|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 8, 2024 23:31:21 GMT
This policy really needs to be revisited by TfL - it is incredibly insular and short-sighted. I could reel off a whole list of services/corridors that should be TfL but are not - the 3 from Sevenoaks to Orpington, the 420 from Redhill to Sutton, the A307 Portsmouth Road direct run from Kingston to Esher and branches beyond where necessary, the 84B from Barnet to Potters Bar, taking the 375 on to Ongar… I completely agree with you, the Greater London shouldn't be a barrier to providing important bus connections. Realistically, all of these sections of non-TfL routes should be incorporated into the TfL bus network:
3 Orpington to Sevenoaks 3 Uxbridge to Slough 84B Barnet to Potters Bar 409 Selsdon to Caterham on the Hill 420 Sutton to Redhill 442 Heathrow T5 to Staines 458 Kingston to Staines 477 Orpington to Bluewater 515 Kingston to Esher (via Thames Ditton and Lower Green) 555 Heathrow Central/Hatton Cross to Walton-on-Thames E16 Worcester Park to Epsom
Some route extensions are also needed where routes unnecessarily terminate due to the Greater London border, such as extending the 116 from Ashford Hospital to Staines, the 293 from Epsom Hospital to Leatherhead, the 466 from Caterham-on-the-Hill to Caterham station, and extending all journeys on the 166 to Epsom Hospital.
I would argue it would be better for TfL to offer an incentive to the operators to match their fares over the entire length. Perhaps some journeys supported by TfL. For example the 420 could have journeys in the AM/PM peaks supported by TfL rather than a fully supported TfL service which may not offer value for money. Something similar to what some operators like Travel Surrey used to offer within the TfL zone although back then it was cash only. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 8, 2024 23:34:17 GMT
This policy really needs to be revisited by TfL - it is incredibly insular and short-sighted. I could reel off a whole list of services/corridors that should be TfL but are not - the 3 from Sevenoaks to Orpington, the 420 from Redhill to Sutton, the A307 Portsmouth Road direct run from Kingston to Esher and branches beyond where necessary, the 84B from Barnet to Potters Bar, taking the 375 on to Ongar… I completely agree with you, the Greater London shouldn't be a barrier to providing important bus connections. Realistically, all of these sections of non-TfL routes should be incorporated into the TfL bus network:
3 Orpington to Sevenoaks 3 Uxbridge to Slough 84B Barnet to Potters Bar 409 Selsdon to Caterham on the Hill 420 Sutton to Redhill 442 Heathrow T5 to Staines 458 Kingston to Staines 477 Orpington to Bluewater 515 Kingston to Esher (via Thames Ditton and Lower Green) 555 Heathrow Central/Hatton Cross to Walton-on-Thames E16 Worcester Park to Epsom
Some route extensions are also needed where routes unnecessarily terminate due to the Greater London border, such as extending the 116 from Ashford Hospital to Staines, the 293 from Epsom Hospital to Leatherhead, the 466 from Caterham-on-the-Hill to Caterham station, and extending all journeys on the 166 to Epsom Hospital.
