|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 14, 2020 9:56:33 GMT
Since Hammersmith Bridge has closed (whether temporary or permanent), changes to the bus network in the area seem too complicated, with a number of quite short routes, many of which have excess capacity. If the bridge were to remain closed to traffic permanently (or for a long time), I would suggest making the following changes: 33 - Unchanged, continuing to terminate at Castelnau. Consider converting to DDs. 72 - Re-extended from Hammersmith to Roehampton, but via Putney Bridge, and converted to DDs. Restores some links, and relieves the 220 between Hammersmith and Putney. 265 - Withdrawn between Putney Bridge and Barnes Station, instead extended to Castelnau. 283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge north side, replacing the 72. 209/533 - Merged to operate between Hammersmith and Castelnau via Chiswick Bridge, Mortlake and Barnes - but via the 209 in both directions between Barnes Bridge and Castelnau. Fixed bus stops could be installed along Great West Road near Hammersmith. 419 - Merged with the 378/485 to operate between Richmond and Wandsworth Riverside, via the existing 419 to Castelnau/Barnes, then via Putney Common, Putney High Street, East Putney Station and Wandsworth Town Centre. The 378's current link to Putney Bridge is replaced by serving the District Line at East Putney instead. If Hammersmith Bridge were to reopen, it has been suggested that bus capacity would have to be reduced from the service patterns before the closure. I would introduce a core route over the bridge, which would merge the existing 209 and 283, operating between East Acton and Mortlake - with the 533 withdrawn. This could potentially be supplemented by extending the 33 or revised 265 to Hammersmith. I would keep my revised 72 and 419 unchanged. I like the 72 idea as it means passengers won’t need to change buses. This could have been done in the first place. I do think now the 419 is now permanent to stay. |
|
|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Aug 14, 2020 10:27:57 GMT
Since Hammersmith Bridge has closed (whether temporary or permanent), changes to the bus network in the area seem too complicated, with a number of quite short routes, many of which have excess capacity. If the bridge were to remain closed to traffic permanently (or for a long time), I would suggest making the following changes: I had a similar idea too, here's mine: 33: Kept as you said, and converted to DD's. 72: Replaces 283 by following the entire route, just extended to the North Side of the bridge - the 419 towards Roehampton might be permanent. Issues: Would get rid of the link to White City. 209: Extended from Castlenau to Barnes, Wetlands Centre. 220: Additional bus added to frequency to accommodate the withdrawal of the 72 from White City. 265: Left alone to Putney Bridge. 283: Withdrawn. 419: Left alone in its current form. 485: Extended to Chiswick, Business Park from Castlenau via Harrodian School (to replace withdrawn 609), Mortlake High Street, Hartington Road, Strand-on-the-Green, Chiswick High Road and into Chiswick, Business Park. Additional bus added to frequency. 533: Buses added to make it every 10 mins, extended to Barnes, Wetlands Centre. No longer serves Church Road, and runs non-stop from Barnes Bridge Station (the stop) to Lonsdale Road (the stop). As you said, if the bridge gets repaired, then all of this doesn't have to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by MoEnviro on Aug 14, 2020 10:28:19 GMT
Since Hammersmith Bridge has closed (whether temporary or permanent), changes to the bus network in the area seem too complicated, with a number of quite short routes, many of which have excess capacity. If the bridge were to remain closed to traffic permanently (or for a long time), I would suggest making the following changes: 33 - Unchanged, continuing to terminate at Castelnau. Consider converting to DDs. 72 - Re-extended from Hammersmith to Roehampton, but via Putney Bridge, and converted to DDs. Restores some links, and relieves the 220 between Hammersmith and Putney. 265 - Withdrawn between Putney Bridge and Barnes Station, instead extended to Castelnau. 283 - Extended to Hammersmith Bridge north side, replacing the 72. 209/533 - Merged to operate between Hammersmith and Castelnau via Chiswick Bridge, Mortlake and Barnes - but via the 209 in both directions between Barnes Bridge and Castelnau. Fixed bus stops could be installed along Great West Road near Hammersmith. 419 - Merged with the 378/485 to operate between Richmond and Wandsworth Riverside, via the existing 419 to Castelnau/Barnes, then via Putney Common, Putney High Street, East Putney Station and Wandsworth Town Centre. The 378's current link to Putney Bridge is replaced by serving the District Line at East Putney instead. If Hammersmith Bridge were to reopen, it has been suggested that bus capacity would have to be reduced from the service patterns before the closure. I would introduce a core route over the bridge, which would merge the existing 209 and 283, operating between East Acton and Mortlake - with the 533 withdrawn. This could potentially be supplemented by extending the 33 or revised 265 to Hammersmith. I would keep my revised 72 and 419 unchanged. I like the 72 idea as it means passengers won’t need to change buses. This could have been done in the first place. I do think now the 419 is now permanent to stay. If the 72 was to run via Putney, Could it run as limited stop to improve some journey times to and from Hammersmith? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2020 10:29:44 GMT
