|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 18:02:19 GMT
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 And it's not just about getting to Borehamwood if the 107 were withdrawn without replacement - there would also be a massive gap with no bus service on Barnet Road between Wellhouse Lane and Quinta Drive (which would only partially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. I guess everyone feels like that about their area or areas they are familiar with to a certain extent, and can see all the ways things could be improved more than people who just take an overview of the area. It's just that the 384 consultation was so poorly designed and so ignorant of local travel patterns and geography (especially the whole 400m max distance to alternatives that suddenly became 800m when this was called into question by objectors). It almost feels like the inner-north-London-dwelling mandarins at TfL can't quite get their head round an outer north London town that is more independent, higher elderly population, less multicultural, etc, hence the excessive pandering to the convenience of the students at the Jewish Community Secondary School in New Barnet, who largely come from outside the area, as opposed to the needs of the residents of and visitors to Barnet who have depended on the current routinng of the 384 since 1990.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Apr 25, 2020 18:03:01 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 )? The 307 can still serve Barnet Hospital - it would just have to loop round the Hospital bus stop, which although not ideal, wouldn't add much extra time on. The 107 would also still be serving everything between New Barnet and Stirling Corner, it would just divert via Barnet Way and Apex Corner instead of heading up via Borehamwood, with the 307 keeping that Barnet - Borehamwood link in place - this is the only way I can think of saving the 107 and keeping the 384 exactly how it is. Regarding the 299, I admit its not the best option, so perhaps the 377 can be extended from Oakwood instead, as it would just have to go down the A110 to East Barnet before serving the routing I suggested for the 299. I'd say its the only logical way of re-doing things around Barnet - whilst keeping existing users happy and creating the direct Edgware link that they want to put in place. Really its not just down the TfL though - HCC really need to step up and actually provide some support instead of removing their funding and leaving it solely to TfL.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 18:23:59 GMT
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 )? The 307 can still serve Barnet Hospital - it would just have to loop round the Hospital bus stop, which although not ideal, wouldn't add much extra time on. The 107 would also still be serving everything between New Barnet and Stirling Corner, it would just divert via Barnet Way and Apex Corner instead of heading up via Borehamwood, with the 307 keeping that Barnet - Borehamwood link in place - this is the only way I can think of saving the 107 and keeping the 384 exactly how it is. Regarding the 299, I admit its not the best option, so perhaps the 377 can be extended from Oakwood instead, as it would just have to go down the A110 to East Barnet before serving the routing I suggested for the 299. I'd say its the only logical way of re-doing things around Barnet - whilst keeping existing users happy and creating the direct Edgware link that they want to put in place. Really its not just down the TfL though - HCC really need to step up and actually provide some support instead of removing their funding and leaving it solely to TfL. I definitely agree with you regarding HCC - atrocious attitude to bus services. I would actually WELCOME a direct TfL Barnet to Edgware link - most objectors would I think. Sure, I think a route via Hendon Wood Lane, Marsh Lane and also via MHB and Deansbrook Road is a missed opportunity (going via the A1 will also cause heavy delays at peak times), but the proposed extension is better than nothing. The issue that turns the whole thing extremely negative and attracted the almost 80% opposition response is of course the removal of the 384 from the roads in Barnet - up to 800m to alternatives, bypasses key destinations, etc. So I really don't think TfL are going to be too anxious to have a route like the 377 (albeit it's less frequent than the 384) come to the rescue and restore all these lost links, as good an idea as that may be. They've already shown the contempt in which they hold the needs of bus users in Barnet, and they clearly don't think such a route is worth the money.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Apr 25, 2020 18:27:48 GMT
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. Unfortunately, TfL don’t care about providing a bus service so people can get a direct fast service from Potter Bar. In their eyes, they have already provided the link to the ECML via New Barnet. I feel for the people of Hadley Green with no nearby TfL bus service but there are also other areas scattered around the London border that are in a similar position. You try and solve one area and the rest will be demanding the same sort of solution and TfL are not currently in a financial position to solve any of this
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 25, 2020 18:35:06 GMT
Bit like the grudging service provided to Havering-Atte-Bower after the 500 was withdrawn commercially.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 19:10:13 GMT
