Hammersmith flyunder

Skip Navigation

Hammersmith flyunder


Above: View from Furnivall Gardens (artist's impression by www.westlondonlink.com)


 Flyunder report published

A report outlining plans to create a new ‘flyunder’ that could transform west London has today been published by Hammersmith & Fulham Council.


 View the report online


Open the online reader (opens new window)
Or download a PDF version: Hammersmith Flyunder feasibility study - H&F Council (7MB)


The ‘Hammersmith flyunder feasibility study’ sets out in detail how Hammersmith town centre might look if a road tunnel – dubbed the flyunder – were built beneath the current A4. It also explains and discusses the potential benefits change could bring to the area, including freeing up £1billion worth of former highway, which could unlock a net profit in excess of £500m to go towards financing the flyunder.

The report – published online on this page – includes feasibility, master-planning and geotechnical reports along with a strategic (economic) impact assessment. There are also several artists’ impressions of how the area might look if the flyunder were to go ahead.

Before and after images of the area around Hammersmith Apollo, The Ark, the Novotel Hotel, King Street and St Paul’s Church all show the six-lane-wide A4 removed and instead replaced with new homes, offices and green space.

Recently the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, called the flyunder a ‘brilliant’ scheme after he met the Hammersmith & Fulham Council team behind the project.

Read the full news story»


 Artist's impressions and images


Above: View looking west towards the Ark and Novotel (artist's impression by www.westlondonlink.com)


Above: King Street view looking west (artist's impression by www.westlondonlink.com)


Before: St Paul's Church, looking east, now (image by www.hayesdavidson.com)


After: How St Paul's Church could look if a flyunder goes ahead (image by www.hayesdavidson.com)


Above: Hammersmith Flyunder infographic

What do you think? Let us know by leaving a comment below»


 Background reading

» Three years to build self-financing Hammersmith Flyunder
» Residents have their say on emerging 'flyunder' options
» Flyunder Champion wants to hear from you!
» Digging deeper to examine ‘flyunder’ viability
» Time to bury Hammersmith flyover say residents
» Tunnel vision to replace outdated flyover

Hammersmith resident and popular comedian Bill Bailey, who attended the flyunder transport select committee on February 12, said: "I've lived in Hammersmith for 30 years and the traffic needs to be addressed. A flyunder would have enormous benefits for not just traffic but also for a much improved town centre environment."


Above: Comedian Bill Bailey at the flyunder transport select committee

Top of page

» Send us your comments now

This is a terrific idea, which would transform Hammersmith into a place of increased beauty and appeal, the sooner completed the better, but when is that likely to be?
From Dixon on 02/09/2014 at 15:43
This is a real opportunity for Hammersmith & Fulham to manage traffic more efficiently for the future. It will also allow Hammersmith to increase its housing stock, whilst at the same time creating a bustling metropolis outside central London. It might be worth creating Hammersmith Embankment to provide a commuter boat link to the West End? Love the idea of using the river to transport rubble from the excavation. Let's just hope this will not be just chatter for the next 15 years like Westfield London.
From SPEL7858 on 11/08/2014 at 13:23
This can be a game changer if done well. I mean creating the Hammersmith riviera, a place people will travel across London to see it like the new Olympic park. But let's move faster please. We are now extending the life of the ugly flyover and everyday I see it and the builders working on it I tell to myself this fly under dream will never happen. This is a unique opportunity to transform the life of so many. Can you please put it on top of your agenda. Imagine what a amazing landmark or legacy if the new council can make it happen. Let's do it and do it well with long term thinking and lots of green spaces.
From Damien on 19/07/2014 at 07:14
For many years I dreamed of the A4 disappearing down below in a tunnel. But it''s not quite that simple.
From Alex Robinson on 18/06/2014 at 20:10
To build the fly under would in principle be an excellent idea. I understand that some land will need to be sold off to fund the project. However I think careful consideration will need to be taken to ensure that we don't look back in 30 years and think of these buildings as eyesores similar to some of the 1970 buildings that look hideous today. There is also a danger of over promising and under delivering on the amount of green common land that is being promised. There must be a strict percentage allocated to parks etc., which must be adhered to. If Hammersmith wants to set itself apart, it would be beneficial to try and attract independent shops, cafes and restaurants, rather than multinational soulless chains. This is a unique opportunity to make a real difference to the community. Let’s not go for the cheapest option and let’s do this properly please.
From Claire on 04/06/2014 at 11:48
Am hugely in favour of the tunnel, the land it frees up and benefits to the local and wider community. However how is the disruption whilst the tunnel is being dug (2 / 3 years in all likelihood) going to be managed?
From JSH on 28/05/2014 at 14:08
The Hammersmith Flyover is a blight on our neighbourhood and absolutely must be replaced with a tunnel. But the tunnel shouldn't just tackle the problem of the flyover - the A4 east of Barons Court Road is dangerous and noisy and should also be put into a tunnel. Money put towards this would be money well spent - the advantages of reduced pollution and noise, increased safety and a more beautiful, walkable neighbourhood means that this project must be the council's - and London's - first priority.
From Javid Lakha on 20/05/2014 at 11:07
This brilliant it would be to reconnect Hammersmith and Fulham with the river again.

We must make this happen!
From Saleh A on 13/05/2014 at 15:35
This is a brilliant idea which will improve the quailty of life significantly for those of us who live nearby the A4.
From suheib abukmeil on 12/05/2014 at 11:53
I'm in love with the idea of the project. The second option with the tunnel extended to the North End Road or Warwick Road is more beneficial to H&F residents for the following reasons:

1) Improving Talgarth Road pedestrian crossings - there were several mortal incidents at the Talgarth & N.End Road intersection

2) Connecting Hammesmith area with Fulham and Chelsea - proposed boulevard at the Talgarth road would have a pedestrian walk and a bike road

3) Reducing noise and air pollution would tremendously benefit to the residents of Talgarth, Barons Court, Gwendwr Roads, Hammersmith & West London College students, and all the residents of the areas that are exposed to the pollution, as Barons Court and West Ken Underground Stations are close to the motorway.

4) Improving the overall attractiveness of the area by uniting the north & south parts, as they are now split by the motorway

