Cycling and walking improvements between Lea …...road users throughout London is an important way...
Transcript of Cycling and walking improvements between Lea …...road users throughout London is an important way...
Cycling and walking improvements between Lea Bridge
and Dalston
Phase 1 between Dalston and Clapton
Consultation Report
February 2020
2
Contents
Table of figures .........................................................................................................................3
Executive summary..................................................................................................................4
1. About the proposals........................................................................................................5
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................5
1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................5
2. About the consultation....................................................................................................6
2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................6
2.2 Who we consulted .....................................................................................................6
2.3 Dates and duration ....................................................................................................6
2.4 What we asked...........................................................................................................6
2.5 Methods of responding .............................................................................................7
2.6 Consultation materials and publicity .......................................................................7
2.7 Pre-consultation engagement ......................................................................................8
2.8 How we considered equalities in the consultation................................................8
2.9 Analysis of consultation responses ........................................................................9
3. About the respondents ................................................................................................ 10
3.1 Respondent type..................................................................................................... 10
3.2 List of responding stakeholders ........................................................................... 10
3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation ................................................ 11
3.4 Distribution of respondents ................................................................................... 11
3.5 Demographics ......................................................................................................... 13
4. Summary of all consultation responses ................................................................... 17
4.1 Question 1: Effect of proposals as a whole on the way people choose to
travel 17
4.2 Question 1 (open question) & Question 3 (open question): Effect and impact
of proposals as a whole .................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Question 4: Types of respondent ......................................................................... 20
4.4 Quality of Consultation........................................................................................... 21
5. Responses to issues raised ....................................................................................... 23
6. Next steps ..................................................................................................................... 41
3
Table of figures
Figure 1 Proportion of respondent types in summary .................................................... 10
Figure 2 Detailed respondent types .................................................................................. 10
Figure 3 How respondents heard about the consultation .............................................. 11
Figure 4 Map to show the location of respondents to the consultation within proximity
to the proposed Cycleway route ........................................................................................ 12
Figure 5 Top 10 most represented Boroughs by respondent ....................................... 13
Figure 6 The gender of respondents to the consultation ............................................... 13
Figure 7 The age of respondents to the consultation ..................................................... 14
Figure 8 The ethnicity of respondents to the consultation ............................................. 15
Figure 9 The sexual orientation of respondents to the consultation ............................ 15
Figure 10 Faith of the respondents to the consultation .................................................. 15
Figure 11 Respondents who considered that their day-to-day activities were limited
................................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 12 Effect of proposals on the way people choose to travel (walking, cycling
and public transport) ............................................................................................................ 18
Figure 13 Top 10 most frequently raised issues ............................................................. 20
Figure 14 Who responded to the consultation ................................................................. 21
Figure 15 Assessment of the quality of the consultation ............................................... 22
4
Executive summary
We worked with the London Borough of Hackney to develop proposals to help people walk and cycle more often in neighbourhoods linking Lea Bridge and Dalston.
We held a consultation on the first phase of our proposals, which was concerned
with proposed improvements in an area between Dalston and Clapton, from 17 July – 9 September 2019 and invited a wide range of people and other stakeholders to give us their views.
Summary of results
There were 627 responses to the consultation, including from 10 organisations or
individuals we would consider to be stakeholders.
We asked respondents to judge what effect our proposals might have on walking,
cycling, using public transport and using private transport for personal or private journeys. We provided a range of effects for respondents to choose between ranging from ‘Many more people would choose to travel in this way’ to ‘Fewer people
would choose to travel in this way’. We found that:
82 per cent of respondents felt that our proposals would mean that more
people would cycle
67 per cent felt that our proposals would mean that more people would walk
40 per cent felt that our proposals would mean that more people would use
public transport
48 per cent felt that our proposals would mean that fewer people would use
private transport for personal journeys
29 per cent felt that our proposals would mean that fewer people would use
private transport for business journeys
Next steps
The feedback we received was invaluable in helping us to further improve the
scheme. We will continue to work with the London Borough of Hackney to developed
detailed designs for the joint proposals. Subject to final approval the London
Borough of Hackney currently intends to commence construction on the proposals
between Dalston and Clapton in spring 2020.
A consultation on the second phase of our proposals, which was concerned with
proposed improvements in an area linking Clapton to Lea Bridge, was held from 17
October – 16 December 2019. We will report on the outcomes of that consultation
separately, in the Spring. We will not make any decisions on the second phase of
our proposals until we have considered the issues raised in that consultation.
5
1. About the proposals
1.1 Introduction
Our proposals were designed to make it easier to cross busy roads, remove through traffic on some residential roads and offer a safe, segregated space for people to cycle on the busier sections of the route. We consulted on our proposals in phases:
our first phase of consultation focussed on improvements between Dalston and Clapton.
The proposals included:
A new Cycleway that people cycling can use to get around
New and upgraded signalised junctions with pedestrian and cycle facilities New and upgraded pedestrian and cycle priority crossings Changing entry to and exit from some roads along the route
Improvements to traffic calming Changes to some parking and loading provision Improvements to the public realm
Cycleways are new high-quality cycle routes that people cycling can use to get around. They link communities, businesses and destinations across London. Each new Cycleway will have its own number with on-street signs and road markings,
making them easy to use.
1.2 Purpose
The proposed improvements were designed to help us meet the target set out in the Mayor's Transport Strategy that 80 per cent of all London trips be made on foot, by
bicycle or on public transport by 2041. Changing how space is allocated to different road users throughout London is an important way of helping more people travel sustainably.
The proposed new Cycleway between Lea Bridge and Dalston was identified in our
Strategic Cycling Analysis as a key area for existing and potential cycling. This proposed new Cycleway also provides an opportunity to improve the street network by encouraging walking and cycling, increasing connectivity to key attractions, new
developments, transport hubs and the wider Cycleways network.
