Forum Topic

Vision for car-free crossing in Hammersmith

I know this is going to get you all very excited. Here is a compelling vision for an inclusive car-free Hammersmith Bridge that creates a new way for people with mobility needs to get across the bridge. And a far better environment for everybody than turning it back into a major A road funnelling nearly 30k cars per day through Hammersmith and Barnes (which isn't going to happen anyway). https://www.hammersmithbridge.solutions

Paul Campbell ● 1269d87 Comments

But if I can't dwive my sooper-dooper new Chiswick Twactor over the bwidge when I want, I'm going to squeam and squeam 'til I make myself sick.Signed: Violet Elizabeth Bott, aged 46 1/2

Richard Cathcart ● 1269d

Rearrange these words.Effing totally and useless.So a disabled driver like me can drive to Hammersmith, cross the river in a pod, then what?I am sorry but it really is time for heads to be extracted from bottoms and  actually consider the needs of disabled travellers.The only thing compelling' about this vision is  the compelling confirmation that the cycling 5% of road users do not possess the collective wisdom of a two year old.

N V Brooks ● 1269d

It’s not just the bridge that’s needs to be really disabled friendly.The pavements in Chiswick have been allowed to become no go areas for motobility scooters. Beverley Road is one of many where trees have been allowed to be become To large on a narrow pavement  and the residents have erected high brick walls, add to that the way that Hounslow tarmac over the roots of the tree and slope it to the brick wall .You faceted with a two foot gap which you cannot get passed.Even if it was just wide enough to drive through the slope of the tarmac tips your scooter over on an angle and scrapes along the brick wall.So you end up using the road itself. As Beverly road is quiet it’s not so bad, but the traffic engineers who place the street furniture at Newley created junctions have know thought of of a disabled vehicle having to negotiate.Like the Hogarth roundabout you cross the entrance to a side road up the slope turn right and come to a sudden halt, as there’s a lamp post been erected in the middle of the pavement. There’s an area of grass besides the pavement couldn’t the engineers site the lamp post on the grass side of the pavement.If I had the time and energy I could fill up the fix my street map with faults stopping disable residents from getting around the Homefield Ward.But you can’t blame Hounslow for every thing, TFL have installed metal barriers to slow bicycles down in subways. Which means I can only use two subways to cross the A4. Sutton Court lights and the Hogarth roundabout. So I think you can say that west London is Disabled unfriendly .Rant over

Bernard Allen ● 1269d

I'd suggest that a disabled driver from Ealing such as yourself who wishes to continue their journey by car on the south side of the river would just use one of the other bridges and many routes already available to car drivers. And they should try to take a deep breath and appreciate how much infrastructure they already have at their disposal instead of getting so angry every time somebody suggests providing some better alternatives for people who are not in cars.

Paul Campbell ● 1268d

At the risk of triggering Paul this is the reality, these are LBH&F’s (who own the bridge) plans btw. Only temporary of course, just while the bridge is repaired. What tragedy it will be to reduce the displaced traffic which currently clogs up the Hogarth roundabout, A316, Chiswick Bridge, Chalkers Corner etc. we will have to wait until 2026 sadly but it’ll be worth it.

Michael Good ● 1268d

These are very nice drawings but the strategic decision on the future of Hammersmith Bridge has already been taken. It will, at some point, be reopened to motorised traffic. This has the support of Hammersmith & Fulham Council, TfL, the Greater London Assembly, the Department for Transport, the Mayor, Richmond Council and all the main opposition parties on both sides of the bridge. I couldn't find any statement from the Richmond & Twickenham Greens on the matter and the only comment made by the West Central Greens (which covers H&F) is an out of date post which 'suggests' private cars shouldn't be reallowed on the bridge. Active support for keeping the bridge closed to cars seems confined to a small number of people on social media. The stabilisation and maintenance work done so far has been predicated on the assumption that heavy vehicles, including buses will, at some point in the future, be travelling across the bridge. Just yesterday the Mayor submitted an application to the government for another large tranche of funding for further stabilistation work.That there is agreement in principal that the bridge be fully reopened to traffic doesn't mean that it definitely will as there is likely to be a lot of hard bargaining on who pays for it. It does however, necessarily mean that there won't be any discussion let alone funding for alternative strategies which result in the bridge staying closed to traffic.The current proposal by H&F for the double decker structure could mean that the bridge reopens to traffic quicker than expected but it is a problematic one and it may not even get  planning approval from both councils. Even if it does, there remains the vexed question of how it will be paid for.The possibility remains that Hammersmith Bridge could remain closed to traffic for another decade but, if that happens, it will remain the ugly, temporary version with crash barriers and traffic cones that we currently have not some idealised concept drawn up on CAD.By all means share with us images of alternative realities for the bridge but in terms of practical solutions you might as well just provide some drawings of flying cars crossing between Hammersmith and Barnes.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1268d

All the focus on what goes over the bridge but why not sort out what goes under the bridge?The bridge was so badly designed than it's too low to let traffic pass under it except when the tide is right.Imagine a future when you can travel up and down the river on a hydrogen or electric powered ferry... No Chance.. except on times when the sun and moon are in the right place.Take the bridge down and build something for 21st Century. It'll be cheaper and better.

