|
Post by thelondonthing on Aug 27, 2019 21:27:27 GMT
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. I do wish there was a way to 'unlike' or downvote such witless, ill-informed posts on here. It has been very clearly and repeatedly established by everyone involved with the bridge that it's not feasible - indeed, it's entirely impractical - for a secondary bridge to be built here, either temporarily or permanently. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'allowing' builders to 'detract from the existing bridge's historic appeal', whether or not those phrases were supposed to be "dripping with sarcasm". The fact is that there simply isn't anywhere to build it without acquiring more land, and/or dealing with additional engineering and logistical problems, all of which would add even greater expense to the overall cost of the project. I also don't understand what the problem is with a politician securing the future of a structure on historical grounds. I don't have a good word to say about Andy Burnham, but I really don't see why he deserves such criticism simply for ensuring that a bridge is historically listed, preserving a piece of London for future generations. Why should the fact that the bridge was seemingly improperly maintained and managed by other people be held against the man who ensured its protection?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 27, 2019 22:01:44 GMT
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. I do wish there was a way to 'unlike' or downvote such witless, ill-informed posts on here. It has been very clearly and repeatedly established by everyone involved with the bridge that it's not feasible - indeed, it's entirely impractical - for a secondary bridge to be built here, either temporarily or permanently. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'allowing' builders to 'detract from the existing bridge's historic appeal', whether or not those phrases were supposed to be "dripping with sarcasm". The fact is that there simply isn't anywhere to build it without acquiring more land, and/or dealing with additional engineering and logistical problems, all of which would add even greater expense to the overall cost of the project. I also don't understand what the problem is with a politician securing the future of a structure on historical grounds. I don't have a good word to say about Andy Burnham, but I really don't see why he deserves such criticism simply for ensuring that a bridge is historically listed, preserving a piece of London for future generations. Why should the fact that the bridge was seemingly improperly maintained and managed by other people be held against the man who ensured its protection? Indeed, people involved have simply kept kicking the issue further down the road - really, instead of setting the mandatory limit in the 90's, they should of started the process of demolition and the subsequent rebuild. Andy Burnham isn't my cup of tea but he isn't Mystic Meg either and wasn't going to know that the bridge would continue to be neglected - besides, listed status does not stop demolition providing the right processes are in place but admittedly, does increase the cost.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 27, 2019 23:11:26 GMT
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. I also don't understand what the problem is with a politician securing the future of a structure on historical grounds. I don't have a good word to say about Andy Burnham, but I really don't see why he deserves such criticism simply for ensuring that a bridge is historically listed, preserving a piece of London for future generations. Why should the fact that the bridge was seemingly improperly maintained and managed by other people be held against the man who ensured its protection? If a politician is merely securing the future of its continued existence for a tokenistic reason (and I believe large amounts of public money are spent on the creation of each new listing) then he, and it is he in the case of Burnham, deserves criticism imo. I happen to know that, even in the case of a modest dwelling with Grade 2 listing, that any works associated with its upkeep cost a lot more owing to the extra criteria about materials etc, which used to be VAT free but were brought within its scope by government actiion in recent years: how I know this is that my own property is Grade 2 listed, and what was already difficult to afford to maintain has become totally unaffordable, with no prospect of anyone else footing the bill or helping in any way. In the case of a vital river crossing what is surely important is to ensure keeping it open. I am sure, by the way, when Bailey Bridges were being constructed to enable the 8th Army's tanks to invade Italy that their practicality was queried by the naysayers, but it didn't prevent my late father from driving the tank he commanded over them, but problems were thought of as things to overcome in those days when the UK was not a basket case.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Aug 28, 2019 0:33:08 GMT
