Discussions of Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce Revealed
Meeting considered six options for the future of the structure
The temporary double decker structure remains 'Option 0' for Hammersmith Bridge. Picture: Foster-Cowi
March 28, 2025
Proposals to turn Hammersmith Bridge into a completely inaccessible “monument”, or to demolish and replace it with a brand new river crossing, were both suggested by the Government at a recent meeting, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) can reveal.
The ideas for the bridge’s future – both of which were rejected – were put on the table by the Department for Transport as two among six solutions for the structure’s poor state of repair at the Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce summit in January.
Minutes from the meeting, obtained by the LDRS through a Freedom of Information request, also reveal that cars could potentially be banned from using the bridge forever, as taskforce members acknowledged it could mean lower restoration costs and bring environmental benefits.
The 138-year-old bridge has been closed to cars, buses and vans since April 2019, when cracks appeared in the structure’s pedestals. Only pedestrians, and cyclists who dismount from their bikes, are currently able to use it – though the road running through the middle of the bridge is still shut as it is being redecked.
The cost of fully repairing and reopening the crossing has risen sharply in the years since it closed, and was estimated last year at £250m. It is unclear how long a full repair programme would need, though Putney MP Fleur Anderson told the LDRS it could take until 2035.
On 30 January, the Labour Government re-assembled the Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce. The group, which was originally established by Tory Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, hadn’t met for more than three years.
The taskforce includes DfT officials, council representatives, MPs on either side of the bridge, Transport for London, and Sir Sadiq Khan’s deputy mayor for transport, Seb Dance. January’s meeting was chaired by local transport minister Simon Lightwood.
The group met at the DfT’s Westminster headquarters, Great Minster House, for around 90 minutes.
First came a presentation from Stephen Cowan, the Labour leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council – which owns 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.
Next, one of the council’s executive directors set out the so-called ‘Foster-Cowi’ proposal to reopen the bridge for all users, including motor vehicles. 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 was followed by a further five options presented by the DfT’s chief engineer David Coles, which read as follows:
Bridge closure – no access allowed, and structure remains as ‘a monument’;
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;
Replacement bridge, with a 44-tonne weight limit;
‘Offline’ replacement bridge, with the existing structure remaining in place.
Options one, four and five are all said to have been “ruled out by attendees following discussion, citing the ongoing cost of maintaining an unusable structure and the considerable cost of constructing a new bridge”.
Demolishing the existing bridge, as set out in option four, would also have run into difficulties given that the structure is Grade II-listed and therefore protected by Historic England.
Despite those options being “quickly” dismissed by all present, DfT sources insist “it was right they were tested in this forum to ensure the taskforce was focused on an agreed range of outcomes”.
The minutes confirm that the taskforce has not ruled out permanently banning cars, and possibly buses, from using the bridge – as set out in options two and three – “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”.
Taskforce members “requested clarification on the current traffic levels around Hammersmith Bridge and the surrounding areas” to help them reach a decision.
The Foster-Cowi ‘option 0’ proposal was “also not ruled out given the benefits of restoring car accessibility, although concerns [were raised] regarding the considerable cost required”.
As well as looking more closely at the data on local traffic levels, the taskforce’s decision may also ultimately be shaped by how much money is allocated to the DfT in Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ comprehensive spending review in June.
While keeping the bridge closed to private motor vehicles would frustrate the area’s more car-reliant residents and bus users, it would also be welcomed by those who say the closure has helped reduce air pollution on their road.
“We have the opportunity to create an iconic car-free crossing in our capital city, and the taskforce should seize it,” said Izzy Romilly, sustainable transport manager at climate charity Possible.
She added, “What residents need is to be able to easily get to shops, schools and hospitals across the river, and we can achieve that without flooding the area with more cars, congestion and pollution.
“A crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, with a light shuttle service for those who can’t walk or cycle, is the only realistic way forward – and it’s by far the most desirable one too.”
A DfT spokeswoman said, “While the Government faces a difficult situation with Hammersmith Bridge, where decisions about its future have been ducked for many years, we recognise the frustration its closure causes motorists.
“The Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce met on January 30 to consider the potential next steps for the long-term future of the bridge. A range of possible engineering solutions were discussed, and further updates will be made available in due course.”
Noah Vickers - Local Democracy Reporter