text:
Hammersmith Flyunder feasibility study
hammersmith flyunder feasibility study HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM COUNCIL Flyunder taskforce Principal author Nicholas Ruxton-Boyle Contributing authors Neale Stevenson Thomas Cardis Rob Mansfield TfL sponsor Tim Thomas Proof reading By:design Design By:design Photos Dean Wendelborn Artists impressions West London Link Design Photomontage Hayes Davidson 3D mapping zmapping Printing Hammerprint Neale Stevenson Flyunder Champion Nicholas Ruxton-Boyle Thomas Cardis H&F Council 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 Patricia Bench Arun Sondhi Hammersmith BID Peter Wright Halcrow Leader's foreword....................................... 3 Chapter 1 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 1 Illustrative view looking west at potential new commercial quarter around the 'Ark'. 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 3 Illustrative view looking south from Lyric Square. CHAMPION'S SUMMARY T 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 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 council'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. 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 London'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 transforms it. H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 5 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 6 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 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. I would like to thank Halcrow for their expert advice, the planners for their input, the neighbouring boroughs for their support and 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 candidate'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 H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 7 Illustrative view looking east from Furnivall Gardens. key findings and recommendations 10 Key findings 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: 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 Earl's Court; Significant environmental and economic issues could arise by linking a main tunnel to north-south routes; and Both tunnel lengths have positive and negative issues meaning that further local and strategic work should be undertaken. 10 Recommendations 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. 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. H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 9 introduction Introduction 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. 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. A4 corridor The following text is taken directly from the RTF report of which the Great West Road (A4) was one of the case studies. "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 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 London 's resp onse to the Ro ads Ta sk Forc e MAYO R OF LOND ON Transp ort fo r Lond on 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. H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 11 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. 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; • 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." Background 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'. A TUN NEL TO REPLAC A CHAI E THE N OF HAMM OPPO ERSMIT RTUN H FLYO ITIES VER: W 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 er sm ith BID 1860 THE GREA T WES A TUNN T RO AD EL TO REPLA CE TH E HA A TUNN EL TO REPLA CE TH E HAMM MMER SMITH ERSMITH FLYOV ER FLYOV ER : A CH : A CH AIN OF AIN OF OPPO OPPO RTUN RTUN ITIES KING ITIES STREE T ST PAUL DEM S CHUR CH OLISH AND REBUIL D A4 clos creating ed for two widespre plus ad disru years ption. HAMMERS MITH BRIDG E Map show ing the impact of WW II bom b dam age 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 to and from BUILD NEW (ALONGS FLY IDE EXIS OVER TING) Tempora Furnivall ry works/si Gardens te logistics: Filling station by the Ark A new structur cutting through e, just like the no bene the Boro old, fit to Ham ugh, with mersmit h. ST PAUL S CHUR CH A4 can stay construc open duri of land tion. Require mark stru s demolitiong ctures. n Tempora Furnivall ry works/si Gardens te logistics: Filling station by the Ark 1949 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.AND EL COV EXISTIN G FLYO ER TUNNEL VER ROU ON TE) A new structur with the e, just benefit loss of local like the old, land to Ham mersmit marks. No h. Buildings 24 July destroyed 1944. The by a V1 flyin Furnivall Gardens area is now g bomb on covered . by Must be clear LUL 20m belo w surfa Flyover tracks. ce to must be tunnel starts. demolished before At east rail cutt end gradient requires ing. At wes 400m t, to system. 200m to clear surface road Prolonge d cons and truction disru Hammer ption. peri Benefits od smith when complete to . ST PAUL S CHUR CH The prop 1959 osed rout TUNN (HOGAREL TH TO e of the THE ARK ) A4 Gre at Wes t Road (Talgarth Road wes tern exte Hammer 1950's. smith Broadwa y nsion) and Ham mersmit h Flyo ver (viad in the early Deep bore tunn Clears surface el. A4, structur es belo A4 stays w construc open thro tion prog ugh mos t of ramme. uct). 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, LONG TUNN (HOGAR EL TH TO EARL'S ST PAUL S CHUR CH COURT) The Gre at Wes t Road and the el. ace portals. level works only at A4 can end construc remain open tion. during Deep bore tunn Surf proposed flyover. We st Lon don Lin k De sign in ass oci 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 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 n wit h the Hal cro North and Opportu South reun regenera nities for sust ited, developmtion and valu ainable able stretch ent released of rout along entir e, e atio n w Gro up wit h the Hal cro and Ham me w Gro up rsm ith BID and Ham me rsm ith BID 12 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 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 13 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 15 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. 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. 1% 12% agr 6% disa gre e ind iff ere nt 4% strongly d isagree Question 1 Do you agree with the council that the Hammersmith Flyover should be replaced with a flyunder? ee strongly agree 77% These results provided a suitable mandate for the feasibility study to proceed and validated the council'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. These ranged from people not having enough information at this stage of the study to make an informed decision, to the flyover being a 'beautiful structure', or those that said that the money would be better spent on public transport. 