Richard Potts ● 1268d

Interesting angle. Is Hammersmith Bridge the only one in this section of the Thames that causes problems for river traffic?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1268d

My anger is the abject inequality suffered by disabled transport users be they drivers or users of public transport; where stations remain inaccessible and buses now stop at island, often across uneven paths with kerbs because an "entitled"and 5% of road users required dedicated infrastructure. What disabled users would give for such dedicated infrastructure. Sadly, those who seek such dedicated infrastructure, all 5% of them, consider nobody but themselves. Yes, I angry and with good reason. There are many more disabled travellers than cyclists. Your lobby yas done a fine job in gaining disproportionate access 5o transport budgets bit there is, at last, a growing discontent among disabled travellers.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

“…the strategic decision on the future of Hammersmith Bridge has already been taken. It will, at some point, be reopened to motorised traffic.”No it hasn’t, Jeremy. The DfT stated in their funding letter to TfL: “we expect to finalise a memorandum of understanding between HMG, TfL and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to ensure all parties’ commitment to the reopening of Hammersmith Bridge on a permanent basis – initially to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic and, depending on cost, to motorists.”It’s hardly likely that any request for funding from HMG outside of this proposed MOU is going to be successful - where did you hear the Mayor had made any such application?The current works are not predicated on opening the bridge to motor vehicles: "The stabilisation works are necessary to prevent future closures of the 136-year-old bridge to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic below." https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/section_attachments/cmc_hammersmith_bridge_update_letter_feb21.pdfSo at the end of the current works the bridge can remain fully opened to pedestrians and cyclists with no further capital funding necessary for the foreseeable future. In contrast, any future opening to motor vehicles is entirely speculative.

Tom Pike ● 1268d

Really don't understand why a 21st century City deserves a 19th century decaying bridge of little architectural merit. Surely something more appropriate could be constructed to accommodate all sections of road users ( including cyclists if only to stop them whining). In the time they have pontificated, no pun intended, about rebuilding the existing structure a new bridge could have been put in place.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

There is no agreement for how the several hundred £M needed to return motor traffic to the bridge will be funded so an assumption the bridge will carry motor traffic again is premature.LBH&F, TfL and DfT have agreed to fund one third each and that covers the current stabilisation works however DfT will walk away when TfL become self sustaining with no need for government support. That is expected to be the 24/25 financial year.So then it becomes a 2 way split of funding between LBHF and TfL and there is no view of how they would pay for a £100M+ project.

Michael Robinson ● 1268d

Oh put a sock in it you miserable moaner. Check your entitlement. Drivers including disabled ones have eaten all the biscuits and now they can't handle other people gathering the crumbs. You can be as angry as you like. Big changes are coming and the future of road transport in London is not people driving wherever they like in private cars.

Paul Campbell ● 1268d

That was a very long way of telling us Jeremy that you know absolutely nothing and have made up a load of stuff in your head that fits with your hopes and dreams.

Paul Campbell ● 1268d

Tom, a financial caveat in one statement doesn't override the stated position of every transport minister that the government supports the reopening of bridge to motorised traffic.Michael is right to highlight the looming problem for TfL's finances but they only become relevant if the Conservatives win the next general election. If Labour win, a less scorched earth approach to transport in London can be expected.As to your question about the application for funds by the Mayor - that was reported by Ross Lydall yesterday.On the engineering of the bridge I have to defer to people who are qualified on the subject. One civil engineer I know told me that the stabilisation work being done at the moment is to a level that presumes the bridge will ultimately have to bear the weight of buses which was a key stipulation of LBHF. This seems to be confirmed by reports in the specialist press on the subject in articles on the recent announcement of the planning application being submitted. The whole point of the double decker structure is to allow further work to take place on stabilisation to allow vehicles to cross once again on a permanent basis.Everything here points to the decision already having been made on the restoration of vehicular access over the bridge. Can you point us to one individual or authority in the decision making process who is advocating a pedestrian and cycle only crossing on a permanent basis?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1268d

How mature, the response that one would be expect from someone who cannot see beyond the end of his saddle and who speaks from the part of his anatomy that rests on it. Open your eyes (if only to see the traffic signs) and acknowledge that disabled travellers are poorly served whether they be in their own vehicle or forced to use largely inaccessible public transport. To deny this only serves to polarise you and those of your ilk, minority users of London's transport infrastructure, nothing more.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

Drivers are by far the most catered for transport users. They are massively subsidised by the state to cover all the disastrous externalties they create. They take a hugely disproportionate share of capex and opex spending on surface transport. They can absolutely get stuffed if they expect sympathy because a couple of roads got some cycle lanes and they can't drive through some residential roads any more. Go whistle. Saying the word "disabled" is not a trump card for the angry drivers who can't abide losing a smidgen of their immense privilege.

