Hammersmith Flyunder feasibility study by Hammersmith & Fulham Council

hammersmith flyunder feasibility study

HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM COUNCIL

Flyunder taskforce

Leaderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s foreword....................................... 3

Principal author Nicholas Ruxton-Boyle

Neale Stevenson Flyunder Champion

Chapter 1

Contributing authors Neale Stevenson Thomas Cardis Rob Mansfield

Nicholas Ruxton-Boyle Thomas Cardis H&F Council

TfL sponsor Tim Thomas Proof reading By:design Design By:design Photos Dean Wendelborn Artists impressions West London Link Design Photomontage Hayes Davidson

Jasper denBoeft Greater London Authority Geoff Burrage James McCool Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Mark Frost London Borough of Hounslow Ben Fryer London Borough of Richmond David Condon Tim Thomas Transport for London Tom Ryland Allan Baird West London Link Design

3D mapping zmapping

Patricia Bench Arun Sondhi Hammersmith BID

Printing Hammerprint

Peter Wright Halcrow

Champions summary................... 5

Key findings and recommendations........................... 9

Chapter 2 Introduction......................................... 1 1 Chapter 3

Local opinion...................................... 1 5

Borough letters................................ 2 5

Chapter 4

Option comparison...................... 2 9

Funding..................................................... 4 3 Chapter 5 Summary................................................. 4 7 Conclusions.......................................... 4 9

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

Illustrative view looking west at potential new commercial quarter around the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Arkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

Leader’s forward Going underground - a vision for an A4 ‘flyunder’ Since the emergency closure in December 2011, of Hammersmith’s ugly concrete flyover and the ensuing traffic chaos which affected swathes of west London, serious questions have been asked about the viability of the flyover. This elevated concrete monster has divided our town centre for decades, magnifying traffic noise and polluting our air in the process. It scythes through the heart of Hammersmith like our very own Berlin Wall, creating an imposing physical barrier that gobbles up space, blocks light and cuts residents and visitors off from the river while limiting business and trade. However, the escalating costs of maintenance and increased risk of failure focused minds on the alternatives to this decaying 50-year-old structure and, bizarrely, this divisive structure has had a unifying effect on West Londoners. Local architects West London Link Design presented their ideas for a replacement tunnel, which could unleash a ‘chain of opportunities’ along the A4. This tunnel combined with

overwhelming public support for a ‘flyunder’, led the council to commission this feasibility study. The report explores the benefits and challenges related to various tunnel options. World-renowned tunnel experts Halcrow, who were involved in the Channel Tunnel, tested the ground conditions and council transport planners have worked closely with Transport for London (TfL) officials and neighbouring boroughs to start the process of examining the options. An independent ‘Flyunder Champion’ - Neale Stevenson - was appointed to bring all of the various stakeholders, who are interested in burying the Hammersmith Flyover, together. Local residents were at the heart of the debate with a series of stakeholder meetings - including a major flyunder summit and transport select committee informing our thinking. The key findings show a tunnel replacement could take just three years to construct and could release up to a £1billion worth of former highway land and under-developed sites in the town centre to help pay for the works. The alternatives vary from a one-mile tunnel to a 2.5-mile tunnel, which is likely to cost between £218million and £1.7billion. The shortest option

would involve digging a ‘cut and cover’ tunnel 15 metres beneath the surface, while the longer tunnel would involve using boring machines. There is little doubt that some form of a tunnel would improve the quality of life for thousands of west Londoners and be a game changer for Hammersmith town centre. Meanwhile, traffic flows in and out of London would also be improved. A new flyunder would enable Hammersmith’s great divider to be torn down and reconnect our town centre with the river, making our once beautiful town an even more attractive place to visit or do business. This report is not an end point. It is a beginning. This is the council’s response to The Mayor of London’s Roads Task Force and it is now mainly for TfL, who own and manage the A4, to decide how to take the project forward.

Cllr Nicholas Botterill Leader Hammersmith & Fulham Council

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

Illustrative view looking south from Lyric Square.

CHAMPIONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S SUMMARY

he bottom line is that there are feasible options to replace the flyover with a tunnel - long or short. We can prove to Transport for London that it can

be done. Technical reports suggest these ideas can be executed, as planners outline a range of development options that could help finance the project. We look forward to hearing the Mayor of Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response. It is now down to the council, local residents and other stakeholders to work with TfL to establish the optimal solution - which will be the most acceptable trade-off between cost and disruption and improvements to the environmental and cultural life of the borough. I would suggest that all of the options significantly enhance Hammersmith Town Centre - while the most ambitious

Background At the request of H&F Council I have been overseeing a short study into the feasibility of replacing the Hammersmith Flyover with a tunnel. Professional leadership has come from Nicholas Ruxton-Boyle, the H&F Transport and Development Manager, whose contribution has been superb. The forced closure of the flyover for repair work in 2011 started a public debate on the options for replacement, which in turn excited the councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ambition for the potential environmental improvement of central Hammersmith. The debate is as lively as ever as we endure a second phase of repair work. Public support for the idea in principle was stunning, with 89 per cent of those consulted in local forums voicing their support. Interest in a better quality environment and an improved town centre and river access were highlighted as positives outcomes. Clearly there were concerns - most importantly the disruption caused by the build - but also in ensuring that any associated development was balanced.

transforms it.

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

The options Consultation with the public, stakeholders and technical experts steered us to looking at both a short like-for-like replacement for the flyover, and a longer, more ambitious route. We tested two longer versions, each extending from Sutton Court Road in the west to either North End Road or Earl’s Court Road in the east. In each instance we also tested the impact of junctions allowing traffic to join or leave the A4 rather than continue for the whole length of the tunnel.

Costs Costs range (depending on whether junctions are included) from approximately £200m for the short ‘cut and cover’ option to just under £2bn for the longer bored tunnels.

Impact on traffic flow Data shows that half of the traffic travelling east on the A4 past the Hogarth roundabout in Chiswick, turns off before it reaches Earl’s Court. This suggests that junctions at Shepherd’s Bush Road/Fulham Palace Road and North End Road might be needed to ensure that the new tunnel attracts enough traffic and doesn’t simply add to congestion on the existing local road network. Such junctions are, however, difficult to site in the

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t u dy

narrow network of the existing roads, and costs would be significantly higher.

A new Hammersmith While earlier ideas of tunnelling the A4 through Hammersmith had focused on development opportunities along the Great West Road/Talgarth Road strip, master planning suggests that any redevelopment should be focused on the area currently in the shadow of the flyover. The master planning exercise suggests a radically improved town centre. The focal point would undoubtedly create a new cultural sector - with the Lyric Theatre linked to the Apollo, adjoining a new public space around St Paul’s Church - all linked to the river. Removing the flyover would release approximately 360,000sqm of residential and commercial space.

Ranking the choices questions to resolve The disruption caused by a tunnel’s construction is broadly similar for both the long and short tunnels. The only difference is that the disruption associated with the short route is heavily focused on the already busy Hammersmith town centre. Therefore, decisions boil down to how well they each satisfy the primary objective of reinventing the town centre and how much they will cost.

As the long tunnel will only attract enough traffic if it has junctions - it is worth testing the public appetite to include junctions. However, we see the economic and environmental costs as considerable. The short tunnel has the advantage of being a decision for Hammersmith & Fulham Council and TfL, without the need to consult with other boroughs. However, the full realisation of a transformed town centre would need further detailed research on local traffic flows and a plan to ease the flow on the Hammersmith gyratory. Our work suggests a north-south tunnel would not be the most efficient way to achieve this solution. There may be a case for taking both long and short tunnel options further, with H&F Council and TfL working together on the concept for a short route, and with TfL exploring the strategic potential of the longer route. The work we have done to date has been greatly helped by close cooperation with our neighbouring boroughs. It may well be that under TfL sponsorship, the long route can be assessed in terms of how it also affects Hounslow’s ambitions for the A4 as it goes west, and how Kensington and Chelsea wish to resolve the north/south isues that affect the Earl’s Court one-way system.

While it was not in the remit of this study to recommend a specific solution, we have shown through public engagement that all options are technically feasible and displayed the relative affordability of each. We have also indicated what further work is needed and recommend that H&F Council and TfL work together to explore how this can be achieved. The lower cost estimates are likely to be seen as affordable when set against the value of the land, released through development. The public will, however, have to be comfortable with three years of disruption to the A4 and the local road network as the tunnel is built, and be satisfied that this is an acceptable reality for their substantial long term gain. We can show a path to a transformed Hammersmith town centre, with new public areas, a stronger cultural identity, new residential space in the heart of the town and an enhanced business and commercial offering. The environmental benefit of tunnelling and removing the flyover is compelling. In addition the tunnel would leave TfL with a more valuable asset, offering greater control on repair and maintenance budgets.

engagement and for the very constructive support offered by TfL. Most impressive, however, has been the engagement of the public in Hammersmith, who have shown strong support, detailed knowledge and have offered constructive criticism. Local residents clearly want rid of this 1960s eyesore and to be able to reclaim their town centre. I believe they hold the key to how quickly this idea is adopted. If the public continue with their strong vocal support, supporting the concept of a flyunder will be an essential part of every candidateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s manifesto at the next Mayoral election, fast-tracking the adoption of the flyunder scheme. The future really is in the hands of Hammersmith residents and businesses.

Neale Stevenson Independent Flyunder Champion

I would like to thank Halcrow for their expert advice, the planners for their input, the neighbouring boroughs for their support and

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

Illustrative view looking east from Furnivall Gardens.

key findings and recommendations 10 Key findings

10 Recommendations

These ten key findings are the result of the four elements of the feasibility study; engagement, traffic, geotechnical and masterplanning. It is recognised that further work is required to refine the estimates, approximations and assumptions made to allow the feasibility study to report:

These ten recommendations are for TfL to consider as the road authority for the A4, the strategic traffic authority for London and the transport authority for London. They are also made to the membership of the flyunder taskforce recognising the sub-regional influence of the project and the wider implications beyond transport.

There is a very high level of local support for burying the flyover; There is sub-regional support for tunnelling the A4; There are no known subterranean showstoppers; The longer the tunnel, the more construction lorries will be needed. However, this can be significantly reduced if the river is used; The longer the tunnel, the higher the construction cost will be. With the shorter option, the possibility of self-financing the scheme through releasing developable land in Hammersmith town centre is attractive; The longer the tunnel, the more geographically spread out the 18 months of surface disruption would be during the three-year construction period; Achieving a new Hammersmith town centre benefits from both the removal of the flyover and steps to address the Hammersmith Gyratory; There is a high level of traffic dispersion along the A4 corridor between Chiswick and Earlâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Court; Significant environmental and economic issues could arise by linking a main tunnel to north-south routes; and

TfL endorses the vision set out in this feasibility study; Terms of reference of a new strategic taskforce are established; Strategic aspirations and concerns are sought; A long term plan for the A4 corridor is developed; An appraisal framework is established to fully evaluate large scale road investment; River transport of tunnel dig spoil is investigated; Traffic modelling is undertaken to explore the opportunities offered by the longer tunnel alignments; The Hammersmith town centre masterplan is refined; A surface road network is developed and tested to support the masterplan; and Further geo-technical work is undertaken in order to improve confidence in the feasibility results.

Both tunnel lengths have positive and negative issues meaning that further local and strategic work should be undertaken.

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

introduction Introduction

A4 corridor

The Road Task Force (RTF) was set up by the Mayor of London in 2012 to consider the future challenges facing London’s roads and streets. It is an independent body, which brought together a wide range of interests and expertise. Its report, published in July 2013, sets out a new vision for London’s roads.

The following text is taken directly from the RTF report of which the Great West Road (A4) was one of the case studies.

Transport for London (TfL) published their response to the RTF at the same time and sets out the approach TfL, as the strategic highway authority for London, will take to implement its recommendations. This report is published as the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham’s response to both the RTF and TfL’s response to the RTF. The report concentrates on the opportunities identified in both documents for the A4 corridor in West London. The RTF establishes a clear and compelling agenda for change in London. It identifies that while progress has been made in recent years, there are three pressing, and interrelated, challenges ahead: • Tackling congestion by improving the efficient use of the network; • Providing better and safer public spaces and streets; and • Accommodating growing demands for more walking, cycling and public transport.

“The A4 is a major arterial road in west London carrying high volumes of traffic (more than 90,000 vehicles a day) between the M4 and central London.

The v and d ision for Lo irection street ndon’s roads s and Roads Task F orce Execu tive su mmary

Between Chiswick Roundabout and Hammersmith, the road causes severance and crossing opportunities are limited to subways. At Hammersmith, a flyover separates the arterial motorised traffic from the gyratory and town centre below. The flyover is visually intrusive and the high levels of motorised traffic generate noise and air pollution along the corridor. In the short term, further roll out of the split cycle offset optimisation technique (SCOOT) will improve journey time reliability, and improving subway conditions (the main crossing opportunities along the corridor) will help increase pedestrian safety and security.

However, to exploit the potential new surface developments and make greater use of Hammersmith’s established transport hub, longerterm proposals for providing alternative tunnelled routes for through traffic should be explored. This would have transformative effects on the town centre, greatly improving the quality of life for its residents, and reducing severance of communities along the corridor. Proposed street type: Arterial” TfL, in its response to the RTF and in particular to the concept of tunnelling, states: “London does not have the wide boulevards of Paris or the extensive grid system of New Delive Londo ring the visio n's str York at its disposal to eets a n for nd roa ds reallocate capacity to or from. And it’s clear that the public acceptability of any enhancements to the capability of London’s road network - including the creation of new facilities such as tunnels or underpasses to reduce the social and environmental impact of road traffic will depend on their being tangible community and business benefits from such enhancements. Transp

ort for

July 20 13

MAYO

R OF

London ’s resp

onse to

the Ro

ads Ta

sk Forc e

LOND

Transp

ort fo

r Lond

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

The RTF asserts the need for more radical measures to better balance the competing functions of the road network and to ultimately contribute to its vision of world-class streets, fit for the future. These measures includes different forms of suitably located and designed new or substitute infrastructure, such as floating roundabouts for cyclists and pedestrians, high quality bridges over arterial roads and opportunities for roofing or tunnelling under existing infrastructure at particular locations.