16 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 Y T RO D GDNS SA LTER AD GRAN R ST H Y E D SALTER Estate STREET St. Mary's Cemetery PK Cemetery AD BU RY R O BA Y LE SH D R H Y T H E RD R O A D NE LA UN C LE ST . O NA RD 'S H AN D SH AF TE S N IO O MIDLAND O S R D CANAL LD TERRACE RIA Mitre Bridge WEBB O AK SC BE VIC TO HO TH UN Sidings te e In SE CL OL RD Old Oak Common ot Industrial Park SUNBEAM CR WAY ER D SUTTON WE AD LB BA NU WEST OF JUNCTION 2 M4 JUNCTION 2 M4 JUNCTION 1 BRUNEL RD W B R A Y B R O O K U HOGARTH ROUNDABOUT F S MELLITUS O SM ST UND L T d Linfor Christie Stadium S S MA WOOD MEWS NS NO SN DRIVE A E AT SG AR ST IEW STV WE L C LA A V E N U E LONG N ST RE ET CA R VE S- RE E THE TEE T THE GREEN S ST L WAL ST GL ER TIM PL KING DG SBRI RD E GAR AVEN DENS BA SS ETT RD ST AVENUE ROAD THE FAIRWAY H.M. Prison Wormwood Scrubs DU Central line PRIMULA WEST QUARTERS NA SC THE ARK ROAD S STR EE T T SLE RLI LIO AL FO HOYLAK 'S CA ST D E NW ANDREW RE T E R O A D CO ET BEGONIA WK CANE TAN ROA D CLOS E KIN ROAD GS ER IE BRAS TE MPL EM SIE KINGSDOWN EA D CL B R A M L E Y HAVELOCK CL GLENDUN BOWES ROAD FOXGLOVE VIO LA SQ LANE IS ST RE ET TA SQ ST C EE FF PAN GDS EAST DA OR O CH ID SY ND TRINITY H ST EW WAY E M LO LF AL W OD IL BRAMBLE GARDENS RE RD S COMMONWEALTH AVE AVON AR ACTON HIL RD BROMYA IS AR Y K TH E L T H W E A M O N C O M A V E K TR CU RVE ERICA ST M S COMMONWEALT AVE H WHITE W HIT CITY RO AD WHI White City EX N IO IT HIB E OS CL AD TREA EL ON ST DG OLD AR SIRD E DAL ROAD AND NEW ZEAL WAY L RO AD BBC Television Centre RD ORN RUNC PL H KET HES PL SU ET BRYONY ROAD RIN ROAD Wormholt Park R O A D COLLINGBOURNE ROAD AUSTRALIA G S AF RIC A Hammersmith Park CL OS E RO h mit ers e mm Lin Ha City Wood & Lane RELA Y RO GDS PL EVES SILVE HAM ST ST ONE LE IGH MARY ELGIN CR RD YE CL W EM AT RV ND EW CL OSE NY O PE DS G AV A LIA AUSTRA INDIA Latimer Road TCHU RC H RD EN RD D E S BO O MO RE RD R S DEPOT ROAD ST BL EN LIL AC SU ROAD AUSTRALIA CANADA HUDSON CL GRENFELL RD AVE NUE OLD OAK COMMON LANE UE ST JOSLINGS HE IM CR WES SUNNINGDALE AV NORBRO KE T ER N CREIGHTON CL CLOSE SHALFLEET DR CORN ST BENNELONG CL BLECHYNDEN STREET DU LF O ST WALL CR STREET STREET WOOD ROSE SQUARE HEATHS Y T W A W E S MACKENZIE CL LAURENCE CL DA ROAD RF AVE BRASSIE BENTW LD AVE ORTH S WAY CHARLOTTE MS WAYNFL ETE SQ SILCHES TER BR ID CL GE OS BA E RT LE MUIR FIEL T ST D R E OLAF PLACE STEVENTO N ASHFIELD ROAD L E Y S A W HUNT DUNRAVEN AYCLIFFE ROAD ROAD BEECH AVE CRES THE DU CROS RD ESSEX PK MS M VALE MO ST EL ELIZABE UXBRIDGE ASKEW CRES ROAD BOS CO GROVE S AD ALD INE ST WEST- ROYAL BRIDGE CL AN BE HAM A4 GREAT WEST ROAD HA TF ALEXANDRA RD ST. S H E P H E R D' S BUSH PLACE CAXTON CK BRAD FORD RD W AR WAY LO ASKE W BE CK ME LO W W S C RD CR FINDO HAMROAD ROXWELL MEWS N THE DE GLA ROAD MARKET SON SWAIN RD V A L E T T A TT PL ROAD GDS CL IFTO ST N RO AV POPLAR MS MS HOPGOOD ROYA CONING- D'PORT RD AS KE W LY KEITH CE A D R O ROAD W ROAD A4 GREAT WEST ROAD S MARK ET APP ER BULW ST DM NE CR L SP RD VE BUSH ELLING ROAD ST EL MO RD OLD PERC MULTI SHEPHERD'S ROAD ROAD ROAD GEORGES RD U G RD BY AD RO ROAD AD S ROAD GAYF ORD ROAD OR LAND WK SOUTHWAY CLOSE IELD CANH GR AM RD AMBER MAY FIELD ROAD JEDDO BECK WAY LOW ROAD HADYN PARK ROAD KINNEA R RD L S WE BA TS ON ST S GO ILLE TV AD RO W IN Y FORGE MEWS ROAD OD HO SAMU ROAD H AWK AY N GIR DL E R GOLD AY R A VE N S C O U R T ROAD ROAD BATH The Ravenscourt Park Hospital GARDENS WO LUXEM BURG GARDEN S ROAD AT RAV ENSC OURT BUTE WEST SHEPHERD'S RO AD RAVENSCOURT Stamford Brook CROFT HAMLET GDS GLENTHORNE LEAMORE ROWAN Turnham Green THORNTON District Line RAVENSMED S BUSH FLANDERS ROAD VAUGHAN AV YN HA RD M ORE REDM W IN DS OR BISH OP KING MBE CRS Flora Gardens OD GR EE RA RD S KILMA W RSH RD N S O RD O XF ATE G BL YT HE RO AD 'S AN D RO AD ON AV RE MO E AC PL RD Ravenscourt Park G DALLIN ST Lyric Square ROAD L S GARDENS WOLVERTON GARDENS CU SQUARE STUDLAND AVE ST ON OR RD N RAVENSCOURT PLACE GLENTHORNE MEWS ALBION MS BE AD ON Hammersmith RO AD HAMM RO AD VE RN ON ST RL ON ST MARCUS RLE EET GARVEY GOGEORGE R PARK ST S LIS GA R VE RN ON MS MES JA FITZ VE A CHAMBON GROVE CROMWELL AV ST HOLCOMBE NIGEL PLAYF STREET MACBETH IDG E AVE NE AD BR RD BRITISH LL MA ME BEVE RLEY HA M IC CL AR U IS W AV CH LONSDALE AD E PA RF ROAD U NA ME A RO D SE W DE RO AD AD EL EY U RO OAKL ST CA ILEA CL FE R LA RY NE RD VE RO BO AD RO NOWELL ROAD CO LW ITH WIT ASPE RO N H RO AD KE BL E SK EL RD BO LL WFE RD TRINITY CH NE H LL A AC H RO AD AD RO RO DVE AL SD ELL AD LO N CR D EFIEL TT DRIVE WYA WRIGH CR LA PURCEL WA T L Y ROAD SIL VE RTO N BREC ON RD NE RO AD CART WYA TT ADAM WK STR T EE STRO DE NIT ON S BR ON SA RT RO AD MS WH HEAF EATS LANE ARGON STR LY SIA RO EE T S H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy BRON RO MS QU RY ROWBER CLOSE EE N IL SM L R AL OW LA ROAD BANK OW MEAD E CLOS Fulham Cemetery L EL NN HA AD RO DAWE S BE DF ORD PS T ES CO UR S T RO W PR AD C RO IL OT R ST TO EP US IR MS RO AD RO S PA LACE MEWS AD VA FA NST ON PL AC E AD MA PE OR TH BLE AD AD RO RO N STR OR NE EE T ALL ES E TR ER O AD AN TA GTH ST RE AL T OLD EP ORT D DA RO O A SO N NN WAIA Y ET AN TA ST ON B RLA AD RO N RO RO KILM AD AD 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 AIN AD 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 ROAD AT E SH OR RO LD DA WE S AD ROAD PL JERD AN Fulham Broadway BROA DW PL OWN WANSD CE PLA HILARY CL FULH AM RO RO AD B N UR TH W E AIT LA AC H FIEE C LD K - E CA NC AS TE R PU SS CA LT SS ID RO Y AD IDY O N RO AD 17 LA Y RD CE AY Fulham Town Hall FULH M A RO H EFFI E RD T RO ADR U M BO HAR WOOD MEWS PA RK N DA NO LE WK MOORE E CLAR S R MW O AN G R LE VIL CE PLA B HEID EG CR GER ES B RA TR EE AD A CH LD ON RO LIA AD CLO S ELAFORD D SE STR EE T H RO AD ARET MARGRAM ING E CLOS JO ROAD RO AD M ME ND OR A RO AD HE RO D OA ITH SM HN UE EN AV .T M HO AS 'S W AY RT HA LD AN E AR LE DA MA RD EU STA CE RD N UR AY W AL HA M GR OV E LA NE RM RD HO AD W E A SM N W E AV GR RD IN LA RN ALI NE H There was a clear preference for the western portal at Hogarth roundabout and the eastern portal SHUTERS HA L W GLENTHAM GDNS ST HILDA'S RD G R E AT WEST ROAD N SO AW ANE M L IC K SO LAN UT E H N C h is w ic M k LILLIAN RD GLENTHAM ROA D K WIN SLO W LO RD CH ALI NE ST RE ET Cross Hospital AL CH AN RE YS TR EE T RO AD SP S ROA RD ROAD EN QUE GA AV STE IN GREY HOUND S QU CL D AN RM NO MS CLUB ERN TU LE VIL RD RO AD E yo RO AD GR CLA RO YB RD RD NE UR H BO VE AS O E GR GV N ER LF BA VE LG WAL RN CO E ER GV HEST DORC BRITISH VE GRO STH ee L WIL TO N AV E GR MILL CT PASS ER 'S LMU Y BERR PL ITH ERSM HAMM TER Qu M MM E BR RSM IDG ITH E BR ITIS H RD SUN RD ST H ET ER AV EN CH IS W IC Studios CH AN CE LL Frank Banfield Park AIR YF PLA ST ST DU NS t Charing CLA XT ON E OV RD FO ELMS OSE CL N'S ALBA ST TER K FOL NOR R TER The Queen's Club FA IRH OLM E TC E H ST K MYLNE CL RIV CH ER CH AN CEL ST LO RS JA R TE ST ST Riverside RD M ES OR 'S TIL Y ER TILL