|
Post by sid on Jan 19, 2018 20:03:19 GMT
Tfl could extend a route to the current 271 bus stand such as the route 4 as archway bus stand is over crowded and the route 4 not as frequent as the 271 but of course tfl thinks weird and would rather reduce the 4 then extend it Seeing as I've not added anything meaningful to this thread today; why would you propose to extend the 4 to the current 271 stand when the 271 on its own is having difficulties using the stand? I get your point of wanting to alieviate the Archway stand, but sending another bus route to the 271 stand isn't the best idea. Swapping the 271's and the 4's termini isn't going to achieve anything given that both routes see the same frequency levels (bar Sundays and the 24 hour element on the 271). If anything, extending the 41 southbound to Holloway, Nag's Head would be the most striaghtforward solution; it will create new links along the route and allows for more of a shared routing with the N41. That's exactly what I was wondering. Slightly ironic that he accuses TfL of weird thinking when this has to be one of the weirdest proposals I've seen. Still maybe I'm missing something and there is some logic to it after all?
|
|
|
Post by zeldieralt on Jan 19, 2018 20:57:38 GMT
Seeing as I've not added anything meaningful to this thread today; why would you propose to extend the 4 to the current 271 stand when the 271 on its own is having difficulties using the stand? I get your point of wanting to alieviate the Archway stand, but sending another bus route to the 271 stand isn't the best idea. Swapping the 271's and the 4's termini isn't going to achieve anything given that both routes see the same frequency levels (bar Sundays and the 24 hour element on the 271). If anything, extending the 41 southbound to Holloway, Nag's Head would be the most striaghtforward solution; it will create new links along the route and allows for more of a shared routing with the N41. That's exactly what I was wondering. Slightly ironic that he accuses TfL of weird thinking when this has to be one of the weirdest proposals I've seen. Still maybe I'm missing something and there is some logic to it after all? Well to be honest I really should of thought carefully about it 😅however the idea of the 41 extending to Holloway would be very useful as the 41 is kinda short
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 19, 2018 22:58:07 GMT
That's exactly what I was wondering. Slightly ironic that he accuses TfL of weird thinking when this has to be one of the weirdest proposals I've seen. Still maybe I'm missing something and there is some logic to it after all? Well to be honest I really should of thought carefully about it 😅however the idea of the 41 extending to Holloway would be very useful as the 41 is kinda short It would most likely become kinda very unreliable if it was sent down the Holloway Road which is already served by several high frequency services from Archway. With the Hopper ticket we will not see major routes like the 41 being extended on from major interchange hubs. People will be expected to interchange between routes without financial penalty in most cases. Let's be honest and at least accept that somewhere like Archway undoubtedly sees very high levels of interchange between routes. It would be far better if your thoughts on extensions were put in the relevant "route ideas" thread. Consultation threads should really remain focused on the changes proposed. At some point TfL might actually get round to finalising the 271's proposals but then it is battling the notoriously strident / awkward / "no changes allowed" denizens of Highgate. It's now been nearly 2 years without a decision which shows how obstructive Highgate people are - all this over some changes to traffic islands and kerbs and moving a bus stand. I suspect TfL have spent more money on the consultation process and pandering to inflated egos than it would cost to make the physical highway changes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 20, 2018 0:42:27 GMT
That's exactly what I was wondering. Slightly ironic that he accuses TfL of weird thinking when this has to be one of the weirdest proposals I've seen. Still maybe I'm missing something and there is some logic to it after all? Well to be honest I really should of thought carefully about it 😅however the idea of the 41 extending to Holloway would be very useful as the 41 is kinda short I’ve no idea if your idea is good or not but routes are not extended on the primary basis that they are short - if they can provide a useful link or justified reasoning and happen to be short as well, then of course said route might have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 20, 2018 11:01:01 GMT
At some point TfL might actually get round to finalising the 271's proposals but then it is battling the notoriously strident / awkward / "no changes allowed" denizens of Highgate. It's now been nearly 2 years without a decision which shows how obstructive Highgate people are - all this over some changes to traffic islands and kerbs and moving a bus stand. I suspect TfL have spent more money on the consultation process and pandering to inflated egos than it would cost to make the physical highway changes. Highgate has form for this. The current stand only came about because London Transport needed somewhere to turn its no. 611 trolleybuses. The no. 11 trams just stopped at a terminal stub in the middle of the road, the driver changed ends, the conductor flipped the seats over and off they went. London Transport proposed three solutions: 1) extend the route along North Road to a specially-constructed turning circle 60 yards north of Castle Yard; 2) one-way