Forum Topic

Hammersmith Bridge

Someone just told me they are closing the bridge completely at 4pm this afternoon and it won't reopen for maybe months.Is this true or a wind up?  Anyone know?

Jean Ross ● 2270d134 Comments

It's true. no more walking or cycling over.

Jean Ross ● 2270d

pity they don't do something about it.  Maybe some foreign company can come fix it for London after Brexit.

Mike Chisholm ● 2270d

Jean, please tell us where your friend got this information.

Adrian Irving ● 2270d

You've got a few more hours to use it... The workers on the bridge now say it's closing later on tonight.

Jean Ross ● 2270d

Not a source I usually go to but multiple posts on Twitter confirming this - mostly from Barnes residents it seems.  Apparently a technical inspection found that a crack has worsened because of the heat.  The bridge and pedestrian underpasses on both sides will remain closed until engineers confirm it is safe to re-open.

Catherine Steele ● 2270d

There is a press release on the H&F website.  Apparently the cracks have worsened in the hot weather.  The engineers that built it would be appalled that we don’t simply pull it down and build something more suitable.  Yes it is pretty, but it was built for a practical purpose not as an artistic endeavour and it is no longer fit for purpose.  It is this kind of preservation that will have us all living in a museum.

Christopher Shea ● 2270d

Just received this on email:-Following expert technical advice, Hammersmith & Fulham Council has decided to close Hammersmith Bridge to all traffic - including buses, pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic - until we can be assured that it is safe.This is because engineers working on behalf of Hammersmith & Fulham Council and TfL have discovered further damage to the north-eastern pedestal of Hammersmith Bridge. It will remain closed until we are assured it is safe to reopen.We are sorry for any disruption caused by the sudden nature of this closure, but safety is paramount. Engineers are now on site assessing the damage, which may have been caused by the recent extreme weather, and we continue to work with Hammersmith, Fulham and Richmond upon Thames councils on this project. Plan ahead and check before you travel.Yours sincerely,Customer Information TeamTransport for London

Claire Moran ● 2270d

A possible upside is MAYBE the urgency to fix or replace it will dawn on those responsible for doing so.I am allowed to dream aren't I.

Adrian Irving ● 2270d

I blame Extinction Rebellion for occupying the damaged bridge.River traffic banned also? This is a strange one. Does it mean nothing can pass under the bridge? No rowers, No lighters etc.,?Good for the cyclists though. They'll be able to get more exercise travelling to other bridges.

Jeffrey Cope ● 2270d

It's riddled with faults which on past performance will only reappear one at a time and lead to future delays.Knock it down and build something that's going to work longtime for all.

Jeffrey Cope ● 2270d

surely reliable roads must be a political issue now.  this is unacceptable that this bridge has been left to fail after the M4 and Hammersmith Fly over debacle in the last few years.  Who is watching this stuff and doing something before it fails???  This part of town is failing badly infrastructure and maintenance wise.  Isn't it almost behind comprehension that a 3rd major failure roading failure has occurred has occured in less than ten years?  Do we simply wait for another, and another???  And so it goes without saying, closing local roads is just bonkers

Mike Chisholm ● 2270d

Maybe they could sling a zip wire across. (BJ could be first). At least pedestrians could get over. Or perhaps an enterprising ferryman could set up shop. With no traffic up and down it should be fairly easy.

Vivienne Cox ● 2270d

reminds me of Richard Chamberlain in Towering Inferno

Mike Chisholm ● 2270d

"Or perhaps an enterprising ferryman could set up shop. With no traffic up and down it should be fairly easy."The PLA tweeted this evening that the southern half of the bridge is still navigable to river traffic.  So there would be be other vessels to contend with.  But I think finding a suitable landing stage on the south bank might be more difficult.

Richard Jennings ● 2270d

Seems very fishy to me. The bridge has to be closed to pedestrians and cyclists just before a planning application is about to presented to build a bridge for pedestrians and cyclists? It would be interesting to know if there is any connection between the contractors giving the advice that the bridge must be closed and those that will be building the new one.

Kevin Howard ● 2270d

"Don't pay the ferryman, Don't even fix a price, Don't pay the ferryman, Until he gets you to the other side" ;-)

Nick Jenkins ● 2269d

A fairly pertinent quote from a band that originated locally, the Strawbs - "The boatman made an honest livingAlong the river's south-side bankFamily gatherings, household tripsFrom time to time the river grew dankOne such day when the river was foulThe boatman took his wife to townBreathing heavy on the journey homeFever struck as the sun went downThe sickness raged for several daysThe doctor rambled in despairThe old priest read the sacramentsDecay and death hung in the air"In case you're wondering, it does have a happy ending ! http://www.strawbsweb.co.uk/lyrics/ferryly.asp

Richard Greenhough ● 2269d

Contrary to their tweet last night, the PLA have now imposed a full prohibition of all river traffic under Hammersmith Bridge and for 15 metres on each side "due to urgent safety concerns".

Richard Jennings ● 2269d

Is it now over two years since the seriousness of these flaws came to light? And what progress has been made in the two years? Has it been rebuilt? In some parts of the world a new bridge would have been built and everything restored to normal.Planning ahead: Barnes Railway Bridge is an option for pedestrians, right? Will cyclists be able to take their bikes over?

Paul Cronshaw ● 2269d

Re Barnes Railway Bridge - yes and yes.

Simon Tranter ● 2269d

Question:Given the narrowness of the footpath section of Barnes Bridge, will cyclists be walking their bikes over the bridge or will they expect to ride?

Jeffrey Cope ● 2268d

I don't remember seeing no cycling signs.I generally walk so I can take in the view however if it is free of others I occasionally ride. It is a little unnerving though as the balastrading looks a little low from the saddle and the river a long way down.

Adrian Irving ● 2268d

Crossing Putney Bridge is no fun at all on a bicycle and there is a case for better provision to be made there without a doubt.

Adrian Irving ● 2268d

Answer: (as someone who goes over it maybe 2-3 times a month)It was never that busy, so it is simply a case of being sensible - if no-one is walking towards you then cycle; conversely get off and push. Of course, it will probably now get busier...