LANE DIS RO AD Y BIS CA Y BE L RY RO AD CO MER AG H CAS TLET O A LLONER CR RIVER THAMES MALL Hammersmith Pier LO WER GVE AND E ST CA BERESTEDE RD EYOT RS n MIT Es C a ro H tate li ne Guinness Estate AL MAL L QU EE N Peabody Estate RO M AD RO AD MARG RAVIN BARON'S COM S W ME ROAD RTO EA WELLESL RO VERBENA GS RUTL IDG E R EY L'S LORD NAPIER PLACE UPPER RL ROAD GAR DENS DIE PPE FA ROAD LIN RD CRAN BROOK RD ROAD Furnivall Gardens BRIDGEVIEW S NY WO S EX PL Apollo RO AD RN tL ine Baron's Court COURT OA D RO VE REK BEAU PE E MONT AD EARDLEY CO EL M L S ER'S ST PET SUSS tric AV GARD ENS R W SQ T G R E A BLA SOUTH LA LION W E S T ROAD R O A D HAMMERSMITH Dis TALGARTH WILSON'S West Kensington N GWENDWR RO GA GDS FLYOVER Linacre Court ROAD TR ST BR GREAT CHURCH LANE ROAD WES T EB EN PETER'S RD RD RIVERSIDE ID LA SQ S S O S AIR AVE E GE ROAD VIL CROM VIR ST VE PLAC BLACK'S WATERHOUSE CLOSE ITH ON IC RN DOWN ROAD NE ED WELL PH IL B RO CHISWICK HIGH ROAD THERESA R T E GUNTERSTO AV NIN GT AD CH RO A K ISWIC HOMEFIELD D HIGH AIREDA LE BLACK LION AITEN PL ST PETER'S SQ ST PETER'S VILLAS S Hammersmith Town Hall KING ASPEN 'S CE IN S PR MEW EE STR L WALK ANGE T ERSM COLET GARDENS ROAD S ST PETER' K I N G MS BLACK STREE PLACE VENCOURT T RIVERCOURT H A M P S H IR E HOG LANE ALBION ITH BROADWAY MO M Kings Mall AT Broadway Centre SO HAMMERS SHORT LANDS MITH RE EN CL OSE FIT ZAVE HE D Burne Jones House NO R TH Hammersmith CHALK HILL ROAD S CLOS S EDITH GLAZBURY TREVANION L ROAD ER AD RO D EL HA S N'S RO AD NR AD Hammersmith Cemetery FIELD BA WN RO AD TA CH LE AR VIL LE RO AD RO AD PE ST W'S E DR RH AM MAY SE EE CH ARD ORCH SQ STAR AR RO AD N'S EE S GD NLEA GR EYHO ILL RM UND STRE WK GA RD S EN ET AVER EY ADEN E CLOS Fulham Pools Nor man DELO RE E ST ET S GD ES NS HU MBO LT RO AD RO RO WE MO AD PAYN S LIL TIL N TO ST AD AN CILL DISB LAM PET ER LIE RY LS LILLIE CL SQ BREC AD ON RO H H RS OAD MERC PLAC ERS E PERRERS OO K N RA D R NO TE R M PE C BR GAR DENS RD AV ON MO RE CK FO PE SE O N LO NE L FE P RD MB RO KE LO GA TE RR AC E BE CL ST WE Y UN WS CL ME ST LO CR NG RID OM VE AN W RD ICK GE M OR W AR N W E RN V E NE AC H Gibbs Green Estate S ST AISGILL IE AV AN ST L C M D UN Earls Court Exhibition Building LANF REY PL MA NS SUN RD ST M AY VINE SQ SQ FRANKLIN ROAD FANE ST MARCHBANK Empress CH EL CH RD N ESSO RD ARCH EL RO AD THAXTO N RD R D OA ON R GA CHES SON ROAD TELEPH PL ONE LIL Building LIE BE BRAM R MU LGRA S S JE ROAD BEAU MS FORT AD RO dP ark RO AD SE DLE S M CO BE RO AD HUGH DALTON AVE Clem Attlee Estate ER OM CO MEWS CO RA CT ON SE LM RO OM ER PL ER AN TH OW CR OSE CL F AL OR D KN T IVET RD H 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. 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 FIELD ROAD VILLE RICHMOND AT RD S ND COBBO LD CURWEN R NE VILLE DAVIS ROAD SA Y RD ROAD EIN STAR Wendell Park S RO PARK AD BUSH HA EMLYN GNS SULGRAVE GRE CL STOC K BLANDFORD GDNS AD RO WOOD RD RO RO AD RO AD PORT EN RD NE BLE TON RD RO E AN E CR GRAT TOCK AV QUEEN ROAD ANY DORVILL ZLIT RD BARB AP PL GART EROAD H ODS BEACONSFIELD TERRACE PR IORY DUNS AUGU ST AD HA FAX RO WO SQ ROAD B O RO INE K RAVE NSCT 'S BUSH RO H AD SHEPHERD N RT RD DISO S EL'S CLOS E AIT BR EE ROAD ST SOUTH ALDENSLEY RO ES SIDE AD RU FAIR PE NG AM FURBER ST ROAD AD R FO RD Ravenscourt Park RAVENS T DALLING RO CEYL PA ON MS FA FORD STAM K BROO GDNS AV TRUSSL RO RD RD AD NH EIM COULTE TABOR 'S R LG RA RD VE ROAD WEL LESLEY LENA GDNS ROAD HE MA BLENHEIM RD RD SHEPHE RD YT BE HE R G M M SP S RING VA LE TE R ROAD URST BL SB D LORIS RD CH FL AN FOR CR ES RD SY RD HEW CART VILLAS RIC HFORD ST RD'S CR NT ESCE DHAW GOL PAD K ROAD BENB OW MELROSE GDNS K LA ES ID AD RD SOUTHFIELD FIELDING WHELLOCK RD EN SID ROAD BIND EN MS NE E DIS O N GD BEAUC LERC CT BLYT BATOUM GARDENS HE AD S ROAD DEWH MIL KE SO O N BR RD G IR VING LIN BO RO RE AD DAN STRE ET NS RD DI S RD WE RD NGREE RD SIDE NBURY BRACKE GDNS TH ER DING ON ND ELL BA MS E AL LMOR COS BASS ASHC TER S similar manner to and ending in a 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. RO LE R LAU Cathnor Park CO RD LT WEST WK HEA S D RD WOR CE STER DR HU R CH HA EL GIN CL PARN E CLOS ELL STUS AUGU E CLOS POPLAR GROVE ASTROP TCE ANLEY RD OO D RO AD AD SOMERSET MIL RO ASH PERC N TO AD ' E AVE 4% 3% 7% STAN LEY OAK LARCH AV WAY 39% DO RDRECH AGNES ROAD T ARMSTRON SECOND G ROAD AVENUE ALDBO URNE OLLGAR CLOSE HALSBURY ROAD STANLAKE MEWS ASKHAM COURT H SH CROW THO RNE R O AD East Acton OX B R A M E LE Y mith Hammers Hospital Y RO EN ST KELF RO IELD ST ST O KE SL EY OT ST GAR DENS INFI ELD ST FORD CA MBR BARONS COURT HAMMERSMITH TOWN HALL L PO H RT RD E Q U I N T I N M AR K'S RD IDG EG DN S PIONEER W E W ST DO WN AY RO AD CL OS E RD VE RITY CL RD PL ST MER MORTI SQ RISE R EC LA ON OND S OS HI PP OME CR DR ACE ST PL 'S HN N SLA WNE DO JO SOUTH BATMAN GD NS WAY ROAD S IMRE CL QPR CLOSE Football Ground ARIEL RDSTAN LA KE FRITH WILS QUEENSDA CRES LE HAM ST STRE ET PENZ ANCE AN CE JAME S'S PENZ ST ELLERSLIE BLOEMFONTEIN ROAD RD LEY DARN TER QUEE GARD ENS 1% CONIN GHAM CATH NOR ETHELDEN SWINDON ST STANLAKE VILLAS UXBRI GODOLPHIN DGE WARBECK COVERDALE DEVONPOR Shepherd's Bush Market L 6% ST Westfield London BO UR 7% AN E COMB RD PRIN CES PL A D R O EENS QU WK DALE L E D A N S E E AD Q U DIS VILLA Thames PL ON Water CRE SC E Tower 7% NO RLAN PL HO D TA LA NT OR STER NE HO M KINGHA SE CLO ATER CLEARW TCE LLA N ND AD D IS PA RK AV EN UE HO LLAN PK D D PK 22% WARWICK ROAD TE LF OR D GDNS S T NORTH END ROAD ST C C THORNFIELD STOW ROAD C S GROVE Shepherd's Bush Common BUSH R'S MILLE WAY ROAD SCOT ROAD T'S G'HK MS TITMU SS Goldhawk Road WELLS D ROA RO AD CROMWELL GR ON HEBR RD AMOR RD EY O MARC RD RD ROAD ADIE H RS NE LA R ER Y Princess Louise Hospital ROAD Shepherd's Bush GR ROCK d EEN Bush t Cour O DIS AD NS R E PE RD UP GA E RN S LO GDN ON RD odfor Wo urt Co CHARECROFT WAY ON DIS AD S N ER W RDE LO GA MINFORD GARDENS SINC WESTWI CK GDNS RO AD GD LAIR NS GD NS DIS O N W Option 1 EL RO AD CR FIEL RO AD OA RU SS EL L OO KW LN D GD S ADDISON H O L- OAK WO OD CRES GD S MIL RD AD SO N RD MS Kensington (Olympia) ZL ITT STER NDAL E BL YT HE S RD HA MS A RO D Option 2 RD NA PIE LA ND DIS ON R ESTE E T ILCH PLAC UR CO OD WO OAK URT CO RY U LB ME RD HO ST LL AN D PK TS RD E TC AD MACL ISE N IE AP R MAR Y AB BO HIG H ST RE ET HAARLEM RD APPL BR EGAR ROAD TH ROAD OO K GR Olympia KE AD D NS IN GT ON Option 3 ST H ED W MB MB PE DE AR SQ S PE E OK S GD HYDE PARK CORNER If you support a tunnel replacement, or 'flyunder', where do you think it should start and end? WORMWOOD SCRUBS R SC W AY N O A R L G D A BL AK ES HIL PANG L FA RM RD RO Y OAK WO RT H RO AD H Question 2 rnat iona RD l Dep Little Wormwood Scrubs DALGARNO SUTT SHRE WAY WSB URY ST RE MIT CO MM ON Nor th P ol SH OU SHRE WSB URY ST ON MET LL WAY S E N R D G A CL HW OLD RD HIGH S UB LEVE LA BR EW R RD BO NE BR UR N