|
Post by greenboy on Aug 14, 2020 12:40:57 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 😏 Excellent post which I think sums things up very well and TfL should be implementing a permanent bus service between Roehampton and Hammersmith via Putney Bridge..... either an extension of the 72 or a rerouting of the 430.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 14, 2020 14:05:12 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 😏 Congestion readings were done last year IIRC which showed that surrounding areas ended up with the congestion displaced from the bridge so I suspect the emission levels ended up simply transferring to the surrounding areas so hopefully any argument done by locals will be rightfully counter acted by residents elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Aug 14, 2020 14:14:58 GMT
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 😏 Congestion readings were done last year IIRC which showed that surrounding areas ended up with the congestion displaced from the bridge so I suspect the emission levels ended up simply transferring to the surrounding areas so hopefully any argument done by locals will be rightfully counter acted by residents elsewhere. Remember that the ULEZ will be expanded in 2021. That alone will help to reduce emissions in the displacement area.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 14, 2020 15:04:46 GMT
Congestion readings were done last year IIRC which showed that surrounding areas ended up with the congestion displaced from the bridge so I suspect the emission levels ended up simply transferring to the surrounding areas so hopefully any argument done by locals will be rightfully counter acted by residents elsewhere. Remember that the ULEZ will be expanded in 2021. That alone will help to reduce emissions in the displacement area. Yes that's true but it won't help people beyond the South Circular in places like Roehampton as the expansion for most vehicles is only up to the North & South Circular border.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 14, 2020 15:45:11 GMT
I think that the 485 and 533 need to be merged somehow. So to link the Wetland Centre with Hammersmith now that people can’t simply walk over the Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Aug 14, 2020 15:49:01 GMT
Remember that the ULEZ will be expanded in 2021. That alone will help to reduce emissions in the displacement area. Yes that's true but it won't help people beyond the South Circular in places like Roehampton as the expansion for most vehicles is only up to the North & South Circular border. To be fair, all buses that serve Roehampton will go into or run on the expanded ULEZ, as a result, new electric buses will have to be bought for the single deck routes. The only issue that I find is with the 170, I'm not sure of the height of the updated E200EV, but the older model was 3.4m, which is 0.4m taller than the 170's permitted, but the new one should definitely be a lot shorter.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Aug 14, 2020 16:09:54 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. Way things are going, it sounds like it's self-demolishing. Listed or not, a bridge that can't carry anyone or anything is useless. It doesn't qualify as a bridge, it's a pointless art installation. Its long term neglect is scandalous. Demolish it and build a replica, sell it to the Americans or re-erect bits of it in a park if you have to. Here's a 'modest proposal'. Toll all London river crossings to pay for it. After all, if we're tolling the Blackwall Tunnel to help pay for Silvertown, why should more affluent parts of London with more crossings continue to enjoy free transpontine journeys? My tongue is only partly lodged in my cheek...
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Aug 14, 2020 18:29:34 GMT
Nobody says you cannot lift up and relocate the structure. This way you also don't destroy it. They can place it in a museum if they like. Voila here's a way around the II Grade thing, there's got to be a reasonable solution c'mon...
All this pointless bickering between the clowncil, the city and government, while the bridge and elements obviously don't care and will continue to deteriorate. If it actually collapses - which is perfectly avoidable - this country would become the world's laughing stock...
There's little use in splashing money to resurrect a corpse. Give it a proper resting place and a rightful replacement I say
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 14, 2020 18:35:24 GMT
Yes that's true but it won't help people beyond the South Circular in places like Roehampton as the expansion for most vehicles is only up to the North & South Circular border. To be fair, all buses that serve Roehampton will go into or run on the expanded ULEZ, as a result, new electric buses will have to be bought for the single deck routes. The only issue that I find is with the 170, I'm not sure of the height of the updated E200EV, but the older model was 3.4m, which is 0.4m taller than the 170's permitted, but the new one should definitely be a lot shorter. The expanded ULEZ doesn't mandate all electric buses or hybrid like with the central London ULEZ. All buses ideally must be Euro 6 by September anyways and the Expanded ULEZ is for Trucks and coaches.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 14, 2020 19:57:13 GMT
Nobody says you cannot lift up and relocate the structure. This way you also don't destroy it. They can place it in a museum if they like. Voila here's a way around the II Grade thing, there's got to be a reasonable solution c'mon... All this pointless bickering between the clowncil, the city and government, while the bridge and elements obviously don't care and will continue to deteriorate. If it actually collapses - which is perfectly avoidable - this country would become the world's laughing stock... There's little use in splashing money to resurrect a corpse. Give it a proper resting place and a rightful replacement I say I think the issue with moving it is due to the immense cost moving a bridge would be. It would probably cost more than fixing the bridge 3 times over due to the extreme scale of engineering that would need to be involved in it. Hammersmith Bridge can be fixed to a standard where it can take double deckers, TfL and H&F both know about this too but the issue is neither is willing to foot the cost of the bill. I think what will end up happening (as you say) is that the bridge will genuinely collapse one day now - even though that'd cause mass disruption it's what will end up happening in the long term if no care is given. What I think should just happen now is that the bridge fully paved over and actually pedestrianised, nobody is going to actually fix it to carry. traffic despite that's what it needs. If they fix it enough and pave over it then people could at least walk over it to the other side. The 533 should also become a full time route with a decent frequency and decent capacity at the same time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2020 20:43:24 GMT
