King St. “CS9” as proposed in 2018

Over the last year or so, we’ve been participating in the Council’s resident-led  Cycling & Walking Commission, via our membership secretary, along with residents including representatives of one or two affected resident’s associations, such as affiliates SPRA & SBRA.

Due to the pandemic, meetings were held as online workshops, the process being chaired by Cllr. Iain Cassidy, and facilitated by the council’s preferred consultants, WSP, who provided expert guidance and showed design options used elsewhere in the UK and Europe. We heard from several special interest groups including disabled cycling group Wheels for Wellbeing.

Summary

• A two-way temporary cycleway named CW9 is to be built along Hammersmith Road / King St including replacing older track on the right in the one-way part of King St.
• The design is similar to Chiswick CW9 “temporary” scheme including bus bypasses.  A halfway-house one-way wand scheme is currently being deployed as a step to the “temporary” two-way scheme.
• Our preferred A4 route is not being actively pursued currently. Any “permanent” scheme, like the original “CS9” is now unfunded.
• The design favours cycling at the expense of pedestrians and busses – as a result we have accessibility, safety and unnecessary increased pollution concerns – this doesn’t appear to be a fair and equitable solution for Hammersmith.
• The E-Scooter Trial is an independent activity – TfL and DfT to review results.

Terms of Reference

Modal Share 2019
All London : Inner London has significantly lower car use. (Source TfL)

In common with TfL’s leanings, most discussion was around cycling, with a healthy proportion of commissioners chosen for those credentials, despite the clue in the name (and Terms of Reference) Cycling and Walking Commission, we therefore felt the need to keep walking and other users on the agenda as (almost) everyone walks if they can, and the number of journeys by foot + bus represents at least 40% of all journeys.  As shown, walking represents a 25% “modal” share, but is often the Cinderella of the show by needing no specific new infrastructure – or does it ? 

Members will know our widely expressed preference for an A4 cycle route for the last four or more years, for well-researched reasons of safety, cost, ease of implementation, and least impact on other journeys, particularly bus users & bus lanes, and consequently those less able. With the Paralympics and #WeThe15 still large in the rear-view mirror, it’s instructive to remember that despite what’s been said about pandemic-related increases in various media, cycling of all stripes represents 2-4% of journeys in London (before-after dedicated infrastructure), and inappropriate infrastructure can easily disenfranchise much of the 15%, never mind the other 80%+, if it takes away pavement space, safe access to bus stops, kerbside stopping/pickup/delivery points, or is otherwise not well designed.  Such accessibility issues were unevenly represented in the commission – some for example proffered disabled cycling as a mainstream activity, rather than a design consideration.   Parking provision universally gets short shrift, even if it could help rejuvenate parts of the high street. 

• Discussions
• A4
• Bypassing
• E-Scooter Trial
• Implementation
• Issues
• LTNs

King St. – a proposal to the commission

The commission looked at some specifics, such as the busy area at the top of King Street shown here, which has particular challenges with crossings (esp. around Lyric Square), the number of pedestrians, traffic – buses and the limited road space, but much of the discussion was based on broadly defined generic areas such as Town/Central (incl. above), Local (e.g. West end of King St), Hammersmith Road, and to a lesser extent, the A4. The commissioners were asked to look at, and vote on, particular junction treatments and layouts, but only for the permanent scheme.

The commission was subsequently promised more detailed plans for review based on our inputs, both for the temporary and permanent schemes. We specifically proposed the cycle lane go through Angel Walk to underused Blacks Road, linking it to the A4 route, and avoiding the problem of the busiest section of King Street and crossing in front of Lyric Square. This was not accepted.

An Orwellian Inversion: “Two wheels good; Four wheels bad” sometimes overtook commission discussions, which, at times limited debate, particularly around the A4 route, and other aspects of the ToR, such as legitimate other uses of roads and pavements. The commission didn’t reach the genuinely Orwellian conclusion “Four wheels good; Two wheels better!”, though it became clear that the full King St. scheme would be implemented regardless of better alternatives; some options were more equal than others.

UK domestic transport pollution over time (source DfT)
Which way is it going ?

