Hammersmith Bridge has become the focus of a fresh public row after a series of letters set out sharply different views on the future of the crossing.
The correspondence follows a column by Simon Jenkins and centres on a question that has divided opinion locally and across London for years: should the Grade II* listed bridge remain a crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, or should it once again carry motor traffic?
The letters, published as responses to Jenkins’s article, come from writers in Putney and East Sheen, as well as the chair of Barnes Hammersmith Electric Light Transit and the Chairman of City Bridge Foundation.
Arguments for keeping the bridge free of cars
Dr Richard Carter, writing from Putney, said replacing the bridge to allow more vehicles back on to the road would be the wrong answer. He argued that congestion is caused not by roadworks but by too many cars trying to use a road network that was not designed for them.
He also challenged the idea that the bridge now serves only a limited purpose, pointing to daily use by pedestrians and cyclists. In his letter, he wrote that “between 12,000 and 15,000 people use it every day”.
Carter said reopening the bridge to motor traffic would bring little benefit, adding that well over half of households in Hammersmith and Fulham do not have access to a car and that the area already has strong public transport links. He also pointed to a proposal from Barnes Hammersmith Electric Light Transit for driverless electric pod vehicles for people unable to walk across the bridge.
Calls for a vehicle crossing to return
Another letter took the opposite view. Julian Heddy, writing from East Sheen, backed Jenkins’s criticism of the authorities involved and said the failure to replace Hammersmith Bridge over seven years would not have been tolerated in other European capitals.
He argued that the closure to vehicles has caused lasting disruption on nearby routes, specifically naming Upper Richmond Road and Putney High Street during rush hour. In his account, the current situation has left residents dealing with severe traffic problems while being forced to cross on foot or by bike.
Heddy also criticised a British obsession with heritage projects, arguing that a temporary bridge capable of carrying traffic could have been built years ago were it not for the British obsession for so-called “heritage” projects.
Dispute over usage, funding and the bridge’s future
Charles Campion, chair of Barnes Hammersmith Electric Light Transit, said the image of the bridge as decrepit is out of date. He said Hammersmith and Fulham council had invested £55m and that the bridge now functions successfully as an active travel crossing, with “15,000 people a day walking and wheeling across its reopened main carriageway”.
Campion said he knew of no growing body of opinion in favour of replacing the bridge. Instead, he said the settled local preference had shifted towards building on the current arrangement by introducing lightweight, autonomous electric shuttles to bridge the public transport gap. He added that the community-led group is working with Ohmio UK and partners on that plan.
He also claimed that traffic on neighbouring bridges and the wider road network is down compared with before the bridge closed to motor vehicles, and said there is no credible business case for spending hundreds of millions to restore through traffic. He linked that argument to the mayor’s target of reducing car traffic by 27% by 2030.
A separate intervention came from Paul Martinelli, Chairman of City Bridge Foundation, who responded to Jenkins’s views on how the organisation’s funds should be used. He said the charity shares a commitment to London’s bridges but rejected the idea that its endowment is a general pot for wider infrastructure spending.
Martinelli said City Bridge Foundation maintains five Thames bridges – Tower, London, Southwark, Millennium and Blackfriars – and pointed to its current £15m refurbishment of Blackfriars Bridge. He said the foundation’s funds are tied to its own responsibilities and charitable purposes, and “cannot simply be redirected to pay for the restoration or replacement of a bridge outside our remit”.
Taken together, the letters show there is still no consensus on what should happen next at Hammersmith Bridge. What is clear is that the debate now stretches beyond heritage and engineering, taking in traffic, public transport, accessibility, environmental policy and who should pay.