LA E ST ER GD S L EL AC EW NE QUINT IN AVE W AY RD LD C A ON ER L P ST. HIGH OLD WAL LEVE R FORD LING HE L A LEN' TAYLOR'S GRN T EY AM NH S I M THE BYE TOCK FINS RD E OAK E E T S T R R BA WO RO S GDN HE UE MASHIE RD LLIO AD NC FIT ARTILLER HM AN OD D LR ZN AD R Na EA O tio L Y LANE COM A na lR ail D RD E LAN MON TERRICK ST MAURICE ST ST AB LE CACTUS WALK HILARY WAY LAN AVE E E TH BLOEM D O ROAD R AN F WALM GLENDU CT N DALE AVON D O R E THR CU C ERS ESH PL MILFOIL ST LO SE S RD BA ER PORT FONT T ST CLA O N PARK LA ND RE AN PARK ND ROAD EIG SL RO ON EIN E ROAD CIT Y CL O EIGH AD ST H WAY PL ST WAY RD LAND ME RT PO ODRO S HIPP MEW AM GORH PL SE RO R AD AN GRAVESEND RD O WER N'S OL D A WORMHO D ST R RO AD ING E COWL CLOS RO AD PO ROAD RD TT ER OAK ROA LT SEDGE PO PR Y AD RT IN ROAD A32 CE LA LA FIRST FORD GALLOWAY NE DA ND OAKLANDS WOOD LE ADELAIDE ORMISTON LOFTUS THORPEBANK AB D ALE RD 20 TUNIS WILLOW VILLE AVENUE D NS QUEE SW 1% ADDI MACFARLANE THIRD MAPLE RO ROAD ASKHAM SON E D AL S- ROAD ST R O AD ROAD INGERSOLL RD GROVE AND NORL SQ AND NORL SQ AD BLOEMFONTEIN WAY GROVE GROVE LE NSDA PL ARMINGER RD SYCAMORE CLS R O AD ANN'S GARDENS VALE ESEN CR AND NORL RD ROAD AV ROAD ROAD AVEN AV AV ARCHDALE CT LANE T UE S ASK ALE SD S KING EN RD GA RD LLAN BO N COWL EY RD DAVIS EW HETLEY EN ST STEPH D AN LL S HO GDN TH MBE LARDE N RD ST LIME PK RO RD HOLLEY ROAD ROAD SHE T 'S OLD FIELD RD AD H GAINSBOROUGH PENN PHE GARD ENS O WO O LEFROY JEDD S MEW ROAD A L L RD'S ARD PL E OD RD STRON RD ST OC H HA ROAD N O NS MAYFIEL ASK K E MARKET LAN A LIN ME RD LL D RO AR COURT SA E D GR AN LEY AD ME S EDAN CT BA MB OUGH OR GDS EW O RD W AY ROAD D RD D WS WAY SULG V AVEN AD L A I L WOO DIS CE EN MS AB RAVE S GD FF GER EL N ER RD SDEN GRAN RD ROAD UE ROAD AYLM BO ON SH D- ST AM TS RD RICHFO SO S BU ER AB UTHF RY BO HA R RD TS IELD SIN RT RYLE O RO EM SYCA FIE ELGIN CL LE YS RD LD BU ROAD RD RU A RD AD SW CL R LY SS RY MELROSE TCE D TT SQ RY AIR O RD N RD OO ASTRO MORE CHUR L RD KELM GA LETT A AVE D ASHC RD s lyn en Em rd Ga HAM D ROAD EN MU P SCOT GDS BRAC CH S R ME GS STREET HU W MER THE T S RC VILL KENB HO GR. RU H FL IFFLEY RD SMIT WING AS SS AN RO URY PARK EL D ROAD AD L ATE AB H ING BRAD TCE GROVE OSMAN RD AGAT ING RO RO AD STR ER CARDRO O DIS AD RD AD E AVENUE RD CARTHEW AN NASMYTH STREET MEWS GW ROAD DE AY S N NS SS RAVE R K WIC ED ROAD TC PL NSCO E R WA RD STREET ST STAM YM OL RO ROAD AB ROAD ROAD DE URT RY MA T'S BO PL AD S PIA FORD A RO RO AD RO S O D SQ W DE U SQUARE KE AY L- BROO RN SOUT INVERMEAD CLOSE ST OVER RO GRO VILL RO BRADMORE PK AD WA BANIM PLEY IFFLEY KE AS PE GA RW K HERT ROAD VE CLOS KE RO MB S N GD INSB PR IC ONE LO DELL MO AVON W COURT K N MA RO RD EB NS AVEN ON AR OR EA E RD IS DA EN RD O RSB OU N RE W LE AV D BR S ON LY ALK W GH UE CAMBRID Y ST IC K N PL AC E ROAD LAMINGTON ST STREET ROAD BR ROAD ROAD RO CR OO K AD H- T S UT S O MBE TTE CO RLO S W L EL A RO D RO AD OM GE H RT NO A MEW N CH E ND MU ST L RIO AU CR LL WE ES GR ROWAN TERRACE UPHAM ENNISMO RE EE CLEVELAN N PA HAMLET GDS MERTON RO GARDENS ED RO RK AD ITH GALENA TE AD NE NE VE RN PLA CE PARK ROAD CHISWICK FELGATE MS D AV M E WAY ARGYLE Na RO AV PL A RO RN STREET AD ET ail al R tion GROVE AV O RO D N ST END DIMES PL AD RD SQ PL RO PL AV NE PL P E TE R ' S GROVE AC VE PL GLIDDON STANDISH NETH ON ERAV CR ES AD RWICK BUTTE LILY E WELTJE NIGEL PLAY FAIR AVE BEAVOR RN SQ VE R SQ N Earls Court EA RL 'S LION SQ ST PETER'S K LANE SQUARE LANE ROAD ROAD RD O UR T SQ UA RE RD CO UE AVEN E UR ROAD LA NE CH IS ROAD NTH VERBENA GS CK OIL MILL LANE T NORTH EYOT GS RO KE NS INGTON HALL GDS H F UL SQ EA KR R L'S CO UR T SQ SAMELS COURT AD PA LLIS ALLO CH RO CO AD NO CLOS MO BEAU CR AM RT KEM PSF ORD GDNS E ER NER ER BR OM PT ON WHA H GS IV A TT LE NT RO AD DS GLE RF ED E AL ST HE ER AM MS CR IS P ST RN State OL D RE DC LIF FE CR E S NE TA R AISGILL AVENUE PLACE CO ES BE RO LE RG MA F LL END AD R HE DIS LE Y AM CL LA NG TR Y PL West Brompton ST RE MS DC LIF F I N SUN RD NE RO RA VIN AD RO B AD PE M SS RE PL RY RD SQ O E W R PA LA S ES PR CH EM OA PR AT TG ES TER AP O U RIC TT KE XB RO L P Y G TURN H NO CE LILL LERR E EVILL RIV ER VIE W RM RD OK MA NB IE YD R Y CL R AG SE ROAD AN IFIE RE D RD LU RG LD MERR ING TON RD KIN MU E AV TA CE EN HIL RD DYA RD Brompton Cemetery OM PT ON PA RK 'S RIN G AV GD NS A RO SA NO AN SS R RD RD O UL D EL ND MS TA ND MOE CRAM CLOS UB MW RO RO KIL MIN GTO NR OA D RD RT HY R RO EV AB RO R TE ED INT SA S ND MU SQ AD R OR RO AD R TE VE NO UT TN ES Y CH LE AL AD BE ER AD A N TH AD Y ING RT AD RO FA AD MIC IS RV RD ST D E ILL RV ME SO AV OSE EN AS DVE IEL OR E DV BR PLAC N TO H CR BR KLE E RA INV O C CE ES HUGH LL GAITSKE CL KSMOO HAW STREET HU TH LA YLA BOTHWELL STREET ER OM CO AD RO RA SE RBA CLO BA TLE CAS WK MBO NT UN WA S N DO EVER AD RO ILLE RM N UN DR RO ITE LT R ST UR CH Y RD RO WK LINE CARO E NN BAYO RD TO R O FR AD EY PETL RO ROAD N N LE AN M EE PL LA A D NE EN D MU ROAD S TER NS WS ME HAM WAL RD YA Chelsea Football Ground HA PE EX T AN LL D A RO ER ET S EW M ISM FA BIA N EP MIR AB ER E IR US WO OD N LAW RD AD RO EL ST N'S JOH CLOSE RO HOLY ROAD RO AD R TE NS MU AD PO RT S ROAD VA RN A M HO O D Y R E LE AL OND D GIR OA R'S GO BR LORD S MS BERT WAT TE ES WA BA ITA EEN GR LHAM URT CO FULH MAX ER RC AD AD RO HA RN DA CE RD NN SART FO LD ERIN AD RW CO W RD IA R T UR EL O O CL EFFIE E CLOS L D E AC AM ROAD EA CE ST AT HE W EAF SH RR DON TE E LV KE SS RD BLO PLA BA BR AN KS A D R O MUSG R RO G R PA OM AD RO C LA N CLO AD Y CL R Question 3 Should the flyunder connect to any north-south links? 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. 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 study's terms of reference. SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 25% A4 GREAT WEST ROAD 8% HAMM ROAD U ROAD FULHAM PALACE ROAD CHERTSEY CASTLENA GREAT 8% 16% 32% ERSM ITH ROAD A4 GREAT WEST ROAD I WARW CK ROAD 11% 18 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 Masterplan Question 4 New direct north - south routes youspaces think opportunities should be exploited to return Hammersmith Gyratory to two-way working? Current route 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. TfL, over the last few years, has removed similar gyratory systems to the benefit of all road users, returning 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. 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 9% 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. other air quality 6% 19% MALL town centre severence 16% noise river severence 18% visual intrusion 20% 20% 20 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 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. 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. 