King St. “CS9” as proposed in 2018

Over the last year or so, we’ve been participating in the Council’s resident-led  Cycling & Walking Commission, via our membership secretary, along with residents including representatives of one or two affected resident’s associations, such as affiliates SPRA & SBRA.

Due to the pandemic, meetings were held as online workshops, the process being chaired by Cllr. Iain Cassidy, and facilitated by the council’s preferred consultants, WSP, who provided expert guidance and showed design options used elsewhere in the UK and Europe. We heard from several special interest groups including disabled cycling group Wheels for Wellbeing.

Summary

• A two-way temporary cycleway named CW9 is to be built along Hammersmith Road / King St including replacing older track on the right in the one-way part of King St.
• The design is similar to Chiswick CW9 “temporary” scheme including bus bypasses.  A halfway-house one-way wand scheme is currently being deployed as a step to the “temporary” two-way scheme.
• Our preferred A4 route is not being actively pursued currently. Any “permanent” scheme, like the original “CS9” is now unfunded.
• The design favours cycling at the expense of pedestrians and busses – as a result we have accessibility, safety and unnecessary increased pollution concerns – this doesn’t appear to be a fair and equitable solution for Hammersmith.
• The E-Scooter Trial is an independent activity – TfL and DfT to review results.

Terms of Reference

Modal Share 2019
All London : Inner London has significantly lower car use. (Source TfL)

In common with TfL’s leanings, most discussion was around cycling, with a healthy proportion of commissioners chosen for those credentials, despite the clue in the name (and Terms of Reference) Cycling and Walking Commission, we therefore felt the need to keep walking and other users on the agenda as (almost) everyone walks if they can, and the number of journeys by foot + bus represents at least 40% of all journeys.  As shown, walking represents a 25% “modal” share, but is often the Cinderella of the show by needing no specific new infrastructure – or does it ? 

Members will know our widely expressed preference for an A4 cycle route for the last four or more years, for well-researched reasons of safety, cost, ease of implementation, and least impact on other journeys, particularly bus users & bus lanes, and consequently those less able. With the Paralympics and #WeThe15 still large in the rear-view mirror, it’s instructive to remember that despite what’s been said about pandemic-related increases in various media, cycling of all stripes represents 2-4% of journeys in London (before-after dedicated infrastructure), and inappropriate infrastructure can easily disenfranchise much of the 15%, never mind the other 80%+, if it takes away pavement space, safe access to bus stops, kerbside stopping/pickup/delivery points, or is otherwise not well designed.  Such accessibility issues were unevenly represented in the commission – some for example proffered disabled cycling as a mainstream activity, rather than a design consideration.   Parking provision universally gets short shrift, even if it could help rejuvenate parts of the high street. 

• Discussions
• A4
• Bypassing
• E-Scooter Trial
• Implementation
• Issues
• LTNs

King St. – a proposal to the commission

The commission looked at some specifics, such as the busy area at the top of King Street shown here, which has particular challenges with crossings (esp. around Lyric Square), the number of pedestrians, traffic – buses and the limited road space, but much of the discussion was based on broadly defined generic areas such as Town/Central (incl. above), Local (e.g. West end of King St), Hammersmith Road, and to a lesser extent, the A4. The commissioners were asked to look at, and vote on, particular junction treatments and layouts, but only for the permanent scheme.

The commission was subsequently promised more detailed plans for review based on our inputs, both for the temporary and permanent schemes. We specifically proposed the cycle lane go through Angel Walk to underused Blacks Road, linking it to the A4 route, and avoiding the problem of the busiest section of King Street and crossing in front of Lyric Square. This was not accepted.

An Orwellian Inversion: “Two wheels good; Four wheels bad” sometimes overtook commission discussions, which, at times limited debate, particularly around the A4 route, and other aspects of the ToR, such as legitimate other uses of roads and pavements. The commission didn’t reach the genuinely Orwellian conclusion “Four wheels good; Two wheels better!”, though it became clear that the full King St. scheme would be implemented regardless of better alternatives; some options were more equal than others.

