outside of London with a TfL night route. All the border towns in Herts (Watford, Bushey, Borehamwood, Potters Bar & Waltham Cross) has a TfL bus service except for Rickmansworth but that has the met line. A few points in response: - Read back and you'll see that I was talking about the people of Barnet, in London, paying for TfL. Trust me - Borehamwood is still a popular shopping and leisure destination for people from Barnet. It's also the quickest way of getting to Luton Airport from Barnet. Getting rid of the 107 TfL link would be egregious. - There used be multiple TfL services between Barnet and Potters Bar (another place that people from Barnet need to get to). Now there are zero. Even Hadley Green seems to be considered too far for TfL to provide a service, and that's in London. - Waltham Cross is the exception because it is effectively a satellite town of Enfield. Besides, none of the TfL routes properly penetrate Waltham Cross or even go as far as its station. The only reason that TfL routes enter the town at all is because the bus station is just beyond the London boundary and the only convenient place in the area to terminate and turn. There are a few ways I thought of that may be better for TfL to do if they were to fiddle with the 107 or HCC boundary routes: In regards to the 107 they could do the following: - First one is to cut the 107 back to Stirling Corner and then follow the 292 to Hale Lane before running via Mill Hill and Deansbrook Road to Edgware instead Reason: - Relieves the need to extend the 384 and then that can stay as it is and now the 107 is more direct when connecting Edgware and Barnet Then in replacement of the 107 on the withdrawn section the following can be done: - Extend the 324 from Elstree, Centennial Park all the way to Borehamwood Tesco in replacement of the 107 - Keeps Elstree served by TfL - Extend a route like the 307 via current 107 to Borehamwood to keep Barnet connected to Borehamwood Reason: - Replaces withdrawn 107 section and keeps existing links Then in response to the comment about Potters Bar and Barnet links, they could do the following: - 299 extended from Cockfosters via East Barnet Village to New Barnet and from there via the current 84 routing through High Barnet, Barnet The Spires, Ganwick Corner and Potters Bar Bus Garage to Potters Bar Station - In return the struggling 84 (In terms of money) can be cut back to Potters Bar Bus Garage with the 299 as replacement Reason: - Gives a firm link between Barnet and Potters Bar again and that way the 84 (Which has had funding cut) can be cut back a bit in a hope to protect it from full withdrawal, as a TfL link between Barnet and Potters Bar would render it useless on that section anyway Of course TfL would never be bothered to actually re-structure services in this way - but it could be a much more efficient way in the long term of going about things.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 25, 2020 17:34:17 GMT
Your overall analysis here I agree with, but I just wanted to point out that people living in Barnet do feel the need to visit Borehamwood sometimes too (no jokes about 'Boring Wood' please :-)). Those people pay for TfL too. This is the problem with TfL's approach to the Greater London boundary as if it were some impenetrable international frontier - London is not an island and north London crossing into Herts is probably the worst served by buses of all the border areas of London/the Home Counties. This issue is also coming up in relation to the High Barnet tube station redevelopment proposals - the station is often used as a 'park and ride' and the dramatic cut in car parking spaces may well lead to more people driving further into central London instead, if they do not have the alternative of a bus service running at a reasonable frequency and allowing fare capping with the tube. Even Hadley Green and the west of Mays Lane are beyond the current scope of TfL bus services, let alone across the border into Herts (since the 383 was cut back, 84 went fully commercial, etc). I don’t think the people of Borehamwood contribute to TfL considering it’s not part of London. You are right that TfL does consider the border as something impenetrable but unfortunately they won’t fund a service that has little or no benefit for Londoners and also having low fares make a commercial service from an operator from outside London not viable. I’m curious why you think Herts is worst served by TfL services. There are currently 13 TfL routes (excluding school routes) that cross the border into Herts and it is the only county outside of London with a TfL night route. All the border towns in Herts (Watford, Bushey, Borehamwood, Potters Bar & Waltham