|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Feb 5, 2022 19:22:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Feb 5, 2022 19:51:56 GMT
Seems a bit dodgy how Labour councils almost approve such schemes while the tories are the ones opposing. I am not local but given my experience of living in E14 I can draw parallels with how local sensibilities / opposition is blatantly ignored |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Feb 5, 2022 20:09:48 GMT
It's a good site to build housing, being nearby shops and a tube station as well as bus services. Certainly beats green belt constructions which requires removal of green spaces as well as more infrastructure needing to be installed. The issues around car parking are valid - but the needs of people needing homes should trump ease of motoring acessability. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Feb 5, 2022 21:10:40 GMT
I am interested at the same time on the impact on bus routes in particular the services routing north of the station such as the 298 knowing some switching may occur where enchantments could happen
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 5, 2022 21:26:31 GMT
I’d have a number of reservations on both sides of the argument if I was local such as how much housing will be affordable along with how the development fits in with existing architecture as well as how well it will actually be built (something that isn’t questioned enough with new buildings) but also, should all that car parking space be necessary if we trying to get more people to use public transport otherwise we are just defeating the whole purpose of having public transport in the first place |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 5, 2022 21:34:21 GMT
I’d have a number of reservations on both sides of the argument if I was local such as how much housing will be affordable along with how the development fits in with existing architecture as well as how well it will actually be built (something that isn’t questioned enough with new buildings) but also, should all that car parking space be necessary if we trying to get more people to use public transport otherwise we are just defeating the whole purpose of having public transport in the first place However the flip side is that the people driving to Cockfosters are likely to be the sort that struggle with public transport locally which is why the drive before getting public transport. If you remove the car parking there they are probably more likely to drive further into London instead as opposed to leaving their car at home completely. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 5, 2022 21:36:56 GMT
It's a good site to build housing, being nearby shops and a tube station as well as bus services. Certainly beats green belt constructions which requires removal of green spaces as well as more infrastructure needing to be installed. The issues around car parking are valid - but the needs of people needing homes should trump ease of motoring acessability. There's a Trent Park housing development next door pretty much so anyone wishing to buy a house in Cockfosters specifically could buy one there? |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 5, 2022 21:39:02 GMT
I’d have a number of reservations on both sides of the argument if I was local such as how much housing will be affordable along with how the development fits in with existing architecture as well as how well it will actually be built (something that isn’t questioned enough with new buildings) but also, should all that car parking space be necessary if we trying to get more people to use public transport otherwise we are just defeating the whole purpose of having public transport in the first place If you want people to make that switch public transport needs improvement of which it has seen lackluster of in recent years.
And especially for a service like the 298, of which passes by areas of which public transport is lackluster anyway (Hadley Wood in particular) I cannot see TFL improving the frequency on that regardless because of it crossing the Greater London Border into Potters Bar.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 6, 2022 1:24:12 GMT
I’d have a number of reservations on both sides of the argument if I was local such as how much housing will be affordable along with how the development fits in with existing architecture as well as how well it will actually be built (something that isn’t questioned enough with new buildings) but also, should all that car parking space be necessary if we trying to get more people to use public transport otherwise we are just defeating the whole purpose of having public transport in the first place If you want people to make that switch public transport needs improvement of which it has seen lackluster of in recent years. And especially for a service like the 298, of which passes by areas of which public transport is lackluster anyway (Hadley Wood in particular) I cannot see TFL improving the frequency on that regardless because of it crossing the Greater London Border into Potters Bar.
I'm very aware that public transport must be improved hence why my position is usually completely opposite to what's going on currently but equally, keeping lots of car parking space rather than it being reduced (notice I didn't say fully removed) also defeats the purpose. The two must go hand in hand but at the same time, to dismiss one doesn't improve anything at all. The 298 got a extra bus not long ago rather than cut so TfL has previously shown it is willing to improve it. |
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Feb 18, 2022 15:08:13 GMT
As has been stated, reducing car parking at stations can only work if you give people a viable public transport alternative.
