Forum Topic

Hammersmith Bridge | Council meeting 16 Sep | fyi

Hammersmith Bridge - Community Safety and Environment Policy and Accountability CommitteeAt the meeting there will be a presentation updating members and residents on the situation with the bridge, then they will respond to questions.We’ve received a lot of questions and comments about the bridge so we’ve chosen representative questions covering the following topics:-    A temporary bridge / emergency crossing    The safety of alternate walking and cycling routes    Longer journey times to school and work / public transport routes    A ferry crossing    Can we build a new modern bridge    Who is responsible for getting this resolved?    Can we publish the engineer reportsYou can watch the meeting live on YouTube at 6.30pm on Wednesday:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhe2we0uthcYou can also watch the meeting later using the same link.Kind regards,Amrita GillCommittee CoordinatorResourcesHammersmith & Fulham Councilamrita.gill@lbhf.gov.ukwww.lbhf.gov.uk/committees

Paul Cronshaw ● 2236d32 Comments

I watched this for as long as I could bear it.It was torturous to listen to councillors on both sides of the political divide attempting to make political capital each blaming the other for the state of the bridge. Time to take politics out of local administration.The way it is heading it appears to me a ferry service is the most likely short term fix to relieve the very real negative impact the closure is having on thousands of lives.Longer term it was made clear by H&F that the intention is to ensure that the crossing is restored or replaced to carry motor vehicles which must be very good news.

Adrian Irving ● 2235d

Any idea who would fund the restoration/replacement of the crossing?

Andrew Jones ● 2235d

The councillor from H&F said they would have cracked on with the work but didn't have the funds but my impression is they are mighty relived the central government have stepped in as they were going round in circles.I am not sure if it has been agreed how the cost will be proportioned between the two.

Adrian Irving ● 2235d

Adrian earlier suggested that a short term fix would be to introduce a ferry service across the Thames to save hours of detours etc.The Times Newspaper on Friday revealed that some parents of St Paul's School studets have been operating a zippy ferry service taking a few minutes...the PLA are moving in to thwart such enterprise!

Jim Lawes ● 2231d

That is interesting Jim.Unless they are going under the bridge or charging for the service and the craft has a river licence then I can't see what grounds the PLA have to stop it.Apart from the pathetic political back biting my summary of the meeting is, there is no agreed plan, there is no certainty or agreement as to who is going to pay for what, they haven't decided either to build a new bridge, build a temporary bridge, set up a ferry or bus service.In other words nothing is decided and there is no clear plan, so good for the school children I say.Jim what is a zippy service, it is a boat no a wire I take it.

Adrian Irving ● 2231d

For clarification,yes I was left with the impression that a ferry service was the preferred short term option but who knows when or indeed if.

Adrian Irving ● 2231d

For goodness sake - what on earth is all this flim-flam chattering on about?Hammersmith Bridge is a VITAL and ESSENTIAL part of the LONDON TRANSPORT SYSTEM.  That's it plain and simple.  IT HAS TO BE RESTORED/REBUILT IMMEDIATELY.  London is one of the major cities in the World.  Can you imagine any one of these major cities suffering such a crippling route closure?  No of course not!    Yet another woolley headed lack of leadership from this absent Government!  GET ON WITH IT - REBUILD THIS MAJOR ROUTE OVER THE RIVER THAMES!

Jennifer Selig ● 2231d

120 years ago London County Council's contractors were busy digging the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, across a much wider reach of the Thames than at Hammersmith, and that is still successfully providing a pedestrian link across the river, with about 4,000 people using it daily. Cyclists are supposed to dismount and push their bikes through the tunnel.Whatever the future of Hammersmith Bridge, a tunnel would provide a permanent solution to the current problems of children having to travel lengthy roundabout routes to school and adults from Barnes being unable to reach the Tube station or the shopping centre while the bridge is closed.  Greenwich took just over three years from the start of construction to opening to the public; with modern tunnelling equipment, and a shorter distance to cover, Hammersmith could be open rather sooner. It might even be a signature project for Mayor Khan, if he took the lead on it, and rather more use than Boris' Garden Bridge.

