Forum Topic

New Hammersmith Bridge designs

I know these visualisations rarely match reality but I like the look of Foster Cowi's designs for the new bridge. In a way it is a shame that, if approved, this scheme would only last for two years as it separates out pedestrians from traffic and would mean you could see vistas in both directions crossing the bridge. Presumably, a design with a pedestrian walkway added wouldn't be allowed on a Grade II listed bridge but there may be a short period in which riverside walks in the area get even better.

Francis Rowe ● 1250d79 Comments

There are walkways on the existing structure so I see no reason why they won't be part of the restoration.

Adrian Irving ● 1250d

That's right but they are squeezed on the side of the traffic lanes and quite narrow. The temporary design will provide  better views in a much more relaxed environment with vistas upstream and downstream.One cause for encouragement is that it is mentioned that the fully restored bridge will have wider footways.

Francis Rowe ● 1250d

Shame that design cant be permanent. Looks great to me. F**k grade II. Take some pictures of the old bridge, stick em in a museum, and get on with it.

Stephen Gould ● 1250d

We know how long "temporary" fixes stay put - e.g. Hogarth Roundabout fly over.This is so hideous could anyone really put up with looking at it for years to come?

Will Watson ● 1250d

It’s a car supremacist’s wet dream. Cars uber alles. Literally.

Paul Campbell ● 1250d

Agreed it looks horrible when you are not on it and will detract from views as you walk towards it but it does open up one of the great London vistas and gives you the opportunity to relax and enjoy it as you cross which you didn't have before 2019 and won't have when the bridge is fully restored.Is it not reasonable to assume that because of the listed status of the bridge we are not going to get into a Hogarth Flyover situation with this structure?

Francis Rowe ● 1249d

"the opportunity to relax and enjoy it as you cross it"Yes, traffic thundering across the structure a couple of metres above people's heads with the pollutants and particulates drifting down from above certainly sounds relaxing and enjoyable.

Michael Robinson ● 1249d

Boomers can take their grandchildren there and let them fill their lungs with particulates from above while they reminisce about leaded petrol and smoking in pubs. Except their grandchildren won’t be able to hear them with the noise of the traffic thundering overhead. Happy days.

Paul Campbell ● 1249d

At the moment they have arranged a one way system for pedestrians crossing. North to south one side and visa versa.  Most people respect it and I would hope this could be retained when it reopens. My worry is that wider walkways will encourage some selfish mounted  cyclists to use it particularly if they don't have an alternative which the article suggests may be the case.

Adrian Irving ● 1249d

It's all relative. Pre-2019 and post the full reopening that traffic will be thundering by and polluting right next to you rather than overhead. I'm hoping it will be a bit like the canalside paths under the M4 where you are blissfully unaware that you are walking beneath one of London's busiest roads.Obviously, if the overhead level isn't well soundproofed it will detract from the overall experience but, as I would tend to be there on the weekends when there would be less traffic, I'm hoping it won't blight the crossing too much.

Francis Rowe ● 1249d

A rigid one way systems for pedestrians wouldn't work as people will want to switch from side to side to see the views each way.There is a video produced by Cowi which has more visualisations of the pedestrian walkway than are shown in the article and it is very noticeable that the only bike that appears is dismounted.It might be better to accept the reality that some cyclists will ignore an instruction to dismount as they do on the Thames Path and designate it as a shared walkway with pedestrian priority.

Anita Blake ● 1249d

You aren’t going to convince the cycling whingers. They’ll just have to duck it up.

Simon Hayes ● 1249d

Suck it up.Of course, they are most at risk of disease from particulate matter. Though I bet a fair few have log burners at home.

Simon Hayes ● 1249d

Francis, concrete is a poor transmitter of sound while steel is not. That is one reason why wooden panels are used in the existing bridge to reduce the road noise. Even so, people didn’t generally gather under the bridge to have a conversation!This temporary bridge is likely to be no less noisy, partly as the bridge structure requires the top and bottom deck to be well coupled structurally through the girders between the decks. It will take careful acoustic design to ensure the vibrations are not well coupled too.It’s odd that Fosters/COWI are claiming that additional stabilisation work will be needed on the bridge, irrespective of future use. The current stabilisation work by Motts is explicitly designed to ensure that the bridge does not need future closures for pedestrian and cycle traffic. I see no reason why LBHF  wouldn’t require Motts to deliver to the work they signed up to, and DfT similarly has an interest having effectively paid for two thirds of the Motts contract.

Tom Pike ● 1249d

"a bit like the canalside paths under the M4 where you are blissfully unaware that you are walking beneath one of London's busiest roads"
Yes, the section of the canal going under the M4 truly is blissful provided dank, dark and noisy is one's idea of bliss.

