|
|
Post by northlondonbuses on Aug 14, 2020 21:59:48 GMT
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. What about tour buses? as they use old buses which are Euro 2,3,4 I think Heritage sevices are exempt so are tour buses exempt aswell? |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 14, 2020 22:16:35 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 😏 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. Rerouting the 430 to run to Hammersmith is long overdue. The over capacity on the joint section with the 74 between Putney and South Kensington is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 14, 2020 22:18:16 GMT
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! It’s actually Grade II* listed. So in top 8% of the most special buildings in the country. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 14, 2020 22:35:55 GMT
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. What about tour buses? as they use old buses which are Euro 2,3,4 I think Heritage sevices are exempt so are tour buses exempt aswell? There is no exemption for tour buses, unless they happen to be using vintage vehicles (pre-1973). The older tour buses that are still in use will have been upgraded to EuroVI; I think some of them have even been re-engined. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Aug 14, 2020 22:55:15 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 Battersea Power Station is Grade II* listed I believe, and a lot of the original materials are being replaced/have been lost in its redevelopment. Unfortunately, the bridge is now effectively a dangerous structure. It's one thing closing the road, having to close the river as well moves things up a notch. Whatever happens, it is going to have to have serious money spent on it soon whether the money is technically there or not - being allowed to collapse into the Thames might be considered a breach of Grade II* listing. Make do & mend has failed - do the job once and do it properly. The bridge's history shows we'll be throwing good money after bad and back in the same position in a few years time if not. I'm no financier but I'm sure there are clever ways of dealing with the funding over time if the will is there. Perhaps this should be considered as part of the big TfL money appraisal. After all, they wouldn't want to cancel the Boat Race for a second year. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 15, 2020 8:26:33 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 😏 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. If this bridge is not restored then I would say bus services which have been curtailed are wasted resources. I would say the 72. It is now pretty pointless now that the 72 & 283 pretty much terminate in the same area at both ends, it could have been diverted following the 220 via Putney Bridge and Lower Richmond Road to meet the original route at Barnes as soon as the diversions began rather than terminating at Hammersmith Bridge, North Side. If pedestrians can not cross the bridge that link needs to be restored otherwise the 220 will become overcrowded. The 419 extension to Roehampton is useless as it does a C Shape like the 300. Alternatively do the following to ease congestion from bus services. The 148 has been pointless terminating at Shepherds Bush and may as well replace part of the 72 as it used to go down a small section of that road anyway. 33 diverted to Hammersmith via Chiswick Bridge, 533 shuttle withdrawn 72 restored to Roehampton, Bessborough Road and extended from Putney Bridge curtailed to White City replacing the 378 and double decked 148 extended to East Acton replacing the 72 209 extended to Richmond 378 Withdrawn 419 Withdrawn N72 current route remains permanent |
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 15, 2020 9:49:29 GMT
These are very similar to ideas already out there.
33. Hammersmith to Fulwell via current N33 routing. Converted to double deckers
72. Roehampton to East Acton via Barnes Station,Barnes High Street, Lower Richmond Road, Chiswick Bridge, A4,Hammersmith,Shepherds Bush, White city and East Acton converted to double decker
419/378 not sure what number to use. Richmond to Putney Bridge via current 419 routing and then Lower Richmond Road to Putney Bridge
209 withdrawn.
533 Withdrawn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2020 9:52:17 GMT
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. Rerouting the 430 to run to Hammersmith is long overdue. The over capacity on the joint section with the 74 between Putney and South Kensington is ridiculous. The only joint section they have is between Putney and West Brompton, after that they take different routes to South Kensington. Perfectly justifiable to retain both routes. Let’s point out the 14 and 414, sharing more than half a route before splitting, that’s unnecessary and I’d rather the 414 be rerouted away. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 15, 2020 9:56:52 GMT
These are very similar to ideas already out there. 33. Hammersmith to Fulwell via current N33 routing. Converted to double deckers 72. Roehampton to East Acton via Barnes Station,Barnes High Street, Lower Richmond Road, Chiswick Bridge, A4,Hammersmith,Shepherds Bush, White city and East Acton converted to double decker 419/378 not sure what number to use. Richmond to Putney Bridge via current 419 routing and then Lower Richmond Road to Putney Bridge 209 withdrawn. 533 Withdrawn. Indeed, but not the 148 which is more unique and curtailing the 72 to White City I would say at least one Route should terminate at Castlneau so suggested the 209 should replace the 419. |
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 15, 2020 10:01:28 GMT
These are very similar to ideas already out there. 33. Hammersmith to Fulwell via current N33 routing. Converted to double deckers 72. Roehampton to East Acton via Barnes Station,Barnes High Street, Lower Richmond Road, Chiswick Bridge, A4,Hammersmith,Shepherds Bush, White city and East Acton converted to double decker 419/378 not sure what number to use. Richmond to Putney Bridge via current 419 routing and then Lower Richmond Road to Putney Bridge 209 withdrawn. 533 Withdrawn. Indeed, but not the 148 which is more unique and curtailing the 72 to White City I would keep the 148 as it is I think.The reason I wouldn't divert 33 over Chiswick Bridge is because I think it will have to much congestion going via Upper Richmond road and also Lower Richmond Road. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 15, 2020 10:17:26 GMT
