Forum Topic

Hammersmith flyover tunnel!

Interesting to see it being discussed in the Local Plan, how about getting a bridge sorted first? Its like learning English without A,B,C’s!

John Bird ● 2d31 Comments

Paul clearly doesn’t understand how the supermarket delivery system works. Not a surprise. People book a delivery slot, so your neighbours might get a delivery at 8am, but your comes at 3. Different van, different driver.Then add in the various supermarket delivery vehicles and you get a multitude of then on the road.Of course, two of the most popular supermarkets - Aldi and Lidl - don’t deliver at all and tend to have nice big car parks for customers.This is all the usual guff Paul has been spouting in Ealing Tiday for years. It convinced nobody there so he’s switched to this forum in the vain hope that he might persuade some here.As for all the traffic on the Hammersmith flyover? It clearly doesn’t occur to some that these might not be local journeys but part of much longer ones, often from outside London. Just because they might be cars doesn’t necessarily mean they are leisure journeys either. Quite a lot of businesses operate without vans or Lorrie’s and use cars instead.What next, barriers on the M4 prohibiting non-Londoners from entering? Didn’t Khan float the idea of a toll to enter the capital that was shot down as soon as it was mentioned?

Simon Hayes ●

>Think Covid made people lazy with more deliveriesIt's not not lazy for everybody to drive to a supermarket every week, instead getting their stuff delivered instead, it makes sense on many levels. Less traffic on the roads, less pollution, less congestion, and no need for MASSIVE car parks or huge supermarkets for people to wander around to start with.

Paul James ●

Think Covid made people lazy with more deliveries, find I'm buying most things online, however do like to do the weekly food shop myself.

Janice Evans ● 34m

>Buying one's groceries while on the tube home to have them delivered when you arrive home yourself will never result in less vehicles on the road. It simply won't.It's an oversimplficiation for sure, but one van on a circuit delivering 50 shopping orders is less vehicles on the road than 50 people driving to the supermarket and back in massive SUVs...

Paul James ● 41m

On my way to Wembley this AM and passed loads and loads of Amazon vans all of which were petrol. Where is Paul's righteous indignation for that?I've yet to hear him come up with an alternative to all the deliveries generated, increasingly so, with online shopping multiplying. Francis is, again, spot on. Buying one's groceries while on the tube home to have them delivered when you arrive home yourself will never result in less vehicles on the road. It simply won't.

David Lesniak ● 2h

"the overwhelming proportion are non-discretionary such as deliveries."Evidence, please.Francis, you have a track record of making things up to fit your prejudices and this looks like another example unless you have some proof.A quick bit of actual research shows that about 80% of vehicles on the A4 are cars, not vans and goods vehicles.

Michael Robinson ● 3h

>the link has not been broken between population growth and the number of vehicle movements.It clearly needs to be broken, but you're right, will probably never be whilst many people demand solutions as to what to do with all the motor vehicle movements, rather than coming together to work out ways of reducing them overall, and there are plently of ways of doing that, but so many are fought against tooth and nail.

Paul James ● 3h

Paul, despite falling car ownership, a collapse in younger people learning to drive, measures such as ULEZ, increase charges for parking, car free estates and a whole host of other measures, the link has not been broken between population growth and the number of vehicle movements. This is because, as Janice alludes to, the overwhelming proportion are non-discretionary such as deliveries.The population of LBHF is projected to grow by about 6-7% over the next decade and much of this growth is expected to be concentrated along the A4 corridor. Even if not one single person among the new arrivals owns a car, they will collectively generate thousands of extra vehicle movements every day.Even a relatively progressive and pro-active council like LBHF recognises this challenge and knows that there is simply no other choice than to plan for the replacement of Hammersith Flyover either on a like for like basis or with a tunnel.

Francis Rowe ● 5h

>Short journeys are usually for the supermarket shopping which would be local.Most short journeys in cars are for supermarket trips?

Paul James ● 6h

No I said short journeys are usually to the supermarket which would be local.

Janice Evans ● 6h

>Someone has to drive the car they could be cabs or doing deliveriesDo you think that's all of them though?

Paul James ● 6h

Short journeys are usually for the supermarket shopping which would be local.

Janice Evans ● 6h

Someone has to drive the car they could be cabs or doing deliveries, I get things delivered by car from eBay.

Janice Evans ● 6h

I've walked and cycled across hammersmith bridge, you can see though the gaps in the deck and it wobbles and shakes, it clearly was never intended to be a bridge that transported the amount or type of motor traffic that ended up going across it.

Paul James ● 6h

>the road network must be at its optimum.Any road network is never going to be optimum if it's stuffed full of cars with just a driver in that could have used another mode of transport, considering many many journeys in cars are actually very short.Add more roads in an attempt to counter this and you get ... evenm more driving.Key example in the article about this on the front page"The flyover, which was opened in 1961, was intended to reduce the levels of traffic in Hammersmith."WHOOOPS!!!https://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=community&link=https://neighbournet.com/server/common/hfroad014.htm

Paul James ● 6h

Agreed, Francis.What Michael always ignores is how increased development will deliver increased demand on roads. He can carp on about reducing private car use all he wants but the fact remains more Ubers, cabs and deliveries will be required to service all these new residents and businesses. And for those to be cost effective and energy efficient the road network must be at its optimum.

David Lesniak ● 9h

And the bridge?

