|
Post by vjaska on Apr 10, 2019 22:37:58 GMT
And then could stop running the 190 as it would duplicate it The R68 covers remainder of 190 route Strictly would be gap of 200m across the South Circular, which might be issue. If the worst was to happen and hopefully that doesn’t happen, there would likely be a restructuring of the 190, 290 & merged 419 route. One possible option would be to do the following: Either curtail the 33 to Barnes or divert via Putney Bridge (via Putney High Street rather than the common) Divert the 72 via Putney Common & Putney Bridge Withdraw the 190 Restructure the 209 to start from Mortlake, do a loop of Barnes via Barnes Pond, Castlenau & Lonsdale Road, run back through Mortlake, drop down through Sheen and then follow the 33, 337 & 493 to Richmond and then follow the current 190 to Hammersmith Extend the 391 from Hammersmith to West Brompton once cut back via the current 190 Withdraw the merged 419 east of Richmond Divert the 485 via the current 419 route and then the current 190 route to Hammersmith (the 485 is low frequency so any overbussing wouldn’t happen) Not ideal particularly the 209’s new routing but it at least keeps as many areas as possible to be served with the current links provided. I knew I had listed some proposals from myself should this scenario unfold which it sadly has - for me, the importance of the above proposals is on making sure as much of the area immediately south of the bridge is still served by buses and still has a link to Hammersmith even if it's been lengthened somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by george on Apr 10, 2019 23:01:20 GMT
If the worst was to happen and hopefully that doesn’t happen, there would likely be a restructuring of the 190, 290 & merged 419 route. One possible option would be to do the following: Either curtail the 33 to Barnes or divert via Putney Bridge (via Putney High Street rather than the common) Divert the 72 via Putney Common & Putney Bridge Withdraw the 190 Restructure the 209 to start from Mortlake, do a loop of Barnes via Barnes Pond, Castlenau & Lonsdale Road, run back through Mortlake, drop down through Sheen and then follow the 33, 337 & 493 to Richmond and then follow the current 190 to Hammersmith Extend the 391 from Hammersmith to West Brompton once cut back via the current 190 Withdraw the merged 419 east of Richmond Divert the 485 via the current 419 route and then the current 190 route to Hammersmith (the 485 is low frequency so any overbussing wouldn’t happen) Not ideal particularly the 209’s new routing but it at least keeps as many areas as possible to be served with the current links provided. I knew I had listed some proposals from myself should this scenario unfold which it sadly has - for me, the importance of the above proposals is on making sure as much of the area immediately south of the bridge is still served by buses and still has a link to Hammersmith even if it's been lengthened somewhat. All In all good ideas but with the 209 you could be waiting a long time at mortlake level crossing.
|
|
|
Post by londonbusboy on Apr 10, 2019 23:02:18 GMT
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" [1] 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. [1] polite word for arguing like hell Why do TfL still give London boroughs millions of pounds to regenerate areas? tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2019/march/new-projects-to-receive-50-million-to-create-healthy-streets-across-londonSurely each individual council should be paying for this.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 10, 2019 23:03:32 GMT
Just a quick question .. why are TfL expected to pay for this ... I did not think they owned the bridge ... or am I mistaken? I think you are correct re ownership. It is a H&F responsibility. I have not seen a formal position paper from H&F but I think their argument is simply that the damage and stress on the bridge is largely the result of the numbers of buses that TfL schedule to cross the bridge. We also had the debacle of buses breaking the rule of one bus in each direction allowed on the bridge at any time. I think H&F were furious about those breaches because it risked yet more damage to the bridge. TfL can't really NOT serve the residents of Barnes / Castleanau and Mortlake so buses need to cross the bridge. If I were H&F Council I would put two positions to TfL - (a) if you won't fund repairs then we will ban buses from using the bridge and possibly also restrict car volumes too or (b) if you want / need to run buses then you need to find the money to repair the bridge as they are causing disproportionate damage and also mean a much greater and more costly scope of work to repair / restore the bridge. Furthermore if you want to run double deckers over it then you MUST pay for the additional enhancement aspect of the works. What can TfL do in the face of that? They have to find some money *or* they take a step to remove a lot of bus services and leave people unable to travel. That's in breach of their own policies, the Mayor's Transport Strategy and their broad statutory duty to provide a public transport in London. A permanent or very long term loss of transport services would be a serious political and economic issue that would probably end up in the courts. Like many local authorities H&F simply do not have the money to repair Hammersmith Bridge to the tune of nearly £30m. Their capital spend on transport / roads is not large (based on budget papers I've read in the past). Also a fair chunk of money comes from TfL anyway for local schemes as part of that annual award process to the boroughs.