The areas between Lea Bridge and Dalston tend to be residential with vibrant high streets and green space. However, some roads through these neighbourhoods are currently dominated by motor traffic and can be intimidating and unpleasant places
for people to walk and cycle. These proposals would provide a safer and more pleasant environment and would improve connections between residential areas and
town centres. They would contribute towards the Mayor of London’s Vision Zero ambition to eradicate deaths and serious injuries from our streets by 2041.
6
2. About the consultation
2.1 Purpose
The objectives of the consultation were to:
Give stakeholders and the public easily-understood information about the proposals and allow them to respond
Allow us to understand any issues or impacts that might affect the proposals of which we were not previously aware
Allow respondents to make suggestions to us
2.2 Who we consulted Our consultation was open to anyone who had a view about our proposals; although
we primarily contacted relevant residents, businesses and stakeholders in the vicinity
of our proposals in the London Borough of Hackney.
2.3 Dates and duration The consultation ran for just over six weeks, from 17 July to 9 September 2019.
2.4 What we asked
Our website included a questionnaire for respondents to complete, although they
were also free to send us their thoughts by letter or email. We asked people who
completed our questionnaire to tell us how they thought the proposals might impact
how people would travel, and additionally to explain their reasoning for their
assessment in free text.
We also asked respondents to tell us whether our proposals would positively or
negatively affect their journeys, and additionally to tell us how we might mitigate any
negative impacts they foresaw. Respondents were also asked to give us their name,
email address and postcode, along with information about their travel habits, and
certain demographic information; although all of these questions were voluntary. Our
consultation questionnaire is included in Appendix A.
Our consultation was intended to enable us to learn what issues respondents might
have with our proposals, together with any suggestions they might have for how
these issues could be mitigated (or respondents suggestions for other changes or
improvements they felt might be made to the proposals). We developed our
consultation questionnaire accordingly, and included within it a set of questions we
felt would encourage respondents to consider specifically what issues they foresaw
7
with our proposals. We made clear on our consultation website that respondents
could also submit their views to us in writing to our Freepost or email address.
2.5 Methods of responding
People were able to respond to the consultation by:
answering the questions in the survey on our consultation website at
consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/dalston-to-lea-bridge
sending a letter to FREEPOST TfL CONSULTATIONS
emailing us at [email protected]
Foreign language translations, large print, Braille or audio versions of our
consultation materials could also be requested.
2.6 Consultation materials and publicity We used a range of channels to raise awareness of the consultation and ensure that
members of the public and stakeholders were aware of its purposes.
All materials encouraged interested parties to visit our website or contact us to find
out more about the scheme and how to respond.
2.6.1 Website
Our website consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/dalston-to-lea-bridge provided detailed
information about the consultation, including overview maps, drawings and
computer-generated images. It was divided into pages which:
provided an overview of the scheme
explained our proposals for each section of the scheme in detail
included ‘Healthy Street’ assessments for each neighbourhood as well as our
Equality Impacts Assessment
A copy of the information we provided on our website is included in Appendix A.
2.6.2 Letters and leaflets
We sent letters to over 16,000 local residents and businesses (i.e. all those
properties situated within 450m of the proposed route). Our letter made clear that
the consultation had launched and included an overview of the proposals. If our
letter distribution partner could not gain access to a property to post a letter then they
posted the letter first class the next day. Copies of the letter and a map of the
distribution area can be found in Appendix A.
8
2.6.3 Emails stakeholders
We also sent an email to a wide range of stakeholders likely to be interested in the
proposals. This email is included in Appendix A, together with the list of stakeholders
we approached.
2.6.4 Press and media activity
A Press Release was distributed to local and regional media at the time the
consultation launched. The launch of the consultation was subsequently repoted
online by a number of media outlets, including Hackney Citizen, Hackney Gazette
and Taxi Point, through the links below.
https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2019/07/22/transport-for-london-new-cycleway-lea-
bridge-dalston/
https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/tfl-announces-plans-for-cycleway-linking-
dalston-to-clapton-1-6166982
https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-post/2019/07/17/Plans-for-new-walking-and-
cycling-link-in-east-London
A copy of our Press Release is included in Appendix A.
2.6.5 Digital advetising
We created an animated, eye-catching advert which was played automatically to people browsing the internet in the London Borough of Hackney. When clicked-on, the advert would take a viewer straight through to our website, where they could
read about our proposals and submit a response if they wished.
2.7 Pre-consultation engagement We made contact with the following stakeholders to offer a briefing on our emerging
proposals:
Madina Mosque Trust
BSix Sixth Form College and other local schools
Homerton Hospital and the London Ambulance Service
Millfields Park Users Group
RNIB
We also met several Hackney Councillors in March 2019 to discuss our proposals for
several schemes, including our proposals for cycling, walking and public transport improvements between Lea Bridge and Dalston.
2.8 How we considered equalities in the consultation In deciding on who to consult, we had regard to our public sector equality duty under
the Equality Act 2010 and the need to consider any impacts (positive or negative) of the proposals on people with protected characteristics. To ensure that any such impacts were brought to our attention through the consultation, we took steps to
9
ensure that a number of groups representative of people with protected characteristics in the community; including elderly, disabled persons or faith
organisations, were made aware of our consultation. The measures we took to ensure these groups could participate in the consultation included:
Identifying and emailing relevant stakeholders such as British Dyslexia Association, Age UK London, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Action on Hearing Loss
and Inclusion London, and inviting them to respond to the consultation
We met with the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) to expain our
proposals and listen to their feedback
Ensuring that the materials were written in plain English, and available on request
in different formats (for example, Braille, large print, other languages)
Ensuring that consultation events were held in accessible locations and at different times of the day, and that large scale materials were available to review
at the events
Considering how best to reach our target audiences and tailoring the way of
communicating with them. For example, by preparing hard copies of our online material for those not able to access our website
Publishing an Equality Impacts Assessment (EQIA) within our consultation materials - this allowed consultees to identify any significant gaps in our thinking and bring to our attention any impacts which we had not already identified
We are fully aware of our obligations under the Equality Act 2010, in particular the
importance of the public sector equality duty on our decision-making. Some responses to consultation raised issues relating to equalities and these will be taken into account in the development of our thinking on the proposals, with mitigation of
any adverse impacts being considered. The EQIA will be kept under review and updated throughout the decision-making process.
