|
Post by sw11simon on Jul 11, 2016 7:23:35 GMT
I thought, as the number suggests, that the 436 was originally bought in to support the 36 as it was too long and busy... so replaced it between New Cross and Lewisham. Now they are diverting it away from the central-most part of the route. THAT'S where I'm confused. I imagine that with this is another step aimed at removing more buses from the central London area in prep for Crossrail... this is why I'm fairly certain they didn't use the 185 for this as it only goes as far as Victoria anyway. As for the lack of support... TfL have an answer for everything if they are that determined to go ahead with restructuring. I really don't think this has anything to do with Crossrail - the 436 is a north to south route which will only really meet Crossrail at Paddington.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 11, 2016 8:22:08 GMT
I thought, as the number suggests, that the 436 was originally bought in to support the 36 as it was too long and busy... so replaced it between New Cross and Lewisham. Now they are diverting it away from the central-most part of the route. THAT'S where I'm confused. I imagine that with this is another step aimed at removing more buses from the central London area in prep for Crossrail... this is why I'm fairly certain they didn't use the 185 for this as it only goes as far as Victoria anyway. As for the lack of support... TfL have an answer for everything if they are that determined to go ahead with restructuring. I really don't think this has anything to do with Crossrail - the 436 is a north to south route which will only really meet Crossrail at Paddington. Understand your point but TfL have been removing services from Paddington for the last few years and there remain various rumours that more will be killed off as part of the packages of changes associated with Crossrail's introduction. Route 46 has been removed from the tendering cycle even though it only touches Crossrail at each end of the route. The rest is well removed from Crossrail but it seemingly needs "attention".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 12:30:46 GMT
I thought, as the number suggests, that the 436 was originally bought in to support the 36 as it was too long and busy... Now they are diverting it away from the central-most part of the route. THAT'S where I'm confused. I imagine that with this is another step aimed at removing more buses from the central London area in prep for Crossrail... this is why I'm fairly certain they didn't use the 185 for this as it only goes as far as Victoria anyway. I really don't think this has anything to do with Crossrail - the 436 is a north to south route which will only really meet Crossrail at Paddington. My thinking is aligned with Snoggle... TfL have (quiet brazenly IIRC) said that they expect bus usage to decrease upon the opening of the Elizabeth line, and not just routes which run parallel to it. The fact that they sought to divert the only route into the heart of 'zone 1' from Lewisham away from it (instead of opting for Victoria turn routes) AND increasing the frequency of the 36 it leaves behind suggests this is preparation for a new, degraded bus structure in the central zone. They claim that rerouteing other services would be expensive but it's hard to see how a potential loss of PVR would cost more (perhaps in their own cheeky way, they mean a higher PVR loss on 436 saves even more money?) You only need to look at their plans to cut night bus services for the opening of night tube to see that they are gearing up for big changes in central London already. Even now, I wonder if the plans to axe the 13 was a test-bed of sorts to see how services would cope with other routes having a PVR increase, then dropping them right back when Crossrail opened. Even despite the backlash which caused then to shelve the original plan they are looking at alternatives. But I'm a pessimist.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 11, 2016 21:49:55 GMT
I really don't think this has anything to do with Crossrail - the 436 is a north to south route which will only really meet Crossrail at Paddington. My thinking is aligned with Snoggle... TfL have (quiet brazenly IIRC) said that they expect bus usage to decrease upon the opening of the Elizabeth line, and not just routes which run parallel to it. The fact that they sought to divert the only route into the heart of 'zone 1' from Lewisham away from it (instead of opting for Victoria turn routes) AND increasing the frequency of the 36 it leaves behind suggests this is preparation for a new, degraded bus structure in the central zone. They claim that rerouteing other services would be expensive but it's hard to see how a potential loss of PVR would cost more (perhaps in their own cheeky way, they mean a higher PVR loss on 436 saves even more money?) You only need to look at their plans to cut night bus services for the opening of night tube to see that they are gearing up for big changes in central London already. Even now, I wonder if the plans to axe the 13 was a test-bed of sorts to see how services would cope with other routes having a PVR increase, then dropping them right back when Crossrail opened. Even despite the backlash which caused then to shelve the original plan they are looking at alternatives. But I'm a pessimist. Whilst I don't agree with the 436 proposal I think it is inevitable that Crossrail and the night tube are going to lead to a considerable reduction in bus services.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2016 7:16:03 GMT
