|
Post by rj131 on Oct 11, 2019 16:12:45 GMT
To mitigate the delays caused by the bridge closure the 22, 33, 337, 391 are also having freq reductions. Hopefully this can all be used to put pressure on central government to help fund the repairs. If the 391 is becoming every 13 minutes in peak hours, does that make it a low frequency route now as now under 5 buses per hour Of course it was already planned to become every 15 minutes from December (once it lost the Fulham-Hammersmith section to new 306) Routes are classed as low frequency when the service is 4bph or lower I believe, so x15 minutes
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 11, 2019 16:39:16 GMT
If the 391 is becoming every 13 minutes in peak hours, does that make it a low frequency route now as now under 5 buses per hour Of course it was already planned to become every 15 minutes from December (once it lost the Fulham-Hammersmith section to new 306) Routes are classed as low frequency when the service is 4bph or lower I believe, so x15 minutes That’s what I wasn’t sure of, where 4.6 fell as never used to have 13 minutes intervals, either 12 mins (5 per hour) high frequency or 15 mins (4 per hour) low frequency What you suggest conflicts with what TfL publish which is high frequency is 5 or more, which suggests it’s no longer high frequency as it fails to meet this requirement. It then says low frequency is generally 4 or less (which is not absolute so permits 4.6 per hour) thus making it a low frequency route now tfl.gov.uk/forms/14144.aspx
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Oct 11, 2019 16:54:21 GMT
Routes are classed as low frequency when the service is 4bph or lower I believe, so x15 minutes That’s what I wasn’t sure of, where 4.6 fell as never used to have 13 minutes intervals, either 12 mins (5 per hour) high frequency or 15 mins (4 per hour) low frequency What you suggest conflicts with what TfL publish which is high frequency is 5 or more, which suggests it’s no longer high frequency as it fails to meet this requirement. It then says low frequency is generally 4 or less (which is not absolute so permits 4.6 per hour) thus making it a low frequency route now tfl.gov.uk/forms/14144.aspxWell, here’s what I think, the 75 and C1 are what’s confusing me. I always thought any route with a 13 minute frequency is a 5bph service with a slightly reduced frequency due to a temporary timetable, I can name a few examples of those (208, 260 and 261 were x13 for ages), so as these are really just 5bph routes just on a temporary timetable so should be high frequency still. However I don’t believe the C1 and 75 are on temporary timetable, these have been x13 min for absolutely ages (75 has an incredibly weird frequency of every 13-14 min), so it could actually be these are their real frequencies, LBR mentions nothing of a temporary timetable for these two routes. However are both classed as high frequency still, so I’m pretty sure that low frequency is simply 4bph or lower At the moment the 75 has the honour of being the least frequent high frequency route
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 12, 2019 9:11:13 GMT
To mitigate the delays caused by the bridge closure the 22, 33, 337, 391 are also having freq reductions. Hopefully this can all be used to put pressure on central government to help fund the repairs. The timetable changes to the 22, 33 and 391 - which come into effect this Saturday - were announced almost three weeks ago along with changes for multiple other routes, but I wasn't aware that the 337's frequency is being cut too. Has this been announced publicly? There's nothing on the Permanent Bus Changes page, despite notice of the timetable changes for the other Putney/Hammersmith area routes being published there. Does anyone else know anything about this? I still can't find any official information anywhere about the 337's frequency being reduced.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 12, 2019 11:49:38 GMT
The timetable changes to the 22, 33 and 391 - which come into effect this Saturday - were announced almost three weeks ago along with changes for multiple other routes, but I wasn't aware that the 337's frequency is being cut too. Has this been announced publicly? There's nothing on the Permanent Bus Changes page, despite notice of the timetable changes for the other Putney/Hammersmith area routes being published there. Does anyone else know anything about this? I still can't find any official information anywhere about the 337's frequency being reduced. londonbusroutes.net are reporting about the 337 frequency reduction and the guy who runs the site is more often than not correct - nothing from TfL is becoming less and less of a surprise, really amazing how far they've fallen.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 12, 2019 12:12:46 GMT
londonbusroutes.net are reporting about the 337 frequency reduction and the guy who runs the site is more often than not correct - nothing from TfL is becoming less and less of a surprise, really amazing how far they've fallen. Many thanks. Indeed, I hold londonbusroutes.net in high regard, so I have every confidence in that information being accurate. And you're quite right - the absence of any official notice from TfL really does come as no surprise at all.
