|
|
Post by John tuthill on Sept 19, 2020 10:06:09 GMT
It’s illegal as they are technically providing a public service using boats that have not been assessed for safety and are unlicensed Thanks for that, the last thing we want is kids drowning. Wonder what the parents response is? |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 1, 2020 17:10:49 GMT
The Government has published a statement made by its Hammersmith Bridge taskforce, led by Baroness Vere: It states that "the taskforce has made significant progress on the next steps for the Hammersmith Bridge". Specifically, it has determined that "a ferry service across the river would be the preferred transport solution" to allow locals to cross the river in the short-term. However, while the Government insists that it is "working quickly to deliver" this solution, it won't be in place until "early next year" - a full year after key stakeholders reached an agreement, including cross-party consensus and full funding through TfL, to build a temporary bridge, which went through a full public consultation process months ago. The Government maintains that "all other potential solutions, including a temporary bridge, remain under consideration to ensure the fastest possible resolution for those impacted by the closure of the bridge". It's unlikely that a temporary bridge will be built anytime soon, though. The necessary planning applications have already been withdrawn, as the funding for its construction was rescinded under the conditions of the Government's emergency coronavirus financing arrangement with TfL. A meeting next week promises to discuss funding options for the overall project, but evidently, there is no funding in place yet for any part of the project. The statement additionally notes that "TfL also continues to keep the enhanced local bus services under review to respond to changing demands", but offers no further detail on that subject. |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 8, 2020 17:22:21 GMT
As mentioned in my post above, Baroness Vere - chair of the cross-party, multi-stakeholder Hammersmith Bridge taskforce - made it clear last week that no funding was in place for the project, and said that talks would be taking place this week to discuss funding options. Curiously, before any of those talks had even been completed, Conservative London Mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey said at the Conservative Party conference on Tuesday that the Government has taken full ownership of the project, and has agreed to fully finance all of it. In a recorded discussion with Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, Bailey said (and later tweeted a video of him saying): In fact, Bailey made the same claim on 23 September in a post that he wrote on Conservative Home. Two weeks before Baroness Vere confirmed that funding for the project still hadn't been secured, Bailey claimed: And yet, even London Transport Commissioner Andy Byford still knows nothing of the Government agreeing to fund the project. Answering a question today about Bailey's claim that the Government has confirmed that it will fund the project from a London Assembly Member at the Transport Committee meeting, Byford said: It's also worth remembering that Grant Shapps said in December 2019, TEN MONTHS AGO - when he was campaigning for Zac Goldsmith's re-election as MP for Richmond Park - that the Government had already agreed to provide the funding required to build a temporary bridge. Curiously, after Goldsmith lost the election (before then being elevated by the Government to the House of Lords as a commiseration), that "secured" Government funding for the temporary bridge mysteriously disappeared. Somehow, the Government has only discovered the means to fund the entire project as the Mayoral election grows nearer, with Bailey now taking the credit for convincing Grant Shapps to approve it. Despite ten months having passed since Shapps himself confirmed that the temporary bridge would be built, Bailey claims with a straight face that it's Sadiq Khan who has 'done nothing' to move the project forward, and that it's only his own efforts that have now resulted in the Government agreeing to finance the project and enable progress to be made. One has to admire the audacity of such bold and naked lies. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 9, 2020 8:11:31 GMT
I think I kind we knew that it would be used a political pawn to allow both sides to shame the other.
If only it could just get back to reopening to pedestrians would be a massive help. It's amazing how things have changed this year from hoping for a refurbishment to take DDs to now just being grateful to be able to walk across it!
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 15, 2020 19:31:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 15, 2020 20:52:36 GMT
It would be good if it went Dd to give plenty of space as usage is sure to increase as it gets colder.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 15, 2020 22:33:09 GMT
It would be good if it went Dd to give plenty of space as usage is sure to increase as it gets colder. I think where the stand is could be what prevents deckers from being used - either low trees or resident issues. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 15, 2020 22:34:29 GMT
That's a shame. Barnes really is cursed for DDs it seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 16, 2020 11:04:12 GMT
It would be good if it went Dd to give plenty of space as usage is sure to increase as it gets colder. I think where the stand is could be what prevents deckers from being used - either low trees or resident issues. Double decking of the 533 has been discussed on Twitter. Sarah Olney MP reported that TfL have stated that double decking not possible due to height of railway bridge at Barnes Bridge. When asked about how the N22 already uses that route, TfL responded that double deckers must use the centre of the road which is possible at night but not during the day when traffic volumes are higher. And I do remember when Routemasters on the 9 ran to Mortlake! They must have been shorter! |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 16, 2020 11:07:58 GMT
Metrobuses used to on sunday as well on the 9.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 16, 2020 11:37:53 GMT
I think where the stand is could be what prevents deckers from being used - either low trees or resident issues. Double decking of the 533 has been discussed on Twitter. Sarah Olney MP reported that TfL have stated that double decking not possible due to height of railway bridge at Barnes Bridge. When asked about how the N22 already uses that route, TfL responded that double deckers must use the centre of the road which is possible at night but not during the day when traffic volumes are higher. And I do remember when Routemasters on the 9 ran to Mortlake! They must have been shorter! Ahh yes, forgot about that bridge at Barnes and yes RM's were shorter - step entrance double deckers for London outside of tri-axles were rarely longer than roughly 9.7m |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Oct 16, 2020 13:30:23 GMT
I think where the stand is could be what prevents deckers from being used - either low trees or resident issues. Double decking of the 533 has been discussed on Twitter. Sarah Olney MP reported that TfL have stated that double decking not possible due to height of railway bridge at Barnes Bridge. When asked about how the N22 already uses that route, TfL responded that double deckers must use the centre of the road which is possible at night but not during the day when traffic volumes are higher. And I do remember when Routemasters on the 9 ran to Mortlake! They must have been shorter! And a lot more presentable(Not my photo) Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 16, 2020 16:07:12 GMT
Double decking of the 533 has been discussed on Twitter. Sarah Olney MP reported that TfL have stated that double decking not possible due to height of railway bridge at Barnes Bridge. When asked about how the N22 already uses that route, TfL responded that double deckers must use the centre of the road which is possible at night but not during the day when traffic volumes are higher. And I do remember when Routemasters on the 9 ran to Mortlake! They must have been shorter! Ahh yes, forgot about that bridge at Barnes and yes RM's were shorter - step entrance double deckers for London outside of tri-axles were rarely longer than roughly 9.7m I meant shorter as in height to deal with Barnes Bridge Railway Bridge during the daytime. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 16, 2020 16:08:23 GMT
Metrobuses used to on sunday as well on the 9. Maybe the road surface has been built up since then or a new height restriction has been introduced! |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 16, 2020 17:00:01 GMT
Metrobuses used to on sunday as well on the 9. Maybe the road surface has been built up since then or a new height restriction has been introduced! I think the road surface has always been at it's current height as even years ago, the height between the road surface & the bridge looks identical to today - www.barnes-history.org.uk/scanarch/B80.jpg www.barnes-history.org.uk/scanarch/B90.jpgRM's are 14'4" which is very similar to modern buses of 14'5" & 14'6" |
|