2.9 Analysis of consultation responses
All responses to the closed questions in our consultation questionnaire were reviewed and the results tabulated and reported. The results are set out in the next
chapter. The open question, where respondents provided comments, were read and analysed
in detail. All comments and suggestions received, whether by email, letter or through our online questionnaire were reviewed in order to identify common themes raised by respondents.
We developed a ‘code frame’ for the open questions. A code frame is simply a list of
the issues raised during the consultation; together with the frequency each was raised. Every open text response was analysed and either a new code was created or the response was added to one or more of the existing codes within the code
frame. Each response could be coded into multiple codes, depending on the number of issues raised by the individual. Where it was determined that a comment was
providing context to an issue (rather than forming a separate point), these did not form a separate code.
10
3. About the respondents
This section provides information about the consultation respondents, including how
they heard about the consultation and in what capacity they responded.
Respondents have been classified into two categories: Members of the public and
Stakeholders.
Respondent type Total %
Member of the public 617 98
Stakeholder 10 1
Total 627 100%
Figure 1 Proportion of respondent types in summary
3.1 Respondent type
Respondents were asked to select which of the following respondent types best
described them. Respondents were free to select as many options as they felt were
appropriate.
Total
Count %
A resident living close to the proposed scheme 419 31%
A cyclist who might use the proposed route, or who
cycles in the area currently 375 28%
A business located close to the proposed scheme 29 2%
Someone who uses public transport in the area
around the proposed scheme 328 24%
Someone who uses private transport in the area
around the proposed scheme 154 11%
Not local, but interested in the proposals 42 3%
Other 14 1%
Figure 2 Detailed respondent types
3.2 List of responding stakeholders
We received 9 responses from organisations or individuals we would consider to be stakeholders. We identified as a ‘stakeholder’ all those respondents we judged are
notable and reasonably well known amongst the public. This includes London’s local authorities, major transport groups, local neighbourhood or residents associations, major charities, businesses and business groups and industry associations.
11
We have listed below all those stakeholders who responded to the consultation. We have included in Appenidx B a summary of each of the responses we received from
these organisations or individuals.
Bridge Academy Hackney
Mildmay Road Residents Association
London Cycling Campaign
TfL Youth Panel
Rio Cross Residents Association
RNIB
Hackney Living Streets
Sustrans
Cllr Vincent Stops
Canal & River Trust
3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation
We asked respondents how they had heard that the consultation was taking place,
and provided a variety of options for them to choose from.
Figure 3 How respondents heard about the consultation
3.4 Distribution of respondents
We asked respondents to provide us with their home postcode. 486 respondents did
so and we have plotted the majority1 of these on the following map.
We ‘mapped’ the majority of respondents who provided a postcode to the London
Borough of Hackney. We have also included a table which lists the top-10 most
represented boroughs in terms of responses to the consultation, together with the
number of respondents mapped to each.
1 We have focussed on an area surrounding the route of the proposed new Cycleway, which is where
the majority of respondents lived
Total
Count %
Received an email from TfL 329 53%
Received a letter from TfL 70 11 %
Read about in the press 27 4%
Saw it on the TfL website 20 3%
Social media 96 15%
Other 33 5%
Not stated 41 6%
12
Figure 4 Map to show the location of respondents to the consultation within proximity to the proposed Cycleway route
13
Borough
Number of
responses received
Hackney 298
Tower Hamlets 64
Waltham Forest 50
Islington 16
Southwark 9
Newham 8
Lambeth 5
Haringey 4
Camden/Redbridge/Wandsworth 3
Figure 5 Top 10 most represented Boroughs by respondent
3.5 Demographics
We asked respondents to tell us about themselves, although they were under no
obligation to provide any particular information to us. The following tables set out the
information respondents gave us on their gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation
and faith. We also asked respondents whether they considered their day-to-day
activities were limited because of a long-term health problem or disability.
Total
Count %
Male 336 54%
Female 187 30%
Gender Neutral 0 0%
Trans Male 1 0.2%
Trans Female 4 0.6%
Prefer not to say 45 7%
Not answered 43 7%
Figure 6 The gender of respondents to the consultation
Total
Count %
Under 15 0 0.0%
16-20 5 0.8%
21-25 16 2%
26-30 72 11%
14
31-35 114 18%
36-40 85 13%
41-45 54 8%
46-50 41 6%
51-55 56 9%
56-60 28 4%
61-65 26 4%
66-70 11 1%
71+ 16 2%
Prefer not to say 49 8%
Not Answered 43 7%
Figure 7 The age of respondents to the consultation
Total
Count %
Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi 3 0.5%
Asian or Asian British – Chinese 7 1%
Asian or Asian British – Indian 16 2%
Asian or Asian British – Other 5 0.8%
Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 2 0.3%
Black or Black British – African 8 1%
Black or Black British – Caribbean 7 1%
Black or Black British – Other 5 0.8%
Mixed – Other 23 3%
Mixed – White and Asian 10 1%
Mixed – White and Black African 1 0.2%
Mixed – White and Caribbean 3 0.5%
Other Ethnic Group 2 0.3%
Other Ethnic Group – Arab 0 0%
Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 1 0.2%
Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 5 0.8%
Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 1 0.2%
15
White – British 261 42%
White – Irish 17 2%
White – Other 113 18%
Prefer not to say 79 12%
Not Answered 47 7%
Figure 8 The ethnicity of respondents to the consultation
Total
Count %
Heterosexual 362 58%
Bisexual 10 1%
Gay man 39 6%
Lesbian 13 2%
Other 9 1%
Prefer not to say 130 21%
Not Answered 53 8%
Figure 9 The sexual orientation of respondents to the consultation
Total
Count %
Buddhist 1 0%
Christian 35 21%
Hindu 8 5%
Muslim 18 11%
Sikh 2 1%
Jewish 3 1%
Other 3 1%
No religion 28 17%
Prefer not to say 20 12%
Not Answered 42 26%
Figure 10 Faith of the respondents to the consultation
16
Total
Count %
Yes, limited a lot 23 3%
Yes, limited a little 35 5%
No 461 74%
Prefer not to say 51 8%
Not Answered 46 7%
Figure 11 Respondents who considered that their day-to-day activities were limited
17
4. Summary of all consultation responses
This chapter summarises the outcomes of the consultation, including what issues
were raised by respondents in their written comments. This includes responses we
received by letter or email, and those submitted by people who completed our online
consultation questionnaire.
