Forum Topic

Sorry, another comment on Hammersmith Bridge/traffic/things that will never happen

It was suggested to me over the weekend that the MP for Richmond Park is well aware that the residents of Barnes do not want the bridge to be repaired or a replacement. They prefer the lower traffic area. I do wonder if there was a genuine desire by residents to have a bridge it would have happened by now. No doubt lots of influence is being brought to bare to ensure it doesn't happen for decades or at all. In the meantime the traffic around Putney bridge - including the approaches on the Fulham side including NKR and FPR were gridlock. The air quality for people living in those areas must be dire with all those slow moving/stationary traffic. I don't think there will ever be a replacement bridge.

John Geoffries ● 112d41 Comments

The important thing is that decisions are being made without the costs, direct and non-direct, being known publicly.It is highly likely that those making the decisions also do not have the costs available.If we are to get good decisions with public money we must have the maximum sunlight on these decisions.

Ed Robinson ● 100d

Before Nitpicker Ed seizes on it, that was a mistype not a misprint.

Richard Carter ● 100d

Not a "selective quote" but a misprint. Do try to understand the difference.

Richard Carter ● 100d

"I'm not sure where your £200 million comes from"He's not called selective quote Richard for nothing.I stated: "I think about £100m has been spent since it's closure. That enough for a new bat tunnel!"If you read the article it is not clear how much has been spent on the Bridge.The TFL £16.7m is in addition to the £48.We do not know what other costs are not included - such as the ferry costs were at least half a million. Marshalls on the bridge probably aren't included either. There is probably a long list of costs not made public.Until there is complete transparency over the costs (indirect & direct) then I would not be surprised if £100m has been passed.So Michael B what is your guess as to the costs?

Ed Robinson ● 101d

As far as I understand it, all the work is being done on the bridge structure itself; the below water structure appears to be robust and intact. I think the problem mainly comes from sheer weight of traffic going over the suspension bridge and causing cracks and damage to the joints etc.

Gerry Boyce ● 101d

On the stablisation cost, don't forget that it is not just the weight of vehicles putting pressure on the structure but the flow of the Thames. If nothing was done, even if another vehicle never crossed, it was going to fall down eventually.

Peter Higgins ● 101d

It is correct that a certain amount would have needed to be spent on renovating and repairing the bridge. However, for stabilisation works the engineers would need to have known the proposed loading; ie what traffic does it need to accommodate.I am not sure what their brief was, but it does seem that  tens of millions of pounds to end up with a bridge for pedestrians and cyclists is not good value for money.In my opinion this bridge should, at least, accommodate busses, taxis, emergency vehicles as well as pedestrians and cyclists, in other words, it should connect both sides of the river in a meaningful way.Whether it should be used for private cars is a moot point.

Gerry Boyce ● 105d

Ed never likes facts to get in the way of hyperbole.

Michael Brigo ● 105d

I'm not sure where your £200 million comes from: the link you posted to Richmond Nub News refers only to almost £48 million for "stabilisation and pre-restoration works," which presumably would have to have been needed whatever was done about ths bridge, short of complete demolition (not that that would have been cost-free).

Richard Carter ● 105d

Not surprising, crime reported to have risen around the bridge.It certainly didn't feel safe walking across it the other night.I would recommend using a torch if crossing after dark. Who would believe that millions of pounds had been spent on it. Perhaps a trip to pound land  to get some fairy lights might help.I think about £100m has been spent since it's closure. That enough for a new bat tunnel!https://richmond.nub.news/news/local-news/hammersmith-council-demands-ps207m-for-bridge-repairs-amid-funding-dispute-251966

Ed Robinson ● 105d

Anyone else fed up with these concept images? Just show us the proposal without the dressing it up with ribbons and bows.Everyone knows the planters won't happen, the little pod/shuttle won't happen etc.The proposal is two cycle lanes to replace the traffic lanes and narrow pedestrian walkways either side.Basically, no change other than restrict cars and busses from using the bridge. The only gobsmacking thing about this is that it has taken years arrive at this solution; do nothing! Why spend money on visuals showing this 'concept'; it's all there for anyone who could be bothered to have a look. It would be perfect little rat run for our friends on the souped up electric bikes and scooters - would you feel safe crossing this bridge?