Simon Tranter ● 2268d

I feel so much for the Barnes residents - unless you have a car which so many do not - and can travel to Chiswick Bridge or other ways what can you do.  Barnes is going to become a ghost town- and I feel greatly for people there and most importantly the businesses and shops -

Helen Bamberger ● 2268d

Well according to some since no one is driving through retail sales have rocketed so now no cyclists it will rocket even more.Never mind that no cars equal areas turning into tumbleweed or "cyclists dont stop and by things in my shop"

Mick Collins ● 2268d

Sorry buy not by  ....."and on English Comprehension Forum English Comprehensionalist"  Bonzo Dog Doodah Band (nearly)

Mick Collins ● 2268d

Use it every other day (on my ex-bridges to bridges run with dog - sob). Not a bridge to ride over. Even passing other pedestrians means less than 1m apart. If you tried cycling and came across another user you may end up in the sink! But at least it has a track push system to haul bikes up the stairs. ) But not a practical alternative for most Hammersmith Bridge pedestrian commuters. That bend in the river adds quite a few kilometres on foot. Sob.

Caroline Carrington ● 2268d

have you been on Chiswick Bridge lately?  I think it needs improving

Mike Chisholm ● 2267d

Retail is up 8% in Barnes compared to Hammersmith, as reported by the Barnes Community Association. Air quality improved too. Details are here:https://www.barnes-ca.org/community-blog/theimpactoftheclosureofhammersmithbridge

Tom Pike ● 2267d

"Shopping in BarnesWe contacted local retailers to ask them what the impact has been on their businesses since the bridge closed and followed this up with personal visits to as many businesses as we could reach before our deadline. 75 business owners responded to our request for information. Their responses showed a very mixed picture.  Whilst 40% of businesses report a decline in trade, 41% report that business is the same and 19% have even seen an improvement in trade" Tom, the above is also in the report isn't it.

Adrian Irving ● 2267d

MikeChiswick Bridge was completely refurbished, and completed in 2015

Bernard Allen ● 2267d

Yes, the actual sales showed the retailers were slightly pessimistic. There have been previous studies that indicate retailers tend to overestimate the proportion of customers that come by car.Bottom line, though, is that Barnes saw 8% more retail growth than Hammersmith after the bridge was closed.

Tom Pike ● 2267d

Well well, the good old "previous studies" will no doubt be of great comfort to the 40% of traders who reported a  decline in business and were 'in fact' mistakenly exaggerating their woes.That is the marvellous thing about "previous studies" as they can 'prove' almost anything, depending on which one you cherry pick of course.

Adrian Irving ● 2267d

Let's not forget there exists no data for the current circumstances yet all the previous studies and data get trotted out as if it applies to this economic shutdown brought on by a global pandemic. Computer says no.My other favorite bit is how traders are always treated as idiots. Like we have no clue about anything and we should be grateful to be taught such invaluable lessons by campaigners. We are relegated to second-class citizens to be used as pawns. Nothing more. Unless, of course, we agree 100% with the campaign.

David Lesniak ● 2267d

Traffic jams are good for business a shock report from a previous study in Barnes reveals!"Businesses at the river end of the High Street are finding that standing traffic brings in new trade. Whilst people are sitting in jams they notice local businesses and make a note to pop in later. Ruta, the owner of the Riverside Gallery, reports that business is better as new customers are coming over the bridge from Chiswick."So there you have it folks, bring traffic to a grinding halt and business booms!

Adrian Irving ● 2267d

The survey of retailers was a sampling of sentiment. The credit card data was the actual sales and covered the whole of Barnes. It’s very easy to say there’s evidence on both sides. Now would be an ideal opportunity to present any studies that support your view.

Tom Pike ● 2267d

Tom, I know running a shop literally isn't rocket science but I think you need to have more respect for the assessment of owners and managers about the impact closure is having on their sales.Can you give more detail on the credit card data? What period does it cover and what kind of businesses are included in the sample, for instance are online sales included and is it based on location of sale or registered address of the company making the sale?

Francis Rowe ● 2267d

Tom, it was a wind up to 'prove' that you can 'prove' what you like by referring to previous studies just as long as you cherry pick the right one I surprised you didn't get that. I am sure most readers did though.

Adrian Irving ● 2266d

Francis,We all have unjustified biases, including retailers. Ignoring our biases as a matter of "respect" is not helpful to anyone. Rather than making such criticisms, you could read the report yourself:"In addition we received economic spending data from Mastercard. Interestingly this data not only indicates there’s no slowdown in economic spending in local shops in SW13, but in fact shows a 21% increase. The data also shows an increase of 13% in shops north of the bridge in W6. (The average figure for London is an increase in spending of around 9%)."The overestimating of the proportion of customers arriving by car is a persistent one. Here are the results of various studies showing the retailer estimates and the actual figures:Bristol: 58% estimated, 32% actual, 45% less customers arriving by car Graz: 41% estimated, 22% actual, 46% lessDublin: 16% estimate, 9% actual, 47% lessSo consistently in these rather different locations retailers see about 45% less customers arrive by car than they estimate, or in other words retailers have tended to overestimate the number of customers arriving by car by nearly a factor of 2. Those are useful figures for a retailer, and there's no disrespect in sharing such information.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

No, Adrian, you're just demonstrating you're making an empty point if you can't show any other studies than the ones you claim I'm cherry picking.Most people are aware that climate-change deniers made the same point as you a few years ago, dismissing the studies showing we were warming as cherry picked and claiming rather there was evidence on both sides. But that wasn't the case, and we are now suffering the consequences of delayed action to tackle the problem.Rather than follow in their footsteps, it would be preferable if you considered all the available evidence. If you can't add any, then you can look at the evidence we do have, not just dismiss it as being cherry picked.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

Tom, I think you could be assured of not being accused of cherry picking data if you provided the background information about the credit card sales you cited earlier.

Francis Rowe ● 2266d

Francis, please read the Barnes Community Association report. If you still have reasons to accuse BCA of cherry picking, then you should contact them and share your response.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

As someone who I understand is a scientist, Tom seems to play pretty fast and loose with data. Firstly, as requested it would be vital to understand the basis of this data, and then understand how it was collected and what normalisations occurred. Was it adjusted to account for weather, holidays or other events. Was it sustained over a period of time? I am sure Tom knows the difference between correlation and causality. Lets also take a step back. As others have said, we are in unprecedented times, so is previous data applicable, especially given the reluctance to use public transport.Lets also stand back from the data. So lets assume we saw some short term uplift. So were people choosing to spend more money overall, or just reallocating money from other areas they could not reach? So some local retailers in Barnes may benefit, but others in Putney (where congestion was terrible) or Hammersmith may lose out. I would also suspect that any increase will reduce over time as shoppers find other outlets, use online etc. We cannot argue all retailers across London benefit, can we?Whilst Barnes is a contained local area and many can walk to the shops, I see no logic as to why the closure of Hammersmith bridge would boost sales in Hammersmith. Traffic did not improve in Hammersmith, actually around the gyratory and down Fulham Palace it got even worse, with no change on King St. Given the broad range of shops in Hammersmith its hard to argue shoppers were reverting to local options given they could not get to Barnes. So to then conclude that more traffic equals higher sales would appear to complete rebut the argument Tom is making.It may be true that retailers overexaggerate the number of shoppers arriving by vehicle, but that doesn't mean that a substantial proportion don't, and maybe they have a greater propensity to spend or want to do bigger shops. Its also not a good idea to ignore and deny the realities that local retailers are telling us, when the data is being used in such a tenuous manner.

