Report to Mayor's Board July 1998

21 July 1998

The report gives results and analysis on the effects of the closure of Hammersmith bridge to private vehicles and the results of the consultation process on options for its future use.

Env. D

Members are invited to consider for decision the three options set out in para 5 of the report as detailed on pages 14 and 15

1.1 HISTORY

Hammersmith Bridge was closed on 3 February 1997 to all traffic except buses, bicycles, motorcycles, emergency vehicles and pedestrians to allow essential repair works to its structure.

Although 90% of all vehicular traffic across the bridge was removed, it is estimated that 50% of all peak period person trips e.g. by bus or other modes continue to have access across the Thames at this location.

Strengthening works to Hammersmith Bridge are currently programmed for completion in the autumn of 1999 to meet the requirements of all traffic excluding buses within a 7.5 tonne limit.

Following decisions by the Policy, Resources and Urgency Committee on 18 November 1997 and 9 December 1997 extensive consultation has taken place with residents, neighbouring authorities and interested organisations on the following options:

The consultation process was publicised as widely as possible. All households in Hammersmith & Fulham were advised of the process through Streetlife, consultation packs were placed in libraries, an Internet Web site was set up with an e-mail address and a telephone hot line was put in place. Other local authorities were approached directly for their views, as were the emergency services, London Transport and the boroughs Tenants and Residents Associations.

2.1 The Government's Planning Policy Guidance: Transport states that:

"The key aim of the guidance is to ensure that local authorities carry out their land-use policies and transport programmes in ways which help to:

• reduce growth in the length and number of motorised journeys;
• encourage alternative means of travel which have less environmental impact; and hence
• reduce reliance on the private car.

In this way, local authorities will help meet the commitments in the Government's Sustainable Development Strategy to reduce the need to travel; influence the rate of traffic growth; and reduce the environmental impacts of transport overall. These policies will also make a significant contribution to the goal of improving urban quality and vitality.

" the key aim is to ensure that local authorities carry out their land use policies and transport programmes in ways which help to reduce growth in length and number of motorised journeys: encourage alternative means of travel which have less environmental impact; and hence reduce reliance on the private car."

2.2 Regional Planning Guidance for London (RPG3) has an emphasis on reducing the need to travel and promote alternatives to the car. The objectives include promoting greater use of the less polluting modes of transport and making walking and cycling safer and more convenient, making bus services more reliable and accessible, and shifting the balance between the relative cost of using public transport and the private car.

2.3 The UDP adopted in 1994 states the Council will

• seek to provide adequate accessibility, and will monitor such provision, for persons and goods consistent with the safety of the individual and a satisfactory local environment through the application of an appropriate combination of integrated land-use and transportation policies, taking full account of their regional implications."

• promote traffic restraint policies designed to restrain the level of potential demand below the level of available road capacity and will seek to allocate the road space made available to 'essential' traffic (including buses, cyclists and pedestrians).

• seek to ensure the Borough's road network caters safely and efficiently for all essential traffic movements and discourages the generation of additional traffic whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum.

• regularly monitor and review the performance of all roads to determine whether they are fulfilling their identified function or whether their classification should be changed to reflect the function actually being performed.

2.4 The London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC), responding on behalf of the Boroughs to the Traffic Reduction Act 1997, have commissioned consultants to develop traffic reduction targets for London with one objective being the need to improve air quality. The draft report indicates that Hammersmith and Fulham should reduce 1998 traffic levels by 30% by 2005 as its contribution to traffic reduction across the capital in order to help meet air quality standards.

2.5 The Governments emerging Integrated Transport Strategy, due out at the end of July 1998 will seek to reduce car use, improve air quality and promote public transport.

2.6 The Government published in February 1998 Traffic Management and Parking Guidance for London. The relevant core principles of Guidance were:

• The management of traffic and road space should be based on the movement of people and goods;
• Greater emphasis on measures to assist buses cyclists and pedestrians thereby opening up a wider set of transport choices for all and reducing dependency on the car.

3.1 TRAFFIC FLOW

Your officers have worked within a Thames bridges co-ordinating group with the Traffic Director and representatives of the Government Office for London, the Metropolitan Police the Highways Agency and all affected Highway Authorities to collect data and assess the effects of the bridge closure.

Traffic flows have been collected on affected roads over a considerable period (back to 1986) for all cross Thames bridges. These have been assessed to try and clarify the effects of the Hammersmith Bridge works.

