|
Post by vjaska on Nov 23, 2021 19:27:55 GMT
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. Never said about the 143 - I said the 263’s switch of the routing shouldn’t make it less reliable as a chunk of its corridor isn’t as prone to traffic as others
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Nov 23, 2021 19:42:33 GMT
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. Maybe if TfL could thrash out a deal with the government, a drastic measure will not have to take place. However, as they got no money in the latest deal, and the current deal is set to expire. The situation is worse than you could imagine. And looking at the wider objectives of TfL. Active travel is prioritised over PT, so boroughs with high car ownership will be prioritised for PT, as Active travel is harder to implement in them. And at the end of the day, it is not ideal but TfL do not get the government subsidy anymore. Whilst I agree funding for the north of England transport system is very welcome, the Government have created a beast that has gone out of control, and with the neglect in funding it is inevitable that these changes are coming, and the uncertainty around what Gove is doing with the IL. The revenue streams are unstable. If anything direct the blame at the governments incompetence, rather than TfL specifically. And ngl there are bigger issues than the 271 going, Stratford station is at capacity, and is going to be over run if something is not done, and that is going to potentially cost an unprecedented amount of money. With the stricter car measure that are going to happen inner London by 2025, and hybrid work becoming the norm so only 2/3 days in the office instead of 5. This will allow for longer Cross-London, as congestion will be lower, so do not be surprised when there are more 'simplifications', and with the modelling they are going off what would save them the most money. And if anyone talks about local links being broken. That is where active travel comes in, cycling and walking, and encouraging more multi modal transport.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 23, 2021 19:50:33 GMT
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. Maybe if TfL could thrash out a deal with the government, a drastic measure will not have to take place. However, as they got no money in the latest deal, and the current deal is set to expire. The situation is worse than you could imagine. And looking at the wider objectives of TfL. Active travel is prioritised over PT, so boroughs with high car ownership will be prioritised for PT, as Active travel is harder to implement in them. And at the end of the day, it is not ideal but TfL do not get the government subsidy anymore. Whilst I agree funding for the north of England transport system is very welcome, the Government have created a beast that has gone out of control, and with the neglect in funding it is inevitable that these changes are coming, and the uncertainty around what Gove is doing with the IL. The revenue streams are unstable. If anything direct the blame at the governments incompetence, rather than TfL specifically. And ngl there are bigger issues than the 271 going, Stratford station is at capacity, and is going to be over run if something is not done, and that is going to potentially cost an unprecedented amount of money. With the stricter car measure that are going to happen inner London by 2025, and hybrid work becoming the norm so only 2/3 days in the office instead of 5. This will allow for longer Cross-London, as congestion will be lower, so do not be surprised when there are more 'simplifications', and with the modelling they are going off what would save them the most money. And if anyone talks about local links being broken. That is where active travel comes in, cycling and walking, and encouraging more multi modal transport. TfL has had £4b in bailouts. That is roughly £500 per head of population. If you are a family of 4 ... would you have liked £2k to be spent better?
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 23, 2021 19:54:40 GMT
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. If anything direct the blame at the governments incompetence, rather than TfL specifically. And ngl there are bigger issues than the 271 going, Stratford station is at capacity, and is going to be over run if something is not done, and that is going to potentially cost an unprecedented amount of money. With the stricter car measure that are going to happen inner London by 2025, and hybrid work becoming the norm so only 2/3 days in the office instead of 5. This will allow for longer Cross-London, as congestion will be lower, so do not be surprised when there are more 'simplifications', and with the modelling they are going off what would save them the most money. And if anyone talks about local links being broken. That is where active travel comes in, cycling and walking, and encouraging more multi modal transport. There are bigger issues than the 271 going however the 271 is a route that throughout the pandemic, even during 2020 when we were out of lockdown, would be at capacity regularly. I had to use the 43 at one point in Late September 2020 and I saw almost all 43s/263s/271s with "Bus Full" signs heading down the Holloway Road, the amount of leisure, the number of universities and the number of key interchanges along the corridor means that it is well used and does not deserve to be withdrawn. I understand the 263 will in part be replacing it, and I've mentioned all the disadvantages that come along with it and what this could mean for Joe Public.
