Could a £1bn fund pay to reopen Hammersmith Bridge to cars?
There are no sirens, no buses and no taxis. In many ways the Castelnau thoroughfare looks like it is stuck in March 2020 when the UK was plunged into the first lockdown and London's usually hectic streets fell silent.
The clue to the calm is on a lamppost. 'Road ahead closed,' the large red sign reads. The road in question — once a vital artery into the city — has been closed since April 2019 when sensors detected 'dangerous micro-fractures' in Hammersmith Bridge. A fix, residents were told, would cost £40 million and take ten years to complete.
Six years later there is little progress to show and the bill is now estimated to be at least £250 million. First cars were banned, then in August 2020 everyone was barred from crossing. Eleven long months later pedestrians and people pushing bikes were permitted. Then in April this year cyclists were once again allowed to pedal over the 138-year-old bridge.
If proper work to repair the bridge started today it would still be at least ten years until it reopened to motorised traffic. Residents have lost hope and Barnes, which sits in a horseshoe bend on the Thames, has become a sort of glorified village.
Hospital appointments and examinations have been missed, shops have gone bust and, anecdotally at least, crime has gone up. Yet there seems little political appetite to restore the bridge's motor traffic.
'It's like we never left lockdown,' Louisa Barnett, who lives in a flat near the south side of the bridge, says. 'Just look, there's not a car in sight. We're in Zone 2 of London but it's more like some far-out suburb. The place has lost its buzz.'
Barnett moved to north Barnes 20 years ago, attracted by its connectivity, and has a deep-rooted hate of the closure. It is understandable. In 2023 when her sister fell ill and subsequently died she was denied the opportunity of being at her bedside because she was sitting in traffic caused by the bridge closure.
'A journey to my sister's house which should have taken 40 minutes became one hour 30 minutes. She died while I was sitting in traffic and all the rest of the family were there. Had the bridge been open, like it should be, I'd have been at her side.'
One of the major issues, residents believe, is that politicians see the area as white, upper middle class and think those living there have nothing better to complain about. Put bluntly, they believe the Labour mayor, Labour government and Liberal Democrat council do not see repairing the grade II* listed iron structure as a vote winner.
But there may be hope on the horizon. Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, hinted — loosely — that total restoration could be financed through a £1 billion structures fund announced in last month's spending review.
'We need to work through the details of how that structures fund is going to operate,' Alexander told LBC. 'It may be the case that Hammersmith Bridge and repair work there could be funded through that structures fund.'
It is a glimmer of hope but few are convinced. Part of the stalemate is that no one can quite agree on who should pay. The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, the Department for Transport and the mayor's office have been locked in talks for years.
'I don't think it will ever reopen and politicians should come clean and say it,' Julia Watkins, of Hammersmith Bridge SOS, which is campaigning to have it fully restored, said. 'There are a lot of people who think having the bridge open to cyclists is good enough. But it's not. There are 21,500 people living in SW13 and many of them are old. People's GPs are over the bridge, Charing Cross hospital is over there. It can now regularly be a 40-minute drive for what used to be 0.8 miles.'
For Heidi Patton, 66, the reality of the closure is stark. Her husband is 83 and has dementia as well as other health problems. She would regularly drive over the bridge to get to hospital appointments and is fed up with the locals, most of them cyclists, who think the closure is a net-positive.
She said: 'To get to appointments now we have to take the car to Barnes station, which has only just had lifts fitted, and go to Waterloo. There we face a long walk to the Tube. There are a small group of people who think it's wonderful and say 'why doesn't everybody cycle over?' Well, not everybody can cycle. Before there were five bus routes over the bridge. Now there are none.'
The eeriness of Castelnau is hard to ignore. Until 2015, the bridge was used by 22,000 vehicles including 1,800 buses every day. At Michael's Newsagents, Ronnie Packeer, the shopkeeper of 17 years, says it has hugely affected business. Passing traffic has fallen off a cliff and sales are down.
'I used to open at 6am and close at 9.30pm,' he said standing by his shelf of garden fixtures and fittings. 'Now there is no point because there are no buses stopping outside. I now open at about 7am and close at 7pm. There's simply not the demand now.'
The lack of footfall has also made the bridge a hotspot for muggings. 'You hear of one every three days,' Barnett, the managing director of Geronimo Jones jewellery, said. 'When it's dark and no-one is around it's just a playground for gangs. It doesn't feel safe. I'll now wait on the north side at night until a couple come along and walk a few metres behind them.'