Richard Greenhough ● 2229d

Richard,where would you propose the tunnel portals are located on each side?They would need to be far enough back from the river so the gradient takes the tunnela a sufficient depth under the river bed.Doing some ballpark calculations, if we assume the tunnel is 5m under the river and the tunnel height is also 5m, with the maximum recommended gradient of 3 deg, that would put the tunnel portal 200m from the river, in the middle of the A4. (5m may be a bit tight for double deckers but this is just ballpark stuff)The tunnel portal could obviously be further than 200m away with a shallower gradient, such as in the eastern end of King St.The tunnel portal itself will be an open trench of about, say 15m by 50m (assuming 2 lanes or motor traffic + cyclists + pedestrians). So I think that would require building a bridge to take the A4 over the tunnel portal, or demolishing the eastern end of King St, plus building roads to link with the tunnel portal.I haven't looked at what would be needed south of the river.

Michael Robinson ● 2229d

Just to add, a tunnel just for pedestrians and cyclists would be simpler as this would just need largish lifts at both ends.I've used tunnels like this in Rotterdam and Antwerp.

Michael Robinson ● 2229d

I thought it was clear that I was proposing a foot tunnel, like the one at Greenwich, not one for motor vehicles. The access portals could either be by lifts, or if necessary at right angles to the line of the tunnel, and in no way would they need to be anywhere near the A4. If I'd meant a road tunnel, I would have been making comparisons to Rotherhithe or Dartford, not Greenwich.

Richard Greenhough ● 2229d

If this tunnel were to be dug (which it won't) what do you propose as a practical solution for motor vehicles to cross?

Adrian Irving ● 2229d

Sorry Richard, my mistake that you were referring to foot and cycle only.The portals for these I've seen in Belgium and the Netherlands are very unobtrusive.  The big impact is construction as there needs to be a big enough hole to get a tunnel boring machine down.It would still be more expensive that a foot and cycle bridge.  They have costed a temporary one but won't be going ahead with this unless there are plans and money for a permanent solution (whatever that ends up as....)

Michael Robinson ● 2229d

A new bridge.

Richard Greenhough ● 2229d

"It would still be more expensive that a foot and cycle bridge."To build, certainly, but presumably there would be a significant saving on maintenance costs compared to a bridge. I would suggest it ought to be at least considered by the various official bodies involved - it wouldn't be that difficult for them to look at the Greenwich operation and get an idea of running costs from that.

Richard Greenhough ● 2229d

If you have a new bridge that would surely be designed to carry people, bicycles and motor vehicles then what's the point of a tunnel?

Adrian Irving ● 2229d

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if a new bridge will be on the table.  The government may baulk at spending £160M+ on the existing one (although restoring it just for pedestrians and cyclists would be cheaper than that) I doubt that anyone will be prepared to give a warranty on the work...'your money back if any problems in the next 25 years'.It is Grade II* listed and I don't know what is needed to get round that to demolish it.  Maybe the members of the Victorian Society will be gluing themselves to the supports in protest.

Michael Robinson ● 2229d

We've suggested before...dismantle the bridge as best as possible...and relocate to Brentford... for a pedestrian access to Kew Gardens.Regarding a new bridge for W6..anyone have construction contacts in Beijing?

Jim Lawes ● 2228d

Or Genoa?

Paul Campbell ● 2228d

"Sadiq Khan should urgently divert funds from a failed cycle crossing to repair Hammersmith Bridge, his Tory rival said today.Plans for a bike and foot bridge from Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf were dropped last week after costs were expected to exceed £600 million.""The Rotherhithe Crossing was originally budgeted at about £88 million and has already cost an estimated £12.3 million, according to City Hall figures.""The reallocation of money previously identified for it will be considered through TfL’s annual business planning process." The above are extracts from an article in the Evening Standard.It's beyond belief that the Rotherhite bridge was originally budgeted at £88m only to now be estimated at £600m with £12.3m gone down the drain.It makes you wonder how much Hammersmith will actually cost along with the final bill for CS9 and the footbridge under Barnes Rail bridge.I think one thing is for sure they will be many times more that we are being told.