I won't comment on the office debate as it has been done to death but I do imagine flexible working will be implemented in us leaving lockdown
All I'll say is your last statement would wipe out a good chunk of the network. "Multi-modal transport" does correlate to "local links", it implies there is more of a journey that needs to be undertaken than just popping down to your local shops, school, hospital or town centre. Cycling and walking especially in the area of London where these changes are fixated I don't think are particularly idyllic for cycling, steep hills, narrow roads, blind spot bends, poo roads, and awful pavements
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 23, 2021 19:55:35 GMT
Maybe if TfL could thrash out a deal with the government, a drastic measure will not have to take place. However, as they got no money in the latest deal, and the current deal is set to expire. The situation is worse than you could imagine. And looking at the wider objectives of TfL. Active travel is prioritised over PT, so boroughs with high car ownership will be prioritised for PT, as Active travel is harder to implement in them. And at the end of the day, it is not ideal but TfL do not get the government subsidy anymore. Whilst I agree funding for the north of England transport system is very welcome, the Government have created a beast that has gone out of control, and with the neglect in funding it is inevitable that these changes are coming, and the uncertainty around what Gove is doing with the IL. The revenue streams are unstable. If anything direct the blame at the governments incompetence, rather than TfL specifically. And ngl there are bigger issues than the 271 going, Stratford station is at capacity, and is going to be over run if something is not done, and that is going to potentially cost an unprecedented amount of money. With the stricter car measure that are going to happen inner London by 2025, and hybrid work becoming the norm so only 2/3 days in the office instead of 5. This will allow for longer Cross-London, as congestion will be lower, so do not be surprised when there are more 'simplifications', and with the modelling they are going off what would save them the most money. And if anyone talks about local links being broken. That is where active travel comes in, cycling and walking, and encouraging more multi modal transport. TfL has had £4b in bailouts. That is roughly £500 per head of population. If you are a family of 4 ... would you have liked £2k to be spent better? TFL should've culled some routes during the pandemic IMO. That might've at least softened the blow compared to what we are facing now.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 23, 2021 20:03:01 GMT
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. Maybe if TfL could thrash out a deal with the government, a drastic measure will not have to take place. However, as they got no money in the latest deal, and the current deal is set to expire. The situation is worse than you could imagine. And looking at the wider objectives of TfL. Active travel is prioritised over PT, so boroughs with high car ownership will be prioritised for PT, as Active travel is harder to implement in them. And at the end of the day, it is not ideal but TfL do not get the government subsidy anymore. Whilst I agree funding for the north of England transport system is very welcome, the Government have created a beast that has gone out of control, and with the neglect in funding it is inevitable that these changes are coming, and the uncertainty around what Gove is doing with the IL. The revenue streams are unstable. If anything direct the blame at the governments incompetence, rather than TfL specifically. And ngl there are bigger issues than the 271 going, Stratford station is at capacity, and is going to be over run if something is not done, and that is going to potentially cost an unprecedented amount of money. With the stricter car measure that are going to happen inner London by 2025, and hybrid work becoming the norm so only 2/3 days in the office instead of 5. This will allow for longer Cross-London, as congestion will be lower, so do not be surprised when there are more 'simplifications', and with the modelling they are going off what would save them the most money. And if anyone talks about local links being broken. That is where active travel comes in, cycling and walking, and encouraging more multi modal transport. Where is this money coming from? You can't expect the government (ie the taxpayers) to keep throwing money at TFL to run near empty buses around. This isn't drastic action, it's what TFL should have done a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 23, 2021 20:04:56 GMT
Maybe I am thinking about things wrong but surely the 21 will need a fairly large PVR to cover the extension especially considering the delays the route is likely to experience. With the cost of this wouldn't it have been just as cost effective to reduce the frequency on the 271 as suggested by LondonNorthern ?
Sorry if I am missing something really obvious.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 23, 2021 20:07:37 GMT
TfL has had £4b in bailouts. That is roughly £500 per head of population. If you are a family of 4 ... would you have liked £2k to be spent better? TFL should've culled some routes during the pandemic IMO. That might've at least softened the blow compared to what we are facing now. But wasn't the government paying emergency funding to keep services going at the height of the pandemic. If we see routes like the X68 running during the period between Christmas and New Year we will know TfL are not taking the cuts seriously.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 23, 2021 20:16:49 GMT
Maybe I am thinking about things wrong but surely the 21 will need a fairly large PVR to cover the extension especially considering the delays the route is likely to experience. With the cost of this wouldn't it have been just as cost effective to reduce the frequency on the 271 as suggested by LondonNorthern ?