Cross) has a TfL bus service except for Rickmansworth but that has the met line. When Hertfordshire County Council was funding TfL, only five of those 13 routes were supported. The Waltham Cross routes were not funded, and neither was the 313 to Potters Bar. TfL decided there was a strong commercial case for continuing to operate the 142 and 258 into Watford, and the Herts CC contribution was only a small percentage of these routes' total income. TfL cut the 298 back to Potters Bar Station. TfL reduced the frequency of the 292 but otherwise left the route unchanged, even though it conveys considerable local traffic within Borehamwood. Presumably as Elstree & Borehamwood Station is included within Travelcard zone 6 this justifies using Travelcard revenues to support the 107 and 292. Technically the 331 is also a cross-boundary route as there is a half-mile section of the route at Batchworth Heath that crosses into Hertfordshire, but I doubt Herts CC has ever funded this as it provides no links to anywhere else in the County.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 25, 2020 17:38:52 GMT
A few points in response: - Read back and you'll see that I was talking about the people of Barnet, in London, paying for TfL. Trust me - Borehamwood is still a popular shopping and leisure destination for people from Barnet. It's also the quickest way of getting to Luton Airport from Barnet. Getting rid of the 107 TfL link would be egregious. - There used be multiple TfL services between Barnet and Potters Bar (another place that people from Barnet need to get to). Now there are zero. Even Hadley Green seems to be considered too far for TfL to provide a service, and that's in London. - Waltham Cross is the exception because it is effectively a satellite town of Enfield. Besides, none of the TfL routes properly penetrate Waltham Cross or even go as far as its station. The only reason that TfL routes enter the town at all is because the bus station is just beyond the London boundary and the only convenient place in the area to terminate and turn. There are a few ways I thought of that may be better for TfL to do if they were to fiddle with the 107 or HCC boundary routes: In regards to the 107 they could do the following: - First one is to cut the 107 back to Stirling Corner and then follow the 292 to Hale Lane before running via Mill Hill and Deansbrook Road to Edgware instead Reason: - Relieves the need to extend the 384 and then that can stay as it is and now the 107 is more direct when connecting Edgware and Barnet Then in replacement of the 107 on the withdrawn section the following can be done: - Extend the 324 from Elstree, Centennial Park all the way to Borehamwood Tesco in replacement of the 107 - Keeps Elstree served by TfL - Extend a route like the 307 via current 107 to Borehamwood to keep Barnet connected to Borehamwood Reason: - Replaces withdrawn 107 section and keeps existing links Then in response to the comment about Potters Bar and Barnet links, they could do the following: - 299 extended from Cockfosters via East Barnet Village to New Barnet and from there via the current 84 routing through High Barnet, Barnet The Spires, Ganwick Corner and Potters Bar Bus Garage to Potters Bar Station - In return the struggling 84 (In terms of money) can be cut back to Potters Bar Bus Garage with the 299 as replacement Reason: - Gives a firm link between Barnet and Potters Bar again and that way the 84 (Which has had funding cut) can be cut back a bit in a hope to protect it from full withdrawal, as a TfL link between Barnet and Potters Bar would render it useless on that section anyway Of course TfL would never be bothered to actually re-structure services in this way - but it could be a much more efficient way in the long term of going about things. That's quite a logical set of ideas - the only one that might put a spanner in the works is extending the 307 as far as Borehamwood but otherwise, it could be a way of going about it.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 17:41:26 GMT
