As membership secretary, I regularly hear the clarion call  “I’m not on Social Media so I can’t see your posts…”  It’s a popular myth that you must sign up, notwithstanding the fact that our latest Twitter and Facebook postings automatically appear on our home page (have you checked recently..?),  all three “platforms” that we use are publicly accessible to anyone, as are most social media sites.  They will encourage you to sign up, perhaps even boost the myth that you must for obvious reasons, but you can ignore that without missing that much.  However paradoxically it will help our cause if you do sign up and follow us – read on…

Facebook Twitter Instagram

I’ve read concerns about  tracking, cookies, and a good range of urban myths too, but many are outdated.  A number of issues are addressed in our website and accessibility guide and related privacy policy, but in short if you don’t have an account with the platform in question, there’s limited tracking they can do, while at the same time still giving you access to useful local material. Increasingly newer browser versions are closing these avenues of tracking joy, and the effects are often rather more prosaic than perhaps popular hyperbolae might suggest.  You can, of course, always delete browsing data, including cookies, or use the Incognito/inPrivate modes available on all modern browsers to properly eliminate tracking if it still concerns you.

Why follow us on Social Media?

#BernieSanders patiently waits to cross the Bridge

It’s a lot simpler and quicker for us to post short updates, reactions to news, and links to events of interest on these platforms – particularly Twitter – than it is to create longform articles such as this, or physical/pdf newsletters.  One or two of our survey responses have suggested more regular updates, and this is one way to respond.  These postings form a useful complement to our other publishing, as text messages complement email and letters.  We post something almost daily on one platform or another,  so there’s always something new on the website as a result too.

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. 

Following the Zoom public meeting three weeks ago, we considered our recent articles on the bridge, and, as promised, wrote to Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Transport,  Baroness Vere, Chair, and Dana Skelley, Director of the Bridge Task Force, as shown below (click to open).

 Letter to Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Transport

Letter to Baroness Vere, Chair of Bridge Task Force

Letter to Dana Skelley, Director of Bridge Task Force

We’ve made suggestions borne of our various architectural & engineering experiences, and feedback from members who contributed, balancing aesthetics, cost-effectiveness, speed of the works vs. longevity & value to the public. 

We think the repairs might be done more quickly and cheaply, and the result might last longer and be more useful as a bridge, if the slightly modified approach were taken, as outlined.  As an alternative, we’ve also dared to think the unthinkable given the proposed closure duration and costs, and suggested bridge replacement. An architectural competition could be held to decide how to best reuse what is there, but make it fit for the next century as Bazalegette did to the 1827 original, back in the 1880’s.  As we’ve said, this need not involve a total loss of the iconic appearance; it would be up to innovative designers to come up with the solution – we’ve already seen ideas coming from local architects and engineers.

With huge sums of central Government capital and revenue expenditure being regularly announced, the cost of solving the Hammersmith Bridge problem seems small by comparison, and given the considerable inconvenience already endured both sides of the river by some of the most vulnerable members of society, the project deserves immediate and full financial support.

Many Society members joined the Zoom public meeting with the Bridge Task Force a week ago. A FAQ, links to Task Force reports, and a copy of critical correspondence between the Task Force chairman and LBHF immediately prior to the meeting, can be found on the council website, and a recording of the meeting can be played by clicking on the video image here.

Our report on the meeting has to tread carefully to resist the winds of political bias which seem to be jeopardising project navigation. The exchange of letters between the chairman of the Task force and LBHF reveals the entrenched and opposing positions of government and local authority concerning the funding of the bridge repair programme. At the meeting the Task Force chairman declared that the government is ‘completely ready to fund the entire project subject to local contribution’ – the proportion of this contribution was not defined – while the LBHF deputy leader reported that substantial local authority contribution has already been paid out for the bridge work to date, and LBHF could not afford any further funding. 

Alongside the funding impasse, the meeting provided an excellent explanation of the bridge problems, the anticipated repair works, the investigations in progress, and proposals for temporary pedestrian crossings.