4.1 Question 1: Effect of proposals as a whole on the way people
choose to travel
We asked respondents to tell us what effect they felt the proposals would have on
the way people choose to travel. We also asked them to explain their answers to
this question, and the issues they raised are described in section 4.2.
The percentage scores in the chart below and the following tables account for those
respondents who did not answer the relevant question in our consultation
questionnaire, for completeness.
18
Figure 12 Effect of proposals on the way people choose to travel (walking, cycling and public transport)
Walking CyclingUsing public
transport
Using motorvehicles for
personal journeys
Using motorvehicles for
business journeys
Many more people would choose to travel in thisway
35% 58% 16% 6% 6%
A limited number of extra people would choose totravel in this way
28% 21% 21% 4% 3%
The proposals would have no effect 19% 9% 33% 27% 40%
Fewer people would choose to travel in this way 6% 5% 12% 45% 27%
I am unsure what effect the proposals might have 5% 2% 10% 11% 16%
Not Answered 5% 3% 6% 7% 7%
5% 3% 6% 7% 7% 5%
2%
10% 11% 16% 6%
5%
12%
45% 27%
19%
9%
33%
27%
40%
28%
21%
21%
4% 3%
35%
58%
16% 6% 6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Thinking about our proposals as a whole, what effect do you think they will have on the way people choose to travel?
19
Respondents felt that our proposals would have the greatest positive impact on
people choosing to cycle: 79 per cent felt that many or a limited number of extra
people would choose to travel this way. Respondents also agreed that walking would
become a more common choice of travel mode, with 63 per cent responding that
many or a limited number of extra people would choose to walk. A slightly lesser
proportion of respondents felt that our proposals would lead to greater use of public
transport, with 37 per cent saying that our proposals would mean more people would
travel in this way.
4.2 Question 1 (open question) & Question 3 (open question):
Effect and impact of proposals as a whole
We asked respondents to explain their reasoning behind their assessment of the effects of our proposals on the way people might choose to travel. We also asked
whether our proposals would have a positive or negative effect on respondents’ travel, and how any negative impacts could be minimised. The wording of both
questions is included below for reference. Full question text (open question 1): It would help us if you could use the space
below to explain your answers to the question above. If you are commenting on a particular location, please mention it to help us analyse the responses.
Full question text (open question 3): Please let us know if the proposals would have
a positive or negative impact on you or the journeys you make. Please explain how
we could minimise any negative impacts. Please also let us know if you have
feedback about the specific effects our proposals might have on particular junctions
or areas.
We found that respondents raised similar issues in the comments they made to both
open questions in our questionnaire, and in the letters and emails we received. For this reason we developed a single ‘code frame2’, which listed all of the issues raised by respondents across the open questions in the online questionnaire and in the
letters or emails we received. We have also grouped the issues raised thematically, to make the code frame more manageable and easy to understand.
We identified more than 75 individual issues raised by respondents to the consultation. This section provides details of only the most frequently raised issues,
for ease of reading. The complete code frame is included in Appendix B. 4.2.1 Open responses: Specific issues raised
The table below lists the 10 most frequently issues, including the number of times
each issue was raised by respondents.
2 A code frame is simply a list of the issues expressed by respondents to a consultation; together with
the frequency each was raised. Each code describes an issue raised by respondents in a common and consistent way.
20
Issue Number of times
raised by respondents
Changes will improve cycling/ walking
safety 102
Generally positive 90
Changes would encourage me to cycle more 79
Makes cycling/ walking safer 64
Will cause congestion and/or pollution 38
Proposals are not fit for purpose/ do not go far enough 29
Generally negative/ opposed to proposed cycle lane 29
Shared spaces are not safe and do not promote cycling 28
Cyclists do not use dedicated cycle lane 21
Will reduce pollution3 21
Figure 13 Top 10 most frequently raised issues
4.3 Question 4: Types of respondent
We asked respondents to tell us about themselves, including on what basis they were replying to the consultation. We provided a list of options for respondents to
choose from, although they were also free to specify an alternative in free-text, if necessary.
The results are set out in the chart below.
3 The issues ‘Cyclists do not use dedicated cycle lane’ and ‘Will reduce pollution’ are separate issues,
but were raised an equal number of times by respondents
21
Figure 14 Who responded to the consultation
4.4 Quality of Consultation
We asked respondents to rate the quality of various aspects of the consultation. The
results are shown in the chart below.
A residentliving
close tothe
proposed
route
A cyclistwho might
use theproposedroute, or
whocycles inthe area
currently
Abusiness
locatedclose to
the
proposedroute
Someonewho uses
publictransport
in the
areaaround
the
proposedroute
Someonewho uses
privatetransport
in the
areaaround
the
proposedroute
Not local,but
interestedin the
proposals
Other(please
specify)
Number of respondents 419 375 29 328 154 42 14
(%) 31% 28% 2% 24% 11% 3% 1%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
How are you responding to this consultation?
