Forum Topic

Hammersmith Bridge proposal for a temporary  bridge

I have today received a letter form TfL saying they are proposing a seven metre wide prefabricated structure across the river.This is because the actual bridge will have to be closed to effect repairs of course. A drop in  exhibition  is being held on Saturday 14th March at the Riverside Studios 11am tt 15.00.Well I never.Maybe it's just a cunning plan to mobilize the bicycle clip brigade to let  TfL save money and be able to say that the feedback has been overwhelmingly, (you know 51%) just to repair the Bridge to non motorised traffic.I don't trust that mob an inch. :)

Adrian Irving ● 2437d36 Comments

Would you prefer there to be no temporary bridge at all, whilst we wait to see what permanent solution is/isn't provided?

Richard Cathcart ● 2437d

Do they say where it will land on both banks?

Ken Munn ● 2437d

There are some more details here including landing points:http://www.hammersmithtoday.co.uk/default.asp?section=info&page=hbridge020.htmVery concerning they are considering this - the implication is that the existing bridge is going to be closed for much longer than three years.

Francis Rowe ● 2436d

Richard, my apologies, it was just a wind up which seems to have worked in your case.Yes, good idea but as usual will no doubt end in a verbal /political punch up.

Adrian Irving ● 2436d

Whatever the planned works, you can bet that it would take far longer to complete if they need to maintain pedestrian and cycle access on the bridge than if they shut it completely. People passing through an active construction site adds a lot of complexity and restrictions that can only increase cost and time.

Michael Robinson ● 2436d

www.tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/hammersmith-bridge.Feedback by email. HammersmithBridge@tfl.gov.uk

Adrian Irving ● 2436d

Nothing at that URL. Taken down?

Ken Munn ● 2436d

Ooops. Omit the space and the full stop from Adrian's url if you copy and paste.

Ken Munn ● 2436d

Can't see the space myself and the full stop was copied from the TfL letter.

Adrian Irving ● 2436d

A bridge justfor pedestrians and cyclists sounds like the thun edge of the wedge to me.  How much will it cost?  Also it doesn't solve the problem of getting motorised traffic across the river which is currently jamming roads in Chissick and no doubt Putney as well.  TfL has no cash, or so it says, how will they afford the additional cost of a  foot/bike bridge?

Jennifer Selig ● 2436d

"TfL has no cash, or so it says, how will they afford the additional cost of a  foot/bike bridge?"They can't. They're asking for Government to find funds. See:https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2020-03-03a.215.0&s=speaker%3A25343#g218.0

Ken Munn ● 2436d

New Civil Engineer has some info...

Philippa Bond ● 2436d

Perhaps some of the issues this proposal raises will be answered at the exhibitions TfL are holding but based on their previous engagements with the public probably not.The biggest question is what does the temporary bridge imply for the likely length of closure. That the plan is being proposed at all doesn't give cause for optimism because it would need to be operational for several years to justify the cost (both financial and environmental).The outline plan doesn't cater for what is probably the largest group of foot or cycle users of the current bridge - leisure users on the Thames Path. The ramps will be away from the river and require a detour which will mean many will choose an alternative route.It will work well for commuters giving both pedestrians and cyclists a much more pleasant route up Queen Caroline Street and away from the traffic sink that is the Hammersmith Gyratory. The south side of the bridge is a public transport black hole and it is likely the overwhelming proportion of people crossing the bridge to get to work are aiming for the tube station. I have from time to time crossed the bridge in the morning rush hour both before and after closure and about 80-90% of people crossing are pedestrians.If the bridge were to close some cyclists would have the option to cycle to Putney to connect with the tube but this would be a long walk for someone just to begin their journey to work. For some Barnes train station into Waterloo might provide an alternative.It is impossible to accurately estimate how many people there are for whom the ability to cross the bridge is critical but based on the population of the area and observing the numbers crossing at the moment it can't be more than a thousand. The only way building a bridge to cater for their needs could be justified is if it is relatively cheap (<£5million) and was needed for at least four or five years.

Francis Rowe ● 2436d

I believe the reasoning is that a temporary bridge is cheaper than keeping the main bridge open to pedestrians and cyclists and having to work around them.