This information is not especially helpful as the overall picture is continuously confused by the changes in accessibility caused by other bridge works throughout the assessment period. In 1996 prior to the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, Putney Bridge was subject to strengthening works reducing traffic flows substantially. This is reflected in the counts.

It is concluded that a minimum of 25% of the vehicular traffic using Hammersmith bridge has been removed from the network, either transferring to public transport or alternative modes or no longer taking place.

This percentage reduction is similar to other data collected by MVA consultants for other locations in Great Britain and Europe where road closures have resulted in fewer car trips taking place on the road network.

3.2 TRAFFIC IMPACT.

The bridge closed at short notice and traffic data on flow levels is not considered to be sufficiently robust to make totally definitive before and after bridge closure comparisons. Generally increasing car ownership and usage in and into London of approximately 2% is increasing traffic congestion and extending the peak periods. Similarly Thames bridges and especially Putney for example were in 1996 * subject to repair works and it is difficult to directly compare the annual traffic counts immediately before and after the closure. (Appendix 1)

The National Road Traffic Forecasts for this area indicated that between 1996 and 1998 traffic flows increased by approximately 3%. This would amount to an increase in demand of some 10,000 vehicle trips which may not be taking place by private vehicles due to the lack of capacity caused by the closure of Hammersmith Bridge.

The following is a summary of the effect of the bridge being closed to cars arising from the traffic counts and driver interview surveys carried out by Accent for London Transport. (Appendix 3)

• Of the 30,000 vehicles a day using the bridge a large proportion was "longer distance" traffic. Mean trip length was 27.3 miles during the day and 20 miles during peak hours.
• 76% were car trips, with 67% work trips of which 21% had a destination in the Borough (2260 in a 16 hr day)
• Traffic counts over the Thames bridges vary considerably from year to year, but overall there is 6% reduction in vehicles.
• It is estimated that 25% of work related traffic originating in the area has been surpressed. 9% has transferred to public transport, 10% to cycle or walk and 7% no longer making the particular journey due to changes in employment location etc.
• There was an initial 31% fall in car non-work trips. 14% to public transport, 10% to cycle or walk.

Independent consultants Halcrow Fox were appointed in 1998 by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to assess the available information collected by Accent and the Thames River Crossings Working Group and to assess by the use of traffic models the traffic and environmental impacts of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to private motor vehicles.

Their remit was to:

• identify actual traffic conditions following the bridge closure and to compare these, where possible, with data collected prior to the closure;
• to use the WILTRAM transportation model of the borough to assess and predicted the traffic and re-assignment effects of the closure;
• to identify the environmental impacts in terms of vehicle emissions.

The study found: [Appendix1]

• An increase in traffic flows was identified on Putney High St., Putney Bridge, Chiswick Bridge, Lower Richmond Rd, The Terrace (Mortlake), Fulham Rd, Fulham Palace Rd and Lillie Rd.
• Traffic reductions are identified on the approaches to Hammersmith Bridge, Hammersmith Flyover, Hammersmith Rd, Shepherds Bush Rd, Du Cane Rd, Castelnau, and Upper Richmond Rd.
• there has been an overall reduction in vehicles across the London bridges (6.3%); and
• there has been an increase in bus patronage on the routes using Hammersmith Bridge, and that 9% of drivers formally using the bridge have switched to public transport.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL

The transportation models indicate the substantial and significant improvement of Air Quality on the Hammersmith / Richmond river frontage and the Barnes area with pollution from motor vehicles reducing by over 40%. Overall in the borough there was a balance of effects with environmental conditions in Hammersmith and Shepherds Bush improving and the south of the borough and Putney reducing.

Consultants for the Council have used the results of the traffic modelling to assess the environmental impact of the bridge closure in terms of vehicle emissions. The overall impact of road traffic on air quality is based on the change in traffic levels and vehicle distance travelled. Impacts are measured in the total amount of pollution in the atmosphere. (Appendix 4)

A summary of the findings assuming no growth in traffic due to car ownership increases, etc. follows.

• There is a significant reduction in emissions in the Barnes area of about 40%.
• Moderate reductions in emissions in the Hammersmith (5%) and Roehampton (7%) areas.
• Moderate increases in emissions in the Putney (10%), Fulham (8%) and Mortlake (9%).

There is no net increase in environmental impact due to the additional restrictions on the bridge introduced in February 1997.

A check was carried out over the year before and after the closure using the continuously monitored pollutants at the Wandsworth site and the control site on Cromwell Road as published on Teletext and the Internet. These confirm that there has been no deterioration arising from the closure.

