As a Member, you will receive at least two printed newsletters and regular email updates each year, outlining our activities, and giving you the opportunity to participate in our campaigns. Members are always encouraged to take an active part in the work done by the committee – come along and see if you can help.
The membership year runs from 1st Jan, and only costs £6 for individuals, £8 for couples or families, and £15 for organisations. Additional voluntary donations always welcome.
The Cycleway #CS9/CW9 and the Wood Lane to Notting Hill Gate Scheme, formerly #CS10, including the temporary cycleway schemes.
The temporary cycle path or Safer Cycle Pathway as the council denotes it, is not without controversy. At the extremes, Cycle Twitterati heap praise on the council for going though with it, and at the other end of the scale, there are a couple of petitions with well over 3000 signatures asking for it – and its accompanying scheme in Hounslow (currently being made rather more permanent at the cost of felled mature trees) – to be removed. The good news is that cycling has increased by 7 – 22% since the pandemic, though the maths dictates that this represents an increase from only around 2% to somewhere less than 3% of journeys.
The route now constructed follows the TfL scheme which was issued for public consultation in 2017. TfL encountered widespread opposition to their ideas for high street cycleways both in Hammersmith and elsewhere, and were probably pleased to agree to the LBHF proposal to design and build the scheme, paid for by TfL – and to potentially include King Street improvements at the same time. The idea of a shoppers’ cycleway in King Street and a cycle by-pass on the A4 was agreed to after feedback from the public, and this Society around the time of the 2018 local elections. These ideas failed due to the very public funding problems at TfL, added to by the pandemic, resulting in this ‘temporary’ scheme.
Here we are, stuck in the middle, seeking an equitable solution for the majority of Hammersmith. We have skin in this particular game through participation in the cycle commission last year as we described before. Unfortunately many of the concerns raised by the commissioners, and by ourselves in recent articles have come to pass, and it’s a little concerning to see the “safer” moniker applied – and rewarded on social media – with statements such as “I feel safer”, when feeling is not actually demonstrably safer, more a testament to a lack of awareness of the issues, with around £3M spent on a social media-inspired scheme.
Cyclists? It’s well documented by ROSPA, TfL and the DfT crash data that 75-80% of accidents happen at junctions, (as illustrated by the crashmap above), and there are 23 of those to navigate along the route from the Broadway to Goldhawk Road, only a handful of which are protected by the new wands or other lane segregations. However well-intentioned, arguably it’s disingenuous to encourage the inexperienced and unwary using the word safer when mostly it’s not (more evidence below). Main roads, especially their junctions, can be dangerous for all sorts of reasons, especially when HGV’s are involved, but are essential for the many forms of transport that we all rely on. So why campaign to use them when there are better and safer alternatives nearby ?
The A4 route, has just 2 junctions over the same distance as King St., with just 2 minor incidents in 10 years, admittedly with fewer cyclists, but still a significant number – including regular use by members of the cycling commission – making a comparison worthwhile. Together with with adjacent cul-de-sacs approximating modern LTN’s, caused by the creation of the A4, they provide a measurably safer and less polluted route. We’ll wait to see how the untested slalom in the middle of King Street, and well-documented issues with bidirectional paths fare with all those junctions, but a significant number of cyclists are observed voting with their pedals, and still using the North side of the road Eastbound from Goldhawk Road.
The safety of pedestrians at bus islands/bypasses arises again, and we refer to the dismay of the charity for the blind NFBUK, after reviewing our commission advisers’ chosen reference Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow during visits last year, which rather undermines their advice. By way of confirmation, bypasses are such a hazard to pedestrians – particularly those less able – that TfL buses now need canned announcements which start at the Broadway, warning passengers of the dangers of the cycle lane when disembarking.
Latterly, the council has deployed these rather scruffy temporary signs, tacitly acknowledging the dangers the scheme has created. With significant modifications already ongoing in Hammersmith’s main shopping area, upheaval on the Broadway and in Hounslow, one has to wonder if there’s been a little too much speed and not enough haste. It’s regrettable that the scheme which you see today proceeded without commission review.
There are number of problems in King St., many at at the Western end, as highlighted by the photo adjacent.
Members using buses East-West in the borough report what a poor experience it’s become. Let’s be clear, other than walking, according the TfL data (adjacent), buses carry more passengers than any other transport mode in London, and carry the most disadvantaged members of society. Erosion of bus routes and infrastructure recently (AKA multipurpose peak-time bus lanes replaced by exclusive 24h cycle lanes), mean bus speeds remain at an all-time low having recovered briefly in lockdowns, and are in the bottom 25% of 15 major world cities to the shame of TfL. Belatedly TfL have woken up to this issue, and proposed a solution – banning other road users, and putting in new bus lanes !
Continued →
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.
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 ?
Continued →
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.
Continued →
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.
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.
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.
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.
Continued →
Our 12-page newsletter has been published, and printed copies circulated to subscribing members. Subjects include:
If you’re not yet a member, please join us to receive our latest newsletter. All newsletters that are available to download can be found here
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.
Continued →
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)…
Continued →
What's our vision for #LCAW2022? Creating a net-zero, equitable and resilient future by harnessing the power of London as a leading global climate hub 🏙️👩👩👧👦🌍 Who's joining us? 🙋 bit.ly/LCAW2022
— Hammersmith Society @(HammersmithSoc) 1 day ago
The iconic purple cow has returned to H&F! Visit @UnderbellyFest this weekend to enjoy the food, drink and dazzling entertainment with family and friends. More info about the pop-up festival and What's On 👇 lbhf.gov.uk/articles/news/…
— Hammersmith Society @(HammersmithSoc) 6 days ago
Come and get your bike security-marked and registered with @bikeregister in Normand Park, W14 this Friday 20 May between 3pm to 5pm. 🚲🔒 We are working with @metpoliceuk to prevent bike theft at this event and many other regular events. Details 👇 lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-…
— Hammersmith Society @(HammersmithSoc) 6 days ago
©2022, The Hammersmith Society | Privacy | Contact | Join | @ Subscribe | ⓘ
Campaigning for sixty years