|
Post by thelondonthing on Aug 25, 2019 15:20:22 GMT
I agree with many posts made that TFL are making too many changes to the network around Barnes which aren't necessarily beneficial. My suggested changes, for as long as the bridge remains closed: 33 - Remain terminating at Lonsdale Road. 72 - Restore to Roehampton, via the 220 to Putney Bridge then the 265. Converted to DD operation. 110 - Rerouted via St Margarets as proposed (along with other Richmond changes), but instead extended to Hammersmith via the 391 route. Frequency increased to every 15 minutes to match the shortened 391. 190 - Frequency increase (to every 12 mins, or even every 10), due to possible displaced passengers from the 419 between Hammersmith, North Sheen and Richmond. 209/533 - Route 209 extended from Mortlake to Hammersmith via route 533, though every other service could continue terminating at Mortlake. 265 - Rerouted from Barnes Station to Lonsdale Road via the former route 72. Putney Bridge link retained by revised 72 and route 85. 283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge north side to replace the 72. 306 - Acton-Sands End route to retain the 391 number, with the section to Richmond taken over by the revised 110. 378/419/485 - Merged to a single route from Richmond to Wandsworth, via route 419 to Lonsdale Road, then Castelnau, Barnes Wetland Centre, Rocks Lane, then via the proposed revised 485 to Wandsworth. Possible extension to the Wandsworth Riverside development. The 378's connection to the District Line is retained, but to East Putney instead of Putney Bridge. Operating around every 15 minutes. In the event of Hammersmith Bridge reopening, I would keep the 72 running via Putney Bridge to relieve the 220 and to guarantee use of DDs on the busy route. I would extend the 33 back to Hammersmith, as well as extending the revised 265 to Hammersmith, but leave the 378/419 route fully south of the river. I would also restore the 209 to its original route, but keep the 283 at Hammersmith Bridge, with possible extension back to Barnes Pond, or even a merger with the 209 to Mortlake. At a glance, I think this seems like a thoughtful and sensible recasting of the local bus network. Re: the 283 - use of the Hammersmith Bridge North Side stand is unlikely to continue after the bridge reopens. Buses on the 72 currently approach it via Bridge View, but the stand itself is on Hammersmith Bridge Road, which is relatively deserted these days, of course. But with regular traffic flowing across the bridge again, it would be impractical to stand buses on such a busy road so close to a major traffic interchange (and assuming the bridge is reopened to buses as well as cars, passenger numbers to and from the stand would surely plummet anyway). Terminating the 283 at Barnes Pond instead, or even merging it with the 209 through to Mortlake - as you suggested - both sound like credible alternatives in the scenario you laid out.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 25, 2019 19:03:35 GMT
I agree with many posts made that TFL are making too many changes to the network around Barnes which aren't necessarily beneficial. My suggested changes, for as long as the bridge remains closed: 33 - Remain terminating at Lonsdale Road. 72 - Restore to Roehampton, via the 220 to Putney Bridge then the 265. Converted to DD operation. 110 - Rerouted via St Margarets as proposed (along with other Richmond changes), but instead extended to Hammersmith via the 391 route. Frequency increased to every 15 minutes to match the shortened 391. 190 - Frequency increase (to every 12 mins, or even every 10), due to possible displaced passengers from the 419 between Hammersmith, North Sheen and Richmond. 209/533 - Route 209 extended from Mortlake to Hammersmith via route 533, though every other service could continue terminating at Mortlake. 265 - Rerouted from Barnes Station to Lonsdale Road via the former route 72. Putney Bridge link retained by revised 72 and route 85. 283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge north side to replace the 72. 306 - Acton-Sands End route to retain the 391 number, with the section to Richmond taken over by the revised 110. 378/419/485 - Merged to a single route from Richmond to Wandsworth, via route 419 to Lonsdale Road, then Castelnau, Barnes Wetland Centre, Rocks Lane, then via the proposed revised 485 to Wandsworth. Possible extension to the Wandsworth Riverside development. The 378's connection to the District Line is retained, but to East Putney instead of Putney Bridge. Operating around every 15 minutes. In the event of Hammersmith Bridge reopening, I would keep the 72 running via Putney Bridge to relieve the 220 and to guarantee use of DDs on the busy route. I would extend the 33 back to Hammersmith, as well as extending the revised 265 to Hammersmith, but leave the 378/419 route fully south of the river. I would also restore the 209 to its original route, but keep the 283 at Hammersmith Bridge, with possible extension back to Barnes Pond, or even a merger with the 209 to Mortlake. At a glance, I think this seems like a thoughtful and sensible recasting of the local bus network. Re: the 283 - use of the Hammersmith Bridge North Side stand is unlikely to continue after the bridge reopens. Buses on the 72 currently approach it via Bridge View, but the stand itself is on Hammersmith Bridge Road, which is relatively deserted these days, of course. But with regular traffic flowing across the bridge again, it would be impractical to stand buses on such a busy road so close to a major traffic interchange (and assuming the bridge is reopened to buses as well as cars, passenger numbers to and from the stand would surely plummet anyway). Terminating the 283 at Barnes Pond instead, or even merging it with the 209 through to Mortlake - as you suggested - both sound like credible alternatives in the scenario you laid out. I think the merged 209/283 East Acton to Mortlake route would be the best option, would replace some links from the rerouted 72 in my proposals. The 209 & 283 also have similar frequencies, and are each relatively short.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 25, 2019 20:08:02 GMT