UK domestic transport pollution over time (source DfT)
Which way is it going ?

A common argument for discounting the A4 route, and one heard in the commission – that it’s polluted – is a) factually incorrect – it’s no more polluted than Fulham Palace Road, or likely now King Street since junction+road narrowing & stationary traffic – and b) arguments that will be dated as soon as a decade hence, when the majority of vehicles will have low or zero emissions.  It just feels polluted today, which is a fragile basis for visionary public policy or long-term planning.  Hammersmith Broadway actually is twice as polluted as the A4, because of the volume of local traffic added to the elevated flyover traffic, concentrated number of buses, many idling in the bus station, plus a side-order of particulate muck thrown up from the tube, but that was equally insufficient argument to encourage the movement of cycling routes away from it.

The A4 route avoids the pitfalls of bus bypasses, and is demonstrably safer with many fewer junctions and entrances,  highlighted by the rather intermittent nature of temporary lanes on King St.  TfL & DfT crash maps, and ROSPA research has shown for years that 75-80% of cycling-related accidents happen at junctions, including the fatal one a month or so ago involving a commercial vehicle at the junction of Theobald’s Road & Southampton Row, and one in May at the junction of Brackley Road on the new Chiswick section of CW9.

A specific concern arose around bus bypasses, and their effect on bus users of all abilities, especially having seen the Heath-Robinson efforts nearby in the Chiswick scheme (already thankfully under revision), given the 7 routes / 32 buses/hr (pre-pandemic 48/hr) plus the 27 on it’s King St. loop and others, making perhaps 44 total/hr.  Bypasses are described as “trial” in the TfL manual – we trust that the H&F Safer Cycle Pathway disabled residents WG are satisfied with the designs.

Penalising/slowing down cars to extricate people from them causes collateral damage by forgetting that roads have a multiplicity of users and use cases – a classic multipurpose infrastructure – which is why, like it or not, they are so popular and cost-effective for all wheel counts, including trade vehicles, examples of which are increasingly frequent electric Amazon deliveries, food deliveries of all (wheeled) types, and emergency services, which those living near King St hear many times a day. We maintain that making 50% of a shared infrastructure into single-purpose, particularly substituting a 14% bus (lane) share by a 2% share cycle lane, even if it doubles to 4% as result, is a regressive imposition, in a borough that already suffers disproportionality with some of the most congested and polluted roads in London.

A number of things have changed since the commission met. Firstly COVID-19 has been confirmed to have killed off most TfL funding, which was always on a knife-edge given TfL finances even before the pandemic, but funding sufficient for a permanent scheme is definitely gone. Secondly, there’s limited funding, if any, for our long-preferred A4 route.  We continue to be dismayed by vocal campaigning, mostly for segregated lanes on main roads – particularly on social media – flying in the face of the safety evidence, while still ostensibly basing much of the argument on safety!  At least three members of the commission independently made the point that avoiding problems of segregated lanes would be rather better than trying to design around them with junction and bus stop mitigations, but sadly the majority preferred to soldier-on.  The same applies to the arguments on pollution, above.

E-scooter trial, King St, plus new bike lane wands.
Note the words BUS LANE covered by wands

In another recent development, the council has opted to take part in the E-Scooter trial, and though mentioned in the latter part of our meetings, there was limited information on how the lanes might relate to the trial and any CW9 implementation.  There remain question marks in this area, not only locally, but from the perspective of the Department for Transport and TfL, and their findings from the trial.  The picture adjacent, taken during “rush-hour”, suggests limited uptake, but it was August, other traffic is similarly scarce. We’d appreciate your views and feedback.

