Bridges are not just practical works of engineering but also poignant symbols — epic poetry in concrete form. Along with people and vehicles, they are conveyors of ideas and feelings. That’s why politicians are always speaking metaphorically of building bridges to the future or to unite divided communities. Everyone gets the emotive point of a bridge.
So what then does the perennially troubled Hammersmith Bridge symbolise? Confusion, uncertainty, a lack of confidence, stasis? That gnawing sense of being stuck at a three-way traffic light while simultaneously being placed on hold by a utility company that is experiencing an unprecedented volume of calls? Yes, all that and more is summoned by the ghostly sight of arguably London’s most charming bridge.
It’s been four years since the bridge was closed to motorised traffic. For a year between August 2020 and July 2021 it was completely shut down — no cyclists or pedestrians allowed on it and no boats under it.
Since March cycling has again been banned and only the walkways are in use, with a one-way pedestrian system. To all those who might celebrate the calming absence of motor vehicles, the problem is that London doesn’t have nearly enough bridges for cars or pedestrians. From Richmond to the eastern edges of the City, the Thames winds through one of the world’s most varied cityscapes.
Within that dynamic, densely populated space there are only 18 road bridges (which all have walkways) and five footbridges. Remove Hammersmith and there are only 17 road bridges. To give some comparative context, in central Paris, running along about a third of that distance, there are 37 bridges.
Forget the ironic rivalry, north and south London really are estranged halves of the same city. It’s no surprise that we make such a fuss about “crossing the river”. To go from Barnes to Hammersmith by motor vehicle involves a five-mile, 30-minute detour. That would perhaps be fine if it only deterred lazy car drivers on needless school runs or the like. But what about all those deliveries that are rerouted, all the businesses that are slowed, and the bus commuters who are stopped in their tracks?
Added to this will be the closure of Wandsworth Bridge later this month for 10 weeks of repairs. If the capital wants to lead the nation’s much-needed push for growth, then Hammersmith Bridge is more than an inconvenience to local residents — it’s a glaring indictment of London’s convoluted planning system, faltering infrastructure and, most of all, its 21st century ambition.
Next year it will be 200 years since Parliament passed an act to construct a bridge on the current site that would end the time-consuming journeys via Kew or Putney bridges that are now back in vogue. Designed by William Tierney Clark, the original Hammersmith crossing was the first suspension bridge over the Thames.
But while it answered an immediate need, the bridge was not built with much foresight, given that London was at that time the fastest growing city on earth. Due to expanding traffic volume, a new bridge was built on the original foundations and opened in 1887.
It was designed by Joseph Bazalgette, the civil engineer responsible for our sewerage system, and with its elegant wrought iron and handsome green livery it was a bridge with the verve to befit what was then the world’s largest city. Whether Irish republicans found it attractive for the same reasons is not known, yet three times they tried to blow it up, the last time in 2000 when the Real IRA exploded a bomb that closed it for two years.
So it has survived the best efforts of terrorists but hasn’t quite enjoyed the same luck with governance and traffic. Until 1986 London’s bridges were the responsibility of the city-wide authority, the Greater London Council.
When Margaret Thatcher abolished the GLC, ownership of bridges was transferred to individual councils, with the exception of trunk road bridges. To further complicate matters, as nearly all bridges have different councils on either side, a single council had to be agreed between the north and south councils or, if not, chosen by the Transport Secretary. Hammersmith Bridge was allocated to the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
Localism and devolution may have a vital place in city life but not necessarily when it comes to organising the layout of major arteries. As things stand, costs of any proposed work are divided between Hammersmith and Fulham, the Greater London Authority and the Government.
That, of course, is a recipe for inaction, as each body blames the other for shortages in funding (Hammersmith and Fulham maintain that its 33 per cent share is too high). And that’s one of the major reasons why work on the bridge has progressed at a snail’s pace. There is a three-phase plan of sorts: emergency mitigation, stabilisation and strengthening.
The first stage is completed, but the second is still in progress and third is subject to planning permission to build a temporary double-decker arrangement, or truss, to enable the bridge to be used while it is strengthened and repaired. But even if permission is granted, it will be some years before the bridge is fully operational again, and there is room for many financial disputes between the various parties between now and then.
At a recent council meeting, the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Stephen Cowan said the bridge won’t be opened to cars unless £230 million is raised to carry out essential repairs. It was “up to the Mayor” Sadiq Khan, he said, to decide its fate, as the borough couldn’t afford to foot the bill.
Cowan argued that it would require a toll to raise revenue but that Khan had told him that he wouldn’t support that idea. “I believe there has been some discrepancies in the Mayor’s team,” said Cowan, “with some believing that the bridge would remain closed and opened for cyclists — some people believe it should be open to cars.”
Surely the plight of Hammersmith Bridge should be the responsibility of our elected mayor and the GLA, ideally forming part of an overall plan that takes into account the electrification of cars and buses and the expansion and improvement of cycle lanes.
Perhaps more tunnels are part of the answer, as well as more bridges and ferries. What’s certain is that this city deserves a bold and coherent urban vision that works across all its boroughs and straddles both banks of the river. If there is one, then it’s a well-kept secret.
Politicians may like bridges as metaphors, but have learned to flee from the real thing. Yet if London is to rediscover its mojo in the post-Brexit era, it needs to recapture the public imagination and start building bridges to a brighter future. A good place to begin would be in completing the work on Hammersmith Bridge.
That isn’t, however, where the bridge-building should end. If this city is to realise its full potential, north and south should be united. The river needs to be a multiple crossing point not a hindering border.
