|
Uno
Feb 2, 2022 21:31:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by uakari on Feb 2, 2022 21:31:03 GMT
Because people living in Barnet need to get to Potters Bar. Just because they live closer to the border doesn't mean they shouldn't expect the same service provision to all their surrounding towns as people further towards the centre have. They pay just the same amount of GLA tax, have already been effectively paying twice if they have a travelcard, and pay more for travelcards than people further towards the centre already. London is not an island. Potters Bar isn't 'outside their area' when it comes to the 298 and the 313, which I doubt would generate any more profit for TfL than running a bus from Barnet. If there was enough people wanting to get from Barnet to Potters Bar there wouldn't be a need for Metroline to "potentially" withdraw the 84 completely We all know that TfL funds multiple buses completely within London that would never survive commercially. Plus because of its monopoly in London and the Oyster system it already makes things very unsustainable for commercial operators going it alone. There isn't really 5 routes worth of demand between Barnet and Whetstone and 0 buses worth of demand between Barnet and Potters Bar. That's the result of an unbalanced and unfair system. As I say, give Barnet residents a discount on the Mayor's trough money and you might start to move towards justification.
|
|
|
Uno
Feb 2, 2022 21:36:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by uakari on Feb 2, 2022 21:36:39 GMT
Because people living in Barnet need to get to Potters Bar. Just because they live closer to the border doesn't mean they shouldn't expect the same service provision to all their surrounding towns as people further towards the centre have. They pay just the same amount of GLA tax, have already been effectively paying twice if they have a travelcard, and pay more for travelcards than people further towards the centre already. London is not an island. Potters Bar isn't 'outside their area' when it comes to the 298 and the 313, which I doubt would generate any more profit for TfL than running a bus from Barnet. There is a difference as the boundary of London on the 298 & 313 is just south of the M25 Junction 24 roundabout so it is logical that those routes run over the border into Hertfordshire and to Potters Bar Station.
Whereas the boundary of London on the 84 is only 1 mile north of Barnet Church so there is a lot of non-London to serve between Monken Hadley and Potters Bar. The section of route between New Barnet Station and Barnet Church is covered by other Tfl routes. Between Barnet Church and Monken Hadley the 399 covers that bit so TFL covers the whole of route 84 within Greater London. Hertfordshire County Council should pay for the 84 as it is mainly in their area, especially considering the financial situation that TfL is in, there are far more important things within Greater London that need funding rather then the 84.
Also there is a train service from New Barnet to Potters Bar, which there isn't from Cockfosters or Enfield.
How are you defining 'more important'? I doubt the Elizabeth Line is of that much importance to people in Barnet. If you want people to contribute to London as a whole, you need to stop treating them as second class citizens who should expect poorer services because they are in an area further out. New Barnet station is nowhere near the northern area of Barnet served by the 84. The 298 and 313 still go all the way to Potters Bar station and don't turn beforehand (yet).
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 2, 2022 21:37:43 GMT
There is a train that takes 6 minutes between New Barnet and Potters Bar, just take that it is bothers you so much. As many have said if the commercial service has such low passenger numbers that it is not viable why would TfL take the risk when it is effectively outside their operating area and the county are not willing to support the service. We have seen numerous retrenchment to border services with more likely as surrounding counties are squeezed further on bus services. By the time you get from the north of High Barnet to New Barnet station, you could have been in Potters Bar on the 84. It's not a 'risk'; it's a responsibility. Otherwise give people in Barnet money off the GLA tax because they are not getting a comparable service to surrounding areas as other places to (see my comparison with Finchley in the Metroline thread). People are tired of being treated like second class citizens just because they don't live in areas this Mayor is concerned with. Of course Metroline will struggle commercially to run the 84 on the London sections because of the Oyster/Travelcard system - why should people pay twice? TfL should never have been allowed to get away with defunding it in the first place. I despise them. Should TfL fund the Oxford Tube as well because that also links into London or fund services in Crawley in case a Londoner dares to work there? Down south the fares were only matched by Abellio Surrey over the same sections TfL served so even if you had a travel card you still had to pay the equivalent of a cash fare. I have seen your comparisons it is ridiculous, it’s like comparing apples and oranges, different markets, different level of passengers, completely different scope of density to serve. It really isn’t a responsibility when it would serve no interest to TfL to serve a very niche market with very limited passenger numbers, too low to even meet a commercial level. TfL has a responsibility to provide services within London boroughs and as I have said if the counties are prepared or also pay then TfL definitely won’t. I feel like this is done, you are prepared to die on this hill but you can’t see how cloudy the view is from the top.
