|
Post by uakari on Oct 19, 2018 17:58:58 GMT
It's quite near to Brent Cross and Hendon Central too (walking distance) and it's still quite short. I don't want to make the 240 worse, but I don't want the 384 to be removed so people don't have any bus service at all. It's interesting to have this discussion because we can actually talk about alternatives, whereas TfL just seems to have drawn lines on a map without any knowledge of the roads in Barnet and how the 384 currently connects residential areas to key high streets and stations. So do you think that extending the 384 via the route I suggested but keeping on all the currently-served roads would be viable? What about the slight extension of the 184 to Quinta Drive? Can you think of any other alternatives? I think it is viable and this would probably relieve 251 in the peaks. What do you think TfL's counter arguments would be? I reckon they might cite: - not enough demand via the alternative route, especially on the posh bits of Hendon Wood Lane and Barnet Gate Lane - posh people up in arms about a bus going down their nice country road (but a massive tank-like 4x4 is fine, obviously) - Hendon Wood Lane and Barnet Gate Lane being too twisty - can't afford a bus gate at Hendon Wood Lane width restriction or LBB wouldn't co-operate. - 184 extension wouldn't provide a direct service to Barnet Hospital or The Spires for Whitings Road/Quinta Drive passengers - not enough demand on Whitings Road (includes a primary school) and Quinta Drive for a higher frequency bus (184) And they might not say this, but this alternative route would mean they couldn't fulfil their ambition of reducing the 292 frequency either (or maybe they could as that is the bus people living round Marsh Lane currently use). I don't think any of those counter arguments are particularly strong personally.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Oct 19, 2018 18:33:28 GMT
I think it is viable and this would probably relieve 251 in the peaks. What do you think TfL's counter arguments would be? I reckon they might cite: - not enough demand via the alternative route, especially on the posh bits of Hendon Wood Lane and Barnet Gate Lane - posh people up in arms about a bus going down their nice country road (but a massive tank-like 4x4 is fine, obviously) - Hendon Wood Lane and Barnet Gate Lane being too twisty - can't afford a bus gate at Hendon Wood Lane width restriction - 184 extension wouldn't provide a direct service to Barnet Hospital or The Spires for Whitings Road/Quinta Drive passengers - not enough demand on Whitings Road (includes a primary school) and Quinta Drive for a higher frequency bus (184) And they might not say this, but this alternative route would mean they couldn't fulfil their ambition of reducing the 292 frequency either (or maybe they could as that is the bus people living round Marsh Lane currently use). I don't think any of those counter arguments are particularly strong personally. It would probably be the need for a bus gate and how twisty the road is. It has been more than a month since the 303 has been extended and there is still no gate so I doubt they will fit one here.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 19, 2018 18:43:47 GMT
What do you think TfL's counter arguments would be? I reckon they might cite: - not enough demand via the alternative route, especially on the posh bits of Hendon Wood Lane and Barnet Gate Lane - posh people up in arms about a bus going down their nice country road (but a massive tank-like 4x4 is fine, obviously) - Hendon Wood Lane and Barnet Gate Lane being too twisty - can't afford a bus gate at Hendon Wood Lane width restriction - 184 extension wouldn't provide a direct service to Barnet Hospital or The Spires for Whitings Road/Quinta Drive passengers - not enough demand on Whitings Road (includes a primary school) and Quinta Drive for a higher frequency bus (184) And they might not say this, but this alternative route would mean they couldn't fulfil their ambition of reducing the 292 frequency either (or maybe they could as that is the bus people living round Marsh Lane currently use). I don't think any of those counter arguments are particularly strong personally. It would probably be the need for a bus gate and how twisty the road is. It has been more than a month since the 303 has been extended and there is still no gate so I doubt they will fit one here. Are you referring to the section behind Colindale Asda? I thought I must have been mistaken when I looked up the route the other day and realised it didn't go past there any more - I could have sworn the consultation involved it going via Asda, I've forgotten whether that was in both directions or one way? Is this because they haven't installed a bus gate? If so, I worry about this setting a precedent of diverting a route along different roads than were the ones that were consulted on (I am worried they might also try to pull a similar stunt by removing the 384 from The Avenue and the top of Wentworth Road towards Cockfosters and just having it go down Stapylton Road, if people on the northern section of Salisbury Road object to having a bus come down their road - I am keeping a close eye on that because it is NOT what is being consulted on - see the map).