Paul Campbell ● 1268d

Jeremy, you didn't mention Andy Slaughter, who will likely be the MP for many people in Chiswick in a few years. What's his view on the issue?

Francis Rowe ● 1268d

Learn to read. I have repeatedly referenced disabled transport users notably those who cannot access public transport and those further isolated by poorly designed cycling infrastructure which places bus stops on islands. The fact that you either in blind ignorance or from convenience choose to ignore this (as I said, open your eyes) speaks volumes about you and any others of the loud but insignificant minority who share your blinkered prejudice.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

Bernard, your points I do have sympathy with. I tried some time ago to get some of the usual suspects on here to understand that the lack of safe surface crossings on the A4 in Chiswick causes severance for people with mobility needs or using non-standard bikes but they couldn't accept the point despite claiming to be disability advocates when it suits their defense of their car privileges.

Paul Campbell ● 1268d

What a nasty hypocrite you are Mr Campbel. In other posts you criticise those who support the rights of disabled travelers, and it is a right rather than the minority interest like your own, while at the same time attempting to try to pander to the real concerns expressed by disabled users who post. God, I hate hypocrites.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

He is very much in favour of a full reopening. Here is what he said in the House of Commons in 2020:"I totally understand that cycling and other groups suggest that this could be an opportunity to permanently close the bridge to motor traffic. Analysis by TfL shows that cost-benefit ratio of reopening is 5.8:1, which is very high. Essentially, to relieve the congestion on other river crossings and to make that part of London function again —as much as it ever does in terms of traffic movement—it is a bit of a no-brainer."The more active travel friendly Ruth Cadbury is also in favour of a full reopening as soon as possible as are Fleur Anderson MP for Putney, Sarah Olney, MP for Richmond and Greg Hands, chairman of the Conservative Party and MP for Chelsea and Fulham.The only point of disagreement is how full reopening is to be funded not that it should happen.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1268d

According to Government statistics the percentage of people who cycle at least once a week is about 12%, a significant minority.  But again according to government statistics, c. 17% of the population is disabled.So the disabled outnumber the semi regular cyclists.  It does not seem right that in order to progress the rights of cyclists, the rights of the disabled are ignored or, as per Paul, denigrated.  There is no reason, other than money, time and good design why progressing the rights of cyclists should be at the expense of the disabled.

Justin Stephenson ● 1268d

5hank you. According to the London cycling campaign the number of cyclists who regularly commute is  "on target" to reach 5% by the end of this year. Sadly the 17% disabled figure is likely to increase with an aging population and we must level the playing field (although simply levelling the pavements would he a start).  I can deal with the denigration of minority opinions like Campbell's as they are irrelevant. TfL and the boroughs though do need do get a grip on serving 5he additional needs of 1 in 6 of their residents

N V Brooks ● 1268d

I would say that some sort of toll charge is very likely to help fund LBH&F

Michael Good ● 1268d

Damned little keys...sorry.Thank you.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

That's because I know that you are falsely commandeering and misrepresenting disability rights in order to further your real agenda of promoting your driving privileges. This is why you have hijacked the thread that shows a vision of a car-free bridge that caters very well for disabled people with your own selfish need to have every car journey you can imagine you yourself taking catered for and prioritised at the expense of all other road users. It is you who cannot see beyond the windscreen. You don't really care about bus-stop bypasses. You just see them as an opportunity to spread your fanatical anti-cycling beliefs because somehow you still have a vestige of hope that you can stop dedicated infrastructure being built for cyclists in London.    Here is the truth - dedicated cycling infrastructure creates morre inclusion for disabled people.  It allows more disabled people to use bikes and other mobility aids protected from the danger caused by motor vehicles. You can't have dedicated cycle infrastructure that is inclusive for disabled people on main roads without bus-stop bypasses so we will have them and many more of them. And that is fine because they are safe no matter what the pathologically anti-cycling NFBUK has to say about them. They were heavily involved in all of the consultation with TfL and are upset they didn't get their way which is the same as yours - they wish to have no space for cycling and have zero interest in encouraging more cycling in UK towns and cities. The people denigrating disabled people are the car lobbyists who are trying in vain to maintain a monoculture of surface transport dominated by car supremacy. And pretending in doing so that, as Bernard points out in an another original post, that the rights of car supremacists are somehow in complete lock step with the rights of disabled people. They most certainly are not. And one more thing: nobody will ever drive a car across Hammersmith Bridge again so it's good for politicians to see much lower cost, sustainable and inclusive options sooner rather than later. They can come along to the drop-in sessions to find out more.

