js11
Cleaner
Posts: 24
|
Post by js11 on Dec 18, 2021 8:44:40 GMT
Rather than 21 being extended, 135 should be extended from Old Street to Holloway, Nags Head. Instead of going via Bishopsgate and Great Eastern Street, it could go via London Wall and Moorgate covering 271. It would create a great link from East London to Islington, Highbury and Holloway and connect a direct link between Islington and Canary Wharf that went ever since 277 was withdrawn from Highbury Corner. 135 could also be rerouted to serve what the route 277 serves from St Edmund’s School to Crossharbour and the 277 to serve what was previously served by 135 (via Spindrift Avenue, Cubitt Town and Marsh Wall) to simplify the route.
Route 21 could also be withdrawn between Newington Green and Old Street, Liverpool Street or Moorgate as passengers could still use route 141 between Newington Green and London Bridge in place of route 21. This would help to reduce buses on the corridor Holloway Road, New North Road and Southgate Road.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 18, 2021 9:08:08 GMT
Rather than 21 being extended, 135 should be extended from Old Street to Holloway, Nags Head. Instead of going via Bishopsgate and Great Eastern Street, it could go via London Wall and Moorgate covering 271. It would create a great link from East London to Islington, Highbury and Holloway and connect a direct link between Islington and Canary Wharf that went ever since 277 was withdrawn from Highbury Corner. 135 could also be rerouted to serve what the route 277 serves from St Edmund’s School to Crossharbour and the 277 to serve what was previously served by 135 (via Spindrift Avenue, Cubitt Town and Marsh Wall) to simplify the route. Route 21 could also be withdrawn between Newington Green and Old Street, Liverpool Street or Moorgate as passengers could still use route 141 between Newington Green and London Bridge in place of route 21. This would help to reduce buses on the corridor Holloway Road, New North Road and Southgate Road. The 135 would be even worse to extend than the 21! The route faces congestion in East London and I'm sure residents would prefer the 271 to be kept as a whole rather than have a long unreliable link to East London.
If you wanted to open up more oppurtunities to East London, chances are you should probably improve the network heading into Inner East London, e.g a 263 diversion to Dalston, improvements to the 236/393s peak frequencies etc.
Having said that it would be nice to have the 277 back in North London.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 18, 2021 9:53:49 GMT
The 'Cake and Eat It' Society needs to understand that buses need infrastructure to run and if they're going to continually object to stands and turning manoeuvres, they shouldn't be surprised at losing the service. I expect the 271 stand has been there a lot longer than all of the 'villagers'. I don't know for sure but I can't say iv ever heard of any accidents involving the Highgate Village stand.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Dec 18, 2021 11:15:02 GMT
The 'Cake and Eat It' Society needs to understand that buses need infrastructure to run and if they're going to continually object to stands and turning manoeuvres, they shouldn't be surprised at losing the service. I expect the 271 stand has been there a lot longer than all of the 'villagers'. Hardly “cake and eat it”. It’s clear from their statement they welcome the stand going. The only mitigation they are requesting is a single common bus stop for northbound buses towards Highgate Hill. I think these proposed changes seem quite feasible given that it meets local demands, creates new links, whilst simultaneously removing capacity. TfL should be applauded….achieving such a balance is not easy. They may be forced to make some even more unpopular changes in the next couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Dec 18, 2021 15:20:16 GMT
The 'Cake and Eat It' Society needs to understand that buses need infrastructure to run and if they're going to continually object to stands and turning manoeuvres, they shouldn't be surprised at losing the service. I expect the 271 stand has been there a lot longer than all of the 'villagers'. Hardly “cake and eat it”. It’s clear from their statement they welcome the stand going. The only mitigation they are requesting is a single common bus stop for northbound buses towards Highgate Hill. I think these proposed changes seem quite feasible given that it meets local demands, creates new links, whilst simultaneously removing capacity. TfL should be applauded….achieving such a balance is not easy. They may be forced to make some even more unpopular changes in the next couple of years. I believe the stand also needs to go because it is awkward operationally, and cannot be adapted to present-day accessibility standards for boarding and alighting passengers. It seems the Highgate Society has no issue with the removal of the 271 so long as the 210 and 263 have a common stop at Archway Station.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Dec 18, 2021 17:51:05 GMT
