Passion without a pathway: politicians demand action on bridge they can’t agree how to fix

Politicians from two councils, two parties, and multiple levels of government gathered on the Barnes side of Hammersmith Bridge on Saturday to demand action on the seven-year closure, but the event revealed a movement long on photo opportunities and short on any coordinated plan to actually get the bridge reopened.

The Hammersmith Bridge protest drew a respectable crowd to hear speeches from Putney MP Fleur Anderson, Richmond Park MP Sarah Olney, London Assembly Member Leonie Cooper, Wandsworth Council Leader Simon Hogg, and Richmond Council’s transport chief Alexander Ehmann. All delivered passionate calls for government action. None offered a concrete strategy for achieving it.

Protesters were not permitted onto the bridge itself or even the road leading to it. Instead, they gathered along the side, unfurling the same banner that has appeared at Anderson’s Hammersmith Bridge events since 2021. Considerable effort went into ensuring politicians were photographed together, then separately by party, with Labour and Liberal Democrat representatives taking turns in front of the cameras.

The speeches: passion without a pathway

Anderson told the crowd that 25,000 cars a day once crossed the bridge, that six bus routes were cut when it closed, and that traffic through Wandsworth has risen 25 percent during morning peak hours. She has raised the issue 30 times in Parliament and holds monthly “bus crisis meetings” with Transport for London.

“The time for empty talk is over,” declared Hogg in the event’s closing speech, before calling for a group photograph “to demonstrate how united we are.”

Yet the substance of what politicians are actually doing amounted to a familiar litany: letters sent, meetings requested, taskforce attendance sought. Anderson reported receiving a letter from Transport Minister Simon Lightwood promising a taskforce meeting, though no date has been set. Olney said she has received five versions of essentially the same letter over six months, each promising action without delivering it.

“I’m not gonna stop asking,” Olney told the crowd. But asking, it seems, is the extent of the strategy.

Cooper, who has served as Assembly Member throughout the bridge’s closure, offered the most honest assessment of the political paralysis. She has lobbied three successive Deputy Mayors for Transport, she said: Val Shawcross, Heidi Alexander (now Transport Secretary), and current incumbent Seb Dance, whom she meets next week. The bridge will be on the agenda. Again.

Ehmann delivered the strongest rhetoric, calling the bridge “the embodiment of civic failure” and “a symbol of disgrace.” He demanded “less waffle” and funding to restore the bridge to full strength. But Richmond Council, like Wandsworth, lacks the power or money to fix it alone.

The cycling lobby pushback

The event faced organised opposition. Several protesters from the cycling lobby heckled speakers throughout, having staged their own demonstration earlier in the day. One carried a sign reading “Hammersmith Bridge is Open,” reflecting the position that the bridge, accessible to pedestrians and cyclists since 2021, is functioning adequately.

Tim Lennon, local coordinator for the London Cycling Campaign, set out the counter-argument before the main speeches began. The bridge’s purpose “is to move people, not vehicles,” he said. Traffic across London bridges is down since 2019, he claimed, and the £220 million repair cost cannot be justified when a £4 million autonomous pod system could provide accessibility for those unable to walk or cycle.

When challenged about the impact on Putney residents, who have lost viable bus routes and face gridlock on surrounding roads, Lennon was dismissive. “There’s been congestion in Putney for 25 years. That’s not gonna change.”

The exchange highlighted a fundamental tension. Lennon’s traffic data, drawn from Department for Transport figures, does show lower vehicle counts on Putney Bridge than before the closure. But Wandsworth Council’s own analysis shows significant increases in peak-hour congestion and journey times. Both can be true: fewer total vehicles, but worse conditions for those who remain.

What cannot be disputed is that six bus routes were severed, communities were cut off, and Putney’s transport network has never recovered. Meanwhile, Hammersmith and Fulham Council is pursuing an £811 million tunnel to replace the functioning Hammersmith Flyover.

The funding deadlock explained

Cooper, in a separate interview, provided the clearest explanation of why nothing has happened despite years of campaigning.

When the Greater London Council was abolished, bridges were distributed among boroughs. Hammersmith and Fulham inherited this one. A “concrete bridge” (actually white Cornish granite) like Putney’s is cheap to maintain. A Grade II listed Victorian suspension bridge carrying heavy traffic is not.

The repair cost, variously estimated between £220 million and £450 million, is impossible for any single council. A funding formula was nearly agreed: one-third from central government, one-third from TfL and the Mayor, one-third from local authorities. But it collapsed.

Cooper traced part of the problem to Boris Johnson’s mayoralty. Under pressure from the Cameron government to contribute to austerity, Johnson surrendered London’s share of Vehicle Excise Duty from April 2018 onwards. “Londoners are basically funding the trams in Manchester,” Cooper said. “And until you fix that, which the current government hasn’t, you can’t ask anyone to fund this.”

The result is institutional paralysis. The Department for Transport references a “Structures Fund” but refuses to confirm whether Hammersmith Bridge qualifies. TfL has no money. Hammersmith and Fulham has already spent £48 million on stabilisation works. Everyone points at everyone else.

The real problem: no unified front

The protest revealed something more troubling than government inaction: the absence of any agreed solution among those demanding action.

Seven years of closure have allowed competing visions to calcify. Some want full restoration to vehicle traffic. Others want buses only. The cycling lobby wants it left as is, with pods for accessibility. Still others propose building a new bridge alongside. Each faction has dug in, and the result is that pressure on central government, which holds the purse strings, is diffuse and easily deflected.

As one observer noted, everyone has their pet solution and nobody wants to compromise. Until the various factions agree on what they are actually asking for, ministers can continue sending variations of the same letter promising to consider options at the next taskforce meeting.

Saturday’s protest was sincere. The politicians genuinely want the bridge reopened. The residents are genuinely suffering. But sincerity is not strategy, and after seven years, the Hammersmith Bridge campaign looks less like pressure and more like ritual.

A taskforce meeting awaits a date. Another letter will follow. The banner will be stored until next time.

---

Correction, 25 Jan, 12pm: An earlier version of this article incorrectly named Richmond Council’s transport chief as Alexander Raymond, not Ehmann.

Correction, 26 Jan, 10.30am: An earlier version of this article stated that Anderson had received confirmation of a taskforce meeting scheduled for 30 January 2026. In fact, no date has been set for the next taskforce meeting.