With the removal of the 384 from many roads, this means fewer people are within reasonable walking distance of a bus service and are also to be deprived of car parking at Cockfosters, so how ARE they going to be able to get to and from the station? This particular affects people with mobility difficulties which includes older people who often won't be eligible for blue badge parking and can't walk the extra distance up hills from where the 384 now stops, and also this and other vulnerable groups such as women travelling home at night with the safety concerns of having to walk further along dark, quiet roads. If you take away paking, you need to provide comprehensive bus services to the surrounding areas, but TfL have done the reverse with the 384.
With Hadley Wood residents also being affected in the same way and many not within walking distance of the 298, and also similar parking reductions planned for High Barnet station and the 84 being withdrawn, more and more of a case seems to be emerging for my idea for a circular clockwise and anticlockwise all-day 399 covering Cockfosters - Hadley Wood - Hadley Green - High Barnet - removed 384 roads - Cockfosters. The 389 would probably have to be run separately then though.
|
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 18, 2022 15:23:30 GMT
To me, reducing car parking at stations can only work if you give people a viable public transport alternative. With the removal of the 384 from many roads, this means fewer people are within reasonable walking distance of a bus service and are also to be deprived of car parking at Cockfosters, so how ARE they going to be able to get to and from the station? This particular affects people with mobility difficulties which includes older people who often won't be eligible for blue badge parking and can't walk the extra distance up hills from where the 384 now stops, and also this and other vulnerable groups such as women travelling home at night with the safety concerns of having to walk further along dark, quiet roads. If you take away paking, you need to provide comprehensive bus services to the surrounding areas, but TfL have done the reverse with the 384. With Hadley Wood residents also being affected in the same way and many not within walking distance of the 298, and also similar parking reductions planned for High Barnet and the 84 being withdrawn, more and more of a case seems to be emerging for my idea for a circular clockwise and anticlockwise all-day 399 covering Cockfosters - Hadley Wood - Hadley Green - High Barnet - removed 384 roads - Cockfosters. The 389 would probably have to be run separately then though. The 384 doesn't surprise me that its dropped on the eastern end because the 307 does the direct link to ~Cockfosters (well, to Oakwood).
I know you yourself were concerned about the drop in frequency in the 234 from x10 to x12, so would this be a viable solution as a proposal?
234: Extended from Highgate Wood to Hampstead Heath to then become a Hampstead Heath to Barnet, The Spires route. Frequency dropped to every 20 minutes. 234A (could be numbered 494?): A new service running between Potters Bar Station & Highgate Wood via current services 84 & 234. This service would run every 20 or 30 minutes. To provide an overlap on the Barnet - Highgate Wood section every 10-12 minutes whilst then providing a direct service from Whetstone/Friern Barnet to Potters Bar, which would provide a direct link out of London, so for those who do the journey by car would encourage a modal shift, better than what the 84 has done during the present day era.
|
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Feb 18, 2022 15:54:56 GMT
To me, reducing car parking at stations can only work if you give people a viable public transport alternative. With the removal of the 384 from many roads, this means fewer people are within reasonable walking distance of a bus service and are also to be deprived of car parking at Cockfosters, so how ARE they going to be able to get to and from the station? This particular affects people with mobility difficulties which includes older people who often won't be eligible for blue badge parking and can't walk the extra distance up hills from where the 384 now stops, and also this and other vulnerable groups such as women travelling home at night with the safety concerns of having to walk further along dark, quiet roads. If you take away paking, you need to provide comprehensive bus services to the surrounding areas, but TfL have done the reverse with the 384. With Hadley Wood residents also being affected in the same way and many not within walking distance of the 298, and also similar parking reductions planned for High Barnet and the 84 being withdrawn, more and more of a case seems to be emerging for my idea for a circular clockwise and anticlockwise all-day 399 covering Cockfosters - Hadley Wood - Hadley Green - High Barnet - removed 384 roads - Cockfosters. The 389 would probably have to be run separately then though. The 384 doesn't surprise me that its dropped on the eastern end because the 307 does the direct link to ~Cockfosters (well, to Oakwood).
I know you yourself were concerned about the drop in frequency in the 234 from x10 to x12, so would this be a viable solution as a proposal?