A summary of the current critical issues:

• Project funding: government funding is confirmed conditional on LBHF contribution; LBHF and TfL have no funds available to contribute. TfL to fund the ferry crossing and contribute £4M towards the stabilisation works as a condition of their £1.7B second government support grant.
• Engineering works: completion of pre-design survey work requires a further 4-month programme to inspect each upstream pedestal (the lower housings at each end of the suspension chain); the contractor is ready to proceed with the work on release of funding. See project funding statement above.
• Project Plan: LBHF report that they have provided the ‘robust project plan’ called for by the chairman. We would expect to see a review of alternative options including the replacement of the bridge with a modern structure, taking into account the cost and programme viability of restoring a bridge built over 130 years ago for a very different traffic type and density. 
• Temporary crossing (stage 1): ferry transport for pedestrians and cyclists has been investigated and can be operational within 66 days of contract commitment and release of funding.  See project funding statement above.
• Temporary crossing (stage 2): pedestrian and cycle use of the bridge can be resumed for a  limited period after installation of temporary stabilising frames over the pedestals.  Obtaining the necessary statutory planning consents and carrying out site construction would require around 7 months; estimated cost is £14M.  See project funding statement above.
• Project programme: overall period for completion of the works as currently foreseen, including measures to meet TfL increased traffic loading requirements, is estimated at approximately 6 years – from release of funding.

Bridge permanent stabilisation – cast iron pedestals – slide from meeting

We’re a little concerned that substantial time and costs are currently being allocated for shoring up the cast iron pedestals that are clearly a long way past their best:  4 months/£2.3M blast cleaning prior to 7 months investigation and temporary stabilisation/£13.9M, followed by 21 months/£32M permanent stabilisation, in addition to a planned temperature control system to lower the risk of further cracking.

Hammersmith Bridge closed: Motor traffic:10th April 2019; Completely:13th August 2020

A head of steam is certainly building up for Bridge repairs, especially as winter approaches, but it remains to be seen whether this will translate into action.

After much media/social media coverage, including stories on London TV news, a task force was set up on 9 September, chaired by Baroness Vere (roads minister), which includes representatives of the local councils, TfL and Network Rail (for their experience of cast iron bridges), the Port of London Authority and GLA. The task force’s project director is Dana Skelley, a chartered civil engineer, formerly director of roads for London and responsible for the London-wide roads modernisation ahead of the London Olympics and the repairs to Hammersmith Flyover.

Completing the full repair of the Bridge is currently predicted to cost £141-£163m, with stabilisation just to allow safe pedestrian and river traffic at £46m, considerably more than first envisaged.  We covered the announcement of a temporary pedestrian/cycle bridge in April, which is believed to have been costed at less than £10m.  Before lockdown, planning was to be sought for this during the summer with construction starting this autumn, but this has not happened.  We followed up in June with our ideas about widening the pathways while work progresses elsewhere, making the bridge suitable for safe bidirectional cycling and walking; these are also clearly ideas yet to be considered given the new circumstances of complete closure.

Neither the Council nor TfL can finance costs at this level, so government support is essential. The possibility of tolls to finance the work has not been ruled out, indeed some are campaigning for this to make more funds available to speed up the work.

Hammersmith Bridge underside and steelwork – May 2020

The Society’s committee is of the view that as part of the renovation work, there is a great opportunity to improve the Bridge to make it better suited to future needs, requiring more space for pedestrians and cyclists, as mentioned in our last article.  Our proposal is to widen the pathways to allow safe and satisfactory bidirectional walking on one side, and bidirectional cycling on the other, so that cyclists no longer need to compete with road traffic, significantly improving safety.  Currently, because of the somewhat narrow walkways, it’s not possible to safely cycle or even pass easily when walking, certainly not in a wheelchair or buggy.  We think this can be done both at modest cost (certainly compared with the Garden Bridge!) and largely independently of the planned repair works, so as not to lengthen the closure.  We have a brief update on repair works at the foot of this article.

The bridge’s narrow pathways for most of the span measure approximately 1.6m, widening at the pillars to approximately 1.8m, but still too narrow for bikes to pass safely (one of the reasons cyclists have to dismount currently), let alone to support social distancing needed now, and possibly in the future.  We’ve now looked at the structure in a little detail, and, as shown on the photos here, the pathways are supported by simple cantilevers, apparently bolted on.

Hammersmith Bridge – historical repairs (photo: Keepingthingslocal)

Steelwork underneath the bridge was repaired section by section in the 1970’s, and a new grid of substantial longitudinal girders replaced the originals (pierced where bridge hangers meet the deck). Historic photos (right) show the original, very much less substantial steelwork.  Given the scope of the repair works, and amount of money and time to be spent on repairs, there seems little reason not to now consider the attached pathways in more detail, especially if the planned temporary bridge removes the need to keep it open during the works.

TfL is planning a temporary footbridge parallel to Hammersmith Bridge at the request of H&F Council, to assure pedestrian and cycle transit throughout the repair programme.  The aim is to give over the entire Bridge space to the continuing works, with the result that the total closure time could be reduced by 9-12 months.