The RNIB and others have expressed concern for the safety of riders and pedestrians, and it’s important to note that the rented E-Scooters are limited to 12.5 mph and are the only legal way to use such a scooter on public roads. They mustn’t be ridden on pavements at any time, although they can use cycle lanes – prompting the question above – should they be forced to use cycle lanes – or not?  Actual users seem undecided.  Riders must be 18 or over, hold a driving licence and can receive penalty points for infringements. Liability insurance is provided as part of the rental and the scooters are “geofenced” so that they don’t work in prohibited locations. The companies participating are Tier, Dott and Lime as shown in the photo, with the same or near identical machines. The contrast is stark between the many regulatory limits on this trial scheme, and the reality on the road, where £125 – £750 E-Scooters whizz past, often substantially faster than other traffic and unfettered by the road’s typical 20MPH speed limit.

We’re told that the council and/or TfL specifically promised that pavements wouldn’t be used for parking scooters in the trial, in line with RNIB requests, but the picture shows that this appears to have been forgotten!  TfL’s consultation during the trial can be found here

The recently deployed plastic wand arrangement shown above is actually not the intended temporary scheme at all – that is to come – and is what an estimated £3.5M of  TfL funding allows for – a design largely first seen as CW9 on Chiswick High Road. What is now installed is a stepping-stone to the temporary scheme.

Goldhawk Road junction – bus heaven

Later this year, you should expect to see a scheme very similar to Chiswick’s on our section of CW9, complete with the unloved and potentially unsafe bus bypasses.

Our additional concerns centre on obvious problems causing substantial daily tailbacks along King Street, the result of narrowing the junction with Goldhawk Road to a single lane, making it especially awkward when anything needs to turn right.  The same happens at the prioritised left-turn at Chiswick Lane – now removed – causing daily gridlock along Chiswick High Road and so back down Goldhawk Road.

These are small, yet uncompromising and unnecessary missteps, with big impacts on all other road and pavement users – bus users, emergency services, commercial traffic and pedestrians subjected to added pollution from idling diesels – hardly green.  The council promised the commission that the Goldhawk Road narrowing would be addressed with the temporary scheme – yet to be implemented; and the Chiswick Lane problem is not in our scope, though ChiswickW4 recently reported a plan to fix it later this year, sadly albeit at the cost of a 100yr. old tree, a common TfL-ism, the like of which resulted in the 11,000 strong petition that subsequently derailed Notting Hill Gate CS10 scheme.  Lessons learnt ?

TfL have not helped their cause by producing some dodgy statistics from a few sunny weeks in early summer, comparing numbers to lockdown, attributing substantial cycling increases directly to CW9, then extensively bandied around social media and the mainstream media without context (for example “72% increase” on 2% is 3.5%). The uptick has been particularly noticeable in weekend/leisure cycling.  The statistical problem?  Boroughs that have had no recent additional cycling infrastructure, such as Camden & Hackney show identical increases, with annualised figures showing little change, defying the trope “build it and they will come”.

By very publicly endorsing such tactics, ignoring details like their own and ROSPA crash data, valid comparative statistics, and RNIB requests, while being heavily influenced to a small vocal social media lobby, TfL are in danger of bringing themselves into disrepute, questioning their wider policies, and appearing dictatorial. The cheerleader has plenty of form – we call for properly audited stats, and a proper analysis. We are therefore pleased that, as promised to the commission, H&F will be installing automated counters on our section of CW9 to provide proper stats. They would naturally be improved if they could be comparative.

The commission’s unofficial feedback on the recently installed King St. wands is that the lane is too narrow to be bidirectional.  Belatedly, the council contacted commissioners with an update: We’re told that the H&F Disability Forum has been involved in the design of the scheme, and that the Broadway section was problematic, having to cater for the many bus movements.  The wands shown above are indeed in temporary positions, resulting in the noted 2m narrower lane, to be moved at a later date to provide a wider (2.5 – 3m) bidirectional lane with hard intermittent “light segregation” barriers installed, along with resurfacing – the “temporary scheme”.  We’re also told the A4 scheme is not dead, but there are no drawings for it…

A perusal of the proposed temporary scheme layout shows some problems:

