|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 15, 2021 13:52:14 GMT
With the exception with a drop in demand slightly on the 533, I'd say only the 209 may need a slight increase to cater for people going from Mortlake to the bridge then walking. This is good news thou atleast being able to walk across it. Might finish the 378 off. |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Jul 15, 2021 14:11:13 GMT
This reopening to pedestrians and cyclists is a temporary one and will still be interrupted by ongoing stabilisation works (H&F Council says it will try to limit any closures required by these works to "weekends and off-peak times"). From the BBC News article you linked to: H&F Council also quoted the same last line in its own press release. The fact that H&F admits that "the limited current use must cease eventually" indicates that it anticipates a further ongoing closure of the bridge to pedestrians once the "permanent solution" of full repairs begins. The full repair works on the bridge still haven't begun, as a result of ongoing disputes over who will pay for it all. A cheaper (by £40m) and quicker (by four years!) proposal for repairing the bridge (the 'double decker' plan from Foster & Partners) is still being evaluated, and promises to allow the bridge to remain open to pedestrians and traffic during repairs (and to fully reopen the restored bridge in 2023). But even if this approach is adopted, the bridge will still have to close - likely for several months - while the second deck is built above the existing roadway and safely connected to adjacent roads on either side of the river. If the assessment finds that proposal unworkable, we already know from the Government's Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce meeting in November that the current £141m plan for the full restoration and repair of the bridge would involve long periods of closure to pedestrians, and wouldn't fully reopen until 2027. Either way, we're not yet at the point that the bridge can be declared 'permanently' reopened to pedestrians. Even when we reach that point, I would be surprised if we see many changes beyond perhaps a small frequency reduction on the 533. It's worth bearing in mind that all the changes made to local buses since the bridge closed were structured so that passengers can either reach the south side of the bridge to cross it (whether on foot or by 533 or on the new ferry that's still due to launch in late summer); or can travel to a nearby Underground station. Reopening the bridge to pedestrians doesn't change that - passengers will still need to travel to the bridge so they can cross the river; or travel by bus to get a Tube. I doubt that there'll be any more significant changes to the local bus network until the bridge fully reopens to buses, allowing them to cross to Hammersmith again, allowing old links to be restored, and removing the need for the temporary changes that were made. The big question on that front is whether it happens in 2023 or 2027. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 15:16:07 GMT
This reopening to pedestrians and cyclists is a temporary one and will still be interrupted by ongoing stabilisation works (H&F Council says it will try to limit any closures required by these works to "weekends and off-peak times"). From the BBC News article you linked to: H&F Council also quoted the same last line in its own press release. The fact that H&F admits that "the limited current use must cease eventually" indicates that it anticipates a further ongoing closure of the bridge to pedestrians once the "permanent solution" of full repairs begins. The full repair works on the bridge still haven't begun, as a result of ongoing disputes over who will pay for it all. A cheaper (by £40m) and quicker (by four years!) proposal for repairing the bridge (the 'double decker' plan from Foster & Partners) is still being evaluated, and promises to allow the bridge to remain open to pedestrians and traffic during repairs (and to fully reopen the restored bridge in 2023). But even if this approach is adopted, the bridge will still have to close - likely for several months - while the second deck is built above the existing roadway and safely connected to adjacent roads on either side of the river. If the assessment finds that proposal unworkable, we already know from the Government's Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce meeting in November that the current £141m plan for the full restoration and repair of the bridge would involve long periods of closure to pedestrians, and wouldn't fully reopen until 2027. Either way, we're not yet at the point that the bridge can be declared 'permanently' reopened to pedestrians. Even when we reach that point, I would be surprised if we see many changes beyond perhaps a small frequency reduction on the 533. It's worth bearing in mind that all the changes made to local buses since the bridge closed were structured so that passengers can either reach the south side of the bridge to cross it (whether on foot or by 533 or on the new ferry that's still due to launch in late summer); or can travel to a nearby Underground station. Reopening the bridge to pedestrians doesn't change that - passengers will still need to travel to the bridge so they can cross the river; or travel by bus to get a Tube. I doubt that there'll be any more significant changes to the local bus network until the bridge fully reopens to buses, allowing them to cross to Hammersmith again, allowing old links to be restored, and removing the need for the temporary changes that were made. The big question on that front is whether it happens in 2023 or 2027. It’s so stupid that there is still a dispute over funding. It’s really simple H&F council own the bridge, failed to carry out proper maintenance and allowed TfL to run heavy buses over it daily and nightly which contributed to the damage. It wasn’t the DfT or central government that allowed any of that but somehow they are being told to pay for it. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Jul 20, 2021 17:09:27 GMT
