|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 5, 2020 9:26:37 GMT
Unfortunately, every available resolution to this situation depends, to varying degrees, on support from central Government - and the Government has so far shown no interest in providing support of any kind. Indeed, it's very much in this Government's interest to ensure that the bridge remain closed for as long as possible, in order to score political points against the Labour-run Hammersmith & Fulham Council; and against Transport for London and the Mayor, who will of course be opposed by the Conservative candidate Shaun Bailey in the upcoming Mayoral election. It doesn't serve the interests of Government - or, more accurately, of the Conservative Party - to provide any meaningful assistance to reopen the bridge any time soon. Even before the pandemic, it was always going to be unrealistic for H&F Council to provide around £100m of funding to ensure that the bridge could be properly restored and reopened to traffic. There are obvious - and very reasonable - points to be made about H&F's appalling failure to adequately maintain the bridge to the standard demanded by its listed status, but while they are undoubtedly accurate, there is little to be gained from making such points when they do nothing to change the current situation. H&F could, and should, have done more to meet their maintenance obligations, but pointing the finger of blame does not solve the current problem. With the added financial pressures on all local councils during the coronavirus crisis, there is simply no possibility of H&F being able to provide the funding needed even to repair the bridge to a level at which it can be safely reopened to cyclists and pedestrians (which the Evening Standard article says would cost £46m). As the article points out - and it's no great surprise - even this amount cannot be raised without Government support. In early August, Transport for London updated its Hammersmith Bridge project page with new information, including this: At the same time, TfL added that it still hasn't agreed terms with Government to ensure the next stage of essential funding for its general operations "beyond 17 October 2020", and several weeks later, that position still hasn't changed. "Until we know the outcome of current negotiations with Government," TfL said, "we must pause the planning application for the temporary bridge. As part of these negotiations, we will ask for the full funding needed to refurbish Hammersmith Bridge, including the temporary bridge, stabilisation works and main bridge strengthening works." The DfT has previously indicated that it has no interest in providing funding when the responsibility for the bridge's maintenance lies with H&F Council. With the long-term closure of the bridge offering such a juicy opportunity for the Government to present it as a failure of the Labour-run council, and to use it as a stick with which to beat Sadiq Khan in the Mayoral election, I can't see the Government's position changing soon. Indeed, Sarah Olney MP noted this week that her efforts to engage with the Department for Transport regarding the full closure of the bridge and the urgent need for Government support have so far been ignored; having written to Baroness Vere (Minister for Roads, Buses and Places) last month, no response had been received after several weeks of waiting. The implementation of an enhanced programme of repairs to deal with the worsening damage to the bridge, the building of a temporary bridge, the reopening of the existing bridge to pedestrians and cyclists, the full restoration of the bridge and its use again by larger vehicles... all of these options require the support of the Government, which - politically - stands to gain far more by withholding that support for as long as possible. Regrettably, politics will always stand in the way of progress. A very thoughtful and accurate assessment of the current situation. The government lost three seats in England at the general election in December, two of those were Putney and Richmond Park. Not a surprise that they are in no hurry to fund a solution. They have found new friends in Blackpool, Burnley and Blyth Valley and won’t hesitate to splash the cash there instead. Surely Hammersmith Bridge is the responsibility of the local authority and not central government? |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 5, 2020 9:40:13 GMT
A very thoughtful and accurate assessment of the current situation. The government lost three seats in England at the general election in December, two of those were Putney and Richmond Park. Not a surprise that they are in no hurry to fund a solution. They have found new friends in Blackpool, Burnley and Blyth Valley and won’t hesitate to splash the cash there instead. Surely Hammersmith Bridge is the responsibility of the local authority and not central government? It is indeed not Central Government's issue. The roads are not managed by Central government, London's roads are managed by a mix of TfL and the local authority they run through. Hammersmith Bridge itself is the issue of Hammersmith and Fulham council and while they can quite easily either spend their money or raise funds for it they want TfL to do it for some reason when it really isn't their responsibility. I think the bridge collapsing in some sort is not an eventuality as nobody is bothering to fix it. What will happen is that one day a huge gust of wind will just trigger a breaking point on it and it will crumble. They have already planned for that eventuality by banning boats from going underneath it as there obviously is already a very real risk of collapse. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 5, 2020 9:56:11 GMT
