Cycling and walking improvements between …...Executive summary This report explains the processes,...

Cycling and walking improvements between Hackney and the Isle of Dogs

Consultation Report October 2019

A computer generated image of what the Cycleway would look like at West India Dock Road near the Police Station

Contents Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 3

Next steps ................................................................................................................ 3

1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 4

1.1 Purpose of the proposed new Cycleway ........................................................ 7

2. About the consultation ........................................................................................ 8

Purpose of the consultation...................................................................................... 8

2.1 Potential outcomes ......................................................................................... 8

2.2 Who we consulted .......................................................................................... 8

2.3 Dates and duration ......................................................................................... 9

2.4 What we asked ............................................................................................... 9

2.5 Methods of responding ................................................................................. 10

2.6 Consultation materials and publicity ............................................................. 11

2.7 Analysis of consultation responses .............................................................. 12

2.8 Equalities ..................................................................................................... 12

3. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 14

3.1 Campaigns and petitions .............................................................................. 15

4. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 16

4.1 How respondents heard about the consultation ........................................... 16

4.2 Where the responses came from ................................................................. 16

4.3 Postcodes of respondents ............................................................................ 17

4.4 Quality of Consultation ................................................................................. 19

4.5 Demographic information from people who responded ................................ 19

Appendix A: The issues people raised and our responses to them ........................... 20

Overall Proposals ................................................................................................... 20

Issues relating to individual sections of the route ................................................... 26

Appendix B: Summary of stakeholder responses ...................................................... 30

Appendix C: Consultation leaflet and letter ............................................................... 39

Appendix D: Demographic information from people who responded ........................ 42

Appendix E: Borough specific information from people who responded.................... 45

Cycling and walking improvements between Hackney and the Isle of Dogs Consultation Report 2

Executive summary This report explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation on our proposals for Cycling and walking improvements between Hackney and the Isle of Dogs. The document also presents our responses to issues commonly raised during the consultation.

Between 9 May and 21 June 2019 we consulted on our proposals to transform streets in east London linking Hackney and the Isle of Dogs to make it easier and safer for people to cycle and walk. There were 2,200 responses to the consultation. After removing duplicate and campaign responses, 1,873 people responded to the questionnaire including 34 responses from key stakeholders.

We asked people, thinking about our proposals as a whole, what effect they think they will have on the way people choose to travel. Most people felt that the proposals would lead to more people walking and cycling - 74 per cent and 91 per cent respectively. 44 per cent said the proposals would have a positive impact on their journey. While 51 per cent thought that more people would choose to travel by public transport as a result of the proposals, and 63 per cent thought that fewer people would travel by motor vehicle for personal journeys.

We also asked people if the proposals would have a positive or negative impact on them or the journeys they make. The issues people raised and our responses to them are set out in Appendix A.

See Section 3 for more detail.

Next steps

The feedback we received was invaluable in helping us to further improve the scheme. Appendix A includes a summary of the proposed design changes made following the responses received to the consultation.

We will be continuing to work with Tower Hamlets on the design for reducing traffic on Grove Road and how it links with the Liveable Neighbourhood project in Bow. Another consultation, with more detailed plans for Grove Road, will be held next year.

Further work on options for the Isle of Dogs section is being led by Tower Hamlets Council and they are currently investigating alternative alignment options.

Subject to final approvals we currently intend to commence construction on Burdett Road and West India Dock Road (Sections 4 to 11) this winter. Hackney Council is still finalising plans for section one (Frampton Park Road, Ainsworth Road and Skipworth Road) and discussing next step internally. A decision on section one will be made later this year.


1. About the proposals The proposals are an important part of the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy and guided by the Mayor of London's Healthy Streets Approach, which aims to encourage walking, cycling and public transport use and make London greener, healthier and more pleasant. The proposals are also an important part of the Mayor of London's Walking and Cycling Action Plans. These complementary plans set out how we and London boroughs will work to increase the number of people walking and cycling, helping to address poor air quality and congestion, while improving infrastructure to make walking and cycling even easier, safer and more accessible for everyone.

We worked in partnership with Hackney and Tower Hamlets Councils to ensure these proposals would provide benefits for all street users and communities in these areas, making it easier to cross busy roads, removing through traffic on some residential roads and offering segregated space for people to cycle. They would form part of London’s emerging cycling network being developed by us and Hackney and Tower Hamlets Councils

Our proposals include:

• A new high-quality cycle route that people cycling can use to get around • New and upgraded pedestrian crossings • The introduction of a 20mph speed limit along Burdett Road • Improvements to public realm with new trees and planting throughout the

route • Changing entry to and exit from some side roads along the route • Changes to some bus stops and bus lanes along (or close to) the route

including the introduction of bus stop bypasses and relocating some bus stops • Replacing some single red line and single yellow line restrictions with double

red and yellow line restrictions • Changes to some parking and loading provision

See below for the route map with the main improvements for people cycling and walking.




The new Cycleway would link with Quietway 2 at one end, contributing to Tower Hamlets Council’s Bow Liveable Neighbourhood project, and connecting with Cycle Superhighway 2 at Mile End and Cycle Superhighway 3.

Isle of Dogs

Further work has been undertaken on the Isle of Dogs section and we have been unable to find a design that meets our cycling quality criteria.

The Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf river crossing is a key connection for this alignment but work has been paused on a bridge option as it is unaffordable at this time. We are looking at options instead for a new fast ferry service along with our wider investment in new cycling facilities in this part of London. We are no longer progressing this section as part of this scheme at this time. However, we will continue working with Tower Hamlets Council as we develop plans for an improved cross-river ferry service to consider how cyclists can quickly and conveniently travel between Rotherhithe, Canary Wharf and beyond. This route will now finish at West India Dock Road, connecting to CS3 for now.

1.1 Purpose of the proposed new Cycleway

This proposed new Cycleway was identified in our Strategic Cycling Analysis as a key area for existing and potential cycling and which could facilitate wider improvements as part of the Healthy Streets approach and provide future connections to areas undergoing significant development and regeneration. The route 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 London wide cycling network.

We wanted to hear from local people and all Londoners on our proposals, so we can design them to best meet people’s needs and expectations to encourage more people to cycle, walk and use public transport.

In addition to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy our policy objectives for this scheme are to help deliver Vision Zero, the Walking and Cycling Action Plans and improve air quality. We have developed these proposals using experience from cycling infrastructure, healthy streets and public realm schemes. We have worked with local stakeholders and communities in the area seeking initial feedback on our ideas and to understand how these changes will affect local streets and people.

Transforming street layouts is not without impacts, and there are difficult choices to be made in determining the layout for streets. For example these changes could mean that some journeys through the area may take longer and traffic takes different routes.

Our proposals include changes to parking and loading bays and their hours of operation. During the consultation we contacted premises we think could be affected.


2. About the consultation Purpose of the consultation

The objectives of the consultation were:

• To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond

• To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware

• To understand concerns and objections • To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.1 Potential outcomes

The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme

2.2 Who we consulted

Our consultation was open to anyone who had a view about our proposals, although we primarily contacted people who lived with 450 metres of the proposed route, who travelled through it and those who might have an interest in new cycleways. Research shows that those living within 400 metres of a cycle route are most likely to use it. We hand delivered 25,417 letters to local people and businesses and sent nearly 350,000 emails to peole travelling to or through or had an interest in the area or the new cycleways.

See Appendix C for the consultation letter and see below for the area we covered with the letter distribution.


2.3 Dates and duration

The consultation was open for people to comment for six weeks from 9 May 2019 to 21 June 2019. Although we allowed more time for people to resond if they requested it, to 5 July.

2.4 What we asked

We asked two questions about our proposals and then questions about who was responding:

Q1. Thinking about our proposals as a whole, what effect do you think they will have on the way people choose to travel? We asked this for people walking, cycling, using public transport, using motor vehicles for personal journeys, and using motor vehicles for business journeys. The options were:

• Many more people would choose to travel in this way • A limited number of extra people would choose to travel in this way


• The proposals would have no effect • Fewer people would choose to travel in this way • I am unsure what effect the proposals might have

There was a space for adding comments.

Q2. 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.

Questions about who responded:

Q3. Are you responding as (any or all of them could be ticked):

• A resident living close to the proposed route • A cyclist who might use the proposed route, or who cycles in the area

currently • A business located close to the proposed route • Someone who uses public transport in the area around the proposed route • Someone who uses private transport in the area around the proposed route • Not local, but interested in the proposals • Other (please specify)

Q4. If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group.

Then their name, email and postcode, how they found out about the consultation, what they thought of the consultation, gender, ethnic group, age, sexual orientation, faith, and if they were limited by health or disability.

All of these questions were optional and none of the information will be used for anything other than reporting on this consultation.

2.5 Methods of responding

Anyone could have let us know what they thought of our propsoals by completing our online survey at tfl.gov.uk/cycleway, a paper version and sending it to us without a stamp or simply by email, post or calling us by Friday 21 June 2019.

We held open forums where people could ask us about the proposals and take a paper copy away or leave it with us at:

• Queen Mary University Hub reception, 329 Mile End Road on Tuesday 21 May (11:00 - 14:00)

• Mile End Park Leisure Centre foyer, 190 Burdett Road on Wednesday 29 May (16:00 - 19:00)


• Hackney Service Centre main entrance, 1 Hillman Street on Monday 3 June (14:00 - 17:00)

• Mile End Underground Station ticket hall on Saturday 8 June (14:00 - 17:00)

We said paper copies of all the consultation materials and a response form would be available upon request in Braille, large text or another language.

We also offered and had briefings for anyone that asked.

2.6 Consultation materials and publicity In addition to the letter and emails we sent we produced 2,500 leaflets and hand delivered them to business and places where people are likely to visit in the area like town halls, libraries, leisure centres, places of worship or faith and community centres including pubs. See Appendix C for the consultation leaflet.

We also issued a press release that was featured in regional and local press, featured it on our website as did Hackney and Tower Hamlets Councils, and featured it on social media where it was seen 2.3 million times. The consultation page was viewed 5,500 times.

Website

The website where people could find all the information and comment is at tfl.gov.uk/cycleway. The website will remian avaiable indefinitely but the survey has closed. The website is structured to have the most important information first with a quick link to the survey, followed by background information:

• Why we are consulting: • Improving safety for people who want to walk or cycle • Improving London’s air • Being part of London’s growing cycle network • Improving the health of Londoners

• What are Cycleways? • What we are proposing as the main changes to the street layout • How would these proposals affect journey times? • What would happen to traffic (reassignment) • The environmental impacts of our proposals • How the proposals would help achieve Healthy Streets • Our Equality Impact Assessment of the proposals • Where and when the public exhibitions were


2.7 Analysis of consultation responses

We commissioned external analysts for the analysis of the feedback through a competitive tender. The successful tender met TfL’s standards for supplying to TfL and our standard for thorughness of the analysis as well as being value for money.

