Hammersmith Bridge Task Force reconvenes — some answers and more questions
Freedom of Information answer reveals more about the meeting - story 52
After a hiatus of more than three years, the Hammersmith Bridge Task Force (HBTF) met once again on January 30, marking a cautious re-entry into political dialogue over the fate of the Bridge. The 90-minute meeting, held behind closed doors at the Department for Transport’s Westminster headquarters, was chaired by Simon Lightwood MP, the Labour Government’s local transport minister.
Previously unreleased minutes from the meeting, now obtained through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), shed light on the renewed efforts to resolve the future of the iconic suspension bridge. Noah Vickers from LDRS reported on Hammersmith Today the documents reveal a renewed but tentative sense of cooperation among key stakeholders — including representatives from the Department for Transport (DfT), local borough councils, relevant Members of Parliament, and the Mayor of London’s office.
Priorities and data
Stephen Cowan, Labour leader of Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F) Council made the first presentation reflecting the fact H&F Council
..own the bridge, but says it cannot afford to repair it on its own. Mr Cowan told the taskforce about the bridge’s history and the project to repair it, which has seen the council already spend £45m over the last six years on works to restore and stabilise the structure.
(These comments are consistent with H&F council’s long-held view. The Bridge is an important London transport artery and only the government and the private sector has the financial clout to restore it. As their public briefing page on the Bridge says, ‘ ‘..the council will not be asking residents of H&F to contribute to the cost.’)
Next a council offer explained more about the ‘Foster-Cowl’ proposal to reopen the bridge for all users, including motor vehicles. LDRS report
This was referred to at the meeting as ‘option 0’ and would entail building a temporary, double-decker truss through the existing bridge to allow the structure to be repaired while vehicles drive through it.
“[This proposal] was not ruled out given the benefits of restoring car accessibility, although concerns [were raised] regarding the considerable cost required”.
The Task Force then considered five further options. Three of these were
“ruled out by attendees following discussion, citing the ongoing cost of maintaining an unusable structure and the considerable cost of constructing a new bridge”.
Bridge closure – no access allowed, and structure remains as ‘a monument’. In rejecting this, the Taskforce in effect said, some sort of crossing is necessary if only for pedestrians and cyclists and it will be based on the structure we already possess and in the location where it currently stands. REJECTED
Bridge repair and restoration, sufficient to allow for active travel (pedestrians and cyclists) only plus two single decker buses;
Bridge repair and restoration, sufficient to allow for active travel (pedestrians and cyclists) only;
The Task Force did not rule out banning cars and possibly buses from the Bridge, according Hammersmith Today’s reporting
“due to the potential lower cost of construction and potential environmental benefits, although taskforce members recognised there may be a cost in terms of possible congestion in the surrounding areas and impact on bus routes”.
4. Replacement bridge, with a 44-tonne weight limit; REJECTED
5 ‘Offline’ replacement bridge, with the existing structure remaining in place. REJECTED
As previously reported the Task Force also requested clarification on current traffic level at Hammersmith Bridge and the surrounding areas to help them reach a decision.
What to make of this new information
Why not share this sooner?
Local Democracy Reporting Servicing deserve credit for securing these minutes through an FOI request. What I don’t understand is why keep this information under wraps? It was not so commercially sensitive as to warrant a FOI rejection. There’s a huge interest in the topic. It was relief to know the national, regional and local leaders were at least talking again. What benefit did the Task Force gain from this three month delay in releasing such basic information?
Sensible process
This delay is all the more puzzling because the process seems to be right one for a problem like the closure of Hammersmith Bridge. The senior politician gathers a group of regional and local leaders who are going to have to provide leadership whatever the decision. The Task Force agree to focus on a few options. They demand the most accurate data to inform their decision-making.
This should have happened just before or just after Covid. Had that happened, the restoration may well be underway.
Mystery Option zero
Why call it Foster-Cowl ‘option 0’ or option zero? I do not speculate on this blog, choosing to judge people using only their words and actions. The Task Force chairman decided to call this plan Option 0.
I can think of two reasons why the minister or his civil servants chose this name
Having worked with data analysts for over twenty years, I am aware they occasionally use zero-based numbering. The one thing missing from this meeting was relevant data.
Similary I have seen documents from civil servants where Option 0 represents the do-nothing or baseline scenario for impact assessments. There was little sense the Taskforce discussed how they might approach any cost/benefits analysis.
Neither of these reasons seem likely so Option 0 remains an oddity.
Benefits
It was encouraging to see the Task Force asking for official and recent traffic data. That is desparately needed. The other data they should have requested is more detail on the ‘benefits of restoring car accessibility’. As with traffic data, online and in person discussion around the Bridge’s future are regularly peppered with anecdote and mis-remembering.
The benefits and costs of all these options need to be spelled out and shared. “Without clearly presented costs and benefits, any eventual decision is likely to leave one side feeling disenfranchised.”
Knowing your place
The Hammersmith Today report ends with what reads like corporate passive aggression by Department for Transport,
A range of possible engineering solutions were discussed (by the Task Force)
No talk of costs. Nothing about funding. That discussion will take place in another room.