Paul Green ● 2266d

Paul, you're playing pretty fast and loose with your accusations! As I said to Francis, you should read the report as I have and direct further queries you might have on it to Barnes Community Association. I have no more information than you can access.  You are certainly missing the point that Barnes saw a relative increase compared to Hammersmith and London as a whole. Events that might affect them all, such as holidays and weather, are compensated for when you look at the relative changes over the same period between different areas.The consistent overestimation of customers arriving by car by close to a factor of two in three different cities demonstrates the robustness of the result - you are just claiming it is tenuous with no evidence. In fact if those arriving by car were consistently spending significantly more, then those customers would be easy to recognise and it would be difficult to make such an overestimate!As I said, this is useful information for retailers.  No business is helped by faulty perceptions.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

I've read the report. The BCA are trying to create a balanced picture and refer to it in a broader context. You are relying on this one piece of data to make your point. You shouldn't  do this without knowing the base for comparison and what the data is made up of. I'm really surprised that I have to point this out to you.

Francis Rowe ● 2266d

Francis, I agree it's a balanced report and incorporates other work showing the overall reduction of traffic and the improvement in air quality that came with the closure of Hammersmith Bridge that I've also mentioned. I'm hardly relying on one piece of data here! Like Paul, you are continuing to miss the point that we're looking at relative growth, and that isolates the specific changes that occurred between Barnes, Hammersmith and London as a whole. The major change was of course the closure of the Bridge.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

Oh dear Tom, the only person playing fast and loose with anything is you. So again, to say anything you need to have the underlying data, how many stores reporting, over what period of time? Barnes is not a major shopping destination, so which shops reported an increase? There is an M&S and Sainsburys, are they included as they may benefit from more trade? Or are there some large one-off purchases distorting, furniture etc? Rather than an average you would want to see the full distribution and the median figures, so ensure its not distorted by outliers.And if spending in Barnes really did increase (which I don't believe we have a large enough sample or period to conclude this), where was it at the expense of? As ever, you refuse to acknowledge winners and losers.This is even more the case with air quality. So this improved with the closure of Hammersmith bridge in Barnes, but we see a big increase in congestion on some Chiswick roads (as well reported on this site), and Fulham Palace Rd and Putney high street even worse than normal. So its OK for these areas to suffer if Barnes is better? If you applied such myopic dogma at work you would not be taken seriously. Why do it here?

Paul Green ● 2266d

Paul, again please read the actual report. It was sales data from the SW13 and W6 postcode, and all London postcodes. Also if you look in the report you will see that air quality in Putney and Chiswick as well as Barnes actually improved after the closure.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

Then Tom something else was impacting air quality, such as weather and wind direction or less diesel vehicles. Because congestion significantly worsened in Putney, I saw it first hand on several occasions, it was also very widely reported. So please explain that? If air quality also fell in areas that saw more congestion, then you cant then claim that road closures and cycle schemes lower air pollution, can you?

Paul Green ● 2266d

Just walked my dog to the bridge  - it looked to me from a distance that the north eastern quadrant of the bridge was sagging.  I could be wrong with parallax and perspective issues.

Charles Carr-Jones ● 2266d

Some journey times did increase, as you can see if you follow the links in the report, but there was an overall fall in traffic in the area after the Bridge closed. These are consistent features of schemes that restrict traffic.In contrast if you build more roads you reduce journey times and increase traffic overall, to the detriment of air quality.Neither of these should be seen as particularly surprising results.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

It depends in part on how you define the 'area' and 'traffic'. Fewer vehicles sat in longer queues means more congestion and slower journeys, but could equally mean a fall in actual vehicles numbers. Not what most people would recognise as a reduction in traffic.There were widepsread reports of increased congestion on numerous roads around Chiswick and TFL agreed to review light phasing to try and manage this. There was a clear increase in congestion in Putney and approaches to the bridge. The logical outcome of your argument is to close all roads and river crossings and there would be no traffic? Simples, or a recipe for chaos? Who needs food deliveries, taxis, tradesmen or to drive with mobility issues...In Tom's fantasy world, people are restricted to their local area, magically have more money to spend and air quality goes up, even in areas with more congestion.

Paul Green ● 2266d

Tom, the credit card data is the one piece of evidence that contradicts the view of local traders that the closure has been damaging for their business. However, it has no evidential value if it can't be confirmed if it is data for shops in the area. If it is for all credit card transactions for businesses in the area it will be useless - Betfair probably has a bigger turnover than all the shops in Hammersmith combined.I would not for one second dispute that air quality is significantly better in the area. However, this has been achieved at the expense of the Lower Richmond Road, Mortlake and Putney High Street.

Francis Rowe ● 2266d

Fully agree. Its interesting that the report on 'traffic evaporation' notes that the increase in traffic using other river crossings is less than the loss of traffic on Hammersmith Bridge. Some of this may be trips that are abandoned eg not going to the cinema, or changed to another location. I am sure there is a net overall reduction in journeys, but many just change. But, and its a big BUT, it glosses over the increased congestion that for example an extra 6.5k vehicles on Chiswick bridge or 3k more on Putney bridge brings and the impact this has on residents there. Winners and losers, as I have said all along. Longer journey times, more particulate matter, more noise.Same with shopping, some local businesses do better, but then this was previously spent elsewhere, so what about those losing out?Tom and cycling brigade like to focus on the 'winners', although even here with the credit card data it is impossible to make any conclusions from the exceptionally limited info. Plus its clear a number of businesses suffered and some closed. Is that OK, do we just write these people off?