Paul Campbell ● 1268d

Rubbish.You neither know me nor the FACT that I care passionately about disabled access to public transport having commuted for over two decades as a disabled bus, underground and train passenger before my disability  deteriorated.Still, let's not let little things like facts get in the way of your prejudices.  You and your vocal ilk represent a tiny minority travel interest dwarfed by the number of disabled users whose struggle to travel is made more inconvenient by the infrastructure to which you believe you have a 'right'.Oh and as reagrds ".. one more thing: nobody will ever drive a car across Hammersmith Bridge again". Such is your delusion and selfishness that you oppose the opinion of every local MP. Get over yourself and, as I said, and will repeat again, open your eyes.Enjoy your minority interest while it lasts.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

Jeremy, positions have shifted since the closure. Grant Shapps himself stated that financial support for the bridge reopening to motor vehicles was conditional on support from both TfL and LBHF, but then did not provide a settlement for TfL which covered their part of the support. I still can't find any record of the Mayor applying for this funding, so a link would be appreciated.The current works that are nearing completion provide a full solution for continued passage of pedestrians and cyclists across the bridge, and clearly represents a fully funded solution that does not result in motor vehicles crossing the bridge. Contrary to what you claimed, that is not the "ugly, temporary version with crash barriers and traffic cones that we currently have." Those are only likely to reappear if ever the interim double-decker sees the light of day.

Tom Pike ● 1268d

Well put points Mr Brooks.  As for Mr Campbell's replies to your disabled points all I can say is keep digging Paul and show the world your true colours.  Whilst as an able bodied petrolhead I can take your personal attacks like water off a ducks back and I get the feeling that's vice versa (!), for the sake of civility please show some respect for someone commenting from a disabled perspective with clearly decades of experience to draw from.

Mark Talbot ● 1268d

JS: "It does not seem right that in order to progress the rights of cyclists, the rights of the disabled are ignored or, as per Paul, denigrated.  There is no reason, other than money, time and good design why progressing the rights of cyclists should be at the expense of the disabled."RC: False equivalence, I think. For even if all the money needed to make the bridge usable by cyclists, pedestrians (and certain disabled) were diverted, it would be nowhere near enough to restore motorised traffic on the bridge.

Richard Cathcart ● 1268d

Your fantasy of a reversal of the progress we see on dedicated cycling infrastructure and car reduction schemes is so heavily dependant on your inate belief that minorities should be subjugated by majorities that you fail to understand that it is precisely the minority status of cycling combined with its disproportionate value to net zero, clean air, safer streets and public health that is enabling it to garner the much-needed funding to make it more inclusive and attractive to more people. And so it will keep doing while angry cagers rage against the machine.

Paul Campbell ● 1268d

Cyclist punches Sadiq Khan’s cycling tsar after being challenged for failing to stop at a pedestrian crossing from a floating bus stop. What’s staggering is that only eight percent of cyclists surveyed stop for pedestrians at crossings. Who’d have guessed?https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11903603/Sadiq-Khans-cycling-tsar-punched-face-cyclist.htmlSadiq Khan's cycling tsar was punched in the face by a cyclist after he confronted them for for pedalling through an Amsterdam-style 'floating bus stop' without stopping for pedestrians at a zebra crossingDeputy London mayor for Transport Seb Dance revealed the attack happened while he was on his bike last year, allegedly committed by someone on a hire bike. These floating bus stops, overseen by Mr Khan, see busy cycle lanes wedged between the pavement and a bus stop island and are joined by a zebra crossing.However there have been warnings that cyclists often don't stop at them or even slow down.And Mr Dance, the man responsible for London's cycling, has experienced this first-hand, according to The Telegraph.In a video shared with the outlet, he told blindness campaigners that he was cycling alongside a floating bus stop and there was 'someone like you waiting to cross.''I stopped and two of my fellow cyclists didn’t,' he added. 'I then caught up with them and remonstrated with them, and I was punched in the face for my efforts.' Mr Dance agreed that cyclists not following rules was a 'big problem' and the incident he mentioned was reported to police.A survey of 397 cyclists by the publication looked at how the riders behaved while pedestrians waited at three crossings in central London.It found that only eight per cent (33) of the cyclists gave way to the pedestrians - which is required by the Highway Code - and 91.7 per cent did not.Earlier this week, Mr Khan admitted that more needs to be done when asked about the investigation at Mayor's Question time by Conservative health member Emma Best.He said enforcing of the rules is required rather than just raising awareness, as he revealed a review has been launched by Mr Dance and Tfl.'What we can’t have is a situation where somebody is seriously hurt, or even worse, as a consequence of cyclists not following the Highway Code and running over somebody, so it’s really important we do this before, God forbid, that happens rather than afterwards,' he added.Sarah Gayton, the shared space coordinator at the National Federation of the Blind of the UK, suggested cyclists have number plates and said that Mr Dance's alleged attack highlights the risk the bus stops pose to pedestrians.'But what has Seb done about it since then?' she added, as he stressed the need for building of the bus stop to be halted.Mr Dance insisted he was committed to making London a more inclusive city and communicates with Londoners about road safety and accessibility concerns.

Simon Hayes ● 1268d

I don't think Nigel's disability gives him any more right to an unassailable opinion on how we use urban space for surface transport than an able-bodied person, petrolhead or otherwise. That's a rather patronising attitude to take to disabled people. His self-interest as a driver who wishes to deny safe space to other road users is wholly apparent and he has no interest in representing the many disabled people who benefit from safer streets and dedicated cycling infrastructure.

