Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2016 8:39:23 GMT
Now all of this free space is to be crated by the removal of the roundabout, why not have a small bus stand outside Highbury & Islington station now that the road space is being removed? The 277 could stand and turn their. With 277 busses being the only traffic on that patch. Or do only cyclists matter? Sadly, by sticking one their, the problem you face is 277's having issues turning right as it's inevitable that Holloway Road will be clogged full of traffic even worse than now once the madness has been completed. I had idea suggested on the previous page that I've copied and placed below: They could run straight into Holloway Road, left turn into a new stAnd opposite the station where the old one way system was northbound. Then left turn into Upper street back to line of route. That way you don't have to cut across traffic, and the bus stand could have a pick up and terminal stop. Design it so it's built into the new "nice and green" environment, and only for the 277 so you don't have a mega bus station outside. You'd only need one lane, so you still have masses of free space for pedestrians.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 1, 2016 11:11:01 GMT
They could run straight into Holloway Road, left turn into a new stAnd opposite the station where the old one way system was northbound. Then left turn into Upper street back to line of route. That way you don't have to cut across traffic, and the bus stand could have a pick up and terminal stop. Design it so it's built into the new "nice and green" environment, and only for the 277 so you don't have a mega bus station outside. You'd only need one lane, so you still have masses of free space for pedestrians. I'm sure you're right that that's feasible but TfL want to reduce capacity beside the Overground route so it's going to happen regardless. I'm astonished they haven't turned their sights on the myriad of routes that parallel it through Hackney and Homerton. I suspect it's only the need to provide links to Homerton Hospital from the local area that has stopped them taking out capacity in Homerton.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 1, 2016 12:29:13 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*. There is still hope, there is a lot of standing area at the station; it is very under utilised.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 1, 2016 12:49:50 GMT
Now all of this free space is to be crated by the removal of the roundabout, why not have a small bus stand outside Highbury & Islington station now that the road space is being removed? The 277 could stand and turn their. With 277 busses being the only traffic on that patch. Or do only cyclists matter? Well, they seem to be the ones with the biggest voice at the moment. They protest about everything, have regular go slows, die in's etc. They have a huge anti-car agenda. So its no surprise TfL listens. Motoring groups are pathetic, they do nothing when many of these measures come in, bus users just lie down and take it and passenger user groups do not much.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 10, 2016 8:51:00 GMT
TfL have released an update consultation report on the changes. However they have not yet reached a conclusion on what to do given they've had nearly 3,000 responses! There seems to be a lot of opposition to various aspects of the scheme such as traffic impacts, loss of bus 277, poor interchange facilities, impacts on pedestrians etc. In short it seems a right old mess. Given how many months it took to even get to the point of an outline design suitable for consultation it seems this one is not going well at all. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/highbury-corner-roundabout/user_uploads/highbury-corner-consultation-report.pdf
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 10, 2017 17:45:24 GMT
The latest Commissioner's Report that went to the TfL Board yesterday has a short commentary about the Highbury Corner changes. They say an update is imminent on the consultation page and also that several aspects of the plans have been reconsidered including the curtailment of the 277 to Dalston. The consultation response has been updated as of today but one to watch. Let's hope the 277 will remain in place to Highbury. Shame they can't do the decent thing and extend it up the Holloway Road even if it meant a loss of the 263 on this section (south of Nags Head). Would provide a nice round the corner link and would partly assist the overloaded 393.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 21, 2017 11:44:44 GMT
TfL have updated the consultation page to say their response will now emerge in Jan 2018. Looks like they are struggling with this one.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Dec 21, 2017 12:41:21 GMT