Surely the time has come to demolish the bridge and build a new one. I would have a bus and cycle only bridge. Design can be as close as possible to existing structure, maybe include some of it . In the short term , a replacement pedestrian and cycle bridge could be constructed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2020 10:34:23 GMT
Since Hammersmith Bridge has closed (whether temporary or permanent), changes to the bus network in the area seem too complicated, with a number of quite short routes, many of which have excess capacity. If the bridge were to remain closed to traffic permanently (or for a long time), I would suggest making the following changes: I had a similar idea too, here's mine: 33: Kept as you said, and converted to DD's. 72: Replaces 283 by following the entire route, just extended to the North Side of the bridge - the 419 towards Roehampton might be permanent. Issues: Would get rid of the link to White City. 209: Extended from Castlenau to Barnes, Wetlands Centre. 220: Additional bus added to frequency to accommodate the withdrawal of the 72 from White City. 265: Left alone to Putney Bridge. 283: Withdrawn. 419: Left alone in its current form. 485: Extended to Chiswick, Business Park from the Castlenau via Harrodian School (to replace withdrawn 609), Mortlake High Street, Hartington Road, Strand-on-the-Green, Chiswick High Road and into Chiswick, Business Park. Additional bus added to frequency. 533: Buses added to make it every 10 mins, extended to Barnes, Wetlands Centre. As you said, if the bridge gets repaired, then all of this doesn't have to happen. The issue here is with the bulk of passengers from Du Cane Road. Adding service to the 220 is of little merit. The 72 should stay as well as the 283. I see the only change in short term being a frequency increase on the 533. Harrodian School will have particular issues come September. I think a short term school route will need to be put on, non stop Hammersmith Bus Stn to the school. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2020 10:42:16 GMT
There is clearly a risk of collapse
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 14, 2020 10:57:27 GMT
There is clearly a risk of collapse Yes there is a risk of collapse, unlikely but obviously nobody can take any chances. There have been reports of people climbing over barriers to get across the bridge and boats still passing underneath so some sort of police presence is needed there. Hopefully once the necessary checks have been made the bridge will reopen to pedestrians and cyclists. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 14, 2020 11:35:42 GMT
There is clearly a risk of collapse Yes there is a risk of collapse, unlikely but obviously nobody can take any chances. There have been reports of people climbing over barriers to get across the bridge and boats still passing underneath so some sort of police presence is needed there. Hopefully once the necessary checks have been made the bridge will reopen to pedestrians and cyclists. I don't think it's as simple as making some checks and then simply opening the bridge - the existing cracks in the structure have expanded in the heat which could leave it to collapse if it worsens. I'm no expert but I'd imagine emergency repairs would be needed to get it back to a safe level for people & cyclists to be able to cross again. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 14, 2020 12:06:39 GMT
Surely the time has come to demolish the bridge and build a new one. I would have a bus and cycle only bridge. Design can be as close as possible to existing structure, maybe include some of it . In the short term , a replacement pedestrian and cycle bridge could be constructed. The issue is you can't demolish it as it's a listed structure, however nobody seems to be interested in preserving it either. |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Aug 14, 2020 12:13:00 GMT
Surely the time has come to demolish the bridge and build a new one. I would have a bus and cycle only bridge. Design can be as close as possible to existing structure, maybe include some of it . In the short term , a replacement pedestrian and cycle bridge could be constructed. I've been saying something similar like forever! At Walton they built a new bridge beside the old Bailey Bridge. This is now a classic case of small minded so called local politians putting egos before necessity!  A decision should have been made yonks ago. Now watch all the Pontious Pilates slide under their desks |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 14, 2020 12:20:44 GMT