|
|
|
Post by londonbusboy on Apr 10, 2019 23:06:26 GMT
Back in 2008/09 the bridge on Chislehurst Road, Chislehurst was weak and had width barriers put in. The bridge was the responsibility of Bromley Council yet TfL funded it. I know they had more money back then but still.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 10, 2019 23:21:50 GMT
Local councils have had their budgets slashed to pieces by the current and previous government. The damage has been immense. They do not have the money for these schemes. TfL provide funding because it is a way for the Mayor to get their transport strategy implemented at a local level and in a reasonably consistent manner across the capital. The Mayor has the obligation and powers to draw up and implement a transport strategy. By directing funding against a set of criteria that are compatible with the strategy this prevents local authorities of whatever political complexion from ignoring the Mayor's strategy. There is already a vast variation in how specific local authorities approach traffic and transport matters - some outer boroughs are very car centric and have removed bus lanes in the past. Other boroughs are very pro public transport but may neglected other modes. Clearly the Mayor's strategy changes with the Mayor so we had one approach under Ken [1], a rather different one under Boris [2] and a different one again under Sadiq [3]. [1] very pro-bus, lots of bus priority, removal of space for cars, limited funding for cycling [2] cancellation of TfL bus priority schemes, emphasis on cycle superhighways, "smoothing traffic" [3] some bus priority restored but neutral about buses, "healthy streets", low speed limits, reduction in traffic accidents / public transport deaths and injuries
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 10, 2019 23:32:56 GMT
I knew I had listed some proposals from myself should this scenario unfold which it sadly has - for me, the importance of the above proposals is on making sure as much of the area immediately south of the bridge is still served by buses and still has a link to Hammersmith even if it's been lengthened somewhat. All In all good ideas but with the 209 you could be waiting a long time at mortlake level crossing. I can't remember why I opted for it to go through Sheen but you could alternatively run it via the current 419 route instead
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Apr 11, 2019 5:14:00 GMT
Decided to have a think overnight before speculating on what might happen to rerouting buses.
Clearly if the bridge is closed long term no point in having Castlenau as a terminus (not the best place to turn or stand buses anyway). That means effectively running a service from Putney (for the stations) via the area, Barnes Common and onto Mortlake High Street
Had to look at this on a map / satellite view first to understand how you can potentially go East -West If can’t go North to Hammersmith, and in reality the curvature of river makes it South East or South West
So from Putney is there a bus that could currently ends at Putney that could be extended, yes a few do, eg 265 but would they be too long. Some logic in an extension to another route rather than having a short Putney-Castlenau shuttle route.
At the other end of the now isolated peninsula have Barnes, there are already buses towards Richmond etc eg 33 so becomes a question of effectively replacing or diverting a 190 to Hammersmith (which is what the divered 72 is doing). But really don’t need 190 if 72 becomes a Hammersmith- Chiswick Bridge - Mortlake - Barnes Route. Probably best to then look at some of the buses ending at Manor Circus and think is there a better way of serving Mortlake. The R68 and diverted 72 doing right angled turns at Chalkers corner (where South Circular meets A316) might not make sense long term. Would Kew Retail Park be better served from Mortlake than a Twickenham.