Hardly “cake and eat it”. It’s clear from their statement they welcome the stand going. The only mitigation they are requesting is a single common bus stop for northbound buses towards Highgate Hill. I think these proposed changes seem quite feasible given that it meets local demands, creates new links, whilst simultaneously removing capacity. TfL should be applauded….achieving such a balance is not easy. They may be forced to make some even more unpopular changes in the next couple of years. I believe the stand also needs to go because it is awkward operationally, and cannot be adapted to present-day accessibility standards for boarding and alighting passengers. It seems the Highgate Society has no issue with the removal of the 271 so long as the 210 and 263 have a common stop at Archway Station. I don't think that will be possible given how the new road layout at Archway works, which iirc the local organisations were keen on in the first place. It would make more sense to campaign for the 210 towards Finsbury Park to call at stop G with the 41, although I suppose the existing arrangement is so that people walking down from Whittington Hospital can catch the 210 closer at stop C. I think a little perspective is needed in that no one is actually going to be cut off from a bus service under these proposals, unlike what happened with the 384 where people are continuing to suffer. It agree that the Highgate campaigners seem to be suffering somewhat from a 'have the cake and eat it' mentality. They are getting the stand removed that they don't like, have the 'nicer' Archway layout that happens to be worse for bus interchange, a new 263, even a nice new (rather excessive) night bus to North Finchley and a new dedicated school bus. The same links that were provided by the 271 will still be able to be made with a same-stop change on Holloway Road or the Northern Line from Archway. They would never get all these things if they were in Zone 5 or 6 - TfL would say the north of Archway Road or North Hill don't need a bus along there at all as they are already maximum 700m away from one! Or at least they would just withdraw the 271 and leave the 143 and 263 as they are and say a direct link from Highgate Village to Holloway Road isn't needed.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 18, 2021 19:32:39 GMT
I believe the stand also needs to go because it is awkward operationally, and cannot be adapted to present-day accessibility standards for boarding and alighting passengers. It seems the Highgate Society has no issue with the removal of the 271 so long as the 210 and 263 have a common stop at Archway Station. I don't think that will be possible given how the new road layout at Archway works, which iirc the local organisations were keen on in the first place. It would make more sense to campaign for the 210 towards Finsbury Park to call at stop G with the 41, although I suppose the existing arrangement is so that people walking down from Whittington Hospital can catch the 210 closer at stop C. I think a little perspective is needed in that no one is actually going to be cut off from a bus service under these proposals, unlike what happened with the 384 where people are continuing to suffer. It agree that the Highgate campaigners seem to be suffering somewhat from a 'have the cake and eat it' mentality. They are getting the stand removed that they don't like, have the 'nicer' Archway layout that happens to be worse for bus interchange, a new 263, even a nice new (rather excessive) night bus to North Finchley and a new dedicated school bus. The same links that were provided by the 271 will still be able to be made with a same-stop change on Holloway Road or the Northern Line from Archway. They would never get all these things if they were in Zone 5 or 6 - TfL would say the north of Archway Road or North Hill don't need a bus along there at all as they are already maximum 700m away from one! Or at least they would just withdraw the 271 and leave the 143 and 263 as they are and say a direct link from Highgate Village to Holloway Road isn't needed. Atleast with these changes there will still a same stop interchange to complete the old 271 routing with the 263 and 21/43 overlapping. I believe the failure of the 428 cutback was that there wasn't a same stop interchange to the 96 and the 413 and S3 were not going to have an easy interchange in Sutton.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 18, 2021 20:11:27 GMT