When it comes to cost, there is a potential to raise additional $$ using empty pockets north of the Talgarth rd between the North End and Gliddon Rds. Or even half of the current motorway width can be used as a base for developments.
From Olga on 08/05/2014 at 13:51
This is a great idea. Support it 100%. Let's do it!
From G Nicholls on 17/04/2014 at 21:47
I am broadly supportive, but 'flyunder' must include improved pedestrian road crossings at junction of Gliddon Road and Talgarth Road (A4). Also I am worried that the proposed ‘commercial quarter’ between the ‘Ark’ and Barons Court Road will be too tall (twelve stories according to the drawings on pages 36 and 37 of the Masterplan) and so will have a negative impact on LAMDA, William Morris Sixth Form, Hammersmith, Ealing & West London College, Margravine Gardens, Yeldham Road, Biscay Road, Collect Gardens and Hammersmith Cemetery. I recommend that the stories be reduced to eight at maximum to ensure local residents and local educational institutions are not adversely affected. Can I receive a reply from the Council? Thank you.
From WS on 26/03/2014 at 13:53
Love it. Just do it. Hammersmith would go from hell to heaven. Can we start tomorrow?
From Simon on 25/03/2014 at 21:09
I like the idea in principle but agree that traffic management doesn't seem to be addressed. Also, the three alternative proposals are of varying merit - it would be a huge missed opportunity if the cheapest option is chosen - there is already huge pedestrian congestion going to and from Barons Court and West Ken tube stations at really dangerous crossings across the A4, and to have the tunnel exit at either of these locations would be mad for pedestrians. As a pram pusher I can tell you that it's not possible to get across the Talgarth Road outside the College with a pram without blocking others coming the other way, because the available passing space is so narrow. Please don't miss the chance to do this properly. And does anyone responsible for forming this policy actually read these comments?
From tc on 24/03/2014 at 22:57
I lived in Barons Court / Hammersmith for nine years and loathed the A4 cutting the area in two. It will be amazing for the high street to have a connection with the river again.
From juliak on 13/03/2014 at 01:19
While the artist impressions look very nice, they don''t seem to reflect the reality of what''s already there around the tunnel approaches.
The "View looking west towards the Ark and Novotel" looks to be far wider that it really is ; and vanished are missing an entire block of flats (Linacre Court)& the West London County Court.
Makes one wonder about the validity of the rest of the claims for the project...
I suspect that, far from rolling green spaces, we''ll find towering office blocks and luxury apartments will actually be filling the picture - where else is the funding going to come from?
From peterw on 11/03/2014 at 13:59
Great idea and an opportunity to take London (like singapore and hong kong) further into the 21st Century.
A self financed project with serious benefits for thousands, if not millions, of people.
From Richard on 11/03/2014 at 11:11
This is the best idea even and it can transform Hammersmith center into a place that means something. The name Hammersmith will resonate and people will come to see it just like people are traveling to visit Chelsea. This can create a new landmark and it already has all the assets: riverside walk, theaters, great pubs and eateries, meaningful connexions, etc... The fly under means the take off for Hammersmith which has been lacking ambition for a long time and is now lagging behind its neighbours for no reason. The south side of Hammersmith that tends to be let down will benefit extremely from this idea of burying the fly over. Let''s do it!!! To create the new unified hammersmith.
From Xingxing on 10/03/2014 at 22:42
How wonderful to reconnect Hammersmith and Fulham with its river frontage again. Please please make it happen!CF
From Frayling on 10/03/2014 at 15:19
Most of the supportive comments so far suggest that we will get lots of new ground level space, but the artist''s impressions (supported by the HB comments on 20/09/2013) make it clear that the borough''s plans involving nothing of the sort. It is now clear that the plan involves erecting buildings of 7 storeys or more on the existing road site, well above the existing skyline. If that is the price, let''s stick with the existing flyover!
From Tom on 10/03/2014 at 11:20
A very welcome scheme that would improve the quality of life for many, many thousands of people. It needs determination, bold vision and should certainly include the Hogarth roundabout. I hope wholeheartedly that it will happen.
From Frances Stevens on 09/03/2014 at 20:37
To the moaners who have a choice where they live, move or why did you move to the area if you hate it so much?
There is congestion on all the main roads into Central London, which I think we just have to get on with it. I live in Kensington and often use
the Flyover, which I find fine outside of rush hour.
I wouldn''t use a Tunnel at all as have a phobia about being underground... As do a lot of people I know.
If it does go ahead I pity the residents living near the construction, which is bound to go over budget and take longer to build.
From Tinkerbell on 09/03/2014 at 19:22
CH2M Hill Halcrow or Halcrow before the merger, did NOT have anything to do with the building of the channel tunnel. They were responsible for the channel tunnel rail link better know as HS1. Please try post information accurately.
From Paul on 09/03/2014 at 02:47
Does anyone have a link to/knows about the plans that show what will happen to local traffic and local traffic access to the tunnel. Does anyone know what access plans there are for those coming from/going to Shepherds Bush Rd and Fulham Palace Rd.
From Paul on 09/03/2014 at 00:01
what a fantastic idea. i have lived in brook green for 30 years and have now moved to the new forest. Email me when the 5-7 years total traffic chaos is over. the major road into the capital city of the world gridlocked for years!!
From robbie on 08/03/2014 at 19:18
I was born in Hammersmith 67yrs, ago & have lived here since, that "Flyover" is an Eyesore plus the Traffic problem needs to be resolved, I believe an Underpass is a brilliant idea plus the space it would free up for recreation of the community as a whole would make life a lot easier to travel via any mode.
From JOHNSALEM on 08/03/2014 at 15:33
Fantastic idea! The sooner the better.
From AH on 08/03/2014 at 14:39
So the traffic coming up the Fulham Palace road which is heading for the A4 or central London just disappears does it? As does the traffic heading down the Sheppard's Bush road?
The short-listed scheme does nothing to reduce the amount of traffic, (its simply putting the flyover underground) and yet from the pictures they are proposing to drastically reduce road capacity!!
From BJu on 08/03/2014 at 14:24
East West traffic goes under rather than over. Excellent. I would support that. However no benefit to North - South volumes ..e.g. Fulham Palace Road to Shepherds Bush Road. No decrease in traffic leaving the A4 to go south of the river. So the Broadway Gyratory system stays effectively the same, or its volumes do. The tunnel has to have extra "ins" and "outs" for any volume-of- traffic-benefits at ground level. So the awful blockages by the Hammersmith and City Line station and down towards the Charing Cross Hospital remain. But yes , do it; just do "more of it" -if possible.
From Michael King on 08/03/2014 at 10:50
What I find that is totaly ridiculous, we are spending a fortune on repairing the flyover properly, when temporary repairs could be done at a fraction of the cost, when the underground option is going to go ahead, and be a good thing for the area, why not use the savings towards it
From Alfie on 08/03/2014 at 10:23
The principle of a tunnel is great BUT. There has been virtually no mention of the traffic management to cope with all the local traffic that will still have to move north-south and east-west through Hammersmith and negotiate the gyratory. I still say the Earls Court developers must be responsible for a major improvement of the North End and Telgarth road junction. Don''t be fooled by the glossy artistic impressions. The one looking east at St Pauls shows what appears to be two way traffic on King St. The other impression looking west on King St beside Lyric Sq shows minor one way traffic westwards with cycle track. Do not gloss over the necessary side issues. The flyover may be gone but there will still be traffic dividing the area, just as now exists at ground level under the flyover, unless as yet unmentioned major changes are made to the local roads.
From Peter on 07/03/2014 at 23:30
The flyunder will help property developers make money. However it won''t help fix the big issue which plagues local residents - gridlock round the gyratory, down the Fulham palace and shepherds bush roads eye., and all the associated pollution.
From Stuckintraffic on 07/03/2014 at 23:14
A great idea! Fully support it - HOWEVER!... Will the traffic around Hammersmith Tube station improve? That is still a big congestion area, driving up to it from any direction normally means delays.
From JD on 07/03/2014 at 22:43
Munich, Germany have been building flyunders across the city for the last few years. They have progressed in phases and have learned along the way and have implemented those earnings. This has led to efficiencies in terms of cost and time. We must look to other cities to learn from them, in order to save ourselves money, time and trouble.
Sam
From Sam on 07/03/2014 at 21:16
I think that it''s a brilliant idea to replace that ugly flyover. And I also think it should go past Chiswick.
From VG on 07/03/2014 at 18:27
A radical solution is needed ,dream this ! Congestion , pollution ALL GONE AT A STROKE if at every junction of the M25 Underground car parks , charges lowest possible.Punitive London entry £150+per day.Cheap high speed 4/6/10 seat shuffle pods programmable to all major currently A road junctions + high speed trams or similar to link with buses and trains. Costs? 1]a few holes in the ground grassed over at M25 2] Pods and trams as they can all run on current roads infrastructure minimal shelters at all A road junctions Benefits? 1]clean air 2] gradual removal of things like Hammersmith flyover ,Westways etc etc 3]recolonisation of the car deserts by people for life,housing etc etc.
CUT DRASTICALLY ALL BUS AND TUBE FARES ,funded by what will be saved on road maintenance ,a car is only a symbol of freedom if YOU are driving it for everybody else it''s a Dirty ,Dangerous ,Noisy Hazard .
This could happen!Too late for me , here 40 years and dying of lung disease in part from pollution.Londoners stay with existing rights
From RR Think on 07/03/2014 at 18:21
I think that the flyunder makes a great deal of sense. the traffic flow will be less effected if they have a tunnel, the costs can be recouped by the reuse of the land and it improves the enviroment - where is the negative? Please can this happend sooner rather than later!
From Jane on 07/03/2014 at 17:46
Great idea. If you see how the A86 has transformed the west of Paris, the benefits for residents and users is tremendous. La Defense is built over the tunnel, which regenerated successfully the local area. The idea was such a success that many years later, the tunnel was extended further west. There are just enough exit/access points to make it work for everyone but not too many. Bring it on!
From XT on 07/03/2014 at 17:42
Brilliant, please start it ASAP!
From Michaelides on 07/03/2014 at 17:23
The sooner this plan is agreed and gets underway the better- it will transform an area on one of the nicest stretches of river- currently the tow path is practically hidden behind the A4, Hope they make it as long as possible.
From J Kirk on 07/03/2014 at 17:22
I heartily endorse the scheme but please commit to the extended version the A4 splits so much of west London and creates so much pollution and congestion that burying as much as possible is the best option
From David Graham on 07/03/2014 at 17:20
Such a good idea! And what about creating a New York style High Line with a small section of the existing fly over???
From Mrgeorge on 07/03/2014 at 17:13
I''m really worried this will remain as an artist''s impression-what makes LBHF think TfL will even give it a 2nd thought when they are in the process of spending £60m on patch and repair job on existing monolith to keep it upright for as long as possible i.e 20-30years..sorry but ever gonna happen, sad but TfL are so hopeless at planning London''s road for the next 50-100 years, zero ambition in creating the best road system for the greatest city on the planet
From pipsterman on 07/03/2014 at 17:05
I think the artists impressions look fantastic and will transform Hammersmith Broadway - it is long overdue!
From Suzanne T on 07/03/2014 at 17:02
This is a brilliant idea, which I wholeheartedly endorse.
From OW on 07/03/2014 at 17:00
Stop talking, start digging! Best thing to happen in this part of the world for decades.
From Lindsay on 07/03/2014 at 16:53
So we are spending over £14B on Crossrail so that someone in Maidenhead can get to Bond St in about 40 minutes then want to spend billions more so someone in Maidenhead can drive down the M4 to get to London as well?
If someone along the M4 wants to get into central London then they should be encouraged to use Crossrail, particularly given it will almost definitely be extended to Reading.
From Paddy on 05/03/2014 at 14:01
I really hope this starts in Chiswick and not Hammersmith. it would be such a missed opportunity if they do the minimum possible. so much of west London is divided in 2 and it is time to do it all at once and get rid of the A4 and restore the land to the way it was in the 1940''s.
From curwena on 05/03/2014 at 13:11
I suspect the residents of Chiswick would not be in favour of a tunnel once they see it would need a massive crossrail style entrance shaft with huge disruption to the surrounding area. Also how are people going to get to the buildings developed on top? Bikes and walking? Putting the A4 underground doesn't remove the need for access roads, so I don't see anything with this scheme that will reduce the degree car dependency. It is just putting nose to tail traffic jams underground.
From Paddy on 05/03/2014 at 11:19
At £1.7billion you are proposing spending £28 per person ACROSS THE UK on what is, at the end of the day, little more than a local road. For 2.5 miles of road you're proposing spending more than on a major upgrade of a key cross-country trunk road (the A14 scheme).
From Al__S on 05/03/2014 at 11:10
