It was reported in the Evening Standard last week that the price tag for the second phase of the Hammersmith Bridge works (termed the strengthening works) has risen to a quarter of a billion pounds.

Quite understandably, this has prompted concern from many of my constituents that these works will be pushed back even further and, if this Government continues to approach the project in the same way that it has for the last 5 years, I fear this concern would not be unfounded. 

Against this backdrop, there are suggestions that it might be best to stop at the end of the first phase of the works (stabilisation) and keep the bridge closed to motorised traffic long term.

It would save the public an astronomical sum of money, incentivise travellers towards active travel, and help keep roads and communities which had been major transport arteries free of traffic. 

While I do understand the reasons for this position, it is not one that I believe makes sense in the long term. 

Beyond the fact it would have a permanent impact on surrounding areas, which over the past 5 years have been subjected to serious congestion, I have always been very clear that I believe buses and emergency services need to be able to cross the bridge.

With a single decker bus weighing around 12 tonnes and an ambulance weighing in at around 5, there is a no way a stabilised bridge, which will have a weight limit of just 1.5 tonnes, could handle these vehicles. 

There have already been several high-profile incidents of criminals fleeing across Hammersmith Bridge to escape response vehicles which cannot follow them, and it is not hard to conceive of a situation where an ambulance is stuck in gridlocked traffic near Chalker's Corner or Lower Richmond Road, unable to reach a patient in Castelnau. 

Thankfully, thus far, the emergency services have been able to put measures in place to mitigate the impact of Hammersmith Bridge's closure, but in situations when seconds count, we cannot afford for police or medical assistance to be even an extra two minutes away.  

It is also important to note that simply stabilising the bridge and leaving the works unfinished might be a short-term solution to a long-term issue.

Over the past year, I have pressed both the DfT and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to provide a detailed summary of the bridge's condition.

Unfortunately, each time I have been rebuffed for different reasons, including once on the grounds that my request presented a threat to national security. 

However, during one of Foster and Partner's consultation events, I was told that the bridge, even when stabilised, will be in a very poor condition.

This is corroborated by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham reducing the expected stabilised weight limit from 3.5 tonnes down to 1.5 tonnes. 

While it may not be liable to collapse imminently, as I understand it, the stabilising works were not intended as standalone repairs to the structure.

They are the first phase of a much larger project, intended only to make the bridge safe and not liable to immediate collapse. 

To rely on them as a permanent fix would be a gamble, and one I do not think it would be wise to take.

If we decide to stop at this stage, we could very well discover after a particularly hot summer, strong storm, or boat crash, that the bridge needs to be closed again for immediate repairs. 

It may be that we can go on patching up Hammersmith Bridge for decades to come, filling cracks, and keeping the aging structure ticking along, but it is very possible that there will come a time in the not-so-distant future, when we are faced with a choice: close the bridge entirely, demolish it, or completely renovate the structure. 

We could be back to square one but lacking any chance of a full repair. Pushing the Government to spend £250 million bringing Hammersmith Bridge up to fully operational status is a huge task but convincing ministers to spend this money for a pedestrian bridge is beyond the ability of even the most dedicated campaigners. 

This is part of why I have campaigned so hard for the Government to release the funds needed for its repair. The more this issue fades into the background, the easier it is for them to break their commitment to repairing the bridge and, in the worst-case scenario, the more likely it is that we end up with no bridge at all. 

The core argument behind keeping Hammersmith Bridge closed is predicated on a desire to boost the desirability of walking and cycling while reducing the number of cars on the road. 

This is a noble objective. I would love to see more people walking, cycling and using public transport just as I would be pleased to see fewer cars on the road, but the way to make this goal a reality is not to shut bridges and allow our existing transport infrastructure to fall into ruin. 

All this does is take away a primary mode of transport without providing a genuine like for like alternative.

There are so many effective ways to get people out of their vehicles but simply closing this major transport route is not one we should be pursuing. Investing into public transport, boosting electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and making sure cycling is safe and possible across the capital.

These are all initiatives that could help reduce conventional car usage and air pollution without impacting elderly and less mobile people those who require a vehicle for work. 

There will still be a need for transport across the bridge while the strengthening works are put in place, and as such, I have been campaigning for a new pedicab service to be installed at the crossing.

I believe this would be an elegant solution for those in the community who cannot walk and cycle across, but I do not view it as a long-term fix. While I hope properly regulated and licensed pedicabs can become a much larger part of transport in London, they cannot replace buses or solve the emergency service access problem.  

Reopening Hammersmith Bridge to traffic is not a question of whether we should be prioritising drivers or cyclists, it's a question of whether we want to keep our communities and public services connected, of choosing between long-term vs short term planning, and of how we manage London's transport in the years to come.