|
Post by routew15 on Nov 7, 2016 17:39:55 GMT
TfL has launched a consultation to curtail the 298 in the Potters Bar area Bus route 298 consultation page- source TfL consultation page Did I miss something in the award for the 298? As I don't remember it mentioning a consultation.. Consultation closes on Friday 16th December
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 7, 2016 18:50:33 GMT
TfL has launched a consultation to curtail the 298 in the Potters Bar area Bus route 298 consultation page- source TfL consultation page Did I miss something in the award for the 298? As I don't remember it mentioning a consultation.. Consultation closes on Friday 16th December Quelle surprise. Budget cuts manifesting again. Wonder when the next cross boundary one will emerge? No need to mention a consultation in the award notice as it has started subsequent to the award.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 7, 2016 19:15:53 GMT
I can see the 465 in Surrey being cut to Leatherhead if SCC reduce their funding.
I wonder if whoever funds the 84 may withdraw it from Barnet at some point. I could see TFL introducing a Barnet to Potters Bar route if it did or maybe extend the 234 to Potters Bar.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 7, 2016 19:28:32 GMT
I can see the 465 in Surrey being cut to Leatherhead if SCC reduce their funding. I wonder if whoever funds the 84 may withdraw it from Barnet at some point. I could see TFL introducing a Barnet to Potters Bar route if it did or maybe extend the 234 to Potters Bar. Metroline run the 84 commercially. I'd be surprised if they withdrew from Barnet. In my very limited experience it's busier outside of Gtr London than within but strategically the link has been there for a very long time and it does provide a key link. If Metroline did withdraw I can't see TfL replacing it. They might augment the 399 a bit for the within Gtr London stretch but the days of largesse on cross boundary routes has gone. Otherwise it would be "hard chips, use your cars".
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 7, 2016 19:39:22 GMT
I can see the 465 in Surrey being cut to Leatherhead if SCC reduce their funding. I wonder if whoever funds the 84 may withdraw it from Barnet at some point. I could see TFL introducing a Barnet to Potters Bar route if it did or maybe extend the 234 to Potters Bar. There are quite a few bus routes that cross the border and could be shortened, or the frequency reduced. With budget cuts all must be under review. The 465 could easily be cut back or axed (it's out to tender), and apart from the short section from Chessington to Malden Russet (in Kingston borough) which would need an alternative, TFL could axe whole route as Chessington - Kingston duplicates many other routes, and the short Portsmouth Road loop could easily be served by diverting any one of the Penryn Rd routes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 19:41:43 GMT
I'd be amazed if this didn't go ahead... I know the map isn't exactly 'to scale' but it looks like a modest cut-back that could be done with good old leg power. It'll save a bus. Whoop whoop and all that.
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Nov 7, 2016 19:45:39 GMT
I can see the 465 in Surrey being cut to Leatherhead if SCC reduce their funding. I wonder if whoever funds the 84 may withdraw it from Barnet at some point. I could see TFL introducing a Barnet to Potters Bar route if it did or maybe extend the 234 to Potters Bar. Surrey seem to be one of the best councils when it comes to cuts. Cuts don't always mean cuts, on all their planned changes hardly anything gets left totally unserved, ok it may go from Mon to Sat to a few days a week however at least the places still retain a service. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 7, 2016 20:07:14 GMT
I'd be amazed if this didn't go ahead... I know the map isn't exactly 'to scale' but it looks like a modest cut-back that could be done with good old leg power. It'll save a bus. Whoop whoop and all that. I believe withdrawal of this section has been proposed before but in the end TfL only cut back part of the service (days of the week). Now it's all up for the axe and, as you say, this is a certainty. I get the sense that TfL will wait until the last minute to publish the consultation result. The 167's result hasn't been updated (as of this morning, haven't checked again) and I expect it'll be revealed when it's too late to alter the new contract taking over.
