The local council in Hammersmith and Fulham have announced “Millions of pounds for transport”, which is their summary of their Local Implementation Plan (LIP) for transport, a statutory requirement which aligns local plans with Mayor aims and funding. The LIP contains measures both for all transport, and for cycling specifically – though cycling can be funded in both. These are currently with TfL for approval or modification before becoming approved and funded plans.
It must be said that LIPs are unwieldy and often vague documents. Each council seems to do it rather differently. Fortunately for us the Hammersmith and Fulham one is rather readable and self-explanatory. The latest LIP is the first formal response by the borough to The Mayor (of London)’s Cycling Vision from the spring, and also contains some hints on what the Mayor’s Cycling Commissioner sees as priorities in the borough. Hammersmith and Fulham has the unfortunate distinction of being neither a borough taking part in the Central London Grid nor an outer london borough able to bid to be a mini-holland. As such, the LIP, along with superhighway and quietway programmes are the best hope of seeing changes on the roads in the borough.
Objectives and Targets
The council has the following objectives and one note behind their transport strategy:
- To support sustainable population and employment growth in the five regeneration areas – White City, Earl’s Court/West Kensington, Hammersmith Town Centre, Fulham Riverside and Old Oak Common.
- To improve the efficiency of our road network. (reduce congestion)
- To improve the quality of our streets.
- To improve air quality in the borough.
- To make it easier for everyone to gain access to transport opportunities.
- To support residents and businesses by controlling parking spaces fairly.
- To reduce the number of people injured and killed on our streets.
They note:
Enforcement of traffic regulations is a key factor in ensuring that we meet our objectives and as such is a necessary complement to the LIP.
Presumably to remind councillors that despite complaints about enforcement of regulations in the borough they have been a key part of their attempt to meet targets to date. We’ve combined the targets and performance for the current period with the longer goals of the second LIP produced a few years ago. Red text denotes a missed target for 2013.
| target | indicator | baseline | 2013 target | 2013 performance | 2016 target | LIP2 Long-term target (indicative) |
| 1a | walking mode share (% of resident trips) | 36.90% | 37.50% | 39.00% | 37.95% | 40% (2030/31) |
| 1b | cycling mode share (% of resident trips) | 3.90% | 4.50% | 5.00% | 5.50% | 8% (2030/31) |
| 2 | bus service reliability (mins) | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 (2017/18) |
| 3 | asset condition (measuring condition of principal borough road network) | 8.40% | 8.40% | 7.00% | 8.40% | 10% (2017/18) |
| 4a | road casualties (ksi) | 110 | 99 | 78 | 90 | 51 (2030) |
| 4b | road casualties (all) | 721 | 649 | 737 | 595 | 558 (2030) |
| 5 | CO2 emissions (thousand tonnes per year) | 156 | 130 | 144 | 115 | 85 (2025) |
| 6a | 220 northbound journey time (mins) | 18.4 | 15.5 | 15.9 | 15 | 14 |
| 220 northbound reliability | 15.2 | 10 | 8.9 | 9 | 7 | |
| 220 southbound journey time | 18 | 16.5 | 15 | 16 | 14 | |
| 220 southbound reliability | 10.2 | 7 | 8.4 | 7 | 5 | |
| 6b | 237 eastbound journey time | 7 | 7.1 | 6.3 | 7 | 6 |
| 237 eastbound reliability | 4.3 | 3 | 4.4 | 3 | 3 | |
| 237 westbound journey time | 11.6 | 11.6 | 7.6 | 11 | 9 | |
| 237 westbound reliability | 7.9 | 5.5 | 4.1 | 5 | 4 | |
| 7 | school run (on foot or bike) | 42% | 49% | 52% | 52% | 70% |
The borough is currently under their KSI target, by some distance but has set a higher target than 2013 performance for 2016 despite long-term reductions. As we’ve noted on our casualty statistics page, KSIs are problematic to look at by single year figures locally but this is worrying. Note that the intent is to reach a KSI figure of 51 by 2030 (on a 3-year rolling average basis). Last year saw 31 reported cyclist KSIs in the borough, or 22 on a 3-year rolling average basis. We’ve reviewed the statistics in detail and fear that there is currently a growing trend and cannot see any evidence of casualty reduction in KSIs for cyclists.
On overall casualties the picture is rather more concerning with 2013 seeing 737 against a target of 649, but the borough has set a target of 595 for 2016. The officers commit to developing further interim targets for intermediate years between 2016 and 2031 – perhaps some should be set against particular modes or categories of users by vulnerability?
