https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-a-new-two-way-ltn/Last year, we were contacted by residents of Rivercourt Road concerned about the increased traffic they said they were experiencing. Rivercourt is the road formerly running one-way towards King Street from the Great West Road as shown adjacent, with its twin – Weltje Road – running one-way towards the A4.On Thursday, Rivercourt road became a trial two-way LTN with non-residents, Blue Badge holders, and businesses required to get a permit or be fined by ANPR cameras at the A4 junction. On the same day, Rosamund Adoo-KD (Ella’s mother) described LTN’s as the worst thing ever . Regardless of the intent, we question whether this is the right solution.These roads are effective ways to get to and from the A4 and King Street without going all the way to Hogarth Roundabout or adding to Hammersmith Broadway congestion and emissions, and are therefore important for a significant number of residents, non-residents, schools, visitors and businesses alike – plus the wider environment – hence our interest.The council have not published audited statistics, though claim ‘4000 motorists’ a day which in itself implies private cars, but is just as likely to be your plumber, a delivery van, or a coach serving the three adjacent schools. Some residents of the road have been campaigning to reduce traffic; and there are of course concerns about the increased number of cycle-related accidents at the junction with King Street since C9 was added, notably including a vocal Jeremy Vine.The LTN was created by a discreet 18 month temporary traffic order in September . It was announced publicly on 20th November – the same evening that Conway were photographed burning off the road markings – and implemented with unseemly haste the next day. The fixed signage shown, matches the discreetness of the traffic order, especially amongst the visual cacophony of all the other signage, and one can imagine that many won’t have time to read it, and its potentially expensive consequences, having come off the busy and faster A4. The council will be rubbing their hands with glee as their coffers fill up. Recall that the South Fulham TCPR was created the same way, then made permanent, further dividing the residents, creating a 12,000 signature campaign, and pushing some businesses over the edge, while rapidly ballooning the council’s £34 million fines income. It’s been suggested that speed bumps might be a rather simpler and better disincentive, but that would cost money rather than raise it. Despite LBHF claiming to have done a deal with Uber, some Uber drivers and cab firms still won’t serve the TCPR zone, not wanting to take the risk of being fined. Once bitten, twice shy. We’ve also heard of tradesmen that prioritise other jobs, and/or charge extra or simply refuse to attend properties within such zones.The proposed ‘turning circle’ appears an unusually dangerous concept on such a busy road and doesn’t yet exist as the adjacent photo shows. The current arrangement is clearly noncompliant with the highway code (clause 201), needing a reversing manoeuvre into the busy A4 as the photo shows. A similar concept in Fulham has raised concerns at the adjacent school – they ask locals not to use it.BackgroundIn June 2023, the council announced that they’d be changing the King Street / Rivercourt road junction to address C9 accidents, a potential danger we’d highlighted before C9 was built, and have since documented. The proposal was to narrow the throat so that cyclists and drivers could see each other more easily, with room for only one vehicle at a time – so far, so good. This went ahead with some limited local opposition due to loss of school coach parking space, but support of those looking to reduce traffic levels and reduce C9 dangers. It appears that traffic queuing problems – not necessarily volumes – have increased since C9 due to delays in getting across the difficult and somewhat dangerous junction into King St, and not apparently improved by the narrowing. Vehicles travelling the other way into Rivercourt under the new 2-way scheme could produce unexpected hazards for C9 cyclists and pedestrians, as Latymer Upper have advised their pupils.Weltje road residents appear to have a range of opinions on the suggestion by the council for something similar in their road, one writing to us describing the proposals as “mind numbingly stupid”, but others supporting a second LTN.The imposition of this LTN appears to be the consequence of trying to make a poor plan work in the real world, without enough design thought or meaningful consultation – a doubling down on earlier errors, rather than a careful rethink.Consultation and InformationThe council held a hyperlocal consultation with Rivercourt residents in March this year in which they say that the majority of attendees were in favour of the LTN scheme. But this involved just 7 supporters, and we note the addressing of ‘volume’, not risks or queuing. TfL modelling suggested no ill effects on the A4 – unsurprising given the relative sizes of the A4 and Rivercourt. There’s no mention of the effect on the Broadway or Chiswick High Road, already seriously congested, resulting in the slowest average bus speeds on record at just 8 mph in Hammersmith. The impacts on the ‘4000 motorists’ will be substantive as will the no-go problems experienced in the south Fulham TCPR.Residents raised concerns about removal of parking space, particularly for the adjacent schools and their related coaches, adding to the problems caused by C9 which prevents temporary parking, creating so-called ‘sterile kerbs’ in King St. Latymer Upper were not directly consulted, and have raised ‘strong objections’ with this further imposition.The March event was so local that there’s no record of it three or four streets away, and in fact there were no announcements of plans to the wider community until the day before it was implemented. The dates on the council information flyers show that they were originated less than a week before implementation, the website article appeared on the 20th.The council’s page and publicity on the subject appears surprisingly reactionary, saying ‘80% of those motorists are out of borough commuters’. How do they know they are ‘commuters’ (is that a crime?), why use the word ‘motorist’ (an intentionally loaded term), and are ‘out of borough’ lesser mortals (surely not illegal immigrants? – Ed) and what if the side effects damage businesses, such as Hitchcock & King, pushed over the edge by the South Fulham LTN? The air pollution statement shown appears out of context from a 2018 WHO paper, largely concerned with extreme pollution in the Global South, the numbers revealing an ALRI attributable death rate of 3 per 100,000 in the UK, i.e. 0.003%, a significant proportion of that miniscule number having causes unrelated to air pollution.As a resident or business you can apply for a permit for a visitor via their clunky Ringo App which residents say is unfit for purpose (offering just one user per address), but that didn’t save Hitchcocks, badly affected inside the TCPR, and their popular nearby Hammersmith branch no longer exists. There is at least supposed to be a three-week grace period before fines are issued.ConclusionThis seems to be yet another divisive LTN pitting resident against resident, just one street apart, plus schools and businesses against the council, a typical problem with LTN’s across London – the same issues seen with the South Fulham TCPR under the same management. A small handful of people gain, while the vast majority lose, including those stuck on buses in congested King St. least able to make alternative arrangements. Importantly in the world of ‘growth’ : real businesses suffer as documented, while the dangers have not been been proven addressed.The council’s public ‘othering’ of people going about their normal lawful business is extraordinary.
Michael Good ● 30d