Forum Topic

Hammersmith Bridge latest

A new pressure group has been formed - they were the ones who lit the Bridge up in red on Valentine's Day.They have had an exchange of letters with the Minister, Charlotte Vere.  Here is their reply to hers.  It's a great letter - here is the link https://twitter.com/HsmithBridgeSOS/status/1361992066813882372I think their assessment is right - the politicians have their eye on the Mayoral elections and little is likely to happen until we know who will be in City Hall.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1896d33 Comments

So the bridge pedestals won't support pedestrians at the moment but can take a double-decker structure while being repaired ... is that what I'm meant to be taking away from the temporary proposal?

Roy Robart ● 1866d

Quite right Adam,The report Adrian linked to has the cost at 100m.What I do not understand is that no one can go under the bridge in case it collapses. If that is the case the longer the delay the more chance of it collapsing.Restoring the bridge at its original position must be based on the assumption that it will not collapse.So the logic that is being applied is as follows: The bridge will remain closed because it may collapse but the restoration can take years because it will not collapse????

Ed Robinson ● 1866d

in the time that politicians have been arguing, debating and procrastinating, they could have build a foot tunnel similar to the one opened in 1902 in Greenwich (it took the Victorians 3 years)

Adam Tripp ● 1866d

Some encouraging news!  You mean summer and autumn of 2022 I suppose.Who needs to approve the proposal?  TfL or DfT?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1866d

https://twitter.com/BBCTomEdwards/status/1372834297858695169EXCL: Double-decker & toll proposal for #hammersmithbridge from H&F council. Open next summer for pedestrians - vehicles next Autumn. £3 Toll for vehicles to help pay for total cost of £100m. Funding not agreed yet with Govt.

Adrian Pearce ● 1866d

800 people?Can you imagine the boarding time?Perhaps if the jetties were a bit bigger it could just be wedged between them and not have to move at all!What a ridiculous and environmentally damaging solution.

Ed Robinson ● 1876d

so if Thames Clippers win, will they be known as U-boats?

Adam Tripp ● 1876d

From the latest Barnes Bugle...Speaking on LBC’s Nick Ferrari show on Friday March 5, Transport for London’s Commissioner Andy Byford confirmed an anticipated start date of late summer and said that the delay in getting the ferry up and running was due to making sure the public procurement process was handled properly.In February TfL revealed that two operators had been shortlisted to run the ferry service  - City Cruises and Uber Boat by Thames Clippers - and confirmed that the winning bidder will be announced later this month. The new ferry service will be run between 6am and 10pm and be able to carry 800 people per hour at peak times. The cost of a single journey will be £1.55 for adults. Those people who are using the ferry as part of a longer journey will find that this cost will be included in the TfL Hopper package.

Adrian Pearce ● 1876d

FRBC can move:I know that Rowers are an entitled and privileged bunch but they cant really expect to have the right to veto the crossing whilst the works are being done. And rowing clubs do relocate: Imperial into Vesta when it was being built with Lottery funds, Thames Tradesman to MAA when the council booted them out, Putney relocated upstream, St Paul's Girl School has relocated a great many times they could be deemed squatters, Orian RC from AK to Furnival, and East India RC from AK to Quintin RC. So this argument that FRBC is some immovable institution is bollocks. Of course they want no disruption to their club. It may of course require a Secretary of State to rule on.

Gregory Edelston ● 1894d

Totally agree, but it’s listed. A new and bigger bridge in place with the old one rebuilt somewhere else is the only sensible solution. Probably a hell of a lot quicker to complete too.

Freddie Francis ● 1895d

We have now become one of those countries where people drive to cross the road!But in our case it is a river and a diesel ferry or two!It's just as stupid.Build a new bridge and move the old one. It will be greener, quicker and cheaper. Everyone will be a winner apart from those that just want to look at it.