This reopening to pedestrians and cyclists is a temporary one and will still be interrupted by ongoing stabilisation works (H&F Council says it will try to limit any closures required by these works to "weekends and off-peak times"). From the BBC News article you linked to: H&F Council also quoted the same last line in its own press release. The fact that H&F admits that "the limited current use must cease eventually" indicates that it anticipates a further ongoing closure of the bridge to pedestrians once the "permanent solution" of full repairs begins. The full repair works on the bridge still haven't begun, as a result of ongoing disputes over who will pay for it all. A cheaper (by £40m) and quicker (by four years!) proposal for repairing the bridge (the 'double decker' plan from Foster & Partners) is still being evaluated, and promises to allow the bridge to remain open to pedestrians and traffic during repairs (and to fully reopen the restored bridge in 2023). But even if this approach is adopted, the bridge will still have to close - likely for several months - while the second deck is built above the existing roadway and safely connected to adjacent roads on either side of the river. If the assessment finds that proposal unworkable, we already know from the Government's Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce meeting in November that the current £141m plan for the full restoration and repair of the bridge would involve long periods of closure to pedestrians, and wouldn't fully reopen until 2027. Either way, we're not yet at the point that the bridge can be declared 'permanently' reopened to pedestrians. Even when we reach that point, I would be surprised if we see many changes beyond perhaps a small frequency reduction on the 533. It's worth bearing in mind that all the changes made to local buses since the bridge closed were structured so that passengers can either reach the south side of the bridge to cross it (whether on foot or by 533 or on the new ferry that's still due to launch in late summer); or can travel to a nearby Underground station. Reopening the bridge to pedestrians doesn't change that - passengers will still need to travel to the bridge so they can cross the river; or travel by bus to get a Tube. I doubt that there'll be any more significant changes to the local bus network until the bridge fully reopens to buses, allowing them to cross to Hammersmith again, allowing old links to be restored, and removing the need for the temporary changes that were made. The big question on that front is whether it happens in 2023 or 2027. It’s so stupid that there is still a dispute over funding. It’s really simple H&F council own the bridge, failed to carry out proper maintenance and allowed TfL to run heavy buses over it daily and nightly which contributed to the damage. It wasn’t the DfT or central government that allowed any of that but somehow they are being told to pay for it. Do Richmond council play no part in the upkeep of the bridge? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2021 17:10:46 GMT
It’s so stupid that there is still a dispute over funding. It’s really simple H&F council own the bridge, failed to carry out proper maintenance and allowed TfL to run heavy buses over it daily and nightly which contributed to the damage. It wasn’t the DfT or central government that allowed any of that but somehow they are being told to pay for it. Do Richmond council play no part in the upkeep of the bridge? Not that I’m aware, H&F have full ownership of the bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by dashing0ne on Jul 23, 2021 6:19:21 GMT
Do Richmond council play no part in the upkeep of the bridge? Not that I’m aware, H&F have full ownership of the bridge. And good old leftist Labour (control H&C council) will refuse to pay the bridge. If I were to be a Labour voter in the area I would not vote for them again after what they are doing to the bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 23, 2021 11:34:02 GMT
Not that I’m aware, H&F have full ownership of the bridge. And good old leftist Labour (control H&C council) will refuse to pay the bridge. If I were to be a Labour voter in the area I would not vote for them again after what they are doing to the bridge. It’s got nothing to do with the council being Labour run so can we keep party politics out of it |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2021 11:51:26 GMT
And good old leftist Labour (control H&C council) will refuse to pay the bridge. If I were to be a Labour voter in the area I would not vote for them again after what they are doing to the bridge. It’s got nothing to do with the council being Labour run so can we keep party politics out of it Regardless of who runs the council it could have ended up the same way as the council fails to see how it can be responsible for a listed bridge it agreed to taken ownership of in the 80s. I still don’t see how the government is responsible for the bridge at all when the maintenance has been failed by the council. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 29, 2021 22:13:04 GMT
Rode a 378 to Mortlake via the old routing via the 485 today yet on the return 209 there were alot of 378s on the Barnes Pond Stand that had gone on diversion via the Red Lion. Is the 378 still curtailed or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Jul 29, 2021 22:15:52 GMT
Rode a 378 to Mortlake via the old routing via the 485 today yet on the return 209 there were alot of 378s on the Barnes Pond Stand that had gone on diversion via the Red Lion. Is the 378 still curtailed or not? Yes because of issues at Mortlake. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 29, 2021 22:27:11 GMT
I wonder why one of them did the full route today. Perhaps they do if they are changing to the 209 for the return journey.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Aug 17, 2021 6:25:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 17, 2021 7:36:27 GMT
Oh guess what, the cost has considerably reduced now H&F know they can't get anyone else to cover the costs. Strange that! |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 17, 2021 8:22:11 GMT
Oh guess what, the cost has considerably reduced now H&F know they can't get anyone else to cover the costs. Strange that! One can be too cynical. The two stabilisation proposals are completely different and were produced for different clients. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 17, 2021 8:39:59 GMT
Oh guess what, the cost has considerably reduced now H&F know they can't get anyone else to cover the costs. Strange that! One can be too cynical. The two stabilisation proposals are completely different and were produced for different clients. That maybe the case, but you can not deny the cost as fallen by unbelievable amounts. Was the original request for funds from central government a deliberately over-engineered solution? Why was a second opinion not sought earlier? There has to be some questionable ethics and/or competence here I will scouring eBay later for surplus brown envelopes |
|