Nobody says you cannot lift up and relocate the structure. This way you also don't destroy it. They can place it in a museum if they like. Voila here's a way around the II Grade thing, there's got to be a reasonable solution c'mon... All this pointless bickering between the clowncil, the city and government, while the bridge and elements obviously don't care and will continue to deteriorate. If it actually collapses - which is perfectly avoidable - this country would become the world's laughing stock... There's little use in splashing money to resurrect a corpse. Give it a proper resting place and a rightful replacement I say Exactly, there is no reason why it couldn’t be moved further down river, repaired to a standard and then form a new specific pedestrian/cycling crossing. Even if it is repaired a new bridge will be stronger and more reliable long term. It worked in places like Walton where the existing bridge was converted to a pedestrian and cycling crossing with a new wider, stronger bridge built. Hammersmith Bridge just isn’t fit for purpose anymore and even with repairs is just outdated.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 14, 2020 21:03:53 GMT
To be fair, all buses that serve Roehampton will go into or run on the expanded ULEZ, as a result, new electric buses will have to be bought for the single deck routes. The only issue that I find is with the 170, I'm not sure of the height of the updated E200EV, but the older model was 3.4m, which is 0.4m taller than the 170's permitted, but the new one should definitely be a lot shorter. The expanded ULEZ doesn't mandate all electric buses or hybrid like with the central London ULEZ. All buses ideally must be Euro 6 by September anyways and the Expanded ULEZ is for Trucks and coaches. The expanded ULEZ is for all vehicles but the rules are different depending on the type of vehicle - cars must meet Euro VI emissions within the North & South Circular Roads but buses, coaches & lorries must meet Euro VI emissions London wide.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 14, 2020 21:05:40 GMT
Nobody says you cannot lift up and relocate the structure. This way you also don't destroy it. They can place it in a museum if they like. Voila here's a way around the II Grade thing, there's got to be a reasonable solution c'mon... All this pointless bickering between the clowncil, the city and government, while the bridge and elements obviously don't care and will continue to deteriorate. If it actually collapses - which is perfectly avoidable - this country would become the world's laughing stock... There's little use in splashing money to resurrect a corpse. Give it a proper resting place and a rightful replacement I say Exactly, there is no reason why it couldn’t be moved further down river, repaired to a standard and then form a new specific pedestrian/cycling crossing. Even if it is repaired a new bridge will be stronger and more reliable long term. It worked in places like Walton where the existing bridge was converted to a pedestrian and cycling crossing with a new wider, stronger bridge built. Hammersmith Bridge just isn’t fit for purpose anymore and even with repairs is just outdated. I just don't see where the money is coming from for these fanciful ideas, if it wasn't available pre covid it's certainly not going to be available now. The best I can see happening is single decker buses being allowed across probably one at a time but more likely it will just be pedestrians and cyclists.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 14, 2020 21:11:26 GMT
Exactly, there is no reason why it couldn’t be moved further down river, repaired to a standard and then form a new specific pedestrian/cycling crossing. Even if it is repaired a new bridge will be stronger and more reliable long term. It worked in places like Walton where the existing bridge was converted to a pedestrian and cycling crossing with a new wider, stronger bridge built. Hammersmith Bridge just isn’t fit for purpose anymore and even with repairs is just outdated. I just don't see where the money is coming from for these fanciful ideas, if it wasn't available pre covid it's certainly not going to be available now. The best I can see happening is single decker buses being allowed across probably one at a time but more likely it will just be pedestrians and cyclists. That's if the bridge can even be repaired - it isn't guaranteed after the cracks expanded further especially as there is a risk to life otherwise pedestrians, boats & cyclists wouldn't be banned from crossing over or underneath it. If engineers fail to find a solution, then do you suggest leaving it there until it collapses?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2020 21:15:14 GMT
Exactly, there is no reason why it couldn’t be moved further down river, repaired to a standard and then form a new specific pedestrian/cycling crossing. Even if it is repaired a new bridge will be stronger and more reliable long term. It worked in places like Walton where the existing bridge was converted to a pedestrian and cycling crossing with a new wider, stronger bridge built. Hammersmith Bridge just isn’t fit for purpose anymore and even with repairs is just outdated. I just don't see where the money is coming from for these fanciful ideas, if it wasn't available pre covid it's certainly not going to be available now. The best I can see happening is single decker buses being allowed across probably one at a time but more likely it will just be pedestrians and cyclists. I believe long term the costs will be outweighed by the benefits to health, public transport and to traffic levels in the general area. Imagine two lanes in each direction would be massively beneficial to the area and a dedicated pedestrian/cycling bridge would be a huge boost to the mayor and governments plans to get us exercising more.
|
|