Michael Robinson ● 1249d

The article says the revised estimated costs are now in excess of £160m. In fact. LBHF have given a new figure of at least £200m. The original toll of £3 was based on a £100m cost. That would imply the revised costs would require twice the toll, or £12 a return trip.  Given that traffic on both Putney Bridge and Chiswick Bridge is currently below preclosure levels, where are the drivers going to come from who would be willing to pay such a toll?We know where many of those drivers have gone: traffic counts when the bridge was still open to bikes showed a peak am usage of more than 800 an hour, which is more than half the number of cars that used to cross prior to the closure. Many more people are now walking across, and rail usage at the three stations serving areas affected by the closure is up on average 10% compared to nearest unaffected stations. It’s difficult to see who would be willing invest in a toll-financed scheme with doubling costs which now has a significantly diminished user base.

Tom Pike ● 1249d

Anita, pedestrians have never been able to switch from one side to the other for any reason.In any event if the view is so important then they will be able to take it in on their return.

Adrian Irving ● 1249d

Michael, rather than relying on a badly lit photo to form your opinion, I suggest actually doing the walk and you will get a better idea of what I mean.

Francis Rowe ● 1249d

LBHF leader Stephen Cowan had previously claimed that LBHF residents wouldn't need to pay a toll although this was before the extent of the cost to open the bridge to motor traffic was known (actually, it may still not be known).That sort of exemption would further reduce the user base for tolls.I can't see that Richmond would be happy if LBHF residents didn't need to pay a toll but their residents did.  I wonder if they could introduce a toll on the Richmond side of the bridge just for LBHF residents ;)

Michael Robinson ● 1249d

I have done the walk (actually, mainly cycled) many times Francis.Claiming that the dank and dark section under the M4 is 'blissful' shows quite a unique definition of the word.You will struggle to get a well lit photo unless you use a flash or bring studio lighting along with you.

Michael Robinson ● 1249d

Carbrain. It is an illness and its symptoms are evidenced in this thread.

Paul Campbell ● 1249d

Michael, to be fair most local users of the bridge were from south of the river. But a diminishing number are calling for the bridge to be reopened to cars. Richmond surveyed residents immediately after the closure in 2019 and two thirds wanted it reopened to all vehicles. In a survey two years later that had fallen to half in Barnes itself which had been the epicentre of protests against the closure. It’s a familiar pattern: sentiment shifts as residents experience the drop in traffic on their own streets against the inconvenience of not being able to drive wherever they want.

Tom Pike ● 1249d

I didn't say the walk is blissful (it's pleasant but that would be an exaggeration) but that you are 'blissfully unaware' of the volume of traffic above your head when you cross under the M4.It may be that the rigid steel structure of the temporary bridge makes a cacophony of noise as traffic goes over, reducing the pleasure of the views opened up. As I said earlier, for me the chances are there will be a limited amount of traffic when I visit so I am looking forward to the experience.

Francis Rowe ● 1249d

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post. If you look at the video produced by Cowi you will see they envisage a broad walkway which would allow pedestrians to cross on whichever side they chose. As on, for instance, Blackfriars Bridge, many people will want to check out the views on each side.

Anita Blake ● 1249d

Tom, as previously discussed, I think you are engaging in wishful thinking that there has been any meaningful change in views on what to be done about Hammersmith Bridge.The timings on this are quite interesting. Let's assume that H&F approve its own scheme very promptly there is still probably another year to go after that according to Cowi to allow for detailed design and procurement so they will be close to being ready to start the construction process by the end of 2023. At this stage we are probably only 10 months away from a general election.Labour are quite clear that they will be willing to take on extra debt for investment and Hammersmith Bridge would provide a very symbolic way to demonstrate Tory incompetence and they would be able to deliver the bridge in the middle of the first term. For this reason, there is a good chance that they will make the full restoration a specific manifesto commitment. It is an easy win for them as the project will be literally shovel ready.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1249d

Jeremy, I’m not suggesting there’s been any shift in thinking at the top: the current thinking is clear enough. DfT support for opening the bridge to motorists would be “depending on cost”: an increase from £80-140m to more than £209m has only shifted the dependency in one direction. Any prospect of a toll-funded PPP to finance this travels in the same direction. But maybe I’m wrong, and there’s a still a significant number of frustrated motorists willing to pay £12 return for a crossing. The Telegraph article made it clear that LBHF don’t see much prospect of a reopening before 2029 at the earliest. It’s certainly wishful thinking to imagine Hammersmith Bridge is above the cut in any future Labour government’s spending plans.

