|
Post by george on Jun 25, 2019 16:26:03 GMT
The funny thing about planning transport, is that quite often the public do not behave in the way they might be expected to. I would have thought that people would have welcomed the rerouting to Putney Bridge to maintain links into the Underground but no, apparently a lot would prefer to get off at Hammersmith Bridge and walk the rest. Perhaps the solution is to get rid of the 209 completely and put the resources into the 533? I think should the bridge's crack have manifested itself before December the 209s new contract would not have been awarded and the route withdrawn with as you say the resources being put towards a more frequent 533. I also wonder if the rerouting to Putney Bridge was done in mind with the fact the new contract would have Go Ahead potentially operating it out of Putney garage. I wonder if the reason people prefer to walk to Hammersmith is because you have the Piccadilly Line there directly rather than needing to get the District to Earl's Court and changing there. Yep that's one the reasons but other reasons people have mentioned are schools and hospitals near Hammersmith. I've thought about AF being the reason it moved to putney bridge before altough I think it's unlikely in reality.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 25, 2019 18:16:31 GMT
My proposal differs from ADH45258 in that I'd still start it at Mortlake but run via the 533's current loop and then back through Mortlake towards Chiswick Bridge. That would just be confusing for passengers. No point is terminating at Mortlake as the route would just operate as a loop in this case terminating only at Hammersmith (as the 533 does, or the 138/288). But a revised 209 could stand at Castelnau, as it did prior to the Putney Bridge rerouting, making more sense to go via Castelnau and Barnes High Street in both directions (as the 419 goes via Lonsdale Road). We already have routes that double run and this particular double run would be incredibly short so I don’t see how it’s confusing. It would achieve everything the current 209 & 533 does. The terminating point at Mortlake is useful for those on the other side of the railway line whilst the rest mirrors the 533 exactly which would mean people not needing to remember another entirely different routing.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 25, 2019 18:32:10 GMT
That would just be confusing for passengers. No point is terminating at Mortlake as the route would just operate as a loop in this case terminating only at Hammersmith (as the 533 does, or the 138/288). But a revised 209 could stand at Castelnau, as it did prior to the Putney Bridge rerouting, making more sense to go via Castelnau and Barnes High Street in both directions (as the 419 goes via Lonsdale Road). How about a ferry As long as we don't get another debacle with a ferry company who have no ferries then I'm up for that
|
|
|
Post by george on Jun 25, 2019 21:21:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 25, 2019 21:55:06 GMT
Oh god, Shaun Bailey is opening his mouth again
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Jun 27, 2019 2:03:38 GMT
There's a thorough and detailed analysis of the Hammersmith Bridge closure on the excellent London Reconnections site, which I hope other members will enjoy reading. It covers the history of problems that have plagued the bridge, and failures by local and national government over the years, as well as touching on issues that have been discussed here, such as TfL's appalling customer information efforts since the bridge closure.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jun 27, 2019 6:34:11 GMT
There's a thorough and detailed analysis of the Hammersmith Bridge closure on the excellent London Reconnections site, which I hope other members will enjoy reading. It covers the history of problems that have plagued the bridge, and failures by local and national government over the years, as well as touching on issues that have been discussed here, such as TfL's appalling customer information efforts since the bridge closure. Thanks for posting very interesting, London reconnection always has some very interesting articles
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Jul 10, 2019 15:25:08 GMT
Zac Goldsmith, MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, has published a long list of questions and answers from TfL on how the bridge closure affects bus services (you'll need to scroll past the first Q&A section on the bridge itself from H&F Council). Much of what's been published there is already known by members here, and some of what's been published has even previously appeared on the TfL consultation page, but there are a couple of bits that I think are worth highlighting. In the Q&A, TfL acknowledges "requests for a restored direct link between the southern end of Hammersmith Bridge and Roehampton Lane", in relation to the withdrawal of the 72's southern end, although it's still not clear what it intends to do about it. As expected, there are "no plans to increase the frequency" of the 533 (despite its pitiful half-hourly service and buses often being seen with standing room only), but TfL says it's instead "looking into staggering the timetables of the 533 and 419", which seems like a poor solution as it's not really the same thing as a 533 frequency boost. And another round of changes isn't exactly great news for the 419, which has had a rough time recently with the closure of the bridge, its curtailment to Lonsdale Road, and its recent extension to Barnes Pond. On top of all that, the 419 is expecting even more upheaval at some point in the future, with proposals for it to be merged with the 110 still unresolved. One very interesting detail that I've not seen mentioned elsewhere is that TfL is now actively preparing to make further changes to the 209, instead of just talking about doing so. In fact, TfL says it has "initiated discussions with the operators of bus route 209 with a view to sending a proportion of the service from Mortlake to Hammersmith south side rather than Putney Bridge". So... does that mean that some 209s will run from Mortlake to Hammersmith Bridge South Side, while others will run from Mortlake to Putney Bridge? That seems... odd. TfL continues: And at this point, I'm confused: why is TfL referring to running "two routes" from the Avondale Road stand? Are they considering literally splitting the 209 into two completely separate routes - one to Hammersmith Bridge South Side, and one to Putney Bridge, with both starting from Avondale Road? Could we soon see a '509'... or have I completely and embarrassingly misunderstood something here? (Oh, and by the way, Goldsmith also reiterates the general assumption that the bridge repair works could take up to three years to be completed.)
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Jul 10, 2019 15:25:52 GMT
I was on a Putney bound 14 just now complete with additional i-Bus announcements saying things like this is a frequent 7 day a week route. When we got to Putney Bridge it said change here for the 209 towards Barnes and 265 towards Queen Marys Hospital. Makes me think the 209 change is very much here to stay despite the objections in Barnes.