Paul Green ● 2266d

"The logical outcome of your argument is to close all roads and river crossings and there would be no traffic?"But that's not the aim, rather it's to shift to what we might agree is a better balance. I'm not sure how many of us think the current price we all pay in terms of emissions, pollution, deaths and injuries are reasonable against the advantages to some of us being able to continue to drive wherever we like. However, if that price is too high, we should support a shift away from motor transport, but that doesn't mean banning it completely. We can't still have the advantages of motor vehicles when any of us need them, but these restrictions are meaning we use them less.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

e: 16/08/20 20:37:00Retail is up 8% in Barnes compared to Hammersmith, as reported by the Barnes Community Association. Air quality improved too. Details are here:Tom don't make me laugh I know more about climate change than most, believe me. The only part of the report you quoted was as above but no mention of the 40% business reporting a drop in trade.Admittedly you had a link to the full report but the reason I picked you up on  your post was because you cherry picked an extract which was far from the full story. Suited your agenda though.Anyway I guess you have never run an independent business so rely on other people's studies.This can lead to people not thinking for themselves, applying common sense or seeing the bloomin' obvious.

Adrian Irving ● 2266d

Francis, the report says precisely the data is for shops in the area:"Interestingly this data not only indicates there’s no slowdown in economic spending in local shops in SW13, but in fact shows a 21% increase. The data also shows an increase of 13% in shops north of the bridge in W6. (The average figure for London is an increase in spending of around 9%)."The report also states that the air quality gains in Barnes have not come at the expense of other areas:"The nearest air quality monitoring stations are located near the junction of Lower Richmond Road and Putney High Street and on Chiswick High Road. The level of pollution hasn’t increased, and in fact seems to have fallen overall. There are a couple of strange peaks at the end of 2019 and the start of 2020, but the average values are lower than before the bridge closed. In Chiswick, we can see the same pattern as for Putney: pollution is no worse than before, and may have actually improved."But as you say you've read the report, you should know this.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

Most of this is over my head but I would have guessed that when the bridge was fully open the natural weight of shopping traffic (however propelled) would have been from Barnes to Hammersmith given the significantly greater choice of retail destinations there and beyond. With the bridge closed then naturally those potential customers living in Barnes would seek out alternatives on their own side of the river. I would be surprised if there was that much extra custom now in King Street that once used to go to Barnes. Am I missing something?

Bruce Hammal ● 2266d

"Anyway I guess you have never run an independent business so rely on other people's studies.This can lead to people not thinking for themselves, applying common sense or seeing the bloomin' obvious."Adrian, you guessed wrongly. You are basing your arguments on your preconceptions rather than knowledge.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

Tom, not sure if you are always this obtuse buts it gettng painful. THere is no data in the report, just some selective quotes. An increase in shopping 'North of the bridge', where is that? A couple of shops, the pubs by the river, the whole of Hammersmith? Without knowing this the quote is meaningless. As the previous poster noted, its common sense that some who might have previously shopped in Hammersmith, or indeed Richmond and Putney, would stay more local, at least short term. So why is there more spending 'north of the bridge'? When there is no reduction in traffic volumes but in fact more heading down Fulham Palace? So both less traffic and more traffic generate more retail revenue? That is the logical conclusion here? The report also acknowledges increased congestion in other areas, and the linked report on traffic evaporation shows 6.5k more daily vehicles on Chiswick bridge and 4.5k on Putney. How is this possible without more air pollution. Or the logical conclusion would be traffic volumes don't drive pollution, even though common sense tells us otherwise. Alternatively it may be  that for example the shift away from diesel to electric buses is playing a role.As ever, Tom will always ignore the impact on those communities that see more traffic, more congestion, more noise and more pollution. Bizarre.

Paul Green ● 2266d

Tom, there is no citation in the report so it is impossible to check what the source is and how the figures are calculated. This is forgiveable for the BCA to be a bit sloppy with definitions as they are just trying to give a rounded view and not being polemical. They are also not presenting an academic paper. However, with your background I am surprised you continue to be willing to use a single point of data as the basis of the argument without a proper citation or any knowledge of exactly what the data is referring to.

Francis Rowe ● 2266d

Again, here are the figures from the report. I'm not sure why you are finding them so confusing:Average increase in spending in shops in SW13 after the closure: 21% Average increase in spending in shops in W6 after the closure: 13% Average increase in spending in shops in London after the closure: 9%Yes there was a 4% increase in spending in shops in W6 compared to the rest of London after the closure. It could be partially driven by the extra 1000 vehicles on the A4, or the extra 3000 on Fulham Palace Road, but that would be difficult to isolate as you're looking at much smaller changes in traffic. In contrast the 8% increase in spending in shops in SW13 came with a 25,000 drop in vehicles on the main road through Barnes. That's a much stronger effect by any measure.Air quality measurements are the product of the pollution from traffic passing next to the monitoring station and a more general contribution from pollution in the area as well as weather conditions. In Barnes and Chiswick about half of the pollution is a more general contribution. Hence these general effects will offset local increases in traffic on a particular street. There was an 8 to 10% increase in traffic across Putney Bridge after the closure, 4000 extra vehicles on top of the usual 40,000 to 50,000. Hence it appears that the local increase in pollution from increased traffic over Putney Bridge was more than offset by the overall reduction in the background pollution.Overall the BCA report shows a reduction in both overall traffic across the Thames and improved air quality at all monitoring stations - I'm ignoring nothing. In contrast you appear to be saying that we should discount the overall improvements in air quality if there are any losers, which in this case are not even apparent.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

They are not confusing they are just not properly referenced. Would you use data in ths way in an academic paper?Similarly it would you make a claim that air quality had improved overall with such a limited number of measurement points? It may well have done but it also may be the case that areas of increased pollution are not being measured and therefore not being included in the overall number.

Francis Rowe ● 2266d

Tom as I said it was a guess but this makes all the more surprising that your whole tone is dismissive of the 40% of businesses that have suffered a decline and a much smaller number are doing better.To me that is shocking  but I have to hand it to you, you are making a fair fist of lauding this as good news.

Adrian Irving ● 2266d

Francis,  it is quite clear what the data represents, but if you feel you need more details it would be best for you to ask BCA. Please let us know if you find any specific issues. The value of this study is that it is very local but the BCA results are consistent with other reports from London and further afield. If you are willing to look at the broader evidence, then you would be able to evaluate these results in that context.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

It's not an academic paper, it's a community association report. The work they linked to used all the nearest monitoring stations available. You could answer all these questions yourself, I'm sure.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

Tom, you really are embarrassing yourself. Lies, damn lies and statistics.You claim that the report shows 'a reduction in both overall traffic across the Thames and improved air quality at all monitoring stations'. Hmmm. But it only shows a reduction in traffic on one bridge, and significant increases in all other bridges, all of which were already pretty much at capacity. So its misleading to say that, is it not?' And if the air quality monitoring stations are not in the worst impacted areas, they wont capture the effect. CHR was not that impacted so it wouldnt expect to see an increase in pollution, but parts of A4, Sutton Court Rd and approaches to Kew Bridge were. There are no monitoring stations there. Also, you note the significant impact of background pollution, which may have simply fallen and offset that caused by more congestion. So bottom line we cannot draw any conclusions from the limited and selective data presented. The more interesting question would be what has happened to sales after 6 and 12 months, split by type of outlet (retail, leisure, how much is online but reported as local etc). Why do you ignore the impact of increased congestion, noise and general inconvenience caused in other areas? Please answer. Do these people not count?

