Hammersmith Bridge a ‘good candidate’ for new government fund, according to Roads minister
Story 178: Bridged has six questions
Welcome to Bridged2050: ideas for living well and responsibly in a climate-ready Barnes
The government’s Roads minister has described Hammersmith Bridge as a potential beneficiary of a new national infrastructure fund.
LBC obtained a letter from the minister, Simon Lightwood, which suggests the Bridge could be considered for investments from the Structures Fund. In the letter, he says:
.. we believe that Hammersmith Bridge would be a good candidate for investment from the fund, and we intend to consider the viability of future funding for the next stage of works through this route.
The £1billion Structures Fund was announced by ministers in June 2025, aimed at ‘repairing run down bridges, decaying flyovers and worn out tunnels across Britain’
LBC also reports the Roads minister as saying the government
.. has now launched a survey with local authorities and stakeholders to request their views on our proposed approach for the fund.
He goes on,
.. the design of the fund will be finalised after the survey and any funding for Hammersmith Bridge would be subject to the same controls and eligibility criteria as other schemes funded through the Structures Fund.
Finally, the minister adds a note of constraint, on engineering, cost, and time:
.. funding will be contingent on identifying a cost-effective engineering solution within a reasonable timescale that is affordable within the constraints of the fund.
Notes & thoughts
This is about as clear as the minister can be at this stage. The fund’s rules are still being shaped, and the government is explicitly consulting on how it should be managed. Only then does the real contest begin: which structures, in which places, with which political backing, make it into the queue.
Hammersmith Bridge may be a ‘good candidate’. But it is still only a candidate. Before that happens, six questions that need answering:
What will the investment criteria be?
The answer will tell us whether this is a technical competition, a value-for-money exercise, a regional balancing act — or all three.
What project, exactly, is being proposed?
Is this the widely cited £250 million repair proposal, or something materially different in scope, phasing, or ambition?
Will anyone measure local sentiment?
Not just loud voices, but structured evidence: residents, commuters, businesses, and those whose mobility is most constrained.
Who else is bidding?
This is a UK-wide fund. There will be serious competition — including, potentially, other London schemes. There might even be one from downstream.
How much would government realistically contribute?
Anything short of full funding raises an awkward question: where does the remainder come from and does that revive the prospect of tolling? If so, it changes demand, equity, and the politics. Whether you believe the closure of Hammersmith Bridge adds to Putney Bridge traffic or not, a tolled bridge may do little even nothing to ease congestion .
What is the climate plan?
Restoration will increase traffic and emissions so what are the plans from the UK government, the Mayor of London, Hammersmith & Fulham council, and Richmond council to offset the additional greenhouse gases?
Bridged2050’s position remains unchanged
Hammersmith Bridge should remain car-free, permanently.
We need fewer private cars on our roads. The arguments for this have been spelled out many times, not least on this blog.
Closing roads results in less traffic. This is happening already. The Bridge’s closure has already resulted in all probability in over 9,000 fewer trips every day in south west London.
Restoring the bridge to carry high volumes of private traffic would not just be reopening something old. In practical terms, it would be adding capacity back into a system that has — imperfectly, unevenly — adjusted without it. More roads, more cars.
Ministers should focus on targeted investment to support those truly disadvantaged by the Bridge’s, not simply those inconvenienced.