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Oct 19, 2018 19:05:41 GMT
It would probably be the need for a bus gate and how twisty the road is. It has been more than a month since the 303 has been extended and there is still no gate so I doubt they will fit one here. Are you referring to the section behind Colindale Asda? I thought I must have been mistaken when I looked up the route the other day and realised it didn't go past there any more - I could have sworn the consultation involved it going via Asda, I've forgotten whether that was in both directions or one way? Is this because they haven't installed a bus gate? If so, I worry about this setting a precedent of diverting a route along different roads than were the ones that were consulted on (I am worried they might also try to pull a similar stunt by removing the 384 from The Avenue and the top of Wentworth Road towards Cockfosters and just having it go down Stapylton Road, if people on the northern section of Salisbury Road object to having a bus come down their road - I am keeping a close eye on that because it is NOT what is being consulted on - see the map). Yes, I am. The only reasons the 303 is diverted because the DLEs can´t get round the normal route and the aformentioned bus gate.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 19, 2018 19:11:28 GMT
Are you referring to the section behind Colindale Asda? I thought I must have been mistaken when I looked up the route the other day and realised it didn't go past there any more - I could have sworn the consultation involved it going via Asda, I've forgotten whether that was in both directions or one way? Is this because they haven't installed a bus gate? If so, I worry about this setting a precedent of diverting a route along different roads than were the ones that were consulted on (I am worried they might also try to pull a similar stunt by removing the 384 from The Avenue and the top of Wentworth Road towards Cockfosters and just having it go down Stapylton Road, if people on the northern section of Salisbury Road object to having a bus come down their road - I am keeping a close eye on that because it is NOT what is being consulted on - see the map). Yes, I am. The only reasons the 303 is diverted because the DLEs can´t get round the normal route and the aformentioned bus gate. Was the 303 supposed to go via Asda in both directions, or just in one direction and go via Grove Park or Hay Lane in the other direction? Seems like it wouldn't make sense for it only to serve Asda in one direction. Sounds like a lot of people are angry about all the broken links yet they still went ahead with it and not even sticking to what was consulted on (why they couldn't have thought of diverting the 240 and/or the 114 I have no idea). This doesn't bode well for the outcome of the 384 consultation.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Oct 19, 2018 20:07:28 GMT
Yes, I am. The only reasons the 303 is diverted because the DLEs can´t get round the normal route and the aformentioned bus gate. Was the 303 supposed to go via Asda in both directions, or just in one direction and go via Grove Park or Hay Lane in the other direction? Seems like it wouldn't make sense for it only to serve Asda in one direction. Sounds like a lot of people are angry about all the broken links yet they still went ahead with it and not even sticking to what was consulted on (why they couldn't have thought of diverting the 240 and/or the 114 I have no idea). This doesn't bode well for the outcome of the 384 consultation. It´s supposed to be bi-directional. TfL don't think about breaking links or inconvinencing people and it seems like they only consult us because they have to. Unfortunaly, people's plea to keep the 384 how it is will most likely be ignored unless it costs TfL money to ignore. Everything TfL do is for money.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Oct 19, 2018 21:17:23 GMT
Yes, I am. The only reasons the 303 is diverted because the DLEs can´t get round the normal route and the aformentioned bus gate. Was the 303 supposed to go via Asda in both directions, or just in one direction and go via Grove Park or Hay Lane in the other direction? Seems like it wouldn't make sense for it only to serve Asda in one direction. Sounds like a lot of people are angry about all the broken links yet they still went ahead with it and not even sticking to what was consulted on (why they couldn't have thought of diverting the 240 and/or the 114 I have no idea). This doesn't bode well for the outcome of the 384 consultation. <iframe width="34.180000000000064" height="5.480000000000018" style="position: absolute; width: 34.180000000000064px; height: 5.480000000000018px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_60730313" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="34.180000000000064" height="5.480000000000018" style="position: absolute; width: 34.18px; height: 5.48px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1638px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_14355537" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="34.180000000000064" height="5.480000000000018" style="position: absolute; width: 34.18px; height: 5.48px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 212px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_7599240" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="34.180000000000064" height="5.480000000000018" style="position: absolute; width: 34.18px; height: 5.48px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1638px; top: 212px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_7804225" scrolling="no"></iframe> TfL simply did not care about people being angry, it was something like 25% opposed and 28% approved, which is not the best of ratios but it still went ahead. They could easily divert the 240 down Deansbrook, but like it has been said TfL don't care about inconveniencing people. As for the 114 idea, personally I'd go for the 240 idea instead, seeing as the 114 is a long route and diverting the 114 along the old 305 routing to Burnt Oak would add extra time to the journey, and Watling Avenue sees a lot of people using the route to get to Harrow. Overall there are many ways TfL could restore the links, but they simply don't care. What they do care about is cutting costs.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 19, 2018 21:38:44 GMT
Did all of the other 47% really choose 'neither support nor oppose' or did they just write a comment that couldn't be interpreted either way? The people using the 114 from that area to get to Harrow aren't too far from the 186 - an alternative would be to divert the 251 but then the east of Watling Avenue would lose access to ECH. These suggestions probably belong in the thread about that consultation though.