Overall the transportation model also indicates a similar result with a marginal decrease in overall pollution after the closure. The permanent air quality monitoring station at Wandsworth has shown a perceptible decrease in pollution since Hammersmith Bridge was closed.

3.4 PUBLIC TRANSPORT

London Transport have formally responded to the consultation and it is their unequivocal view that the bridge should remain permanently closed to general traffic and that "it represents the single most effective bus priority measure seen in London".

Impact studies by London Transport (Appendix 3) compared trends in attitude and behaviour prior to closure with results from a survey conducted immediately after closure and a subsequent survey conducted eight months later.

The study shows a reduction in commuting or employer's business trips and a significant reduction in the proportion of respondents using private transport for commuting or business purposes.

• improved journey times and reliability for bus passengers on services crossing Hammersmith Bridge
• increased demand for bus services traversing the bridge
• overcrowding on some bus services using Hammersmith Bridge
• slower journey times for passengers on routes using neighbouring bridges (e.g. Putney Bridge)
• increased journey times on routes along Fulham Palace Road

The view of London Transport and the main operator London United is that journey times have been reduced and reliability improved with an increase in passengers of over 23%. They have increased their peak period bus services to 52 buses per hour and their estimate is that an increase of approximately 1.2 million passenger trips per year has been achieved.

3.5 ROAD ACCIDENTS

A major study of the year preceding and following the closure has been carried out using the data provided by the London Accident Advisory Unit. All roads within a boundary affected by the closure, between the Uxbridge Road and the West Cross Route, the A3 and North / South Circular were assessed and these results are attached in Appendix 2. Accident numbers appear to have decreased overall in the year following the closure by 6%.

3.6 CYCLISTS/MOTORCYCLISTS

The Council has received many individual representations that the closure of the bridge to private cars has created a safe route for cyclists which is much appreciated by this interest group, as approximately 7700 cyclists use the bridge each week.

It has encouraged longer distance cycle traffic from the A3 and a significant value of local traffic as the absence of motor cars has inevitably made the routes into Hammersmith much more attractive.

Prior to the closure in 1991 815 cyclists per day between 7am and 7pm used the bridge and this increased to 1158 per day in a survey carried out post closure in October 1997. This traffic survey confirmed that some 6700 motorcyclists use the bridge each week.

3.7 PEDESTRIANS

Pedestrian traffic has not been directly assessed, but there are large numbers of individual movements across the bridge that are benefiting from the reduction in noise and environmental pollution on this route.

3.8 LEGISLATION

The relevant legislation is included in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Local Government Act 1985 and the Road Traffic Act 1991. If no action is taken the existing temporary traffic restriction order under Section 14 of the '84 Act lapses and the bridge automatically reopens when the repairs are completed.

If a decision is taken to introduce any additional permanent restrictions affecting the use of the bridge by motor vehicles a traffic regulation order must be promoted and advertised for objections.

Approval to such an order will be required of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if as is likely there is any substantive objections. In addition permission of the London Traffic Director who is directly answerable to the Secretary of State would be required as the bridge carries a designated secondary road.

4.1 The methods of consultation agreed by the PRU Committee on 18 September 1997 and 9 December 1997 were to:

• seek the views of elected bodies
• seek the views of statutory bodies
• seek the views of representative organisations both in and out of the borough
• invite the views of the public (Have Your Say) through written, verbal and e-mail response.

During the spring this year the Council conducted an extensive public consultation exercise with residents, neighbouring authorities and interested organisations on the following options:

A leaflet (Appendix 6) was provided and circulated in the boroughs of both Richmond upon Thames and Hammersmith and Fulham setting out the issues of principle as follows,

The London Borough of Wandsworth used a different format and content (Appendix 6A) in carrying out their in-borough survey.

In summary this borough received the following responses to the consultation

• London Transport and the London Borough's of Hounslow, Richmond upon Thames and Ealing, wish the bus priority /car restrictions to remain. Richmond has indicated they believe the issues should be considered by a public inquiry.
• The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has decided not to take a view at this stage.
• London Borough Wandsworth are in favour of removing the car restriction over the Bridge
• About 5400 borough responses were received with about 3 to 2 in favour of opening the bridge to cars.
• A petition of about 5450 signatures (4600 from outside the borough with 3000 of these from Greater London) was received to keep the restrictions to cars across the bridge. A further 400 written responses in support of the restriction were collected by LT and   further petitions of 475 against has been received.
• In all some 22,000 responses made by various forms of communication to the boroughs of Richmond upon Thames, Hammersmith and Wandsworth have been identified. These have split approximately evenly in total.
• Officers attended public meetings in Barnes, Putney, Hammersmith Embankment and Bishops Park the northern and southern ends of Fulham Palace road to present information and obtain feedback as part of the consultation exercise
• A full Internet site giving all available information has been available to any interested party to read or make a response to the consultation.

