|
Post by kmkcheng on May 15, 2020 9:03:50 GMT
A Watford to Barnet service could be very useful, linking between Bushey, Elstree and Borehamwood. Would be good if TFL were to introduce a few more cross border services in this part of London. TFL services could also be useful to Carpenders Park or Rickmansworth. This of course is currently possible with a change of bus at Canons Corner between 107 and 142 for £1.50 which is I have done several times myself. Don’t see TfL providing this sort of direct service as the route would be basically identical to the 107/142 and even if it went the more direct 306 route via Elstree Road between Elstree and Bushey Heath, this would make it a majority Herts route which I don’t see TfL providing. With regards to Carpenters Park, TfL could point at the overground service although I would like to see some sort of bus service up there ever since the 350 was withdrawn by Arriva. There are some areas of Hatch End that are quite a distance from a bus route so maybe link those areas as well. Maybe linking Hatch End with Carpenters Park/South Oxhey via The Avenue and Royston Park Road. There maybe a demand for this sort of journey as HCC currently provides an once a week R17 that links Bushey and Carpenters Park with Hatch End Morrisons. With Rickmansworth, I don’t see any incentive for TfL to provide this service. It’s already served by the metropolitan line and a bus service won’t provide any new London links. If HCC or other commercial operator don’t see London Road between Rickmansworth and Mount Vernon/Northwood needing a bus service along it, there’s even less need from TfL’s point of view.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on May 15, 2020 11:50:20 GMT
The trouble with diverting/extending the 288 to Barnet and diverting a longer route like the 303 to serve the Broadfields Estate, is that the Broadfields Estate 'terminus' is actually a hesitation point, with the bus continuing round the loop to return to Queensbury after waiting two minutes. This is so that passengers can board and alight anywhere along the loop, only paying once. A longer route like the 303 would probably require a proper terminus in the estate, so this advantage would be removed, meaning passengers having to walk quite a lot further. Buses operating around terminal loops is quite common outside London (a.k.a. "The Real World"). And passengers are usually allowed to board and alight at all stops and can stay on the bus at the stand point where there is one. That was my point - this is what the 288 does in the Broadfields Estate, as do other routes such as the 399 (in Hadley Wood). But a longer route such as the 303 would probably require a proper terminus so that drivers can use the facilities, etc, not just change the vehicle blind destination like currently. It would be very unusual for someone to be allowed to stay on the bus for 10 minutes or more at a proper terminus, and on the Broadfields Estate it would probably be quicker to walk than to stay on the bus for that long.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on May 20, 2020 10:42:06 GMT
Would there be more demand for a Harrow - Edgware - Barnet route or a Edgware - Barnet - Cockfosters route?
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on May 20, 2020 10:57:22 GMT
Would there be more demand for a Harrow - Edgware - Barnet route or a Edgware - Barnet - Cockfosters route? Not really, the main issue here is a more direct link between Edgware and Barnet is wanted/needed. If this direct link is made then if anyone wants to get from Barnet, they can easily do so by switching routes at Edgware to get either the 186 or 340 to Harrow. And as for the Cockfosters section there isn't a need for Cockfosters and Edgware link as such, it is purely just the Edgware to Barnet section.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on May 20, 2020 11:01:54 GMT
Would there be more demand for a Harrow - Edgware - Barnet route or a Edgware - Barnet - Cockfosters route? Not really, the main issue here is a more direct link between Edgware and Barnet is wanted/needed. If this direct link is made then if anyone wants to get from Barnet, they can easily do so by switching routes at Edgware to get either the 186 or 340 to Harrow. And as for the Cockfosters section there isn't a need for Cockfosters and Edgware link as such, it is purely just the Edgware to Barnet section. See because me and uakari had discussed extending the 340 to Barnet, Fairfield Way. It would require it to take the 384 to Stirling Corner, 107 to High Barnet, go down Underhill and turn Westcombe Drive 1 way from Underhill to Fairfield Way with it standing near the Ark School that is being built
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 6, 2020 21:22:54 GMT
I wonder when the results of this consultation is coming out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 22:22:42 GMT
