Hammersmith Bridge SOS campaign group ‘taking a breather’
Story 214: Barnes Bugle says group may return next year
The Bugle reports the one of the most prominent groups campaigning for the restoration of vehicles to Hammersmith Bridge is ‘to take a breather’.
The newsletter this week quotes Hammersmith Bridge SOS saying,
In view of the current funding climate, the bridge being open to cyclists and pedestrians, LBHF’s (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) lack of interest in engaging on ways to increase the weight limit (to allow for 10-15 person electric vehicles for the less able and blue light services), and differences over retaining the original objective of full reopening, the current committee have stood down.
We will review opportunities around the next elections (Mayoral election in May 2027 and the general election in .. 2029).
Welcome to Barnes2050, a place-based futures project asking: how do we make sure Barnes - the place and its people - is thriving and climate-ready by 2050?
Notes and thoughts
Hammersmith Bridge SOS were, arguably, the pre-eminent campaign group demanding the full restoration of the Bridge. They largely stood above politics. They were active. They maintained a strong online presence. Their campaign timeline is impressive.
Barnes2050 recently featured the last chair of Hammersmith Bridge SOS, Nigel Edwards. He had been a guest of Helen Edward on the Barnes Bond Podcast.
That Barnes2050 article ended like this,
Mr Edwards sounded downbeat. He has a gentle, thoughtful manner. But there was something else in the interview too: a kind of civic exhaustion.
In one sense, he represented one perspective very well. Like so many others he clearly cares deeply about Hammersmith Bridge.
But, so far, no-one cares enough to invest £250million to make one future version of it, real. The statement from Hammersmith Bridge SOS echoes those themes.
Whether that reading of Mr Edwards was correct, the statement from Hammersmith Bridge SOS suggests he was not alone in feeling it.
Campaigns run on more than conviction.
They require volunteers, energy and the belief that progress remains possible. For now, at least, that energy appears to have ebbed away.
The group is not declaring victory. Nor is it conceding defeat. Instead, it seems to be acknowledging a reality familiar to many long-running civic campaigns: determination can sustain a movement for years, but not indefinitely.
Changing sentiment
It is tempting to see this decision as another indicator of what Barnes2050 has been suggesting for some time.
There is probably still a majority in the Barnes and Mortlake & Barnes Common wards for restoring cars to Hammersmith Bridge.
With no credible recent polling, however, nobody really knows.
Judging by local conversations, however, the gap between those who want cars restored and those who favour a permanently car-free bridge feels much narrower than it once did. And it seems to be narrowing further. People are changing their minds.
Which raises an intriguing question. Did the same thing happen within Hammersmith Bridge SOS? Is that what lies behind the statement’s reference to:
.. differences over retaining the original objective of full reopening ..
All of this is unsurprising. It follows a well-established pattern of human behaviour in the face of change. The phenomenon has several names, some quite striking.
What we have in common
Looking to the future, there remain broadly three options going forward for Hammersmith Bridge:
As you were - 2019 option: allow all vehicles to cross the Bridge in both directions. This requires over £250million investment to repair the Bridge.
Active travel plus public service vehicles - Allow only some lightweight buses and any other similarly weighted services to use the Bridge. Possible, the campaigning charity estimated this would cost £10 million (2023 prices).
Active travel only - 2026 option: keep the Bridge for just walkers, wheelers and cyclists. This is not cost-free. Further work is possibly required to maintain the newly restored Bridge.
Barnes2050 believes the Bridge should remain car-free, permanently. More than that, it believes there’s an urgent need for a new form of public transport to support those less able to cross the river.
Read the Hammersmith Bridge SOS statement again. They supported the potential electric bus service too.
That is worth remembering going forward.
Apparently opposing views have more in common than seemed possible at first glance.
If you have any interest in Barnes you should subscribe to The Barnes Village Bugle newsletter. Whatever your opinion about the potential futures of Barnes, it is an essential part of life on the peninsula.
Hammersmith Bridge has featured prominently on this journal since launch. You can find a full listings of all the articles here.