I don't think that will be possible given how the new road layout at Archway works, which iirc the local organisations were keen on in the first place. It would make more sense to campaign for the 210 towards Finsbury Park to call at stop G with the 41, although I suppose the existing arrangement is so that people walking down from Whittington Hospital can catch the 210 closer at stop C. I think a little perspective is needed in that no one is actually going to be cut off from a bus service under these proposals, unlike what happened with the 384 where people are continuing to suffer. It agree that the Highgate campaigners seem to be suffering somewhat from a 'have the cake and eat it' mentality. They are getting the stand removed that they don't like, have the 'nicer' Archway layout that happens to be worse for bus interchange, a new 263, even a nice new (rather excessive) night bus to North Finchley and a new dedicated school bus. The same links that were provided by the 271 will still be able to be made with a same-stop change on Holloway Road or the Northern Line from Archway. They would never get all these things if they were in Zone 5 or 6 - TfL would say the north of Archway Road or North Hill don't need a bus along there at all as they are already maximum 700m away from one! Or at least they would just withdraw the 271 and leave the 143 and 263 as they are and say a direct link from Highgate Village to Holloway Road isn't needed. Atleast with these changes there will still a same stop interchange to complete the old 271 routing with the 263 and 21/43 overlapping. I believe the failure of the 428 cutback was that there wasn't a same stop interchange to the 96 and the 413 and S3 were not going to have an easy interchange in Sutton. The 428 serves the same stops as the 96 from Crayford to Dartford
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 18, 2021 20:43:36 GMT
But I don't think the 96 and 428 would have done if the 428 had been cut to Crayford last year.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 19, 2021 7:29:53 GMT
Hardly “cake and eat it”. It’s clear from their statement they welcome the stand going. The only mitigation they are requesting is a single common bus stop for northbound buses towards Highgate Hill. I think these proposed changes seem quite feasible given that it meets local demands, creates new links, whilst simultaneously removing capacity. TfL should be applauded….achieving such a balance is not easy. They may be forced to make some even more unpopular changes in the next couple of years. I believe the stand also needs to go because it is awkward operationally, and cannot be adapted to present-day accessibility standards for boarding and alighting passengers. It seems the Highgate Society has no issue with the removal of the 271 so long as the 210 and 263 have a common stop at Archway Station. Yes I think it's been intended for a while to get rid of that stand which really isn't fit for purpose now.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 19, 2021 9:22:30 GMT
But I don't think the 96 and 428 would have done if the 428 had been cut to Crayford last year. It would be horribly difficult, if not impossible, for the 428 to serve the 96 stop in Crayford Road if terminating at Crayford Bridge - so in this instance southlondonbus is right - no common stop with ongoing 96s. Obviously if the cutback was to Dartford, goes without saying there would have been loads of common stops!
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on Dec 19, 2021 17:24:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 19, 2021 17:27:18 GMT
I was I think an N20 going right through Archway in October 2019 and I saw an N271 blinded as an N271 so could very well just be drivers using the blind.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Dec 19, 2021 20:03:18 GMT
There was a fairly advanced plan for the night 271 to be re-extended to Liverpool Street and renumbered N271. The current proposal for a service to North Finchley is a newer affair.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 13, 2022 9:32:35 GMT
Both this and the 1/168/188 consultations have been updated to say that a decision will be taken by early March. Sooner than I thought, so would think it unlikely that they wouldn't be implemented until autumn 2023 when the contracts expire.
My expectation? The changes will happen, maybe with minor tweaks, by the autumn. The 168 contract (which runs until September 2023 let's not forget) will transfer to the 186 allowing that to be retendered with the other Harrow routes being tendered at that time, the 1/21 contracts will continue in their restructured form until new contract in autumn 2023, and the 271 contract will move to either the 263 (renumbered 271? Please Highgate?) or the 307, probably the former with the N271 attached to it.
Interesting times ahead.
|
|