Lots of possibilities, no doubt a short term solution, then a long term (initially) recast to avoid all these services no longer going anywhere in particular.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 7:11:31 GMT
Decided to have a think overnight before speculating on what might happen to rerouting buses. Clearly if the bridge is closed long term no point in having Castlenau as a terminus (not the best place to turn or stand buses anyway). That means effectively running a service from Putney (for the stations) via the area, Barnes Common and onto Mortlake High Street Had to look at this on a map / satellite view first to understand how you can potentially go East -West If can’t go North to Hammersmith, and in reality the curvature of river makes it South East or South West So from Putney is there a bus that could currently ends at Putney that could be extended, yes a few do, eg 265 but would they be too long. Some logic in an extension to another route rather than having a short Putney-Castlenau shuttle route. At the other end of the now isolated peninsula have Barnes, there are already buses towards Richmond etc eg 33 so becomes a question of effectively replacing or diverting a 190 to Hammersmith (which is what the divered 72 is doing). But really don’t need 190 if 72 becomes a Hammersmith- Chiswick Bridge - Mortlake - Barnes Route. Probably best to then look at some of the buses ending at Manor Circus and think is there a better way of serving Mortlake. The R68 and diverted 72 doing right angled turns at Chalkers corner (where South Circular meets A316) might not make sense long term. Would Kew Retail Park be better served from Mortlake than a Twickenham. Lots of possibilities, no doubt a short term solution, then a long term (initially) recast to avoid all these services no longer going anywhere in particular. I would do following.. 33 Double deck and run to Hammersmith via Putney Common and Putney Bridge, Putney Bridge Rd. 72 As per existing diversion via Chiswick Bridge 190 Withdrawn 209 recast to become Castlenau to Hammersmith service via Barnes Village, Mortlake, Chiswick Bridge, then via previous 190 to Hammersmith. 265 Additional peak hour jays Roehampton to Putney Bridge Stn 272 Extended from Chiswick to Richmond. 306 New partial 391 replacement 391 Withdrawn Hammersmith to Fulham. Diverted at Hammersmith to West Brompton Rerouted between Richmond and Kew Green via R68 to Kew Retail Park and onwards to Kew Green. R68 Diverted to Kew Gardens Stn from Manor Circus.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 11, 2019 7:43:41 GMT
Decided to have a think overnight before speculating on what might happen to rerouting buses. Clearly if the bridge is closed long term no point in having Castlenau as a terminus (not the best place to turn or stand buses anyway). That means effectively running a service from Putney (for the stations) via the area, Barnes Common and onto Mortlake High Street Had to look at this on a map / satellite view first to understand how you can potentially go East -West If can’t go North to Hammersmith, and in reality the curvature of river makes it South East or South West So from Putney is there a bus that could currently ends at Putney that could be extended, yes a few do, eg 265 but would they be too long. Some logic in an extension to another route rather than having a short Putney-Castlenau shuttle route. At the other end of the now isolated peninsula have Barnes, there are already buses towards Richmond etc eg 33 so becomes a question of effectively replacing or diverting a 190 to Hammersmith (which is what the divered 72 is doing). But really don’t need 190 if 72 becomes a Hammersmith- Chiswick Bridge - Mortlake - Barnes Route. Probably best to then look at some of the buses ending at Manor Circus and think is there a better way of serving Mortlake. The R68 and diverted 72 doing right angled turns at Chalkers corner (where South Circular meets A316) might not make sense long term. Would Kew Retail Park be better served from Mortlake than a Twickenham. Lots of possibilities, no doubt a short term solution, then a long term (initially) recast to avoid all these services no longer going anywhere in particular. The routes previously operating via Hammersmith Bridge provide a variety of links, not only linking Castelnau, but connecting Hammersmith to areas such as Barnes and Mortlake. A simple restructure solution could be to retain two diverted routes to Hammersmith, one via Chiswick Bridge (for Mortlake) and one via Putney Bridge (for Barnes). Then restructure other routes accordingly to continue links from Catelnau/Barnes areas such as Richmond. The 485 could work as the route over Chiswick Bridge via Mortlake, though the frequency could perhaps be increased to 3bhp. For a route via Putney Bridge, I would simply give the 265 a short extension to Hammersmith via the 220, offering links to Barnes and Roehampton. The 33 could possibly even be withdrawn from the area, perhaps merged with an enhanced R68 with a slight diversion to serve Strawberry Hill, plus with the 337 increased in frequency. Or alternatively, the 33 and 337 could be merged to a DD route between Clapham Junction and Fulwell, to continue some links across Richmond. The 190 could possibly be extended to Twickenham as well, Due to issues of terminating routes in Castelnau, a loop service could be a good idea. Perhaps operate the 419 from Richmond to Castelnau as the existing route, then onwards along the 72 route to Roehampton. The proposed 110 could instead take over the 190 routeing to Hammersmith (via Chiswick Bridge), with the 391 then extended to West Brompton in replacement. The 190 route number should be used in this case, as there is more in common than the existing 110. The 209 would be withdrawn in this case, and the 72 would just be left to run between Hammersmith and East Acton. One Hammersmith route (e.g. 72 or 283) could perhaps be revised to terminate via Bridge View, Rutland Grove and Hammersmith Bridge Road, to stop closer to Hammersmith Bridge. The 283 could possibly even be withdrawn, replaced by a DD-converted 72 and an enhanced 228. The only unique areas served by the 283 are one-way only, so passengers will already have alternative routes for the other direction. The 72 could divert via Uxbridge Road, Bloemfontein Road and South Africa Road, to continue linking this area to Hammersmith and Hammersmith Hospital. The 220/272 would continue links via Wood Lane Station.