Al Webber ● 2436d

It's probably more than a time issue than a cash issue although ultimately it amounts to the same thing. The problem is that the application for the temporary bridge assumes the funding will be forthcoming for the current bridge. The government are not going to grant TfL's request to fund the project in advance of the Mayoral election because they want to cause Sadiq Khan maximum embarrasment but even after May it can't be assumed the money will be forthcoming. Since the electors of Richmond Park dumped Johnson's chum Zac Goldsmith any local political leverage has gone — Labour MP and Council north of the river and Lib Dem south. Nobody can now be under the illusion that the current government wouldn't feel the need to punish electors who voted the wrong way and it can be presented as part of their  'levelling up' mandate. The £25 million that TfL have been able to set aside for the project is half what was spaffed away on the Garden Bridge and, although there is likely to be more oversight of the spending of the money in Hammersmith, it will only enable preparatory and investigatory work to take place. If the government don't pony up for the balance then there is no point closing the bridge to pedestrians.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2436d

Works with an httpshttps://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/hammersmith-bridge

Jeff Gear ● 2436d

How about a tunnel?

Martyn Newstead ● 2436d

The Hogarth flyover was supposed to be a temporary measure back in 1971.I wonder if a temporary bridge will kick the repairs into the long grass and mean it never gets done.

Christopher Gillie ● 2436d

Yep, that's more than likely!  Meanwhile here in Chiswick we suffer ever more chaos and congestion in our residential streets as the motorised traffic is forced to cross the river via Chiswick Bridge!.  The situation is not helped in anyway by Kew Bridge/Chiswick Hi Rd and Brentford High St are at a standstill while TfL struggle to install a cycleway for the benefit of ....?  Madness.

Jennifer Selig ● 2435d

Never been at a standstill when I've used it although I avoid rush hours.

Ken Munn ● 2435d

There is quite a powerful body of research Ken that suggests roads tend to be less busy when fewer people are using them.There does seem to be a real danger that the 'temporary bridge' becomes permanent. One possible explanation for what is happening is that TfL is extremely cash strapped but does have pots of money that it can spend on capital projects to do with walking and cycling that come from central government initiatives.This means that they can fund the temporary bridge but the same money couldn't be used to repair the old bridge. That could work for everyone if the government agrees to provide the money for the old bridge. The temporary bridge will allow an acceleration of the work and lead to a full reopening sooner. However, if no money is forthcoming there is a danger that TfL for political reasons, rather than leaving things as they are, continues work on the old bridge with no prospect of completion and builds the temporary bridge taking money that would have otherwise gone to other walking and cycling projects in the capital. There would be no net benefit to any form of tranport if they did this so approval for the temporary bridge MUST be conditional on funding and a schedule being in place for the old bridge.

Paul Corcoran ● 2435d

"There is quite a powerful body of research Ken that suggests roads tend to be less busy when fewer people are using them.`'Point taken, research presumably carried out by the Department for the Bleedin' Obvious.I have used that junction in the past during peak periods before the current cycleworks and before Hammersmith Bridge's trauma, and it has been congested then. There does seem to be an element of the human pysche that blames problems on current conditions, forgetting that the problems predate the current conditions.

Ken Munn ● 2435d

https://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/18262118.its-ghost-town-barnes-traders-say-hammersmith-bridge-closure-killing-off-business/

Adrian Irving ● 2435d

"TfL is extremely cash strapped but does have pots of money that it can spend on capital projects to do with walking and cycling that come from central government initiatives."Jeez Paul there you go again, stating thing something as a fact when the most perfunctory of research shows that it isn't true.The only central government money TfL gets is for Crossrail.If you disagree, then all you need to do is show evidence of these grants TfL get from central government for walking and cycling. The accounts and budget are all on the TfL website...

Michael Robinson ● 2435d

"Jeez Paul there you go again, stating thing something as a fact when the most perfunctory of research shows that it isn't true"Michael, would you please direct us all to the perfunctory research showing TfL is NOT cash strapped. You focus on one point and, as ever, neglect perhaps the more salient point. Would you also please point us in the direction of the report stating that TfL is within budget.Many thanks.

David Lesniak ● 2435d

KM: "There does seem to be an element of the human pysche that blames problems on current conditions, forgetting that the problems predate the current conditions."A valid point which should also be drummed into all those people who insist we should renationalise the railways. Or at least those people old enough to remember the days of Bloody Awful British Rail.