I also don't understand what the problem is with a politician securing the future of a structure on historical grounds. I don't have a good word to say about Andy Burnham, but I really don't see why he deserves such criticism simply for ensuring that a bridge is historically listed, preserving a piece of London for future generations. Why should the fact that the bridge was seemingly improperly maintained and managed by other people be held against the man who ensured its protection? If a politician is merely securing the future of its continued existence for a tokenistic reason (and I believe large amounts of public money are spent on the creation of each new listing) then he, and it is he in the case of Burnham, deserves criticism imo. I happen to know that, even in the case of a modest dwelling with Grade 2 listing, that any works associated with its upkeep cost a lot more owing to the extra criteria about materials etc, which used to be VAT free but were brought within its scope by government actiion in recent years: how I know this is that my own property is Grade 2 listed, and what was already difficult to afford to maintain has become totally unaffordable, with no prospect of anyone else footing the bill or helping in any way. In the case of a vital river crossing what is surely important is to ensure keeping it open. I am sure, by the way, when Bailey Bridges were being constructed to enable the 8th Army's tanks to invade Italy that their practicality was queried by the naysayers, but it didn't prevent my late father from driving the tank he commanded over them, but problems were thought of as things to overcome in those days when the UK was not a basket case. With the greatest respect to your late father, and to his brave military service, your post only serves to strengthen the case for a 'downvote' or 'dislike' button here. You say that "problems were thought of as things to overcome in those days when the UK was not a basket case". The problems involved today with building a Bailey bridge alongside Hammersmith Bridge include the lack of space at/beyond either bank of the river - both to adjoin the new bridge to the road, and to establish operational areas during construction - along with that other small issue of 'property'. The cost of buying up land and properties, compensating people and businesses, along with actually constructing the new bridge, would be considerable - and on top of all of that, the original bridge will still have to be repaired and maintained. These problems are so great - and the costs involved so substantial - that everyone involved has already dismissed the idea of a second bridge as unworkable. TfL has made it clear, including at local meetings in the Barnes area, that building a secondary bridge isn't feasible, so I really don't understand what you expect to happen here. Some ideas just aren't practical in certain situations - even if they would have worked *perfectly* in a totally different situation, in another country, during a war that ended 74 years ago. And yes, listed structures cost more to maintain than those that aren't listed. Doesn't everyone know that? All of the stakeholders - including central government, the Mayor of London, the GLA, H&F and TfL - were certainly aware of that when Hammersmith Bridge was listed. Other bridges, such as the Severn Bridge and Tower Bridge - or even the Forth Bridge, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site - have been listed or protected successfully, while still being maintained in keeping with their respective statuses. So again, I fail to see why the act of listing Hammersmith Bridge is considered so egregious, or why the man who made that happen is being singled out for doing so. But while I can't make any sense of your complaints, I am left with a very strong impression that you're deeply regretting buying a Grade 2 listed home.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 28, 2019 17:18:18 GMT
If a politician is merely securing the future of its continued existence for a tokenistic reason (and I believe large amounts of public money are spent on the creation of each new listing) then he, and it is he in the case of Burnham, deserves criticism imo. I happen to know that, even in the case of a modest dwelling with Grade 2 listing, that any works associated with its upkeep cost a lot more owing to the extra criteria about materials etc, which used to be VAT free but were brought within its scope by government actiion in recent years: how I know this is that my own property is Grade 2 listed, and what was already difficult to afford to maintain has become totally unaffordable, with no prospect of anyone else footing the bill or helping in any way. In the case of a vital river crossing what is surely important is to ensure keeping it open. I am sure, by the way, when Bailey Bridges were being constructed to enable the 8th Army's tanks to invade Italy that their practicality was queried by the naysayers, but it didn't prevent my late father from driving the tank he commanded over them, but problems were thought of as things to overcome in those days when the UK was not a basket case. With the greatest respect to your late father, and to his brave military service, your post only serves to strengthen the case for a 'downvote' or 'dislike' button here. You say that "problems were thought of as things to overcome in those days when the UK was not a basket case". The problems involved today with building a Bailey bridge alongside Hammersmith Bridge include the lack of space at/beyond either bank of the river - both to adjoin the new bridge to the road, and to establish operational areas during construction - along with that other small issue of 'property'. The cost of buying up land and properties, compensating people and businesses, along with actually constructing the new bridge, would be considerable - and on top of all of that, the original bridge will still have to be repaired and maintained. These problems are so great - and the costs involved so substantial - that everyone involved has already dismissed the idea of a second bridge as unworkable. TfL has made it clear, including at local meetings in the Barnes area, that building a secondary bridge isn't feasible, so I really don't understand what you expect to happen here. Some