All closed questions were reviewed. Every open text response was analysed. All comments and suggestions received whether by email, letter or through our online questionnaire were analysed to identify common themes raised.

Where possible we have grouped the issues raised into themes.

Methodology

To analyse open questions responses were categorised within a common framework of ‘support’, ‘oppose’, ‘concern’, ‘suggest’. Each frame comprised multiple codes (sub-categories) to accommodate the themes that arose in the responses to each question.

The coding frames were initially developed before undergoing two phases of validation – the first by a senior analyst and the second by TfL. This resulted in some codes being consolidated where they corresponded to themes that were deemed to be colinear or interrelated.

Once the initial coding frame had been developed, analysis was refined for the responses already coded. All themes which accounted for fewer than 2% of the total response were consolidated and coded as ‘other’ to enable the key themes to be identified. Further validation checks were undertaken throughout this mass coding exercise by a senior analyst and TfL to ensure the analysis remained within the necessary strict tolerances. This process resulted in the finalisation of the coding frames. For closed questions responses were analysed in terms of totals and percentages for each question. The results are presented in Section 3.

Further to the analysis of open and closed questions, home postcodes of respondents were mapped using Geographic Information System (GIS) software. This enabled the full geographic distribution of respondents to be captured. All postcodes were validated against Ordnance Survey’s Code-Point dataset.

We have grouped in themes and responded to all the issues raised in this report where mentioned by more than 2 per cent of the total issues raised in Appendix A.

2.8 Equalities

We are subject to the general public sector equality duty set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires us to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations by reference to people with protected characteristics. As part of our decision-making


process on proposals for new schemes we have had due regard to any impacts on those with protected characteristics and the need to ensure their interests are taken into account. The Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) we carried-out on these proposals shows positive impacts for people cycling from black and ethnic minority groups, females, disabled people, and people under 25 and over 65 years of age. Positive impacts have also been identified for disabled pedestrians or people walking with restricted mobility, as the scheme proposes a number of improvements to pedestrian facilities including enhanced crossing facilities, increased pavement widths and new pedestrian crossings.

Some negative impacts have been identified where we are proposing to remove or relocate bus lanes, bus stops, or to install bus stop bypasses and where pedestrians must cross the cycle track to get between the pavement and the bus stop. All bus stop bypasses would include zebra crossings with tactile paving and be raised to footway level to create a flush surface. Our research has found that bus stop bypasses are safe for all road users, including those with protected characteristics.

Some negative impacts have also been identified where some pavements are proposed to be cut back, however we have made sure they are within recommended standards and appropriate for the number of pedestrians in the area and that they allow two wheelchair users to pass safely.

The EqIA will be kept under review and updated to reflect any material changes to the proposals.

We asked respondents to tell us about themselves, although respondents were under no obligation to provide any particular demographic information to 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.


3. Summary of all consultation responses Thinking about our proposals as a whole, what effect do you think they will have on the way people choose to travel?

1,873 people responded to Question 1. We asked people, thinking about our proposals as a whole, what effect they think they will have on the way people choose to travel. Most people felt that the proposals would lead to more people walking and cycling - 74 per cent and 91 per cent respectively. 44 per cent said the proposals would have a positive impact on their journey. While 51 per cent thought that more people would choose to travel by public transport as a result of the proposals, and 63 per cent thought that fewer people would travel by motor vehicle for personal journeys.

Additionally, 44 per cent thought that the proposals would have no effect on using motor vehicles for business journeys.

6% 3% 9% 11%

18% 9% 8%

15%

63%

39%

25%

13%

35%

25%

44%

29%

19%

27%

4% 4%

45%

72%

24%

7% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Walking Cycling PublicTransport

MotorVehicles for

personaljourneys

MotorVehicles for

businessjourneys

Prop

ortio

n of

resp

onde

nts

Many more peoplewould choose totravel in this way

A limited numberof extra peoplewould choose totravel in this way

The proposalswould have noeffect

Fewer peoplewould choose totravel in this way

I am unsure whateffect theproposals mighthave


Please let us know if the proposals would have a positive or negative impact on you or the journeys you make

We also asked people if the proposals would have a positive or negative impact on them or the journeys they make. We asked people to give us more information so we could minimise any negative impacts (Question 2).

The issues people raised and our responses to them are set out in Appendix A. The main themes are highlighted below.

Issue raised Total Would cause local congestion 419 Concern over closure of Grove Road 225

Would cause rat-running/displaced traffic 222

Concerns over air and noise quality 199 Concern over traffic calming measures/reduction in road space 113

Not doing enough to improve walking and public realm 94

Parking restrictions 68 Concern with cyclist behaviour and compliance 64

Concern over Burdett Road access restrictions 60

Restricted access to businesses/shops 52 Impact on disabled/mobility issues/health issues 52

Increased bus unreliability/journey times 48

Restricted access for residents 44 Impact on elderly 39

3.1 Campaigns and petitions

We received a petition with 85 signatures from residents of Clemence Street opposing the proposed reopening of it. See Appendix A for our response.

We also received correspondence from a Councillor in Tower Hamlets requesting we re-run the consultation as it overlapped with Ramadan. We received 420 emails from local people making the same request. In response we extended the deadline for accepting emailed and written responses for a further two weeks and all information remained on our website. This meant the consultation ran for four weeks after the end of Ramadan.


