Tag Archives: featured

Why the A315 is the best route for CS9

There’s been some talk about routing CS9 down the A4 instead of Chiswick High Road and King Street (aka the A315). Fans of this idea have touted it as a perfect pain-free solution, given the existence of a cycle track of sorts on it (in reality, legalised cycling on the pavement), and its distance from residential areas. But there are downsides to this route that its proponents haven’t mentioned. We really wish people pushing the A4 route were willing to look into the details. We also think the local political parties who have been advocating the A4 for CS9 without any consideration of the issues it raises, especially to the residents who would be most directly affected, have been particularly negligent in this regard.

Let’s look at the four big reasons why the A315 is the best route, and the things that proponents of the A4 route don’t want you to hear.

1. A significant majority of people prefer the A315

Firstly, look at the number of people cycling down the A4 as opposed to the A315. Department for Transport traffic counts show between three to six times more people cycling along the A315 compared to the A4.

Source: https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/
People who cycle have already voted for their choice of route. Protected cycle infrastructure along the A315 is therefore a considerably better investment in terms of the number of people who will use the route.
To emphasise this, the TfL consultation showed 60% support for the A315 route.

Advocates for alternative routes need to show evidence they are better used than the A315, and are supported by the public.

2. Because cyclist and pedestrian safety along the A315 needs to be improved

The A315 has a poor record for pedestrian and cyclist safety and has been claimed to the “fourth most dangerous road in Britain” based upon collisions per distance travelled. The collision rate along Chiswick High Rd and King St is representative of the overall road. Each star represents a collision involving a cycle or pedestrian between 2005 and 2016. It’s not pretty.

Source: https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/#17/51.49257/-0.25328/opencyclemap

Advocates for alternative routes need to explain their proposals to improve cyclist and pedestrian safety along the A315.

3. Because it will be used for ALL types of journeys

Transport for London research has identified 8.17 million daily trips made by motorised modes that could be cycled. Of these, 6.47 million trips could be cycled by most people in less than 20 minutes.
Over half (53%) of potentially cyclable trips are for shopping and leisure while 17% are for commuting.
Even for current cycling trips in London, over half (51%) are for shopping and leisure while 28% are for commuting. That demonstrates huge potential for increased cycling in London.

Cycle superhighways being “only for commuters” is a myth. To be used by the maximum number of people, the routes must cater for people using them for shopping and leisure purposes as well as going to work. That means the routes must go through the main town centres of Hammersmith, Chiswick, Brentford and Hounslow and not bypass them, as a route along the A4 would do.
Like any mode of transport, the purpose of people using the route will change by time of day and day of week. At 8am on a weekday, CS9 will have mainly people going to work. During other times however, it will be people going shopping or visiting the other amenities along the route.
There is substantial evidence that cycling improves the local economy. Research on London shopping streets has found people coming by car visit less often and spend less per month than people using other modes of transport. We understand the concerns of businesses to any possible downsides, but the it is wrong to claim that these concerns confirm a loss in trade will occur, when in fact quite the opposite will most likely occur if past schemes are any guide.

Advocates for alternative routes need to show why they would be used for people shopping and visiting other amenities.

4. Because the people who are proposing the A4 don’t understand the problems it would cause

Now for the elephant in the room. Invariably we find that people proposing the A4 have done no investigation into what would be required to turn it into a proper cycle route rather than the current situation, which is cycling on a pavement shared with pedestrians.
With the A4 option, CS9 would either be two segregated tracks on either side of the A4, or a two-way segregated track on one side. On the north side, the subway tunnels produce pinch points, leaving only room for one lane of CS9. That would require removing pedestrian access from one direction to the subways. On the south side there are also pinch points, leaving room for only a single lane of CS9, for example between Sutton Court Road and Eastbourne Road, in this case with complete loss of the pedestrian access. Therefore CS9 would have to be one lane on each side the A4, and it would require losing portions of pedestrian access along both sides.
If we want a dedicated cycleway and not just the current shared use provision, this would also require closing down pedestrian access to the existing tunnels, removing parking in front of people’s homes on the A4, compulsory purchase of strips of front gardens and cutting down scores of trees, like the current row of approximately 68 trees in the Chiswick section of the A4.
• What would you do here, where there’s not space to put in CS9 and keep any pavement for pedestrians?
• Maybe there’s more room on the south side?
• And after cutting off chunks of pedestrian access to make the space for CS9, you then have to start on the trees, and then finish with the parking!
We certainly don’t think that TfL would be up for rejigging the A4 a few feet first one way and then the other to allow CS9 to snake around the subway entrances, trees and and parking, and it actually gets more challenging towards Hammersmith with several subways built right up to the side of the road.
However, there are residential properties on the A4 which require access, thus making it impossible to take any more pavement space. So now a lane of the A4 is required, displacing traffic to Chiswick High Road and King Street. If we’re going to build a “proper superhighway” along the A4, closing down a lane would lead to considerable traffic displacement to the High Road. Not great for anyone. The A4 carries six times the traffic of the High Road (90,000 vehicles per day vs. 15,000 on the A315), so even if only 10% were displaced from a one third cut in capacity for a lane closure, that would add more than 50% to the traffic along the High Road.
As they say, where there’s a will there’s a way. Just maybe not in this case, hopefully.