Utterly dreadful idea, poorly thought out, nonsensical in many ways and an excellent way to waste £1.7bn entrenching a mistake of the 1950s. Firstly, the 'long tunnel' option from Hogarth to Earls Court assumes that the point of the A4 is to get traffic into central London. In reality, traffic entering central London is declining due to congestion charging and demographic changes. What's clogging up the A4 is local traffic and traffic heading for Hammersmith itself which, if you have a tunnel with no exits, has to use local roads, creating congestion in Chiswick and Hammersmith. Secondly the portals - the fluffy PR term 'flyunder' is rubbish, these are major bits of civil engineering, unsightly concrete, noisy and polluting. No one is going to want one near them and it's noticeable that the council is proposing dumping one in Chiswick and one in Kensington. The former actually creates severance and the latter is just crazy - the two options are demolishing West Kensington station or sticking a huge ramp in the middle of Cromwell Road. All in all this is a vanity PR campaign, not a sensible transport policy and should be firmly rejected by London.
From Tom on 05/03/2014 at 00:58
This is great idea the sooner is start and longer tunnel the better.
From mir on 04/03/2014 at 16:15
It should go from the end of the M4 to Earls Court, and allow for the existing A4 to be converted into an access road with land for redevelopment to help pay for it.
Then provision should be made to do the same from the West Cross Route to the Chelsea Embankment with one connection at the A4. The benefits to cyclists and pedestrians will be enormous.
From LibertyscottUK on 03/03/2014 at 15:31
The A4 has divided Chiswick for so many years. The amount of traffic thundering down that road is enormous, having lived for a time in a flat overlooking it. It seems unfair that Hammersmith would be restored and Chiswick residents are left to run under dirty tunnels to get to the other side of the road. If both Hammersmith and Hounslow combined in their support, there would be a greater incentive to build the longer tunnel. If all the cars use the smaller tunnel, that does not address the issue of the fumes from all those cars being discharged right in the middle of Hammersmith and Chiswick. At least if the tunnel emerges at Sutton Court Rd the road is wider, there are fewer side roads and the traffic is dispersed somewhat, thus reducing pollution in comparison to the shorter option. I am definitely in favour of both communities being freed from the division of a major road which should never have been built in the first place. Imagine walking down Dukes Avenue, across the grass and gardens to the river without the roar of hundreds of cars roaring above your head as you scamper through a dirty tunnel.
From Gillie on 02/03/2014 at 06:09
I think London needs tunnel road links accross zone 1 to 3. Otherwise it doesnt work with bus lanes and only one lane for cars and vans. Traffic is impacting economy big time. Wholesalers can only visit very little number of shops per day due to traffic. Imagine if they could double even triple the volume. Surface should be left to public transport, black cabs and cycling and all other traffic should go under surface, wherever necessary.
From uckocak on 27/02/2014 at 17:08
As someone living in West Kensington, my first choice would be option 3 (stretching to Earls Court), then option 1 (shortest). The North End Road area is already a traffic nightmare (not to mention pollution) and is going to be even worse once the Earls Court development is built. Having a tunnel exit here is the worst of all worlds. Tfl and the council will be hansomely rewarded from the Earls Court development project. Money that should be channeled to ensuring the residents of this area see some benefit, by extendeding the tunnel to Earls Court and allowing those living north of the A4 to readily access the new Earls Court development - or can't the developers of Earls Court contribute to the tunnel, given their development (and value) would benefit from the longest tunnel option?
From LGad on 27/02/2014 at 16:40
The West Kensington junction is a nightmare. With the massive Earls Court development taking place over the next 10-15 years and ramp up in residential occupants, I would be massively in favour of option 3, strething to Earls Court. Surely some of the Earls Court development income should be used to improve the West Kensington area for existing occupants.
From KN on 27/02/2014 at 16:20
Excellent idea to remove that horrid flyover which carves up Hammersmith. Shortest option sounds most sensible to me.
From CEO on 26/02/2014 at 11:20
I think that the Hammersmith underpass is a very good idea, as it will reduce congestion and pollution in the area, if it is self financing it is even better. I would like to know a little more about the short term disruption to the area.
From SW6 Resident on 26/02/2014 at 10:38
I am in big favour of the longer tunnels as I drive daily to Earls Court and the housing along the A4 must provide the worst polluted air in West London. Also the crossing at West Kensington is diabolical and there are constant traffic jams especially on Friday when you are coming from Fulham to Hammersmith or west of Hammersmith. As the Earls Court Exhibition is being demolished and completely transformed in favour of new housing and parks, wouldn't it make sense to think through this whole new traffic area near West Kensington and Earls Court? A tunnel to get rid of the traffic would make the whole part of that area a very pleasant area to live in for all.
From Karen on 23/02/2014 at 13:22
I think a tunnel is an excellent idea - and from what I have now read the shorter one would seem preferable, not to mention far less expensive and time-consuming to build. But I am no traffic management expert!
The current flyover, although helpful to motorists (and for many years I was one) is a terrible eye sore, and I am sure the approach to Piccadilly is enhanced by the short vehicle tunnel there.
I am 86 now so may not live to see this happen, but would like to - for more reasons than one!
Joyce A.
From Edna Joyce on 20/02/2014 at 12:47
Great plan! The longer the tunnel the better.
From minnalh on 20/02/2014 at 09:55
Flyunder is a great idea but how would the works be carried out when the proposed path runs straight through the grounds and buildings of Saint Paul's School?
From Stephanie on 18/02/2014 at 21:33
As a current and happy resident of Hammersmith, trust me, this project will be very bad for residents already here. It is ultimately a huge money making opportunity for the developers, construction companies and government, because they are all rubbing their hands at amount of money they will make from the prime property. Open, green, spaces? I can assure you that is their lowest priority. More like high rise and dense commerical/apartments. Not to mention many years of cranes, diggers and disruption as they make that money. btw, after the current strengthening, the flyover is good for another 50-100 years.
From Cameron on 18/02/2014 at 16:04
I think the longer option is the better one....although I think even that one should be extended all the way to Heathrow.
When it comes to air quality, West London must be one of the most disgusting places on earth. So many people are complaining of headaches and aching lungs after being outside for prolonged periods. We have to breathe to stay alive, and the fact that individuals are expected to breathe in that filthy air, is a pretty damning indictment on central government.
Air quality issues aside, this plan would also help to make the place look nicer, free up surface area, reduce the risk the risk of injury to cyclists (and pedestrians), reduce noise levels, etc.
If we don't pay to reduce the adverse effects of traffic pollution, we are going have to pay as much, if not more, on treating and caring for the people whose health is adversely affected by this pollution.
So why doesn't central government just do what is needed? Perhaps they are just not up to the job? Perhaps we should all start going around with masks on....not only in an attempt to shame them into action, but to try and stop so much of that muck getting into our systems?
From Tams on 17/02/2014 at 14:29
I think the flounder is a fantastic idea and sincerely hope it goes through
From Amanda b on 17/02/2014 at 08:09
Two years ago they dug up the pedestrian underpass from the FPR to the broadway and replaced it with a dangerous road crossing. Any deaths yet? No improvement in traffic onto or off the gyratory which is what really blights hammersmith residents lives. A tunnel won't address this, just create more high rise offices, ie more congestion on local roads and tubes. For the amount of expense and disruption involved we need to see a solution to the chronic daily gridlock around the gyratory. This causes far more pollution than the flyover, which is already congestion free anyway. It's not as if the flyover is in an area of outstanding natural beauty anyway, running as it does between in a canyon between an ugly shopping centre and the ugliest hotel ever built. We need a braver proposal that genuinely helps residents and not just developers. We are the ones that have to pay for it and suffer the disruption.
From Charlie on 17/02/2014 at 03:00
Fantastic idea and a great way to improve the environment we live in, and the traffic issues at the Fulham Palace road connects in with the A4 would be an ideal aspect of the scheme. Well done H&F and now the hard part, get it done efficiently and effectively for all our residents and the greater London area.
From Paul on 16/02/2014 at 19:32
Very good initiative, Hammersmith Flyover is not only an eyesore but not the right way anymore to channel 90k+ cars into and out of London a day. Doing something about this now is critical. While shorter tunnel option solves the Immediate Hammersmith "Berlin Wall" problem, longer tunnels would be the better solution as it would change the face of this part of London immensely for the better. Land value alone should cover a significant portion of the costs. So as long as everything is done to minimize impact for residents/commuters during construction, I am all for it.
From chs71 on 16/02/2014 at 14:39
Where has this 'short' option come from? What a waste of time, particulary for residents on Talgarth Road. If we're going to do something, lets do it properly and build a proper solution. Typical of this country in fairness.
From Dan on 16/02/2014 at 14:04
I would recommend that everyone reads the Council select committee report. It's clear and informative. I asked a question at the Transport meeting about the traffic advantages/disadvantages of the three tunnel options (p.14). The report says that the longer the tunnel the less traffic is likely to use it. The answer to my question was also clear - the traffic that doesn't use it will travel on surface roads instead. The only tunnel which will take 100% of the traffic that the flyover does is option 1, the shortest tunnel. So, regretfully, that may be the best if surface traffic is not to increase.
p.s. liked the idea of making the flyover a Hi-Line garden as in New York: the Hanging Gardens of Hammersmith?
From Rosemary Pettit on 15/02/2014 at 22:19
!!!!!Long tunnel options only please!!!!!
The council has a legal obligation to improve air quality on Talgarth Road (Gliddon Rd - North End Road Junctions). This obligation is not being met with some of the poorest air quality on talgarth road in the whole of Europe.
Burying the cars and their fumes is a opportunity the council must not miss and the longer tunnel options are the only and by far the best options.
The Talgarth Road and surrounding areas are completely residential and would benefit most from a tunnel.
The problem is our relatively wealthy councillors do not live on Talgarth Road and therefore do not have an interest in doing what would be best for the borough and for the lives of many of its residents currently blighted by traffic noise 24 hours a day and pollution.
However, ignore this at your peril H&F for if you do you will face a strong legal challenge from myself for one.
Dr L Monzon
From Dr L Monzon on 15/02/2014 at 12:52
Three very daft plans.
Cut and cover should work by starting from the BP garage , knocking down the Ark, the British Transport police building, then knocking down the Apollo and the buildings beyond it. You cut the trench from both sides and then you cut and fill the Fulham palace road junction in under three weeks. The completion time will be six months from start to finish. After knocking down the flyover the apollo can be rebuilt as the new Fulham or QPR football ground with a sliding roof and can straddle the fulham palace road. Coincidentaly you can install very high capacity pumps to drain both the flyover and the underground should it get flooded. Over the site of the BP garage and the ark you can build a new charing cross hospital and knock the old one down. This hospital will be purely A&E emergency only with a helicopter pad on top and the only street entry is by ambulance.
From B Zabavnik on 15/02/2014 at 12:45
Great news. Let's hope it happens.
From Sue on 15/02/2014 at 12:19
Yes yes yes, go ahead and do the underpass. It would make property values in Hammersmith skyrocket. And the dreary top end of Fulham Palace Road could revitalise. Hammersmith would be joined together again. Try anything you can to make this happen. As a resident, I would gladly put up with all the nuisance of construction and cost.
From CL on 15/02/2014 at 11:16
Wonderful idea, Hammersmith would no longer be cut off from the river, the whole borough would benefit from more space and lack of noise. But the new housing must be low level. Just do it, don't hang around!
From Mary Gibson on 15/02/2014 at 09:41
It's great to read about these plans, but I really think the tunnels should go all the way to Earl's Court as we will be sorry that it was not done longer in the first place. The horrible Talgarth Road divides North and South in such an inhumane way that it is hardly used by pedestrians and only a few crazy cyclist venture on that stretch from where the flyover ends to Earls Court Road. Plan 3 should go ahead without hesitation, in fact a whole network of underground roads in London should be seriously planned and consider as this is much needed.
From Maria on 15/02/2014 at 00:58
I am hugely in favour of a tunnel, but I agree with AB at 1924 on 13/02/14. There are two separate issues here: 1) the "vision" to link Hammersmith to the river, and 2) the proposal to remove the flyover. If you want the vision, you will need to remove the A4, as this is what cuts off Hammersmith from the river (not the flyover). This would require a longer tunnel, of which the best option is the "medium" one (Hogarth to the Ark) as it would not require an additional underground junction for those joining from north/south directions. If you just want to replace the flyover, the short option is fine, but it won't give you the vision & connect Hammersmith with the river (because the A4 remains). The short option also gives you very limited opportunities to "transform" the area as the land freed up is very small & of restricted shape (narrow strips of land). The main traffic routes (eg Fulham Palace Rd etc) also have to remain, as BJu points out, so there would be v limited transformation there.
From Asbo on 14/02/2014 at 17:54
What a great idea !!! First option is much more reasonable.
From Altan on 14/02/2014 at 16:09