Tom Pike ● 1249d

I can assure you that, while I probably on balance would like to see Hammersmith Bridge reopen, it is not something I yearn for so engaging in wishful thinking in that direction is not something I could do. I would tend to agree that there is probably better ways to spend £200million (an amount which presumably doesn't include cost of funding which will also be rising).What I am trying to do is focus on the political realities which boil down to the current Conservative government being the main obstacle to getting this project finished. As we've previously discussed you can't say that rising costs are making reopening less likely because costs for every project are rising to the same degree. Some of these projects will be built and, according to Andy Slaughter, the cost benefit calculation on reopening Hammersmith Bridge is exceptionally high.Although the fully restored bridge may not open until 2029, the double decker temporary version could be with us in three years or so. As I say, this presents low-hanging fruit for a first term win for Labour.Does it not seem likely to you that, given the timescales on this, H&F Council have not already been in conversation with the Labour party at the national level and have been given some sort of assurances that they should push on with the planning application for the temporary bridge? I think most people would find it inconceivable that this hasn't happened. It would certainly be highly irresponsible for H&F Council to kick on with the project if there was any danger they would be picking up most of the tab.The only thing I could find on the current Shadow Transport Minister Louise Haigh and bridges is her criticism of £1mn being spent on the Johnson fantasy project of a bridge to Northern Ireland so we can assume she is against money being spaffed against the wall on unbuilt bridges and would steer H&F away from such an outcome.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1249d

If anybody at LBHF had asked Labour’s travel policy advisors they would indeed already know the answer as to the chance of the restoration of car travel on Hammersmith Bridge being a spending priority of a future Labour government. But that’s in any case not a real input into the current process. The funding letter makes it explicit that DfT is just running down the clock, now in less than 11 months. The SoS always had the power to demand LBHF proceed with the project, but has instead explicitly left LBHF to make the decisions. But any PPP funding, as LBHF requires, wouldn’t even start to be negotiated until planning permission was granted and an MOU with DfT and TfL signed, but the latter depends on a viable potential PPP to provide a robust business case for DfT acceptance in the first place. However, while planning permission was given the go ahead six months ago by LBHF, there’s still no actual application filed. Jeremy, you must at least be starting to suspect this is now about how to manage the fallout from a failure to proceed, and the number who will be disappointed by such an outcome is steadily diminishing. It’s therefore in everybody’s interests to just play this one out.

Tom Pike ● 1249d

The contrast with Westminster Council funding £35m of Active Travel improvements is stark. We all know where the smart money is going from now on.

Paul Campbell ● 1249d

I would like to see TfL revise their cost-benefit analysis for reopening the bridge. The costs will have at least doubled, and the benefits in terms of reduced congestion would now be negative given that traffic on the neighbouring bridges is now lower than before the closure.

Tom Pike ● 1249d

I would like you to stop being so stupid.

Simon Hayes ● 1249d

As long as it keeps you happy, you should just stay as you are, Simon!

Tom Pike ● 1249d

You clearly aren’t happy because you aren’t getting everything you want, though. It’s like a convention of overgrown babies wailing that the presents they have aren’t enough for them. Perhaps you’ve all had too much exposure to those polluting fumes and it’s made you all unbalanced.

Simon Hayes ● 1249d

Certainly reducing pollution would make me happier, and most people would feel the same.

Tom Pike ● 1249d

There are so many bridges over canals all over the place and I can't think of any tow paths under bridges that are 'wonderful!' especially those under the wider A roads or Motorways.It will be quiet though, I doubt you'll hear much traffic. I have done a lot of canalling so I think I know what I'm talking about!For those who are interested there is an interesting canal bridge over the M6 toll road ... https://lhcrt.org.uk/articles/aqueductstory.htmlBasically, it's a canal bridge over the M6 Toll Road, just in case the lichfield canal ever gets extended that far ... far cheaper to build the bridge during the construction of the Toll road, rather than adding it later on.

Andrew Jones ● 1249d

Pollution is reducing. Once every vehicle is electric there will be no more emissions. But of course there will still be all manner of stuff in the air. At what point do you and your chums decide to live in the real world?

Simon Hayes ● 1248d

Tom, you don't need reminding the DfT does not make policy, it implements it. The current government may well be using cost as an excuse not to proceed and the Ministry is acting accordingly. Funding the bridge at this point would mean that its completion would be under a Labour government so it obviously isn't going to happen.The SoS cannot compel LBHF to proceed because the council's total budget is not much bigger than the cost of bridge restoration. Ultimately central government has to fund this - with even TfL's contribution provided indirectly from general taxation.I think we are in danger of getting caught up in a London-centric mindset if we start to believe a Labour government will believe not reopening a bridge could form part of an active travel policy. Even if they accept your view that making things more difficult for cars reduces congestion, the bridge remains a key public transport link and reopening will be a massive benefit for those dependent on buses. I don't think you will be able to get the TfL engineers who drew up the cost benefit analysis to change their minds on this point.Ultimately, it defies credibility that H&F Council and Andy Slaughter would not have had conversations with the party at a national level about this project and, if they had not received some comfort that funding would ultimately be forthcoming, that they would be proceeding with the planning application for the double decker structure now.It is normal for all parties to specify infrastructure projects they are committed to in their manifesto as the very act gives them extra authority to implement them. Labour will do this and has been explicit in its policy of borrowing for investment. Most of these projects will be much less well advanced than Hammersmith Bridge, more expensive and not in London but reopening the bridge is such an open goal for the party in terms of its symbolism that it is inconceivable that they won't take the opportunity.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1248d

Pollution is coming down, and it’s a combination of policies and cleaner vehicles that’s driving it. Of course nobody wants to see that reversed. Pollution on Putney High Street is now significantly lower than before Hammersmith Bridge closed, and traffic across Putney Bridge has fallen further than both the average for Wandsworth and Hammersmith and Fulham. Nobody wants to see those improvements reversed either.