Background

A TUN NEL TO REPLAC A CHAI E THE N OF HAMM OPPO ERSMIT RTUN H FLYO ITIES VER: W

In 2012, prior to the RTF and TfL’s response, a group of west London architects known as West London Link Design (WLLD), in association with Halcrow Group and Hammersmith BID, presented a report titled: ‘A Tunnel to Replace the Hammersmith Flyover: A Chain of Opportunities’.

es t Lo nd on

Lin k De sig

n in ass oc iat ion

wi th th e Ha lcr ow

Gr ou p

an d Ha mm

TfL will establish a rolling research and development programme, the component studies of which will: • Review by mid-2014 possible locations for roofing over major roads, to minimise traffic impact, enable development and reduce community severance, especially to reduce community impacts in growth areas;

THE GREA T WES A TUNN T RO AD EL TO REPLA CE TH E HA

1860

KING

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

OPPO

II bom

OLISH

AND

A4 clos creating ed for two widespre plus ad disru years ption.

A view Street on St Paul’s from the Chu 1835 Broadwa rch and Que by y, pain Century James Polla ted arou en rd. port centHammersmit By the early nd London re for coac h was a majo 19th h rout r trans. es BUILDto and from (ALONGSNEW FLY IDE EXIS OVER TING)

b dam

age

A4 can stay construc open duri of land tion. Require mark stru s demolitiong ctures. n

S CHUR

Hammer developmsmith Broa dway c191 and dem ent store was foun 4 Palmer’s olished ded in in the SHO RT TUNN 1980 1886 (CUT’s. EL AND COV EXISTIN G FLYO ER TUNNEL VER ROU ON TE)

1949

Buildings 24 July destroyed 1944. The by a V1 flyin Furnivall Gardens area is now g bomb on covered . by

ST PAUL

TUNN (HOGAREL TH TO

S CHUR

The prop

osed rout

e of the

A4 Gre

at Wes

t Road

(Talgarth

Road wes

Hammer 1950’s. smith Broadwa y

tern exte

nsion)

and Ham

in the

Must be clear LUL 20m belo w surfa Flyover tracks. ce to must be tunnel starts. demolished before

h Flyo ver (viad

LONG (HOGARTUNNEL TH TO EARL’S ST PAUL

)

Deep bore tunn Clears surface el. A4, structur es belo A4 stays w construc open thro tion prog ugh mos t of ramme.

t Road

and the

proposed

flyover.

Lon don

Lin k De sign in ass oci

COURT)

Newspap Telegrap er photogr aph from Furnivall h, Septemb the Dail er y under Gardens and 9 1955 showing construc the Gre tion. at Wes t Road

atio n

wit h the Hal cro

w Gro up

and Ham me

rsm ith

BID

Tempora Furnivall ry works/si Gardens te logistics: Filling station by the Ark

At east rail cutt end gradient requires ing. At wes 400m t, to system. 200m to clear surface road

A new structur cutting through e, just like the no bene fit to Hamthe Borough, old, with mersmit h.

A new structur with the e, just benefit loss of local like the old, land to Ham mersmit marks. No h.

Prolonge d cons and truction disru Hammer ption. peri Benefits od smith when complete to .

East end suffers short same tunn problems Demolitio el option. as n of before completi flyover nece on, ssary

Reduced A4 barr impact of cons and wes ier eliminate truction. d t Ham mersmit from Chis wick h,

Deep bore tunn Surf

el. ace portals. level works only at A4 can end construc remain open tion. during

S CHUR

at Wes

ITIES

THE ARK

early

mersmit

uct).

The Gre

RTUN

REBUIL D

BRIDG

ST PAUL

1959

OPPO

DEM CH

of WW

AIN OF

ITIES

MITH

impact

FLYOV ER

RTUN

STREE

HAMMERS

ing the

ERSMITH

: A CH

AIN OF

S CHUR

Map show

REPLA CE TH

E HAMM

FLYOV ER

ST PAUL

We st

EL TO

SMITH

: A CH

• Assess the potential for relocating strategic traffic from the surface and free up space for other uses by the end of 2014; and • Assess, by mid-2015, the potential for ‘local’ re-located space (such as flyunders of floating roundabouts for cyclists) at particular pinch point locations on the network.”

A TUNN

MMER

We st

Lon don

No surfa Hammer ce level wor ks in East port smith. redevelo al to be integ rated pment with of Earl’ s Cou rt

Lin k De sign

in ass oci atio

North and Opportu South reun regenera nities for sust ited, developmtion and valu ainable able stretch ent released of rout along entir e, e

n wit h the Hal cro

w Gro up

and Ham me

rsm ith

BID

er sm ith

BID

This document is published in its entirety alongside this report and sets out high-level and conceptual options to replace the A4 between Chiswick and Earl’s Court with a tunnel. It states that this tunnel can transform the city by: • Reuniting north and south; • Reuniting Hammersmith and Chiswick with the river; • Rejuvenating the centre of Hammersmith; • Replacing traffic arteries with boulevards and avenues; and • Creating development opportunities for workplaces and homes.

WLLD were inspired to explore these opportunities due to the emergency structural works that TfL were required to undertake in 2011 to make the ageing structure safe. The full, and unplanned, closure of Hammersmith Flyover caused significant traffic problems in Hammersmith town centre as the A4 traffic was diverted around Hammersmith Gyratory which struggles to cope with peak traffic at present. The flyover is currently undergoing a multimillion pound, 18-month refurbishment, running until 2015 to extend the life of the 50-year-old structure. These works are planned and as such

have less of an impact on the surrounding road network. It is inevitable, however, that further works will be required which could take many forms, including its full replacement over the next 50 years. WLLD recognise that now is the time to start thinking more ambitiously about its eventual replacement and that a major infrastructure project, like a tunnel, in a high-density town centre, will take years to plan, procure and build. The time we have is long enough to plan the best solution or short enough to be forced into a quick and dirty fix.

Feasibility study It is for these reasons that H&F Council decided to undertake a feasibility study into a flyunder, to respond to the RTF and TfL publications, and to build on the WLLD vision. It was always recognised that TfL, as strategic highway authority for London, is ultimately responsible for the management and future planning of the A4. The feasibility project was designed in such a way that it would be prepared on TfL’s behalf to fill the gap between the aspirational RTF recommendations and the realistic TfL research and development programme.

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

local opinion It was apparent from the events held by the WLLD group in 2012 that there was significant local interest and support for digging a tunnel for the A4. This feasibility study seeks to build on this support and explore how residents and businesses saw the potential benefits and disbenefits of a tunnel.

The feasibility study was designed with extensive community engagement forming the majority of the early work stages. This was in order to ensure that further local opinion is sought to establish how the technical work stages would be taken forward. The below statement is taken directly from the feasibility study terms of reference: To establish, at a preliminary level, the aspirations and any concerns of local residents and businesses. This engagement was facilitated in a number of ways. First, a dedicated website was set up in order to provide a medium for communication with the wider community. This website received an unprecedented volume of traffic and received one of the highest number of posts the council has ever received. www.lbhf.gov.uk/flyunder Second, a flyunder summit was held in Hammersmith Town Hall on 10 October 2013. This was an opportunity for the public to see and hear about the work done to date and the feasibility study on the flyunder concept. The flyunder champion hosted the summit and heard a number of presentations, including from WLLD and TfL. The standing-room-only summit further confirmed the strong local interest, and saw a lively debate

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

gre

ere nt

agr

Do you agree with the council that the Hammersmith Flyover should be replaced with a flyunder?

isagree

iff

12%

Question 1

strongly d

disa

6% ind

on the aspirations and concerns of residents and businesses. Those attending were asked to complete an eight question survey designed to help develop the feasibility study work streams. The results from this questionnaire, alongside the web comments, were combined to form the basis for the study.

The results again confirmed the high level of support for a tunnel. However, it also established that there was a range of aspiration with regards to how long the tunnel should be and which routes it should connect to, if at all.

77%

strongly agree

Four main concerns emerged in regards to both construction and operation of a tunnel. The options that were tested as part of the study were appraised using these aspirations and concerns in order to allow a comparison against the options. The following pages summarise the early study engagement and helped establish the primary level local aspirations and concerns. These results provided a suitable mandate for the feasibility study to proceed and validated the councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resolution to work towards a tunnel replacement. There was a variety of reasons as to why 10 per cent of respondents did not agree with a tunnel replacement.

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

These ranged from people not having enough information at this stage of the study to make an informed decision, to the flyover being a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;beautiful structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, or those that said that the money would be better spent on public transport.

E R

RY BU

WEBB

WALL CR

CORN

HE IM CR BL

GRENFELL RD

PLACE

SOMERSET

AD RO

VIR

RO N ER

EL M L S

AN G R LE VIL CE PLA

Y CL

E CLARS RO MW

N DA NO LE WK

MUSG

PLA

MOORE

ADR

MAX

ITA

WAT

LORD S MS BERT

RN DA CE RD

EFFIE E CLOS

WOOD MEWS

HAR

HILARY CL

FULH M A EEN GR LHAM URT CO

ERIN

EFFI

Fulham Town Hall

NN WAIA Y

BROA

17 LA

Chelsea Football Ground

OWN WANSD CE PLA

TC E

W NY PE L'S R EA

Fulham Broadway

A LLONER CR

RO AD

ST ON OR RD

SO HE AT M

D RO A

AD RO

CRS

FULH

ROAD

ARGON

DI S AD

ROAD AY W

SHUTERS

TON RD

GRAT

T ZLIT HA

BEACONSFIELD TERRACE

ROAD

RO AD

PORT EN RD

RO E

ON CEYL

AD RO

RS COLET GARDENS

PURCEL

AVON

S M

ROYA

HO AY N

GIR DL E EY

SUN RD

WAY

RICHMOND

AD RO S

ES N H

HYDE PARK CORNER

BR ID CL GE OS BA E RT LE CR

ROYAL

OLAF HUNT

S H E P H E R D' S BUSH PLACE

AIT C

ROAD

WARWICK ROAD

NORTH END ROAD

BARONS COURT

R O AD

B R A M E LE Y

R O A D

B R A M L E Y

RF DA RD

AD RO

AP PL GART EROAD H

AUGU ST

INE

ANY

BE HE R G M M SP S RING VA LE TE R

BUSH

RD'S

SHEPHE

THE ARK RD

ALD INE ST

CAXTON

DUNS

BARB

EL'S CLOS E

SAMU

MERC PLAC ERS E

LUXEM BURG GARDEN S

BUTE

ROWAN

OAKL

U NA EL

LORIS RD

'S BUSH

SHEPHERD

ROAD

BUSH

ee Qu

MM E BR RSM IDG ITH E

T WRIGH

DRIVE

ADAM

ER ET S EW M

CART

DVE

CE ES

ITE

WYA

IFIE

SHEPHERD'S

E LIN

RS n MIT Es C a ro H tate li ne

BRIDGEVIEW

HA M

LL MA

DALLIN

STUDLAND

ELGIN CR

Y LB R BA

STREET

IDG E

RD GA

HOLCOMBE

ROAD

ST AIR AVE

ROAD

R A VE N S C O U R T AVE

RAVENSCOURT

NIGEL PLAYF

AVE

E CR

DORVILL

DALLING

EN SID

GRE

CHAMBON

CROMWELL AV

MACBETH

ROAD

PERC

DAVIS

VILLE

FIELD

STAR

CURWEN

WAY G

RIN

HOPGOOD

STANLAKE MEWS

POPLAR

MARKET

HAM ELLING

Y PERC

BUSH

ROAD

SHEPHERD'S

GROVE

WEST-

BRIDGE CL

CRES LO

BE CK ME LO W W S

ROAD

SOUTHWAY CLOSE

EW ND SU

CK BE

ROAD H AWK

GOLD

GROVE

HAVELOCK CL

ST PAN GDS

K O

D A O R

K IS AR M TA

WEST

LIO

FAX

HAMMERSMITH TOWN HALL

O SM ST UND

T RE E ST

ST O KE SL EY

HOGARTH ROUNDABOUT

ROAD

HOYLAK

ANDREW

ST RD GLENDUN

WOR CE STER DR

ROAD

SULGRAVE

RD SE OU SH LL WE

ROAD

AVENUE

SLE RLI CA

KINGSDOWN

STOC K

AVE

GLENTHAM GDNS

AT TG ES TER

ST HILDA'S RD

R HE

I N

LA LA

O N RO AD

IDY

U RO

ILEA

BRITISH

BRITISHVE GRO STH

ER AM MS

KLE

SS ID RO Y AD

LIF

Cemetery

MIC

LIF

E AV

Brompton

N CLO

AT HE W EAF SH RR DON TE E LV KE

H FIEE C LD K -

T UR

E AL ST

WHA

XB RO L P

RLA

TE ES

JERD

ROAD

D Y R E LE AL OND D GIR OA R'S

ST N'S JOH CLOSE

N UR

NST

ROAD

LACE MEWS

E AIT

TT KE

HAM WAL RD YA

KEM PSF ORD GDNS

EARDLEY

R GA

E Y PL

TON RD

R AG SE

LILL

STA

EU US IR MS

AD RO

LE DA MA RD

S ES PR CH EM OA PR

L'S

PE M SS RE PL

ROAD RO

West Brompton

RIC

T IVET RD

LO N

HIL RD

F AL

Earls Court

RO LM

TH OW CR OSE CL

M HO

ORT

ISM

AIN

DYA

ROAD

KILM

R PA OM AD RO

BLO

OLD

BIA

MIR

M CO

DLE

N UR

MERR

AD RO

Y CL

LERR

N LE AN M EE PL

ROAD

LIS SA ER TT BURY ROAD LE NE O ST ILLE RKV RD AD PA RO E LL AD VI RO SA RO ILLE AD KV OO RO BR R'S TE E PE P'S VILL R HO TE MAR IS

