|
|
Post by uakari on Feb 18, 2022 17:21:06 GMT
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. It's only Station Road that has quite a lot of buses (soon to be one less without the 84), at the expense of the areas around it (hence why TfL diverting the 384 away from Gloucester Road, Lyonsdown Road and York Road made even less sense) Yes the 384 being restored would be the best idea, but as we know TfL is dead against that. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 18, 2022 17:24:31 GMT
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. It's only Station Road that has quite a lot of buses (soon to be one less without the 84), at the expense of the areas around it (hence why TfL diverting the 384 away from Gloucester Road, Lyonsdown Road and York Road made even less sense) Yes the 384 being restored would be the best idea, but as we know TfL is dead against that. You could trim the fat even further I reckon by perhaps when the Dollis Valley development opens diverting the 107 there. |
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Feb 18, 2022 17:31:03 GMT
It's only Station Road that has quite a lot of buses (soon to be one less without the 84), at the expense of the areas around it (hence why TfL diverting the 384 away from Gloucester Road, Lyonsdown Road and York Road made even less sense) Yes the 384 being restored would be the best idea, but as we know TfL is dead against that. You could trim the fat even further I reckon by perhaps when the Dollis Valley development opens diverting the 107 there. Although the 107 and the 383 will be the only ones serving the station forecourt if nothing replaces the 84. I don't really think there are too many buses between High Barnet and New Barnet because they all serve different purposes, except the 384 which lost its purpose. If you look at the frequencies you end up waiting longer in New Barnet than you do in lots of other outer London areas. Anyway as this is about Cockfosters parking I think the main think is just to reinforce that they shouldn't be reducing station parking at the end of tube lines without providing adequate bus links to surrounding areas, including more rural ones and from the next towns across the border. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 18, 2022 17:36:07 GMT
You could trim the fat even further I reckon by perhaps when the Dollis Valley development opens diverting the 107 there. Although the 107 and the 383 will be the only ones serving the station forecourt if nothing replaces the 84. I don't really think there are too many buses between High Barnet and New Barnet because they all serve different purposes, except the 384 which lost its purpose. If you look at the frequencies you end up waiting longer in New Barnet than you do in lots of other outer London areas. Anyway as this is about Cockfosters parking I think the main think is just to reinforce that they shouldn't be reducing station parking at the end of tube lines without providing adequate bus links to surrounding areas, including more rural ones and from the next towns across the border. If my proposal went ahead for the 384 where it was rerouted via Gloucester Road, Lyonsdown Road & ultimately the station forecourt then there would still be two routes on the forecourt being the 383 & 384, local routes which ferry people around are more useful for elderly people. With the 384 now linking Stirling Corner & Arkley to New Barnet there should be no need for two routes to serve New Barnet and the loadings on the 107 clearly pick up heading north of High Barnet. It is not uncommon to see an empty 107 rolling into the New Barnet even pre COVID.
You are right on your final point.
|
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Mar 11, 2022 22:22:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 11, 2022 23:30:02 GMT
And this is exactly one of the reasons why car dependency will not drop |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 12, 2022 0:42:07 GMT
I am glad they have stopped this pathetic monstrosity. I am sick to death of these stupid non family orientated junk. All I can see these high rise developments turning into future ghetto's like the tower blocks of the 60's and 70's. They may be billed and advertised as swanky hipster havens now, but in future when money is not spent on them, they would be cess pit ridden cockroach squalors.
I really hope they get rid of more of this nonsense which these greedy developers have cashed in and ruined many areas and blight them without much natural daylight. Places like Walthamstow Central, Tottenham Hale, Blackhorse Rd and exhibit A of the crap.
Grant Shapps blocks TfL proposal for flats by Cockfosters TubeTfL had argued plans would help tackle housing crisis but permission was denied over lack of parkingwww.standard.co.uk/news/london/grant-shapps-cockfosters-tube-station-tfl-flats-b987586.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_banner&itm_campaign=breaking-news-ticker&itm_content=3
|
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Apr 13, 2022 10:50:50 GMT
|
|