Only long tunnel would break down so called 'Berlin Wall' divide i.e. between King St and the river. So either option 2 or 3. However local services need improving now and money could be better spent here. The current structure is said to be good for another 50/60 years and could be more time if improved in a variety of possible ways. I'm all for improvement but at the least disruption and least cost. Three years seems like a best case scenario too! As a londoner I only know too well how costs of big projects tend to spiral and time frames increase.
From oliver on 14/02/2014 at 15:37
Hi,
Is about time!
I think this wil be a big challenge to compete with Europe quality standard.
From Sammy cadour on 14/02/2014 at 14:56
I think this is a brilliant idea that would transform Hammersmith. To get rid of the blight of the flyover, with all the noise, fumes and pollution that it brings would be fantastic.
From Philippa O''Brien on 14/02/2014 at 14:21
Great - get on and do it ASAP !
From Guy Bax on 14/02/2014 at 14:14
I would also add that any community-owned buildings of any kind bordering on the car park beside St Paul's Green would also need protecting from possible closure bearing in mind the Earls Court experience.
From Pippa on 14/02/2014 at 13:58
Second attempt to post this comment. Andrew and BJu are right. The short option which is being favoured by the council''s feasibility report (see points 6.8 and 6.9) won't help Hammersmith residents as the A4 will stay the same except for the raised section, so the town will continue to be divided from the river everywhere except near the gyratory, which is not a residential area. Point 6.11 indicates that they are thinking of churning up Furnivall Gardens because it is the nearest point for river transportation access, which will not happen with the longer options. They don't talk about more parkland but only easier access for pedestrians and cyclists. For the cost and disruption there will be very little benefit, and Furnivall Gardens will once again be endangered (when the churning is finished, will they put it back as before?) but a few more high rise buildings will have to be squeezed in near St Paul's church to achieve any financial gain. The longer options are only effective if side streets are fed in along the way, and the report is veering away from that proposal.
From Pippa on 14/02/2014 at 13:48
Do you have or will you have an email group to subscribe to for keeping interested local residents informed and updated on the progress of these proposals?
From John Parrott on 14/02/2014 at 12:42
All in its a bit of a shame. The area desperately needs better infrastructure, and given we have to endure many years of disruption, you'd have hoped we'd be in a better position at the end of it. Right now it looks like this project is missing the vision it so desperately deserves.
From BJu on 14/02/2014 at 12:07
So the plans are out. Although from the language in the press release it would appear that the option of replacing the flyover with a tunnel is the council's favoured option. So what do we get for this? Well, apart from the physical removal of the flyover, nothing. As it is a like-for-like replacement, the traffic and all the other downsides will stay the same.
You could even say that current Hammersmith residents will be worse off as the council will have to create a big development to pay for it, so there will be hundreds of extra cars on the already very congested roads. And that's the before mentioning the three years of traffic chaos that will be caused by closing the flyover while the work is completed.
The location for a large development is also quite interesting. Given the footprint of the bridge, the only land that could be released will be around the west side, next to the Church where the A4 meets Hammersmith Bridge Road. So expect to lose the car-park next to the Apollo (creating a parking nightmare for the local residents) and possibly part of St Paul's Green.
From BJu on 14/02/2014 at 12:06
A tunnel is a fabulous idea.
I really hope this goes ahead on as large a scale as possible.
Don't let these negative busybody type people stop this fantastic proposal.
From JGrant on 14/02/2014 at 11:59
The 'vision' will not be realised by the short option. For some reason the long options are far too long - what happened to the Hogarth to just beyond the Ark option - the 'medium' option. It feels as though the long options have been made longer to favour the short option - that will not realise the vision - I agree with a previous commenter that the long options have been created to focus on the short option. I am for the tunnel as a medium/long option but against it for a short option so the research needs to be re-done and people need to be asked about whether they favour or not the different options - you won't get 89% favouring a short option as the vision won't be realised and so why bother - it's not about replacing the flyover its about a transformation and vision legacy.
From AB on 13/02/2014 at 19:24
I think a flyunder is a great idea, but I would much prefer the shortest option, which will run north of the river only. This would be quicker to build, less expensive, and much less disruptive to St Paul's School and the people living in the adjacent streets on the south side of the river. Also: with a longer tunnel, where would the air vents, with their unhealthy pollution, be located? They would have to be in several residential areas.
From Lynn on 13/02/2014 at 16:42
I don't understand why there isn't an option with a western entrance somewhere just to the east of Hogarth Roundabout at Homefield Rec. as proposed by the WestLondonLink group rather than this short or long option which is so biased clearly towards the short version as neither long version would take traffic from the A316 leaving a vast quantity of traffic still traversing Hammersmith??? It seems to me that the Council have predetermined the outcome by doing this and have already chosen a minimum cost option.
From Andrew on 13/02/2014 at 13:21
Great idea! This project should become a reality. Flyunder should start from Earl's Court/Cromwell Road. Reclaimed land should be used for green space and low rise housing proposal.
From Hubert on 12/02/2014 at 21:14
First off, great idea for a tunnel.
I'm not sure what people here are expecting though.
You can't just get rid of the roads. Where would the traffic that joins the A4 from Fulham Palace Rd and Sheppard's Bush Rd go? Down King Street or Hammersmith Road? They're far too small for that.
There are also many people who use the current A4 for access.
So even removing the elevated part would mean the A4 as it is would have to stay in some form. But if its cur down from 6 lanes to say 4, the space released is tiny. Even if you could replace the road with development, there's not enough space for a good sized development to pay for this.
It just doesn't add up. So it will be interesting to see the council's plans. Somehow I suspect peoples opinions might change from the above when they do. (Personally I wager we'll end up losing part of some existing green space to make a good size bit of land for a development...)
From BJu on 10/02/2014 at 09:15
With the Earls Court regeneration imminent this is the perfect time to utilise the plans for a fly under and release land for homes and green space. Boston in America replaced a similar structure with a fly under and totally transformed the area. This is a golden opportunity to replace this crumbling concrete carbuncle with something more suited to the 21st century.
From Brown on 08/02/2014 at 19:17
Is there any way, any way at all, where tunnelling linked to the flyunder could reduce the traffic on Hammersmith Suspension Bridge?
From Michael King on 08/02/2014 at 11:31
Very interesting, taking all traffic from Earl's court to Chiswick then at Earl's court what will happening? where all this traffic goes? it will just create another problem when travelling East to central London via Brompton road and Hyde Park Corner
From hammond on 07/02/2014 at 20:41
How often do we ever get major engineering projects right, on time and on budget. Lets hope we get it right this time and the 'Flyunder' pass doesn't end up with the nick name 'Blunder' pass!
From robonline on 07/02/2014 at 18:08
First off, great idea for a tunnel.
I'm not sure what people here are expecting though.
You can't just get rid of the roads. Where would the traffic that joins the A4 from Fulham Palace Rd and Sheppard's Bush Rd go? Down King Street or Hammersmith Road? They're far too small for that.
There are also many people who use the current A4 for access.
So even removing the elevated part would mean the A4 as it is would have to stay in some form. But if its cur down from 6 lanes to say 4, the space released is tiny. Even if you could replace the road with development, there's not enough space for a good sized development to pay for this.
It just doesn't add up. So it will be interesting to see the council's plans. Somehow I suspect peoples opinions might change from the above when they do. (Personally I wager we'll end up losing part of some existing green space to make a good size bit of land for a development...)
From BJ on 07/02/2014 at 16:17
The current TfL work will last for 60 years, apparently. If you tear it down in 10 years' time, H&F must find 5/6 of the money, to pay back the rest of Londoners. Will it do so? Will we see that figure in the budget? You cannot expect a penny more from TfL.
From Moanybags on 07/02/2014 at 15:43
I think a tunnel to replace the fly over to go as far as possible into the centre of town is a great idea, it would transform the centre of Hammersmith and the other areas the brutalist monstrosity currently cuts through and long term a tunnel is a much more efficient way of keeping traffic moving and out of sight. I believe it could be largely funded by the freeing up of the land on the surface and I would do all I can to support it.
From JS on 07/02/2014 at 15:43
The flyunder would be great, and even greater if a tunnel spur under the river for vehicles could free up Hammersmith Bridge for cyclists and pedestrians. Thames Water could factor this in to their grandiose sewer works.
From SW on 07/02/2014 at 15:40
Replacing the costly and unfriendly flyover by the proposed flyunder would be of great benefit to the whole community. It had a purpose in its time and is now a shame for local residents, churches and buildings along this.
The flyover is noisy, dirty, unsafe, adds pollution and splits our borough in two. In addition the huge cost of constantly repairing this is ridiculous!!
The flyunder is a no brainer and a progress! Let's be part of the 21st Century and regenerate our borough.
Thanks,
E Lamblin
From E Lamblin on 07/02/2014 at 12:18
What a fantastic idea! I am a resident who has to walk under the flyover to get to the tube every day. As much as the Council and the businesses try, the area around the flyover is sad - polluted, ugly and dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. I am very impressed with the idea of a fly under. It is bold and imaginative. Fingers crossed it can be delivered!
From AK on 03/02/2014 at 18:27
Absolutely yes, please! The sooner we get started the better.
First time I saw the flyover I nearly gulped! It's a horrible sight and I have to cross it twice a day. Reconnect the river and the Town, Furnivall Gardens, Chiswick Mall... it could be fabulous. I'm sure this is the right way forward for H&F.
From Carlo L on 03/02/2014 at 11:30
I also agree that the road should be buried all the way from the Hogarth Roundabout through to the big Tesco in Earl's Court. As others have pointed out, if the space freed up by the road is cleverly redeveloped, the entire project would be cost neutral! Also a great idea to treat the A40 and Westway in the same way - bury the whole thing from Acton all the way to Edgware road and provide new routes and economic links across swathes of West London!
From Manuel on 02/02/2014 at 21:48
I thoroughly agree with the council's view on the flyover, and have long thought that a flyunder would improve the environment and local economy of the Hammersmith and Chiswick riverside area. Perhaps the old street pattern could be reinstated and new buildings could follow that pattern, thus re-orienting the entire town centre towards the river once again. The redeveloped land could help to pay for the cost of the flyunder. I thoroughly support the council in this plan - long overdue in my opinion!
From Manuel on 02/02/2014 at 21:37
The congestion around hammersmith has been deliberately made worse this last year- and now I think I realise why. Revenue and plans to construct!
Currently negotiating hammersmith in a car is drivers suicide. The revenue gained from the yellow box junction cameras catching any driver in its complicated network of bus lanes and confusing odd phased traffic light and jumbled lane system has clearly been a financial bonus for hammersmith. A tunnel- What will hammersmith do for revenue without it?
During tunnel construction- what will happen to the traffic flow into London to Westfield, Fulham earls court, Knightsbridge, (all markedly increased at christmas), traffic from the A4, and traffic to/from hammersmith bridge? It is already poorly controlled, backing up throughout the day irrespective of rush hour? And who will pay for it? Us residents - of course! and how much will we really benefit? I'm not convinced but agree something needs to change, perhaps some realistic, non profit making, sensible traffic flow systems?
From EM on 31/01/2014 at 22:02
Based my numerous trips to Oslo that have a concentration of Flyunders (tunnels?) to enable the traffic to move across the city but also to enable regeneration of their docks area.
Replacing what is a scar across West London and replace with an underground solution should easily be paid for by land sale and also participation of the jump in value in nearby properties. Sure the Crossrail have both the machinery, the expertise and the legal structure to build this. Now that program is working, why don't we jump on their success and keep the know how intact.
From Dkelly on 31/01/2014 at 17:43
I moved with my family from Earls Court to Barons Court a few years ago and wholeheartedly support this proposal. My kids still go to school in Earls Court and it saddens me that I have to drive because of this horrible road - with two slow distracted under 7s on scooters and one in a pram I am too scared regularly to be crossing the Talgarth road either at Barons Court or particularly at West Ken. The walk is only 25 minutes but along the A4 is pretty horrible. If the flyunder existed we'd be able to use public transport much more easily - at the moment it's like America where you use your car in order to keep safe because there is not enough safe provision for pedestrians - it's noisy, smelly, dirty and dangerous.
From tc on 29/01/2014 at 00:06
I support the idea of the tunnel/fly-under although if it takes as long to build as the one in Dublin that is mentioned earlier in the comments we will be waiting a long time!
From EB on 26/01/2014 at 22:13
What a fantastic idea to ease congestion in the whole area and into Central London. My only concern is the disruption that the work would cause in the surrounding area.
From Riley on 26/01/2014 at 19:31
