|
Post by vjaska on Jun 19, 2018 10:14:00 GMT
From what I hear, two more not far away will be completely withdrawn with one being partially replaced by an extension of an existing route. There is also a future proposal mentioned in the Metroline thread to fully withdraw the 460 and replace it by extending the already lengthy 245 to Finchley (most likely Finchley Central) - absolutely stupid decisions IMO. These cuts will have long lasting negative effects that won't be easy to recover from even when TfL evntually return to a healthier financial position whenever that will be. I wonder why the 245, instead of just re-extending the 260? (Perhaps I should just read the thread). Probably because it battles enough traffic and was cut back originally - I've not seen nothing different to see the logic in extending the 260 back to North Finchley or even Finchley Central nor do I see the logic of diverting and adding further length to the 245. The 460 works in its current form IMO and it seems just more about saving money than actually retaining useful and manageable routes personally.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jun 19, 2018 11:30:07 GMT
I wonder why the 245, instead of just re-extending the 260? (Perhaps I should just read the thread). Probably because it battles enough traffic and was cut back originally - I've not seen nothing different to see the logic in extending the 260 back to North Finchley or even Finchley Central nor do I see the logic of diverting and adding further length to the 245. The 460 works in its current form IMO and it seems just more about saving money than actually retaining useful and manageable routes personally. It seems ridiculous if you ask me, it’ll make the 245 going on for 14 miles long won’t it? I don’t see what’s wrong with the current 460, it’s getting plenty of its own patronage at the moment providing relief to the sporadic 13. i would also like to agree with comments about the 277 not being very busy at the Southern end, it isn’t. As I’ve briefly mentioned before I know a few good friends who live in east London in the Bow/Mile End and Isle of Dogs area so I use many routes around there a lot, like the 277, 135, 205, 25, 425, D7, D8 etc. The 277 isn’t dead by any means but there’s a lot of spare capacity at the Crossharbour to Victoria Park section, it’s very very frequent indeed and can’t say I’ve ever seen one completely fully loaded around there, don’t know about the Northern End though as I don’t go up there too much but I’ll take your word for its popularity over that section
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 12:04:18 GMT
Probably because it battles enough traffic and was cut back originally - I've not seen nothing different to see the logic in extending the 260 back to North Finchley or even Finchley Central nor do I see the logic of diverting and adding further length to the 245. The 460 works in its current form IMO and it seems just more about saving money than actually retaining useful and manageable routes personally. It seems ridiculous if you ask me, it’ll make the 245 going on for 14 miles long won’t it? I don’t see what’s wrong with the current 460, it’s getting plenty of its own patronage at the moment providing relief to the sporadic 13. i would also like to agree with comments about the 277 not being very busy at the Southern end, it isn’t. As I’ve briefly mentioned before I know a few good friends who live in east London in the Bow/Mile End and Isle of Dogs area so I use many routes around there a lot, like the 277, 135, 205, 25, 425, D7, D8 etc. The 277 isn’t dead by any means but there’s a lot of spare capacity at the Crossharbour to Victoria Park section, it’s very very frequent indeed and can’t say I’ve ever seen one completely fully loaded around there, don’t know about the Northern End though as I don’t go up there too much but I’ll take your word for its popularity over that section I agree and have posted about the southern end of the 277 before it's mad just how frequent buses run and agree i have never seen a full load.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 19, 2018 12:14:33 GMT
Probably because it battles enough traffic and was cut back originally - I've not seen nothing different to see the logic in extending the 260 back to North Finchley or even Finchley Central nor do I see the logic of diverting and adding further length to the 245. The 460 works in its current form IMO and it seems just more about saving money than actually retaining useful and manageable routes personally. It seems ridiculous if you ask me, it’ll make the 245 going on for 14 miles long won’t it? I don’t see what’s wrong with the current 460, it’s getting plenty of its own patronage at the moment providing relief to the sporadic 13. i would also like to agree with comments about the 277 not being very busy at the Southern end, it isn’t. As I’ve briefly mentioned before I know a few good friends who live in east London in the Bow/Mile End and Isle of Dogs area so I use many routes around there a lot, like the 277, 135, 205, 25, 425, D7, D8 etc. The 277 isn’t dead by any means but there’s a lot of spare capacity at the Crossharbour to Victoria Park section, it’s very very frequent indeed and can’t say I’ve ever seen one completely fully loaded around there, don’t know about the Northern End though as I don’t go up there too much but I’ll take your word for its popularity over that section The 460 change seems logical to me, is there really any need for the 245,260 and 460 between Golders Green and Cricklewood? If cuts have to be made this seems a sensible way of going about it.