A spokeswoman for the Department for Transport said: 'We continue to work closely with Transport for London and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham on the Hammersmith Bridge restoration project — and so far have provided almost £17 million of funding. A £1 billion structures fund was announced as part of the spending review settlement and details of allocation will be announced in due course.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
18 minutes ago
- The Sun
Driving laws shake-up has overlooked reckless group we need to rein in and will mean nothing if changes aren't enforced
AFTER decades of careful driving, some motorists may feel miffed at Government proposals to bring in eye-tests for over-70s. At 70, drivers are actually relatively safe on the roads. The figures spike up after 80 and, in particular, after 85 years old. 3 3 But the big gap in these plans is for 17 to 24-year-old drivers who are over-represented in car crashes. They are not at risk from poor eyesight but inexperience and risk-taking. The figures are stark. One in five young drivers crash in their first year behind the wheel and over 1,500 young drivers are killed or seriously injured each year. It is these young drivers that seem to have been overlooked in the planned shake up of driving laws. Almost every weekend now we see crashes with three or four teenagers in the car. It's usually because the driver is inexperienced and having mates in the vehicle can be distracting. And it's not just the young people themselves who are killed or injured. Other drivers and passersby are caught up in this carnage. The Automobile Association has looked at how Australia, New Zealand and Canada do things. They limit the number of same-age passengers a driver can have in their car for the first six months after taking their test. We estimate if that policy was adopted in the UK it would save at least 58 lives and at least 934 serious injuries. It would cut the young road deaths from between 20 to 40 per cent. Moment car speeds down street killing four uni students Some argue that it's limiting driver and passenger freedom. But there's nothing particularly free about being wrapped around a tree at two o'clock in the morning. As for the eye tests for older drivers, 70 is the new 50. People are fitter and healthier after pensionable age. Should the mandatory test be at 70, or would it be fairer at something like 75 or 80, which is a closer reflection of the safety figures? It's important for all drivers to have eye tests, perhaps every three years, not only for road safety but also because it can pick up on other health conditions as well. When you analyse people who kill or are killed in drink-drive incidents they aren't a bit over the limit or a bit under the limit. Many are double the limit Another proposed driving law change currently in the consultation process is stricter rules for drink-driving. Under the new plans, the drink-drive limit is expected to be tightened from 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath to 22 micrograms. This would bring it into line with limits in Scotland, which were lowered in December 2014. Intuitively, you'd think lowering the limit would be a positive for safety but evidence I've seen from Scotland shows that it has little effect. When you analyse people who kill or are killed in drink-drive incidents they aren't a bit over the limit or a bit under the limit. Many are double the limit. So it won't be a massive safety issue on its own, but if it is linked to publicity campaigns and better police enforcement it could have an effect. Another proposed law change is to punish drivers with penalty points if their passengers fail to wear seatbelts. Seat belts are the simplest, single safety measure. They can reduce the risk of death by 50 per cent. So it is a no-brainer that we should have more enforcement over wearing them, but we need the traffic cops to do it. Unfortunately, dedicated traffic police have been reduced by more than 20 per cent over the last decade. That's a big failing because having a police presence acts as a deterrent for things like drink-driving, drug-driving and wearing seatbelts. Serious offenders The big, big reduction in traffic police is really noticeable. Currently, you can drive 250 miles and you will see a lot of speed cameras, but you won't see many marked police cars. For any one of these mooted new policies to work you need more dedicated traffic cops. There's a really interesting study from the Home Office... It found dangerous and reckless drivers are more likely to be a burglar, rapist or murderer Traffic policing isn't just important for road safety, it also helps clear up general crime. The Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, was caught by a cop on traffic duty. There's a really interesting study from the Home Office on the criminal history of serious traffic offenders. It found dangerous and reckless drivers are more likely to be a burglar, rapist or murderer. Therefore having traffic police stop someone for reckless driving means they are more likely to stop someone from committing other crimes. So what we need alongside any new safety measures is proper police enforcement. That means more traffic cops making more stops and acting as a tough deterrent. It's the best way of making roads safer for all of us. 3
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The proof that older drivers are not the most dangerous
Drivers between 17 and 24 are twice as likely to be killed or seriously injured at the wheel as those aged over 70, data from the Department for Transport show. As the Government prepares to introduce compulsory eye tests for the over-70s, analysis suggests that serious accidents are more common among the youngest drivers than the oldest. Brian Macdowell, a spokesman for the Association of British Drivers, warned of 'unintended consequences' from the planned crackdown on older drivers. He said: 'We think it needs a much more comprehensive review of the subject.' Statistics show that 121.5 drivers aged between 18 and 24 are killed for every billion vehicle miles travelled, compared with 60.9 for over-70s (and just 30.9 for those in between). The data covers travel within Great Britain in 2023, the latest year for which figures are available. Young men in particular are to blame for the age disparity, being three times more likely to be involved in a deadly or life-threatening accident than over-70s. The numbers for women are broadly similar across both age groups. Overall, the under-20s and over-70s account for a broadly similar proportion of drivers who are injured on the roads, respectively at 8.2 and 9.1 per cent of the total where an age was recorded in 2023. But when it comes to severe injury and death, the older group is considerably more likely to be affected, at 9.1 of the total compared with 16.2 per cent. This is likely an indication of the fact that older drivers are typically more frail, rather than because they are more of a danger in the driving seat. DVLA records towards the end of that same year showed almost 6.2 million full or provisional driving licence entitlements held by those aged 70-plus, relative to just under 2.6 million to those under 21. Although the data does not necessarily back up eye tests for the over-70s, there is a marked rise in the likelihood of serious accidents later in life. Drivers aged 86 and older had a higher rate of death or serious injury, at 202.5 per billion miles travelled. Mr Macdowell added: 'We're not per se against some regulation that requires you to have an eye test, but we do not think it should be targeted just on people over 70.' 