|
Post by vjaska on May 23, 2019 18:18:20 GMT
The 430 provides a localised service for Roehampton, linking to the shops and rail services in Putney. Withdrawing it and relying on an extension of the 74 will jeopardise that local service because of delays in Central London. I would be in favour of rerouting the 430 to Hammersmith. I think Putney High Street has too many buses going down it. Getting rid of one route wouldn’t be a problem. Last week I saw several empty 74’s and 430’s crossing Putney Bridge towards AF. I don’t think Baker Street to Roehampton is by any means a route too long. When you factor in the terrible traffic on the Brompton Road north of South Kensington, Hyde Park Corner & beyond, I don't see why Roehampton should have to suffer with a route that would more prone to falling over than the current 430 or even the proposed diversion to Hammersmith. I also don't think Putney High Street has too many buses - it has too much traffic in general but had the Hammersmith Bridge actually been sorted with an actual sturdy bridge in place, you could of actually closed Putney High Street to just buses & cycles and told cars to go elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on May 23, 2019 18:45:27 GMT
H&F council and TfL knew the cause of the Hammersmith Bridge problems in April, cracked pedestals. A FOI has made them confirm it, not exactly transparent
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 18:45:45 GMT
I think Putney High Street has too many buses going down it. Getting rid of one route wouldn’t be a problem. Last week I saw several empty 74’s and 430’s crossing Putney Bridge towards AF. I don’t think Baker Street to Roehampton is by any means a route too long. When you factor in the terrible traffic on the Brompton Road north of South Kensington, Hyde Park Corner & beyond, I don't see why Roehampton should have to suffer with a route that would more prone to falling over than the current 430 or even the proposed diversion to Hammersmith. I also don't think Putney High Street has too many buses - it has too much traffic in general but had the Hammersmith Bridge actually been sorted with an actual sturdy bridge in place, you could of actually closed Putney High Street to just buses & cycles and told cars to go elsewhere. Not really. II don’t agree. It doesn’t need three high frequency routes into Central London. And the 2 manages ok down to Norwood from Baker Street and Marylebone so why can’t the 74 manage to reach Roehampton.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 23, 2019 19:20:10 GMT
When you factor in the terrible traffic on the Brompton Road north of South Kensington, Hyde Park Corner & beyond, I don't see why Roehampton should have to suffer with a route that would more prone to falling over than the current 430 or even the proposed diversion to Hammersmith. I also don't think Putney High Street has too many buses - it has too much traffic in general but had the Hammersmith Bridge actually been sorted with an actual sturdy bridge in place, you could of actually closed Putney High Street to just buses & cycles and told cars to go elsewhere. Not really. II don’t agree. It doesn’t need three high frequency routes into Central London. And the 2 manages ok down to Norwood from Baker Street and Marylebone so why can’t the 74 manage to reach Roehampton. Because the 2 has a lighter traffic corridor between Hyde Park Corner & West Norwood - even Brixton Road is easier to navigate than Putney High Street and wider with bus lanes running along the majority of it. The 2 doesn't serve the Brompton Road or the section between Knightsbridge & Hyde Park Corner. The only problematic section is Vauxhall Bridge Road when protests are on but otherwise, traffic flows pretty decently. The patronage figures suggest that all three routes you refer to are still good enough to continue - don't be fooled by the rhetoric being spouted out by TfL & certain others
|
|
|
Post by redbus on May 23, 2019 19:35:31 GMT
I think it's only a matter of time before Victoria/HPC/Marble Arch/Baker Street is rationalised. If the 74 was say cut to Marble Arch with maybe the 30 to Baker Street then Roehampton to Marble Arch would be manageable. Another option would be the reroute the 74 to go straight down the Old Brompton Road to South Kensington then that could make Roehampton-Baker Street managable. I do agree that TFL will cut buses from Baker Street with the 74 the most likely candidate, I can see the 30 and 74 swapping termini as you said I think any rationalisation would be done to save money. I think you still need some kind of link from Baker Street to Knightsbridge and on, so I can see the 74 remaining. The 30 might be hacked back to Baker Street. I can also see the 2 being cut back to Victoria, as you have the 13. There's no great place to terminate the 13 earlier (lack of stand space) and still get people to the West End, so that's another reason why I can see the 2 being cut back rather than the 13. You could extend the 74 to Marylebone Station to cover the cut of the 2.
I can also see further cuts to the 16, maybe even axing the route altogether. The 332 and 98 could be made a little more frequent, and in addition some extra buses in the peak to cover the busy Cricklewood - Kilburn section. I think it would be terrible for passengers (as would hacking back the 2), but that seems pretty irrelevant these days.
Anyway I shall hope none of this transpires.