4.2 ELECTED BODIES

Formal responses have been received from the London Boroughs of Hounslow, Ealing and Richmond Upon Thames by way of Committee decisions, indicating support for Option 2.

The London Borough of Wandsworth has formally responded urging the reopening of the bridge.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has formally decided not to take a view at this stage.

Environmental Services Committee Report ESC/98/32.

Supporting Option 2.

Committee Report 4 to Planning and Transport Committee.

"Recommending Option 2 with caveats that the problems of commuter parking and rat-running traffic would need to be tackled."

Regeneration and Transport Committee- 16^th June 1998; Paper no 98/390

"Wandsworth Borough Council has consulted residents and businesses of the Putney and Roehampton areas on the future use of Hammersmith Bridge following completion of the strengthening works. A total of 4,225 respondents (83%) have voted in favour of re-opening the bridge to its former capacity and 846 respondents (17%) have voted to keep it closed to cars. Residents have expressed their concerns about the increased congestion in their area that has been caused by the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to cars and about the associated increase in pollution levels. Wandsworth Council objects to any permanent change in the Traffic Management Order covering the use of the Bridge and asks Hammersmith and Fulham Council to ensure that the repair works to the Bridge are completed as quickly as practicable and that it be returned to it's former 7.5 tonne operating capacity immediately upon completion of those repairs."

Committee Report 12 to Transport Sub Committee

"It is RECOMMENDED that the Sub-Committee agree to recommend to LB Hammersmith and Fulham that Hammersmith Bridge be open for buses, cycles and pedestrians only."

Copies of these reports are attached in Appendix 7.

4.3 STATUTORY BODIES

4.4 REPRESENTATIVE ORGANISATIONS

Responses (Appendix 9) received from representative organisations include:

From Residents Associations in Borough:

From other Organisations in Borough

From Residents Associations out of Borough:

From other Organisations out of Borough.

4.5 HAVE YOUR SAY

A total of 6371 responses were received, 4606 by letter or return of the form, 656 by telephone, 270 by Internet e-mail, 4 by fax and 1 in person with three petitions, one from Friends of the Earth with 5400 persons 834 within the borough supporting the continuation of restrictions and two totalling 475 from Fulham supporting the opening of the bridge to private cars.

The majority of responses, 5402 were from within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Of these in Borough responses nearly half were from the SW6 postal district and clearly supported re-opening the bridge (Option 1).

Public meetings were also held with residents of Fulham Reach / Embankment. Bishops Park, Putney, Barnes, and Hammersmith to explain the history and current information available. All available information has also been posted on the Councils special Internet web site throughout the consultation period.

The full range of summary responses are attached in Appendix 10

Responses from outside Hammersmith and Fulham show more support for Option 2 and were as follows;

The full details by authority are given in Appendix 10.

5. OPTIONS.

A) Open the bridge. Subject to 7.5 tonne weight restriction.

No technical justification is needed in support of this decision. If the bridge was structurally sound no decision would have been needed to maintain unrestricted use of the bridge.

Returning to unrestricted car use of the bridge will not in the medium term lead to a lowering of congestion in these areas. Car ownership levels are rising and any spare road capacity will quickly be absorbed by suppressed or generated traffic and then longer queues will take place in time.

If car traffic is allowed back on the bridge in the Autumn of 1999 the cross bridge bus services will be severely disrupted and service levels will revert back to their lower frequencies and unreliability. It is inevitable that serious congestion will re appear on the north side of Hammersmith Gyratory and Shepherds Bush Road giving further difficulties at Shepherds Bush Green and the Uxbridge road corridor.

These problems will arise directly from the decision to reopen the bridge possibly at the worst time of year after the clocks and the schools go back. It is predicted that increasing numbers of lock ups of the Gyratory can be expected in future years under this scenario.

The opening of the bridge will cause some relief to the Fulham, Mortlake and Putney areas, but this may not be perceptible during the normal working day due to the existing history pre-closure of traffic congestion in these areas. For example, surveys of weekday traffic flows in Fulham Palace Road (south of Ladbrooke Terrace) show, since the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, an increase of 80 vehicles per hour in the morning peak period (7am to 10am) and 12 vehicles per hour in the evening peak period (4pm to 7pm). The provision of extra bridge capacity may result in the generation of additional traffic up to 3%, the estimated increase in traffic demand since 1996 maintaining traffic flows on Fulham Place Road at or near the present levels.

