Forum Topic

Hammersmith Bridge

I'm all for preserving our history. Many buildings and other structures have been lost over the years in circumstances where they could, and in many cases should, have been preserved. That said, we do not live in a museum and our built environment needs to serve the population around it.  There is also the issue of the allocation of finite financial resources.. In my view we have come to the end of the road (excuse the pun) with Hammersmith Bridge. The focus needs to be entirely on a cost effective alternative crossing.  Perhaps the entrance to the bridge from both sides can be removed and the middle section left as a monument, who knows. The point is that the costs of playing around with that bridge are eye watering, the inconvenience caused to the public is substantial and the knock on effect of pollution over the other crossings is highly detrimental to health.  Surely the delays at the other crossings have an adverse impact on the economy too - especially local trades people who needs to move and where time really is money.  Initially I would have been first in the queue to argue that the bridge needs to be saved and what price our heritage.  My view has changed. There is a price, both monetary and otherwise, and it's simply too high.

John Geoffries ● 427d15 Comments

You missed the point about the distinction between cars and private hire vehicles. If they are included in your numbers then the proportion of shorter journeys is likely to be high. Traffic patterns have changed massively over the last decade with private hire vehicles now making up 40% of journeys in central London and 15% in outer London according to the ONS. Whether this explosion of use is a good thing or a bad thing is a complex question. Yes these are cars but the availability of cheap rides is discouraging younger generations from car ownership so what their net effect is, is hard to work out.You are also conflating congestion and the number of vehicles on the road. Even you can't dispute that Putney has become more congested but the chart you show demonstrates that there are fewer vehicles crossing the bridge. This apparent contradiction is due to the general rise in congestion in the surrounding area and resulting slow down in traffic speeds. As traffic speed falls SatNav displaces some of this traffic elsewhere but which is why residents living in proximity to bridges over the river remaining open are experiencing much more congestion. Average bus speeds are down by 6% in Wandsworth over the last decade and if you add to that the extra journey time from the Hammersmith Bridge closure, the effectiveness of the cheapest and most flexible means of travel has been significantly reduced for Putney residents. This is a major reason why our roads are regularly jammed and far more significant than the moral deficiencies of Putney residents.

Peter Higgins ● 412d

Sorry perhaps someone should have told you that emissions do not apply to Labour Mayors or Labour ministers.

Ed Robinson ● 415d

Of course they are only for cars, the clue is in the name: "Who travels by car in London and for what purpose?" And the out of date comment is irrelevant: are you seriously arguing that patterns of travel have changed significantly since then? If so, please present your evidence.BTW, your maths are fine, but the assumptions they're based on are absurd.And you deny that "traffic has evaporated. Everybody accepts that traffic has got worse." But actually, there is less traffic crossing Putney Bridge: compare the levels in 2017 and 2023 to see how wrong this claim is. It's all on the DfT traffic counts website: https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/#6/55.254/-6.053/basemap-regions-countpoints

Richard Carter ● 415d

You got a survey from this decade... 2012 figures didn't expect another Bridge to close permanently and shove much of the traffic to Putney.

T Jones ● 415d

There's an even faster way for there to be less pollution... Tell the PM not to fly between Northolt and Brize Norton on VIP Jet.Probably a years worth of SUV emissions released in the 18 mins flight.

T Jones ● 415d

As well as being very out of date the figures provided are only for cars. Assuming this does not include taxis (which would make the figures for an average journey length a nonsense) the data probably only covers about half the vehicles on Putney roads during peak traffic times.You need therefore to halve the percentages you are using and even then you have made a huge leap to assume journeys which are relatively short or made by a single occupant are unnecessary. You are also failing to take into account that short journey is probably also a round trip to the actual journey length should be doubled.Another incorrect assumption you are making is that fewer bridge crossing means that traffic has evaporated. Everybody accepts that traffic has got worse. There are fewer bridge crossings because of the endemic congestion meaning people avoid Putney bridge if they can or if they are directed to by Sat Navs. However these journeys have just been displaced rather than evaporated, for instance deliveries are more likely to be made now in a way that avoids crossing the river. You seem to approach this problem as if it is down to the moral failings of your neighbours but it is much more complex that that. While there undoubtedly will be a proportion of people on the road who could practically switch to another means of transport, they are such a small proportion of the total and it is so difficult to make them change their ways, that focusing on them is a barrier to finding a proper solution.