Paul Green ● 2266d

Adrian, the survey was a sampling of a proportion of retailers in Barnes with a simple response of whether trade was up, down or the same. Such a survey is not going to capture the overall effect as well as a comparative analysis based on the actual sales from all retailers. That's why BCA looked at that data.It's certainly not dismissive to make the point that an evaluation based on a more complete coverage should be more representative, as I'm sure the retailers not in the survey would agree.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

Paul, all the nearest monitoring stations were used in the report, including Putney High Street which some had claimed was the most affected. However, none of these monitoring stations showed increased pollution.I'm not ignoring the increase in some travel times - I mentioned them first! - and there's no denying that will be inconvenient for those who have to drive those routes. And I'm not denying that if you close one bridge, traffic on the other bridges will increase. Nobody is disputing these figures. Similarly you should admit on the basis of the same figures that 38% of the traffic across Hammersmith Bridge is no longer crossing the Thames. That's what's causing the overall improvement in air quality that benefits us all.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

"And I'm not denying that if you close one bridge, traffic on the other bridges will increase. Nobody is disputing these figures"Paul, all the nearest monitoring stations were used in the report, including Putney High Street which some had claimed was the most affected. However, none of these monitoring stations showed increased pollution"Don't these two statements contradict.How can there be an increase in traffic but no increase in pollution?

Adrian Irving ● 2266d

As I said above:"Air quality measurements are the product of the pollution from traffic passing next to the monitoring station and a more general contribution from pollution in the area as well as weather conditions. In Barnes and Chiswick about half of the pollution is a more general contribution. Hence these general effects will offset local increases in traffic on a particular street. There was an 8 to 10% increase in traffic across Putney Bridge after the closure, 4000 extra vehicles on top of the usual 40,000 to 50,000. Hence it appears that the local increase in pollution from increased traffic over Putney Bridge was more than offset by the overall reduction in the background pollution."

Tom Pike ● 2266d

I hate to be the one to tell you all, but you've been Piked. It's a bit like being punked except a doctor did it. Tom has done this very thing on a number of occasions to which I've been privy. I couldn't agree more with those who point out the fluidity with which the good doctor uses scientific method. Or doesn't. Or does. Or doesn't. Of special interest to me is how the constant between Chiswick and Barnes is being used differently. In each case a group of concerned citizens and businesses got together and collected data. The control group, if you will. Yet Tom was adamant those in Chiswick be ignored yet now he is equally adamant those in Barnes should be held to high esteem. Is it down to the latter having a lovely group name? Dunno. I'm no doctor. But I am the son of one. Does that count?

David Lesniak ● 2266d

Thank's Tom, to quote , "more general, weather conditions, about half, a more general contributor, general effects," etc.All a bit vague. The the simple fact is closing the bridge to motor vehicles and now completely has badly affected business, moved pollution from one place to another, created longer journey times, inconvenienced thousands of people and is a damming indictment on how my home city has been badly mismanaged.So called planned road closures are one thing but the shut down of a vital archery though sheer mismanagement is indefensible.

Adrian Irving ● 2266d

I'm no doctor. But I am the son of one. Does that count?No it doesnt,  just like Trump can't claim to be like, like really tremendous at Nuclear because his uncle went to MIT.

Matthew Swain ● 2266d

'How can there be an increase in traffic but no increase in pollution'One possible explanation is that lower speeds mean that hybrid buses exclusively use electric power rather than diesel so on Putney High Street emissions from buses has dropped to zero. Previous studies from the council showed that buses accounted for most of the pollution on this road.

Paul Corcoran ● 2266d

Hi David,If you would like point out inconsistencies, then we can discuss them. Similarly, if you have data for Chiswick that contradicts what the Barnes Community Association has reported, please let us know.Without providing either, your comment doesn't add much.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

Only one of your "simple" facts is correct: - there has been an increase in some journey times. But the rest are not: - The spending data shows local shops in Barnes have seen an increase in sales after the closure, 8% higher compared to Hammersmith. - The traffic counts shows an overall reduction in traffic across the Thames. - All the local pollution monitors show an improvement in air quality.Where we agree, is that there the Bridge is a vital artery. People need to get over that bridge, but the effort now has to be to get it open for active transport and work out a way to provide a zero-emissions public transport alternative. That way we can get the gains of improved air quality and reduced emissions while bringing back into service a critical transport link.A survey of those walking across the bridge also supported such an option.  Only 43% wanted the bridge reopened to private motor vehicles, and that was the feeling across all age groups. They welcomed the improved air quality, the better experience of crossing the bridge and the positive lifestyle change that came from the closure of the bridge to motor vehicles. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/62833128/fc-bridge-surveyThere is a clear way forward that will retains the gains while recovering the Bridge's vital transport function.

Tom Pike ● 2266d

Tom, how selective can you choose to be. The Barnes 'report' says that 'Castelnau is now an oasis of calm and a pleasure for both residents and people traveling by bus, bikes or on foot.' Of course it is.So what about Chiswick Bridge, Kew Bridge or Putney bridge, all already at capacity and all saw significant increase in traffic, congestion and pollution. Or the toads that feed into them. How about Chalkers Corner which saw an extra 8k vehicles a day? How can you sit there and ignore the impact of this. You claim pollution overall fell, and said the improvement in air quality is something 'we can all benefit from'. But you acknowledge that congestion has increased in many areas, and it may be the only reason the few monitoring stations did not record an increase in pollution is a fall in 'background pollution'. Residents who saw day long traffic outside their homes, where previously there had been none, will suffer more harmful pollution. Do not try and deny this. There is a massive disparity between the local residents that benefit from this closure, and the huge number of residents and local people who suffer increased congestion, noise, pollution and longer journey times. If you close another bridge, then the same pattern is repeated. A small number benefit and a larger number suffer from appalling conditions. You seem to think this is OK, same as your attitude to road closures in Chiswick. A few people benefit, but the impact of displaced traffic on others is simply ignored.

