CS9 & Hammersmith Gyratory

TRANSPORT for LONDON has now finished its consultation on CYCLING SUPERHIGHWAY 9 along the line of King Street and Hammersmith Road. It  extends towards Hounslow.  In the LBHF section it is planned to be a 3m wide 2-way segregated cycle track.

On 13 February the Management Committee of hfcyclists AGREED the following .


Position Statement of support for CS9

hfyclists support the construction of the CS9 with improvement to routing and detail and would applaud returning to the original concept of CS9 from Hyde Park in the East to Heathrow Airport in the West.

We look forward to assisting LBHF and Transport for London in the detailed design and in the delivery of the CS9 scheme protected from motor traffic and in accordance with the London Cycling Design Standards.

hfcyclists believe that a safe protected cycleway for CS9 is essential for the health of West London and its population and we look forward to a cycleway suitable for all users including children, families, shoppers using local shops and cafes, senior citizens and those with impaired mobility, a cycleway for all connecting the town centres of Hammersmith with Kensington and Chiswick, Brentford, and Hounslow and suitable for a variety of cycles including cargo bikes and family carriers. A direct safe link between our town centres, our shopping centres, our work places and Central London.

We believe that CS9 will encourage people away from motor vehicles, improve physical health and encourage healthy families in Hammersmith and Fulham. CS9 is the key first step towards providing a safe cycle network in our borough.

We look forward to the construction of CS9 and to riding safely along its route.


The official LCC position is to support CS9  www.lcc.org.uk

Local groups, ie including us, are expected to follow LCC policy. However everyone in the group is free to have their own personal views and to express them if they do not claim them to be the view of the group.

On Monday 29 January at 7pm there was a PAC meeting at Hammersmith Town Hall where CS9 was on the Agenda.

John Griffiths  sent the PAC committee a file for the meeting which looks carefully at the traffic modelling for the gyratory and CS9 and looks at some of the implications  of the TfL files. Note this is the personal view of John and does not represent the view of hfcyclists or the LCC and John has never claimed that it does..

A revised version of that document can be found here



Plans used in Consultation still at:




LBHF wants to ensure everyone who might be affected can have their say, so will continue to accept feedback until January next year.

 Must bring benefits

“Cycling brings many benefits to the borough, but any suggested new route should serve the communities it passes through,” said Cllr Wesley Harcourt, H&F Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Residents’ Services.

“Local people have told us they want better and safer routes for cyclists, but residents also want to feel safe using the route as a casual rider, or crossing it as a pedestrian.

“This TfL proposal is a major piece of infrastructure, spanning the borough, so we’ve got to be sure this is absolutely the right scheme for all our residents and businesses.

“We want to hear as many people’s views as possible and that’s why we have extended our consultation time.”

Residents should email cycling@lbhf.gov.uk

Any additional responses I receive will be presented to the PAC meeting at the end of January alongside the TfL response report and then the committee response will help form my recommendation to the Cabinet member and then Cabinet in March 2018.




What is below is largely historic now. It is our response to the first consultation.



Consultation here


References refer to latest version of London Cycling Design Standards, which can be accessed as separate chapters via



It is very pleasing to see that something is being planned here. It is disappointing that this Better Junction Review does not take in all of the gyratory.

In a response to a question put by Darren Johnson AM on our behalf, Tfl have stated in an email on 9 February 2016

While there are existing cycle demands on routes in to and out of the gyratory which would not link directly to the scheme, we have focussed our proposals around the cycle route that we believe will benefit the largest number of cyclists while not adversely affecting traffic flow.”

It is disappointing that TfL are excluding any options that may adversely affect traffic flow, especially when one is hoping for modal shift away from private car use and one is hoping to reduce air pollution.


We have asked TfL and LBHF for the flow rates of cyclists for which this project has been designed. So far we have not been told. If the design does not cope with the number of cyclists using it, it may result in cyclists blocking pedestrian crossings or being left in the roadway. If the stepped track is not sufficiently wide to cope with the flow, then cyclists are more likely to drop off the edge.

If the peak flow rate is more than 200 / hr, then a 1.5m track is not sufficient. We do not know what flow rates this facility is being designed for, and it would be helpful to have these figures.

LCDS 4.4 Widths for cycling on carriageway

Figure 4.11 Summary of guidance on widths on carriageway

Recommended minima

Cycle tracks

including segregated

lanes (5)

one-way two-way

very low / low flow 1.5 metres 2.2 metres

medium flow 2.5 metres + 2.0 metres

high / very high flow 3.0 metres 4.0 metres +

(5) Flow categories are provided in figure 4.12 below. Edge conditions need to be taken into account with an extra 0.5 metres provided next to any object more than 50mm high. More width is also often needed around bends.