Paul Campbell ● 1268d

So much noise from a minority within a minority interest group. Still, reading your prejudiced ranting can, at times, be mildly amusing.  It's good to have something to ignore, takes my mind off the pain, so keep posting.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

Not patronising in my view Paul, simply compassionate, now and again whatever your views some compassion for the disabled doesn’t go amiss.

Mark Talbot ● 1268d

Per your reply to Paul Campbell: "Such is your delusion and selfishness that you oppose the opinion of every local MP."I daresay most*, maybe all, of those MP's are sincere in wanting the bridge reopened to motorised traffic.But "warm words butter no parsnips" i.e. without the huge sum of funding needed, then it won't get built. And currently there is no sign of anyone coming up with the money.Of course, it might just go ahead on the basis that it will be a toll bridge. What would the car lobby say about that? (If tolled, there could be an exemption for Blue Badge holders, which I think should be acceptable to all.)* - I say "most", since it is a free hit for any MP who doesn't want to antagonise the car lobby (and their votes) to pretend to be in favour, safe in the knowledge that funding may not ever become available.

Richard Cathcart ● 1268d

Indeed, it's a win, win for supporting MPs. They can appease the car lobby and also claim to be doing their 'bit' for climate change as they support a scheme that relieves the virtual gridlock on the A316 and A219 reducing stationery traffic and pollution.  Of course they have no responsibility to meet the cost 2h8ch is why a limited time all users toll should be considered. The only group that doesn't want it fully reopened AFAIK is the minority travel brigade but doubtless one of their mouthpieces will be along soon to tell us all why he is right and the rest of thecruel, cruel world that does not conform to his vision (always easier when your eyes are tightly closed) is wrong.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

It is unfair to lump all the opposition to a motorised bridge on the "minority travel brigade" [sic].For there are also many people, especially including those residing near the bridge or adjoining roads, who are opposed for reasons of pollution and air quality. While those who are concerned about global warming generally are also liable  to be opposed.And should the financial burden, or a significant part thereof, fall upon the council tax payers of the two Boroughs, then they may not be too keen on it either, at least those who are not car owners.

Richard Cathcart ● 1268d

Can we have a vote on which of London's river crossings should be the next to close to vehicles? Presumably those opposed to getting Hammersmith bridge restored  to full working order would happily see a rolling programme across the whole of the capital. Why should we have all the fun?

Bruce Hammal ● 1268d

Another angry post about driving vs cycling .....It does sadden me when people think a Grade II* listed structure should be removed because it's inconvenient.  Haven't we done that to enough of our historical buildings and structures in the past?

Nora Watkins ● 1268d

A friends daughter and her family live on Madrid Road (off Castlenau) and they would love the bridge reopened. She works in Ealing and her husband at Hammersmith Hospital, Their commutes are a pain since it closed, they are certainly not opposed. If one takes a wider vision view, pollution would be reduced on many routes, notably Fulham Palace Road and routes over other crossings.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

Tom, you basically seem to be arguing that anyone not agreeing to fund the whole cost unconditionally isn't a supporter of the scheme. Shapps is a slippery character and a failure to cough up promised funding is typical of him.I'm sorry I can't find the link to the Mayor applying for funding but it popped up in a feed in the last couple of days. I didn't read the story so can't say for sure that it is new news.I have to press you on the question of the elected politician or organisation involved in the decision making process that is not advocating a full reopening. Can you name any? If not then is it not reasonable to assume this unanimity about reopening to traffic means that is ultimately what will happen?The only reason this remains in limbo is that central government are playing games over funding TfL and London in general. This will end promptly after the next election and the only obstacle then is likely to be the financial position of the country being so dire there simply isn't any cash.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1268d

NVB: "A friends daughter and her family live on Madrid Road (off Castlenau) and they would love the bridge reopened. She works in Ealing and her husband at Hammersmith Hospital, Their commutes are a pain since it closed, they are certainly not opposed."RC: Of course there are many people who are opposed, often with understandable reason. (Though I'm not sure a "pain" i.e. inconvenience, entirely fits that description, but no matter.)My point is that there are also many opponents to the bridge being re-opened to motorised traffic, often with equally good reason on their side, not least from that majority of Londoners who do not even own a car.NVB: "If one takes a wider vision view, pollution would be reduced on many routes, notably Fulham Palace Road and routes over other crossings."RC: Some pollution may be diverted but not all, should the bridge closure cause at least some motorists to opt for alternative transport modes.While getting back to the disabled, of course there are many disabled people like yourself who depend upon being able to use their motor. But there are also other disabled with eg respiratory problems like Asthma, who suffer just as badly from traffic pollution. Therefore just as I cannot speak for anyone but myself, I don't think you can speak for all disabled, either.

Richard Cathcart ● 1268d

From the aspect of driving over it , open or closed it make little difference to me but as it stands what could be a more visible local landmark reflecting the state of broken Britain.Badly managed, underfunded, lacking leadership, devicive, conveying to the world just how far we have fallen.Bazalgette must be turning in his grave.

