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 ● 42d128 Comments

I'm sure this is a looming headache for TfL. I know you won't agree but I still think the aborted plans for the Hogarth Roundabout were part of a broader strategy of getting rid. I would assume a like for like replacement wouldn't cost much but wouldn't be compliant with current regulations. I have walked and cycled over the Hogarth Flyover and can assure you they won't be keeping it for those purposes.

Francis Rowe ● 1d

I'd suggest the Hogarth flyover has a higher probability of being 'decommissioned' for use by motor vehicles if the costs to maintain it are not seen as being justifiable.I don't know if it is viable for use as a walking/cycling bridge only as the gradients seem steep.

Michael Robinson ● 3d

I did find a report that confirmed your story about the original design containing a heating system. That stated that the reason it was scrapped was that it was too expensive to run.It is probably safe to assume that the new design provides protection against any corrosion damage caused by gritting.I can't find anybody with engineering expertise who believes the structure won't last well into the second half of this century.

Francis Rowe ● 3d

A documentary a few years ago about the 2018 bridge collapse in Genoa also covered repairs to the Hammersmith flyover.While the bridge in Italy was a cable-stayed bridge and different design to the flyover, there were similarities to now the bridges had deteriorated as both were built in the 1960s with similar techniques.At Hammersmith I believe they have installed a large number of monitors in the bridge structure.

Michael Robinson ● 4d

I remember several years back reading that one of the ( possibly rectified by now) problems with the Hammersmith Flyover was that it was built with Road Heating installed, but  there was an argument as to who should pay for the road heating ( bit like Hammersmith Bridge ironically) so they ended up using salt when where was ice, which then seeped through to the installed heating elements, causing far more problems than if the heating had never been installed in the first place.Hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Andrew Jones ● 4d

You are not wrong to call me out on understating the importance of TfL in this matter. The A4 is a TfL road and is likely to remain so, therefore they will probably be paying for most of whatever solution is found.It occurred to me that given the repairs carried out a decade okay there ought to be some extension of the Flyover's life and the engineering consensus on this appears to be that it was designed to last 70 years after the completion of the work that was done in 2015. Therefore, from TfL's perspective they have an asset which will do until the 2080s and there is no pressure on them to adopt any proposal put forward by H&F unless it could be made very financially advantegeous to them.On reflection, I'm coming round to your view that the flyunder will never happen but only because the flyover will be a problem that our grandchildren will have to sort out.

Francis Rowe ● 4d

You are back to your usual trick of just inventing things to suit your prejudices, Francis.The Hammersmith flyover is part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).  TfL is the Highway Authority for the flyover and LBHF is not responsible for funding its maintenance, replacement or removal.LBHF certainly will be interested what they can do to redevelop the area around the gyratory to provide additional residential, retail and commercial space but they don't have any responsibility to maintain traffic flow along the A4 into central London.

Michael Robinson ● 6d

That 'traffic' in London is on a reducing trend that would make a flyunder or flyover unnecessary in Hammersmith within 15 years is a new one on me. I've heard of no research that has suggested this is a possibility.It may be possible that the short term impact of the ULEZ discouraging a significant number of non-compliant vehicles from entering London may have been extropolated to create this hypothesis. Also I suspect that, once again 'traffic' is being confused with the number of vehicle journeys. Data that we do have shows that while the number of vehicle journeys is not rising, delays have risen over the last few years in London and average traffic speeds are down, including for buses.Why this is happening is a complex question but larger vehicles (both due to the switch from personal travel to delivery and a market preference for bigger cars) combined with active travel measures (improved pedestrian priority and cycleways) appear to be more than eradicating any benefit from any reduction in journey numbers.That the conclusion that falling trends will save us from the need to invest large amounts in road infrastructure in west London is wishful thinking is most strongly shown by H&F's refusal to consider it a a possibility. Like all boroughs they face massive financial challenges. They have consistently been one of the most pro-active travel local authorities in the country and, as well as Cycleway 9 are planning even further investment in cycling infrastructure as well as implementing programmes such as the Clean Air Zone around Wandsworth Bridge Road.You have to ask yourself if not spending huge sums on a flyover or a flyunder was really an option why it has not been considered. The logical answer is that the transport team at H&F Council considered the possibility of sufficient traffic reduction over the next few decades and decided it was fanciful. This view seems to be reinforced by the lack of any credible projections supporting the other view.That brings us back to the two remaining options. There is no pretending that both will come with no pain, both financial and environmental, but H&F Council deserve praise for thinking strategically about the problem at an early stage.

Francis Rowe ● 6d

LBHF have posted the latest version here:https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/section_attachments/vision_summary.pdfThe "Town Centre Masterplan" just stops short of where the flyunder emerges, but you can see a portion of the slip roads that will run either side of the portal to access the A4 once it returns to the surface. To the east, the southern slip road will mean the demolition of Colet House and the listed studios that back onto Barons Court Station. Even then there's not the 200 m need to reach the surface before Gildon Road; it will have to be cut off either side of the A4. The west portal is no less disruptive: the slip roads will take out a chunk of Latymer on either side, as well as cutting off the subway that connects the two parts of the school.It's rather clear why LBHF chose not to extend their Masterplan so that it showed the portals.

Tom Pike ● 9d

>On current trends that will be sometime in the next ten to fifteen years.Needs to be five years really!

Paul James ● 9d

"If knocking down the flyover and not replacing it with a flyunder was really an option it would have to be the case that most of the traffic using the flyover was discretionary."No it wouldn't - it just requires traffic on the flyover to continue falling until it's below the spare capacity of the surface streets, where traffic is also falling. On current trends that will be sometime in the next ten to fifteen years. "If Hammersmith & Fulham are serious about this..." they wouldn't be using traffic levels that are 10 years out of date and be projecting growth in traffic rather than the decline we seen for the last 25 years.