Gerry Boyce ● 105d

Well, I seem to remember a proposal for a garden bridge some 8 years ago at a cost of £200 million.  It was abandoned, of course.  I suppose that idea was always at the back of some people's minds.Obviously, the proposed bridge will be for anyone - as you say, pedestrians and cyclists.  The shuttle service will help a few others whenever it materializes.

Ivonne Holliday ● 105d

For some??? It's for anyone: pedestrians, cyclsts - and, when the plan to have a shuttle service across the bridge happens, for everyone. What's not to like?

Richard Carter ● 105d

And the concept image from the charity Possible's proposal for a car free bridge — a costly garden bridge at last — for some!

Ivonne Holliday ● 105d

Hello Richard,Thank you for your replies.  I am aware the composition of the stakeholders, not the names of those who were involved in each, though.  The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Merton and Wandsworth have joined forced in many matters, environment included.What made me think that you could be involved?  Nothing scientific or ground-breaking, I am afraid.  The thought just crossed my mind when I read you message at 8:10am this morning.  Disappointing?  More than likely but not such a far fetched idea.Enjoy your evening.

Ivonne Holliday ● 106d

From https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hammersmith-bridge-taskforce:The "government-led taskforce was initially set up by DfT in September 2020 to work towards the safe reopening of the bridge. The taskforce brought together key stakeholders: LBHF, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, TfL, the Greater London Authority and the Port of London Authority."

Richard Carter ● 106d

Ivonne, no, why would you think that?

Richard Carter ● 106d

"* Bridge repair and restoration, sufficient to allow for active travel (pedestrians and cyclists) only plus two single decker buses;"A reminder that the TFL & Hammersmith were unable to implement the two bus limit before the recent closure.I assume they and others on the forum have conveniently forgotten this after all it was one of the reasons that the bridge was damaged and closed.Automatic bus barriers failed with some reports suggesting that they were vandalised by cyclists. They also used marshals with walkie talkies that just waved buses through.I would suggest that the odds of this repeating are is very high. Resulting in a few more hundreds of millions of pounds down the drain and a repeat of the current situation.Repeating past mistakes again and again is associated with stupidity not sense!

Ed Robinson ● 106d

Hello Richard,A genuine question, please.  Are you part of the Hammersmith Bridge Task Force?Thank you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 106d

"At last some sense in the debate..."It's 2025 (putting aside that such options should have been considered years ago) without cost or timelines dismissing options due to political reasons or ideology is irresponsible not sensible.Public money has been spent and wasted.Yet in 2025 it is still considered acceptable that decisions are held in private. There is a reason for the lack of transparency, it is to hide poor decisions and processes.Do not vote for any of these parties that make decisions behind closed doors.

Ed Robinson ● 106d

The Standard put in an FoI request on the recent task force meetjng on the bridge; od the six possible options consudered, all but two were ruled out:* Bridge repair and restoration, sufficient to allow for active travel (pedestrians and cyclists) only plus two single decker buses;* Bridge repair and restoration, sufficient to allow for active travel (pedestrians and cyclists) only.At last some sense in the debate...https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/hammersmith-bridge-plans-demolition-monument-closure-b1219502.html

Richard Carter ● 106d

Yes it seems to be a useless talking shop that will meet once in a while but not get anything done.  As a point of comparison, it took less than three years to build Wandsworth bridge, it was due to take two but they had a 12 month delay caused by the outbreak of a World War.  It was completed and opened during the Blitz. We really are a useless embarrassment to those that went before us.