Completely agree, most of the area inside the M25 is built up, but some sections fall outside the Greater London border, such as the area of Surrey between Epsom and Staines, which would include some of your examples like the 458 and 555. The area around Watford is a similar case, some routes like Arriva's Watford-Northwood service might make more sense under TFL. Or even the 306, which doesn't actually enter Greater London, but the majority of other routes through Bushey/Elstree/Borehamwood are TFL, so would make ticketing simpler for passengers in areas like these. I'm sure many journeys near the London border will require changing from a TFL service to a non-TFL one, so at least accepting Oyster on certain routes would allow for passengers to benefit from daily caps and the hopper fare. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Feb 8, 2024 23:36:24 GMT
This policy really needs to be revisited by TfL - it is incredibly insular and short-sighted. I could reel off a whole list of services/corridors that should be TfL but are not - the 3 from Sevenoaks to Orpington, the 420 from Redhill to Sutton, the A307 Portsmouth Road direct run from Kingston to Esher and branches beyond where necessary, the 84B from Barnet to Potters Bar, taking the 375 on to Ongar… I completely agree with you, the Greater London shouldn't be a barrier to providing important bus connections. Realistically, all of these sections of non-TfL routes should be incorporated into the TfL bus network:
3 Orpington to Sevenoaks 3 Uxbridge to Slough 84B Barnet to Potters Bar 409 Selsdon to Caterham on the Hill 420 Sutton to Redhill 442 Heathrow T5 to Staines 458 Kingston to Staines 477 Orpington to Bluewater 515 Kingston to Esher (via Thames Ditton and Lower Green) 555 Heathrow Central/Hatton Cross to Walton-on-Thames E16 Worcester Park to Epsom
Some route extensions are also needed where routes unnecessarily terminate due to the Greater London border, such as extending the 116 from Ashford Hospital to Staines, the 293 from Epsom Hospital to Leatherhead, the 466 from Caterham-on-the-Hill to Caterham station, and extending all journeys on the 166 to Epsom Hospital.
The only way they should be incorporated into the TfL bus network in my view is if the neighbouring authority(es) provided appropriate funding for the extra resources required. Whilst the GLA boundary shouldn't be a barrier to bus services, the London ratepayer should not be funding subsidised bus services that are of little value to them especially ones with cheaper fares and free fares for some additional groups. None of the existing TfL routes you mention terminate 'unnecessarily' either - they are all sensible traffic objectives after the GLA boundary and in the case of the 166, that is funded by Surrey for it's own residents according to what they see as appropriate levels of resource. Epsom-Leatherhead already has a half-hourly 479 bus and is well past the GLA boundary. Take the 458 for example. Why should the London ratepayer be funding someone in Walton getting a cheaper (and in some cases free) bus from there to Esher or Staines? None of these places are in London or of value to the London ratepayer. There are already TfL bus services well within the GLA boundary that are in a marginal financial position. A cigarette packet calculation tells me adding those extra routes into the TfL network, including making them up to 'TfL standard' so minimum 2bph, early to late, 7 day operation, would cost at least £10.5m a year in operating costs, not to mention the cost recovery would likely be pretty ropey on these routes given the proliferation of ENCTS use on routes of that sort. Surrey for example is one of the wealthiest local authorities in the country, the 3rd least deprived in the country in fact, and whilst I don't doubt that deprivation still exists in the county, and also appreciating the local government financial challenges, Surrey should be the ones investing in their local bus services - including if they cross into London where that's of benefit to their own ratepayers. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 9, 2024 0:22:13 GMT
I completely agree with you, the Greater London shouldn't be a barrier to providing important bus connections. Realistically, all of these sections of non-TfL routes should be incorporated into the TfL bus network: 3 Orpington to Sevenoaks 3 Uxbridge to Slough 84B Barnet to Potters Bar 409 Selsdon to Caterham on the Hill 420 Sutton to Redhill 442 Heathrow T5 to Staines 458 Kingston to Staines 477 Orpington to Bluewater 515 Kingston to Esher (via Thames Ditton and Lower Green) 555 Heathrow Central/Hatton Cross to Walton-on-Thames E16 Worcester Park to Epsom Some route extensions are also needed where routes unnecessarily terminate due to the Greater London border, such as extending the 116 from Ashford Hospital to Staines, the 293 from Epsom Hospital to Leatherhead, the 466 from Caterham-on-the-Hill to Caterham station, and extending all journeys on the 166 to Epsom Hospital.