• A cycle crossover between Macbeth and Holcombe streets (across the one-way part of King St) looks to be dangerous, especially crossing the busy main road – examples could not be found in TfL’s design manual.
• The crossover design necessitates a bus bypass in the one-way part of King St, with the road so narrow as to not allow any other passing vehicles.  This is expressly unnecessary with a crossover further down, as now, in a natural spot adjacent to the pedestrian crossing outside the Town Hall.
• Narrowing of the road and pavement outside King’s Mall, preventing passing vehicles. Those of us who’ve been here a while recall significant pavement widening to accommodate the large footfall safely, which continues despite the pandemic. Is pedestrian safety being compromised on the cycling altar?
• Intermittent hard 6 inch high edge kerbs (“light segregation” in TfL terminology) seems likely to be a pedestrian trip hazard in the main shopping area at the East end of King St. TfL examples do not include busy shopping streets.
• There is no evidence of the output of the commission in design of crossings. The crossing discussions were almost all about safety.
• Closure of Bridge Avenue without consultation that we are aware of.
• Despite much talk of greening (including the concept above), in familiar TfL fashion, there is a rather more hard landscaping and expensive civil works, the value of which has to be questioned for a temporary arrangement.
• The existing Eastbound cycle route along the main shopping part of King St has been dug up. It’s unclear if the temporary scheme, or some intermediate scheme is planned.

The temporary design is clearly needs more work, and we hope and expect commissioners to be asked to review the designs, with views properly considered.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

A quick observation on the controversial LTN’s.  There are few identified as such in Hammersmith, it’s more a hot potato in adjacent Fulham and Chiswick. However, if the 1960’s road closures necessitated by the A4 were rebranded as LTN’s – which is what they are – how much more cycle-friendly would the quiet roads adjacent to the A4 appear, especially with a dedicated cycle path linking them along the end?

We were disappointed by the commission’s lack of recognition of this easy, low-cost and (social) media-friendly win for all concerned, and in this vein, concerns have been raised by the above two affiliates over public permeability: around the Town Hall redevelopment where Nigel Playfair Avenue used to be, and around the now demolished Landmark House and Blacks Road.

Proposed Hammersmith parliamentary constituency boundaries 2021. New proposed boundaries shown in red, 2017 in blue

We’ve been alerted to new proposed changes to the parliamentary constituency boundaries, and there’s a distinct feeling of deja-vu.  Checking the annals, it was in 2017 when the last proposal surfaced.

At the time, Tom said that the “changes to parliamentary boundaries seem bizarre” – perhaps someone listened as they were quietly parked.  Equally bizarre this time, in an effort to even up constituency sizes to around 75,000, Hammersmith is again split from Fulham, with a nod to the old borough boundary of 1968, but the significant change is the proposed East-West merger to create a “Hammersmith and Chiswick” constituency, split between two separate councils and administrations.

The north of the existing Hammersmith constituency would move to Ealing/Acton as proposed in 2017, though the line is further north matching the northwards march of the H/F boundary.

It would radically alter our sitting MP’s constituency, meaning Hammersmith being represented by two MP’s (North / Central), with a total of 3 MP’s across H&F (North / Central / South), all of whom would have split constituencies (the other halves being Ealing / Chiswick / Chelsea) to dilute their efforts, and potentially reduce the voice of Hammersmith.  Or perhaps more is better? Make your views felt in the consultation.

The proposals shown above, despite their apparent non-political origins, could also appear to be politically motivated according to BBC analysis, as they may favour the ruling party.  The proposed new boundaries are shown in red, the 2017 version in blue.  More information can be found on the Boundary Commission website, where the consultation runs until 2nd August.

Open House has celebrated London’s amazing architecture for the last thirty years, starting just two years after our own Awards. There’s always been an eclectic selection of Hammersmith buildings in Open House, featuring some of our Award Winners over the years. Open House 2021 is scheduled for 4th and 5th of September.

Open House includes public buildings that everyone knows. It encourages private owners who are proud of the architecture or design features of their homes to open-up too. The festival is a unique opportunity to visit private residences and gardens in London, usually closed to the public – there are architectural gems hidden inside people’s own houses.