4. About the respondents This section sets out who responded from the information they gave us.

There were 2,200 responses. After removing duplicate and campaign responses, 1,873 people responded to the questionnaire including 34 responses from key stakeholders. The stakeholder responses are summarised in Appendix B.

Respondents Total %

Public responses 1,839 98

Stakeholder responses 34 2

Total 1,873 100

4.1 How respondents heard about the consultation

Most people who responded to this question (33 per cent) found out about the consultation through an email from TfL. The next most popular responses were ‘Social Media’ (30 per cent) and ‘Other’ (16 per cent). Other was usually ‘word by mouth’.

4.2 Where the responses came from

The below table shows that the majority of respondents were local residents, 60 per cent were people cycling that might use the proposed route or cycle in the area currently and 54 per cent were users of public transport in the area around the proposed route. 6 per cent of respondents were not local but interested in the proposals. 5 per cent were local business. Respondents were able to choose more than one of these options so the percentage is that of the total answers for this question, not for the percentage of responses to the questionnaire as a whole.

How respondents heard Total %

Email 720 33

Social media 666 30

Other 351 16

Letter 158 7

Read about in the press 130 6

Saw it on the TfL website 94 4


Where the responses came from Total %

A resident living close to the proposed route 1570 71

A cyclist who might use the proposed route, or who cycles in the area currently 1318 60

Someone who uses public transport in the area around the proposed route 1180 54

Someone who uses private transport in the area around the proposed route 586 27

Not local, but interested in the proposals 121 6

A business located close to the proposed route 111 5

4.3 Postcodes of respondents

The map below shows the majority of responses were local.


There were also responses from further afield including other areas in Greater London, Essex, Surrey and Hertfordshire.

A summary of responses from postcodes within the London Boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets is included in Appendix E.


4.4 Quality of Consultation

Most respondents thought that the quality of the consultation was ‘Good’ across all aspects, and ‘Very Good’ on the aspect of maps, images and related diagrams. Very few respondents thought the quality of consultation was ‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’ on all aspects.

4.5 Demographic information from people who responded

Please see Appendix D.

4% 4% 4% 4% 3%

4% 5% 5% 5% 2%

20% 19% 18% 21% 28%

36% 35%

32%

36% 38%

27% 25% 32%

25% 25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Websitestructure &

ease of findingwhat youneeded(1,736)

Writteninformation

(1,668)

Maps, images& relateddiagrams(1,579)

Online surveyformat(1,732)

Websiteaccessibility

(1,604)

Prop

ortio

n of

resp

onde

nts

Very good

Good

Acceptable

Poor

Very poor


Appendix A: The issues people raised and our responses to them Overall Proposals

Congestion and traffic displacement

Some respondents were concerned the proposals would increase rat-running, congestion and journey times for general traffic.

We have undertaken detailed traffic modelling to understand the impact on journey times and traffic reassignment in the area which was shared as part of our consultation.

As part of our proposal we have made some junctions along the route more efficient but in some areas reallocation of space away from traffic has been necessary to provide to new cycling facilities, especially on West India Dock Road which is currently very traffic dominated. As result, this will mean slightly longer journey times in certain locations but also improvements to journey times in other places. All changes to journeys times are expected to be relatively minimal and the detailed breakdown by route can be found at tfl.gov.uk/cycleway.

We will actively monitor and manage traffic conditions on the roads following the delivery of the scheme, and would aim to mitigate and manage traffic reassignment following implementation. We are investing in advanced traffic signal technology to allow us to better manage traffic depending on differing conditions at any given time, and we are working to improve road user information so people can make informed journey choices before they travel.

For more information about our traffic modelling results please see tfl.gov.uk/cycleway.

In the long-term, we expect our proposals to make walking and cycling more attractive and contribute to reducing motor traffic congestion and improving road safety by encouraging more people to walk or cycle short journeys, instead of driving.

Access restrictions

Some people shared concerns with the level of access restrictions proposed.

Access restrictions have been proposed along the route to make junctions operate more efficiently or to ensure the new cycling facilities are safe. Where a cycle track passes an uncontrolled side road, access changes are often required to reduce the risk of conflict between cyclists and turning vehicles. We have ensured all journeys are still possible and we have undertaken reassignment modelling, the narrative of


which was shared during consultation. Specific access concerns regarding Grove Road are discussed below.

Access to businesses, shops and services

Some people had concerns that the proposals would restrict access to businesses, shops and services. Although we have removed parking in some locations, we have ensured that it is retained outside businesses along with adequate loading facilities. We also hope that a new cycling facility will attract new visitors to the area. We plan to install additional cycle parking along the route to make it more convenient for users to visit and spend time in the area.

Uptake of cycling

Some people supported the cycle route as it will increase levels of cycling. Others were concerned the cycle route will be ineffective at increasing levels of cycling and there was already existing cycle routes along the canal tow path and through adjacent parks.

Our Strategic Cycling Analysis shows high current and future potential demand along the route alignment. The connection is among the top 5 per cent for potential trips and areas among the top 5 per cent for growth. This scheme would also help work towards the ambitious targets set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, including 70 per cent of Londoners to live within 400 metres of the cycle network by 2041.

There is an existing shared use path alongside Regent's Canal that is already heavily used by people who walk and cycle. There is little opportunity to widen these facilities so encouraging more cyclists on these routes would not be practical due to width constraints and high pedestrian flows.

