Riverbed geotechnical bore drilling

You’ll probably have noticed a drilling rig in the river adjacent to the bridge in recent weeks. We understand that in addition to geotechnical bores through the main piers, the rig is in the river to drill bores to investigate the riverbed strata to understand just how strong it is, if and when the Foster-COWI temporary bridge goes ahead.

While the relevant people and equipment are onsite, bores are also being drilled into the foundations alongside Digby Mansions, to ensure the chain anchorages and bridge abutments are in good shape. So far it appears that Bazalgette and his predecessor, Tierney Clark, did good enough jobs, and the foundations can take the extra loads.

The separate ‘stabilisation’ works are progressing, as we reported before, the concrete has been poured into the troublesome pedestals.  However, there have been delays in getting the steel support frames built and ready to lift the main bridge chains, allowing the bearings to be replaced.  That work is yet to start, which means that the delayed schedule for the bridge to open to cyclists this month looks like it’ll stretch out further. We don’t have a schedule yet for when the bearing replacements will be complete and the bridge reopened, restricted to pedal power.

As far as funding the Foster-COWI proposal and full refurbishments are concerned, the LBHF website says that the ‘business case’ was submitted to the DfT in Dec 2022, and our local and affiliate news page threw up this question from Hansard last week mentioning its ongoing review. It’s not clear how much progress this represents.

Meanwhile, MP’s North and South of the river have spotted an opportunity to ask the government to drop a crumb from the post-HS2 feast to progress the project, while also noting the inevitable cost increase, now to over £200m. More than a crumb then – and we’re hungry for a positive answer.

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 send it to .
Articles are unedited personal viewpoints, and may not always represent the views of the Society

In the last week there have been well-publicised consultation meetings either side of the river, covering the repair and refurbishment of the bridge together with proposed Foster/COWI temporary bridge. Below are photos of the models of the proposals, but there’s one further public exhibition in Barnes this Saturday – details in the diary

We’re delighted to see that the designers have adopted our 2020 proposal to widen the pathways alongside the bridge to at least 2.3m, to better facilitate walking and cycling which are currently rather less than ideal. One of the photos below shows before & after views, and you can see that the visual impact is minimal [click on the images for larger versions]. We understand that Historic England are satisfied that this won’t harm the setting of the Grade 2* bridge. 

Bridge with double decker temporary – Barnes side

Bridge – widening the walkways old vs new

Bridge – double decker cutaway

Bridge – double decker cutaway

Completed bridge model – Hammersmith side

There’s a further piece of thinking to complete the necessary crossing of both 2-way cycling and pedestrians. Crossings naturally exist under the bridge at each side as we recall from the heights of COVID, but there remains a risk of paths crossing awkwardly. Subject to agreements, there may be an opportunity for the temporary walkway pictured to be part-repurposed into better crossover(s) after completion, with perhaps a smaller scale nod to the recent Dukes Meadows Footbridge.

World Air Quality October 2022 – IQAir, including H&F and Breathe London data

LBHF Clean Air Neighbourhoods

We expect the council’s Clean Air Neighbourhoods policy to be a well-intentioned and researched policy, with its implications and unintended consequences carefully considered. There are good things in here, such as planting more street trees, improvements to street safety, and some incentives intended to discourage car use. However, on examination, few measures actually relate directly to ‘the name on the tin’ – air quality – and the one that does, only relates to around 12% of the air quality problem in Hammersmith according to Public Heath England’s figures below. This week’s smell of wood-burning stoves reminds us that the main problem here is PM2.5 particulates. Rather than deal with that, this policy would concentrate nitrogen oxide pollution where it’s highest – on main roads.

Welcome to the infamous Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) debate that dare not speak its name – our council knows how toxic that is. Instead it has decided to use a heavy-handed mix of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, deployed with highly inflammatory headline-grabbing phrases such as TOXIC, SILENT KILLER, DEATH, in a decades-old ‘big stick’ approach. The claim of 40,000 UK annual deaths is a misappropriation of the data, which actually relates to life expectancy. Privately the council still uses the term ‘LTN’, and funds them instead of schools, with Section 106 contributions.