Surely the time has come to demolish the bridge and build a new one. I would have a bus and cycle only bridge. Design can be as close as possible to existing structure, maybe include some of it . In the short term , a replacement pedestrian and cycle bridge could be constructed. I've been saying something similar like forever! At Walton they built a new bridge beside the old Bailey Bridge. This is now a classic case of small minded so called local politians putting egos before necessity! A decision should have been made yonks ago. Now watch all the Pontious Pilates slide under their desks And totally ruin the look of a listed structure..... it'll never happen. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Aug 14, 2020 12:20:53 GMT
Will Hammersmith Bridge every get strengthened to allow double deckers? Back in 2016 I think there were plans to close Hammersmith Bridge for like a year to allow double deckers hence why the RATP VHs were ordered for the 72 but the 72 never got its VHs because the Bridge strengthening kept being delayed year after year. Now that Bridge has been closed indefinitely due to structural issues do you think that the strengthening project of Hammersmith Bridge to allow double deckers to go over it ever start or has been postponed cancelled? I can’t see Hammersmith Bridge ever taking cars or single deck buses again, let alone double deckers. Before COVID-19 no-one wanted to pay for repair works for the bridge. Now that finances are even more stretched I think there will be even less appetite from TfL and Hammersmith council to fund the project. I can foresee a green fudge deployed to spin a way out of the impasse. The need to repair the bridge whilst simultaneously cut costs can be pushed through under the guise of reducing emissions and making journeys by bike more pleasant and safer. Costs can be cut by repairing the bridge to only accept cycles and pedestrians. Over time journey patterns would have changed to accommodate the bridge closure and people become more accepting of the current situation and less resistant. The political environment has also changed a fair bit since the closure initially happened, so this type of change is more acceptable today than it once was. Some emissions readings before closure and after will no doubt show how good the Hammersmith Bridge closure has been for the local environment and provide an argument for permanent restrictions 😏 |
|
|
|
Post by northlondonbuses on Aug 14, 2020 12:24:34 GMT
Surely the time has come to demolish the bridge and build a new one. I would have a bus and cycle only bridge. Design can be as close as possible to existing structure, maybe include some of it . In the short term , a replacement pedestrian and cycle bridge could be constructed. The issue is you can't demolish it as it's a listed structure, however nobody seems to be interested in preserving it either. well which is better the saftey of people or some rich people who dont even use the bridge to get upset over a bridge thats 'historical' getting demolished because either way the bridge is eventually gonna collapse so I say its better for them to demolish it and rebuild it with the same aesthetic but with a more stronger structure becuase in the long run its probably gonna be cheaper than having to close the bridge to do repairs every 2 months and then it eventually just collapses in which someone is probably gonna die. btw ik the tone in this seems like im blaming you but im not |
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Aug 14, 2020 12:27:03 GMT
The issue is you can't demolish it as it's a listed structure, however nobody seems to be interested in preserving it either. well which is better the saftey of people or some rich people who dont even use the bridge to get upset over a bridge thats 'historical' getting demolished because either way the bridge is eventually gonna collapse so I say its better for them to demolish it and rebuild it with the same aesthetic but with a more stronger structure becuase in the long run its probably gonna be cheaper than having to close the bridge to do repairs every 2 months and then it eventually just collapses in which someone is probably gonna die. btw ik the tone in this seems like im blaming you but im not Thing is, destroying or damaging a grade 2 listed structure is very illegal so it would turn into a complicated legal issue that could take up to years to solve |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 14, 2020 12:27:04 GMT
Surely the time has come to demolish the bridge and build a new one. I would have a bus and cycle only bridge. Design can be as close as possible to existing structure, maybe include some of it . In the short term , a replacement pedestrian and cycle bridge could be constructed. I've been saying something similar like forever! At Walton they built a new bridge beside the old Bailey Bridge. This is now a classic case of small minded so called local politians putting egos before necessity! A decision should have been made yonks ago. Now watch all the Pontious Pilates slide under their desks Historic England would never allow demolition of the Grade 2 listed structure. If anyone other than the council owned the bridge, it probably would have had an enforcement notice already served ... but cant see the council serving on one themselves. At end of day if Central Government or TfL do no want to pay Hammersmith & Fulham will have to fund it. Longer you leave it the bigger the bill will get! |
|
A decision should have been made yonks ago. Now watch all the Pontious Pilates slide under their desks
