Forum Topic

Hammersmith Bridge Proposal - Just Propaganda?

Having become so used to bad news and broken promises on Hammersmith Bridge, it is hard not to be cynical about the claims made in the article on the front page.I know little about engineering but the double-decker structure proposed seems a bit far fetched. It is hard not to see this proposal as more part of the propaganda war between the government on one side and the Mayor and Hammersmith & Fulham Council on the other. Is there no real intent to every go forward with this project but it is useful to put it out there ahead of the Mayoral elections.Don't get me wrong - 100% the bad guys in this are the government who are ultimately the only source of funds to sort this problem out and I believe they are doing nothing in the forlorn hope of giving their candidate a chance in the election for Mayor. It is hard to blame the council for playing them at their own game. However, if this is right, there is little or no chance of the bridge opening next year.

Mark Evans ● 2048d35 Comments

Yes, I agree. Anyway, the prospects of pedestrians walking underneath the traffic bearing section is strange, to say the least.

Carl Wynne ● 2048d

Interesting theory on the government stalling on the bridge as part of an attack on the mayor,  personally I find this a bit far fetched on West London but who knows.It seems even more far fetched if reports are to be believed that funding has been pulled from Shaun Baileys campaign. This would indicate the Tories have given up on the London election and it would make the stall on repairing Hammersmith bridge all the more callous. Mind you wonders never cease.

Matthew Swain ● 2048d

As I understand it anyway, the reason pedestrians and cyclists can't go over the bridge, and boats can't go under it, is because of the danger of parts of thecast iron shell of the towers, which were showing cracks, falling off. As even a small piece of cast iron falling on a person or a boat could prove fatal.However the possibility of this ever happening has been disputed by other qualified experts. Who admittedlywouldn't be liable should their confidence proveillusory. Quite how a solution of inserting decks would address this problem of pieces potentially falling off isn't immediately obvious. To me at least.If the answer is that the decks will have a roof then presumably a simple roof on the existing deck, allowing pedestrian access at much lower cost, could have been suggested earlier.michael adams... 

Michael Adams ● 2048d

Carl Wynne suggested:" the prospects of pedestrians walking underneath the traffic bearing section is strange, to say the least "[ having had another look ]Presumably the idea is, that if any bits do drop off the bridge they'll simply make a dent in the roof of a car on the top deck rather than landing on a pedestrian or a cyclist.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 2048d

Perhaps they are thinking of a toll bridge with number plate recognition billing (which will undoubtedly catch many motorists unawares) as a trial run for a wider application - Hogarth Flyover could be next on the list. Can't see LB Hounslow missing out on a money-raising idea like that if they can follow along.

Richard Greenhough ● 2048d

It may not be as far fetched as the other suggestions.It is basically just a box girder placed on the existing supports and (I assume...) the structure itself will be load bearing so doesn't need the load bearing suspension cables which are causing the problems.But yeah, just part of the political game involving LBHF, TfL and the DfT.

Michael Robinson ● 2048d

When you consider how nearly all building sites are shrouded in plastic, surely it would be possible to wrap the towers or even strap them round with thick tape to keep bits from dropping off.

Vivienne Cox ● 2048d

Oh come on Richard - will catch many motorists unawares?If this proposal ever amounted to anything you can bet it will be absolutely obvious that it’s a toll bridge and if it catches a motorist unawares I would seriously question either the eyesight of the driver or their attention while they are driving.It’s not like Hartingdon (Harrington?) Road where I can understand why some motorists have been caught unawares.

Andrew Jones ● 2048d

Vivienne Cox pointed out" surely it would be possible to wrap the towers or even strap them round with thick tape to keep bits from dropping off."Indeed. I would have thought so as well. But given that there must be some fairly rich and influential people with fairly large ocean going cabin cruisers who are being prevented from going anywhere interesting as aresult, when this would seem to offer a fairly cheap and speedy solution, to *their* problem at least, apparently not.A permanent, tubular box girder bridge inside the existing structure might seem a better solution all round IMO. Although again this doesn't solve the problem of bits dropping off into the river. Which is supposedly the reason for the bridge's total closure. michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 2048d

Andrew - given how often drivers get fouled up on Hogarth Flyover, and how many got fined for driving along Turnham Green Terrace and Fishers Lane, then you have much greater faith in the signage for a toll on Hammersmith Bridge than I do. Firstly, many drivers in West London are not used to using toll roads. Secondly, if the sign says toll bridge, many drivers will expect to see a toll booth. Thirdly, how far in advance of the bridge will the signs be, and will there be anywhere for the drivers to turn round after the signs but before they have to pay ?

Richard Greenhough ● 2048d

As the bridge connects the boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham with Richmond upon Thames, why is this primarily reported as a H&F problem more than a RuT problem?