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 lorry traffic traffic diverting to local roads 34% 15% £ cost 20% other 12% a4 closure during construction 19% H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 21 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 One of the terms of reference for the study was CHISWICK offi Ces Current View With the flyover removed, land would be released for a variety of uses, some that would generate 21% Ho g Usin oPe Con n to t eCt ion He r s iver 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. There is opportunity to repair the townscape with buildings sympathetic to their environment income 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. CHISWICK HAMMERSMITH EARL'S COURT 14% 22% ns PaC e and Use s Ure leis MUnity CoM 7% oa d for relief r stree t King 22% 7% sHoPs 7% Proposed View of the A4 West London Link Design in association with the Halcrow Group and Hammersmith BID 22 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 MALL 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 3% 17% OVERSITE DEVELOPMENT 35% USER TOLL TAXATION H&F RESIDENTS 5% 19% H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 23 borough letters H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 25 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: firstname.lastname@example.com Our ref: Hammersmith Flyunder Date: 28 February 2014 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 & cover' 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 quantum's 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, Dear Cllr Botterill, London Borough of Hounslow (LBH) welcomes the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham's (LBH&F) bold and transformative vision for a ʻflyunder' 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. 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 & cover' 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 ʻportals' 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. 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 26 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 view looking east to St. Paul's Green. H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 27 LANE TA M FF PAN GDS EAST SQ ST C EE DA OR O CH ID SY SU ND E TRINITY H ST RE E ET BRAMBL S GARDEN W WAY E M LO LF AL W OD IL RD S COMMON WEALTH AVE AVON AR ACTO IS N HIL AR Y K ST K TR RE TH E ET L T H W E A M O N C O M CU RVE ERICA ST S COMMONWEAL AVE TH WHI W TE CI TY White City EX N IO IT HIB E OS CL AD TREA ST H EIG EL ON PL ST DG E DAL ROAD NEW ZEALAND L RO AD WAY BRYONY ROAD A IC FR BBC Television Centre RD ORN RUNC PL ETH HESK PL RIN ROAD Wormholt Park R O A D COLLINGBOURNE ROAD AUSTRALIA G S A Hammersmith Park CLO SE RO sm er e mm Lin Ha City Wood & Lane RELA Y RO ith GDS PL EVES SILV HAM ST STO NE IGH LE PL MARY ELGIN C YE GL W MA TIS E A V E S A RO A DE FONT T WHI T E E T RS L ST OIL D AR D RT LA OLD R DA SIR PARK A CL O N PARK ON ND RE ND IGH SLE AN ROAD HIT AD RO EIN E ROAD CIT OLAF ASHFIELD ROAD FIRST L E Y S A W SOUTH BATMAN PLACE LA HUNT BROMYA RD AVENUE ST Y CL O WAY WAY D RD AN RTL ROME PO D S PO HIP MEW AM GORH PL SE ST STEVENTON EFOR SEDG IMER MORT SQ RIS RE C LA ON ND SS PO O H IP OME CR DR CE PLA NS L A WNE DO E AD RO R AN D GRAVESEN RD O WER N'S OL G ROAD A ER OLT WORMH D ST ING E COWL CLOS D OAK AD RO WAY ROAD ST 'S JOHN NS GD TT PO ROAD RD Y ER PO PR AD DUNRAVEN ROAD S IMRE CL QPR CLOS E RT IN Football Ground ARIEL RDSTAN EE STR T PENZ ROAD A32 CE LA LA GALLOWAY NE DA ND KE AYCLIFFE ROAD ELLERSLIE BLOEMFONTEIN ROAD ARMSTRON SECOND OAK LARCH AV WAY ALDBO URNE OLLGAR CLOSE HALSBURY RD ROAD ETHELDEN SWINDON ST STANLAKE MEWS BEECH AVE CRES THE DU CROS RD ESSEX PK MS M VALE MO ST EL ELIZAB UXBRIDGE ASKEW CRES ROAD MBE BOS CO S GROVE ROYA L D RO RO AD MA PORT EN RD GRAT TON RD AD BLENHEIM RD RD RO NE BL RD EN AN OE CR FA R RO MS CK AV ROAD ANY OD STO ZLIT CEY ST INE AP PL GART EROAD H DORV BEACONSFIELD RO AD DUNS TERRACE HA IOR FAX AUGU WO SQ PR 'S BUSH AD ES SHEPHERD PE RO N RT H RD AD DIS ON EL'S CLOS E MERC PLAC ERS E SAMU ROAD GOLD H AWK DL ER AY R A VE N S C O U R T ROAD ROAD H BAT FLANDERS The Ravenscourt Park Hospital RAV ENSC OURT GARDENS GIR WO LUXEMB URG GARDEN S ROAD AT Flora Gardens OD GR EE BUTE WEST SHEPHERD'S RAVENSCOURT G STUDLAND AVE ST ON OR RD DALLIN N RAVENSCOURT PLACE ON VE RO Stamford Brook CROFT HAMLET HAMLET GDS AD GDS GLENTHORNE LEAMORE ROWAN Turnham Green THORNTON District Line RAVENSME UPHAM S BUSH ROAD VAUGHAN AV REDM YN HA RD M ORE CRS RA RD S KILMA W RSH RD N S RD O E XF O GAT W IN DS OR BL YT HE RO AD BIS HO PK ING 'S ER LA ND RO AD ON AV RE MO CE PLA S RD Ravenscourt Park ST Lyric Square ROAD L S GARDENS S WOLVERTON GARDEN CU MB SQUARE GLENTHORNE MEWS ALBION MS BE AD Hammersmith RO AD HAMM RO AD VE RN ON ST ON ST MARCUS RLE EET GARVEY GOGEORGE R PARK ST LIS GA R RN ON MS FITZ S ME JA E AV CHAMBON GROVE CROMWELL AV ST HOLCOMBE ST NIGEL PLAYF STREET AVE NE MACBET NS DE AD BR GAR BRITISH LL MA E BEVE RLEY MM AS HA MM E BR RSM IDG ITH E SHUTERS L W GLENTHAM GDNS ST HILDA'S RD G R E AT WEST ROAD M N SO AW ANE L IC K SO LAN UT E H C h is w ic M k LILLIAN RD GLENTHAM IC CL IS W AV CH LONSDALE AD RO E PA RF ROAD U NA ME AR U RO AD SE DE W EL EY CA ILE BO LA FE RO DVE AL SD EL LA LO N ELL TT DRIVE WA Y T PURC WYA ROAD SIL VE RT ON RO AD CREF IELD BREC ON RD WRIGH CR LA E NE RO AD CART HEID WY ATT ADAM WK ST WO O NIT N EAF ATSH LANE RE ET STR OD E W PR BE RO AD EG CR GER ES A CR BT RE R D OA CH AL DO N IL RO LIA AD CL S ELAFORD D OS E ST RE ET HA RO AD MARG AM INGR E CLOS ARET ROAD M ME ND OR A O ER PS RO AD OT H R UR D OA ITH SM HN UE JO EN AV S R TE NS MU BR ON SA RT RO AD MS WHE HA ARGO N MS ST LY SIA AD RO RE ET ROAD OW MEAD E CLOS BANK Fulham Cemetery FULH NN AD RO L EL DAWES DFO RD ES O TC S SA T ST . O TH MIR MA S'S W AY RT HA L N DA E R AY AR LE DA MA RD D OA EU US IR MS ST E AC RD W AL HA M GR OV E LA NE TO N UR EP A RO LISBURY D R LD S PA LACE MEW S D OA VA FA RM NS TO N PL AC E S QU EE NS S RO AD MA BL E RP HO ET AD AD RO RO LLA N MIL L ST RE ET RO WA AL LE ST RE ER OA D KE O NY N R ST EE T KIN RE ET rt be R o wen e O us Ho GW OO D S ER LE Y DER EC L ST ST RE ET FE RN HU RS RD RO AD RA DIP ILT ES FILM T ETERNI WALK IN GL ET HO ST ER RP E CH ILD DA NE R HU BIS H 'S OP L RS ST R RE O S VO T WS R - HA BO O RB E AV R D OA NE IF SW TS RO DE AD TT RO DO NE R RO CU RR Y HE ST MU NS R ST O PL W S PK RD MU CL ON PA RK AV EN UE TE R CT DION IS ST DORIA RO AD R Parsons EEN Green G K GE CONI IN TON BROUGHROAC RD APP PE AIL AD ER TE ROAD G FULHAM PA PL H S F H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy ID BIS P HO 'S H UL NS AM NEW PET ERH BOROUG S MEW STRE ET GD P'S RD RK EL IG D The Warren FU TO G LIN R E BU AC PL N RD LH A RO BIS LT AM IU D AU YS S 29 UR NE ST U R DD ID GE AR E ST RIN M CO RN NS N S 'S DIN LE SA N EL RE ET CO L HIL LE CO DNS ST G R LO LA GM BE MU HEAT H MAN D S ROAD R LV CR IC SO IL LE AV AD ST AN E O Y RB ND ER E