Tom Pike ● 9d

>crossing the bridge to join the A4 perhaps undermining the case for reopening it to motor vehicles.Did you not see my suggestion above to appropriate the Barnes Wetland centre for a tunnel portal?Then one in the north, perhaps Wormwood Scrubs or Sheperd's Bush Green?

Paul James ● 10d

Worth pointing out in addition that the population of Seoul, particularly in central areas is in decline.I've missed any reference in what H&F Council are saying about this to how Hammersmith Bridge fits into the plan. With a flyunder it will be more difficult for traffic crossing the bridge to join the A4 perhaps undermining the case for reopening it to motor vehicles.

Mark Evans ● 10d

Just because some other cities have successfully removed flyovers and similar road blights doesn't mean this is an option open to London.The example of the Cheonggye Elevated Highway Seoul is one that was given. This is a road that I have travelled along and the world is a better place without it. However, the context here is that it was constructed in a city devasted by war which had previously been made largely of wood. The chaebol - the industrial conglomerates rebuilding the country had steel construction and motor manufacturing interests so it seemed to them a given that such structures were constructed. Cities like Seoul which have done away with major road infrastructure like this have also introduced a lot of measures to mitigate the impact - big investment in public transport, more restrictions on parking, more expensive parking, emissions charges, congestion charges. London has already implemented these policies and it is questionable whether there it would be possible to do more without unacceptable economic harm.If knocking down the flyover and not replacing it with a flyunder was really an option it would have to be the case that most of the traffic using the flyover was discretionary i.e. private motor car owners making a journey which could be made by other means for similar cost and journey time.As I've mentioned, my own journeys on the flyover have resulted in observations that most of the traffic on there is not made up by private motor cars. Michael may not believe what people can see with their own eyes counts as evidence but I think most people who drive over the flyover will conclude that the bulk of traffic on the road is not going to disappear if it was removed. I can't see any other outcome of the replacement ground level roads being chronically congested and polluted, essentially making much of this part of Hammersmith like the gyratory is now.If Hammersmith & Fulham are serious about this, they would have already done some work on each of the three options. No flyover and no flyunder would be by far the cheapest one but the fact that they haven't even bothered to mention it suggests it was ruled out at a very early stage as totally impractical.

Francis Rowe ● 14d

Many no longer visit or want to come into London, also many moving away.

Janice Evans ● 15d

Quite ironic that the 9-storey car park pictured in Brentford is opposite the empty space that used to be Morrisons surface car park. Just waiting for Michael to point out that Brentford is not in Central London, so to his way of thinking does not count.

Richard Greenhough ● 15d

And Michael, while you're at it, remind us what this 9-story reinforced steel and concrete structure on Brentford High Street is for? Or we could ask the new Green Candidate for the ward, Guy Lambert. Guy approved it. Let me help...please square the circle between your rhetoric and this newly built parking garage that is part of a new development.

David Lesniak ● 15d

I shouldn’t be so confident if I were you Tom. For a start 70,000 a day, not year, is still a significant number and there’s no guarantee the rate will continue to drop as you suggest. That’s supposition on your part.I don’t say traffic is decreasing. That’s you making things up. But it’s not going to disappear and nor is the flyover, no matter how much you might wish it.And Michael, the only person having a party in his pants here seems to be you with your flyover fantasy. You do seem somewhat obsessed. A secret ‘car brain’ no doubt.

Simon Hayes ● 16d

Except the flyover doesn't take 90,000 vehicles a year. It's 70,000 and falling. In a decade or so if trends continue and it drops below 50,000, the roads to the gyratory could certainly absorb the flyover traffic as they would still be carrying fewer vehicles than twenty years ago. While you persist in believing traffic is increasing rather than having fallen significantly, you'll fail to appreciate what might be possible in a decade or so.

Tom Pike ● 16d

Again, Andrew, I agree with you.You can build a tunnel to move sewage. You just can't seem to build one to move people.One reason I was thinking to extend it further was an economy of scale and the potential for more investors. Either way, it would be funded in part by private investors. Any alternative, it seems to me, would be funded solely by the government. Not being local, I can't really speak to the north/south divide. But I can appreciate how London is the engine and unless you keep it purring along, that divide will likely only widen.

David Lesniak ● 16d

Come on Simon, doesn't the thought of all those lovely motorways cutting through West London give you a bit of a thrill?The railway through Grove Park was built before almost all of the houses.I know the carbrained think that every car journey is essential and drivers are like robots incapable of acting any other way, but time and time again it has been shown that people can and do change their transport choices.  The fact that there weren't 20k additional car journeys on neighbouring bridges after Hammersmith Bridge was closed shows that.

Michael Robinson ● 16d

Something that didn’t happen 60 years ago is utterly irrelevant.Sadly for Michael the Flyover is set to stay in place for decades to come. The idea that removing this piece of infrastructure can see upwards of 90,000 vehicle movements absorbed by other, smaller, roads is ludicrous. It’s not a question of living the flyover, it’s to do with utilising existing infrastructure in the best way possible.As for reconnecting communities, why not rip out all the railways too? Those poor folk in Grove park hemmed in by them.

Simon Hayes ● 16d

Further detail about the plans is here:https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/ringway2/western-section

Michael Robinson ● 16d

Remind us, Michael - was Ringway 2 going to replace the section of SWR through Chiswick Station, or be built above it on a flyover ?