TfL have updated the consultation page to say their response will now emerge in Jan 2018. Looks like they are struggling with this one. Hmm. In the meantime, their desired road layout has been "temporarily" implemented anyway, to facilitate the current phase of the bridge works. This involves diverting the 277 via Canonbury Road and Essex Road on departure from Highbury Corner, meaning that the route doesn't pick up at its usual stop on St Paul's Road, and loses its common stop with the 30. If I was in a really cynical mood I'd be tempted to think that any drop in 277 patronage as a result of these "temporary" changes will be used to justify cutting it back to Dalston as planned.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 21, 2017 14:38:10 GMT
TfL have updated the consultation page to say their response will now emerge in Jan 2018. Looks like they are struggling with this one. Hmm. In the meantime, their desired road layout has been "temporarily" implemented anyway, to facilitate the current phase of the bridge works. This involves diverting the 277 via Canonbury Road and Essex Road on departure from Highbury Corner, meaning that the route doesn't pick up at its usual stop on St Paul's Road, and loses its common stop with the 30. If I was in a really cynical mood I'd be tempted to think that any drop in 277 patronage as a result of these "temporary" changes will be used to justify cutting it back to Dalston as planned. I do wonder what they'll do with the route, while I was waiting to snap the VH on the 30 the other day the stop was completely full of people and almost every single one of them poured onto the 277 when it rolled up, leading to the bus leaving with standing room only. Extending g it to Angel would be a way to remove it standing in the area while still retaining the links but that's a joke considering the financial state TfL are in.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 21, 2017 14:53:47 GMT
Hmm. In the meantime, their desired road layout has been "temporarily" implemented anyway, to facilitate the current phase of the bridge works. This involves diverting the 277 via Canonbury Road and Essex Road on departure from Highbury Corner, meaning that the route doesn't pick up at its usual stop on St Paul's Road, and loses its common stop with the 30. If I was in a really cynical mood I'd be tempted to think that any drop in 277 patronage as a result of these "temporary" changes will be used to justify cutting it back to Dalston as planned. I do wonder what they'll do with the route, while I was waiting to snap the VH on the 30 the other day the stop was completely full of people and almost every single one of them poured onto the 277 when it rolled up, leading to the bus leaving with standing room only. Extending g it to Angel would be a way to remove it standing in the area while still retaining the links but that's a joke considering the financial state TfL are in. An extension to Angel is the simple solution, only a small extension so it's hardly going to break the bank and could be funded by an economy measure somewhere else. Rerouting it via Essex Road and losing the common stop with the 30 is a dogs dinner.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 21, 2017 15:15:41 GMT
Hmm. In the meantime, their desired road layout has been "temporarily" implemented anyway, to facilitate the current phase of the bridge works. This involves diverting the 277 via Canonbury Road and Essex Road on departure from Highbury Corner, meaning that the route doesn't pick up at its usual stop on St Paul's Road, and loses its common stop with the 30. If I was in a really cynical mood I'd be tempted to think that any drop in 277 patronage as a result of these "temporary" changes will be used to justify cutting it back to Dalston as planned. I do wonder what they'll do with the route, while I was waiting to snap the VH on the 30 the other day the stop was completely full of people and almost every single one of them poured onto the 277 when it rolled up, leading to the bus leaving with standing room only. Extending g it to Angel would be a way to remove it standing in the area while still retaining the links but that's a joke considering the financial state TfL are in. There is a very simple way to fix the "problem" with the 277. You pull the 263 back to the Nags Head and extend the 277 in its stead. There may be an issue about stand space at the Nags Head but there is a lot of space there. If you need to contain costs a bit more then perhaps marginally trim the 277's frequency as it's more frequent than the 263 it would replace. TfL have been more than happy to sacrifice the new bit of the 263 during recent works at Archway, Upper Holloway and Highbury so there is probably less resistance. I understood the purpose of the 263 extension was to relieve overcrowding on the south end of the Holloway Road which an extended 277 would still achieve. It might also help out the overloaded 393 as well. The problem wth an extension to the Angel is stand space and it's likely to cost more purely because the traffic is more slow moving. The only real issue that would be difficult with an extended 277 is the traffic carnage when there are matches at Arsenal and I assume the loss of a turning point at Highbury Corner itself.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 21, 2017 15:15:49 GMT
