298 in Potters Bar

[philjo]

I see that TfL currently have a consultation on proposed changes to route 298 in Potters Bar.
It is proposed to cut the service back to start at Potters Bar Station so the Cranborne Road industrial estate will no longer be served by any bus service.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/298/

Overview

The London bus network is kept under regular review. As part of this, we develop proposals for changes to services.

Currently route 298 runs between Arnos Grove station and Cranborne Road Industrial Estate, Monday to Friday daytimes. In the evenings and weekends it runs between Arnos Grove station and Potters Bar station.

Owing to budget pressures, Hertfordshire County Council have reduced funding for TfL bus services.

Why we are consulting?

We have developed proposals to restructure route 298 in response to this loss of funding and would like to know your views.

What are we proposing?

Route 298 would be withdrawn between Potters Bar station and Cranborne Road Industrial Estate. The route would run between Arnos Grove station and Potters Bar station at all times.
Have your say

We would like to know what you think about our proposals for route 298.

Please give us your views by completing the online survey below by 16 December 2016.

 

[Be3G]

Indeed. Which of course means that the 298 is being cut back: like the recent 167 consultation in Essex, this is no doubt just a box-ticking exercise where no consideration will be given to people's views and TfL won't even bother to tell people the outcome whilst quietly implementing the change anyway.

 

[Busaholic]

I assume a bus can be saved from the timetable. This is an example of the flat-fare system, of which I'm greatly in favour generally, being unhelpful in the context of TfL contracted services crossing the Greater London boundary. It would probably help if TfL were able to charge a supplementary fare, but they can't, so a service gets cut. It might be better if the 298 were run on the same basis as the 84, for instance, from the point of view of Herts residents who use the service anyway. The only other help might be if it could be shown that London residents made up a good proportion of the passengers to Cranborne Road, but I suspect it'll be quite difficult to get this thrown out. Peak hour only extensions are very much a no-no under the current regime, so even that compromise probably isn't possible.

 

[A0wen]

I assume a bus can be saved from the timetable. This is an example of the flat-fare system, of which I'm greatly in favour generally, being unhelpful in the context of TfL contracted services crossing the Greater London boundary. It would probably help if TfL were able to charge a supplementary fare, but they can't, so a service gets cut. It might be better if the 298 were run on the same basis as the 84, for instance, from the point of view of Herts residents who use the service anyway. The only other help might be if it could be shown that London residents made up a good proportion of the passengers to Cranborne Road, but I suspect it'll be quite difficult to get this thrown out. Peak hour only extensions are very much a no-no under the current regime, so even that compromise probably isn't possible.

Not really a valid comparison between the 84 and 298.

The 84 runs predominantly in HCC's area with only the section between Potters Bar and Barnet in TFL's area, whereas the 298 is the opposite with only part of the Potters Bar section in HCC area.

ISTR a long time back the 84 was actually an HCC contract - though I think it is now registered as commercial by Metroline.

It should be said that this withdrawl will only mean about 1/4 of a mile of unserved road - Cranbourne Road itself - as Mutton Lane is already served by the 84 - see this map https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...e74738e2b4e2cea!8m2!3d51.7034958!4d-0.2034677

 

[Deerfold]

Peak hour only extensions are very much a no-no under the current regime, so even that compromise probably isn't possible.

I don't see how that would be different from the current set up. It already misses out the section to be removed on evenings and Sundays - these were removed a few years ago.

I used to catch the 298 and coming from London the bus was usually empty or almost empty by Potters Bar station - though I'd be catching it contra-peak for anyone woking at the industrial estate.

 

[matt_world2004]

There are going to be more of these greater London boundary cutbacks as tfl seeks to save money for one more journey , the fares freeze and the loss of government grant.

 

[duncombec]

These cutbacks won't (and don't) only affect TfL. This sort of thing is happening more and more with cross-boundary routes, where one council provides a small amount of support for a cross-boundary route.

This has also been seen elsewhere: The Brackley - Bicester link was withdrawn because Oxfordshire withdrew all subsidy, likewise Lechlade - Swindon now terminates at Highworth as Swindon lowered/removed support. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples in specific local areas.

The real question here is how useful is the link? How many people per journey actually use it? And from where? If the majority use is (for example) from Potters Bar Station to Cranbourne Road, why should TfL pay for that?

