|
|
Post by redexpress on Oct 16, 2020 21:41:51 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! Rail replacement DDs manage to run under Barnes Bridge during the day; if both lines through Barnes are closed this can be quite a frequent service. That said, this usually only happens on a Sunday when traffic is much lighter in that part of town.
I suppose that in the days when RMs (and Ms) were running through to Mortlake there was less traffic. Or maybe drivers were more likely to give way to a bus in those days?
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 16, 2020 22:43:27 GMT
That does make me suspicious of TfL’s rebuttal then! |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 17, 2020 5:21:19 GMT
That does make me suspicious of TfL’s rebuttal then! It's worth bearing in mind that what was considered 'safe' or merely 'standard operating procedure' decades ago can't reasonably be compared with the way that we do things today. After all, it was only a few decades ago that seatbelts were forcibly introduced in cars, while many decried the decision to mandate them as ludicrous, and even resisted their enforcement as being emblematic of an over-reaching nanny state and an affront to common sense and drivers' abilities. Today, of course, we know that seatbelts are a vital, life-saving piece of equipment. But there is also a substantial body of evidence that has conclusively, repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that as our vehicles are packed with more safety features - such as anti-lock braking systems, lateral airbags, and improvements in vehicle deformation under impact ('crumple zones') - motorists have broadly become more complacent in the way that they drive. To put it more simply, we tend to drive less cautiously now that our vehicles offer greater protection, even though many motorists, anecdotally and individually, would insist that this is nonsense (while twiddling the buttons on the dash to adjust their seat-massage controls, and letting their minds wander as they send a text message using voice interaction). The most common (and admittedly slightly ridiculous) counterargument to those who dispute this assessment is a simple thought experiment: how much more carefully would you drive if, instead of an airbag, your steering wheel had a giant spike sticking out of it? When so many studies exist to demonstrate this phenomenon, law-makers have to be mindful of making roads as 'logical' as possible, with as few pain-points as possible where drivers are suddenly confronted with something that impedes traffic flow. This is as much to do with saving lives as it is to avoid potential litigation from whiplashed motorists employing opportunistic lawyers who might quickly point out flaws in a road layout that could expose a public organisation to costly compensation payouts. This is why local authorities spend huge sums employing experts to model traffic flow in planning carriageway layouts. And while I'm sure all of us can point to at least one example of apparent failure in roadway design, the reality is that the vast majority of roads are designed quite successfully to ensure that vehicles move as quickly and efficiently as possible without drivers suddenly having to brake and wonder how they're supposed to proceed safely. Introducing a situation at Barnes Bridge where drivers are suddenly confronted with a bus in the middle of the road while they're driving along is the antithesis of this objective, and it's precisely what TfL is trying to avoid - not just to prevent potential injuries and fatalities among bemused and startled motorists, but also to avoid the pain and expense of potential litigation from any incidents that might arise. After all, the same people (and press!) who might now be calling for a 'common sense' introduction of double-deckers under the bridge would be the first, and the loudest, to condemn TfL or Richmond Council for such a service or road layout if tragedy were to occur in the future. And those same voices would also be lambasting authorities for failing to foresee such an 'obvious' and clearly avoidable tragedy. 'Common sense' is not an acceptable standard for designing roads, when the reality is that common sense is wildly divergent among the population, and its interpretation differs considerably between motorists, especially when controlling a vehicle in motion. We may all mock the powers that be for not allowing something today that was commonplace 30 years ago, but the authorities who oversee our roads must design them for the sensibilities of road users today and tomorrow, not yesterday or yesteryear. |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 17, 2020 5:46:01 GMT
TfL has refused a proposal from Hammersmith & Fulham Council for a dedicated coach shuttle service for schoolchildren between Barnes and Hammersmith to accommodate the hundreds of students that face lengthy journey times across the Thames while the bridge remains closed. According to MyLondon, "TfL is against the idea of hiring coaches that do not provide the same Covid protections as TfL buses, which have been given sealed drivers’ cabins." TfL also rejected the proposal on the grounds that affected students are widely dispersed across and beyond the Barnes peninsula; it would therefore be of limited benefit to require students to travel to a particular location to get a coach when they could more easily travel directly to their schools instead. An interesting tidbit from that article: according to TfL data, just 1% of passengers waiting for a 378 or 533 are not able to board the first bus that turns up. This presumably explains why TfL has resisted implementing a significant frequency or capacity increase on the 533 that some have been calling for. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the 533 will be gaining a 5th bus per hour during peak times - but it appears that there simply isn't the demand (in terms of actual passenger numbers, rather than social media activism) for a substantial increase beyond that. |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 21, 2020 0:03:46 GMT