Richard Greenhough ● 16d

Low traffic neighbourhoods can be effective keeping through traffic on the main road network rather than taking short cuts through residential roads. An updated map has been published of the failed 1960s Ringway project which planned an extensive network of urban motorways through London. Lovers of the Hammersmith flyover can look at this and wistfully dream of what could have been. A couple of major cloverleaf style junctions in the Grove Park area of Chiswick and the creation of the 'Chiswick Triangle', an area complete hemmed in by major urban motorways. What a paradise this would have been for them!
SABRE - Maps

Michael Robinson ● 16d

When the time comes to replace the flyover it will be with….another flyover.Try living in the real world. Your insistence that areas such as Hammersmith will be opened up is unrealistic. A pipe dream that seems to obsess you and your cycle campaign chums.Those ‘relics’ are vital parts of London transport infrastructure. You seem to ignore that there is a lot of traffic coming in from beyond the capital. Would you prefer that on your little residential roads? All those delivery vehicles have to go somewhere too. Your confidence in these roads being replaced is misplaced.There will still be millions of cars on London’s roads for decades to come. Not just private ones (including taxis) but all those car club ones that certain cycling zealots are so keen on. Chances are that some of the more egregious anti-car measures will be reversed if there’s a shift in political governance, as seems increasingly likely.You will just have to accept that the flyover will be there way after you’ve gone.

Simon Hayes ● 17d

Hi David,Yes it's amazing to get it all done in 13 years. And I'm not suggesting additional revenue from an urban regeneration effort isn't worth it. Not at all.I do have concerns about the ability of the UK to deliver world class infrastructure in a manner where costs don't spiral out of control, and the tunnel has a bit of pie in the sky thinking about it from my perspective. Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick, but the impression I get is that people are suggesting that the tunnel would end up being funded a fair amount from revenues acruing from the development opportunities arising at ground level, and I am sceptical. I'm just not visionary enough.I'm also conscious of how so much more is spent in the south compared to the north, and it's not a good look to me.

Andrew Jones ● 17d

We agreed some time back the flyover will never be replaced with a flyunder.You seem to be the one obsessed with a car-free London. I'm more interested in the possibilities opened up when a city already has a declining number of cars on its streets, partly as a result of a larger number of home deliveries.We've already see some of these possibilities realised with the removal of parking in central London and the significant reorganisation of street space in the City.  On current trends of falling traffic, there will be increasing consideration of similar changes in inner London. This will include the removal of the relics of the failed attempt to create a London freeway system in the 1960s, such as Westway and the West Cross Route, as well as Hammersmith flyover.

Tom Pike ● 17d

My point still stands about a net reduction of car parking spaces because other uses are more profitable.e.g there used to be a multi-story car park on Farringdon Rd, recently demolished and replaced by an office building.  They don't have 6 levels of basement parking replacing what was there previously.Space above ground is more profitable used for office and commercial.  Space below ground is expensive so the building will not go lower down than it needs to.  Net result, hundreds of fewer parking spaces.

Michael Robinson ● 17d

I disagree, Andrew. Obviously.The salient fact is the revenue generated by a new neighborhood made possible by decking over a rail yard. Not the fact that Hudson Yards is the most expensive in NYC. Either way, all it took was 13 years to get there once construction began. That's astonishing. If you don't think additional revenue from an urban regeneration effort is worth it for any reason - which appears to be the case - by all means hold on to that. We'll all pay for a boulevard. Developers and buyers and subsequent residential and commercial leases will ultimately help if not completely pay for the alternatives and then some for years to come. In fact, I think the scheme should be even more grand. Why have any elevated section in Brentford and Chiswick? Don't let the M4/A4 leave the ground in Osterley. Start to bury it there. Re-connect those communities as well.

David Lesniak ● 17d

Your 19th century thinking is just tedious Dominik. Can you not follow the thread? Clearly not.It’s not just private cars that use the roads, is it? Go and stand on the A4 for a few minutes and look at the variety of vehicles. Hard to do when your vision is blinkered obviously but do try. Current transport policies are actually damaging businesses in London and removing the flyover would make that worse. I’m sure you never get anything delivered to your house or require a tradesperson but if you do, why not ask them if it’s easy to get around and does it make their lives better?And to you insist that anyone who comes to visit you has to make their way on public transport or bike? I bet you don’t.Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make you correct.

Simon Hayes ● 17d

David, you made mention how Hudson Yards was just rated as the most expensive neighbourhood in NYC and asked us to think of all that tax revenue! The point I was alluding to was that comparing the opportunities that might arise if the flyover was demolished in Hammersmith with what's happened in NYC is, if not comparing chalk to cheese, then at least like comparing dairylea to beaufort.

Andrew Jones ● 17d

Whichever way you look at it, heavy traffic screws up not just the environment in general, but the individual communities that make up this city. Continually believing that having to drive everywhere is somehow a sign that a city is ‘thriving’ is 20th Century-thinking. Is progress making bigger roads for bigger cars to carry individuals around when it's raining, or is it shuttling 1,000 people across London in one tube train every 5 minutes?

Dominik Klimowski ● 17d

I used Morrisons in Brentford as an example of how surface land formerly used for parking was being replaced by underground parking spaces. Of course, as that does not tally with your mindset, you dismiss it. "..they are certainly not going to waste floors usable for office space on car parking."Who said they were ? How many businesses do you know who would choose to put their employees in a windowless basement office ?

Richard Greenhough ● 17d

Was there a point, Andrew?You neglected to mention the other 15 or so buildings and the public spaces.

David Lesniak ● 17d

Seeing that we're talking about Hammersmith...let's.The Livat car park is new. Purpose built. Parking. Bikes. Cargo bikes. Charging. Car share. Car wash. Serving one and all. Lovely garden on top. Residential all around it.

