This is copied from the London Bus ForumOn Tuesday several MPs attended a Westminster Hall debate discussing the problems of funding the bridge repair, and strongly urging central government to contribute financially towards the project. Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith & Fulham) was the key speaker, and his comments indicated that the financial situation is somewhat worse than had been previously understood publicly.Much of this post is composed of quotes from the debate that I transcribed, so if you don't like reading long posts, then please scroll past.Slaughter outlined the current funding predicament:"Most of the issues [of repairing the bridge, temporary river crossing], we don’t have a final timescale or costing, but we know ballpark figures on both of those. What we don’t have, putting it crudely, is the money. We have had £25m, which has taken us thus far in terms of the works that are necessary to the bridge. We need a substantial amount more – I would say another £100m beyond that.If we are to see this major strategic river crossing, and this major landmark – an important bridge for London – restored, it’s going to require not just the cooperation of the local authorities and TfL, the GLA, but also the Department for Transport."He also made clear that the £25m already committed by TfL is the only money that has actually been allocated to the project, and that without it, there would have been no progress at all to date:"Thanks to the £25m that TfL put up, there has been no impediment to works going forward; that is to say, the scoping, the planning, the feasibility studies, defining what is necessary in terms of both what are called the ‘stabilising works’ and the ‘major works’ to the bridge. So we are now in a position to let those contracts – or we will be in a month or two – and to ensure that the work progresses. And although it is taking a substantial amount of time, I think there is a general understanding that this has to be done properly."However, £25m can only go so far - in fact, it's already effectively been used up. Slaughter also revealed that that £25m is TfL's total contribution to the entire project - they won't be adding any more to the pot:We have now spent – if not, allocated – the £25m that has come from TfL. TfL is not in a position to add to that. I’m not going to go through the arguments about subsidy that’s been withdrawn, or the restrictions on what they can use their capital for, for assets they don’t own. But I think TfL have stepped up to the plate, and both their expertise and, frankly, their money, has been very useful to get us this far, to ensure that time was not wasted or works delayed.Far more concerning is that it seems Hammersmith & Fulham is apparently unable to contribute anything to the project (quote edited for brevity): "...Hammersmith & Fulham is not in a position to come up with the money... We have to look to government when major strategic assets fail... If it’s accepted by the Department [of Transport] that this is a part of the strategic road network, and that it has to reopen to at least its previous capacity, to cover single-decker electric buses, as well as similar weights of general traffic vehicles as previously, that is going to cost a very substantial amount of money. It’s going to cost at least £120m on current estimates; the final estimates will come in in a few weeks’ time."As you may have spotted there, the MP's comments reiterate the fact that the bridge refurbishment will only support single-decker electric buses; those hoping that it might be rated for heavier electric double-deckers are in for a disappointment.Most d*mning in the debate was the admission that there's a very real possibility that work will grind to a halt if funding cannot be agreed quickly:"Very soon – within the next couple of months – work will stop. Even if there is still some money in the kitty, one cannot go on engaging contractors if the money is not there to pay for the stabilising and major works over the next couple of years. That is what we’re looking to the Department [for Transport] to fund."To my knowledge, it was not publicly understood that the project is so severely underfunded. While H&F have certainly made noises about their inability to bear the full cost of the bridge repair, I don't recall any previous statement from officials to indicate that they wouldn't be able to contribute anything to the project, leaving the entire £95m balance unfunded. TfL and H&F have submitted formal proposals to the DfT, applying for a financial contribution through a scheme available to local authorities across England seeking funding for infrastructure projects.However, it's not at all clear if the DfT will approve these applications. Comments from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport did not sound encouraging:"We must recognise the owners of the bridge; it is for the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham to assess the merits of different funding options for its repair. Local highways authorities, such as H&F Council have a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the highways network in their area.[...]The government provides funding for local authorities in England, including London boroughs, to direct to their local priorities. This is in addition to funding provided to London boroughs through their local Implementation Plan, processed by TfL to help implement the Mayor’s transport strategy.While the bridge is owned by H&F, I am pleased that TfL – who have considerable expertise in this area – are working closely with the borough on options for repair. It is further encouraging to see that TfL have already committed £25m towards repair works.I also welcome the two proposals that TfL, with H&F, have recently submitted to the Department to make a funding contribution towards the repairs needed to the bridge. The Department is now considering these proposals in the context of other funding requests, and in view of the devolution settlement for London."To my ears, that sounds like the DfT telling H&F that they already get plenty of money through various mechanisms, and that the fact that H&F owns the bridge should have made them consider the costs of maintaining it more responsibly.I can only guess how this is all going to play out, but I can't imagine that the Conservatives in central government are going to be particularly eager to make life easier for the Labour-run H&F by writing a £95m cheque to fund the bridge. This will surely be a contentious issue in the London Mayoral elections too, and both parties will no doubt be using it as a stick to beat each other with during the campaign. The question is whether or not the political game-playing will get in the way of progress - as it so often does - resulting in work on the bridge grinding to a halt.There was one other interesting point that emerged from the debate - the temporary bridge is confirmed and fully funded. The cost of its construction is coming from TfL's £25m, as Slaughter explained:"There is consensus now that there should be a temporary bridge, and that should be a temporary bridge for cycling and walking… There were moves to say that we could have a temporary motor bridge; for many reasons – in terms of the cost, the feasibility, the disruption, and the destruction of private property – that would not be possible.The reason we need a temporary foot and cycling bridge – even though it will cost a substantial amount of money – is that that will come out of the TfL money that’s already allocated, and it will allow the major works to continue unimpeded and more safely on the main bridge itself."So if they can't get the full £120m, at least they've got the cash to build the temporary bridge and let the old one crumble into the river...https://tangytango.proboards.com/thread/9960/hammersmith-bridge-closure?page=87
Adrian Pearce ● 1929d