E TR

ALL

Y AM CL ER OM CO MEWS

ER OM CO AD RO RA SE RBA CLO BA TLE CAS

A D R O

TA ST

STR NE

GTH

ROAD

QU RY ROWBER CLOSE

AL OW

IL B

IS RV RD

R TE NS MU

SART

IL SM

BRON

FULH

Building LIE

ING

UT TN ES Y CH LE AL

AISGILL AVENUE

ROAD

LGRA

D OA

LIL

FORT

BEAU MS

M HO

ONE

TELEPH PL

Clem Attlee Estate

ITH SM HN UE EN AV

Empress

S H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy BANK OW MEAD E CLOS

GARD ENS

PLACE

SUN RD

END

IE AV AN ST L C

LL WE ES

CR PH

IV A TT

MO BEAU CR

CLOS

HUGH LL GAITSKE CL

T AN LL D A RO

ROAD

S S

T ES

ail al R tion

IS W

CLOS

TER NS WS ME

ET RE AD ST RO EE TR E AIN LIN SA KE RO OO AD BR RO ER SH AD IN RO BA OR F'S OLA OAD ST ER

ORD

N TO ST

TIL

A RO

WK LINE CARO E NN BAYO RD

VILL

KE RO MB S N GD

E EVILL

YLA

Y RD

DAWE

THAXTO

ROAD

SON

D OA

VE R SQ N

State

MARCHBANK

ARET MARGRAM ING E CLOS

Earls Court Exhibition Building

FRANKLIN

CHES

ark

ST M AY VINE

ARCH

HUGH DALTON AVE

AR N W

AISGILL

FANE ST

TURN

MBO

STR

PLA

RN V E NE

D UN

man

LIE

Nor

LIL

Gibbs Green Estate

Fulham Pools

A RO

PPE

ROAD

BE BRAM

RID

REY PL

EL CH RD N ESSO

RT ST

AD RO

S EN

MB PE

NER

D AN RM NO MS CLUB

L EL D

WELL

CROM

DIE

NS SUN RD

ERN TU LE VIL RD

FAIR

R WA

RY MA T'S BO PL

KE NS INGTON HALL GDS

ALLO CH

WE Y UN WS CL ME

MONT

STAR

L EL NN HA AD RO

NIN

LANF

SE EE CH ARD ORCH SQ

MAY

ND MOE CRAM CLOS

KIN

EN QUE

CE EN

N LAW

HOLY

OLM

N'S EE S GD

CLO

PE OR TH BLE AD AD RO RO

END

CR ES

S NE TA

ROAD

S ELAFORD

LIA

IRH

BEAU

VIL

REK

DS GLE

LE AR

AD ON RO

SE O N LO NE L FE P

BREC

A CH

S BR

FIELD

BOTHWELL STREET

KSMOO HAW STREET

DISB

AN W RD ICK

VIL

DENS

ITH

DE AR SQ

WES

ST W'S E DR

BREC

Fulham Cemetery

COM S W ME

LLIS

N TO

ING

MBO

GAR

LAM

West Kensington

ROAD

Club

NIT

ROAD

TLET

E OK S GD

M PE

ROAD

CAS

The Queen's

ROAD

TREVANION

GLAZBURY

GLIDDON

MER

A RO

ROAD

COURT OA

R TH

ROAD

AV R

BARON'S

RTO

GWENDWR

Option 3

ITH

R NO

Burne Jones House

MES JA FITZ VE A

FIT ZAVE

H RT NO

ON MS

LIS

Y AB

HIG

RL ON ST MARCUS RLE EET GARVEY GOGEORGE R PARK ST

MBE

GUNTERSTO

EDITH

PET

RSB

ON AV RE MO E AC PL

MO AVON

MAR

H- T S UT S O MBE TTE CO RLO S

A MEW N CH E ND MU ST L RIO AU

STRO

W KING

PIA

S ON LY ALK W

YM OL

AD BISH

IE AP

O DIS AD

STR

WOOD

PIE

DIS

TOCK

ODS

ROAD

PR IORY

WK HEA S D RD

GDNS

BO TS

DIS

D PK

A AD

LLAN

QUEEN

L A I L

V W

AT RD S

AND NORL SQ AND NORL SQ

LILY

R ESTE E T ILCH PLAC UR CO OD WO OAK URT CO RY U LB ME

D EFIEL

STR

Option 2

ISE

PAYN

SIA

CILL

STR

HEAF EATS LANE

WILSON'S

EY ADEN E CLOS

T EE

RD LAND ME RT PO ODRO S HIPP MEW

O L

AIR

K WK

C WK

R SS

A D

ROAD

EY PETL

R O

LILLIE

CRES

L-

A RO

GREY HOUND

RTO

SIL

B RA

L-

ILLE

ELL

ALI

STE

RE E ST

DELO

AD RO

SIN

STRE

ILL

INV

CH EG CR GER ES

A L L

CLA

HEID

RD FO ELMS OSE CL N'S ALBA ST TER

UND

AVER

ITT

K FOL NOR R TER

EYHO

E AV GR RD IN

OAK

NLEA

E ILL RV ME SO AV OSE EN AS DVE IEL OR E DV

PLAC

N DO EVER AD RO

LL WFE RD

ROA

INT SA S ND MU SQ

RD BO

ASPE

D AN LL S HO GDN

W DE

OO KW LN

E OV

Hospital

WIT

RO YB RD

ADDISON

MACL

Hammersmith Cemetery

CLA

M KINGHA SE CLO ATER CLEARW TCE

OD ROAD

GAR DENS

CLA

AVEN

VILLA

AND NORL RD

VIN

EENS QU WK DALE

ANN'S

LE NSDA PL

SON

S-

QUEE

ADDI

OSE

CLOS

Baron's Court

RG MA

ITH

ROAD

ING COWLOSE CL

Cross

WYA

N'S

WO MO

Charing

ALI

AM GORH PL

AN ALE SD S KING EN RD GA

SHORT LANDS

ROAD

N'S

PORT

ROAD

PARK

ESEN CR

AIR YF PLA ST

Park

A RO

ROAD

EIGH

E D AL

L RY

R TE

EL ND

RD VE

NS QUEE

BIS

Frank

MARG

LLAN PK

Linacre Court

RO M

Kensington (Olympia)

RAVIN

RIN

Olympia

RD O XF ATE G

ROAD

Banfield

TIL

TRINITY

EL ON ST

DIS

TALGARTH

D EL

Y ER TILL LANE DIS

ROWAN TERRACE

SLO

WIN

VIE

H F UL

MITH

WATERHOUSE CLOSE

ine

MIL

CL AR

WOLVERTON GARDENS

RWICK BUTTE

L WALK ANGE

AR SIRD

A32

ROAD

RIV

ROA

HAMMERS

RLAN PL

ROAD

CHALK HILL ROAD

JA R TE ST ST Riverside

Studios

EIG SL

ONE

RIV

Guinness Estate

CEL ST

GREAT CHURCH LANE

Peabody Estate

FLYOVER

DING

tric

EGAR ROAD TH

Hammersmith

Apollo

GRO

Dis

EX PL

E ST

MEWS

IDG

APPL

ON DIS AD S N ER W RDE LO GA

Option 1

Broadway Centre

SUSS

S RL

HAARLEM

PARK

LEY

OSMAN RD

GROVE

ROAD

GVE

GARDENS

ROAD

ROCK

STREET

BLACK'S

ITH BROADWAY

ERSM

HAMM

EE STR

MELROSE TCE

HERT

ST OVER

LEAMORE

Kings Mall

AND

NDAL

D IS

S BL

LLA

DIS

FIEL

ROAD

CES

A D R O

LAIR NS

PRIN

Thames PL ON Water CRE SC E Tower

MIL KE SO O N BR RD G IR VING LIN BO RO RE AD DAN STRE ET

ROAD

PENZ

ENS

L E D A N S E E AD Q U DIS

SINC

DIS

ERS ESH PL

ASTRO

ROAD

ANCE

S'S

GARD

O DIS AD NS R E PE RD UP GA

DEWH

ST LEY DARN TER

URST

PENZ

D-

RAVE S GD

WOO

SMIT

IFFLEY

SOUT

Hammersmith

JAME

N SLA WNE DO

RISE R EC LA ON OND S OS HI PP OME CR DR ACE ST PL 'S HN

STRE

HAM

WILS

STER

ROAD

Lyric Square

THR

E RD BA AD

SULG

BA MB OUGH OR GDS

RO GER

WELLS

RICHFO

MER

DALE AVON

R RO

RD'S

PHE

ARD

COURT

GROVE

E MARKET LAN

HAM

AGAT

RUTL

MAL

GDNS

TRUSSL

BLYT

E COMB RD

22%

WALM

SILVE

SHE

PENN

GAINSBOROUGH

WAY

Y RO

LIME

RELA

LANE

MACFARLANE

GARDENS

VILLE

MIL

WOOD

FRITH

Y CL O

ALEXANDRA RD ST.

S GDN

CIT

ROAD

GEORGES RD U G RD BY

D LR

ail

COVERDALE

LEN'

TOCK FINS RD

AVEN

LLIO

HIT

ROAD

ASPEN 'S CE IN S PR MEW

ROAD

FORD LING

tio

TUNIS

DIMES PL

PLAC

K LA

GARDENS

LENA

RSH

MER MORTI SQ

GDNS

BATOUM

ROAD

GROVE

ARGYLE

WER

ROAD

CROMWELL GR

MARY

QUEENSDA CRES

GDNS

GDS

ONE

ORN RUNC PL H KET HES PL

E DAL

IGH

GARDENS

ANLEY

OLD

CHARECROFT WAY

WESTWI

GROVE

RITY CL DU

TREA

Bush t Cour

MINFORD

E RN S LO GDN

GR d

Shepherd's Bush

EEN

odfor Wo urt Co

R'S MILLE WAY

HAMMERSMITH

KILMA

ROAD

STREET

GTO

NOWELL

ST.

WAL

BUSH

CAMBRID

MIN

AVE

Shepherd's Bush Common

Latimer Road

STER

TER

TCHU

ADIE

BANIM

BRADMORE PK

KIL

OLD

I M

M4 JUNCTION 1

LEVE

WEST OF JUNCTION 2 M4 JUNCTION 2

MET

HIGH

ROAD

LONSDALE

ROAD

TABOR

GLENTHAM

A SM

IFFLEY

CARTHEW

NIGEL PLAY FAIR AVE

RIC HFORD ST

AMOR RD

KING

GDS

Furnivall Gardens

LILLIAN

SILCHES

WHI

WAY

W ST

ROAD

MELROSE

BLECHYNDEN STREET

HAM ST

POPLAR

MBR

EVES

ER BULW

O MARC RD

DOWN

RIVERSIDE

Hammersmith Pier

FE R LA RY NE

URY

ALBION

Hammersmith Town Hall

ON HEBR RD

GLENTHORNE MEWS ALBION

ROAD

GLENTHORNE

MYLNE CL

KENB

FELGATE MS

ROAD

COULTE

LERC

R O A D

ROAD

MALL

ITH ERSM HAMM TER

SYCA

GALENA

W E S T

UPPER

ROAD

LAMINGTON ST

H A M P S H IR E HOG LANE

AVEN

ROAD

RIVERCOURT

OIL MILL LANE

ROAD

DEVONPOR

EN ST STEPH

STREET

ORE

RIVER THAMES

EYOT

R O AD

WARBECK

NASMYTH STREET

CARDRO

YN HA RD M

REDM

PLACE

BEAUC

HEW CART VILLAS

WELTJE

VENCOURT

RD SAMELS COURT

LORD NAPIER PLACE

Ravenscourt Park

ROAD

ALDENSLEY

Flora Gardens

RAVENSCOURT

LANE

PLACE

BEAVOR

T G R E A BLA SOUTH LA LION

Goldhawk Road

TCE

ASTROP

ROAD

FURBER ST

LANE

h is

AB D ALE

R O AD

BRAC

A RO

STANDISH

P E TE R ' S GROVE

LION

NE IC K SO LAN UT E H

LOFTUS

K WIC

COURT

HAMLET GDS ST

BLACK

NORTH EYOT GS

WAY

ATE

BENB

N SO AW ANE M L

ROAD

WING

WEL

RAVENS

SQUARE

STREE PL

NBURY BRACKE GDNS

CANADA

AUSTRALIA

GODOLPHIN

NOR

STUS AUGU E CLOS

PERRERS

THERESA R

PETER'S

D ROA

CHARLOTTE MS WAYNFL ETE SQ

Westfield London

ET APP

TITMU

G'HK MS

H ET

E LAN

TERRICK ST

ARMINGER RD

CATH ELL

LESLEY

URT

GDS

AITEN

NTH VERBENA GS

LMU Y BERR PL

ROAD

T'S

AVE

PAD

ING BRAD TCE

NSCO

SQUARE

ROAD

UE AVEN

SQ ST PETER'S

S ST PETER'

ON ERAV

ROAD

MARK

LE YS RD LD

ELGIN

FIE

RAVE

INVERMEAD CLOSE

NETH

AIREDA

CHISWICK

HOMEFIELD

ROAD

SCOT

GIN

WAY

A4 GREAT WEST ROAD

STOW

N ER RD

ROAD

PARK

GARDENS

E WAY

D AV

ROAD

MILL

ITIS

H ST

PARN E CLOS

GARDENS

VERBENA GS

PASS

ST PETER'S VILLAS

ER'S ST PET

BERESTEDE RD

GHAM

GR.