There is also an existing cycle route within Mile End Park but it’s not possible to cross the railway line that intersects Grove Road without joining the tow path. People may also not feel safe using these routes in hours of darkness as there is limited lighting and natural surveillance.

Cyclist behaviour - Attitude and compliance

Some respondents said they were concerned that cyclists disobey traffic lights. Others raised concerns about aggressive cycling, lack of awareness towards other road users, including pedestrians and disregard to the Highway Code.

We promote the message that the Highway Code must be adhered to by all road users, and we are strongly in favour of promoting the ethos of ‘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.


Statistics on road traffic collisions in Greater London show the number of injuries and fatalities for pedestrians in collisions involving cyclists are far lower than those involving motor vehicles. Nonetheless, cyclists are expected to follow the same rules in the Highway Code as other road users as per the Road Traffic Act 1991.

Offences reported by police are dealt with in one of the following ways:

• Provisional fixed penalty notice. For cycle offences, this is currently £50 • Diversion course. For cyclists, this is an online course and entails a reduced

penalty • Summons to attend a court hearing. In certain circumstances, cyclists could

be fined up to £2,500 for dangerous cycling and up to £1,000 for careless cycling – this would include incidents where cycling on a pavement has severely compromised the safety of another road user

Enforcement activity is conducted in a balanced way. Enforcement is targeted most at those causing danger. More drivers are reported for offences than cyclists, and for a wider range of offences, such as speeding, driving without due care, using a mobile phone or disobeying traffic signals.

With the launch of any new cycle route, we undertake a range of engagement and enforcement activity for all road users including cyclists. This includes:

• Representatives from the Metropolitan Police present on site to provide support and assistance to the public. They educate people how to use the new road layout and advise on appropriate behaviour for all road users

• TfL Travel Ambassadors provide assistance and advice to road users and hand out leaflets informing road users about changes to road layouts and the new innovative features

We recognise that some pavement cyclists break the law to avoid the dangers of motor traffic. However, we anticipate that providing dedicated and safe space for cyclists will discourage people from riding on pavements. Providing dedicated space for cyclists can also help other road users by letting them know where to expect cyclists to be.

Cyclist behaviour - Speed

A number of respondents expressed concern over speeding cyclists posing a danger to other cyclists, with some suggesting a cyclist speed limit or physical measures to reduce speeds. Others raised concerns over pedestrian safety due to the speed of cyclists. There is currently no legislation which imposes a speed limit on cyclists, and as such a restriction on our routes would not be legally enforceable. We have designed our cycle tracks to be wide enough to allow cyclists of different abilities to overtake one another and have implemented a number of physical measures such


as ramps and road markings to highlight locations where cyclists would need to look out for pedestrians such as crossing points over the cycle track.

Impact on bus users

Some were concerned the proposals will negatively impact bus journey times and/or reliability. We undertook detailed traffic modelling on the consulted proposals to understand how the route could affect journey times for all road users, including bus passengers. Journey time improvements are forecast for the two bus routes (277 & D6) that travel along the majority of the proposed Cycleway. There is a minimal increase in westbound journey times in the AM peak predicted for bus routes 15 and 115. We will monitor these routes to determine if operational plans using signal timings can reduce the delays.

Further information on predicted changes to bus journey times for people using buses is available tfl.gov.uk/cycleway.

Air and noise quality

Some respondents expressed their support for the proposals due to the positive impacts on air quality. Others were concerned that pollution would increase as a result of congestion and about the impact this would have on health.

Air pollution is one of the most significant challenges facing London. A number of schemes aimed at improving London's air quality are planned including taking steps to reduce air pollution from our bus fleet and reducing emissions from taxis and private hire vehicles. This includes setting up ‘Low Emission Bus Zones’ and expanding the electric vehicle charging network. We have also implemented the T-Charge, and introduced the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in April 2019. We are investing to make London’s streets healthy, safe and attractive places to walk and cycle. We hope that enabling more journeys to be made on foot or by bike will encourage people to choose more sustainable modes of transport in the area.

Although not a traffic generating scheme, our proposals would change how traffic moves around the area, which may result in some associated and localised changes to air quality and noise levels. We have assessed environmental evaluations of the impacts of our schemes, including commissioning an independent Noise and Air Quality Assessments. Based on current levels of mode share, these indicate that noise and air quality are not expected to change significantly as a result of the scheme.

The assessment suggests that the overall impact of the scheme is considered not significant across the majority of the study area, with a few areas predicted to experience a slight benefit and others a slight worsening. As there are both improvements and deteriorations in NO2 and noise levels, and negligible changes in particulates, these effects are collectively considered to be balanced and overall not significant.


We hope that enabling more journeys to be made on foot or by bike will encourage people to choose more sustainable modes of transport in the area.

Removal of Parking

Some people were not supportive of the proposals to remove parking spaces along the route where others thought more parking should be removed.

To accommodate new cycling facilities it is necessary to remove parking in certain locations along the route. Parking surveys have been undertaken on our roads to understand the usage of the bays. Two of the largest free (at any time) parking bays we are proposing to remove on Burdett Road are located opposite the Leisure Centre. Our survey results showed that the majority of parked cars in this location didn’t move for the whole duration of the survey week and some appeared to be disused or used very frequently.

Where there are local shops and businesses we have ensured that parking and loading has been retained.

Removal of parking also aligns with the objectives to reduce car dependency which is set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. The route will contribute to the key aim of encouraging Londoners to use cars less and walk, cycle and use public transport more often; leading to 80 per cent of journeys being made by sustainable modes by 2041.

