|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 17, 2021 12:36:58 GMT
There’s no bus route between Golders Green and High Barnet? That’s very strange. Hasn't been since they got rid of the 26 in the late 80s. You can't even get further north on the road than North Finchley on a bus from Golders Green, and the change at North Finchley is very difficult as well. So it's a bus, tube and bus at the other end. The 460 would seem a logical choice to extend but TfL think that would be overbussing north of North Finchley, even though there are now 13 139 245 260 328 460 between Child's Hill and Golders Green (seems much more overbussed to me). But then that's far enough south for TfL to care about giving a proper service to. Well I would say the 460 would be a bad alternative but as you said it would be logical - and the only reason I say this is the traffic hotspots in Willesden Green, Golders Green, Temple Fortune, Henlys Corner & sometimes Finchley Central delay the route. I would be in favour of such a route but definitely not at the expense of anything like the 234 or 263 - obviously a reduction may make some sense if we were thinking logically however with the frequency drop on the 43 going down the Holloway Road and a drop on the 271 potentially due to it being 8bph which was TFLs goal to reduce them to 6bph will definitely need the 263s current frequency. Childs Hill to Golders Green is definitely overbussed but that's because of the routes accessing the end goal being Golders Green and though the 139/328 and 260/460 may on the outlook be looked at as oversubscribed the 460 will be needed more than ever with the 13s rumoured reduction so the 460 will be needed as much as possible north of Cricklewood Lane whilst supporting the 260 which is very trafficky and busy. The 139/328 are a bit overbussed outside of the peaks but the 328 is definitely needed north of West Hampstead to pick up the passengers from the endless curtailments on the 139 whilst picking up local journeys through Fortune Green and because of that they can get very busy.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 17, 2021 13:06:24 GMT
Golders Green has more links than it needs really. Plus National Express (why and where else in the suburbs has it?), station cab rank - you would think it's the centre of the universe rather than a minor suburb that isn't really a destination in its own right, a city-centre location or a rail hub. Still no link from there to High/New Barnet though, which is kind of embarrassing imo. Barnet borough is kind of divided in terms of good provision to the south and west and worse towards the north and east. Hampstead Garden Suburb vs Hadley Green is only because TfL planners don't venture that far north. That link is made up though by 2 bus routes going to Finchley Central where they can interchange onto the Northern Line & 2 routes to North Finchley where they can get the 263. It doesn't imo have more links than it needs really, Golders Green is a massive interchange so obviously there would be demand coming from other places and they know they can change onto a bus in the bus station. To me I don't think it's oversubscribed as High Barnet & Golders Green are the only places in the borough where you can make loads of interchanges whilst North Finchley & Finchley Central have quite a lot, but I wouldn't consider them huge interchanges. Certainly the 112/125 extensions made them more interchangeable places I find it very difficult changing at North Finchley as the 13 and 460 don't usually stop in the same place as the 263 northbound and the southbound change is really difficult walking from the High Road to the bus station. The Northern Line is difficult for taking a bus at the other end as the northbound stop for High Barnet station is really badly placed and long and hazardous to get to.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 17, 2021 13:11:35 GMT
Hasn't been since they got rid of the 26 in the late 80s. You can't even get further north on the road than North Finchley on a bus from Golders Green, and the change at North Finchley is very difficult as well. So it's a bus, tube and bus at the other end. The 460 would seem a logical choice to extend but TfL think that would be overbussing north of North Finchley, even though there are now 13 139 245 260 328 460 between Child's Hill and Golders Green (seems much more overbussed to me). But then that's far enough south for TfL to care about giving a proper service to. Well I would say the 460 would be a bad alternative but as you said it would be logical - and the only reason I say this is the traffic hotspots in Willesden Green, Golders Green, Temple Fortune, Henlys Corner & sometimes Finchley Central delay the route. I would be in favour of such a route but definitely not at the expense of anything like the 234 or 263 - obviously a reduction may make some sense if we were thinking logically however with the frequency drop on the 43 going down the Holloway Road and a drop on the 271 potentially due to it being 8bph which was TFLs goal to reduce them to 6bph will definitely need the 263s current frequency. Childs Hill to Golders Green is definitely overbussed but that's because of the routes accessing the end goal being Golders Green and though the 139/328 and 260/460 may on the outlook be looked at as oversubscribed the 460 will be needed more than ever with the 13s rumoured reduction so the 460 will be needed as much as possible north of Cricklewood Lane whilst supporting the 260 which is very trafficky and busy. The 139/328 are a bit overbussed outside of the peaks but the 328 is definitely needed north of West Hampstead to pick up the passengers from the endless curtailments on the 139 whilst picking up local journeys through Fortune Green and because of that they can get very busy. I agree with you that the 263 should not be threatened. In fact I got some FOI info from TfL recently that they had been considering actually reducing frequencies on the 263, 307 and 184 along with the 384 changes, but decided not to go ahead with those. More evidence that they don't care about Barnet (town not borough) imo. FOI also showed 40% drop in usage for eastern section of the 384 since the rerouting, scaled up for covid demand.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 17, 2021 13:15:51 GMT