ideas just aren't practical in certain situations - even if they would have worked *perfectly* in a totally different situation, in another country, during a war that ended 74 years ago. And yes, listed structures cost more to maintain than those that aren't listed. Doesn't everyone know that? All of the stakeholders - including central government, the Mayor of London, the GLA, H&F and TfL - were certainly aware of that when Hammersmith Bridge was listed. Other bridges, such as the Severn Bridge and Tower Bridge - or even the Forth Bridge, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site - have been listed or protected successfully, while still being maintained in keeping with their respective statuses. So again, I fail to see why the act of listing Hammersmith Bridge is considered so egregious, or why the man who made that happen is being singled out for doing so. But while I can't make any sense of your complaints, I am left with a very strong impression that you're deeply regretting buying a Grade 2 listed home. I won't continue this exchange any longer except to say 1) I'm quite prepared to accept there's no room for another bridge - it's probably twenty years since I last set foot in Hammersmith, another fifteen or twenty since I went over Hamm Bridge, around the time of one of the IRA bombs IIRC. I was just asking a question, whose answer I'm happy to accept. I don't, however, accept that a 'look at me' politician can make the decision to 'list' a bridge that carries a vital artery of traffic and not ensure that the financial wherewithal to ensure its long-term survival as a bridge, not a listed monument, is made too. Your point seems to be that it's quite OK for a bridge to be listed, and everyone involved with the decision is pleased but, when push comes to shove, attempt to pass the buck on coming up with the money. I think it's pathetic, but indicative of the state of the political class in this benighted country. 2) You're making the (perhaps understandable) assumption that I bought a listed property. I did not - after three years' ownership we received a letter stating that our home was now Grade 2 listed, on the basis of the outside of it (front only) and its location, without any previous correspondence or contact of any kind. I believe we were told of means to challenge it legally, which might have been available to a millionaire but not to us.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Aug 29, 2019 11:21:18 GMT
TfL changes link 533 Hammersmith - Mortlake - Barnes - Mortlake - Hammersmith From Saturday 21 September a revised timetable will be in operation on all days of the week on route 533 to help improve reliability. 190 Richmond - Chiswick - Stamford Brook - Hammersmith - West Brompton From Saturday 21 September a revised timetable will be in operation on all days of the week on route 190 to help improve reliability. The 190 and 533 follow same route for part of their journey, so presumably these changes are related (and could now say the 190 is overbussed, as it has gained the 533 sharing its route for big chunk of journey).
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 29, 2019 11:43:50 GMT
TfL changes link 533 Hammersmith - Mortlake - Barnes - Mortlake - Hammersmith From Saturday 21 September a revised timetable will be in operation on all days of the week on route 533 to help improve reliability. 190 Richmond - Chiswick - Stamford Brook - Hammersmith - West Brompton From Saturday 21 September a revised timetable will be in operation on all days of the week on route 190 to help improve reliability. The 190 and 533 follow same route for part of their journey, so presumably these changes are related (and could now say the 190 is overbussed, as it has gained the 533 sharing its route for big chunk of journey). I don't think you can say that it's overbussed as the 190 & 533 only share their route between Hogarth Roundabout & Chiswick Bridge Road. The 533 doesn't serve Chiswick High Road and runs direct via the A4 into Hammersmith. Also from observations, the 190 is a bus route in its own right.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Aug 29, 2019 12:15:09 GMT
TfL changes link 533 Hammersmith - Mortlake - Barnes - Mortlake - Hammersmith From Saturday 21 September a revised timetable will be in operation on all days of the week on route 533 to help improve reliability. 190 Richmond - Chiswick - Stamford Brook - Hammersmith - West Brompton From Saturday 21 September a revised timetable will be in operation on all days of the week on route 190 to help improve reliability. The 190 and 533 follow same route for part of their journey, so presumably these changes are related (and could now say the 190 is overbussed, as it has gained the 533 sharing its route for big chunk of journey). I don't think you can say that it's overbussed as the 190 & 533 only share their route between Hogarth Roundabout & Chiswick Bridge Road. The 533 doesn't serve Chiswick High Road and runs direct via the A4 into Hammersmith. Also from observations, the 190 is a bus route in its own right. This is true, but the point I am making is the Hogarth - Chalkers Corner section used to be just 190 on its own, it has effectively gained buses as 533 has been added Chiswick High Road is awash with other bus routes, doesn't need the single deck 190 as an extra Chalkers Corner - Manor Circus section, the 190 is parallelled by R68 Manor Circus - Richmond is heavily overbussed (especially as Richmond cuts didn't happen) I reserve judgement until new timetables come out, but really the Hogarth - Chalkers Corner section needs the buses even spaced rather tan being treated as 2 unrelated routes with an assortment of intervals.