22
Figure 15 Assessment of the quality of the consultation
Websitestructure & ease
of finding whatyou needed
WrittenInformation
Maps, images &related
diagrams
Online surveyformat
Websiteaccessibility
Events & drop-in sessions
Promotionalmaterial
Very good 28% 27% 32% 28% 26% 6% 8%
Good 39% 37% 34% 36% 36% 9% 13%
Adequate 16% 15% 16% 18% 15% 8% 10%
Poor 2% 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3%
Very poor 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 4% 4%
Not applicable 2% 3% 1% 1% 6% 57% 48%
Not Answered 9% 12% 10% 10% 12% 13% 13%
9% 12% 10% 10% 12% 13% 13% 2%
3% 1% 1%
6%
57%
48%
4% 4%
3% 3%
2%
4%
4%
2% 3%
4% 3%
2%
3%
3%
16% 15% 16% 18%
15%
8%
10%
39% 37% 34%
36% 36%
9% 13% 28% 27%
32% 28% 26%
6% 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%%
of
resp
on
de
nts
w
ho
se
lecte
d e
ach
op
tio
n
What do you think about the quality of this consultation?
23
5. Responses to issues raised
We have considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation and
we have provided an answer to each of these in the following tables. We have
grouped the issues raised by respondents into broad themes, to make this section of
the report easier to read and to provide a more readily understood overview of the
issues raised. Some respondents made positive comments about the proposals, all
of which we have noted. We have not included our response to these issues in the
table, for conciseness reasons.
Having reviewed all of the issues raised by respondents we have decided to make a
series of changes to our proposals, as follows:
Crossway junction with Boleyn Road The proposed two-way cycle track on
the north side of Crossway will now be a one-way cycle track eastbound. This
simplifies the proposals and removes the need for a shared use pavement
area. The changes incorporate recommendations made by the RNIB and
other stakeholders.
Kingsland High Street junction with Sandringham Road The westbound
traffic lane on Sandringham Road near to the junction with Kingsland High
Street will be widened to allow to allow cyclists to get to the junction safely
and access the Advanced Stop Line (ASL) at the traffic lights. In addition, a
taxi rank for two taxis will be provided on the west side of Kingsland High
Street, north of Sandringham Road. This replaces the rank that will be
removed from Sandringham Road under our original proposals.
Sandringham Road junction with St Marks Rise Two new speed humps
will be installed on St Marks Rise to the north and south of Sandringham
Road, to slow traffic approaching the junction. The existing pedestrian islands
on St Marks Rise will be widened to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the
road and to slow traffic.
Amhurst Road junction with Downs Park Road All pedestrian crossing
points will be widened to make it easier to cross the road.
There will be additional new trees and low level planting introduced at various
locations along the route.
We will provide new ‘raised entry’ treatments at John Campbell Road,
Abersham Road, Ferncliffe Road and Andre Street to provide step free
crossings and slow turning traffic.
24
Theme
Issue raised
Response
Negative
Proposals are not fit for purpose/ do not go far enough
The Cycleway proposals include major improvements to the crossing of the A10 in
Dalston and the link to Cycleway 1. The proposals have been designed in accordance with London Cycle Design Standards and our assessments show that the proposals would meet TfL’s Cycling Quality Criteria.
Proposals don't offer proper protection for
vulnerable road users
Proposals do little to stop the use of residential roads as rat
runs
Not convinced there will be a reduction in motor vehicle usage
This is similar
approach as the CS1 which is dangerous for cyclists
Provide protected cycle
lanes (Down Park Road and Sandringham Road)
Better protection
needed for cyclists and pedestrians safety
The proposals are designed to make it easier and safer to cycle between Dalston and Clapton. The chosen route follows quiet residential roads, has low traffic levels
and traffic calming features to limit vehicle speeds. Where traffic levels are higher on the route, specific measures have been proposed to reduce traffic levels. TfL and Hackney Council will monitor traffic volumes and speeds after the Cycleway is
delivered to ensure that it remains a high quality cycle route. The banned turning movements at the junction of Sandringham Road and Kingsland High Street will also
help to reduce the number of vehicles using the Cycleway. Many short local car trips are cycleable and the Cycleway will also provide more people with option to cycle rather than drive. There is evidence from other routes, including Quietway 1, that
high quality cycle routes do encourage cycling whether or not they feature segregated lanes.
25
Theme
Issue raised
Response
Minimise number of one way streets as they cause speeding &
lengthen journeys for motor vehicles
More should have been done to discourage
driving/ reduce motor vehicle traffic
Shared spaces are not safe and do not promote cycling
Shared use areas for walking and cycling are appropriate in certain situations and are designed to be safe and to suit the context of the location that they are
proposed. We have also considered feedback and made changes to the proposals. This includes re-designing the junction of Crossway and Boleyn Road so that there is no area where pedestrians and cyclists will share the pavement.
Scheme will cost a lot
of money for little effect/ waste of money
The Mayor's Transport Strategy and Healthy Streets approach set out initiatives to
improve public transportand walking and cycling infrastructure to meet the transport demands of a growing population and reduce car use. There is evidence from other Cycleways installed, that high quality cycle routes do encourage more cycling and
provide value for money. Generally opposed
Cyclists do not use dedicated cycle lanes
There is evidence that people do use good quality cycle lanes where they are
provided. It is particularly important to provide high quality cycle routes to ensure that new and less experience cyclists feel confident enough to use them.
Junction with Boleyn road is a completely
missed opportunity to make it safer for
cycling
Significant improvements are proposed, including a new segregated cycle track and
a priority crossing to the east of the junction.