(Unrestricted use by private vehicles of less than 7.5 tonne at night and weekend)

Although not specifically put forward for consideration as part of the leaflet consultation, some very specific concerns became apparent from public meetings and individual responses. Many residents especially in SW6 were particularly affected and inconvenienced by the effects of the closure at weekends. Few residents supported giving priority to long distance traffic through the borough.

Feedback from the public meetings attended in all the directly affected areas and from the full range of responses received indicate that a bus priority option which gave more car accessibility to residents should be considered as a compromise option arising from the consultation. The two advertised options for future bridge use whose implications are outlined in the consultation documents were either to open the bridge, or keep the existing restrictions to car traffic. It would be practicable to pursue an additional option, which re opened the bridge out of normal traffic and bus priority periods and at weekends. Such a scheme would, to be effective, enforceable and understandable by the motorist at large have to be simple and consistent as the bridge could not be opened and closed for periods during the day.

If bus priority measures are to be effective they need to be operational when the car traffic is at its highest levels. Making the bridge a bus priority corridor also requires enforcement to be as simple as possible and ideally self-enforcing. A practical period for bus priority operation would be around 6am to 11pm every day each week in order to avoid speeding, waiting and queuing of cars for the restriction to cars to start and stop. If members were to pursue this option there would be some flexibility in setting the specific hours, as these would have to be subject to a detailed assessment of the operational practicalities. It is felt that the problems at weekends set out at the public meetings and noted by your officers on the ground could be alleviated by re opening at weekends.

A decision of Council is required so that a traffic order can be advertised to permanently restrict cars on the bridge. The likely inquiry will need evidence from officers that the decision can be justified in terms of Government and Council policies and that the traffic and environmental impacts are acceptable.

This option will be simple and effective in dealing with the traffic management and restraint issues previously highlighted in Option B and would replicate the terms of the existing traffic order.

It will also be necessary to review traffic signal timings and consider further traffic management and further bus priority measures on a planned basis with the Traffic Director for London and other neighbouring authorities in order to deal with the increased traffic congestion, especially in the Fulham, Putney and Mortlake areas.

If either Option B or C is adopted the Council should pursue with London Transport the requirements for further improvements in bus services with, for example, the reinstatement of the no. 9 service from Barnes to Kensington High Street. Discussions with the London Borough of Wandsworth would also be pursued to promote further bus priority on both the Wandsworth and Putney bridges to seek to address peak period public transport issues across this area and northbound through the Fulham area.

The Council is required under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to advertise any proposal which will once the strengthening works are completed affect the status quo in respect of use of the bridge by private traffic under 7.5 tonnes. Any such order would have to be advertised and objections considered by this Council as the order making Traffic Authority. The road is also a designated road and prior to implementation of any order approval of the London Traffic Director who reports directly to the Secretary of State would be required.

The decision of the Mayors Board could be ratified (assuming call in to the Committee of the Council) in September 1998. An order would be advertised and objections sought before Christmas1998.

The Council is required to notify the Secretary of State where a Local Authority objects to the proposed exercise of its powers as Traffic Authority on a designated road such as Hammersmith Bridge and to give him such particulars of them as he may require.

The Secretary of State may then consult such persons as he thinks fit and may hold an inquiry. Any public inquiry could then be held in March / April 1999 and its report could then be considered by the Secretary of State in time for a decision prior to the completion of the strengthening in the Autumn of 1999.

Costs to the Council would be incurred as a result of holding the public inquiry but could be limited by determining that legal representation would be confined to a presentation of the case rather than the full process of cross and re examination of all witnesses.

This would allow the Inspector to hear evidence from all parties in a much more informal setting. Officer time costs would still however be incurred in preparing and presenting the case in support of the public transport option and responding to the Inspectors enquiries. It is considered that the lead body in presenting the benefits in such a case would be London Transport.

The inspector would be appointed by the Secretary of State and would, after collecting all the evidence and representations report on the findings for a decision by the Secretary of State. Subject to any reasonable inquiry and decision making timetable there is sufficient time before the strengthening works are completed for this process to be completed.

There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. A decision to promote a legal order may lead to a public inquiry and the costs of such would be determined by the approach decided upon by the Council and would be subject to a further report.

This page was last updated on 25/02/05   

Telephone 

020 8753 3085

e-mail

General Information: hbrep@hammersmithbridge.co.uk
Webmaster: webmaster@hammersmithbridge.co.uk