Hammersmith Bridge is a great metaphor for our flailing, antiquated economy

When comparing the state of the UK economy, there are no better metaphors than the bridge; we can see the issues, they’ve been there for decades, but we do precious little about it, writes Chris Blackhurst

The bridge is closed to all traffic – pedestrians and cyclists included (PA)

When historians search for a perfect metaphor for what was wrong with the British economy in 2020, they could do worse than alight on Hammersmith Bridge.

If ever there was a symbol of everything that is at fault with the country’s infrastructure, and hence its creaking economy, it is the iron suspension bridge in west London. Opened in 1887, it straddles the Thames between Hammersmith on the north side and Barnes on the south. As such, the 700ft crossing fulfils a vital role, acting as the only means of traversing the river for thousands of people every day. The next nearest bridges at Chiswick and Putney are miles away.

Now, though, Hammersmith Bridge is closed to all traffic – pedestrians and cyclists included. Cracks were discovered during the recent heatwave, and the structure is deemed so dangerous that even river vessels cannot pass underneath. As a result, when the schools reopen shortly, pupils will not be able to reach them easily (there’s talk of them using boats to cross), commuters cannot access the Tube stations at Hammersmith, the emergency services will have to take lengthy, and life-threatening, detours. Not to mention the small businesses on either bank who rely on the bridge for workers, deliveries and customers.

Emergency closures for safety reasons happen, and thank goodness the flaws were discovered in time. Except that problems regarding the strength, or lack, of the bridge have been going on for decades. They’re not new. Vehicles were already banned well before this latest revelation.

We know where the problems are but we do not address them or, if we do, we do it in such a way that the solution takes forever and by the time it arrives it is too late

What should occur next is obvious: a bridge that was constructed during a different, distant era is no longer fit for purpose and must be replaced. And as a new one is being built a temporary bridge should be installed immediately to enable folk to get across.

Simple, really. Except it isn’t. No one will take ownership of the problem and providing for the future; meanwhile, we remain mired in the past. The bridge is Grade II listed and is hailed as being of architectural importance, a technical marvel, a monument to the vision and expertise of Victorian engineering and innovation. As such, maintain some, it must be preserved.

It’s true, the bridge is an object of beauty. Traversing it never ceases to inspire, although more recently that awe has been accompanied by a certain gratitude in reaching the other side without getting wet or worse. Nostalgia, though, only serves so far. As a nation we love to bask in our history, but does it create a modern economy that is fit for the 21st century? No it does not.

Regrettably, Hammersmith Bridge should be demolished and a bridge capable of meeting the needs of those who rely on it put in its place. The new bridge should not have to match the old, neither should there be an attempt to patch up and repair – we’ve tried the latter and it simply hasn’t worked. Accept it’s over and move on. And quickly.

That much is apparent. Except it isn’t. Rather, debates are ensuing as to the next steps. What’s clouding the discussion is politics. Hammersmith and Fulham council, which owns the bridge, does not have the money to do very much at all, and is in no position to foot the estimated £140m bill for repairing the bridge, let alone demolishing and rebuilding it.

Transport for London, which answers to the London mayor, operates the bridge but stresses it’s not the owner and, besides, it does not have the spare cash. Richmond council on the south bank is equally concerned but not that concerned – the bridge sits at the far end of the borough and, when all said and done, the council is not the owner and it does not possess the money. Central government has not rushed to intervene.

Then there are those who argue there should be no thoroughfare at all, that having abandoned plans for a Garden Bridge green space elsewhere along the Thames on the grounds of cost, this is an opportunity to resurrect them, that Hammersmith should become that bridge.

The result is an impasse, one that is all too familiar to anyone who has studied our lack of joined-up thinking, our collective national failure to seize responsibility. We can see the issue, it stares us in the face, but we do precious little about it. For Hammersmith, read the absence of decent rail and road links across the north of England or affordable housing and lack of care homes or dilapidated school buildings and crumbling hospitals or insufficient power generation. Or, moving on from infrastructure, school leavers who do not possess the skills employers seek, or industries that do not sufficiently compete globally. We like to pass our issues around, between governments, between agencies and different bodies, defaulting to fudge and slow, slow progress, if any. But we are world-beaters where selling charm and heritage are concerned. Hammersmith Bridge, in that regard, could not be more perfect.

We know where the problems are but we do not address them or, if we do, we do it in such a way that the solution takes forever and by the time it arrives it is too late. To use a phrase often quoted by this government when it does care about something, we do not get it done.