Do not make a cycle The path across Hackney Downs will remain an option that people can choose to
26
Theme
Issue raised
Response
path around hackney
downs - no one will be going around the park (longer route)
Cycle route not
needed/ prefer to cycle through the park
Would prefer to see a diagonal route through
the park from SW to NE
use as an alternative to the route of the Cycleway. However, the path across the
centre of Hackney Downs may be less attractive during hours of darkness and the proposed route of the Cycleway provides an alternative option.
Loss of parking spaces
In some locations it has been necessary to propose a reduction in the amount of space available for parking cars to allow the Cyclway infrastructrue to be delivered.
This is in line with the London Borough of Hackney's policy on managing space for parking private vechicles.
Cyclists/cycling are more dangerous than
other modes of transport
Cyclists also need to be mindful of other
road users & follow the rules
Put warning markings/signage
The Highway Code must be adhered to by all road users, and we are strongly in
favour of promoting ‘responsible cycling’ and mutual respect between cyclists and other road users. This means working to eliminate offences such as jumping red lights, cycling on the pavement and cycling at night without adequate lighting.
27
Theme
Issue raised
Response
instructing cyclists to
stop when pedestrians are near
Increased pollution due
to potential delays
The proposals have been designed to make improvements to junctions and crossings to help people cycling and walking whilst keeping buses moving on Kingsland High Street (A10). The propsals are not expected to cause changes to
congestion or pollution levels in the area. Over time it is expected that the proposals will contribute to reducing congestion and pollution by making it easier to walk and
cycling.
Fewer buses & more
interchanges will be required which is not
feasible for disabled travellers There are no changes to bus stops or bus services within these proposals.
Changes will have a detrimental affect for
the elderly and or people with mobility issues and or the
disabled The changes to
crossway/Boleyn road look very complicated/
not useful Changes will have a
detrimental effect on the elderly, people with
mobility issues and/or
We have considered feedback from groups including the Royal National Institute of
Blind People, and made changes to the proposals. This includes re-designing the junction of Crossway and Boleyn Road so that there is no area where pedestrians and cyclists are expected to share the pavement. The proposals include new priority
pedestrian crossings at Crossway, Downs Park Road and Sandringham Road and a number of locations where crossing distances will be reduced making it easier and
safer for all pedestrians to cross the road.
28
Theme
Issue raised
Response
the disabled
No clear evidence that
there is a demand in this area for this change
TfL's Strategic Cycling Analysis published in 2017 identifiend 25 top priority corridors for cycling across London, including the route that this Cycleway will take. Further
information is on our website: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/strategic-cycling-analysis.pdf
Changes will be an inconvenience
When changes are proposed they are carefully designed to deliver the greatest
possible benefit to as many users as possible. We will work closely with the London Borough of Hackney to ensure that construction of the scheme causes the least disruption possible.
Will increase travelling time
The proposals have been designed to make improvements to junctions and
crossings to help people cycling and walking whilst keeping buses moving on Kingsland High Street (A10). The propsals are not expected to cause a change to journey times in the area.
Changes will make it
more dangerous for pedestrians
The proposals include new priority pedestrian crossings at Crossway, Downs Park Road and Sandringham Road and there a number of locations where crossing
distances will be reduced making it easier and safer for all pedestrians to cross the road. We have also considered feedback and made changes to the proposals. This
includes re-designing the junction of Crossway and Boleyn Road so that there is no area where pedestrians and cyclists will share the pavement.
29
Theme
Issue raised
Response
Don’t implement one
way on to Sandringham Road from Birkbeck Road to
Kingsland High Street
Don’t implement the forced left into Kingsland High Street
from Sandringham Road
This is required to create a cycle and pedestrian crossing at the junction of
Sandringham Road and Kingsland High Street without causing delays to bus passengers using Kingsland High Street (A10). It will also make Sandringham Road quieter and more pleasant to walk and cycle along.The A10 is a high priority bus
corridor and the proposals are designed not to cause delays to buses. It will also make Sandringham Road quieter and more pleasant to walk and cycle along.
Lack of protected lanes will not encourage
walking/ cycling Provide segregated
cycle lanes (non-location specific, along
Down Park Road & Sandringham Road)
Segregated cycle tracks are only recommended on Cycleways where traffic volumes
are high. The chosen route follows low trafficked residential streets and segregated cycle tracks are not appropriate or necessary for the majority of the route. There is
evidence from other routes including Quietway 1, that high quality cycle routes do encourage cycling whether or not they include segregated lanes.
The one-way section on Sandringham Rd
will be inconvenient and will result in more traffic on Shacklewell
Lane
When changes are proposed they are carefully designed to deliver the greatest
possible benefit to as many users as possible.
Lack of a bus lane will lead to delays and longer bus journeys
There are no changes to bus lanes within the proposals and no changes to bus
journey times are expected.
30
Theme
Issue raised
Response
Retain the dedicated
bus lane for quicker bus journeys
Proposed changes not helpful for pedestrians
The proposals include new priority pedestrian crossings at Crossway, Downs Park Road and Sandringham Road and a number of locations where crossing distances will be reduced making it easier and safer for all pedestrians to cross the road.
Cycling improvements seem to be at the
expense of other road users
The Mayor's Transport Strategy and Healthy Streets approach set out initiatives to
improve public transportand walking and cycling infrastructure to meet the transport demands of a growing population and reduce car use. These proposals form a key part of the Mayor's strategy to make cycling easier and safer for Londoners to get
around. In some cases, the changes may make it less convenient to use a private vehicle to drive in order to make it easier to cycle, walk and use public transport.
Concerned about traffic impact at the junction
at Boleyn Road & Mildmay Road for local
residents
The proposals are not expected to have a negative impact on the way the junction
operates for traffic or buses.
Object to banning of
the left turn from Kingsland High Street into Dalston Lane
A left turn ban from Kingsland High Street into Dalston Lane is not proposed in this consultation.