|
|
|
Uno
Feb 2, 2022 21:56:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by uakari on Feb 2, 2022 21:56:39 GMT
By the time you get from the north of High Barnet to New Barnet station, you could have been in Potters Bar on the 84. It's not a 'risk'; it's a responsibility. Otherwise give people in Barnet money off the GLA tax because they are not getting a comparable service to surrounding areas as other places to (see my comparison with Finchley in the Metroline thread). People are tired of being treated like second class citizens just because they don't live in areas this Mayor is concerned with. Of course Metroline will struggle commercially to run the 84 on the London sections because of the Oyster/Travelcard system - why should people pay twice? TfL should never have been allowed to get away with defunding it in the first place. I despise them. Should TfL fund the Oxford Tube as well because that also links into London or fund services in Crawley in case a Londoner dares to work there? Down south the fares were only matched by Abellio Surrey over the same sections TfL served so even if you had a travel card you still had to pay the equivalent of a cash fare. I have seen your comparisons it is ridiculous, it’s like comparing apples and oranges, different markets, different level of passengers, completely different scope of density to serve. It really isn’t a responsibility when it would serve no interest to TfL to serve a very niche market with very limited passenger numbers, too low to even meet a commercial level. TfL has a responsibility to provide services within London boroughs and as I have said if the counties are prepared or also pay then TfL definitely won’t. I feel like this is done, you are prepared to die on this hill but you can’t see how cloudy the view is from the top. What is it that you're not understanding about the responsibility to provide all towns in London with bus links to their nearest towns? Why should you be able to get from Whetstone to Finchley but not from Barnet to Potters Bar, because of an invisible boundary that has no bearing on where people need to go? Why should a person living in Barnet pay the same to the Mayor for a worse service when he is willing to subsidise other services within London that would never make money commercially? This isn't even covering the fact that a large area within London will be left without a bus service (in Barnet, again, like with the 384, surprise surprise). It's very easy to say something is 'ridiculous' without actually critiquing it. How is Finchley a vastly different 'market' from High Barnet? Only in the imagination of Mayor who probably gets nose bleeds if he goes too far beyond the North Circular. Also, you're just rude.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 2, 2022 22:11:50 GMT
Should TfL fund the Oxford Tube as well because that also links into London or fund services in Crawley in case a Londoner dares to work there? Down south the fares were only matched by Abellio Surrey over the same sections TfL served so even if you had a travel card you still had to pay the equivalent of a cash fare. I have seen your comparisons it is ridiculous, it’s like comparing apples and oranges, different markets, different level of passengers, completely different scope of density to serve. It really isn’t a responsibility when it would serve no interest to TfL to serve a very niche market with very limited passenger numbers, too low to even meet a commercial level. TfL has a responsibility to provide services within London boroughs and as I have said if the counties are prepared or also pay then TfL definitely won’t. I feel like this is done, you are prepared to die on this hill but you can’t see how cloudy the view is from the top. What is it that you're not understanding about the responsibility to provide all towns in London with bus links to their nearest towns? Why should you be able to get from Whetstone to Finchley but not from Barnet to Potters Bar, because of an invisible boundary that has no bearing on where people need to go? Why should a person living in Barnet pay the same to the Mayor for a worse service when he is willing to subsidise other services within London that would never make money commercially? This isn't even covering the fact that a large area within London will be left without a bus service (in Barnet, again, like with the 384, surprise surprise). It's very easy to say something is 'ridiculous' without actually critiquing it. How is Finchley a vastly different 'market' from High Barnet? Only in the imagination of Mayor who probably gets nose bleeds if he goes too far beyond the North Circular. Also, you're just rude. It’s simple, they can take the train every 30 minutes from New Barnet to Potters Bar, which is outside of London. The reason there are so many cross border services in some parts is because those counties like Surrey are willing to assist TfL in meeting the cost of running their routes. If you have a problem with the 84 take it up with you local councillors and HCC who should be the ones properly funding a route that serves the majority of their residents. As far as I can see this isn’t a TfL problem as the majority of users would not be within a London borough and would only reap the benefits whilst those of us who do live within a London borough would pay for the luxury. I am done with this as you really cannot see beyond your own needs towards the needs of those who actually contribute to TfLs funding.