People proposing the A4 have different motivations for doing so. It is the most convenient route for some people, and they would like to see the cycling facilities improved there, as do we. For others, proposing the A4 seems to be a coded way of saying “get those cyclists away from me”, and others may genuinely think it is a better solution but without actually having to look the detail. Whatever their motivations, advocates of the A4 route really need to provide more than the most basic of evidence for why their proposal is the better option, rather than relying on guesswork and gut feelings for their case.

In conclusion, we see no other route but to place CS9 along the route that has received clear majority backing in the consultation. With the growth of cycling as a mode of everyday transport in London, doing nothing is not an option, and although it’s fine to suggest alternatives, we need to hear clear, evidence-based reasoning for these options.

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.


LBHF are conducting a consultation on a 20mph speed limit in the Borough.  The main question is will it extend to most main roads or not, The cluster map below shows the location of cyclist fatalities and seriously injured from 2005 until recently.


When we combine the Pedestrian and Cyclist casualties the  results show a similar cluster around main roads, where people are going about there business. The cluster map below shows casualties from 2005 to 2014 from the police’s STATS19 data


The LBHF consultation is live until 31 July 2015. Whether you are a pedestrian or cyclist or motorist we urge you to make all main roads 20mph to produce a civilised Borough. Each household should receive a printed version of the questionnaire in the post.

But to make sure further Information and an online version of the questionnaire can be found here:


Please go there and fill in the questionnaire now. Say YES to the first question.

Our Nitrogen Dioxide Project


Alex Ingram has uploaded an ITV News piece on our work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntk3hkEQKEA
Download Summary Report  and Detailed Results as PDFs

 Summary report  at —  http://hfcyclists.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NO2_hfcyclists_ClientEarth_Report.pdf

Detailed Results and analysis Download at  http://hfcyclists.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NO2_hfcyclists_ClientEarth_results.pdf




Nitrogen dioxide is a noxious gas given out by petrol and diesel engines, but particularly by diesel engines. It aggravates asthma and leads to many early deaths.


Andrea Lee on left with Paul Saunderson and Susie Gretz

On 4 February four members of hfcyclists, joined by Andrea Lee from Client Earth set off to place 33 small NO2 detection tubes around Hammersmith Gyratory and Shepherds Bush Green. They were collected and replaced on 4 March, and the fresh tubes will be collected a month later. We hope to get the results sometime in April.


John Griffiths, Chair of hfcyclists, placing an NO2 tube

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham measures NO2 / pollution in a few locations around the Borough, but at a height of 3m. Our tests are to show if NO2 pollution levels are higher in places where the NO2 may be concentrated because of the local geometry and prevailing winds. We also want to see if the levels are  higher at breathing height and push-chair height.

We hope to use the results to inform and influence those making traffic decisions at Hammersmith Gyratory and Shepherds Bush Green. If the results turn out to be of general interest we will consider how to broadcast them more widely.


Several tubes will be used at each site, so there are not 30 separate sites. We are looking at places where there are a lot of people crowded together with a lot of traffic. The local geometry and prevailing winds can concentrate the pollution in certain areas.





Because of the potential for interference when tubes are placed at a lower height LBHF only place tubes at a height of 3m. Pollution levels lower down and closer to the source are expected to be higher, but we do not know by how much. We will be measuring at two heights, 3.0m and 2.25m at the same location. We hope that by extrapolating, this will give us an indication of the NO2 levels at 1.5m,  approximately breathing height.