I cringed so hard at this execrable mess that my face just imploded. Remember, people of London - only Shaun Bailey has the ability to secure funding for Hammersmith Bridge! (You know, a bit like Grant Shapps promising that funding had been secured for the construction of the temporary bridge, all thanks to Zac Goldsmith, during the 2019 general election campaign... How strange that that funding suddenly disappeared when Goldsmith lost his seat to the Lib Dems. It's all Sadiq Khan's fault! ...or something.) |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 21, 2020 1:20:43 GMT
I cringed so hard at this execrable mess that my face just imploded. Remember, people of London - only Shaun Bailey has the ability to secure funding for Hammersmith Bridge! (You know, a bit like Grant Shapps promising that funding had been secured for the construction of the temporary bridge, all thanks to Zac Goldsmith, during the 2019 general election campaign... How strange that that funding suddenly disappeared when Goldsmith lost his seat to the Lib Dems. It's all Sadiq Khan's fault! ...or something.) Is there any chance of getting those minutes watching the video refunded back to me, never watched so much crap in such a short amount of time  |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 21, 2020 2:02:17 GMT
I cringed so hard at this execrable mess that my face just imploded. Remember, people of London - only Shaun Bailey has the ability to secure funding for Hammersmith Bridge! (You know, a bit like Grant Shapps promising that funding had been secured for the construction of the temporary bridge, all thanks to Zac Goldsmith, during the 2019 general election campaign... How strange that that funding suddenly disappeared when Goldsmith lost his seat to the Lib Dems. It's all Sadiq Khan's fault! ...or something.)  Omg 😮 how cringe 😬 worthy. Will this guy do any better we shall see. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Oct 21, 2020 5:53:42 GMT
I cringed so hard at this execrable mess that my face just imploded. Remember, people of London - only Shaun Bailey has the ability to secure funding for Hammersmith Bridge! (You know, a bit like Grant Shapps promising that funding had been secured for the construction of the temporary bridge, all thanks to Zac Goldsmith, during the 2019 general election campaign... How strange that that funding suddenly disappeared when Goldsmith lost his seat to the Lib Dems. It's all Sadiq Khan's fault! ...or something.) Goodness Bailey would be a total disaster for London! |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 21, 2020 9:49:19 GMT
I cringed so hard at this execrable mess that my face just imploded. Remember, people of London - only Shaun Bailey has the ability to secure funding for Hammersmith Bridge! (You know, a bit like Grant Shapps promising that funding had been secured for the construction of the temporary bridge, all thanks to Zac Goldsmith, during the 2019 general election campaign... How strange that that funding suddenly disappeared when Goldsmith lost his seat to the Lib Dems. It's all Sadiq Khan's fault! ...or something.) Goodness Bailey would be a total disaster for London! Shaun Bailey would be a Government puppet. His tenure would unravel as soon as a different Government gets in. At least if the Government pulls off its coup of taking TfL into direct control, that will be something they can keep him from mucking up. |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 21, 2020 13:32:23 GMT
During PMQs today, the Prime Minister explicitly blamed "the incompetence of Sadiq Khan" for the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, and made it unambiguously clear that the Government's strategy is to portray Shaun Bailey as the hero that saves it. Pinning the blame on Khan for the closure of the bridge is such an obvious and absurd lie that Hammersmith Bridge is now trending at number 2 on Twitter, with an endless stream of public ridicule being directed towards Johnson's shameless, self-serving bullsh!t.  Meanwhile, Conservative councillors are now supporting these lies at a local level with some of their own: As anyone with a brain knows, neither the Mayor nor TfL are responsible for maintaining Hammersmith Bridge, and TfL is the only stakeholder to have actually committed any real money (£25m) to the project so far, but of course we must blame Khan alone for "his total inaction" to get it reopened. And even though it's been clearly established that the expansion of the congestion charge zone has been required by the Government as a condition of TfL's H2 funding package, Councillor Joyce insists that any expansion of the zone is nothing to do with the Tories, and is actually just "the Mayor's PR game playing". The Conservatives are now clearly focused on creating a narrative that establishes Khan as the destroyer of London and the negligent fool who closed Hammersmith Bridge and brought misery to families and communities, with Bailey as London's great hope, and the only one who can save us all. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this develops along the same lines as during the general election. As previously mentioned, the Government promised funding for the bridge in order to generate support for Zac Goldsmith in Richmond Park, but that money quickly vanished when he lost his seat (by an enormous margin). The Conservatives can easily do the same thing this time: making a long series of empty promises about their man Bailey being the one who can reopen Hammersmith Bridge, while dragging their feet in taskforce negotiations over the next few months, and blaming H&F Council, TfL and Khan for any failure to agree terms, or for "not negotiating in good faith". (If this all sounds familiar, it's because it's pretty much how the Government has also handled its Brexit negotiations.) If Bailey wins, Hammersmith Bridge is saved! If he doesn't, we all go back to blaming Khan for everything. Talk is cheap - and it's a hell of a lot cheaper for the Government to say it's going to do something than to actually do it, especially when there's a golden opportunity to manipulate this situation as a means to gain power in the Mayoral election. Politically, there is little to be gained from funding the project now if Bailey later loses the election. Perhaps I'll be proved completely wrong and work on the bridge will begin soon. But I'm not holding my breath, and I fear we've got many more months of this nonsense still to endure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2020 15:09:47 GMT
During PMQs today, the Prime Minister explicitly blamed "the incompetence of Sadiq Khan" for the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, and made it unambiguously clear that the Government's strategy is to portray Shaun Bailey as the hero that saves it. Pinning the blame on Khan for the closure of the bridge is such an obvious and absurd lie that Hammersmith Bridge is now trending at number 2 on Twitter, with an endless stream of public ridicule being directed towards Johnson's shameless, self-serving bullsh!t. Meanwhile, Conservative councillors are now supporting these lies at a local level with some of their own: As anyone with a brain knows, neither the Mayor nor TfL are responsible for maintaining Hammersmith Bridge, and TfL is the only stakeholder to have actually committed any real money (£25m) to the project so far, but of course we must blame Khan alone for "his total inaction" to get it reopened. And even though it's been clearly established that the expansion of the congestion charge zone has been required by the Government as a condition of TfL's H2 funding package, Councillor Joyce insists that any expansion of the zone is nothing to do with the Tories, and is actually just "the Mayor's PR game playing". The Conservatives are now clearly focused on creating a narrative that establishes Khan as the destroyer of London and the negligent fool who closed Hammersmith Bridge and brought misery to families and communities, with Bailey as London's great hope, and the only one who can save us all. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this develops along the same lines as during the general election. As previously mentioned, the Government promised funding for the bridge in order to generate support for Zac Goldsmith in Richmond Park, but that money quickly vanished when he lost his seat (by an enormous margin). The Conservatives can easily do the same thing this time: making a long series of empty promises about their man Bailey being the one who can reopen Hammersmith Bridge, while dragging their feet in taskforce negotiations over the next few months, and blaming H&F Council, TfL and Khan for any failure to agree terms, or for "not negotiating in good faith". (If this all sounds familiar, it's because it's pretty much how the Government has also handled its Brexit negotiations.) If Bailey wins, Hammersmith Bridge is saved! If he doesn't, we all go back to blaming Khan for everything. Talk is cheap - and it's a hell of a lot cheaper for the Government to say it's going to do something than to actually do it, especially when there's a golden opportunity to manipulate this situation as a means to gain power in the Mayoral election. Politically, there is little to be gained from funding the project now if Bailey later loses the election. Perhaps I'll be proved completely wrong and work on the bridge will begin soon. But I'm not holding my breath, and I fear we've got many more months of this nonsense still to endure. I think the TfL debacle really depends on which media outlet you choose to believe because I’ve read it both ways. In one version the DfT is demanding the congestion charge extension and in others it was a suggestion in a long list of things the mayor and TfL could implement to improve revenues. Every side is playing this political game of hungry hungry hippos and it’s just getting boring now. We all know it’s easy for each side to blame the other but god all the idiots on twitter and in the media feed these dramas to the point where everyone is at each other’s throats for no reason. The fact is H&F and Richmond councils failed to sort the bridge, regardless of involvement beyond their levels in a classic leave it to someone else style. Other councils have found money for their road/bridge repairs and rather than throwing a bf about it both councils could have worked together to come up with a solution. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 21, 2020 15:24:09 GMT