Paul Green ● 2266d

Paul, yes, traffic at Chalker's corner went up the most by 8,000, which looks like the sum of the increase of 1,500 along the South Circular and 6,500 on Chiswick Bridge. But the increase at that junction is less than a third of the 25,000 decrease in traffic through the middle of Barnes to the Hammersmith Gyratory. It's not a zero-sum game, as the Thames crossing numbers show. Overall traffic fell. Overall pollution fell. There was an overall benefit in air quality.People in Barnes benefitted the most, but overall we all benefitted.

Tom Pike ● 2265d

As ever, Matthew, thanks for your super deep dig.No clue what the point of it is but hey, you must be proud of something and I suppose its this.Note to Tom - others are doing a magnificent job picking apart the inconsistencies in your argument. As Matthew claims, I'm stupid, so I'll leave it to them to carry on.

David Lesniak ● 2265d

Yes Paul indeed, which if correct indicates there are more intelligent ways of cutting pollution than keeping bridges closed.

Adrian Irving ● 2265d

So the 57% of people who what the bridge open to traffic don't count!You really do cherry pick your 'facts'Democracy is about the majority Tom not the pushy minority.If course we all want cleaner air and efficient transport so repeating this over and over cuts no ice with anyone.

Adrian Irving ● 2265d

No Tom all of what I have said is correct.Pollution has been displaced elswhere, people have been greatly inconvenienced, business have suffered and it is a damming indictment on those responsible for this unacceptable situation.However much you present other people's studies and statistics  you consistently and conveniently ignore reality.

Adrian Irving ● 2265d

Nobody wants to close bridges. The choice is what is the most appropriate transport modes to maintain connectivity and reduce pollution and emissions.

Tom Pike ● 2265d

At last, a chink of light!

Adrian Irving ● 2265d

Adrian, I think you misread what I posted. 57% did not want to see cars back on the bridge. But it looks like we agree, we should go with the majority and reopen the bridge to active and emissions-free public transport.

Tom Pike ● 2265d

It was a joke Dave geez

Matthew Swain ● 2265d

Yes I did misread,apologies, but nearly all those people asked will no doubt be within easy walking distance so the result is sceud. Surely it would be rather different if they weren't within an easy walk or if drivers were consulted.

Adrian Irving ● 2265d

SO Tom, lets examine your last post to me:'Paul, yes, traffic at Chalker's corner went up the most by 8,000, which looks like the sum of the increase of 1,500 along the South Circular and 6,500 on Chiswick Bridge. But the increase at that junction is less than a third of the 25,000 decrease in traffic through the middle of Barnes to the Hammersmith Gyratory.It's not a zero-sum game, as the Thames crossing numbers show. Overall traffic fell. Overall pollution fell. There was an overall benefit in air quality.People in Barnes benefitted the most, but overall we all benefitted.'Lets start from the top: 1) Why is it relevant to the residents or people needing to use Chalkers Corner that the extra 8k vehicles using an already heavily congested junction was less than a third of the traffic lost to Hammersmith Bridge. Its not, all they see is more traffic, noise, congestion and pollution. Are they meant to console themselves about how nice Castelnau is now, and what its added to the value of the big house there?2) Overall traffic fell, overall pollution fell, an overall benefit in air quality. You seem to be moving from the disingenuous to outright lies. Averages are meaningless, look at the A level results. On average they were fine, better than last year and most were not downgraded. But this masked the devil in the detail, If you live in Putney, Sheen, parts of Chiswick and Fulham, you didnt experience less traffic, you experienced more traffic. Admit it, its 100% clear. Its also not just an inconvenience, it means more local pollution, especially particulate matter this is very localised and harmful to lungs. Noise from busy roads is also shown to impact mental health and weight.And we did not all see an improvement in air quality as a result of the closure. We saw some reduction in background pollution that seems to have cancelled the increase from traffic by a couple of monitoring stations. But areas like Fulham Palace Rd saw lots more traffic and more pollution. Traffic pollution tends to be very localised. Noone in Chiswick saw air quality improve as a result of the bridge closure.It is a zero sum game. Overall traffic may have fallen, but not be enough to offset the loss in bridge capacity. As clearly and undeniably seen in the increase in congestion, noise and local pollution in many areas. Great for those in Barnes, bad for everyone else. Stop being so ridiculously obtuse.

Paul Green ● 2265d

Adrian, you were eager to use the result when you thought it backed your position. Now you've found out otherwise you're suddenly worried it might be skewed....In fact the age and gender mix of those crossing the bridge matches very well the demographics of Barnes. Many of those in the survey would have come off the buses that still run up to the bridge. In fact more than half of those in the survey either drove or took the bus over the bridge before it was closed, so presumably did not live within easy walking distance.As you originally said, we should go with the majority, and the majority want to  keep cars off the bridge.

Tom Pike ● 2265d

No Tom I was concerned, mistakenly, about your lack of democratic thinking as well.It defies logic that those who previously  used a bus to cross the bridge or drive would prefer to walk or divert to another bridge so the result is unbelievable.Unbelievable in the literal sense of the word.It sounds like another one of your cherry pick studies that confound common sense.

Adrian Irving ● 2265d

Tom, let's see a link to this study including when it was taken, how many were polled who commissioned it and most importantly how the questions were phased.

Adrian Irving ● 2265d

I posted it in my response to you earlier. It's notable that you didn't bother examining the evidence when you mistakenly thought it supported your position.  I've been posting all the relevant reports I've seen on Hammersmith Bridge. If you want to claim I'm cherrypicking, then you should provide other evidence that  contradicts these reports. We can then discuss the reasons for any discrepancies. You can't claim cherrypicking just because the evidence doesn't support your position.

Tom Pike ● 2264d

Tom, I am not sure these are 'reports'. There is an article from the Barnes local association that seems to play pretty fast and loose with data, 'surveys' and anecdotal evidence. Although it clearly states that by a factor of around 20% more businesses reported a negative impact than a positive one. As Adrian posts, who was surveyed when crossing the bridge? I dont believe many cyclists stopped. What about all those residents who cannot cycle and find it too far to walk and so are excluded from this highly selective 'survey'.As for the wonderful piece on 'traffic evaporation', it uses an average figure to completely distort the situation. One location saw less traffic, noise and pollution, whilst many others saw more traffic, noise, congestion and pollution. The vast majority of residents across this area experienced traffic increases. Please stop, its really getting embarrassing. We dont need to provide other reports. The one's you cite and claim to paint some rosy picture for all actually do not at all.

