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 unnecessary 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 ? 

Hammersmith Bridge underside and steelwork – May 2020

The Society’s committee is of the view that as part of the renovation work, there is a great opportunity to improve the Bridge to make it better suited to future needs, requiring more space for pedestrians and cyclists, as mentioned in our last article.  Our proposal is to widen the pathways to allow safe and satisfactory bidirectional walking on one side, and bidirectional cycling on the other, so that cyclists no longer need to compete with road traffic, significantly improving safety.  Currently, because of the somewhat narrow walkways, it’s not possible to safely cycle or even pass easily when walking, certainly not in a wheelchair or buggy.  We think this can be done both at modest cost (certainly compared with the Garden Bridge!) and largely independently of the planned repair works, so as not to lengthen the closure.  We have a brief update on repair works at the foot of this article.

The bridge’s narrow pathways for most of the span measure approximately 1.6m, widening at the pillars to approximately 1.8m, but still too narrow for bikes to pass safely (one of the reasons cyclists have to dismount currently), let alone to support social distancing needed now, and possibly in the future.  We’ve now looked at the structure in a little detail, and, as shown on the photos here, the pathways are supported by simple cantilevers, apparently bolted on.

Hammersmith Bridge – historical repairs (photo: Keepingthingslocal)

Steelwork underneath the bridge was repaired section by section in the 1970’s, and a new grid of substantial longitudinal girders replaced the originals (pierced where bridge hangers meet the deck). Historic photos (right) show the original, very much less substantial steelwork.  Given the scope of the repair works, and amount of money and time to be spent on repairs, there seems little reason not to now consider the attached pathways in more detail, especially if the planned temporary bridge removes the need to keep it open during the works.

TfL is planning a temporary footbridge parallel to Hammersmith Bridge at the request of H&F Council, to assure pedestrian and cycle transit throughout the repair programme.  The aim is to give over the entire Bridge space to the continuing works, with the result that the total closure time could be reduced by 9-12 months.

Hammersmith Temporary Bridge

In an online webinar on 3 April (replacing planned exhibitions which had to be cancelled), representatives of TfL and LBHF set out their scheme for a prefabricated steel structure supported by 2 piers in the riverbed, on the downriver side of Hammersmith bridge. It would be the same height as the Bridge and would have no impact on river traffic.   The usable deck would be 5.5m wide and there will be separation of cyclists and pedestrians (no motorbikes allowed).

Access would be via Queen Caroline Street on the Hammersmith side via gradual ramps. It would take 6-7 months to complete, and planning permission would stipulate it being in place for up to 5 years, with the aim of re-using the structure elsewhere afterwards.

Keeping foot and cycle traffic flowing has to be a welcome initiative. The one downside is that the structure would close the Thames Path on either side, meaning a detour – possibly via the rear of Riverside Studios or past the Apollo and round by Fulham Palace Road on the North side, and via Riverview Gardens on the Barnes side.

Meanwhile the pedestals, hangers, chain bearings and hanger connections are being worked on and acoustic monitoring of the Bridge structure continues. A detailed Scope of Works together with costs is expected later in the spring. The new deck will be steel, with resin on top, which will perform far better than the asphalt over boards which were alarmingly visible previously. The repairs will give 60 years of design life. 

Can we make the restored and repaired bridge work better in the future ?

Continued →

We attended the Policy and Accountability Committee (PAC) meeting on 9th September which quickly deteriorated into a pro/anti cycling stooshie.  The two extremes expressed were roughly “build it now and just get on with it”, reflecting a populist mantra du-jour, and on the other side “they don’t ride safely or follow the Highway Code…”  Significant climate change, anti-car and pro-air quality assertions were also made.  Despite all of us being pedestrians at some point, and there being around 1000 cyclists per day compared with up to 1000 bus users per hour along King St, there were few speaking for the overwhelming majority.

These arguments serve to polarise the debate, create heat, yet shed little light.  Our view is one of the practicality and evidence regarding safety and air quality that doesn’t support the existing plan.  The evidence shows that the Broadway and Fulham Palace Road (the nearest analogy/datapoint to King St.), have higher NO₂ levels than Talgarth Road, and far more than any side road. Adding a cycle lane wouldn’t reduce pollution according to TfL’s own AQ report but would slow buses to walking pace through removal of bus lanes, particularly on Hammersmith Road. 

CS6 with accident hotspots 2018

TfL’s 2018 data from their exemplar CS6 built outside their HQ, Palestra, shows that most serious accidents still happen at junctions, for which despite all the cost, environmentally damaging concrete, and negative effects on other road users shown, this type of segregated path is ineffective in protecting the cyclist.  ROSPA analysis shows that 75% accidents occur at or near junctions, and a peculiarity of London are the 20% of fatal accidents with HGV’s, often turning left into cyclists, for which the mayor is making new provisions.

