Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by Bryn666 »

Herned wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 18:51 Waterloo, Blackfriars, Southwark and London Bridges do all have proper cycling provision, so looking at Tower Bridge in isolation is pretty selective. Apart from the Gallions Reach bridge, I can't think of any other proposed bridge which hasn't happened (the Boris bridge farce doesnt count). Certainly none which have been cancelled for heritage reasons

How many places can you cycle across the Hudson?
You're missing the point entirely of what has been said. The last road bridge to be replaced in central London was London Bridge in 1970. The only capacity improvements for crossing the river since 1970 without using a train or cable car or being expected to dismount have been the replacement of an existing footbridge (Hungerford), the Millennium Jelly, and the QE2 Bridge. And Tower Bridge is supposed to be the principal road crossing to avoid paying the CCZ, so it is doubly stupid that a bascule bridge with a 17t weight limit is the main route across the city centre. That is exactly what KeithW would describe as a turkey.

Right now Vauxhall Bridge is subject to "uh oh we didn't do repairs before" work, Hammersmith is ready to fall into the Thames, and heaven only knows what the other bridges have waiting in the wings. The three bridges you mention with cycle provision only got them in the last 5 years after much protracted wrangling about it. This is not the approach from a city that wants to be taken seriously.

As for the Hudson, let's see, despite the limited number of crossings and the fact it's crossing a state boundary around Manhattan and is largely rural north of there so not remotely comparable to London:

You can't use the Lincoln or Holland Tunnels, which is to be expected given the fact they were designed for motorised traffic in the 1920s but that far south on Manhattan you'd take a free ferry anyway.

However, the George Washington Bridge allows it. The next crossing upstream, the replacement Tappan Zee Bridge, now has a dedicated cycling route across it. The Bear Mountain Bridge has hard shoulders for bikes. The I-84 Bridge has a segregated bike path. The Mid Hudson Bridge has a segregated bike path. The Kingstone-Rhinecliff Bridge has a segregated bike path, you're all the way up to the Rip Van Winkle Bridge before bikes are banned from crossing on the side paths (and even here they're tolerated on the main carriageway). The next bridge is the New York State Thruway and beyond that you're in Albany.

So if even the car centric yanks can provide rudimentary bike facilities, what's London's excuse?
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Scratchwood
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
Location: London

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by Scratchwood »

WHBM wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 18:11
Bryn666 wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 16:57
The point I was making with this is that not many people will hop on the Jubilee line purely to cross the river.
Well it does. One of its biggest flows from Canary Wharf is to Waterloo, which would require crossing the river by some other means. And at our Canary Wharf school quite a number of the kids come from across the river, Canada Water in particular, just one stop on the Jubilee Underground, and also from Greenwich on the DLR. Same for Canary Wharf commuters on those one-stop hops, estate agents on the south side always highlight the journey time (obscure back-street 1980s development around Canada Water as "2 minutes by Underground to Canary Wharf" :( ).
For context, you can't ride your bike through the foot tunnels in that part of London, so if you want to pedal across the Thames anywhere between the Rotherhite Tunnel and, err, the north sea, you can't.
Not so, one of the (few) places you will see significant numbers of bikes in London is at the Greenwich foot tunnel. They fill up the lifts, and dependent on character will walk the bike through, scoot downhill standing on the pedals, or just cycle through anyway. About equal proportions of these. It's actually part of one of the official bikeways. If the lift is u/s, not unknown, it's an interesting uphill encumbered climb up the long stairs.

The Rotherhithe Tunnel for bikes is a notable hazard, and I think I've only ever seen one in there. I've seen more pedestrians in there than that. I must give it a go one day. Maybe we can do a Sabre day out on Boris bikes there ...
I imagine that the Woolwich foot tunnel has an even higher percentage of its users being cyclists! Indeed with the tiny number of people walking across, "careful" cycling should be officially allowed there, rather than it being something which happens anyway, but illegally...