VILL

HAMLET

CROFT

ST PETER'S SQ

NGREE RD SIDE

Ravenscourt Park

SQUARE

INGERSOLL RD

CONIN

Cathnor Park

STANLAKE VILLAS

Shepherd's Bush Market

DGE

C C THORNFIELD ROAD

SWINDON ST

D'PORT

HETLEY

ROAD

K'S

ARIEL

UXBRI

FORGE MEWS

A LIN ME RD

SCOT GDS

KELM

CHUR

ASHC

WEST

ROAD

ARCHDALE CT

ROAD

DHAW GOL

K I N G

RLEY

BLOEMFONTEIN

MBE

RAVE NS-

BLACK LION

BEVE

ROAD

BOS CO

ILLE TV AD RO

S WE

ASH

RAVENSMED

CLEVELAN

MERTON

PARK

THORNTON

ENNISMO

UPHAM

BLOEMFONTEIN WAY

GROVE

VALE

IDG

KIN

h mit ers e mm Lin Ha City Wood & Lane

DENS

GAR

RNE

CROW THO

BBC Television Centre

ETT

ROAD

RDSTAN

ETHELDEN

OLD

The Ravenscourt Park Hospital

ROAD

COLLINGBOURNE ROAD

ORMISTON

ADELAIDE

OAKLANDS

WILLOW

ROAD

RYLE

RAV ENSC OURT

Stamford Brook

HIGH

K ISWIC

NE UR H BO VE AS O E GR GV N ER LF BA VE LG WAL RN CO E ER GV HEST DORC

ROAD

AVEN

DELL

INSB

N MA RO RD

VAUGHAN AV

WEST

OR LAND WK

R LAU

CE EN MS

PLEY

BROO

SIDE

SOUTH

FORD

S EDAN CT

FORD STAM K BROO GDNS

STAM

ASK

ROAD

CRAN BROOK RD

G R E AT

ROAD

WIL

There was a clear preference for the western portal at Hogarth roundabout and the eastern portal

LETT

COS

NT ESCE

ROAD

N IO IT HIB E OS CL

Hammersmith Park

BATMAN

Football Ground

ROAD

THE DE GLA

District Line

Turnham Green

ROAD

O RO

SDEN GRAN RD

FLANDERS

WELLESL

RA RD

DISO

BATH

HIGH

ROAD

ASHC TER

FINDO

BIND

ROAD HAMROAD ROXWELL MEWS

PARK

RO PARK

EIN

OAD

CHISWICK

ROAD

BASS

TT PL

RIC

ELLERSLIE

FORD

and ending in aS similar manner to the current flyover. Despite this low support, a tunnelS based on these S start and end points was tested as it was likely to be the least expensive S and disruptive.

CH FL AN FOR

BA MS

ASKEW CRES

ROAD ORD

AL LMOR

HADYN

ROAD

ING

EIM

KEITH

ROAD

LOW

s lyn en Em rd Ga

ROAD

ST EL

AVENUE

BLE

BLENHEIM

THE

BLANDFORD

ELL

CONING-

IMRE CL

HALSBURY

DENS

GAR

White City

QPR

A V E N U E

IELD

KELF

DEPOT

CITY

WHITE

ROAD

SOUTH

ROAD

BECK

Wendell Park

IFTO

RD CR

GAYF

AYLM

RD SOUTHFIELD FIELDING WHELLOCK RD

EMLYN GNS

ASKHAM COURT

AS W

ASKE

ROAD

D RD

IELD

UTHF

ASKHAM

MO ST EL

ASK

TH OLD FIELD RD

R RD

STRON RD

KINNEA

DAVIS

ELIZABE

EY RD

GDS

A D R O

JEDDO

MAYFIEL

WAY

COBBO

ROAD

COWL

O LEFROY JEDD S MEW

HOLLEY

THORPEBANK

ROA

OLLGAR CLOSE

at Warwick Road. A tunnel linking these two sites would be over two miles long and bypass a number of north-south routes that currently link to the A4. There was relatively low support for a short tunnel starting EE

ROAD

UXBRIDGE

SON SWAIN RD V A L E T T A

MAY FIELD ROAD

GALLOWAY

FORD

AVENUE

SECOND

AMBER

CANH

ROAD

IELD

THIRD

WAY

MULTI

ENS

GARD

ROAD

LARDE

LEY

FORD RD

BRAD

ALDBO URNE

VALE

AGNES

DO RDRECH

STAN

DU CROS RD

ESSEX PK MS

ROAD

AYCLIFFE

R O A D

DUNRAVEN

COMMONWEALT AVE

AND NEW ZEAL WAY

AUSTRALIA

Wormholt Park

SEDGE

OAK

FIRST

AVENUE

THE

ARMSTRON

HUDSON CL

WORMHO

L E Y S A W

A V E

COMMONWEALTH AVE

H RO

SHALFLEET

ROAD

WAY

WER

ROAD

39%

SYCAMORE CLS

LARCH

AVE

BEECH

A4 GREAT WEST ROAD The start and end of a tunnel is known as a portal and it is at these portal locations that construction and operational matters are felt. Portals require a section of cutting, approximately 200m in length, followed by a structure to house ventilation equipment. This structure could be made integral to any redevelopment as has been the case in other tunnels.

MAPLE

4% 3%

WAY

ROAD

BRYONY

ROAD

BENNELONG CL

L T H W E A M O N C O M

EIN

INDIA

GRAVESEND RD

LO LF AL W

CLOS

LIA AUSTRA

FONT

OL ROAD

ASHFIELD

ERICA ST

RD BROMYA

S CU RVE

DG SBRI RD

Y T W A W E S

CREIGHTON CL CLOSE

BRAMBLE GARDENS

ROAD

TAN

JOSLINGS

MILFOIL ST

TH ET

HEATHS

BLOEM

ND EW CL OSE NY O PE DS G

IS ST

WAY

TRINITY

E TH

ROAD

OLD OAK COMMON LANE

HIL

PIONEER

ROAD

MACKENZIE CL

E VIO LA SQ

FOXGLOVE

LANE

LIL AC

STEVENTO

OAK

WOOD ROSE SQUARE

STREET

PRIMULA

LAURENCE CL

HILARY

STREET

MAURICE ST

BEGONIA WK

WALK

CACTUS

LAN

NORBRO

ELD

ORTH

BENTW

Central line

INFI

ROA

CANE

Princess Louise Hospital

KING

Y RO EN ST

Q U I N T I N

ER TIM PL

Y LANE

MON

Wormwood Scrubs

WEST QUARTERS

mith Hammers Hospital

S-

L WAL ST

AN EE

ACTON

EAST

AVE NUE GLENDU CT

BOWES ROAD

S STR

H.M. Prison

AVE

ARTILLER

SUNNINGDALE

T ER

East Acton

E E T S T R

AVE

BRASSIE

R VE

AM NH

S T

E AT SG AR ST IEW STV WE L C

LD C A ON ER L P

OAK

HIL PANG

GDNS

L PO H RT RD

MELLITUS

FIT

COM

AVE D CL

WES

OAK

SIE

MA WOOD MEWS

QUINT

OLD

FAIRWAY

THE

THE BYE

MPL

d Linfor Christie Stadium

WSB

AY THE GREEN

MASHIE RD

DRIVE

MUIR FIEL

BRAS

R RD

N LA

RS NE LA

URY

WAY

LEVE

S UB

TAYLOR'S GRN

LONG

THE TEE

B R A Y B R O O K

HIGH

URY

WSB

SHRE

S E N R D G A

N O A R L G D A

R SC

WAY

Scrubs

If you support a tunnel replacement, or ‘flyunder’, where do you think itWORMWOOD should start and end? SCRUBS BRUNEL

SHRE

Wormwood

th P

Nor

SUNBEAM

DALGARNO

Little

RE MIT

Question 2

l Dep

iona

rnat

te e In

SUTT

RIA

Sidings

SUTTON

R O

ST .

VIC TO

Mitre Bridge Industrial Park

Old Oak Common

R O A D

CANAL

TERRACE

SC BE

H Y T H E

Cemetery

NE LA

N IO

St. Mary's Cemetery

MIDLAND

STREET

Y LE SH D R

GDNS

Estate

SALTER

GRAN

SA LTER

Question 3 Should the flyunder connect to any north-south links?

ITH ROAD HAMM

ERSM

SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD

25%

FULHAM PALACE ROAD

U ROAD CASTLENA

GREAT

CK ROAD

16%

A4 GREAT WEST ROAD

I WARW

CHERTSEY

ROAD

A4 GREAT WEST ROAD

Very few tunnels have junctions with other routes. An example an exception is the Limehouse Link tunnel in East London that has a underground junction to allow eastbound traffic to turn off to Canary Wharf and for Canary Wharf traffic to join the westbound flow.

32%

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

11%

One of the feasibility study terms of reference was to examine the implications of linking the main A4 tunnel to north-south routes. Only a small selection of these were offered in the multiple choice question including those around Hammersmith Gyratory which would likely become the mid-point of the tunnel and north-south routes at both western and eastern portal locations. Two different approaches were taken to junction testing as part of the feasibility study. This was based on both the feedback above and the subsequent traffic analysis that was carried out under another of the studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s terms of reference.

Masterplan Question 4 New direct north - south routes youspaces think opportunities should beroute exploited to return Hammersmith Gyratory to two-way working? Current A4 layout changes Linking twoDo public One of the WLLD objectives for creating a tunnel for the A4 is to improve the urban environment in Hammersmith town centre. Given that currently two traffic systems dominate the town centre - the flyover and the gyratory - this question sought to establish what importance they play in the degradation of the town centre.

As can be seen from the results, almost half of respondents believed that the gyratory should work in two directions if possible. However, the remaining respondents did not consider this to be a priority. The Hammersmith Gyratory performs a complex function in the local

and strategic road network and surrounds the key public transport interchange requiring a number of crossings which delay both traffic and pedestrian movement.

them to two-way working. Their current work programme includes gyratories in Wandsworth and Vauxhall Cross, as well as new studies for Stoke Newington, Swiss Cottage, Aldgate and Archway.

TfL, over the last few years, has removed similar gyratory systems to the benefit of all road users, returning

indifferent

36% strongly agree

26%

agree

20% disagree

10%

strongly disagree

New direct north-south routes New east-west connections

Current one-way routes returning to two-way traffic

Question 5 What are the current problems that you would like to see the flyunder overcome? The five options provided as answers to this question were taken directly from the RTF and WLLD reports. It should be noted that network performance (i.e. congestion and subsequent delay) is not listed as one of the current problems. TfL data shows that this stretch of strategic road performs better than most. Of the five options offered there was a balanced response with equal support for the resolution of the problems of air quality, noise, visual intrusion, town centre severance and river severance. For the other responses a lack of housing was seen as a problem that a tunnel could overcome, as was neighbourhood connectivity and local road congestion. The manner to which a number of tunnel alignments can address these problems is compared later in this report. It is apparent that some of these problems can be reduced, whereas others could be replaced or relocated.

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

other

air quality

19%

MALL town centre severence

16% noise

river severence

18%

20%

visual intrusion

20%

Question 6 What are your main concerns for a flyunder? Four major concerns, based on the experience of other major road and infrastructure projects, were considered to be relevant to a tunnel replacement along the A4. These related to both the construction period of the tunnel and its subsequent opening and operation.

Cost was the next biggest concern which is understandable given the figures quoted in the Evening Standard newspaper, which were reported as running into the ‘hundreds of millions’. The disruption caused to the A4 itself during construction and the number of lorries required were as much of a concern and the study has attempted to assign scales of impact based on various tunnel lengths and construction methodologies.

The biggest concern was the issue of traffic not using a tunnel and diverting onto other routes. This is likely to have been due to the existing congestion and delay on the borough’s local road network. This issue is explored in more detail in this report as are the other concerns which are all functions of the tunnel’s construction. construction

traffic diverting to local roads 34%

lorry traffic

15%

other 12%

Other concerns range from overrunning construction cost and time, the underground cutting, how to deal with car breakdowns and exhaust fumes, the perception that it will never happen and that’s it is too ambitious as a scheme.

cost 20%

a4 closure during construction 19%

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

FROM TARMAC TO TOWNSCAPE A TUNNEL TO REPLACE THE HAMMERSMITH FLYOVER: A CHAIN OF OPPORTUNITIES

Question 7

HAMMERSMITH

What should any land freed up by the removal of the flyover be used for? EARLS COURT

With the flyover removed, land would be released for a variety of uses, some that would generate

Current View

HAMMERSMITH

EARLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S COURT

offi

Ces

22% e

CHISWICK

14% and Use s Ure leis MUnity CoM

To consider the nature, extent and potential value of any released surface land, bearing in mind existing planning policies and any potential from varied planning policies.

value to possibly fund the construction of the tunnel. The stated preference to this question was for the land to be kept public, rather than to be developed, which formed the basis of the WLLD work. The masterplan work done as part of the study utilised the responses to this question to generate a suitable We can transform a six lane swathe of tarmac into a site for housing, community buildings development scheme and therefore and workplaces, linking previously severed riverside streets to the rest of the Borough. Thereincome is opportunity to repair the townscape with buildings sympathetic to their environment balanced against the need and turn the highway into a linear suburb. and request for additional urban open space in Hammersmith town centre and along the A4 corridor.

ns PaC

CHISWICK

oPe

One of the terms of reference for the study was

g Usin

sHoPs

MALL Proposed View of the A4

West London Link Design in association with the Halcrow Group and Hammersmith BID

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

oa d for relief r stree t King

21%

Con n to t eCt ion He r s iver

22%

Question 8 How should the flyunder be paid for? Any tunnel project would require a substantial, innovative and multi-source financing model. This question was designed to tease out the local appetite for a number of financing methods. A third of respondents supported oversite development to fund the tunnel which supports the masterplan work done as part of the study. Almost half of respondents supported taxation as a method for collecting funding, with half of those considering a national tax as the most suitable idea. This confirms the opinion of the strategic nature of this project and of the next stages of feasibility study. Surprisingly 19 per cent of respondents supported a user toll on the tunnel to help finance the project. While this is a common feature in Europe, toll roads in the UK are limited to the central London congestion charge zone, the M6 and a few tunnels and bridges. There are a number of economic, environmental and political issues around toll roads which are touched upon in the funding section of this report.