Tom Pike ● 1248d

According to Wandsworth Council the main reason for the reduction in pollution on Putney High Street is the change in the type of buses being used.Congestion on the other hand has apparently increased significantly which is why both the local MP and the council are lobbying for Hammersmith Bridge to be reopened.

Francis Rowe ● 1248d

Traffic counts across Putney Bridge are down 20% compared to preclosure numbers. The estimated traffic on Putney High St is also down 15% from 2018. It’s difficult to imagine those drops didn’t contribute to the reduced pollution on the High St. I haven’t seen any numbers  produced to substantiate the claim congestion has increased. Rather the existing data suggests the opposite.

Tom Pike ● 1248d

What about "lived experience" Tom? If people feel that congestion has increased then surely their emotional needs should be taken into account or indeed take precedence over facts when determining transport policies? Anything else is inhumane.

Paul Campbell ● 1248d

I shouldn't need to point out traffic counts can be down and congestion can nevertheless rise.  If vehicles are moving more slowly this is what will happen particularly in an age when dynamically updated SatNavs guides traffic away from congested areas. I can't give you data but the council, the local MP, local councillors and residents all appear to believe that congestion has risen significantly and the Hammersmith Bridge closure is the main contributory factor. It's not really me you need to convince but them.A friend who lives in Putney says that he thinks that the reason that pollution has not risen at a time when congestion is increased is down to the hybrid buses on the High Street no longer being able to get to a speed at which their diesel engine kicks in.

Francis Rowe ● 1248d

Francis, an FOI was put in for speeds in the area. TfL provided the nearest data available on the A205 just east of Putney High St. In 2018 weekday traffic was 17189 and minimum speeds were 20 mph. In 2020 weekday traffic was 17147 and minimum speeds were 20 mph. It’s very difficult to discern any effect of the closure, or indeed anything else, on traffic speeds at this location just metres away from the High Street.

Tom Pike ● 1248d

I think what you mean is it is very difficult to prove either way what the impact of the closure of the bridge has been using data because it is inadequate. That means you have to rely on what people who live and work in the area are telling you as it is the most compelling evidence available. Categorically, they strongly believe that things have got significantly worse since the Bridge close and, as they know the area much better than I do, I am inclined to take their word for it.

Francis Rowe ● 1248d

Francis, quite the opposite! We have pollution and traffic counts that indicate the closure has not caused an increase in either, rather both are reduced, and speed measurements on a major cross route showing no difference. That means it’s very difficult to make the case that the closure has caused congestion, not that the data is inadequate! You are only resorting to anecdotal information  because the data doesn’t support your view.

Tom Pike ● 1248d

Once again, traffic counts tell us nothing useful. A fall can occur at the same time as rising congestion. This appears to be what is happening on Putney High Street. The area is suffering serious displacement which has required a number of measures by the council to tackle.Pollution falling could be down to a range of factors but, as has already been pointed out, the view of Wandsworth Council is that the change in the type of bus being used is the most important and the extra traffic due to Hammersmith Bridge has been a negative factor in this regard.The data can't support any view because it is inadequate and certainly doesn't serve to disprove the firm opinion of the overwhelming number of people living and working in the area that closing Hammersmith Bridge has caused extra traffic.

Francis Rowe ● 1248d

Tom is always very selective with his data and how he interprets it. An estate agent I know who has worked in an office close to Putney Bridge tells me there is plenty of congestion, although like all these things there are times when traffic is light and flows well.The problem with simply saying traffic counts are down is that no other factors are put into the equation. I’m sure traffic is less on the A4 between Boston Manor Road and Chiswick roundabout but congestion is much worse because of the ongoing roadworks.If you travel around west and southwest London regularly you’ll note that most of the time traffic isn’t particularly heavy. Particularly true on Mondays and Fridays, largely because people have changed their work habits or even changed jobs post pandemic. Where there are snarl ups is almost entirely due to roadworks or road closures. Maybe Tom should get out more.