Open House would be delighted if Hammersmith Society members, supporters, their friends and contacts could suggest buildings they know that would be worth visiting. Open House can make the initial contact, even better if you already know and can pass on details.

Open House can arrange for people to gather outside as appropriate. We all hope that Covid-19 guidelines should have relaxed enough later this year to allow indoor gatherings without too many restrictions. Open House will produce guidelines covering the number of guests, mask-wearing, social distancing etc. that apply as appropriate at the time. They can discuss what works best and how to make safe arrangements.

If you would like to open your home during this year’s festival or make a suggestion for another building, Open House would be delighted to hear from you.  West London Open House volunteers can provide detailed information about taking part, contacts are:

✉ Marianna Wolf, 📱 07400 568614
✉ Steve Bower,  📱 07770 558618

181 Talgarth Road – April 2020 RSHP scheme

In April last year we reported on the hotel development proposed for the former West London Magistrate’s Court site at 181 Talgarth Road, a proposal which would include two hotels:  a 442-bedroom, 23-storey luxury hotel, and a 440-bed, 10-storey tourist hotel. Permission for the development was agreed in July, and after referral to the Mayor’ office the consent was confirmed in December.

Since then, with the change in economic circumstances, the developer Dominvs Group has chosen to revise the scheme:  retaining the tourist hotel, but providing Student Accommodation for up to 696 students, possibly linked to the Imperial College White City campus, in place of the 23-storey luxury hotel. 

181 Talgarth Road – March 2021 proposed scheme

Initial proposals are for a student block with massing generally similar to the approved luxury hotel block, but adjusted to reduce the maximum height by two storeys, to 68 metres, and to enlarge the plan to add 2,400 sq. m floor area. We understand that TP Bennett, architects of King’s House at the other end of Shortlands, are to be appointed for this building, and that the accommodation would be run by Scape who are well-known in the sector.

No change is proposed to the tourist hotel design, but the landscaped public realm within the site would become a student amenity space, providing access to the student cycle store – a more mundane provision which lacks the tempietto, restaurant and bar which created a welcome spark in the earlier scheme. The prospect of a revised planning application has revived the considerable public opposition to the earlier development, and the Society is participating in consultations currently taking place.

181 Talgarth Road – 2021 proposed public realm

This new scheme opens a further chapter in the uncomfortable history of this important site. The story began with the sale of the land by the Ministry of Justice, evidently failing to follow Cabinet Office guidelines which require that, prior to commercial sale, sites in public ownership should be assessed for residential, educational or similar public benefit. The sale of the Magistrates Court site was advertised with enticements including ‘precedent for tall buildings’ and reports of ‘positive pre-application feedback from LBHF’  without revealing the LBHF advice received.  It is not clear if the £42m purchase price paid by Dominvs was based on a development valuation gleaned from the ‘evolving’ Town Centre Masterplan – a plan which has been evolving since 2015, but has still not been reviewed through public consultation. The provisional Masterplan currently circulating is based on a plan which incorporates the completed A4 fly-under tunnel, describing a misleading urban context for the hotel site. 

As membership secretary, I regularly hear the clarion call  “I’m not on Social Media so I can’t see your posts…”  It’s a popular myth that you must sign up, notwithstanding the fact that our latest Twitter and Facebook postings automatically appear on our home page (have you checked recently..?),  all three “platforms” that we use are publicly accessible to anyone, as are most social media sites.  They will encourage you to sign up, perhaps even boost the myth that you must for obvious reasons, but you can ignore that without missing that much.  However paradoxically it will help our cause if you do sign up and follow us – read on…

Facebook Twitter Instagram

I’ve read concerns about  tracking, cookies, and a good range of urban myths too, but many are outdated.  A number of issues are addressed in our website and accessibility guide and related privacy policy, but in short if you don’t have an account with the platform in question, there’s limited tracking they can do, while at the same time still giving you access to useful local material. Increasingly newer browser versions are closing these avenues of tracking joy, and the effects are often rather more prosaic than perhaps popular hyperbolae might suggest.  You can, of course, always delete browsing data, including cookies, or use the Incognito/inPrivate modes available on all modern browsers to properly eliminate tracking if it still concerns you.