A common argument for discounting the A4 route, and one heard in the commission – that it’s polluted – is a) factually incorrect – it’s no more polluted than Fulham Palace Road, or likely now King Street since junction+road narrowing & stationary traffic – and b) arguments that will be dated as soon as a decade hence, when the majority of vehicles will have low or zero emissions.  It just feels polluted today, which is a fragile basis for visionary public policy or long-term planning.  Hammersmith Broadway actually is twice as polluted as the A4, because of the volume of local traffic added to the elevated flyover traffic, concentrated number of buses, many idling in the bus station, plus a side-order of particulate muck thrown up from the tube, but that was equally insufficient argument to encourage the movement of cycling routes away from it.

The A4 route avoids the pitfalls of bus bypasses, and is demonstrably safer with many fewer junctions and entrances,  highlighted by the rather intermittent nature of temporary lanes on King St.  TfL & DfT crash maps, and ROSPA research has shown for years that 75-80% of cycling-related accidents happen at junctions, including the fatal one a month or so ago involving a commercial vehicle at the junction of Theobald’s Road & Southampton Row, and one in May at the junction of Brackley Road on the new Chiswick section of CW9.

A specific concern arose around bus bypasses, and their effect on bus users of all abilities, especially having seen the Heath-Robinson efforts nearby in the Chiswick scheme (already thankfully under revision), given the 7 routes / 32 buses/hr (pre-pandemic 48/hr) plus the 27 on it’s King St. loop and others, making perhaps 44 total/hr.  Bypasses are described as “trial” in the TfL manual – we trust that the H&F Safer Cycle Pathway disabled residents WG are satisfied with the designs.

Penalising/slowing down cars to extricate people from them causes collateral damage by forgetting that roads have a multiplicity of users and use cases – a classic multipurpose infrastructure – which is why, like it or not, they are so popular and cost-effective for all wheel counts, including trade vehicles, examples of which are increasingly frequent electric Amazon deliveries, food deliveries of all (wheeled) types, and emergency services, which those living near King St hear many times a day. We maintain that making 50% of a shared infrastructure into single-purpose, particularly substituting a 14% bus (lane) share by a 2% share cycle lane, even if it doubles to 4% as result, is a regressive imposition, in a borough that already suffers disproportionality with some of the most congested and polluted roads in London.

A number of things have changed since the commission met. Firstly COVID-19 has been confirmed to have killed off most TfL funding, which was always on a knife-edge given TfL finances even before the pandemic, but funding sufficient for a permanent scheme is definitely gone. Secondly, there’s limited funding, if any, for our long-preferred A4 route.  We continue to be dismayed by vocal campaigning, mostly for segregated lanes on main roads – particularly on social media – flying in the face of the safety evidence, while still ostensibly basing much of the argument on safety!  At least three members of the commission independently made the point that avoiding problems of segregated lanes would be rather better than trying to design around them with junction and bus stop mitigations, but sadly the majority preferred to soldier-on.  The same applies to the arguments on pollution, above.

E-scooter trial, King St, plus new bike lane wands.
Note the words BUS LANE covered by wands

In another recent development, the council has opted to take part in the E-Scooter trial, and though mentioned in the latter part of our meetings, there was limited information on how the lanes might relate to the trial and any CW9 implementation.  There remain question marks in this area, not only locally, but from the perspective of the Department for Transport and TfL, and their findings from the trial.  The picture adjacent, taken during “rush-hour”, suggests limited uptake, but it was August, other traffic is similarly scarce. We’d appreciate your views and feedback.

The RNIB and others have expressed concern for the safety of riders and pedestrians, and it’s important to note that the rented E-Scooters are limited to 12.5 mph and are the only legal way to use such a scooter on public roads. They mustn’t be ridden on pavements at any time, although they can use cycle lanes – prompting the question above – should they be forced to use cycle lanes – or not?  Actual users seem undecided.  Riders must be 18 or over, hold a driving licence and can receive penalty points for infringements. Liability insurance is provided as part of the rental and the scooters are “geofenced” so that they don’t work in prohibited locations. The companies participating are Tier, Dott and Lime as shown in the photo, with the same or near identical machines. The contrast is stark between the many regulatory limits on this trial scheme, and the reality on the road, where £125 – £750 E-Scooters whizz past, often substantially faster than other traffic and unfettered by the road’s typical 20MPH speed limit.

We’re told that the council and/or TfL specifically promised that pavements wouldn’t be used for parking scooters in the trial, in line with RNIB requests, but the picture shows that this appears to have been forgotten!  TfL’s consultation during the trial can be found here

The recently deployed plastic wand arrangement shown above is actually not the intended temporary scheme at all – that is to come – and is what an estimated £3.5M of  TfL funding allows for – a design largely first seen as CW9 on Chiswick High Road. What is now installed is a stepping-stone to the temporary scheme.

