|
Post by snoggle on Feb 5, 2016 16:25:23 GMT
Yet more "we don't like roundabouts" nonsense from TfL for Highbury Corner. The 277 also to get the chop between Dalston and Highbury and Islington. More 30s to run instead. A N277 to be created that will run Leamouth to Angel. Bizarrely TfL seem to believe the 30 runs to Oxford Circus. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/highbury-corner-roundabout
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Feb 5, 2016 16:29:27 GMT
"More 30s to run" to Oxford Circus apparently...! Attachment DeletedThe TfL typo troll strikes again...!
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Feb 5, 2016 16:39:35 GMT
This idea is good in theory but I don't see it being good in practice. The 277 removes some of the pressure off of the 30 along St Paul's Road, whilst making itself not entirely reliable in the process. So to cut it is good for the 277.
In terms of the "plaster" for the Highbury cut: Route30 is already busy as it is up to Highbury and eastwards, so chucking additional buses on does not cut it in my opinion. London Overground (which is often flagged as an alternative) has its own overcrowding issues, so that's no use.
With the 277 serving Dalston Junction bus stand, removes hope for my D6 extension *sigh*.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 5, 2016 16:56:12 GMT
This idea is good in theory but I don't see it being good in practice. The 277 removes some of the pressure off of the 30 along St Paul's Road, whilst making itself not entirely reliable in the process. So to cut it is good for the 277. In terms of the "plaster" for the Highbury cut: Route30 is already busy as it is up to Highbury and eastwards, so chucking additional buses on does not cut it in my opinion. London Overground (which is often flagged as an alternative) has its own overcrowding issues, so that's no use. With the 277 serving Dalston Junction bus stand, removes hope for my D6 extension *sigh*. No it doesn't. The bus station is huge. It can easily take umpteen more routes - it was designed to cater for six terminating services and through services stopping there. TfL then didn't have the money to create the new and extended routes and got cold feed over the run time impacts of diverting n/b buses through the bus station.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Feb 5, 2016 16:56:07 GMT
At least the Dalston Junction bus stand will be utilised a bit more..
|
|
|
Post by T.R. on Feb 5, 2016 18:03:02 GMT
NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!
The 30 from H&I towards Mildmay Park isn't the most reliable of routes from my experience. Why not curtail 277 at the latter?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 18:34:16 GMT
Well, the proposals aren't really great imo, but can it really be called a bus station? With only one route and a long shelter forming the bus station, this might be a better use for it.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 5, 2016 20:56:13 GMT
I'm not entirely sure about this proposal, well prepare for more curtailed 30s! 'Extending the day time service beyond Highbury Corner would affect reliability and significantly increase operating costs of the service' - Extending the 277 to Angel would be as 'costly' as increasing the 30's PVR and it's not a particularly long route in regards to length and running time so it would be fine, extending it to Holloway is another option. This would still allow the works to be done without any inconveniences caused.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 5, 2016 22:16:16 GMT
I'm not entirely sure about this proposal, well prepare for more curtailed 30s! 'Extending the day time service beyond Highbury Corner would affect reliability and significantly increase operating costs of the service' - Extending the 277 to Angel would be as 'costly' as increasing the 30's PVR and it's not a particularly long route in regards to length and running time so it would be fine, extending it to Holloway is another option. This would still allow the works to be done without any inconveniences caused. You need to re-read the proposals. The 30's enhancement is two extra peak workings in each peak. Two extra with flow journeys. Nothing extra at any other time. Extending the 277 at all times to Angel would be vastly more expensive than that. Let's face it there will be a greater than 50% cut in capacity and service between Dalston and Highbury. This is just another sympton of the popularity of the Overground service which has 16 trains per hour between Highbury and Dalston at peak times (ELL and NLL combined). The 242 got cut back because of the popularity of the ELL so this is simply the next stage in rationalising the bus service because of modal transfer. If you look at the annual usage stats then both the 30 and 277 are pretty much flat lining in terms of patronage. Depending on when you make the comparison from the 30 may even have lost patronage. The 277 is probably busier at its Docklands end of things than elsewhere. When I rode both routes last year the 30 was very modestly loaded from Hackney to Highbury but that was off peak. I suspect it's busier in the peaks but not overly stressed through Dalston. If the 263 hadn't been extended to Highbury Fields then the logical thing would have been an extension up Holloway Road to a convenient turning point (depending on where the stress on the 43 / 271 lessens).