Why follow us on Social Media?

#BernieSanders patiently waits to cross the Bridge

It’s a lot simpler and quicker for us to post short updates, reactions to news, and links to events of interest on these platforms – particularly Twitter – than it is to create longform articles such as this, or physical/pdf newsletters.  One or two of our survey responses have suggested more regular updates, and this is one way to respond.  These postings form a useful complement to our other publishing, as text messages complement email and letters.  We post something almost daily on one platform or another,  so there’s always something new on the website as a result too.

Planning for the future

In March of this year the government promised legislation to improve the supply of new homes, including legislation on building safety, rental reform, social housing – and an update to the planning system.

Following this, a government White Paper Planning for the Future proposed very significant changes to the planning process for public consultation which closed last week.

Changes to the planning procedure

At present, LBHF planning applications are assessed against the development policies in the LBHF Local Plan, in the London Plan, and in the government NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework). The White Paper proposes a new approach:  a new form of Local Plan, replacing the current format of more abstract policy guidance, by a format with a prescriptive system of development rules and a design code. The Local Plan would also include borough zone plans, which would identify three categories of development:

1. Growth areas where ‘substantial development’ would be suitable (similar, we suggest, to Earls Court, Old Oak Common etc)
2. Renewal areas such as existing built areas where development is encouraged (Hammersmith Town Centre, for example)
3. Protected areas like conservation and heritage areas, green belt and parkland.

Planning zones

In Growth and Renewal areas, proposals which are compliant with the Local Plan in height, use-type etc, and compliant with the government NPPF rules, would be effectively guaranteed an automatic outline planning consent, providing a level of certainty in site purchase values. At the next stage, a full planning application,  with detailed proposals, would be granted consent if the proposals comply with the more detailed rules and design codes of the Local Plan.

Community involvement

Public consultation in the planning process would be limited to the stage when the new Local Plan is put together by the local authority: community involvement would be excluded from full planning application stage, because (it is argued)  the application would be assessed against rules which have already been agreed through public consultation.

The intention is to establish a clear set of planning rules, which are in line with government policy, and have been agreed through community consultation; armed with these certainties applications would avoid the ambiguities of policy interpretation and community objection which (it is said) can delay the full planning application stage.

Design codes

CreateStreets – Bonnington Square

To illustrate examples of acceptable design and styling, and to provide a basis of resolution of design disagreements, Design Codes would form part of the Local Plan, and would be reviewed through public consultation when the new Local Plan is being put together. Design codes would be coordinated with the government’s National Design Guide, itself heavily influenced by the CreateStreets campaign and to the emerging National Model Design Code. To help the process, a chief officer for design and place-making would be appointed within each local authority.

The national picture for COVID-19 is mixed with some areas much more affected than others.  Despite well-publicised issues around test-track-and-trace, in a world of “big data”, the Government has made significant efforts to publish quite detailed data at various levels, if not always easy to tease out. At borough level, infection, test positivity, and death data is available, and we have also included relevant hospital data for our local NHS Trust, Imperial.

To help members better gauge the local situation, we’ve used this data to create an interactive chart, both here, and pinned to the head of the website for the time being, automatically updated every day in the early evening.  Due to the well-known delays in test results, be aware that latest numbers are always revised upwards for severa days after initial publication, so we now filter the newest unrepresentative figures – check here regularly for updates.

The interactive map shown adjacent provides infection data in the last week by “MSOA” (Middle Super Output Area), representing c.7200 people, an area which approximates a council ward. H&F has the distinction of having the physically smallest MSOA in the country – E02000378 – Shepherds Bush South.  Click on the map to see more information about each area.

H&F council COVID-19 advice is here.

