(a) HAMMERSMITH BRIDGE - RESULTS OF CONSULTATION

1. Object

To report the results of the consultation exercise undertaken on the future of Hammersmith Bridge and to formulate the Committee's view to be reported back to Hammersmith and Fulham.

2. Recommendation

3. Details

3.2 In conjunction with external advisers, they have considered a range of options relating to the river crossing, both short and long term e.g.:

All the above have been discarded on the grounds of feasibility, cost/benefit and/or environmental considerations.

They consider two realistic options for future use are:

3.3 If the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham takes no further action, then the existing temporary Closure Order lapses when the repairs are completed, i.e. the bridge automatically re-opens to its previous operating capacity. If they decide to further restrict bridge usage permanently, then they need to promote a permanent restriction Order. This application would be advertised and any objections to the Secretary of State could trigger a public inquiry type procedure, when the Secretary of State becomes the final arbiter.

3.4 The Bridge is schedule to re-open in the Autumn of 1999. The repair works being undertaken are common to both options and commenced 1 June 1998. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham will consider the results of the consultation process in July 1998 and are asking this Council to respond by, the end of June 1998. If the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham decides to apply for a permanent restriction order, then there will still be more than 12 months for the Secretary of State to trigger any further processes before the bridge is schedule to be re-opened.

3.5 Because the bridge was closed at such short notice, reliable technical data on the impact of the closure on traffic flows etc. is limited. There were no traffic studies undertaken before closure against which to compare current data. London Transport Buses has carried out a limited survey of car drivers who used Hammersmith Bridge. The traffic across London's bridges is periodically measured and relevant data is attached as APPENDIX 'A', again, the value of this information is somewhat limited by the fact that it is extrapolated from data collected on a very limited timescale. The Traffic Director for London is co-ordinating the monitoring of traffic flows in the immediate area.

3.6 The traffic counts on individual bridges vary considerably. However, it is apparent that there has been a substantial increase in the combined traffic flows on the downstream bridges to the east with Putney and to a lesser extent Battersea showing sustained increases. The picture upstream is less clear. Flows on Chiswick Bridge show a small initial increase with Kew Bridge carrying a greater increase.

3.7 There are permanent count sites on the South Circular at Priests Bridge on Upper Richmond Road and on Mortlake Road. Records from these sites show little change in traffic flows since Hammersmith Bridge closed. At Priests Bridge westbound flows have increased by 1000 vch/day with no change eastbound. Mortlake Road shows no change northbound and a small drop southbound. Actual flows do not measure demand. Where demand exceeds capacity there is resulting queuing and congestion. Changes in traffic flow around the Upper Richmond Road/Clifford Avenue junction and increased congestion has led the Traffic Director for London to pursue modifications to this junction.

3.8 Monitoring has taken place to coincide with the London Offices Bridge Engineers Group (LOBEG) counts in the Sheen/Barnes/Mortlake area which show increased levels of traffic in The Terrace, Mortlake High Street and the Lower Richmond Road. In particular traffic counts on Mortlake High Street indicate a net increase of 3,000-4,000 vehicles per day (20% rise). The A205 South Circular Road is also monitored by the Highways Agency. The reduction on Castelnau is obvious to the observer.

London Transport Buses Survey

3.9 Data relating to the impact of the closure from a number of sources has been analysed and the overall impact of the closure is being assessed. Across the Bridge itself, there have been substantial increases in bus patronage and improvement in service performance. The effects elsewhere have proved more difficult to quantify. The results of the follow up survey commissioned by LT Buses into the attitudes and behaviour of former users of the Bridge is appended to this report at APPENDIX B. The survey gives an insight into driver behaviour but the percentages quoted need to be treated cautiously given the self selective nature of the sample.

3.10 The survey indicates that a significant number of car journeys (perhaps around a third) previously made by car are now being undertaken by other modes - or not made at all. Drivers continuing to use their cars use either Chiswick Bridge or Putney Bridge in approximately equal proportions and their journey times have increased.