|
|
|
Uno
Feb 2, 2022 22:29:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by uakari on Feb 2, 2022 22:29:33 GMT
What is it that you're not understanding about the responsibility to provide all towns in London with bus links to their nearest towns? Why should you be able to get from Whetstone to Finchley but not from Barnet to Potters Bar, because of an invisible boundary that has no bearing on where people need to go? Why should a person living in Barnet pay the same to the Mayor for a worse service when he is willing to subsidise other services within London that would never make money commercially? This isn't even covering the fact that a large area within London will be left without a bus service (in Barnet, again, like with the 384, surprise surprise). It's very easy to say something is 'ridiculous' without actually critiquing it. How is Finchley a vastly different 'market' from High Barnet? Only in the imagination of Mayor who probably gets nose bleeds if he goes too far beyond the North Circular. Also, you're just rude. It’s simple, they can take the train every 30 minutes from New Barnet to Potters Bar, which is outside of London. The reason there are so many cross border services in some parts is because those counties like Surrey are willing to assist TfL in meeting the cost of running their routes. If you have a problem with the 84 take it up with you local councillors and HCC who should be the ones properly funding a route that serves the majority of their residents. As far as I can see this isn’t a TfL problem as the majority of users would not be within a London borough and would only reap the benefits whilst those of us who do live within a London borough would pay for the luxury. I am done with this as you really cannot see beyond your own needs towards the needs of those who actually contribute to TfLs funding. I didn't say that TfL should fund it completely, did I? Although they seem perfectly willing to do so for the 313 and 298. I said they should contribute some funding to the southern section because it is of benefit to Londonders. I don't understand why this is even controversial. Why do you think TfL shouldn't contribute anything at all? Maybe HCC isn't contributing enough but at least that's more than the nothing at all that TfL is contributing for a service that is the only bus service for a significant amount of their area. If you don't live near the border, people are already subsiding your luxury of having frequent bus services to all your surrounding town centres? Why should they subsidise you? If you want people to care about London as a whole, you have to stop treating some areas as less worthy than others. Otherwise don't expect them to subsidise you. Anyway this is the Uno thread and this would be much better taken to 'Metroline' or 'Upcoming Changes', that is until the same fate befalls the 614.
|
|
|
Post by ianhardy on Feb 2, 2022 22:37:45 GMT
Should TfL fund the Oxford Tube as well because that also links into London or fund services in Crawley in case a Londoner dares to work there? Down south the fares were only matched by Abellio Surrey over the same sections TfL served so even if you had a travel card you still had to pay the equivalent of a cash fare. I have seen your comparisons it is ridiculous, it’s like comparing apples and oranges, different markets, different level of passengers, completely different scope of density to serve. It really isn’t a responsibility when it would serve no interest to TfL to serve a very niche market with very limited passenger numbers, too low to even meet a commercial level. TfL has a responsibility to provide services within London boroughs and as I have said if the counties are prepared or also pay then TfL definitely won’t. I feel like this is done, you are prepared to die on this hill but you can’t see how cloudy the view is from the top. What is it that you're not understanding about the responsibility to provide all towns in London with bus links to their nearest towns? Why should you be able to get from Whetstone to Finchley but not from Barnet to Potters Bar, because of an invisible boundary that has no bearing on where people need to go? Why should a person living in Barnet pay the same to the Mayor for a worse service when he is willing to subsidise other services within London that would never make money commercially? This isn't even covering the fact that a large area within London will be left without a bus service (in Barnet, again, like with the 384, surprise surprise). It's very easy to say something is 'ridiculous' without actually critiquing it. How is Finchley a vastly different 'market' from High Barnet? Only in the imagination of Mayor who probably gets nose bleeds if he goes too far beyond the North Circular. Also, you're just rude. In 1982 London Transport transferred the 84 to London Country as it was cheaper for LCBS to run it than LT. In 1986 Hertfordshire County Council awarded the contract to London Buses who operated it from PB, which is where it remained until 2006, when Metroline decided that they could run it commercially and have done so ever since.
In other parts of outer London cross boundary routes were given up as commercial routes by the ex LCBS operators e.g. 293, 370, 405, 406, 410, 418 & 465. This was in a time when LRT seeming had plenty of money so they awarded contracts for the London ends of those routes so the London bits and a few overhanging roads were still served and so the users outside of London benefit from the cheap TfL fares funded by London council tax payers and but they do contribute.
The 81, 116, 117, 203, 216, 237, 290 have always been red bus routes even though they went outside into Surrey & Berkshire (well the old Middlesex), people living in Surrey & Berkshire also benefit without contributing.