Adrian Irving ● 1268d

I certainly would never claim to speak 'for all disabled' as I can only opine on those with mobility issues.  I can clearly comment on the issues facing those who try their hardest to access public transport which has been made more difficult by 'island' stops.As to pollution, removing some is a start but much originates from sources other than motor trnsport, notably construction.  Those who drive will continue to drive and seek alternative routes even with extended diversions it is quicker and far more convenient than public transport and this is certainly the case for disabled users.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

N.V.B.  The disabled need someone to speak up for them as most have given up completely and never leave their home,  It should be right to getaround suddenly it's a privilege according to some what a sick state of affairs.

Janice Evans ● 1268d

The real scandal is the lack of accessibility at many TfL stations. No step free access and no will to put them in at many stations, despite admirable campaigns from disability groups for years. All to do with cost they say, yet plenty in the pot for other rather tenuous transport schemes.

Simon Hayes ● 1268d

NVB:"As to pollution, removing some is a start but much originates from sources other than motor trnsport, notably construction."RC: It's not an either/or. NVB: "Those who drive will continue to drive and seek alternative routes even with extended diversions it is quicker and far more convenient than public transport and this is certainly the case for disabled users."RC: Disabled motorists, maybe. But it is simply untrue to imply that ALL those others who drive will just find another route etc. From my own experience, I used to drive FAR more in London when I first moved here 40 years ago. But due to congestion (esp), cost and other restrictions (parking esp), I have progressively switched to alternative modes of travel, or even just travelled less, such that I don't even drive 250 miles a year in London these days.While my anecdotal evidence apart, there is usually clear evidence of modal shift where road when traffic restrictions are introduced.

Richard Cathcart ● 1268d

"While my anecdotal evidence apart, there is usually clear evidence of modal shift where road when traffic restrictions are introduced". Certainly true but volumes fell of a cliff during the pandemic and traffic counts (at least of TfL routes in Ealing) have shown it yet to return to pre-pamdemic levels. When the wholesale LTNs were in place in Ealing there were claims that this would bring about a modal shift and that there would be 'evaporation' of traffic. Anything further from the truth would be difficult to find.The same volumes on fewer streets ressulted in virtual gridlock and pollution levels went through the roof to the point where LBE removed two key location pollution monitors when complaints started to arrive. Citing equipment failure LBE were unable to produce any data for the period of highest pollution. Resident's own pollution monitors however continued to operate and showed a significant spike whcih reverted once the LTNs were removed.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

Jeremy, I’m not surprised you can’t confirm your claim that the Mayor applied for additional funds to stabilise the bridge as that finance has already been committed and the work is on the verge of completion. Evidently your belief that the bridge will reopen to cars is made on the basis of misunderstandings and statements made several years ago. I’m willing to wager that we won’t see a memorandum of understanding signed between DfT, TfL and LBHF to finance such an opening before DfT’s conditional commitment runs out exactly a year from today. It is now time to think of the best ways of providing alternatives to a reopening to motor vehicles which is very unlikely to ever happen.

Tom Pike ● 1268d

Well some things have just had their day, Victorian bridges included. Nothing better sums up our deluded attachment to relics of all sorts than the ludicrous state of the Houses of Parliament which cost millions of pounds a day in maintenance while nobody  will make the decision to construct a new fit-for-purpose (?) building. Watching the King address the Bundestag in Berlin the other day I couldn't help but compare the chamber with the fusty old House of Commons; rebuilt after the war as a facsimile of the original. Sometimes you have to move on.

Bruce Hammal ● 1268d

Oh the irony that the Bundestag had a Dritish architect. My oldest friend worked for over forty years on Hansard and I recall when visiting him in his office the lump of missing plater, the dust and the fact that desks were 'daisy chained' on extendion leads for power to the computers.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

You might want to move it out to a modern building,  but the Palace of Westminster is a Unesco World Heritage site,  so I'm not sure what you would do with it when it's empty.  You're still going to need to pay for the upkeep.

Nora Watkins ● 1268d

It could be gutted and a fit for purpose chamber (or chambers) built behind a preserved facade with possibly only the lobbies and processional routes retained . It really is horrible inside in so many areas.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

So you can I at least get you to acknowledge that every local elected politician and relevant organisation involved in the process believes the Bridge should fully reopen?You may be right that no MOU is signed and the DfT's commitment will remain uncertain. Do you not accept that is likely to change when there is a Labour government?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1268d

The Palace of Westminster is Grade 1 listed, that must protect the inside of it too?  I've just seen the estimated price tag for updating it. It makes the Hammersmith Bridge estimate look like chicken feed.

Nora Watkins ● 1268d

There are area inside that would fall apart if you looked at them sternly along with some nasty sixties and seventies bits which no one would list.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

I really doubt they still do. The apocalyptic predictions have failed to materialise, while the costs of reopening to cars are now above £200m.DfT’s current commitment is uncertain, but it will not remain so.  After next March it will be zero. Similarly, I accept the chances of funding this will likely change under a Labour government, reducing from extremely slim to none.