Challenge Anneka built a foot bridge over a river in Wadebridge, Cornwall in 3 days back in 1991.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 5, 2020 10:20:39 GMT
I read somewhere that a 5.5m wide temporary structure for pedestrians and cyclists was being considered, it would also be step free.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Sept 5, 2020 10:46:07 GMT
Sarah Olney MP tweeted this morning that she's finally received a response from Baroness Vere (Minister for Roads, Buses and Places), after three weeks of waiting, and after sending a second letter to complain about the Minister's prolonged failure to respond to the previous correspondence. Unfortunately, the Minister offered little beyond stating that the Department for Transport is "now working closely with local stakeholders on this issue". Baroness Vere refers to having requested information from TfL on or around 9 March "about the proposals for a temporary Bridge in order to evaluate requests for funding". But since then, TfL has detailed its proposals extensively and publicly, even putting those proposals through a full public consultation process. It's also been well established that the entire project - not just for the construction and removal of the temporary bridge, but for repairing the existing bridge too - has been fully costed as well. Again, these details were made public months ago. We also know, from a Westminster Hall debate on 3 March attended by numerous MPs, that there was universal consensus for the construction of the temporary bridge, and that its funding was already in place from the £25m committed to the project by TfL. This is even in the public record in Hansard. Since then, TfL has effectively ceded control of its finances to the Government as part of its emergency funding agreement, which is why TfL was forced to "pause" its planning application for the temporary bridge last month. This is also why it's now having to petition Government for fresh permission to finance the temporary bridge (as well as requesting additional financing to repair the existing bridge) as it negotiates the next phase of its funding arrangement with the Treasury, which will come into effect from 18 October 2020. Evidently, TfL isn't able to proceed with the temporary bridge, or with allocating any funding to the broader project, without Government approval. In this context, accusations from some quarters that TfL or the Mayor are now 'refusing to act' (see below) appear transparently dishonest and nakedly self-serving. So what information has Baroness Vere been awaiting from TfL since early March regarding the proposed temporary bridge? All she said is that some additional information was made available on 27 August, but offered no details about what it might be, or how it might now help to move things forward. But we know that comprehensive details regarding the temporary bridge were made public in the weeks that followed her request for more information; and we know that costing and funding for the project had already been agreed before her request was even made. It's unclear what critical "further information" was missing in order to complete her own evaluation, and it's odd that despite awaiting such essential information for such a long time, she doesn't appear to have made any effort since March to follow up with TfL to try to get them to move things along. I suspect that political games are being played here. Greg Hands MP (Conservative MP for Chelsea and Fulham) has just highlighted Baroness Vere's letter as an example of TfL and Sadiq Khan having been asked for this unspecified, yet utterly vital, information in March, and then keeping the Government waiting for almost five months. This seems like a wonderfully convenient way to portray the Government as being keenly engaged in the process and desperate to help, in spite of the unconscionable obstinacy and indifference of TfL and the Mayor. This political point-scoring might be more convincing if the Government had actually demonstrated any willingness to provide the support that stakeholders have been requesting of it since 2019. Indeed, in her letter, Baroness Vere added that "the Government wants to see the Bridge returned to full use as soon as safely possible" - but the Government has known of Hammersmith & Fulham's inability to fund the repairs since last year. H&F Council, and local MPs Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) and Sarah Olney (Richmond Park), have repeatedly petitioned Government to provide financial assistance to ensure that the bridge can be repaired and reopened. The Department for Transport has at no point offered any indication that it intends to provide that support; in fact, its stated position on the bridge remains: Actions speak louder than words. The Government may say that it wants the bridge to be reopened ASAP, but it's done nothing to actively support that process, despite being the only stakeholder with the ability to effect any progress. The ball is in the Government's court, yet the Government has simply chosen to stand and stare at the ball. Meanwhile, of course, Conservative Mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey is condemning the Mayor for 'refusing to act', and proclaiming that "the government must step in... to fix another @sadiqkhan mess". I'm not sure how Khan is supposed to act when the Government is now controlling how TfL spends its money - and Bailey's proclamation that the Government will have to intervene to help resolve this situation seems particularly pitiful, when everyone has been asking them to do precisely that for months, and when they've consistently resisted doing so. And Greg Hands - who just so happens to be Shaun Bailey's campaign manager for the Mayoral election - insists that H&F Council and TfL "never wanted to repair & reopen" the bridge. I suspect we'll have to sit through many more rounds of these tedious political games, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Shaun Bailey somehow ends up being presented as the glorious hero who magically brokers the deal that enables Government to step in and fund the bridge... right about the time of the Mayoral election. |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Sept 5, 2020 11:02:17 GMT