I do wonder what they'll do with the route, while I was waiting to snap the VH on the 30 the other day the stop was completely full of people and almost every single one of them poured onto the 277 when it rolled up, leading to the bus leaving with standing room only. Extending g it to Angel would be a way to remove it standing in the area while still retaining the links but that's a joke considering the financial state TfL are in. An extension to Angel is the simple solution, only a small extension so it's hardly going to break the bank and could be funded by an economy measure somewhere else. Rerouting it via Essex Road and losing the common stop with the 30 is a dogs dinner. That's the advantage of running in the Docklands Area - whilst Limehouse can play up, you can claw time back on the Isle of Dogs so should be workable down to Angel although in all honesty & if planned properly, a route shouldn't have to be extended just because of a junction change.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Dec 21, 2017 15:34:17 GMT
I do wonder what they'll do with the route, while I was waiting to snap the VH on the 30 the other day the stop was completely full of people and almost every single one of them poured onto the 277 when it rolled up, leading to the bus leaving with standing room only. Extending g it to Angel would be a way to remove it standing in the area while still retaining the links but that's a joke considering the financial state TfL are in. There is a very simple way to fix the "problem" with the 277. You pull the 263 back to the Nags Head and extend the 277 in its stead. There may be an issue about stand space at the Nags Head but there is a lot of space there. If you need to contain costs a bit more then perhaps marginally trim the 277's frequency as it's more frequent than the 263 it would replace. TfL have been more than happy to sacrifice the new bit of the 263 during recent works at Archway, Upper Holloway and Highbury so there is probably less resistance. I understood the purpose of the 263 extension was to relieve overcrowding on the south end of the Holloway Road which an extended 277 would still achieve. It might also help out the overloaded 393 as well. The problem wth an extension to the Angel is stand space and it's likely to cost more purely because the traffic is more slow moving. The only real issue that would be difficult with an extended 277 is the traffic carnage when there are matches at Arsenal and I assume the loss of a turning point at Highbury Corner itself. Agreed, an extension to Holloway would open up more links than an extension to Angel (which would largely duplicate other routes) as well as being cheaper. The 263 largely carries fresh air between Highbury Corner and Highbury Barn, and cutting it back would make the Highbury Barn stand more useful for curtailed 19s and 236s. I've long thought that there should be an N277 continuing to Camden via Holloway, as a night replacement for the NLL. Fat chance of that happening these days of course. The loss of Highbury Corner as a curtailment point is an issue for several routes (especially 19), and would be an issue for the 277 regardless of whether it is extended to Holloway or Angel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 12:02:29 GMT
It would be a horrible irony to start introducing the Night overground (which TFL have) and then removing the 277 which is currently assisting passengers to get from Dalston to Highbury until the overground gets extended to Highbury in the future. The 277 is useful in assisting the 30 between Hackney and Highbury and the 24hr element of the route helps passengers get around Hackney so I hope TFL don't cut the route.
|
|
|
Post by zeldieralt on Jan 15, 2018 0:13:36 GMT
The route 277 is in need to go to angel as rush hour between Highbury courner to angel is a choas. As the route 277 has the most frequent buses in Highbury courner I tend to see so many passengers getting off the last stop on the route 277 and then boarding on the routes to angel which makes rush hour more extreme to handle between Highbury to angel, if the route 277 extends to angel I am certain it will help ease rush hour a lot more than now and if you are wondering where can the 277 terminate. It can use the route 274 bus stand in angel as there is a lot of space there and the route 274 can reroute to rosebury Avenue as there is a unused bus stand there. The Highbury consultation about making the roundabout a one way system is a good idea as there is heavy traffic in Highbury in rush hours as no one gives way to the vehicles from the A1 from angel. also the route 263 is needed between Holloway to Highbury barn as there is 3 schools there and it helps the 393s overcrowding.
|
|