Hammersmith Bridge - yet again
I had looked forward to Fleur Anderson’s opening speech in the debate on the bridge that she had organised (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-04-21/debates/5ECDA129-8BFA-423F-853B-4B36F0114E7C/details), but it wasn’t very impressive: full of completely over-the-top hyperbole: “seven years of disruption, frustration and avoidable hardship …. profound and far-reaching consequences …. The impact on daily life has been severe, sustained and deeply felt …. a fundamental barrier to daily life” – for goodness’ sake, that’s all rather a lot for what is actually only a genuine nuisance for some, don’t you think? There were also some very dodgy figures to support the lack of evidence for her claims (quite apart from their muddling in the effects of the much more significant remodelling of the Putney Bridge junction). To take just three of these:
· “Before the closure, around 22,000 vehicles crossed the bridge each day. Those journeys have not disappeared; they have simply been forced on to other routes.” Not true: as Freedom of information request FOI-1103-1920 has shown, the 25,000 daily crossings of Hammersmith Bridge before (partial) closure were replaced by an increase of only15,500 on neighbouring bridges after the closure. In other words, 9,500 river crossings evaporated and were not “forced on to other routes.”· “Cyclists are put off cycling through Putney because of the higher congestion and heavier traffic, making it feel more unsafe.” In fact cycling across Putney Bridge increased by 27% between 2017 and 2023. · “The latest snapshot data from the Department for Transport shows that, between 2020 and 2023, the overall number of motor vehicles on Putney bridge increased by 16%.” This is an embarrassingly and shamefully bogus claim on two counts: firstly, the because the 2020 figure came from the height of the covid shutdown when travel was artificially reduced so of course there was an increase on that, and secondly, by using those two figures, she was claiming the bridge closure caused problems by comparing traffic after the bridge was closed (2020) with traffic after the bridge was closed (2023). On both counts, 2018 would have been the appropriate initial data point. The interruption to bus routes could have been a problem, but it surely isn't beyond the wit of TfL to arrange for buses on one side to drop passengers so people can walk (or, if of restricted mobility, be carried) across in sustainable transport to the bus on the other side. And all this doesn’t even begin to deal with the huge cost (£300 million at the latest count) and length of time (at least a decade) before completion, by which time attitudes to the car are likely to have been significantly affect by the growing effects of climate change. Altogether, not a very impressive set of arguments
Richard Carter ● 18h0 Comments ● 18h