John Geoffries ● 106d

Looks like they have obtained the minutes from the task force (or should they be called the coalition of the unwilling?) via FOI.It appears a date of 2035 is being mentioned by Putney MP!https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/governance-and-spending/sharing-our-information/foi-disclosure-log/foi-diesel-buses-compliance-ulez-aug-2023

Ed Robinson ● 107d

TFL buses were only fully compliant to Euro VI emissions since 2021.That's within the last 5 years. It's March 2025 now!https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/governance-and-spending/sharing-our-information/foi-disclosure-log/foi-diesel-buses-compliance-ulez-aug-2023

Ed Robinson ● 107d

In PHS the first step change in NO2 levels came with the introduction of hybrid buses. These still emitted NO2 but much less than older ones.  Euro VI emissions compliance already applied, if not to the oldest buses. Lower emission buses only came as a result of citizen science studies of pollution levels initiated by the Putney Society in 2011. This moved the Council to initiate a survey linking pollution levels to specific vehicle type emissions (using ANPR cameras). This proved irrefutably that buses were producing 2/3rds of all NO2 emissions in PHS. They then prevailed on TfL to accelerate the replacement of older buses with cleaner ones. It was a long journey but PHS is now seeing the benefits. Attention is now finally turning to measuring levels of even more harmful 2.5ug micro particles which are generated principally by wear and tear on brakes and tyres. And levels in PHS and elsewhere are worryingly high. For regular reporting on pollution levels see the monthly issues of the Putney Society Bulletin.

Jonathan Callaway ● 107d

You're no doubt right that it's not just the introduction of electric buses that has reduced pollution in and around PHS but also the conversion to hybrid buses - but the latter were introduced from around 2016. Since I specifically referred to the last five years, your point is essentially irrelevant. And in any case that's a minor quibble, since the real point is the fall in pollution, not its cause.

Richard Carter ● 107d

"There has been a general reduction in NO2 levels over the last five years, almost certainly entirely the result of the switch to electric vehicles, especially buses, from 2016"Incorrect!Even as March 2024 the percentage of electric buses is less than 16% (1,397 out of 8776)The big drop came with 1) Diesel Buses being Euro VI emissions compliant.2) A reduction of bus miles  - which has continuedThe number of miles covered by bus services in London was cut by 22 million between 2017 and 2023, new figures have shown.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpde37700jjoBus fleet data & auditshttps://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/bus-fleet-data-and-audits

Ed Robinson ● 108d

Try thishttps://www.flickr.com/gp/m-j-i/436235i03i

Michael Ixer ● 109d

"It seems to me quite obvious that the closure of the bridge in Barnes will continue to bring more traffic to Putney."It would (bring more traffic to Putney) if there was a fixed amount of traffic. But there isn't as a result of traffic evaporation. You really should have learnt from your statistics lectures that what seems obvious doesn't always turn out to be true. What seems like extra traffic is the result of the changes in the junction at Putney bridge which have slowed the rate of movement through it. And "a device to measure the levels on LRR"? Unfortunately, although occasional measurement has occurred there as with the current Putney Society exercise, there have not been any to cover before and after the Hammersmith Bridge closure.

Richard Carter ● 109d

The golden rule of one of my statistics lecturers was to never believe bare statistics if what they suggest is contrary to common sense. This has served me well in my career. It seems to me quite obvious that the closure of the bridge in Barnes will continue to bring more traffic to Putney. That it is so can be seen each day on LRR.  As for pollution, I'm not aware that there is a device to measure the levels on LRR which would appear from the naked eye (which, after 40 plus years in mathematics and statistics, I would trust over third party statistics any day of the week) to be bear the brunt of the queues.

John Geoffries ● 109d

The other main argument of those pressing for the bridge to be reopened is the claim that the closure has resulted in greatly increased pollution. What is the evidence for this?There is not much data over the longer term in Putney, the exception being the data from the monitors in Putney High Street (Kerbside) and just off it in Felsham Road (Putney: Urban Background) and recorded on Imperial College's London Air website (https://www.londonair.org.uk/LondonAir/LATools/MonthlyAverages.aspx). Using figures from this data set, it's possible to see what has been happening, as shown on the graph below (I hope it's more visible than the one I posted on traffic levels).
There has been a general reduction in NO2 levels over the last five years, almost certainly entirely the result of the switch to electric vehicles, especially buses, from 2016. There has, however, been no evident increase in levels since the Hammersmith Bridge closure (a slight increase since around the middle of last year probably results from the rejigging of the junction by Putney Bridge).So the fable of the increased pollution imposed on Putney by the closure is just that, a fable.

Richard Carter ● 109d

business?? Sorry should be buses.