Simon Hayes ● 1248d

Francis, you are pointedly ignoring the speed data on the A205 at Putney High St. It’s difficult to imagine that congestion on the High Street would not have any effect on just as busy a cross street, but the vehicle speeds have not changed.All you are left with is repeating unevidenced assertions, including referring to an “overwhelming majority”. In the last survey a bare 50% of Barnes residents even wanted the bridge opened to cars, and a much smaller number of Putney residents felt moved to respond.

Tom Pike ● 1248d

The facts cannot lie! With such clear benefits arising from the closure of Hammersmith Bridge we must campaign to shut all of London's river crossings immediately. Indeed, why stop with London? The answer is staring us in the face and is guaranteed to please everyone.

Bruce Hammal ● 1248d

But the bridge doesn’t belong to the residents does it. It’s an important part of the transport network and its closure has displaced traffic to other bridges, including Kew Bridge.

Simon Hayes ● 1248d

Tom, when the majority of residents oppose closing a road to cars their wishes must be respected and when the majority of residents support closing a road to cars they must be ignored as roads are for everybody.

Paul Campbell ● 1248d

Simon, traffic is measured as down on Wandsworth Bridge, Putney Bridge, Chiswick Bridge and the South Circular to Kew Bridge. What’s all your displaced traffic doing after Hammersmith Bridge was closed?Driving round in circles but never finding another way across the Thames?

Tom Pike ● 1248d

Unless it’s Hounslow Council, which does as it pleases.Why don’t you campaign for car ownership to be made illegal? Isn’t that what you really want.

Simon Hayes ● 1248d

So you keep saying, which indicates that all the scaremongering from you and others that the roads are too busy for safe cycling is bullshit.

Simon Hayes ● 1248d

Jeremy, I’m impressed by the gymnastics you’re performing to convince yourself that Hammersmith Bridge is on Labour’s priority list. They’re just as convincing as your previous claim that the decision had already been made by this government to proceed, even if you now say “it obviously isn’t going to happen.”The government could compel LBHF to act, and of course fund it to do so, but it has chosen not to. I’m happy to extend the wager that the reopening of the bridge will not feature in the Labour manifesto - you do seem so very convinced otherwise.

Tom Pike ● 1248d

Francis, just to come back on this point:"...the council, the local MP, local councillors and residents all appear to believe that congestion has risen significantly and the Hammersmith Bridge closure is the main contributory factor."You are correct about the local MP, Fleur Anderson, who said during a debate a couple of years ago "Our health in Putney is being damaged by the increase in pollution on our high street from the additional 4,000 vehicles a day that are being diverted."That 4,000 increase comes from a data release from TfL that compared traffic for the immediate three months after the closure in 2019 on Putney Bridge with the three months before. It is not a directly measured figure, but an inferred estimate. I have no reason to think that estimate is incorrect for the increase in traffic in the immediate aftermath of the closure, but we do know that people have since then adjusted their travelling. In particular we now have the daily flow for Putney Bridge derived from the manual counts for both 2019 and 2021, and 2021 was 7,000 vehicles lower.Of course, Fleur Anderson was not aware of the updated figures when she made her speech, but she is now.

Tom Pike ● 1247d

The earlier point made about the value of traffic count numbers does seem to me to cast a good deal of doubt as to how useful they are in reaching a conclusion about what is going on. If there are fewer vehicles crossing Putney Bridge, that is irrelevant if this is happening because the reduction is caused by traffic redirecting away due to congestion.Fleur Anderson lives and works in the area is a keen cyclist and a vocal supporter of active travel. It therefore is not credible that she would ignore convincing evidence that the closure of Hammersmith Bridge wasn't damaging for her constituents on the basis that she loves to drive her car where she wants. She has not become less active in campaigning for reopening but more so.MPs and councils ultimately need votes and therefore are keen to associate themselves with campaigns which are popular. Therefore, Ms Anderson's inbox is must continue to be bombarded with complaints about the bridge closure. If she had doubts, based on the data you cite, then she has the option of quietly ignoring the issue but instead she is organising demonstrations outside parliament.Every other elected politician on both sides of the river and all the main opposition parties share her views on reopening the bridge to traffic. Both councils are working towards full reopening. It is unlikely this would be the position if local support for reopening was not overwhelming. As with any issue there may be pockets of people with a different view and it is certainly true that some people benefit hugely from the closure of the bridge but this is always at the expense of someone else.You are basically asking us to believe that politicians of all parties are collectively ignoring the will of their constituents and compelling evidence to support reopening. This isn't what is happening.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1247d

Jeremy, Fleur Anderson made the claim in good faith on the basis of TfL's available figures showing an immediate increase in traffic. She cannot make the same claim now.It is of course correct that a low traffic count by itself doesn't mean no congestion, complete gridlock being an obvious example. But we have more than traffic counts to judge the degree of congestion: DfT provide the hourly counts through the day and that can be used to determine the degree of congestion.TfL use the flow of buses to judge the state of traffic - with no congestion the hourly flow should be smooth while a period of congestion causes initially lower counts and then higher counts as delayed buses arrive. Hence it's possible to judge the state of congestion from variability of the hourly figures of bus counts. Here is that variability as a fraction of the average hourly bus counts, together with the total vehicle counts:2017: 7.0%, 42,5112019 6.9%, 41,0842021: 5.4%, 33,448So the lower traffic counts after the bridge closure are associated with a smoother flow of buses. In fact 2021 has the smoothest bus flow in the entire dataset for Putney Bridge since 2001.Given we have pollution down on Putney High Street, traffic down by 20% on Putney Bridge and buses running more smoothly than ever across it, all the evidence suggests that congestion had fallen significantly two years after the bridge closure compared to previous values.

