Forum Topic

Hammersmith Flyunder

Interesting to see this scheme re-emerge after being consigned to the attic for a few years.I know many local armchair engineers dismiss it as impractical and it has to be admitted the challenges are huge. The difference this time though is that Hammersmith & Fulham Council has made it the centrepiece of its ten year forward plan. If it is pure pie in the sky (or pie underground maybe) then the council is guilty of wilful deception. If, on the other hand, it has already consulted with experts who have assured them it is doable, this is quite exciting news. The reservation I would have is the other part of the plan is effectively the Croydonisation of Hammersmith with lots of tall buildings.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 388d65 Comments

A virtual cage David, i.e. a bird having no choice, you can eat what's in that pot.

Janice Evans ● 385d

See Paul's post Carlos Moreno.

Janice Evans ● 385d

Who is Carlos? I Know one forum member has had a racist comment aimed at him.

David Burke ● 385d

And Carlos has had death threats over this, terrible.

Janice Evans ● 385d

You got it wrong about cargo bikes. The car is king.

Maggie Dodge ● 385d

I thought that was what supermarkets were for, everything in one place, how can they know what each individual needs ? people have got tired of the same old shops and want variety visit villages and farm shops for achange.  Also women want to shop elsewhere it's a form of relaxation and a rest from everything, not because they are spending they just find itrelaxing whereas a lot of men have a hobby, many women don't have thatand find other ways of having a break from life shopping believe it or not isone of them.

Janice Evans ● 385d

Living in a cage ???

David Burke ● 385d

Anyone who thinks that global cities are not suitable for 15 minute city designs jus doesn't know what 15 minute city designs are.  Those who remain intellectually curious can pre-order Carlos Moreno's new book which will be published in UK on 2nd July. Other booksellers are available. Those who are not can continue to read the Daily Mail and Telegraph interpretations and get cross.https://www.amazon.co.uk/15-Minute-City-Solution-Saving-Planet/dp/1394228147#:~:text=Afterword-,The%2015%2DMinute%20City%3A%20A%20Solution%20to%20Saving,Our%20Time%20and%20Our%20Planet&text=The%20RRP%20is%20the%20suggested,a%20manufacturer%2C%20supplier%20or%20seller.&text=FREE%20Delivery%20on%20book%20orders,released%20on%20July%202%2C%202024.

Paul Campbell ● 385d

Would say impossible, like living in a cage.

Janice Evans ● 385d

Let me start by saying I rarely agree with Michael Robinson but this time he has explained perfectly why the flyunder is a complete dead duck.As for the 15 min city concept, it is not some left wing plot designed to keep us all siloed in ghettos, but in a global city such as London it is also completely impractical.

Justin Stephenson ● 386d

No, your reports of your personal travel times are not representative based on hundreds of thousands of real recorded travel times from both Google and Apple. It’s no different from someone complaining about developing a skin rash or feeling unwell when a 5G mast is installed.  No doubt that sometimes happens but that doesn’t make it representative of what very many more people experience.

Tom Pike ● 387d

Totally consistent. Traffic build up from 06:00, 40% traffic is vans and trucks, observed and experienced journey times far in excess of those quoted. Any more straws that you were clutching?

N V Brooks ● 387d

It’s not the issues that are confused, it’s your inconsistent attitude to personal experience and data.

Tom Pike ● 387d

Did anyone else hear the late night Grove Park whinging?I am surethat you little friends at the LCC will be getting the Kleenex out as we speak.

N V Brooks ● 387d

This is such a great example of motonormativity. An otherwise relatively sane person who is able to see the absurdity of privileging personal conviction over science loses all rational sense as soon as cars are involved.

Paul Campbell ● 387d

My point illustrated perfectly

David Burke ● 387d

No I am not, and it very sad to see someone supposedly educated confusing such disparate issues. Talk about clutching at straws when you are drowning Tom.

N V Brooks ● 387d

Nigel, it’s disappointing that you are unable to realise that you’re making just the same appeal to personal experience over data as those that complain about their health being affected by 5G, or their child’s autism being caused by MMR

Tom Pike ● 387d

Well I  for one don’t want a 15 minute neighbourhood thanks. They’llbe issuing passport to leave the Borough next

Maggie Dodge ● 387d

Sorry, did I hear more pointless whing from the direction of Grove Park?