Re the 384: East Barnet Labour councillors and some concerned users of the bus are presenting the petitions to Andrew Dismore at City Hall at 2:00pm on 1st November. Anyone is welcome to be part of this: please message me if interested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 22:14:36 GMT
The 240 is fine and sees enough patronage as it is, it gives a link between Edgware and Mill Hill East (Which would mean going to Camden Town and changing for a Barnet branch train on the tube), serving Mill Hill Village, part of which is currently being redeveloped and also Millbrook Park/Mill Hill East, before making a link between Mill Hill East and Hendon (Hendon is the busiest part of the route) and then onto Golders Green, so is useful in its current form, a route does not need to be long to be useful, the only part of the route I'd change is the Edgware end, where I'd re-route it via Deansbrook Road (Old 303 route), as Hale Lane is paralleled by the 221 and Deansbrook has lost its link. Perhaps the 384 plan can go ahead, with the 389/399 being made more use of to replace some of the back roads the 384 serves, with a few more journeys a day on these routes added. The 389 could for example be extended from the Spires (Current Terminus) and follow the 384s current routing to Quinta Drive, with the route being given more journeys during the daytime, rather then just a few in the peaks. The trouble with this is that the 389 and 399 are both currently ultra-low frequency shopping hours only services (I believe they were made into two separate routes so that there wouldn't be a double run via Salisbury Road with people getting confused as to whether the bus was going to Western Way or Hadley Wood first). The main purpose of the 389 is to connect people in the Western Way area to The Spires, and the main purpose of the 399 is to connect people in Hadley Wood to The Spires. They don't pause for long at either Western Way or Hadley Wood station, so that people can use them as a circular from whichever of the roads in those areas is nearest to them, and then an hour later catch the same route (in fact the very same bus that has turned into the other route and back in the meantime) back home. I'm not sure that TfL would countenance having a more regular bus service on Western Way, especially as that really would be a big detour for people wanting to get from High Barnet to Gloucester Avenue/Lyonsdown Road/Logmore Avenue/York Road/New Barnet station or the New Barnet/East Barnet roads. People say that the current 384 route goes 'all round the houses' but it's still a viable way of getting from High Barnet all the way to Cockfosters if you need to (ironically the only bit that seems to make it slow is the Westbrook Crescent loop, which they intend to keep). I'm not sure that a diversion all round Western Way wouldn't reduce passenger numbers further than TfL seems to think they already have reduced (that's what happens when you make that crucial every 15 to every 20 cut). I agree that the 389 and the 399 could do with a frequency increase though (the chance would be a fine thing). However, the demand between The Spires and Quinta Drive is still too high for a route like these, which is one of the reasons the 384 was extended over this section via former route 385 in 1998. Lots of shopping trips to The Spires and Barnet High Street from Quinta Drive area, only bus that takes you from the upper high street and The Spires to the hospital (plus A&E dept), Wentworth Road/Byng Road are remote from any other service and have lots of 'ordinary' houses plus two primary schools and a new children's hospice (notice how the 384 proposal would still have it stopping at the top of Wentworth Road in both directions). And people from these areas often want to go beyond High Barnet to New Barnet station, East Barnet Road or even Cockfosters and Trent Park (I know because I used to be one of these people). I doubt there'd be enough demand for both the 384 and the 389 in this area though - note that although still bad, in High Barnet it's only Alston and Strafford roads that wouldn't have a 384 in both directions, whereas on the New Barnet and East Barnet sections many roads would be left without any bus. I also agree with you about diverting the 240 via Deansbrook Road anyway, as the 221 has had a frequency increase via The Hale and the 303 is also serving that area now too. If the 240 were extended to Barnet this would also avoid a double run via Hale Lane, and connect Edgware Community Hospital with Barnet Hospital. Personally I would also divert the 114 via Hale Lane, Dean's Lane and Orange Hill Road, as this would restore the other broken link to Burnt Oak station - the 251 could probably survive on its own at the eastern end of Watling Avenue. I agree with your proposals for the 240, and though extending this to Barnet would be ideal, I wouldn't mind the changes to the 384 you have suggested if the 240 plan doesn't go through. As you mentioned, I urge people to voice their opinions on this through signing petitions and responding (with alternative suggestions e.g extending the 240) to the consultation before the 9th of November in order to make a real difference. We shouldn't let TfL throw out public opinions from a consultation response like they always do, let's make an impact!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 22:22:48 GMT
