Forum Topic

Hammersmith Bridge

The MV Emerald carrying football supporters has reportedly (BBC) crashed into Hammersmith Bridge. Unlikely to help its reopening chances?!

Paul Charlton ● 442d218 Comments

Not much good at the maths either. From an original estimate of circa one hundred and twenty million the latest guesstimate is three hundred million.Should have used a bigger fag packet!

Adrian Irving ● 356d

What a farce this country has become.

Francis Sheehan ● 356d

"If you are a pedestrian who uses Hammersmith Bridge regularly you will currently be breathing a sigh of relief as pedestrians no longer have to jostle with cyclists on the narrow side walkways.If you’re a cyclist – happy days – journeys are suddenly faster with no need to get off and push your bike slowly along the side paths.The central span of bridge opened for bikes (with a snazzy new tarmacked area) on February 13 but it’s only going to be open until the middle of April.Why the brief window, you may ask? Well, it’s because the stabilisation works on the bridge haven’t been going to plan and have now been temporarily paused. Hammermsith and Fulham Council’s website puts the timeline for the pause at around 10 weeks but we wouldn’t be surprised if the central span stays open a little while longer. After all, the works on the bridge so far haven’t been renowned for speediness. Why has work on the bridge been suspended?One of the reasons that stabilisation work has been suspended seems to be the fact that some major components in the engineering stabilisation solution don’t fit properly and are having to be remade. If anyone asks you why stabilisation of the bridge has been taking so long and you want to be on hand with a short and snappy answer you need to say ‘It’s the steel support plates, first they took ages to be delivered because of the war in Ukraine, and then when they were delivered and installed they didn’t fit properly.’ By this stage you might see the eyes of your interlocutor glazing over, but if they do follow up by asking ‘What are the steel plates for?’ the answer gets a little more complex, but it goes something like this ‘The cracks that were found in the bridge, that caused it to be closed, were in the cast iron pedestals situated under the bridge’s four towers. These pedestals have now been encased in concrete to stabilise them. However, the next stage of stabilisation needs to be the loosening of seized up components in the bridge’s suspension chains which pass over rollers on the saddles the top of the towers and the pedestals. The rollers themselves also need to be replaced. While this happens the chains will need extra support and that’s where the steel plates come in; they are part of an external frame that will allow the saddles to be jacked up allowing the rollers to be replaced and making it possible to work on the seized bearings in the bridge’s chains. "

Adrian Irving ● 356d

Only in this country this can happen.... Some prat didn't measure twice.

Brian Green ● 356d

You may be right about the delivery of the wrong item but when the opening to cyclists was announced it was always going to be just for 10 weeks. The party boat that crashed into the bridge brought about the suspension of the work that was narrowing the crossing over the bridge meaning cyclists had to dismount.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 356d

Well that didn't last long did it.Why? Because the massive custom made steel supporting plates finally arrived only to find they don't fit.They will have to be remade and fitted before much else happens.Fingers crossed eveybody.Time scale? Undetermined.

Adrian Irving ● 356d

Well I am pleased people will be able to cycle across and stay off the footpaths for good reason.I have just come home from my two bridges walk and got chatting to the Marshall on the Hammersmith side directing people which side to cross.(There is a one way system).He thought he was on to a cushy number when he took the job. Far from it! He told me that most cyclists dismount when asked but the amount of abuse he gets from some are off the scale.Possibly the worst incident was when a young off duty policewoman crossing over told a cyclist to dismount and stood her ground. The responce? A barrage of abuse and a punch in the face.There is high definition cctv coverage so the police staked out the area for a few days so as to arrest the offender.Sadly he was never caught.

Adrian Irving ● 381d

Excellent point. The war on motorists is one thing but the war on people who are trying to avoid car usage is far worse. It proves that those gloating about being able to cycle across don’t give a damn about anyone other than cyclists. Breathtakingly selfish

Maggie Dodge ● 381d

Here's another thought.Before weight restrictions were put in place over 1800 buses crossed each day. Even if each bus only carried twenty people that's 36,000 passengers every day.Go figure how a bike lane and a glorified golf cart can even be considered as a long term viable replacement.Laughable.

Adrian Irving ● 381d

Well researched Katrina, thank you.I have to say I am not a fan of the green and preferred the  grey. It was interesting to read that that it was pink for a while. Now there's a thought!

Adrian Irving ● 381d

Last painted 2000. I googled it and came up with thishttps://londonist.com/london/history/hammersmith-bridge-fun-facts

Katrina Black ● 381d

No idea but the surface is just wood and metal plates covered with tarmac.

Janice Evans ● 382d

The best way to cross will be by bicycle as you won't notice what a crumbling mess it has become.I walked over recently and what a depressing experience it was. Rotting wood, rusting iron, flaking paintwork all combined to create an atmosphere of decay and neglect.I never see repainting mentioned but surely this has to be done whatever the outcome. Why not get on with that now? It is going to be much more expensive to do now compared to what it would have cost of it had been regularly maintained.I can just about remember it being repainted from grey to green but it must have been a very long time ago. Anyone know when it was?

Adrian Irving ● 382d

Here you go Francis.  I don't think a bloke with a wheelbarrow and heatgun will be bankrupting LBHF anytime soon.Putting the finishing touches to the new bicycle/cargo bike/scooter lane 🙂 pic.twitter.com/d6lzbyDHeH— HammersmithBridge.org.uk (@HammersmithBri1) February 9, 2024

Michael Robinson ● 382d

LBHF and most other boroughs will have a highways maintenance budget and this covers carriageways and footways.  From a quick google, LBHF budget was £1.8M for 21-24.  The boroughs get money from TfL and the government but council tax also contributes. It is up to LBHF what carriageways and footways they spend it on.Before the bridge closure LBHF had to pay for bridge carriageway and footway upkeep from their maintenance budget and it will be no different if it is for walking and cycling except it will cost less.  So a reduced burden on the maintenance budget.Surfacing for walking and cycling can be expected to last 30+ years.Which is not to say that something else might happen to the bridge.

Michael Robinson ● 382d

This money is predicated on the road over the bridge being a road for traffic which remains H&F's position - see quote from portfolio holder in the article on the temporary cycle lane reopening.I appreciate that not having lorries and buses trundling over it will reduce wear and tear but it is over a century old. The bridge will move regardless because it is designed to so regular resurfacing will still be required.The risk to me appears that a traffic free bridge might end up being a financial albatross for H&F with central government support for related costs no longer available and other parts of the council's budget, including for Active Travel, having to take up the slack.

Francis Rowe ● 382d

They should have started repairs or demolished it years ago. Why are Councils etc so good at wasting money, prevaricationg. A useless bridge may as well be ugly for all the good it is

Maggie Dodge ● 383d

Same as my thoughts Francis that there will be further issues with the bridge and cost of repairs exceeding the cost of a new bridge.

Janice Evans ● 383d

LBHF info on their website says:"On 6 December 2021 Cabinet agreed to deliver the Phase 1 stabilisation business case at speed, in good faith and at risk to the sum of £8.9m in anticipation of subsequent funding being reimbursed by DfT and TfL. That funding was subsequently received.""The Council has so far incurred significant costs of £29m since April 2019 on ensuring the continued safe operation of Hammersmith Bridge, delivering the stabilisation project, and developing plans for its future restoration.....So far, we have been reimbursed to a total of £8.5m from the £29m spent."The tarmac and bridge decking didn't appear to be in great condition from what I remember and with motor traffic this will simply wear out and need to be replaced periodically but this isn't structural.  It remains to be seen what they have done to improve this but the wear from people walking and cycling will be infinitesimal compared to motor vehicles.The unknown is if there will be some other 'gotcha' that will arise that hasn't been addressed by the Phase 1 stabilisation works referred to above.

Michael Robinson ● 383d

Looking at the numbers from H&F they appear to be spending first £300,000 and then £600,000 for repair which they claim to be their own money but ultimately comes from TfL.This is obviously inflated by the urgent need for stabilisation and the neglect of previous years but going forward there will need to be ongoing expense on maintenance. Further issues are likely to emerge with the bridge if its current structure remains in place even if no heavy vehicles are crossing. The question remains if it doesn't carry traffic, would it qualify for funding for roads and bridges that, up until now, did go to pay for pedestrian bridges?

Francis Rowe ● 383d

I was reading about the repair and that the bearings were going to be replaced with rubber, not sure what the original bearings are made of I think iron.

Janice Evans ● 383d

Better not let Rancid Robinson cycle over it. That would really put a strain on the infrastructure.

Simon Hayes ● 383d

Will the foundations hold up even without the traffic, it's still deteriorating.

Janice Evans ● 383d

The bridge surface was pretty dodgy prior it being closed for cycling.  I'll try and cycle over sometime next week to see if they have improved it.TfL announced their 24/25 funding for boroughs during the week and there was £2.1M allocated for 'Principle Road Renewal' and £2.5M for 'Bridge Assessment and Strengthening' but this was for all of London and they didn't say what individual boroughs were getting.For the other funding 'pots' provided by TfL, LBHF wouldn't be able to use this purely for resurfacing.  It would need to be part of a wider project. For example, a scheme to improve safety on a road could involve additional pedestrian crossings, a redesign of some aspects of the road and maybe the road gets resurfaced as part of the project but there needs to be the other benefits as well.Boroughs have other sources of funding in addition to TfL.

Michael Robinson ● 384d

Or LTN infringements? Councils should invest proceeds from motoring infringements to invest in Active Travel schemes and public realm improvements including removal of redundant parking spaces.

Paul Campbell ● 384d

While this is welcome and overdue, if the bridge remains open to pedestrians and cyclists only will it qualify for government funding for ongoing maintenance from the pot for road maintenance or will the council need to cover the cost from other sources such as active travel funding?

Francis Rowe ● 384d

Great news! Genuinely looking forward to cycling across with the family. It was a lovely but brief experience before.

Paul Campbell ● 384d

https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/news/2024/02/temporary-cycle-lanes-across-hammersmith-bridge-open

Michael Robinson ● 384d

Bicycles got pushed off the roads? Really? Niw cars are being pushed off the roads by bicycles. Which serves a greater purpose?

Maggie Dodge ● 387d

Unfortunately that's how it is.  Cars have become wider and too many drivers are impatient and don't see why they shouldn't overtake all cyclists however much (or little) space there is.  It's a general lack of patience and respect for others though because  cyclists will also insist on weaving through pedestrians crossing on a pedestrian crossing instead of losing their momentum and actually stopping.

Philippa Bond ● 387d

Stop blaming drivers for cyclists law breaking please.

N V Brooks ● 387d

Hadn't you ever noticed bicycles before?  Unfortunately there had been a break in cycle proficiency tests at school. Cycles  had been becoming more and more noticeable on the pavements as they got pushed off the roads by agressive and selfish drivers.

Philippa Bond ● 387d

Francis, decent politicians don't pander to misheld perceptions. Firstly, it just wastes our collective wealth, and secondly they won't be thanked when they can't deliver. I'm sure you can think of some examples, but you seem willing to encourage it here.DfT were underwriting TfL's contribution as well so it was indeed two thirds in all.Less than two months ago on this thread you reassured us: "I can’t claim any solid inside knowledge on what is going on here. People I have been speaking to about it are not in the room but perhaps could be said are ‘room adjacent’... Where we are now is that DfT and TfL and (reluctantly) H&F are on board with a toll funded bridge with all vehicles charged."Now you say that we have "a zombie government with zero interest in initiating the repair of the bridge which would probably be completed under Labour." Evidently, those room-adjacent people had difficulty realising that nobody was really on board anything. Have you noticed that all the people you have been speaking to support your viewpoint but turn out to be no better informed than you? It's an odd coincidence.

Tom Pike ● 389d

When you were younger did you dream of being a repetitive and obsessive  old bore who develops strange fixations on strangers?

Paul Campbell ● 389d

"...hampered by the damage caused to their critical faculties by prejudice and wishful thinking."Pots and kettles, Humpty.