Greenwich is a bit different, as more people walk across (it's a more useful pedestrian crossing and there's no ferry there)
Scratchwood
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
Location: London

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by Scratchwood »

WHBM wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 13:09
Scratchwood wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 12:35 There have been 2 central London foot bridges built around 2000 (Millennium and Hungerford)
Actually three. There are two quite separate new footbridges at Hungerford, with the railay bridge in between. They start from different places and serve surprisingly different travel markets. The downstream one is notably busier (which is why it gets all the buskers and beggars).
2 new footbridges there, but one was a direct replacement for an existing one on the downstream side!
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by WHBM »

Scratchwood wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 22:39 I imagine that the Woolwich foot tunnel has an even higher percentage of its users being cyclists! Indeed with the tiny number of people walking across, "careful" cycling should be officially allowed there, rather than it being something which happens anyway, but illegally...

Greenwich is a bit different, as more people walk across (it's a more useful pedestrian crossing and there's no ferry there)
Whatever the proportions at the Woolwich tunnel, it's normally deserted. It's an interesting walk-through after midnight ! The entrance on the south side is now buried behind the swimming pool, you have to know it is there. The entrance on the north side is in the middle of nowhere, apart from a bus terminal where nobody ever seems to get on or off.

We actually use the Greenwich tunnel quite a lot, driving down to Island Gardens and parking there, thence walking through. At weekends in particular it's crowded. In Greenwich one day what should be coming slowly up the river at high tide, being towed backwards by tugs, was the aircraft-carrier-in-all-but-name RFA Argus. I nipped down into the tunnel because I'd heard you can hear the propellers of large ships going over. Well, it wasn't just the propellers, but the engine rumble, everything. I still remember it ! Eerie !
Scratchwood
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
Location: London

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by Scratchwood »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55086118
Proposals to convert Hammersmith Bridge into a "double-decker" crossing, which would reopen to traffic "within a year" have been released by the council.
The west London bridge was closed entirely in August after cracks in the structure worsened during a heatwave.
Hammersmith and Fulham Council said if approved, a raised platform would allow cyclists and pedestrians to use a new lower deck.
The plans were presented on Thursday to the government.
"Motor vehicles could be using the bridge, with river traffic passing underneath, within a year of a contractor being appointed," the council said in a statement.
The council said the conversion "completed at a cost lower than the current £141m estimate", although it did not provide a proposed cost.
Image
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11155
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by c2R »

But it's already got segregated pedestrian walkways on each side... Surely it would be better/cheaper to reconstruct it with wider segregated walkways to allow dedicated cycle lanes than to create a dark lower deck underneath the car deck? And how to manage the tie ins at each end in this proposal? It would need massive ramps outside the pub here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4894442 ... 312!8i6656
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by KeithW »

Scratchwood wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 16:50 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55086118
Proposals to convert Hammersmith Bridge into a "double-decker" crossing, which would reopen to traffic "within a year" have been released by the council.
The west London bridge was closed entirely in August after cracks in the structure worsened during a heatwave.
Hammersmith and Fulham Council said if approved, a raised platform would allow cyclists and pedestrians to use a new lower deck.
The plans were presented on Thursday to the government.
"Motor vehicles could be using the bridge, with river traffic passing underneath, within a year of a contractor being appointed," the council said in a statement.
The council said the conversion "completed at a cost lower than the current £141m estimate", although it did not provide a proposed cost.
Sounds like someone has made an early start on the Xmas Booze stock, given the reports on the amount of degradation that has been found in what was already a weeak structure I find the timescale and scope to be literally incredible.

I realise the proposal is for a temporary structure but how on earth can the underlying problems of the bridge be fixed with it in place ? Given that the 'temporary' deck would have to fit through this space it hardly seems likely that work could be carried out with it in place.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.48735 ... 312!8i6656
What is the record for how long 'temporary' fixes lasted ?

The 'plan seems to include a classic example of 'double dipping' with the lower deck being described as both "a lower level for pedestrians"
and
"Contractors would use the new lower pedestrian deck to access the works. Once works were completed, the temporary raised deck would be removed."

Sorry boys allowing the public into a construction zone is a big no no.

Frankly they would be better off demolishing the darned thing and letting someone such as Cleveland Bridge loose. That way you could get a modern sustainable bridge that was sufficiently wide and strong to handle modern traffic.
Last edited by KeithW on Tue Dec 01, 2020 17:33, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9851
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by owen b »

I read that the 2021 Boat Race has been moved to Ely.

https://www.theboatrace.org/news/the-bo ... ridgeshire
"The decision to relocate the 2021 event reflects the challenge of planning a high-profile amateur event around continuing COVID related restrictions as well as uncertainty regarding the safety and navigation of Hammersmith Bridge."