It probably is a good idea to have a tunnel, but surface roads will still be needed for local traffic and at times when the tunnel cannot be used. The problem with this project is the Council cannot contemplate any project without putting developers'profits first. I cannot see that there will actually be any surplus land on which to build. Is the tunnel the reason for the council is hoarding the huge amount of unspent S106 money? We will be told that we can only have the tunnel if huge oppressive buildings go up and are marketed to people who do not need another home.
From Suzanna Harris on 26/01/2014 at 18:33
I think a tunnel is a must! It's simply a no-brainer for thousands of people using the Hammersmith flyover everyday. TfL and H&F council should have made this along time ago. A tunnel is also safer for the long-term. From having the disintegrating concrete flyover demolished hence a tunnel, perhaps a green area with apartments and shops could replace and regenerate the area with a futuristic look with West Kensington and Barons Court tube stations nearby. A tunnel could start at Great West Road and surface beyond Talgarth Road under the West London Line to West Cromwell Road outside the big Tesco. The M4 is creaking at the seams and something needs to be done as soon as.
From John on 26/01/2014 at 18:10
I posted somments on the tunnel some time ago on my website demolish flyover and reduce the highways. Rebalance streets in favour of pedestrians. Tunnel is a waste, complex and counter to the emerging demands on street space, quality of life and environment.
From Simon on 26/01/2014 at 14:49
A great idea in principle to bury 'through traffic' in a tunnel or tunnels, which would remove a lot of noise pollution, but not the air pollution. These road tunnels would need to be well ventilated, to avoid the 90,000 drivers being overcome by fumes. A few chimneys with extractor fans and some kind of air scrubber to filter out the particulates before returning it to the sky above Hammersmith would be beneficial to the locals. Perhaps use these chimneys as a testbed location for evaluating the effectiveness of air filtration systems that could ultimately be deployed to other air pollution hotspots around London.
You could even start discussions with Crossrail 1 about recycling their Tunnel Boring Machines, once they are surplus to construction requirements at the end of 2014, and thereby deliver this solution, earlier.
From Kevin on 26/01/2014 at 13:07
I have lived and worked in Hammersmith for most of my adult life and the number of times it had taken me well over an hour to just get to the start of the M4 is a joke. This part of London and the river Thames is too fantastic to be regarded as a concrete jungle any longer. I am in favour for change but people need to realize that this is a 15+ year job and the congestion whilst work is being done will be ten times as bad as it is now.
From Bc2014 on 26/01/2014 at 11:56
Do not support - silly project when there are much more important things in the borough the council should be focusing attention on.
Also - Council is inconsistent with their views on tunnelling. This project will be much more disruptive to the wider community then the Thames Tunnel work - but the Council is against that. Their inconsistent views on tunnelling is worrying.
R Brown
From r brown - fulham on 26/01/2014 at 07:58
Great idea, you should call it the F.U.!!! and why not keep the old Flyover as well rush hour traffic could be managed like they do in New York, with green arrows and red crosses over lanes during peak periods.
From richard barrett on 26/01/2014 at 06:31
I'm a former resident who hated having to walk under the flyover every day. A tunnel would be a major enhancement to the area, allowing both the Apollo and St Paul's Church to breathe and improving air quality for all residents. The land could be used for a mixture of public space and retail and commercial purposes that would benefit the whole community.
From Rachel on 25/01/2014 at 23:23
Please work with Hounslow Council and make this a joined up scheme - the Hogarth Roundabout with its flyover is equally bad - the character of chiswick mall, Hogarth house, the fillers brewery and chiswick house would all benefit from being linked up with the Turnham green part of Chiswick
From Jonathan on 25/01/2014 at 22:10
Instead of changing the thing why not just rebuild the flyover, slowly, incrementally, as bits fail out of stuff that will last? The initial expense is higher, yes, but the cost over time is vastly lower. Constructions can last for millennia, look at Stonehenge, the Pyramids or some pubs in London.
From TheOtherJohn on 25/01/2014 at 20:45
Brilliant idea! I live in Kensington next to the Westway and it's horrible. Suggest paying for it by toll or sale of freed up land.
PS if you can persuade Kensington to do the same with the Westway, even better.
From AM on 25/01/2014 at 18:50
It is quite correct to state that this monster is a relic from another time and should be replaced.
This time, let's do it right. As well as ensuring motorised traffic can traverse this area well, please ensure that the same option is given to cyclists, with a dedicated and fully segregated safe cycle road alongside the motorised traffic. Encouraging cyclists to use this otherwise attractive area of West London will only bring benefits, socially, health-wise and financially.
From Will N on 25/01/2014 at 17:45
Clearly a great idea - Massively in favour of any plans that link in with the Earls Court development and Kensington & Chelsea to extend the flyunder all the way to Earls Court, freeing up and transforming the North End Road/West Kensington area
From KN on 19/01/2014 at 21:51
Creating more green space with the flyunder is a great idea! The flyover doesn could become a little highline (suspended park based on a desafected track in New York). Afterall if repairs had been done.. might as well make the most of it! a nice skateboards ramp, skating, cycling areas with grass and benches on this could be quite a treat and offer a grand view of the greener hammersmith.
From paskell on 19/01/2014 at 11:55
Clearly those of us who have lived with the flyover & broadway all our lives since it was first built, have watched and suffered the worsening effects both approaching the flyover and on the broadway so anything to improve it is a must for the long term future. If it simply costs a small fortune, causes disruption for 2 years and results in the same then steer clear. The practitioners need to assure us that it is indeed a boon to traffic flow, the theorists can stay modelling on their computers playing with their Phd's just like they did for many of the bike lanes.
From Ken on 17/01/2014 at 21:53
Dublin completed a tunnel (2000 meters) linking the docks to very near the airport. It is used constantly and paid for by toll. It has been a gem for getting from one side of the city to the other and keeping large commercial vehicles out of the city centre. Well worth the disruption the works caused at either end.
From Anne on 17/01/2014 at 20:53
Why not try to make the existing flyover beautiful with living walls and hanging plants like the hanging gardens of Hammersmith. It would surely be cheaper than making a tunnel.
From Raisa on 17/01/2014 at 16:46
The current TfL repairs to the flyover - paid for by all Londoners - will give it a life of another 60 years. The concrete is in good condition (like the c2000-year-old concrete in Rome, for instance).
The main part of Hammersmith & Fulham is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK, and does not need redevelopment, unlike other parts of London, and places on the H&F border.
Anyway, what land would become available? Would there be slip roads in Hammersmith on a longer tunnel? Would there therefore be less congestion on the gyratory (or any replacement road scheme there)?
Would a surface road otherwise be needed, of similar capacity to the current A4, if sliproads were not provided?
How much extra traffic would new developments generate?
If you don't like the flyover, you could always move.
What about a tram down the A4 instead?
And a north-south one as well?
From Martin on 11/01/2014 at 18:19
Definitely go for the flyUNDER. I grew up in Brussels which had lots of tunnels. They were great and allowed for swift movement of traffic without spoiling the surface. Hammersmith is really spoilt by the flyover - let's get rid of it and not pay eternally for repairs.
From CL on 10/01/2014 at 18:47
Fantastic idea! It should run from Hammersmith to Earls Court, and it would be wonderful if the land could -in part- be used to create a green area in an otherwise very congested, concrete jungle. I would be happy to pay more in council tax to facilitate this - although not if the tunnel was merely the length of the flyover. And only pay into the LBH&F area, obviously.
This would have to be a substantial improvement, however, to justify taking local taxpayers money.
The A4 from the flyover to Earls Court, and particularly the junction next to West Kensington tube station, is a disgrace - and lethal for pedestrians. How wonderful would it be to see it gone, and more housing and greenery replacing it.
Thumbs up from this local!
From Local Resident on 10/01/2014 at 18:44
I am a Chartered Civil Engineer- I sent a comment against the flyover/under, I am digested that you failed to publish it. What's the point. As I see from all your comments they are all for it, hence I don't wish to comment any longer on your blatantly biased forum.
From CF on 10/01/2014 at 17:06
The flyover is an incredibly efficient piece of road, and a wonderfully brutal piece of architecture. Of course it's an amazing idea to bury a busy road, but you could say that for most roads. The logistics and cost of flying under where the flyover is, is surely unfeasible. Hammersmith's problems lie in its hotch potch of bad buildings and street design around the flyover. Traffic problems stem from our present car culture that has to change in such built up areas. Insecure parents dropping their children to school exacerbates the problem. We have a very safe and efficient transport system servicing our area.
Hammersmith is divided by the A4 but not the bit above our heads. The inbetween zone from Primark to Chiswick High Road would be more appealing and connected to the river if the A4 was buried from the flyover to Hogarth roundabout. Similarly at the Talgarth Road end of the flyover the heart of a community is divided by six lanes of traffic and if it could be buried or bridged it would make for a wholly more united place. Lets dream and be fanciful, then lets do something about it. Lets dig deep and build high. I say lets fly under and over. Get radical Hammersmith!
From Jon Vincent on 09/01/2014 at 10:34
The flyunder is a must if Hammersmith is to keep up with the surrounding areas. There are already several high profile schemes either under construction or at planning stage; town hall redevelopment, riverside studios and all the residential and commercial units by the hammersmith and city line. If the flyover were to happen and be partly subsidised by all these schemes as well as the eventual new ones to arrive along with money from the mayor the cost should be covered.
From Rob on 08/01/2014 at 14:13
It''s not often such a ''no brainer'' with such overwhelming support on both lifestyle and economic grounds comes along. The Flyover is deep concrete scar across two or three linked communities. It is a symbol of division and has probably consigned Hammersmith to the years of under developed potential as a result. The Bus Station project was of similar disruptive potential but now that it is built it is a great addition to the area. The Hogarth connection must give a good chance of minimising disruption. It''s a ''no brainer'' H&F and Hounslow council need to agree it, announce it and get on with it. I may be dead before it''s finished but the legacy here for generations to come is wonderful. Go for it!!!
From AB on 07/01/2014 at 14:45
The sooner the better. Get plans passed for 3 lanes in both directions and stop waisting money on repairing out of date crap (the flyover). Too many different ways to finance the operation to mention here but get the flyunder built as a matter of urgency to the infrastructure of London.
From AL on 06/01/2014 at 09:20
Great idea to have a fly-under, but definitely the practicalities of construction and disruptions during construction need to be well thought of.
Boston, USA did such a "big dig", which lasted for years, but now it seems to work quite well. Some of the above ground space has been turned into a park & roads for local traffic. Unfortunately some of the costs were recuperated from underground fares, which caused enormous uproar (and rightly so!).
From F on 05/01/2014 at 11:44
A truly fantastic and oddly common sensical idea! It would turn Hammersmith into a jewel on the Thames. With interest rates currently so low, now should be the time for grand public works such as this. If other major cities worldwide can pull of projects like this, London should be no different.
From Carsten on 02/01/2014 at 17:45
I am very much in favour of a flyunder. The flyover is an aesthetic and environmental disaster and one of the reasons King Street has never fundamentally "come up". Ideally, the fly-under would run from Baron''s Court to Hogarth Roundabout. If so, a huge swath of land ripe for development would be created in place of the flyover and the Great West Road. The cost of it would to a very large extent, if not wholly, be met by the construction of affordable housing, high end apartments and houses, retail units, office space etc. It would also restore a sense of community to the whole area, which the flyover effectively destroyed.
From EO on 27/12/2013 at 12:36
This project is a fantasy- imagine a 3x3 lane highway-what do think the Tunnel diameter would be. The length suggested would be 2 miles- an accident or breakdown would be catastrophic for ventilation etc.The water table is quite high and would present a very difficult drainage problem. Construction would take years and disrupt the highway to Heathrow with dire results. Its one of these fanciful projects costing multi millions just to satisfy a view of the Thames. I spent two years as an Engineer on the Flyover; it was hailed as fantastic design at the time, its lasted 50 years and the expense of repairing is minute compared to the disruption and destruction that would be caused.
Carel Frank MICE(retired) C.Eng (retired)
From Carel Frank MICE (retired) on 15/12/2013 at 23:12
It is long overdue to bury the massive traffic under ground, I heartily agree the tunnel plan is the way to go. Long overdue to build it.
From Diana on 15/12/2013 at 20:14
I live only round the corner of the flyover.
I park underneath it, which has its advantages.
I think the tunnel- underpass idea is the right one. It makes better sense for the all the reasons and arguments put forward for it.
I hope it will help local traffic and access to localities. Yes, they should make sure to get enough feed back and it will take time to figure it out, but it should be tried- it will cause lots of disruption to the area - but no pain no gain. I think it is necessary to try a tunnel!
From Alexandra on 14/12/2013 at 22:11