Walking and Public Realm

Some people thought the proposals had lots of improvements for walking where other respondents didn’t think there was enough.

As part of the project we are proposing two new signalised crossings, upgrading existing crossings and reducing wait times at crossings, specifically at Mile End. In addition we are also making improvements to the public realm, including upgrading footways, new trees, planting and seating. We would also install new Pedestrian Countdown facilities at signalised junctions along the route.

Some people were concerned there were not enough crossing facilities close to Mile End Leisure Centre so we have included a new pedestrian refuge on Burdett Road opposite to the entrance to the leisure centre.

Traffic Calming

Some people welcomed the traffic calming proposals as part of the scheme but other respondents thought there could be further measures to slow vehicles.

To help slow traffic speeds we are making Burdett Road 20pmh, raising pedestrian crossings and narrowing the carriageway by removing central hatching and implementing a segregated cycling facilities. These changes are intended to slow


vehicle speeds and make it easier and safer for pedestrians to cross. In the Northern section of the route in Hackney there are new raised junctions to reduce vehicle speeds and along West India Dock Road the carriageway is being narrowed along with new planting to visually narrow the environment. Several side roads along the route are also being raised and tightened to reduce the speed of turning vehicles.

Groups with protected characteristics

Some respondents had concerns with how the proposals would affect people with protected characteristics, especially the elderly and those with disabilities.

As part of the consultation we shared our Equality Impact Assessments (EqIA), to show how we have considered and provided mitigations for those with protected characteristics (particularly older and disabled people) in our designs.

Specific concerns were raised around increased walking times and removal of bus stops.

As part of our plans we consulted on the removal of two bus stops along the route but based on this feedback we have now reviewed our designs and we will be retaining the northbound bus stop “MA” on Burdett Road. This is located just south of the junction with St Paul’s way and it will be retained in its current location.

The changes we are making at the key junctions along the route means that some pedestrian wait times will be improved. Along Burdett Road, pedestrian wait times will be significantly reduced at the junction with Mile End Road and St Pauls Way, and wait times will remain the same at the junction with the A13.

Construction impacts

Some people were worried about disruption during construction, with several stating that this would adversely affect residents and businesses.

We would plan construction carefully to minimise disruption to those who live, work and travel through the areas. We would also aim to minimise construction impacts as much as possible. We will carry out extensive communications and engagement with local residents, cyclist groups, businesses and other stakeholders to ensure they have the information they need to plan ahead and adapt their travel arrangements where necessary, reducing any impact on their journeys and operations during the construction period. We also provide road traffic information to help people better plan their journeys and make informed choices about how, where and when they travel.


Issues relating to individual sections of the route

Section 1: Hackney (Frampton Park Road, Ainsworth Road, Skipworth Road and Gore Road)

Route Alignment

Some people suggested that the proposed route should be altered or extended to go down Lauriston Road as it passes more local businesses. A cycle route via Lauriston Road is still a long term aspiration for Hackney Council and was investigated as an option but the proposed alignment was considered more deliverable in the short term. The proposed route alignment via Frampton Park Road, Ainsworth Road, Skipworth Road and Gore Road has lower levels of traffic (between 100 and 250 vehicles per hour in both directions in the peak hour), no bus routes and is more direct. A route via Lauriston Road, Cassland Road and Well Street junction would require interaction with buses and a contraflow facility around the one-way system. In addition, Hackney Council only recently completed improvements at the junction with Cassland Road, Well Street and Lauriston Road so it would not be good value for money to redesign this so soon after. Hackney Council is still planning to undertake further feasibility work on the Lauriston alignment which will take place next year.

Parking removal

Some respondents expressed concerns with the removal of parking spaces along Gore Road.

Gore Road is a narrow section of the route located to the north of Victoria Park between Skipworth Road and Lauriston Road. Traffic congestion and road rage incidents linked to visitors using Victoria Park, have been an issue along Gore Road for some time, particularly at weekends and in the summer. A number of residents have already voiced their concerns about this with Hackney Council. This issue also affects cyclists who often find themselves facing oncoming traffic.

As part of these proposals, we are intending to alleviate this situation and make it safer for cyclists using the route. To help reduce tension, we are proposing to introduce passing places along Gore Road. These gaps between parking bays are about 11m long (2 parking spaces) and located on the same side of the park. A total of 11 parking spaces would be removed. This is to achieve a safer route for cyclists and reduce congestion and incidents on this road while maintaining parking facilities for both residents and visitors.


Section 2: Victoria Park

Access Restriction on Grove Road through Victoria Park

Some respondents were supportive of the 7am- 7pm bus, cycle and taxi only restriction on Grove Road and other respondents expressed concerns regarding the displacement of traffic and that it would restrict residents accessing their homes by car. In particular, increased congestion along Victoria Park Road was cited as an issue from local residents.

The proposal to close Grove Road is to help achieve lower traffic Levels along the entire stretch of Grove Road that meet our Cycling Quality Standards.

We have undertaken high level modelling on the Victoria Park restrictions in isolation which shows a relatively even distribution of traffic and Victoria Park Road was not predicted to have any increase in flows.

Any access changes in this area need to be well coordinated with the proposed Liveable Neighbourhood scheme in Bow, led by Tower Hamlets Council, which may propose other local access changes. We will be working together on the detailed plans for the whole area and so at this time we will not be making a decision on this section of the scheme. We will continue to coordinate proposals with those developed by Tower Hamlets Council, and intend to undertake further modelling on both proposals together, the results of which would be included in a further consultation.