Figure 4.12a Peak hour flow categories for cyclists Figure

Peak hour

1-way lane/track 2-way track

Very low <100 <100

Low 100-200 100-300

Medium 200-800 300-1,000

High 800-1,200 1,000-1,500

Very high 1,200+ 1,500+


We have been informed by LBHF that the funding package behind this consultation only refers to parts of the gyratory and perhaps Blacks Road and/or Beadon Road. We will consider the consultation in two parts, those areas critical to the funding, and elsewhere. Starting by going clockwise around the gyratory



The mandatory cycle lane on Queen Caroline Street would only be used by cyclists coming from Hammersmith Bridge Road. Unless a cycle lane is going to be installed in the future on HBR there would appear to be no point in this track. Cyclists competent to handle HBR would be able to use the gyratory to get to Hammersmith Road. Cyclists on that lane look vulnerable to vehicles turning left into Blacks rd.


In Blacks Road there is only a westbound cycle lane at the entrance to it. Yet more cyclists use Blacks Rd going east.


A Sky-High Count on Us survey carried out on 4 July 2013 [supplied to us by TfL at the request of Darren Johnson AM] shows between 7am and 10am 289 east bound cyclists and only 9 west bound cyclists on Blacks rd. Between 3pm and 7pm it was 53 east bound, 49 west bound.

There should be cycle lanes for cyclists entering and leaving Blacks Road at the gyratory. There should not be a crossover for these cyclists. It is confused by this mystery of cyclists on the mandatory lane on the gyratory.


On the final curve as cyclists on King Street approach the gyratory they have vehicles heading straight for them before the vehicles veer off into King Street. This must be a very threatening situation. Buses and some other vehicles have a front overhang of over 2m, and a turning vehicle could easily extend 1m over any kerb protection. Pedestrians have a very high kerb barrier to protect them at this spot.

The left turn out of King Street appears to be a very sharp turn of about 120 degrees. The external radius appears to be about 3m. The track appears to 1.5m wide. There is also an island to be contended with when you are part way around the turn.

LCDS 4.5.8

At intersections where cyclists may not need to stop, a minimum external radius of 4 metres should be applied.


As the cyclists pass the crossing on the gyratory there may be pedestrians waiting to cross very close to the cycle track. This would restrict the effective width of the track.


If the crossing of the northbound leg of Shepherds bush road is pushbutton controlled, then it should have automatic detectors for the presence of waiting or approaching cyclists.

Cyclists wishing to go North on Shepherds Bush rd should have a bypass of the pedestrian crossing.

We have been told that there should be a green wave for cyclists across the top of the gyratory, or that they should only be stopped a few times. We have also been told that the reason for the removal of the crossing across Hammersmith road is that the area between the northbound and southbound legs of Shepherds Bush Road is required as a reservoir for waiting cyclists. TfL should make a clear case for the removal of this useful crossing; otherwise it should not be done.

There should be facilities to access to the Superhighway westbound for southbound cyclists on Shepherds Bush rd.


Concerning the island at the north end of Butterwick, we have been told that LBHF may have plans to have a 2-way cycle track on the south side of Hammersmith road going east.

Whatever the configuration of cycle tracks, there should be 2-way access for cyclists on this island:

to the north,

to the central Hammersmith Broadway transport interchange and

to the south and east allowing to travel south towards the Talgarth rd crossing.


The route Studland Road, Glenthorne Road and Beadon Road should be made as cyclist friendly as possible to take pressure off the superhighway. I completely support the idea of a wide bus lane in Beadon Road. It should allow cyclists to pass buses easily.


4.2.5 Stepped cycle tracks

Stepped cycle tracks are vertically separated from the footway and main carriageway in order to provide greater protection, safety and comfort than a cycle lane. They offer less separation and less protection than kerb-segregated lanes/tracks, but they may be regarded as a more subtle intervention and can offer more flexible access to the kerbside. The level change between footway and cycleway can also help legibility, with clarity about the function of different spaces for cycling and walking.

Stepped tracks are suitable for one-way with flow or contraflow provision but should not normally be used for two-way cycling. There are few examples in the UK of this type of infrastructure, so there is little established guidance. The model described here is based on Copenhagen’s typical cycling provision, and has been successfully applied to several locations in Brighton and Hove (see photo, right).

Stepped tracks have rarely been used in London. A good example of stepped tracks in London is in the northern section of Pancras Road, where there are 2m wide stepped tracks on either side of the road. Here Pancras Road is straight and has little place function or reason for cyclists or pedestrians to behave erratically. Image courtesy Camden Cyclists.


Full details can be seen at,


Another example of a stepped track in London is on Kennington Park rd close to the Oval. This image is taken from Google street view. Although this road is busier there is little kerbside activity, and there is a park on the other side of the road.



Unfortunately the consultation plan does not have dimensions marked on it and we have so far not been given access to any plan that has marked dimensions. It would be good if one could be supplied to us. However the stepped track on King street would appear to be about 1.5m wide with a marked edge of about 0.25m. The step down from the pavement is likely to be 50mm and the step down to the roadway is likely to be 75mm.

