As a Member, you will receive at least two printed newsletters and regular email updates each year, outlining our activities, and giving you the opportunity to participate in our campaigns. Members are always encouraged to take an active part in the work done by the committee – come along and see if you can help.
The membership year runs from 1st Jan, and only costs £6 for individuals, £8 for couples or families, and £15 for organisations. Additional voluntary donations always welcome.
It’s been a relatively quiet six months at the bridge since we last reported on it. LBHF announced the award of a 9-month stabilisation contract to deal with cracks in the cast-iron pedestals, at a cost of £8.9m, and there’s been some to-ing and fro-ing on who’ll pay (finally equally split LBHF, TfL, DfT), setting aside the cost of the future major repairs necessary, still undecided. The stabilisation will enable the main repair and renewal of other components of the bridge to follow in a separate contract.
During the stabilisation contract cyclists will not be allowed on the main carriageway but must wheel their bikes on the walkway – hoardings have gone up to that effect, though social media suggests that the dismounting instructions have yet to reach all quarters!
We noted late last year that the council had observed planning niceties by applying to itself for permission for the stabilisation works under ref 2021/03680/LBCHF. which it formally approved at the end of February. We understand similar has happened on the South side with LBRUT. Subsequently, an application has been lodged for temporary removal of sections of the handrail to allow pedestrians/cyclists to still cross while bypassing the pedestal housings, under 2022/00786/DLBC.
Concrete infill from 2021/03680/LBCHF
We remain a little disappointed that the plan still involves pouring concrete into the now infamous cast iron pedestals – not recognised bedfellows – but this is an old comment that has so far been met with a tin ear. We must hope the thermal effects and regular bridge vibration which have been written about at length, and even reported by a concerned member of the public last week, don’t gradually separate or crumble this unusual mixture. If it was a recognised and tested process, a standard method statement would be referenced, but instead the designer has listed an array of materials and notes on the drawings, the word “suitable” signposting a degree of conjecture. We can find no risk assessment to cover the effect of the additional mass, in the light of concerns about the strength of the pedestal footings noted during earlier investigations. The figure mentioned was 6 tonnes per pedestal, and it would be sensible to properly address this risk.
The documents state that Historic England is satisfied that the proposal respects Bazalgette’s design because the pedestals are not visible, which was precisely the point we made last year. If invisible, then remove them and do the job properly as a self-respecting engineer such as Bazalgette would do, having recognised a design or material weakness, and with the existence of better modern materials. Replacing them with something stronger, lighter, maintainable, and built offsite, allowing a quick like-for-like replacement (12 bolts), and future bearing maintenance, without all the onsite paraphernalia and disruption now planned, is the right thing to do, and also cheaper – especially long-term. The existing plan falls into the unfortunate category of being neither fish nor foul – not comprehensive enough to improve function, future maintenance and de-risk the structure, not quick or cheap enough to say it’s a disposable fix until major repairs can be undertaken.
The repair and renewal contract involves replacing 172 hangers, repairing the bearings at the top of the four towers and dealing with defects in many other components to restore the bridge to its former glory, strength and usefulness. There are two options for providing a temporary crossing for the public during this repair work:
The Foster scheme on which we reported last year, involving a ’tube’ structure within the Heritage bridge passing between the towers and allowing the progressive replacement of bridge sections and components.
Continued →
The temporary cycle path or Safer Cycle Pathway as the council denotes it, is not without controversy. At the extremes, Cycle Twitterati heap praise on the council for going though with it, and at the other end of the scale, there are a couple of petitions with well over 3000 signatures asking for it – and its accompanying scheme in Hounslow (currently being made rather more permanent at the cost of felled mature trees) – to be removed. The good news is that cycling has increased by 7 – 22% since the pandemic, though the maths dictates that this represents an increase from only around 2% to somewhere less than 3% of journeys.
The route now constructed follows the TfL scheme which was issued for public consultation in 2017. TfL encountered widespread opposition to their ideas for high street cycleways both in Hammersmith and elsewhere, and were probably pleased to agree to the LBHF proposal to design and build the scheme, paid for by TfL – and to potentially include King Street improvements at the same time. The idea of a shoppers’ cycleway in King Street and a cycle by-pass on the A4 was agreed to after feedback from the public, and this Society around the time of the 2018 local elections. These ideas failed due to the very public funding problems at TfL, added to by the pandemic, resulting in this ‘temporary’ scheme.
Here we are, stuck in the middle, seeking an equitable solution for the majority of Hammersmith. We have skin in this particular game through participation in the cycle commission last year as we described before. Unfortunately many of the concerns raised by the commissioners, and by ourselves in recent articles have come to pass, and it’s a little concerning to see the “safer” moniker applied – and rewarded on social media – with statements such as “I feel safer”, when feeling is not actually demonstrably safer, more a testament to a lack of awareness of the issues, with around £3M spent on a social media-inspired scheme.
Cyclists? It’s well documented by ROSPA, TfL and the DfT crash data that 75-80% of accidents happen at junctions, (as illustrated by the crashmap above), and there are 23 of those to navigate along the route from the Broadway to Goldhawk Road, only a handful of which are protected by the new wands or other lane segregations. However well-intentioned, arguably it’s disingenuous to encourage the inexperienced and unwary using the word safer when mostly it’s not (more evidence below). Main roads, especially their junctions, can be dangerous for all sorts of reasons, especially when HGV’s are involved, but are essential for the many forms of transport that we all rely on. So why campaign to use them when there are better and safer alternatives nearby ?