John Bird ● 18h

All these big roads are anachronisms from years ago when they thought they could install a motorway network in London and everybody was going to drive all the time.Adding more silly disasterous expensive stuff to fix old mistakes was never going to be a good idea.

Paul James ● 18h

Bet it's safe to assume it won't happen. They can't even manage to repair or rebuild the bridge. Can't work out why even the idea sets some teeth gnashing

Davy Jones ● 19h

Your memory appears to be worse than a goldfish Francis.You need to check my forum posts to see I expressed no support or opposition for the Hogarth scheme.  I was just commenting on some of the nonsense posted by some of the forum brains trust.Aa usual, you just make things up to fit your prejudices and this is yet another example.It is good that you are supportive.  Given your track record, that means it is safe to assume it will never happen.

Michael Robinson ● 1d

Those of us with memories longer than goldfish will recall that you were one of the most passionate defenders of TfL's plans for widening the A4 by Hogarth Roundabout earlier this year. The reality is LBHF are constrained by the world as it is rather than you might like it to be and population density in the area around the Hammersmith Flyover is predicted to rise over the next few decades and therefore the council has to plan for increased levels of traffic.You are probably not wrong that the flyunder plan is 'bonkers', faces significant technical challengers, does not have buy in from neighbouring authorities and would lead to years of disruption as well as costing a huge amount of money. However, many of these objections could be made against the rebuilding option, and, if LBHF is right about the land value premium, the tunnel may be less burdensome on the tax payer.You are also correct that the technical basis for this scheme remains very sketchy. However, we can all agree that while it is extremely challenging, it is not impossible. The  key question is whether LBHF are proposing this in the knowledge that it will never happen so they can claim TfL and neighbouring boroughs stymied their visionary plan or if they genuinely intend to press forward and overcome the inevitable obstacles to the scheme. I really hope it is the latter.

Francis Rowe ● 1d

Oh yes, the concept is definitely “visionary”.Trouble is, it is like the vision of a failed 1960s urban planner who wants to direct a hosepipe of cars into the centre of London and the idea the volume of cars should be reduced in the first place is beyond their comprehension.

Michael Robinson ● 1d

Perhaps when Michael wakes up he'll enjoy the irony he has provided for our enjoyment.He sees a visionary idea to reduce the impact of cars as "stupid" and thinks NIMBYism is at play. That last bit is shocking given his support of all things that ignored any input from a broader swath of the populace than, say, his buddies in Grove Park or the Hounslow Cycling Campaign.

David Lesniak ● 1d

I didn't say it wasn't possible, just that it was stupid and that report is a good illustration why.The report wasn't "extensive".  If you had read it, you would see that it refers to itself as a "short study".Most things are possible if you throw enough money at it, and it would be a lot of money.In the report, 39% of the LBHF residents surveyed wanted the tunnel entrance in Hounslow, a 100m+ trench right by Chiswick House.  The ultimate in NIMBYism. Of course, they didn't ask residents in Hounslow.  Of course the Hammersmith flyover won't last forever but that doesn't mean it needs to be replaced by a tunnel. They could remove the flyover, "unwind" the gyratory so it only goes around part of the Broadway, freeing up space on the other sides.  If they halved the lanes on the A4, that would also free up lots of space for development and making the area more attractive.

Michael Robinson ● 1d

LBHF commissioned an extensive feasibility study- & unlike local armchair experts they didn't find it bonkers, concluding:'No matter how many expensive repairs areconducted, the flyover won’t last forever. Overthe next 20 years London will continue to growwith more jobs being created and houses built.Whether or not this results in significant increasesin traffic on our road network is unclear. Whatis clear is that a plan for the future of the A4corridor is required and that tunnelling underHammersmith is possible. The council has takenthe initiative in producing this feasibility report andnow is the time for others to take this investigationforward. There are some significant environmentaland economic challenges to overcome. However,as we have seen, the resulting reimagination ofHammersmith town centre could be momentous.'https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/section_attachments/flyunder_feasibility_study_web_medium_tcm21-187089.pdf

Davy Jones ● 1d

It was always a bonkers proposal anyway. Both ends of a tunnel need a "portal" which is basically a trench with length determined by clearance needed for the tunnel below the underground, headroom for the type of vehicles permitted in the tunnel and an acceptable gradient to get down and up again.The portals at both ends would likely be 100+m in length and of course would create severance at their locations, there would need to be bridges built for pedestrians/cyclists to get over them and no clue how they deal with the storm drains going to the river.LBHF of course didn't want the portals to sully their borough and said they should be in Hounslow and K&C.Additionally, a significant proportion of the traffic on the A4 isn't going east-west but is also going north and south so in addition to the tunnel, there would also need to be a surface road network.Its a classic example of trying to sweep a problem under the rug but just moving a problem from one place to another.

Michael Robinson ● 2d

And yet you can all build a lovely sewer.

David Lesniak ● 2d

(and the A4 elevated section, and A40 westway)

Paul James ● 2d

...ssshh hammersmith bridge can't be fixed to carry the amount of traffic it ended up carrying...Same for the Hammersmith Flyover.And soon the be the same for Chiswick Bridge...

Paul James ● 2d

It has taken longer than the entire duration of W W 2 to fix Hammersmith Bridge so based on that timescale this much larger project may be finished sometime in the middle to end of this century.Hopefully.

Adrian Irving ● 2d

Maybe they could just move the unwanted Hammersmith flyover and use it to cross the river!

Peter Evans ● 2d