|
Post by sid on Nov 12, 2015 8:12:26 GMT
If they really want another route between Battersea Park and Vauxhall. Why not just reroute the 452 between there instead of it serving Queenstown Road and Wandsworth Road? From what I've seen the 452 is usually dead between BP and WR. I would leave the 436 as it is. If they want support for the 87 and 77, extend the C3 to Vauxhall. Extend the 417 from Clapham Common to Clapham Junction via 345 or 35/37 (whatever need is greater)! Would provide lots of new links to the junction. Yes that would certainly give the 452 a bit more purpose, maybe withdrawn it north of Notting Hill Gate (with the 52 increased) and extend it to Camberwell Green or even Herne Hill?
|
|
|
Post by maximus23 on Nov 12, 2015 8:18:33 GMT
[/quote] Yes that would certainly give the 452 a bit more purpose, maybe withdrawn it north of Notting Hill Gate (with the 52 increased) and extend it to Camberwell Green or even Herne Hill?[/quote]
I like that idea because in off peak both the 52 and 452 are barely loaded north of Notting hill and with a frequency increase the 52 would definetly be able to handle loadings or extend the 295 to Kensal rise to make up the loss of the 452.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 12, 2015 11:47:51 GMT
While I'm in agreement with most of you about the 436 diversion, I'm going to try and see if I can see it from TfL's perspective.
The 436 will still serve Vauxhall and Oval tube stations. As passengers decide to use the Victoria line to Vauxhall instead of Victoria, this provides adequate cover along the latter half of the Camberwell to Victoria corridor. There would be no change for passengers who commute to Oval station.
Lewisham has decent rail connections. Since December 2014, there is an all day service on Southeastern between Victoria and Lewisham which serves Peckham Rye, while this is 2tph, it can be faster than the crawl on the 436 from Victoria station. They also have the option of travelling to Charing Cross or Cannon Street which have direct tube services to Victoria or can use the DLR to Canary Wharf for tube services.
Crossrail will also alter journey pattens from Paddington to Lewisham and Peckham with either a change at Canary Wharf for Lewisham or Whitechapel for Peckham Rye.
I also think the 436 re-routing will provide an alternative for the Northern line extension. Instead of passengers commuting from Battersea to Kennington on the Northern line for the Morden branch, they'll use the bus to Vauxhall or Oval.
Basically, if TfL came up with this suggestion in 2018/19, they may have a credible reason for the 436 re-routing, but at the moment, it's neither credible and stinks of cuts along the Victoria to Camberwell corridor which will put pressure on the 36 and 185.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 12, 2015 12:05:00 GMT
While I'm in agreement with most of you about the 436 diversion, I'm going to try and see if I can see it from TfL's perspective. The 436 will still serve Vauxhall and Oval tube stations. As passengers decide to use the Victoria line to Vauxhall instead of Victoria, this provides adequate cover along the latter half of the Camberwell to Victoria corridor. There would be no change for passengers who commute to Oval station. Lewisham has decent rail connections. Since December 2014, there is an all day service on Southeastern between Victoria and Lewisham which serves Peckham Rye, while this is 2tph, it can be faster than the crawl on the 436 from Victoria station. They also have the option of travelling to Charing Cross or Cannon Street which have direct tube services to Victoria or can use the DLR to Canary Wharf for tube services. Crossrail will also alter journey pattens from Paddington to Lewisham and Peckham with either a change at Canary Wharf for Lewisham or Whitechapel for Peckham Rye. I also think the 436 re-routing will provide an alternative for the Northern line extension. Instead of passengers commuting from Battersea to Kennington on the Northern line for the Morden branch, they'll use the bus to Vauxhall or Oval. Basically, if TfL came up with this suggestion in 2018/19, they may have a credible reason for the 436 re-routing, but at the moment, it's neither credible and stinks of cuts along the Victoria to Camberwell corridor which will put pressure on the 36 and 185. TfL's perspective, as you set it out, is that people can afford to swap modes with no consequence. That would be fine if tube fares were the same rate as bus fares. The problem is that a significant proportion of people cannot afford to use rail modes and have to use the bus. Fares in and into Zone 1 on the tube are hugely expensive compared to the bus. Rail fares, where TfL is not the operator, are even more expensive than the tube and if you make a change from rail to the tube in Zone 1 then you are whacked with an add on fare which is equal to a bus fare. Obviously some people do pay those fares or buy a Travelcard but let's not delude ourselves about income levels in inner SE London. Bus usage is very strong in that part of London for two obvious reasons - no tube service and low income levels. I'd also argue that effectively forcing people on to the tube at Vauxhall is a pretty daft policy given how many thousands of people overload that interchange every peak period. Despite big improvements to the Vic Line service it can barely cope with demand at Vauxhall. Pushing more people on to the tube makes little sense when even a 36 tph train service, due next year, will be overwhelmed. Not having a go at you or your comments btw. I just wonder quite what goes on in the planners' heads sometimes. I wonder what would happen if the 452 proposal went further and ran across Vauxhall and down to Camberwell Green. TfL could, if it wanted, modestly trim back the 36 and 436 frequencies so as not to completely overload Camberwell New Road. There would then be a triple round the corner route - round the corner at Knightsbridge, Wandsworth Rd and Vauxhall.
