1.1 This report outlines the effects of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to general traffic and describes two proposals for its future on which the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is consulting prior to deciding whether to apply this Autumn for a permanent restriction on general traffic.

2.1 In February 1997, following receipt of a load test inspection report, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham closed Hammersmith Bridge to all motor vehicle traffic, with the exception of small, single decker buses and emergency service vehicles, while repairs were carried out. Currently only one small bus can be on the bridge at a time in each direction as a result of the severe load restriction in place. The bridge is scheduled to re-open in Autumn 1999 and unless the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council takes further action the bridge will then operate at its previous capacity, i.e. general traffic with a 7.5 tonnes weight limit.

2.2 What appears to have been the relatively minor overall effects of the closure on general traffic flows and its benefits for bus movements, have opened up the debate on the future use of the bridge once it has been repaired. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham could seek to continue with the current restriction on general traffic permanently with the 7.5 tonne weight limit on the repaired bridge letting double decker buses on it without any restrictions on flow. However, any objections to a traffic order could trigger a public inquiry, with the Secretary of State becoming the final arbiter. Before deciding whether to apply for a permanent restriction order the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is consulting local residents, businesses and neighbouring Borough Councils on the future use of Hammersmith Bridge, and has requested the Royal Borough's response by June 1998, on whether the bridge should:

2.3 In addition to the consultation the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is carrying out with local residents, the London Borough of Wandsworth is consulting widely throughout the Putney area on these options, and the London Borough of Richmond is consulting in the Bames and Mortlake areas.

3. TRAFFIC EFFECTS OF THE HAMMERSMITH BRIDGF, CLOSURE

3.1 In broad terms the closure of Hammersmith Bridge was expected to result in:

An analysis of the origin and destination of traffic crossing Hammersmith Bridge during the morning peak hour undertaken by your officers using the Council's SATURN Muffle model, showed about a third having an origin or destination either in the Royal Borough or (the greater part) needing to pass through it. The closure might have been expected therefore to result in an overall decrease in traffic but with a possible increase in the south of the Borough, as a result of traffic from Hammersmith Bridge rerouting via Putney Bridge.

Immediately after the bridge closure the total 24 hour flow over the four bridges increased by around 8,500 (5%) over the autumn 1996 total, but since then measurements taken in October 1997 and March 1998 both show a reduction in the total 24 hour flow of around 12,000 (8%) below the Autumn 1996 total.

3.4. In respect of individual bridges, 24 hour flows on Battersea Bridge and Wandsworth Bridge appear to have fallen back to their Autumn 1996 levels, prior to the restrictions being introduced on Hammersmith Bridge, but Putney Bridge shows significant increases ranging from 42% in March 1997, 15% in October 1997 and '39% in March 1998. Monitoring by your officers of the 24 hour flaws on the 3 bridges into the Royal Borough (Battersea, Albert, and Chelsea) recorded insignificant changes before and after the closure. In respect of Battersea Bridge this flow was in line with the March 1998 flow, recorded by the Monitoring Group, which was only marginally above the flow recorded in 1994 and had fallen back from much larger flows recorded immediately after the closure.

3.5. There is some evidence that the large increase in traffic flow over Putney Bridge immediately after the closure of Hammersmith Bridge was reflected in an increase in the 24 hour traffic flow on Fulham Road recorded in an automatic traffic count undertaken by the Royal Borough, but an insignificant change in the 24 hour flow on King's Road. Although traffic flows on Fulham Road appear to have fallen back to previous levels they need to be watched in view of the continued high flow over Putney Bridge. However, it may be that Fulham Palace Road is taking most of this increase.

4. EFFECTS OF HAMMERSMITH BRIDGE CLOSURE ON BUS OPERATIONS

4.1 Changes were made to bus services crossing Hammersmith Bridge following its closure to general traffic, with the total number of buses during the morning peak increased from 38 to 41 buses per hour to accommodate anticipated additional demand. Route 33 which runs from Richmond to Hammersmith was increased from 8 to 12 buses per hour during peak periods, and from 6 to 1 0 in the off-peak. Route 9A which previously ran from Mortlake to Kensington was replaced by Route 209 which terminates at Hammersmith. The service was reduced from 24 to 23 buses per hour in the morning peak, from 12 to 1 0 buses per hour during the day and from 8 to 6 buses per hour after 9pm.