N V Brooks ● 387d

Your ad hominems may thrill you but they only serve to make your arguments about how your occasional observations about the duration of the journeys  of people driving in the opposite direction to you are more accurate than data from navigation apps even more foolish.

Paul Campbell ● 387d

If only successive councils had not made it so unattractive to trade. Locally, we have lost (all converted to housin or non-retail) a Post Office, a newsagents, a convenience store, two greengrocers, a butcher, two pharmacies, two hairdressers, a barber, two cafés, two hardware stores, an off licence. All of these were within 500m of my home. Had they still been open then a 15 minute neighbourhood would be viable. I am sure that my area is far from unique.

N V Brooks ● 387d

Ah, the classic diversion bullshit. Lets roll in 5G conspiracy theories (which I resolutely do NOT share as there is not a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence). I see that the Grove ) Park Village Idiot had piped up as he needs to express his opinion no matter how wide of reality.

N V Brooks ● 387d

When you think about it many people are concerned about the hollowing out of local high streets , the possibility the 15 minute neighbourhoods is raised similar to that proposed by Ann Hildago in Paris whereby most things that you need could be within a 15 minute walk or cycle ride without the need to drive. What happens? You get the conspiracy theorists and right wing loons screaming about " control"

David Burke ● 387d

Ah, the Grove Park Idiot utters, and, just like the sound of one hand clapping, no one pays any attention.

N V Brooks ● 387d

The MMR sceptics and those bringing measles back to threaten children in the UK will also share Nigel's disdain for the data and facts. Interesting to observe how easy it is for people to resort to faith in their convictions over science.

Paul Campbell ● 387d

The travel times range from 22 to 35 mins at 6:30, so quite likely they’ll be some short queues. But that hardly amounts to van drivers taking 90 mins to get in. The 5G conspiracy theorists will say you’re overly dependent on the data collected to demonstrate its safety and rather sad you reject the evidence of their own health. Of course that’s quite different from you saying that others are overly dependent on the data when it disagrees with your experience

Tom Pike ● 387d

I only post Tom that which I witness every Tuesday and Thursday morning between 06:00-06:45 depending on the time that I leave. You seem overly dependent on data collection rather than the evidence of your own eyes. How sad,

N V Brooks ● 387d

Nigel, do you think that Apple, Google and the DfT are all somehow producing faulty statistics that demonstrate your own take is not representative?Usually you've pretty scathing about those who reject such consistent evidence, but you now seem to have fallen down the same rabbit hole.

Tom Pike ● 387d

Really?  Sorry Tom, if you cannot see the the Eastbound queues at 06:00 then you need to surrender your licence.I'll let you know how they are at 06:00 on Tuesday.

N V Brooks ● 387d

OMG 😂👍

Maggie Dodge ● 387d

Nigel, I’ve actually done early morning drives in on the M4 and you can get a clear run in at 6 am. But I don’t need to rely on my own observations when both Google and Apple confirm this.  I can understand that you would prefer traffic policy to be set on the basis of just your take, ignoring the plentiful recorded experience of others, but you are going to be perennially disappointed.

Tom Pike ● 387d

Thanks for the chuckle. If these "specially trained" counters cannot see the vans then I fear for their guide dogs.If you believe that 6am is before rush hour on the M4 then you really do need to get out more, as there is no substitute for the evidence of your own eyes.

N V Brooks ● 387d

Nigel, these are roadside counts of vehicles from people trained to do this on a systematic basis, not your take on the proportion of vans in the opposite lanes as you drive past in the dark.The times from Google and Apple are for 6 am, before the morning rush hour, when you said you saw the most vans. You've now switched to claiming it's slower at the rush hour. I'm sure you're correct, but that's exactly why the vans set off earlier.

Tom Pike ● 387d

40% vans is not what I "might have seen" it is what I actually see Every Tuesday and Thursday as I head westbound on the M4. Perhaps the DfT statisticians would equally do well to get out from behind their desks.  I defy anyone to travel from J5 to Hammersmith at rush hour in their supposed journey time. This would mean an average speed of c.30mph. Almost stationery  traffic from the Chiswick flyover to J4 is certainly not moving at this speed.