The 209 would go back to being alot mroe frequent when the bridge re opens. It was every 4-6 mins most the day whereas the 283 is every 8 mins. Of course if the 209/283 were DD then a lesser freq would be ok to Mortlake.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 25, 2019 20:10:26 GMT
The 209 would go back to being alot mroe frequent when the bridge re opens. It was every 4-6 mins most the day whereas the 283 is every 8 mins. Of course if the 209/283 were DD then a lesser freq would be ok to Mortlake. That's if double deckers are permissible through the back roads of the 283 which I presume they're aren't so the 209 & 283 would probably have to remain as separate routes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 25, 2019 20:23:07 GMT
I agree with many posts made that TFL are making too many changes to the network around Barnes which aren't necessarily beneficial. My suggested changes, for as long as the bridge remains closed: 33 - Remain terminating at Lonsdale Road. 72 - Restore to Roehampton, via the 220 to Putney Bridge then the 265. Converted to DD operation. 110 - Rerouted via St Margarets as proposed (along with other Richmond changes), but instead extended to Hammersmith via the 391 route. Frequency increased to every 15 minutes to match the shortened 391. 190 - Frequency increase (to every 12 mins, or even every 10), due to possible displaced passengers from the 419 between Hammersmith, North Sheen and Richmond. 209/533 - Route 209 extended from Mortlake to Hammersmith via route 533, though every other service could continue terminating at Mortlake. 265 - Rerouted from Barnes Station to Lonsdale Road via the former route 72. Putney Bridge link retained by revised 72 and route 85. 283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge north side to replace the 72. 306 - Acton-Sands End route to retain the 391 number, with the section to Richmond taken over by the revised 110. 378/419/485 - Merged to a single route from Richmond to Wandsworth, via route 419 to Lonsdale Road, then Castelnau, Barnes Wetland Centre, Rocks Lane, then via the proposed revised 485 to Wandsworth. Possible extension to the Wandsworth Riverside development. The 378's connection to the District Line is retained, but to East Putney instead of Putney Bridge. Operating around every 15 minutes. In the event of Hammersmith Bridge reopening, I would keep the 72 running via Putney Bridge to relieve the 220 and to guarantee use of DDs on the busy route. I would extend the 33 back to Hammersmith, as well as extending the revised 265 to Hammersmith, but leave the 378/419 route fully south of the river. I would also restore the 209 to its original route, but keep the 283 at Hammersmith Bridge, with possible extension back to Barnes Pond, or even a merger with the 209 to Mortlake. I go with most of that as it's very good, though I'd make some slight alterations: 265 - Divert it to Wandsworth, Southside instead given how popular the 265 was when it had to temporarily terminate at Wandsworth. 378 - Merge into Route 419 giving a Richmond to Putney Bridge routing 485 - Withdrawn being partially replaced by the 265's diversion to Wandsworth One small note - Wandsworth Riverside is before the town centre so makes no sense to terminate any bus route coming from the west as terminating at Wandsworth, Southside would bring the patronage.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 25, 2019 20:51:33 GMT
I agree with many posts made that TFL are making too many changes to the network around Barnes which aren't necessarily beneficial. My suggested changes, for as long as the bridge remains closed: 33 - Remain terminating at Lonsdale Road. 72 - Restore to Roehampton, via the 220 to Putney Bridge then the 265. Converted to DD operation. 110 - Rerouted via St Margarets as proposed (along with other Richmond changes), but instead extended to Hammersmith via the 391 route. Frequency increased to every 15 minutes to match the shortened 391. 190 - Frequency increase (to every 12 mins, or even every 10), due to possible displaced passengers from the 419 between Hammersmith, North Sheen and Richmond. 209/533 - Route 209 extended from Mortlake to Hammersmith via route 533, though every other service could continue terminating at Mortlake. 265 - Rerouted from Barnes Station to Lonsdale Road via the former route 72. Putney Bridge link retained by revised 72 and route 85. 283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge north side to replace the 72. 306 - Acton-Sands End route to retain the 391 number, with the section to Richmond taken over by the revised 110. 378/419/485 - Merged to a single route from Richmond to Wandsworth, via route 419 to Lonsdale Road, then Castelnau, Barnes Wetland Centre, Rocks Lane, then via the proposed revised 485 to Wandsworth. Possible extension to the Wandsworth Riverside development. The 378's connection to the District Line is retained, but to East Putney instead of Putney Bridge. Operating around every 15 minutes. In the event of Hammersmith Bridge reopening, I would keep the 72 running via Putney Bridge to relieve the 220 and to guarantee use of DDs on the busy route. I would extend the 33 back to Hammersmith, as well as extending the revised 265 to Hammersmith, but leave the 378/419 route fully south of the river. I would also restore the 209 to its original route, but keep the 283 at Hammersmith Bridge, with possible extension back to Barnes Pond, or even a merger with the 209 to Mortlake. I go with most of that as it's very good, though I'd make some slight alterations: 265 - Divert it to Wandsworth, Southside instead given how popular the 265 was when it had to temporarily terminate at Wandsworth. 378 - Merge into Route 419 giving a Richmond to Putney Bridge routing 485 - Withdrawn being partially replaced by the 265's diversion to Wandsworth One small note - Wandsworth Riverside is before the town centre so makes no sense to terminate any bus route coming from the west as terminating at Wandsworth, Southside would bring the patronage. The plan for the 485 was to reroute it via Putney High Street, and the Upper Richmond Road so it would still serve Wandsworth Town Centre and then go on to serve the Riverside Quarter. Either way, the proposed routing the 485 would've taken wouldn't have been all that helpful as it would have only brushed the western edge of the town centre, although of course this cannot be helped because of the road layout.