3.11 Changes were made to bus services in the area following the closure. Route 33 which runs from Fulwell to Hammersmith was increased from eight to 12 buses per hour during peak periods and from six t ten per hour in the off peak. Route 9A which previously ran from Mortlake to Kensington was replaced by Route 209 which terminated at Hammersmith. The service was reduced from 24 to 22.5 buses per hour in the morning peak from 12 to 10 buses per hour during the day and from eight to six buses per hour after 9.00pm.

3.12 The table below shows the increase in passengers on certain of the routes following the Bridge closure. Passenger numbers have increased on all London United services. On route 33 boardings in the areas of Bames and Castelnau have increased by 46%.

3.13 Route 72 which has remained unchanged has seen an increase of 22% in passenger numbers travelling between Roehampton and Hammersmith. On the remainder of the route (Hammersmith to East Acton) an additional 1.100 passengers, an increase of 4% now use the route. Although Route 209 offers slightly less frequency than Route 9A it has seen the biggest increase in passenger numbers of the southern section of the route.

3.14 Routes 72 and 209 have seen reliability improvements and journey time reductions following closure of the Bridge. Route 33 has benefited from reduced journey times but traffic congestion is understood to be causing reliability problems in the Sheen area. This congestion is understood to have disbenefited bus operations on Service 238 also. Route 220 which uses Putney Bridge and Route 391 which crosses Kew Bridge have experienced increased running times following the closure. No patronage data was made available for either of these routes. Similarly, no data has been provided for Route 190 which uses Chiswick Bridge.

3.15 Improvements in regularity have been observed on routes using Hammersmith Bridge following the closure. Passenger complaints appear to have risen sharply since September 1997 due to overcrowding on buses on certain services and long waits at stops. It is understood that LT Buses and the operators are addressing these issues and the latest service proposals (1 April 1998) are shown in APPENDIX 'C,' The number of buses crossing Hammersmith Bridge in the peak hour has risen from preclosure level of 38 buses to 52 buses in each direction.

Summary

3.16 The data provided to date remains largely inconclusive as to the precise impact of the Hammersmith Bridge closure. Results of counts on the Thames bridges shows that cross river traffic has fluctuated considerably on a bridge by bridge basis but taken overall the level of traffic has fallen. This is at variance from that which would be expected from the general trend in traffic growth. Further validated counts and. possibly, a more detailed analysis of hourly floats linked to counts on bridge approach roads are necessary if a better understanding is to be achieved as to the impact of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge on traffic flows on other bridges.

3.17 There is evidence that the closure of Hammersmith Bridge has resulted in some car trips transferring to neighbouring bridges. Increased levels of traffic congestion now occur on a number of routes including Lower Richmond Road//Mortlake High street and parts of the South Circular. In addition there has been some trip suppression and/or transfer of trips to alternative modes (e.g. bus, walk, cycle) but the overall scale of this effect also is unclear. There is evidence of improved journey times and reliability for bus passengers joining services close to Hammersmith Bridge with increased bus patronage on these routes. It is unclear as to the impact for passengers travelling on services that might be affected by traffic diversion but there are indications of slower journey times for passengers on routes using neighbouring bridges (e.g. Putney Bridge).

3.18 The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham produced and funded a joint leaflet/questionnaire with this Authority on the options on the future of Hammersmith Bridge. Between 6 April and 18 May 1998. 32.000 questionnaires were programmed to be delivered to households and business addresses on the Surrey side of the River Thames and a further 10,000 questionnaires were distributed through libraries and the Civic Centre on the Middlesex side of the river. The proposed delivery programme is attached at APPENDIX D.

3.19 Two options which are viable were listed on the questionnaire, namely:

3.20 5,176 responses (12%) have been received and the analysis of returns by area is shown at APPENDIX E

3.21 The results indicate a similar pattern to that uncovered in the HAMBAG consultation last year, in that:

3.22 Similar consultations carried out in Putney have been reported in the press as a ratio of 8:1 to re-open the Bridge.