A few points in response: - Read back and you'll see that I was talking about the people of Barnet, in London, paying for TfL. Trust me - Borehamwood is still a popular shopping and leisure destination for people from Barnet. It's also the quickest way of getting to Luton Airport from Barnet. Getting rid of the 107 TfL link would be egregious. - There used be multiple TfL services between Barnet and Potters Bar (another place that people from Barnet need to get to). Now there are zero. Even Hadley Green seems to be considered too far for TfL to provide a service, and that's in London. - Waltham Cross is the exception because it is effectively a satellite town of Enfield. Besides, none of the TfL routes properly penetrate Waltham Cross or even go as far as its station. The only reason that TfL routes enter the town at all is because the bus station is just beyond the London boundary and the only convenient place in the area to terminate and turn. There are a few ways I thought of that may be better for TfL to do if they were to fiddle with the 107 or HCC boundary routes: In regards to the 107 they could do the following: - First one is to cut the 107 back to Stirling Corner and then follow the 292 to Hale Lane before running via Mill Hill and Deansbrook Road to Edgware instead Reason: - Relieves the need to extend the 384 and then that can stay as it is and now the 107 is more direct when connecting Edgware and Barnet Then in replacement of the 107 on the withdrawn section the following can be done: - Extend the 324 from Elstree, Centennial Park all the way to Borehamwood Tesco in replacement of the 107 - Keeps Elstree served by TfL - Extend a route like the 307 via current 107 to Borehamwood to keep Barnet connected to Borehamwood Reason: - Replaces withdrawn 107 section and keeps existing links Then in response to the comment about Potters Bar and Barnet links, they could do the following: - 299 extended from Cockfosters via East Barnet Village to New Barnet and from there via the current 84 routing through High Barnet, Barnet The Spires, Ganwick Corner and Potters Bar Bus Garage to Potters Bar Station - In return the struggling 84 (In terms of money) can be cut back to Potters Bar Bus Garage with the 299 as replacement Reason: - Gives a firm link between Barnet and Potters Bar again and that way the 84 (Which has had funding cut) can be cut back a bit in a hope to protect it from full withdrawal, as a TfL link between Barnet and Potters Bar would render it useless on that section anyway Of course TfL would never be bothered to actually re-structure services in this way - but it could be a much more efficient way in the long term of going about things. But TfL made a big fuss of diverting the 307 to the Barnet Hospital stand a few years back, saying that it would improve links to the hospital from Enfield because Chase Farm Hospital was being downsized. So the only other option is the 34 and that would be a really long route then. Besides, that section of Wood Street between Arkley Hotel and Barnet Church is already underbussed in my view - please don't take the 107 away as well! And it's not just about getting to Borehamwood if the 107 were withdrawn without replacement - there would also be a massive gap with no bus service on Barnet Road between Wellhouse Lane and Quinta Drive (which would only partially be alleviated by extending another route such as the 34 as far as the now-empty Arkley Hotel stand). Regarding your suggestion for the 299 - how is it supposed to get to East Barnet without reversing on itself back down Cockfosters Road (confusing) or somehow going via Hadley Wood (Hadley Wood could definitely do with an all-day service but I think extending the 377 or making better use of the 399 would be better for that purpose )? I actually think someone at TfL has it for the people of High, New and East Barnet, because they aren't places where the mandarins at TfL probably live themselves or know much about its hilly geography and travel patterns. They likely consider the residents to be just old people and NIMBYs, etc, who have no political clout or significance in TfL's eyes. Especially since Chipping Barnet was a target seat for Labour to win in the last general election (I believe our beloved Mayor of London even put in an appearance knocking on doors in the area), but the party was ultimately rejected in favour of the Conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Apr 25, 2020 17:46:55 GMT
I don’t think the people of Borehamwood contribute to TfL considering it’s not part of London. You are right that TfL does consider the border as something impenetrable but unfortunately they won’t fund a service that has little or no benefit for Londoners and also having low fares make a commercial service from an operator from outside London not viable. I’m curious why you think Herts is worst served by TfL services. There are currently 13 TfL routes (excluding school routes) that cross the border into Herts and it is the only county outside of London with a TfL night route. All the border towns in Herts (Watford, Bushey, Borehamwood, Potters Bar & Waltham Cross) has a TfL bus service except for Rickmansworth but that has the met line. A few points in response: - Read back and you'll see that I was talking about the people of Barnet, in London, paying for TfL. Trust me - Borehamwood is still a popular shopping and leisure