|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 23, 2021 9:21:04 GMT
Could the (N) 134 be extended a couple of stops to TCR and the N20 divert via Highgate Village and not have an N271. That way the 134 would maintain a west end link from Highgate Station and the N20 would do what they N271 is going to.
With Finsbury Square vacted now of 21 and 271s I wonder if with the 21 providing a LB to Nags Head link the 43 will be cut to Moorgate. There would still be the 21 and 141 from Old Street to LB and the 21 from Highbury and Holloway.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Nov 23, 2021 9:24:20 GMT
The 21 change does seem interesting, but I don’t get making an N271 to North Finchley when you have 134 and N20 from Archway The N271 does seem a bit odd and could cause problems if the 271 number is reused at some future date especially if it includes a night service. Wouldn't the number N263 be more appropriate? No, because the oldest section of the 263 is between Barnet and Archway,so people would assume that an N263 would link these two places.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Nov 23, 2021 9:50:05 GMT
Could the (N) 134 be extended a couple of stops to TCR and the N20 divert via Highgate Village and not have an N271. That way the 134 would maintain a west end link from Highgate Station and the N20 would do what they N271 is going to. With Finsbury Square vacted now of 21 and 271s I wonder if with the 21 providing a LB to Nags Head link the 43 will be cut to Moorgate. There would still be the 21 and 141 from Old Street to LB and the 21 from Highbury and Holloway. Diverting the N20 via Highgate Village would give Highgate Village a link from the West End at night, but mean rather longer end-to-end night journeys between the West End and High Barnet when the N20 is the only option. Also, people wanting to get to Highgate Village from the West End at night have various changing opportunities either at Archway or at Camden Town for the 214. They also seem keen on a new night bus on the A1000 north of East Finchley (odd in a time of cuts), which the N20 doesn't cover as it goes via East End Lane and Finchley Central.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 10:37:02 GMT
The proposals are bad imo because it will make the 263 and 21 less reliable, whilst breaking links on the 271.
To address the overbussing issues I would: The 21 would operate as proposed, though maybe only as far as Highbury and Islington station, then extended to Highbury Barn. I don't know the southern areas too well to comment on this, but I would probably retain it at Lewisham.
263 and 143 to remain as they are between Highgate and Archway.
263 withdrawn between Highbury Barn and Highbury Corner, extended to Stoke Newington via Newington Green and 73. This would provide new cross North London links like Archway to Stoke Newington.
271 frequency decrease but no changes to route
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 23, 2021 10:48:42 GMT
Could the (N) 134 be extended a couple of stops to TCR and the N20 divert via Highgate Village and not have an N271. That way the 134 would maintain a west end link from Highgate Station and the N20 would do what they N271 is going to. With Finsbury Square vacted now of 21 and 271s I wonder if with the 21 providing a LB to Nags Head link the 43 will be cut to Moorgate. There would still be the 21 and 141 from Old Street to LB and the 21 from Highbury and Holloway. Diverting the N20 via Highgate Village would give Highgate Village a link from the West End at night, but mean rather longer end-to-end night journeys between the West End and High Barnet when the N20 is the only option. Also, people wanting to get to Highgate Village from the West End at night have various changing opportunities either at Archway or at Camden Town for the 214. They also seem keen on a new night bus on the A1000 north of East Finchley (odd in a time of cuts), which the N20 doesn't cover as it goes via East End Lane and Finchley Central. I know they are ancient now but my out & about guide from 2001 has the 143 and 263 both taking 12 mins from Archway to East Finchely so not sure if this will add that much to the through journeys.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 23, 2021 11:36:32 GMT
The proposals are bad imo because it will make the 263 and 21 less reliable, whilst breaking links on the 271. To address the overbussing issues I would: The 21 would operate as proposed, though maybe only as far as Highbury and Islington station, then extended to Highbury Barn. I don't know the southern areas too well to comment on this, but I would probably retain it at Lewisham. 263 and 143 to remain as they are between Highgate and Archway. 263 withdrawn between Highbury Barn and Highbury Corner, extended to Stoke Newington via Newington Green and 73. This would provide new cross North London links like Archway to Stoke Newington. 271 frequency decrease but no changes to route But would your proposal save any money? That at the moment is the overriding factor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 11:55:47 GMT