Well I would say the 460 would be a bad alternative but as you said it would be logical - and the only reason I say this is the traffic hotspots in Willesden Green, Golders Green, Temple Fortune, Henlys Corner & sometimes Finchley Central delay the route. I would be in favour of such a route but definitely not at the expense of anything like the 234 or 263 - obviously a reduction may make some sense if we were thinking logically however with the frequency drop on the 43 going down the Holloway Road and a drop on the 271 potentially due to it being 8bph which was TFLs goal to reduce them to 6bph will definitely need the 263s current frequency. Childs Hill to Golders Green is definitely overbussed but that's because of the routes accessing the end goal being Golders Green and though the 139/328 and 260/460 may on the outlook be looked at as oversubscribed the 460 will be needed more than ever with the 13s rumoured reduction so the 460 will be needed as much as possible north of Cricklewood Lane whilst supporting the 260 which is very trafficky and busy. The 139/328 are a bit overbussed outside of the peaks but the 328 is definitely needed north of West Hampstead to pick up the passengers from the endless curtailments on the 139 whilst picking up local journeys through Fortune Green and because of that they can get very busy. I agree with you that the 263 should not be threatened. In fact I got some FOI info from TfL recently that they had been considering actually reducing frequencies on the 263, 307 and 184 along with the 384 changes, but decided not to go ahead with those. More evidence that they don't care about Barnet (town not borough) imo. FOI also showed 40% drop in usage for eastern section of the 384 since the rerouting, scaled up for covid demand. Could you link that FOI please?
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Apr 17, 2021 13:19:44 GMT
Barking and Dagenham is extremely poor, you can't get further West from there than Stratford or Canning Town. Even links to Newham which is the next borough along are shocking, you've only got the 5, 86, 238, 173 and 366. Even the 173 and 366 only just make it across the border and terminate at Beckton. Effectively only leaving the 5, 86 and 238 actually making it to any other town centres over the border from B&D to Newham. You do technically have the 325, but it only has one stop in B&D. Just seen this thread and couldn’t agree anymore. It’s shocking how bad bus links towards west is in Barking and Dagenham, would be nice if a bus like the 115 got extended to Barking for example. Agree, solves so many problems in one go
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 17, 2021 13:21:30 GMT
I agree with you that the 263 should not be threatened. In fact I got some FOI info from TfL recently that they had been considering actually reducing frequencies on the 263, 307 and 184 along with the 384 changes, but decided not to go ahead with those. More evidence that they don't care about Barnet (town not borough) imo. FOI also showed 40% drop in usage for eastern section of the 384 since the rerouting, scaled up for covid demand. Could you link that FOI please? See 384 thread in 'consultations'. Will be adding to it.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 17, 2021 13:28:45 GMT
I agree with you that the 263 should not be threatened. In fact I got some FOI info from TfL recently that they had been considering actually reducing frequencies on the 263, 307 and 184 along with the 384 changes, but decided not to go ahead with those. More evidence that they don't care about Barnet (town not borough) imo. FOI also showed 40% drop in usage for eastern section of the 384 since the rerouting, scaled up for covid demand. Could you link that FOI please? Have posted the 384 data on the consulation thread to get thoughts on that first. So here is the meeting they had any reducing 263, 307 and 184 frequencies. FOI officer advised these proposed frequency reductions were subsequently decided against, but nothing to stop them considering them again.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 17, 2021 13:30:15 GMT
Could you link that FOI please? Have posted the 384 data on the consulation thread to get thoughts on that first. So here is the meeting they had any reducing 263, 307 and 184 frequencies. FOI officer advised these proposed frequency reductions were subsequently decided against, but nothing to stop them considering them again. Thanks for posting. Interesting to read.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 17, 2021 15:38:01 GMT
Seems there was a major review of routes in High and New Barnet in 2017. I know this was pushed for by local organisations in the hope that the area would get some improvements to services, cross-boundary routes and interchanges with the tube and other buses, but instead resulted in the reduction of the 384 from 4bph to 3bph in 2017, then the complete withdrawal of it from many roads, plus all these other frequency reductions they considered. I may have well suggested a review to TfL myself - I really hope that one person didn't persuade them to conduct a whole review, as it's definitely a case of 'be careful what you wish for'?!