Goldhawk Road junction – bus heaven

Later this year, you should expect to see a scheme very similar to Chiswick’s on our section of CW9, complete with the unloved and potentially unsafe bus bypasses.

Our additional concerns centre on obvious problems causing substantial daily tailbacks along King Street, the result of narrowing the junction with Goldhawk Road to a single lane, making it especially awkward when anything needs to turn right.  The same happens at the prioritised left-turn at Chiswick Lane – now removed – causing daily gridlock along Chiswick High Road and so back down Goldhawk Road.

These are small, yet uncompromising and unnecessary missteps, with big impacts on all other road and pavement users – bus users, emergency services, commercial traffic and pedestrians subjected to added pollution from idling diesels – hardly green.  The council promised the commission that the Goldhawk Road narrowing would be addressed with the temporary scheme – yet to be implemented; and the Chiswick Lane problem is not in our scope, though ChiswickW4 recently reported a plan to fix it later this year, sadly albeit at the cost of a 100yr. old tree, a common TfL-ism, the like of which resulted in the 11,000 strong petition that subsequently derailed Notting Hill Gate CS10 scheme.  Lessons learnt ?

TfL have not helped their cause by producing some dodgy statistics from a few sunny weeks in early summer, comparing numbers to lockdown, attributing substantial cycling increases directly to CW9, then extensively bandied around social media and the mainstream media without context (for example “72% increase” on 2% is 3.5%). The uptick has been particularly noticeable in weekend/leisure cycling.  The statistical problem?  Boroughs that have had no recent additional cycling infrastructure, such as Camden & Hackney show identical increases, with annualised figures showing little change, defying the trope “build it and they will come”.

By very publicly endorsing such tactics, ignoring details like their own and ROSPA crash data, valid comparative statistics, and RNIB requests, while being heavily influenced to a small vocal social media lobby, TfL are in danger of bringing themselves into disrepute, questioning their wider policies, and appearing dictatorial. The cheerleader has plenty of form – we call for properly audited stats, and a proper analysis. We are therefore pleased that, as promised to the commission, H&F will be installing automated counters on our section of CW9 to provide proper stats. They would naturally be improved if they could be comparative.

The commission’s unofficial feedback on the recently installed King St. wands is that the lane is too narrow to be bidirectional.  Belatedly, the council contacted commissioners with an update: We’re told that the H&F Disability Forum has been involved in the design of the scheme, and that the Broadway section was problematic, having to cater for the many bus movements.  The wands shown above are indeed in temporary positions, resulting in the noted 2m narrower lane, to be moved at a later date to provide a wider (2.5 – 3m) bidirectional lane with hard intermittent “light segregation” barriers installed, along with resurfacing – the “temporary scheme”.  We’re also told the A4 scheme is not dead, but there are no drawings for it…

A perusal of the proposed temporary scheme layout shows some problems:

• A cycle crossover between Macbeth and Holcombe streets (across the one-way part of King St) looks to be dangerous, especially crossing the busy main road – examples could not be found in TfL’s design manual.
• The crossover design necessitates a bus bypass in the one-way part of King St, with the road so narrow as to not allow any other passing vehicles.  This is expressly unnecessary with a crossover further down, as now, in a natural spot adjacent to the pedestrian crossing outside the Town Hall.
• Narrowing of the road and pavement outside King’s Mall, preventing passing vehicles. Those of us who’ve been here a while recall significant pavement widening to accommodate the large footfall safely, which continues despite the pandemic. Is pedestrian safety being compromised on the cycling altar?
• Intermittent hard 6 inch high edge kerbs (“light segregation” in TfL terminology) seems likely to be a pedestrian trip hazard in the main shopping area at the East end of King St. TfL examples do not include busy shopping streets.
• There is no evidence of the output of the commission in design of crossings. The crossing discussions were almost all about safety.
• Closure of Bridge Avenue without consultation that we are aware of.
• Despite much talk of greening (including the concept above), in familiar TfL fashion, there is a rather more hard landscaping and expensive civil works, the value of which has to be questioned for a temporary arrangement.
• The existing Eastbound cycle route along the main shopping part of King St has been dug up. It’s unclear if the temporary scheme, or some intermediate scheme is planned.