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. Unfortunately, TfL don’t care about providing a bus service so people can get a direct fast service from Potter Bar. In their eyes, they have already provided the link to the ECML via New Barnet. I feel for the people of Hadley Green with no nearby TfL bus service but there are also other areas scattered around the London border that are in a similar position. You try and solve one area and the rest will be demanding the same sort of solution and TfL are not currently in a financial position to solve any of this Except that the 384 is also being taken away from serving the East Coast Mainline by being withdrawn from New Barnet station approach (yes that extra distance IS difficult for people with mobility difficulties, especially as the pedestrian crossings across East Barnet Road are so inconvenient in relation to where the bus stops are (need to cross an extra road, etc). Even given what you say, the fact remains that there are are five TfL routes, plus a night bus, running between Barnet (London) and the next town to the south: Whetstone. There are zero TfL routes running between Barnet (London) and the next town to the north: Potters Bar. Does that not seem a tad unbalanced, just because Whetstone is in London and Potters Bar isn't? @vwh1414 [how do I @ a user correctly?] Having thought about it, your idea of extending the 377 through Barnet and up to Potters Bar would actually be a great one, if TfL could ever be persuaded to be inclined towards it (they would probably consider it to be overbussing and the Potters Bar bit somehow not useful enough to Londoners). This is why I would love to have the opportunity to express ideas like this in the public meeting that TfL promised objectors to the the 384 proposals - but I'm going to mention it in my email to them anyway if you don't mind? It could solve so many issues (mostly of TfL's own creation) in one: ADVANTAGES: - The 377 could go from the current terminus at Oakwood station via Cockfosters Road, with a little detour via Cockfosters Station in both directions, to give Cockfosters a direct bus link with Enfield Town for the first time - Could then go via Mount Pleasant (alongside the 384) but then do Northfield Road and Castlewood Road that the 384 will no longer serve - Could go via Crescent Road and Brookhill Road so a service is retained along there including the new Aldi supermarket - Could go past New Barnet Sainbury's and then do the whole other section that the 384 will no longer be doing (New Barnet Station Approach, York Road, Longmore Ave, Lyonsdown Road, Gloucester Road) - Could climb to the church and then along Barnet High Street and then along Hadley Green to give that area a TfL service and an alternative to private cars (which will be even more of a problem once they are driven further into London when they parking spaces are reduced at High Barnet tube station). - Could fork off via Kitts End Road at Hadley Highstone, restoring the bus link that was lost to the Kitts End Hamlet when the 383 was cut back in 2003 - Could go along Baker Street and then via the different roads in different direction that the 383 used to do to serve Dame Alice Owen's school (along Sayers Lane in one direction and Santers Lane in the other). - Along Dugdale Hill Lane and Mutton Lane to serve Potters Bar station like the 383 used to - Then finally go along The Walk to terminate at Potters Bar bus garage as many of the buses will probably be going there anyway, just like the 383 used to. DISADVANTAGES: - The 377 is less frequent than the 384 (30 mins vs 20 mins) but this could be reviewed - Doesn't provide a late evening or Sunday service like the 384 but again this could be reviewed - Might make the new 377 slightly long, but there are longer routes around - Wouldn't provide direct access to New Barnet station entrance from roads on the western end of the 384 route, but this is already somewhat offset by the new 384 routing being quicker along Station Road than it is via Gloucester Road etc, and the station is still walkable from the stops on Station Road for most people I guess - Doesn't solve the issue of people in the area of Barnet to the west of The Spires still having a longer walk to catch their eastbound 384, the eastbound 384 no longer serving the rear of The Spires or Chipping Barnet Library, and the new eastbound routing Salisbury Road being much less suitable for buses than Strafford Road. But maybe this might be the one concession TfL could be persuaded to make in terms of keeping the current 384 routing in this particular area? Only one way to find out.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Apr 25, 2020 19:36:43 GMT
Unfortunately, TfL don’t care about providing a bus service so people can get a direct fast service from Potter Bar. In their eyes, they have already provided the link to the ECML via New Barnet. I feel for the people of Hadley Green with no nearby TfL bus service but there are also other areas scattered around the London border that are in a similar position. You try and solve one area and the rest will be demanding the same sort of solution and TfL are not currently in a financial position to solve any of this Except that the 384 is also being taken away from serving the East Coast Mainline by being withdrawn from New Barnet station approach (yes that extra distance IS difficult for people with mobility difficulties, especially as the pedestrian crossings across East Barnet Road are so inconvenient in relation to where the bus stops are (need to cross an extra road, etc). Even given what you say, the fact remains that there are are five TfL routes, plus a night bus, running between Barnet (London) and the next town to the south: Whetstone. There are zero TfL routes running between Barnet (London) and the next town to the north: Potters Bar. Does that not seem a tad unbalanced, just because Whetstone is in London and Potters Bar isn't? It’s not me you have to convince, it’s TFL. I am all for providing better cross-border services. The imbalance in service with border areas is not solely a Barnet problem, Uxbridge has a similar imbalance with nothing heading westwards in terms of TfL bus services. This is the reality unfortunately, it’s right there in the name, Transport for London, not Transport for London & surrounding non-London areas. As you have rightly said, HCC and other border councils will need to help out TfL if we going get the necessary cross-border services that some of these areas deserve. Unfortunately, I don’t see this happening anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 19:47:25 GMT