Getting back on topic I can't think of a whole BOROUGH that is especially hard done-by, but definitely any area near the London boundary will have a much worse service, especially to towns just beyond. And it isn't even just rural areas but fairly built up ones like Hadley Green and Hadley Wood.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 17, 2021 16:31:34 GMT
Seems there was a major review of routes in High and New Barnet in 2017. I know this was pushed for by local organisations in the hope that the area would get some improvements to services, cross-boundary routes and interchanges with the tube and other buses, but instead resulted in the reduction of the 384 from 4bph to 3bph in 2017, then the complete withdrawal of it from many roads, plus all these other frequency reductions they considered. I may have well suggested a review to TfL myself - I really hope that one person didn't persuade them to conduct a whole review, as it's definitely a case of 'be careful what you wish for'?! Getting back on topic I can't think of a whole BOROUGH that is especially hard done-by, but definitely any area near the London boundary will have a much worse service, especially to towns just beyond. And it isn't even just rural areas but fairly built up ones like Hadley Green and Hadley Wood. I think a factor that comes into play here is that towns on the outskirts, while seemingly may have poor links out of the borough itself, have many routes all going to one place. Such can already be seen well in Romford, Kingston and Croydon. Historically people in these boroughs tend to be slightly better off financially so are more likely to use trains to go long distances, and will need the buses to get to their local town centre. Although these town centres as a result tend to become relatively busy for that reason, and demand for these town centres can spill into other boroughs. Notably you get routes like the 85/57, 109/250 and 5/86 that provide the links heading towards inner London and as a result become incredibly busy.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 17, 2021 18:12:10 GMT
Seems there was a major review of routes in High and New Barnet in 2017. I know this was pushed for by local organisations in the hope that the area would get some improvements to services, cross-boundary routes and interchanges with the tube and other buses, but instead resulted in the reduction of the 384 from 4bph to 3bph in 2017, then the complete withdrawal of it from many roads, plus all these other frequency reductions they considered. I may have well suggested a review to TfL myself - I really hope that one person didn't persuade them to conduct a whole review, as it's definitely a case of 'be careful what you wish for'?! Getting back on topic I can't think of a whole BOROUGH that is especially hard done-by, but definitely any area near the London boundary will have a much worse service, especially to towns just beyond. And it isn't even just rural areas but fairly built up ones like Hadley Green and Hadley Wood. Definitely agreed, links going northbound are so poor. TFL should have kept the 384 at 4bph, 3bph is way too low.
I find it interesting how TFL conducted a review as nobody benefitted other than those needing to travel to Edgware and vice versa - residents lost their local service with a downgrade in frequency, but also Borehamwood residents lost an extra bus per hour and the 606 lost a journey. Where is any benefit in that. The 384 should have never been the route to have been messed with, it was one of the worst as it was both doing a round the houses job but a town to town job. The 340 should have been extended, the 240 I say no to as it struggles in the peaks massively particularly south of Mill Hill Broadway and the 340 extension would have enabled connections to actual towns like Edgware, Harrow and Stanmore whilst connecting Barnet to high residential areas like Harrow Weald, Wealdstone and Canons Park. Cockfosters I wouldn't consider a town centre, I'd consider it a residential area and back onto my point about the 340 - it could then terminate in the Dollis Valley development which has incredibly poor links anywhere - when I used the 326 recently I used it specifically round Dollis Valley Estate and we picked up 7 people so it shows there is demand there for a service. Then the 384 could have been left at its job to feed into Barnet.
There are also hardly any links going north of High Barnet - you have the very limited 399 and then the 84 which is non TFL. The 84 is a very unattractive service due to its prices, not necessarily frequency. If Cockfosters and Gordon Hill can have links to Potters Bar (which do have a fair amount of demand - particularly between the M25 and the Station) then I would assume High Barnet and Hadley Green could? I would split the 84 in half so one half runs between Barnet & Potters Bar (maybe not to New Barnet) but it could then be used to fix up some links amongst Barnet with the current 84 running between Potters Bar Bus Garage and St Albans.