234: Extended from Highgate Wood to Hampstead Heath to then become a Hampstead Heath to Barnet, The Spires route. Frequency dropped to every 20 minutes. 234A (could be numbered 494?): A new service running between Potters Bar Station & Highgate Wood via current services 84 & 234. This service would run every 20 or 30 minutes. To provide an overlap on the Barnet - Highgate Wood section every 10-12 minutes whilst then providing a direct service from Whetstone/Friern Barnet to Potters Bar, which would provide a direct link out of London, so for those who do the journey by car would encourage a modal shift, better than what the 84 has done during the present day era.
This would be good for Barnet to Royal Free links and would provide Barnet to Potters Bar. With this I would at least like to see one of these services going via Gloucester Road and Lyonsdown Road rather than direct via the Great North Road, so as to restore a service to part of that area, unless they did the 399 idea as well. Also would mean Barnet to Potters Bar still had a Sunday service. My idea for a Barnet to Potters Bar service that would also bring in more of the removed 384 roads/areas, was to divert the 383 after Longmore Avenue, East Barnet Road junction via: Crescent Road (Aldi) - Crescent Road (north) - Park Road (coordinate with 384 for Aldi trips) - Victoria Road - East Barnet Road - New Barnet Station Approach - York Road - Richmond Road (east) - Richmond Road (west) - Gloucester Road - Station Road - Barnet Hill - High Barnet station - Barnet High Street - The Spires - Strafford Road - Alston Road (east, create new bus gate) - St Albans Road - Barnet High Street (north) - Hadley Green - Hadley Highstone - 84 routing to Potters Bar station or Furzefield. This routing allows The Spires stop to be served towards Potters Bar, without then having to pass bus stop B again in the same direction. Return via Barnet High Street (north) - St Albans Road - Alston Road (east) - Strafford Road (for The Spires) - Salisbury Road - Barnet High Street (south). This routing would restore an eastbound/southbound service to Strafford Road and reduce distance the roads that are now more than 450m from one such as Puller, Calvert, Falkland and Wrotham. This idea for the 383 would also preserve the important link between Oakleigh Park/Netherlands Road and High Barnet, which none of the ideas TfL considered in the 384 post-implementation review would do, hence why I believe they decided their ideas wouldn't lead to reduced passenger numbers and wouldn't be 'value for money'. If the 184 is not sufficient for Meadway, Potters Road and Plantagenet Road then the 384 could additionally be diverted via those roads. As the 383 would be serving Crescent Road, people around Park Road would not be too far from a bus and the 384 could instead serve Castlewood Road and Northfield Road again (wouldn't take any longer than the bi-directional stop on Mount Pleasant Roundabout by The Jester that TfL are planning). |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 18, 2022 16:24:51 GMT
The 384 doesn't surprise me that its dropped on the eastern end because the 307 does the direct link to ~Cockfosters (well, to Oakwood).
I know you yourself were concerned about the drop in frequency in the 234 from x10 to x12, so would this be a viable solution as a proposal?
234: Extended from Highgate Wood to Hampstead Heath to then become a Hampstead Heath to Barnet, The Spires route. Frequency dropped to every 20 minutes. 234A (could be numbered 494?): A new service running between Potters Bar Station & Highgate Wood via current services 84 & 234. This service would run every 20 or 30 minutes. To provide an overlap on the Barnet - Highgate Wood section every 10-12 minutes whilst then providing a direct service from Whetstone/Friern Barnet to Potters Bar, which would provide a direct link out of London, so for those who do the journey by car would encourage a modal shift, better than what the 84 has done during the present day era.