David Lesniak ● 17d

They don’t. It’s an illustration of why some people don’t use public transport. Not hard to understand.Of course, all your conjecture is just that. Meaningless and pointless, other than to prolong some frisson of excitement for you at the distant possibility of a car free London. That’s not going to happen in your lifetime.As for the flyover? The wishes of the current LBHF council are irrelevant as the A4 is a TfL road and outside council control. The repairs to the flyover completed in 2015 increased the expected lifespan by decades according to TfL. You can pine for it to be demolished but it’s not on the agenda. Maybe direct your energy elsewhere?https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/september/-100m-refurbishment-of-hammersmith-flyover-completed

Simon Hayes ● 17d

94k a day round the gyratory with the flyover dismantled is a little less than 96k around the gyratory when the flyover was open in 2006 - there's nothing to reroute elsewhere. And the delays might be slightly less, as you suggest.As for HGVs, there's already as many manoeuvring round the gyratory as going straight over the flyover. But in terms of large vehicles, buses on the gyratory dominate, and that certainly won't be affected by closing the flyover.In terms of fatalities, it's the junctions with the slip roads at either end of the  flyover that are the black spots, with three fatalities in the last eight years compared to one on the gyratory. They'd be no issue of merging traffic if the flyover was dismantled.  I'm not sure why the "wealthy types" are setting your personal transport priorities.

Tom Pike ● 18d

But surely less traffic means quicker journeys?Even if your presumption of traffic levels is accepted, and that’s a big if, that’s still 94,000 movements a day. Rather a lot to reroute elsewhere, no? It seems you are just using supposition figures to support an argument that isn’t really convincing.Forget private cars for a moment, and doubtless you’d like to fight them permanently. An HGV is better on a wider, straighter route than being manoeuvred through a series of roundabout lights on the gyratory. That’s common sense.And those wealthy types don’t particularly like using public transport. You must know that.

Simon Hayes ● 18d

More than a third of the traffic approaching the flyover on the A4 enters or exits onto the gyratory rather than going straight through on the flyover. That traffic still needs to access the gyratory with a flyunder. The 2014 study makes clear that building a longer flyunder, from Hogarth to Barons Court, would divert even more vehicles, at least 50% of current A4 traffic, to surface streets, defeating the purpose of a flyunder.In 2006 the average daily traffic on the gyratory was 96k, compared to 92k on the flyover, making 189k in total. By 2024, that total had fallen to 131k, 60k on he gyratory and 71k on the flyover. On current trends the total will drop to 94k in 2034, below just the gyratory traffic levels in 2006. Hence in less than ten years from now, it would be possible to dismantle the flyover, routing the proportion that used the flyover round the gyratory, and still have traffic levels on the gyratory below those seen in 2006.You don't need to presume no more traffic through Hammersmith to close the flyover. You just need to look at the DfT counts to see that traffic is steadily falling and that quite soon in the future, and some time before the end of the flyover's current lifetime, the case for any replacement be increasingly difficult to make.Certainly, that case won't rely on demand for deliveries. We've already seen from the DfT counts that an increasing proportion of vans is associated with less overall traffic, with more demand for deliveries driving traffic down, not up.  As for "wealthy types", if they want to get into town quickly, it's already much faster for them to take Heathrow Express, or the Elizabeth line. I'm not sure why residents of Hammersmith need to continue to suffer a flyover, or pay for a white-elephant flyunder, to indulge a desire to travel more slowly by car.

Tom Pike ● 18d

Well, they will just rebuild the flyover then. Less expensive and quicker.Before you start on your rant about it not being needed, it clearly is and will be for decades to come. Motor vehicles aren’t disappearing despite the LCC fantasy and the flyover is part of the necessary infrastructure to enable London to thrive. You should be supporting that. The alternative is more traffic on those residential roads you are so fond of.

Simon Hayes ● 18d

It is worth pointing out that the public opinions referred to in the 2014 LBHF study were only from LBHF residents. Unsurprisingly, LBHF residents didn't want 100-200m of trenches needed for the tunnel portals in their borough hence their preference for the longer tunnels where the trenches would be in the neighbouring boroughs of Hounslow and K&C. The residents of the neighbouring boroughs weren't asked what they thought of this.As the report points out, the longer the tunnel, the less traffic would use it and the more extensive the surface road network would be.So hardly "reconnect Chiswick and Hammersmith with the Thames" as claimed by Cllr Peter Thompson is his blog given the tunnel portal trench would be impassable at ground level and there would still be multiple lanes of surface roads.

Michael Robinson ● 18d

Since when was Morrisons in Brentford in central London?Modern buildings in central London use their basements for bike parking, not cars. e.g. The 50 storey Leadenhall building advertises space for 100's of bikes plus lockers, showers, in the basement, not car parking.The available car parking space would be tiny compared to the numbers of people in the building and they are certainly not going to waste floors usable for office space on car parking.

Michael Robinson ● 18d

Someone said that the land value would not meet the cost of construction of the fly-under.Probably correct but only in the short-term.What this assertion is missing is the income derived in the medium to very long term that could generated.Which includes but not exclusively, council tax, employment tax, vat on the goods and services associated with housing  stamp duty receipts and so on for decades to come.Sadly long term thinking is not something the UK is good at.

Adrian Irving ● 18d

> in the deep of the night I say that, excepting people on motorbikes doing 120mph over the flyover at 2am to get some air off the angled joints...

Paul James ● 18d

>Note. When the refer to Hammersmith Flyover as a roundabout I assume they mean the Hammersmith Gyaratotry.It might be the whole thing though.I will say, they are just lumps of concrete steel and tarmac, in the deep of the night they sit there, not bothering anyone, it's not the concrete steel and tarmac thats dangerous, its the people using it behaving dangerously.

Paul James ● 18d

TomSo what constitutes local traffic? Five miles from Hammersmith? Two miles? Half a mile? There’s a big difference.What’s the number of vehicle movements per day across it? A sizeable number despite your assertion that traffic has decreased.You presume that simply closing it at the end of its life span will mean no more traffic through Hammersmith. You and Michael seem to believe that all those vehicles will just disappear. That’s clearly not the case, particularly since there will still be a demand for deliveries into London and all those wealthy types landing at Heathrow taking taxis into Town.And I wonder if you consider taxis to be private vehicles? Those Uber’s are. At least two in my road.