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Nov 7, 2016 21:16:24 GMT
With no money in the kitty, I've been expecting this to happen for a long time. A huge shame, as I did use the 'beyond Potters Bar' section every morning! I doubt HCC will introduce something to plug in the gap at Cranborne. Thankfully I've moved away from Potters Bar, never to return. But it's sad to see your old route having its head chopped off, you know... At least it isn't getting cut from Potters Bar. I would have just had to walk an extra 5 minutes every morning, no big deal for me (but perhaps a blow for more elderly passengers west of the Station). This cut should save a PVR - the route should easily be able to operate with 5 buses now. I was pleasantly surprised when the route was awarded with 6 PVR, you know. I don't see the 84 cut any time soon, and Uno are more likely to win the 5 than he 234 getting extended to PB...
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 11, 2017 11:45:44 GMT
Well no surprise there. 298 cut from 11 November 2017. Consultation reportResponse to issues raisedIn short everyone who responded opposed the change including multiple businesses and individuals. Hardship will arise as a result of this change. TfL's response - "nowt to do with us guv, blame those nasty HCC people who took the money away. We are being nice by not turning the service back at the GL boundary." It took them 10 months to come up with this. What a mess but not unexpected.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Sept 11, 2017 15:30:40 GMT
Well no surprise there. 298 cut from 11 November 2017. Consultation reportResponse to issues raisedIn short everyone who responded opposed the change including multiple businesses and individuals. Hardship will arise as a result of this change. TfL's response - "nowt to do with us guv, blame those nasty HCC people who took the money away. We are being nice by not turning the service back at the GL boundary." It took them 10 months to come up with this. What a mess but not unexpected. What a mess indeed! Does nobody at TfL check what they are publishing? Page 6: Introduction(1.1)'..........consulted stakeholders and the public about proposed changes to the 167!!! bus service' The Purpose section has a bullet point that states that they will clearly explain the benefits of the proposed changes. In this case there aren't any for passengers, just for TfL and Herts respective budgets. Why bother consulting then? The Potential Outcomes section lists three bullet points. The three different outcomes that could result from the consultation. Surely as all have been ignored there should for the sake of honesty have been a fourth one that baldly stated that financial pressures may mean we totally ignore the views of passengers/stakeholders. Appendix C on p.31 once again asks for comments about proposals for route 167. On page 34 there is an interesting piece of political geography. Apparently there are wards named Brunswick Park, East Barnet and Coppets Wood in both the boroughs of Barnet and Enfield. Not only that, the councillors in both boroughs have exactly the same names. I know that this curtailment has been forced on TfL because of financial constraints. Are financial constraints causing them to be very slapdash when communicating with the public? Well here is a fantasy consultation that can be ignored. TfL propose to extend Route 167(Monday-Friday daytime) from its present terminus via Church Hill, Goldings Hill, Woodridden Hill,, Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey, Waltham Cross and present Metroline 242 to Potters Bar Station and then via present TfL 298 to(Cranborne Road Industrial Estate). Responses to be received by whenever. Outcome: this will never happen but at least it creates a link between the 167 and 298.
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Sept 11, 2017 15:52:31 GMT
I find all of this cross border hacking stupid. Whats next, have the R68 terminate before Hampton Court bridge because that is in Surrey. I just want that Greenline network back... I can dream
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Sept 11, 2017 16:32:20 GMT
My poor 298 - I used part of the section between Cranborne Road and Potters Bar Station, and sometimes, late at night, also had the friendly drivers drop me off past the station if they were heading out of service. I would have had to walk to the station instead, which is no big concern for me as I'm able-bodied, but frustratingly the next stop is very far away - a stop on the corner of Darkes Lane would be nice. Alas, I don't live in Potters Bar anymore, thank goodness... ;D The result is not surprising and d*mn right that the overwhelming majority disapproved of these proposals - but the 298's head was up for the chop no matter what. It's true that the reliability of the 298 would improve as it is heavily affected by the unpredictability of Cockfosters Road. I had to take it on Friday and had to wait over 25 minutes for one. As for the suggestions, I'm not really sure that the 298 needs an increased frequency (of course I would have loved that when I was living in Potters Bar) - rarely do you get a full and standing bus. Even less convinced that the 298 needs DDs. And no, let's not run the 298 less frequently. Co-ordinating the 298/313 timetables is a good suggestion though. Perhaps Metroline might step in and provide a double-run to the industrial estate on the 84? ...and yes, I did respond to the consultation!