Along with a proposed bridge toll, this binary “clean” vs. “dirty” social-media style campaign is beginning to make us look like Fortress Hammersmith, rather than the well-connected borough we appreciate, predicated on the idea that other boroughs wouldn’t think of putting up their barriers similarly… would they?  Hounslow’s so-called South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood  is one such controversial and euphemistically named control scheme already on our doorstep, which points to Hammersmith bridge closure as part of the problem.

The wider London picture: LTNs can increase, rather than decrease vehicle miles

Evidence from the controversial South Fulham Traffic, Congestion & Pollution Reduction (TCPR) scheme shows that the policy of diverting traffic can make it worse overall, particularly on main and boundary roads such as the A4, or to places not measured, out of sight and out of mind. This was confirmed recently by widely-reported DfT figures showing that total vehicle miles driven in the ten inner London boroughs that introduced LTNs or equivalent schemes in 2020 rose by an average 11.4% in 2021 vs. 8.9% where they hadn’t. This is one of the reasons the TCPR has had to be extended to the western side of Wandsworth Bridge Road, but the recent extension is already reported to be causing gridlock in Wandsworth itself and on Wandsworth Bridge and New Kings Roads.

Kings College and the council’s own data shows that our backstreets are already as much as 50% less polluted than main roads. Clean Air Neighbourhoods might therefore be seen as a divisive and discriminatory policy addressing the wrong target, by aiming to improve air quality in areas where it’s not a significant problem, and diverting traffic to main roads, where it would worsen the sometimes already sub-standard air quality, slowing the movement of public transport and other traffic, reinforcing last year’s similarly ill-conceived bus lane removals, and concentrating any pollution on those trying to “do the right thing” by using active travel modes – the bus, walking or cycling – or perhaps living alongside. The deeper dive at the foot of the article provides more detail. 

Daily congestion in King St (October 2022)

It’s not very useful claiming that H&F residents will be unaffected, as some councillors have, with oddly mixed messaging, potentially encouraging residents’ car use.  Let’s look past our own noses, and imagine other councils following suit and imposing their own set of rules, having had H&F traffic displaced to them.

Lock-down London would be divided up into a competing patchwork of complicated and differently administered fiefdoms, that no business or occasional visitor would want to, or in many cases be able to, cross – at least at any reasonable level of administration or cost – and Fortress London would become ever more a playground for the super-rich.

This represents a spectacular own goal from a council claiming to be “Doing things with residents, not to them”, and for whom it takes over 3700 words to explain just their South Fulham TCPR scheme (that’s 50% longer than this article, which is hardly short!). Unsurprisingly, the TCPR now has its own 7000-signature petition.

Going electric

In an era rapidly going electric (50% of new vehicles are projected to be electric in 3 years time), rather than the council’s retro big-stick approach, a far more effective policy would involve the carrot of improving public transport from it’s pitiful speeds by ungumming the main roads, and making it cheaper and more accessible, as they do in Germany. TfL has just done the exact opposite.

Instead, this policy would make it worse in the hotspots: the five most polluted spots measured in the 2022 air quality report are Hammersmith Road East/West (HF11/46), The Town Centre, Wood Lane (HF16), and of course the Broadway, all locations where traffic is already largely at a standstill. Amazingly, for a supposed ‘clean air’ policy there appear no exceptions for EV’s; this is actually an anti four-wheel policy – ‘clean air’ is a marketing ploy.

In the month of COP27, the council conflated air quality with climate change in order to ‘make it relevant’, and then casually targeted predetermined usual suspects, fitting a tired and over-politicised narrative. The two don’t always overlap, especially geographically as we wrote before, and sometimes even work in opposition, as described below.  But where the effects of climate change and air pollution do collide is in the ‘global south’ as the map above clearly illustrates, and, by encouraging pollution exports, this policy helps reinforce the situation. Do we want those countries, recently awarded ‘loss and damage’ payments from the developed world for climate change, to need to add loss and damage from our exported air pollution too?