Simon Hayes ● 18d

Not so much of a fun fact."The UK's most dangerous roundabouts have been identified based on a comprehensive analysis of incidents recorded over the past decade. The top 20 roundabouts for accidents include:Hammersmith Flyover: 287 recorded incidents.Redbridge Roundabout: 284 recorded incidents.The Crooked Billet: 252 recorded incidents.Staples Corner: 221 recorded incidents.Hyde Park Corner: 213 recorded incidents.These roundabouts are particularly hazardous due to their busy traffic conditions and complex lane layouts, which can lead to accidents." I avoid it when ever possible. It's horrendous.Note. When the refer to Hammersmith Flyover as a roundabout I assume they mean the Hammersmith Gyaratotry.

Adrian Irving ● 18d

And that 2014 study was based on a forecast that traffic on the flyover would have increased by 14% by 2031. Since then traffic has not risen but instead fallen by 14%.

Tom Pike ● 18d

"Land in central London is too valuable to waste on lots of car parking."Which is why many new buildings have car parking space underneath the building. The old Morrisons in Brentford had its parking area on the surface next to the shop. The new one has its parking area in the basement.

Richard Greenhough ● 18d

"Do you seriously think the traffic on the flyover is locally generated?"More than half of it is according to LBHF's 2014 study into the flyunder. This looked at three possible tunnelling options. The first was a short tunnel that directly replaced the flyover, but which had very little public support (7%, less than the 10% who wanted to keep the current flyover). The other two options were much longer tunnels that started west of Hogarth roundabout and ended at either North End Road or closer to Warwick Road."As the A4 passes through Hounslow, Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea it has junctions with a number of side roads. Vehicles both join and leave the A4 to continue their journeys. Over the length of option 3 (Sutton Court Road to Earl’s Court) more than half of the traffic travelling east leaves the A4. A similar profile is found travelling westbound with traffic doubling in volume over the same stretch."This is a fundamental finding as traffic that joins the A4 between the start and end points of a tunnel between Chiswick and Earl’s Court will have to use a surface network. Should the flyover be removed, it would be diverted around the Hammersmith Gyratory."The short tunnel is determined to have no impact on traffic flow as it is a straight replacement of the flyover with a tunnel. All traffic that currently uses the flyover could use the tunnel and traffic leaving or joining the A4 via Hammersmith Gyratory would do so as it does currently. Traffic flow around the gyratory would be unaffected."Both longer tunnels would require a surface road network to cater for up to 50 per cent of the current A4 flow. Option 2 would allow slightly more traffic to join and leave a long tunnel alignment, and hence a slightly higher percentage of traffic would use the tunnel than would be the case for the longer option 3. This could allow for a narrowing of the A4. However, if the flyover were to be removed (this being the primary objective of this study), this traffic would be diverted through the Hammersmith Gyratory. 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 ● 18d

Fun fact 2: 30 Hudson Yards is the 6th tallest building in New York, and, at 1296 feet, about 280 feet higher than the Shard.Not something I feel we are ever going to see the like of in Hammersmith.

Andrew Jones ● 18d

One reason why traffic is down on the A4 flyover is the reduction of car parking in central London.There is no point driving if there is nowhere to park.Land in central London is too valuable to waste on lots of car parking. Developers can make more money per square metre from retail, residential, commercial use than they can from car parking.Good capitalist reasons why new developments have minimal car parking and lots of existing car parking space is redeveloped for more productive use.

Michael Robinson ● 18d

Dunno, Simon. I'm as puzzled as you are.This isn't rocket science. With developments such as White City, Earl's Court, Nine Elms and Bollo Lane, just to name a few in the immediate vicinity, not to mention an expanded Heathrow, roads will be more congested with all the commercial traffic these developments will generate. Tack on private car journeys as well. Michael and Tom like to hang their hats on a decrease in private car journeys. I'm not sold it is happening. Assume that it is, as others have said, the attendant journeys for deliveries, collecting passengers to and fro will eventually mean more vehicles not less.Fun fact: decking over the Penn Station rail yard on the west side of Manhattan created Hudson Yards. In 2012, construction began and has yet to be completed. IIn the 13 years since, Hudson Yards was just rated as the most expensive neighborhood in NYC. Think of all that tax revenue! By all accounts, this type of revenue is a no-no to Michael and Tom. Translation: no schools, no hospitals, no increase to the public sector - the list goes on. So while they blathered on about saving kids lives with less pollution, those same lungs are at stake by Michael and Tom refusing to see how such an idea would do the very thing they claim to support. I hope they do yoga or they're gonna pull a muscle contorting themseleves.

David Lesniak ● 18d

Do you seriously think the traffic on the flyover is locally generated? Maybe you should get out a bit more and work out where the roads that feed into the A4 come from.As you like stats so much, I’m sure you could work out the ratio of local to non-local traffic. While you’re at it you could ascertain journey lengths too.

Simon Hayes ● 18d

Car numbers are down already by more than 30% on the flyover. Where do you think they are going instead? Over Hammersmith Bridge?  People are simply driving less in London.

Tom Pike ● 18d

So, Mr Genius, where will those millions of vehicle movements a year be rerouted? Or do they simply evaporate, a la Aldred?I think you might be jumping the gun a bit with your fantasy.

Simon Hayes ● 19d

Exactly, no plans for a flyunder. The flyover will not be replaced, just dismantled at the end of its current lifetime. Meanwhile, nobody is advocating closing London to all traffic. However, the modal shift away from private cars in London is happening right now.

Tom Pike ● 19d

The flyover is a TfL road. As reported on the BBC on October 9: ‘A spokesperson for TfL said they had "no plans" to replace the flyover.’It’s just the cycling fantasists wet dream to close London to all traffic. They will all be pushing up the daisies long before that happens. Hard luck boys.

Simon Hayes ● 19d

And owner driver franchise.

Janice Evans ● 19d

Some delivery drivers actually own the vehicle they are using.