What do you think TfL's counter arguments would be? I reckon they might cite: - not enough demand via the alternative route, especially on the posh bits of Hendon Wood Lane and Barnet Gate Lane - posh people up in arms about a bus going down their nice country road (but a massive tank-like 4x4 is fine, obviously) - Hendon Wood Lane and Barnet Gate Lane being too twisty - can't afford a bus gate at Hendon Wood Lane width restriction - 184 extension wouldn't provide a direct service to Barnet Hospital or The Spires for Whitings Road/Quinta Drive passengers - not enough demand on Whitings Road (includes a primary school) and Quinta Drive for a higher frequency bus (184) And they might not say this, but this alternative route would mean they couldn't fulfil their ambition of reducing the 292 frequency either (or maybe they could as that is the bus people living round Marsh Lane currently use). I don't think any of those counter arguments are particularly strong personally. It would probably be the need for a bus gate and how twisty the road is. It has been more than a month since the 303 has been extended and there is still no gate so I doubt they will fit one here. Have you seen some of the rural routes particularly down south? I know for a fact that there are plenty of twisty/narrow roads that are served perfectly fine with little Solos/E200s or equivalent. Your point about the bus gate; I do agree TfL will be reluctant to do it however looking on StreetView, there is an empty grass patch and a turning point for gritting vehicles directly to the west of the road which could easily be developed further whether it be to widen the carriageway or put a little "bus only" section, much more so than the 303s ASDA gate which has more structural challenges imo.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 19, 2018 22:46:02 GMT
It would probably be the need for a bus gate and how twisty the road is. It has been more than a month since the 303 has been extended and there is still no gate so I doubt they will fit one here. Have you seen some of the rural routes particularly down south? I know for a fact that there are plenty of twisty/narrow roads that are served perfectly fine with little Solos/E200s or equivalent. Your point about the bus gate; I do agree TfL will be reluctant to do it however looking on StreetView, there is an empty grass patch and a turning point for gritting vehicles directly to the west of the road which could easily be developed further whether it be to widen the carriageway or put a little "bus only" section, much more so than the 303s ASDA gate which has more structural challenges imo. The 384 used to have single door single deckers, but these were replaced with double door ones maybe around ten years ago (I don't know the length of the current fleet - I'm sure someone else does). A small number of residents of Alston and Strafford roads objected to having larger buses, or any buses, going down those roads, which I fear TfL may use to attempt to justify removing the 384 from these roads towards Cockfosters as per the consultation, even though in my experience a larger number of residents support the bus. I think that there would definitely be a capacity issue if the buses were made smaller again, especially at school times and if it is the 384 that is extended to Edgware yet not made more frequent again. Personally I really think the 240 idea has legs (or should I say wheels!) - quite a few people have mentioned it when I've been out campaigning. If SDs would be too crowded, DDs could still go the A1 and Stirling Corner way and pass by Barnet Hospital on Wood Street or possibly go into and round the hospital terminus for a double run - I just don't think that route makes as much sense as the one via Marsh, Hendon Wood, Barnet Gate and Mays lanes. As per your picture it would great if the 240 could go to Hadley Highstone (via the whole of Mays Lane and Barnet Hill?) to bring a frequent TfL bus back to that area, but perhaps terminating at New Barnet station or even near JCoSS itself might be more realistic given that TfL seem to want to bend over backwards to provide a quicker link to the school, and I imagine some people would inevitably complain about buses terminating at Hadley Highstone, losing parking spaces, and all that rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 19, 2018 23:52:58 GMT
Just throwing this one out there, as I am not familiar with this route, but if not the 240, what about extending the 340 from Edgware to Barnet? According to Robert Munster, it has an off-peak running time of 24 minutes.