If in 2006 Metroline had not decided to run the 84 commercially then it would be still a Hertfordshire CC contract and so more than likely would not be proposed to be cut.
However TfL are not quite so flush with money at present and funding services entirely within Greater London are more important than taking on something new to replace a route that Metroline cannot run commercially, that hardly runs within Greater London and the section south of Barnet Church this is in London is covered adequately by other already funded and budgeted for TfL routes, so if anything Hertfordshire CC should fund it and not TfL
|
|
|
Uno
Feb 2, 2022 23:06:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by uakari on Feb 2, 2022 23:06:14 GMT
What is it that you're not understanding about the responsibility to provide all towns in London with bus links to their nearest towns? Why should you be able to get from Whetstone to Finchley but not from Barnet to Potters Bar, because of an invisible boundary that has no bearing on where people need to go? Why should a person living in Barnet pay the same to the Mayor for a worse service when he is willing to subsidise other services within London that would never make money commercially? This isn't even covering the fact that a large area within London will be left without a bus service (in Barnet, again, like with the 384, surprise surprise). It's very easy to say something is 'ridiculous' without actually critiquing it. How is Finchley a vastly different 'market' from High Barnet? Only in the imagination of Mayor who probably gets nose bleeds if he goes too far beyond the North Circular. Also, you're just rude. In 1982 London Transport transferred the 84 to London Country as it was cheaper for LCBS to run it than LT. In 1986 Hertfordshire County Council awarded the contract to London Buses who operated it from PB, which is where it remained until 2006, when Metroline decided that they could run it commercially and have done so ever since.
In other parts of outer London cross boundary routes were given up as commercial routes by the ex LCBS operators e.g. 293, 370, 405, 406, 410, 418 & 465. This was in a time when LRT seeming had plenty of money so they awarded contracts for the London ends of those routes so the London bits and a few overhanging roads were still served and so the users outside of London benefit from the cheap TfL fares funded by London council tax payers and but they do contribute.
The 81, 116, 117, 203, 216, 237, 290 have always been red bus routes even though they went outside into Surrey & Berkshire (well the old Middlesex), people living in Surrey & Berkshire also benefit without contributing.
If in 2006 Metroline had not decided to run the 84 commercially then it would be still a Hertfordshire CC contract and so more than likely would not be proposed to be cut.
However TfL are not quite so flush with money at present and funding services entirely within Greater London are more important than taking on something new to replace a route that Metroline cannot run commercially, that hardly runs within Greater London and the section south of Barnet Church this is in London is covered adequately by other already funded and budgeted for TfL routes, so if anything Hertfordshire CC should fund it and not TfL
Wasn't the key date 2012 when TfL made it unviable for Metroline to continue to accept TfL tickets? That's what is most noticeable to the user and has had the most impact on passenger numbers. I keep repeating that the 84 is the only regular service for the north of High Barnet and Hadley Green, and the only service for Hadley Highstone, and the only service taking people from these areas to their local station, and that the route is of benefit to Londoners so TfL should contribute. But clearly these points are not getting through or dismissed as not important, and this is also the Uno thread so I don't see the point in discussing it further here. Thanks for reminding me that TfL fund a bus as far out as Slough, though! Rather makes my point.
|
|
|
Uno
Feb 3, 2022 0:16:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 3, 2022 0:16:56 GMT
In 1982 London Transport transferred the 84 to London Country as it was cheaper for LCBS to run it than LT. In 1986 Hertfordshire County Council awarded the contract to London Buses who operated it from PB, which is where it remained until 2006, when Metroline decided that they could run it commercially and have done so ever since.
In other parts of outer London cross boundary routes were given up as commercial routes by the ex LCBS operators e.g. 293, 370, 405, 406, 410, 418 & 465. This was in a time when LRT seeming had plenty of money so they awarded contracts for the London ends of those routes so the London bits and a few overhanging roads were still served and so the users outside of London benefit from the cheap TfL fares funded by London council tax payers and but they do contribute.
The 81, 116, 117, 203, 216, 237, 290 have always been red bus routes even though they went outside into Surrey & Berkshire (well the old Middlesex), people living in Surrey & Berkshire also benefit without contributing.
If in 2006 Metroline had not decided to run the 84 commercially then it would be still a Hertfordshire CC contract and so more than likely would not be proposed to be cut.