Stewart Jones ● 2048d

Because the bridge is owned by H&F

Mark Evans ● 2048d

The bridge passed its useful life years ago. Repairs are a complete waste of money. Should be pulled down and an elegant new one built. If they had started two years ago a new one would have been completed next year.

Chris Dakers ● 2048d

LBH&F is the highway authority for the bridge so is responsible for it.

Michael Robinson ● 2048d

Stewart Jones asked:" As the bridge connects the boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham with Richmond upon Thames, why is this primarily reported as a H&F problem ? Prior to the abolition of the GLC in 1986, the GLC and before that the LCC was responsible for all London Bridges. After 1986 responsibility for each bridge was alloted to *one* of the London Boroughs served by that bridge.One reason H&F ended up with sole responsibility for Hammersmith Bridge *may* have been because R&Twere given responsibility for Richmond Bridge.While Putney Bridge possibly is the responsibility of the LB of Wandsworth.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 2048d

A double decker bridge isn't at all fanciful - just google eg San Fransico-Oakland Bay bridge. (The "Bay" bridge, not the "Golden Gate" bridge)And might the reason pedestrians and cyclists would be expected to use the lower deck is simply because they wouldn't be able to access the top deck easily (steps or lifts etc)?Whereas motor vehicles can drive up ramps.

Richard Cathcart ● 2048d

I crossed Chelsea Bridge on foot yesterday. It looks in poor shape and is a similar construction to Hammersmith.Could be next to go.What fun!

Adrian Irving ● 2048d

Overbridging — technique we regularly used in the army to make unstable or partially demolished bridges capable of being crossed by armoured vehicles. Quick and perfect ably feasible here. 

John Hall ● 2048d

I think there’s still a sign on Battersea Bridge extorting soldiers crossing not to march in step, as this might cause collapse.

Vivienne Cox ● 2048d

The Gov is promising us all sorts if we vote for their mayoral candidate, which they have been refusing to do for Sadiq Kahn.

Rima Jones ● 2048d

Vivienne Cox explianed:"I think there’s still a sign on Battersea Bridge extorting soldiers crossing not to march in step, as this might cause collapse."Thinking of which, it's a pity Norman Foster never thought of hiring some soldiers to test the Millennium Bridge. Possibly wearing trainers. And at night, with nobody about.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 2048d

Apparently it's the Albert Bridge which has the sign.The reason being that if soldiers march in step on certain suspension bridges the bridge will sway from side to side. As they cross the bridge the sway willfollow them and may cause the snaking as seen in thatfilm of the bridge collapsing in the US, On the Millennium Bridge, although people weren't walking in step initially as the bridge started to sway they started to walk in step to maintain their balance on the swaying bridge which then made it worse. What wiki calls "a positive feedback' phenomenon, known as synchronous lateral excitation".As I said, if only he's hired some soldiers. A troop of boy scouts might have done just as well and worked out a bit cheapermichael adams...

Michael Adams ● 2048d

VC: "I think there’s still a sign on Battersea Bridge extorting soldiers crossing not to march in step, as this might cause collapse."Actually it's Albert Bridge you're thinking of:"Albert Bridge (which opened in 1873) is notable for the signs at each end which read: 'All troops must break step when marching over this bridge' – the way the bridge had been constructed meant that the resonance of the footsteps of enough marching soldiers could cause damage to the structural integrity."http://therivermagazine.co.uk/property/born-of-battersea.htmlhttp://walkaroundlondon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/STP64715-768x1024.jpgApparently this all stemmed from an earlier incident:"In April 1831, a brigade of soldiers marched in step across England’s Broughton Suspension Bridge. According to accounts of the time, the bridge broke apart beneath the soldiers, throwing dozens of men into the water."https://bathtubbulletin.com/soldiers-break-stride-bridge-elizabeth-howell-live-science/

Richard Cathcart ● 2048d

Yes, you’re quite right. It’s because it’s next to Battersea Park that I got it wrong.

Vivienne Cox ● 2048d

Vivienne Cox explained"Yes, you’re quite right. It’s because it’s next to Battersea Park that I got it wrong."Only because I cheated, and had looked it up on Wikipedia.Actually I looked up the Millennium Bridge, and it happened to mention Albert Bridge and the signs.Otherwise I'd have been none the wiser. As I onlyhave the vaguest recollection of signs of some kindon a bridge in London somewhere. michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 2048d

Um, Richard, I'm not sure why you make this comparison. The SF-Oakland bridge is one of the longest in the States. It is roughly 7km or 4.5 miles and that doesn't include the approaches which are critical to enable access to the upper roadway. It touches down on Yerba Buena Island about a third of the way once you've left the SF side.A tick closer to London and you have the GW Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge and the Brooklyn Bridge (this one has a pedestrian walkway above the traffic). The approaches for all are winding affairs with a slow incline. There are four of them, two in each direction for access and exit which is why they are referred to as clover leafs.The Hammersmith proposal stymies me. We put people under  lorries??? Surely you'd rather amble or cycle with the sky above you while taking in the bridge architecture.As for ramps for vehicles - surely, surely less of a ramp would be needed to get pedestrians and cyclists up. There is no room on either side of the Thames to build approaches to lift up buses and loaded lorries and then get them back down again to join up with the existing road network. The incline typically isn't steep and it would mean having on ramps just outside the doors of the stately homes on the A306. I mention that side because at least it has a long run up to the bridge. Where the hell would the ramps be on the north side? Or would it simply connect to the Hammersmith flyover?