Back to topic, there has long been a risk that Hammersmith Bridge may be forced to close, as has now happened. I would have expected TfL to have had plans already devised and not created at this point, so I am a little disappointed in what they have done. Certainly there should be a 'southern' section of the 73. I think the key issue is a loss of local knowledge combined with any changes needing to be budget neutral.
|
|
|
Post by george on May 23, 2019 21:59:53 GMT
Just seen there is a public meeting taking place on the 6th June with Tfl in Barnes to discuss about the local bus changes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 23, 2019 23:14:05 GMT
Just seen there is a public meeting taking place on the 6th June with Tfl in Barnes to discuss about the local bus changes. If your going, let us know what is said
|
|
|
Post by george on May 23, 2019 23:35:23 GMT
Just seen there is a public meeting taking place on the 6th June with Tfl in Barnes to discuss about the local bus changes. If your going, let us know what is said Can almost guess what the responses will be, "We take your comments on board but...." 😁
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on May 24, 2019 8:56:12 GMT
It appears to be a local Conservative party meeting to discuss the bridge closure in general. No mention of buses in the publicity!
Dear Resident, I am writing to invite you to a public meeting I have arranged with TfL to discuss the closure of Hammersmith Bridge. Thursday 6th June 7pm St Mary’s Church Barnes SW13 9HL
It is an opportunity for residents to put their ideas and questions directly to TFL. For the latest information on the bridge, please keep an eye on my Hammersmith Bridge web-page. I will also continue to send regular updates to my mailing list. Best wishes,
Zac Goldsmith Member of Parliament for Richmond Park and North Kingston
|
|
|
Post by george on May 24, 2019 10:29:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by redbus on May 24, 2019 12:42:43 GMT
H&F council and TfL knew the cause of the Hammersmith Bridge problems in April, cracked pedestals. A FOI has made them confirm it, not exactly transparent BBC now reporting that it is the pedestals.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48395371
What I found shocking is that according this BBC report the cracks in the pedestals are due to corrosion causing flexibility to be compromised. This to my mind suggests that the bridge hasn't been maintained as it should, as the corrosion should have been dealt with early before it became a major problem, or am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on May 24, 2019 13:11:34 GMT
H&F council and TfL knew the cause of the Hammersmith Bridge problems in April, cracked pedestals. A FOI has made them confirm it, not exactly transparent BBC now reporting that it is the pedestals.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48395371
What I found shocking is that according this BBC report the cracks in the pedestals are due to corrosion causing flexibility to be compromised. This to my mind suggests that the bridge hasn't been maintained as it should, as the corrosion should have been dealt with early before it became a major problem, or am I missing something?
No you're not. Just keep your head down when the buck keeps getting passed
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 24, 2019 15:55:34 GMT
H&F council and TfL knew the cause of the Hammersmith Bridge problems in April, cracked pedestals. A FOI has made them confirm it, not exactly transparent BBC now reporting that it is the pedestals.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48395371
What I found shocking is that according this BBC report the cracks in the pedestals are due to corrosion causing flexibility to be compromised. This to my mind suggests that the bridge hasn't been maintained as it should, as the corrosion should have been dealt with early before it became a major problem, or am I missing something?
The bridge wasn't built to take the volume of traffic that has been using it, I don't think there is any suggestion that it hasn't been properly maintained? Some local residents are quite happy for it to stay as it is with perhaps some sort of free taxi service across the bridge for the elderly and disabled.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 24, 2019 16:41:27 GMT
BBC now reporting that it is the pedestals.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48395371
What I found shocking is that according this BBC report the cracks in the pedestals are due to corrosion causing flexibility to be compromised. This to my mind suggests that the bridge hasn't been maintained as it should, as the corrosion should have been dealt with early before it became a major problem, or am I missing something?
The bridge wasn't built to take the volume of traffic that has been using it, I don't think there is any suggestion that it hasn't been properly maintained? Some local residents are quite happy for it to stay as it is with perhaps some sort of free taxi service across the bridge for the elderly and disabled. None of the London bridges were ever built to cope with today's traffic but many have been rebuilt or strengthened significantly to cope with the increasing volumes so it's not unique to Hammersmith Bridge - the bridge should of been torn down and rebuilt - it's listed status is not an excuse not to do so as many listed buildings have been rebuilt. Yes it will cost but at least the important local links will be restored. I suspect the local economy in Barnes & Hammersmith have taken some hits as a result.
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 24, 2019 16:49:12 GMT
The bridge wasn't built to take the volume of traffic that has been using it, I don't think there is any suggestion that it hasn't been properly maintained? Some local residents are quite happy for it to stay as it is with perhaps some sort of free taxi service across the bridge for the elderly and disabled. None of the London bridges were ever built to cope with today's traffic but many have been rebuilt or strengthened significantly to cope with the increasing volumes so it's not unique to Hammersmith Bridge - the bridge should of been torn down and rebuilt - it's listed status is not an excuse not to do so as many listed buildings have been rebuilt. Yes it will cost but at least the important local links will be restored. I suspect the local economy in Barnes & Hammersmith have taken some hits as a result. Clearly there is no chance of it being demolished and rebuilt but yes I'm sure some businesses in the area have lost trade as a result of the closure.
|
|