This almost certainly relates back to a consultation started by Hertfordshire CC earlier in the year, where withdrawing support from certain TfL routes was suggested. Locals jumped on it as though the routes would be withdrawn forthwith, but for at least two of them my first thoughts were "why are they wasting their money?"

From http://www.watfordlibdems.org/saveourbuses2016

The County Council hasn't announced which bus services are affected yet, but £390,000 is paid to Transport for London for the following routes:

107 Edgware Station - New Barnet Station
142 Watford Junction - Brent Cross Shopping Centre
258 Watford Junction - South Harrow Station
292 Borehamwood Rossington Avenue - Colindale Asda Store
298 Potters Bar Cranborne Road - Arnos Grove Station

It would appear TfL have decided they are happy to continue - for the moment at least - with the others without HCC support, but not the 298.

 

[Busaholic]

Not really a valid comparison between the 84 and 298.

The 84 runs predominantly in HCC's area with only the section between Potters Bar and Barnet in TFL's area, whereas the 298 is the opposite with only part of the Potters Bar section in HCC area.

ISTR a long time back the 84 was actually an HCC contract - though I think it is now registered as commercial by Metroline.

It should be said that this withdrawl will only mean about 1/4 of a mile of unserved road - Cranbourne Road itself - as Mutton Lane is already served by the 84 - see this map https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...e74738e2b4e2cea!8m2!3d51.7034958!4d-0.2034677

I agree it's not comparing like with like, especially since the 84 was cut back in London from Arnos Grove, just pointing out the different imperatives. Potters Bar, together with Loughton, were the only two red bus garages outside the GLC area when it was created in 1965, and Loughton didn't survive for too many years thereafter. Potters Bar was helped by London Transport deciding to get rid of Finchley and Muswell Hill garages (even the original Holloway and Edmonton garages closing indirectly helped its survival too).

 

[smtglasgow]

Is there some rationale in TfL’s thinking about cross-boundary services? For example, i’ve never really understood why Barnet-Potters Bar lost its TfL services. This was a red bus route for years, and even a few years ago there was still a link (263, 326, 383 - I think). There are a lot of ties between the two towns, shopping, employment and college, but you can’t use Oyster on Metroline’s commercial 84. Similarly, you can travel by TfL (using Oyster) from Slough to Hounslow on the 81, but Slough to Uxbridge is commercial (and much more expensive) by First Berks. The lack of anything across Waltham Cross is another oddity.

I appreciate that TfL don’t want to be subsidising services outwith their area, but the services that survive – 370 and 465 are another two examples – make a mockery of the cliff-edge between TfL and commercial services that exists elsewhere. Be interested to know if there is a logical explanation that I’ve missed.

 

[A0wen]

Is there some rationale in TfL’s thinking about cross-boundary services? For example, i’ve never really understood why Barnet-Potters Bar lost its TfL services. This was a red bus route for years, and even a few years ago there was still a link (263, 326, 383 - I think). There are a lot of ties between the two towns, shopping, employment and college, but you can’t use Oyster on Metroline’s commercial 84. Similarly, you can travel by TfL (using Oyster) from Slough to Hounslow on the 81, but Slough to Uxbridge is commercial (and much more expensive) by First Berks. The lack of anything across Waltham Cross is another oddity.

I appreciate that TfL don’t want to be subsidising services outwith their area, but the services that survive – 370 and 465 are another two examples – make a mockery of the cliff-edge between TfL and commercial services that exists elsewhere. Be interested to know if there is a logical explanation that I’ve missed.

Presumably demand is the reason the 84 is the only remaining link between Potters Bar and Barnet. Potters Bar does have three cross-border services, the 84, 298 and 313 - I'm guessing that because the 84 is predominantly outside the TFL area it's not covered by Oyster. Whereas the 298 and 313 are predominantly in the TFL area.

 

[MedwayValiant]

One could argue that Waltham Cross is not an oddity. Rather, it's all the places which don't work in the same way as Waltham Cross that are odd.

Waltham Cross town centre is in Hertfordshire / not in Greater London by about 400 yards, and Waltham Cross Bus Station is owned and managed by TfL. It is the only stop outside Greater London for TfL services which terminate there, and it was never regarded as being "outside the zones". So TfL services terminate there, and are considered to run entirely inside Greater London. Other services terminate there too, and run entirely outside Greater London. It's a hard border if you like, it just happens to be 400 yards / one stop north of the actual border.