Richard Cathcart ● 2434d

Cycling is a tiny proportion of the overall budget,  so hands off.

Matthew Swain ● 2434d

"Cycling is a tiny proportion of the overall budget,  so hands off."Keep your hands on your handlebars, or the anti-cycling brigade will be after you.

Richard Greenhough ● 2434d

Michael, I did some 'perfunctory research' and there seems a significant amount of evidence that a substantial amount of central government money has been made available to encourage cycling even under the current administration.  https://www.transport-network.co.uk/Ministers-announce-5bn-cycle-and-bus-fund/16447 There have been previous funding rounds of a similar nature and there are a number of DfT initiatives for which TfL has and will continue to apply and be granted funding. When you say the only central government grant that TfL gets is for Crossrail I think you are getting confused with the way the accounts are presented. They say grants are 'mainly' for Crossrail which they probably are given the size of the project but there is other funding from government which will be hypothecated for cycling and walking capital projects.  If you look at the detailed accounts the total grant income for FY2019 is £2.9bn of which about £400mn is not ringfenced for major projects like Crossrail including the portion that comes from the Community Infrastructure Levy. It's not clear whether business rates are also granted back to TfL with strings attached i.e. that they have to be spent on walking and cycling but even if they are not there is still a substantial amount of money being made available and it has to be assumed that a reasonable chunk of it is for sustainable travel. The operational grant from government for TfL did end in this financial year but that is different from capital grants which would be tied to specific projects.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2434d

Andrew,None of the money from the recently announced "cycle and bus fund" is going to London.You still haven't provided any evidence of central government money going to TfL for cycling and walking.

Michael Robinson ● 2434d

Michael, you are being a bit ridiculous now. Are you seriously claiming none of the £400mn grant funding detailed in Transport for London accounts in financial year 2019 was for sustainable transport? TfL may be excluded from the funding package announced last month for cycle and buses but they are, possibly right at this precise moment, in discussion with the transport Minister Baroness Vere over what central government will be providing to the capital. It may be disappointing in a national context but it won't be zero. 

Andrew OSullivan ● 2434d

Andrew (and Paul), you are the ones making the claim so the onus is on you to provide the proof and you have failed to do so.  It may be your guess or opinion, that's fine, but then say it is a guess or opinion.I'm not sure where you get £400M from as well. I don't see anything like this figure in the TfL 19/20 budget.

Michael Robinson ● 2434d

And Michael you have failed to offer evidence of TfL performing to budget on anything. So as long as you dig in and attempt to call a spade a spade...And no, Matthew, no hands off. A simple question goes unanswered and you opt to attack. Typical. I'm not the demon. Michael nor you are the demon. And yet you both think it okay not to hold TfL to account. While they shirk responsibility for the masses. Bravo. About as self-centered as you can get.

David Lesniak ● 2434d

I hadn't checked the detailed TfL accounts when I made what I thought would be an uncontroversial point that they get a certain amount of funding to support sustainable travel. Having done so the figures quoted by Andrew are there clear as day. It would take a huge leap of the imagination to conclude that none of these grants are for cycling and walking initiatives but Michael has made such a leap and I would expect he is on his own there.For the rest of us the concern should be that if the Hammersmith Bridge repair is not funded and the temporary bridge is built this effectively means a significant net funding reduction for sustainable transport in London. There already is a bridge for pedestrian and cyclist at Hammersmith so building another one is pointless.

Paul Corcoran ● 2434d

Paul,  you have a strange definition of “clear as day” given the figures quoted by Andrew do not show evidence of money being provided by central government for sustainable transport capital projects and even he says it isn’t clear what strings may be attached.Yet again, you make another claim without evidence, this time that funding for a temporary bridge means less funding for other sustainable transport. You haven’t got a clue about the various pots of money within TfL budgets including contingency funds.It is ironic that you refer to leaps of the imagination given you do this again and again and present it as fact.Is differentiation between your guesses and clear evidence really too much to ask?

Michael Robinson ● 2434d

And yet you, Michael, can ignore the question again and again.Is clear evidence really too much to ask?

David Lesniak ● 2433d