Ed Robinson ● 110d

Are these manual counters the same staff employed to prevent more than one business going over Hammersmith Bridge at the time??Manual data is very unreliable especially if it is raining.Unfortunately we have the situation where nimbys who do not have to commute to work are quite happy to see the bridge a vital link to the Underground permanently closed.

Ed Robinson ● 110d

Hello Richard,Not the easiest of posts to read as it became very wide indeed.Having said this, I had seen these statistics before which puzzled me.  Needless to say, the readings were taken manually during weekdays in the months of June and July between 7 and 19hs.....  Not that helpful!  Just check the speed of the vehicles on the bridges...  not free flowing at all at 6mph.But, as you know, we will always disagree on this matter.  But we all know that statistics can be manipulated....

Ivonne Holliday ● 110d

Oh dear, Wandsworth seem inordinately pleased with these figures as they’ve put them about in different places. Unfortunately, the quoted figures are almot comically inappropriate in trying to make a case that the closure of Hammersmith Bridge has increased traffic in Putney.
"Snapshot data from the DfT shows that between 2020 and 2023, the overall number of motor vehicles on Putney Bridge was estimated to have increased by 16%, from 32,083 to 37,239.”
These figures compare 2023 with 2020 – but the bridge was already closed, in 2019. Sorry to labour the point, but comparing one set of figures after the closure with another set of figures after the closure is completely meaningless in any suggestion that the closure caused an increase, and in any case the 2020 figure was artificially depressed since it was during the height of the pandemic.
“The Council's own automatic traffic count data shows a 25% increase in traffic during the morning peak hours between 2019-2023."
These figures are as bad for the case: the base year, 2019, is the wrong choice since the closure occurred in early April that year, so three-quarters of the 2019 figure occurred after it. And also, cherry-picking the morning peak period is dubious: only a full day’s figure would be right.
What is really needed is a comparison between the figure now with that in 2018, the last full year before the closure. Fortunately, just such a comparison exists, in Freedom of Information request 3707 2425 to TfL ( https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-3707-2425). This records traffic levels over not just Putney Bridge but over Chiswick, Kew and Wandsworth Bridges; the results are summarised in the graph below.


The figures clearly demonstrate a (small) reduction over all bridges, far from the ludicrous claims of Wandsworth, Fleur Anderson and others, and destroy the case for Hammersmith Bridge to be reopened when based on claims of extra traffic diverted over the other bridges.

Richard Carter ● 110d

Seems Mr Carter missed those 30,000+ when he was on the bridge counting.

Andy Pike ● 111d

Hammersmith Bridge was a major route for connecting busses from SW15/SW14 to Hammersmith station.Urgent action needed” on Hammersmith Bridge, say Wandsworth residents"Snapshot data from the DfT shows that between 2020 and 2023, the overall number of motor vehicles on Putney Bridge was estimated to have increased by 16%, from 32,083 to 37,239. The Council's own automatic traffic count data shows a 25% increase in traffic during the morning peak hours between 2019-2023."https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/news-january-2025/urgent-action-needed-on-hammersmith-bridge-say-wandsworth-residents/

Ed Robinson ● 111d

Also Cedars Road, Mill Hill Barnes, 3 Policemen on Saturday were hiding not very well trying to catch people with their speed trap. But cars coming towards us were warning everybody.  Soppy place because everybody slows down to go round the small roundabout to go to the right or left.

Barbara Stevens ● 111d

Well why is so much traffic on the LRR making it's why over the Bridge, also cutting down our road from 6.30 in the morning wanting to take a short cut from the URR to get to the High St. Why are so many vehicles and buses making there way down Mortlake High St, Mill Hill, to get over Putney Bridge because they are unable to go over Hammersmith.

Barbara Stevens ● 111d

There is certainly near gridlock on occasions at Putney Bridge,  but this is caused by a wide range of factors, none of which is the increased traffic diverted from Hammersmith Bridge, since there isn't any.And there is no evidence that the air quality in this area - where I actually live - is dire and worsening as a result of bridge's closure, since it has been improving over the past five or more years.

Richard Carter ● 112d

Unfortunately I would have to agree John.If only our councillors and MP looked after our interests in the same way.The bridge looked in a shocking condition yesterday evening with the side foot path being dark in places.

Ed Robinson ● 112d