However TfL are not quite so flush with money at present and funding services entirely within Greater London are more important than taking on something new to replace a route that Metroline cannot run commercially, that hardly runs within Greater London and the section south of Barnet Church this is in London is covered adequately by other already funded and budgeted for TfL routes, so if anything Hertfordshire CC should fund it and not TfL
Wasn't the key date 2012 when TfL made it unviable for Metroline to continue to accept TfL tickets? That's what is most noticeable to the user and has had the most impact on passenger numbers. I keep repeating that the 84 is the only regular service for the north of High Barnet and Hadley Green, and the only service for Hadley Highstone, and the only service taking people from these areas to their local station, and that the route is of benefit to Londoners so TfL should contribute. But clearly these points are not getting through or dismissed as not important, and this is also the Uno thread so I don't see the point in discussing it further here. Thanks for reminding me that TfL fund a bus as far out as Slough, though! Rather makes my point. However chances are the 81 makes money, especially if they run deckers on it. If TfL can't fund routes within London, it's silly starting a route which isn't even viable commercially so will almost certainly run at a loss.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Feb 3, 2022 1:02:42 GMT
In 1982 London Transport transferred the 84 to London Country as it was cheaper for LCBS to run it than LT. In 1986 Hertfordshire County Council awarded the contract to London Buses who operated it from PB, which is where it remained until 2006, when Metroline decided that they could run it commercially and have done so ever since.
In other parts of outer London cross boundary routes were given up as commercial routes by the ex LCBS operators e.g. 293, 370, 405, 406, 410, 418 & 465. This was in a time when LRT seeming had plenty of money so they awarded contracts for the London ends of those routes so the London bits and a few overhanging roads were still served and so the users outside of London benefit from the cheap TfL fares funded by London council tax payers and but they do contribute.
The 81, 116, 117, 203, 216, 237, 290 have always been red bus routes even though they went outside into Surrey & Berkshire (well the old Middlesex), people living in Surrey & Berkshire also benefit without contributing.
If in 2006 Metroline had not decided to run the 84 commercially then it would be still a Hertfordshire CC contract and so more than likely would not be proposed to be cut.
However TfL are not quite so flush with money at present and funding services entirely within Greater London are more important than taking on something new to replace a route that Metroline cannot run commercially, that hardly runs within Greater London and the section south of Barnet Church this is in London is covered adequately by other already funded and budgeted for TfL routes, so if anything Hertfordshire CC should fund it and not TfL
Wasn't the key date 2012 when TfL made it unviable for Metroline to continue to accept TfL tickets? That's what is most noticeable to the user and has had the most impact on passenger numbers. I keep repeating that the 84 is the only regular service for the north of High Barnet and Hadley Green, and the only service for Hadley Highstone, and the only service taking people from these areas to their local station, and that the route is of benefit to Londoners so TfL should contribute. But clearly these points are not getting through or dismissed as not important, and this is also the Uno thread so I don't see the point in discussing it further here. Thanks for reminding me that TfL fund a bus as far out as Slough, though! Rather makes my point. Unfortunately, TfL won’t fund anything to serve an area like Hadley Highstone when they can quote a route like 399, even if it is only 4 journeys a day. There are larger areas of London that are left unserved by buses, which TfL didn’t see fit to serve those areas, even back in those days when they actually had money to spend. For example, there’s a section north of Harrow Weald & Hatch End around Old Redding, Grimsd**es golf club and Royston Park Road that doesn’t have any nearby bus services. There used to be the Arriva 350 which served the London section of Oxhey Lane between Uxbridge Road and Grimsd**e golf club which was withdrawn back in 2006 and that section has been left unserved ever since.
|
|
|
Uno
Feb 3, 2022 1:04:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by SILENCED on Feb 3, 2022 1:04:54 GMT
There is a train that takes 6 minutes between New Barnet and Potters Bar, just take that it is bothers you so much. As many have said if the commercial service has such low passenger numbers that it is not viable why would TfL take the risk when it is effectively outside their operating area and the county are not willing to support the service. We have seen numerous retrenchment to border services with more likely as surrounding counties are squeezed further on bus services. By the time you get from the north of High Barnet to New Barnet station, you could have been in Potters Bar on the 84. It's not a 'risk'; it's a responsibility. Otherwise give people in Barnet money off the GLA tax because they are not getting a comparable service to surrounding areas as other places to (see my comparison with Finchley in the Metroline thread). People are tired of being treated like second class citizens just because they don't live in areas this Mayor is concerned with. Of course Metroline will struggle commercially to run the 84 on the London sections because of the Oyster/Travelcard system - why should people pay twice? TfL should never have been allowed to get away with defunding it in the first place. I despise them. The border of London has not changed for a good few decades. If you did not want to live on the border of London and Herts and the issues associated with it, why did you move there. I am no big fan of TfL either, but you are flogging a dead horse here. It is obviously not an issue to a lot of people if Metroliner are thinking of withdrawing the service due to lack of use. Would a 375 style service really he better ... Hours of operation are less than current.