To look over LIP 2 in a little more detail it had some ideas of how targets were to be reached.
| Evidence | 1. The baseline of 3.9% is within the top quartile in London. The borough is relatively small and well suited to cycling2. Many schemes have been delivered over the last five to ten years to improve the number of people cycling in the borough3. The target should be read along side the walking target as these modes are interlinked
4. The trajectory is flat based on our proposed programme of investment up to 2013/14 5. We do not consider that the removal of the WEZ will have an impact on the cycling modal share |
Here are the more detailed points supplied against the cycling targets some years ago in LIP2.
| Key Actions – council | 1. To continue to deliver free or subsidised cycle training to schools in the borough and to adults who live, work or study in the borough2. To continue to deliver a range of initiatives through the smarter travel programme to encourage cycling3. To ensure the needs of cyclists are taken into account when developing and delivering highway improvements schemes
4. To continue to ensure that our road surface is in a good condition |
| Key Actions – others | 1. TfL – to deliver the cycle superhighways 9 and 10 in line with borough design aspirations. To extend the Mayors cycle hire scheme to the borough starting with a spur to the White City Opportunity area.2. Police – to continue to carry out enforcement and education initiatives with the council3. NHS – to continue to work with the council to educate residents about the health benefits of cycling |
| Risks | 1. Reduced funding for smarter travel initiatives2. Reduced funding for capital investment in the road network |
Then the policy focusses on actions. This saw the council priority as training and small measures along with consideration of cyclists and better road surfaces. Delivery of those last two points has not been entirely convincing. The actions by others seem more important to note here, you’ll see that the superhighways were top of the list.
| Key Actions – council | 1. Encourage more walking and cycling (specifically through the smarter travel programme). |
And meanwhile on the CO2 target, the council themselves placed cycling top of the list of key actions. Performance of 144kt was in line with the target for 2010, not 2013. Perhaps it will take more than mere encouragement to achieve the CO2 target using more walking and cycling.
| Lack of measures in other boroughs cancels out benefits in this borough |
A key risk in CO2 was lack of measures in other boroughs, a risk that was missed when it came to cycling. Clearly much of the thinking was about cycling within the borough rather than the longer distance trips that are common now in London, especially as commutes. I’ve also included the bus targets to give some idea of council ambitions for public transport. Of note I think is that in LIP2 they highlight this risk for bus journey targets.
There is a PDF map of the plans that follow. The plans are either neighbourhood, corridor or cycling specific, we’ve highlighted aspects that impact particularly upon cycling.
Neighbourhood Plans
- Eynham Road Neighbourhood (N1) – £42,300
- includes reference to cycling permeability
- Thornfield Road Neighbourhood (N2) – £37,600
- existing 20mph zone, improves to permeability possible
- Caxton Road Neighbourhood (N3) – £37,600
- area bordering Westfield, aiming to “soften urban enviornment
- North End Road (north) Neighbourhood (N4) – £61,100
- planning to review traffic calming, “[area suffers] rat running and through traffic which degrades the local environment”
- Hammersmith Town Centre Neighbourhood (N5) – £61,100
- “significant opportunity for investment.” and more disappointingly “it is likely that TfL’s cycle superhighway [9] will now not go ahead which was to pass through the town centre. This project will pick up some of the cycling and environmental improvements that were planned”
-
This is the key news, as this indicates that Hammersmith and Fulham council believe that objections to blue paint and segregation in Kensington High Street by Kensington and Chelsea council likely lead to cancellation of the project.
- Seagrave Road Neighbourhood (N6) – £61,100
- “an existing 20mph zone with associated traffic calming that would benefit from a review”
- Imperial Road Neighbourhood (N7) – £84,600
- “fill the gaps between the various section 106 agreements”
Corridor Plans
- New King’s Road/King’s Road Corridor (C1) – £169,200
- “exhibits a higher than average number of cyclist and motorcyclist casualties”. “any changes will take any future [RideLondon] events into consideration, alongside any future new roads linking the South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area.”
- Putney Bridge Approach Corridor (C2) – £94,000
- improvements include “upgrade of the existing pedestrian and cycle crossing“
- Australia Road Environmental Improvements (C3) – £329,000
- closing [Australia Road] between India Way and Canada Way to general traffic. Only pedestrians, cyclists, emergency vehicles, and maintenance vehicles will be allowed access.
- Kenmont Gardens Environmental Improvements (C4) – £225,600
- Improving and extending a “somewhat neglected pedestrianised area in Kenmont Gardens / Ponsard Road“
Smarter Travel & Local Transport Fund Projects
Under smarter travel the council commits £85,000 to cycle training, but notes this is a shortfall it will need to cover within cycling specific funds.
Local Transport Fund Projects has a budget of £100,000 from which
- school travel plan engineering measures
- cycle parking
- accessibility works (dropped kerbs etc)
- local traffic management projects
were funded in the most recent financial year. These project spends are approved through the year by the cabinet member for transport.
Borough Cycling Programme
Finally, actual cycling funds. Funding in this section is at most £315,000 if all is allocated. Note how much smaller this is than the corridor funding, which is arguably a better strand under which cycle route improvements be placed. All of this is subject to TfL approval, nothing is guaranteed.