Richard Greenhough ● 389d

Yet again the most important error in Francis' argument is being overlooked. His assertion that there is unanimity in the view that Putney is suffering worse congestion and pollution than in 2018 has no supporting evidence or facts. It is based on discussions with acquaintances who are very likely quite similar to Francis in their outlook and therefore equally hampered by the damage caused to their critical faculties by prejudice and wishful thinking.

Paul Campbell ● 389d

Francis, maybe some people just aren't being honest about their self-interest wanting the convenience to simply drive over the bridge but instead it is "Oh, the pollution, the congestion....".

Michael Robinson ● 389d

Tom, your figures well may prove that people in the area are subject to a collective delusion but, in political terms at least, it is perception that matters.Isn't the DfT's funding offer one third? I struggle to understand why you think this is in anyway relevant. It was made in bad faith by a zombie government with zero interest in initiating the repair of the bridge which would probably be completed under Labour.  All that matters is what the next government decides to do. I'll admit that remains very much up in the air but there is no looming deadline for the project.

Francis Rowe ● 389d

Before the cycle lobby got their teeth in to us. There would never have been an option but to repair and open the bridge

Maggie Dodge ● 389d

One month to go until the DfT commitment to finance two thirds of the cost of the reopening to cars runs out. Sarah Olney is meeting with the HoL Transport minister to discuss pedicabs.

Tom Pike ● 389d

Francis, according to DfT travel times on Upper and Lower Richmond Roads followed very similar trends to the rest of Richmond between 2019 and 2022. Yes, the flyunder has as much chance as Hammersmith Bridge if ever seeing a vehicle.

Tom Pike ● 389d

Tom, roads such as Lonsdale Road and Rocks Lane will inevitably have seen a dramatic fall in traffic given their proximity to the bridge but the falls can't be seen as representative of traffic levels and congestion across Barnes and Mortlake. Some roads such as Castelnau have been more or less cleared but others such as Mortlake High Street and Upper and Lower Richmond Roads are perceived to be much more congested.I would also dispute that the rather scant details provided by H&F Council prove they have changed their stance on Hammersmith Bridge. However it would be correct to say that their plans would be a lot easier to implement if the bridge remains closed. The reality is probably that this is a pie in the sky scheme designed to allow councillors and council planners to play a real life version of Sim City and will never get beyond the drawing board therefore has zero relevance to the future of Hammersmith Bridge.

Francis Rowe ● 390d

Mark, I'm certainly not going to defend the funding model for the flyunder: LBHF originally estimated that the release of land for development would fund the project, but that was when it was estimated to cost £200m and was even a stretch then.LBHF have actually been consistent that they don't have funding themselves for either the bridge or flyunder. They didn't have to pay for the £200m repair to the flyover either.But amidst the wishful thinking, it does look like LBHF's engineers and planners  are being realistic about the prospects of Hammersmith Bridge reopening to traffic and not including it in their future scenarios.

Tom Pike ● 390d

Some aspects of the plan mentioned in the article about the 'flyunder' would be worthwhile but the tunnel itself is truly bonkers.The 'artists impression' for some reason doesn't show the surface roads that would still be required, the 100m+ long tunnel portal trenches that would be needed for the tunnel and assuming they didn't want to sever access to the river totally, the bridges they would need to build over the tunnel portal trenches.I remember the last time the tunnel was being discussed, in a survey the good citizens of Hammersmith and Fulham didn't want the tunnel portals to be in their borough but thought they should be in Hounslow and K&C instead.

Michael Robinson ● 390d

To me the rise or fall of traffic over the last few years is irrelevant.The questions we should be asking are what are our needs into the future?How much is the population going to grow over the next ten to thirty years?How are people going to move about the City in the future?Do we need to build and maintain our public transport links?Alternatively  can we really just carry on kicking these issues down the road? Not an option in my book. Bullets need to be bitten.

Adrian Irving ● 390d

Should I read into that post that you think it's the "highway authority" (sic) that should fund this? And not TfL?If so, when you say "highway authority" who do you mean?Is it national highways?  https://nationalhighways.co.uk/about-us/what-we-do/ I'm genuinely interested in who you think should fund the reopening of Hammersmith Bridge to motorised traffic.

Andrew Jones ● 390d

Tom, that’ll be the one costed at £811m whilst approx 30% of that can’t be found to do the bridge … you couldn’t make this rubbish up.

Mark Talbot ● 390d

Francis, it's certainly quite plausible that traffic on the A3 that used to head up to Hammersmith Bridge at Roehampton Lane now just keeps going. However traffic counts a little further into town are well done: manual counts averaged just under 70k a day before the closure peaked at 76k in 2018 immediately after the closure and is now below 60k.Every traffic count in Barnes is also very significantly down on preclosure levels: Lonsdale Road, for example, 7526 in 2018 and 3504 now, down 53%; Rocks Lane, 16982 in 2012 (last manual count), 6605 in 2021, 61% down. It's simply not credible to claim that traffic is not very much reduced in Barnes, well below the general reduction of less than 10% across London, whatever conversations you might have had.As for political pressure, you might have missed that there has been an attempt to revive the Hammersmith Flyunder as a longer-term project by LBHF. Notably, the map of the strategic routes involved do not include one over Hammersmith Bridge.

Tom Pike ● 390d

Michael, bridge crossings may have fallen but that just mirrors the general decline in traffic over this period.Despite this there is a perception of severely worsened congestion in certain areas since the Hammersmith Bridge closure. I was out the other night with people who live in one of the affected areas and they were adamant about the causation and they are aware of the dangers of false recollection making them unlikely to be victims of a collective delusion.I put to them the figures that you have quoted and asked how it could be that there are fewer vehicles but more congestion.The main thrust of the response was that Hammersmith Bridge was the primary route for traffic coming into central London from the A3 and now most of that has switched to Putney Bridge. At the same time traffic has increased on some roads running parallel to the river so, while overall traffic is down, these routes have become busier. The offset is that traffic has disappeared from some other roads but this is little consolation to you if your home or route to work is now plagued by congestion.In addition the Clean Air Neighbourhood restrictions introduced by H&F Council have diverted more traffic onto Fulham Road and New Kings Road which means tailbacks are reaching Putney Bridge.People living in the area dispute that there has been any traffic evaporation point out that Barnes, always poorly served by public transport, is now very isolated meaning that cars are the only option for many more journeys than before.The concern has to be that WFH and a general downturn in economic activity has reduced traffic overall but we don't know yet whether this is a trend that will continue or if we will slowly return to levels seen in the previous decade. If so, the problems currently being experienced are going to get worse. Large scale developments south of the river look set to add to the problem.My take on this is that the argument that another bridge crossing isn't needed because overall crossing have fallen seems questionable. Taking a helicopter view and looking at top level data gives a misleading picture as to what is happening on the ground.Of course you could be right and people in the area are forgetting how bad things were before and only imagining that the current problems are a new thing. In a way, it doesn't really matter if this is the case because the perception that Hammersmith Bridge being shut is a bad thing  seems to be just about universal in the affected areas therefore political pressure for reopening is unlikely to abate.

Francis Rowe ● 390d

Cycle lanes I  read are paid for  by the highway authority - which in most of England and Wales is part of the local authority. 🤷‍♀️

Maggie Dodge ● 392d

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/61604/pedicabs-and-hammersmith-bridge

Philippa Bond ● 392d

https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/richmond-mp-suggests-pedicabs-to-take-people-across-hammersmith-bridge/

Philippa Bond ● 392d

If you look at data for all the neighbouring bridges (Twickenham, Kew, Chiswick, Putney, Wandsworth, Battersea, Chelsea, I couldn't see data for Albert), traffic is less now compared to before Hammersmith bridge closed and is a lot less than the 00s.  I don't see any point looking further afield than this for 'dispersed' traffic.The fact that all the bridges show a similar pattern, as does, for example Tower Bridge which is nowhere near, would suggest there are wider issues affecting traffic than Hammersmith Bridge.I'd suggest that a large proportion of the traffic that previously used Hammersmith Bridge was made up from discretionary journeys that could be substituted through other means including not travelling at all.  So there was no need for a large proportion to disperse anywhere, and the reduced vehicle counts on neighbouring bridges indicate this.

Michael Robinson ● 392d

Not necessarily. Congestion may discourage people from using a particular route dispersing traffic rather than reducing demand just as it has done on Chiswick High Road. I have to admit I don't have an explanation of why traffic appears to be slower moving even though, based on your figures, there are fewer vehicles. On Chiswick Bridge, the A316 works must come into play, but I don't know for Putney, maybe more lorries and vans and larger cars?As for anecdote being unreliable, you may of course be right, but there seems to be unanimity in the Putney area that the problem has got worse. They are south of the river, so a collective delusion of the local population can't be ruled out, but it does seem odd to me that so many people could be so mistaken.

Francis Rowe ● 392d

https://www.londonworld.com/news/traffic-and-travel/hammersmith-bridge-driverless-shuttle-pods-crossing-car-free-4140477Only six months ago this was around and I thought that there was something newer.

Philippa Bond ● 392d

That makes no sense Francis.  By definition, fewer vehicles  equates to falling demand.The trouble with anecdotes such as the ones you quote is unless people have been systematically recording data, their memory of traffic in the past is hugely unreliable.

Michael Robinson ● 392d

Funds from LTNs are to cover all transport I think, don't know enough about funding.

Janice Evans ● 392d

So I take it you mean TfL should pay.

Andrew Jones ● 392d

As has been pointed out many times before, fewer vehicles crossing is often a sign of increased congestion rather than falling demand. It is difficult to unpick what is happening on Chiswick Bridge because of work on the A316 but Putney Bridge is blocked much more than it ever used to be bringing Putney High Street to a standstill according to people who live there and the local MP Fleur Anderson.

Francis Rowe ● 392d

"This is putting even further pressure on the already struggling Putney Bridge."DfT traffic counts for Putney High St just S of Putney Bridge showed daily average of 16502 vehicles for 2022.  The next previous non-estimated counts were in 2018 with an average of 19713. This is lower in turn than the traffic in the early 00s with 25078 in 2002.Counts on the A316 S of Chiswick Bridge show a similar pattern.  Traffic levels now are lower than the year before Hammersmith bridge closed and a lot lower than traffic in the 00s.

Michael Robinson ● 392d

Serious answer. Yes and if there is political will and source of funds for endless cycle lanes then I suggest we demand they find both for this essential bridge.  Khan is being questioned about £247 million for something, perhaps he could offer that as a deposit.

Maggie Dodge ● 392d

It seems a bit unfair to ask the Mayor to pay given that TfL doesn't own the bridge, isn't likely to get funding to pay for it and wasn't responsible for the neglect that caused this problem in the first place. A toll stills seems the most viable way to pay for it but working out the details of any arrangement will be difficult.The recent restrictions by K&C on Albert Bridge seems to be diverting crossings by HGVs further west. Although there was a weight restriction already this was being enforced by a width restriction so vehicles that were too heavy but not too wide could cross. Now this is camera enforced which means big vehicles are looking to cross elsewhere.Battersea Bridge is already very congested, more so since the much needed junction changes of the north side to increase safety, and the capacity of Wandsworth Bridge has been reduced due to bus priority and cycle lane measures. This is putting even further pressure on the already struggling Putney Bridge.As has been pointed out, large developments in Barnes/Mortlake is going to add to these pressures over time. It's not clear what the mechanism is to improve things for this part of London if Hammersmith Bridge isn't to be fully reopened.

Francis Rowe ● 392d

Mine was a serious question, Maggie.You've written that the bridge is a necessity, but for it to reopen to motorised traffic it's going to need the political will and also a source of funds to be in place. Otherwise it's all just wishful, pie in the sky thinking.

Andrew Jones ● 392d

I can spill the beans on that one. Electric rickshaw .....Out.Electric Trebuchet.....In That's latest genius idea from these fools.Probably.

Adrian Irving ● 392d

What has happened to the idea of having an electric rickshaw?When I last wanted to cross there I just walked across.  There are other ways to cross the river.

Philippa Bond ● 392d

As badly informed as Ron Mushiso.