O PA IN D ST LE HIL ST RE R BU E NU R O ER AD S DAIRY AC NF AV S R EN O RE C O CL L E FIN ET O O ET AN R BO RYECROFT IN T UE D AM AC RO RD STO KE V G LA DO Y HO O KH Parsons Green NC KM E AD N O RD AD GR ST RD AV R AR HU ES W EL S RE ET ED GA RL R TE EY ER A RO AD LS D EN UE ME TR EE T ST WO LA OD LA RO NO C ST M AR KS C RD B IR EN AS EL TH NIA CRES IR ON RD RC H ST HA AD M RE ET GO W AN KIM BE VE LL RA FU M IM LH W SA A AD Dis tr L ict LL P E T RO ER UG H RD OK RO MB R LA TE RDO A W AV EN UE S NU E T M ST M AU S GE ID E BR AC PL ELM ON ST RD E HAR BLE DO W N RD in e N PA M CA RD L ST A FA RD PA RT G Y Eel CR LE W ES RA RD TY Brook Common BL AK E DS BA AV G LE Y'S AL O HA RW CH AR T O VE S UTO RO VIL L AS HE AD RD FO RD S SE TT O RO RD BU BETT RIDG R E ROAD CROWN YD BELL'S AL S RT Y RD BE LT N RA CO MBE M D B LA NG RO ERRY ROWB CLOSE TH OR ST RE ET AT AL AN TA ST RE ET WY FO LD RR MA SQ YA T RE N RTO PO AD RO TR OA D DA RL RO AD AD NE RO MA RK BIS WIN AN RO RO KIL HO AD AD 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 M AIN ER TT LE NE STO RD R PA KV ILLE RO AD ROAD S ME HO GIR SH OR RO DA R WE S AD ROAD PL JERD AN Fulham Broadway BROA DW PL FULH AM R D OA RO RO SA VIL LE RO AD AD R TE PE R TE 'S BR BL OO OO KV ILLE ILLE RO AD BU RN TH WA ITE LA NC H FIEE C LD K AC E CA AS TE R PU SS RO AD CA LT RV P'S CL ON SS ID RO Y AD IDY O N RO AD EFF IE RD RD HO AD WS E MA N BO W IN GR AV E LA RN AC H R RD LIN E RO AD DEL OR ME STR CL NE Y VE UN RD RR A RO D NOWELL ROAD CO AU LW OAKL ST ITH RO AD AD ASPE RO N AD KE BLE ITH ELW SK RD RO TRINITY CH ELL WF RD NE H LL A D OA H ROA D K S WIN NS GD LO W LO RD A CH LIN E ST RE ET Cross Hospital AL AN Y RE ST E RE T RO S ROA RD AD SP ROAD E QU EN S GA AV TE IN RO AD GREY HOUND KIN MU TA EN S QU EE S GD GA D AN RM NO MS B CLU N'S S ERN TU E VILL RD EL CH AR RD N ESSO CH RD RO AD E yo RO AD GR CLA YB RD NE UR H BO VE O E GR GV N ER LF BA VE LL G WA RN CO E ER GV HEST DORC H BRITIS E GROVH ST ee AL Qu IT BR ISH MIL LER' CT S TC ST H RD NE TH A ER ST VE CH Park t Charing CL AX TO OV E CH RO RD SFO ELM SE CLO N'S ALBA ST TER OLK NORF R TER Club PE ST W'S E DR R M HA MAY AR ORCH SQ CH SUN RD N CH IS W IC K MYLNE CL ES ER M RIV ER JA T ST ST Riverside LL CE AN CH ST OR M S Studios AN CE LL OR 'S TIL RY LE TIL LANE DIS Frank A RO D BIS BE CA Y RY L RO AD C E OM RA GH S CA TLE TO CH A LLONER CR E GR L T WIL ON HA AV E PASS LMU Y BERR PL ITH ERSM HAMM TER RIVER THAMES MALL Hammersm ith Pier LO WE R GVE AND ES CA BERESTED RD VERBEN GS T Guinness Estate MAL L Q E UE N Peabody Estate RO AM AD RO AD MARG RAVIN BARON'S COM S MEW ROAD RT EA A LORDR NAPIECE PLA RS n MIT Es C a r H tate o li ne EY WELLESL L'S RO E UPPER RUTL RLI DG E R ROAD GAR DENS COURT PA PE DIEP FA ROAD LIN RD CRA NBROOK RD ROAD Furnivall Gardens BRIDGEVIEW S NY WO S EX PL Apollo RO AD RN tL ine Baron's Court AD RO BEAU PE E MONT AD EARDLE CO EL M L S T SQ CO WH A RFE ER' ST PET SUSS tric AV GARD ENS R W S SQ T G R E A K BLAC SOUTH LA LION W E S T ROAD ROAD R O A D HAMMERSMITH Dis TALGARTH WILSON'S West Kensington N GWENDWR RO GDS FLYOVER Linacre Court ROAD TR ST BR GREAT CHURCH LANE ROAD T WES EB PETER'S RD IDG RIVERSIDE ID LA SQ S O S AIR AVE H E E GE ROAD VIL CROM VIR VE PLAC BLACK'S WATERHOUSE CLOSE ITH ON IC RN DOWN ROAD ONE ED WELL PH IL B RO CHISWICK HIGH ROAD ST PETER'S SQ RO THERESA R T E GUNTERST AV NIN GT AD IC CHISW HOMEFIE K AD HIGH AIRED ALE BLACK LION AITEN PL PL ST PETER'S VILLAS S Hammersmith Town Hall KING ASPEN 'S CE IN S PR MEW E STR ANGE L WALK ET ERSM COLET GARDENS ROAD S ST PETER' K I N G MS BLACK STREE PLACE T RIVERCOURT H A M P S H IR E HOG LANE ALBION ITH BROADWAY MO M Kings Mall AT Broadway Centre SO HAMMERS SHORT LANDS MITH EN RE CLO SE FIT ZAVE HE D Burne Jones House NO R TH Hammersmith CHALK HILL ROAD S CLOS S EDITH GLAZBURY TREVANION L ROAD ER YE LD H S N'S RG MA RO AD Hammersmith Cemetery N FIEL BA R ON OA D RO WN AD RO AD Banfield PL ST AY DU NS TA CH AR LE VIL LE ME RO RO AD RO The Queen's FA IRH OL EE STAR NO NLE A GR EYH ILL OU ND EV EET WK RD EN STR AVER EY ADEN E CLOS EET S PAYN GD ES LA NS HU MB OLT RO AD Fulham Pools No RO OW E MO AD S LIL TIL N TO ST AD nd rma AN CILL DIS BR LAMP ETER SQ LIE RY LILLIE CL BREC AD ON RO H H AY RO RO MAN RD NH AD ALE NSD LO RD PERRERS ROAD S OO K N RA DN OR TE R PE MB GAR DENS RO KE RD LO GA N PL CR AV ON MO RE K EC FO RD O CL SE PE MB TE RR AC E B FE LO NE L P N ST WE Y UN WS CL ME ST LO C NG M RO NE VE AN W RD ICK RID GE M OR W AR N W E RN V E NE AC H Gibbs Green Estate S ST AISGILL MU ND Earls Court Exhibition Building LANF REY PL AD SE D MAN S SUN RD T YS MA VINE SQ FRANKLIN SQ ROAD FANE ST MARCHBANK Empress ARCH EL RO AD THAXTO N RD RO CHES SON ROAD PHON TELE PL E Building LIE LIL BRAM BER S S JE ROAD BEAU MS FORT A RO Park R D OA D SE LE SC OM BE A RO D HUGH DALTON AVE Clem Attlee Estate ER OM CO MEWS CO C RA TO N LM RO OM ER PL AN SE THER OW CR OSE CL LF OR D KN IVE H C OE BR EE ROAD A ST GAI RO BO NS RD M SOUTH SIDE S FURBER ST S ALDENSLEY ROAD RO AD RU FAIR GR FO RD RD RD ADIE ROAD M RD BR EGAR ROAD TH ROAD O BR BARB OK RD RAV ENS CT DALLING FORD STAM K BROO GDNS QUEEN HE LON RD AD HE IM ILLE VE RA LG PA RD ROA D COULT ER RD T SLEY WELLE AV LENA GDNS ROAD TH BE HE R G M M SP S RIN VA GLE TE R ROAD HURS BLY SB D LORIS RD CR ES HEW CART S VILLA SHEPHE RD 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 STAN BE CK L BRAD AN HAM FORD RD OW ASKE W BE CK M E LO W W S C CR FINDO N SP RD VE ELLING BUSH PERC MULTI SHEPHERD'S ROAD HA TF ALEXANDRA RD ST. ROAD ROAD GEORGES RD U G RD BY AD RO ROAD AD ROAD ROAD RO D ROAD GR CURWEN RICHMOND AT RD S SVIL ND COBB FIEL LE EE GA D YFOR OR LAND WK SOUTHWAY CLOSE IEL D CANH AM RD MA YFIELD ROAD BECK WAY LOW HADYN PARK Y WAY ROAD ST EL MO RD HAMROAD L ROXWEL MEWS THE DE GLA ROAD MARKET SON SWAIN RD V A L E T T A Y DO LEFRO JED S MEW JEDDO KINNE R NE OLD ROAD PERC Y ON WEST WK SHE AD RD WO RC STER EDR HA M BU SH HA EMLYN GNS VE GRE CL OCK BLANDFORD GDNS AD WOOD ST RO RD CH FL AN FOR RD SY RIC HFORD ST 'S CRES CT CENT G HAWK OLD PAD ROAD SULGRA BIND MS BENB OW MELROSE GDNS L E AK SID E IS DD O N GD BEAU C CLER RD BLYT BATOUM GARDENS HE A S LINGBIRVING BO RE DAN MS E RO KE MIL SO N RD RO AD ' RU SS EL AD D RD SOUTHFIELD FIELDING WHELLOCK RD EN SID ROAD EN UR KENB BRAC GDNS NE NS RD IS RD WE RD NGREE RD SIDE Y TH ER DIN ON ND EL E L BALM MS ORAL EI BASS N ASHC TER HU H RC EL GIN CL POPLAR GROVE ELL PARN E CLOS AUG E CLOS ASTR E OP TC ASTR ANLEY RD OO D A RO D AD SOMERSET K PAR RO DAVI SA RD S compared and reported are a short option (1a in the Halcrow report) and a long option S(3a in L S image below shows the Halcrow report). The 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. RO A TT PL ROAD GDS CLI FT CAXTON S H E P H E R D' S BUSH PLACE ST ON AS KE W LY KEITH ST ROYA MS HOPGOO AV POPLAR MS ALD INE ST CONING- WESTBRIDGE CL