This would be good for Barnet to Royal Free links and would provide Barnet to Potters Bar. With this I would at least like to see one of these services going via Gloucester Road and Lyonsdown Road rather than direct via the Great North Road, so as to restore a service to part of that area, unless they did the 399 idea as well. Also would mean Barnet to Potters Bar still had a Sunday service. My idea for a Barnet to Potters Bar service that would also bring in more of the removed 384 roads/areas, was to divert the 383 after Longmore Avenue, East Barnet Road junction via: Crescent Road (Aldi) - Crescent Road (north) - Park Road (coordinate with 384 for Aldi trips) - Victoria Road - East Barnet Road - New Barnet Station Approach - York Road - Richmond Road (east) - Richmond Road (west) - Gloucester Road - Station Road - Barnet Hill - High Barnet station - Barnet High Street - The Spires - Strafford Road - Alston Road (east, create new bus gate) - St Albans Road - Barnet High Street (north) - Hadley Green - Hadley Highstone - 84 routing to Potters Bar station or Furzefield. This routing allows The Spires stop to be served towards Potters Bar, without then having to pass bus stop B again in the same direction. Return via Barnet High Street (north) - St Albans Road - Alston Road (east) - Strafford Road (for The Spires) - Salisbury Road - Barnet High Street (south). This routing would restore an eastbound/southbound service to Strafford Road and reduce distance the roads that are now more than 450m from one such as Puller, Calvert, Falkland and Wrotham. This idea for the 383 would also preserve the important link between Oakleigh Park/Netherlands Road and High Barnet, which none of the ideas TfL considered in the 384 post-implementation review would do, hence why I believe they decided their ideas wouldn't lead to reduced passenger numbers and wouldn't be 'value for money'. If the 184 is not sufficient for Meadway, Potters Road and Plantagenet Road then the 384 could additionally be diverted via those roads. As the 383 would be serving Crescent Road, people around Park Road would not be too far from a bus and the 384 could instead serve Castlewood Road and Northfield Road again (wouldn't take any longer than the bi-directional stop on Mount Pleasant Roundabout by The Jester that TfL are planning). If you diverted the 383 away from Meadway they would lose a service to The Spires.
As for Gloucester Road/Lyonsdown Road, the two don't seem too far from the bus network, especially the section of Lyonsdown Road you are proposing one of the two to serve? It would make one of the services quite indirect however, my answer would probably be to have just left the 384 be. I do think with Lyonsdown Road the priority would be having something coming from the northern section of the road, although you can't get a bus in every nook and cranny of the network. Maybe you could extend the 107 down Lyonsdown Road and turn it around near Longmore Avenue?
|
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Feb 18, 2022 16:45:28 GMT
This would be good for Barnet to Royal Free links and would provide Barnet to Potters Bar. With this I would at least like to see one of these services going via Gloucester Road and Lyonsdown Road rather than direct via the Great North Road, so as to restore a service to part of that area, unless they did the 399 idea as well. Also would mean Barnet to Potters Bar still had a Sunday service. My idea for a Barnet to Potters Bar service that would also bring in more of the removed 384 roads/areas, was to divert the 383 after Longmore Avenue, East Barnet Road junction via: Crescent Road (Aldi) - Crescent Road (north) - Park Road (coordinate with 384 for Aldi trips) - Victoria Road - East Barnet Road - New Barnet Station Approach - York Road - Richmond Road (east) - Richmond Road (west) - Gloucester Road - Station Road - Barnet Hill - High Barnet station - Barnet High Street - The Spires - Strafford Road - Alston Road (east, create new bus gate) - St Albans Road - Barnet High Street (north) - Hadley Green - Hadley Highstone - 84 routing to Potters Bar station or Furzefield. This routing allows The Spires stop to be served towards Potters Bar, without then having to pass bus stop B again in the same direction. Return via Barnet High Street (north) - St Albans Road - Alston Road (east) - Strafford Road (for The Spires) - Salisbury Road - Barnet High Street (south). This routing would restore an eastbound/southbound service to Strafford Road and reduce distance the roads that are now more than 450m from one such as Puller, Calvert, Falkland and Wrotham. This idea for the 383 would also preserve the important link between Oakleigh Park/Netherlands Road and High Barnet, which none of the ideas TfL considered in the 384 post-implementation review would do, hence why I believe they decided their ideas wouldn't lead to reduced passenger numbers and wouldn't be 'value for money'. If the 184 is not sufficient for Meadway, Potters Road and Plantagenet Road then the 384 could additionally be diverted via those roads. As the 383 would be serving Crescent Road, people around Park Road would not be too far from a bus and the 384 could instead serve Castlewood Road and Northfield Road again (wouldn't take any longer than the bi-directional stop on Mount Pleasant Roundabout by The Jester that TfL are planning). If you diverted the 383 away from Meadway they would lose a service to The Spires.