'It could be a way forward, but not if it's a draconian step, which could involve people losing their licences, because that is the risk of these proposals, that they have unintended consequences.' Police data show that older drivers are much more likely to be involved in an accident where one cause was a failure to look properly. This was a factor in 28 per cent of cases involving the over-70s between 2019 and 2023, compared to 19 per cent for younger motorists. However, young people in collisions are far more likely to have been recorded as driving drunk or on drugs. Some 7.1 per cent of those 20 and under were found to have been impaired by alcohol, to 0.9 per cent of those 70 and over. The comparable figures for drugs came to 5.8 and 0.2 per cent respectively. The overhaul of UK road safety legislation is also tipped to include a reduction of the drink-drive limit. Separate data show older people are far more likely to be reliant on their cars to access essential services, thus risking being cut off should their licence be withdrawn. Of the 10 local authorities with the highest proportion of people aged 70 or over as of the middle of last year, seven were classified as 'rural' by the Office for National Statistics. Across the 32 local authorities in England and Wales where at least a fifth of the population was at least in their seventies, there were an average of 8.6 supermarkets per 100 square kilometres – substantially more sparse than the 53.4 across other councils. A similar pattern emerges for post offices, with respective concentrations of 6.1 to 18.1, and pharmacies at 4.8 to 39.5. Seb Goldin, chief executive of Red Driver Training, however, described it as 'totally inadequate' that drivers aged over 70 'can self-certify that they can see' and highlighted that a coroner criticised the system earlier this year. He said: 'We'd be keen that [the government] goes further than the initial proposals, and also include showing evidence of an eyesight test at the driving test. 'At the moment, it's the same measure of how good your eyesight is as when the driving test was created in the 1930s, namely can you read a number plate at a certain distance.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Planned eyesight tests for drivers over 70 'don't go far enough'
Plans to introduce compulsory eye tests for older motorists "don't go far enough", the son of a woman who was killed by a driver with undisclosed poor eyesight has over 70 could have to be screened every three years and face being banned from the roads if they an inquest into four deaths caused by drivers with failing eyesight, Lancashire's senior coroner Dr James Adeley in April called on ministers to take action, warning the current enforcement system was "unsafe".A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "Road safety measures have not been reviewed for over a decade, and we will set out the next steps for our strategy for road safety in due course." 'Prevent future deaths' The proposed reforms have been welcomed by Labour MP Paul has been campaigning for a change in the law following the death of 75-year-old Anne Ferguson. She was hit by a van driven by 72-year-old Vernon Law in Whitworth, Lancashire, in Adeley wrote to Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander about the deaths of Mrs Ferguson and other road victims Marie Cunningham, Grace Foulds and Peter Ferguson's inquest heard that Law, who was jailed for four years, had been diagnosed with cataracts in both lied to his optometrist by saying he did not drive, and also failed to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).Rochdale MP Waugh told BBC Radio Manchester: "That's really shocking. It shows there was something wrong with the system."He said while mandatory eye tests for over 70s would not bring Mrs Ferguson back, they may prevent future deaths."We can't allow similar tragedies to affect other families in future," he said. Mrs Cunningham was struck by Glyn Jones in his Audi A3 as she crossed the road in Southport, Merseyside, in November son Terry Cunningham told BBC Radio Merseyside that while the government's proposals "will make a difference" they "don't go far enough".He said mandatory sight tests were a "step in the right direction" because the current system - in which drivers over 70 are only asked to "self-certify" any sight issues - was "typically putting a tick in a box".He said more far-reaching changes were required, however, since Jones was only 65 at the time of the fatal sentencing hearing was told he could not even see his steering wheel Cunningham said: "If a car is MOT'd the car is safe but you are never MOT'd for 53 years by anybody professional."He called for all drivers to have eye tests every 10 years when photocard driving licences are due for renewal. BBC North West Tonight went to Preston to canvass Richardson, 77, said he was "all in favour" of mandatory eye tests for people even younger than 70 to ensure "safety on the roads".He added: "You test a car every three years - why shouldn't drivers be tested?"Keith Andrews said eye tests "should be compulsory" for older people, and conducted more 76-year-old, who still drives, said: "I think they should be every two years. At our age [our eyesight] deteriorates. I don't three years is sufficient." Fellow Preston resident, 80-year-old Jacqueline Tanner, said she had regular eye said compulsory tests were "the right thing to do". "Probably in another five years I'll not be able to drive but I am quite happy to drive at the minute," she Delyth Fishwick, 63, said: "Part of me thinks it should be people's choice... but then you have to look at the safety aspect, too." Listen to the best of BBC Radio Lancashire on Sounds and follow BBC Lancashire on Facebook, X and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