D D'PORT ER BULW DM NE L CR RD CE A D R O ROAD ROAD OLD ROAD ROAD LE VIL D ST A WE RO FORGE MEWS ROAD AR RD BA TS ON ST GO OD W IN R LAU Cathnor Park VILLE ROAD STAR Wendell Park CO AD RD LT RO CH ASH AD ILT 'S - Ravenscourt Park RAVENS T Y AIT AVE ASKHAM COURT STANLAKE VILLAS option comparison QUEENSDA CRES LE WIL SHAM ANCE AN CE OAKLANDS WOOD LE ADELAIDE ORMISTON D LOFTUS THORPEBANK AB D ALE ST JAM ES'S ST RD ROA D 20 E HVILL FRIT TUNIS LEY DARN TER PENZ WILLOW EN GARD S PR S INCE PL ROAD NS QUEE SW ADD MACFARLANE AVENUE THIRD AN QUEE Westfield London BO E COMB RD MAPLE AV A D R O AD RO ROAD ASKHAM N ISO D AL S- ROAD ST ROAD ROAD INGERSOLL RD GROVE D LAN NOR SQ D LAN NOR SQ BLOEMFONTEIN WAY GROVE GROVE LE NSDA PL E ARMINGER RD SYCAMORE CLS ROAD ANN' GARDENS UXBRI GODOLPH L E D A N S E E AD Q U DIS S VALE CR AND NORL RD SEN QUE WK DALE ROAD NO ND RLA PL ROAD T ESEN ROAD UE AVEN AV AV ARCHDALE CT LANE DGE WARBECK COVERDALE Shepherd's Bush Market MARK L ST Thames P ON L Water CRE SC E Tower TA LA NT OR ET APP ST ERNE ST H AM KINGH E CLOS WATER CLEAR TCE AN OLL N D AD D IS PA RK E AV NU HO LLAN E HO ND LLA PK AS VILL ASK UR ALE GSD KIN DENS GAR RD HT DO RDREC BO AGNES N COWL DAVIS D PK EW HETLEY ETH EY RD EN ST STEPH D AN LL S HO GDN GHAM CONIN T DEVONPOR EN LARD ROAD RD LEY LIME C C THORNFIELD ROAD C Shepherd's Bush Common ROAD G Shepherd's Bush IN PK N REE BUS MILL WAY H d dfor Woo urt Co h Bus rt Cou O DIS AD NS R E PE RD UP GA E RN S LO GDN ON RO RD HOLLE ROAD ROAD RD SHE RD 'S OL DFIELD RD AD H GAINSBOROUGH PEN PHE GARD O W WO E PL AR NAR ROAD A L L Y RD RD'S OD ENS STRO RD D O ST ROAD SCOT T'S ER'S CHARECROFT WAY LO W ON DIS AD S ER DEN R GA STO H HA ROAD LE ROCK N CK O NS MAYFI ASK E MARKET LAN NSA A LIN ME RD WE LL D GROVE RO AR COURT AMBER CATH D O GR AN AD ELD RD ME S EDAN CT BBA M OUGH OR GDS EW Y RD AY W ROAD D WS WAY RAVE SULG GDS NOR V UE AVEN O DIS AD FF LE L A I L OD- RD WO GER G'HK MS TITMU SS MINFOR D GARDENS GDNS CE EN MS AB ROAD SIN AM SH EL Goldhawk Road WELLS RD D ROAUSTUS RO AD WESTW ICK RO AD CLA IR GD NS DIS O N GD NS N ER RD SDEN GRAN RD ROAD ROAD AYLM BO ST N TS ORD RICHF SO S BU ER AB UTH RY BO HA R FIE TS SIN RT TT RYLE O RO N LY EM SYCA RO AD FIEL ELGI LD CL LE YS D RD BU ROAD RU A RD AD D OO SW AIR CL R CR SS RY MELROSE TCE D N SQ EL LETT RY O RD RD MOR CROMWELL GR W FIEL G RO AD OAK L S OD WO LN L RD KELM GD ADDISON H O L- OA KW OO CRES GD S ROAD DEW STR EET MIL RD AD LA ND DIS ON TER HES E RT ILC PLAC OU D C WOOD K OA URT CO Y UR LB ME COS GA A AVE C ASH RD URCH s lyn en Em rd Ga HAM OP D E ROAD EN R MU SCOT GDS BRAC S ME GS STREET HU W MER THE T S RC VIL KENB HO GR. RU H FL IFFLEY RD LAS SMIT WING SS AN AD RO URY PAR EL D ROAD L ATE ING AB ER H ING BRAD TCE K GROVE OSMAN RD SO N RD Kensington (Olympia) AD RD ST AGAT AD RO BRON RD AMOR RD TR EY USSL STER NDAL E BL RO YT HE S RD RD RO NA PIE R ITT ZL HA MS HO ST LL AN D PK ST RD CE A RO CARD O DIS AD RD RA E E AVENU RD CARTHEW NASMYTH STREET D RO AD NG MEWS ROAD R MA YA BB OT O MARC AD MACL ISE HIG H R ST EE RD T W NS DE ROSS AY NA TABOR S N PIE RAVE R K WIC ED ROAD E TC PL NSCO WA RD STREET RY MA ST OT'S B PL STAM OL ROAD HAARLE APPL ROAD OO K GR Olympia K AD D S EN IN GT ON ST H ED W DE AR SQ MBR S PE MBR AB ROAD ROAD YM URT ES PIA FOR OOK D BR INVERMEAD CLOSE RO AD RO AD S O U DE PE OKE SQ AY W SQUARE L- RN HE SOUT KE RO DS G OVER RO GRO VILL BRADMORE PK AD WA OKE BANIM PLEY DELL IFFLEY AS KE RO MB S N PE GD K IC RW E STON VE CLOS D EN EB PR RTON AVON W COURT AVEN AR EA RS E IS MO O N RE W UG H AV BY BR S ON LY ALK W UE CAMBRID IC AC E ST K ROAD LAMINGTON ST STREET ROAD BR ROAD ROAD RO OO K AD H- T S UT S O MBE TTE CO RLO EWS A M CH WE LL AD A RO D OM GE NO CR LL WE ES RT GR ROWAN TERRACE EN ND MU ST ENNISM ORE EE H CLEVELAN AU N PA RIO MERTON RO GARDENS ED RO RK L AD ITH GALENA TE AD RO NE SQ VE RN PL O AC E DE PARK ROAD CHISWICK FELGATE MS D AV M ARGYLE Na RO AV PL RO RN STREET WAY AD ET tion GROVE AV AD RO N ST al R END C R DIMES PL AD RD PL RO VENCOURT PL AV NE PL P E TE R ' S GROVE AC VE ail GLIDDON STANDISH NETH ERAV ON AD BUTTER LILY E WELTJE NIGEL PLAY FAIR AVE BEAVOR RN ES VE R SQ N Earls Court EA RL 'S SQ LION WICK SQ ST PETER'S K LANE SQUARE LD LANE ROAD RD ROAD RD O UR T SQ UA RE RD CO AVEN E UR ROAD LA NE CH IS NTH VERBENA GS OIL MILL LANE T NORTH EYOT GS UE RO KE NS N INGTO HALL GDS H F UL SQ SAMELS T COUR AD EA KR RL 'S CO UR CH RO ON LE LE DA T S AD NO CLOS EYOT VE LLIS ALL MO BEAU CR AM RE KE RT KEM PSF ORD GDNS E ON ER Y H ER GS R AV IV A TT B M RO PT NT RO AD GLE HE ER AM MS Y AM R LL L IE BE C AN ST L C PLACE CR IS P ST RN TA DS CR E State OL D LE CO AISGILL AVENUE ES S NE RO F END AD HE DIS I N RN SUN RD RD RO VIN RA E SQ LE RY B AD PE M SS RE PL AD D O AD LA NG TR RIC KE L YP T S Y TT XB RO L P West Brompton E IR FA ST MS RD R PA LA CE S ES PR H EM OAC PR AP O U TURN LIL RD LERR LE EVIL RIV ER VIE W LIE YD RM RD OK MA NB ON Y CL SE ROA AN GA RE AG D RD R LU RG D MERR IN GTON RD RA D VE AR DY HIL RD D Brompton RO AD 'S RIN G AV AD RO SA NO AN CER SS RD RD O UL ND EL VE GRA MUL RD MS CLU TA Cemete BR OM O PT N PA RK MON E CRAM CLOS MW AD RO B RO KIL MIN GT ON RO AD ON RD EVE AD RO R HY RT R TE AB RO TE R UR CH 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 SQ R A N OR AD RO AD NO UT TN ES Y CH LLE A BE ING ER AD TH Y D RT AD RO AD K MIC IS RV RD ST D PLAC N TO H CR E RA INV ILL E O C LE CE ES HUGH ELL GAITSK CL SMOO HAWK ET STRE R HU TH YL BOTHWELL STREET RM FA CO WK MB NT UN WA S TT AN ER OM AD RO ARA SE RB CLO BA TLE S CA OLT D YR WK DR LINE CARO E NN BAYO RD RO ITE ST LS RO N TO R O N LE AN M EE FR PL AD PETL RO ROAD LA A D NE EY ROAD RD EN D MU TER NS S W ME S DOWN WANS E PLAC AM LH WA RD YA Chelsea Footba Groun HILARY CL HA PE ER ET EX WS E M T AN LL D A RO ISM ER FA BIA N EL EP IR US AB E RO ST 'S JOHN E CLOS RO HOLY ROAD AD RO LA OD WN AD AD PO RT PALEME AD ROA RN VA AY Fulham Town Hall FULH M A RO RD T MILLSHOTT CLOSE CLOSE D A 'S ER AT GO AD TE BR LORD S MS BERT RD BRO WAT ON DE WA BA RC ITA EEN GR LHAM URT T R MAX ER NSA RT A RO D CO RN DA CE RD HA D NN FO AL LA ERIN RW U CO LE Y W IA RO Y OOD HARW WS ME PA RK N DA O N LE WK EL O RT AD CL D O E EFFI E CLOS L E AC AM ROAD MOOR O N E E CLAR S R MW O AN G R LE VIL A PL CE SS RD ST AT HE W EAF SH ERR DON T E LV KE PL BA BR AN KS EA ST A D R O AC MUSG R C LA A RO E M PA RO Y CL KE M PS D AD AD RA L ME VE CH LIL E V E RO O SH EN YV ILL AD RD DO TT CH RO STR RO D EN N E AD E OL AD RO N AN RO AD E PA RD ON N A G E RS SID BU RY EV OR ON AD RO S EP RO AD PU PL E AN SW MS D A RO E V ST PA ER FE LD S GREEN RO CE L A CR EN STR EE T R AD S OS HIT TIN ST G AL WAN LD ACFO RD RO AD O GS am Fulh tball Foo und Gro L ST DSW WN R RO FIR TH G S EE T LANE AD R PE M RY ORTH AD RO BOW PARSONS GREEN D EA CH M O DU E ST IP LE ERDE FO L WA RR L EL S - RD QU RD RD AD DE DO RE AR BE OX AN ST STR Bi sh op sP ar k R O R MA GUIO CH ST RO CL RD BE SCOM EDDI RD O ND ID EET RR Y BR IF FE RE N RO AV BR ET AD N EN UE RO T GS AD AD AV N LA AD A D BO EL UR NK LA BA S GD ST ON OUS BROOMH EN UE D R G E PETE Z R LINVE E R ST ALDE CORT RBOR ASHIN RVILL ST RO AYNE E BRIDGE OUGH GTON AD E E TOW CRIS AD RO ROAD RD ROAD FOSK FULH AM RD ROAD RLI BU EL YS RIN ETT ST NG IU M G 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. 