The A4 route, has just 2 junctions over the same distance as King St., with just 2 minor incidents in 10 years, admittedly with fewer cyclists, but still a significant number – including regular use by members of the cycling commission – making a comparison worthwhile. Together with with adjacent cul-de-sacs approximating modern LTN’s, caused by the creation of the A4, they provide a measurably safer and less polluted route. We’ll wait to see how the untested slalom in the middle of King Street, and well-documented issues with bidirectional paths fare with all those junctions, but a significant number of cyclists are observed voting with their pedals, and still using the North side of the road Eastbound from Goldhawk Road.
The safety of pedestrians at bus islands/bypasses arises again, and we refer to the dismay of the charity for the blind NFBUK, after reviewing our commission advisers’ chosen reference Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow during visits last year, which rather undermines their advice. By way of confirmation, bypasses are such a hazard to pedestrians – particularly those less able – that TfL buses now need canned announcements which start at the Broadway, warning passengers of the dangers of the cycle lane when disembarking.
Latterly, the council has deployed these rather scruffy temporary signs, tacitly acknowledging the dangers the scheme has created. With significant modifications already ongoing in Hammersmith’s main shopping area, upheaval on the Broadway and in Hounslow, one has to wonder if there’s been a little too much speed and not enough haste. It’s regrettable that the scheme which you see today proceeded without commission review.
There are number of problems in King St., many at at the Western end, as highlighted by the photo adjacent.
Members using buses East-West in the borough report what a poor experience it’s become. Let’s be clear, other than walking, according the TfL data (adjacent), buses carry more passengers than any other transport mode in London, and carry the most disadvantaged members of society. Erosion of bus routes and infrastructure recently (AKA multipurpose peak-time bus lanes replaced by exclusive 24h cycle lanes), mean bus speeds remain at an all-time low having recovered briefly in lockdowns, and are in the bottom 25% of 15 major world cities to the shame of TfL. Belatedly TfL have woken up to this issue, and proposed a solution – banning other road users, and putting in new bus lanes !
Continued →
The bridge reopened on the 17th July to some small fanfare. This was after the council’s appointed engineers had blast cleaned the cast iron pedestals so that they could be fully examined for cracks, and the case for continued safe operation could be made.
There are cracks evident in all pedestals to a lesser or greater degree, but they are now assessed as not being critical to structural integrity, provided that the pedestals are not overstressed, which means minimising the movement of the chains that run over them.
The temporary solution, which allows the current limited use by pedestrians and bikes, is to heat or cool the chains that run over the pedestals to maintain temperature, so as to keep them in approximately the same place avoiding excess pedestal stress. This is obviously a 24×7 energy-intensive business, a least-worst solution for the time-being. It’s worth noting that even with only pedestrians and bikes crossing, the bridge still sways a little, it is very much a live structure. The current and much reduced-cost proposal for shoring up the bearings on top of the pedestals (“stabilisation works”) is to replace them with elastomeric sliding bearings, at a total cost of around £6m as widely reported, a figure that doesn’t seem unreasonable. Others can judge whether this is a good enough solution for the long term. We’d prefer to be without the nagging doubts of the hidden cast iron bolted-in parts in critical structural positions, to allow the engineering of a robust 100-year + solution using easily replaceable bearings. This wouldn’t be expensive in the scale of the total repair bill, and as we described early this year, fixing the recurring problem effectively for good.
Without going into further exhaustive detail, which can be found in the references listed below, the main issue remains who will pay for the repairs. The most sensible option is to substantially dismantle the existing bridge with the COWI-Foster structure, or other temporary bridge in place for the duration. This would allow it to be properly repaired to a higher quality than can be achieved onsite, including replacing the troublesome cast iron, and might be quicker overall. Consideration should also be given to lightening the structure via a lighter/improved roadway as we’ve mentioned before, so as to lower bridge loadings, potentially raise capacity a little, and we’d very much like to see wider pathways for pedestrians & bikes.
The latest update from the Task Force shows that our council leader and the newly re-appointed government minister responsible, Baroness Vere, are again at loggerheads, this time over the relatively small sum of £6m for stabilisation works, which is why they haven’t started. If they can’t agree on this, how ever will they agree on the £100m+ full repair bill ? We call for a ceasefire and end to hostilities by letter.
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.
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 ?
Continued →
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 :
More on the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum to which Henry contributes.
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.
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.
Continued →
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.
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.
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.
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.
Continued →
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.
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.
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.
Continued →
What's our vision for #LCAW2022? Creating a net-zero, equitable and resilient future by harnessing the power of London as a leading global climate hub 🏙️👩👩👧👦🌍 Who's joining us? 🙋 bit.ly/LCAW2022
— Hammersmith Society @(HammersmithSoc) 1 day ago
The iconic purple cow has returned to H&F! Visit @UnderbellyFest this weekend to enjoy the food, drink and dazzling entertainment with family and friends. More info about the pop-up festival and What's On 👇 lbhf.gov.uk/articles/news/…
— Hammersmith Society @(HammersmithSoc) 6 days ago
Come and get your bike security-marked and registered with @bikeregister in Normand Park, W14 this Friday 20 May between 3pm to 5pm. 🚲🔒 We are working with @metpoliceuk to prevent bike theft at this event and many other regular events. Details 👇 lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-…
— Hammersmith Society @(HammersmithSoc) 6 days ago
©2022, The Hammersmith Society | Privacy | Contact | Join | @ Subscribe | ⓘ
Campaigning for sixty years