|
|
|
Uno
Feb 3, 2022 1:21:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by uakari on Feb 3, 2022 1:21:47 GMT
By the time you get from the north of High Barnet to New Barnet station, you could have been in Potters Bar on the 84. It's not a 'risk'; it's a responsibility. Otherwise give people in Barnet money off the GLA tax because they are not getting a comparable service to surrounding areas as other places to (see my comparison with Finchley in the Metroline thread). People are tired of being treated like second class citizens just because they don't live in areas this Mayor is concerned with. Of course Metroline will struggle commercially to run the 84 on the London sections because of the Oyster/Travelcard system - why should people pay twice? TfL should never have been allowed to get away with defunding it in the first place. I despise them. The border of London has not changed for a good few decades. If you did not want to live on the border of London and Herts and the issues associated with it, why did you move there. I am no big fan of TfL either, but you are flogging a dead horse here. It is obviously not an issue to a lot of people if Metroliner are thinking of withdrawing the service due to lack of use. Would a 375 style service really he better ... Hours of operation are less than current. Better than nothing at all. It wasn't an 'issue' before - why would I assume it would suddenly become so? Still seem to be charged the same GLA tax and travelcard prices. Anyway I think it's inappropriate to continue this on the Uno thread unless we bring in either the 383 or the 614. So let's see what is actually announced, if anything.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Feb 6, 2022 17:29:44 GMT
|
|
|
Uno
Feb 6, 2022 17:32:49 GMT
Post by Volvo on Feb 6, 2022 17:32:49 GMT
|
|
|
Uno
Feb 12, 2022 8:15:47 GMT
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Feb 12, 2022 8:15:47 GMT
What is it that you're not understanding about the responsibility to provide all towns in London with bus links to their nearest towns? Why should you be able to get from Whetstone to Finchley but not from Barnet to Potters Bar, because of an invisible boundary that has no bearing on where people need to go? Why should a person living in Barnet pay the same to the Mayor for a worse service when he is willing to subsidise other services within London that would never make money commercially? This isn't even covering the fact that a large area within London will be left without a bus service (in Barnet, again, like with the 384, surprise surprise). It's very easy to say something is 'ridiculous' without actually critiquing it. How is Finchley a vastly different 'market' from High Barnet? Only in the imagination of Mayor who probably gets nose bleeds if he goes too far beyond the North Circular. Also, you're just rude. In 1982 London Transport transferred the 84 to London Country as it was cheaper for LCBS to run it than LT. In 1986 Hertfordshire County Council awarded the contract to London Buses who operated it from PB, which is where it remained until 2006, when Metroline decided that they could run it commercially and have done so ever since.
In other parts of outer London cross boundary routes were given up as commercial routes by the ex LCBS operators e.g. 293, 370, 405, 406, 410, 418 & 465. This was in a time when LRT seeming had plenty of money so they awarded contracts for the London ends of those routes so the London bits and a few overhanging roads were still served and so the users outside of London benefit from the cheap TfL fares funded by London council tax payers and but they do contribute.
The 81, 116, 117, 203, 216, 237, 290 have always been red bus routes even though they went outside into Surrey & Berkshire (well the old Middlesex), people living in Surrey & Berkshire also benefit without contributing.
If in 2006 Metroline had not decided to run the 84 commercially then it would be still a Hertfordshire CC contract and so more than likely would not be proposed to be cut.
However TfL are not quite so flush with money at present and funding services entirely within Greater London are more important than taking on something new to replace a route that Metroline cannot run commercially, that hardly runs within Greater London and the section south of Barnet Church this is in London is covered adequately by other already funded and budgeted for TfL routes, so if anything Hertfordshire CC should fund it and not TfL
Given that London Country had a garage at St Albans, and the successor operation is now part of Uno, it is a pity that Uno have not taken on route 84 at least between St Albans and Potters Bar. It is commendable of Sullivan to do so though. If Sullivan were eventually to sell out Uno would be an appropriate purchaser, although to create space at Uno bases this may mean the TfL operation offloaded to Metroline.
|
|