N V Brooks ● 387d

None of the statistics are from TfL. The traffic counts are from DfT. The travel times are from Google and Apple, and are very consistent between each other. They're also what the delivery companies will be using to best schedule their deliveries. I've got stuck in horrendous traffic trying to get to Oxford in the evening rush hour, so I know congestion can be bad, but to claim my experience is typical wouldn't be justified. Your claim that 40% of traffic at 6 am are vans and it takes then an hour and a half to get from Langley to Hammersmith is similarly what you might have seen, but the data shows it's hardly representative, and you can't expect it to form the basis of transport policy.

Tom Pike ● 387d

More journeys and hence more pollution between the hub and local depots if you can even find somewhere to build them. Didn't really think this through did you. Park and ride does nothing to aid deliveries.

N V Brooks ● 387d

Smaller closer hubs and fewer door to door deliveries.  Collecting from your local supermarket for parcels and park and ride all around Lonfon like there is in Oxford.

Philippa Bond ● 387d

Tom is wrong.

N V Brooks ● 387d

The capacity problem is real. Get out from behind a desk Tom and you an see the real world not tabular fiction created by TfL.

N V Brooks ● 387d

Tom says No

Maggie Dodge ● 387d

29 mins on a Saturday evening, 23 mins at 6 am on a Monday morning. That ‘s pretty consistent. Both are also significantly faster than an hour and a half. So we have nothing like the capacity problem you first claimed here, with the  delivery companies choosing their schedules to make the most efficient use of their resources.  And we are all agreed that the flyunder will do nothing to free up in itself to up capacity for a redesign of the gyratory. Meanwhile they’ve started resurfacing Hammersmith Bridge before completing the geotechnical survey that’s needed to check if the piers can take the loading from the truss bridge. Possibly the revival of the flyunder was more a dead cat than a serious proposition.

Tom Pike ● 387d

Can’t take you seriously Tom but 10:10 for consistency. There’s a stat for that will be your epitaph

Maggie Dodge ● 388d

Hardly rush hour at the moment is it. Saturday night seven o 'clock  Current journey time shown as. 29 minutes!

N V Brooks ● 388d

"I defy anyone to make journey from J4 to Hammersmith in 22 minutes. Something wildly awary with the Google telematic."Apple gives 23 minutes for the same trip at 6 am.Of course both the Google and Apple figures are based on tens of thousands actual travel times at that hour, maybe even yours!

Tom Pike ● 388d

"I would be very surprised if the peak proportion of vans on the M4 wasn't eastbound before the morning rush hour and westbound before the evening rush hour, and I expect rather less than 40% even then."DfT give hourly figures from 7 am to 7 pm.Peak eastbound proportion of vans on the M4 is from 7 to 8 am, 16%. Westbound it's from 3 to 4 pm, and again 16%.Traffic in 2022 was 9% down on 2019 levels. https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/6013

Tom Pike ● 388d

Than GoogleMaps was inaccurate Sorry, but I defy anyone to make journey from J4 to Hammersmith in 22 minutes. Something wildly awary with the Google telematics.I make the return journey every Tuesday joining the M4 at J2. My journet time has never, I stress never, been below 35 minutes to Desoronto Wharf. That would mean Hammersmith , via the Hogarth, to J2 in minus 4 to 10 minutes. Uetter, dare I say, bollocks.  So, you can't make a valid suggestion Tom, as I fully expected. Data management and statistics to not always reflect reality as you seem wont to believe.

N V Brooks ● 388d

You obviously haven't comprehended my point, even when looking at an extreme case. And similarly you are grossly exaggerating the cost, but that also illustrates my point. You say you see the queues starting at 6 am. At that time Googlemaps gives a travel time from Langley to Hammersmith as 22 to 35 mins, not an hour and a half. I'm sure that's why you see the delivery vans heading into town then. If you look at the return trip, then setting off at 3 pm would take 26 to 45 mins, again way below your figure.As I said, if you have an expensive resource, the best approach is to use it more efficiently, not just build more capacity. I would be very surprised if the peak proportion of vans on the M4 wasn't eastbound before the morning rush hour and westbound before the evening rush hour, and I expect rather less than 40% even then.