The only way they should be incorporated into the TfL bus network in my view is if the neighbouring authority(es) provided appropriate funding for the extra resources required. Whilst the GLA boundary shouldn't be a barrier to bus services, the London ratepayer should not be funding subsidised bus services that are of little value to them especially ones with cheaper fares and free fares for some additional groups. None of the existing TfL routes you mention terminate 'unnecessarily' either - they are all sensible traffic objectives after the GLA boundary and in the case of the 166, that is funded by Surrey for it's own residents according to what they see as appropriate levels of resource. Epsom-Leatherhead already has a half-hourly 479 bus and is well past the GLA boundary. Take the 458 for example. Why should the London ratepayer be funding someone in Walton getting a cheaper (and in some cases free) bus from there to Esher or Staines? None of these places are in London or of value to the London ratepayer. There are already TfL bus services well within the GLA boundary that are in a marginal financial position. A cigarette packet calculation tells me adding those extra routes into the TfL network, including making them up to 'TfL standard' so minimum 2bph, early to late, 7 day operation, would cost at least £10.5m a year in operating costs, not to mention the cost recovery would likely be pretty ropey on these routes given the proliferation of ENCTS use on routes of that sort. Surrey for example is one of the wealthiest local authorities in the country, the 3rd least deprived in the country in fact, and whilst I don't doubt that deprivation still exists in the county, and also appreciating the local government financial challenges, Surrey should be the ones investing in their local bus services - including if they cross into London where that's of benefit to their own ratepayers. The only issue with this is how do you determine which ones will be used by current London passengers and which won't have a strong case? Is there any current data from either the home counties or TfL that show people from London would use the service or even change from a current TfL route to a non TfL route? For example, the 3 did have strong demand from Orpington when it was introduced as the 402's northern replacement (it was called 431), particularly down to the garden centre at Polhill but even right down to Sevenoaks too |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 9, 2024 0:25:05 GMT
Restructure ideas for North London, mostly within the borough of Barnet: New Route 351
351 - New route, creating new links through the Mill Hill East area, including to redevelopments and some unserved roads. Using SDs about every 12-15 minutes. Operating from Brent Cross Shopping Centre to Arnos Grove, via Hendon Way, Hendon Central Station, Queens Road, Brent Street, Parson Street, Great North Way, Page Street, Pursley Road, Devonshire Road, Mill Hill East Station, Inglis Way, Frith Lane, then the 221 to North Finchley, 125/263 to Whetstone and the 251 to Arnos Grove. Routes 240, 251 & 383
251 - Revised to operate between Edgware and Barnet (The Spires), direct via Hale Lane to Mill Hill Broadway, then current route to Whetstone, and the 234 to Barnet. Introducing a direct link to Barnet from Mill Hill and Totteridge, and providing a more frequent Edgware-Barnet service. 240 - Diverted between Edgware and Mill Hill Broadway via Burnt Oak (replacing the 251). 383 - Extended from Barnet to Potters Bar. Could either go direct, or via Hadley Wood (merging with the 399). Stand space at The Spires made available for the 251. Routes 125 & 326
125 - Rerouted at Hendon to Brent Cross Shopping Centre, increasing capacity on this section since the 143/326 can't take DDs. 326 - Rerouted at Hendon to Colindale Station via the 125. Routes 67, 221, 382, H2 & H3221 - Diverted between Mill Hill East Station and North Finchley, via the 382 to Finchley Central, then Ballards Lane. Introducing new links from Finchley Central to Edgware, Mill Hill Broadway and Wood Green. Withdrawn between Turnpike Lane and Wood Green, and frequency reduced to every 10 minutes. 