|
|
|
Post by abc on Nov 12, 2015 17:29:57 GMT
Living close to Battersea Park, I can confirm that every day I see people get off 137 and walk to the station in order to get the train from Z2. Regarding 436, I do not see it's usefulness until all the construction is finished. As I use 436 between Victoria and Paddington, for selfish reasons I am against its rerouting.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 12, 2015 23:12:44 GMT
Hmmm...I kind of see what TfL are trying to do, but this seems rather ham fisted. I do kind of like the 436 diversion, but dislike the loss of a direct link from Lewisham to the West End. I think there are possibly three better options :
* as the TfL proposals, but extend the 453 to Lewisham as well. * have 36 run from Queen's Park only as far as Camberwell, leave 436 to run Lewisham - Paddington, and introduce a new service from New Cross Gate - Battersea Park via 36/156. * divert the 185 to Battersea Park instead, run 36 from Queen's Park to Forest Hill via current 36 and 185, and leave the 436 alone route wise, but bolster the frequency to compensate for the loss of the 36.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 12, 2015 23:52:48 GMT
I have no major issues regarding the 452 proposal, but I find the 436 consultation absolutely ridiculous. The reason of the introduction of the 436 was to allow the 36 to be reduced in length resulting in enhanced reliability as well as supporting it between Paddington and New Cross Gate, while still maintaining the Lewisham link. I don't see why the 436 should be rerouted to Battersea as it would prove useless and just place more pressure on the 36 with the pathetic anticipation of an increased frequency to x4 mins! The 436 should be left as it is. On a side note for any concerns regarding the 36's reliabilty, which is perfectly fine, curtail it to Peckham or more controversially Camberwell Green.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 13, 2015 0:14:38 GMT
I have no major issues regarding the 452 proposal, but I find the 436 consultation absolutely ridiculous. The reason of the introduction of the 436 was to allow the 36 to be reduced in length resulting in enhanced reliability as well as supporting it between Paddington and New Cross Gate, while still maintaining the Lewisham link. I don't see why the 436 should be rerouted to Battersea as it would prove useless and just place more pressure on the 36 with the pathetic anticipation of an increased frequency to x4 mins! The 436 should be left as it is. On a side note for any concerns regarding the 36's reliabilty, which is perfectly fine, curtail it to Peckham or more controversially Camberwell Green. I don't think a cross-south London link from the borough of Lewisham out to Battersea is a bad idea - we rather lack such links in South London - there's the 37, the P4 and not an awful lot else, so in that way, the 436 idea is decent. What is a bit of an issue is the lack of a Lewisham - Weat End link, hence my ideas above. If TfL were to, as typical, push these changes through in their entirety, an extension of the 453 to Lewisham would go some way to mitigate the loss of the 436 link.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 13, 2015 0:36:32 GMT
I have no major issues regarding the 452 proposal, but I find the 436 consultation absolutely ridiculous. The reason of the introduction of the 436 was to allow the 36 to be reduced in length resulting in enhanced reliability as well as supporting it between Paddington and New Cross Gate, while still maintaining the Lewisham link. I don't see why the 436 should be rerouted to Battersea as it would prove useless and just place more pressure on the 36 with the pathetic anticipation of an increased frequency to x4 mins! The 436 should be left as it is. On a side note for any concerns regarding the 36's reliabilty, which is perfectly fine, curtail it to Peckham or more controversially Camberwell Green. I don't think a cross-south London link from the borough of Lewisham out to Battersea is a bad idea - we rather lack such links in South London - there's the 37, the P4 and not an awful lot else, so in that way, the 436 idea is decent. What is a bit of an issue is the lack of a Lewisham - Weat End link, hence my ideas above. If TfL were to, as typical, push these changes through in their entirety, an extension of the 453 to Lewisham would go some way to mitigate the loss of the 436 link. In that respect, a cross-south London link would be a good idea and I can see your point as the rerouted 436 would be an ideal representation of such a link. However as you've mentioned in one of your ideas which i'm fond of, the 185 would be a good choice to reroute to Battersea as this would form a cross-south London link while leaving the 436 to serve its purpose well. Also, extending the 453 to Lewisham would be a great idea as there would be a link between the West End and Lewisham.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Nov 13, 2015 0:46:49 GMT