The current flyover is a Ballardian monstrosity with only a short, decaying, Soviet life span to boot.
Replacing it with a new flyover means consigning riverside Hammersmith to polluted a future cut off from any potential to develop into a commercial and cultural hub.
The fly-under proposal is essential to the regeneration of Hammersmith - without it the area will remain chopped in two and the huge potential of the river for developers, commerce and parks unused.
I hope that the Council, the Mayor and TfL will appreciate local residents concerns and back the fly-under. It is a once in a generation chance to transform West London and extend out from Kensington an arc of super-prime London linking up to Chiswick.
From Ben Judah on 14/12/2013 at 12:54
I am in favour of keeping the flyover. The condition of the flyover is going to be excellent, with a projected life of more 60 years, without any expensive or inconvenient repairs being necessary.
It is true that an underpass could unite the centre of Hammersmith with the river, improving quality of life and air pollution, while providing more open space, in short supply in H&F.
However, H&F must stop endlessly sucking in capital to an already hugely wealthy area, and infrastructure spending should be directed towards more essential projects around London, and particularly around the rest of the UK.
From Martin on 13/12/2013 at 15:29
I am in favour of the flyunder. The condition of the flyover is poor, and expensive and inconvenient repairs will have to be repeated at intervals. An underpass could unite the centre of Hammersmith with the river, improving quality of life and air pollution, while providing more open space, in short supply in H&F.
From C Knight on 11/12/2013 at 16:51
Flyover should be replaced by High Line Park like in New York. It will save huge cost of demolition, provide a green pedestrian space, link two separate areas divided by this structure and accessibility to open green public space from local public buildings. It will dramatically improve H&F area and attract people to local businesses and housing. Will give a better access to the River. Good design and low maintenance garden will last long and save public money.
From Studio DAR Architects on 11/12/2013 at 10:12
Fully support the proposal... especially the idea of Hounslow also being part of the project. Makes complete sense for joined up thinking to take place here. In terms of cost - I don't know enough to make a comment but would assume that the cost for development of the land would be a major factor. Having the traffic reach as far as Earl's Court would be great too as it would dramatically reduce the pollution we're currently suffering living so close to the A4.
From Yvonne on 09/12/2013 at 01:42
I think it is a fantastic idea to bury the flyover. The trick will be ensuring that wherever the tunnel starts and stops does not detrimentally effect that immediate environment. As well, the proposals I have seen indicate park space occupying the 'new' ground. I am all for returning space to the public realm but let's make sure it is fronted by enough activity to make a safe and well-looked after space.
From local resident/urban designer on 07/12/2013 at 15:59
Do it and do it now!! The noise and dirt from traffic speeding over Hammersmith make it an unattractive place to live and work. It would also make the area feel brighter (lighter) which ultimately would attract new business into the area increasing the amount of rates the council could take which will pay for the costs over time. Invest in our future now and leave a legacy that we are proud of for future generations.
From George on 03/12/2013 at 11:06
A great idea in principle but one I feel that has arrived 10 years too late. With government spending at both national and local levels being cut I cannot see how this would be funded. The selling of surface land may provide an income stream but his could only be done years after the project has commenced, leaving a period where financing has to be sought.
I cannot see TfL support being forthcoming if they believe the current eyesore has a long life ahead, especially as funding will soon have to be found for Crossrail 2. providing transport relief across London rather than in one relitively small areas
From JCT on 26/11/2013 at 15:44
This is stating the obvious and with the flyunder Hammersmith will regain its glory and can become a hot spot in London - see Upper street. On to, It will create a credible platform to be 'good enough' vs Westfield as today king st is losing a lot of attractiveness. I would love to see the work starting before I die, actually I believe that getting it done by 2030 is not a aggressive timing but a realistic one. Please do it and do it swiftly.
From Damien on 17/11/2013 at 08:17
There can be no doubt that the West London Link plan presents a brilliant opportunity to re-create Barons Court and Hammersmith villages. Reconnecting Hammersmith and Chiswick to the river, creating aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sustainable public spaces and replacing the monstrosity of the flyover with something safer, more efficient and much more environmentally friendly are key benefits to this project. Finally, as a young professional hostage to renting I welcome the much needed extra housing stock that could be built as a result of this projcet. I might actually be able to buy in west London - which I never thought I could say. The option for a flyunder from Earl's Court to the Hogarth Roundabout should be endorsed (or at the very least from Barons Court) and as a Hammersmith resident I support this project in its entirity.
From MEF on 14/11/2013 at 14:21
This is a great proposal that I fully support, the 2 elements of the borough feel entirely separated by the A4 (not to mention the noise, pollution and congestion).
Having spent the last 2 days in Zurich, a city with a population similar to LBHF they have virtually eliminated congestion with tunnels used as the main arterial routes taking people in and out of the city. Sydney also uses tunnels extensively to very good effect.
This would be an excellent result for the local area and I hope it can become a reality.
From EddieT on 13/11/2013 at 14:00
IN FAVOUR.
HOWEVER DO NOT LET FULHAM/HMMERSMITH LOCAL COUNCIL administrators profit under the table by selling off large chunks of what will become valuable land space of the existing A4. MAKE THE OVERSEAS VISITORS ( not residents) pay for the cost, for added convenience, at HEATHROW ENTRY POINT. They will still visit in droves.
From Neko on 11/11/2013 at 11:02
At the town hall there was a disproportionate amount of opposition and imagination failure from the audience based on overwhelming support on this site. 2 suggestions to the concerns: firstly if your mind cannot fathom how north south road would intersect with east west tunnel take a trip to the Limehouse link where the canary wharf exits join seamlessly. Secondly several fairly elderly audience members were pre-occupied with logistical disruption to their lives. Being very blunt the likely timescale of the project means there is a good chance you won't be a stakeholder by the time the first spade of earth is dug so don't hijack the debate. 2030 is realistic for a tunnel opening on an agressive timescale. I doubt I will enjoy the benefits but my daughter will and a tunnel, if possible, is clearly going to dramatically improve life in the area. Lastly, if you can't do your Earls court Hogarth roundabout option do consider sinking the A4 between flyover and the roundabout. Reconnecting at least part of the area to the river is a worthy ambition in its own right
From Ed on 10/11/2013 at 13:06
I think the idea of the flyunder is very good it would relieve the congestion on North End Rd, and around Hammersmith, improve traffic/ cyclist, pedestrian safety, enhance lives in the borough. The area of the current flyover could be used to create an area for a European style regular market, once again freeing up North End rd, and improving safety. This could be marketed as a destination in the West similar to Covent Garden. Offering shopping, entertainment and building community. Scrap HS2 and build the flyunder.
From Jonathan on 08/11/2013 at 15:38
In the past few weeks we have had the sudden closure of Hogarth flyover due to 'safety concerns'. Last year we had the closure of Hammersmith flyover due to emergency repairs. Each time this throws the traffic into chaos. How muchmore money do they need to waste on temporary solutions? A strategic solution is required. Stop wasting money on cycle lanes going nowhere (Hogarth roundabout) and spend it where it is needed - a tunnel should be looked into as soon as possible
From jj on 08/11/2013 at 10:11
I think it is a wonderful idea! Innovative and daring, it could transform West London. I agree that it should start at the M4 elevated section. That, the Hogarth and Hammersmith Flyover are aged eyesores. London's road system is light years behind most other major cities. I really hope the Powers that Be have the nerve to go for it!
From N on 07/11/2013 at 19:26
Great Idea, especially if built from Earls Court to the Hogarth roundabout. Agree with comments re. linking in with other schemes (if possible) - e.g. extending the Hammersmith & City line to Turnham Green to connect to the Richmond branch of the District Line
From Richie on 07/11/2013 at 12:42
A tunnel through WEST London to remove ugly concrete flyovers is a great idea. A tunnel that begins before the National Trust's Osterley Park, reunites Brentford and removes the M4 running above the A4, opens up access to Gunnersbury Park and the riverside, and then continues through to Earls Court would be a genuine triumph for West Londoners that generations would go onto celebrate.
Don't be myopic. Don't make this just about Hammersmith. Don't miss the opportunity to truly enhance the lives of millions of WEST Londoners. Unsightly structures blight many of West London's riches. Be bold. Be imaginative.
From Ash on 05/11/2013 at 10:04
As a comparable example, I think all one has to do is look at the success of the Big Dig in Boston MA. Despite some poor planning, significant delays, and cost over-runs, the results are outstanding. The elimination of the old highway structure has made a significant impact on the quality of life in that area. It''s a very similar set of circumstances here in Hammersmith. Done properly, The Flyunder will be a major improvement.
From David on 04/11/2013 at 10:56
I am not in favour of a flyunder for two reasons.
(1) The traffic planning has not been thought out. The Hammersmith Broadway giratory system, Hammersmith Bridge roundabout and the Great West Road out to the Hogarth roundabout are heavily used as a traffic interchange by local and through-traffic. Unless this traffic is to be pushed onto King Street, which runs parallel to it to the north, there will still be a need for a smaller "Great West Road" at ground level. So the developers cannot build all over the existing GWR, and the costs will not work.
(2)Hammersmith Council has a track record of supporting mega-projects for the benefit of developers and wealthy buyers, not existing residents with a variety of housing needs. The Council wants more tower blocks 15 storeys high "with river views", to be sold and left empty or with short-term tenants.
I'm sorry but any idea of "reconnecting the town centre with the river" is a pipe-dream. You can't turn the clock back because the land has become much too valuable. Remember the appalling plans for "King Street Regeneration" Mark 1? Local residents will be lucky if they manage to retain Furnivall Gardens with its present boundaries.
From Una Hodgkins on 01/11/2013 at 10:14
This is an opportunity to invite adjoining councils to expand the scheme. Say from M4 at Boston Manor to Earls Court, connecting at Earls Court to another tunnel linking the A40 Westway to the A3 at Putney Heath. Geology (mostly of clay) is favourable, and it's also favourable going under existing road and rail corridors, with rapid tunnelling techniques available. Profits made from land enhanced for development can finance improvement to public transport in paralel. Spinoff benefits include seperation of cyclists/pedestrians from deadly motor traffic, reduced polution and noise, all round a better place to live especially families.
From EM on 28/10/2013 at 15:20
Public monies would be far better spent on this project than HS2. Maybe the Council needs to reconsider its position on HS2, which it supports, but not Heathrow expansion - sorry but the two will go hand in hand!
From J Hume on 27/10/2013 at 14:14
The river is our greatest asset and currently wasted. This is a once-every-200-years opportunity to transform part of London. Of course it will cost a fortune... But will pay for itself with the enormous value it will unleash whether in housing, businesses or public spaces.
From Jeremy Fawcett on 25/10/2013 at 20:10
Building a tunnel is so necessary and the obvious thing to do. It should start at junction 2 of the M4 and extend to Earls Court junction.
Other major cities do it and fast, don''t waste years discussing it get it started ASAP.
From MG on 25/10/2013 at 17:13
An alternative: tear down the flyover and DON''T replace it.
Instead pedestrianise Hammersmith broadway and let through traffic move north to the M40, the HS2 megahub, travel and send freight by rail or even the river.
Get rid of private cars from the area altogether to massively improve local public transport (invest in autonomous 2-4 person ''pods'' electronically guided along fixed routes over all the no-longer needed tarmac that shuttle people about all day and service local businesses at night - numerous schemes of this sort have been proposed for "cities of the future" - and link it with the HS2 proposals)
Add extensions to the District, Piccadilly and Hammersmith and City tube lines out to the terminus of the A4 at Hogarth Roundabout to make a big Park-and-Ride transfer point for commuters.
Then do the same for Shepherd''s Bush and effectively limit the access for private vehicles to the Congestion Charge zone and get the commuters and freight back onto the railways.
This could vastly improve local quality of life, road safety, efficiency of public transport and no massive investment is needed.
From John Morris on 25/10/2013 at 17:05
Hammersmith and the A4/M4 connectivity has to be seen in context with the environmental concerns and is directly linked to the climate change debate.
The questions that need to be addressed are:
1.is this a temporary fix to continue the polluting process?
OR are the planners and thinkers planning a self interest money spinner and a quick fix.
2.Community development does not seem to feature in the thinking and as such will it become a sterile business oriented tourist expansion of the Westminster, Kensington legacy?
2.Sustainability discussions require city infrastructures to become climate change resilient, Co2 neutral and environmentally safe, so is this project proposal going to disturb the environmental aspects of the area for the next 20 years to the detriment of the community and the people who reside in it?