I wonder when the results of this consultation is coming out. Following the outcome of consultation, we have now reviewed and sought costs for the alternative solutions that were presented to us as part of the feedback. We reviewed the following options: - Rerouteing the 384 as proposed between Cockfosters and Victoria Road but then running it via East Barnet Road, Longmore Avenue, Lyonsdown Road and Gloucester Road - Running the 384 on the same routeing as now - Rerouteing the 384 as consulted on but also rerouteing the 234 from Great North Road via Lyonsdown Road and Gloucester Road None of these options provided us with a better or more cost effective use of our resources than the original proposal. Therefore we have decided to implement the changes that were originally consulted on.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 6, 2020 22:24:12 GMT
I wonder when the results of this consultation is coming out. Following the outcome of consultation, we have now reviewed and sought costs for the alternative solutions that were presented to us as part of the feedback. We reviewed the following options: - Rerouteing the 384 as proposed between Cockfosters and Victoria Road but then running it via East Barnet Road, Longmore Avenue, Lyonsdown Road and Gloucester Road - Running the 384 on the same routeing as now - Rerouteing the 384 as consulted on but also rerouteing the 234 from Great North Road via Lyonsdown Road and Gloucester Road None of these options provided us with a better or more cost effective use of our resources than the original proposal. Therefore we have decided to implement the changes that were originally consulted on. So it’s going ahead but when?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 22:25:19 GMT
Following the outcome of consultation, we have now reviewed and sought costs for the alternative solutions that were presented to us as part of the feedback. We reviewed the following options: - Rerouteing the 384 as proposed between Cockfosters and Victoria Road but then running it via East Barnet Road, Longmore Avenue, Lyonsdown Road and Gloucester Road - Running the 384 on the same routeing as now - Rerouteing the 384 as consulted on but also rerouteing the 234 from Great North Road via Lyonsdown Road and Gloucester Road None of these options provided us with a better or more cost effective use of our resources than the original proposal. Therefore we have decided to implement the changes that were originally consulted on. So it’s going ahead. Yes, it will be going ahead later this year.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jul 6, 2020 22:31:21 GMT
Following the outcome of consultation, we have now reviewed and sought costs for the alternative solutions that were presented to us as part of the feedback. We reviewed the following options: - Rerouteing the 384 as proposed between Cockfosters and Victoria Road but then running it via East Barnet Road, Longmore Avenue, Lyonsdown Road and Gloucester Road - Running the 384 on the same routeing as now - Rerouteing the 384 as consulted on but also rerouteing the 234 from Great North Road via Lyonsdown Road and Gloucester Road None of these options provided us with a better or more cost effective use of our resources than the original proposal. Therefore we have decided to implement the changes that were originally consulted on. So it’s going ahead but when? Any route tests that need to be done had a target deadline of September so the changes would take place soon after that
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 6, 2020 23:04:24 GMT
So it’s going ahead but when? Any route tests that need to be done had a target deadline of September so the changes would take place soon after that So I guess the the 606 will be discontinued.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jul 7, 2020 5:53:57 GMT
Any route tests that need to be done had a target deadline of September so the changes would take place soon after that So I guess the the 606 will be discontinued. No, it’s being reduced. One AM and PM trip will be cancelled
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 7, 2020 5:54:29 GMT
So I guess the the 606 will be discontinued. No, it’s being reduced. One AM and PM trip will be cancelled Oh right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 13:52:12 GMT
So it’s going ahead but when? Any route tests that need to be done had a target deadline of September so the changes would take place soon after that Yes, I believe that early/mid October is the initial aim, though with COVID we never know.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 7, 2020 22:59:32 GMT
Any route tests that need to be done had a target deadline of September so the changes would take place soon after that Yes, I believe that early/mid October is the initial aim, though with COVID we never know. The results of the 112 consultation were announced at a similar time, and these are mentioned on LBR as going ahead in August (under the 611 entry). Metroline already have a number of surplus DEMs at PB, which should be able to cover the 384's extension, and I think there is still one yet to transfer back from HT. However due to the 384's routeing around Barnet being made more direct, this might cut the PVR for this section, so may not necessarily be a significant PVR change to the 384. Is the 292 still expected to be reduced in frequency? A few of the 292's VWs moved to SG, so these could be permanent transfers. I think the 292 may also have been allocated 1 TEH alongside, so this may be reallocated (maybe to the 210 at W?). The 606 has recently been reallocated with ex-First 10reg VWs, so one of these may become surplus with the reduction.
|
|