That model isn't practical at all points of the Greater London border, because it would be silly if (for instance) one bus route terminated half way up Stag Hill in open country between Cockfosters and Potters Bar, and another bus route started there. But where it is practical it is the obvious way for the system to work, and so it's the exceptions to it which are the oddities.

Should TfL, for instance, really be running a non-stop service with Oyster availability between Dartford and Bluewater? Dartford town centre is outside Greater London by about a mile, and Arriva run plenty of commercial services between those two points as part of their Thameside network. You could argue - perhaps Arriva have argued, for all I know - that they face unfair competition from TfL here.

 

[Be3G]

The problem with the ‘Waltham Cross model’ shall we say is that it makes cross-border travel very expensive, because there're never any cross-ticketing arrangements. So for example, in London we have the £4.50 daily Oyster cap. Excellent value. In Hertfordshire they have the Intalink Explorer – good value at £8.50 for the whole county (albeit slightly eroded now by an increasing number of services not accepting it). But what happens if your journey crosses the border? You have to pay for both. Or even just considering singles/returns it's not that cheap; £3 for a short return journey by London bus which then has to be added to the high cost of a return on a Hertfordshire bus makes for an expensive trip.

I say this as someone who used to live in Enfield just a 5–10 minute bus ride from Waltham Cross, and often wanted to travel north beyond the city's border but frequently concluded it was too expensive to bother because of the need to pay twice. Years ago when we had variants of the 310/311 buses running in to Enfield it wasn't a problem; I could just purchase a ticket on the bus for the whole journey. Nice. In fact in more recent years, I tended to find the cheapest way of making a cross-border journey was to catch a train to the first stop outside London and use a Plusbus ticket from there.

Moving away from Waltham Cross, it's always interesting to note that TfL do still recognise there is some demand for cross-border travel: from schoolchildren. There is a TfL school route that still traverses the 84's Barnet to Potters Bar corridor, and there're a couple of other school buses that go to Dame Alice Owen's school in Potters Bar too. Plus (returning to my earlier grumble about the 167) there's going to be a limited replacement for the lost section of the route in the form of a school-day-only service.

If only cross-border travel were easier as a grown-up!

 

[smtglasgow]

I get that the 298 (and 313) are in a sense just crossing the boundary and no more, but what was behind my question was Oyster availability. Having the 84 as the only Barnet-Potters Bar link is relatively new, and in the past the link was provided by extensions of LT/TfL services (I think the 326 and 383 were the most recent) which was very similar to the 298/313 scenario. Just seems odd that Potters Bar gets TfL/Oyster links to Enfield and Cockfosters, but not to Barnet. Although I believe Oyster is coming to PB station in the next few years, so perhaps a solution can be found for cross-border buses – even if the solution is charging a higher single fare.

 

[duncanp]

Rather like the situation in Surrey where TfL bus services run as far as Redhill, Dorking, Epsom and Staines.

I think in these cases Surrey County Council agree that it is better to have a through route that is convenient for passengers rather than terminating at the boundary for political reasons. How many people would use the 293, for example, if it only ran Epsom to North Cheam, rather than through to Morden for connections with the tube?

It was even worse in the days of trams, where you had a terminus at various council boundaries. Where I live in Walthamstow you had the ridiculous Higham Hill to Markhouse Road service, and also Woodford to Ferry Lane, with trams terminating outside what is now the Ferry Boat Inn rather than running to somewhere useful like Tottenham Hale or Seven Sisters.

 

[Deerfold]

Presumably demand is the reason the 84 is the only remaining link between Potters Bar and Barnet. Potters Bar does have three cross-border services, the 84, 298 and 313 - I'm guessing that because the 84 is predominantly outside the TFL area it's not covered by Oyster. Whereas the 298 and 313 are predominantly in the TFL area.

The 84 accepted Oyster between New Barnet and Potters Bar until recently (and did not accept Intalink products on this part of the route) until a couple of years ago. If a company wants to accept TfL tickets they can, but TfL will pay a standard rate per ticket. This amount has risen far more slowly than commercial bus fares outside London and so many bus companies which used to accept TfL tickets within London no longer do (are there any left?). Uno used to accept them as did some Arriva Kent routes.

Whilst the 84 accepted Oyster there was little reason for TfL to provide a parallel service - and now they don't there's far less money around for new bus services.

 

[matt_world2004]

One could argue that Waltham Cross is not an oddity. Rather, it's all the places which don't work in the same way as Waltham Cross that are odd.