TfL's perspective, as you set it out, is that people can afford to swap modes with no consequence. I don't think it's that. More likely that there's compelling evidence to suggest there is significant spare capacity on the 36/436 combined north of Vauxhall. Perhaps not enough for the 36 to cope alone with the through journeys at existing service levels, hence the proposed increase to the 36. I can picture the buses tipping out at Vauxhall, as they often do at Zone 2 stations (except a few strange ones with no Cental London service, like Wandsworth Road). Anecdotal and theoretical commentary on corridor capacity doesn't always capture the full picture. Some mornings it will be ok and others, people will be crowded off the first few buses that turn up. I suspect the Wandsworth Road suffers in much the same way as other corridors where the service supposedly matches demand. Bunching between parallel routes is a problem which throws carefully laid plans out of the window, yet can not be resolved. I'll wager that those towards the eastern end of the road would appreciate a near guaranteed space on a 452 into Vauxhall at least. I thought the 452 was a done deal ages ago anyway - Abellio had notices up offering drivers the opportunity to join the bigger and badder 452 rota from next year months ago.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 13, 2015 1:30:44 GMT
I have no major issues regarding the 452 proposal, but I find the 436 consultation absolutely ridiculous. The reason of the introduction of the 436 was to allow the 36 to be reduced in length resulting in enhanced reliability as well as supporting it between Paddington and New Cross Gate, while still maintaining the Lewisham link. I don't see why the 436 should be rerouted to Battersea as it would prove useless and just place more pressure on the 36 with the pathetic anticipation of an increased frequency to x4 mins! The 436 should be left as it is. On a side note for any concerns regarding the 36's reliabilty, which is perfectly fine, curtail it to Peckham or more controversially Camberwell Green. I don't think a cross-south London link from the borough of Lewisham out to Battersea is a bad idea - we rather lack such links in South London - there's the 37, the P4 and not an awful lot else, so in that way, the 436 idea is decent. What is a bit of an issue is the lack of a Lewisham - Weat End link, hence my ideas above. If TfL were to, as typical, push these changes through in their entirety, an extension of the 453 to Lewisham would go some way to mitigate the loss of the 436 link. You make a good point in that the actual link they're trying to achieve is good and finally gives an easy to west link that isn't the 37 or P4 but it really shouldn't be at the expense of cutting a major artery into London. The 185 really would of been the better option. Me being very, very cheeky but I still prefer my 445 option and diverting the 345 to Tulse Hill lol.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 13, 2015 11:05:55 GMT
The 436 appears to be the least worst option in comparison to the 185 which would have seen Denmark Hill, East Dulwich, Forest Hill and Catford lose their direct bus service to Victoria, where as the 436 only a small section between New Cross Gate and Lewisham would lose their direct service as the rest of the route is covered by the 36.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 13, 2015 11:57:57 GMT
The 436 appears to be the least worst option in comparison to the 185 which would have seen Denmark Hill, East Dulwich, Forest Hill and Catford lose their direct bus service to Victoria, where as the 436 only a small section between New Cross Gate and Lewisham would lose their direct service as the rest of the route is covered by the 36. That maybe true but the withdrawal of the 436 north of Vauxhall adds pressure to the 2 & 36 so if looked at that way, it's not the least worst option.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 13, 2015 12:12:28 GMT
The 436 appears to be the least worst option in comparison to the 185 which would have seen Denmark Hill, East Dulwich, Forest Hill and Catford lose their direct bus service to Victoria, where as the 436 only a small section between New Cross Gate and Lewisham would lose their direct service as the rest of the route is covered by the 36. That maybe true but the withdrawal of the 436 north of Vauxhall adds pressure to the 2 & 36 so if looked at that way, it's not the least worst option. However the section north of Vauxhall is covered by the tube. Vauxhall to Victoria has the Victoria Line following the route for starters of which relieves Route 2. Take the 185 away from Victoria and Camberwell Green will have more people waiting for the 36/436 with passengers from East Dulwich, it'll also add more pressure on the 176 between Camberwell and Forest Hill. Diverting the 185 to Battersea Park benefits nobody, but inconveniences a lot more passengers who live in Dulwich/Forest Hill than those who live in Peckham.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 13, 2015 12:29:06 GMT
The 436 appears to be the least worst option in comparison to the 185 which would have seen Denmark Hill, East Dulwich, Forest Hill and Catford lose their direct bus service to Victoria, where as the 436 only a small section between New Cross Gate and Lewisham would lose their direct service as the rest of the route is covered by the 36. I would say the 185 was the least worst option, I can't imagine many people travel on it from Catford to Victoria because it is so indirect and the other points on the route have alternative bus routes into Central London. The best option I think would be to leave things as they are and just reroute the 452 to Camberwell Green or Herne Hill with a modest reduction on the 36 from 10 to 8bph in line with the 436, in fact I've never understood why the 36 is more frequent than the 436, ideally they should both should have the same frequency but if anything the 436 should be more frequent as the Lewisham end is far busier than the Queens Park section.
|
|