Forum Topic

Is the real point being missed on Hammersmith Bridge?

It has been quite interesting to see how the coverage of the Hammersmith Bridge debacle has developed. By the time it made it into the national press the focus was entirely on the ending of hopes that government funding would be forthcoming for a full reopening.This is not inaccurate, there seems to be now zero chance of this happening within the next decade if at all, but we already knew this would be the case if the Structures Fund wasn't going to provide the money.The scenario appears to have been that the Department for Transport decided that the money needed for Hammersmith Bridge was too big a proportion of the Structures Fund perhaps mindful that a prime minister with a more northern outlook was about to arrive. Also there was a previously undisclosed timeout on the funding which required work to be complete by 2030.It therefore appears to have originated the suggestion that a 'phased reopening' be the strategy i.e. further strengthening and restoration but no motor vehicles.Hammersmith & Fulham Council is clearly very cross about this as it put a huge amount of money into restoring the bridge on the basis that it was an investment in full reopening (possibly with payback through a toll). They are now demanding refunds from both TfL and DfT of money they have spent and appear to be making this a condition of accepting any grant from the Structures Fund.If this situation can't be resolved quickly (and it has been rumbling on for some time) the money from the Structures Fund will go elsewhere. Then Hammersmith & Fulham say they will be spending the statutory minimum on the bridge which amounts to enough to stop it falling down. This will mean that in the not too distant future the bridge will have to be closed to pedestrians and cyclists as well. The point is implicit in the article published on this site but when I went back and read the full report, I felt that it had been underplayed. As most subsequent reporting was based on this original coverage, this looming problem seems to be slipping under the radar.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 24d12 Comments

You may be right. Certainly it is difficult to see the Structures Fund money being given out while there is an ongoing financial dispute between the council and the DfT. Perhaps the issue is being fudged by part of the grant being for 'consultancy fees' from the council.It could be that 'Hammersmith Bridge is falling down' becomes a bit like the Strait of Hormuz for H&F Council. Whenever they don't get what they want, they will just threaten to close it.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 18d

I'm pretty sure it is a bluff. There are some serious questions that need to be asked as to how Hammersmith & Fulham spent so much money on stabilisation without clarity on who ultimately would be funding it. As both TfL and DfT appear to be telling them to go whistle for the money they claim to be owned, there is not much the council can do other than have a bit of a strop.The Structures Fund money would presumably come with the caveat that the council drops other claims against the government.The threat to restrict river traffic under the bridge also seems very alarmist. I think I am right in saying this didn't happen ever after the West Ham party boat collision.Nobody would suffer more from a full closure than businesses and residents of Hammersmith and Fulham so this is just posturing to make sure the Structures Fund bid is successful.

Mark Evans ● 19d

I'm quite happy to concede the point on semantics if it matters to you. Maybe it is just me who finds it confusing. The more important concern though is that this traffic may be brought to a complete stop.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 20d

(from the article ont he front page)10,000 daily crossings10,000.Ten thousand.Wow, that bridge really isn't closed at the moment.

Paul James ● 20d

>[0.25k words]I mean, all you had to say was "yeah sorry Paul, the bridge is not closed to traffic like I said, that's misinformation and possibly disinformation from myself. It's just closed to motor traffic.

Paul James ● 20d

Jeremy, in UK legislation, the definition of 'traffic" includes pedestrians, people cycling, people riding horses, people herding animals in addition to mechanically propelled vehicles.At this moment in time Hammersmith Bridge is closed to certain types of mechanically propelled vehicles, it isn't "closed to traffic".Of course, that doesn't stop some people thinking that traffic only consists of motor vehicles but they aren't correct according  to the legislation that governs roads in the UK.

Michael Robinson ● 20d

Looking back it seems the first bridge there was a toll bridge, so wonder why that never continued when the new Hammersmith bridge was built.

Janice Evans ● 20d

The point is Paul that there is a not improbable scenario in which it is closed to all traffic, if confusingly that is what you want to describe pedestrian and cycle use as. The latest update on this site which appeared in the newsletter, does make this clearer (for some reason not yet on the front page).The bridge is listed and any thoughts of complete demolition seemed to have been ruled out quite early. It would have been very difficult to get over the legal hurdles to start from scratch. If you think about it this makes sense because if the precedent is set that heritage structures can be torn down simply because it costs a lot to maintain and restore them, we quickly would lose most of our heritage.The bridge therefore has to be restored no matter how expensive it is to do so. The only question is, who pays for this. H&F Council, as the owner are saying not them but that doesn't mean that the restoration won't be done because the bridge will fall down otherwise. What it was interesting to learn is that the next cost of a full reopening is just £50million which is not a lot of money in the context of TfL's budget and I'm sure they would be willing to stump this up if the rest of the cost is paid by other agencies.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 20d

>and even if it could be reopened to traffic one distant day,It is open to traffic. I was standing under it the other week listening to all sorts of traffic passing over it. It was really lovely, you should try it!

Paul James ● 20d

I thought the same thing. Look at the British designed bridge at Millau in France. We could have a new bridge that could be designed to cope with the hot summers as well.

Nicholas Beard ● 20d

Assuming the reporting here is accurate, the proposed spending and duration of works now seems completely bonkers. £300 million ( surely not much more than a guesstimate) and at least a decade ( ie wishful thinking)?This bridge is 140 years old, clearly time expired, and even if it could be reopened to traffic one distant day, would be a total moneypit forever after. Much as it’s a glorious structure, it’s time is surely up. Is there any consideration of replacing it with a world beating design and 31st century symbol of west London? The UK has some of the best engineers in the world. Quicker, cheaper and better value for taxpayers to start again.

Simon Montague ● 20d

While you are not wrong that the threat is being made and it seems to have gone largely unmentioned, it is very much a nuclear option for Hammersmith & Fulham. Imagine the outrage from businesses and residents in the borough if they were to do this. I also think they are exaggerating about the strength of the bridge. Having spent all that money on stablisation, how could it be possible that it remains on the point of falling down?

Mark Evans ● 24d