New Civil Engineer recently reported that the bridge stabilisation has progressed and that specialist concrete has been poured into the cast iron pedestals to prevent them collapsing.  This means that the bridge is safer for the next stage of repair, which we mentioned in the last email. The stabilisation works are scheduled to complete by the end of February 2023.

It’s worth mentioning again that while the funding arrangement for the rebuilding has been determined, actual funds remain scarce, and the long term funding and maintenance model is undecided. The council prefers to package it up so it can be put into a trust and managed at arms length.

The next step is diversion of a gas main at a cost of £5m, and the letting of contracts so that works on the actual major repairs can begin. We have requested copy of the £200k feasibility report into the Foster/COWI temporary bridge to better understand details of the proposals.

There’s been some press and politics around a proposed bridge toll as a way to close the gap in funding for the rebuild, and whether or not residents would be expected to pay. A historic problem with tolls has been that it cost a significant percentage of the actual toll to collect, and with so much cash sloshing around, there was often significant fraud. Newer technology, such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) would presumably lessen these overheads, if not the displeasure.

We are grateful to the Barnes Bugle for alerting us to a detailed video from Mott’s explaining the whole process for those interested in the technicalities:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

On 28th June, the new Local and Affiliate News page (and homepage sidebar) provided news of the parliamentary adjournment debate initiated by the MP for Putney, Fleur Anderson, and contributed to by our MP Andy Slaughter, and Sarah Olney, MP for Richmond Park, on the subject of bridge restoration funding.

What ensued was a familiar ping-pong between the junior minister on one side, relying on a somewhat worn line that because it’s called Hammersmith Bridge it’s LBHF’s responsibility, and in a pincer movement, MP’s on the other side trying to winkle open the Treasury coffers, making the point that the closure effects are widespread in South West London by reference to Putney Society comments and others, and listing other bridges that are funded in different ways, mostly by TfL, in a ‘policy…all over the place’. It was also made clear that stabilisation work had been started at some LBHF financial risk, given the Task Force delays and machinations around the so-called ‘business case’ that we previously reported.

Worryingly, the business case is now referred to specifically in terms of the stabilisation works, and a further business case is now being requested for the major works to release the established 1/3 government funding. Given unimpeded government largesse elsewhere, and an excessively drawn-out process previously, this might be seen as a further delaying tactic, the politics of which are unclear. The point was made that a similar debate with a similar ping-pong & result occurred a year ago, and that the current TfL funding crisis is hardly helping matters, given its 1/3 agreed funding responsibility. The full debate text is here.

Reference was made to the Prior Information Notice (PIN), which we tweeted at the end of May for expressions of interest in the full restoration works, providing us the hope and expectation that a contractor and plan can be primed, notwithstanding funding. New Civil Engineer reports that 28 organisations have expressed an interest.

The implications for North Hammersmith of adoption of the OPDC Local Plan by Henry Petersen
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.

Our member Henry Peterson has a a lifetime’s experience in the world of planning, and been a long-term adviser to affiliate St. Helens Residents Association and the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum.  He’s written on OPDC matters extensively, including for us, and his comments were mentioned several times in the recent Local Plan adoption meeting.

Here he takes the long view of what’s happened at OPDC, specifically in its long Local Plan development and eventual adoption on 22nd June, with reference to the falling-out with CarGiant that unravelled its original aims, and suggests what the plan now means for North Hammersmith.

The alarming vision presented is a land-grab to replace the lost CarGiant area, coupled with yet more ultra high-rises on the horizon in North Acton, and indeed 15-20+ storeys all along the boundary of Wormwood Scrubs with poor local public transport, sufficient for LBHF’s leader to withhold his support for another likely overbuilt Mayoral project.

In Henry’s words: “One of London’s last large brownfield areas deserved better.” 

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