Not a fan of the decision either, breaking a useful Lewisham - West End link, however perhaps with Sadiq Khan's bus hopper ticket there's more of a case for this to actually work. I'm not sure how much demand there is for the Battersea Park and Nine Elms fellows (more expensive housing I bet ) wanting to go to the likes of Peckham or Lewisham, but here we are. It may be so that many 436 users at the south end of the route mostly use the 436 to get to the nearest tube stations (Oval for the City, Vauxhall for the West End...) - I hear that Lewisham to Victoria and beyond isn't really as popular as one might imagine, going by the consultation report - more people agreed with the proposals than those in disagreement. Battersea Park seems like an abrupt terminus for the route - the 436 might gain new character if it went on for a bit longer, Wandsworth, maybe? One thing's for sure - 15 buses per hour from Paddington - Queen's Park in the peaks is super-overkill, seeing as it's never heaving under the current timetable. All in all, I don't think the 436 was the right route to chop. 185 might have been better. Does anyone even take that route from Lewisham all the way to Victoria? I wonder if the EHs and WHVs will switch to the 36 for the time being, leaving most of those dull 36 Es to the 436's new contract. Nine Elms & Battersea power station housing developments are not for bus users. These are luxury developments where a one bedroom apartment with balcony will be in region of £700,000 minimum. Such people are not bus users. A 3 bedroom family home situated within the former power station could be yours for £8,000,000 ! TfL , are again serving non existent people in places not yet built, highly unlikely to use their buses, over existing hard working poorer classes who can't afford rail travel. I think its a disgusting, clearly money lured decision, and it shows Mayor Khan hasn't got a bloody clue , because he keeps banging on about housing.... He'll have one hell of a housing crisis on his hands soon.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 12, 2016 9:29:00 GMT
I'd have been happier if the 436 went beyond Battersea to somewhere like Clapham Junction...
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jul 12, 2016 9:55:58 GMT
I'd have been happier if the 436 went beyond Battersea to somewhere like Clapham Junction... Or perhaps via the 44 to Victoria.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 12, 2016 11:14:31 GMT
Nine Elms & Battersea power station housing developments are not for bus users. These are luxury developments where a one bedroom apartment with balcony will be in region of £700,000 minimum. Such people are not bus users. A 3 bedroom family home situated within the former power station could be yours for £8,000,000 ! TfL , are again serving non existent people in places not yet built, highly unlikely to use their buses, over existing hard working poorer classes who can't afford rail travel. I think its a disgusting, clearly money lured decision, and it shows Mayor Khan hasn't got a bloody clue , because he keeps banging on about housing.... He'll have one hell of a housing crisis on his hands soon. I don't disagree with you about the likely transport habits of new Nine Elms residents. However can we have a small sense of proportion about the new Mayor? He has been in office barely 8 weeks. He is not responsible for the planning of Nine Elms nor the approval of the scheme nor the proportion of affordable dwellings. That's down to Wandsworth and Lambeth councils. I can't remember if Boris "called in" any of the Nine Elms / Battersea plans. The 436 proposal was conceived and consulted upon during the previous Mayor's term. I somehow doubt the outcome of a bus route consultation is figuring prominently in the in-trays of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor for Transport. Much bigger problems need their attention.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jul 13, 2016 0:16:45 GMT
Hmmm. I was more opposed to this when resident near the Oval - as a commuter to the Victora area.
I see the positive side. On many weekends I commute to the Queenstown Road Battersea area. When the Overground isn't running, I take the bus via Camberwell and Vauxhall so I can't complain about having another option to cut down on those average wait times. Realistically, buses towards Central London do tend to shed quite a few people at Vauxhall. We've also had a significant enhancement to the direct rail service between Lewisham, Peckham Rye, Denmark Hill and Victoria in the last year or two - it now runs all day, every day. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if some people have chosen to take the train instead. How reliable is the 36?