Peter Higgins ● 422d

"References TfL (2011-2012) London Travel Demand Survey: TfL" It's now 2025! A lot of commuters today were probably still in primary school when that survey was taken. The world has changed a lot since then. Alo I seem to recall the 'evaporated' theory did not take into account the A3 route towards Kingston/Hampton Court to cross the river not to mention that TFL evaporated some bus routes to Hammersmith that were very efficient. We really do need some up to date sensible discussion on today's transport needs.

Ed Robinson ● 425d

There are so many things wrong in your response that I hardly know where to start.The basic flaw is that it is not true that many (not all, obviously) of the people sitting in cars do not have alternative modes of travel. For example,- 35% of car journeys in London are 2 km or less;- 60% of car journeys are for shopping, leisure or personal business purposes;- around 60;% of car trips are made with just a single occupant.(https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-travels-by-car-in-london.pdf)Clearly there is considerable elasticity of demand,  ascwitnessed by the fact that, of the 25,000 journeys per day across the bridge in 2018  10,000 journeys 'evaporated.'

Richard Carter ● 425d

Yes Ed, I have been over the bridge, it was near a Peugeot Dealership I used to contact when I worked for Peugeot. Also they had a large boat jumble along the river there. Why not do that at Hammersmith. Also I think you will find they did the Not Going Out Series with Lee Mack near there.

Barbara Stevens ● 425d

Just a few miles up river between Walton-on-Thames and Lower Halliford https://maps.app.goo.gl/quK5ujGzfHRTvFfM9

Ed Robinson ● 426d

An impressive bridge.  Where is this, please?

Ivonne Holliday ● 426d

Bridge envy. Links in above post

Ed Robinson ● 426d

" the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avert a climate disaster."The bridge has to be heated and cooled with no transparency as to what the costs are.There is also an environmental costs of temporary resurfacing etc only to be ripped up again and again.I not sure what all the repairs have costs this century but it is probably more than Walton Bridge which cost £32m in 2012."Around 30,000 vehicles are using the £32 million bridge between Walton-on-Thames and Shepperton every weekday, which is 4,000 more than used its predecessor.The first car crossed Walton Bridge on 22 July 2013. Click image to download.The figures come from county council traffic surveys of the average number of vehicles using the bridges in 2010 and 2015 over a 12-hour period on weekdays.Walton’s crossing, which took 18 months to build, opened on time and on budget on 22 July 2013 with the first car crossing at 5.45am."https://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2017/03/15/walton-bridge-used-by-30000-vehicles-every-weekday/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_Bridge

Ed Robinson ● 426d

The inconvenience may be minor to you on a personal level but you need to think of others as well. The basic flaw in the 'use your car less' argument is that people sitting in traffic queues in Putney exacerbated by the bridge closure will rarely have that option. It is easy someone with ample leisure time to make choices about there mode of transport but congestion includes, buses, HGVs, LGVS, other sorts of delivery vehicles, people delivering key services, minicabs, people going to and from work without a viable public transport option, people with mobility issues, care workers, shift workers and a myriad of other types of driver who would love not to have to be stuck in traffic in Putney.It is this inelasticity of demand that makes trite solutions to the problem a waste of breath. Hammersmith Bridge has to reopen to motor traffic as soon as possible as the problems we are currently experiencing are only going to grow.

Peter Higgins ● 426d

But there's a wider issue than the preservation of a historical bridge: the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avert a climate disaster.  The costs of restoring the bridge are indeed eye-watering (another annoying phrase to add to another thread here) - £250 million at present, but who believes that will hold? And the "inconvenience caused to the public" is actually pretty minor, as is the extra pollution caused. I love it when people cite pollution as a problem here, since there is a far easier solution to the pollution problem: use your car less!

Richard Carter ● 426d