|
Post by greenboy on Jan 13, 2022 21:36:41 GMT
But why? the 10 when withdrawn went to Hammersmith and by that time the 390 was running to Victoria so very different routes apart from Oxford Street to Kings Cross. No real benefit, the 13 was a special case to make a withdrawn route look less painful. Apparently when the 13 was proposed for withdrawal it was considered to re number the 390 to 13, no doubt as a disguise. Yes I remember reading something about that, it sounds like an April fools joke but apparently it was seriously considered.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 13, 2022 21:47:42 GMT
Apparently when the 13 was proposed for withdrawal it was considered to re number the 390 to 13, no doubt as a disguise. Yes I remember reading something about that, it sounds like an April fools joke but apparently it was seriously considered. I guess a coincidence given that the changes took place on April Fools Day would've been quite funny if people thought the 82 being renumbered the 13 & the 139 extension to GG an April Fools Joke.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jan 13, 2022 22:06:17 GMT
But why? the 10 when withdrawn went to Hammersmith and by that time the 390 was running to Victoria so very different routes apart from Oxford Street to Kings Cross. No real benefit, the 13 was a special case to make a withdrawn route look less painful. Apparently when the 13 was proposed for withdrawal it was considered to re number the 390 to 13, no doubt as a disguise. How would that have disguised the withdrawal when the 390 had nothing in common with the 13 apart from terminating at Victoria.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 13, 2022 22:10:35 GMT
Apparently when the 13 was proposed for withdrawal it was considered to re number the 390 to 13, no doubt as a disguise. How would that have disguised the withdrawal when the 390 had nothing in common with the 13 apart from terminating at Victoria. It's called spin.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jan 13, 2022 22:15:28 GMT
How would that have disguised the withdrawal when the 390 had nothing in common with the 13 apart from terminating at Victoria. It's called spin. The 82 was much more logical really don’t get why people still get worked up about it TBH.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 13, 2022 22:28:57 GMT
How would that have disguised the withdrawal when the 390 had nothing in common with the 13 apart from terminating at Victoria. It's called spin. You sure it was the 13 and not the 10?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 14, 2022 8:44:55 GMT
You sure it was the 13 and not the 10? Yes it was the 13. I belive the 13 proposals dated from 2015 whereas the 10/23 was 2017.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Jan 19, 2022 8:44:09 GMT
Update:
Consultation has concluded
Between 22 November 2021 and 9 January 2022, we held a public consultation on proposals to restructure routes 21, 143, 263 and 271 and introduce a new night bus route and school route.
We received 1,511 responses to the consultation. Thank you to those who took the time to reply to our survey or submit comments. We are now considering all feedback received and we aim to make our final decision as to whether or not to proceed with the proposals by early March 2022. We will also respond to issues raised during the consultation period and publish a report with the findings and our final decision.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 19, 2022 10:23:53 GMT
Update: Consultation has concluded Between 22 November 2021 and 9 January 2022, we held a public consultation on proposals to restructure routes 21, 143, 263 and 271 and introduce a new night bus route and school route. We received 1,511 responses to the consultation. Thank you to those who took the time to reply to our survey or submit comments. We are now considering all feedback received and we aim to make our final decision as to whether or not to proceed with the proposals by early March 2022. We will also respond to issues raised during the consultation period and publish a report with the findings and our final decision. Nearly 1,200 responses then for the 1/168 consultation. I can definitely see some opposition to the severing of the link between Highgate Village and the City even though the 263 will continue the link as far as Highbury/Islington stn and the 21 now provide a link further south then Moorgate to Bank and London Bridge from New North Road.
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jan 19, 2022 22:19:46 GMT
Update: Consultation has concluded Between 22 November 2021 and 9 January 2022, we held a public consultation on proposals to restructure routes 21, 143, 263 and 271 and introduce a new night bus route and school route. We received 1,511 responses to the consultation. Thank you to those who took the time to reply to our survey or submit comments. We are now considering all feedback received and we aim to make our final decision as to whether or not to proceed with the proposals by early March 2022. We will also respond to issues raised during the consultation period and publish a report with the findings and our final decision. Nearly 1,200 responses then for the 1/168 consultation. I can definitely see some opposition to the severing of the link between Highgate Village and the City even though the 263 will continue the link as far as Highbury/Islington stn and the 21 now provide a link further south then Moorgate to Bank and London Bridge from New North Road. It’s a bit selfish no? The 214 is literally round the corner and also goes to Moorgate which is where the 271 went; and there is “hopper” Not that I support withdrawing
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 19, 2022 22:23:22 GMT
Nearly 1,200 responses then for the 1/168 consultation. I can definitely see some opposition to the severing of the link between Highgate Village and the City even though the 263 will continue the link as far as Highbury/Islington stn and the 21 now provide a link further south then Moorgate to Bank and London Bridge from New North Road. It’s a bit selfish no? The 214 is literally round the corner and also goes to Moorgate which is where the 271 went; and there is “hopper” Not that I support withdrawing The issues in this consultation for me as a local are the indirect routing of the 263 which has prospered on its direct routing through Archway & Highgate, loss of capacity between Archway & Highbury (hence why the 263 was extended), the number of journeys broken from Highgate High Street to East End Road.
I'd say out of the routes between Archway and Nags Head if you had to remove one I'd say the 17 would the best one to although that's only going off "least used"
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jan 19, 2022 22:27:22 GMT
It’s a bit selfish no? The 214 is literally round the corner and also goes to Moorgate which is where the 271 went; and there is “hopper” Not that I support withdrawing The issues in this consultation for me as a local are the indirect routing of the 263 which has prospered on its direct routing through Archway & Highgate, loss of capacity between Archway & Highbury (hence why the 263 was extended), the number of journeys broken from Highgate High Street to East End Road.
I'd say out of the routes between Archway and Nags Head if you had to remove one I'd say the 17 would the best one to although that's only going off "least used"
Fair enough
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 22, 2022 6:58:25 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. Clever idea enabling route 186 to have its tender rearranged to coincide with other Harrow routes. It would be nice for its VWs to be reprieved for another year. I don't like the current intention to withdraw route 271 but keep the number N271 for a night bus. I'd prefer a number N21, N143 or N263 for example (but admit to not knowing the exact intend routing).
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 22, 2022 7:02:54 GMT
Update: Consultation has concluded Between 22 November 2021 and 9 January 2022, we held a public consultation on proposals to restructure routes 21, 143, 263 and 271 and introduce a new night bus route and school route. We received 1,511 responses to the consultation. Thank you to those who took the time to reply to our survey or submit comments. We are now considering all feedback received and we aim to make our final decision as to whether or not to proceed with the proposals by early March 2022. We will also respond to issues raised during the consultation period and publish a report with the findings and our final decision. It is quite a coincidence that they received 1511 responses, as none were from myself.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Feb 7, 2022 21:52:33 GMT
It’s a bit selfish no? The 214 is literally round the corner and also goes to Moorgate which is where the 271 went; and there is “hopper” Not that I support withdrawing The issues in this consultation for me as a local are the indirect routing of the 263 which has prospered on its direct routing through Archway & Highgate, loss of capacity between Archway & Highbury (hence why the 263 was extended), the number of journeys broken from Highgate High Street to East End Road.
I'd say out of the routes between Archway and Nags Head if you had to remove one I'd say the 17 would the best one to although that's only going off "least used"
The 17 is important for Caledonian Road to Archway journeys (eg for Whittington Hospital where patients in Islington get referred, and for Northern Line stations north of Archway). There isn't really an alternative especially because there would be no same-stop interchange (would involve crossing busy Tufnell Park Road/Tollington Road.
|
|