I'm quite surprised that the problems with the bridge are so bad as to affect boat traffic.
Owen
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11155
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by c2R »

owen b wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 17:28 I read that the 2021 Boat Race has been moved to Ely.

https://www.theboatrace.org/news/the-bo ... ridgeshire
"The decision to relocate the 2021 event reflects the challenge of planning a high-profile amateur event around continuing COVID related restrictions as well as uncertainty regarding the safety and navigation of Hammersmith Bridge."

I'm quite surprised that the problems with the bridge are so bad as to affect boat traffic.
If it's not safe for pedestrians to walk across,I presume it isn't safe enough for rowing boats to go underneath...
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by WHBM »

owen b wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 17:28 I'm quite surprised that the problems with the bridge are so bad as to affect boat traffic.
I believe it's actually closed to all navigation at present. It does seem the chances of it falling onto a vessel are somewhat low. More concerning I would have thought if at high tide would be a tidal wave into adjacent premises.
User avatar
SouthWest Philip
Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by SouthWest Philip »

KeithW wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 17:23 Frankly they would be better off demolishing the darned thing and letting someone such as Cleveland Bridge loose. That way you could get a modern sustainable bridge that was sufficiently wide and strong to handle modern traffic.
Quite. And, if preserving the old bridge is so important, it should be reassembled somewhere where it can fulfill an ornamental role rather than be relied upon as an important load bearing structure.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by WHBM »

TfL really should be taken to task about letting their infrastructure fall apart; I believe the bridge thing is just because the green lot at City Hall think they are for roads, therefore unimportant. Don't buy the one about having main road funding withdrawn by the government. This was part of an extremely generous settlement at the time which provided the Mayor of London, TfL's overseer, with a substantial extra share of London commercial property rates income. Part of that was the lesser amount of dedicated TfL roads allowance was rolled into it and no longer separately accounted - whereupon the Mayor etc now pretended the road moneys were completely lost, and the anti-road lobby proceeded to spend the all extra moneys on all sorts of pet projects - plus paid the Crossrail executives huge salaries, completely unchecked, for what was blatant lying about the progress state of that project. What a squandering of money.

Let's not forget that TfL is a commercial operation, with income from Tube and Bus fares, they see road users as competition for their services and thus seek to squeeze them out and force them onto their services. The strategic roads should be taken away from TfL, along with that roads share of the rates settlement, and given to Highways England or similar, not the greatest operator but better than TfL.
Uncle Buck
Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 23:33

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by Uncle Buck »

This double-decker is up there with “is a Scotch egg a substantial meal” in the farcical stakes. China and most of the countries we regard as our peers would regard this as an utter embarrassment.

I like the bridge but at the end of the day it’s an important river crossing and it’s been closed for donkeys. It needs demolished and replaced at once.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11155
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by c2R »

WHBM wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 19:04 TfL really should be taken to task about letting their infrastructure fall apart; I believe the bridge thing is just because the green lot at City Hall think they are for roads, therefore unimportant. Don't buy the one about having main road funding withdrawn by the government. This was part of an extremely generous settlement at the time which provided the Mayor of London, TfL's overseer, with a substantial extra share of London commercial property rates income. Part of that was the lesser amount of dedicated TfL roads allowance was rolled into it and no longer separately accounted - whereupon the Mayor etc now pretended the road moneys were completely lost, and the anti-road lobby proceeded to spend the all extra moneys on all sorts of pet projects - plus paid the Crossrail executives huge salaries, completely unchecked, for what was blatant lying about the progress state of that project. What a squandering of money.

Let's not forget that TfL is a commercial operation, with income from Tube and Bus fares, they see road users as competition for their services and thus seek to squeeze them out and force them onto their services. The strategic roads should be taken away from TfL, along with that roads share of the rates settlement, and given to Highways England or similar, not the greatest operator but better than TfL.
It isn't TfL's bridge.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by WHBM »

c2R wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 19:46 It isn't TfL's bridge.
TfL have long supported ALL the river crossings, even the Woolwich Ferry when it belonged to Greenwich council, this all going back to LCC days, if not to the Met Board of Works. They are driving the bridge issues, in part because Hammersmith council, bridge owner, don't have that ability. Hammersmith won't have anything like the money in the town hall coffers for a replacement bridge, when the time comes it will be the council, plus TfL, putting a case to central government for an amount to be passed down through them. It's handy there are some marginal seats on both sides of the river here.