Safer Streets for the bike (£59,000)
- Cycle training for adults and children – £20,000
- “additional funding reflects the greater emphasis being given by TfL to high quality cycle training, which gives cyclists the confidence and skills to ride on the roads and reduces their propensity to ride on pavements or disregard traffic regulations.”
The borough are increasing their funding on training because they feel the vision promotes it. Note that this is distinct from funding for lorry safety, which follows. Strangely the borough cites training and confidence as being the reason for cyclists to ride on pavements or salmon against one-way streets rather than poor quality of local cycle network.
- Safer lorries and vans – £19,000
- “work with the Council’s own fleet and commit to achieving gold standard accreditation with the Fleet Operators Recognition Scheme (FORS) by December 2014.”
- Safer Urban Driver (SUD) Training – £20,000
- “funding will allow an increased number of courses to be run and an increased number of drivers will benefit from the training”
Both of these are focussed on tackling dangers for cyclists (and other vulnerable road users) from HGVs and other larger vehicles. These moves follow from the council signing the London Cycling Campaigns ‘safer lorries’ pledge“. If you’re wondering what the training is like, LCC blogged about it a few years ago.
More people travelling by bike (£190,000)
- Cycle to school partnership – £180,000
- “first cycle to school partnership in the borough is centred around Wormholt Park”
- “Two networks have been identified in the area; a quieter route and a busier route. It is our aspiration to treat both routes; however we will prioritise the quieter route.” “We shall undertake an optioneering exercise to identify the most suitable infrastructure improvements for each link and junction on the route alongside softer measures delivered within the schools and in the wider area.”
Possibly the most welcome proposal, this is a clear intervention in support of the target to get more children cycling to school. Will £180,000 be enough to make a meaningful difference?
- Cycle parking – £10,000
- “install cycle parking hoops and possibly sheds on estate land to provide suitable facilities for the many flats in the borough”
- “100 spaces in 2014/15”
Good, though plenty of people in homes throughout the borough have issues finding cycle parking. A move towards provision on the roads would bring us in line with other leading cycling councils such as Brighton or Hackney.
Support for cycling (£66,000)
- Borough cycling strategies – £15,000
- “We would use this funding and in house resources to develop, consult on and publish a new cycling strategy. “
Existing strategy dates back to 2004 and is outdated, hopefully there is great scope to try and influence this. Side note: current strategy notes that LBHF is about as flat as the Netherlands. So the crucial difference is… 😉
- Monitoring – £15,000
- “A wide range of counts will be commissioned alongside attitudinal surveys (of both cyclists and noncyclists) to help prioritise investment.”
This is welcome, as even if hfcyclists did regular counts it couldn’t provide the detail necessary for full planning of a stronger network in the borough.
- Staffing – £36,000
- An extra officer to be shared with RBKC.
Presuming more is to be delivered, an increase in staffing is welcome. It is a bit of concern that if these elements aren’t funded yet then local activity in line with the vision will lag for another year at least.
Wider London Schemes
For this it’s best to quote point 6.9 in full
The high-profile cycling infrastructure scheme which have been announced by the Mayor – Cycling Crossrail, Cycle Superhighways and the Quietway network – will be funded by TfL through different mechanisms, the details of which we have yet to be notified. The support measures described above will enable us to start development work on these projects, which officers are currently discussing with the Mayor’s Cycling “Czar”, Andrew Gilligan. These discussions are at a preliminary stage, but Mr Gilligan has identified Hammersmith Broadway as a major barrier to cycling in the borough . The Mayor’s Cycle Hire scheme is on target to go live in most of the borough in December this year, and the measures described above will help to ensure that the scheme is used successfully, effectively and safely.
Hammersmith Broadway would have been somewhat tackled by Superhighway 9. Though the LIP states that Superhighway 9 is unlikely it does not yet follow that it won’t proceed until TfL and Gilligan make the formal decision to do so. We understand that there may be around three or four quietways to come, and cycle crossrail forms the only likely East-West Superhighway if Kensington and Chelsea block both blue paint and segregated infrastructure coming through their borough into Hammersmith and Fulham.
We await with interest to see what TfL make of Hammersmith and Fulham’s LIP. Cycle campaigners have largely grown tired of the LIP process because it has failed to deliver much (if any) improvement to cycling to date. A lot of the money in this LIP appears to be focussed on training and soft measures rather than infrastructure. That said, the cycle to school partnership and New King’s Road/King’s Road Corridor present an opportunity to see some interventions though with a low budget quality and ambition will be limited.
Key junctions will be remarkably expensive to tackle, and it is welcome that Gilligan has highlighted Hammersmith Broadway (but what of Hammersmith Bridge, Shepherd’s Bush Green etc.?). There is a question hanging in the air: How can our borough meet their targets on share and casualties when some of the interventions to support that depend on other councils, especially Kensington and Chelsea to change their policies? A skilled eye can already spot the differences in cycling provision between the boroughs as you head around London – is that going to become even more obvious?