Transport Secretary’s comments raise possibility of new funding for Hammersmith Bridge
Maybe - Story 92
‘There are some structures that because of their age, their nature, are simply too expensive for the individual local authority to bear the entire burden of repairing them.’
Heidi Alexander’s recent remarks to LBC on the government’s new ‘Structures Fund’ have stirred cautious optimism among campaigners hoping for the full restoration of Hammersmith Bridge.
The UK government (UKG) Spend Review announced £725 billion infrastructure investment over the next decade. That was £113 billion higher than the plans inherited from the previous government. There were several commitments, including:
£9 billion to address maintenance in NHS, schools and courts
£24 billion for roads over the next four years
£7.9 billion for flood defences
And the creation of a Structures Fund. This was allocated £1 billion to improve life for drivers across the UK. The UKG pointed out:
Across Great Britain, approximately 3,000 bridges are currently unable to support the heaviest vehicles, restricting access for agricultural and freight transport in regions, and slowing down journeys.
The fund is explicitly designed to deliver visible progress within the lifetime of the current Parliament.
Notes & thoughts
The interview with the Secretary of State provoked a flurry of comments online and in chat groups from those in favour of restoring all vehicles to Hammersmith Bridge. After six years - and counting - of frustrations, you can understand their enthusiasm.
Or can you?
London’s (fair) share?
The Chancellor has made clear future Treasury assessment of investment opportunities will upweight those out of London.
Despite that, the Chancellor also announced in the Spending Review funding for Lower Thames Crossing. Another £590 million invested in London’s infrastructure. Indeed, this announcement and details of the new Structures Fund appear in the same UKG media briefing.
The UKG wants to increase the proportion of its investments out of London. It made two major announcements - one worth £0.5billion for London and one worth £1billion for the whole of the country.
What chance then, London securing an additional £250m, the forecast cost of restoring the Bridge, or a full quarter of the new national fund?
Even if London secures 25% of the total national fund, what chance all of that being spent on one project?
Shared funding?
The Transport Secretary could use the Structures Fund to partially fund the restoration of the Bridge. This is one of at least seven funding options open to the UKG for restoring Hammersmith Bridge. Ms Alexander referred the shared funding model when she discussed how the Structure Fund might work:
We are .. going to have to look at the criteria of that fund, whether there needs to be local contribution from the asset owner, whether there is a clear and costed plan for work and whether there is a clear delivery path.
If Ms Alexander opts to fund only some of the full cost, the balance could come from the private sector and/or Transport for London (TfL) and Hammersmith & Fulham council (H&F), the bridge owners.
Until recently, support at all levels of the government for rebuilding the Bridge had hits (financial) limits. Restoring vehicles to Hammersmith Bridge is not a priority for the UK government, nor the Mayor of London or the London Boroughs.
Tolls
Let’s assume the Secretary of State commits some of the new Fund to restoring the Bridge. And let’s assume H&F council contribute even some of the balance. They have said they could only do so only if they were able to charge tolls.
If all the national and local government bodies support the use of tolls they will have to settle at least one major one issue.
TfL are responsible for Chiswick Bridge. H&F council owns Hammersmith Bridge. Wandsworth council owns Putney Bridge.
What would these three bodies make of the situation emerging in east London where there are now three crossings close together: two are charging and one is free. Traffic is clogging the free ferry, despite limited capacity and poorer driver experience. Drivers prefer free roads.
That suggests if a toll is only charged for driving across Hammersmith Bridge, there might be little traffic reduction over Putney Bridge. Is that acceptable?
Or would the local car drivers, bridge owners, councillors and MPs be content to see tolls across Chiswick, Hammersmith and Putney bridges?
Of course if the Secretary of State funds only some of the restoration work and chooses to invite private investment to provide the rest, tolls are an inevitability. As are the issues above.