As stated here in NCE, TfL themselves have spent £17m on the bridge in recent years

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest ... 8-10-2020/

I do agree they seem to have spent an inordinate proportion on repeated feasibility studies with hardly any concrete being poured.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by KeithW »

WHBM wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 19:04 TfL really should be taken to task about letting their infrastructure fall apart; I believe the bridge thing is just because the green lot at City Hall think they are for roads, therefore unimportant. Don't buy the one about having main road funding withdrawn by the government. This was part of an extremely generous settlement at the time which provided the Mayor of London, TfL's overseer, with a substantial extra share of London commercial property rates income. Part of that was the lesser amount of dedicated TfL roads allowance was rolled into it and no longer separately accounted - whereupon the Mayor etc now pretended the road moneys were completely lost, and the anti-road lobby proceeded to spend the all extra moneys on all sorts of pet projects - plus paid the Crossrail executives huge salaries, completely unchecked, for what was blatant lying about the progress state of that project. What a squandering of money.

Let's not forget that TfL is a commercial operation, with income from Tube and Bus fares, they see road users as competition for their services and thus seek to squeeze them out and force them onto their services. The strategic roads should be taken away from TfL, along with that roads share of the rates settlement, and given to Highways England or similar, not the greatest operator but better than TfL.
TfL were not in fact in charge. Hammersmith and Fulham council had charge of the bridge. In all fairness TfL DID produce a plan for a temporary bridge while work proceeded but this seems not to have been progressed
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/f ... posals.pdf


Hammersmith and Fulham council have made many sweeping claims none of which turned out to be accurate, the last was the rebadged temporary bridge proposed by TfL.
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/articles/news/2 ... oss-thames
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by KeithW »

WHBM wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 19:54
TfL have long supported ALL the river crossings, even the Woolwich Ferry when it belonged to Greenwich council, this all going back to LCC days, if not to the Met Board of Works. They are driving the bridge issues, in part because Hammersmith council, bridge owner, don't have that ability. Hammersmith won't have anything like the money in the town hall coffers for a replacement bridge, when the time comes it will be the council, plus TfL, putting a case to central government for an amount to be passed down through them. It's handy there are some marginal seats on both sides of the river here.

As stated here in NCE, TfL themselves have spent £17m on the bridge in recent years

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest ... 8-10-2020/

I do agree they seem to have spent an inordinate proportion on repeated feasibility studies with hardly any concrete being poured.
Indeed they have but Hammersmith and Fulham are the ones who got to say yay or nay to any proposal, now they have come up with yet another cunning plan.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by jervi »

Surely getting rid of the current bridge (preserve it somewhere else since its a listed structure), and then building a new bridge in the style of the current one with proper segregated facilities for pesdestains and cycles would cost less than £114m.
It may not be an easy task to remove, relocate and build a new bridge, but I'd expect no more than £80m (presuming no land is needed to be bought).
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by WHBM »

TfL/Mayor of London, or their predecessors, have long managed river crossings because the bulk of them span between multiple boroughs. Hammersmith may physically own the bridge currently but it's Richmond on the south side and it was a complete toss-up (almost literally) in 1985 when the GLC, bridge owner until then, was abolished, for who was going to get it. Were it not for the name I would have said that the Richmond side residents get much the greater advantage from it. For a lot of Barnes and Roehampton etc Hammersmith was their principal shopping centre, transport node, place to get taxis home from the Underground station, etc.
User avatar
SouthWest Philip
Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire

Re: Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to traffic

Post by SouthWest Philip »

KeithW wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 20:20 TfL were not in fact in charge. Hammersmith and Fulham council had charge of the bridge. In all fairness TfL DID produce a plan for a temporary bridge while work proceeded but this seems not to have been progressed
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/f ... posals.pdf
I wonder whether there would be merit in building a permanent footbridge/cycle bridge on that alignment?
jervi wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 20:30 Surely getting rid of the current bridge (preserve it somewhere else since its a listed structure), and then building a new bridge in the style of the current one with proper segregated facilities for pesdestains and cycles would cost less than £114m.
It may not be an easy task to remove, relocate and build a new bridge, but I'd expect no more than £80m (presuming no land is needed to be bought).
It would almost be better if the thing actually did collapse into the river as then the decision would be made!
Post Reply