Phil Kay ● 392d

You Andrew , I nominate you

Maggie Dodge ● 392d

The mayor of London should pay for it. Problem is, he has no interest in West London or South West London. If Zac Goldsmith had been mayor, the Bridge would be open to traffic by now.

Steve Taylor ● 392d

When thinking about the bridge please bear in mind the large project which is the redevelopment of the Mortlake Brewery Site. It will add to the volume of traffic - electric or otherwise on any crossing and most certainly to Chiswick bridge. Replace Hammersmith Bridge or make a new crossing and new bridge. We didn't keep the old London Bridge with all the shops on it so why the nostalgia now? Agreed it is like a giant Meccano set and a spanner big enough could undo it or so I like to think but please be realistic. Bridges can be beautiful, elegant and highly functional.Maybe we need to sell it to the States again!

Katrina Black ● 392d

So who do you think should pay to get the crossing re-opened Maggie?

Andrew Jones ● 392d

Well money is no object when it suits the powers that be, but is also the excuse when they don't want to do something. Convenient.  We all know that to be true.  As for the bridge, while I understand your point and of course it is a beautiful structure, we have to be less sentimental if it is destructive to our day to day living.  The cyclists will tell you that the answer is to get us out of our cars and get us all walking and cycling, but we need to be realistic and stop being led by the nose by this minority group, with far too much influence for the good of the majority.

Maggie Dodge ● 392d

I have severe doubts that the bridge will ever reopen to normal traffic. I am not convinced that it can ever be made strong enough to withstand the tonnage of vehicles that seemingly want to use it, or at least cannot be made strong enough without totally compromising its historical importance.As a society we have to decide to what extent we want to preserve buildings, monuments and infrastructure of historical importance.  I am a history geek, so I am definitely biased in favour of preservation. Preservation of the bridge in its correct historical setting means that if there is a need for a more capacity for river crossing by vehicles a new bridge/tunnel needs to be built.  In the long run it would be cheaper to make that decision quickly

Justin Stephenson ● 393d

Yep 👍

Maggie Dodge ● 393d

“ Not what a global city like London needs.”And if London wants to remain a ‘global city’ it doesn’t need an incompetent mayor like Kahn who is intent on ruining the infrastructure for political reasons.

Steve Taylor ● 393d

It did strike me as a (pre-mayoral election?) "political" post - a shame as a lot of the time I do find myself agreeing with his perspective on things.

Andrew Jones ● 393d

“or are we just useless except for building cycling infrastructure ☺️”Err, no, we are also useless at building a safe cycling infrastructure. We have a dangerous cycling infrastructure which is mish-mash and particularly dangerous for commuters having to dodge cyclists when trying to reach the bus islands.

Steve Taylor ● 393d

I was thinking the same thing. If Ron Mushiso had read this thread, he would have been SO much better informed. His comments are 100% politically biased against everybody who isn't in the Conservative party.  No mention of the decision currently lying with Mark Harper's Transport Department nor that one of his predecessors falsely guaranteed that they could get the bridge open quickly. I'm not at all saying that there's an easy solution here but why is Cllr Mushiso pretending that there is?

Phil Kay ● 393d

And where is the magic money tree that is going to provide the funds for the bridge to be repaired?As an LBHF resident I don't want LBHF to raid their reserves or borrow money to fund any of the required works, and as a user of TfL public transport I'd rather the money was spent elsewhere. I'm sure some sort of shuttle capable of carrying bus passengers from one end of the bridge to the other would be far cheaper than the amount the reopening the bridge to buses would cost.

Andrew Jones ● 393d

"The Urgent Need to Reopen Hammersmith BridgeChiswick Gunnersbury councillor Ron Mushiso reports back"rowNot sure about the ULEZ comment but at least the is someone else who has the foresight to see the importance of reopening the crossing to public transport and emergency services to say nothing about motor vehicles.

Adrian Irving ● 393d

How long does it take to make a decision one way or the other? Is there an agenda?Or are we just useless except for building cycling infrastructure ☺️

Maggie Dodge ● 399d

Build a brand new copy of the old bridge. Or even re-use the outer cladding of the old bridge.

James Petri ● 400d

Also, allegedly  an admirer of Enoch Powell. Not what a global city like London needs.

David Burke ● 400d

She’s running for Mayor! Not knowing who owns Hammersmith Bridge, how much a police officer earns and how much a bus costs  might be OK for the average Joe but she is a London AM running for Mayor!

Paul Campbell ● 400d

I seem to remember that when this issue first came up I suggested dismantling the existing listed bridge and reinstating it upstream as a pedestrian/cyclist entrance to Kew Gardens, leaving the present site clear for either a modern construction bridge with sufficient clearance to let boats pass underneath at high tide (which is actually where this particular thread kicked off) or for a tunnel.

Richard Greenhough ● 400d

Bruce, there's already another bridge (Albert) where a 3t weight limit has just been introduced. Considering that Mercedes' EQV SUV weighs 2.8t we're very close to having to shut another bridge to road traffic.

Francis Sheehan ● 400d

Probably because like most of us she uses her Oyster card when boarding the bus and doesn't take note of the amount charged per journey.

Richard Greenhough ● 400d

What is this obsession with keeping a clapped-out bit of Victorian engineering?If the current bridge hadn't failed nobody would have suggested that it should just be closed to motor traffic. This is an important river-crossing. Let's strip out the agendas and politics and just get a nice new one built ASAP and for a fraction of the cost of preserving a pretty but crumbling relic. There are a lot of old bridges in London and  Hammersmith's probably won't be the last to fail. Are we really going to close them all?

Bruce Hammal ● 400d

In the same interview with LBC she didn't know the cost of a London bus fare

Paul Campbell ● 400d

I'm amazed that this bridge hasn't been reopened. Just imagine the hit to the economy this closure has for London. In the Netherlands or China even, this would have been rebuilt in less than 6 months. REALLY!

John Bird ● 400d

1 km, so 0.6 rather than 0.5 miles...Susan Hall on LBC this morning refused to commit to fund a reopening until seeing the accounts, though she was happy to promise to spend £200m on the Met without knowing if she had the money. She also quite mistakenly stated that the hold up was because of a dispute between the two councils who owned it, when in fact the issue is how LBHF, who actually solely own it, can fund their share while DfT and TfL (through DfT) fund theirs. Clearly this is not an issue at the front of her mind.

Tom Pike ● 400d

Shenanigans everywhere. Look at all that’s been said about Khan and still he’s Mayor? All the nonsense about air quality, all the lies. Don’t  even get me started on all the fake data by so called Professors . We are going to hell in a hand cart because whatever we know, price, nothing changes!

Maggie Dodge ● 400d

I'm gobsmacked at how people are simply swallowing up the pricetag that has been banded around for the repair (repair, not wholesale demolition and rebuild) of Hammersmith Bridge.A quarter of a billion pound for a 210 metre bridge, coming at a neat £1.2m per metre. By measure of comparison, in the notoriously low-cost Norway, they're building a 27 km undersea tunnel for less than €100k/metre.Crossrail, HS2, and now this: there's a point when we need to stop talking about incompetence and need to start admitting that there's some shenanigans going on.

Francis Sheehan ● 400d

After a quick look on Google Maps it appears that the nearest bus stop South of the bridge is close to Fielding Mews and therefore is just under a mile from the Underground. That's about a twenty minute walk.

Adrian Irving ● 400d

Yes , give Tom some figures and he always has “an interesting take”. Said very gently 😂

Maggie Dodge ● 400d

Is that the same as , beaten in to submission then. I think that’s what’s happening he really and we k is who’s doing the beating don’t we

Maggie Dodge ● 400d

"The pods actually provide about a third of the capacity of the previous bus passenger load so should substitute for most of the service outside of the peaks in any case." Tom, may I gently suggest you reflect on what you state.In short you are content for  service to decline by two thirds and worst still in rush hours. Really?

Adrian Irving ● 400d

Tom might be talking about the acceptance stage and beyond of the Kubler-Ross curve.Moving on is simply the acceptance of the situation and deciding that there is nothing to be gained from fighting the changes and/or maybe finding positive aspects of the changes.Don't think it's anything to do with physical movement.

Andrew Jones ● 400d

Tom you say “The people most directly affected by the closure have already moved on”. Maybe bed on or away? Driven out? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Maggie Dodge ● 400d

Thanks Adrian for expending on my link.I've often thought no one has mentioned that bridges are considered to be part of the strategic infrastructure of any country and on those grounds should be kept in good order.I have no specialist knowledge or authority to make that statement just something I've picked up over the years when travelling.Maybe others who are better informed know more about such things.

Katrina Black ● 401d

Sadiq Khan is rather expertly ensuring that the Conservatives do not wriggle out of their share of the blame for the bridge after Tony Devenish said that it should be renamed "Sadiq Khan's Bridge" to memorialise his failure in reopening it to cars. Clever politics to ensure that angry motorists don't forget the part the Tories are playing in this. Even better if those same angry motorists perceive Sadiq Khan to be a champion of their privileges.

Paul Campbell ● 401d

Adrian, the buses take passengers to within half a mile of the station, so the pods are mainly there for those who have difficulty with the ten-minute walk. The pods actually provide about a third of the capacity of the previous bus passenger load so should substitute for most of the service outside of the peaks in any case. As for emergency access, Chelsea and Westminster is most quickly accessed via Putney Bridge in any case. There’s been a recent community consultation in Barnes that reported back on the feedback for setting the agenda for Barnes over the next decade. Reopening the bridge to traffic is not even mentioned: https://www.barnes-ca.org/barnes-ponder-2-the-resultsThe people most directly affected by the closure have already moved on.

Tom Pike ● 401d

Jeremy, people tend to be more vocal about perceived loss than the same level of benefit, and politics will inherently reflect that. That doesn’t contradict the measurements of congestion and pollution, but it does mean that any attempt to reopen the bridge will now be strongly challenged by those who have measurably benefitted from the closure of the bridge to traffic.  The politicians know that the numbers don’t stack up in favour of putting traffic back across the bridge, but it costs them nothing to express concern for those who perceive any loss: in reality that has amounted to negligible progress in reopening the bridge.Indeed, whatever the politics, the failure to complete the geotechnical survey should be a strong hint as to the outcome, and the local politicians are now turning their attention to the alternatives.

Tom Pike ● 401d

Tom, I'm relying on what people I know who live in areas such as Putney and Mortlake tell me about the negative impact of the bridge closure. It may be that they are subject to a collective delusion and the figures that you cite do indeed prove the congestion they believe they see isn't there but the Mayor and their local MPs don't think this is the case and have pledged action. Impressive as your wrangling of the numbers maybe, you have failed to convince the people that matter.With Putney High Street, the fall in pollution is attributed by everyone else to the conversion of the local bus fleet and some are claiming that it is being helped by congestion because hybrid buses don't go fast enough any more to need to use their diesel engines.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 401d

Good, I pleased you acknowledge that there are other major factors at play here Tom.Maybe you could also agree the bridge restoration cannot  be a can kicked down road forever and in the long to medium term it would be a useful bus route/emergency services if nothing else.The pimped up golf cart "solution" is not the answer is it?

Adrian Irving ● 401d

Why are some drivers so glib about destroying a historic structure that will still enable walkers and cyclists to cross the river? Is it really that important for you to drive that way instead of over Chiswick Bridge?

Paul Campbell ● 401d

There seem many technical reasons to abandon the old bridge and build a new one, but the country now seems unable to contemplate new infrastructure projects, with cries of ‘who needs this bridge anyway, or this road/railway/power station/water works/flood defence/housing…’

Peter Evans ● 401d

INRIX data shows traffic is moving more quickly across Chiswick and Putney Bridges, and pollution has fallen on Putney High St. There’s simply no evidence that people are still suffering more congestion and pollution as a result of the closure, quite the opposite not just in Barnes but north of the river where there is much high density social housing. There is no doubt those communities would suffer if the bridge was reopened. To be clear, I’m sure Adrian is correct that traffic patterns have shifted as a result of the pandemic and the changes in commuting that have followed. But that’s rather the point: the need for a crossing at Hammersmith has diminished for just these reasons as the costs have spiralled.Add in the real technical doubts raised by COWI failing to yet complete the geotechnical survey with just weeks left until the DfT’s commitment to fund its share of the bridge run out, and the chances of ever seeing a car cross that bridge again are looking very close to zero.

