Quite so; all suspension bridges are designed to allow for movement and some "shaking" within design parameters; indeed most types of bridge are designed to manage vibration and allow for expansion and contraction, etc. They are man-made structures and must function in a turbulent environment. The real underlying issue here is simply decades of inadequate maintenance and a fundamentally flawed political decision taken long ago. I do not blame H&F Borough Council so much. Most blame should rest with the wilfully short-sighted 1986 decision by a thin-skinned Conservative administration in Whitehall (annoyed by the antics of Ken Livingstone and his antagonistic buddies on the south bank of Westminster Bridge) to transfer responsibility for London's bridges from the abolished GLC to individual boroughs, solely as political payback and contrary to all reason. And now we have the charity "Possible" advocating closure of the bridge permanently to all except pedestrians, bicycles, and possibly a totally inadequate electric shuttle vehicle. So let's be sensible shall we; this is the false conflation of two separate issues. Local air quality and climate change on the one hand and the proper maintenance of river crossings on the other. We all have views on what policies and actions should be taken to improve local air quality and address climate change, but they really have very little to do with maintaining a bridge properly so it may continue to serve it's intended purpose. Not before too long we will all in any case be required to travel by emissions-free public transport or by a private vehicle powered by electric batteries or hydrogen. The timetable for this has already been legislated and passed into law. BUT WE WILL STILL NEED TO CROSS THE RIVER between Barnes and Hammersmith! It is also a false argument to peddle the mantra that Hammersmith Bridge was not designed for buses, trucks, vans and cars. Well that's true and irrefutable, but it doesn’t mean it is not capable of doing so if properly maintained; it did so for more than a century after all. There are hundreds of bridges built before the introduction of motor vehicles that continue to serve their modified role. No that's a complete red herring. I note that in Runcorn a new and better bridge was built and the old one was given a major refurbishment before being reopened. Levelling up the North; or is the popular agenda now to level down London? Now I happen to subscribe to the view that the present Hammersmith Bridge should be replaced by a modern easy to maintain structure, but I know many others wish to preserve the past at all costs even though most other London bridges have been replaced over time, some more than once. Well OK then, relocate the present structure for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles, but let's not penalise the communities either side of the River for the serious mistakes made by the 'militant' Government we put in charge is the 1980s. And if the muddle-headed decision is taken to introduce tolls to pay for the refurbishment, well why not extend that principle to all the other ill-maintained bridges across the Thames in London? Let's see how many votes that wins!Well; what I would really like to see is the Hammersmith & City line extended south under the River to Barnes, Roehampton, Ham and Kingston thereby connecting many very poorly served areas of London to the wider “electric-powered” Tube network through a proper interchange at Hammersmith with the District and Piccadilly lines. I know I will not live to see it!
Paul Reardon ● 1453d