I don't agree with removing the 277 from Highbury Corner though.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jun 19, 2018 13:00:32 GMT
It seems ridiculous if you ask me, it’ll make the 245 going on for 14 miles long won’t it? I don’t see what’s wrong with the current 460, it’s getting plenty of its own patronage at the moment providing relief to the sporadic 13. i would also like to agree with comments about the 277 not being very busy at the Southern end, it isn’t. As I’ve briefly mentioned before I know a few good friends who live in east London in the Bow/Mile End and Isle of Dogs area so I use many routes around there a lot, like the 277, 135, 205, 25, 425, D7, D8 etc. The 277 isn’t dead by any means but there’s a lot of spare capacity at the Crossharbour to Victoria Park section, it’s very very frequent indeed and can’t say I’ve ever seen one completely fully loaded around there, don’t know about the Northern End though as I don’t go up there too much but I’ll take your word for its popularity over that section I agree and have posted about the southern end of the 277 before it's mad just how frequent buses run and agree i have never seen a full load. It was your comment I was referring to
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 19, 2018 13:01:16 GMT
It seems ridiculous if you ask me, it’ll make the 245 going on for 14 miles long won’t it? I don’t see what’s wrong with the current 460, it’s getting plenty of its own patronage at the moment providing relief to the sporadic 13. i would also like to agree with comments about the 277 not being very busy at the Southern end, it isn’t. As I’ve briefly mentioned before I know a few good friends who live in east London in the Bow/Mile End and Isle of Dogs area so I use many routes around there a lot, like the 277, 135, 205, 25, 425, D7, D8 etc. The 277 isn’t dead by any means but there’s a lot of spare capacity at the Crossharbour to Victoria Park section, it’s very very frequent indeed and can’t say I’ve ever seen one completely fully loaded around there, don’t know about the Northern End though as I don’t go up there too much but I’ll take your word for its popularity over that section The 460 change seems logical to me, is there really any need for the 245,260 and 460 between Golders Green and Cricklewood? If cuts have to be made this seems a sensible way of going about it.
I don't agree with removing the 277 from Highbury Corner though.
In the good old days when the North London Line fell down regularly, the 277 was a very useful back-up between Highbury & Islington and Dalston/Hackney. However now that the service is vastly improved under London Overground (and there is also a second line as far as Dalston) the surplus capacity is no longer necessary. Under Ken Livingstone's Mayoralty the strategy was to increase bus capacity as a quick and immediate way of improving overall public transport capacity. A start was made to long-overdue Improvements to rail reliability, frequency and capacity, but these would take several years to reach fruition. During that period, it was accepted that when rail transport failed there would be extra capacity on buses to pick up some of the slack. I know this will be a contentious view and I am expecting to get shot down for it, but with those rail improvements now having come on stream and with a need for economies, that extra capacity "just in case" is no longer justified.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 19, 2018 13:17:55 GMT
The 460 change seems logical to me, is there really any need for the 245,260 and 460 between Golders Green and Cricklewood? If cuts have to be made this seems a sensible way of going about it.
I don't agree with removing the 277 from Highbury Corner though.
In the good old days when the North London Line fell down regularly, the 277 was a very useful back-up between Highbury & Islington and Dalston/Hackney. However now that the service is vastly improved under London Overground (and there is also a second line as far as Dalston) the surplus capacity is no longer necessary. Under Ken Livingstone's Mayoralty the strategy was to increase bus capacity as a quick and immediate way of improving overall public transport capacity. A start was made to long-overdue Improvements to rail reliability, frequency and capacity, but these would take several years to reach fruition. During that period, it was accepted that when rail transport failed there would be extra capacity on buses to pick up some of the slack. I know this will be a contentious view and I am expecting to get shot down for it, but with those rail improvements now having come on stream and with a need for economies, that extra capacity "just in case" is no longer justified. That's a good point, I was thinking of local journeys east from H&I but with the improved LO service maybe the 30 is sufficient now? I agree that bus services cannot be run just in case the rail service goes wrong.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 19, 2018 13:32:52 GMT
The 460 change seems logical to me, is there really any need for the 245,260 and 460 between Golders Green and Cricklewood? If cuts have to be made this seems a sensible way of going about it.
I don't agree with removing the 277 from Highbury Corner though.