Paul Green ● 2264d

Tom, weasel words, but as I suspected you don't want or can't share the survey as it has more holes in it than Bonnie and Clyde's motor car after a shoot out!

Adrian Irving ● 2264d

Paul,Reading the reports would both answer your questions and help you more accurately convey their contents.Most of those surveyed previously either drove or took the bus across the bridge. The age mix matches the overall demographics of Barnes. There is no reason to think the survey was unrepresentative, and the majority did not want to see cars back on the bridge.As for the BCA report and the other reports to linked to, none of the air quality monitors saw an increase in pollution, Barnes just saw the largest fall. And as you previously agreed, the road count figures show that overall traffic is down after the bridge closed.It is clear that the reports and surveys do not provide the evidence that either you or Adrian were expecting. You accuse them of playing "fast and loose" with the data but fail to give any specifics. Is it possible your expectations need to be reconsidered?

Tom Pike ● 2264d

Tom I see people like you as quite dangerous.If your misguided analysis of matters gets traction by a vocal and pushy minority before you know it authorities will cook up a 'cosultation' that lets them off the hook and the bridge will never function as important vehicular archery again.I sincerely hope this doesn't happen but it's not difficult to imagine.

Adrian Irving ● 2264d

Adrian, what do you expect the authorities to do? Ignore the evidence and instead rely on your views?I don't think you'll like the evidence from the Centre for London that came out today either:"London is experiencing a cycling boom, with numbers already back to normal on weekdays (despite activity remaining subdued), and up threefold at weekends. This is one area where the priorities of City Hall, London’s boroughs and government are aligned; there is therefore an opportunity for this shift to continue."https://www.centreforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The-London-Intelligence_Aug-2020.pdf

Tom Pike ● 2264d

No, Adrian, you clearly do not want to look a few posts up the thread to where I posted the link to you in the first place. You didn't read it then, either.

Tom Pike ● 2264d

Tom, more rubbish. So a survey of 122 questionnaires is somehow representative of all the people who previously used Hammersmith bridge, which must have been close to 10 thousand a day? A bridge that also serves the wider community in London as well the residents of Castlenau. Also, it by definition does not capture anyone who lives either too far to walk or is unable to do so. Over 80% of respondents were walking, further emphasising the self selective nature.If you ask anyone if they would like their road closed to traffic, 90% at least are going to say yes. So should we close 90% of roads?If you close a lane on a motorway, the total amount of traffic by volume falls past that point, but at the cost of long queues. That's what happens when you close a bridge. Every other bridge sees more traffic as they reach capacity.If you increase traffic and congestion in an area, vehicular emitted pollution will increase. The air monitoring stations, that by your own statement reflected a fall in background pollution, would then have seen even bigger falls if not for the increased congestion in their area. So the residents suffered here whilst those on Castelnau benefited.

Paul Green ● 2264d

Paul, of course 80% were walking - you couldn't drive or take a bus across the bridge when the survey was done! But over half of those surveyed crossed by bus or car before the bridge was closed to those vehicles. Therefore they evidently didn't live within easy walking distance, and would have used the buses that were still running to and from the bridge.And nobody is wanting to see the bridge closed. A majority just don't want to see cars crossing when it reopens.

Tom Pike ● 2264d

Can I point out that after all you merry men tooing and frooing,  batting statistics back and forth.  Since Covid struck the overall commuter traffic in London and our local areas has decreased massively as jobs dried up others more fortunate are working from home.  Maybe this will alter the shape of things for all time who knows.  Anyway past traffic flows are purely academic now.  All I now for sure is that Chiswick Bridge is busier than it was due to Hammersmith Bridge closure.On the strength of that TfL introduced a new circular bus route Hammersmith – Mortlake – Barnes – Mortlake – Hammersmith  Route 533  The round journey time is just over an hour, Hammersmith to Hammersmith, they seem to run every 30 mins. and travel via Chiswick Lane, Hogarth roundabout down the A316 over Chiswick Bridge.  Maybe that's carrying some shoppers from north of the river to the delights of BaRNES.

Jennifer Selig ● 2264d

Paul, my thoughts perfectly summarised.

Adrian Irving ● 2264d

"Over 80% of respondents were walking, further emphasising the self selective nature."...on a bridge that you can no longer drive over! At least you've made it clear you both share the same fundamental misconceptions.

Tom Pike ● 2264d

Well Tom you can take comfort from the support you have dug up from the survey of 122 people, well some of them anyway.

Adrian Irving ● 2264d

Oh dear Tom. Whatever you academic background its clear you don't understand statistics or how to create appropriate sample sizes. You claimed that the meager 120 questionnaires completed were representative of the the Barnes population.By as nearly all these people were walking (and a few cycling), then you are immediately exclude anyone in Barnes or Hammersmith who either lives too far to walk or has mobility issues that prevent them from doing so.  As a result, you are not getting a fair sample. That is called a self-selecting sample and it makes its conclusions basically worthless. The sample also excludes the many thousands of people who crossed the bridge on a daily basis who live further afield, but have just as much a say on the future of a major piece of the transport network as the residents in the immediate vicinity. Otherwise its just NIMBYISM, which is not a basis to plan transport in London.Please try and do better.

Paul Green ● 2264d

"By as nearly all these people were walking (and a few cycling), then you are immediately exclude anyone in Barnes or Hammersmith who either lives too far to walk or has mobility issues that prevent them from doing so."This is just not true, as I've said several times but will repeat one last time:1. There is still a bus service to the bridge from which the passengers then walk across the bridge. 2. Before the bridge closed most of the people surveyed either crossed by car or bus. Clearly they did not live within easy walking distance or they would not have driven or taken the bus before the bridge was closed.

Tom Pike ● 2264d

2. Before the bridge closed most of the people surveyed either crossed by car or bus. Clearly they did not live within easy walking distance or they would not have driven or taken the bus before the bridge was closed.Not necessarily, that depends on their destiation.

Adrian Irving ● 2264d

What quite is your point? Evidently for most of those surveyed, their journey was not an easy walking distance. It's therefore just not true to say that the survey was selective as it only included those who would have walked anyway.The survey certainly had a representative cross section of Barnes by age and gender.

Tom Pike ● 2264d

I live 600 metres from the bridge get in my Porsche to drive to work in Windsor.I live in Castelnau just by a bus stop and get the bus to Oxford Street.See my point?The truth is neither of us know the answer if they live near the bridge or not but you can't assume they don't.122 people isn't a true representative cross section of anywhere in London and certainly not the thousands of people that previously crossed.