Rerouting the 430 to run to Hammersmith is long overdue. The over capacity on the joint section with the 74 between Putney and South Kensington is ridiculous. The only joint section they have is between Putney and West Brompton, after that they take different routes to South Kensington. Perfectly justifiable to retain both routes. Let’s point out the 14 and 414, sharing more than half a route before splitting, that’s unnecessary and I’d rather the 414 be rerouted away. It makes no sense to have two routes going up Fulham Palace Road and turning right into Lillie Road and just one going to Hammersmith. It would make far more sense to have one route turning right into Lillie Road (the 74) and two routes going to Hammersmith even without the bridge problems. There are various options but rerouting the 430 to Hammersmith and extend the 190 to South Kensington would seem the simplest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2020 12:15:16 GMT
The only joint section they have is between Putney and West Brompton, after that they take different routes to South Kensington. Perfectly justifiable to retain both routes. Let’s point out the 14 and 414, sharing more than half a route before splitting, that’s unnecessary and I’d rather the 414 be rerouted away. It makes no sense to have two routes going up Fulham Palace Road and turning right into Lillie Road and just one going to Hammersmith. It would make far more sense to have one route turning right into Lillie Road (the 74) and two routes going to Hammersmith even without the bridge problems. There are various options but rerouting the 430 to Hammersmith and extend the 190 to South Kensington would seem the simplest. Seriously, there are already three routes that connect Lillie Road with Hammersmith, why would you add a fourth? The 74 doesn’t serve the full length of Putney High Street whereas the 430 does, take it away and there is no route from that is serving Putney Station or connecting further to Roehampton, it would cause too much unnecessary route breakages. The simplest solution to solve any capacity issues, not that there are on that stretch, would be to permanently double deck the 190. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 15, 2020 12:33:36 GMT
It makes no sense to have two routes going up Fulham Palace Road and turning right into Lillie Road and just one going to Hammersmith. It would make far more sense to have one route turning right into Lillie Road (the 74) and two routes going to Hammersmith even without the bridge problems. There are various options but rerouting the 430 to Hammersmith and extend the 190 to South Kensington would seem the simplest. Seriously, there are already three routes that connect Lillie Road with Hammersmith, why would you add a fourth? The 74 doesn’t serve the full length of Putney High Street whereas the430 does, take it away and there is no route from that is serving Putney Station or connecting further to Roehampton, it would cause too much unnecessary route breakages. The simplest solution to solve any capacity issues, not that there are on that stretch, would be to permanently double deck the 190. The 190 already goes along Lillie Road so it wouldn't be addingt a fourth route. Why has Lillie Road got two routes going to Putney not to mention the District Line from West Brompton? Hammersmith is more deserving of two routes to Putney and the 220 doesn't serve the High Street at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2020 12:41:02 GMT
Seriously, there are already three routes that connect Lillie Road with Hammersmith, why would you add a fourth? The 74 doesn’t serve the full length of Putney High Street whereas the430 does, take it away and there is no route from that is serving Putney Station or connecting further to Roehampton, it would cause too much unnecessary route breakages. The simplest solution to solve any capacity issues, not that there are on that stretch, would be to permanently double deck the 190. The 190 already goes along Lillie Road so it wouldn't be addingt a fourth route. Why has Lillie Road got two routes going to Putney not to mention the District Line from West Brompton? Hammersmith is more deserving of two routes to Putney and the 220 doesn't serve the High Street at all. Lillie Road has three routes directed towards Hammersmith, 190, 211 and 295. Adding the 430 on top of the 220 would massively over-bus Fulham Palace Road beyond Lillie Road and would massively reduce capacity towards South Kensington. Right now it is fairly balanced on that side and would be unnecessary when there are other issues to address nearby. Maybe extending the 209/378 would address the balance if there becomes a problem but removing the 430 would be taking from one hand to not provide much to the other. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 15, 2020 12:48:32 GMT
The 190 already goes along Lillie Road so it wouldn't be addingt a fourth route. Why has Lillie Road got two routes going to Putney not to mention the District Line from West Brompton? Hammersmith is more deserving of two routes to Putney and the 220 doesn't serve the High Street at all. Lillie Road has three routes directed towards Hammersmith, 190, 211 and 295. Adding the 430 on top of the 220 would massively over-bus Fulham Palace Road beyond Lillie Road and would massively reduce capacity towards South Kensington. Right now it is fairly balanced on that side and would be unnecessary when there are other issues to address nearby. Maybe extending the 209/378 would address the balance if there becomes a problem but removing the 430 would be taking from one hand to not provide much to the other. I would suggest that the 'massive over bussing' is on the current 74/430...... meanwhile there is currently no link between Putney High Street and Hammersmith not to mention the additional problems caused by the bridge closure. |
|
A decision should have been made yonks ago. Now watch all the Pontious Pilates slide under their desks