|
|
|
Post by george on Apr 11, 2019 7:52:00 GMT
Decided to have a think overnight before speculating on what might happen to rerouting buses. Clearly if the bridge is closed long term no point in having Castlenau as a terminus (not the best place to turn or stand buses anyway). That means effectively running a service from Putney (for the stations) via the area, Barnes Common and onto Mortlake High Street Had to look at this on a map / satellite view first to understand how you can potentially go East -West If can’t go North to Hammersmith, and in reality the curvature of river makes it South East or South West So from Putney is there a bus that could currently ends at Putney that could be extended, yes a few do, eg 265 but would they be too long. Some logic in an extension to another route rather than having a short Putney-Castlenau shuttle route. At the other end of the now isolated peninsula have Barnes, there are already buses towards Richmond etc eg 33 so becomes a question of effectively replacing or diverting a 190 to Hammersmith (which is what the divered 72 is doing). But really don’t need 190 if 72 becomes a Hammersmith- Chiswick Bridge - Mortlake - Barnes Route. Probably best to then look at some of the buses ending at Manor Circus and think is there a better way of serving Mortlake. The R68 and diverted 72 doing right angled turns at Chalkers corner (where South Circular meets A316) might not make sense long term. Would Kew Retail Park be better served from Mortlake than a Twickenham. Lots of possibilities, no doubt a short term solution, then a long term (initially) recast to avoid all these services no longer going anywhere in particular. There has been talk in the past to extend the 22 to Barnes if the bridge was ever to close.
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Apr 11, 2019 8:18:41 GMT
I think what was meant is that the discovery of a large structural crack since that has developed since last week is what is worrying Cracks can occur at anytime ... better to have a process in place to detect them than not .. what is the better alternative? I'm not going to disagree, as that's exactly what I said to Sid. Again I stress [no pun intended!] that formation of a large crack that quickly is a worry, however that is a personal opinion and not a statement of fact. The better alternative [as you can only have one alternative] would have been to shut the bridge to motor or just bus traffic years ago, again IMO.
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Apr 11, 2019 8:20:33 GMT
Decided to have a think overnight before speculating on what might happen to rerouting buses. Clearly if the bridge is closed long term no point in having Castlenau as a terminus (not the best place to turn or stand buses anyway). That means effectively running a service from Putney (for the stations) via the area, Barnes Common and onto Mortlake High Street Had to look at this on a map / satellite view first to understand how you can potentially go East -West If can’t go North to Hammersmith, and in reality the curvature of river makes it South East or South West So from Putney is there a bus that could currently ends at Putney that could be extended, yes a few do, eg 265 but would they be too long. Some logic in an extension to another route rather than having a short Putney-Castlenau shuttle route. At the other end of the now isolated peninsula have Barnes, there are already buses towards Richmond etc eg 33 so becomes a question of effectively replacing or diverting a 190 to Hammersmith (which is what the divered 72 is doing). But really don’t need 190 if 72 becomes a Hammersmith- Chiswick Bridge - Mortlake - Barnes Route. Probably best to then look at some of the buses ending at Manor Circus and think is there a better way of serving Mortlake. The R68 and diverted 72 doing right angled turns at Chalkers corner (where South Circular meets A316) might not make sense long term. Would Kew Retail Park be better served from Mortlake than a Twickenham. Lots of possibilities, no doubt a short term solution, then a long term (initially) recast to avoid all these services no longer going anywhere in particular. There has been talk in the past to extend the 22 to Barnes if the bridge was ever to close. Possibly before the Oxford Circus extension? 22 would be considerably longer to Barnes and where would the extra PVRs come from?
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Apr 11, 2019 8:23:00 GMT
I see this morning that the 72s are all running through, as is the 419. The 33 is being cut short at Castlenau like the 209, however a couple 209s do seem to be diverting around; unlike last night when the 33 was going through and 209 all cut short.
|
|
|
Post by george on Apr 11, 2019 8:30:06 GMT
There has been talk in the past to extend the 22 to Barnes if the bridge was ever to close. Possibly before the Oxford Circus extension? 22 would be considerably longer to Barnes and where would the extra PVRs come from? The plan was rejected by tfl for exactly the same reasons you have just stated.
|
|