67 - Extended from Wood Green to New Southgate, via the 221 to New Southgate Station, then terminating at the stand on Friern Barnet Road (turning around at Betstyle Circus). Increasing capacity along Bounds Green Road. 382 - Withdrawn between Mill Hill East and Finchley Central. Instead extended to Golders Green, providing a higher-capacity service along some of the wider roads through Hampstead Garden Suburb. Via Regents Park Road, East End Road, Ossulton Way, Kingsley Way, Meadway and Hoop Lane. H2/H3 - Restructured to form a circular service to/from Golders Green via East Finchley, operating about every 30 minutes in both directions. Combining the current H3 with the northern half of the H2 loop - with the revised 382 covering the area around Meadway. All of these proposals look good, the only thing I will ask is that will the 125 be extended to Brent Cross West in place of the 326? If not you could do the same with the 143. Can't really comment in detail as not my area but it's personally way too many changes and implies the bus network is broken when that's far from the truth. I also don't think the 383, if extended to Potters Bar, should be replacing the 399 via Hadley Wood as both current 383 and current 399 passengers will end up with a slower, less reliable service. The 383 can reach Potters Bar but it should only be via the old 84 route directly along the main road - this also keeps cost down and restores a 30 minute service akin to the 84, albeit with single deckers rather than doubles. |
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Feb 9, 2024 0:34:51 GMT
The 125 being rerouted to Brent Cross is not because people are going to Winchmore Hill/Southgate from there but rather to provide extra capacity on the Hendon-Brent Cross corridor. No point. I see a lot of people in my area Barnet use the 326 to Brent Cross. The 143 and 326 paralleling to Brent Cross is the whole point of maintaining capacity. The Colindale section has become very busy on the 125 so why dump that for a single deck 326? That’s true. The only change I would make for 125 is to extend it to Colindale Superstores to link Aerodrome Road to Edgware Road. Also supporting TFL’s proposed extension for 326 to Brent Cross West. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 9, 2024 8:08:57 GMT
All of these proposals look good, the only thing I will ask is that will the 125 be extended to Brent Cross West in place of the 326? If not you could do the same with the 143. Can't really comment in detail as not my area but it's personally way too many changes and implies the bus network is broken when that's far from the truth. I also don't think the 383, if extended to Potters Bar, should be replacing the 399 via Hadley Wood as both current 383 and current 399 passengers will end up with a slower, less reliable service. The 383 can reach Potters Bar but it should only be via the old 84 route directly along the main road - this also keeps cost down and restores a 30 minute service akin to the 84, albeit with single deckers rather than doubles. I would question if ironically the 383 would become a victim of its own success to Potters Bar with a 30 min TFL service and would soon out grow the little SDs it's restricted to. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 9, 2024 9:22:22 GMT
All of these proposals look good, the only thing I will ask is that will the 125 be extended to Brent Cross West in place of the 326? If not you could do the same with the 143. Yes either the 125 or 143 could go to Brent Cross West, probably the 143 as it has a lower frequency. I'm unsure though how much demand there would be for such a link, now that the SL10 links Finchley Central to Thameslink (at Hendon) - but could benefit the stops that the SL10 does not serve. You could also deck the 112 if you wanted to increase capacity on the Brent Cross-North Finchley corridor. The 112 needs decking anyway though either the trees on Madeley Road need to be cut or the 112 has to go back onto its old routing in Ealing. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 9, 2024 11:43:31 GMT
Can't really comment in detail as not my area but it's personally way too many changes and implies the bus network is broken when that's far from the truth. I also don't think the 383, if extended to Potters Bar, should be replacing the 399 via Hadley Wood as both current 383 and current 399 passengers will end up with a slower, less reliable service. The 383 can reach Potters Bar but it should only be via the old 84 route directly along the main road - this also keeps cost down and restores a 30 minute service akin to the 84, albeit with single deckers rather than doubles. I would question if ironically the 383 would become a victim of its own success to Potters Bar with a 30 min TFL service and would soon out grow the little SDs it's restricted to. It would at least be a cheaper way for TFL to start running a service here, as there's no guarantee it how well used it will be, considering Sullivan chose not to cover the Barnet end of the 84. In the long term, probably a frequency of every 20 minutes would be ideal, matching the 298 and 313. Could the rest of the 383 perhaps even justify a frequency increase (rather than extending a different route instead)? |