The temporary design is clearly needs more work, and we hope and expect commissioners to be asked to review the designs, with views properly considered.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

A quick observation on the controversial LTN’s.  There are few identified as such in Hammersmith, it’s more a hot potato in adjacent Fulham and Chiswick. However, if the 1960’s road closures necessitated by the A4 were rebranded as LTN’s – which is what they are – how much more cycle-friendly would the quiet roads adjacent to the A4 appear, especially with a dedicated cycle path linking them along the end?

We were disappointed by the commission’s lack of recognition of this easy, low-cost and (social) media-friendly win for all concerned, and in this vein, concerns have been raised by the above two affiliates over public permeability: around the Town Hall redevelopment where Nigel Playfair Avenue used to be, and around the now demolished Landmark House and Blacks Road.

OPDC local plan

A further consultation stage ended on 5 July. This was made necessary because the Car Giant section of the OPDC area was ruled to be “undevelopable” for the duration of the Plan (as a result of no agreement with Car Giant) – so the quantum of development has to be shifted to the west of the area.

Our member Henry Peterson, on behalf of a coalition of local groups and civic societies, is maintaining that this should require a new Draft Plan, but the Inspector is unlikely to agree. The following is Henry’s synopsis of the case against the Plan, with any references referring to sections of the plan available here :

• With a continuing pandemic, 2021 is not the time to fix in place a Local Plan for one of the last large areas of largely undeveloped land in London.   Much is changing, in London’s population trends, commuting patterns, and the type of housing in which people want to live.
• The changes made to the 2018 version of the Local Plan are not small ones.  Entirely new locations have been earmarked for high density and high rise housing.  OPDC claim in its consultation material that ‘most of the Plan remains the same’. As a result, many local people have not caught up with the fact that proposals dating from 2018 are being substantially altered.
• New plans for Channel Gate with high density, high rise inserted into existing low rise residential areas have been inadequately consulted on and should not be introduced via a ‘modification’ at this late stage, ref MM/PS2/OPDC/P9/1
• OPDC continues to say that these locations for high density housing will be ‘well connected’.  In many cases this is not true.  With no new Overground or Underground stations, as originally proposed, these locations are poorly served by public transport – check the PTAL ratings. Extra buses on roads heavily congested are not much help. MM/PS2/OPDC/SP/25 and MM/PS2/OPDC/T/1
• The modified Plan does nothing to join up the existing residential areas on the west and east side of the Scrubs, for the next 20 years.   We are left with east-west connections through Harlesden or south of the Scrubs at Du Cane Road. Major Modification Figure/PS2/OPDC/PM2
• High density housing which is ‘car-free’ does not mean ‘vehicle free’.  This Plan does not reflect the rapid changes taking place on online sales and delivery traffic.
• High rise housing is not what many people want or need in 2021 onwards, given a cladding scandal and the risks of further future lockdowns.  Lifts and social distancing do not combine well.
• The 2018 Draft included a ‘major town centre’ at Old Oak North on the Car Giant land. This 2021 version refers at various points to ‘parts of a major town centre’.   The location of Channel Gate for ‘major town centre uses’ is not convincing.   North Acton is now largely redeveloped but attracts only fast food and chain café outlets aimed at students and a transient population. MM/PS2/OPDC/SP/19 and MM/PS2/OPDC/SP/14 6a.

More on the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum to which Henry contributes.

HS2 on Newsnight

If you saw the HS2 story on last week’s Newsnight, you might be surprised at how so much money has been spent, and how much digging done, including in this borough with parts of Wormwood Scrubs being churned up to break ground for Old Oak station, “the most connected station in the UK”, possibly without the project having been fully thought through.

HS2 Ltd has recently applied for a Compulsory Purchase Order on the area where they are doing works to divert the Sanford Brook Sewer, along the northern border of the Scrubs. 

HS2 is the most expensive high-speed railway in the world
– The Economist

The government’s own Major Projects Authority, like longstanding questioners including some of our members, seems have come to the conclusion late in the day that there could be more effective ways to spend huge amounts of capital, such as on East-West and local routes, but this isn’t news. At more than £33M a mile, the more than tripling of the original budget may have swung government thinking, but it was naïve to think this wouldn’t happen, given the expensive optioneering and some fairly obvious gold-plating, plus recent experience with projects like the almost identically overbudget 2012 Olympics – under the same leadership – and Crossrail, now over 3 years late. It is more than a little concerning that such projects continually require a somewhat childish suspension of disbelief, or more politely “optimism bias”, in order to get off the ground, only to wake up with a big government-largesse-fuelled hangover, discovering much of the budget has already been committed and/or spent – quite possibly inefficiently with questionable governance (Oakervee review conclusion 37), and perhaps not in the best place. 