Adrian Irving ● 2226d

Once the pandemic is resolved and traffic tries to resume to normal patterns, its permanent closure will obviously start to highlight one annoying issue - getting to Heathrow.  And no minister or govt car likes waiting in traffic as to they fly back into London for work in Westminster.  I remember seeing a former Foreign Sec motorcading down Chiswick High Road obviously to get to Heathrow quickly - well that traffic busting technique is out the window now...so it will eventually get annoying to those at the top they will pay some attention and fix it

Mike Chisholm ● 2225d

Someone in Barnes has suggested on the Nextdoor site that a possible solution to the bridge rebuilding could be forming a Hammersmith Bridge Co and issuing shares. Money to be recouped by a Toll.

Katrina Black ● 2225d

I wonder if the IRAs efforts to blow up the Bridge some 24 years ago...caused more damage than was revealed.A toll bridge sounds good but one is reminded of the fuss when the bridge to the Isle of Skye was opened.

Jim Lawes ● 2225d

...back of the envelope sums... say £2.50 charge (same as Dartford river crossing), 20k vehicles a day, which was the figure before the closure.  That would take about 10 years to pay back £168M which is the figure currently being used (not taking cost of capital into account).Dunno what investors would think of that sort of return on investment and how it compares to similar projects.  There is obviously a risk that lots of money is spent and it breaks again 5 years later as the bridge was never designed for motor traffic.Higher toll charges may reduce the numbers that use the bridge plus other factors may reduce traffic.  30k vehicles used the bridge daily when it was closed in the 1990s.

Michael Robinson ● 2225d

A toll bridge would not be welcomed by me and I suspect a great deal of other people that need to cross on a regular basis.The thought of a public or private body having control over what is charged to the already downtrodden public is wholly unacceptable and the thin end of a unwelcome wedge to charge for other bridges that have been neglected by incompetent administrations.

Adrian Irving ● 2225d

A bit more on the bridge from BBC Politics London earlier today.https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000n2t9/politics-london-27092020

Katrina Black ● 2225d

Perhaps hijack Rachel, the Tideway borer, as she just passed the area!

Caroline Carrington ● 2225d

Thank's  Katrina, I watched the interview.More blarr, blarr, blarr, blarr mixed in with pathetic point scoring.Don't these dummies realise nobody is interested in their little squabbles, we just want it fixed properly and a temporary solution in the meantime asap.

Adrian Irving ● 2224d

"Dunno what investors would think of that sort of return on investment and how it compares to similar projects.  There is obviously a risk that lots of money is spent and it breaks again 5 years later as the bridge was never designed for motor traffic"An extremely interesting perspective, Michael.Looked at another way and considering your own position cycle lanes are done on a trial and error basis, I dunno what tax payers would think of the return on investment. There is obviously a risk that lots of money is spent and they're not fit for purpose.What always astonishes me is how you apply your logic one way and then ignore it another.

David Lesniak ● 2224d

The email I have just received speaks for itself.To you, to me, to you to me..., Dear Adrian Irving,You recently signed the petition “The Government to fund either a new bridge or repairs for Hammersmith bridge”:https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/549607The Petitions Committee (the group of MPs who oversee the petitions system) have considered the Government’s response to this petition. They felt that the response did not directly address the request of petition and have therefore written back to the Government to ask them to provide a revised response.When the Committee have received a revised response from the Government, this will be published on the website and you will receive an email. If you would not like to receive further updates about this petition, you can unsubscribe below.Thanks,The Petitions teamUK Government and Parliament

Adrian Irving ● 2222d

http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=community&spage=common/ldrshambridge009.htmGood to see the powers that be moving so quickly (not).

Richard Greenhough ● 2218d

It's lived it's life. Take it down - sell it to a Chinese theme park or anyone with money to burn and build a wonderful 21st Century bridge.If they can't sell it - scrap it.This bridge was never fit for purpose anyway. Large boats can only get under it very specific times (because it is too low) and it's not built to carry traffic. It's not even that attractive.And penny spend on extending it's life is a £1 wasted on the additional cost of taking it down and building a new one in the future.

Richard Potts ● 2218d