Waltham Cross town centre is in Hertfordshire / not in Greater London by about 400 yards, and Waltham Cross Bus Station is owned and managed by TfL. It is the only stop outside Greater London for TfL services which terminate there, and it was never regarded as being "outside the zones". So TfL services terminate there, and are considered to run entirely inside Greater London. Other services terminate there too, and run entirely outside Greater London. It's a hard border if you like, it just happens to be 400 yards / one stop north of the actual border.

That model isn't practical at all points of the Greater London border, because it would be silly if (for instance) one bus route terminated half way up Stag Hill in open country between Cockfosters and Potters Bar, and another bus route started there. But where it is practical it is the obvious way for the system to work, and so it's the exceptions to it which are the oddities.

Should TfL, for instance, really be running a non-stop service with Oyster availability between Dartford and Bluewater? Dartford town centre is outside Greater London by about a mile, and Arriva run plenty of commercial services between those two points as part of their Thameside network. You could argue - perhaps Arriva have argued, for all I know - that they face unfair competition from TfL here.

I believe bluewater pay a fair chunk of change for london bus services to terminate there.

 

[Busaholic]

I believe bluewater pay a fair chunk of change for london bus services to terminate there.

And do their deadly rivals at Lakeside do the same?

 

[matt_world2004]

And do their deadly rivals at Lakeside do the same?

I do not know.I know some buses that run across the greater London boundary and some within have sponsorship arrangements the E6, U5 , 140 and U7 do I believe

 

[BestWestern]

Does the budget that benefits from these changes come from the same department that orders Borismasters? Just a thought.

 

[MedwayValiant]

I don't know whether Lakeside pay towards the two TfL services that terminate there, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Both the 370 and the 372 serve a small town which is not in Greater London - South Ockendon in one case and Aveley in the other - and both towns have rival services to Lakeside operated by Ensignbus on which you cannot use Oyster. Again, you could understand if Ensignbus found this arrangement less than satisfactory.

Approaching the question from the other end, perhaps the X80 (Bluewater - Lakeside) ought to be a TfL service. It would be unique if it were because no part of the route is in Greater London, but you could argue that it's strategicallly important since it's the only bus service over the Dartford Crossing.

I can't imagine Ensignbus would be keen though, since they like their exceptionally high fares and - or so I was told - refused point blank to discuss the idea of a Thurrock PlusBus being created.

 

[duncombec]

TfL can provide services outside of the boundary if it chooses on a commercial basis just as everybody else can. The issue comes from council support.

There is a similar reasoning behind the cuts to service 167, which is EssexCC withdrawing support. The 375 and the other route in Romford that run out to the middle of nowhere are TfL replacing commercial withdrawals to a point of their choosing.

As regards tickets, that depends on whether the service is registered under an LLSA (London Local Service Agreement) or an LSP (London Service Permit).

From: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtran/1317/6062130.htm

A London Local Service Agreement (LLSA) service is a London local service with one or more stopping places within London that is part of the London Bus network but which is not procured by TfL. An LLSA is required to charge TfL fares within London and the operator is reimbursed for acceptance of TfL period tickets and Freedom Passes.
The existence of LLSAs allows for an operator to spot a gap in the network which TfL is unable to fill and run a service "commercially". TfL will agree to this as long as it genuinely adds to the network and does not largely duplicate existing services. Given the comprehensive nature of the TfL bus network there have only ever been a small number of LLSAs [11 in July 2006]. This has reduced significantly in recent years as operating costs have risen and operators have no longer found it viable to run these services. [...]

A London Service Permit (LSP) service is a London local service with one or more stopping places within London but which is not part of the London bus network. The fares are set by the operator.
There are currently 166 services [again, in July 2006] operating under London Service Permits [...]
These routes form a very minor part of the London bus service. In terms of the kilometres operated the LLSAs within London and the LSPs which operate a local bus service represent less than 0.5% of the network.

I'm not sure how many, if any, LLSA services are left. I think most prefer the "freedom" of an LSP, although requirements imposed by TfL can still be onerous (which I think was one of the reasons for withdrawing the 310 Waltham Cross - Enfield and those Essex services).

 

[Be3G]

If a company wants to accept TfL tickets they can, but TfL will pay a standard rate per ticket. This amount has risen far more slowly than commercial bus fares outside London and so many bus companies which used to accept TfL tickets within London no longer do (are there any left?).