destination for people from Barnet. It's also the quickest way of getting to Luton Airport from Barnet. Getting rid of the 107 TfL link would be egregious. - There used be multiple TfL services between Barnet and Potters Bar (another place that people from Barnet need to get to). Now there are zero. Even Hadley Green seems to be considered too far for TfL to provide a service, and that's in London. - Waltham Cross is the exception because it is effectively a satellite town of Enfield. Besides, none of the TfL routes properly penetrate Waltham Cross or even go as far as its station. The only reason that TfL routes enter the town at all is because the bus station is just beyond the London boundary and the only convenient place in the area to terminate and turn. Sorry, I took your original post as meaning the whole London/Herts border rather than just Barnet. But it comes down to benefit to Londoners. I feel Potters Bar is not major travel objective for the people of Barnet which is why that corridor gets a bad deal. That’s why commercial services like 84 and 610 exist from Potters Bar as that’s where the traffic flow is, for the residents of Herts, not the other way round. In my opinion, the 107 and 292 will still exist (maybe not at current frequencies) as it still has benefit to London residents. As you have said, it’s still a shopping destination and it also has the studios which some of their employees live in London.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 25, 2020 17:49:55 GMT
I don’t think the people of Borehamwood contribute to TfL considering it’s not part of London. You are right that TfL does consider the border as something impenetrable but unfortunately they won’t fund a service that has little or no benefit for Londoners and also having low fares make a commercial service from an operator from outside London not viable. I’m curious why you think Herts is worst served by TfL services. There are currently 13 TfL routes (excluding school routes) that cross the border into Herts and it is the only county outside of London with a TfL night route. All the border towns in Herts (Watford, Bushey, Borehamwood, Potters Bar & Waltham Cross) has a TfL bus service except for Rickmansworth but that has the met line. A few points in response: - Read back and you'll see that I was talking about the people of Barnet, in London, paying for TfL. Trust me - Borehamwood is still a popular shopping and leisure destination for people from Barnet. It's also the quickest way of getting to Luton Airport from Barnet. Getting rid of the 107 TfL link would be egregious. - There used be multiple TfL services between Barnet and Potters Bar (another place that people from Barnet need to get to). Now there are zero. Even Hadley Green seems to be considered too far for TfL to provide a service, and that's in London. - Waltham Cross is the exception because it is effectively a satellite town of Enfield. Besides, none of the TfL routes properly penetrate Waltham Cross or even go as far as its station. The only reason that TfL routes enter the town at all is because the bus station is just beyond the London boundary and the only convenient place in the area to terminate and turn. it's a shame that some of the buses that currently tear along oos between Potters Bar and Barnet can't earn their keep as they always used to, but that's the downside of both an entirely flat fare system and TfL wanting set termini for all routes with no variations, in most circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 17:50:17 GMT
There are a few ways I thought of that may be better for TfL to do if they were to fiddle with the 107 or HCC boundary routes: In regards to the 107 they could do the following: - First one is to cut the 107 back to Stirling Corner and then follow the 292 to Hale Lane before running via Mill Hill and Deansbrook Road to Edgware instead Reason: - Relieves the need to extend the 384 and then that can stay as it is and now the 107 is more direct when connecting Edgware and Barnet Then in replacement of the 107 on the withdrawn section the following can be done: - Extend the 324 from Elstree, Centennial Park all the way to Borehamwood Tesco in replacement of the 107 - Keeps Elstree served by TfL - Extend a route like the 307 via current 107 to Borehamwood to keep Barnet connected to Borehamwood Reason: - Replaces withdrawn 107 section and keeps existing links Then in response to the comment about Potters Bar and Barnet links, they could do the following: - 299 extended from Cockfosters via East Barnet Village to New Barnet and from there via the current 84 routing through High Barnet, Barnet The Spires, Ganwick Corner and Potters Bar Bus Garage to Potters