An NO2 monitoring tube in situ

At a couple of places where we do not expect any interference to the tubes we will be measuring at heights of 3.0m, 2,25m, 1.5m and 0.5m. This may give us an indication as to whether children in pushchairs are exposed to greater levels of pollution, and by how much.

It should be pointed out that NO2 diffusion tubes are not considered a very exact method, and measuring for only two  months out of a year will not lead to very robust results, and they may be described as “indicative”.

We will use statistics on our results to see how much reliance can be placed upon them. However we do hope to  extract useful information from these tests that may be used to inform people making traffic [and health] decisions.


The level found for 2013 at the Hammersmith Broadway NO2 diffusion tube site was 89.5 microgram / cubic metre. The EU guideline  for the maximum value is 40μg/m3 . Levels above 60μg/m3 could lead to a potential exceedence of the NO2 hourly mean Air Quality Strategy objective.

This is an important consideration that traffic planners must take into account when deciding whether to give space to pedestrians and cyclists or to motor traffic.


We did not find any consistent difference between the values at 3.0m and at 2.25m. We were surprised that at some places the values were higher at 3.0m than at 2.25m. In the circumstances we combined the values at the two levels to give an average for that location.

This also meant that we could not extrapolate to estimate the NO2 concentrations at normal breathing height. However we were able to find how the NO2 values varied around our locations and how they compared to the NO2 value at the LBHF reference point.

At the two locations where we measured at 4 different heights we found a gradual increase in NO2 as we descended to pushchair height.

It is possible that the proximity of the Hammersmith flyover may have affected the height distribution of NO2.

We applied corrections

a] for the difference between our reference tubes and the readings from the Automatic Monitoring Station at Shepherds Bush Green.

b] to estimate an Annual Mean by taking into account how our months compared to the general trend over the last year.

On the following pages are charts showing the adjusted values. The EU limit is 40μg / m^3 [40 microgram per cubic metre].

NO2 results Chart

NO2 values compared to the EU limit of 40μg / m^3

Pushchair Chart

Graphic showing the relative NO2 pollution at different heights


Graphic showing relative NO2 values at different heights


1] The NO2 values were all well over the EU limit of 40μg / m^3 [40 microgram per cubic metre]. Most were more than 2x the EU limit.

2] In Hammersmith all the values apart from the one in Beadon Rd were greater than at the LBHF reference location by St Paul’s Church. This may be due to the Canyon Effect where in enclosed places the pollution is concentrated.

3] At Shepherds Bush Green there is an Automatic Monitoring Station. Around the area all the values are higher than at the monitoring station. The closest LBHF tube is on the Uxbridge road and does not have a very high reading.

4] At present LBHF uses indications of the NO2 pollution levels that are below those that actually exist in some of the busiest spots. To bring these values down to the EU limit some extraordinary measures must be taken. One such would be to encourage a massive modal shift towards cycling for shorter journeys. This would involve using the road space to encourage cycling.

5] Whilst we only measured NO2 values in two locations at pushchair height, we found the values at 0.5m to be about 30% greater than at 3.0m where LBHF makes its measurements. At a buggy height of 0.8m the NO2 value is about 25% greater than at 3m. Young children with developing lungs are especially vulnerable to the effects of NO2 pollution.


John Griffiths Chair hfcyclists

122c Edith road, West Kensington, W14 9AP

020 7371 1290 / 07789 095 748



Andrea Lee ClientEarth

Community Engagement Officer (Healthy Air London)

t. +44 207 749 5979

e. alee@clientearth.org


Healthy Streets


LCC and London Living Streets members and supporters will be requesting that the main party leaders commit to:

Submitting a high-quality and safe, Liveable Neighbourhood bid, based in an area with high potential for walking and cycling, that provides big wins for both and that takes major steps to prioritise people walking and cycling over private cars in the area during the course of your term.

My Liveable London Candidate Brief


My Liveable London Policy Brief


LCC Campaign Guide


Healthy Streets for London



Old stuff below

Hammersmith and Fulham Council have a new Draft Cycling Strategy which is now in the final days of consultation, with comments due by this Friday, 16th January – Now Extended to 2nd February 2015.

ou can review the strategy in full here and complete the council questionnaire. The strategy has taken on board briefings made by hfcyclists but does not yet contain firm commitments on how to deal with every barrier to cycling in the borough as identified in Space For Cycling. There is support for tackling major junctions, providing space for cycling, filtered permeability and 20mph so the tools are in discussion.