In the case of the London Olympics, significant change or cancellation wasn’t an option of course, and we got new sports infrastructure and the repurposed housing via the Olympic village, plus a huge feel-good factor afterwards.  But HS2 has no medals, and fewer friends, dubbed by Sir Simon Jenkins as a “£100bn vanity project”, or more simply by The Economist “The most expensive high-speed railway in the world”.

HS2 Construction Old Oak/Scrubs [shepherdsbushw12.com]

Can an increasingly poor match with requirements now be blamed on COVID and a supposed waning of travel between cities – often a mainstay of the justification?  Not really, video conferencing has been around for decades, and the needs of ordinary people, now relabelled the levelling-up agenda, were secondary in the requirements – probably the root of the problem.  Members of the Society may have spotted the writing on the wall in the article a year ago where the gambit of high speed rail was set out using international comparators, and the reality of electric vehicles was suggested as potentially undermining its green credentials (if indeed they are as claimed, when the embodied carbon from concrete has been factored in).  We’d like to think Government read the article, but it’s unfortunate if ministers have again been captured by the allure of diggers & Hi-Viz, locally on Wormwood Scrubs, but in many other places too – Hammersmith Bridge excepted.

TBM “Florence” in the Chilterns [HS2 Ltd]

Looking at the situation more positively, and considering what has already been dug, a more appropriate project might be quite the reverse of what is mooted as a new approach – cutting off the northern legs. High Speed rail viability increases with distance up to about a 3hr journey time – the Birmingham route is right on the lower limit of accepted high-speed viability at 100 miles, more a sop to get the project off the ground at lowest(!) cost – the Oakervee Review concurs in conclusion 54.  Distraction by way of mooted “high-speed” links Leeds / Manchester, is muddle – in 36 miles, half the length of Crossrail, “high speed” wouldn’t achieved for long enough to be worthwhile.

Changing Rooms [BBC]

So-called property porn continues to make up a good percentage of the TV schedules 25 years after Changing Rooms started Building the Dream in a Location, Location, Location for The Poshest Sleepover in Millionaires’ Mansions, then over to The Great Interior Design Challenge, creating some Grand Designs, and moving on to daytime TV with rather lower budgets and more prosaic ambitions with House Doctor and Homes under the Hammer. 

More than one of these shows is approaching its silver anniversary, and you’re sure to have seen many of them – perhaps the daytime offerings too – and possibly even been addicted to one or two ?

In a roundabout way, they’re all selling the story that rising house prices are a Good Thing. The recent publication of the new London Plan ahead of the delayed Mayoral Election this week, presents a good opportunity to take the long view of the property market, and test this hypothesis in the real world.

Over the last two decades, there has been a 46% increase in the number of young people aged 20-34 living with their parents ^🔗

The evidence from first-time buyers is that spiralling prices are not such a good idea, especially post-COVID.  Excluded from markets such as our own local one, where one bedroom flats start around £250k, younger people have wondered how they’ll get on the mythical ‘property ladder’ for a while now.  Having been locked-down for much of the last year, they may be further destined to stay at home with mum’n’dad for the foreseeable, their best hope of ‘moving out’ may be to convert the garage to put a door between parents and the resultant substandard bedsit, or take a government help-to-buy mortgage – one that possibly helps stoke prices more than helps make housing affordable.  A poor show all round.

Housing Completions 2020 (MHCLG)

Classic economic theory says that rising prices stimulate the economy and increase house builder’s appetite to build.  The statistics don’t bear this out, with completions only just approaching the levels of 15-20 years ago, having been in the doldrums through periods of huge price inflation (with the real possibility of correlation), London being a particular “white spot” despite the highest price rises.  Hereabouts there are many factors at play, land availability being just one of them; the theory is too simplistic.

And what of this cash – where does it come from ?  From not spending in local shops and hospitality, or just adding to a debt mountain.  Neither are good for the real economy, locking away income for the foreseeable, and once on the ladder, the next step involves an increasing gap as prices rise, so any increased disposable income is – disposed of.  Best start saving now, or better move up quickly, perhaps by taking on an uncomfortable level of debt, before the price gets out of reach.