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Apr 17, 2021 18:45:04 GMT
There’s no bus route between Golders Green and High Barnet? That’s very strange. Hasn't been since they got rid of the 26 in the late 80s. You can't even get further north on the road than North Finchley on a bus from Golders Green, and the change at North Finchley is very difficult as well. So it's a bus, tube and bus at the other end. The 460 would seem a logical choice to extend but TfL think that would be overbussing north of North Finchley, even though there are now 13 139 245 260 328 460 between Child's Hill and Golders Green (seems much more overbussed to me). But then that's far enough south for TfL to care about giving a proper service to. I would be for an extension to the 460, lets see what ULEZ will do to the amount of cars on the road when it gets extended to the Ring roads, as that is probably 80-85% of the 460 route , and get some bus priority on Finchley road, then hopefully there can be scope for a good extension.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 17, 2021 19:20:55 GMT
Seems there was a major review of routes in High and New Barnet in 2017. I know this was pushed for by local organisations in the hope that the area would get some improvements to services, cross-boundary routes and interchanges with the tube and other buses, but instead resulted in the reduction of the 384 from 4bph to 3bph in 2017, then the complete withdrawal of it from many roads, plus all these other frequency reductions they considered. I may have well suggested a review to TfL myself - I really hope that one person didn't persuade them to conduct a whole review, as it's definitely a case of 'be careful what you wish for'?! Getting back on topic I can't think of a whole BOROUGH that is especially hard done-by, but definitely any area near the London boundary will have a much worse service, especially to towns just beyond. And it isn't even just rural areas but fairly built up ones like Hadley Green and Hadley Wood. Definitely agreed, links going northbound are so poor. TFL should have kept the 384 at 4bph, 3bph is way too low.
I find it interesting how TFL conducted a review as nobody benefitted other than those needing to travel to Edgware and vice versa - residents lost their local service with a downgrade in frequency, but also Borehamwood residents lost an extra bus per hour and the 606 lost a journey. Where is any benefit in that. The 384 should have never been the route to have been messed with, it was one of the worst as it was both doing a round the houses job but a town to town job. The 340 should have been extended, the 240 I say no to as it struggles in the peaks massively particularly south of Mill Hill Broadway and the 340 extension would have enabled connections to actual towns like Edgware, Harrow and Stanmore whilst connecting Barnet to high residential areas like Harrow Weald, Wealdstone and Canons Park. Cockfosters I wouldn't consider a town centre, I'd consider it a residential area and back onto my point about the 340 - it could then terminate in the Dollis Valley development which has incredibly poor links anywhere - when I used the 326 recently I used it specifically round Dollis Valley Estate and we picked up 7 people so it shows there is demand there for a service. Then the 384 could have been left at its job to feed into Barnet.
There are also hardly any links going north of High Barnet - you have the very limited 399 and then the 84 which is non TFL. The 84 is a very unattractive service due to its prices, not necessarily frequency. If Cockfosters and Gordon Hill can have links to Potters Bar (which do have a fair amount of demand - particularly between the M25 and the Station) then I would assume High Barnet and Hadley Green could? I would split the 84 in half so one half runs between Barnet & Potters Bar (maybe not to New Barnet) but it could then be used to fix up some links amongst Barnet with the current 84 running between Potters Bar Bus Garage and St Albans.
Well of course there used to be the 383 to Potters Bar via Kitts End in 2003, but TfL in there infinite wisdom decided they didn't want to keep that, citing low usage again, when they had specifically brought it in in 1998 as a TfL link between Barnet and Potters Bar, to replace the curtailed 326. Which is why it is kind of annoying to see it getting an extension at the other end (first to Woodside Park and the FMH, like they are more important). Seeing as a lot of other services that didn't cross the boundary were being enhanced in 2003, I think this was the start of TfL's hostility to providing cross-boundary services. They probably felt the 84 was enough because they allowed it to accept TfL tickets at that time, and none of the sections left with no bus at all were in London (Kitts End just outside). The only reason the 298 and 313 have probably survived as far as Potters Bar is because of the need to leave Hadley Wood (Cockfosters Road) and Botany Bay served by a bus, and there is no convenient place to turn round until you are already practically at Potters Bar.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Apr 17, 2021 19:49:16 GMT
Definitely agreed, links going northbound are so poor. TFL should have kept the 384 at 4bph, 3bph is way too low.
I find it interesting how TFL conducted a review as nobody benefitted other than those needing to travel to Edgware and vice versa - residents lost their local service with a downgrade in frequency, but also Borehamwood residents lost an extra bus per hour and the 606 lost a journey. Where is any benefit in that. The 384 should have never been the route to have been messed with, it was one of the worst as it was both doing a round the houses job but a town to town job. The 340 should have been extended, the 240 I say no to as it struggles in the peaks massively particularly south of Mill Hill Broadway and the 340 extension would have enabled connections to actual towns like Edgware, Harrow and Stanmore whilst connecting Barnet to high residential areas like Harrow Weald, Wealdstone and Canons Park. Cockfosters I wouldn't consider a town centre, I'd consider it a residential area and back onto my point about the 340 - it could then terminate in the Dollis Valley development which has incredibly poor links anywhere - when I used the 326 recently I used it specifically round Dollis Valley Estate and we picked up 7 people so it shows there is demand there for a service. Then the 384 could have been left at its job to feed into Barnet.