It is clear that a lot of design work has gone into fitting a route into the restricted space available. However the safety of cyclists does not appear to have been paramount. King Street is very busy with a high pedestrian density and activity and with many people crossing the street in an uncontrolled manner. The stepped track is contraflow, so pedestrians crossing the road will mainly be looking at the traffic looking for a gap and not noticing a cyclist coming from the other direction.

Cyclists themselves may behave erratically, stopping suddenly at a destination, or moving to avoid an obstacle or broken glass, causing those behind to move out to overtake.

Cargo bikes and bikes with boxes or trailers carrying children may be nearly 1m wide. That does not leave much room for a bike to overtake. Some cyclists may be going very fast. Some may be going very slow, with young children in tow or carrying shopping on the handlebars. At slow speeds particularly cyclists may wobble. In 1957 Lord Denning determined that motorists must ‘allow a cyclist their wobble’.

If a cyclist goes over the stepped edge it may result in a fall into the path of oncoming traffic. This route is meant to encourage beginners to cycle. Very careful consideration should be given to the level of protection given to cyclists.

LCDS 4.1.4 Selecting the right provision

Discusses the functional and aesthetic characteristics of streets as places.

LCDS 3.2.4

Figure 3.5 Cyclists’ effective width: key considerations

Recommended minimum clearance between the furthest extremity of a moving motor vehicle and the outside of the dynamic envelope of a cyclist at 20mph or less * 1.0m

Recommended minimum safe clearance at 30mph * 1.5m

*Greater clearances are recommended for larger vehicles



Shortly after Bridge Avenue the cycle track appears to have an area of footway flush with it to the right of the track. The track goes into a curve opposite a loading bay and the flush area to the right of the track disappears. Vehicles passing lorries in the loading bay will be right over on the right hand side of the road, with wing mirrors over the track. Because of the curve a cyclist may not be able to gauge how close to the kerb an approaching vehicle will be. It is also an area where people are likely to cross the road informally.


Just before the loading bay vehicles find that the roadway funnels right down to a narrow width. A vehicle following the left hand kerb will get a shock, as may a cyclist on the stepped track. Anyone following the centre line of the taper will also end up on the stepped track.



By the bus stop in King Street the carriageway is now about 0.8m narrower than before. The outside lane width beside the bus stop appears to 2.8 to 3.0m wide. Vehicles passing the bus stops will be right over on the right hand side of the road to give clearance to buses. Wing mirrors are likely to clip cyclists, if not worse. This is not the place to experiment stepped tracks of which there is no experience in places with a high place function.

Also losing nearly 1m of footway width at the busy bus stops is not very satisfactory for pedestrians.


A practical and safe design for cyclists must be presented for the area to the west of the gyratory. This is both for east and west bound cyclists. At the moment there is no route indicated for west bound cyclists, and that for east bound cyclists is not satisfactory.

If westbound cyclists are to be taken down to the A4 footway and then up Bridge Avenue to King street, the space on the A4 footway is very limited.

If they are to be taken up Angel Walk there is a loading bay just to the east in King street. The Hammersmith Ram could load from Blacks Road.

I hope a satisfactory design will emerge.

John Griffiths MA [Cantab] MSc UCLA

Acting Chair hfcyclists, local group of the London Cycling Campaign in H&F

122c Edith rd, West Kensington, W14 9AP

020 7371 1290 / 07789 095 748


23 February 2016.


Do they give us confidence in what they are doing?

TfL are working with LBHF to design improvements for cyclists at Hammersmith Gyratory.  This is part of the BETTER JUNCTIONS REVIEW. From the Better Junctions Review website we have

>>> We are working with Hammersmith and Fulham council to make Hammersmith gyratory safer and more accessible for cyclists. Our proposals, when ready, will provide major improvements for cyclists, fit in to the borough’s wider cycling strategy and complement the long-term vision for Hammersmith. Consultation is expected to take place in late 2015, with construction starting in 2016. For further information on this scheme please contact Graham Nash by email CustomerServicesRoads@tfl.gov.uk <<<

There are some problems with this. As yet the new Cycling Strategy has not been published.. A committee to form a long term vision for Hammersmith has not yet been set up.  The consultation may not be ready by the end of this year.


It would give confidence if TfL released the cyclist counts it is using for its planning work on the gyratory. It is possible that TfL have absolutely no idea of present cyclist use. To give an idea of the ratios travelling in different directions John and Lynn recently counted cyclists for 30 minutes towards the end of the evening peak.


Present cycle use [mainly high speed commuting] is not necessarily the same as that of the population of future cyclists that one should be planning for.

There are indications that the review may  concentrate on an east to west route linking Hammersmith Rd to King St. Such a route would be very welcome. This would be to fit in with a born-again Cycle Superhighway 9.   CS9 appeared to have died after problems getting a route through RBKC.

However we would like to see the gyratory made safe for cyclists coming from all directions.

It would be good if TfL and LBHF shared more of their thinking before we are offered a consultation.  Once plans are drawn up we have found that there is a great reluctance to make any significant changes.