Tom Pike ● 1247d

My gymnastics days are long passed I'm afraid. If I said this government had decided to proceed, I misspoke. My view has always been that the current government have sought to prolong the issue with the hope of embarrassing the Mayor and LBHF.If Labour don't mention specific infrastructure projects including Hammersmith Bridge in their manifesto it will be because the current financial uncertainty has deepened. Sadly I think that scenario is too likely to have total conviction on what the contents of the document would be.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1247d

Tom, you are still conflating traffic counts with traffic - they are not the same thing.As for the figures you provide about bus delays, aside form the fact that there was a lockdown in 2021, your argument is undermined by its complexity. By all means send it to Fleur Anderson but she will probably respond by saying she walks down Putney High Street most days and sees buses stuck in traffic so she believes what her constituents are telling her.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1244d

Jeremy, you have failed to understand that the smoothness of the bus flow is quite a different quantity than the number of buses. The flow of buses was more regular than it has ever been over Putney Bridge, and if you look at all the data back to 2001 you can see that the flow get more and more variable as traffic increases until it reaches 10% above which the traffic flow decreases. That’s the classic pattern of congestion, and confirms what we are now seeing is a combination of both low flow and low variability associated with little congestion.

Tom Pike ● 1244d

You are right I've failed to understand your argument. I don't have your formidable analytical skills but I do need a basic grasp of statistical principles for my work and a reasonably open mind on this issue and have tried to see what you are driving at.The problem you face is that the people you need to convince will more than likely have all of these characteristics so you will have even less chance of changing their minds . They believe that congestion on their High Street has got worse since the bridge closed. You may be right that false recollection of previous conditions or predetermined views have made them think that way but the proof that most people in the area believe that the Bridge closure is causing traffic problems is that every political party except the Greens is lobbying for a full reopening.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1244d

Lobbying is easy.  The key question is, who pays for it?The government is stepping away from providing funding.  They have said they won't provide funding once TfL no longer needs financial support which is expected to be the next financial year.Funding based upon a toll charge may be precarious given the reduction in traffic levels and the higher the toll charge, the fewer the number of vehicles will use it.  This also isn't like other developments in London where there is a "planning gain" and transport infrastructure makes an area more attractive for development.  As an example Canary Wharf Ltd helping to fund Crossrail connection to make the area more attractive to their tenants.

Michael Robinson ● 1244d

The people I know in Putney tend to be older like me and, although they are unhappy about the extra congestion on the High Street, the main issue for them is easy access to healthcare. Most provision was north of the river at facilities like Charing Cross and Chelsea and Westminster. Since the bridge has been closed these have been far more difficult to get to if you are going by bus or by car. It is very hard to relocate care and people may choose not to if they value their current practitioners.This was less of an issue during the pandemic with many Out Patients appointments, procedures and clinics cancelled.Some of these people would have been described as 'died in the wool' Tories previously but they are now, to a man and to a woman' all very warm towards Fleur Anderson who they believe has been willing to listen to their concerns and act for them.

Diane Brown ● 1244d

Jeremy, I’m sure you can grasp that if the buses are arriving regularly through the day, there is unlikely to be significant congestion. That’s all the variability in bus flow measures. Possibly people have forgotten the previous level of congestion, or they want to feel there is some defined measure that will make their driving quicker, but opening Hammersmith Bridge is not it. That said, the loss of the bus route is more than a minor inconvenience for some. But there are viable alternatives, and implementing them is just getting delayed by clinging to the forlorn hope that the bridge will be reopened to cars any time soon.