Tom Pike ● 401d

Tom is aware that the number of vehicles crossing river bridge falling is not necessarily an indication of reduced congestion. Certainly in the case of Putney at least, it is because traffic is being diverted away because of increased journey times.The notion that closing bridges evaporates traffic may play well in the Edwardian villas of Castelnau and Lonsdale Road but there are many other communities both north and south of the river that feel they have been blighted by the closure of Hammersmith Bridge. The theory of evaporation is that eventually these issues become self correcting as drivers give up because journeys are uneconomic or unviable but, here we are, five years on with people still stuck with queues of traffic outside their homes that weren't there before.The Mayor, committed as he is to the promotion of active travel, has acknowledged this and doesn't seem to have been persuaded that rising costs have made reopening Hammersmith Bridge unviable. The fly in the ointment may have been highlighted in the link shared by Katrina. The rest of the country also has failing infrastructure but believes London gets preferential treatment. We know this isn't true but internal Labour Party politics may put Hammersmith Bridge to the end of the queue meaning it will be a decade at minimum before it reopens.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 401d

Thank you for this link. I have taken the liberty of setting it out below as it is another shocking example of years of incompetence and mismanagement just like Hammersmith. A stitch in time saves nine. When we learn?BBC HomepageTyne Bridge row deepens as government accused of 'crass neglect'Published17 hours agoShareRust on the Tyne BridgeImage caption,The landmark is badly in need of a revamp, local council leaders and MPs sayA row over government funding for the Tyne Bridge's restoration has deepened amid claims the structure is being treated with "crass neglect".The Department for Transport (DfT) has pledged more than £40m towards the scheme, but the money has not yet been handed over to local councils.The government says the authorities did not submit necessary paperwork until last month.Labour's Gateshead MP Ian Mearns said the matter must be resolved quickly.He claimed the government had shown "crass neglect" towards one of the most recognisable symbols of the North East.He has mentioned the bridge in Parliament three times this month, including during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday when he said it was "instantly recognisable around the world as an emblem of Tyneside".Mr Mearns warned of "significant additional cost implications if funding does not come forward" soon.Funds 'still outstanding'There are worries further delays to the repairs - the first major maintenance on the bridge for more than two decades - will result in the crossing's condition worsening even further.Engineering works are expected to take around four years to complete, and setbacks could mean work would not be completed in time for the structure's centenary celebrations in October 2028.Mr Mearns told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the funding would have been delivered by now "if this was Lambeth Bridge, or Westminster, or Waterloo" - three bridges within sight of the Houses of Parliament in London.Newcastle City Council said the DfT had been in possession of the final business case for the revamp since last July, and that minor clarifications were then submitted in November.It added that work on the main bridge had been scheduled to start in early 2024 but that the government funds were "still outstanding".The DfT said the business case was "in the process of being assessed", having now received the final supporting documents.It added the bridge would be restored alongside other projects across the North of England using money "reinvested" from the scrapping of the Northern leg of the HS2 rail project.Following years of campaigning, the DfT announced in June 2022 it would put £35.3m into a project to refurbish both the bridge and the Central Motorway.More recently it promised to cover the full £41.4m cost.

Adrian Irving ● 401d

My apologies Tom, maybe I haven't been clear.Equating the decrease in traffic as a direct result of the closure rather ignores other important factors.Working from home, ULEZ, expanded ULEZ,stagnant economy, cost of living come to mind.

Adrian Irving ● 401d

This today on BBC. It makes you wonder how many more...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-68041948

Katrina Black ● 401d

Adrian, it’s not an implication but a fact that that traffic is now lower on the neighbouring bridges contrary to claims that the closure has led to traffic simply being displaced. I just walked over the bridge and can confirm that the second stage of the geotechnical exploration works has not occurred.  This would have involved excavations and boreholes between the towers and  required planning permission as the bridge is listed as grade II. Permission was granted last March, but none of the permitted work has yet occurred. The reason for this exploration was to confirm that the underlying pier could support the truss of the temporary bridge.  Without such a structural analysis, there is no basis for proceeding with this option. LBHF’s outline business case based on the truss option has been awaiting approval since April. If that option is not yet been even been judged technically  feasible, it is difficult to see how DfT can approve the costings in the OBC.  Why the work has not yet taken place is another question, but it does support my initial speculation that the structural integrity of the original 200-year-old foundations cannot be verified. It would have been preferable to have done such a geotechnical survey much earlier. If indeed the bridge is essentially impossible to strengthen to carry motor vehicles, we might by now already have the alternatives up and running to carry passengers between Barnes and Hammersmith Broadway

Tom Pike ● 402d

Cannot justify spending that amount, so talk of a toll was never going to happen.

Janice Evans ● 402d

Tom, I take it you unintentionally implied the closure of Hammersmith Bridge had a direct  connection to lower traffic on the two adjcent crossings.

Adrian Irving ● 402d

Thank you, so as only vehicles pay a toll, there will never be a toll eitherfor the upkeep.

Janice Evans ● 402d

Andy Slaughter back in 2020 quoted a TfL cost benefit ratio of 5.8, but at that time the costs were estimated at around £100m.Since then the costs have more or less tripled and traffic across both Chiswick and Putney bridges is lower than before the closure.In any case it is probably better to rely on politicians’ actions rather than words.  Whatever you might perceive to be the strength of the case, there has been no rush to restore traffic across the bridge and time itself means that any necessity for action has been severely eroded.  And if anything could make DfT even more disinclined to spend any money of Hammersmith Bridge, it’s seeing Saddiq Khan take £250m from them to get over the hump and then spend a good proportion of that freezing fares in the run up to an election.

Tom Pike ● 402d

Just a question, why does it have to be a loan to rebuild the bridge, in 5 years funds from LTNs would cover the cost then a toll could financeupkeep.

Janice Evans ● 402d

Tom, according to cost benefit ratios calculated by TfL and quoted by Andy Slaughter MP the argument for reopening is very strong and probably remains so even allowing for ever rising costs. The Mayor's recent statement seems to confirm this is still the accepted position.It seems to me inconceivable that the bridge isn't under discussion between senior figures in the Labour Party. As I say, you can read the Mayor's comments both as a criticism of the current government and a gentle nudge to the next one. He probably wouldn't have been so specific if he wasn't confident of some progress eventually and if engineering reports were suggesting the reopening was too challenging. That of course doesn't mean that a cash strapped Labour government will not have other priorities.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 402d

Below is another example of the blame game joke show .From the Evening StandardLeo Murray, co-director of climate charity Possible, said: "The reality is that Hammersmith Bridge isn't going to reopen to cars anytime soon. The good news is that a car-free crossing can be so much better than what we had before with just a tiny bit of imagination."We can still keep both sides of the river connected while tackling traffic if we think creatively - and that's what we need to do to keep London moving while cutting carbon and calming down our roads. Hammersmith Bridge could be an example of the London we need to get through the 21st century."But Mr Khan said: “No, I do want that bridge reopened for vehicles. I have seen the challenges there are for families in and around the bridge, the queues there are to other bridges.“Of course I want more walking and cycling, using public transport. I want buses to be able to use that bridge as well. Unless there are improvements made, reinforcements made, buses can’t use that bridge.”On Thursday Tory assembly member Tony Devenish suggested renaming the “Sadiq Khan bridge” to embarrass him into action.But Mr Khan hit back: “There’s only one politician that’s into ego and vanity – that’s the previous mayor [Boris Johnson], not me.”A TfL spokesman said: The bridge is an important transport link and we continue to raise the reinstatement of bus links across the river in discussions with the Department for Transport and the borough.“The borough's business case is currently with the DfT for approval and we will support the borough in progressing their next steps.”

Adrian Irving ● 402d

Jeremy, there has been no shift in the real position for five years. The bridge is unlikely to be restored because of the enormous costs compared to the dubious benefits. And it is crystal clear that Sadiq Khan is referring to the current government, the one that promised "to write the cheque" but has been sitting on LBHF's proposal since April.But whatever the Mayor might say, his actual priority is not on reserving any money from the last tranche from central government to spend on TfL's share of the bridge costs. It's to keep fares down for all Londoners.  I also similarly very much doubt there are any discussion with Labour at any level on this based on similar rather obvious political calculations.Whether it's after the geotechnical report or when the commitment from DfT to fund it runs out in March, any pretence at a reopening to motor vehicles will soon be over.

Tom Pike ● 402d

Simon, if you are going to accuse people of being extremist bigots, it would be an idea not to sound like one.The Mayor has now given an unambiguous statement about his continuing desire to fully reopen Hammersmith Bridge.https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hammersmith-bridge-reopened-car-drivers-sadiq-khan-b1133494.htmlWe can probably put to bed the notion that there is a shift in the position of any key decision maker on the desirability of full reopening. This appears to be wishful thinking on the part of Michael and Tom.That said the Mayor is now talking in terms of 'up to £300 million' cost so this figure keeps rising.If you listen to what he actually says in the video, it looks like there is a subtext in that when he says 'the government' he could just as easily mean the next one as the current one. Discussions are clearly on going with the Labour Party at a national level, and I'm sure the Mayor would like to have some good news for electors on Hammersmith Bridge before May. The problem is will Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be willing to give him such a helping hand with the cost ever rising and Sadiq Khan looking nailed on to win anyway.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 402d

I agree Paul having to spend probably more like £300,000,000 is ludicrous.If only the structure had been properly maintained over the decades instead of being left to the rot away.Those responsible should hang their heads in shame.What is ludicrous or should I say tragic is our inability to  improve or maintain structure and services. Instead we play childish blame games perfectly illustrated by this joke show.

Adrian Irving ● 402d

No as you have very helpfully pointed out sending £250m+ on a road for cars in inner London is a ludicrous idea when we have so many more deserving causes for the funds.

Paul Campbell ● 403d

No you don't see Paul. Can't you imagine that sometime in the future the world could be in a very different place  with new far less polluting transport modes.Public transport preferably.Handing future generations the crumbling relic of Hammersmith Bridge  fit  only for bicycles and pedestrians is a damning reflection on us. We won't be thanked for our incompetence.

Adrian Irving ● 403d

Oh I see. Yes I quite agree that the money that people want to spend on bringing cars back to Hammersmith Bridge would of course be better spent on all of those things apart from the navy.

Paul Campbell ● 403d

Until they want to go further afield and like to travel by car. As you like to do Campbell Of course your views and those of tubes like Rancid Robinson and co don’t count, according to Rancid’s twisted Irish logic. You don’t live in Hammersmith or Barnes so your views don’t matter. You have no votes there. At least that’s the opinion of your lardy cheerleader.Best use you and your chums could find for Hammersmith bridge is to chuck yourselves off and leave London to the normal people, not the extremist bigots.

Simon Hayes ● 403d

Yes Paul, small beer.I am thinking  a lot bigger,more about the state of our railways, public transport, the NHS, our rivers, relationships with Europe, the Navy (I could bore you for hours on about that) public services, etc etc.Correct me if I'm wrong but are any of those in fine fettle?You stick to your cycle lanes and leave the bigger picture to others.

Adrian Irving ● 403d

We are leaving them a massive LTN around Hammersmith Bridge with reduced pollution and safer streets. The more we take cars away from London streets the better it is for future generations of Londoners.

Paul Campbell ● 403d

Looks like yet another smelly stick we will be handing down future generations.Is there anything we have left in a better state for our kids to benefit from?Arguably cycle lanes but that's hardly a big deal is it.