Bar Station - In return the struggling 84 (In terms of money) can be cut back to Potters Bar Bus Garage with the 299 as replacement Reason: - Gives a firm link between Barnet and Potters Bar again and that way the 84 (Which has had funding cut) can be cut back a bit in a hope to protect it from full withdrawal, as a TfL link between Barnet and Potters Bar would render it useless on that section anyway Of course TfL would never be bothered to actually re-structure services in this way - but it could be a much more efficient way in the long term of going about things. But TfL made a big fuss of diverting the 307 to the Barnet Hospital stand a few years back, saying that it would improve links to the hospital from Enfield because Chase Farm Hospital was being downsized. So the only other option is the 34 and that would be a really long route then. Besides, that section of Wood Street between Arkley Hotel and Barnet Church is already underbussed in my view - please don't take the 107 away as well! And it's not just about getting to Borehamwood if the 107 were withdrawn without replacement - there would also be a massive gap with no bus service on Barnet Road between Wellhouse Lane and Quinta Drive (which would only partially be alleviated by extending another route such as the 34 as far as the now-empty Arkley Hotel stand). Regarding your suggestion for the 299 - how is it supposed to get to East Barnet without reversing on itself back down Cockfosters Road (confusing) or somehow going via Hadley Wood (Hadley Wood could definitely do with an all-day service but I think extending the 377 or making better use of the 399 would be better for that purpose )? I actually think someone at TfL has it for the people of High, New and East Barnet, because they aren't places where the mandarins at TfL probably live themselves or know much about its hilly geography and travel patterns. They likely consider the residents to be just old people and NIMBYs, etc, who have no political clout or significance in TfL's eyes. Especially since Chipping Barnet was a target seat for Labour to win in the last general election (I believe our beloved Mayor of London even put in an appearance knocking on doors in the area), but the party was ultimately rejected in favour of the Conservatives. Or for the 299 are you suggesting just a quick detour into Cockfosters station and then down Mount Pleasant? It could even do all the roads the 384 will now miss out, including the New Barnet station/Gloucester Road bit... ...but this is just fantasy, isn't it, because the whole point is that TfL want to save money by leaving all those people with no bus service for 800m. Why would they extend another route through Barnet when their whole aim is to cut routes through Barnet?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 25, 2020 17:53:42 GMT
There are a few ways I thought of that may be better for TfL to do if they were to fiddle with the 107 or HCC boundary routes: In regards to the 107 they could do the following: - First one is to cut the 107 back to Stirling Corner and then follow the 292 to Hale Lane before running via Mill Hill and Deansbrook Road to Edgware instead Reason: - Relieves the need to extend the 384 and then that can stay as it is and now the 107 is more direct when connecting Edgware and Barnet Then in replacement of the 107 on the withdrawn section the following can be done: - Extend the 324 from Elstree, Centennial Park all the way to Borehamwood Tesco in replacement of the 107 - Keeps Elstree served by TfL - Extend a route like the 307 via current 107 to Borehamwood to keep Barnet connected to Borehamwood Reason: - Replaces withdrawn 107 section and keeps existing links Then in response to the comment about Potters Bar and Barnet links, they could do the following: - 299 extended from Cockfosters via East Barnet Village to New Barnet and from there via the current 84 routing through High Barnet, Barnet The Spires, Ganwick Corner and Potters Bar Bus Garage to Potters Bar Station - In return the struggling 84 (In terms of money) can be cut back to Potters Bar Bus Garage with the 299 as replacement Reason: - Gives a firm link between Barnet and Potters Bar again and that way the 84 (Which has had funding cut) can be cut back a bit in a hope to protect it from full withdrawal, as a TfL link between Barnet and Potters Bar would render it useless on that section anyway Of course TfL would never be bothered to actually re-structure services in this way - but it could be a much more efficient way in the long term of going about things. But TfL made a big fuss of diverting the 307 to the Barnet Hospital stand a few years back, saying that it would improve links to the hospital from