The 402 from Bromley accepts all TfL paper tickets as far as Knockholt, but it doesn't take Oyster. A few buses that cross the Surrey border also offer ‘discounted’ fares to holders of TfL tickets, but I assume that's just their own commercial decision to try to lure London ticket holders rather than anything to do with financial assistance from TfL.

 

[Busaholic]

The 402 from Bromley accepts all TfL paper tickets as far as Knockholt, but it doesn't take Oyster. A few buses that cross the Surrey border also offer ‘discounted’ fares to holders of TfL tickets, but I assume that's just their own commercial decision to try to lure London ticket holders rather than anything to do with financial assistance from TfL.

Many bus routes that start in London and end in Surrey are actually contracted by TfL of course, so apply TfL fares throughout, accept Oyster and even allow someone to travel at TfL rates entirely within Surrey! Kingston would appear to be particularly favoured by these arrangements, which will doubtless please the shopkeepers of that town!

 

[Robertj21a]

Many bus routes that start in London and end in Surrey are actually contracted by TfL of course, so apply TfL fares throughout, accept Oyster and even allow someone to travel at TfL rates entirely within Surrey! Kingston would appear to be particularly favoured by these arrangements, which will doubtless please the shopkeepers of that town!

Any idea which of those running into Kingston are contracted by TfL ? - I guess some of the Kingston routes must be supported by Surrey C C (isn't that where Transdev is pulling out ?)

 

[matt_world2004]

Any idea which of those running into Kingston are contracted by TfL ? - I guess some of the Kingston routes must be supported by Surrey C C (isn't that where Transdev is pulling out ?)

Kingston is a London borough and tfl have a duty to provide a bus service within an London borough and to the next nearest town

 

[Busaholic]

Any idea which of those running into Kingston are contracted by TfL ? - I guess some of the Kingston routes must be supported by Surrey C C (isn't that where Transdev is pulling out ?)

I'll provide a full list on here within the next day or so, unless someone else does it quicker! I think I know off the top of my head, but I'd better just check it out first.

 

[Hophead]

Kingston is a London borough and tfl have a duty to provide a bus service within an London borough and to the next nearest town

Sorry: can you explain this please? I'd like a fair amount of clarification of "to the next nearest town", as there would seem to be instances where this is not the case. And from where would this be counted?. Finally, where is this requirement stated?

Hope you can enlighten me (I'm keen to know is all).

 

[matt_world2004]

Sorry: can you explain this please? I'd like a fair amount of clarification of "to the next nearest town", as there would seem to be instances where this is not the case. And from where would this be counted?. Finally, where is this requirement stated?

Hope you can enlighten me (I'm keen to know is all).

This was what was told to me during a period of work experiance at TfL's planning and specifications team in september.. They can go beyond the next town within the greater London Boundary . However this would be a commercial decision or a co-funded route with a local county council. I am seeing if I can find a verified source for you to show that this has been written in some kind of framework.

 

[Hophead]

This was what was told to me during a period of work experiance at TfL's planning and specifications team in september.. They can go beyond the next town within the greater London Boundary . However this would be a commercial decision or a co-funded route with a local county council. I am seeing if I can find a verified source for you to show that this has been written in some kind of framework.

Thanks. Then we can have fun pointing out the variations!

 

[Busaholic]

Any idea which of those running into Kingston are contracted by TfL ? - I guess some of the Kingston routes must be supported by Surrey C C (isn't that where Transdev is pulling out ?)

Not had the time to research fully, but include the following:-

216 Staines via Ashford
411 West Molesey
406 Epsom
418 Epsom
465 Dorking via Leatherhead
K3 Esher

Definitely NOT TfL are the 458 and 461 from Staines, nor the 513, 514 and 515 from beyond Esher.

I'm not sure whether the K2 extends slightly into Surrey, and there may be one or two such others, but, a bit like Waltham Cross, crossing an arbitrary boundary by a few yards is not something I can get excited about.

Just a short commentary on the above. The 216, 411, 465 (to Leatherhead) and K3 follow traditional red bus routes (i.e. Central Area) but the 406 and 418 are very much Country Area, even retaining the same route numbers! The non-TfL routes are basically ex-Central Area routes like the 215, 218 and 219, mixed with Green Line 715 (Guildford) which always carried a good proportion of 'local' passengers. I don't know how it was decided that Kingston should retain so many TfL links with Surrey, but politics must play a part!