While the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan is keen to spend £70 million of our money on a flawed Cycle Superhighway scheme there is a complete lack of progress on Flyunder proposal. Yet that would offer genuine improvements to cyclists – as well as the rest of us.
As the Hammersmith BID has said:
“The Hammersmith flyover bisects the town centre, cutting off access to the river and inhibiting pedestrian and cycle movement. A tunnel would provide an opportunity to reconnect the centre of Hammersmith with the riverside, creating an opportunity to invest in new public space and making the area more attractive for tourists, people who work in the area and local residents.”
Two months ago Caroline Pidgeon, a member of the London Assembly, put in a couple of pretty straightforward questions about it. She hasn’t even had an answer:
Hammersmith flyunder (1)
Caroline Pidgeon (14-Sept-2017)
Do you support the Hammersmith flyunder project?
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Hammersmith flyunder (2)
Caroline Pidgeon (14-Sept-2017)
What action have you taken to implement the proposed Hammersmith flyunder?
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Hammersmith and Fulham Forum 
Val Shawcross, deputy mayor for transport, has already said the tunnel was “bonkers” so you pretty certain that it won’t be happening.
Supporters of the tunnel have a naive belief that it would “reconnect the centre of Hammersmith with the riverside” but the tunnel would only address about half of the traffic going through Hammersmith. The other half would remain on the surface so there would still be 4 lanes of surface traffic blocking access to the riverside. And large tunnel portals as well.
If Hammersmith BID want to civilise the town centre, then they need to start with the objective of hugely reducing the volume of traffic and putting in place measures to do this.
The tunnel attempted to sweep the problem of traffic under the carpet so to speak, but it fails to do this.
One way to civilise the town centre would be to start fining cyclists who ride on the pavement, the wrong way down one way streets, and ignore pedestrian crossings and red lights. A compulsory licensing scheme similar to the car tax would be a good start.
The main purpose of the tunnel is allegedly to replace the aging Flyover. Not everyone who favours a tunnel is necessarily a property developer, but the long term vision in GLA circles is to engineer out gyratories, a sop to mega-corporate property developers who would benefit from the land freed up. Although this might reduce some traffic, it is anything but an environment measure.
A Green GLA member felt that even Ken Livingstone was too close to the property developers.
Any other sane advanced economy would have got on with the tunnel years ago.
Unfortunately in the Democratic Republic of Hammersmith, and City Hall, there is a group of vehicle haters who cannot bring themselves to support any measure which makes driving easier or reduces its impact on the environment. Punishment is the only answer, through narrowed roads, slower speeds and higher levies and taxes.
Yet another example of the UK’s pathological inability to improve and upgrade its infrastructure.
The trouble with making driving easier is that it means more people drive and how does more people driving reduce its impact on the environment?
Interesting that you refer to “vehicle haters”….I assume that means you are a “vehicle lover” and you just want more and more and more people driving through Hammersmith.
The gyratory gridlocked with vehicles must fill your heart with joy… just look at all those beautiful vehicles and because they aren’t moving, you can get a really good look at them as well!
The Flyunder is estimated to cost £2b.
It cannot be paid for by LBHF, not by London. Would Philip Hammond pay for it out of his Spring Budget infra fund?
Pingback: Labour have effectively abandoned the Flyunder scheme – Hammersmith and Fulham Forum