Janice Evans ● 19d

Francis is right that the proportion of vans has increased, on both the flyover and the rest of LBHF, but he's wrong to assume this is associated with an increase in overall traffic. It's quite the opposite, as the DfT traffic counts show.As the proportion of vans on both the flyover and all of LBHF has risen, total vehicle counts have fallen: for LBHF, the proportion of vans has increased from 11 to 17% while traffic counts have fallen by 27%, and car counts by 35% ; for the flyover, van counts have increased from 9% to 16% while traffic counts have fallen by 31% and car counts by 37%. On current trends, every 1% increase in the portion of vans on the flyover means a 7% drop in overall traffic counts.The idea that we need to increase road capacity to accommodate more vans doesn't reflect what is happening. Rather, an increase in vans is associated with a drop in total traffic. This likely reflects that delivery companies are better at organising their collective logistics to minimise the mileage for drop-offs compared to individual car drivers picking up the same.

Tom Pike ● 19d

How fascinating Michael trots out some very secondary cities as examples but conveniently leaves out The Big Dig in Boston. Akron? Really? On par with London is it?

David Lesniak ● 19d

Of course, you miss the obvious fact that a large proportion of vehicles using the flyover are commercial ones. Or is the plan to stop those from using London’s taxpayer funded roads as well? Good luck getting your home deliveries in that case.Unlikely that anything will happen in your lifetimes, chaps.

Simon Hayes ● 19d

Here are Steve Cowan in his own words:"It would be a land reclamation issue, recycling the profits made from the land into putting in a tunnel," Cllr Cowan told members. "That would need a different approach to transport in this city and it's something we're planning for and hoping for, but clearly it would an issue we would have to work with the Mayor on and Central Government on. But it is something that would stack up because it would be self-financing ultimately."You seem to be arguing against yourself, first saying that policies which might discourage vehicle use are ineffective, but then admitting that other factors such as ULEZ, might do just that! Further, more home deliveries are leading to less people using their cars, or not getting one in the first place. The fact remains that as London's population has grown, and home deliveries have increased, traffic has fallen. There is no reason to think this trend will not continue.I haven't said anything about traffic across the flyover being non discretionary. However, given that the number of vehicles crossing it have fallen by 26% since 2000, it's difficult to argue vehicle numbers on it are a fixed quantity that will take some "magic" to reduce. On current trends, traffic will have at least halved by the time the flyover reaches the end of its current life.

Tom Pike ● 20d

Even in the US, the home of car centred city design, there are lots of examples of freeway removal projects plus cities in other countries as well.Of course this is beyond the comprehension of the carbrained.Bonaventure Expressway Montreal, Canada 2016 Elevated highway demolished and replaced with an urban boulevard and parklandCatharijnebaan Utrecht, Netherlands 2010 Highway demolished and replaced with canal and green spaceCentral Freeway and Embarcadero Freeway San Francisco, United States 1993 Replaced by at-grade boulevards following 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakeCheonggye Elevated Highway Seoul, South Korea 2003 Replaced with artificial stream and green spaceCogswell Interchange (Harbour Drive) Halifax, Canada 2021 Freeway-to-boulevard conversionGardiner Expressway Toronto, Canada 2001 Partial demolition; exit ramps replaced with parklandHarbor DrivePortland, United States 1974 Demolished and replaced with Tom McCall Waterfront ParkInnerbelt Akron, United States 2017 Highway closed and redeveloped into parkland and urban developmentInner Loop Rochester, United States 2014 Replaced with surface streets and urban developmentNY 895 (Sheridan Expressway)New York City, United States 2017 Freeway-to-boulevard conversionOak Street Connector New Haven, United States 2013 Highway demolished and replaced with surface streets and urban developmentOklahoma City Crosstown Expressway Oklahoma City, United States 2002 Partial highway-to-boulevard conversionPark East Freeway Milwaukee, United States 2002 Demolished and repurposed into urban developmentNiagara Scenic Parkway Niagara Falls, United States 2019 Highway removed and replaced with surface streets and waterfront parklandSoutheast Freeway Washington, D.C., United States 2016 Partial freeway-to-boulevard conversionVoie Georges-Pompidou Paris, France 2016 Highway removed and replaced with public beaches and urban developmentWest Sacramento Freeway Sacramento, United States 2014 Highway removed and replaced with surface streets and urban developmentWest Side Elevated Highway New York City, United States 1977 Elevated highway demolished and replaced with urban boulevardZhongxiao Elevated Highway Taipei, Taiwan 2016 Elevated highway repurposed from roadway into elevated park. Section next to the North Gate demolished to give an unimpeded view of the gate.Riverfront Parkway (Chattanooga) Chattanooga, United States 2004 Freeway-to-boulevard conversionCypress Street Viaduct Oakland, United States 2005 Freeway-to-boulevard conversionPerimetral Highway Rio De Janeiro, Brazil 2015 Freeway transformed into public space

Michael Robinson ● 20d

As ever, I enjoy the irony in Michael's post. He seems blissfully unaware which makes it even more enjoyable. Whence people opposed the cycleway (dare I say asked for a re-design of something better) he was one saying offer up an alternative which he then summarily shot down as coming from unprofessionals guided by anecdotal evidence. Professionals gave us a mish mash that floods in a drizzle, but I digress.Vision isn't Michael's strong suit. This we know. Myopia is. Odd that tunnel vision can't see the light at the end of this one...

David Lesniak ● 20d

An interesting read about the 100th anniversary of the Great West Roadhttps://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2025/05/great-west-road-100.html?m=1

Andrew Jones ● 20d

"The historical route through the area was Chiswick High Rd leading on to King St, Hammersmith Rd.  The A4 as a route through Hammersmith was only built in the 1950s" ...........when there around four million vehicles in GB as opposed to forty odd today.Fortunately planners had the foresight to construct the Great West Road then. Now we need planners with the same foresight to cope with the future.