Except that the 384 is also being taken away from serving the East Coast Mainline by being withdrawn from New Barnet station approach (yes that extra distance IS difficult for people with mobility difficulties, especially as the pedestrian crossings across East Barnet Road are so inconvenient in relation to where the bus stops are (need to cross an extra road, etc). Even given what you say, the fact remains that there are are five TfL routes, plus a night bus, running between Barnet (London) and the next town to the south: Whetstone. There are zero TfL routes running between Barnet (London) and the next town to the north: Potters Bar. Does that not seem a tad unbalanced, just because Whetstone is in London and Potters Bar isn't? It’s not me you have to convince, it’s TFL. I am all for providing better cross-border services. The imbalance in service with border areas is not solely a Barnet problem, Uxbridge has a similar imbalance with nothing heading westwards in terms of TfL bus services. This is the reality unfortunately, it’s right there in the name, Transport for London, not Transport for London & surrounding non-London areas. As you have rightly said, HCC and other border councils will need to help out TfL if we going get the necessary cross-border services that some of these areas deserve. Unfortunately, I don’t see this happening anytime soon. Yes, I take your point, I just feel that because areas on the edge of London pay just as much for TfL as those further in, and need to get to surrounding towns, that TfL's 'area of influence' should extend just as far as to reach those surrounding towns too. I think this was acknowledged more by previous incarnations of TfL (LRT etc), at least as far as the erstwhile many routes between Barnet and Potters Bar anyway. What do you think of my and VWH1414's suggestions above for the 377 to 'come to the rescue' as it were? Is this just not something TfL would countenance, especially because they consider the 384 to be 'underused' along the roads it is to be removed from in Barnet (not that I agree with their unclear methodology for reaching this conclusion)?
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Apr 25, 2020 20:12:01 GMT
It’s not me you have to convince, it’s TFL. I am all for providing better cross-border services. The imbalance in service with border areas is not solely a Barnet problem, Uxbridge has a similar imbalance with nothing heading westwards in terms of TfL bus services. This is the reality unfortunately, it’s right there in the name, Transport for London, not Transport for London & surrounding non-London areas. As you have rightly said, HCC and other border councils will need to help out TfL if we going get the necessary cross-border services that some of these areas deserve. Unfortunately, I don’t see this happening anytime soon. Yes, I take your point, I just feel that because areas on the edge of London pay just as much for TfL as those further in, and need to get to surrounding towns, that TfL's 'area of influence' should extend just as far as to reach those surrounding towns too. I think this was acknowledged more by previous incarnations of TfL (LRT etc), at least as far as the erstwhile many routes between Barnet and Potters Bar anyway. What do you think of my and VWH1414's suggestions above for the 377 to 'come to the rescue' as it were? Is this just not something TfL would countenance, especially because they consider the 384 to be 'underused' along the roads it is to be removed from in Barnet (not that I agree with their unclear methodology for reaching this conclusion)? The 377 extension certainly sounds like good idea to replace the lost 384 sections although it may be a bit long. An alternative could be to create a brand new route from Barnet via the existing 384 to Cockfosters and continue on to Enfield so will still create that direct service from Cockfosters to Enfield. Another idea is to keep the 384 as it is and maybe create a new Edgware to Enfield route. This won’t provide the Cockfosters to Enfield link though.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 20:19:27 GMT
Yes, I take your point, I just feel that because areas on the edge of London pay just as much for TfL as those further in, and need to get to surrounding towns, that TfL's 'area of influence' should extend just as far as to reach those surrounding towns too. I think this was acknowledged more by previous incarnations of TfL (LRT etc), at least as far as the erstwhile many routes between Barnet and Potters Bar anyway. What do you think of my and VWH1414's suggestions above for the 377 to 'come to the rescue' as it were? Is this just not something TfL would countenance, especially because they consider the 384 to be 'underused' along the roads it is to be removed from in Barnet (not that I agree with their unclear methodology for reaching this conclusion)? The 377 extension certainly sounds like good idea to replace the lost 384 sections although it may be a bit long. An alternative could be to create a brand new route from Barnet via the existing 384 to Cockfosters and continue on to Enfield so will still create that direct service from Cockfosters to Enfield. Another idea is to keep the 384 as it is and maybe create a new Edgware to Enfield route. This won’t provide the Cockfosters to Enfield link though. Well I'll certainly be mentioning the 377 idea to TfL, though I have a feeling that a brand new route in their current economic situation would make them run scared (they did introduce a token one in Havering but it was very short).