There remains a widespread assumption that existing homeowners subscribe to the benefits of rising prices.  Pragmatic Marxists might even tell you that releasing equity is a way to feedback escalating values to the proletariat (that’s your children, by the way).  But older voters (always sought after, unlike Auntie or marketers, forever chasing the young – discuss),  may soon get tired of their children still at home in their 30’s and even 40’s in London, as the direct effect of rising prices, and may start voting otherwise.  With the equivalent escalation of the average age of moving out, parents may become too old themselves, and disinclined to move at the time they might be able to release equity, and enjoy it.  Taking on what looks & feels like debt, in the form of equity release, probably having spent many years paying down a mortgage, may also be a bitter & alien pill, albeit perhaps a sensible one – for an economist.

Median London House Prices 1995-2020, sorted by 1995 price (ONS)

Hammersmith has the 5th highest median house prices in London.  It’s slipped one place since 1995, the graph adjacent is sorted by 1995 prices, when it was 4th, which may surprise you. 1995 prices are shown as the tiny blue bars.

Whatever nuances there are between H&F and anywhere else in town, property inflation has been huge in absolute terms, as shown in the second graphic, and much greater than elsewhere in the UK. H&F is middle of the range at 700%, explaining its 1 place fall in the above race, but the lowest priced boroughs in 1995, such as Hackney and Newham have seen the largest rises in a rather misplaced levelling-up exercise, many would call gentrification. Examine the demographics, and you’ll see the volume of younger people who have moved to those places on an affordability basis, if no other.  By contrast, average incomes have doubled in the same period but have been static in inflation-adjusted terms, meaning housing is 350% of the cost 25 years ago (c.f. ratios below), although interest rates are a lot lower if you’re borrowing the money. If you’d been what used to be called prudent – and saved for it – bad luck. Prudence was made homeless a while ago.

Percentage rise in London property by borough (ONS)

Our elders tell us that sky-high London property prices were ever so.  In the 50’s and 60’s, newbuilds were cheaper than period properties; in the age of the Space Race and (if only they’d known it) mid-century modernism, bright shiny and new was still less popular than ‘period’, and while affordability continued to decline, property aspirations remained as conservative and static as life’s DNA, a fact confirmed in the government’s recent Design Guide.

Hammersmith Bridge with Toll, 1827, designed by William Tierney Clark (Hammersmith & Fulham Archives)

We’re pleased to see that a ferry operator has finally been appointed, and conversely disappointed at a low proposed (peak) capacity of 800/hr. total, i.e. 400 each way, cost – not free – £1.55 proposed, though included in hopper & concessionary fares, restricted operating hours of 6am-10pm, and of course the service delay until later this year. 

But as the tale below shows, a temporary bridge was the right solution 140 years ago when the original bridge was falling down through neglect, and remains so today, on the second anniversary of bridge closure.
Accordingly, we  wrote to the Prime Minister recently.

John Dixon by Ian Pearce

Last month we were sent a copy of the lavishly illustrated hardback ‘John Dixon’ by Ian Pearce, published in 2019 (cover shown), which has a fascinating chapter illuminating the design & construction issues of the original Tierney Clark suspension bridge, and its rebuilding as the current bridge, which John Dixon’s company took over in the 1880’s, under Bazalgette and his son Edward.
Readers may order the book direct from the author at the much reduced price of £18 (including UK p&p) using this link.

Hailstone’s book

Here we also need to mention the joint endeavour by the Fulham and Hammersmith, and Barnes and Mortlake Historical Societies in recently updating Charles Hailstone’s 1987 book: A History of Hammersmith Bridge.

To say that the various accounts show history repeating itself would be rather an understatement. Included in Pearce’s book are warnings writ large for those again contemplating tolls and ferries.

A comparative list between then & now:

Hammersmith Bridge under reconstruction, showing Temporary Bridge, by John Archibald Webb
(Richmond upon Thames Borough Art Collection)

✔ A toll that irritated residents both sides of the bridge.
✔ Ownership issues preventing adequate finance & oversight.
✔ Lack of maintenance leading to near collapse.
✔ Concerns over bridge loading capacity, weight.
✔ Questionable strength of bridge chains and hangers.
✔ Roadway disintegration.
✔ Use of inappropriate materials for cost reasons.
✔ Engineers reports unheeded, or “disappeared”.
✔ Plan for a temporary ferry with low capacity & limited hours.
❌ Effect on navigation and the Boat Race.
❓ Temporary bridge, 23ft wide with a separate walkway.