Adrian Irving ● 403d

On the geotechnical survey, the Barnes Bugle reports:"We will all have seen the drilling works taking place on the riverbed in autumn 2023 which have been part of the process of testing the feasibility of the Foster Cowi solution. However, the planning application for these explorations also included work on the bridge’s piers involving digging through the bridge’s tarmac. These investigations don’t seem to have been started and, for now, all engineering equipment has now been removed from the bridge.  Where does that leave the engineers’ calculations for the installation of the Foster Cowi solution?"The drilling exploration from off the bridge should have confirmed the overall strength of the underlying undocumented foundations to support the truss bridge, while the pier work would have also confirmed that the pier itself had the strength to support the truss at the point of contact. If the drilling exploration raised concerns that the bridge foundations could not reliably support the truss, then a plan for underpinning the foundations would have to be developed. This was found necessary for Richmond Bridge in the 1930s which inserted concrete foundations to replace the original timber piling.  That would significantly increase the costs, even it were deemed compatible with preserving the listed status.

Tom Pike ● 403d

Fleur Anderson is certainly talking in those terms: "These increasing costs make it less likely the work can ever be done." She knows Labour will not prioritise spending £250m on what DfT state is a "local" London road so politically it makes sense to highlight that the lack of urgency from the current government has meant that any window of opportunity has closed, whether or not there really was one in the first place. In reality the prospects of a full reopening to traffic of a bridge built on 200-year-old foundations were never great and have been further diminishing for years.

Tom Pike ● 403d

Most of the ES article was already known: the £250m was the figure in the LBHF report on tolling the bridge last November.But there was an update in the article: LBHF "has waited since last April for the DfT to approve its business case, and cannot confirm a reopening date until this happens. The DfT said today that it was still reviewing the council’s proposals."Why is it taking so long for DfT to approve the proposals? It should certainly not be because they contain anything unexpected: in November the minister said "Following close co-operation with TfL and the Department, the borough has now developed and submitted a His Majesty’s Treasury Green Book outline business case for the second stage of the works to the Department for Transport, setting out the estimated cost range for strengthening the bridge."So a proposal developed in "close cooperation with TfL and the Department" has still failed to gain approval from  the same Department after 10 months, with now just 10 weeks left until the DfT's conditional commitment of financial support lapses. And any decision in the next 10 weeks will also depend on the results of the geotechnical investigation of the 200-year-old foundations. Without those foundations being judged safe to carry the weight of effectively two bridges, the truss approach which was the baseline for the LBHF proposal will no longer be an option.

Tom Pike ● 403d

Can't see why Sarah Olney saying this is particularly significant unless you interpret it as her laying down a gauntlet to the next government.If Fleur Anderson or Andy Slaughter started talking in these terms then I'd agree the prospects for a full opening would be fading.

Mark Evans ● 403d

I think all of the details her are known but agree that it is encouraging to see politicians like Sarah Olney finally begin to acknowledge what Tom Pike has been saying for a long time: nobody will ever drive a private car across this bridge ever again. And this is great news for everybody living around the bridge as pollution has fallen dramatically and a vast area has had all the benefits of LTNs conferred upon them with one simple modal filter.

Paul Campbell ● 403d

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hammersmith-bridge-repair-cost-when-will-it-reopen-to-traffic-b1133180.htmlLooks as if the penny is dropping with politicians that the bridge won't ever open again to motor traffic.

Michael Robinson ● 404d

The latest and likely last settlement letter from HMG to TfL was sent just before Christmas. It gave the final tranche of £250m capital spending to TfL before a predicted return to financial sustainability in March 2024. The letter prioritises the funds for the Piccadilly upgrade, specifying it "should not be used for any other purpose or to fund any new capital activity".Unlike the previous August 2022 letter, there is no mention of funding for Hammersmith Bridge. Therefore HMG's exisiting commitment to cover TfL's third of the bridge costs runs out in March 2024 as specified in that letter.  TfL's latest capital programme, published this month, also has no mention of Hammersmith Bridge.Maybe everyone is holding back for a surprise last-minute announcement before the end of March, though the rumours are that is unlikely to be the focus of political attention at that time.

Tom Pike ● 425d

That doesn't seem particularly true to me. In September 2020, then Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said of Hammersmith bridge: "We'll be decisive and quick to make sure we can take steps that'll be good for commuters, good for residents and good for business."The government has always been keen to reopen the bridge, they've simply been hamstrung by their own rhetoric and inability to build consensus. Shapps is one of very many who have pretended that this is a straightforward issue with an obvious solution.  It isn't and it hasn't.

Phil Kay ● 432d

“…can't really spend more time trying to explain things to you on financing…”All you need to do is put down your “simple” calculation to show how you came up with a figure of £14,000.I take it you don’t want people to think you plucked this number out of thin air, so it would be good to see your working. Otherwise it just looks like you’re dissembling.

Tom Pike ● 433d

Simple solution then - only allow nice and lighter ICE cars over, no electric or hybrid stuff.

Mark Talbot ● 433d

Francis, you simply refuse to read what LBHF put into their preprocurement notice, that the contract includes maintenance for 25 years, with a suggested toll of £3.25. You yourself said the £14,000 was supposed to cover capital and interest on £360m at 5% over 30 years. It doesn’t. You’ve completely messed up the sums and can’t bring yourself to admit it!

Tom Pike ● 433d

Tom, not sure why you have chosen this particular hill to die on and I can't really spend more time trying to explain things to you on financing as you aren't in receive mode.On the issue of maintenance, if you actually read what I have posted previously you will see they were never included in the calculations. Unlike the other projects you keep referring to, the private sector companies that would be involved in the construction, wouldn't have an ongoing responsibility to maintain.Maintenance is considered as an item to be covered out of general revenue rather than capital expenditure, so it probably wouldn't be funded by a bond. It is a 'forever' cost so needs an agreed funding basis longer than 30 years. It could be if bridge ownership was transferred to TfL they could use toll revenue to pay for maintenance but it looks like Labour are considering some sort of body to fund key infrastructure maintenance. However, maintenance is a relatively small factor in the context of the overall project. The bigger potential liability is what happens if the bridge is blown up or falls down. Where that liability sits is a difficult question but it probably has to be central government.I know you don't want the bridge to be fully reopened and are looking for arguments why it won't happen. You don't really need to make up spurious ones on the grounds of affordability - the complexity afforded by the involvement of three possibly four different agencies is going to be the main obstacle to it ever happening.

Francis Rowe ● 433d

Andrew, Francis made it clear that his calculation showed that "just under £14,000 a day would be needed to fund interest and capital repayment". He later specified that the capital he sought was £360m, not £240m, the interest rate was 5% and the term 30 years. £14,000 is not a "sound" answer to what is indeed a simple amortisation calculation. It's simply wrong, and by a very large margin!The daily interest alone is £42,000, so where exactly do you think there is any accumulated value from £14,000 to allow even a speculative profit in reinvesting the capital element? Where indeed did a figure of £14,000 come from?You are just attempting to muddy the waters and overlooking the glaring error that Francis made in his original calculation.

Tom Pike ● 433d

But we seem to be up against a body of opinion that doesn’t really want Hammersmith Bridge reopened to traffic, and would probably want other bridges and roads closed as well.

Peter Evans ● 433d

The fact that this bridge has been closed for so long is frankly pathetic, meanwhile other countries can build a new bridge in less than a year. I get the heritage status of it, but this delay seems more idiocy than sense!

John Bird ● 433d

Tom, the returns I am referring to are what is earned on the revenue over the life of the project. From day one it will generate cash and assuming the toll proceeds are held in something like an SPV it could acquire bonds at a similar maturity to the ones issued originally to fund the bridge. There may also be scope to provide a market in the bonds to earn additional essentially riskless trading income. Assuming a £240million issuance then in the final years of the bond the bridge will be generating over £30,000 a day in returns not including toll revenue. When you talk about amortisation, it leads me to think you are considering this to be like the mortgage on your house and therefore are significantly over-estimating the overall costs and the likely level of toll that would have to be charged. I don't know whether the figures provided by Francis are accurate or if his assumptions are as conservative as he claims to be but his overall approach is sound. I'm not sure but the reason why this type of financing can be done in London and not other parts of the country is probably the size of TfL's balance sheet. It is one of the few non-central government institutions that could raise financing on this scale. Elsewhere, such as the other projects you are trying to compare this with, a concession has to be offered to a private sector company to build and run the project. This means an equity risk premium has to be paid raising overall project cost. Funding Hammersmith Bridge within the public sector does mean that ultimately the tax payer takes on the risk of project delays and engineering issues which could add to the overall cost but these are unlikely to be material over the lifetime of the project. All this is theoretical however and inter-agency rivalry is likely to get in the way. However, I can see that 100% public sector funded infrastructure will appeal to the next government and schemes with an element of revenue generation will be additionally attractive. Labour will need to bring down debt to GDP so if they can structure projects in a way that they aren't reflected in the numbers they will be very keen. In London, road pricing is also on its way and I think that most people now accept that, if we want infrastructure that works, the people who use it have to pay for it. Hammersmith Bridge is a very important test case because it is one that could be delivered relatively quickly.

Andrew OSullivan ● 433d

The original bridge was never designed to take the weight of motor vehicles. Therefore to bring motor vehicles back so they don't continue to damage the structure takes much more than a restoration; it's a strengthening exercise and requires the dismantling of the roadway. The truss would allow cars back on, but only if the foundations can take the weight of the original and temporary bridge at the same time.The current stabilisation works are really the restoration, replacing the bearings and the road surface, the bits that have worn out. Afterwards it should be able to take a similar load from traffic as it was originally designed for, which is rather more than pedestrians and cyclists but a lot less than the motor traffic it used to carry.

Tom Pike ● 434d

Thank's Tom. Useful.As a layman I struggle to see how it would cost a further 200m to fully restore the crossing to carry motor traffic as opposed to fully restoring it just for people/ cyclists.I am guessing there are some grey areas yet to be explained.

Adrian Irving ● 434d

The current stabilisation work is to ensure that the bridge can remain open to cyclists and pedestrians. TfL recently gave a breakdown of their costs on to this August as £17m, so on the basis that TfL is financing a third if the total that come to £41m on the stabilisation works to date, so probably around £50m in total, though some of that is associated with preparing for a possible restoration.LBHF in their report on the toll order say: "The costs of carrying out the full works of restoration will be determined by the outcome of the procurement process. The current estimate is that they will cost up to £250 million."That report also states: "It has been agreed in principle that the costs will be borne equally between the Department for Transport, TfL and LBHF. The outline business case for approval of DfT funding is under consideration and the procurement process will not begin until OBC approval has been confirmed. It is envisaged that the DfT and TfL shares of the cost of the works will be paid while these are being carried out, and the Council’s share will be raised by private finance, which will be paid back by the contractor over the 25 year maintenance period."Francis previously stated "to cover the other two thirds with a 30 year bond secured on toll revenue for let's say £160million, just under £14,000 a day would be needed to fund interest and capital repayment." Clearly that was a miscalculation even on his original assumptions as 30 years of £14,000 a day doesn't even cover the capital. Just to fund interest and capital repayment for £250m over 25 years at 5% requires a £49k toll revenue which Francis assumed would come from 8000 tolls a day. That's just over £6 each way to cover the funding for construction, before adding in maintenance.  LBHF suggested a £3.25 toll would pay for one third of the construction costs which would then cost £2, leaving £1.25 for maintenance and other expenses. So on the same basis there would have to be a £7.25 each way toll to fully fund construction. That's just not going to be a viable toll level.

Tom Pike ● 434d

I'd like to believe that climate delayers lack the critical faculties to understand the evidence and process the net impact of overall reduction in vehicles but I know that they are typically more malicious and uncaring than thick.

Paul Campbell ● 434d

A question.What would be the difference in cost to restore and open just for pedestrians/cyclists or restore an open the the crossing for general traffic?An educated best guess please.

Adrian Irving ● 434d

I see that Humpty shows nil interest in the diverted buses and the extra emissions they cause by the lengthened journey.

Richard Greenhough ● 434d

Future generations will have no trouble seeing through one of the last desperate fallacies perpetuated by the car dependent generation as they saw their grip on the narrative failing: that traffic reduction schemes increase emissions. They won’t have much respect for the transparent cynicism and ignorance of evidence on the part of the climate change delayers and deniers.