Ed Robinson ● 1895d

Barbara, you obviously have your opinions which do now sound anti-rower. Rowers have to use either side of the river depending on direction as I assume you know. As they, schools and clubbs alike, teach on the river it’s inevitable that some end up in the middle. They also use the middle when turning around, in boats many feet long that are not exactly the most manoeuvrable of contraptions. Through inexperience. Are you one of the users of the river who have a small gin-palace perhaps? All irrelevant anyway but obviously a pet peeve by the sound of it. I won’t engage further as you clearly have no sympathy with the club and it’s members/users.

Freddie Francis ● 1896d

Freddie, when this all came about about a year ago, I actually put on here why not put the ferry, Dove Pier side of the bridge. Which if you don't know where that is its by the Rutland Pub. Also I said then about a Bailey Bridge, which I think you will find you can go under. Also large boats are unable to go under the Bridge on a High Tide anyway because of their flybridge and have to wait for the tide to go down. Also for your info most of the rowing clubs spend most of the time in the middle of the river and they are meant to row on the side, thinking it's a joke holding ordinary boats from going down the river as your stuck behind them. Look at the rules for river usage.

Barbara Stevens ● 1896d

Today, FRBC shared this communication with the developer in response to one sent to them. It explains,as you would expect, why the wharf application is not ideal, which is an understatement ———— Recently there was an open letter written by the owner of Harrods Wharf to our CEO, Steve.  You can see a copy of this letter here.Our response to this letter says:17th February 2021Dear Jamie,Thank you for your recent letter and it was great to see that you recognise that safety is the top priority for all river users and that a ferry route that utilises Harrods Wharf would be a significant hazard for anyone in its vicinity.  Thank you also for taking the time to consider some suggestions as to how FRBC could operate safely around Harrods Wharf and the subsequent pontoon.As I mentioned when we spoke, we sit in the same camp with everyone who has been so tragically affected by the closure of Hammersmith Bridge and I want to make clear again that FRBC is not objecting to a ferry crossing, we absolutely want a safe ferry crossing up and running ASAP and a route using Harrods Wharf is just one of several different routes currently being considered by Transport for London. We are objecting to the construction of Harrods Wharf and subsequent use as a ferry terminal given the significant safety concerns that we have both recognised.  As FRBC has highlighted several times, and will continue to do so, the safest place for the Hammersmith Ferry to operate is on the stretch of river between FRBC and Hammersmith Bridge, not FRBC and Harrods Wharf.It is great that we also agree that the PLA will play a key role in assessing which of the three competing bidders has the safest proposed route and we are engaging both with the PLA and Hammersmith Taskforce to point out the issues that the construction of a ferry terminal and pontoon at Harrods wharf would create.We have spent time assessing the proposed changes to established navigation patterns in your letter and I am afraid to say that these are not workable, and I would be extremely surprised if any of the three competing bidders thought differently.  As you mention in your letter, the navigation of children on the water is not your responsibility nor an area of your expertise.  There are several points from your suggested changes to the navigation patterns on the river which highlight this including:1. Your diagram does not show that any pontoon operating at Harrods Wharf will need to extend to the middle of the river to operate a ferry at all tides as required by Transport for London.2. Your diagram does not show the current safe navigation patterns used by all rowers that have been agreed between the PLA, Thames Regional Rowing Council and British Rowing.  These navigation patterns are what keep all river users, young and old, safe on the water and the Harrods Wharf proposal would make these impossible to follow and, in the process, prevent access past Harrods Wharf for any river users approaching from Putney or beyond.3. Your suggestion of deliberately conflicting junior crews and a commercial ferry service onto the same pontoon frankly is just dangerous.Finally, your suggestion about keeping any pontoon permanently in situ and beyond the temporary five-year period as requested by TfL and FRBC using Harrods Wharf alongside this clearly would not be able to happen for all the safety reasons listed above.It is good to see that we share common ground on safety being the top priority for any ferry crossing and we would be supportive of a crossing that operated on the stretch of water between FRBC and Hammersmith Bridge.Your Sincerely,Steve O’ConnorCEOFulham Reach Boat Club

Freddie Francis ● 1896d

Barbara -  “ Perhaps Fulham Reach can relocate.” - what a nice simple solution. If you know of any vacant rowing clubs anywhere within five miles either side of its current location do let the club know. Personally, I doubt there’s one within thirty miles. You may also not know, along with the other things, that the club is new and in brand new premises built, I believe, especially for them. Incedentally, the developer of the wharf building at first claimed that they were going to use Fulham Reach’s pontoon. Recently the club has absolutely refuted that was ever on the table absolutely is not an option.