As shown, minor accidents are also recorded at bus bypasses, which is unsurprising.  Those complaining that cars are ‘the problem’ may note that at the time this photo was taken (lunchtime, June 12th 2019) after a meeting at TfL’s HQ, only buses and commercial vehicles were causing pollution and being delayed.  We all still need bin collection lorries, the post, deliveries of items that won’t fit on cargo bikes and so on.  The overwhelming majority, especially elderly, very young, disadvantaged and vulnerable people need buses and bus lanes (removed for CS6 above, and planned for removal as part of TfL’s CS9).  We don’t relish King Street or Hammersmith Road looking anything like this.

Many journals have pronounced that London’s ‘filthy air’ is killing thousands, and we note that all candidates standing for Mayor of London this year quote Air Quality as a pillar of their campaign. Here, taking the long view, we look more closely at the claims and wider issues, and how they apply to Hammersmith, public transport and cycleways. 

According to King’s College, the reference for air quality measurements, London is the 2,516th most polluted city in the world

We think that climate change is the key issue here, and which if properly addressed, would deal with many of today’s air quality issues. The reference work ‘Mortality Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution in the United Kingdom’ (A report by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants [COMEAP], updated 2018), says clearly in its executive summary ‘As everyone dies eventually no lives are ever saved by reducing environmental exposures – deaths are delayed resulting in increased life expectancy.’

Air quality in London started deteriorating about 400 years ago, and for the entire time the Georgians and Victorians were painting the globe pink, sulphur dioxide was around 40 times the current WHO guideline level of 20 µg/m³. It was in fact raining sulphuric acid AKA ‘acid rain’, the effects of which can be seen on the Palace of Westminster or in Turner’s paintings.  The Great Smog of 1952 that killed perhaps 12,000 appears as a peak on the graph, and created a level over 10 times the level it is now, but our nonagenarian, and in one case centenarian parents survived and are still here with us, begging the question what effect it had on long term life expectancy.

The answer from COMEAP is around six months if you could (unrealistically) remove 100% of all air pollution from all sources, or more realistically 20 days per µg/m³ removed, plus you have to live to those grand old ages otherwise healthy.  Not as much as the headlines or Twitterati would have it.

Of course this isn’t a complete list of pollutants, there’s PM2.5, PM10, NO₂, and Ozone which have differing WHO thresholds as shown here, and those with respiratory conditions are much more affected than others, explaining most of the 1952 deaths.

Cycling in Copenhagen, 2015

The CS9 saga has been running for a couple of years now, and we’re finally beginning to achieve some clarity in the plans for Hammersmith.

CS9 has been renamed CW9 “CycleWay 9” to distance it from existing Central London Superhighways, and provide a facility serving a wider demographic than those installed to date.  The image being promoted is shown in TfL’s Walking and Cycling Commissioner’s Tweet, left, although we feel obliged to point out that despite the wording, the photo is not London at all – this was Copenhagen in 2015.  Nevertheless we believe this more inclusive vision is an appropriate aspiration for our borough’s roads.

Together with other members of the community, we have been successful in persuading H&F Council that TfL’s CS9 plans were flawed, now two different cycle routes are planned:  a fast commuter route using the somewhat underused paths alongside the A4, and something closer to a “Quietway“ plus urban realm improvements (greening) in King Street and Hammersmith Road. More on the council website, where an online debate has started.

We expect to be part of the planned residents consultation as we are concerned about potential negative impacts on pedestrians and retailers, significantly slower buses/traffic/increasing pollution, for which there is evidence from schemes such as Winchmore Hill and Waltham Forest.  TfL’s own CS9 Air Quality Report predicts only walking-speed traffic along Hammersmith Road at Olympia, and no overall improvement in air quality.  A council meeting is planned for 9th Sept, which you should attend if you are interested in this scheme (see our diary)…

Water Fountain outside Pallingswick House / WLFS

The Mayor of London has recently announced a scheme for Thames Water to install fountains to help reduce single-use plastic consumption, a sentiment we obviously endorse.  You may have noticed refill stations appearing in TfL locations recently, such as Hammersmith Bus Station.

We, along with the media, are rather less enamoured of the Thames Water-designed fountain, and hope not to see that particular design appearing on our streets.

We think it far more appropriate and greener to repair and revitalise the long-disused and pet-friendly Victorian fountains already on our streets, such as this fine but sadly non-working monument, dating from 1887, the same year Hammersmith Bridge was opened, conveniently and appropriately located adjacent to 3 local schools.  It was erected in memory of S.L. Swaab Esq., and bears the inscription: 

His knowledge like a spring of refreshing water flowing ever during life for the relief of suffering

Happily the Council has agreed with our view, and plans to include refurbishment of this one as part of the King Street Cycle path scheme, CW9.  Not far away, the fountain on Turnham Green Terrace is being refurbished, and should be operational next month, alongside some significant urban realm improvements in the form of seating and planting, which we would similarly welcome in Hammersmith.