If there is a surplus in capacity north of Vauxhall, I think it makes sense to do something else with it. Not so sure Nine Elms is it though - if there are more than a handful of bus trips a day generated by those luxury developments, they already have two high frequency routes taking them to a nearby Underground station and numerous rail stations within a 5 minute bus ride.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 13, 2016 2:31:50 GMT
Hmmm. I was more opposed to this when resident near the Oval - as a commuter to the Victora area. I see the positive side. On many weekends I commute to the Queenstown Road Battersea area. When the Overground isn't running, I take the bus via Camberwell and Vauxhall so I can't complain about having another option to cut down on those average wait times. Realistically, buses towards Central London do tend to shed quite a few people at Vauxhall. We've also had a significant enhancement to the direct rail service between Lewisham, Peckham Rye, Denmark Hill and Victoria in the last year or two - it now runs all day, every day. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if some people have chosen to take the train instead. How reliable is the 36? If there is a surplus in capacity north of Vauxhall, I think it makes sense to do something else with it. Not so sure Nine Elms is it though - if there are more than a handful of bus trips a day generated by those luxury developments, they already have two high frequency routes taking them to a nearby Underground station and numerous rail stations within a 5 minute bus ride. I'm not so sure there is surplus capacity north of Vauxhall given the 2, 36 & 436 are tremendously busy during the peaks - even off peak, the 2 can still have quite busy loadings north of Vauxhall and I'd hate to think what will happen if the 36 runs into problems leaving the 2 to pick up the slack. Battersea Park is not the worst terminus in the world but Clapham Junction would of been far more useful as 'twobellstogo' mentioned
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 12:04:50 GMT
Hmmm. I was more opposed to this when resident near the Oval - as a commuter to the Victora area. I see the positive side. On many weekends I commute to the Queenstown Road Battersea area. When the Overground isn't running, I take the bus via Camberwell and Vauxhall so I can't complain about having another option to cut down on those average wait times. Realistically, buses towards Central London do tend to shed quite a few people at Vauxhall. We've also had a significant enhancement to the direct rail service between Lewisham, Peckham Rye, Denmark Hill and Victoria in the last year or two - it now runs all day, every day. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if some people have chosen to take the train instead. How reliable is the 36? If there is a surplus in capacity north of Vauxhall, I think it makes sense to do something else with it. Not so sure Nine Elms is it though - if there are more than a handful of bus trips a day generated by those luxury developments, they already have two high frequency routes taking them to a nearby Underground station and numerous rail stations within a 5 minute bus ride. I'm not so sure there is surplus capacity north of Vauxhall given the 2, 36 & 436 are tremendously busy during the peaks - even off peak, the 2 can still have quite busy loadings north of Vauxhall and I'd hate to think what will happen if the 36 runs into problems leaving the 2 to pick up the slack. Battersea Park is not the worst terminus in the world but Clapham Junction would of been far more useful as 'twobellstogo' mentioned 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.
|
|
|
Post by fg49 on Jul 13, 2016 12:29:58 GMT
I'm not so sure there is surplus capacity north of Vauxhall given the 2, 36 & 436 are tremendously busy during the peaks - even off peak, the 2 can still have quite busy loadings north of Vauxhall and I'd hate to think what will happen if the 36 runs into problems leaving the 2 to pick up the slack. Battersea Park is not the worst terminus in the world but Clapham Junction would of been far more useful as 'twobellstogo' mentioned 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 13:39:49 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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 13, 2016 18:58:02 GMT
The 156 has always seemed quiet between Clapham Junction and Vauxhall when I've seen it, even at peak times. May as well extend the 436 to CJ replacing the 156 although stand space there is limited. Could even axe the 156 completely and extend the 87 back to Wimbledon, well it was the 77A then!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 13, 2016 20:52:53 GMT
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. It is worth bearing in mind that it is highly likely that routes like the 156, extended 452 and rerouted 436 will have their routes amended and tweaked as parts of the Battersea and Nine Elms development sites open up. This is likely to be a gradual and ongoing process rather than what happened at the Olympic Park where it was mostly a big bang and hasn't changed too much since. Although 5 years away the opening of the Northern Line extension will cause a large scale adjustment to travel patterns in that inner area. If the Power Station redevelopment ever completes and proves popular then services will require further adjustment and enhancement. What looks like a load of nonsense in 2016 (and I was as critical as anyone) might make a lot of sense later on. If the Power Station has even half the pulling power of the Westfields then the 436 will certainly be a busy route into that development from Camberwell, Peckham and New Cross.
|
|