It’s of note that Tierney Clark’s Széchenyi Chain Bridge in Budapest, of similar design to his one in Hammersmith and earlier in Marlow, is also currently closed – for repair and rebuilding – not for the first time,  perhaps with some familiar issues ?

During Bazalgette’s 1880’s bridge reconstruction, a temporary bridge was built both wide enough for traffic, and with spans sufficient for navigation and to allow the Boat Race to continue as shown here, in response to the inadequacies of a proposed ferry, an outcry from the residents of Castelnau (@TfL take note), and at the time, a statutory duty to maintain a crossing, needing an Act of Parliament to circumvent.  Eventually though, the rebuilding was done in just 30 months, and at a cost of £82,177 which is about £10.5M in today’s money. 

It’s now just over six months since the Bridge was closed to pedestrians and cyclists, and over 22 months since it was closed to traffic, yet there is neither a Bridge repair contract nor an alternative crossing facility in place. Repair work will not progress until there is forward funding to pay the estimated £128M cost (over and above TfL funded temporary stabilisation works). Government funding has been offered conditional on a LBHF contribution of £64M, 50% of the cost, as reported in last weekend’s Observer. This is evidently way beyond the LBHF resources; whilst there has been media reference to the potential of council reserves, the 2019 external auditors report states “…Council do have ongoing financial pressures, which need to be addressed in the medium term… As a result, the Council is now maintaining a reserves position that is below the average when compared to other London Boroughs”.  Government funding for local authorities has been considerably reduced in recent years, and an uplift in council tax, aside from social and political issues, would only generate additional income of around £650K per 1% rise.

Foster & Partners bridge proposal

Hammersmith Bridge would seem to be a unique and most deserving case for special funding, and it is so frustrating that the critical issue of project financing is not addressed in the government Task Force meetings, despite its obvious importance. However we understand that, separate to the Task Force meetings, LBHF have been exploring initiatives which draw on the private sector, not only in the Foster/Ritblat temporary bridge proposal, but also investigating the viability of private funding, secured on an income stream provided by a toll: this financing method which has been used for a number of other UK bridges, including in London, the Dartford Crossing. LBHF residents would be likely to cross toll-free. We understand LBHF have now submitted a comprehensive financial plan to Grant Shapps based on this funding approach.  Consideration might be given to 1% of the toll to be set aside for social funding in Hammersmith, similar to the arrangement on the London Eye ticket price.

Some valuable comparative information has emerged regarding the financing of other London bridges. For the recent £9.6M repairs to Albert Bridge, RBKC paid £2.6M in line with many other bridge repairs as recent research indicates, while TfL paid £7M. The £9M refurbishment of Chiswick Bridge was paid for by TfL. Since TfL are out of funds, the recent upgrade of Wandsworth Bridge was paid for by Wandsworth Council – but since the bridge is a simple cantilever structure, fabricated in steel in 1940, the overall cost was only around £6M, less than 6% of the bill for the 1887 Hammersmith Bridge.

These comparative repair costs highlight the unique problems with the bridge, an ornate, Grade II* listed structure constructed from cast iron and wood in 1887, two years after the first internal combustion engine came off the Benz production line. Before the traffic closure in April 2019, over 20,000 vehicles and 2,000 single-decker buses were crossing the Bridge daily; until total closure in August 2020 16,000 pedestrians and cyclists were crossing daily. Until 1998 heavy goods vehicles and double-decker buses were using the Bridge.

The Bridge is clearly not fit for this purpose. If the outward appearance of the Bridge is to be retained, then within the decorative outer claddings the structure has to be not repaired, but replaced, to create a Bridge which is able to sustain the demands of 21st century traffic.  We discuss this in more detail in the accompanying article.

We’ve made several meaningful and thought-through suggestions in the half-dozen articles, and as many letters to the main bridge protagonists in the last year, from simple widening the pathways to make the bridge more accessible, and to improve public safety, to ways to invisibly fix the 19th century structure for the longer term, in a maintainable 21st century way.  Put simply, we believe the current premise for repairs has set the engineers off on a bit of a wild goose chase.  While much good work has been done, how much is useful under an alternate premise, and at what opportunity cost ?