Hammersmith Temporary Bridge

In an online webinar on 3 April (replacing planned exhibitions which had to be cancelled), representatives of TfL and LBHF set out their scheme for a prefabricated steel structure supported by 2 piers in the riverbed, on the downriver side of Hammersmith bridge. It would be the same height as the Bridge and would have no impact on river traffic.   The usable deck would be 5.5m wide and there will be separation of cyclists and pedestrians (no motorbikes allowed).

Access would be via Queen Caroline Street on the Hammersmith side via gradual ramps. It would take 6-7 months to complete, and planning permission would stipulate it being in place for up to 5 years, with the aim of re-using the structure elsewhere afterwards.

Keeping foot and cycle traffic flowing has to be a welcome initiative. The one downside is that the structure would close the Thames Path on either side, meaning a detour – possibly via the rear of Riverside Studios or past the Apollo and round by Fulham Palace Road on the North side, and via Riverview Gardens on the Barnes side.

Meanwhile the pedestals, hangers, chain bearings and hanger connections are being worked on and acoustic monitoring of the Bridge structure continues. A detailed Scope of Works together with costs is expected later in the spring. The new deck will be steel, with resin on top, which will perform far better than the asphalt over boards which were alarmingly visible previously. The repairs will give 60 years of design life. 

Can we make the restored and repaired bridge work better in the future ?

Continued →

2019: First Tom Ryland Award for Conservation – St. Augustine’s

St. Augustine’s interior

Plants not pollution – Hammersmith Flyover

Hammersmith Grove Parklets – West

Planters under flyover

Hammersmith Grove Parklets – East

Paintbox Studios and Coffeeology

We were pleased to announce our 2019 Awards at the AGM at Olympia on Wednesday 12th June, introduced by committee member Derrick Wright and presented by our President, Prof. Hans Haenlein. The large number of members present were provided excellent hospitality by Olympia in their Apex Room. Full details and a narrative are posted on our 2019 Awards page; the AGM photos and administrative documents are posted on our 2019 AGM page.

Summary

In our 30th year of Awards, we renamed our Conservation Award the Tom Ryland Award for Conservation in honour of our past Chairman. We were delighted to present it for the first time to St. Augustine’s Church in Fulham Palace Road.

There were four Nancye Goulden Awards this year, in two distinct pairs, all are projects which have made positive contributions to the Hammersmith streetscape.

The first two are King Street shop fronts: Paintbox Studios and Coffeeology. The other two awards recognise another type of improvement to the streetscape in the form of the Hammersmith Grove Parklets and The Planting under the Flyover.  The wooden spoon went to phase 1 of Sovereign Court.

We were also given a detailed presentation by SSPARC architects covering the history of Olympia and the extensive redevelopment plans, followed by an update from RSHP architects covering the Town Hall redevelopment plans. In a Q&A session, Councillor Wesley Harcourt kindly gave us an impromptu update on the Hammersmith Bridge situation.

Cllr Harcourt describes Hammersmith Bridge problems

At our AGM on 12th June, members of the audience asked a number of questions about the Bridge.

As we reported in our recent newsletter and over the previous 4 years, the bridge has been in trouble for a long time, not helped by a couple of bomb attacks in its history.

Fortunately Councillor Wesley Harcourt (Cabinet Member for the Environment) was in the audience, and offered us an impromptu update on the works to repair it.  He made it clear that the Council is committed to repairing it as a fully working bridge, and that final decisions on the scope of work are yet to made as they depend on the level of funding available from TfL (who want to run double-decker buses), and the Government.  The two key issues appear to be:

1. The level of structural repair, over and above the minimum required to run the original 7.5 Tonne vehicles, is dependent on the funding available.
2. The funding is not yet all in place (principally Government, which as we know is otherwise distracted)

He described the cracks found, and mentioned the details, photos and videos available on the council website here. He also described the effect on traffic on other bridges and roads, notably Chiswick, Putney and to a lesser extent Wandsworth, plus the apparent disappearance of 25% of the bridge traffic, though that may be variability and measurement error. He noted that more environmentally-friendly electric buses actually weigh more due to the batteries, just to add to the mix.

He committed to the council finalising plans and schedule in August, though we have no idea how long the work might take as yet, due to the many variables, and 3 years remains the disappointing figure quoted. We urge the council to embark on the essential repairs as soon as practicable, notwithstanding Government inertia. The outcome of these discussions can’t be resolved soon enough.