Hours of operation

Some people would like the timings of the restriction extended beyond 7am to 7pm and some suggested it should be at all times.

Hackney Council has suggested that a peak time only (7am-10am and 4pm-7pm) restriction should be considered to balance access requirement for local residents. We will investigate this as part of further design work along Grove Road.

The rationale of the 7am-7pm closure was to balance the access need for local residents. The traffic reduction is required to improve the level of service for cycling along Grove Road, especially in the AM and PM peak period when vehicles numbers are at their highest.

There were also concerns that removing all vehicular access in the evening may promote antisocial behaviour and natural surveillance from vehicles would improve the perception of safety for people walking and waiting at bus stops.

Any access changes would be monitored to understand how the changes impact the local area and could be amended if necessary.


Taxis

Some respondents thought taxis should also be restricted from using Grove Road, through Victoria Park, during 7am and 7pm.

The restriction would still apply to private hire vehicles but Taxis would be exempt. We expect Taxi flows in the area to be relatively low but if the changes were implemented in the future we would monitor taxi flows to ensure the number of vehicles do not exceed our quality criteria.

Section 4: Mile End Road Junction with Burdett Road and Grove Road

Hamlets Way

Some respondents have expressed concerns that traffic levels will increase on Hamlets Way and Southern Grove as result of the proposed banned left turn Mile End Road to Burdett Road. Other respondents were concerned that these increased traffic flows in and out of Hamlets way will be pose a risk of conflict to cyclists using the new track across the side road.

To mitigate any rat running through local roads as a result of the left turn ban, Tower Hamlets Council is investigating further measures around Southern Grove and Hamlets Way which will be consulted on next year.

As part of our design process, we investigated making access changes at the junction with Hamlets Way to reduce any vehicle and cycle conflict but it was felt that this would be too restrictive for local residents in the area. We also looked at signalising the junction but there is already a controlled crossing in close proximity so it would be too disruptive to traffic flow. To help mitigate any conflict between cycles and turning vehicles at the Junction with Hamlets Way we are raising and tightening the junction to slow vehicles speeds. We will also be using blue surfacing on the cycle track in this location to make drivers more aware of the cyclists. We are also expecting the number of turning vehicles movements in and out of Hamlets Way to decrease when Tower Hamlets introduce further restrictions in the area next year.

Section 7: St Paul’s Way and Locksley Street

Some respondents were concerned with our proposals to re-open Clemence Street at the junction with Turners Road due to an increased risk of rat running and road danger.

Although we are proposing to re-open Clemence Street at the junction with Turners Road, we are proposing to close the junction with Locksley Street and St Pauls Way so Clemence Street will remain for local traffic only and rat running still won’t be possible. These changes will also help smooth traffic flow along St Paul’s Way.


Isle of Dogs

Further work has been undertaken on the Isle of Dogs section and we have been unable to find a design that meets our cycling quality criteria.

The Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf river crossing is a key connection for this alignment but work has been paused on a bridge option as it is unaffordable at this time. We are looking at options instead for a new fast ferry service along with our wider investment in new cycling facilities in this part of London. We are no longer progressing this section as part of this scheme at this time. However, we will continue working with Tower Hamlets Council as we develop plans for an improved cross-river ferry service to consider how cyclists can quickly and conveniently travel between Rotherhithe, Canary Wharf and beyond. This route will now finish at West India Dock Road, connecting to CS3 for now.


Appendix B: Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholder Summarised response Alliance of British Drivers

• Generally opposed to the proposals.

East Ham Fried Chicken

• Concern that the scheme would increase vehicular congestion.

We Innovate Network (WIN)

• Felt that the presence of the scheme would allow a greater range of travel options.

Friends of Meath Gardens

• Felt that the proposals would make public transport more convenient.

Friends of Capital Transport Campaign

• Concern that bus usage might decrease as part of the proposals as some bus journey times are forecast to increase.

• Suggestion that there would be less walking as a result of the proposals in relation to less bus usage

• Suggested relocating bus stops closer to junctions. • Concern with the removal of bus lanes

London Cycling Campaign

• Suggested that route is heavily frequented by university students, and so any move to provide infrastructure for cycling is likely to make them more confident in all cycling journeys, not just on this route.

• Generally supportive of scheme if fully implemented. • Concern Hackney sections of proposals contain too little filtering to

encourage a wide range of people cycling and suggest implementing modal filters at key locations such as Frampton Park Road and Skipworth Road.

• Suggest access restriction on Grove Road should be extended to 24-hour operation and exclude taxis.

• Suggest that route should use an alternative alignment on Lauriston Road.

• Suggest removal of roundabout at Lauriston Road/Victoria Park Road. • Concern that Mile End Road junction retains ‘hook risks’ for those

cycling from Burdett Road and Grove Road, despite early release signals.

• Concern that cycling track widths at some locations are too narrow to accommodate comfortable cycling.

Mile End Post Office

• Generally opposed to the proposals. • Concerned that business would be detrimentally impacted as a result

of the proposals, particularly with regards to a lack of loading and unloading facility on Burdett Road

Stop Killing Cyclists

• Generally supportive of the proposals.


Southwark Cyclists

• Concern regarding Hackney sections of proposals – felt that this was unsuitable for all ages and abilities. Suggested implementing modal filtering and protected cycle tracks at these locations.

• Suggested that sections in Tower Hamlets on Grove Road and on the Isle of Dogs needed further side road treatment.