TAXATION NATIONWIDE OTHER

21%

TAXATION LONDON-WIDE

17% OVERSITE DEVELOPMENT

35%

TAXATION H&F RESIDENTS USER TOLL

19%

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

borough letters

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

Brendon Walsh Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment Department

Cllr Nicholas Botterill London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Town Hall King Street London W6 9JU

Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment Department Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN Your contact: Mark Frost Direct Line: 020 8583 5037 E-Mail: mark.frost@hounslow.gov.uk Our ref: Hammersmith Flyunder Date: 28 February 2014

Dear Cllr Botterill, London Borough of Hounslow (LBH) welcomes the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulhamʼs (LBH&F) bold and transformative vision for a ʻflyunderʼ in order to remove the severance caused by the Transport for London (TfL) road network around Hammersmith and Chiswick. The part of the A4 considered forms a perceptual and physical barrier between Chiswick High Road and the important amenity and heritage sites of the Thames, Dukes Meadows and Chiswick House & Gardens. It is also responsible for significant noise and air pollution, reducing the quality of life for those living nearby and depressing property values; opportunity for investment and development; and the local economy.

At this stage, and based on the assessments provided to date, we remain 'solution blind' as long as our objectives for reducing severance, improving amenity and protecting heritage in Chiswick are observed. On the face of it would seem that a ʻcut & coverʼ like for like replacement of the flyover extending to Hogarth roundabout may provide the best business case. Should this project be formally taken up by LBH&F or TfL to investigate further we would also like the assessment to give due consideration to whether such a structure could be extended as far as the Hogarth roundabout, or indeed further towards Sutton Court Road, assuming there was a technical solution to ensure appropriate connectivity with traffic coming from the A316 was retained. We note that if this connectivity is not provided, based on the current traffic data presented, it is likely that the replacement local network on the surface would still need to be of a relatively high capacity to deal with vehicles from the A316 which may negate the benefit of the whole scheme. In regards to enabling development we are broadly speaking in favour of the quantumʼs you suggest within our borough, however much work would need to be done to ensure the design is of a high quality and complements the existing built form and urban grain. The Council has recently completed extensive Context and Character studies which will be useful in assisting the assessment of potential. Yours sincerely,

We therefore whole-heartedly support the principle of taking the main east-west artery underground and replacing it at surface with a local network, using the space freed for enabling development which is both imaginative and sympathetic in style and scope to integrate with the existing built form. We now discuss the technical solution and the enabling development issues in turn. In regards to the technical solution, we note that you have investigated various options for achieving this outcome, from a straight ʻcut & coverʼ replacement for the existing flyover in your borough and just into our borough east of Hogarth roundabout, to something more ambitious, involving a longer bored tunnel linking Chiswick to the vicinity of Earls Court. Clearly a longer bored tunnel helps spread the benefits of the project and it is tempting for us to push for such a tunnel to be taken even further west to replace the M4 elevated section through Brentford. However we understand that a large proportion of traffic using these roads is local. Without a series of complicated ramps and ʻportalsʼ providing access to a new underground highway - structures that would result in loss of property (some likely to be listed or of conservation value) and land area and act to simply displace severance - this traffic is likely to be re-diverted onto the existing network (or the proposed replacement streets). The benefits of the scheme, and indeed the total number of users, may therefore be insufficient to warrant the huge cost.

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

Cllr Steve Curran Lead Member for planning, property, regeneration and housing

Cllr Ed Mayne, Lead Member Community Safety and Regulatory Services London Borough of Hounslow

Illustrative view looking view looking east to St. Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Green.