During PMQs today, the Prime Minister explicitly blamed "the incompetence of Sadiq Khan" for the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, and made it unambiguously clear that the Government's strategy is to portray Shaun Bailey as the hero that saves it. Pinning the blame on Khan for the closure of the bridge is such an obvious and absurd lie that Hammersmith Bridge is now trending at number 2 on Twitter, with an endless stream of public ridicule being directed towards Johnson's shameless, self-serving bullsh!t. Meanwhile, Conservative councillors are now supporting these lies at a local level with some of their own: As anyone with a brain knows, neither the Mayor nor TfL are responsible for maintaining Hammersmith Bridge, and TfL is the only stakeholder to have actually committed any real money (£25m) to the project so far, but of course we must blame Khan alone for "his total inaction" to get it reopened. And even though it's been clearly established that the expansion of the congestion charge zone has been required by the Government as a condition of TfL's H2 funding package, Councillor Joyce insists that any expansion of the zone is nothing to do with the Tories, and is actually just "the Mayor's PR game playing". The Conservatives are now clearly focused on creating a narrative that establishes Khan as the destroyer of London and the negligent fool who closed Hammersmith Bridge and brought misery to families and communities, with Bailey as London's great hope, and the only one who can save us all. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this develops along the same lines as during the general election. As previously mentioned, the Government promised funding for the bridge in order to generate support for Zac Goldsmith in Richmond Park, but that money quickly vanished when he lost his seat (by an enormous margin). The Conservatives can easily do the same thing this time: making a long series of empty promises about their man Bailey being the one who can reopen Hammersmith Bridge, while dragging their feet in taskforce negotiations over the next few months, and blaming H&F Council, TfL and Khan for any failure to agree terms, or for "not negotiating in good faith". (If this all sounds familiar, it's because it's pretty much how the Government has also handled its Brexit negotiations.) If Bailey wins, Hammersmith Bridge is saved! If he doesn't, we all go back to blaming Khan for everything. Talk is cheap - and it's a hell of a lot cheaper for the Government to say it's going to do something than to actually do it, especially when there's a golden opportunity to manipulate this situation as a means to gain power in the Mayoral election. Politically, there is little to be gained from funding the project now if Bailey later loses the election. Perhaps I'll be proved completely wrong and work on the bridge will begin soon. But I'm not holding my breath, and I fear we've got many more months of this nonsense still to endure. I think the TfL debacle really depends on which media outlet you choose to believe because I’ve read it both ways. In one version the DfT is demanding the congestion charge extension and in others it was a suggestion in a long list of things the mayor and TfL could implement to improve revenues. Every side is playing this political game of hungry hungry hippos and it’s just getting boring now. We all know it’s easy for each side to blame the other but god all the idiots on twitter and in the media feed these dramas to the point where everyone is at each other’s throats for no reason. The fact is H&F and Richmond councils failed to sort the bridge, regardless of involvement beyond their levels in a classic leave it to someone else style. Other councils have found money for their road/bridge repairs and rather than throwing a bf about it both councils could have worked together to come up with a solution. It is not even Richmond's fault, the bridge is owned by Hammersmith & Fulham. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2020 15:27:20 GMT
I think the TfL debacle really depends on which media outlet you choose to believe because I’ve read it both ways. In one version the DfT is demanding the congestion charge extension and in others it was a suggestion in a long list of things the mayor and TfL could implement to improve revenues. Every side is playing this political game of hungry hungry hippos and it’s just getting boring now. We all know it’s easy for each side to blame the other but god all the idiots on twitter and in the media feed these dramas to the point where everyone is at each other’s throats for no reason. The fact is H&F and Richmond councils failed to sort the bridge, regardless of involvement beyond their levels in a classic leave it to someone else style. Other councils have found money for their road/bridge repairs and rather than throwing a bf about it both councils could have worked together to come up with a solution. It is not even Richmond's fault, the bridge is owned by Hammersmith & Fulham. I know, but I meant given the bridge crosses into Richmond and serves a large residential area in Barnes they also have a responsibility to assist H&F solve the problem. A far greater responsibility than the government, the mayor and TfL do. |
|
|
|
Post by ​galwhv69 on Oct 21, 2020 15:35:13 GMT
It is not even Richmond's fault, the bridge is owned by Hammersmith & Fulham. I know, but I meant given the bridge crosses into Richmond and serves a large residential area in Barnes they also have a responsibility to assist H&F solve the problem. A far greater responsibility than the government, the mayor and TfL do. How is Richmond responsible for something that isn't even in their borough? |
|
|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Oct 21, 2020 15:40:01 GMT
I know, but I meant given the bridge crosses into Richmond and serves a large residential area in Barnes they also have a responsibility to assist H&F solve the problem. A far greater responsibility than the government, the mayor and TfL do. How is Richmond responsible for something that isn't even in their borough? Exactly, Richmond have little to no say in this, but considering that it passes into their side, they are probably in with talks with H&F council, but H&F are the ones who have full control over the bridge in itself. |
|