As for Gloucester Road/Lyonsdown Road, the two don't seem too far from the bus network, especially the section of Lyonsdown Road you are proposing one of the two to serve? It would make one of the services quite indirect however, my answer would probably be to have just left the 384 be.
That's why I said the 384 could potentially go via Meadway, etc, although the change from stop L to stop K at Barnet Church is not too difficult. Also suggested the 383 from Gloucester Road could turn right into Station Road, left Warwick Road, right Potters Lane, left Meadway. Would bring in more areas and keep Meadway - Spires link but might be seen as too 'circuitous'. Gloucester Road is far because of the bus stop position on Station Road, which can't really be changed without adding stops although crossings could be improved. Lyonsdown Road is nearer to the 326 but again you have to look at roads OFF those roads to get the true maximum distances and also take into account the steep gradients and bus stop placement for the 326 along Longmore Avenue/Lyonsdown Road. As per TfL's initial EqIA for the 384 consultation (which they subsequently deleted from the consultation website but I have a copy if you're interested), this leads to 450m+ distances uphill to Hillside, Denewood and Richmond Road in particular, and the EqIA rated the negative impact of removing the 384 in this area on the elderly and disabled groups as 'HIGH'. Hence my idea for the 383 to go via York Road (north), Richmond Road and Gloucester Road but not go totally back on itself down to Longmore Avenue. Obviously I agree just keeping the 384 on these roads would have been better, but as TfL don't want that, I suggested these alternative ideas. The priority in this particular area is a direct link to High Barnet, Barnet Hospital, New Barnet station and New Barnet shops (the east-west link that the 384 provided). Even once you get to the 326 it isn't direct to High Barnet and you have to walk uphill to New Barnet station at the other end. I agree duplicating the Whetstone link with the 326 would therefore not be ideal, but at least diverting one of your new proposed services would restore a direct link to High Barnet. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 18, 2022 17:11:18 GMT
If you diverted the 383 away from Meadway they would lose a service to The Spires.
As for Gloucester Road/Lyonsdown Road, the two don't seem too far from the bus network, especially the section of Lyonsdown Road you are proposing one of the two to serve? It would make one of the services quite indirect however, my answer would probably be to have just left the 384 be.
That's why I said the 384 could potentially go via Meadway, etc, although the change from stop L to stop K at Barnet Church is not too difficult. Also suggested the 383 from Gloucester Road could turn right into Station Road, left Warwick Road, right Potters Lane, left Meadway. Would bring in more areas and keep Meadway - Spires link but might be seen as too 'circuitous'. Gloucester Road is far because of the bus stop position on Station Road, which can't really be changed without adding stops although crossings could be improved. Lyonsdown Road is nearer to the 326 but again you have to look at roads OFF those roads to get the true maximum distances and also take into account the steep gradients and bus stop placement for the 326 along Longmore Avenue/Lyonsdown Road. As per TfL's initial EqIA for the 384 consultation (which they subsequently deleted from the consultation website but I have a copy if you're interested), this leads to 450m+ distances uphill to Hillside, Denewood and Richmond Road in particular, and the EqIA rated the negative impact of removing the 384 in this area on the elderly and disabled groups as 'HIGH'. Hence my idea for the 383 to go via York Road (north), Richmond Road and Gloucester Road but not go totally back on itself down to Longmore Avenue. Obviously I agree just keeping the 384 on these roads would have been better, but as TfL don't want that, I suggested these alternative ideas. The priority in this particular area is a direct link to High Barnet, Barnet Hospital, New Barnet station and New Barnet shops (the east-west link that the 384 provided). Even once you get to the 326 it isn't direct to High Barnet and you have to walk uphill to New Barnet station at the other end. I agree duplicating the Whetstone link with the 326 would therefore not be ideal, but at least diverting one of your new proposed services would restore a direct link to High Barnet. Fair enough although my concern is saturating an area that is already quite saturated with buses. There is definitely not the demand from High Barnet to New Barnet that needs 22.5bph for example so you could perhaps alter some of those services. If I'm honest you could probably reroute the 384 round Gloucester Road & northern section of Lyonsdown Road, re-establishing the link to the New Barnet Station forecourt which I know you were concerned about losing. |
|