terminal loop via Southwood Lane, Castle Yard and North Road; 3) extend the 611 to North Finchley via North Road and North Hill, with a reduced frequency on the 517/617. All these would have taken the trolleybuses over the London County Council boundary, and into the Metropolitan Borough of Hornsey and the County of Middlesex. Both local authorities objected, as did Highgate School citing dangers to its pupils. London Transport's eventual solution was to acquire and demolish (presumably by compulsory purchase order and at considerable expense) buildings at the corner of South Grove. Delays in fining an agreeable solution meant that the 611 was the last tram-to-trolleybus conversion in this part of North London (in December 1939), apart from the Kingsway Subway routes. As for North Road and North Hill, they remained bus-less until 1973 when the 143 was routed this way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 18:35:26 GMT
A suggestion that might keep everyone happy? The 271 moves to a new stand in North Road, where the 214 is now. The 214 extends via North Road to Highgate Wood, to stand where the 234 now stands. The 234 extends via North Road to the former 271 stand. A three-way stand swap providing new links all round, especially between Highgate Village & Muswell Hill.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 21, 2018 22:16:55 GMT
A suggestion that might keep everyone happy? The 271 moves to a new stand in North Road, where the 214 is now. The 214 extends via North Road to Highgate Wood, to stand where the 234 now stands. The 234 extends via North Road to the former 271 stand. A three-way stand swap providing new links all round, especially between Highgate Village & Muswell Hill.
Sounds good to me, perfect solution.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 21, 2018 22:31:02 GMT
A suggestion that might keep everyone happy? The 271 moves to a new stand in North Road, where the 214 is now. The 214 extends via North Road to Highgate Wood, to stand where the 234 now stands. The 234 extends via North Road to the former 271 stand. A three-way stand swap providing new links all round, especially between Highgate Village & Muswell Hill.
Could the 214 and 271 just swap stands, with the 234 remaining at Highgate Wood?
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Feb 21, 2018 23:08:38 GMT
A suggestion that might keep everyone happy? The 271 moves to a new stand in North Road, where the 214 is now. The 214 extends via North Road to Highgate Wood, to stand where the 234 now stands. The 234 extends via North Road to the former 271 stand. A three-way stand swap providing new links all round, especially between Highgate Village & Muswell Hill.
Sending the 234 to South Grove looks like a good idea given it uses short buses. However, this plan would involve quite a bit of extra mileage given you're extending both 214 and 234 over North Road - not sure that's a great use of resources given the cuts that are being made everywhere else. For me the best solution would be to force through the plans for the North Road stand. I'd have sympathy with the residents if they had a genuine reason for objecting but I really don't think they do. The 234 could still be extended to Highgate as you suggest if/when there is ever any money to start improving the network again. Could the 214 and 271 just swap stands, with the 234 remaining at Highgate Wood? The 214 should eventually be using 10.8m electric buses, which would be too long for the South Grove stand. It really is a very cramped location for modern buses.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 22, 2018 0:35:32 GMT
A suggestion that might keep everyone happy? The 271 moves to a new stand in North Road, where the 214 is now. The 214 extends via North Road to Highgate Wood, to stand where the 234 now stands. The 234 extends via North Road to the former 271 stand. A three-way stand swap providing new links all round, especially between Highgate Village & Muswell Hill.
Conceptually fine. However there would be more bus movements through an especially crowded bit of Highgate. I went through there on a 210 not so long back off peak and it was horrendous. Anything involving extra mileage is a complete no no at the moment due to cost so we can forget it. The only way it could be funded would be through frequency cuts to the 214 and 234 to keep total mileage and fuel costs the same although you'd possibly still have driver schedule costs as journey times extend. The 234 had its frequency cut 2 years ago but I can't see it being hacked back to x20 or less being popular or tenable at the Barnet end of the route. Cutting the 214 is most likely a complete no no given loadings through Kentish Town / Camden into KX / City.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 18, 2018 13:26:51 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 13:38:35 GMT
"Clear desire" with only 47% supporting
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 13:39:54 GMT
With Oxford Street now not happening, the funding for schemes like this I suspect is quite dead at the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 13:43:14 GMT
Still trying to work out what the image is they have used at the start of the consultation results. Nice and up-to-date as always.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 18, 2018 13:49:19 GMT
Still trying to work out what the image is they have used at the start of the consultation results. Nice and up-to-date as always. Looks like it's an old PVL on the 77 at the Waterloo stand. Must be during the time of the cashless zone within central London, given the yellow tiles. Only a decade or so out of date then!
|
|