Tom Pike ● 1268d

Have a Google. There are various estimates of what it would cost to renovate varying from no one knows to £22Bn and 76 years. Meanwhile just stopping it from falling to bits costs £127 million per year. May be it will "go on fire" as they say when inconvenient old piles mysteriously commit suicide.

Bruce Hammal ● 1268d

Turn it into accommodation for the homeless?

Stewart Jones ● 1268d

It's already a hostel for the unemployed/ unemployable.

N V Brooks ● 1268d

Tom, can you give me one example of any of the elected politicians or decision making organisations who have, even in terms of emphasis, changed their view on reopening Hammersmith Bridge to traffic?Hammersmith & Fulham certainly haven't as they are in the process of consulting about their double decker plan. One of the local Labour MPs was demonstrating outside parliament within the last fortnight demanding full reopening. I really can't find any evidence of a lessening of commitment from any quarter to full reopening.Similarly, it seems plain that the reason this issue has been so protracted is that the Conservative government has weaponised it to cause embarrassment to Sadiq Khan. With a Labour government, the requests from a Labour council, Labour MPs and a Labour Mayor for funding for the project are unlikely to go unheeded and the only foreseeable obstacle is a truly profound fiscal crisis which means the government are unable to act.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1267d

If you’re so sure, why not take me up on my wager? Or maybe first talk to some of the people involved off the record?In the meantime, it’s good to see effort being put into how to make the most of the opportunity rather than wasting time on schemes that have very little chance of being built.

Tom Pike ● 1267d

I'm willing to offer the same wager if it is taking candies from babies time.

Paul Campbell ● 1267d

Paul, I think Jeremy might be struggling with the fact that while he is unwilling to put his money where his mouth is, he was rather relying on others to do just that!

Tom Pike ● 1267d

Tom, who are the people I should talk to off the record on this matter?Are you claiming that some have changed their opinion but are not telling us they have done so? This seems extraordinary behaviour if so. If they are politicians they shouldn't have stances in public that differ from ones that they have in private.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1267d

“If they are politicians they shouldn't have stances in public that differ from ones that they have in private.”Not many people would base their opinion on such an ill-founded assumption! Some basic principles of government, such as collective responsibility, rely on maintaining a separation between personal opinions and public statements. And why are you unwilling to make any material commitment on the basis of your opinions when you expect others to do so!

Tom Pike ● 1267d

But nobody involved here is in a position where they have collective cabinet responsibility. Is it not irregular that an elected politician, who I think in most cases would have had a manifesto commitment to lobby for a full opening of Hammersmith Bridge, should not disclose if they have changed their mind?Of all the MPs involved directly (Fleur Anderson, Greg Hands, Sarah Olney) I can find categoric statements in support of full opening made recently. This leads me to conclude that any conversation you might have had with any decision maker on this matter must have been Andy Slaughter. This is quite a dramatic turnaround from his earlier statements made on the subject but I couldn't find any recent comments from him on the matter.Obviously if the MP for one of the constituencies most impacted by the closure now no longer is supporting full opening, then that significantly reduces the prospects of it ever happening. However, there is no principle of government or issue of collective responsibility that would prevent him from making public his changed view. In fact, what principles do apply would require him to explain to his current and future constituents why he has reconsidered his position as he stood for election saying the exact opposite.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1267d

You are definitely overthinking this, Jeremy, and none of the MPs you list are decision makers on this issue. Politics will always be the art of the possible, whatever views might have been expressed in the past.

Tom Pike ● 1267d

He's not overthinking. He is under-thinking and grasping at straws. I get that the relentless barrage of bad news for people who have dedicated a substantial amount of their time in the last five years fighting for the supremacy of the car is hard to take but you'd think some of them would just wise up eventually and accept the direction of travel, so to speak.

Paul Campbell ● 1267d

Decision maker may be the wrong word. The local MPs will have an influence on the outcome therefore their views are important. Obviously if one of them ceased to support full reopening it would be significant.As far I can see they all ambiguously support full reopening as do the councils on both side of the bridge, TfL, the GLA, the Mayor, all major political parties at a local level.I'm struggling to see where the weak link in the chain is if it is not Andy Slaughter.For your claims on this to be credible you really need to specify who exactly is telling you that full reopening is not going to happen.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1266d

Jeremy, of course you don’t need to believe statements made off the record, but I can assure you that politicians and officers are just as capable as anybody else as judging that there is little prospect of the necessary parties committing the funds in less than a year to reopen the bridge to motor vehicles. Clearly DfT were aware of the risks, hence their conditional commitment last August, and since then inflation, interest rates (that LBHF would have to bear based on future toll revenues) and project costs have only moved in one direction.If you are so certain otherwise, why are you not willing to put some money behind your own assessment of the prospects?

