|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 10, 2020 21:52:26 GMT
There was an article in the standard this evening saying experts now say it may be safe to walk across and could reopen to that early next year before works are carried out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bertrell on Dec 10, 2020 21:56:50 GMT
There was an article in the standard this evening saying experts now say it may be safe to walk across and could reopen to that early next year before works are carried out. Yep, saw that too. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Dec 10, 2020 23:20:32 GMT
What a farce this is, it took 2 yrs for the Italians to replace that Genoa bridge and good old UK are still arguing about the price since 1991 when DDs were banned. All that money wasted on cycle lanes, Boris Buses, Airport, Garden bridge eh...🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨 But then that is in Italy. After all how many things over here in the UK has taken years when other countries it would not take pittance of that time. We have to much red tape, too much protests for every little project, a million and one consultations, strikes not to mention highly expensive prices. You seem to want to take it out on Boris for the Hammersmith bridge, but if so why didn't Ken do anything, nor the labour government. I personally do not see the significance of the Hammersmith bridge when there are other bridges nearby. Compare that to the distance of the Blackwall Tunnel and Dartford Crossing. With Hammersmith bridge it is probably cheaper to tear down the existing bridge and replace it with something new as what happened with London Bridge, but this would not go down well with many people in this day and age. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2020 23:25:56 GMT
What a farce this is, it took 2 yrs for the Italians to replace that Genoa bridge and good old UK are still arguing about the price since 1991 when DDs were banned. All that money wasted on cycle lanes, Boris Buses, Airport, Garden bridge eh...🤨🤨🤨🤨 Hammersmith & Fulham council is responsible for the bridge, not the mayors office, not TfL and not central government. As far as I am concerned the council failed to keep the bridge functioning and they have a moral duty to pay for repairs. I don’t see any other riverside councils, like Wandsworth, asking for assistance in repairing their bridges. The Genoa bridge was subject to poor construction from its completion that contributed towards that disaster. But it’s slightly different to Hammersmith Bridge as it is a main throughfare between Italy and France. Not to mention the bridge is vital to support the Genoa economy as the port is the largest in Italy. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 11, 2020 3:19:25 GMT
What a farce this is, it took 2 yrs for the Italians to replace that Genoa bridge and good old UK are still arguing about the price since 1991 when DDs were banned. All that money wasted on cycle lanes, Boris Buses, Airport, Garden bridge eh...🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨 But then that is in Italy. After all how many things over here in the UK has taken years when other countries it would not take pittance of that time. We have to much red tape, too much protests for every little project, a million and one consultations, strikes not to mention highly expensive prices. You seem to want to take it out on Boris for the Hammersmith bridge, but if so why didn't Ken do anything, nor the labour government. I personally do not see the significance of the Hammersmith bridge when there are other bridges nearby. Compare that to the distance of the Blackwall Tunnel and Dartford Crossing. With Hammersmith bridge it is probably cheaper to tear down the existing bridge and replace it with something new as what happened with London Bridge, but this would not go down well with many people in this day and age. You only have to look at the traffic jams in the surrounding areas and the loadings on the 533 to tell you how significant Hammersmith Bridge is to the local area - the fact there are other bridges nearby is irrelevant. London Bridge (all three versions) wasn't listed so was much easier to replace - Hammersmith Bridge is listed so would be costly to replace although certainly not impossible to replace providing listed conditions are met. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 11, 2020 8:37:02 GMT
I do find it strange that a crossing like this remains the responsibility of the local council and wasn't transferred to TfL when it was established. Equally, the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels still sitting with Greenwich Council doesn't seem right to me. There's a strategic aspect to river crossings that would make TfL appear a more logical home.
|
|
|
|
Post by bertrell on Dec 11, 2020 8:42:05 GMT
I do find it strange that a crossing like this remains the responsibility of the local council and wasn't transferred to TfL when it was established. Equally, the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels still sitting with Greenwich Council doesn't seem right to me. There's a strategic aspect to river crossings that would make TfL appear a more logical home. Are those not half owned by each council either side of the Thames? |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Feb 24, 2021 16:05:01 GMT
Not exactly bus news, but it is related to the bridge closure... TfL has published details of its proposals for the temporary cross-river ferry. Two viable bids have been submitted to operate the service - by City Cruises (which runs sightseeing and dining tours); and Uber Boat by Thames Clippers (which operates numerous scheduled river services). The two bids are still being evaluated, and the final decision for which company will operate the service is due to be announced in March. Last year, after it was revealed that the bridge repair works would not be completed until 2027 at the earliest, it was stated that the ferry service would be up and running by spring 2021. However, TfL says that "additional time requested by some of the firms taking part in the procurement process to ensure a high quality submission, means it is unlikely that the ferry will begin operating before the summer." Funding for the service still isn't guaranteed: "The contract award and delivery of the ferry service is also dependent on TfL securing agreement from Government that financial support will be provided for the delivery and operation of the ferry." TfL says that more details regarding the service will be available after the winning bid is selected next month. However, it has revealed a few key details already: - The ferry will run between 0600 and 2200 on weekdays, with "an off-peak service on weekends".
- There will be a minimum capacity of 800 passengers per hour at peak times.
- The cost of the service will be £1.55 each way (matching bus fares, which will increase by 5p from 1 March 2021). As with buses, the same concessions will apply to the ferry service, as will the Hopper fare, "subject to necessary approvals".