In the good old days when the North London Line fell down regularly, the 277 was a very useful back-up between Highbury & Islington and Dalston/Hackney. However now that the service is vastly improved under London Overground (and there is also a second line as far as Dalston) the surplus capacity is no longer necessary. Under Ken Livingstone's Mayoralty the strategy was to increase bus capacity as a quick and immediate way of improving overall public transport capacity. A start was made to long-overdue Improvements to rail reliability, frequency and capacity, but these would take several years to reach fruition. During that period, it was accepted that when rail transport failed there would be extra capacity on buses to pick up some of the slack. I know this will be a contentious view and I am expecting to get shot down for it, but with those rail improvements now having come on stream and with a need for economies, that extra capacity "just in case" is no longer justified. I don’t agree that bus capacity was increased just in case rail transport might of failed - many areas had increased bus capacity regardless of whether a rail line ran nearby or not. Bus capacity increased because patronage absolutely boomed during Ken’s reign - if you start removing bus links alongside railways, you end having a seriously overcrowded railway system that would struggle to cope. The bus compliments railways not competes with them after all.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 19, 2018 14:13:07 GMT
I know this will be a contentious view and I am expecting to get shot down for it, but with those rail improvements now having come on stream and with a need for economies, that extra capacity "just in case" is no longer justified. Not contentious or worthy of shooting but it's fine until things go wrong and then you have no contingency. There have been far more failures on the NLL in recent months than for a long time preceding that. Whether we like it or not I don't think it is rational or sensible to design a transport system that basically falls to bits when a key link fails. In low demand transport system where the % age of people relying on public transport is very small then you don't get resilience because it mostly isn't necessary and it's unaffordable. London is completely different where demand levels are huge, where a large proportion of people is totally reliant on public transport for mobility and where activity levels are such that it is economically ruinous to have ineffective transport. What is concerning is that we seem to be moving to a position where there is next to no resilience in some parts of the public transport network and people simply cannot get about when things fail or become unreliable. Clearly there is a cost incurred from having a resilient network and a debate to be had about how much resilience there is but, as ever, decisions are being taken without any debate or obvious assessment of the risks. I know, from past arguments, that TfL don't consider the bus network to be a "back up" for the tube and rail network. That's fine provided the passengers agree with you and when your rail services collapse you don't direct people to use buses as alternative. Oh hang on........ !
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 19, 2018 14:16:49 GMT
you end having a seriously overcrowded railway system that would struggle to cope. The bus compliments railways not competes with them after all. The NLL eastbound from Highbury can barely cope off peak and is completely mullered in the peaks. It would be an utterly false assumption on TfL's part that people can use the Overground in the peaks to reach Hackney comfortably by train. Dalston is less of an issue because the ELL is not yet oversubscribed but that's only part of the journeys covered by the 277.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jun 19, 2018 16:27:33 GMT
No mention on the poster of extra services on the 30 - will these materialise and, if so, when and where (i.e whole or part route)?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 19, 2018 16:37:27 GMT
No mention on the poster of extra services on the 30 - will these materialise and, if so, when and where (i.e whole or part route)? TP446 will know better than me but I expect them to be in the new Metroline contract. TfL's past position on this was just a small number of extra peak direction trips over the whole route and not a general increase in frequency.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 19, 2018 17:00:25 GMT
No mention on the poster of extra services on the 30 - will these materialise and, if so, when and where (i.e whole or part route)? TP446 will know better than me but I expect them to be in the new Metroline contract. TfL's past position on this was just a small number of extra peak direction trips over the whole route and not a general increase in frequency. There is section in upcoming bus changes on TfL website, it says 3 extra peak one way, one other direction in evening peak. So presumably thats it for extras, 4 one way peak workings, nothing off peak tfl.gov.uk/modes/buses/permanent-bus-changes
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jun 19, 2018 17:24:03 GMT
In the good old days when the North London Line fell down regularly, the 277 was a very useful back-up between Highbury & Islington and Dalston/Hackney. However now that the service is vastly improved under London Overground (and there is also a second line as far as Dalston) the surplus capacity is no longer necessary. Under Ken Livingstone's Mayoralty the strategy was to increase bus capacity as a quick and immediate way of improving overall public transport capacity. A start was made to long-overdue Improvements to rail reliability, frequency and capacity, but these would take several years to reach fruition. During that period, it was accepted that when rail transport failed there would be extra capacity on buses to pick up some of the slack. I know this will be a contentious view and I am expecting to get shot down for it, but with those rail improvements now having come on stream and with a need for economies, that extra capacity "just in case" is no longer justified. That's a good point, I was thinking of local journeys east from H&I but with the improved LO service maybe the 30 is sufficient now? I agree that bus services cannot be run just in case the rail service goes wrong. Dare I say though, do you not think the 337 is a route for people to use if the District line goes up the swanney? That’s the only time I’d say the route gets busy and the reason why it runs with DDs, I could be wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 19, 2018 17:39:59 GMT
That's a good point, I was thinking of local journeys east from H&I but with the improved LO service maybe the 30 is sufficient now? I agree that bus services cannot be run just in case the rail service goes wrong. Dare I say though, do you not think the 337 is a route for people to use if the District line goes up the swanney? That’s the only time I’d say the route gets busy and the reason why it runs with DDs, I could be wrong though. The 337 is busy outside of the District Line falling over - we have to remember that a route does not need to rammed full to warrant double deckers as that would be a strange way to maintain capacity.
|
|