H&F HealthWatch

We’ve been contacted by our member Jane Wilmot, also a member of the local H&F HealthWatch committee who want to find out how H&F residents have used GP practices during lockdown and in particular uncover any experiences of health inequality. HealthWatch is a statutory committee of the independent regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

If you would like to help, please:

• Complete the survey by 12th October: Survey Monkey link
• Share the survey among all your contacts including any contacts on Twitter
• Alert anyone you know who does not have a smart phone or internet access to let them know they can contact HealthWatch for a hard copy, ask for help in completing the survey etc.

If you would like any assistance in completing the survey or would like it in another format, please contact H&F HealthWatch at or call 0203 886 0386. Healthwatch Hammersmith & Fulham address: 141-143 King Street, W6 9JG.

Health scares, 18 metre masts, autonomous vehicles, economic recovery, critical national infrastructure, Huawei… It’s a long list.

2020/01852/TEL56: Rylett Road / John Betts House: 5G proposed mast and cabinets

In Hammersmith we’ve started to see planning notices for 5G base stations, ironically mostly from the company named Three, and yes, since you ask, they are using Huawei.

From the Society’s perspective, our concerns centre on the mast height, positioning, and the associated, rather retro, street clutter.  There’s some further reading at the foot of the article, but first, to get some perspective, let’s get our terminology clear, review the most prevalent public concerns and take quite a hard look at the benefits – both real and more far-fetched.

The most widely used 5G band in the UK will be 3.6GHz…
…5G is just as safe as 4G, 3G and GSM.
– Institution of Engineering and Technology

A quick canter through some confusing G’s

1G to 5G phones

Here 1G means ‘First Generation’ AKA Analogue ‘brick’ phones of the 1980’s, 2G (AKA ‘GSM’ or ‘Global System for Mobile Communications’), a typical Nokia from the late 1990’s, 3G, the first phones with really usable Internet connections, and today’s 4G, typified by a smartphone – Apple or Android. There was even a 2.5G and we mention 4.5G later.

The gifts of Heinrich Hertz, or a billion of them, come in the form of a Gigahertz (GHz), the frequency a thousand times the Megahertz we’ve had since VHF FM radio days.  1G to 4G phones have used various radio frequencies over the years, depending on operator and country, from 800MHz up to 2.6GHz, but the operating frequency used doesn’t directly affect the data speed as far as the user is concerned.  WiFi is sometimes confusingly termed 2.4G or ‘2.4 Gig’ or ‘5 Gig’, referring to bands – 2.4GHz (the same frequency as a microwave oven but a minuscule fraction of the power) and 5GHz: a less congested, shorter range band that has nothing to do with 5G: 5th generation mobile technology.

In the digital world we similarly have Megabits describing the speed of received data – whatever the technology that delivered it – and the Gigabit of your scribe’s home, and likely your office’s high speed Ethernet wired network. We won’t discuss the many flavours of WiFi on top of the frequency bands mentioned: A, B, G, N AC, AX… a story seemingly involving yet another G, until WiFi leapfrogs 5G by changing it’s letters to numbers, becoming WiFi 4, 5, and 6, and in future extending into a new 6GHz band.  That’s the GG’s corralled 🐴

The most popular 5G band, 3.6 GHz, is slightly higher than current ranges, the implication may be more base stations as range is slightly reduced, but other bands may be used to compensate. The 700MHz band for example, cleared in June this year (responsible for the loss of several HD TV channels from Crystal Palace), has yet to be auctioned off, but is earmarked by OFCOM for 5G.

Mobile emissions

If you are at all concerned about health effects, first check and understand the implications of the SAR value for your existing 2G/3G/4G phone, which have been published by manufacturers since the days of 2G when such concerns first arose – or better, stop using it now !

Unfortunately in addition to the above health concerns, the 5G cause has been muddied, and probably harmed by overzealous marketing, too many G’s and spurious claimed benefits – we prefer to keep to the tried-and-trusted recipe of ‘more & faster’, on which it certainly will deliver.