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Feb 9, 2024 13:43:22 GMT
Harrow/Golders Green/Wembley Bus Changes
83: Ealing Hospital - Golders Green (restored into a 24 hour route)
240: Golders Green - Stanmore (extended to Stanmore Station)
340: Stanmore - Alperton Sainsbury’s (withdrawn between Edgware and Stanmore due to 240’s extension, but extended to Alperton Sainsbury's through 483’s route from Harrow which also supports the 83 between Wembley Stadium and Alperton)
483: Withdrawn (replaced by routes 83 and 340)
N83: Withdrawn (replaced by 24 hour route 83)
|
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Feb 9, 2024 13:48:05 GMT
Harrow/Golders Green/Wembley Bus Changes83: Ealing Hospital - Golders Green (restored into a 24 hour route) 240: Golders Green - Stanmore (extended to Stanmore Station) 340: Stanmore - Alperton Sainsbury’s (withdrawn between Edgware and Stanmore due to 240’s extension, but extended to Alperton Sainsbury's through 483’s route from Harrow which also supports the 83 between Wembley Stadium and Alperton) 483: Withdrawn (replaced by routes 83 and 340) N83: Withdrawn (replaced by 24 hour route 83) What's the point in this? The 83 changes have been successful so far and the 83 was far too long in its original form. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 9, 2024 14:01:17 GMT
Harrow/Golders Green/Wembley Bus Changes83: Ealing Hospital - Golders Green (restored into a 24 hour route) 240: Golders Green - Stanmore (extended to Stanmore Station) 340: Stanmore - Alperton Sainsbury’s (withdrawn between Edgware and Stanmore due to 240’s extension, but extended to Alperton Sainsbury's through 483’s route from Harrow which also supports the 83 between Wembley Stadium and Alperton) 483: Withdrawn (replaced by routes 83 and 340) N83: Withdrawn (replaced by 24 hour route 83) What's the point in this? The 83 changes have been successful so far and the 83 was far too long in its original form. Agree the 83 was too long to reliably run in its old form & ran through so many traffic hotspots. The only thing I would do with the 340 would be to have it swap termini with the 186. 240 might be useful to extend towards Hampstead rather than Stanmore. |
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Feb 9, 2024 14:07:56 GMT
Harrow/Golders Green/Wembley Bus Changes83: Ealing Hospital - Golders Green (restored into a 24 hour route) 240: Golders Green - Stanmore (extended to Stanmore Station) 340: Stanmore - Alperton Sainsbury’s (withdrawn between Edgware and Stanmore due to 240’s extension, but extended to Alperton Sainsbury's through 483’s route from Harrow which also supports the 83 between Wembley Stadium and Alperton) 483: Withdrawn (replaced by routes 83 and 340) N83: Withdrawn (replaced by 24 hour route 83) What's the point in this? The 83 changes have been successful so far and the 83 was far too long in its original form. The reason I’m considering it now is because since SL10 now exists, it actually does support the 83 between Hendon Central Station and Kingsbury Green/Kingsbury Road so 83 is likely to move faster between those sections unless there is congestion at certain areas. |
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Feb 9, 2024 14:09:28 GMT
What's the point in this? The 83 changes have been successful so far and the 83 was far too long in its original form. Agree the 83 was too long to reliably run in its old form & ran through so many traffic hotspots. The only thing I would do with the 340 would be to have it swap termini with the 186. 240 might be useful to extend towards Hampstead rather than Stanmore. I agree with you about extending 240 to Hampstead or even Camden Town, but Golders Green to Stanmore could potentially be a decent link. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 9, 2024 14:14:00 GMT
Agree the 83 was too long to reliably run in its old form & ran through so many traffic hotspots. The only thing I would do with the 340 would be to have it swap termini with the 186. 240 might be useful to extend towards Hampstead rather than Stanmore. I agree with you about extending 240 to Hampstead or even Camden Town, but Golders Green to Stanmore could potentially be a decent link. I don’t think Golders Green-Stanmore is a link that’s really needed. If people wanted that link they could just get 102/210 to Brent Cross followed by either 142 or 324 to Stanmore. |
|