Paul Campbell ● 434d

Having built the original M6 slap through the middle of the West Midlands conurbation and then been surprised that it regularly became heavily congested, the highway planners at the Department for Transport then had the bright idea of building a by-pass for it around the north of the conurbation, failed to link the new road to the M54, and decided to make it a toll road, meaning that many vehicles continued to use the original road. As a result, if you are prepared to pay the toll, it is a pleasant drive with very little congestion, except for when trying to link up to the M54 at its northern end. Meanwhile the original M6 remains highly congested. What they should have done was to make the new road free and put a toll on the original M6, at least for through traffic. That would have largely addressed the problem the new road was supposed to alleviate.

Richard Greenhough ● 434d

Humpty seems to be ignoring the fact that Hammersmith Bridge was used by buses and its closure means that anyone needing to travel from Barnes to Hammersmith has to make a lengthy diversion to do so as long as the bridge remains closed - by whatever form of motor vehicle they need to use - which inevitably adds to the emissions in the area.

Richard Greenhough ● 434d

What returns? The payments are simply to amortise the loan needed to finance the construction. It's the daily toll revenue needed to meet the daily loan payment so there is no balance on the construction cost loan after 30 years. Whether or not the loan could be refinanced at a discount is a different question, but the current rate represents the expectation over thirty years of the cost of finance that would generate neither a potential for profit or loss. You can't add in some speculative factor on one side just because it suits your argument.

Tom Pike ● 434d

I don't think he has. You don't seem to be taking into account the returns made on the revenues over the life of the project.  In practice what could happen is that the bonds could be bought back at a discount prior to maturity making the returns even higher.

Andrew OSullivan ● 434d

Francis, the toll is just being used to make payments that amortise the loan used to finance the construction costs. There's no capital element. The toll also has to cover maintenance costs over 30 years, so overall tolls will have to raise rather more than just cover the construction costs.You miscalculated and are now trying to make a spurious excuse for your error.

Tom Pike ● 434d

Ah, I think I understand now. Thanks for explaining.

Mark Evans ● 434d

Mark you are quite right but what Tom isn't taking into account is that from day one the surplus will be reducing the overall net debt and by year 15, assuming a straight line accumulation of a capital surplus, the project will be generating more interest received than interest paid out.

Francis Rowe ● 434d

Francis, while I'd like you to be right, Tom's numbers make more sense than yours. As far as I can see you are saying that the total cost of borrowing and capital repayment will be less than the initial project cost. I don't understand how that could be.

Mark Evans ● 434d

At 5% you need to raise £44k a day to pay off the £250m capital with interest in 30 years. Of course that takes into account the reduction of outstanding capital over the 30 years. You simply messed up the calculation.

Tom Pike ● 434d

"It's not difficult to come up with the amount needed to finance a £250m loan at current bond rates of 4.2% over 30 years and it's £39k a day, not £14k! "It's not difficult but you have failed to do it. You can't use the government bond yield because that isn't going to be the rate at which finance is raised. The rate I used was the current Public Works Loan Board one which is 5%.Your number for total cost a day is much higher than mine because you have failed to take account that over the course of the life of the debt the net amount outstanding steadily falls. You are quoting a gross figure for capital and interest repayment which is not the way that this works.

Francis Rowe ● 434d

"As far as I am aware who maintains the bridge is still to be decided and would be funded separately possibly through some new infrastructure quango being proposed by Labour. There is no profit element involved - equity funding isn't being proposed as far as I am aware."You continue to be unaware of items that in the public domain: LBHF have already proposed a design, build, finance and maintain tender in their preprocurement notice and public briefing."At current market rates the toll would need to generate around £14,000 a day to cover capital repayment and interest over a 30-year-period."It's not difficult to come up with the amount needed to finance a £250m loan at current bond rates of 4.2% over 30 years and it's £39k a day, not £14k! So you're already a factor of nearly three off in just the construction costs before adding in maintenance.It's simply impossible to raise all the funding necessary to restore the bridge using a toll, let alone maintain it as well for 30 years. You've had to make serious errors in your calculation to believe otherwise!

Tom Pike ● 434d

"if the toll is too high compared to using the alternative routes, the project will not be financially viable."The same applies if the toll is too low but a shortfall in revenue would not make the project financially unviable but would create a deficit that the bond issuer (probably TfL) would have to cover decades into the future. If there was flexibility in how the toll was charged this risk could be reduced to close to zero for the life of the project."And that toll has to be set sufficiently high to cover the costs of design, build, finance and maintain, plus a profit element."As far as I am aware who maintains the bridge is still to be decided and would be funded separately possibly through some new infrastructure quango being proposed by Labour. There is no profit element involved - equity funding isn't being proposed as far as I am aware. "There is clearly a point at which it is impossible to finance Hammersmith Bridge in total through tolls, and £250m is already way over that when you look at both Mersey Gateway and the M6 toll road."This is just unevidenced speculation on your part on a not-like for not-like basis of comparison. At current market rates the toll would need to generate around £14,000 a day to cover capital repayment and interest over a 30-year-period."COWI are part of the Mersey Gateway consortium than operate that bridge. They are very much interested in how that project was funded, as they have an ongoing interest in the bridge. "They are a consultancy with a tiny balance sheet and no real assets other than staff expertise. They may have an ongoing involvement in other projects but they don't fund them."If your simplistic calculations are good guides now, why are the Mersey Gateway tolls more than twice as high?"I don't know but I would anticipate because the circumstances are different."As to removing the exemption, that has little impact. Only a small minority of traffic was LBHF residents, and that has elastic demand."I wasn't aware such data existed and it would be interesting to know what the actual number was. When talking about exemptions I believe H&F council would wish to operate them in the same way they do for the South Fulham restrictions with residents being able to give access for deliveries and visitors. "In fact every year of closure means there is less profit to be had in reopening it. DfT, TfL and LBHF are all aware of this even if they don’t state it explicitly."This is just wishful thinking on your part."So there’s really no point in arguing that this represents a market opportunity to rebuild the bridge at no cost to the public purse, whatever numbers you come up with. If that were possible, we would already be seeing it. The issues above just provide the explanation."They really don't. The delay in any activity is down to a hiatus in effective government due to the current Westminster administration being a dead man walking. For all your undoubted expertise in many areas, financial markets is clearly not one of them as evidenced by many of your posts in this thread. I'm never going to persuade you to change your mind on the specific point that the rebuilding of the bridge is comfortably affordable if financed by a general toll which could be set at levels which are not prohibitive. To the best of my knowledge you have never changed your mind on any issue discussed on this forum and perhaps you should pause to consider whether this aids your understanding or areas outside your comfort zone.What you should not take from bald calculations of affordability is this process will be straightforward however. The involvement number of different agencies, even if there is a consensus on the ultimate objective, makes putting this together fiendishly complex. They all have a fiduciary duty to look after their own interests and it will need some very strong direction from the top to navigate all the challenges that this project would face. I have no idea whether the next government will be able to see this through.

Francis Rowe ● 434d

So levying a toll on Putney Bridge as well would avoid it becoming an over-popular free alternative and would help fund the work on Hammersmith Bridge, and with two bridges, each crossing could be half the price.

Peter Evans ● 434d

Those pedicabs look very trick for the less able to get into let alone clamber out.Style before function?

Adrian Irving ● 434d

LBHF look like they are now accepting the inevitable. They’ve just turned round 180 degrees from their stance just a few months ago and are now backing electric pedicabs as a viable option to bring back a measure of public transport over a stabilised, but car-free, bridge.https://www.fulhamsw6.com/#!pages/shared:common:ldrshambridge042It was the closure to buses rather than cars that had by far the largest impact.  This would mitigate that.

Tom Pike ● 435d

Francis, you continue to ignore the obvious risk: if the toll is too high compared to using the alternative routes, the project will not be financially viable. And that toll has to be set sufficiently high to cover the costs of design, build, finance and maintain, plus a profit element. There is clearly a point at which it is impossible to finance Hammersmith Bridge in total through tolls, and £250m is already way over that when you look at both Mersey Gateway and the M6 toll road. COWI are part of the Mersey Gateway consortium than operate that bridge. They are very much interested in how that project was funded, as they have an ongoing interest in the bridge. They could have chosen to be simply a contractor during the construction and maintenance but decided there was a profitable role for them in the longer term. If your simplistic calculations are good guides now, why are the Mersey Gateway tolls more than twice as high? As to removing the exemption, that has little impact. Only a small minority of traffic was LBHF residents, and that has elastic demand. The most inelastic demand is from Barnes residents close to the bridge, but that’s also a small fraction of the traffic that used to come from further afield.  And that less local  traffic has very elastic demand - you can’t even see an excess of traffic counts on the neighbouring bridges after the closure. It  certainly won’t be tempted back by a reopened bridge with a £3 toll as it’s already made changes to avoid the area altogether.  Indeed anybody financing this scheme would look at the clearest measure of unmet demand, excess traffic on neighbouring bridges, and conclude it was low and with it the expectation of any profit. In fact every year of closure means there is less profit to be had in reopening it. DfT, TfL and LBHF are all aware of this even if they don’t state it explicitly. So there’s really no point in arguing that this represents a market opportunity to rebuild the bridge at no cost to the public purse, whatever numbers you come up with. If that were possible, we would already be seeing it. The issues above just provide the explanation.

Tom Pike ● 435d

"if you want a good example of generational incompetence it is the generation who thought replacing Gunnersbury platforms with car parks was a good idea." Spot on Michael. Thank's for your good example of what I am saying. Maybe in years ahead people will be saying much the same thing about the bridge. Who knows.

Adrian Irving ● 435d

Again I agree Paul.

Adrian Irving ● 435d

When it comes to working out the cost of financing any project similar existing schemes offer very little useful in terms of a guide. This is because the key variable of any project will be risk not issues of engineering. You have to remember that the ultimate owners of any bonds issued will only be interested in whether the yield premium adequately compensates them for their investment risk and that more money will be spent on interest expense than building this bridge.COWI is an engineering consultancy and won't be involved in how the bridge is funded. The long term cost of capital can be accurately predicted by using market rates. The other variables I used were as conservative as I could make them, for instance I assumed that a fixed toll would apply for thirty years. You might call this back of a cigarette packet but there is very little chance of the calculations being significantly inaccurate.In mentioning the M6 toll, I wasn't endorsing it as a success just pointing out that, there was potential for toll rises to be incorporated into the future funding of the bond which would mean that lower charges could be applied initially.Your figure of £3.25 is for a toll structure in which residents would be exempt which I've tried carefully to explain simply isn't an option.Ultimately, the overall structure of the funding is very simple to work out. Good cash flow over the life of the project makes it low risk and therefore low cost. The problem comes in the detail for instance who is liable if the bridge is out of action for a long period or someone blows it up. There is a very small risk of this actually happening but someone needs to take on these liabilities and I can foresee disagreements as to who it would be.

Francis Rowe ● 435d

Looking at the financial basis of existing projects is rather more sound than your admitted back-of-an-envelope calculation! Mersey Gateway would be the baseline for COWI’s involvement. The M6 toll road is another good example: it’s certainly not the success you claim, either financially or in transport terms: it carries half the originally predicted traffic and failed to make a viable sales price at its last auction. It’s a good example of the elasticity of demand, with its high tolls meaning people stay on the M6 even with its congestion.At the other end is the Dartford crossing where the huge level of almost guaranteed traffic meant the tolls paid back the construction costs in a few years. For Hammersmith  Bridge, a £3.25 toll was set as a target level for potential bidders who would have to finance a third of the cost. It would be a design, build, finance and maintain contract. If you think it’s possible to do all that and finance the other two thirds as well, you should put in a bid! I doubt you would have any competitors but you should make sure you have someone willing to lend you the money first!

Tom Pike ● 435d

“  I feel certain that generations to come will not thank us for our incompetence.”Ah but what you haven’t considered Adrian is with every passing year the memory and numbers of those who used to drive over Hammersmith Bridge will reduce while those who will only know it for  walking and cycling will grow. The thought of turning it back to motor vehicles will be as unthinkable as , say,  restoring Horseguards as a car park.If you want a good example of generational incompetence it is the generation who thought replacing Gunnersbury platforms with car parks was a good idea.