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. Step 1 Step 3 Step 2 Step 4 30 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 Long option The long option is a two-and-a-half-mile twin tunnel between Chiswick and Earl'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 Earl'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 31 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. 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. Approach ramp (Cutting) Cut and cover section Bored tunnel and cut and cover connection Open cut, cut and cover, SCL and bored tunnel section. 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 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. Option construction method Cut-and-cover Tunnel boring machine 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. 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. total tunnel length 1.6km/ 1 mile 8.2km/5.1 miles construction cost* (2013 prices) ÂŁ218m ÂŁ1,297m Short Long *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. H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 33 Construction lorries The amount of construction traffic created by any subterranean construction is a function of the material removed and the construction methodology. 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, Option Short Long construction time 3 years 3 years A4 disruption 18 months 18 months location of main disruption Hammersmith town centre Portal locations, drive site and Hammersmith town centre 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 tunnel's excavated material, tunnel lining precast segments and concrete aggregates could be transported by barge. 34 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 Construction benefits Option Total tunnel length Volume of spoil to be disposed (m3) average daily lorry equivalents with no river use 150 375 Average daily lorry equivalents assuming use of river 28 61 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. Short Long 1.6km/1 mile 8.2km/5.1 miles 430,000 1,140,000 H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 35 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 Short Long percentage of east-west traffic likely to use tunnel 100% 50% 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. 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. In 2031, it is forecast that approximately 2,500 vehicles an hour will use the flyover in either 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 Earl'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. This is a fundamental finding as traffic that joins the A4 between the start and end points of a tunnel between Chiswick and Earl's Court will have to use a surface network. Should the flyover be removed, it would be diverted around the Hammersmith Gyratory. The short tunnel is determined to have no impact on traffic flow as it is a straight replacement of the 36 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 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 37 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. 38 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 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. A RE-IMAGINED HAMMERSMITH TOWN CENTRE 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. 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. The economic opportunity for redevelopment is dealt with in detail in the masterplan (published alongside this feasibility report) and summarised later in this chapter. 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. 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 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 39 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 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. 40 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 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. Illustrative view looking east of re-imagined St. Paul's Green. 41 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 H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 41 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. 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. 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 H ammersmit h F lyunder feasibilit y st udy 43 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. 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 Baron'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. t London Link Design in association with the Halcrow Group and Hammer smith BID 44 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 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. Tunnel option Initial development appraisal - based on Options 2 and 3 1 (Cut and Cover Short Length Tunnel) 2 (Deep Bore Medium Length Tunnel) Joint Venture 1,484 1,306 2,790 30,000 76,400 106,400 £m 454 23 52 528 3 Deep Bore Medium Length Tunnel Element/scenario Development Vehicle Public Residential Units Private Residential Units Total Residential units Public Commercial Floorspace Total Commercial Floor Space SQM Financial Appraisal Public Development Receipt Private Development Receipt Other Receipts Total Development Receipts Less Tunnel cost range (30% - 45% contingency) Net Benefit/Cost H&F Development Joint Venture 2,187 2,653 4,840 0 (Not Assumed) 0 £m 1,000 125 0 1,125 1,297-1,446 -172 to -321 788 1,306 2,094 30,000 76,400 106,400 £m 250 23 51 323 218-251 72 -105 Joint Venture 1,484 1,306 2,790 30,000 76,400 106,400 £m 454 23 52 528 1,297 * 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. Private Commercial Floorspace 0 (Not Assumed) 1,210 * -682 -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 45 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 47 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. 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. 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 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 • 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. 48 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 CONCLUSIONS No matter how many expensive repairs are conducted, the flyover won'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 49 If you would like any part of this document produced in large print or Braille please call 020 8753 3069 Š By:design - March 2014. By:design 020 8753 3926 Ref:16_13cc Printed by Hammerprint 020 8753 2235