Adrian Irving ● 21d

'There are many examples of freeway removal projects all over the world'Lots more cities ensuring traffic flows. UK being bankrupted by Miliband's lot and these extreme Just Stop Oil green views he panders to.

Davy Jones ● 21d

"Observational evidence" isn't evidence Francis.  It is just an unreliable anecdote.Many people drive because it is habitual behaviour.  Habits can change.People opposing a tunnel don't need to propose an alternative option.  The people proposing the tunnel need to explain why it is better than alternatives.The historical route through the area was Chiswick High Rd leading on to King St, Hammersmith Rd.  The A4 as a route through Hammersmith was only built in the 1950s.There are many examples of freeway removal projects all over the world, for example, central Seoul. Redeveloping an area does not require existing traffic capacity to be maintained.

Michael Robinson ● 21d

Francis is spot on. A regenerative project such as this pays dividends for generations in ways often overlooked.

David Lesniak ● 21d

Has Cllr Cowan actually ever explicitly stated that the full cost of the tunnel would be covered by realised land value? All the previous statement that I could find from him and his council seem to suggest that it would only part fund it and central government and TfL cash would be needed. Obviously a project which is likely to cost £2billion is not going to be covered by land sales but if you take the increase in qualatitive value of the surrounding area plus the NPV of annual maintenance cost for the flyover you could argue that it is self funding in the broader sense.On the early question of evidence for a the majority of traffic over the flyover being non-discretionary, I know you don't like observational evidence but you will just have to take it from those of us who sometimes drive over it, that the largest proportion of the traffic is taken up by vans, lorries, visibly commercial use cars and Ubers. Even if you make the very dubious assumption that every private car is not being driven for private use, you will still struggle to make a case that the majority of people driving over the flyover are there by choice.On the relationship between population and vehicle growth, I was referring to the fallacy that suppressing private vehicle ownership means that you can avoid a growth in vehicle movements as population density increases, all other things remaining equal. Other factors may come into play, for instance ULEZ, to mean they are not directly linked and longer term London's population growth has not been matched by  vehicle movement growth. However, looking ahead, the increasing dependence of Londoners on next day delivery looks set to push the level of traffic ever higher. When asked to explain the increased level of traffic delays across Chiswick in 2024, Hounslow Council issued a statement blaming it not on the cycleway but population growth. Were they wrong?Those opposing both the flyunder and a new flyover have to explain what exactly they are proposing as a third option. Even if you were to some how magically halve the amount of traffic on a route that has been busy since Roman times, it is impossible to envisage how a ground based road network would comfortably handle volumes and not cause significant displacement. It seems to me that there is an element of shooting down proposals that are both challenging and ambitious while advocating for an alternative that is just pure fantasy.

Francis Rowe ● 21d

Dominik, which of the cities you mentioned have closed bridges to vehicles due to poor maintenance?As you know, this has a significant impact on efficiencies key to a functioning, thriving economy. I must admit the inclusion of Baltimore makes me laugh.

David Lesniak ● 34d

Steve Cowan, leader of LBH, has effectively confirmed the project is a fantasy by suggesting that the land freed up could cover the construction - the value of any extra building land is significantly less than any realistic tunneling costs. Similarly, the money raised by tolling Hammersmith Bridge would never be sufficient to pay for the  financing of the proposed strengthening projects. For both proposals, the costs far exceed the benefits, as demonstrated that it is left to Cowan to suggest these options rather than any company pursuing these as realistic financial opportunities.

Tom Pike ● 34d

New YorkSydneyAucklandMelbourneParisCopenhagenAmsterdamBaltimoreWhat these modern cities have in common is their restrictions on car use, either for reasons of pollution or infrastructure, or both.  They all share widely documented ambitions for reducing reliance on motor vehicles.I think there are conflicting ideas of a ‘modern city’ on this forum, with some based on personal preference rather than facts.

Dominik Klimowski ● 36d

>I wonder if they could have a branch tunnel leading off the flyover replacement one, going under the river ?We could knock down all the independent shops Church Road for the portal... or bring it up under the wetlands centre?

Paul James ● 37d

I wonder if they could have a branch tunnel leading off the flyover replacement one, going under the river ?

Richard Greenhough ● 37d

It depends on its use, Janice. Have you been across it recently? It has had extensive repairs (as we all know), and is  vastly improved. Any deterioration and ongoing repair will be determined by how it continues to be used, but at least the middle is open again.

Dominik Klimowski ● 38d

Spot on.And  New YorkSydneyAucklandMelbourneand many more

Steve Taylor ● 38d

>The bridge is not fit for purpose for a modern city.A modern city like?Paris?Copenhagen?Amsterdam?Baltimore?

Paul James ● 38d

The bridge is not fit for purpose for a modern city. The government certainly has the chicken feed money to repair the bridge. It just needs the political will. The current mayor is doing nothing to help. He loves the traffic chaos in west London. No mayor of any first world country would allow a major arterial bridge to be closed to motorised traffic for so long. It’s ridiculous and quite shameful.

Steve Taylor ● 38d

Seems old Dominik has some problems recognising how the real modern world operates. One wonders if he’s safe to be out on the roads.Not noticed all the Lorrie’s, buses, trucks, taxis as well as cars, Dom? Probably not, as your view seems to be obstructed by the position of your head somewhere around your rear end.The bridge is clearly not in perfect working order. As Janice said it will continue to deteriorate until it becomes a pointless exercise. Do you continually repair something that’s obsolete and expensive or replace it? A phone perhaps? A laptop? Any motor vehicle? Even a bike. No different with this bridge. Indeed, this thread started on the topic of Hammersmith flyover needing to be replaced at some point. Do keep up.

Simon Hayes ● 38d

It will continue to deteriorate and be an ongoing cost for repairs.