Surely Hammersmith Bridge is the responsibility of the local authority and not central government? It is, but the local authority has made it clear for the past year and a half that they don't have the means to finance the repair and restoration of the bridge - even with the £25 million that TfL originally committed (and which has now effectively been rescinded under TfL's emergency funding agreement with the Government), Hammersmith & Fulham Council would still have had to put forward around £100 million, which is a huge amount of money for any local authority. That's precisely why central Government funding is needed - and it's not like there isn't precedent for the national Treasury intervening in such cases. Indeed, TfL would have collapsed and been unable to provide services as a result of its coronavirus funding crisis if central Government hadn't stepped in to provide emergency funding. Similarly, if a private company is unable to meet the obligations of maintaining an essential public service, Government will intervene. When a train operating company can no longer keep up with its franchise obligations, the rail service isn't simply left to collapse; the Government takes over as the 'Operator of Last Resort' to ensure that the service continues to be made available to the public. Whether it's a public body or a private operator, whenever an organisation that's tasked with providing a vital public service is unable to do so, there is a reasonable obligation on central Government to step in and ensure some continuity of service. This obligation - and this reasonable expectation by taxpayers - extends equally to essential public infrastructure. The fact that Baroness Vere acknowledges that the Department for Transport was already examining the request for funding in March - even before TfL's current funding crisis - shows that she is well aware that Government has a responsibility to ensure this continuity of service, and that critical infrastructure be maintained, when those responsible are unable to make provisions to do so. If no such obligation existed, she would not have even considered the request for funding. The fact that Government has so far done nothing in this situation - despite the requests of all stakeholders that it should do so, urgently - is a choice, not a reflection of the Government's lack of responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 5, 2020 13:11:14 GMT
Surely Hammersmith Bridge is the responsibility of the local authority and not central government? It is indeed not Central Government's issue. The roads are not managed by Central government, London's roads are managed by a mix of TfL and the local authority they run through. Hammersmith Bridge itself is the issue of Hammersmith and Fulham council and while they can quite easily either spend their money or raise funds for it they want TfL to do it for some reason when it really isn't their responsibility. I think the bridge collapsing in some sort is not an eventuality as nobody is bothering to fix it. What will happen is that one day a huge gust of wind will just trigger a breaking point on it and it will crumble. They have already planned for that eventuality by banning boats from going underneath it as there obviously is already a very real risk of collapse. Of course, local authorities are struggling to even support vital services due to years of austerity so I’m not surprised they can’t find the cash to do so. As for TfL, they’re now effectively the governments new play thing and considering a number of London’s roads is managed by TfL and TfL is now controlled by government, the government have inherited some of the responsibility to step in and get it sorted rather than continually pandering to the north of England as if they’re the only people that exist. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 5, 2020 16:07:45 GMT
Surely Hammersmith Bridge is the responsibility of the local authority and not central government? It is, but the local authority has made it clear for the past year and a half that they don't have the means to finance the repair and restoration of the bridge - even with the £25 million that TfL originally committed (and which has now effectively been rescinded under TfL's emergency funding agreement with the Government), Hammersmith & Fulham Council would still have had to put forward around £100 million, which is a huge amount of money for any local authority. That's precisely why central Government funding is needed - and it's not like there isn't precedent for the national Treasury intervening in such cases. Indeed, TfL would have collapsed and been unable to provide services as a result of its coronavirus funding crisis if central Government hadn't stepped in to provide emergency funding. Similarly, if a private company is unable to meet the obligations of maintaining an essential public service, Government will intervene. When a train operating company can no longer keep up with its franchise obligations, the rail service isn't simply left to collapse; the Government takes over as the 'Operator of Last Resort' to ensure that the service continues to be made available to the public. Whether it's a public body or a private operator, whenever