Forum Topics

Hammersmith Bridge’s ‘autonomous pods’

I had seen a lot of coverage, most of it very favourable, of the ‘autonomous pods’ which were being proposed as means of plugging the gap in public transport provision particularly for people with mobility issues. This did seem a quite visionary option to solve the problem particularly as it got round the staffing and cost issues of earlier suggestions for solutions that would require a driver. I did take a chance to look at one when it was on display at a fair recently and was struck with how it was less of a pod than a small bus. Even without passengers it would weigh a lot more than a very large car. As I understand it, while the proponents of the idea say it is within the weight limits, the council say that it isn’t.I then read the coverage of the issue by London Centric, which is doing some of the best journalism on London at the moment. It took the trouble to send someone to ride on the vehicle and they gave a mixed review of the experience. More importantly they made two key points which hadn’t really been highlighted before. Firstly this is essentially a driverless bus not a pod and TfL is not supportive of the idea. Secondly, the unions would be fiercely against autonomous buses.The idea may be a dead end but it does raise important questions. If you are saying driverless buses should be allowed on the bridge, why not driverless cars? Waygo are testing taxis on our roads as we speak. It would be far less technically challenging to allow one or two of these to cross at a time with usage restricted to blue badge holders or Barnes residents with appointments at Charing Cross hospital. As many people in genuine need would be enabled to cross the bridge with this proposals and it wouldn’t cost the taxpayer a penny.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 30d56 Comments ● 17d

Will Chiswick’s young trees survive a fourth heatwave?

From The Chiswick Calendar - July 28, 2026/by Juliet McDonald:Trees play a part in mitigating climate change, but they are also directly affected by itIt will take more than the strategies of two councils – Hounslow and Ealing – to take care of our trees as temperatures soarDuring the recent hot weather, our trees have never been so appreciated and, at the same time, ignored.In the High Road you can walk under the shady protective canopy of one ancient Plane tree after another.Yet in other roads, younger trees could be dying.Seek out any newly planted trees in a heat wave and you’ll see limp leaves and dry soil. How often is the council watering? In frustration, a few concerned residents may take to watering a wilted sapling immediately outside their property, but how many people can say that they’ve watered a street tree?Or perhaps gone further still – say up to 50 steps – to save a different tree?Young trees are under stressIn a recent Chiswick WhatsApp group, there were so many posts about the perception of poorly looked after street trees that the episode was named ‘Treegate’. But the question is what are we going to do about it?For many people, nothing – just complain. Surely, it’s the job of councils to maintain the trees that they plant? After all, residents pay their council tax. The issue is a divisive one.https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/will-chiswicks-young-trees-survive-a-fourth-heatwave/?mc_cid=d57bdd4cd6

Les Wilson ● 23d3 Comments ● 21d

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 ● 44d12 Comments ● 38d