The proposals are bad imo because it will make the 263 and 21 less reliable, whilst breaking links on the 271. To address the overbussing issues I would: The 21 would operate as proposed, though maybe only as far as Highbury and Islington station, then extended to Highbury Barn. I don't know the southern areas too well to comment on this, but I would probably retain it at Lewisham. 263 and 143 to remain as they are between Highgate and Archway. 263 withdrawn between Highbury Barn and Highbury Corner, extended to Stoke Newington via Newington Green and 73. This would provide new cross North London links like Archway to Stoke Newington. 271 frequency decrease but no changes to route But would your proposal save any money? That at the moment is the overriding factor. Not necessarily but withdrawing the 271 breaks direct links Maybe the 43 could be rerouted between Highbury and Old Street via the 271, with the 271 withdrawn. That way the 21 does not need to be extended to Holloway (with the 21 being cut back to Old Street) whilst the 263 and 143 can be kept the same, as most of the links are retained. That way a link from Holloway is retained as far as London Bridge. Ideally the 21 would be extended from Old Street to Highbury Corner via the 43 but I can't see that happening - it would be very difficult to create a stand at the Highbury Corner.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 23, 2021 12:04:30 GMT
But would your proposal save any money? That at the moment is the overriding factor. Not necessarily but withdrawing the 271 breaks direct links Maybe the 43 could be rerouted between Highbury and Old Street via the 271, with the 271 withdrawn. That way the 21 does not need to be extended to Holloway (with the 21 being cut back to Old Street) whilst the 263 and 143 can be kept the same, as most of the links are retained. That way a link from Holloway is retained as far as London Bridge. Ideally the 21 would be extended from Old Street to Highbury Corner via the 43 but I can't see that happening - it would be very difficult to create a stand at the Highbury Corner. But any change will break links, your alternative break links, just different ones. You can not have change, other than extensions, without links being broken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 12:13:09 GMT
Not necessarily but withdrawing the 271 breaks direct links Maybe the 43 could be rerouted between Highbury and Old Street via the 271, with the 271 withdrawn. That way the 21 does not need to be extended to Holloway (with the 21 being cut back to Old Street) whilst the 263 and 143 can be kept the same, as most of the links are retained. That way a link from Holloway is retained as far as London Bridge. Ideally the 21 would be extended from Old Street to Highbury Corner via the 43 but I can't see that happening - it would be very difficult to create a stand at the Highbury Corner. But any change will break links, your alternative break links, just different ones. You can not have change, other than extensions, without links being broken. tfl are flawed though, whatever they do will end up displeasing some people, the links from Newington Green to beyond London Bridge are broken, although I doubt people would travel beyond there. I think this proposals creates more problems than benefits, yes there was corridors with overcapacity but withdrawing the 271 breaks links. It's either they retain links but at a financial cost or withdraw routes to save money
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 23, 2021 13:12:41 GMT
The proposals are bad imo because it will make the 263 and 21 less reliable, whilst breaking links on the 271. To address the overbussing issues I would: The 21 would operate as proposed, though maybe only as far as Highbury and Islington station, then extended to Highbury Barn. I don't know the southern areas too well to comment on this, but I would probably retain it at Lewisham. 263 and 143 to remain as they are between Highgate and Archway. 263 withdrawn between Highbury Barn and Highbury Corner, extended to Stoke Newington via Newington Green and 73. This would provide new cross North London links like Archway to Stoke Newington. 271 frequency decrease but no changes to route The 143 & 263 switch of routing shouldn’t make the 263 less reliable - despite its length, a large chunk of the corridor isn’t as traffic prone as others. Extending it to Stoke Newington is possibly too much however
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 23, 2021 16:34:40 GMT
The proposals are bad imo because it will make the 263 and 21 less reliable, whilst breaking links on the 271. To address the overbussing issues I would: The 21 would operate as proposed, though maybe only as far as Highbury and Islington station, then extended to Highbury Barn. I don't know the southern areas too well to comment on this, but I would probably retain it at Lewisham. 263 and 143 to remain as they are between Highgate and Archway. 263 withdrawn between Highbury Barn and Highbury Corner, extended to Stoke Newington via Newington Green and 73. This would provide new cross North London links like Archway to Stoke Newington. 271 frequency decrease but no changes to route Sorry but I do not understand why a route has to replace the 263 between Highbury & Islington and Highbury Grove. uakari mentioned this to me when I dmed him about my suggestions about the 263 in the summer and he said there was provision to extend the 263 to Highbury Barn rather than stand it with the 277 because there are schools along the section. From my observations pre 263 extension, yes there could've been scope for an extension of another route to help support the 4/19/236 but all that was needed was better controlling of the routes, especially the 19 & 236. I used to see plenty of them curtailed at Highbury Barn and the exact reason for the overcrowding was because not all 19s were going through to Finsbury Park. Now with the Highbury Barn stand effectively in use, there is less chance of being able to use it in terms of last minute curtailments as it is full of 263s and with a slightly more reliable 4 the need for the 263 to run to Highbury Barn has effectively been shot dead.