If Barnet Hospital to Brimsdown isn't too long for the 307, is Barnet to Harrow? Such an extension would fulfil ambitions for more 'super-orbital' routes connecting stops at or near the ends of tube lines and on train lines, like the 307 does.
Feel free to shout this one down and tell me it would be unworkable (reasons appreciated).
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Oct 20, 2018 7:50:50 GMT
It would probably be the need for a bus gate and how twisty the road is. It has been more than a month since the 303 has been extended and there is still no gate so I doubt they will fit one here. Have you seen some of the rural routes particularly down south? I know for a fact that there are plenty of twisty/narrow roads that are served perfectly fine with little Solos/E200s or equivalent. Your point about the bus gate; I do agree TfL will be reluctant to do it however looking on StreetView, there is an empty grass patch and a turning point for gritting vehicles directly to the west of the road which could easily be developed further whether it be to widen the carriageway or put a little "bus only" section, much more so than the 303s ASDA gate which has more structural challenges imo. I'm saying that will probably be one of TfL's excuses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2018 20:32:19 GMT
Just throwing this one out there, as I am not familiar with this route, but if not the 240, what about extending the 340 from Edgware to Barnet? According to Robert Munster, it has an off-peak running time of 24 minutes. If Barnet Hospital to Brimsdown isn't too long for the 307, is Barnet to Harrow? Such an extension would fulfil ambitions for more 'super-orbital' routes connecting stops at or near the ends of tube lines and on train lines, like the 307 does. Feel free to shout this one down and tell me it would be unworkable (reasons appreciated). Another thread has mentioned a 240/340 merger as an explanation for why the tender announcement is delayed. Your idea about the 340 running to Barnet (provided it doesn't merge with the 240) is not a bad one, and definitely will put TfL in good light with regards to orbital links and connecting hospitals/shopping centres/town centres/tube stations etc. It may be a bit of a reliability issue however, as the 340 is known to have some traffic delays in the Harrow and Edgware areas especially at peak times, and so is the 292 down the A1 and Selvage Ln (I presume this is the route you are thinking about for the 340 extension?).
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Oct 20, 2018 21:11:37 GMT
Just throwing this one out there, as I am not familiar with this route, but if not the 240, what about extending the 340 from Edgware to Barnet? According to Robert Munster, it has an off-peak running time of 24 minutes. If Barnet Hospital to Brimsdown isn't too long for the 307, is Barnet to Harrow? Such an extension would fulfil ambitions for more 'super-orbital' routes connecting stops at or near the ends of tube lines and on train lines, like the 307 does. Feel free to shout this one down and tell me it would be unworkable (reasons appreciated). Another thread has mentioned a 240/340 merger as an explanation for why the tender announcement is delayed. Your idea about the 340 running to Barnet (provided it doesn't merge with the 240) is not a bad one, and definitely will put TfL in good light with regards to orbital links and connecting hospitals/shopping centres/town centres/tube stations etc. It may be a bit of a reliability issue however, as the 340 is known to have some traffic delays in the Harrow and Edgware areas especially at peak times, and so is the 292 down the A1 and Selvage Ln (I presume this is the route you are thinking about for the 340 extension?). Looks like I'll be adding yet another addendum to my consultation response in that case! Yes, for DDs it would probably have to be Selvage Lane - Apex Corner - the A1 - Stirling Corner - Barnet Road - Arkley - Wood Street - possible double run round Barnet Hospital terminus. Although possibly DDs could manage Barnet Gate Lane and all of Mays Lane (if there was a bus gate at the width restriction), I think they might fare less well on Hendon Wood Lane, Trinder Road and the bottom of Wellhouse Lane.
|
|