Suggestions for the network if the bridge were to permanently close to traffic:
33 - To permanely terminate at Castelnau.
72 - Diverted away from Castelnau, but via Putney Bridge instead of Chiswick Bridge as it is more direct. Operating via the 220 to Putney Bridge, then via the 265 to line of route at Barnes Station. Possible DD conversion.
110 - Rerouted to Richmond and Hammersmith as per proposals, but instead taking over the shortened 391 via Kew Bridge and Chiswick High Street.
209 - Revised to operate between Hammersmith and Barnes (former 283 stand?) via Great West Road and Chiswick Bridge - to continue a link between Hammersmith and Mortlake.
265 - Cut back from Putney Bridge to Barnes Station (85 continues links between Putney and Kingston Vale), and instead extended to Castelnau via the 72.
419/485 - Merged to operate between Wandsworth and Richmond, via Castelnau, operating around every 20 minutes.
I wonder if TfL will step in or leave it as it is. I wonder TfL will now reconfigure the bus routes.
Well who knows. TfL and H&F Council have been "discussing"  the work scope and funding for an eternity. The lack of money and lack of action always ran the risk that we would get to this position. I'd not be astonished if there is now another "discussion" over the test results with TfL arguing they're not as bad as H&F say they are. I would not be surprised if the leader of H&F Council has been on the phone haranguing Mayor Khan and Heidi Alexander over this mess. I suspect that Wandsworth and Richmond Councils may also have been on the blower too as the traffic fall out from this will be extensive.
I fear the bridge will be closed for several years now because TfL doesn't have the financial capacity to just pluck £30m out of the air these days. I don't recall any money or reference to the bridge in the TfL Budget for the current financial year so that means a wait until at least next April. I expect bus operators will have to implement whatever reserve plans TfL have in place for coping with a prolonged closure. I am assuming here that TfL have such plans because the risk of a long closure has been present for a long period of time.
 polite word for arguing like hell
Just a quick question .. why are TfL expected to pay for this ... I did not think they owned the bridge ... or am I mistaken?