Janice Evans ● 38d

We buy our family groceries without driving to the shops. We either carry them, wheel them in a trolley, or take them on a bike. You’ll be surprised how much you can fit into bike panniers. I got 48 bottles of beer and a bottle of sherry in one, for a party a few years ago.My currently carless parents buy groceries, as did my carless grandparents. To my memory none of us were undernourished.I realise these examples are anecdotal, but there are thousands of people out there who do the same. You'd be surprised, Janice.:)

Dominik Klimowski ● 38d

No-one wants to pay to replace an entire bridge which is in full working order. It’s perfectly suitable for modern use, it's just that some people’s definition of modern use is already outdated.

Dominik Klimowski ● 38d

The Victorians would be laughing at us, but not for the reasons you think.

Dominik Klimowski ● 38d

The government could always find the money for infrastructure projects. TfL could also find the cash currently being wasted on nonsense active travel initiatives.As others have argued elsewhere building infrastructure creates economic benefits. Hammersmith Brudge is no different.

Simon Hayes ● 39d

"Of course it can be replaced, with an identical looking one if necessary, but one that is fit for modern use."Of course it could, but it goes without saying it would need to be paid for. And no one appears to be willing to stump up the money needed.

Andrew Jones ● 39d

Quite right Keith.It’s ironic that handsome old buildings are bulldozed when deemed beyond modern use, to be replaced by glass and metal monstrosities. Yet, a piece of important infrastructure only has aesthetic value now so the likes of Dominik can get misty eyed over it. Of course it can be replaced, with an identical looking one if necessary, but one that is fit for modern use.

Simon Hayes ● 39d

The Victorians would laugh at our ineptitude and dithering.

Keith Iddon ● 39d

The bridge has been 'sorted', only it will never be strong enough for the weight of traffic it had in later years.The only option is to replace it with another bridge, which no-one really wants or can afford. People have got used to it now, and Castelnau road, and the streets north of it are so much more pleasant now, as is the bridge itself. I'm there almost every other weekend and it's a positive transformation to the local area.I used to row under that bridge in the 80s and nowadays I still enjoy the views while crossing it. It's a beautiful landmark, in my opinion, and it features in the last James Bond film, for the trivia fans among you.

Dominik Klimowski ● 39d

Morrisons don't carry as much stock, and baking less, will say their fresh salad (not the mixed bags) and veg has good fridge life and never have to throw away food.

Janice Evans ● 39d

Paul balances everything on his head, one item on top of the other. He’s a very clever cyclist.A lot of people still prefer to shop in person, particularly for groceries. A car park is a definite benefit and also encourages passing trade. A case in point is the way the footfall in Brentford Morrisons has dropped off a cliff since it moved to its current location, with a subterranean car park that hardly anyone knows is there. Meanwhile the Lidl on the Morrisons former site is flourishing.There are a lot of people who park in Sainsbury’s in Chiswick to pop down to the High Road too. Convenience for those who are time pressed. Paul is lucky to have a ‘job’ that seems to entail doing very little most days.

Simon Hayes ● 39d

How do you carry groceries on a bike ?

Janice Evans ● 39d

"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..."Just your own simple maths, Paul.I see your also advocating for the reduction of super markets. Why not just kill the High Street off altogether while you're at it? It's clear to me you don't do the weekly shop. Or if you do, you do it for you? Maybe one other? But one can't shop for a family via bike. Not to mention this inane assumption that people only use a car for one thing at a time. That weekly shop often comes after dropping off the kids here, there and everywhere, getting the car serviced, picking up prescriptions, dropping off an elderly parent at the doctor, etc. Not that this is advanced calculus, but perhaps beyond your comprehension.

David Lesniak ● 39d

>He's assumed there are two options for groceries. Delivery and collection by car.Eh, as somebody that gets groceries deleivered sometimes, walks to the shop to get them, cycles to the shop to get them and sometimes (very rarely!) drives to the shop to get them I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion?I would mostly cycle to get them, one less car parking space used up, fewer motor vehicles on the road, benefits all.

Paul James ● 39d

Agreed, Simon. I'm new to Paultown but there are some interesting tidbits populating his brain.He's assumed there are two options for groceries. Delivery and collection by car.Of course people could walk but the advent and evolution of home delivery has changed footfall on the high streets. Not only for groceries but for all manner of retail. Banking anyone? Why bother if you can do it online. On the tube on your way home...Not for everyone but as the population ages this trend will only continue.

David Lesniak ● 39d

“the link has not been broken between population growth and the number of vehicle movements.”That’s just not true. First of all, the number of car trips per person has dropped dramatically in London, nearly halving over the last 20 years. Further, London has grown dramatically without expanding overall vehicle mileage over the same period. Last year 19.2 billion miles were driven with a population of nearly 10 million. Twenty years ago 20.4 billion miles were driven with a population of 7.4 million. So while the population has grown by a 34%, vehicle mileage has dropped by 6%. The link you claim simply does not exist. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-2024-car-ownership-trends-acc.pdfhttps://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/regions/6

Tom Pike ● 39d

its best to go to the supermarket or you miss all the reductions,

Janice Evans ● 40d

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 ● 40d

>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 ● 40d

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 ● 40d

>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 ● 40d

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 ● 40d

"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 ● 40d

>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 ● 40d

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 ● 40d

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

Paul James ● 40d

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

Janice Evans ● 40d

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

Paul James ● 40d

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

Janice Evans ● 40d

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

Janice Evans ● 40d

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 ● 40d

>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 ● 40d

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 ● 40d

And the bridge?

John Bird ● 41d

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 ● 41d

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 ● 41d

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 ● 41d

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 ● 41d

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 ● 41d

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 ● 41d

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 ● 42d

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 ● 42d

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 ● 42d

And yet you can all build a lovely sewer.

David Lesniak ● 42d

(and the A4 elevated section, and A40 westway)

Paul James ● 42d

...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 ● 42d

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 ● 42d

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

Peter Evans ● 42d