an organisation that's tasked with providing a vital public service is unable to do so, there is a reasonable obligation on central Government to step in and ensure some continuity of service. This obligation - and this reasonable expectation by taxpayers - extends equally to essential public infrastructure. The fact that Baroness Vere acknowledges that the Department for Transport was already examining the request for funding in March - even before TfL's current funding crisis - shows that she is well aware that Government has a responsibility to ensure this continuity of service, and that critical infrastructure be maintained, when those responsible are unable to make provisions to do so. If no such obligation existed, she would not have even considered the request for funding. The fact that Government has so far done nothing in this situation - despite the requests of all stakeholders that it should do so, urgently - is a choice, not a reflection of the Government's lack of responsibility. As you said the government have stepped in with emergency funding to keep public transport going in the wake of coronavirus but the Hammersmith Bridge situation is the culmination of years of neglect. |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Sept 5, 2020 17:18:37 GMT
As you said the government have stepped in with emergency funding to keep public transport going in the wake of coronavirus but the Hammersmith Bridge situation is the culmination of years of neglect. It certainly is, and as I acknowledged in an earlier post, it's entirely reasonable to condemn Hammersmith & Fulham Council for its failure to maintain the bridge to the standard required of its listed status, or even to a level that would have allowed it to remain operational. The current Labour-run administration in H&F rightly deserves to be harshly condemned for its failure in that regard. But it's worth pointing out that while Labour have held H&F Council since 2014 (as well as from 1986 to 2006), the Conservatives didn't exactly leap at the opportunity to refurbish and restore the bridge to its glorious best during the eight years that they were in charge from 2006 to 2014. I mention this, not to 'exonerate' the Labour-run council in any way, or to excuse its inexcusable failures, but to further substantiate your point that the current situation has resulted from years of neglect - for which both parties should hang their heads in shame. This is, I believe, an important point to highlight, because the current posturing of the Conservative Party is based upon the implication that the bridge has suddenly crumbled into disrepair over the last few years entirely due to Labour's failures and neglectful management - and yet there's no evidence to suggest that the Conservatives made any effort to prevent this situation from ever arising during the eight years when they were in control by upgrading, restoring or improving the bridge in any meaningful way. The blame for this situation must be shared between both parties - and the responsibility for resolving it must be shared too. It's disingenuous of the Conservatives to try to wash their hands of this issue and absolve themselves of any responsibility, while pointing the finger at the current Labour administration in H&F for not having done enough so far (when the Conservatives themselves did nothing when they had the chance); and blaming TfL for not doing enough now (when it's the Conservatives who are now in control of how TfL can spend its money). |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Sept 9, 2020 14:40:37 GMT
Having done absolutely nothing for the past six months - apart from claiming to wait for critical information from TfL to "evaluate requests for funding" for the temporary bridge, which was already funded six months ago - Baroness Vere has announced today that she is now "leading a Taskforce to bring together the councils plus TfL" to evaluate funding options (presumably for both the temporary bridge and repairs to the existing one). Given how capably and proactively she's handled the situation so far, I'm sure everyone is hugely reassured by this development. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 9, 2020 14:43:35 GMT
Having done absolutely nothing for the past six months - apart from claiming to wait for critical information from TfL to "evaluate requests for funding" for the temporary bridge, which was already funded six months ago - Baroness Vere has announced today that she is now "leading a Taskforce to bring together the councils plus TfL" to evaluate funding options (presumably for both the temporary bridge and repairs to the existing one). Given how capably and proactively she's handled the situation so far, I'm sure everyone is hugely reassured by this development. So we'll get a conclusion by 2030? |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Sept 9, 2020 14:51:34 GMT
So we'll get a conclusion by 2030? Yes, at which point a public inquiry will be announced, extending the process by several more years. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 10, 2020 20:54:40 GMT
Baroness Vere under questioning in the Lords today says that Andy Byford has assured her the frequency of the 533 will increase.
|
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Sept 10, 2020 21:22:12 GMT
I read somewhere that a 5.5m wide temporary structure for pedestrians and cyclists was being considered, it would also be step free. What about a ferry? Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 10, 2020 21:28:10 GMT
I read somewhere that a 5.5m wide temporary structure for pedestrians and cyclists was being considered, it would also be step free. What about a ferry? Just a thought. I think that has been suggested. |
|