Tom Pike ● 1244d

Michael, you say 'government' but everyone knows that the current shower won't be in charge by the time serious procurement has started for the temporary bridge.It therefore has to be accepted that any negotiations about long term funding are taking place between the Mayor/LBHF and the national Labour Party hierarchy.While nobody is saying anything , there are two possible outcomes of these discussions. Firstly, that assurances have been given that the bridge will be funded and secondly that they have not.To me the first possibility seems far more likely as LBHF have decided to press ahead with the planning application for which most of the upfront costs will fall on them. For Labour, the reopening of the bridge would provide an indication of executive competence in contrast to what has gone before.The second option, that Sadiq Khan and LBHF were told to go whistle, seems very unlikely. This would mean that they are pressing ahead with the plan in the hope of later on embarrassing a Labour government into providing funding which would seem a tactic doomed to failure if they have already said no.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1243d

Jeremy, the council approved the submission of a planning application in October, but six months later all that’s been submitted is an application for more exploratory works that are now felt needed to come up with a full design. I would hardly call that a sign of commitment on the part of LBHF.  Fosters/COWI will always be willing to put some resources into conceptual design on the basis that a certain percentage will eventually go ahead. I think all interested parties would like to give the impression of at least not actively dismissing reopening to vehicles, but at done point, likely in less than a year, you’ll see private misgivings change to the more positive step of looking at viable alternatives. 

Tom Pike ● 1243d

Jeremy,Isn't the planning application and associated work being jointly funded by the DfT, TfL and LBHF?  The government hasn't yet walked away from funding the project yet.The rest of your email is purely speculation about the funding priorities of a possible future Labour government.I have no insight into that at all (and neither, it appears, do you).However if that happens, given they will have been out of power for 15 years and will have accumulated a very long list of things they want to do when back in power and I'm guessing will there will be a lot of prioritisation needed.Therefore assuming that Hammersmith Bridge will be towards the top of the list just appears to be speculation and wishful thinking on your part.

Michael Robinson ● 1243d

Michael, you told me earlier in this thread that the current government was walking away from funding the project and now you are telling me they are not. Please make your mind up.Although obviously I am speculating, I am not engaged in any wishful thinking. As I've said before I think opening Hammersmith Bridge would be nice but £200 million could perhaps be better spent. I'm just trying to logically determine what is the most likely scenario is here.Tom does raise a good point about the nature of the planning application to be submitted. If it is just a sketchy outline plan with little real detail then it could be discounted as a piece of business prospecting by Foster COWI who are meeting most of the costs. However, if it is more detailed and involves LBHF spending significant amounts to bring it forward, then either they know something we don't or they are being shockingly irresponsible with council taxpayer funds at a time of financial distress.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1243d

I think you have finally hit the nail on the head with your final sub-clause. And the cause of the irresponsibility = car brain. Cowan has it and so do his privy council.

Paul Campbell ● 1243d

I broadly agree with Jeremy's assessment of the situation. Although there is no mention of infrastructure projects in Labour's 2019 manifesto it does detail plans for a National Investment Bank.This idea was originally developed by John McDonnell and Rebecca Long-Bailey, now far from the centre of power in Labour, but it has not been ditched and has actually been expanded in scope.The 2019 manifesto envisaged an investment plan of £200 billion i.e. a thousand times what the latest high estimate for the restoration of Hammersmith Bridge would be, and this now seems to have been raised to £500 billion over a ten year period.The structure of the Bank would devolve investment decisions to the local level which would end the days of Sadiq Khan needing to go cap in hand to the Department for Transport. He would have a hugely expanded borrowing capacity to implement infrastructure schemes.Most excitingly, this could give him funds for the Piccadilly line resignalling which will mean a Turnham Green stop is back on the agenda but it would also mean there would be ample backing for the Hammersmith Bridge restoration. You can be confident that conversations are already taking place about what projects are getting funding and it is unlikely that the bridge is not on this list.

Mark Evans ● 1243d

You need to read what I wrote Jeremy.  The government has said they will no longer provide funding once TfL no longer requires government support, which is expected to be from the 24/25 financial year.  Until then, the government is funding one third of costs for the work on the bridge along with LBHF and TfL.So when TfL breaks even, the government walks away.

Michael Robinson ● 1243d

Did you actually read the objectives of the National Investment Bank?I just did and it says:"Addressing the long-term funding gap for small and medium-sized businesses and high-value local projects in regions outside of London and the South-East"I don't know if commuters from Turnham Green saving a few minutes from not needing to change trains at Hammersmith some days (not Monday or Friday because working from home, obvs) really meets the criteria.

Michael Robinson ● 1243d

Michael, the National Investment Bank does not yet exist. I'm not sure where you found that objective but the 2019 manifesto says it will "make sure that investment is spread evenly across the whole country and will give powers and funding to every region and nation of the UK."The policy is still being developed and we won't know the full details for over a year. It will probably not use the same method of analysis that has previously tilted investment to London and that is a good thing but the idea that Sadiq Khan will be completely excluded from funding is nonsense.The Piccadilly line signal upgrade is not needed just to allow trains to stop at Turnham Green. That is one small side benefit of the project which should significantly boost regularity and reliability for the line.