Tom Pike ● 388d

I am sorry that you cannot comprehend a simple question Tom, I really am."I'd say if you really are sitting in queues all day, your travel must have very little value". What a silly statement.Someone who travels from, say, Langley (home of a number of large distribution centres) into London with multi-drop deliveries has no choicw but to join the queues, somtimes taking over an hour and a half to get to Hammersmith If you join the M4 westbound early in the morning you you see at least fifty DPD vans plus EVri, Fedex and other couriers.So, apart from observations, what is your solution to meet this obvious demand Tom?

N V Brooks ● 388d

I've already answered you fully, but you seem to have difficulty understanding it. However, your response might be helpful there. "You speak of "uptake of demand for marginal benefit" try telling that to those who sit in queues every day."I'd say if you really are sitting in queues all day, your travel must have very little value. You'd be better off getting paid to sit somewhere you could be more productive. That would also free up capacity for those whose travel is rather more valuable.Of course you were exaggerating for effect, but you picked the most obvious case to make my point: after all, increasing capacity so more people could sit in queues all day would make no sense.

Tom Pike ● 388d

So NVBrooks is a self confessed “no brainer” and is also a racist.I can’t say I’m surprised.

Michael Robinson ● 388d

I'll ask again Tom. How do we deal with the existing volumes of delivery and trade traffic?You speak of "uptake of demand for marginal benefit" try telling that to those who sit in queues every day. London needs to move to thrive.

N V Brooks ● 388d

Oh Tom, Tom Tom. Same old, same old. Change the record. Your plan to force us into submission hasn’t worked but it’s  still all you’ve got .

Maggie Dodge ● 388d

No, you said "How do we reduce this environmental and economic overhead".If you have a limited and costly resource, economically you should be encouraging reductions of demand at marginal cost to encourage more efficient usage of the resource, not making costly investment in increasing the resource that will lead to an uptake of demand for marginal benefit. In practice that means that TfL's priority of shifting transport away from the roads is going to be a much better approach than building more road capacity in London. They'll be rather a different balance in an undeveloped part of the world.

Tom Pike ● 388d

Alternatives to the stream of delivery vans and lorries and the lines of trade vehicles.What are these then Tom?

N V Brooks ● 388d

By discouraging people from driving and prioritising the alternatives, not by increasing capacity unless you consider Los Angeles as the best direction to go.

Tom Pike ● 388d

"There would be no traffic from Furnival east bound save for those turning down the A219."Most of the traffic getting off at Hammersmith is heading north or south on the A219! As for Hammersmith Bridge mitigating this, how would the eastbound traffic on the A4 even be able to access it without building traffic lanes through Furnivall Gardens? That's actually what the original feasibility study implied, that they couldn't make it explicit for obvious reasons. Michael is correct, as soon as you look at any possible implementation, the idea that a flyunder would mean that traffic is neatly removed from the gyratory falls apart. However, there is one passage in the feasibility proposal that is of relevance to the continued closure of Hammersmith Bridge:"There is a well-documented concept known as traffic evaporation that suggests that when highway capacity is reduced, traffic flow reduces accordingly - or it appears to evaporate. Most examples of this are based on permanent reductions in capacity. If the A4 was required to have its capacity reduced during construction for a substantially long time, the same concept is likely to apply. This reduction in traffic flow would likely result in reductions in traffic noise and improvements in air quality."

Tom Pike ● 388d

Somthing has to give though Tom. On reflection, putting the A4 undergroundwill do nothing to increase capacity/ reduce bottlenecks.I regularly travel westbound on the M4 or A40 in the early morning (06:00-06:30) and the traffic eastbound is already queuing back to the A408 at Heathrow or the A412 at Denham.Although there is a fair bit of commuter traffic ( I do see more multi-occupancy cars than in the past) I reckon that around 40% is delivery and trade vehicles.How do we reduce this environmental and economic overhead Tom, which seems to take progressively longer to clear?