David Lesniak ● 2047d

Thank you. I’m sure LBRUT are very relieved especially as it is the only London borough straddling both sides of the river.

Stewart Jones ● 2047d

All the bridges in London are vital crossings, and it should not be left to squabbling councils and point-scoring politicians like Khan to maintain them. For God's sake, HMG, just rebuild Hammersmith Bridge and let's have done with it!

Colin Jordan ● 2047d

DL: "Um, Richard, I'm not sure why you make this comparison.The SF-Oakland bridge is one of the longest in the States."I know, I've been over it. I used it as an illustration for those posters who seem to think double decker bridges are somehow unusual ("far-fetched" according to the OP).DL: "The Hammersmith proposal stymies me. We put people under  lorries??? Surely you'd rather amble or cycle with the sky above you while taking in the bridge architecture."Of course it would be nice. I assume that the engineers have practical reasons for doing it this way. And function surely trumps aesthetics, especially for a temporary solution.DL: "As for ramps for vehicles - surely, surely less of a ramp would be needed to get pedestrians and cyclists up."Presumably so, but it takes FAR more effort to negotiate a lower/shorter ramp by bike or on foot than a longer, more elevated ramp in a vehicle (the engine, basically).Meaning many pedestrians/cyclists either cannot or will not.Tbh, if the only objection to this proposal is that pedestrians/cyclists won't get to enjoy optimal views for the 2 or 3 years while a permanent solution is completed, then I'm sure they (pedestrians/cyclists) would accept that.

Richard Cathcart ● 2047d

If you look at the Foster project plan, you will see that the engineers will work on the bridge structure from the pedestrian level. Anybody else see the problem with that?

Carl Wynne ● 2047d

Rather closer to home than Oakland is the Britannia Bridge to Anglesey - rail on one level, road on the other.

Richard Greenhough ● 2047d

Hi Richard,We're talking about a bridge that has been closed for nearly a year, so I would imagine that there will be a fair amount of publicity if or when it reopens. Yes there might be a small proportion of motorists who have never been across Hammersmith Bridge (gradually increasing as more and more people pass their driving tests of course) who stumble across it not knowing that it's been shut for a long time, but I have faith that the signage would be a bit (a lot!) better than that on the approaches to Turnham Green Terrace.I also imagine that the signposts showing which A roads go where would easily be able to convey the message that Hammersmith Bridge is a Toll road.As for somewhere for the drivers to turn round ... that's probably going to be trickier. I once found myself accidentally crossing the Golden Gate Bridge (which is free to do in one direction) but then having to go through all my pockets and glovebox trying to find enough change to pay the Toll to allow me to drive back the other way.

Andrew Jones ● 2047d

"And function surely trumps aesthetics, especially for a temporary solution"A sorry state of affairs. How temporary is temporary? How temporary is the Hogarth Flyover? It's an eyesore, that I know.But if you get Foster + Partners involved, aesthetics will never be trumped by anything. Seems they are slipping in new trusses to bolster the strength and/or replace the deck. So why not flip that around, maybe land it on new piers adjacent to the existing ones and then create a sky deck suitable for pedestrians, cyclists and those who want to sit in a new sky garden (dare I say garden bridge?) simply to take in the view? That would create a new amenity not just improve a bit of aging infrastructure. If you think any resources spent will be on a temporary basis, you're dreaming. Especially now and especially after this fiasco of bickering over who owns and does what to this bridge.The experience of walking over the traffic is far more enjoyable than walking under it. Take a walk over the GW Bridge and compare it to a walk over the Brooklyn Bridge and get back to me.

David Lesniak ● 2046d

I suspect that when (or should that be if) Hammersmith Bridge is ever repaired it will be on the basis that the only vehicles allowed over it are buses and taxis.  That way traffic is reduced so less likelihood of further cracks in the bridge, meets current ideas of reducing car use and provides a bit more of a pleasant journey for cyclists and pedestrians.I suspect the real driver behind the double decker temporary approach is that is massively reduces the cost of repair by allowing damaged parts to be removed and repaired off site

Justin Stephenson ● 2046d

'meets current ideas of reducing car use' This is only true if it means 'forces the same number of vehicles to find alternative routes', which it does. In the same way, unasked-for LTNs, imposed without consultation by overbearing councils, don't make cars magically disappear, they simply funnel the traffic down someone else's road.

Colin Jordan ● 2046d