|
Post by vjaska on Jul 13, 2016 22:07:21 GMT
There aren't that many good locations in Battersea Park for a bus stand. I suppose you could use Prince of Wales Drive but then you run the risk of not having a direct connection with the other bus routes. Besides most people who get on either the 156 or 344 are heading for Clapham Junction via Battersea Park Road so this would have been more useful. This could have then allowed the underused 156 to be extended from Battersea Park Station to Victoria creating a new link to Wimbledon. The interchange to the 344/436 would still be easy at Battersea Park. The stand is currently the 156's old bus stop on Prince of Wales Drive - no direct link to other routes or the station. As mentioned before, an extension to Clapham Junction would have made this appear much more appealing, via the 156 preferably. I wouldn't say the 156 is underused at all, the loadings outside of the peaks in the area are quite decent and during the peaks it gets really busy along the Vauxhall to CLJ corridor with not much support (being a quicker alternative to Vauxhall to the 77/87 and 344). An extension of the 156 would compromise the reliability it's just about got at the moment. Indeed it does have its busy moments especially the Wimbledon to Clapham Junction where the 156 can get very busy. It's a shame to hear that an extension to it would compromise reliability as there are a few options for extensions, particularly at the Vauxhall end.
|
|
|
Post by fg49 on Jul 14, 2016 1:37:01 GMT
The stand is currently the 156's old bus stop on Prince of Wales Drive - no direct link to other routes or the station. As mentioned before, an extension to Clapham Junction would have made this appear much more appealing, via the 156 preferably. I wouldn't say the 156 is underused at all, the loadings outside of the peaks in the area are quite decent and during the peaks it gets really busy along the Vauxhall to CLJ corridor with not much support (being a quicker alternative to Vauxhall to the 77/87 and 344). An extension of the 156 would compromise the reliability it's just about got at the moment. The only time I have ever been on a busy 156 is when South West Trains had problems and that was about 6. Most people getting on towards Clapham Junction use the 344 eve if the 156 turns up before. It does get busier between Clapham Junction and Wimbledon but it really isn't that busy. It could easily be diverted, replaced by the 436 and passenger numbers would stay relative. As it is I can see the 436 carrying fresh air between Vauxhall and Battersea Park Station. At least to Clapham Junction it might carry a few people. Take it from me! Been a regular user of the route for the last 10 years, the 156 gets horrible in the peaks. The CLJ-Wimbledon section being busier than the CLJ-Vauxhall section, however it's usually the western end that causes the route problems i.e. Lavender Hill clogs up a lot of the time nowadays, buses then run together, then the gaps, slower journeys. This happens on most school weekdays, there aren't as many problems on weekends and holidays. The 436 will almost certainly carry air between Battersea Park and Vauxhall, at this present moment time, hopefully it becomes worthwhile. Thinking about it, the passengers that would most likely use this extension already have their own free bus provided by Go-Ahead! Despite this, I can see the 436 becoming popular for those in the surrounding estates as it's going to be a much better alternative to Camberwell than the P5, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Aug 11, 2016 11:16:19 GMT
Now that TFL are stupidly proceeding with their monumentally pathetic idea of rerouting the 436 to Battersea Park, have they even considered that their intention of increasing the 36's frequency to x4 mins off peak and x5 mins off peak might be a bit excessive for the route's northern end? Alternate journies being out of the question (something I don't advocate anyway), I wonder how TFL are going to approach this matter.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Aug 11, 2016 11:19:48 GMT
Now that TFL are stupidly proceeding with their monumentally pathetic idea of rerouting the 436 to Battersea Park, have they even considered that their intention of increasing the 36's frequency to x4 mins off peak and x5 mins off peak might be a bit excessive for the route's northern end? Alternate journies being out of the question (something I don't advocate anyway), I wonder how TFL are going to approach this matter. Perhaps there'll be short journeys to Paddington in the timetable. Slightly annoyed that Lewisham loses a direct link but more 36 buses from NX will make up for that I guess.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Aug 11, 2016 11:22:46 GMT
Now that TFL are stupidly proceeding with their monumentally pathetic idea of rerouting the 436 to Battersea Park, have they even considered that their intention of increasing the 36's frequency to x4 mins off peak and x5 mins off peak might be a bit excessive for the route's northern end? Alternate journies being out of the question (something I don't advocate anyway), I wonder how TFL are going to approach this matter. Perhaps there'll be short journeys to Paddington in the timetable. Slightly annoyed that Lewisham loses a direct link but more 36 buses from NX will make up for that I guess. Ah so back to the old days of alternate journies I suppose...the irony
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 11, 2016 12:15:31 GMT
It's only the peak service that is increasing. Off peak stays the same as now and at weekends.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Aug 11, 2016 16:25:01 GMT
It's only the peak service that is increasing. Off peak stays the same as now and at weekends. Nope. Off peak Mon-Sat and Sundays are also increasing from x6 to x5 mins and from x12 to x10 mins respectively.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 11, 2016 17:06:09 GMT
It's does say on the consultation update the original frequency proposal to increase to 5 mins and 10 mins respectively is not being proceeded with only the peak increase at the top of the document.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Aug 11, 2016 20:22:21 GMT
It's does say on the consultation update the original frequency proposal to increase to 5 mins and 10 mins respectively is not being proceeded with only the peak increase at the top of the document. Yes having read the update at the top it indeed mentions that the 36's frequency will be increased in the peaks only. Regarding the peak period, the 36 does get busy at its northern end, so perhaps there won't be such a dramatic difference regarding oversupply.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 11, 2016 22:18:53 GMT
If anything an extra journey or 2 on the 2 and 185 would probably be more useful.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 12, 2016 0:37:39 GMT
If anything an extra journey or 2 on the 2 and 185 would probably be more useful. I'm just waiting to see how rammed the 2 will get as a result of this change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 5:47:29 GMT
Yes I agree with you there Vjaska. I think the 2 will get hammered by extra passengers following these changes.
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Aug 12, 2016 8:43:30 GMT
Yes I agree with you there Vjaska. I think the 2 will get hammered by extra passengers following these changes. Doesn't help that the frequency has slightly been reduced due to 20mph speed limits
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 12:40:52 GMT
Yes I agree with you there Vjaska. I think the 2 will get hammered by extra passengers following these changes. Doesn't help that the frequency has slightly been reduced due to 20mph speed limits Yes that is true mate
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Aug 30, 2016 11:38:03 GMT
If anything an extra journey or 2 on the 2 and 185 would probably be more useful. Many people travelling between Vauxhall & Victoria use the Underground. So, I think the answer is to extend route 185 from Victoria to Paddington to cover the loss of route 436 in the area is the answer, with no change needed to route 36.
|
|