Freddie Francis ● 1896d

Its not just Fulham Reach that's objected. Putney rowers based at Vesta have as well...https://www.vestarowing.co.uk/Cms/Spaces/DEFAULT/News/Harrods+Wharf++A+Ferry+Poor+ProposalWhilst we would generally be supportive of the running of a ferry service, the route proposed by the Harrods Wharf developer would have a catastrophic impact on the boat clubs on the Hammersmith to Putney stretch. This section of river is one of the most used recreational stretches in the country, if not the world. As well as the health benefits to participants, rowing brings considerable identity and economic benefits to the area, which would be put at risk by this proposal. In addition this stretch of water is where some of the best work in breaking down the participation barriers and social stigmas around our sport is done, in particular through Fulham Reach's Boats not Bars project, which would be put at risk.Operating a ferry service from Harrods Wharf would be impractical, and we have seen no detailed plans on how it would operate. In particular these plans do not include how passengers would board/alight the ferry at what is an extremely challenging point of the river. On top of this, maintaining social distancing given a significant proportion of the time it is required is likely to be whilst we are living with COVID-19 makes it entirely impractical.We believe it would be far more practical to run a service close to the east side of the bridge, which would not impede on rowing and would be quicker to establish than building a new facility on the Wharf.Despite the proposer stating this proposal is based on feedback from the community, he has failed to engage with the group most likely to be impacted by the proposal. Based on previous statements by the entrepreneur owner of the Wharf, there are aspirations to expand this proposal to offer services to central London, which would potentially make one of the busiest recreational stretches of water in the country unsafe to row on. Please join us in opposing this proposal, below are some of the key points of opposition:    A ferry from Harrods Wharf would be unsafe on one of the busiest sections of recreational river in the world, having a negative impact on activity in this conservation area.    The application does not include provision for a jetty, and without this it is not possible to assess the feasibility of the plans. If this sight is built on but it is not feasible to run a ferry then this would have a considerable negative impact on the visual amenity of the area.    The route detailed in the plans utilised the pontoon owned by Fulham Reach, which they have stated will not be used for these purposes. This is a significant deficiency in the development plans.    The application is poorly planned within the context of running a ferry service, and thus presents questions on the intention of the owners of the wharf, in particular as permission is requested for five years, but states they will only not profit from it for the first 18 months.    No consultation has taken place with recreational users of the river, those most likely to be impacted by the proposals.    The design is not appropriate, would detract from the listed building behind it and is not in fitting with the design of other buildings on that side of the river..

Adrian Pearce ● 1896d

Andy, with what is going on at the moment I should think there are a lot more out of work.

Barbara Stevens ● 1896d

45 out of work just for Barbara

Andy Pike ● 1896d

Freddie, I'm glad they are helping young people rowing, but also you sure all the new properties that are there on Fulham side don't now fancy the Ferry going backwards and forwards under their windows.  The Boat Club hasn't been their that long anyway, not like the Putney Rowing Clubs that have been there years. Perhaps Fulham Reach can relocate.

Barbara Stevens ● 1896d

The club is shut. But you are missing the point. As you say, nobody can go under the bridge. But if the wharf is chosen as the southern dock it will cut off the river on the other side of the club which, perhaps you don’t appreciate, is just next door to the big new pub there. So is right between the bridge and ferry route. I believe 45 jobs will be lost and the club won’t recover if the wharf gets the green light. The alternative positioning of the southern dock would solve the whole problem. As woukd a footbridge. Of course this whole nightmare would be solved by the bridge being able to take cyclists and pedestrians. The saving solution may well be the double deck bridge within a bridge solution from Foster and Partners - https://www.fosterandpartners.com/news/archive/2020/11/foster-partners-reveals-plans-for-temporary-crossing-over-hammersmith-bridge/

Freddie Francis ● 1896d

Yes - very helpful - thanks

Jane Carter ● 1896d

Freddie, nobody can go under the bridge anyway at the moment. They can still take their rowing boats the other way towards Putney Bridge. The Bridge at the moment is more important than rowing as they should not be mixing at the moment other wise the schools would be open. If there are so many visiting the Boat Club they should  not be, because other boat clubs are shut. We can't attend ours at Surbiton. We even have to e-mail the Marina before we visit at Chiswick.