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 13, 2019 19:49:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 14, 2019 4:41:06 GMT
It is an interesting read. But it's also a lovely idea that completely ignores the reality of the situation. I completely agree with the notion that it would be delightful to turn Hammersmith Bridge into a pedestrian crossing, with pretty street-level landscaping, and farmers' market stalls sitting where once there were big smelly vehicles belching out pollutants. I have no doubt at all that residents of the Barnes peninsula could adjust to that more desirable and picturesque scenario, and even to the inconvenience of changing their journeys - they'd have plenty of incentive to do so with all those wonderful benefits of reduced traffic down Castelnau, a beautiful pedestrian-friendly bridge, a more vibrant local community able to enjoy cleaner air, and a much happier way of life all round. Of course, there would be no such benefits to the residents of other surrounding areas, whose roads would remain clogged with tens of thousands of vehicles forced to find other routes to cross the river. We've already seen just how severely other nearby parts of London have suffered, including daily gridlock, side roads crammed with vehicles, impact on bus services and the like. Where are the voices of residents in these parts of London represented in calls for the bridge to stay closed to traffic? And what about the businesses that have also been suffering severely - on both sides of the river - since the bridge's closure? These ideas to convert Hammersmith Bridge into something other than a vehicle crossing are really very nice, and they're even more compelling with an afternoon's worth of GCSE Geography coursework-level public surveys to back them up. But such notions only seem feasible when one doesn't have to consider how they would actually work in practice. With no attention given to the real-world impact of such fanciful ideas, it's impossible to take them seriously.
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 14, 2019 6:17:05 GMT
It is an interesting read. But it's also a lovely idea that completely ignores the reality of the situation. I completely agree with the notion that it would be delightful to turn Hammersmith Bridge into a pedestrian crossing, with pretty street-level landscaping, and farmers' market stalls sitting where once there were big smelly vehicles belching out pollutants. I have no doubt at all that residents of the Barnes peninsula could adjust to that more desirable and picturesque scenario, and even to the inconvenience of changing their journeys - they'd have plenty of incentive to do so with all those wonderful benefits of reduced traffic down Castelnau, a beautiful pedestrian-friendly bridge, a more vibrant local community able to enjoy cleaner air, and a much happier way of life all round. Of course, there would be no such benefits to the residents of other surrounding areas, whose roads would remain clogged with tens of thousands of vehicles forced to find other routes to cross the river. We've already seen just how severely other nearby parts of London have suffered, including daily gridlock, side roads crammed with vehicles, impact on bus services and the like. Where are the voices of residents in these parts of London represented in calls for the bridge to stay closed to traffic? And what about the businesses that have also been suffering severely - on both sides of the river - since the bridge's closure? These ideas to convert Hammersmith Bridge into something other than a vehicle crossing are really very nice, and they're even more compelling with an afternoon's worth of GCSE Geography coursework-level public surveys to back them up. But such notions only seem feasible when one doesn't have to consider how they would actually work in practice. With no attention given to the real-world impact of such fanciful ideas, it's impossible to take them seriously. Just to make it clear I'm all for makimg the bridge open for all modes of transport.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 14, 2019 7:59:05 GMT
Just to make it clear I'm all for makimg the bridge open for all modes of transport. Don't worry - I knew that you were! (My comments were directed at the article and its proponents, rather than towards you for sharing it. I generally try to avoid shooting the messenger unless absolutely necessary. )
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 14, 2019 19:53:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 14, 2019 20:02:16 GMT
Just fix the F'ing bridge then lol.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 14, 2019 23:27:52 GMT
Also of note, a confirmation of sorts that the Richmond changes are pretty much dead - last paragraph of 3.3
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 16, 2019 22:30:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 16, 2019 23:41:49 GMT
I think that they should make this bridge but make it permanent rather than temporary since double deckers would be able to go over it and close Hammersmith Bridge permenanently but only allowing pederstrians and cyclist I.e like it is now. I hope that TfL will look into it.
|
|