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Aug 25, 2019 23:54:36 GMT
The 209 would go back to being alot mroe frequent when the bridge re opens. It was every 4-6 mins most the day whereas the 283 is every 8 mins. Of course if the 209/283 were DD then a lesser freq would be ok to Mortlake. That's if double deckers are permissible through the back roads of the 283 which I presume they're aren't so the 209 & 283 would probably have to remain as separate routes. Mortlake Bus Station could also be an issue for double deckers as it is rather tight. The 10.5m E200s just make it round so if they strictly stick to E400s then it could be doable. One suggestion which I would say is scrapping the 378 and replacing it with an extended 22 to Mortlake. There is a stand at the end of Mortlake High Street (near the roundabout of Mortlake High Street/Lower Richmond Road/Sheen Lane) where buses could potentially stand.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 26, 2019 10:34:04 GMT
That's if double deckers are permissible through the back roads of the 283 which I presume they're aren't so the 209 & 283 would probably have to remain as separate routes. Mortlake Bus Station could also be an issue for double deckers as it is rather tight. The 10.5m E200s just make it round so if they strictly stick to E400s then it could be doable. One suggestion which I would say is scrapping the 378 and replacing it with an extended 22 to Mortlake. There is a stand at the end of Mortlake High Street (near the roundabout of Mortlake High Street/Lower Richmond Road/Sheen Lane) where buses could potentially stand. I think the 378 is in part TfL attempting of appease the 22 to Barnes lobby, without actually delivering what residents want. The reason the residents want the 22 is because of the link to Central London, one of their arguments was that they needed an alternative route to Central London in the even of Hammersmith Bridge closing (what an improbable prediction!). The 378 is a half hearted attempt to provide that link, but there's certainly scope to extend the route further than Putney Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by daveshah on Aug 26, 2019 11:57:13 GMT
Mortlake Bus Station could also be an issue for double deckers as it is rather tight. The 10.5m E200s just make it round so if they strictly stick to E400s then it could be doable. One suggestion which I would say is scrapping the 378 and replacing it with an extended 22 to Mortlake. There is a stand at the end of Mortlake High Street (near the roundabout of Mortlake High Street/Lower Richmond Road/Sheen Lane) where buses could potentially stand. I think the 378 is in part TfL attempting of appease the 22 to Barnes lobby, without actually delivering what residents want. The reason the residents want the 22 is because of the link to Central London, one of their arguments was that they needed an alternative route to Central London in the even of Hammersmith Bridge closing (what an improbable prediction!). The 378 is a half hearted attempt to provide that link, but there's certainly scope to extend the route further than Putney Bridge. I think there was also an expectation in that group of something akin to the N22 routeing covering more of the stops in Barnes (Church Road in particular) rather than the 378's more rural routeing.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Aug 26, 2019 12:54:42 GMT
One suggestion which I would say is scrapping the 378 and replacing it with an extended 22 to Mortlake. There is a stand at the end of Mortlake High Street (near the roundabout of Mortlake High Street/Lower Richmond Road/Sheen Lane) where buses could potentially stand. The issue with the Mortlake High Street stand is that there are few options for buses (approaching on the westbound side of the road) to turn around and reach the stand (on the eastbound side). The mini roundabout you mention doesn't strike me as the best place to be doing a U-turn in a double-decker - not just because of the tight turning circle needed, but also because this junction is frequently clogged with traffic from every direction, especially so during peak hours. There also aren't many nearby roads down which a double-decker could instead do a quick loop to come back and reach the stand - not without adding significant dead mileage down roads that are, again, traffic nightmares throughout much of the day. Having empty buses regularly sitting in traffic while they try to reach the stand would obviously present operational problems for the route. That said, I also think it's wholly unlikely that the 22 will reach any part of Mortlake or Barnes any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Aug 26, 2019 21:54:06 GMT
yep! Out of interest what other routes are interworked? Not including school routes, I know 389/399 and H18/H19 are The 139 / 189 used to be interworked evenings and Sundays, but that was stopped in April 2017, one of the 'benefits' of the Finchley Road changes. I was about to quote this as a good reason for route 139 to join route 189 with Metroline - until I remembered route 189 now had LTs.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 26, 2019 22:36:38 GMT
Can I ask someone knowledgeable these two questions:-
Is Hammersmith Bridge important enough to be a Listed Building?