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

PLACE

OLAF HUNT

AVON

AD RO N ER

EL M L S

W NY PE

L'S R EA

P E T RO ER UG H

N G

DO S

STO KE

IN D AN IL

D N SA

O CR

ARGO N MS

E AC ND

RO AD

S Y

RIN

VIR

AD RO

ET RE

E IC TT

M IU

AD RO

N SO

CH A LLONER CR E TC

SUN RD

R RE O S VO T WS R -

ST O PL W MU

ST ON OR RD

HE AT

AD PK RD FULHAM

SHUTERS

TON BROUGHROAC RD APP

STRE

N RA MBE

BRIDGE

RD FO RD

EET

IS AD D CRS

AY W

COLET GARDENS EY

OAKL

M ME

T ZLIT

S DL ER GIR

TERRACE

BEACONSFIELD

NH AY

ELL

ROAD

PORT EN RD GRAT TON RD

AD RO

RO AD

S ES N H

ROAD

' RO SB

RO AD

OE FA R

CEY

RO AD

AUGU

LON

AD RO ST INE

AP PL GART EROAD H

AIT C

ROAD

SOMERSET

S M L CR

ROYA L

ROYA

S H E P H E R D' S BUSH PLACE

WAY RICHMOND

BE HE R G M M SP S RIN VA GLE TE R

RD LUXEMB URG GARDEN S

SAMU

MERC PLAC ERS E

ROAD

BUTE

SHEPHERD'S

ROWAN

PURC

T WRIGH CART

ALD INE ST

BU SH 'S

DUNS

BARB

'S BUSH

EL'S CLOS E

SHEPHERD

BUSH

HA MM E BR RSM IDG ITH E DVE

ANY

LORIS RD MS

SHEPHE RD

CAXTON

HOPGOO

POPLAR

MARKET

SULGRA

STREET E LIN

STUDLAND

BUSH

ILLE

DALLING

DORV

ROAD

SHEPHERD'S

RS n MIT Es C a r H tate o li ne

MM HA

WEST

EN SID

GRE

U NA EL ST CA

BRIDGEVIEW

RD LL MA

ROAD

VILLE

DAVI

SOUTHWAY CLOSE

IDG

AVE

DE GAR

HOLCOMBE ST

HAM

ELLING

PERC

ROAD

SVIL

FIEL

STAR

PERC Y

R A VE N S C O U R T

ROAD G

AIR AVE

ROAD

AVE

DALLIN

CROMWELL AV

NIGEL PLAYF

MACBET

ROAD

RO A

BE CK M E LO W W S

BE CK L

CURWEN

ROAD

GLENTHAM GDNS

DRIVE

ADAM

GROVE

WESTBRIDGE CL

RIN

W SU ND E

CRES

STANLAKE MEWS

O RD

FAX FAIR

RAVENSCOURT

ROAD

OCK

WOOD ST

AV Y IOR PR

CHAMBON

WO RC STER EDR

WK SHE AD RD

GDNS

ROAD

GOLD H AWK

AT RD S

PAN GDS

K IS

AR TA M

L GROVE

ROAD

FILM

ELGIN C

STR

AN ST

ST ST

CRES

ORTH

ERDE

R DD

LD ACFO RD

Y'S

VIL

DSW BOW

LE HIL

WAN

P'S

O ND

A RO

E ST IP

AV G

D EA

T GS

BIS

MAX

ITA

RYECROFT

M RY

DIN

EEN GR LHAM URT

WYA

AVE ST HILDA'S RD

RE AR

GE CONI

ROAD

OUGH

ETT

ROAD

RBOR

AYNE

RVILL

AN G R LE VIL A PL

R PE

PETE

OUS BROOMH

R LINVE

FOSK

E TOW CRIS AD RO

GTON

ASHIN

CORT

ALDE

RLI BU

FULH

CROWN

N RO

PET ERH BOROUG S MEW

NIA

WAT

N DA O N LE WK

R Parsons EEN Green

NEW

LORD S MS BERT RD

BELL'S

GUIO

EL UR NK LA BA S GD

BE SCOM EDDI RD

PARSONS GREEN

RD PA RT

E CLARS RO MW

Y CL

B IR EN

MUSG

MOOR

G Y Eel CR LE W ES RA RD TY Brook Common

S UTO

CE ES

LANE

D O

E EFFIOSE CL

OOD HARW WS ME

HILARY CL

FULH M A

CO RN DA CE RD

ERIN

ITE

TH NE

GREEN

LE LA

ER ET EX WS E M

N PA M CA RD

LE CO

I N

ILE

RM FA

L ict

Dis

Chelsea Footba Groun

DOWN WANS E PLAC

Fulham Town Hall

EFF

N LA

BLE

ST G

S OS

TIN

HIT

S ROAD

BROA

Cemete N

K MIC

ER AM MS

CR VE

O N RO AD

IDY

Brompton

BRITISH

KEM PSF ORD GDNS

H BRITIS E GROVH ST

EARDLE

AN SW MS D A RO

DORIA

ROAD

RO LE DA T S

RFE

FULH

D EN

HAR

AD RO

L EL

RIDG

BETT

O PT

Fulham Broadway

AD RO

ON ST RD

ELM

ROAD

M RO

H MAN

DAIRY

DION

LIE YD

SS ID RO Y AD

S GE ID E BR AC PL

Parsons Green

ILL

HEAT

West Brompton

O SH

WIN

L ME

CE SS

AT HE W EAF SH ERR DON T E LV

LIL

ROA

JERD

H FIEE C LD K AC E

AM LH WA RD YA

PE M SS RE PL

ITE

LO N

IVE

U CO

R MA

BE OX

L WA

ST 'S JOHN E CLOS

ROAD

LACE MEW

A RO

L YP T S Y TT XB RO L P

Earls Court

DA RO

S ES PR H EM OAC PR AP

US IR MS

D OA

GTON

E AC

LE DA MA RD

The Warren

D OA

'S ER AT GO AD TE

AR DY HIL RD

ROAD

GIR

S ME HO

RIC

N UR

ISM RO

MU NS

ER OM AD RO ARA SE RB CLO BA TLE S CA

THER OW CR OSE CL

MERR

ROAD

BIA

MIR

A RO

C RA

N DA

UT TN ES Y CH LLE A

N LE AN M EE FR PL

STR

A RO

D SE

IS RV RD

RO AD

FIR

TO G LIN R E BU AC PL

Building LIE LIL

S F H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy BIS

LL WE ES

Y CL

LERR

ROA

IS W

CLOS

IL B

VILL

AISGILL AVENUE

Y AM R LL L IE BE C AN ST L C PLACE

IV A TT

H UL

SUN RD

E OL

END

DIP

STR

ILT ES

OKE

ail

LIL

KIM

E NU

AD RO

M CO

S'S

P'S

BIS

RIN

CLOS

ER OM CO MEWS

MBR

OKE

al R

ILLE

'S OP

O TH

BR BL

D OA

VIL

VE R SQ N

GARD ENS

FORT

BEAU MS

ROAD

ILLE

MBR

KE RO MB S N PE GD

tion

LISBURY

AD HUGH ELL GAITSK CL

D OA

R PA

VE GRA MUL RD

N TO

A RO

SID

LE EVIL

AD RO

A RO R TE PE R TE

A RO

R BU

TURN

ER TT LE NE STO RD

QUEEN

OD STO

RN VA

A D R O

ROAD

Empress

PHON TELE PL

Clem Attlee Estate

O TC

IF SW

T AN LL D A RO

R TE NS MU

N RTO PO AD RO

MO BEAU CR

TER NS S W ME

KE NS N INGTO HALL GDS

ALL

N TO ST

TIL

AIN

BIS

K IC RW

END C R

OLT

DFO

ROAD

S S

D OA

PR BE

D OA

CHES

ITH SM HN UE JO EN AV

State

MARCHBANK

THAXTO

SON

MARG AM INGR E CLOS

O ER

AR N W

NE SQ

Earls Court Exhibition Building

FRANKLIN

ARET

HUGH DALTON AVE

AISGILL

T YS MA VINE

ARCH

D OA

RN V E NE

FANE ST

Park

nd rma

BER

LIE

LIL

Gibbs Green Estate

BRAM

WELL

ROAD

AD RO

CE L A

LA OD

Fulham Pools

S E

L HIL LE CO DNS ST G R LO LA

RID

REY PL

ERN TU E VILL RD EL CH AR RD N ESSO CH RD

A RO

CROM

WE Y UN WS CL ME

PE DIEP

S SUN RD

M RO

MONT

MAN

AR ORCH SQ

STAR

LANF

E AV

BEAU

N'S

NIN

MAY

RL R TE

LO NE L P

AN W RD ICK

VIL

D AN RM NO MS B CLU

KIL

O CL

CLU

AD RO

M HA

RO 'S

EE S GD

RD KE

K EC

DENS

ITH

VIL

ET RE AD ST RO EE TR E AIN LIN SA E RO OK O AD BR RO ER SH AD IN RO BA 'S OR AF OL D OA ST ER

RY MA ST OT'S B PL

S NE

DAWES

L EL

E TC

IRH

E QU

KIN D

R HU

COM S MEW

am Fulh tball Foo und Gro

RR MA SQ

TA DS

GLE

OK RO MB R LA TE RDO A W

P HO

NN AD RO

LIA

DE AR SQ

T WES

S ELAFORD

GAR

AD R

West Kensington

AD ON RO

AIL

KE RO DS G

BREC

ROAD

R ST

TREVANION

LLIS

DIS

GLAZBURY

ROAD

AD LLA

AVON

ROAD

ST W'S E DR

AY W

L WA

PIE

PIA

EN ND MU ST

O DIS AD

H- T S UT S O MBE TTE CO RLO EWS A M CH

BREC

OLT

E RP HO ET AD AD RO RO

S ON LY ALK W

DER

AD RO RO

Y RB

RU MB

TLE

S LAMP

NSA

FIN

ILD

rt be R o wen e O us Ho

BRO

PALEME

ETER

D YR WK DR LINE CARO E NN BAYO RD

MILLSHOTT CLOSE

O RB

Burne Jones House

S CA

ROAD

KIN

ROAD

R ST

E OM

HIG

S ME JA E AV

Club

MON E CRAM CLOS

T ETERNI WALK

O NY

LIS

COURT

S EN

R TH

R ON

R MA

The Queen's

FULH

AD RO NE

CER

LA OD

HOLY

ON MS FITZ

ON ST MARCUS RLE EET GARVEY GOGEORGE R PARK ST

Fulham Cemetery

ROAD ERRY ROWB CLOSE

STR

MIL

S EE

ROAD

BARON'S

D OA

ING

GWENDWR

IELD

SIA

OW MEAD E CLOS

PAYN

CREF

O NIT

BANK

ONE

A D

EAF ATSH LANE

GUNTERST

CILL

WHE

FIT ZAVE

FIEL

SMOO HAWK ET STRE

STR

A CR

ROAD

N TO

R O

ROAD

PETL

BIS

K ON AV RE MO CE PLA

EDITH

GLIDDON

ING ER

EY ADEN E CLOS

SIL

LILLIE

DEL

LIN

ITH

EG CR GER ES

S GA

EET

BOTHWELL STREET

ILL

HEID

INV

R HE

GREY HOUND

EET

STR

AVER

D OA

PIE

OLK NORF R TER

ILL

EYH

TER HES E RT ILC PLAC OU D C WOOD K OA URT CO Y UR LB ME

RD SFO ELM SE CLO N'S ALBA ST TER

NLE

DIS

PLAC

ELL WF RD

ROA

ITH ELW SK RD

ASPE

RIO

LILY

CLOS

CLA

E ILL RV ME SO AV E OS INT EN SA DS AS E N B R DV L MU IE ED OR E DV

ITH

Hospital

O DIS AD

L A I L

N SE

Y RE

E RE

CRES

L-

ISE

MACL

Hammersmith Cemetery

Cross

Charing

IR FA ST

LIN

GAR DENS

VIN RA

A CH

D PK

N'S

ITT ZL HA MS

LLAN

CLO

RG MA

TIL

AD RO

A L L

OD WO LN

OAK

Baron's Court

O EL

FL BL

WILSON'S

ROAD

MARG

D AN LL S HO GDN

L-

SHORT LANDS

UE AVEN

AIR CL

ROWAN TERRACE

BIS

Banfield

SEN QUE WK DALE

SIN

RAVIN

ADDISON

Kensington (Olympia)

ROAD

D LAN NOR SQ D LAN NOR SQ

AM SH EL

O GR

Linacre Court

Olympia

MITH

ND LLA PK

Y ER

AS VILL

AM KINGH E CLOS WATER CLEAR TCE

ILT

AD RO

TT PO

AND NORL RD

HA M

AD RO

LE NSDA PL

N ISO

QUEE

ADD

ANN'

TALGARTH

Park

MIL

RD O E XF O GAT

WATERHOUSE CLOSE

ine

RY LE TIL LANE DIS Frank

DIS

S-

HAMMERS

ROAD

CHALK HILL ROAD

S DE

S WOLVERTON GARDEN

H F UL

O ST

ALEXANDRA RD ST.

D RD AN RTL ROME PO D S PO HIP MEW

ROAD

ING COWLOSE CL

GEORGES RD U G RD BY

AD RO

AM GORH PL

ALE GSD KIN DENS GAR

ROAD

PARK

ON ND RE

PARK

A CL

RT LA

RS L

T ESEN

ATT

EGAR ROAD TH

Guinness Estate

EET

ROAD

APPL

WICK

L WALK

STR

ON DIS AD S ER DEN R GA

Broadway Centre

SO N RD AD

DAN

DIN

MIL

ON RD EVE AD RO

UN RD

TRINITY

BUTTER

ANGE

BLE

BLY

A RO

BO RE

ROAD

GARDENS

NS GD

NDAL

S LINGBIRVING

HURS

STER

D IS

FIEL

IS DD

DEW

AD N

ND RLA PL

E AV

AN OLL

A D R O

DIS

FLYOVER

LL CE AN CH ST

S WIN

RIN

ROAD

ST 'S JOHN NS GD

S INCE

Thames P ON L Water CRE SC E Tower

PENZ

GREAT CHURCH LANE

BLYT

SID

Peabody Estate

Studios

E AK

HAARLE

Hammersmith

VIE

tric

ES ER M RIV ER JA T ST ST Riverside

ANCE

ES'S

EN GARD

L E D A N S E E AD Q U DIS

CLA IR GD NS

A RO

Apollo

E UE

E COMB RD

SIN

ROAD

RTON

E STON

GRO

OVER

Dis

EX PL

D AL

ROAD DG

GDNS

ROAD

MEWS

OSMAN RD

GROVE

GDNS

SUSS

S RLI

LE ROCK

MELROSE TCE

SMIT

AND

ROAD

GARDENS

ROAD

RIV

RAVE SULG GDS

OD- RD WO GER

MER

STREET

GVE

MAL

ROA

BBA M OUGH OR GDS

HAM

ASTR

RUTL

RD'S

WELLS

ORD RICHF

GARDENS

ITH BROADWAY

ERSM

HAMM

BLACK'S

N'S

A NS QUEE

PHE

NAR

E MARKET LAN

COURT

GROVE

SHE

PEN

GAINSBOROUGH

A32

LIME

HE SOUT

DIMES PL

GROVE

ON AD

Kings Mall

STREET

LEAMORE

R HY RT R TE

NE Y

MIN

NOWELL

ANLEY

JAM

O DIS AD NS R E PE RD UP GA

CHARECROFT WAY

Lyric Square

Hammersmith

h Bus rt Cou

MINFOR

GDNS

PENZ

LEY DARN TER

E RN S LO GDN

d dfor Woo urt Co

ER'S

GROVE

EY USSL

E STR

SHAM

Shepherd's Bush

N REE

WAY

HAMMERSMITH

KIL

A RO

ROAD

LONSDALE

CAMBRID

GLENTHAM

PLAC

ICK

LENA

WIL

NS L A WNE DO E

RIS RE C LA ON ND SS PO O H IP OME CR DR CE PLA

EE STR

QUEENSDA CRES

WESTW

BATOUM

ROAD

ERNE

BUS MILL

CROMWELL GR

RSH

KING

GDS

Furnivall Gardens

ROAD

KILMA

CLOS

DOWN

RIVERSIDE

RIVER THAMES

LILLIAN

ADIE

IFFLEY

AGAT

ROAD

TABOR

O MARC

ASPEN 'S CE IN S PR MEW

ROAD

ARGYLE

ALBION MS

h is

IFFLEY

ROAD

FELGATE MS

ROAD

MELROSE

RIC HFORD ST

AMOR RD

GLENTHORNE

ALBION

Hammersm ith Pier

Shepherd's Bush Common

POPLAR

IMER MORT SQ

ER BULW

BRON

GLENTHORNE MEWS

GALENA

IC K SO LAN UT E H

STREET

LAMINGTON ST

ROAD

NE TH

C CLER RD

R O A D

ROAD

OIL MILL LANE

N SO AW ANE L

Hammersmith Town Hall

BEAU

ROAD

BANIM

ROAD

ORE

MOR

ROAD

BRADMORE PK

YN HA RD M

ROAD

A ER

SYCA

COULT

ROAD

STREET

H A M P S H IR E HOG LANE

NIGEL PLAY FAIR AVE

LANE

RIVERCOURT

WELTJE

VENCOURT

PLACE

BEAVOR

W E S T

ROAD

URY

ROSS

NASMYTH STREET

REDM

PLACE

MALL

CARTHEW

CARD

RAVENSCOURT

ROAD

KENB

Flora Gardens

Ravenscourt Park

UPPER

ROAD

BRAC

ROAD

Goldhawk Road

E OP TC

ASTR

HEW CART S VILLA

PERRERS

BENB

ALDENSLEY

UE AVEN

ROAD

Y RO

COVERDALE

WARBECK

STO

FURBER ST

T DEVONPOR

EN ST STEPH

UR KENB BRAC GDNS

MYLNE CL

LORDR NAPIECE PLA

ITH ERSM HAMM TER

LER' CT S

SAMELS T COUR

EYOT MIL

ISH

IT BR

K BLAC SOUTH LA LION

NORTH EYOT GS

NTH VERBENA GS

LMU Y BERR PL

T G R E A

VERBEN GS

PASS

STANDISH

LANE

ROAD

AVEN

ROAD RLEY

BEVE

STREE PL

THERESA R

PETER'S

S SQ

BERESTED RD

LION

SQUARE

ER' ST PET

AITEN

P E TE R ' S GROVE

BLACK

ST PETER'S SQ

SQ ST PETER'S

ERAV

ALE

S ST PETER'

NETH

AIRED

HOMEFIE

CHISWICK

ROAD

ST PETER'S VILLAS

ROAD

WAY

BLACK LION

NE UR H BO VE O E GR GV N ER LF BA VE LL G WA RN CO E ER GV HEST DORC

GDS

HAMLET GDS

D AV

GARDENS

CLEVELAN

RAVENSME

MERTON

IC CHISW

HAMLET

CROFT

K I N G

ROAD

COURT

GARDENS

SQUARE

AUG E CLOS

K WIC

RAVENS

SQUARE

ORE

ROAD

HIGH

NOR

NS DE

URT

RAV ENSC OURT

WEST

CATH

PAD

NSCO

Ravenscourt Park

The Ravenscourt Park Hospital

AVEN

DELL

ENNISM

PARK

THORNTON

UPHAM

Stamford Brook

ATE

ING BRAD TCE

PAR

RAVE

TITMU

G'HK MS

D ROAUSTUS

SLEY WELLE AV

INVERMEAD CLOSE

PLEY

OOK D BR

FOR

RO BO NS RD

D EN EB PR

GAI ALE NSD LO RD

MAN

VAUGHAN AV

ELL PARN E CLOS

WING

GR.

RAV ENS

ROAD

ET APP

T'S

AVE

LAS

VIL

HAWK OLD

MARK

ROAD

SCOT

GIN

LE YS D RD

ELGI

FIEL

SCOT GDS

URCH

KELM

STAM

SIDE

SOUTH

NGREE RD SIDE

ROAD

Cathnor Park

N ER RD

CH ASH

C ASH

ROAD

AD RO

A RO

FORD STAM K BROO GDNS

ROA

FF LE

CE EN MS

TT RYLE

CENT

CRES

CH FL AN FOR

FORGE MEWS

A LIN ME RD

S EDAN CT

C C THORNFIELD

OLD

ROAD

ASK

R MU

LETT RY

COS

ASHC TER

ROAD

THE DE GLA

LE VIL D ST A WE RO

GODOLPH

SDEN GRAN RD

H RC

GHAM CONIN

R LAU

ROAD

PARK

OR LAND WK

BIND

ROAD

FINDO

WAY

Westfield London

LANE

GARDENS

Shepherd's Bush Market

DGE

D'PORT

HETLEY

ROAD

HAMROAD L ROXWELMEWS

MARY

IGH LE PL

option comparison

MACFARLANE

ROAD

STANLAKE VILLAS

ROAD

ARMINGER RD

ARCHDALE CT

MBE BOS CO

ASKEW CRES

ASK

MO ST EL

TT PL

SILV

RELA

E HVILL FRIT

TUNIS

AB D ALE

SWINDON ST

ETHELDEN

INGERSOLL RD

BLOEMFONTEIN WAY

GROVE

ROAD

VALE

BLOEMFONTEIN

WOOD

GDS

STO

ORN RUNC PL ETH HESK PL

E DAL

R DA SIR

RDSTAN

ROAD

Y CL O

Football Ground

IMRE CL

UXBRI

HAM ST

EVES

ARIEL

LOFTUS

ROAD

ORMISTON

COLLINGBOURNE ROAD

WILLOW

ADELAIDE

OAKLANDS

CIT

CLO

BATMAN

QPR

ST H EIG EL ON PL ST

IGH SLE AN

HIT

ith

sm er e mm Lin Ha City Wood & Lane

Hammersmith Park

BBC Television Centre

OLD

TREA

WAY

IC FR

White City N IO IT HIB E OS CL

WHI

TE CI

D AR

ROAD

ELLERSLIE

HALSBURY

ROAD

ASKHAM

ROAD

AVENUE

T WIL

ROAD

THORPEBANK

ROAD

ORAL

K PAR

KEITH

HADYN

WAY

SOUTH ROAD

District Line

ROAD

WEST

GALLOWAY

ROA

A ST

CRA NBROOK RD

G R E AT

R O A D

DUNRAVEN

CONING-

NEW

WHI

COMMONWEAL AVE

ZEALAND

AUSTRALIA

ROAD

EI BASS

ROAD

Turnham Green

ROAD

EFOR SEDG

OAK

OL DFIELD RD BALM MS

FLANDERS

OLT WORMH

D ETH

NSA

D OO SW

ASKHAM COURT

ROAD

O BR

EY WELLESL

CLI

ROAD

LOW

DIS

BECK

HIGH

ST EL

VE RA LG PA RD

H BAT

CHISWICK

STRO RD

ROAD

DAVIS

EY RD

ELIZAB

COWL

AR RD

ASKE

ROAD

E AVENU

ROAD

ING AB

BLENHEIM

s lyn en Em rd Ga

THE

BLANDFORD

GDS

A D R O

Wendell Park

ROAD

OLLGAR CLOSE

N LY EM

FIE

EMLYN GNS

L E Y S A W

D YFOR

UTH

RD SOUTHFIELD FIELDING WHELLOCK RD

SECOND

THIRD RD

COBB

Y DO LEFRO JED S MEW

WAY

AY W

OLD

KINNE

AYLM

ROAD

ALDBO URNE

ROAD

Wormholt Park

COMMON WEALTH AVE

S compared and reported are a short option (1a in the Halcrow report) and a long option S(3a in L the Halcrow report). TheS image below shows S S the indicative portal locations and alignment of S options 1a, 2a and 3a in the Halcrow report. For the purposes of this appraisal, the short option is 1, S (the green line) and the long option is 3, (the blue S line). The red line is a variation of the long option.

