A decade of Hammersmith crash data involving a pedal cyclist 2011 – 2020 [ source: crashmap.co.uk ]

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 to be removed, along with its accompanying scheme in Hounslow (currently being made rather more permanent at the cost of felled mature trees).  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 this social media-inspired scheme.

Safer for who?

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.

C9 Cycle Lane: pedestrian danger signs

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.

Specific issues

6 buses queuing along C9 cycle lane: 7pm

There are number of problems in King St., many at at the Western end, as highlighted by the photo adjacent.

• Local police patrolling the area outside Latymer and West London Free Schools have observed what they describe as a number of ‘near misses’ between vehicles/cyclists/school children. It would appear that the design of the crossing outside the School and the turning into Weltje Rd across the cycle path is causing confusion. The council are aware.
• Pedestrians had been wandering into cyclists on the unusual newly raised road section outside Kings/Mall/Livat. This then had to be removed over the weekend of 12/13th March.
• The manager of Royal Dry Cleaners has reported multiple incidents of people tripping on the raised kerbs of the island bus stop outside his shop. On one occasion someone fell into the road.
• The owner of a restaurant near the King Street slalom reports slips and trips on average every other day at the adjacent bus bypass, and a noticeable loss of trade because customers can no longer stop due to the ‘sterile kerb’.
• Increased pollution (those buses are all diesel-powered).
• Rat-running down backstreets, and frustrated road users honking horns in the evenings.

Buses

Sustainable transport modes 2021
[ source: TFL ‘Travel in London Report’ 14 ]

Bus speeds 2021 [ TfL’Travel in London Report’ 14 ]

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 ! 

Levelling up or down ?

The figures suggest busses travel on average about twice as fast as pedestrians, 9.2mph. But in Hammersmith, policy failure means that particularly when added to increased waiting times, and always at busier times, it’s now quicker to walk – if you can.  Perhaps this is part of the grand plan, to make TfL redundant, the Mayor abandon most of his responsibilities, and the great unwashed go back to using their feet ? 

Recent TfL reports suggest that cycling has become more inclusive since the pandemic, ‘but there is more to do’. On C9 at weekends there’s a switch from competitive heads-down Lycra-clad commuters, and we’re hoping to see more dismount and use local shops – a promised dividend from the school leavers of 2016.  We’re also hoping to see cycling become a form of much lauded egalitarian family transport, and shed its recent ‘with-us-or-against-us’ monocultural dogma, relieving us from the entitled suggestion that cycling can solve the climate problem, air pollution (over which the overwhelming majority Mayoral policy or cycling has no control), and many other modern ills.

If you expected the greener, more inclusive scheme we were promised, you’ll probably be disappointed. The picture above shows hundreds of ordinary people stuck at a standstill on buses while going home, the result of a combination of bus lane removal, the shambles at the Goldhawk Road junction – the buck for which has been passed back to TfL – plus the Hounslow equivalent works – in this particular case seemingly for few cyclists, never mind an ambulance.

For Council & London administrations of a stripe aiming “to be the greenest”, supporting public services and the disadvantaged (who are also more likely to be living on main roads), while daily banging on about congestion and air pollution in social media, culminating in the Mayor’s brass-neck in proposing ULEZ expansion as another remedy (hello?); the same campaigners handwringing when there’s another cyclist death at #DangerousJunctions, while completely missing the irony of their campaigning for cycle routes on main roads, in the face of all the longstanding safety data – it’s extraordinary to see the creation of this most exclusive, and rather unsafe scheme.

What to do ?

It’s quite unnecessary to marginalise 97%+ of the population to make a political point about climate and health.  This is supposed to be a transport scheme, but its implementation is so obviously not, that it could have the unintended consequence of turning the majority off.  At the risk or repetition, the A4/backstreet scheme is easy to implement and immeasurably less disruptive for the vast majority. Back streets are often 50% less polluted.  Even a unidirectional lane along King St. could be better and would be a little safer, as recommended by DfT and international standards. The unidirectional ones east of the Broadway with the odd remaining vestige of bus lane are less disruptive, but also less than ideal, in that segregating this route can neither make cycling significantly more attractive or measurably safer, nor improve public transport, which is what our members expect.