Barbara Stevens ● 1896d

that's really interesting Freddie, thanks for all that

Matt Palmer ● 1896d

Barbara - to address some of your comments - "But they can easily go to Putney Bridge instead of Barnes"- I will elaborate below but you are completely mistaken. "Also they should be at school or Uni in the day time." - wrong again - it's mainly schools that use it. And one more thing to correct - "Where is the Bailey Bridge." - no baily bridge will be built as this will cut off the lifeboats who currently are alloowd to go under the bridge but will be blocked from going east of the bridge if you have a baily bridge. Oh, and as for "how do they get to the Fulham Boating Club, near Hammersmith Bridge, they can't cross the bridge" - with the same difficulty as everyone else, but that's not the main issue.To add some background, firstly, it's Fulham 'Reach' Boat Club. Secondly, if the Harrods Wharf application (for a building which may very well become permanent with a cafe installed, not the ferry as a whole as people seem to think) gets the go-ahaed they can't operate as the ferry cuts them off from downstream due to safety issues on an already dangerous part of the river, while the bridge closure cuts them off upstream. They will be stranded. Thirdly the club is a charity, not a private club as I'm sure some may believe. It teaches children from state schools and other institutions that support individuals who otherwise would not be able to experience the sport. They would be forced to close premanently unless the ferry terminal on the south side is located close to the bridge and another near the slipway by Riverside Studios.The ferry operators are tendering but have yet to be chosen. There will be consultation with the PLA over the possibility of dredging to accomdate the boats and the installation and positioning of pontoons which will extend a very long way into the river on both sides due to the low tides there and the distance from the banks of the river at those times. This is no laughing matter for the club and it's members including many schools that use it. If you support the wharf application you may contribute to the loss of a very valuable asset to the river and the area as a whole.Here's a link if anyone's interested: https://www.fulhamreachboatclub.co.uk/

Freddie Francis ● 1896d

Hammersmith Bridge should be open to pedestrians and cyclists only. It is so nice having that area free of cars, especially these huge enormous cars which are unnecessary.

Gregory Edelston ● 1896d

Ivonne, that is probably true, but how do they get to the Fulham Boating Club, near Hammersmith Bridge, they can't cross the bridge.

Barbara Stevens ● 1896d

Ivonne, that is probably true, but how do they get to the Fulham Boating Club, near Hammersmith Bridge, they can't cross the bridge.

Barbara Stevens ● 1896d

Barbara,Regarding the Bailey Bridge, this may be useful:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_bridge

Ivonne Holliday ● 1896d

Nobody is meant to go under the bridge at the moment, so the sooner something is done the better. Nobody can come from Rochester Boating Club up to Cookham or Windsor. We can't go to Rochester, Ramsgate or France as unable to go under Hammersmith Bridge. No payments will be paid at Teddington Lock for trips up river on non tidal Thames.

Barbara Stevens ● 1896d

Barbara,There are a few schools that have rowing as part of their sports programme.  So you do see school children in the afternoon rowing for the school programme.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1896d

That is a fantastic letter!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1896d

The objections are quite understandable. Hammersmith Wharf is far from an ideal site and it is clearly in the owner's financial interests to push hard for its use. More details on the issues raised by several rowing clubs - including Vesta in Putney here...https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/n/n123/thousands-comment-on-planning-application-from-harrods-wharf

Adrian Pearce ● 1896d

Fulham Boating club, I think you will find are against the Ferry as it will put paid to their rowers on the river. But they can easily go to Putney Bridge instead of Barnes. Also they should be at school or Uni in the day time. Children need to get to school and people to work. Where is the Bailey Bridge.

Barbara Stevens ● 1896d