Adrian Irving ● 2264d

You make my point!Paul's argument, that you agreed with, was that the survey was biased as it only included people who always walked across the bridge, even before it closed to cars. That's clearly wrong.In fact we know about a quarter of those surveyed didn't live near the bridge as 24% didn't state they were residents of the two boroughs either side of it. It's the size and design of the survey rather than the size of the population it samples from that determines how representative any survey can be. All surveys will have sampling error, in this case about 8 to 9%. That doesn't mean this or any other survey is worthless. You clearly believed this one was representative when you thought it agreed with your viewpoint! The statistics of the survey hasn't changed, but your understanding of its results has, and that's the only reason you continue to try to tilt at it.

Tom Pike ● 2264d

Tom, for an intelligent person you seem incapable of grasping other people's arguments, or you willfully choose to misrepresent them. I think its clear that its the latter.I did not say 'it only included people who always walked across the bridge'. that is a lie and you know it. Firstly, a sample size of 120 people, self selected from those walking across the bridge and then choosing to stop, at a certain time of day, has no value. It tells you that a group of people walking across the bridge said they quite liked walking across the bridge.Secondly, anyone with mobility issues or not near the bridge or the bus route up Castlenau, will by definition not be able to be included in the survey. Nor crucially are the thousands who crossed the bridge every day previously, whether by car or bus, who lived further away but who have an equal stake in its future and an equal voice. But you want them to be totally disenfranchised. Indeed, I would argue pretty much every resident in west London has a valid voice on this issue.Please stop lying and embarrassing yourself, you are doing yourself no favours.

Paul Green ● 2264d

Paul, it was you who said everyone in the survey lived closed enough to be able to walk over the bridge. The closure made no difference to your incorrect assumption. You’re now confusing yourself. I’ll leave it there.

Tom Pike ● 2264d

My understanding is based on real life experience not the result of about 69 people  thinking the bridge should be closed to motor traffic.Tom, you really do need to think in the round and not base your campaign on such a flimsy evidence.

Adrian Irving ● 2264d

Paul I am not sure Tom is lying I think it's more a case of the computer says NO and he can't see beyond that.I have had many highly intelligent clients over the years and it still surprises me how unrealistic even stupid  they can be sometimes.

Adrian Irving ● 2264d

Tom, I think there is one thing that we can agree on and that is your not going to change your view and neither am I.Banging our heads against brick walls here is not going to get us any further.It's more than clear you think I'm wrong and I think your wrong and never the twain shall meet so I am leaving it there. For now.

Adrian Irving ● 2264d

Adrian, as you said before I believe the scariest thing that Tom and his ilk seem to be using dodgy stats and data and willful misinterpreting these in order to support their views. Some of these people seem to have the ear of officials, so that their falsehoods are now being incorporated into policy. This is a concern for us all, not least for being anti-democratic but as bad assumptions make bad policy.

Paul Green ● 2264d

This morning I cycled along by the river.About one hundred metres either side of Hammersmith Bridge are moored fair sized utility craft both in mid stream and equipped with a  crane.I am interested to know what they are about, anybody know?

Adrian Irving ● 2264d

Yes it's true, up by Chelsea Bridge I could swear I saw a U Boat mid stream!Seriously though, Thames Clippers are now Uber Boat which came as quite a surprise to me.I not sure how I feel about this, what's next  Uber fire engines?

Adrian Irving ● 2264d

https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/hammersmith-bridge-richmond-council-removes-18798779

Mick Collins ● 2263d

Thank's for that Mick th a article was interesting and highlighted that the lack of simple  routine maintenance over the years has led to this state of affairs. It doesn't however say why these craft are there though.The new article on the front page makes for annoying reading.  Labour say this, Conservative say that.Hey! we're not interested in political squabbles, just get something done.Schools are back soon so St Paul's and other schools have a big problem!

Adrian Irving ● 2263d

New article on the front page re possibility of using ferries to take children across to school and back.http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=community&link=http://neighbournet.com/server/common/ldrshambridge004.htm

Philippa Bond ● 2263d

Protest about the closure on BBC now!

Adrian Irving ● 2263d

because they couldn't get across the bridge to do their shopping?

Mike Chisholm ● 2262d

The BCA report is a compilation of lived experience from a handful of residents and businesses. My representation is also a lived experience alas not on letterhead. Alas, too, not in Barnes. If that is the criteria for "data" then so be it.Given your reference to the Center for London report, the Euston Road cycle lane had all of 3 cyclists on it during Friday morning rush hour, one of whom was a Deliveroo guy. I'm there every Friday at the same time. Sitting in the single lane of traffic gives one ample opportunity to live an experience and collect data. By clinging to this report we can assume you're comfortable with 3 cyclists being back to normal. Seems an awful lot of cost and disruption for those three cyclists, no?Network Rail ridership has yet to reach 50% of pre-COVID numbers. How do I know? Because the market we do at Kings Cross is based on those ridership numbers. We have been shut since mid-March with no clear idea of when we return because those numbers haven't reached the 50% mark. Ditto Euston Station.So a "report" that says things are normal with data that says otherwise. What to do...what to do...

David Lesniak ● 2261d

Banning cars, restricting access to roads, attempting to suggest that individuals should cycle everywhere or walk(by the way it's not long to winter),establishing ferries to cross the river? Is this the 19th century again?

Jeffrey Cope ● 2260d

“Is this the 19th century again”?A popular move to bring back horses to the streets of London is being held up only because the widespread growth of plastic lawns and nil-maintenance gardens is seriously reducing projected demand for horse manure..

Stuart Kerr ● 2260d

How do you grow plastic lawns?

Jeffrey Cope ● 2260d

Light bulb moment.The answer is a fleet of pedalos!We could borrow them from the Spanish as they won't be needing them for a good long while and it will help to pacify the two wheeled pedal brigade.At low tide wheels could be pedal driven to cross the beach.Genius.

Adrian Irving ● 2260d

And good luck pedalling across an autumn ebb tide.  Hammersmith to ... er ... Putney?

Richard Jennings ● 2260d

Never say die Richard. A few might of course but that's only natural selection at work.In order to keep fatalities to a minimum I would  run cables across to which the craft would be attached.Simple.Come to think of it the cable could be electrified with power running down to a motor for those less able.

Adrian Irving ● 2260d

Perhaps some of all that rowing practice could be put to use?

Philippa Bond ● 2260d

Rowing? You pedal a pedalo.

Adrian Irving ● 2260d