There are also hardly any links going north of High Barnet - you have the very limited 399 and then the 84 which is non TFL. The 84 is a very unattractive service due to its prices, not necessarily frequency. If Cockfosters and Gordon Hill can have links to Potters Bar (which do have a fair amount of demand - particularly between the M25 and the Station) then I would assume High Barnet and Hadley Green could? I would split the 84 in half so one half runs between Barnet & Potters Bar (maybe not to New Barnet) but it could then be used to fix up some links amongst Barnet with the current 84 running between Potters Bar Bus Garage and St Albans.
Well of course there used to be the 383 to Potters Bar via Kitts End in 2003, but TfL in there infinite wisdom decided they didn't want to keep that, citing low usage again, when they had specifically brought it in in 1998 as a TfL link between Barnet and Potters Bar, to replace the curtailed 326. Which is why it is kind of annoying to see it getting an extension at the other end (first to Woodside Park and the FMH, like they are more important). Seeing as a lot of other services that didn't cross the boundary were being enhanced in 2003, I think this was the start of TfL's hostility to providing cross-boundary services. They probably felt the 84 was enough because they allowed it to accept TfL tickets at that time, and none of the sections left with no bus at all were in London (Kitts End just outside). The only reason the 298 and 313 have probably survived as far as Potters Bar is because of the need to leave Hadley Wood (Cockfosters Road) and Botany Bay served by a bus, and there is no convenient place to turn round until you are already practically at Potters Bar. I don't think the 298 and the 313 serve Potters Bar because of Hadley Wood and Botany Bay. TFL did say this statement that they only want "a network that benifits London". Yes the potters bar link is a popular destination with connections to Southgate and Enfield Town, but my thoughts on why it's kept by TFL an benefits London is the section is used by school routes to serve D' Alice school and Potters Bar is a fairly popular destination even though it is outside London. Why Barnet is not properly connected, my only thought why is because Barnet is not really a popular destination compare to other destinations like Southgate or Enfield Town.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 17, 2021 21:51:51 GMT
Well of course there used to be the 383 to Potters Bar via Kitts End in 2003, but TfL in there infinite wisdom decided they didn't want to keep that, citing low usage again, when they had specifically brought it in in 1998 as a TfL link between Barnet and Potters Bar, to replace the curtailed 326. Which is why it is kind of annoying to see it getting an extension at the other end (first to Woodside Park and the FMH, like they are more important). Seeing as a lot of other services that didn't cross the boundary were being enhanced in 2003, I think this was the start of TfL's hostility to providing cross-boundary services. They probably felt the 84 was enough because they allowed it to accept TfL tickets at that time, and none of the sections left with no bus at all were in London (Kitts End just outside). The only reason the 298 and 313 have probably survived as far as Potters Bar is because of the need to leave Hadley Wood (Cockfosters Road) and Botany Bay served by a bus, and there is no convenient place to turn round until you are already practically at Potters Bar. I don't think the 298 and the 313 serve Potters Bar because of Hadley Wood and Botany Bay. TFL did say this statement that they only want "a network that benifits London". Yes the potters bar link is a popular destination with connections to Southgate and Enfield Town, but my thoughts on why it's kept by TFL an benefits London is the section is used by school routes to serve D' Alice school and Potters Bar is a fairly popular destination even though it is outside London. Why Barnet is not properly connected, my only thought why is because Barnet is not really a popular destination compare to other destinations like Southgate or Enfield Town. Hadley Wood and Botany Bay are in London and wouldn't have any bus at all without the 298 and 313 (apart from rare 399 to Hadley Wood), so this is part of the 'benefiting London' objective. Also kind of daft of them to think like London is an island and no one would visit Potters Bar from London - I used to go to school in Letchworth so went from Barnet to Potters Bar to the station and back every day, for example. The 383 used to go right past DAO is well, but of course there is also the 626. For people in Potters Bar I don't think Southgate is a bigger draw than Barnet - not really much of a town centre in Southgate compared to Barnet and Enfield. Ironically there's no direct bus from Barnet to Southgate which also seems like a big omission!
|
|