3.Economically is it not better to landscape the flyover so that the existing structure can be strengthened and covered by green spaces built above and around the flyover such that it becomes a hidden road with public space built over it creating a higher platform of green space resilient to flooding?
From Push on 16/10/2013 at 05:21
Hammersmith used to be a river port - so give it back to the river. The project can be funded with advanced development rights issues as part of the S106 schemes but should prioritise restoring the public access to the river and de-carbonising Hammersmith and its surrounding area.
From PMG on 14/10/2013 at 15:45
I agree with Cllr Botterill's remarks reported above and KD's succinct comment below: "Yes, yes, yes. No dithering for 10 years please. Pass it. Get it built. Hammersmith will never look back". Good to have Mr Stevenson on board too!
From Michael H on 14/10/2013 at 10:51
A great idea and one would which tranfrom the area. Financing this though will be a huge challange and needs to be buttoned down before we all get carried away.
From Michael F A on 14/10/2013 at 08:11
Bring on the feasability study. It would improve Hammersmith many times over for residents and visitors alike. There must be some European money they could pay into this to demonstrate that they don't just take from us...
From CW on 13/10/2013 at 00:54
You are all dreaming!
It is a complete non starter. Just local politicians' ego trip. Waste no more time and money on exploration and talking about it.
Start again in 50 years time.
I have always found the flyover beautiful and it still thrills me.
From David Ivor on 12/10/2013 at 13:00
YES YES =YES. NO DITHERING. BEST IDEA FOR AGES. HAMMERSMITH HAS HAD THE BURDEN OF TOLERATING THE HUGE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC FOR A VERY LONG TIME. IT DESERVES A TUNNEL AS COMPENSATION . GET ON WITH IT AND GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE EXISTING GROUND LEVEL ROADS TOO AND PLANT LOTS AND LOTS OF TREES PLEASE.
From suzie smith on 11/10/2013 at 17:39
Why not invite Hounslow Council to form a joint venture with the view of extending the tunnel's western exit as far as Osterley Park at the M4, thus liberating the inevitable traffic jams of the 2 lane Boston Manor fly over and knock on effects back into a tunnel.
From P.F. on 11/10/2013 at 17:23
Reduce the public transport cost for this too expensive project by controlling traffic in and out of london by road instead. At the end we all pay for it. Where the central government or local council to get the money. We will paying more tax.
From SIVANESAN on 11/10/2013 at 16:44
Great idea.
Just one issue though: at the moment, because there is also a road below the flyover, that means there are currently 2 levels.
So replacing the flyover with a tunnel is very interesting if these 2 levels are included in the tunnel, not just one of them.
Hard work.
How to finance...? good luck
From Mathieu on 11/10/2013 at 16:28
1 A great idea in principle but I would like to know how long it will take to constrct and what is going to happen to the traffic management while it is in progress? The less the disruption I assume the greater the cost.
2. Wait for the outcome of the new london Airport enquiry. If it is thumbs down to Heathrow we won't need a tunnel as in the long term traffic will be much reduced as West London and the Thames corridor dies. If the Heathrow extension goes ahead a tunnel should be part of and financed by the same plan.
From David on 11/10/2013 at 16:23
TfL says the existing flyover will soon be fixed and will last for another 60 years. There is therefore no technical or economic case to remove the flyover, even if there are other ones. If I joined a tunnel at the Hogarth roundabout, do I have to stay in it until Earl's Court?
From Martin on 11/10/2013 at 16:12
I am generally in favour of the flyunder, but have 3 comments (and 1 point).
- It is important that whatever option is selected, we put in place a solution which does not increase the surface traffic on Hammersmith streets. We need to ensure that a long tunnel and/or any toll is not prohibitive for traffic using it.
- As we are looking at traffic in the area, certain roads are heavily used - Shepherd's Bush Road, Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith Bridge Road, Castelnau. An option to reduce congestion on these roads would be preferable
- We need to ensure that local access is not compromised. I know that the diagrams from WLL are examples, but in many of them local roads (like Queen Caroline Street) seem to be cut off. We need to ensure local residents, deliveries and transport (buses, taxies) can still get to their destinations.
All this is dependent on cost, of course. My ultimate support for any option will be dependent on the impact on local, London and UK impacts to tax rates.
From Greg on 10/10/2013 at 19:45
a tunnel from chiswick roundabout to earls court - great idea
From GERRY WRIGHT on 09/10/2013 at 23:50
Brilliant idea. In full support! The Hogarth roundabout does need to be addressed too though
From Emma on 09/10/2013 at 09:47
This is a fantastic opportunity to improve the quality of life and urban landscape for a large part of London. It would be good to start the tunnel at Earls Court and continue until the Hogarth Roundabout.
From Mike on 09/10/2013 at 09:46
Leave the flyover as it is. Burying it will cost a fortune, and cause disruption in the area for years. Stop investing in cars and start spending more money on public transport. Cars are the transport solution of the 20th century; in the 21st century the world is too crowded and climate change too big an issue to waste more money on old-fashioned solutions.
From jstroughair on 09/10/2013 at 09:27
There's understandable concern on how it's paid for.
However London pays more than its fair share of taxes to the Treasury, and drivers have contributed something like 500 billion net in the past 15 years.
I don't believe there's no money. The government recently threw 1.3 billion at the European Investment Bank to give Italy motorways on the cheap, and even more money is being thrown at the HS2 vanity project.
If the scheme is viable, a developer levy might help towards the costs, but one way or another the tab needs to be picked up by central government.
From Brian Mooney, Alliance of British Drivers on 08/10/2013 at 21:36
There could certainly be benefits, so long as there was a ready means of getting people and vehicles out in case of a breakdown.
Any tunnel should not be seen as 'new capacity' but a replacement to the flyover, and should definitely not be tolled - drivers pay five times over to use the road.
The government intend to force drivers to use a planned tolled stretch on the A14 by demolishing an (untolled) existing section of road. The result is a massive campaign against tolling by local councils, business organisations and MPs.
LBHF, TfL and DfT please take note!
From Brian Mooney, Alliance of British Drivers on 08/10/2013 at 21:08
Not able to come to the meeting on October 9 but fully supportive of the idea. Agree with comments about ensuring that the reclaimed land becomes a mixture of parkland and low-rise housing.
From Mary Hickson on 08/10/2013 at 17:32
A flyunder would be a vast improvement, wonderful for Hammersmith. Best to keep it a realistic length, rather than make long and therefore unaffordable. Presumably much of the cost would be met by not carrying out expensive repairs on the flyover.
From G M on 06/10/2013 at 19:27
The flyover is not only an eyesore, but splits the community in two. The tunnel is a great idea, but I appreciate it has to be properly costed. But it's not just the flyover. Consideration needs to be given to how we break down the "Berlin Wall" effect of the rest of the road down to the Hogarth roundabout.
From stephen biddulph on 06/10/2013 at 16:19
Yes, yes, yes. No dithering for 10 years please. Pass it. Get it built. Hammersmith will never look back.
From KD on 06/10/2013 at 11:52
Totally in favor with this development
From Stephane on 05/10/2013 at 23:01
Excellent idea. But the cost would be huge and it seems most people in the comments below recognise this. To really get the project underway and realise the benefits, the land needs to be made available for mixed use; green space, commercial property, housing and should be self financing. Why not charge a toll for using the tunnel? Whilst never popular, if this would make it happen sooner, I am sure many drivers like me would be ready to make a small contribution to the funding by way of a toll.
From Jeremy on 05/10/2013 at 13:39
Sounds fabulous - agree with many of the other comments re how paid for? and can it be multi use and what for? Would like to know where the proposed beginning and end would be, as I would favour the tunnel being substantially longer than the existing flyover, starting in the west before the beginning of Furnivall Gardens...
From CLU on 05/10/2013 at 08:42
With London property prices on a seemingly ever upwards trajectory the land made available would / should offer a reasonable dividend towards paying for the project?
If it can be made to work with a well put together, all encompassing plan to provide capacity for the future then wholly supportive. BUT prior to going ahead learn lessons from the disastrous Edinburgh city centre tram project which has caused chaos, has had unbelievable cost overruns and does not meet the requirements overruns whilst failing to meet the requirements of the residents.
From JMS on 05/10/2013 at 08:21
This should happen ASAP, from West Kensington, just before North End Road, all the way to Hogarth Roundabout at least[never happen]. Expantion of Furnivall Gardens and Homefield Recreation grounds. Black Lion Lane/St Peter's Square to Eyot Gardens could be restored to the river and imagine the amount of new, one bedroom 'green' and AFFORDABLE flats could be built to ease the dreadful LACK of these in the borough! Yes well, don't hold your breath, they'll want to spend millions talking about it, for YEARS!
Then when your kids are grown up and its all a distant memory, the''ll come back at us with a 'half-arsed' atempt! How many years has that 'temporary' one lane fly-over at Howgarth Roundabout been standing? 40-50 years? Just a thought!!
From MICHAELHOUSE on 05/10/2013 at 04:41
This would be very nice but will cost a fortune and take several years to complete. Meanwhile there would be chaos from the works, noise, pollution etc. Who is going to pay for it?
From ANH on 04/10/2013 at 21:16
Yes, Yes , Yes.... a brilliant idea to open up the space between the river and King Street. Hammersmith always seemed to be divided in two by that ruddy ugly flyover.
From Paul on 04/10/2013 at 19:52
Long overdue!! But since the tube line crosses here why not also tunnel through and link the picadilly line to the Metropolitan line and make a proper outer circle so we have a viable link to the cross rail at paddington? This would completely regenearate the area, the Borough is cut in two not just by the road but by the railway terminus. Going up to the Hogarth roundabout would give us back the river side and kill off the flyover there too. Please make it happen!
From judith on 04/10/2013 at 19:08
I definitely support the proposal for a fly-under. The fly-over is an eyesore and even with the upcoming activity to patch it up, how long will it last. A permanent solution is required.
From PC on 04/10/2013 at 17:15
To have a Hammersmith tunnel west of the Hogarth roundabout through to the ARC is a fantastic idea.
I visit Nice (South of France) frequently and they have tunnels all over the city and are fantastic for getting around.
Bring on the tunnel. With the development of Earls Court about to take place this is perfect timing.
As for the funding of such a project. This has to come from central government in some way. Finish Cross Rail and then turn the attention to the Hammersmith tunnel.
Boris and chums we need your support now to come up with an idea. Get the banks off their backsides and lend as an initial thought.
From Andrew on 04/10/2013 at 16:57
Do it! Apart from anything there is a legal obligation due to some of the worst air quality statistics in all of Europe on Talgarth Road flouting a number of important regulations and laws.
Make sure Talgarth Road is buried. I.e. start at north end road junction at the very least if not Earls Court.
Dr L Monzon
From Dr Leo on 04/10/2013 at 16:56
At last ! At the time the flyover was built, my late uncle, a consulting engineer, said that he would have made it a tunnel. I just hope that it will not sprout hideous No.1 Hyde Park-type buildings on top, as an even higher barrier, to pay the bill.
From Helen on 04/10/2013 at 16:41
I totally agree with the comments of another resident - we should be looking to not only put the flyover underground but also much of the stretch of dual carriageway A4 from the Hogarth roundabout to just past The Arc. We should look to knit the streets back together that were severed by the road in the first place and encourage residential building, parks and pedestrian and cycle ways between King Street and the river frontage. As pointed out the land value for (sympathetic 2 and 3 storey) development (no tower blocks please!) would help offset the cost.
From Natasha on 04/10/2013 at 15:47
I agree wholeheartedly with all the comments on this site, supporting the fly-under and the restoration of Hammersmith as an uninterrupted riverside borough.
The key issue for H&F Council and TfL is how will it be paid for? Whilst the cost may be recovered once the tunnel is completed, were is the upfront financing coming from and how long will it take to raise the necessary funds? Especially, given the prospects of national infrastructure spending all going into HS2.
Suggestions that the tunnel be extended to the M4 would obviously increase the cost of the project - and make it more difficult to justify.
From Graham on 04/10/2013 at 15:35
Does anyone remember a brilliant advert on TV years ago that showed workmen digging a hole in a road for some Water Pipes, and Telephone engineer drove by and asked if he could lay some cables in the hole at the same time...followed by a Gas-man...and probably others...all utilising the same hole to avoid digging up the road more than once! The advert ended with a hearse driving by and the drive peering down into the hole...absolute classic! My point being, if we're going to dig up the road to drop a large tunnel underneath (which I think is an excellent idea by the way), could we use the tunnel for other things too? If we move forward in time to the point when the project is complete and we have more homes on the new land, new shops, new schools etc...the current tube network in the area will have to handle many more people, and quite frankly I do not look forward to that by-product...so I wonder if parallel to a 3 lane (each-way) road tunnel, we can have an extension of the underground train system - perhaps extending the Hammersmith and City line down to the Hogarth roundabout and further to Chiswick railway station, other ideas welcome...
From Mark Beckett on 04/10/2013 at 15:29
A great and long overdue intiative. Go flyunder!
From Edwardes-Ker on 04/10/2013 at 15:00
