Forum Topic

Expectations being managed on Hammersmith Bridge

Reading between the lines of what Fleur Anderson said about Hammersmith Bridge, it looks now pretty certain that there will be no money available for it after the current government spending review. This is hardly a surprise given the current fiscal position and the time scale she has been given is the same as the one for Charing Cross and Hammersmith hospitals. Looks like Labour plans to time more positive announcement on both in the run up to the next General Election assuming government finances improve and we'll just have to wait.

Andrew OSullivan ● 131d17 Comments

It used to be a landmark reflecting the style and confidence of the Victorian era.Today it is a landmark perfectly reflecting our lack of confidence, vision, paralysed by incompetence, petty politics and forward thinking.Beautiful, perhaps, but only from a distance. Up close it is a sad rusting, paint peeling, wood rotting and neglected testament to the steady decline of UK plc.

Adrian Irving ● 128d

I agree, we used to live in Barnes and there were always problems with the road surface on the bridge, it was regularly shut for resurfacing and strengthening, none of which worked for long.  It probably isn't realistically possible to repair the bridge given that there are now also cracks in the ironwork.  Surely putting up a new, replacement bridge is the only solution at this stage in its life, unless it is simply going to be left in situ for cyclists and pedestrians? In this latter case there would need to be a second bridge for heavier vehicles somewhere else to take the traffic coming into west London from the A3.  Given that the area around here is now very built up, a second bridge doesn't seem possible unless existing buildings are knocked down and new access roads built.

CE Combes ● 128d

Yes, 200 years ago this year, and a structural evaluation of the pilings is going to be published in the next couple of months. There was a question in the HoL a month ago, and I think it's pretty clear where this is heading from Hendy's response:https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2024-12-18/debates/F902F080-6613-479C-8840-C4902D99AEBF/HammersmithBridge

Tom Pike ● 130d

Andrew,Where is the reference to a 'full replacement' costing £45M?  Did this include the costs for removing the existing bridge?Even in 2020, I doubt they could have removed the existing bridge for just £45M, let alone build a new one!The foundations for the previous bridge were put in almost 200 years ago and I think would have been wooden pilings

Michael Robinson ● 130d

Circling back to the point about whether the bridge is structurally viable at all, given that it was built on foundation put in place for a previous bridge, the important point to remember that a full replacement was costed by LBHF back in 2020 at £45million. Even given construction cost rises this would make it considerably cheaper than the repair of the existing bridge. If surveys were to find the existing structure was fundamentally inadequate, that would be more likely to accelerate the repair. Personally I hope this doesn't happen as the bridge is a beautiful and key landmark for west London and I doubt we are capable these days of replacing it with anything nearly as attractive.

Andrew OSullivan ● 130d

If there had been, who knows, maybe the bridge wouldn’t have got to such a bad state.

Andrew Jones ● 131d

I think there should always have been a toll for the upkeep, then all sorted.

Janice Evans ● 131d

I agree that general taxation should be the starting point, and although it would be replacing something that had been there before, the cost would be far closer to what you would have to spend to build new infrastructure, so tolls would be appropriate too.The question then is do you use tax revenue that would otherwise be spent elsewhere, or increase taxes? I’m not aiming that question at you Simon by the way, simply ‘thinking aloud’.Thanks for the discussion.

Andrew Jones ● 131d

We are told by certain types that road infrastructure is paid for out of general taxation, so that would be the starting point. But a toll would be inevitable, as with the tunnels in east London now. But better than no bridge.

Simon Hayes ● 131d

Thanks Simon, clearly a majority in the borough of Richmond would like it open to traffic.A majority clearly also don’t want to have to pay a (private vehicle presumably) toll to contribute towards the costs of enabling them to use a reopened bridge.Which isn’t surprising, but begs the question who should pay?

Andrew Jones ● 131d

The only survey carried out was by LB Richmond in 2019. 65 percent of residents wanted it fully reopened. That’s a majority. Even Sadiq Khan wants it reopened to all vehicles.It’s only the cycling lobbyists who really want it permanently shut. They don’t represent anyone but themselves.https://haveyoursay.citizenspace.com/richmondce/hammersmith-bridge-19/user_uploads/hammersmith-bridge-survey-results.pdf

Simon Hayes ● 131d

Serious question Simon - when you say "Most people want the bridge reopened to all traffic" what is the group of people you have in mind?Most Londoners? Most Drivers? Most Tax payers? Most of some other group? Most of the people who are going to have to fund a re-opening?

Andrew Jones ● 131d

Why don’t you stand for parliament then, Mick? I’m sure your popular policies and lovely personality would win thousands of votes!Most people want the bridge reopened to all traffic. Perhaps the politicians are following the Ulster model of waiting until enough people are born who want the unpalatable so that it will happen.

Simon Hayes ● 131d

No politician wants to be the bearer of bad news as they know the opposition will immediately blame them.The obvious time to do it would have been when the new Labour government came in then they could have said, 'No money, sorry' but they have allowed it to drag on.

Michael Robinson ● 131d

They pull ‘important historical structures’ down all the time, usually aesthetically pleasing buildings which we are told are no longer functional for the purpose intended. The M$S building on Oxford Street is just one recent example.Hammersmith Bridge is an important part of London’s infrastructure. If it’s no longer fulfilling the purpose for which it was built then it should be replaced. They could replicate the look using stronger and more modern materials. Ironic that the Victorians who built the bridge would have no compunction about replacing it with something that worked. Sentimentality is the curse of modern Britain.

Simon Hayes ● 131d

Given how long the bridge has been closed, I struggle to see the political downside in saying the bridge will never re-open to general traffic.  Whether that means it becomes solely for cyclists and pedestrians or whether some buses allowed - maybe a shuttle service with capacity for no more than 20 passengers a time.The bridge is an important historical structure it needs to be repaired and be available to at least some part of the general public, it is just that no one wants to pay for it

Justin Stephenson ● 131d

In my opinion, there is a game of chicken going on between politicians, in that nobody wants to be the first to come out and say in effect, 'Look, it is never going to open again to general motor traffic'.A get-out for the politicians could be if a technical report showed it simply wasn't viable to do something on top of the existing bridge where I think the foundations pre-date the existing bridge.  Hence the only option being complete removal of the current bridge and building a new bridge including new foundations.That would allow the politicans to say, 'Well of course I would love the bridge to be opened, but we need to listen to what the experts say.  And of course the existing bridge is a much loved feature in the community... blah, blah, blah...'

Michael Robinson ● 131d