Michael Robinson ● 435d

Oh they will think the same about our delusional denial about the harms of EVs for propelling private transport journeys in London. The insistence of these last car dependent generations on burning fossil fuels to power themselves around a city with buses, tubes and trains will just be seen as the most absurd and egregious example of our self-destructive tendencies.

Paul Campbell ● 435d

I agree Paul but you are not looking beyond fossil fuels as a method of propulsion.

Adrian Irving ● 435d

"If it is eventually opened as some sort of half cocked glorified foot/cycle bridge then I feel certain that generations to come will not thank us for our incompetence."Generations to come will not thank us for our dim-witted knuckle-dragging delay and denial tactics on the environment and public health and they will be dismayed that people were so short-sighted as to selfishly prioritise their own comfort and convenience to drive around London in private vehicles powered by fossil fuels.

Paul Campbell ● 435d

Re the original Mersey tunnel, with which I grew up:"Tolls have been a feature of tunnel use since the Queensway Tunnel opened in 1934. Although residents were originally told tolls would be removed when debts were repaid, this position was dropped long ago"They were still saying tolls would finish as late as the 1960s

Guy Lambert ● 435d

Francis, interesting reading.Thank you.However I fear even a well thought out funding plan will fall on deaf ears.This fiasco will drag on and on for years serving as an outstanding example of a collective inability of government ,local authorities and TfL to get things done in a business like fashion.If it is eventually opened as some sort of half cocked glorified foot/cycle bridge then I feel certain that generations to come will not thank us for our incompetence.

Adrian Irving ● 435d

Sorry but I don't think it is a particularly sound approach to use a completely different project in a different part of the country as template with what to do with Hammersmith Bridge. It is also an over-complication of the problem. All you need to work out is the average daily toll revenue and fine revenue needed to fund interest cost and capital repayment. Based on a set of conservative assumptions (project cost at top end of current projects, a yield premium for TfL debt and no inflation adjustment for the tolls) I came up with around £14,000 a day for the required revenue for some sort of financial instrument with a thirty year life.This means that even without taking into account fine revenue and assuming crossings collapse by more than half, you could charge £2 a time and still fund interest and capital payment.It should be noted that full capital payment isn't necessarily required, the bridge could simply be refinanced at the end of thirty years.Also remember a fixed toll is just one of the options. A structure of flexible charges based on time of day could be implemented easily and if you allowed toll increases during the term of the financing, your financing costs would fall. The M6 Toll has seen charges rise by over four times for cars yet people keep using it so we may be over-estimating price sensitivity.You keep mentioning PPP but this is confusing who does the work on the bridge, which will always be private sector with who operates the bridge, with nobody suggesting a private company for this role right now.The difficult thing isn't covering the cost, which quite clearly can be done but allocating liability including for maintenance and keeping the bridge open. Labour have recognised the broader problem of local authorities on the financial brink being responsible for the maintenance of key infrastructure so they can be expected to come up with proposals to spread the burden. What those will be and how this will impact Hammersmith Bridge is probably something that won't be resolved for a few years.

Francis Rowe ● 435d

If Francis’ speculation were correct, the toll would be the way to pay in full for restoration without needing any public funding. That would at least be consistent with the precedent that central government doesn’t pay for local roads. Indeed the A306 is by definition a local road as it is not either a national or a London strategic road, and the minister responsible described it as such four weeks ago. That then sets the simple question, is it feasible to finance the restoration solely by tolls?  At least then nobody other than those who use it will have to pay, and if they’re willing to pay enough then the bridge is restored. We can estimate the level of tolls from an existing scheme Mersey Gateway, whose £600m construction was 70% funded  by tolls. It carries around 60,000 vehicles a day and in 2019 toll and fine income was £50m, with the car toll £2 each way. That represents about 12% of the construction costs but also covers maintenance, collection of tolls and interest for 25 years. Using the £250m cost of restoration, the toll income for Hammersmith bridge  from 20,000 vehicles a day would have to £30m a year at the same 12%, or about £4 a day.  Clearly drivers are willing to pay £4 a day to use a bridge across the Mersey when the nearest untolled crossing is about 10 miles in  either direction.  How many of the 20,000 vehicles who previously used Hammersmith Bridge would pay £8 a day to avoid Chiswick or Putney bridges? If it’s 75%, then in fact the toll for those will have to be £6, or £12 a day - there’s no convergent solution. I therefore think it highly unlikely with interest rates higher than when Mersey Gateway was financed that anybody would be willing to bid to restore the bridge under a pure PPP, that is without government investment to lower the tolls. Essentially the market has already decided that there is no profit on offer to restore the bridge for free, relying on tolls for income, or they would have already made that offer; COWI are part of the Mersey Gateway consortium so can do the sums. 

Tom Pike ● 438d

Documents tabled for the LBHF November cabinet meeting are clear that their policy is an exemption for tolls for LBHF residents.I'm not sure how you can claim this exemption "has been recognised as a non-starter" when the latest LBHF documents state the complete opposite.Legally, LBHF is the Highway Authority for the bridge.  Highway Authority responsibilities could only be "taken away" from LBHF if there was another authority prepared to take over the responsibility.  If TfL and LB Richmond UT said 'nope, not us', then I think the only option would be Highways England.  I can't see TfL or LBRUT agreeing to take on responsibility without an associated guarantee of funding. So none of LBHF, TfL, government want to have the risk of any exposure to a £200M+ project that possibly may be technically risky and turn into a much bigger figure.  None of them want to be the first to say 'Let's get real, it isn't going to open to motor traffic again' as then the other two will be able to blame them!So who will blink first? If there is a new Labour government, that would be the perfect opportunity to call an end to the whole charade that the bridge may open again to motor traffic. Whether they would take the opportunity, who knows.

Michael Robinson ● 439d

I can’t claim any solid inside knowledge on what is going on here. People I have been speaking to about it are not in the room but perhaps could be said are ‘room adjacent’. What I hear is second or third hand and probably has become a bit garbled in the process.At this stage there are two paths for the bridge rebuilding to take from a legislative point of view. One would essentially make it a H&F project, one a TfL project.Initially both TfL and the council wanted to go with the former option. H&F wanted to maintain control of the bridge and TfL didn’t want to be seen as collecting tolls after the stick it took after ULEZ.For H&F it was essential that its residents were exempt and that formed the basis of the proposal. However, it looks like now it has been recognised as a non-starter because it would make funding the bridge much more difficult and the required toll higher.Also, the financial vehicle that the toll funding operation would be a part of would need an ultimate guarantor and the potential liabilities would be too great for H&F’s balance sheet.Therefore, opinion seems to be drifting towards taking responsibility and control away from H&F which means all vehicles would be subject to the toll. Toll charges now seem to have been generally accepted and they have the added advantage of being politically more palatable – i.e. it can’t be claimed that Londoners are getting preferential treatment when it comes to investment.The other issue that needs to be resolved is maintenance. If H&F doesn’t have responsibility or control of the bridge, they can’t be expected to meet the full cost of its maintenance. Labour has already recognised that there is a profound risk to national infrastructure if cash-strapped councils cut back on maintenance and it is likely to introduce a national agency to ensure this doesn’t happen and Hammersmith Bridge could come under its auspices.We can’t be sure but the failure of H&F to submit its planning application looks like an indication that it has no incentive to proceed if its residents don’t get an exemption. This doesn’t indicate that the project has stalled or even being abandoned but that the solution is evolving and it is no longer involves one third each from the council, TfL and the government which was always a nonsense.Where we are now is that DfT and TfL and (reluctantly) H&F are on board with a toll funded bridge with all vehicles charged. This can be funded in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt or interest cost for H&F rate payers. Whether H&F’s engineering solution will be adopted or whether a new plan will need to be drawn up is unclear. The main hold up to progress is likely to be the novelty and complexity of the required funding arrangements. When it gets into the nitty gritty of who pays for what and who is liable for what, the apparent consensus on the way forward may evaporate. Even if it holds, the earliest any real progress can be made on this is January 2025 which I know will frustrate many people but they should perhaps take solace in knowing that the notion that the bridge won't fully reopen is not being considered.

Francis Rowe ● 439d

This afternoon, the PLA issued a Notice to Mariners saying that tomorrow afternoon (Thursday 14 Dec) "contractors working on behalf of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Council (LBHF) will be undertaking an emergency inspection of Hammersmith Bridge." Presumably this is prompted by the collision that is the subject of this thread.  Navigation under the bridge is likely to interrupted between 13:00 and 15:00 tomorrow.

Richard Jennings ● 439d

Francis, it's not credible to think that everyone is ready to go with a more than £200m project, but LBHF not having the money to put in a planning application is the only thing holding this up. Surely if TfL are taking on LBHF's role, they'd put in the application?The fact that LBHF, TfL and the government have not said anything about this should be regarded as a credible counter argument.But if you have a source  for TfL agreeing to take on LBHF's third, that would certainly be a very major development. I'd be very grateful to know and would then agree I was wrong to express my doubts.

Tom Pike ● 440d

"this must be a very revelation given you were earlier today arguing that the hold up was because of the financial constraints of LBHF. Or did you just make that up?"You've got confused on this point. Discussions on the broader question of how the bridge reopening is to be funded appear to be ongoing. This is a different matter to the submission of LBHF's planning application which can proceed regardless of whether or not it has been decided who will pay for it. The council do appear to have run out of funds to proceed with the planning application. "It’s certainly odd that just four weeks ago the government were saying they were still going over LBHF’s business case  that was resubmitted further third or fourth time in April."I'll agree this is odd but it looks very much like that at this point, neither TfL or the government support resident exemption so the council's plan is obsolete."Meanwhile a member of Labour’s front bench has decried that the cost of the bridge is greater than the entire transport budget for Manchester."I can't find any reference to this but wouldn't be such an oaf to accuse you of making it up. If this is what was said I presume the point was that Manchester was getting too little rather than Hammersmith was getting too much."When you state anything is 'safe to assume', it’s wiser to assume the opposite."When you stray from polite discourse into insults, it's safe to assume you are annoyed to have been informed of things that you don't want to hear but can't credibly counter.

Francis Rowe ● 440d

Francis, in November LBHF cabinet documents regarding the bridge, they still refer to toll exemptions for LBHF residents.  Maybe this would be untenable if things got to detailed negotiations but LBHF haven't conceded it.  Publicly anyway.I'm sure TfL will have a 'wish list' if there is a new Labour government but it will also have items like Piccadilly line resignalling and West London Orbital Rail on it.  As I mentioned, I think LBHF, TfL and the government are all waiting for one of the others to be the first to be brave enough to say that it won't ever re-open to motor traffic. If there is a new Labour government, it would be the perfect time for them to say this so the current charade doesn't become a time-sucking issue for them as well.

Michael Robinson ● 440d

“As I understand it, after some quite testy negotiations, it has been accepted in principle that TfL would take on H&F's share of the construction cost but there would be no exemption either for H&F or Richmond residents.”Francis, this must be a very revelation given you were earlier today arguing that the hold up was because of the financial constraints of LBHF. Or did you just make that up?It’s certainly odd that just four weeks ago the government were saying they were still going over LBHF’s business case  that was resubmitted further third or fourth time in April. They also specifically said that the bridge carried a “local road”, that support of the government to re-open the road to cars depended on costs and reiterated that the current works would ensure the bridge would remain open for pedestrians and cyclists. Meanwhile a member of Labour’s front bench has decried that the cost of the bridge is greater than the entire transport budget for Manchester. When you state anything is “safe to assume”, it’s wiser to assume the opposite.