3.24 Press releases in mid-May and early June published the extended return date of 15 June 1998 and an up to date copy of the result table will be present on the evening. Due to the problems of the distribution of leaflets by the Post Office if would be unsafe to make assumptions based solely on the actual numbers of questionnaires returned. However, the ratios of support for the alternative options for each area are sufficiently, robust to give a strong indication of the views help by residents as a whole.

3.25 64 letters have been received in total, 14 (22%) in support of continuing the restrictions and 50 (78%) for re-opening. 26 letters were received direct by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham requesting a Public Inquiry into the future of the Bridge before any decisions is made.

3.26 Of the thirty Residents' Association/Amenity Groups etc. that were consulted, the responses from seven are shown in APPENDIX 'F" with a predominance for Option 1 where specific views have been given. A petition submitted by "A Bridge Too Far" states that 93% of traders in Barnes wants the bridge re-opened and details are shown in APPENDIX G. However, no analysis has been made to assess the complex changes in shopping patterns arising from the Bridge's closure.

3.27 A synopsis of the comments made on the questionnaires greatly reflects the location of the respondent and the option them wish to pursue.

        At one extreme:

        at the other end:

Commentary

3.28 T    he Council's policies as set out in the UDP and elsewhere seek to promote walking and cycling and encourage the use of public transport and to discourage unnecessary use of private cars. These policies are consistent with the growing consensus on transport policy in London which is being set out in an increasing number of Government policy documents and Acts of Parliament. These include revised Traffic Management and Parking Guidance, the Road Traffic Reduction Act, Air Quality Guidance and will be further reiterated in the forthcoming White Paper on Integrated Transport.

3.29    The changing emphasis can for example be seen in the revised aims of the red route network. The original aims sought "to improve the movement of all classes of traffic to do so without encouraging further car commuting into Central London or more traffic to cross the central area". The revised aims seeks "to facilitate the movement of people and goods to support reduced car commuting, especially into or across Inner London; to assist measures to reduce local traffic". Air pollution is generally a London wide issue with levels of pollutants depending primarily on weather and atmospheric conditions. However the closure of Hammersmith Bridge has led to a reduction of pollution levels in the North Bames area compared to other parts of the Borough. However, some increase in pollution levels will have occurred in areas where traffic flows and congestions have increased.

3.30    The closure of Hammersmith Bridge has led to some reduction in car use and encourage and supported the development of alternate modes and the use of public transport in particular. The environment in the North Barnes area has improved with the reduction in traffic and there has been a very significant and measurable reduction in road accident casualties in this area. The A306 is part of the London Bus Priority Network and the closure of the Bridge creates a high quality public transport corridor from a large residential area to the transport interchange at Hammersmith. Much would be lost if the Bridge were simply re-opened to traffic as before.

3.32 There are similar reports from other boroughs of increased congestion (e.g. Fulham Palace Road) and additional rat-running (e.g. Chiswick Grove Park Area). If the -Bridge remains closed these issues will need to be tackled.

3.33 If Hammersmith Bridge is re-opened consideration should be given to limiting the return of traffic to this route. In particular the Council could seek to:

3.34 If Hammersmith Bridge remains closed to general traffic the Council could seek to:

3.35 The Committee are asked to consider the two options and relevant mitigating steps. On balance, the longer term objectives of current Council and national policies and the development of high quality public transport services favours supporting the option of the Bridge remaining closed. Furthermore, if the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham adopt this option it will inevitably, lead to a public inquiry and a full exploration of all the issues before an independent inspector.

4. Financial Implications - The immediate financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report can be contained within existing revenue budget. In the longer term funding from both revenue and capital budgets will need to be identified to take forward new parking studies, traffic management schemes and bus priority measures.

5. Furtherance of Council Strategy and Environmental Implications - Continuing the restrictions on the Bridge accord with the Council Strategy to promote environmentally friendly traffic management and transportation policies to give priority to safety and the environment on the highway network.