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 25, 2020 20:53:33 GMT
Am I right in thinking that the 384 would be able to use full size SDs if it looses the back street sections between Barnet and Cockfosters. That may be a plan that the route will be very well used and may even need DD buses.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 21:05:35 GMT
Am I right in thinking that the 384 would be able to use full size SDs if it looses the back street sections between Barnet and Cockfosters. That may be a plan that the route will be very well used and may even need DD buses. No way could the 384 use DDs because the new routing still includes Alston Road, Strafford Road (westbound) and a new tight section of Salisbury Road (eastbound). No double deckers could possibly fit down these roads, especially with the cars parked both sides. These roads are in the area immediately to the west of Barnet, The Spires. As for standard-length SDs, I'm not sure of the exact size but I thought these had already been in use on the route for about a decade. It certainly changed from single door to double door about ten years ago.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 25, 2020 21:57:35 GMT
Good to know. I dont see how an SD route could replace the DD 107 so I think the 107 will remain in it's current form.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 25, 2020 22:37:02 GMT
Am I right in thinking that the 384 would be able to use full size SDs if it looses the back street sections between Barnet and Cockfosters. That may be a plan that the route will be very well used and may even need DD buses. No way could the 384 use DDs because the new routing still includes Alston Road, Strafford Road (westbound) and a new tight section of Salisbury Road (eastbound). No double deckers could possibly fit down these roads, especially with the cars parked both sides. These roads are in the area immediately to the west of Barnet, The Spires. As for standard-length SDs, I'm not sure of the exact size but I thought these had already been in use on the route for about a decade. It certainly changed from single door to double door about ten years ago. Route 384 currently uses DEMs having had DESs previously. Maybe DEs would be ok once it is rerouted away from the side streets.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 25, 2020 23:25:53 GMT
No way could the 384 use DDs because the new routing still includes Alston Road, Strafford Road (westbound) and a new tight section of Salisbury Road (eastbound). No double deckers could possibly fit down these roads, especially with the cars parked both sides. These roads are in the area immediately to the west of Barnet, The Spires. As for standard-length SDs, I'm not sure of the exact size but I thought these had already been in use on the route for about a decade. It certainly changed from single door to double door about ten years ago. Route 384 currently uses DEMs having had DESs previously. Maybe DEs would be ok once it is rerouted away from the side streets. Anything longer or wider than currently, and a vocal minority of Alston, Strafford and now Salisbury Road residents would make sure that their outrage is registered. There are already periodic mutterings of discontentment from some of the more car-inclined residents about the bus in its current form - they are actually a minority compared to the residents who use appreciate the bus, but quite a vociferous minority nonetheless. One thing I do agree with the Salisbury Road residents on is that that new planned section of Salisbury Road (which has never been on a bus route) is far less suitable for a bus than the current Strafford Road in both directions. For a start, there are car parks either end of Strafford Road where cars can divert into when they see an oncoming bus. Plus the road is a lot shorter so cars can already avoid turning into it if they see the bus oncoming. More convenient for The Spires and Chipping Barnet Library too. The buses in opposite directions are not timetabled to pass on this stretch, so there is very rarely an issue there.
|
|