Tom Pike ● 1266d

Tom, I've never said at any time that I believed that the funds would be committed in less than a year.As far as I can see what you have heard from people behind the scenes is concerns about escalating costs that may make financing more difficult and you are making the leap to conclude that full reopening will never happen.It remains the case however, that every politician with influence on the matter and every agency involved remain committed to a full reopening. Of course rising costs and interest rates will make it more difficult for them to make good on their pledges but they do not rule out the full restoration taking place. The same cost pressure applies to every infrastructure project in the country and Labour is unlikely to cease all capital investment when it comes to power in Westminster.It would then boil down to where it comes in the queue and it must be quite high up given the unanimity among all involved parties that it should happen. Of course, if the financial situation has deteriorated really badly then you may ultimately be proved right.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1266d

Only the most perverted car fetishists could possibly support this vision for pedestrians crossing Hammersmith Bridge 🤢

Paul Campbell ● 1266d

Looks bloody awful, how much money was wasted on that brainstorm. The bridge is not fit for purpose. Our forebears were willing to admit when a bridge was past its useful life and replace it, why are we so reluctant?

N V Brooks ● 1266d

“It remains the case however, that every politician with influence on the matter and every agency involved remain committed to a full reopening.”You continue to ignore what the DfT actually said. Any commitment to reopening the bridge to traffic is “dependent on costs”.I agree, “they do not rule out the full restoration taking place”, but the chance of that happening is receding, as similarly the immediate argument that the bridge represented a “vital” link for motor vehicles has dissipated with time: traffic across Chiswick Bridge after climbing immediately after the closure has fallen back and is now lower than when the bridge was open.

Tom Pike ● 1266d

How many times has London Bridge been rebuilt since the Romans ran the city?When a bridge is worn out beyond reasonable repair or needs change then it should be replaced. I like the attitude of the Japanese to ancient structures. If you go to Kyoto for example they will happily describe the Golden Temple as "14th century - last completely rebuilt in 1955".

Bruce Hammal ● 1266d

A quick check reveals that many bridges have been replaces in the last 100 years. Chelsea, London, Wandsworth, Lambeth, Waterloo, Hampton Court and Chiswick are all replacement crossings since 1930. What makes Hammersmith deserving of special treatment?

N V Brooks ● 1266d

I missed Twickenham.

N V Brooks ● 1266d

How many of those were listed though?The IRA may not take notice of listings but the road people do (otherwise they might have driven a road through that really awkward and troublesome set of stones near Amesbury.Granted, Hammersmith Bridge isn't a UNESCO world heritage site.

Andrew Jones ● 1266d

If the Victorian style of the bridge is such a sticking point then whack in a simple but effective replacement deck followed by some fibre-glass copies of the original frilly bits and nobody will know the difference. Its not the daftest idea. Given what is being inflicted on traditional riverside views by massive tower blocks, this hardly rates no matter what it looks like.

Bruce Hammal ● 1266d

Tom, I have literally concluded in my previous post that the full reopening of the bridge is dependent on costs so I can't quite understand how you can accuse me of ignoring this point.Every investment ever made or that will ever be made is dependent on costs in some way.What seems increasingly evident here is that the government has weaponised the issue of costs in an attempt to place the blame on Sadiq Khan for the slow progress on reopening. A resolution of how the full reopening was to be paid for was never going to be reached and that explains the quiet death of the Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce.I don't imagine for one second that with Labour in control of the DfT that they will quietly accede to whatever LBHF and TfL want and there is no guarantee that there will be a quick end to any horse trading. However, what will have changed is that there will no longer be one of the three parties determined to thwart a positive outcome. Yes, restoring the bridge will be much more expensive by then than it would have been if the government had shown willing to press ahead and yes, it is conceivable that if high interest rates, high inflation and a poor fiscal position prevail then Labour may find it difficult to justify spending the money but I would say things would have to be pretty dire for this to come to pass.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1265d

Jeremy, I think in that last few days you have travelled some way on the journey of most of the involved parties: you are quite right to note that when a Taskforce dissolves before the task is completed, it hardly demonstrates confidence in a positive outcome.  But I’m not so sure this is a so much a partisan deadlock as a growing realisation all round that the effects of the closure have been much more muted than some predicted while funding a solution increasingly more difficult to justify. It’s time to look at more cost-effective alternatives that can best deliver the key element that has been lost, a public transport link across the river to Hammersmith station, while not requiring rebuilding the bridge for motor vehicles.

Tom Pike ● 1265d

Tom, I've looked at my original post and don't think I would change a word of it.I remain unconvinced that there has been any significant reassessment of the need for full reopening or that everyone is adjusting to the effects. Against your private conversations with unnamed individuals we have, just in the last month, a Labour MP demonstrating with her constituents outside parliament to demand full restoration.You may be right that full reopening is not justified but you need to convince LBHF, LBRUT, TfL and every MP with a constituency near the river that this is the case before your alternative solutions will be even be consider as a long term option.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1265d

Jeremy, rest assured, those conversations have already started and to increasingly receptive audiences.

Tom Pike ● 1265d

Do let us know as soon as you persuade any of the key players to change their existing public state position of support for full reopening.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1265d