|
|
|
Post by MoEnviro on Sept 11, 2017 16:51:13 GMT
Well no surprise there. 298 cut from 11 November 2017. Consultation reportResponse to issues raisedIn short everyone who responded opposed the change including multiple businesses and individuals. Hardship will arise as a result of this change. TfL's response - "nowt to do with us guv, blame those nasty HCC people who took the money away. We are being nice by not turning the service back at the GL boundary." It took them 10 months to come up with this. What a mess but not unexpected. What a mess indeed! Does nobody at TfL check what they are publishing? Page 6: Introduction(1.1)'..........consulted stakeholders and the public about proposed changes to the 167!!! bus service' The Purpose section has a bullet point that states that they will clearly explain the benefits of the proposed changes. In this case there aren't any for passengers, just for TfL and Herts respective budgets. Why bother consulting then? The Potential Outcomes section lists three bullet points. The three different outcomes that could result from the consultation. Surely as all have been ignored there should for the sake of honesty have been a fourth one that baldly stated that financial pressures may mean we totally ignore the views of passengers/stakeholders. Appendix C on p.31 once again asks for comments about proposals for route 167. On page 34 there is an interesting piece of political geography. Apparently there are wards named Brunswick Park, East Barnet and Coppets Wood in both the boroughs of Barnet and Enfield. Not only that, the councillors in both boroughs have exactly the same names. I know that this curtailment has been forced on TfL because of financial constraints. Are financial constraints causing them to be very slapdash when communicating with the public? Well here is a fantasy consultation that can be ignored. TfL propose to extend Route 167(Monday-Friday daytime) from its present terminus via Church Hill, Goldings Hill, Woodridden Hill,, Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey, Waltham Cross and present Metroline 242 to Potters Bar Station and then via present TfL 298 to(Cranborne Road Industrial Estate). Responses to be received by whenever. Outcome: this will never happen but at least it creates a link between the 167 and 298. Come on riverside, proof-reading is a concept that doesn't exist in TfL towers...
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Sept 11, 2017 17:02:19 GMT
What a mess indeed! Does nobody at TfL check what they are publishing? Page 6: Introduction(1.1)'..........consulted stakeholders and the public about proposed changes to the 167!!! bus service' The Purpose section has a bullet point that states that they will clearly explain the benefits of the proposed changes. In this case there aren't any for passengers, just for TfL and Herts respective budgets. Why bother consulting then? The Potential Outcomes section lists three bullet points. The three different outcomes that could result from the consultation. Surely as all have been ignored there should for the sake of honesty have been a fourth one that baldly stated that financial pressures may mean we totally ignore the views of passengers/stakeholders. Appendix C on p.31 once again asks for comments about proposals for route 167. On page 34 there is an interesting piece of political geography. Apparently there are wards named Brunswick Park, East Barnet and Coppets Wood in both the boroughs of Barnet and Enfield. Not only that, the councillors in both boroughs have exactly the same names. I know that this curtailment has been forced on TfL because of financial constraints. Are financial constraints causing them to be very slapdash when communicating with the public? Well here is a fantasy consultation that can be ignored. TfL propose to extend Route 167(Monday-Friday daytime) from its present terminus via Church Hill, Goldings Hill, Woodridden Hill,, Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey, Waltham Cross and present Metroline 242 to Potters Bar Station and then via present TfL 298 to(Cranborne Road Industrial Estate). Responses to be received by whenever. Outcome: this will never happen but at least it creates a link between the 167 and 298. Come on riverside , proof-reading is a concept that doesn't exist in TfL towers... Correct. Just Ctrl + C then Ctrl + V if the reports anything to go by
|
|