If the answer to the above is yes, then
Why is Hammersmith Bridge not important enough to have the necessary money for its repair spent on it?
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Aug 26, 2019 22:54:32 GMT
Can I ask someone knowledgeable these two questions:- Is Hammersmith Bridge important enough to be a Listed Building? If the answer to the above is yes, then Why is Hammersmith Bridge not important enough to have the necessary money for its repair spent on it? 1) Yes - it has Grade II* status. 2) Where does the money come from? And what proportion of the total bill must be paid by each of the various stakeholders? It's not simply a matter of saying "this bridge has Grade II* status; therefore, it is important, and it must be funded". The money has to come from somewhere - whether it's H&F Council, TfL, funding from central government or from the lottery, or wherever else. Large-scale projects like this one, regardless of whether or not they involve listed buildings, are often stalled by the all-important question of how large each stakeholder's share of the costs and liabilities will be.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 26, 2019 23:16:10 GMT
Can I ask someone knowledgeable these two questions:- Is Hammersmith Bridge important enough to be a Listed Building? If the answer to the above is yes, then Why is Hammersmith Bridge not important enough to have the necessary money for its repair spent on it? 1) Yes - it has Grade II* status. 2) Where does the money come from? And what proportion of the total bill must be paid by each of the various stakeholders? It's not simply a matter of saying "this bridge has Grade II* status; therefore, it is important, and it must be funded". The money has to come from somewhere - whether it's H&F Council, TfL, funding from central government or from the lottery, or wherever else. Large-scale projects like this one, regardless of whether or not they involve listed buildings, are often stalled by the all-important question of how large each stakeholder's share of the costs and liabilities will be. In 2008 Andy Burnham, currently Mayor of Manchester, then the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, gave 5 Thames crossings protected status. Was it worthy of the protection, I am not qualified to answer that. Is he interested in the current problem caused by his action... ... well probably not in the slightest. Why it has not had any money allocated for it repairs is because who is responsible for the cost. Hammersmith and Fulham council that are as owners are ultimately responsible for the bridge, but they want TfL to pay ... who are baulking at the idea given their current financial predicament. So we have a Labour adminstration giving protected status, Labour Mayor and Labour council .. oh why do we find ourselves in such a mess? That will be the London public!
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 27, 2019 20:16:41 GMT
1) Yes - it has Grade II* status. 2) Where does the money come from? And what proportion of the total bill must be paid by each of the various stakeholders? It's not simply a matter of saying "this bridge has Grade II* status; therefore, it is important, and it must be funded". The money has to come from somewhere - whether it's H&F Council, TfL, funding from central government or from the lottery, or wherever else. Large-scale projects like this one, regardless of whether or not they involve listed buildings, are often stalled by the all-important question of how large each stakeholder's share of the costs and liabilities will be. In 2008 Andy Burnham, currently Mayor of Manchester, then the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, gave 5 Thames crossings protected status. Was it worthy of the protection, I am not qualified to answer that. Is he interested in the current problem caused by his action... ... well probably not in the slightest. Why it has not had any money allocated for it repairs is because who is responsible for the cost. Hammersmith and Fulham council that are as owners are ultimately responsible for the bridge, but they want TfL to pay ... who are baulking at the idea given their current financial predicament. So we have a Labour adminstration giving protected status, Labour Mayor and Labour council .. oh why do we find ourselves in such a mess? That will be the London public! What possibilities might there be to erect a 'Bailey bridge' next to the so important, but not important enough to keep operational, Hammersmith Bridge, then? Obviously, nothing that would detract from the existing bridge's historic appeal as a monument would be allowed. I don't know if there's an emoji for dripping with sarcasm, so I'll leave it at that. What a country! Mention of Andy Burnham reminds me of the 'calibre' of so many politicians of recent times on all sides.
|
|