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 two-way cycle lanes, 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.  Following the mantra Data not Dogma, 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 dogmatic, pushing a political, not a transport agenda. 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.