Tom Pike ● 440d

As I understand it, after some quite testy negotiations, it has been accepted in principle that TfL would take on H&F's share of the construction cost but there would be no exemption either for H&F or Richmond residents.There would be no 'PPP contract'. Some sort of financial instrument based on hypothecated revenue from the tolls would be used to fund it. This would have to be done via TfL because it has the balance sheet size that would mean the size of the financing wouldn't necessarily affect its credit risk.Maintenance costs would remain with H&F or the bridge maintenance organisation which has been proposed by Labour.You keep harping on about the expiry of the government's funding pledge as if a) it was impossible for it to be extended and b) the government wasn't going to be gone a few months later. This simply isn't relevant and it is safe to assume Labour will at least match the level of support grudgingly given by the Tories.You have missed the point about fine revenue for ULEZ and are wrong to say it is not relevant although I did exclude it from my calculations. 30% of ULEZ comes from fines. What percentage of the Hammersmith Bridge revenue will come from this source is hard to say - could be higher, could be lower - but it will be significant.

Francis Rowe ● 440d

ULEZ fines are completely irrelevant to how LBHF finances their third of the restoration costs.

Tom Pike ● 440d

"Whatever has been said previously £3 would work to cover financing over 30 years on current interest rates and with conservative assumptions about revenue."The figure of a £3.25 toll each way came from LBHF and was in the business case they submitted to the government a year ago. It's a one-way toll "benchmark" figure and is based on LBHF residents being exempt. It would cover one third of the complete restoration costs plus all the costs of running and maintaining the bridge for the length of the PPP contract. The final figure for the toll would be set by the contractor in their bid but would need to be approved by the Mayor and the Secretary of State for Transport. Both have said they are reluctant to do so. This information came from an ES article from March which also said planning application was going to be filed in April. That's not happened, and the business case has not been approved.The claim the foundations can take the extra weight was just speculation from the Hammersmith Society before the geotechnical survey had even been completed. Obviously no contractor could bid before the condition of the foundations were known, and the overall business case to run it as a PPP had been approved. There's now less than three months to complete both before the government underwriting of the restoration expires in March 2024, and still no planning application has been put in.

Tom Pike ● 440d

I've assumed the charge would be made both ways but I don't know what the current proposals are. ANPR enabled enforcement would give flexibility on pricing of return journeys.£2 works on current top end projections for cost, £3 is only necessary if there is further escalation and that is revenue per crossing so the price could be lower if you include fine revenue (which I haven't). Fine revenue currently accounts for a third of what ULEZ brings in.

Francis Rowe ● 440d

Francis, I may have missed the point but would the £3 cover a return crossing?

Adrian Irving ● 440d

There was a report in the Barnes Bugle recently that said that the riverbed investigations which took place during the stabilisation works had not raised any issues so I don't think this is what is causing the hold up.Whether the bridge design is technically feasible or not isn't really an issue for planning so the delays must be down to something else most likely H&F running out of money to spend on bringing the project forward.As for the daily charge you are just plucking numbers out of the air whereas I am looking at capital costs and traffic figures. Whatever has been said previously £3 would work to cover financing over 30 years on current interest rates and with conservative assumptions about revenue. The one caveat would be how safe is the assumption that traffic would only half but if the charge was fixed for the life of the financing, it would steadily drop in real terms and crossings would rise.

Francis Rowe ● 440d

Having looked a little more into this, the COWI proposal was based on tow assessments of the strength of the foundations, a "desktop" study which looked at existing documentation, limited for something built 200 years ago, and a "qualitative" study which was essentially best guesses at to what the risks might be. On that basis COWI said that the truss approach was "feasible".Richmond commissioned a separate report on temporarily installing a bike/foot bridge, and did take geotechnical samples.  They reported that the the risk of settlement for a much lighter structure was "possible" with a "high" impact. It's clear that a proper, and deep, survey needed to be done. It would not be very surprising if the results found that the truss approach was not feasible after all.

Tom Pike ● 440d

LBHF documents refer to them being responsible for up to £83M so a third of the £250M they reference.I didn’t see the architects exhibition and also have no idea of planning process for this type of project. However having skimmed some other major projects on Hounslow website there is a vast amount of planning documentation and only some of this is related to the design being proposed. There will be impact assessments for just about everything you can think of from pollution, noise, traffic impact, local wildlife… plus things like construction plans such as how building and waste materials will get to and from the site. A lot of this will be prepared by specialist consultancies and unlikely to do it for free.Personally I think LBHF, TfL and the government are playing a game of chicken, so they all know the bridge is fecked and won’t reopen to motor vehicles and they are waiting for someone else to come out and say it, so we get a charade of activity.

Michael Robinson ● 440d

"a £3 toll it would still work even if you inflated the total cost to £240million."So why was LBHF claiming that £3 was the toll when it was going to cost £141m at lower interest rates back in 2021? Admittedly, they were then claiming it might reopen in 2022!A £5 toll now based on £3 in 2021 is a very reasonable projection, but it would indeed be a nonsense to charge at that value as demand would collapse. It's now really difficult to see a toll model financing LBHF's share so effectively this puts it back to central government for it all. ULEZ won't help as the finance agreement between TfL and central government factors in the ULEZ income in reducing the COVID recovery payments.It's possible that the permanent closure to cars will be officially stated in March as the support is formally withdraw, or maybe when the stabilisation is complete with the roadway reopened to bikes but we may still see performative statements up to the election. But those who think there's still a realistic chance of a car ever crossing Hammersmith bridge have not been paying attention!It is also possible that the subsurface investigations, that have drilled down up to 50 m, might have identified a predictable issue. The towers were built on the original 1824 foundations. If a temporary truss bridge were installed, those foundations, put in 200 years ago, would have to support the mass of two bridges at once, the current suspension and the temporary truss bridge. I'm not sure how far it is possible to constrain the risk that those foundations will fail or be seriously damaged, or what the current investigations have found.  But this might provide a politically useful excuse to announce the inevitable.

Tom Pike ● 440d

Apologies, I was very misleading in the way I expressed myself. When I said a total cost of £240million I meant for the 2/3rds that TfL would pay which would mean a total project cost of £360mn. Admittedly these are back of a cigarette packet calculations but with conservative assumptions so it is all fundable assuming an appetite to take on more public debt. I don't know whether you attended the public exhibitions by COWI/Fosters on this but the plans looked detailed to me. I'm not an engineer like you so couldn't comment on the structure and design but the planning process will be looking mainly at other matters with most attention being on the landing points and access. The structure itself will probably need to past muster with another department - building control? - but the planning committee won't be getting into that much detail on it. What exactly the issue is remains mysterious for now but I think you are on the right track in suggesting it has something to do with financial constraints at H&F.

Francis Rowe ● 440d

The latest LBHF documentation refers to "total cost of the repair ... is currently estimated at up to £250 million".Re: planning permission for the 'truss'. I am guessing that such a planning application will need some detail and it isn't clear what level of detail was available in the original proposal.  Could the idea have been something knocked up quickly by COWI/Foster & Partners with some computer generated pictures to attract attention and didn't have the level of detail for a planning application?I'd speculate further that there is only so much freeby work the architects and engineers will do before they get paid but can LBHF pay them anything more than a small amount without going through a competitive tender process to select  suppliers?  From a quick skim of the LBHF website, there is reference to money committed to the current 'stabilisation' works but I couldn't see reference to selecting a supplier for the 'truss'.

Michael Robinson ● 441d

Whatever they do or don't do I wish they would get on and paint the damn thing and save the wood work before it's all too late.It's got to be done at some stage and the longer they leave the more it's going to cost.Fat chance of this happening of course.

Adrian Irving ● 441d

I worked out the costings on the basis of current interest rates and a thirty year bond so if you are right about a £3 toll it would still work even if you inflated the total cost to £240million. I also didn't factor in fine revenue which is a substantial portion of the money that ULEZ brings in so suggesting that £10 would need to be charged is nonsense.Obviously Labour aren't going to do it simply to get rid of Greg Hands, it would be a hugely popular move across several constituencies and demonstrate an ability to get things done in contrast with the current shower.However, I wouldn't describe myself as confident that this is what's going to happen mainly because it is not a great sign that H&F hasn't started the planning process. Their failure to submit an application suggests something is amiss.

Francis Rowe ● 441d

Francis, there’s still been no planning application.  The last promise was that is was going in this March. The toll was predicted to be £3 one way based on a cost of £160m in 2021 and the low bond prices at that time and exemption for LBHF residents. Now the estimates are up to £200m and bond prices have risen considerably. It’s not obvious how many people would be willing to pay £10 a day rather that keep to their current routes.  At that level a toll just won’t work.  Your confident prediction Labour will step up to do this when the Tories are not is likely as reliable as your past predictions. £200m for a marginal effect on a single seat is not a choice any party would make. Labour have rather more pressing things here.  The chance of the bridge ever opening to cars is now minute and only getting smaller, and the local MPs all know this.it would be good just to get it open to bikes at this point.

Tom Pike ● 441d

Am I right in thinking no planning application has been submitted?The (inadequate) commitment of this government to fund a third of the scheme running out in March 2024 isn't particularly relevant as the government may be gone by 7pm this evening.Assuming Labour decline to fully fund the bridge but renew the commitment to fund a third (which has to be seen as a worst case scenario) and TfL agree to cover the other two thirds with a 30 year bond secured on toll revenue for let's say £160million, just under £14,000 a day would be needed to fund interest and capital repayment. If traffic over the bridge halved to around 8,000 you could cover the costs with a charge per crossing of £2. H&F wouldn't be asked to pay any more because no exemption would be offered to their residents.As I say that is worst case. I'd be very surprised to see Labour not make some sort of pledge on this either in or out of the manifesto. The boundary changes make Greg Hand's seat which abuts the bridge very, very marginal and even his Chelsea constituents recognise the government has been messing around with this bridge.

Francis Rowe ● 441d

"no sign of the planning application for the double decker structure that H&F said they would be submitting a few months ago."Back in October 2022 LBHF said they were seeking approval for the truss solution.The commitment of the government to fund one third of the work runs out in March 2024.

Tom Pike ● 441d

I could swear I saw someone burning rubber last night in a Delorean only to disappear into LTN.

Adrian Irving ● 441d

Humpty has hitched a lift in the TARDIS !

Richard Greenhough ● 441d

If I check back on this topic this time in 2028 the same forumers will be asking when they are going to drive over Hammersmith Bridge.

Paul Campbell ● 441d

He is unambiguously in favour and recently suggested in the Commons that the money 'saved' from scrapping HS2 could be used to complete the job.

Francis Rowe ● 441d

Had a letter, circular from Andy Slaughter re new constituency, strikes me it would be a good time to ask him what his position is on the repairs and reopening

John Southey ● 441d

"What could possibly go wrong?"  Loose 5-0

Julian Pavey ● 441d

I think the skipper of these boats will ride the tide up river until it turns and then ride it back down again. As has been pointed out, he was probably trying to save fuel by not postponing passing under the bridge by motoring against the tide for a while. As for the work on the bridge, the stabilisation project continues but there has been no sign of the planning application for the double decker structure that H&F said they would be submitting a few months ago. Obviously funding is an issue but it isn't clear why they aren't progressing it through the planning process as having a cleared plan would strengthen their hand when it came to getting the cash to pay for it.

Francis Rowe ● 441d

A boat crammed with partying football supporters going under a very low bridge? What could possibly go wrong?

Colin Jordan ● 441d

That reminds me. It’s been since 2018 that the bridge is closed, and to be fair there’s no trace of any work of the (frankly barmy) repair works having started. What a failed state we’re in.

Francis Sheehan ● 441d

Ah, Nunkie obviously sold the Chief a defective floggle-toggle.

N V Brooks ● 441d

This incident reminds me of Leslie Phillips in that wonderful radio show The Navy Lark. "Left hand down a bit"

Adrian Irving ● 442d

You see the skipper take coverk before hitting the bridge. I would think his PLA licence will be called into scrutiny

Julian Pavey ● 442d

The BBC are showing a video of the incident - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-67680559

Richard Greenhough ● 442d

Taking West Ham fans to Craven Cottage and going upstream of Hammersmith Bridge ? Sounds like the boat's crew was about as organised as the Hammers' defence (they lost 5-0).

Richard Greenhough ● 442d

There is a report on the front page about this. I've seen video footage and it was quite a low impact collision and it doesn't seem if much, if any damage was done to the bridge. As far as