JEDDO

MA YFIELD ROAD

ELD RD

ROAD

MAYFI

ROAD

CANH

AMBER

IEL

Y RD

HOLLE

ENS

E PL AR

GARD

WAY

A V E

L T H W E A M O N C O M

BRYONY

UXBRIDGE

SON SWAIN RD V A L E T T A

FORD RD

BRAD

AYCLIFFE

VALE

AGNES

LEY

EN LARD

STAN

Two tunnel options have been appraised in this feasibility report, a short option and a long option. This was based on the extensive public engagement carried out, assumed economic and environmental factors and engineering judgement. Six options were tested through the geo-technical study, one short, two long and all three options with ‘junctions’. The two options selected to be MULTI

HT DO RDREC

DU CROS RD

ESSEX PK MS

ST RE E ET BRAMBL S GARDEN

D GRAVESEN RD

WER

OL FIRST

AVENUE

THE

LO LF AL W

AVE

BEECH

STEVENTON

ROAD

ARMSTRON

SYCAMORE CLS

LARCH

MAPLE

WAY

OAK

CU RVE

EIN

BROMYA

ROAD

ASHFIELD

ERICA ST

TIS

WAY

TRINITY

FONT

OIL

HIL

LANE

ACTO

EAST

Short option The short option is essentially a replacement of Hammersmith Flyover and follows the same alignment as the A4 and the flyover. The western portal starts at Hammersmith Town Hall and the eastern portal at Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College. The tunnel is approximately one mile in length and would be constructed

using a cut-and-cover method to a depth of approximately 15m in order to pass safely under the London Underground cutting. The figure (below left) shows the construction steps of the top down cut and cover method. Other similar cut and cover constructions have been completed in London and the flyover can be underpinned while excavation work is carried out below.

Step 1

Step 3

Step 2

Step 4

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

The figure on the page opposite shows the detailed alignment and longitudinal profile of the short option. It shows the 230m open cut sections at the portal sites, the gradient of the ramps and known subterranean obstructions, such as the London Underground cutting and existing/planned Thames Water utilities.

Long option The long option is a two-and-a-half-mile twin tunnel between Chiswick and Earlâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Court. The western portal is at the junction with Sutton Court Road in the London Borough of Hounslow, which is considerably further west than first anticipated due to the need for the tunnel to pass safely under the Thames. The eastern portal is between Warwick Road and Earlâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Court Road in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Below is an indicative longitudinal section of a portal showing the open cut approach ramp which is a common feature to both types of construction.The main tunnel would be constructed using a tunnel boring machine (TBM) with an outer diameter of 12.8m - which is about 50 per cent bigger than the Crossrail tunnel. The portals would be constructed using the cut-and-cover method described earlier. The tunnel would be twin bore in that it would have a separate tunnel for each direction of traffic, which doubles the length of tunnel required to be excavated to approximately five miles. The figure below shows the different alignment of the two bores and the longitudinal profile as the bores pass below the Thames and two London Underground cuttings and above the proposed Thames Tideway Tunnel. The open ramp and

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

Approach ramp (Cutting)

cut-and-cover ramp are similar in nature to those of the short tunnel. Both tunnels have been designed to carry two lanes of traffic in each direction (based on forecast traffic flow and nature of the flyover). Ventilation and fire safety systems have been built into both options.

Cut and cover section

We recognise that these are only two options and a tunnel could take any number of alignments, depths, lengths and portal locations. These two options were designed to start the debate about the benefits and drawbacks of the principle of tunnelling and to be used as a baseline for assessing and appraising any future options.

Bored tunnel and cut and cover connection

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

Open cut, cut and cover, SCL and bored tunnel section.

Construction drawbacks Cost The cost of the construction alone (not including land acquisition, governance or mitigation) is a function of the length of the tunnel and construction methods. The different construction methodologies between the long and short options affect their construction cost. The longer tunnel options are twin bore which increases total tunnel length cost. A single bore was considered, with traffic stacked inside, however the tunnel boring machine required to build such a tunnel would be the largest in the world at 20m in diameter.

Notwithstanding other influences, the longer the tunnel, the more expensive the construction cost. To put these figures into context, the recently completed skyscraper, The Shard in London Bridge, cost ÂŁ450m to construct. These costs also do not include the removal of the flyover or any highway realignment required along the A4 or local road network. These costs will be comparable across both options and are at this stage unknown.

Option

construction method

total tunnel length

construction cost* (2013 prices)

Short

Cut-and-cover

1.6km/ 1 mile

ÂŁ218m

Long

Tunnel boring machine

8.2km/5.1 miles

ÂŁ1,297m

*These cost estimates are based on a high level feasibility study and include a 30 per cent contingency uplift. TfL standards suggest a 45 per cent uplift and this range has been used in the financial appraisal in later chapters.

Traffic disruption The two options considered as part of this study take broadly the same time to construct at three years. Again this is down to their length and different construction methodologies. Traffic flow along the A4 is assumed to be disrupted for approximately half the construction time. Disruption to the A4 is likely to entail lane closures, tidal flow and night-time and weekend closures. The following table compares construction and disruption time. It also established another fundamental difference in the long and short tunnels, namely the location of the disruption. There are four areas of surface disruption: the western portal, the eastern portal, the main tunnel excavation and the flyover removal. For the short option, the four sites will all be in Hammersmith, limiting the construction disruption to Hammersmith Town Centre. However, for the longer tunnel, the construction will be spread along the A4 corridor. Both options have a broadly similar disruptive impact on the operation of the A4 however this disruption is located in different places.

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

Construction lorries

Option

A4 disruption

The amount of construction traffic created by any subterranean construction is a function of the material removed and the construction methodology.

construction time

location of main disruption

Short

3 years

18 months

Hammersmith town centre

Long

3 years

18 months

Portal locations, drive site and Hammersmith town centre

The longer the tunnel, the more spoil removed and more construction material required, which therefore creates more construction traffic. This, however, does not take into account the opportunity for river transport of certain materials that a tunnel project adjacent to the river could explore. This could reduce lorry movements significantly. Translating the volume of material created and required for a tunnelling project into likely lorry movements is not straightforward. In addition, the location of this traffic will be concentrated at different times and locations over the multi-year construction period. For the short option this is Hammersmith town centre as it is the location for the four main construction areas: the two portals, the main tunnel and the removal of the flyover. The potential use of the river could reduce the number of surface lorry movements and would have different levels of reduction for the different construction locations, as above. At Hammersmith,

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

for example, the use of conveyor belts and catenary systems could potentially move spoil the short distance to the river without any significant use of road vehicles - although such a method would create its own environmental impact issues. It is also possible that the great majority of the necessary lorry movements, for all options, would be via the A4 itself, thereby minimising the wider environment of the impact. The table below shows the total volume of spoil for each option that would need be removed and an approximation of the daily lorry equivalent movements this spoil, and incoming material, creates without using the river. Use of the river could greatly reduce these figures. Ninety per cent of the main tunnelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s excavated material, tunnel lining precast segments and concrete aggregates could be transported by barge.

Construction benefits Option

Total tunnel length

Volume of spoil to be disposed (m3)

average daily lorry equivalents with no river use

Average daily lorry equivalents assuming use of river

Short

1.6km/1 mile

430,000

150

Long

8.2km/5.1 miles

1,140,000

375

A wider appraisal of other benefits of construction has yet to be undertaken for either option. However, there are a number of environmental and economic benefits within this major construction project. The number (and range) of jobs that would be created by this project would be significant. It is likely that many of these jobs would be made available to local residents, and opportunities for local businesses (such as Halcrow and WLLD) would also be significant. There is a well-documented concept known as traffic evaporation that suggests that when highway capacity is reduced, traffic flow reduces accordingly - or it appears to evaporate. Most examples of this are based on permanent reductions in capacity. If the A4 was required to have its capacity reduced during construction for a substantially long time, the same concept is likely to apply. This reduction in traffic flow would likely result in reductions in traffic noise and improvements in air quality. However it would need to be considered alongside the air quality and noise implications of the construction activity itself.

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

OPERATIONAL drawbacks Traffic redistribution The traffic analysis that was carried out as part of this feasibility study is detailed below, along with its limitations and assumptions. Traffic redistribution varies based on the length of a tunnel and its start and end points. In this instance, the longer the tunnel, the less traffic would be generated. As such, opportunities to remove or reduce the existing surface road network diminish as tunnel length increases, primarily down to the current traffic distribution and proportion of through traffic. Smaller side road junction tunnels can provide opportunities for the main tunnel to pick up and distribute more traffic. However this is one area in which much further and more detailed strategic analysis is required. Further traffic modelling could also forecast the wider sub-regional impact, such as local and strategic redistribution based on a new network. Essentially the longer the tunnel, the less opportunity traffic has to turn on and off, and hence it will carry less traffic. Option

percentage of east-west traffic likely to use tunnel

Short

100%

Long

50%

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

The traffic analysis was carried out using TfL data including traffic counts and outputs from their strategic traffic model for West London. Both current, actual and modelled traffic flows were reviewed from this data alongside forecasts for 2031 traffic flows based on the growth in jobs and population in the current London Plan and the planned transport network (without factoring in a tunnel). The traffic analysis was carried out to understand how much traffic would be likely to use the various tunnel options - which in turn, has influenced tunnel dimensions - and what surface network would be required. The traffic analysis was developed during the project to include investigating the Hammersmith Gyratory, the impacts on the various options and to explore opportunities to reduce the severance caused by the current one-way system. This could include returning the gyratory to two-way working, which has been achieved at other similar gyratory systems in London.

direction, an increase in 14 per cent on the current flow. Traffic flow to the east of the flyover is of a lesser magnitude and to the west is considerably higher at 3,500 per hour. There is a similar volume of traffic travelling around Hammersmith Gyratory which shows a similar increase over current flow. As the A4 travels into central London traffic flow generally decreases, which is representative of a radial traffic corridor. Likewise as the A4 travels out of central London, traffic flow increases. As the A4 passes through Hounslow, Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea it has junctions with a number of side roads. Vehicles both join and leave the A4 to continue their journeys. Over the length of option 3 (Sutton Court Road to Earlâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Court) more than half of the traffic travelling east leaves the A4. A similar profile is found travelling westbound with traffic doubling in volume over the same stretch.

All quoted modelled data uses the rounded average evening peak traffic flow only. Flows in the inter-peak, weekend and morning peak periods are likely to be different.

This is a fundamental finding as traffic that joins the A4 between the start and end points of a tunnel between Chiswick and Earlâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Court will have to use a surface network. Should the flyover be removed, it would be diverted around the Hammersmith Gyratory.

In 2031, it is forecast that approximately 2,500 vehicles an hour will use the flyover in either

The short tunnel is determined to have no impact on traffic flow as it is a straight replacement of the

flyover with a tunnel. All traffic that currently uses the flyover could use the tunnel and traffic leaving or joining the A4 via Hammersmith Gyratory would do so as it does currently. Traffic flow around the gyratory would be unaffected. Both longer tunnels would require a surface road network to cater for up to 50 per cent of the current A4 flow. Option 2 would allow slightly more traffic to join and leave a long tunnel alignment, and hence a slightly higher percentage of traffic would use the tunnel than would be the case for the longer option 3. This could allow for a narrowing of the A4. However, if the flyover were to be removed (this being the primary objective of this study), this traffic would be diverted through the Hammersmith Gyratory. Any capacity increases that can be achieved at the Hammersmith Gyratory, even if possible, would not be consistent with the vision for the improved town centre. Given the importance of the Hammersmith Gyratory, an additional tunnel scoping exercise was undertaken to see how traffic flow could be reduced. The main north-south route from Shepherds Bush Road to Fulham Palace Road was considered as an additional route for a tunnel. It was found that, again, this could feasibly be constructed - but not without significant environmental and economic impacts. In addition, basic traffic analysis was undertaken and found

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

that the beneficial impact on traffic flow around the gyratory would not be sufficient to reallocate capacity. Further analysis of the operation of the gyratory would need to be undertaken to support both the regeneration of the town centre and any A4 tunnel solution. The longer the tunnel, the less likely traffic would be to use it. If a tunnel only served a proportion of the corridor movement the remaining movement would be redistributed onto the surface network which would need sufficient capacity to function effectively.

Hammersmith Flyover traffic origin and destination.

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

OPERATIONAL BENEFITS

A RE-IMAGINED HAMMERSMITH TOWN CENTRE

There are two areas of public benefit arising from the work proposed for the flyunder and the gyratory and a redesigned Hammersmith Town Centre. It would create a significant improvement to the environment, and unlock an economic boost to the land released by demolishing the flyover, and that surrounding it.