I don't think TFL should extend the 21 up to H&I if the 271 were to stay simply because it would be overkill and dropping the 271 to a 5bph or a 6bph schedule from an 8bph schedule is a far more effective way of keeping things as is.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 23, 2021 16:37:16 GMT
The proposals are bad imo because it will make the 263 and 21 less reliable, whilst breaking links on the 271. To address the overbussing issues I would: The 21 would operate as proposed, though maybe only as far as Highbury and Islington station, then extended to Highbury Barn. I don't know the southern areas too well to comment on this, but I would probably retain it at Lewisham. 263 and 143 to remain as they are between Highgate and Archway. 263 withdrawn between Highbury Barn and Highbury Corner, extended to Stoke Newington via Newington Green and 73. This would provide new cross North London links like Archway to Stoke Newington. 271 frequency decrease but no changes to route The 143 & 263 switch of routing shouldn’t make the 263 less reliable - despite its length, a large chunk of the corridor isn’t as traffic prone as others. Extending it to Stoke Newington is possibly too much however Sorry but I disagree. The 263 would be slightly more reliable even though there is traffic along Highgate High Street but the 143 would also become less reliable and that is what concerns me. There are numerous stops en route where the 143 stalls for a while leading to more time idling at a bus stop due to large crowds and not enough capacity, the only real stops the 263 has to contend with is the N/B East Finchley Station stop and some of the Holloway Road stops.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 23, 2021 16:39:25 GMT
The 21 change does seem interesting, but I don’t get making an N271 to North Finchley when you have 134 and N20 from Archway The N271 does seem a bit odd and could cause problems if the 271 number is reused at some future date especially if it includes a night service. Wouldn't the number N263 be more appropriate? No because it wouldn't go right to the end of the 263 routes, it would only serve the core section between North Finchley & Archway rather than the route down to H&I and north of North Finchley up to Barnet Hospital.
I'd have said if a review was necessary in this part of town, absolutely the night network should've been looked at in Archway/Highgate. For example I do not understand why 3 night bus services are needed between Highgate & Archway and the 43/134 aren't exactly crammed at night either.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 23, 2021 16:44:16 GMT
But any change will break links, your alternative break links, just different ones. You can not have change, other than extensions, without links being broken. tfl are flawed though, whatever they do will end up displeasing some people, the links from Newington Green to beyond London Bridge are broken, although I doubt people would travel beyond there. I think this proposals creates more problems than benefits, yes there was corridors with overcapacity but withdrawing the 271 breaks links. It's either they retain links but at a financial cost or withdraw routes to save money I don't even think it would've been a bad idea just to have cut the frequency on the 271 and left it at that. Also, instead of reducing the 29 they could've been more tactical and in order to reduce capacity on the Baring Street to Moorgate/London Bridge they could've slightly reduced the 141 (cut the 21 back to Old Street) and then left the 29/341 at it's current frequency and the support of the other Wood Green-AD and London Bridge to Moorgate routes to host any local journeys.
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on Nov 23, 2021 18:35:00 GMT
The 21 change does seem interesting, but I don’t get making an N271 to North Finchley when you have 134 and N20 from Archway The N271 does seem a bit odd and could cause problems if the 271 number is reused at some future date especially if it includes a night service. Wouldn't the number N263 be more appropriate? I raised this in my response. I suggested introducing an N263 from Barnet Hospital to Moorgate and cutting the N20 back to N Finchley.
|
|