Bridge anchor (cover removed)

As we pass six months since complete closure, we’ve made it crystal clear that there appears very little, if any, value in repairing the much-debated, though normally invisible, cast iron pedestals shown.  We continue to be dismayed that so much attention is paid to evaluating and repairing these simple yet demonstrably unsuitable bolted-in components (c.f. Mott MacDonald summary and more detailed  Aecom report) when replacement with modern equivalents is an obvious solution.  Not only that, but by including, as we’ve suggested, a built-in lifting or jacking mechanism for the chains in a new design pedestal, future maintenance inspections and bearing replacements (the cause of many of the current problems, and certainly the precipitous closure), would be reduced to perhaps scheduled weekend roadway closures every 5 years or so, at low cost and public impact.  This, without even considering the environmental and financial running costs of the proposed chain heating and monitoring systems that would no longer be needed. 

Surely we can’t be the first to spot such an opportunity for a better and long-lasting engineered solution at lower overall cost – plus the opportunity to cut a whole phase of repair work ? The question is why can we only find passing reference to renewal as an option in the copious Aecom report?  Which is where we return to the issue of the premise, assumed to include retaining the original components.

A false premise

Temporary pedestal support frame

The TfL drawings shown at the public meeting in October, to which we responded, show a temporary support frame for “emergency stabilisation” – already designed – that could be better used during pedestal renewal, using offsite built and tested replacements, instead of a long and expensive (£13.9M + percentage  – say half – we don’t have a detailed cost breakdown) of the permanent stabilisation costs, totalling c.£30M. 

The current proposal for onsite shoring-up would hardly respect the Grade II* listing, Bazalgette’s design, or materials (assuming that’s the rationale), rendering the pedestals unrecognisable as historic components, especially when infilled with [c. 6 tonnes] of steel fibre reinforced concrete as proposed, and would, according to the Aecom report, leave further nascent cast-iron problems, including a possible failure mode where the cast iron collapses onto the unusual prop/concrete/cast iron mix. The cast iron pedestals would instead make fine museum pieces, to accompany Tower Bridge’s stream engine, removed from service when proven equally obsolete over 40 years ago.

Foster & Partners / Delancey temporary bridge proposal

Bridge proposal

We were surprised and excited in equal measure to see a radical new proposal published by the council, in partnership with Foster and Partners and Sir John Ritblat of Delancey, the company now owning the Earls Court development site.  This is designed to temporarily solve the conundrum of getting across the river while the original bridge is repaired.  Details can be read on the council’s website, there’s obviously more detailed work needed to bring it to fruition.

Key points are:

• Raised temporary deck envisages crossing for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists on 2 levels.
• The deck would overlay and rest on the footings of the existing bridge.
• River traffic could pass underneath.
• Costs believed lower and timescale significantly faster than previous plans.
• Partial dismantling and offsite refurbishment of the existing structure while temporary structure in place.
• Transport Secretary given outline brief by H&F Council Leader on 25th November.

There’s been generally positive comment in the press and social media, and we were particularly pleased to see our favoured approach of offsite construction/restoration being embraced, which should improve the quality of the end result.

Funding

Since the public Task Force meeting in October, there have been snippets of gossip from behind the scenes, but little significant  progress to report. TfL have been instructed to pay for a temporary ferry river crossing, and to contribute £4M towards the bridge stabilising work, drawing from their recent £1.8B government emergency funding.

Central government has now promised to fund the project, conditional on a substantial contribution from the local authority.  LBHF report that funds are not available to meet this demand.  The Hammersmith Society and others are pressing the government to take the long view, and release the Bridge funds now, and negotiate separately with the local authority,  and this is set out in our letters to the Task Force chairman and the Secretary of State for Transport, as previously published.

Enquiries to LBHF and other parties have revealed some further context to the funding problem.  We understand that Hammersmith became involuntary owners of the Bridge in 1985, when the government abolished the GLC (Greater London Council); there is no record of a condition audit taking place at the time, and no maintenance arrangement accompanying the gift, which was perhaps a mistake.

In normal circumstances structural repairs to the bridges over the Thames have been paid for by TfL, with costs of a fraction of the c. £150M budget for Hammersmith Bridge;  this very substantial cost arises largely from the design of the structure with cast iron, and design restrictions on the repair methods imposed by Historic England Grade ll* listing status.