The public support for the flyunder is very much driven by the opportunity to rebuild public access across Hammersmith Broadway, and to reunite Hammersmith with the river. Relinking the centre, northsouth, and east-west routes are also consistent with the Mayor of London’s Roads Task Force criteria for the future of strategic road improvements.

But there is much public interest in the benefits of new green spaces and new pedestrian access corridors linking the town centre’s key cultural buildings. A new town green would be created to the west of St Paul’s Church. This would also be the focal point of a new walkway linking the Lyric Theatre to the north, and the Eventim Apollo, and on to the river to the south.

In the most ambitious scenarios not only would the flyover be removed, but the road would also be removed from the western side of the gyratory with the eastern side reverting to two-way working. This is dependent on finding an answer to addressing the traffic flow through the gyratory.

It could be possible to increase the size of Furnivall Gardens, but most importantly create a landscaped pedestrian route from there to the town centre and new civic campus (the redeveloped town hall and adjacent site).

The economic opportunity for redevelopment is dealt with in detail in the masterplan (published alongside this feasibility report) and summarised later in this chapter.

The commercial campus created around the Ark and possible portal location would start a long stretch of green space along the current flyover alignment, conceptually known as Riverline Park.

Illustrative view looking west along King Street.

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT Another major public interest was improved noise and air quality issues in the central Hammersmith area. The Hammersmith BID (a not-for-profit organisation representing the interests of local business in the central Hammersmith area) has produced a Strategic Impact Assessment published alongside this study and covers these elements in greater detail. Their report compares a tunnel carrying the traffic underground (almost silently) through the centre of Hammersmith with the current 90,000 vehicles per day, noting that a car travelling at 65mph at a distance of 25ft generates 77dB of noise - well above what is considered loud by many people. They also note that Government targets for nitrogen dioxide have been missed at

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

Hammersmith Broadway for five years, with traffic on the flyover being a large contributor to this excess. While the tunnel would significantly improve the air quality in the town centre, the air quality implications around the tunnel portals would need to be investigated further. However, with adequate tunnel ventilation and existing technology, much can be done to mitigate these impacts. The BID also sees the redevelopment of the town centre allowing for walking and cycling to be more of a choice for residents and workers in the area. This would allow for a significantly improved journey quality and is consistent with current local, regional and national transport and planning policies.

THE WAVE EFFECT While it was not in the remit of this study to model the wider economic benefits of a flyunder, it is clear that the creation of thousands of badly needed new residential units will add economic dynamism to the town centre. It is easy to imagine that the new pedestrian access to established cultural landmarks is likely to attract an improved cafĂŠ and small restaurant offering. The removal of the flyover and the increased amount of public space must lift the value of the town centre and the adjoining areas. The BID cites many examples of tunnel building or public realm improvements which foster a positive economic effect for their area. Tunnelling the A3 at Hindhead was cited by Knight Frank as a reason for a dramatic lift in the demand and price of houses in the area. Major improvements to the centre of Sheffield and its public spaces delivered an increased footfall of visitors, additional spending per visit, and increase in leisure-related spending, rental uplift and improved yield.

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

Illustrative view looking east of re-imagined St. Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Green.

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

FUNDING Masterplan and Development Value Introduction This Feasibility Study is supported by a Masterplan and Development Value Study, which is published alongside this report. The purpose of the study was: 1. To provide an illustrative masterplan, indicating how development could be brought forward on the land freed up by the A4 and flyover. 2. To generate an indicative floorspace from the masterplan to assess the potential value from redevelopment that could go towards funding the A4 tunnel.

Masterplan The masterplan section of the study looks at approximately 14 hectares of land between Hogarth Roundabout in the west and Baron’s Court Road in the east. Between Baron’s Court Road and North End Road, the existing properties sit close to the A4, dramatically reducing the development potential and further east, Capital and Counties (Capco), have approval for a masterplan for the land which includes land up to the edge of the current A4. It is envisaged that any land freed up here could not provide any additional development potential. For these

reasons, the land to the east of Baron’s Court Road has not been included within the illustrative masterplan. The illustrative masterplan is informed by a number of overarching principles: • Optimise development. The illustrative masterplan, as well as showing development on land freed up by the removal of the A4, also shows opportunities to bring forward development on neighbouring parcels of land. This includes Hammersmith Bus Station, part of the southern side of King Street, Landmark House and the West London Magistrates Court. • Reconnect Hammersmith Town Centre to the River Thames. This could be facilitated by reconnecting the streets severed by the original construction of the A4 and through improvements to the public realm around Hammersmith Town Centre. • Provide a new series of public and civic spaces connecting the south side of King Street, to St. Paul’s Green, the Hammersmith Apollo, Furnivall Gardens and the River Thames. Critical to achieving this aspiration would be the design and landscaping of the connecting street between St. Paul’s Green and Furnivall Gardens.

• Respect the form and scale of adjacent buildings. Where Victorian streets have been severed by the A4, the aspiration is that redevelopment should re-knit together these streets through design that is sensitive to the scale, massing and architecture of adjacent properties. • Respect heritage assets. This is particularly the case for the Grade II* listed St. Paul’s Church, St. Peter’s Church and Hammersmith Apollo. Development adjacent to these buildings has been set back in order to give these structures prominence. It is proposed that the Hop Holes public house is retained when creating a new pedestrian connection between Lyric Square and St. Paul’s Green. The illustrative masterplan shows that redevelopment could generate approximately 350,000sqm of development floorspace. In addition, Hammersmith could be reconnected to the River Thames and Furnivall Gardens. St. Paul’s Green could be expanded and enhanced and a new pedestrian and cycle-friendly boulevard could be created, connecting the two green spaces. Streets that were severed by the original construction of the A4 could be re-linked together, and almost 3,000 new homes could be delivered through redevelopment and new retail, leisure and community facilities could be provided.

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

Currently the traffic isolates Hammersmith Broadway from the town centre.The bus station occupies a prime site. Our scheme would allow local traffic to be re-routed away from the Broadway. This would reunite the Broadway with the rest of the town centre The proposals present the opportunity to build a new covered bus station on Butterwick Road and create a new mixed use development on the current bus station site.

Development Value The development value section of the study takes the floorspace generated from the illustrative masterplan and tests what value could be generated from redevelopment and how this could help to finance the tunnelling of the A4. The illustrative masterplan covers both public and private land. For the private land, Section 106 receipts, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) receipts, council tax, business rates and New Homes Bonus are all considered as mechanisms for accessing finance for the tunnel. For the public land, three scenarios for developing the land are investigated: 1. A 50/50 joint venture. In this scenario, the public sector land is developed in partnership between the public sector and a private developer and profits are shared equally between both parties. 2. A 25/75 joint venture. This is the same as the first scenario but with a greater weighting of profits to the private developer. This option recognises the complexity of accessing finance for a project of this size, which might preclude the viability and deliverability of Scenario 1. 3. Sell the land. This scenario assumes that the public sector sell the land to a private developer. This option has the lowest risk but would not provide as great a return as Scenarios 1 and 2.

t London Link Design in association with the Halcrow Group and Hammer smith BID

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

LBHF/TfL freehold LBHF/TfL part-freehold part-private land Private land

The development value study is also split between the feasibility options. Option 1 only looks at the development potential from Baronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Court Road in the east to the eastern edge of Furnivall Gardens in the west, whereas options 2 and 3 look at the entire illustrative masterplan.

Option 1 For Option 1 (short cut-and-cover tunnel), the illustrative masterplan shows that redevelopment could create approximately 2,000 residential units and 106,000sqm of commercial floorspace. The table below indicates the sort of returns that development in this option could deliver. Development of the public land within a 50/50 joint venture would offer the greatest returns and could finance 129 per cent of the tunnel’s costs.

Options 2 and 3 Options 2 and 3 are for a deep bore tunnel from Sutton Court Road (Chiswick, London Borough of Hounslow) to North End Road (Option 2) or a tunnel from Sutton Court Road (Chiswick, London Borough of Hounslow) to Earl’s Court Road (Option 3). For both options, the illustrative masterplan shows that redevelop could deliver approximately 2,800 residential units and 106,000sqm of commercial floorspace. The table below indicates the sort of returns that development in these options could deliver. Development of the public land within a 50/50 joint venture would offer the greatest returns. For Option 2 it could finance 44 per cent of the tunnel’s costs. For Option 3 it could finance 41 per cent of the tunnel’s costs.

Tunnel option

Initial development appraisal - based on Options 2 and 3

Element/scenario Development Vehicle

1 (Cut and Cover Short Length Tunnel)

2 (Deep Bore Medium Length Tunnel)

3 Deep Bore Medium Length Tunnel

H&F Development Joint Venture

Joint Venture

Public Residential Units

2,187

788

1,484

Private Residential Units

2,653

1,306

Total Residential units

4,840

2,094

2,790

Public Commercial Floorspace

0 (Not Assumed)

30,000

Private Commercial Floorspace 0 (Not Assumed)

76,400

Total Commercial Floor Space SQM

106,400

Financial Appraisal

£m

Public Development Receipt

1,000

250

454

Private Development Receipt

125

Other Receipts

Total Development Receipts

1,125

323

528

Tunnel cost range (30% - 45% contingency)

1,297-1,446

218-251

Net Benefit/Cost

-682

Less

-172 to -321

72 -105

1,210 *

1,297 *

-769

All assumptions in this table are based upon a 50% Joint Venture scenario * These sums are based on the Halcrow 30% contingency only

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

SUMMARY FEASIBILITY PROJECT TERMS OF REFERENCE This feasibility study was carried out in order to illustrate the council’s ambition to replace Hammersmith flyover with a tunnel. The study terms of reference below recognise that as a local authority there were limits to what could be achieved with a study of this nature and that further work would be required by those best suited to undertake them, namely Transport for London.

To establish, at a preliminary level, the aspirations and any concerns of local residents and businesses. Extensive local engagement revealed a high level of support from both local residents and businesses for a flyunder. Aspirations ranged from a simple flyover replacement to a longer tunnel linking Chiswick to Earls Court. A number of concerns were raised including cost, construction disruption and traffic redistribution. To establish current traffic patterns to best understand this route in its wider traffic network context. This will mean liaising with other local traffic authorities in adjoining boroughs and with TfL. Traffic counts and traffic modelling outputs were provided by TfL which helped to establish the fundamental finding of the project in that there is a high level of traffic dispersion along the A4 corridor between Chiswick and Earl’s Court.

To establish the best available information including projections for future traffic volumes which are relevant to a new structure. Traffic modelling data for 2031 was analysed to advise the size of the tunnel options tested, which showed an increase in traffic flow across the A4 corridor. This is despite traffic volumes in London decreasing over the last 10 years. To establish the best available information including future projections of the cost of maintaining the current flyover structure over a suitably long period. The current round of flyover repairs are costing £60m and have been reported to provide a number of decades worth of use to the flyover. This along with the multimillion pound emergency repairs in 2011 have been the only major maintenance expenditure on this structure during its 60-year existence. To rebuild the flyover, should it be necessary, would be likely to cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

To consider options for a replacement tunnel, considering the length, depth, width and start and end points, liaising with adjoining boroughs as appropriate. In particular to examine the implications of a flyunder with or without junctions to north-south routes. Three tunnel options were tested, a short option and two variations of a long option. The longer the tunnel, the more environmental and economic issues would have to be overcome. Junctions to north-south routes exacerbated these economic and environmental factors. To consider the nature, extent and potential value of any released surface land, considering existing planning policies and any potential threat from varied planning policies. The land released was found to be located mostly in Hammersmith town centre. It was determined that to achieve the full re-creation of the town centre both the gyratory and flyover need to be removed. Estimations suggest that the value released from the blend of public and private land in the town centre could raise £1bn.

Ha m m ers mi t h F ly u n d e r f e a s i b i li t y s t udy

To establish very approximate costs for various tunnel options, noting the variables which will affect confidence in such estimates. Construction costs, based on today’s prices and feasibility stage estimations, reveal that a short cut-and-cover tunnel would cost approximately £250m (+/- 50 per cent) to build, and a longer bored tunnel construction would cost £1.2bn. The addition of junctions could add £500m to the longer tunnel estimate.

land value can raise £1bn and TfL maintenance liability has been assumed to be broadly similar for a tunnel as it is for the flyover. Given the scale of investment, a public-private arrangement is likely to be the most viable option. User charges were explored and other examples suggest that this would not be compatible with the project objectives by reducing the amount of traffic that would use the tunnel. To report at interim stage by March 2014: • On local aspirations and concerns • On broad route options

To review options for meeting the construction costs including, but not limited to: • Future maintenance liability funding for the existing flyover redeployed • Capital funding from TfL • Capital funding from local councils • Captured value from developable land released • The possibility of modest user charges to contribute to any gap funding. At this feasibility stage only limited work has been undertaken on a financing package. Captured

• On whether the tunnel must have junctions with other routes • On the preliminary views of neighbouring councils • On the geo-technical feasibility of a tunnel (analysing other underground uses). This report is one of three documents covering the above requirements. The second is a masterplan report and the third is a geo-technical report produced by Halcrow.

CONCLUSIONS No matter how many expensive repairs are conducted, the flyover wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t last forever. Over the next 20 years London will continue to grow with more jobs being created and houses built. Whether or not this results in significant increases in traffic on our road network is unclear. What is clear is that a plan for the future of the A4 corridor is required and that tunnelling under Hammersmith is possible. The council has taken the initiative in producing this feasibility report and now is the time for others to take this investigation forward. There are some significant environmental and economic challenges to overcome. However, as we have seen, the resulting reimagination of Hammersmith town centre could be momentous.

H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy

If you would like any part of this document produced in large print or Braille please call 020 8753 3069 ÂŠ By:design - March 2014. By:design 020 8753 3926 Ref:16_13cc Printed by Hammerprint 020 8753 2235