C9 safety record – collision rate involving pedal cycles King Street
(C9 route only)

The council’s short-notice decision to make C9 permanent was reported in HammersmithToday in March. That would be less significant if the January to June Key Decisions List had mentioned it, or if the cycle and walking commission had been in the loop.

This key decision was made on 6th March – on the cusp of a legal minimum five working days notice, but despite being ‘key’ was not sufficiently important to be discussed at the 17 minute Cabinet meeting that day.

We are in the business of being a ‘critical friend’, as a former chair once put it, and here we need to be critical. An apparent reluctance to encourage public – or even cabinet – scrutiny in such a significant decision making process is concerning. Let’s be clear: we expect a well-designed, safe and efficient public transport system for everyone, and the C9 bidirectional design unnecessarily precludes that simple and democratic vision, marginalising those unable to cycle – and that’s quite a few. We might also reflect on the fact that bicycles are ‘vehicles’ in law, and while cycling is classed as ‘active’, it remains a form of private transport being favoured over actual public transport, while at the same time being encouraged to use a less safe infrastructure.

Without independent design and vetting, the council created and reported on it’s own survey in October/November 2022, on which the decision appears to rest. The detailed report has been redacted which raises its own questions, but the summary is problematic too. Firstly it’s a small self-selecting sample of around 700 people, of whom only around half live in the borough. Secondly, 45% of the able-bodied, and 22% of the disabled respondents said their preferred mode of transport was cycling. But only 3-4% of the public actually cycle according to TfL’s cycling counts, casting respondents as ‘keyboard warriors’, unrepresentative, or both.

The survey data, redacted as it is, shows a design successful enough to split the public 92% against (drivers), 89% for (cyclists), with 68% of disabled respondents not regarding C9 as beneficial. Overall, only 52% of the respondents thought C9 to have a positive impact, and last time that percentage voted for something of significance, there was some notable buyer’s remorse.

Safety

It’s been widely reported by others that this two-way design is, rather then the moniker ‘safer’, actually the more dangerous cycle path, as the accident rate (above) confirms. We’ve disregarded the council’s collision data supporting its decision, as it erroneously compares three years of pre-C9 accidents with less than one year with, while failing to normalise the data as an accident rate, per the chart above. Nevertheless, it still shows a higher percentage of cycle-related accidents since C9.

The risks were evident before implementation as a result of advice from transport experts, including those that have studied Dutch and Danish implementations (the latter removing bidirectional paths in urban areas over a quarter of a century ago on safety grounds), through the council’s own unflattering public engagement exercise (painfully extracted by FOI), it’s own Walking/Cycling Commission – which was not consulted in detail – it’s own Disabled Residents Commission, and, last but not least, us!  80% of accidents continue to happen at junctions, and much vaunted segregation does little other than provide a false sense of security for unwary users, to which we might partly attribute the increased accident rate.

The Disabled Residents Commission didn’t support the existing ‘temporary’ scheme, or the bus bypass concept, their abandoned bus shelters, or staggered pedestrian controlled crossings, and were as surprised as we were to see the 22% claim above. For reference, TfL’s latest data says 83% of disabled and 82% of able-bodied Londoners have never used a bike.

We put these and further specific points to Cllr. Holder, responsible for this policy, who passed them on to officers for detailed response, yet to be received.  At the moment, we have no idea what a proposed ‘permanent’ C9 looks like, such is the lack of communication and consultation on this important transport artery.

Updated situation, post-pandemic

Creating Hammersmith Avenue by Alex Reid
Click on the image to open the pdf

Under the banner ‘Taking a View’,  from time to time, we’re pleased to publish articles by members on a subject of their choice, which they believe will be interesting to the wider membership.

In this article, our member Dr. Alex Reid revisits the work done on the original Flyunder proposal, and in recognition of the times we live in, looks at how the essence of it could be reworked into a vision for the 2020’s, recognising a much-prolonged lifespan for the flyover, and the longterm declining pollution levels on the A4.  

As cheerleaders for the original Flyunder proposal, we support the essence of these proposals, especially in respect of possible improvements to the environment, and the prospect of measurably safer cycling facilities along the A4, as long as A4 capacity can be substantially maintained, which earlier research suggests is possible. The creation of the Society was of course as a result the A4 ‘cutting a great divide through the townscape’ in the early 1960’s.

If you have an article you would like to be considered, please contact .
Articles are unedited personal viewpoints, and may not always represent the views of the Society

Mayor presents Environment Award 2022 to Flanagan Lawrence [Jason Flanagan & Barbara Twine]

Mayor presents Nancye Goulden Award 2022 to Elder Press Cafe [Lindsay and Andrew Elder]

Mayor presents Jane Mercer Award 2022 to Green Project SB [ Maria Helena Scott ]

Mayor presents Jane Mercer Award 2022 to Green Project SB

Mayor and Nicholas Boys Smith at AGM 2022

NB Smith + Chairman Richard Winterton

The Palladium [ Photo: @sbcalling ]

Palladium Plaque

Elder Press Cafe

Sawley Road – Green Project nominated for Jane Mercer Award 2022

Hammersmith Society Chairman + former chairs

Full House at AGM 2022

Andy Slaughter MP at AGM 2022

Members view presentation boards at AGM 2022

members of Green Project at AGM 2022

(AGM Photos: Franco Chen. Click for full-size versions)

Summary

‘Gentle Density’

Our guest speaker was Nicholas Boys Smith, of CreateStreets, and the CreateStreets Foundation, who gave an inspiring presentation, showing why we don’t need 55 storey towers to solve housing problems, and that real people prefer what CreateStreets refer to as “gentle density”.

The Environment Award was given to The Palladium on Shepherds Bush Green. We visited it earlier this year and were impressed with the design quality provided by the same architects, Flanagan Lawrence, who transformed the Dorsett next door, and to whom we also gave our Environment Award in 2015.  This area of the borough has seen significant improvements in the last few years, and we hope that the hotel currently under construction on the North side of the Dorsett lives up to the high standards set.

Unfortunately this year there were no projects of the right type or scale nominated for the Tom Ryland Award for Conservation.

The Nancye Goulden Award was given to the Elder Press Café which recently opened in South Black Lion Lane, W6. This conversion has been carried out with unusual care and sensitivity – the shop window is retained to bring life and light which animates this little street and the builder’s yard is brought back to life as an outside seating area with fine new timber gates thrown open during the day.

For the first time in several years we presented the Jane Mercer Award for “proactive co-operation, collaboration and communication”. The Green Project, Shepherds Bush provided exactly this, an initiative setup by local residents to make the neighbourhood around Sawley Road W12 greener, and at the same time to bring the community together.

Wooden spoons were awarded to the council for a failure to fully engage with their own green agenda by keeping new street trees alive and overseeing the generally inadequate tree pits partly responsible, which were similarly awarded in 2013, 2014, and 2015; and for an unfortunate lack of inclusivity afforded by the King Street Cycleway, C9, with everyone but cyclists losing out unnecessarily, some significantly.

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 ?

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 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.