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 29, 2019 12:18:03 GMT
I don't think you can say that it's overbussed as the 190 & 533 only share their route between Hogarth Roundabout & Chiswick Bridge Road. The 533 doesn't serve Chiswick High Road and runs direct via the A4 into Hammersmith. Also from observations, the 190 is a bus route in its own right. This is true, but the point I am making is the Hogarth - Chalkers Corner section used to be just 190 on its own, it has effectively gained buses as 533 has been added Chiswick High Road is awash with other bus routes, doesn't need the single deck 190 as an extra Chalkers Corner - Manor Circus section, the 190 is parallelled by R68 Manor Circus - Richmond is heavily overbussed (especially as Richmond cuts didn't happen) I reserve judgement until new timetables come out, but really the Hogarth - Chalkers Corner section needs the buses even spaced rather tan being treated as 2 unrelated routes with an assortment of intervals. Chiswick high road needs all the help it can get and the 190 is very useful. Lower Mortlake road is very overbussed I'd agree on that
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 29, 2019 13:16:49 GMT
I don't think you can say that it's overbussed as the 190 & 533 only share their route between Hogarth Roundabout & Chiswick Bridge Road. The 533 doesn't serve Chiswick High Road and runs direct via the A4 into Hammersmith. Also from observations, the 190 is a bus route in its own right. This is true, but the point I am making is the Hogarth - Chalkers Corner section used to be just 190 on its own, it has effectively gained buses as 533 has been added Chiswick High Road is awash with other bus routes, doesn't need the single deck 190 as an extra Chalkers Corner - Manor Circus section, the 190 is parallelled by R68 Manor Circus - Richmond is heavily overbussed (especially as Richmond cuts didn't happen) I reserve judgement until new timetables come out, but really the Hogarth - Chalkers Corner section needs the buses even spaced rather tan being treated as 2 unrelated routes with an assortment of intervals. Chiswick High Road may have a lot of buses but the 190 in its own right is a busy route and provides probably the main link from Hammersmith to Richmond (I'd say the 391 is more roundabout given it runs via Kew) and also provides a service to Chiswick Lane which means serving Chiswick High Road as a result. Furthermore, 533's have been regularly reported as having busy loadings due to the 30 min frequency and this was true on my 533 as well a few weeks back so I don't think it's as severe personally. Manor Circus to Richmond is only overbussed due to a lack of stand space within Richmond. In an ideal world, only the 190, 371, 419 & R68 would serve that stretch but unless someone decides to tear down part of Richmond to facilitate a proper bus station, you will always have some kind of overbussing going on. At the end of the day, this isn't the fault of the 190 which provides a through link at Manor Circus.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 29, 2019 15:07:29 GMT
Hence the plan to remove the 493 and H22 from that section and drop the freq of the H37.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 29, 2019 21:18:39 GMT
TfL changes link 533 Hammersmith - Mortlake - Barnes - Mortlake - Hammersmith From Saturday 21 September a revised timetable will be in operation on all days of the week on route 533 to help improve reliability. 190 Richmond - Chiswick - Stamford Brook - Hammersmith - West Brompton From Saturday 21 September a revised timetable will be in operation on all days of the week on route 190 to help improve reliability. The 190 and 533 follow same route for part of their journey, so presumably these changes are related (and could now say the 190 is overbussed, as it has gained the 533 sharing its route for big chunk of journey). Chiswick High Road is a bus corridor with barely sufficient levels of capacity during the peaks, this has been the case since the loss of the 27. I would continue ranting as I so love to do but george and vjaska have said all I would've said and more
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 29, 2019 22:26:31 GMT
I'd like to see the 190 go DD. As said it's the most direct route to Richmond from Hammersmith and now has to cope without the 27 between Hammersmith and Chiswick Lane.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuschannel on Aug 30, 2019 5:25:20 GMT
I'd like to see the 190 go DD. As said it's the most direct route to Richmond from Hammersmith and now has to cope without the 27 between Hammersmith and Chiswick Lane. Maybe with the upcoming 266 loss maybe it could use some of its buses.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 30, 2019 6:09:16 GMT
I'd like to see the 190 go DD. As said it's the most direct route to Richmond from Hammersmith and now has to cope without the 27 between Hammersmith and Chiswick Lane. Maybe with the upcoming 266 loss maybe it could use some of its buses. Although the 13reg TEHs are going to G for the 282. The spare TEs could be used though, but the may be too old by the 190's next tender.
|
|