Putting town centre arterial roads in tunnels is what they''ve been doing for decades in Italy, keeping public spaces free for people to walk in and for businesses to thrive. We can surely do the same here. Imagine how lovely Shepherd''s Bush Green would be if they''d route the traffic under instead of all around it!
From Malcolm on 04/10/2013 at 14:50
I wholly support the proposal, though careful management of traffic (already bad in our area) would be necessary during the works to avoid short-term mayhem. But I agree with the general consensus that the flyover is a ghastly eyesore, and that a tunnel (as far as possible towards Earls Court and into/through Chiswick to the M4) could create fabulous and much needed open municipal spaces (parks/piazzas, etc) in Hammersmith. I agree with the comment to go for an absolute minimum of housing (perhaps some sheltered housing for the elderly, sympathetic to the surroundings, and near to facilities and parks). Housing is already too dense around here. The sooner the better!
From JR on 04/10/2013 at 14:36
I am fully supportive of this. In fact, I'd prefer if the concept were rolled out along the A4/M4 all the way up to Chiswick roundabout. If we're going to do this, let''s do it once and do it properly.
And, please get a move on; it really shouldn't be necessary to have several years of public consultation - it should be pretty obvious that the vast majority of people are supportive of this.
Plenty of development will be required on the land created in order to finance the project, which I have no problems with. Precisely what we need in this densely populated and over-priced city is a greater supply of housing.
From Mark on 04/10/2013 at 14:32
The flyover is an eyesore. It affects traffic if it goes wrong; if the tunnel goes wrong, it too will affect traffic. Other cities eg Brussels have tunnels but they are not comparable to London in traffic terms. This is on the main road into London from its prinicpal airport and what can go wrong wth a tunnel and what can go wrong with a flyover and possible immediate remedies are a big factor in deciding. I am not sure air quality would be altered much. Visually an improvement if the flyover comes down, but reserve judgement till the analysis is available on the scheme as a whole. While a Hammersmith thing, this is really a national road which just happens to psss through Hammersmith so cost to state not local authority.
From PG on 04/10/2013 at 14:31
The tunnel must be built but needs to go all the way to the rural end of the Brentford Flyover. New businesses and residential homes etc can be built on top with open green spaces. HB''s research below: Cost of tunnel - roughly 150k per metre of tunnel (taken from A3 Hindhead tunnel) Every metre of Hammersmith ''flyunder'' might release 10 sq. metres of land for residential development on top - 30 sq. metres of living space for a 3 storey building, which coincidentally can be sold for 150k making the whole thing cost-neutral!
From Alexander on 04/10/2013 at 14:20
Keep half the fly-over for green traffic and flyunder for polluters. Offset cost with sale of half of flyover becoming residential/other which could be sold to developers.
From NL on 04/10/2013 at 13:40
Anyone who doubts the huge improvement this would make just needs to see the incomparable improvement in the quality of life for the inhabitants of Boston, MA resulting from their "Big dig". Come on London! If we can host the Olympics surely we can build something as truly life enhancing as this!
From Ant on 04/10/2013 at 13:33
Good idea. But realistically it has to be replaced by housing not parks. New greenspace is a lovely idea, but just means the whole thing is unlikely to happen. If we accept that the new land can be used for high value housing then it suddenly becomes much more realistic. It would still hugely improve Furnivall Gardens and St Paul''s Green, which is a big greenspace benefit in itself. And while London is short of greenspace, it''s even more short of homes!
From BS on 04/10/2013 at 13:32
This is a great idea, and the sooner it can happen, the better. It should ideally start before Baron''s Court so that the hundreds of locals who use that crossing every day don''t run the risk of being squashed by irresponsible drivers trying to get ahead of the traffic lights. The space created should be used for green space as well as residential development.
From Edward on 04/10/2013 at 13:17
This sounds like a really nice idea and would no doubt improve this part of London tremendously.It''s certainly an ambitious project and would of course require heavy investment and proper planning. No doubt there are plenty of cheaper solutions; but a tunnel would really seem to be the best option for a definitive long-term solution.
From David B on 04/10/2013 at 13:15
Brilliant idea to bury this eyesore. It is absolutely hideous and an impediment to the area. It''s falling apart and now is the time to bury it! I fully support his.
From SS on 04/10/2013 at 13:11
I think it is a wonderful idea, and should have been done years ago. It could be the best thing to happen to West London for a long time and could regenerate the area.
I give it my full backing.
Please start soon.
From Bradford on 04/10/2013 at 13:07
What an excellent idea. As someone else pointed out the Boston elevated expressway blighted the city for decades. Boston has now been transformed by the replacement tunnel.
From David, SW6 on 04/10/2013 at 13:00
A brilliant idea! Apart from all the above reasons it will also encourage more road traffic. No sane person uses the route unless public transport is unsuitable for the purpose of travel. I travel in crowded trains as this is the least awful option. This idea would change everything.
From Tham on 04/10/2013 at 12:58
Tunnelling the flyover is the most sensible decision for LBHF and at last it provide the residents some protection from the noise, visual and air pollution created from the flyover. Great news, in huge support for this idea!
From CRW on 04/10/2013 at 12:57
I wholeheartedly back the scheme to replace the hideous Hammersmith flyover with a flyunder. It would hugely improve the area both for residents like myself and businesses at that end of Fulham Palace Road. I cannot think of a single negative for this project.
From Carole on 04/10/2013 at 12:53
Fantastic idea, get it moving. The difference in Sydney of the tunnels is amazing from a traffic flow and quality of life for residents
From Martin on 04/10/2013 at 12:50
I do hope this goes ahead and without delay. If the tunnel went as far out as the Hogarth Roundabout or beyond, it would be the most transformational development in West London for a generation and more in keeping with the civic infrastructure you would expect from one of the wealthiest cities in the world. The brilliance of the idea is that the massive benefits would be largely self funding through the land released for development (but as others have commented low rise only and open space maximised).
From NB on 04/10/2013 at 10:15
This is an inspired idea. Boston and Baltimore in the USA have built far more technically challenging tunnels with huge benefits to those cities.The most beautiful parts Hammersmith could be restored the same way. The tunnel should run from Earls Court to Hogarth roundabout as a minumum. Introduce US style 'E-Z Pass' automatic tolls to help finance it. Don't delay....let's do it !
From IGJ on 04/10/2013 at 07:41
You need to be more bold. Not only do you need to do a fly-under, it should extend right out to the end of the current elevated section of the M4. Look at what they achieved in Boston. The value of the residential land above would help to offset the inevitably high cost. But in terms of quality of life for those living near by the cost would be well worth it.
From Patricia Langley on 02/10/2013 at 08:59
To echo someone else''s comment, it is a total ''no brainer'' and the real challenge is to get on with it quickly without the 5-10 years of endless consultations, political bickering, judicial reviews and bureaucratic delay common to many large infrastructure projects.
Hammersmith is dreadfully short of green space: please build the absolute minimum amount of residential on the freed-up land, whilst extracting maximum value from the developers in an open-book sale and tender process.
From Richard Owen on 01/10/2013 at 17:44
A fantastic idea. The M4 / A4 corridor has been a mess for so long. Even if we can''t sort out Brentford or Chiswick, we can at least start to sort out Hammersmith. Freeing up land for residential redevelopment is an excellent funding idea in what would be a very desirable area so close to transport links.
Let's get it done, and good luck to Neale your new flyover champion.
From NPS on 01/10/2013 at 15:29
The sooner the better. Pity so many millions are needed to keep the old monster going. Also please do not forget the Hogarth roundabout and that little flyover which was only meant to last a few years!
From JKK on 29/09/2013 at 17:27
The idea of tunnels are the best way to go, start with a combined Hounslow and Hammersmith tunnel, from M4 Junction 2 through to the junction with Earls court Road, and have suitable low profile buildings where the old elevated structures currently are, this would then reduce the pollution currently along the route. The costs would be covered by the sale of the land surrounding all the unsightly elevated roads, and also get rid of the Hogarth unsightly flyover, which was built to last only 10 years anyway, and is currently a rusting mess.
From DON on 29/09/2013 at 14:42
This is clearly an excellent proposal and I have been advocating this solution personally and privately for years. The real question is how quickly can we move from discussion to action?
From JH on 27/09/2013 at 17:17
Chiswick and Hammersmith suffer horribly from the flyover and dual carriage way. The beautiful victorian architecture near the river is ruined by the noise and pollution of the A4. Not point in just providing a tunnel for Hammersmith, go further and extend it to Hogarth roundabout at least. It will revolutionise Hammersmith and Chiswick and make the area much more desirable. Land values for the redevelopment area should fund much of the cost of the tunnel over the long term. Very important to develop these areas for the long term, sympathetically, avoiding high density, low cost housing that many Councils would opt for to meet short term targets. Recreating traditional victorian terraces to rejoin the river to the High Streets is far more desirable. It does therefore require a long term vision to deliver it, short term pain for local residents but the long term benefits for all outweigh them. Great concept, the minor issue of funding to overcome!
From WRCLondon on 27/09/2013 at 16:52
It's a no brainer! Go to any attractive world city and you'll discover tunnels are very common as traffic should not rule and not be seen. No dilly dally just get on with it.
From Robert on 27/09/2013 at 16:20
A wonderful brave idea and it has GOT to happen and NOT to have high-rise developments along it cutting out light and creating wind tunnels like the new building on the corner of Hammersmith Grove. But I agree with the other Sarah's comment on 23.09.2013 - what about the A40 which cuts the beautiful Flower Estate in half? I sometimes wonder if H&F Council are aware of where the northern edge of their borough lies, so uninterested are they in any kind of improvement.
From Sarah on 27/09/2013 at 15:48
I agree totally with the proposal to build an underpass.
From CLIVE EVANS on 27/09/2013 at 14:42
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would be massively in favour of a tunnel to replace the current flyover, it would open up a huge amount of space, reduce noise and pollution, and breath some fresh life into the surrounding area. I would like to offer my support in any way possible to make this a reality.
Best regards,
Robert
From robert wace on 27/09/2013 at 14:21
I lived in Melbourne and Sydney in the 1990s when incredible tunnel road infraastructure projects were started and finished. It's a brilliant idea and so long as what replaces the flyover on the surface is done with great architecture, sustainability and some green space in mind, then it will repay the investment on many levels - financial, housing and quality of life.
From LR on 27/09/2013 at 13:40
This would be a tremendous step forward for the Borough, and a radical improvement. Although what about the Hogarth Roundabout?
That is a shameful legacy from the early 50's and also needs to be brought into the 21st Century. I appreciate that isn't in Hammersmith & Fulham, yet it still is embarrassing that a 60 year old temporary bridge is still used for one of the busiest arteries to one of the world richest capitol cities.
From KB on 27/09/2013 at 13:39
Please do whatever you can to get a flyunder built. It would transform Hammersmith. As for developing above to pay for it, get Richard Rogers involved - his practice is round the corner and he specialises in making buildings with exterior spaces that put residents and community first - all of which should be a priority.
From Sasha on 27/09/2013 at 13:37
How about a similar scheme for the A40 in the North - this cuts up the North of the borough, is noisy and unsightly and dangerous to cross. H&F do not receive any financial benefit for having two main arteries into central London polluting their air. Also if the Old Oak Common development goes ahead it would re connect the whole area.
From Sarah on 23/09/2013 at 12:48
I think a fly-under is a very good idea. The Hammersmith Flyover, which I use regularly (I live in Chiswick), is a brutalist monster which should never have been put up. The whole area would improve greatly. It would be very important to ansure that the surface area adjacent to the tunnels would not become home to ugly high-rises of a more modern persuasion, but is kept low-key with the main emphasis on park-land and open space.
From VH on 22/09/2013 at 14:44
I agree with Curwena; anything done by H&F should be integrated with plans to sort the elevated section of the M4, whatever they may be. How long until that section of road has to be closed too, to effect repairs?
From David on 22/09/2013 at 09:22
Cost of tunnel - roughly £150k per metre of tunnel (taken from A3 Hindhead tunnel - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924687). Every metre of Hammersmith 'flyunder' might release 10 sq. metres of land for residential development on top - 30 sq. metres of living space for a 3 storey building, which coincidentally can be sold for £150k making the whole thing cost-neutral! (if residential property is £5k/sq. metre - http://bit.ly/LFLPO5)
From HB on 20/09/2013 at 15:10
This is absolutely brilliant but what is Hounslow planning to do? It is crazy for it to end at the Hogarth roundabout- it needs to start at junction 2 on the m4 as the flyover is falling apart and the rest of chiswick needs stitching back together at the same time.
From curwena on 18/09/2013 at 18:14

Comments

Your comments

Name:*
Display name:*
E-mail:*
Comment:*
 
characters
 
Enter the code shown above:*

                      I accept the terms and conditions of posting to this site*
 

* denotes mandatory field