Vehicles servicing 130
Kingsland High Street will block the eastbound cycle way
The London Borough of Hackney will consider how best to accommodate loading
facilities for the site at 130 Kingsland High Street, taking into account the Cycleway proposals. The Cycleway proposals do already include an extended parking and
loading bay on the east side of Kingsland High Street approximately 30 metres to
the south of 130 Kingsland High Street.
Difficulties for cyclists moving off when
The proposals include an Advanced Stop Line (ASL) for cyclists approximately 5
metres ahead of the stop line for general traffic. This gives cyclists somewhere to
31
Theme
Issue raised
Response
waiting at traffic signals
at the hill on Kingsland High Street west
wait ahead of other traffic. In addition, cyclists waiting at the ASL will be given a
green light to go ahead of the signal for general traffic.
Concerns for visually
impaired pedestrians using the footpath to the west of Kingsland
High Street
The concern is noted, in particular with regard to people with visual impairments.
This is relevant to many situations where changes are made to the way streets and
junctions operate. We will consider how best to communicate the changes to ensure that local people are aware.
Concerns about the effect of the proposals on customers leaving
the Rio Lane cinema (with a suggestion that
there will be a ‘shared space’ section near the cinema)
The proposals do not include a shared space area. There will still be a significant paved area for pedestrians coming out of the cinema to congregate around, with a
cycle track passing through it.
Concerns that the two-
stage turn at Boleyn Road/Mildmay Road will not be used by a
majority of cyclists
The two-stage right turn facility serves as an additional option for less confident
cyclists. It does not prevent more confident cyclists waiting in the middle of the road to turn, as they do now.
Concerns that cyclists would have limited
visibility of traffic turning from Crossway
into John Campbell Road
This concern is noted. Following feedback received on the proposals for Crossway,
the design has been updated. In the original proposal the cycle track on the north
side of Crossway was a two-way cycle track. It is now proposed to be a one-way cycle track eastbound. Therefore the parallel crossing will only be used by cyclists
accessing John Campbell Road from Crossway. Cyclists will not be directed to use
the parallel crossing as they exit John Campbell Road.
Suggestions Provide secure bike parking in more places
The London Borough of Hackney is investing in Cycle Parking facilities across the borough. For more information see https://hackney.gov.uk/cycle-safety-and-security
32
Theme
Issue raised
Response
Move the pedestrian
crossing on Kingsland Road to the south side of John
Campbell/Sandringham Road
A pedestrian crossing to the south side of Sandringham Road would conflict with traffic turning left from Sandringham Road into Kingsland High Street.
Money should be spent on improving public
transport not cycle lanes
The Mayor's Transport Strategy and Healthy Streets approach set out proposals to
improve public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure to meet the transport demands of a growing population and reduce car use.
More walkways needed/ do more to
protect pedestrians
The proposals include new priority pedestrian crossings at Crossway, Downs Park Road and Sandringham Road and a number of locations where crossing distances
will be reduced making it easier and safer for all pedestrians to cross the road.
Close Sandringham Rd
to vehicles at Kingsland Rd/ make it
one way exit onto Amhurst Rd
Closing Sandringham Road to motor vehicles at Kingsland High Street was not
considered as a viable option due to the access requirements of the Argos Store at the western end of Sandringham Road.
Close Downs park Rd
to vehicles at the railway underpass & at
Amhurst Rd
This was not considered as part of these proposals. Network Rail have plans to close Downs Park Road at the junction of Bodney Road to motor traffic for one year to carry out maintenance work on the railway bridge underneath. Timings of the
closure are still to be confirmed by Network Rail.programming. Following the temporary closure, TfL and Hackney would monitor the impacts and consider
whether a permanent closure would be appropriate.
Visually impaired and
blind pedestrians need to have clear crossings
The proposals include new pedestrian crossings at Crossway, Downs Park Road
and Sandringham Road and a number of locations where crossing distances will be reduced making it easier and safer for all pedestrians to cross the road.
Cyclists should be given space on the
We have amended the proposals to remove the shared use area at the corner of Boleyn Road and Crossway.
33
Theme
Issue raised
Response
carriageway rather
than diverting them onto the footway (corner of Boleyn Rd)
Tighten junction of John Campbell Rd and
provide improved pedestrian crossing
The proposals include tightening the junction of John Campbell Road and providing an improved pedestrian crossing.
Tighten junction of Boleyn St to slow down
traffic speeds & reduce crossing distance
This would require the removal of the right turn lane from Crossway to Boleyn Road
which would delay the 236 bus and therefore was not considered as part of these proposals.
Do not uproot any trees/ plant more trees
We had not proposed the removal of any trees. In fact, the final designs will incorporate additional trees and planting along the Cycleway.
Replace ramp with a dropped kerb to retain
direct pedestrian lines and create a
continuous surface (John Campbell rd & Kingsland hg St.)
The proposals at the junction of John Campbell Road and Kingsland High Street will
create a dedicated cycle track where pedestrians can expect to see cyclists. This is prefered to creating a continuous shared use area due the high number of pedestrians using the high street area.
Install a pavement on
Cecilia Road/provide pedestrian refuge junction of Crossway &
Boleyn rd
Providing a pavement on Cecilia Road is not in the scope of these proposals. Providing a pedestrian refuge at the junction of Crossway and Boleyn Road require the removal of the right turn lane which would delay the 236 bus and therefore was
not considered as part of these proposals.
More routes needed
e.g. the roads North and East of Hackney
TfL is working to develop a network of Cycleways. Further routes are not in the scope of this consultation.
34
Theme
Issue raised
Response
downs.
Cycle route should have priority going over
Celia Road
This is not within the scope of the consultation. TfL and the London Borough of Hackney will review whether additional proposals would be appropriate for the
junction of Cecilia Road and Downs Park Road.