|
|
|
Post by T.R. on Feb 5, 2016 22:18:04 GMT
277 could be extended to stand near Liverpool Road, looping where the 153 leaves Holloway Road.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 5, 2016 23:55:29 GMT
I'm not entirely sure about this proposal, well prepare for more curtailed 30s! 'Extending the day time service beyond Highbury Corner would affect reliability and significantly increase operating costs of the service' - Extending the 277 to Angel would be as 'costly' as increasing the 30's PVR and it's not a particularly long route in regards to length and running time so it would be fine, extending it to Holloway is another option. This would still allow the works to be done without any inconveniences caused. You need to re-read the proposals. The 30's enhancement is two extra peak workings in each peak. Two extra with flow journeys. Nothing extra at any other time. Extending the 277 at all times to Angel would be vastly more expensive than that. Let's face it there will be a greater than 50% cut in capacity and service between Dalston and Highbury. This is just another sympton of the popularity of the Overground service which has 16 trains per hour between Highbury and Dalston at peak times (ELL and NLL combined). The 242 got cut back because of the popularity of the ELL so this is simply the next stage in rationalising the bus service because of modal transfer. If you look at the annual usage stats then both the 30 and 277 are pretty much flat lining in terms of patronage. Depending on when you make the comparison from the 30 may even have lost patronage. The 277 is probably busier at its Docklands end of things than elsewhere. When I rode both routes last year the 30 was very modestly loaded from Hackney to Highbury but that was off peak. I suspect it's busier in the peaks but not overly stressed through Dalston. If the 263 hadn't been extended to Highbury Fields then the logical thing would have been an extension up Holloway Road to a convenient turning point (depending on where the stress on the 43 / 271 lessens). Ah right, I somehow missed that bit of information regarding the four extra peak journeys. In that case it would be significantly more costly to extend the 277, albeit still an option I'm inclined to regardless. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 6, 2016 3:01:17 GMT
Yet more "we don't like roundabouts" nonsense from TfL for Highbury Corner. The 277 also to get the chop between Dalston and Highbury and Islington. More 30s to run instead. A N277 to be created that will run Leamouth to Angel. Bizarrely TfL seem to believe the 30 runs to Oxford Circus. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/highbury-corner-roundaboutWhat an utter load of nonsense - TfL are seemingly enjoying maker traffic flows even worse. What evidence are they seriously considering to start banishing every one way system & roundabout going? They can still work with improved cycle facilities but no, that's beyond TfL to even consider that. Elephant & Castle is a good example of a mess - my mum works for a store near Elephant & Castle and the workers who have to travel through the place absolutely hate the new layout as their journey times have increased. I can almost guarantee the same will happen at Stockwell, Vauxhall, Wandsworth & Highbury - oh guess what, Tulse Hill will be going two way as well according to some sources on the web - excellent NOT As for the 277, it's a shame that an alternative stand couldn't be found around Highbury & Islington - baring any issues with residents or trees, couldn't a stand be erected on Canonbury Road with buses running via Canonbury Square & Grange Grove (removing the width restriction) onto St. Paul's Road. Its not the most ideal way to terminate it but it means that buses still serve Highbury & Islington and residents further down the road travelling to Dalston, Hackney & beyond, have an empty bus during the busiest of times. Meanwhile, the N277 can still run to Angel which means local residents that are apposed to buses down their road wouldn't have buses running down their road during the night.
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Feb 6, 2016 7:51:36 GMT
This is just stupid. Watch when Catford Gyratory becomes 2 way.
And masybe even New Cross
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 6, 2016 8:30:46 GMT
This is just stupid. Watch when Catford Gyratory becomes 2 way. And masybe even New Cross Traffic flow would be easier if they get rid of the Contraflow Bus Lane and allow two way traffic in both directions for buses and cars. Just stupid that all traffic has to be diverted via Plassy Road meeting up with A205 traffic coming from Brownhill Road just to go straight ahead or onto Catford Road. This is what causes the daily Gridlock Can't imagine the Catford One Way System being two way. Though it is possible.
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Feb 6, 2016 11:08:09 GMT
At least 30 will go Oxford Circus with extra buses, that's a positive
|
|