N V Brooks ● 388d

"If it is pure pie in the sky (or pie underground maybe) then the council is guilty of wilful deception."Correct, and it is! This latest version is the "short tunnel" option which as Michael reminded us was by far the least popular choice (only 7%), and even that is estimated to cost  more than £800m. It relies on 460 m of open trench to take traffic down deep enough to get below the tube lines, even more disruptive of surface transport as the current flyover. Further, to prevent cutting one of West London's main gravity-fed sewer tunnels it has to start by Barons Court Station, requiring the demolishing of the listed homes on Talgarth Road. The artists impressions fail to show that it results in a much longer eight-lane-width highway than currently we have at the ramps to the flyover. At the west end, it would mean building traffic lanes over Furnivall  Gardens and demolishing the southern block of housing in Riverside Gardens."If, on the other hand, it has already consulted with experts who have assured them it is doable, this is quite exciting news." If you read the original feasibility study carefully, you will see that the experts were trying to tell the politicians that they faced some serious contradictions:"The longer the tunnel, the more environmental and economic issues would have to be overcome.""There was relatively low support for a short tunnel." "Both longer tunnels would require a surface road network to cater for up to 50 per cent of the current A4 flow.""In addition, basic traffic analysis was undertaken and found that the beneficial impact on traffic flow around the gyratory would not be sufficient to reallocate capacity.""Any capacity increases that can be achieved at the Hammersmith Gyratory, even if possible, would not be consistent with the vision for the improved town centre."https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/section_attachments/flyunder_feasibility_study_web_medium_tcm21-187089.pdf

Tom Pike ● 388d

There would be no traffic from Furnival east bound save for those turning down the A219. That would in turn, be mitigated if the minority of anti-car morons stopped objecting to the reopening of Hammersmith Bridge.  No cars may work in Ballykissmybunions but not Hammersmith

N V Brooks ● 388d

What an odious buffoon you are Robinson. Bugger off back to bog trotting.

N V Brooks ● 388d

“ releasing a vast swathe of car-free ground from just east of Furnival Gardens as far east as Palliser Road.”No it wouldn’t. About 40% of traffic wouldn’t use the tunnel so there would still need to be surface roads and the tunnel would need a 100m+ trench built before it was even underground to get down far enough to get under the District/Piccadilly lines.When you say “no brainer” it helps to have a brain to think these things through before leaping  to conclusions as you have done.

Michael Robinson ● 388d

I remember the juncion before the flyover and, even at late 50's traffic levels, it was chaos. Putting the A4 underground is a no brainer releasing a vast swathe of car-free ground from just east of Furnival Gardens as far east as Palliser Road. The real logistics issue is how best to get joining traffic from the new gyratory onto the A4. Difficult but not insurmountable.

N V Brooks ● 388d

Armchair engineer here who is accusing Hammersmith & Fulham of wilful deception regarding the tunnel although there are other aspects of the plans that would be perfectly feasible, such as limiting traffic along King St and some of the other points.Lots of things are "doable" if you throw enough money at them.  The practicalities impacting the tunnel are that about 40% of traffic on the A4 isn't going east-west but is going to and from other destinations so there would still need to be a network of surface roads.  Then for the tunnel, you need to get the traffic down below ground using an acceptable gradient for the road, plus have a tunnel with the specified headroom for vehicles plus get below the cut and cover trench for the District and Piccadilly lines.  That will mean a 100m+ long trench at both ends of the tunnel leading up to the tunnel portal.  The trenches and surface roads will completely sever access to and from the river unless they also build bridges across the trenches... Not to mention what happens with the storm drains leading to the river and the trenches and tunnels cutting across them.All this was discussed the last time the tunnel came up and there were no solutions to this but H&F residents surveyed thought that the tunnel trenches shouldn't be in Hammersmith but there should be a longer tunnel with the entrances in Hounslow and K&C instead.  The ultimate in Nimbyism.Dismissing the tunnel as bonkers, a more viable plan would be to remove the flyover and turn Hammersmith gyratory into a more conventional junction with limited access for traffic on the west side.Then as there would be no point in having 6 lanes of A4 feeding into the gyratory, several lanes of the A4 could be removed to create the "green corridor" mentioned. (maybe not "green" but "greener" anyway).

Michael Robinson ● 388d

If they can afford this they can afford to fix Hammersmith Bridge.

Peter Evans ● 388d