Mark Evans ● 1243d

This was the very first item returned when googling National Investment Bank Labour.https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/National-Investment-Bank-Plans-Report.pdfPiccadilly line resignalling and new trains have been planned for years so there is no indication they are dependent on new sources of funding.  The proposed plans were to replace the District line Ealing branch with a Piccadilly line branch and move the District line trains to the other District line branches to increase frequency of service on them.  So there would be two stops for the Piccadilly line in Chiswick - Chiswick Park and Turnham Green.A better example of investment is the West London Orbital Rail project as that is intended to enable new business and residential developments along the route.https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/sadiq-khan-says-west-london-orbital-rail-link-will-likely-go-ahead/?mc_cid=56ecafb216&mc_eid=8318d0525cI really don't know how likely it is to proceed, but if it does, the local car brained will have conniptions as it is likely to mean the closure of the level crossings at Bollo Lane and Churchfield Rd by Acton Central station.  Even if the level crossings aren't closed, 24 trains per hour in both directions mean they won't be very practical routes for driving. I believe the plans include a new pedestrian/cycling bridge for Bollo Lane.

Michael Robinson ● 1243d

Not sure how we got onto the West London Orbital. Sadiq Khan made that announcement a fortnight ago so its not really news. If anything it does demonstrate that there is renewed confidence that funding will be available for infrastructure projects that have been shelved. I can't quite get your logic about the Piccadilly Line signalling, clearly the lack of funding has led to its postponement but it too may be back in TfL's plan if we have a National Investment Bank.The issue with the level crossing is a more complicated one than you suggest. It will for instance create problems for the business park, a major employer and TfL are planning to build and sell hundreds of flats in an area which will become much less accessible. There is likely to be a population increase of around 3,000 in the area if you include the remaining phases of Acton Gardens, the development around Stirling Road and near the tram depot. Closing off one of the access roads won't come without cost. Hard to see how this is resolved but now that the Stirling Road tip is closed I don't think anyone is going to be particularly bothered apart from residents and businesses based in that area.

Mark Evans ● 1243d

Mark, your optimism about the National Investment Bank has to be tempered by an acceptance that borrowing on such a scale will only be possible if international financial markets accept it.At the moment the UK does have a bit of headway in terms of debt as a percentage of GDP but there would probably have to be a demonstrably tight rein on spending and even an budget surplus on the income account to avoid a Liz Truss style catastrophe.If Labour can do it then it would raise some exciting possibilities and we would be back on course for overall improvement in public transport. The West London Orbital would be overall a great thing but to pretend implementation would be straightforward would be misguided and it is wearisome tp see playground name calling start before any discussion of the matter has really begun.TfL won't want to close Bollo Lane but it shouldn't be complicated to model the impact of additional barrier closures. If that shows that periodically queues will reach back to the junction with Acton Lane then some serious thinking needs to be done. Residents of Acton Green will have some compensation due to an improved train service but it is likely to be accompanied by a significant increase in congestion and pollution in their area unless an innovative solution can be found.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1242d

Rachel Reeves in particular understands that if Labour wants to implement its plan, then the confidence of international markets is critical. Labour will probably enjoy an economic honeymoon as the economy is taken out of a tailspin by removing some of the constraints on trade so it would make sense to announce an infrastructure plan early. It is hard to understand why Hammersmith Bridge wouldn't be part of that.On the West London Orbital scheme, I don't think that Acton Green residents would be mollified by extra trains going from South Acton, not necessarily to destinations they would ever travel to. Demands for full closure of the barrier would increase as local roads became stuffed with traffic.If that did happen then the problem transfers to Gunnersbury Lane and Bollo Bridge Road which simply won't be able to cope. The answer may lie in opening up access through Chiswick Business Park but that may not be an option either.

Mark Evans ● 1240d

"It is hard to understand why Hammersmith Bridge wouldn't be part of that."No really.1. Traffic across the Thames is lower across all the neighbouring bridges, from Kew to Wandsworth, compared to before the closure, and has dropped more than rest of the boroughs on either side, by 27% compared to 9%. The inevitable increase in traffic once the bridge is reopened is incompatible with the Mayor's aim to decrease traffic by 28% by 2030. Keeping the bridge closed to motor vehicles is.2. Buses are also running more smoothly than before on all the bridges for which we have hourly flow data, Kew, Putney and Wandsworth.3. Costs have doubled since the original estimates, as has the time for reopening.The cost-benefit ratio is calculated based on the value of the delays to the cost of reopening the bridge, discounted for time. These factors have already caused significant erosion, and are continuing to erode, with costs increasing as delays lengthen. The value immediately calculated after the closure will therefore have greatly deteriorated, and may well now be close to or below one. A quick cross check would be to ask how many people would be willing to pay at least twice the initially estimated toll of £3 to cross one way, or £12 return based on covering at lest twice the originally estimated cost.That's apart from any political considerations concerning how investment might be regionally directed. Granted, if you ignore the above it is more difficult to understand why Hammersmith Bridge shouldn't be a focus for investment.

Tom Pike ● 1240d