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.

We take significant heed of an alternate strategy in Hackney – making every road cyclable and building a network – based on usage patterns and evidence learned from their cycling App showing that, as we might reasonably expect, cyclists follow side roads, and back streets as much as they do (or are forced to) use main roads.  Hackney has achieved the highest BAME uptake, and depending on the year you choose either highest or second highest cycling uptake in London with H&F and Southwark swapping 1st/2nd/3rd places.  There are many differing views on the fact that H&F achieves this with it’s current limited provision.

Hammersmith already has a significant number of “filtered” streets (several resulting from the A4 cul-de-sacs) with which to assemble our network.  The network concept that we have learned from discussion with other boroughs also undergoing the ‘one-size-fits-all’ superhighway plan, both confirms and enhances our original 2017 consultation response regarding a better use of the A4 route plus less polluted and safer side streets.

Driving a path down a very narrow and extremely busy shopping street, shared with 40+ buses per hour, with numerous junctions, acting as it is, the main non-dual carriageway artery West, is a recipe for trouble, and contrary to Dutch, Danish and even our own TfL and Department of Transport best practice.  For the avoidance of doubt, our Chairman and Vice-chair are both keen Hammersmith cyclists.