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Jul 10, 2019 15:42:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Jul 10, 2019 15:47:28 GMT
I don't know why they don't just run all 209's Mortlake, Barnes Bridge then non-stop up Lonsdale Road to Castlenau. Then all stops as usual to Barnes Pond, Station Road and on to Putney Bridge. Yes, the route would be longer so there would have to be fewer buses but given there are no jams to and from Hammersmith Bridge these days it would be a relatively quick run. The bonus is that only one proper 209 bus stop would be missed out, the westbound one on Barnes High Street which is barely 2 minutes walk from the Barnes Pond stops.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 10, 2019 20:28:32 GMT
Zac Goldsmith, MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, has published a long list of questions and answers from TfL on how the bridge closure affects bus services (you'll need to scroll past the first Q&A section on the bridge itself from H&F Council). Much of what's been published there is already known by members here, and some of what's been published has even previously appeared on the TfL consultation page, but there are a couple of bits that I think are worth highlighting. In the Q&A, TfL acknowledges "requests for a restored direct link between the southern end of Hammersmith Bridge and Roehampton Lane", in relation to the withdrawal of the 72's southern end, although it's still not clear what it intends to do about it. As expected, there are "no plans to increase the frequency" of the 533 (despite its pitiful half-hourly service and buses often being seen with standing room only), but TfL says it's instead "looking into staggering the timetables of the 533 and 419", which seems like a poor solution as it's not really the same thing as a 533 frequency boost. And another round of changes isn't exactly great news for the 419, which has had a rough time recently with the closure of the bridge, its curtailment to Lonsdale Road, and its recent extension to Barnes Pond. On top of all that, the 419 is expecting even more upheaval at some point in the future, with proposals for it to be merged with the 110 still unresolved. One very interesting detail that I've not seen mentioned elsewhere is that TfL is now actively preparing to make further changes to the 209, instead of just talking about doing so. In fact, TfL says it has "initiated discussions with the operators of bus route 209 with a view to sending a proportion of the service from Mortlake to Hammersmith south side rather than Putney Bridge". So... does that mean that some 209s will run from Mortlake to Hammersmith Bridge South Side, while others will run from Mortlake to Putney Bridge? That seems... odd. TfL continues: And at this point, I'm confused: why is TfL referring to running "two routes" from the Avondale Road stand? Are they considering literally splitting the 209 into two completely separate routes - one to Hammersmith Bridge South Side, and one to Putney Bridge, with both starting from Avondale Road? Could we soon see a '509'... or have I completely and embarrassingly misunderstood something here? (Oh, and by the way, Goldsmith also reiterates the general assumption that the bridge repair works could take up to three years to be completed.) The wording does seem strange but it does seem to suggest that some 209 will go to Putney Bridge and others will go to Hammersmith Bridge. Having the same route going two different directions just wouldn't work so there would have to be a new number. If a new route is in introduced I guess this means that it would have to go up for tender. My personal view on it is, Don't bother with the Mortlake to Putney Bridge route as no one is using it.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 10, 2019 21:10:04 GMT
I can forsee there being a lot of confusion over the Mortlake-Putney Bridge/Hammersmith Bridge, South Side service split between the two routes. I wonder if TfL will just cut the frequency of the 209 in its existing form and use the available buses for the Mortlake-Hammersmith Bridge, South Side route - which should be the route which takes the 209 number.
I agree with george the 209 is pointless in its current form and is really a fresh air route, it feels as if TfL cannot admit defeat by rerouting all 209s to go to the bridge but I suppose there are some merits in maintaining the link to the tube which is provided by the current albeit very poorly used, 209.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 10, 2019 23:13:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 10, 2019 23:46:04 GMT
With both uncertainty over if or when the bridge will be fixed, and complaints over TFL's temporary bus changes, I think a permanent set of changes is needed. TFL can then revise or revert these if/when the bridge allows traffic again.
It seems many passengers in the area around Barnes are opting to take the bus to Castelnau then walk over the bridge, or to use South Western Railway services rather than the tube from Hammersmith or Putney Bridge, with both the temporary 533 and revised 209 having low usage.
Route 72 should be restored to Roehampton, but via the 220 to Putney then the 265, as well as converted to DD to relieve congestion. Frequency could then possibly be reduced due to the added capacity. Route 283 could be extended in place to Hammersmith Bridge (north side) to continue that link. With the overlap of the 265 to Putney Bridge, this could perhaps be re-routed to Castelnau, restoring a link to Roehampton.
Passengers on route 209 seem to want a restored link to Hammersmith Bridge (south side), which the 533 currently provides but at a low frequency. I would merge the 209 and 533 together to a single route from Castelnau to Mortlake via the former 209, then continuing to Hammersmith via Chiswick Bridge (along the 533 route) - running at a higher frequency than the 533. Fixed bus stops could perhaps be added along Great West Road.
In addition, I would go ahead with the consulted proposals to route 485 at Wandsworth Riverside. The increased frequency would partly replace the 209 to Putney, and retaining a link from Barnes to the District Line, but instead at East Putney. Furthermore, I would then merge this with route 419, creating a Richmond-Wandsworth Riverside route operating every 20 minutes, looping via Castelnau (including the 419 hail-and-ride section and Barnes wetland centre). The 110 proposal would not take place in this case, but could perhaps still divert via St Margarets to terminate at Manor Circus.
One additional change could be for the 190 to convert to DDs (could be on next tender due soon), as the route may have taken additional passengers from the 419, as it continues to link Hammersmith to North Sheen and Richmond.
|
|