A proposed cycling network is also shared at the current high-level stage where not all alignments have been finalised. A positive sign is that there are two east-west superhighways proposed but unfortunately only the northern one is likely to continue all the way into town. The indicative quietways are likely to be many years away, and the junction improvement at Hammersmith Broadway by June 2017. Out most likely early change is to be 20mph and changes around Hammersmith Bridge.

Screenshot 2015-01-13 14.41.48

Let us know your thoughts below, here is a quick summary of the key items in the council’s strategy aims, but you should review the full strategy here.

The primary purpose of this Strategy is to increase the number of journeys made in the Borough.
The key objectives of the Cycling Strategy are:

  1. Enhance and extend cycle routes to create a comprehensive network
  2. Create more space for cycling to improve cycle safety
  3. Improve interactions between road users to reduce the perception of the risk of cycling
  4. Provide more cycle parking and cycle hire locations within the Borough

This will be achieved in a number of ways:

  • Collaborating with TfL on the development of Cycle Superhighways to extend the cycle network;

  • Implement a network of Quietways building on the existing cycle network;

  • Working with TfL on creating more space for cyclists through the Better Junctions programme;

  • Create a safer environment for cyclists by introducing 20mph speed limits across the Borough;

  • Provide cycle training for children and adults to increase participation and confidence in cycling;

  • Provide training to increase awareness between different road users and cyclists;

  • Increase the number of cycle storage and parking options;

  • Develop and expand the Barclays Cycle Hire scheme within the Borough; and

  • Ensure that new developments are designed to encourage cycling and provide adequate parking.

Hammersmith Bridge


It is expected that the roadway of Hammersmith Bridge will be completely closed for a year commencing January 2016. The footways will still be open.

On 25 April we had a ride over the bridge with LBHF Councillors. The object was to convince them that measures were needed to make cycling safer and more appealing on the bridge.


 Instead of the present paltry markings, meant to convey that cyclists should “hold the lane” at the pinch points


we want something more substantial that shows cyclists have priority on the bridge.


It would be good to have signs saying “DO NOT OVERTAKE CYCLISTS” but officialdom [Road Sign regulations] and anti-clutter sentiment weigh heavily against this.

John Griffiths has written to the Council hoping that they will include this in the Cycling Strategy at this late stage.


LBHF plan to consult on the Bridge and the approaches soon.  This is expected February 2015. They intend to give the bridge a 20 mph speed limit. This will necessitate signs on the bridge saying 20 mph.

In conversations with officers the have said they do not intend to have any notices or road markings indicating “Cyclist Priority”  or “Narrow Lanes – Do not overtake cyclists”

When the consultation appears I hope people will respond saying that these are essential . John Griffiths 25 Jan 2015

Last year we had a survey on Hammersmith Bridge which is now closed.  The survey started on 12 May 2014 and  has attracted 141 respondents. The survey was issued via cyclist email lists, leaflets handed out near Hammersmith Bridge and via the Hammersmith Today website and newsletter.

The survey asked about the new markings and logos placed on the bridge.  The markings were intended to encourage cyclists to ride in a primary position and to  “hold the lane” so that they could not be overtaken at pinch pints. The responsibility was placed on the cyclists to be brave, and not on the motorist to give way.

The headline results were

a] 32% believed that the message from the logos was that cyclists were meant to ride on the left so that they could be overtaken at the pinch points.

b] To the question “Do the markings make you feel safer?” the most popular response was that it makes no difference,followed by it makes it riskier for cyclists.

c] 95% wanted a 20mph limit installed as soon as possible.

Of the 141 respondents 62 live in H&F and 25 live in Richmond. Of the 141 respondents 44 work or study in H&F, 11 in Richmond.  Most were confident or very confident cyclists.

Conclusion from this survey is that the present system is not satisfactory.


We see the survey as a quest to look into the possible ways the bridge can be handled in the long term, especially as it is due for more serious renewal in 2015. However, in the immediate short term we continue to campaign for our demand in Space For Cycling to see the bridge and surrounding roads up to Hammersmith Broadway and beyond made 20mph.