4.2 The numbers of bus passengers crossing the bridge has increased continuously since the closure reaching 23% by October 1997. The biggest increases have come from Mortlake on route 209 where usage has virtually doubled and from Roehampton on route 72, where usage is up by 75%.

4.3 Although there is clear evidence of significantly improved journey times and reliability for bus passengers 'joining local services across Hammersmith Bridge, the impact is less clear for passengers travelling longer distances on services crossing the bridge and on other services that might be affected by traffic diversion. London Transport Buses have found no clear evidence of worsening journey times or reliability in bus services using other bridges, but the TDfL is seeking further evidence for this assertion particularly in respect of services using Putney Bridge.

4.4 Passenger complaints appear to have risen sharply on routes using Hammersmith Bridge due to overcrowding and long, waits at stops. The lack of a through bus to Kensington was also raised in a survey of Bames and Mortlake residents which, Members will recall, was a major concern of officers of this Council at the time London Transport Buses was planning service changes for the bridge closure. To some extent, until the repairs are completed and larger buses can use the bridge, London Transport Buses is restricted in what they can do. However, these issues are being addressed and a further local route (the 283) was extended over the bridge on 3 0 May to Bames from Hammersmith. The frequency of route 72 has also -been increased (from 6 to 7 buses per hour) and the R69 'shoppers service' has been extended to 2 buses per hour during the peak periods, between Bames and Hammersmith.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 At this stage conclusions concerning the closure of Hammersmith Bridge will be tentative given that the outcome of three important pieces of work is still awaited:

5.2 However, the expected results of the closure outlined in 1 appear to have occurred without any harmful effects on the Royal Borough and, therefore, it is considered worthwhile to respond to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham at this stage stating, that the closure of Hammersmith Bridge appears not to have had a detrimental effect on the Royal Borough through an increase in traffic on roads in the south of the Borough. Nevertheless, this should be qualified that there is concern at the apparent significant increase in traffic crossing Putney Bridge and the overall environmental impact of this and its effect on bus services. The Royal Borough also wishes to have a much clearer view from London Transport Buses as to how it would wish to change bus services ('m respect of both bus type and routeing) should Hammersmith Bridge remain restricted to general traffic There is a strong argument that given the significant impact that the White City development will also have on bus services, there should be a thorough review of bus services in the area. It would also be useful to know the views of longer distance commuter coach operators, who may wish to operate services across Hammersmith Bridge.

5.3 It is also felt that London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham should assess more innovative options for restricting access to the bridge, such as certain off-peak openings to general traffic or permitting, multi-occupied cars across it.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 The Committee is RECOMMENDED to support at this stage the permanent closure of Hammersmith Bridge subject to the outcome of further work outlined in 5.1 and that the continued monitoring of traffic flows in the south of the Borough continues to show no increase there.

5.2 However, the expected results of the closure outlined in 3.1 appear to have occurred without any harmful effects on the Royal Borough and, therefore, it is considered worthwhile to respond to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham at this stage, stating that the closure of Hammersmith Bridge appears not to have had a detrimental effect on the Royal Borough through an increase in traffic on roads in the south of the Borough. Nevertheless, this should be qualified as there is considerable concern at the great increase in traffic flows over Putney Bridge and the resulting congestion there, and in the Putney High Street area, not only because of the adverse impact on traffic and the local environment, but also for residents and visitors to the Royal Borough who use this as a major access route to and from south-west London and beyond. The Royal Borough would like to have a clearer view of the overall environmental impact as well as its effect on bus services over Putney Bridge. The Royal Borough also wishes to have a much clearer view from London Transport Buses as to how it would wish to change bus services (in respect of both bus type and routing) should Hammersmith Bridge remain restricted to general traffic. There is a strong argument that given the significant impact that the White City development will also have on bus services, there should be a thorough review of bus services in the area. It would also be useful to know the views of longer distance commuter coach operators, who may wish to operate services across Hammersmith Bridge.

6.1 The Committee is RECOMMENDED to support at this stage the permanent closure of Hammersmith Bridge to general traffic, subject to the outcome of further work outlined in 5. 1, and that the continued monitoring of traffic flows in the south of the Borough continues to show no increase there.