Cycleway along
Sandringham Road will only work if HGVs are
rerouted or discouraged from using the road
We will monitor traffic levels, including HGV volumes, after the Cycleway has been
delivered. The banned right turn from Sandringham Road to Kingsland High Street and the no entry to Sandringham Road from Kingsland High Street are expected to reduce the overall number of vehicles including HGVs using Sandringham Road.
Junction of Kingsland
Road and Sandringham Road needs urgent attention
as it is not very safe to cross on a bike
The proposals will create a signal controlled crossing for pedestrians and cyclists at
the junction of Kingsland High Street and Sandringham Road making it easier and safer to cross.
The section of road immediately east of
Dalston sees a lot of pedestrians and needs to be improved There are a number of improvements for pedestrians within these proposals.
Segregate the cycle lane at the Downs Park road/ Amhurst road
junction
The proposals include early release cycle signals to help cyclists get across the
junction ahead of other traffic. The traffic volumes on Downs Park Road are low, and therefore segregated cycle lanes are not required to create a high quality cycle route. In addition, there is limited space to create segregated cycle tracks and
maintain pavements.
Cycle route should be
linked up to Hackney Marshes & the Queen
This is not within the scope of the consultation, however, TfL and Hackney are working to create a joined up network of Cycleways and this will be considered.
35
Theme
Issue raised
Response
Elizabeth Olympic Park
(QEOP) to encourage more people to use these facilities
Sandringham Road should be closed
entirely to motor vehicles
Closing Sandringham Road to motor vehicles at Kingsland High Street was not
considered as a viable option due to the access requirements of the Argos Store at the western end of Sandringham Road.
Provide a cycle link from Dalston to
Hackney Downs Our proposals will provide a link between Dalston and Hackney Downs
Enforcement of 'no entry' turns required
Add loading bays on both sides of John
Campbell Rd to prevent delivery vehicles from
obstructing cycle route Monitoring and enforcement will be considered where necessary.
Allow more time for
people to cross at traffic lights safely
TfL is reviewing signal operations across London to optimise timings and where possible, provide additional time to pedestrians.
Shared use at Pembury Rd not fit for
purpose: redesign junction to
accommodate cycling & walking
The proposals will be refined during detailed design to ensure the space is well designed and can accommodate pedestrians and cyclists safely and comfortably.
36
Theme
Issue raised
Response
Signalised pedestrian
crossings needed across cycle ways
There are signalised crossings proposed at junctions along the Cycleway including Crossway, Sandringham Road and Amhurst Road.
Ease congestion by removing some parking spaces outside Argos
on Sandringham road
Aproximately three parking bays will be removed on the south side of Sandringham
Road, close to Argos.
General comment: John Campbell Road not suitable, Bradbury
Street would be more ideal
John Campbell Road is already closed to traffic at the junction of Kingsland High
Street and leads to a direct crossing of the High Street into Sandringham Road making it the best option.
Rental and buying schemes for bikes
should be made available
TfL already operates the Santander Cycle Hire scheme (although not in the vicinity
of our proposals), which provides over 750 docking stations across London. Further details are on our website: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycling/santander-cycles. The
introduction of a bicycle purchasing scheme is out of scope of our proposals.
Provide hatching at
shared use areas at Boleyn Road/Mildmay Road
No shared use footway is proposed, so the tactile paving will be the standard tactile
paving used for the relevant crossing type.
Query around stopping
arrangements for vehicles at parallel crossings
Vehicles are required to stop for all pedestrians and cyclists using the parallel zebra crossing.
Provide a parallel
crossing at Boleyn Road/Mildmay Road for visually-impaired
There are no plans to introduce a new type of crossing facility as part of this
Cycleway. It would not be feasible to introduce a signalised crossing point so close to the Boleyn Road junction and to the side road. The preference is noted, however,
for signal controlled crossing points for visually impaired pedestrians wherever
37
Theme
Issue raised
Response
pedestrians possible.
Out of scope Concerned that making
Lea Bridge Roundabout smaller that you'll push cars
onto using side roads
We noted these issues, and judged that they were out of scope of our consultation.
Speed bumps on
estate road connecting Kenninghall with
Hackney Downs are unsafe for cyclists and should be removed
Implement traffic
slowing techniques on side roads surrounding the roundabout to
avoid congestion
Cyclists should pay road tax and insurance
Close St. Jude St at King Henry's Walk.
Upgrade CS1 on Boleyn Rd. & make a
two way segregated track on the east side of the road
Rectify the issue of duplication of buses
running on the same
38
Theme
Issue raised
Response
route to reduce
pollution in Hackney
Remove right turn pocket on Cricket field Road to allow space for
separate walking & cycling facilities
Filter King Henry’s
Walk south of the junction with St. Jude
St & Mildmay Grove North
Relocate modal filter from the junction
Downs Park Road (east) to the junction of Downs Park Road &
Clarence Road
Make a simple priority
junction (Cricketfield Road and
Queensdown Road)
The junction of Downs
Road & Queensdown Road should be turned
into a filtered public square
39
Theme
Issue raised
Response
Introduce a bus-and-
cycle only gate in Matthias Road
Protection for cyclists and pedestrians through the carpark (a
painted walkway/cycleway at
Waterworks lane)
Junction of Downs
Park Road/Queensdown
Road should be closed entirely to motor vehicles
Restructure layout & right turns at the Crossway/Shacklewell
Lane junction of Kingsland High St to enhance safety
Remove the roundabout in its entirety in favour of a
less motor-centric intersection
An underpass for cyclists would be better
40
Theme
Issue raised
Response
to minimise traffic
impact
41
6. Next steps
The feedback we received was invaluable in helping us to further improve the
scheme. We will continue to work with the London Borough of Hackney to developed
detailed designs for the joint proposals. Subject to final approval the London
Borough of Hackney currently intends to commence construction on the proposals
between Dalston and Clapton in spring 2020.