Sorry if I am missing something really obvious.
That does seem sensible and probably should've been done with the C2 where the frequency be dropped and the 214 increased (which it needed anyway) and then it be kept on its current routing with the 88 also potentially dropped in frequency (which it ironically has only been done now).
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 23, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
Maybe I am thinking about things wrong but surely the 21 will need a fairly large PVR to cover the extension especially considering the delays the route is likely to experience. With the cost of this wouldn't it have been just as cost effective to reduce the frequency on the 271 as suggested by LondonNorthern ?
Sorry if I am missing something really obvious.
There will be a frequency increase on the 21? Must have missed that in the consultation
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 23, 2021 20:21:03 GMT
Maybe I am thinking about things wrong but surely the 21 will need a fairly large PVR to cover the extension especially considering the delays the route is likely to experience. With the cost of this wouldn't it have been just as cost effective to reduce the frequency on the 271 as suggested by LondonNorthern ?
Sorry if I am missing something really obvious.
There will be a frequency increase on the 21? Must have missed that in the consultation No idea but how on earth can you run the extended 21 with the same amount of bus from Lewisham all the way up to Holloway? unless they plan to massively reduce the frequency of the 21?
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 23, 2021 20:22:52 GMT
There will be a frequency increase on the 21? Must have missed that in the consultation No idea but how on earth can you run the extended 21 with the same amount of bus from Lewisham all the way up to Holloway? unless they plan to massively reduce the frequency of the 21? There maybe a PVR rise by 2 or 3 because the route is longer, but don't see there being a frequency increase. This is on top of the buses not needed on the curtailed section
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 23, 2021 20:45:56 GMT
Maybe if TfL could thrash out a deal with the government, a drastic measure will not have to take place. However, as they got no money in the latest deal, and the current deal is set to expire. The situation is worse than you could imagine. And looking at the wider objectives of TfL. Active travel is prioritised over PT, so boroughs with high car ownership will be prioritised for PT, as Active travel is harder to implement in them. And at the end of the day, it is not ideal but TfL do not get the government subsidy anymore. Whilst I agree funding for the north of England transport system is very welcome, the Government have created a beast that has gone out of control, and with the neglect in funding it is inevitable that these changes are coming, and the uncertainty around what Gove is doing with the IL. The revenue streams are unstable. If anything direct the blame at the governments incompetence, rather than TfL specifically. And ngl there are bigger issues than the 271 going, Stratford station is at capacity, and is going to be over run if something is not done, and that is going to potentially cost an unprecedented amount of money. With the stricter car measure that are going to happen inner London by 2025, and hybrid work becoming the norm so only 2/3 days in the office instead of 5. This will allow for longer Cross-London, as congestion will be lower, so do not be surprised when there are more 'simplifications', and with the modelling they are going off what would save them the most money. And if anyone talks about local links being broken. That is where active travel comes in, cycling and walking, and encouraging more multi modal transport. Where is this money coming from? You can't expect the government (ie the taxpayers) to keep throwing money at TFL to run near empty buses around. This isn't drastic action, it's what TFL should have done a long time ago. Why? Because it fits your agenda? The problem with yourself is you can never give any actual reasons as to why your view is the right way to go but just meaningless statements that TfL should of done this. Remember what happened last time we slashed transport and related infrastructure - it took decades to get public transport back to a good place but yet your very happy to go back to that place and most likely because you won’t be affected by it.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 23, 2021 21:12:42 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 That would be pointless in putting the 263 to Stoke Newington. Not much stand space, also it would practically be a 393A between Nags Head and Stoke Newington. I think TfL have made the right decision on these proposed changes and can see them being implemented quickly. I really do not understand the need for so many fantasy route planning on almost every thread now, even though there is a dedicated thread. This is not directed at you, but see it on almost every thread now, starting to become a little bit annoying.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 23, 2021 21:47:44 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? Interesting point on the number: I suppose there are examples in the N5 and N20 of night routes running in a different area to the day 5 and 20 but I'd agree that it would make more sense to choose something different, particular as some of the proposed route isn't even covered by the current day 271. I wondered whether N571 would work, given the principle of the N550/N551. My original thought was N521 but that would run into problems in the City with the day 521.
|
|