Enfield because Chase Farm Hospital was being downsized. So the only other option is the 34 and that would be a really long route then. Besides, that section of Wood Street between Arkley Hotel and Barnet Church is already underbussed in my view - please don't take the 107 away as well! And it's not just about getting to Borehamwood if the 107 were withdrawn without replacement - there would also be a massive gap with no bus service on Barnet Road between Wellhouse Lane and Quinta Drive (which would only partially be alleviated by extending another route such as the 34 as far as the now-empty Arkley Hotel stand). Regarding your suggestion for the 299 - how is it supposed to get to East Barnet without reversing on itself back down Cockfosters Road (confusing) or somehow going via Hadley Wood (Hadley Wood could definitely do with an all-day service but I think extending the 377 or making better use of the 399 would be better for that purpose )? I actually think someone at TfL has it for the people of High, New and East Barnet, because they aren't places where the mandarins at TfL probably live themselves or know much about its hilly geography and travel patterns. They likely consider the residents to be just old people and NIMBYs, etc, who have no political clout or significance in TfL's eyes. Especially since Chipping Barnet was a target seat for Labour to win in the last general election (I believe our beloved Mayor of London even put in an appearance knocking on doors in the area), but the party was ultimately rejected in favour of the Conservatives. The irony is TfL's current policy is to do a Robin Hood and steal from Inner London and give to Outer London - this change seems to be steal from the current 384 passengers and give to mainly new or prospective passengers and personally, it's an odd way of doing things. My area, Brixton, has seen extremely few positive changes over the last number of years because it sits in Inner London despite the area heavily relying not only on the Victoria Line but the bus network itself as it's the gateway to South London for many - we've had one extension that was a good idea in the 415 to Old Kent Road, the odd frequency increase here & there (though one of these was because the 432's route serves a tiny section of Croydon borough and various routes entering the borough received frequency increases despite the vast majority of the route running through Lambeth which gets zilch) & an upcoming capacity increase for the P5 which is very debatable as to how needed it is but mainly a number of frequency decreases, some withdrawn sections of route within Central London of the 3 & 59 & the needless hacking in half of the 45 which thankfully, has survived quite well despite this. The borough of Lambeth has one of the lowest ownership levels of cars in the country and one of the most dependent places for transport yet it's not receiving what it should be.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 17:54:31 GMT
A few points in response: - Read back and you'll see that I was talking about the people of Barnet, in London, paying for TfL. Trust me - Borehamwood is still a popular shopping and leisure destination for people from Barnet. It's also the quickest way of getting to Luton Airport from Barnet. Getting rid of the 107 TfL link would be egregious. - There used be multiple TfL services between Barnet and Potters Bar (another place that people from Barnet need to get to). Now there are zero. Even Hadley Green seems to be considered too far for TfL to provide a service, and that's in London. - Waltham Cross is the exception because it is effectively a satellite town of Enfield. Besides, none of the TfL routes properly penetrate Waltham Cross or even go as far as its station. The only reason that TfL routes enter the town at all is because the bus station is just beyond the London boundary and the only convenient place in the area to terminate and turn. Sorry, I took your original post as meaning the whole London/Herts border rather than just Barnet. But it comes down to benefit to Londoners. I feel Potters Bar is not major travel objective for the people of Barnet which is why that corridor gets a bad deal. That’s why commercial services like 84 and 610 exist from Potters Bar as that’s where the traffic flow is, for the residents of Herts, not the other way round. Besides the fact that people from Barnet use Potters Bar station to access the east coast mainline semi-fast trains towards Cambridge and Peterborough, the people of Hadley Green, London (not within walking distance of High Barnet station) don't have a TfL service either, and they're shortly to be deprived of most of the car parking spaces at the station too.
|
|