The full announcement is available here on the TfL site. Steering back to buses for a moment, I wonder if there'll be a frequency reduction on the 533 when the ferry service is up and running. Many passengers will obviously favour using the ferry, but the 533 will still be necessary for shoppers, the elderly, and others who can't easily manage the walk to and from the bridge. However, I can't imagine that there'll be enough passengers to sustain the 533's current frequency once the ferry is operational. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2021 18:55:30 GMT
Not exactly bus news, but it is related to the bridge closure... TfL has published details of its proposals for the temporary cross-river ferry. Two viable bids have been submitted to operate the service - by City Cruises (which runs sightseeing and dining tours); and Uber Boat by Thames Clippers (which operates numerous scheduled river services). The two bids are still being evaluated, and the final decision for which company will operate the service is due to be announced in March. Last year, after it was revealed that the bridge repair works would not be completed until 2027 at the earliest, it was stated that the ferry service would be up and running by spring 2021. However, TfL says that "additional time requested by some of the firms taking part in the procurement process to ensure a high quality submission, means it is unlikely that the ferry will begin operating before the summer." Funding for the service still isn't guaranteed: "The contract award and delivery of the ferry service is also dependent on TfL securing agreement from Government that financial support will be provided for the delivery and operation of the ferry." TfL says that more details regarding the service will be available after the winning bid is selected next month. However, it has revealed a few key details already: - The ferry will run between 0600 and 2200 on weekdays, with "an off-peak service on weekends".
- There will be a minimum capacity of 800 passengers per hour at peak times.
- The cost of the service will be £1.55 each way (matching bus fares, which will increase by 5p from 1 March 2021). As with buses, the same concessions will apply to the ferry service, as will the Hopper fare, "subject to necessary approvals".
The full announcement is available here on the TfL site. Steering back to buses for a moment, I wonder if there'll be a frequency reduction on the 533 when the ferry service is up and running. Many passengers will obviously favour using the ferry, but the 533 will still be necessary for shoppers, the elderly, and others who can't easily manage the walk to and from the bridge. However, I can't imagine that there'll be enough passengers to sustain the 533's current frequency once the ferry is operational. I think a ferry is good however until the ferry operates, the exact numbers as well as the amount of traffic can't be accurately reflected. So the 533 could still provide a "double up" service, potentially becoming a faster route? |
|
|
|
Post by dashing0ne on Mar 4, 2021 9:21:58 GMT
Proposals:
1. Introduce a new route X533 (or any other express servcie) that runs Castlenau - Hammersmith Bus Station stopless. Regular route 533 remains.
2. Reform routes:
* 378 and 485 withdrawn
* Route 265 diverted to Wandsworth like route 485. It was also clear that that section was popular when Putney Bridge was closed. Diversion at Putney Pier. Those who want to get to the bus station or the bridge can simply walk or use route 22 for the remaining 2 stops no longer served.
*Extend regular route 533 only slightly to Barnes, Wetlands Centre. Not only will this provide a much easier link, it could boost visits there and help the economy.
*Route 209 would go to Hammersmith via Putney Bridge with route 378 covered (despite literally empty buses running on the 378). If someone wanted to go to Castlenau they can use other bus services or walk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2021 9:25:29 GMT
If this works out, double decker buses certainly not returning.
|
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 19, 2021 10:40:11 GMT
If this works out, double decker buses certainly not returning. Fantastic if this goes ahead based on the proposed timescale. This is a win win win for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. I think a toll is a sensible idea to pay for repair costs and future maintenance of the bridge. For me there are no issues with running single deck services across Hammersmith Bridge. It will require a higher PVR for busier routes, but that’s not such a bad thing for industry jobs at a time when TfL are reducing PVRs across London. Really hope this proposal gets the backing of central government, the MOL and TfL. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 19, 2021 12:39:43 GMT
If this works out, double decker buses certainly not returning. Fantastic if this goes ahead based on the proposed timescale. This is a win win win for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. I think a toll is a sensible idea to pay for repair costs and future maintenance of the bridge. For me there are no issues with running single deck services across Hammersmith Bridge. It will require a higher PVR for busier routes, but that’s not such a bad thing for industry jobs at a time when TfL are reducing PVRs across London. Really hope this proposal gets the backing of central government, the MOL and TfL. So after all the talk of it being listed and can’t be altered, it now looks like it will become a steel truss bridge with the existing chains kept more for decoration than actually taking the load of the bridge deck If there is a height restriction stopping single decks (likely if on upper deck, and have to fit under the towers) then would TfL look at longer single decks, possibly even tri-axles if there is a axle weight limit to spread the load. Depending on where they choose to send buses crossing bridge might even be able to use something nearer 12m - 14m long |
|
|
|
Post by ​galwhv69 on Mar 19, 2021 12:42:15 GMT
I'm sure ADL will be more than willing to adapt the E200MMC XLB to UK/London operations if need be
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 19, 2021 12:51:29 GMT
Fantastic if this goes ahead based on the proposed timescale. This is a win win win for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. I think a toll is a sensible idea to pay for repair costs and future maintenance of the bridge. For me there are no issues with running single deck services across Hammersmith Bridge. It will require a higher PVR for busier routes, but that’s not such a bad thing for industry jobs at a time when TfL are reducing PVRs across London. Really hope this proposal gets the backing of central government, the MOL and TfL. So after all the talk of it being listed and can’t be altered, it now looks like it will become a steel truss bridge with the existing chains kept more for decoration than actually taking the load of the bridge deck If there is a height restriction stopping single decks (likely if on upper deck, and have to fit under the towers) then would TfL look at longer single decks, possibly even tri-axles if there is a axle weight limit to spread the load. Depending on where they choose to send buses crossing bridge might even be able to use something nearer 12m - 14m long The double-deck bridge is only intended to be a temporary solution (long-term aim is the restoration of the original deck) so I doubt it will be designed to take heavier vehicles than operated previously. |
|