• Suggested that access restriction on Grove Road needs to be 24 hour operation and exclude taxis.

Hackney Cycling Campaign

• Generally supportive of Tower Hamlets sections of the proposals and suggested this would make walking and cycling more attractive options.

• Felt that more appropriate alignment in Hackney is Lauriston Road and that a low traffic neighbourhood should be developed in this area, alongside the removal of the roundabout at Victoria Park Road.

• Suggested further modal filtering to encourage cyclists of all ages, such as at the southern half of Frampton Park Road and northern section of Skipworth Road.

• Concern that the removal of the width restriction on Gore Road would lead to increased volumes of vehicular traffic and increase vehicle speeds.

• Concern that the junction of Gore Road, Wetherell Road and Grove Road will continue to be hostile for cyclists.

• Suggested that access restriction on Grove Road needs to be 24-hour operation and exclude taxis.

Hackney Living Streets

• Generally supportive of the proposals, but felt that further improvements could be made to improve conditions for people walking, without providing further detail

• Suggest that route should use an alternative alignment on Lauriston Road.

• Suggested access restriction on Grove Road should be extended to 24-hour operation and exclude taxis.

• Suggest additional pedestrian crossing facilities including on Grove Road, connecting the two gates of Victoria Park.

• Suggest providing straight-across pedestrian crossings rather than staggered crossings.

• Suggest removal of pedestrian guardrailing. • Suggest car park within Victoria Park should be restricted to events

usage and park authorities. • Suggest removal of roundabouts at Old Ford/Grove Road and

Lauriston Road/Victoria Park Road. • Suggest increasing existing parking restriction operation. • General suggestion to reduce motor traffic volumes and speeds further

to reduce hostility for pedestrians.


The Friends of Mile End Park

• Suggested that car usage might reduce due to the access restrictions on Grove Road, opting to use buses and cycle more.

• Suggested that the bus stop on Grove Road near to the bus turnaround should be moved south to prevent blocking of southbound traffic.

• General concerns outside the scope of the scheme. • Concern that proposals will lead to displaced traffic and increased

pollution. London Living Streets

• Generally supportive of the proposals. Suggested that the proposals would encourage more people to walk and cycle.

• Suggested that the access restriction on Grove Road should also exclude taxis.

• Suggested that access to the car park in Victoria Park could be removed as it is under-utilised.

• Viewed the decision to not use Lauriston Road as a missed opportunity.

• Suggested lengthening parking restrictions on Gore Road. • Concern that the side road junction from Gore Road to Grove Road is

too wide and thus encourages fast turning speeds of vehicular traffic. • Suggested the removal of the roundabout at Old Ford Road as this is

perceived as a barrier to walking in the area. • General suggestion to removal guard railing, cobbled surfaces and to

provide crossing facilities on desire lines. • General suggestion for further side road treatment to provide

continuous footways and reduce turning space • Suggest removing staggered crossing wherever possible.

London Bike Studio

• Generally supportive of the proposals.

IVSC • Concern that access restrictions on Grove Road would displace vehicular traffic onto residential roads, and lead to increased congestion and pollution.

Lovely Products Ltd

• Generally unsupportive of the proposals. • Concern that proposals would increase vehicular congestion and

pollution. City Lord Ltd • Generally unsupportive of the proposals and felt it would be detrimental

to local businesses and elderly people who drive and who require disabled parking spaces.


Tower Hamlets Council

• Concern with banning of left turn at Burdett Road/Bow Road. Suggested exploring earlier draft designs which looked to replace left turn lane with wider footways.

• Concern with banned turns proposed into residential streets. Suggested this would impose additional mileage to journeys and contribute to local air pollution.

• Suggested moving cycle lane to western side of Grove Road and Burdett Road as there are fewer accesses.

• Concerned that access restrictions on Grove Road would displace traffic onto less acceptable routes and impact on events programmes at Victoria Park.

Hackney Council

• Supportive in general of new initiatives to encourage cycling and reduce the dominance of motorised vehicles in the borough.

• Concerns over 7am- 7pm access restriction on Grove Road as the full impact of the proposals were not shared with residents during consultation. Specific concerns were raised regarding additional traffic onto parts of Victoria Park Road. The Council would like to see more investigations undertaken on a peak-time only access restriction.

• The Council is keen to further explore the alternative route via Lauriston Road.

Councillor Jessica Webb

• Opposed to access restriction on Grove Road. • Concern that access restriction will lead to traffic being displaced onto

Victoria Park Road and connecting roads. Councillor Penny Wrout

• Concern over lack of traffic displacement modelling and that local people feel the proposed closure of Grove Road going through the park will lead to more congestion and pollution on local roads in particular on Victoria Park Road, Cambridge Heath Road, Old Ford Road and Cadogan Terrace

• Suggests speed cameras and a cycle lane on Victoria Park Road as part of this scheme to mitigate concerns over traffic displacement

• Suggests making Gore Road one-way in an easterly direction if it is to carry a cycle lane too to avoid possible safety problems, along with more speed bumps to discourage speeding and becoming a rat-run to Victoria Park Road. Would also like some zebra crossings on Gore Road at its junctions with Lauriston Road and Skipworth Road to ease possible conflict between pedestrians and cyclists

• Suggests first trialling the proposed closure of Grove Road to traffic during peak hours only from Monday to Friday and from 9am to 5pm at weekends to study the changes in traffic flow so a proper assessment of the impact on vehicle use, congestion and pollution can be made before additional closures are considered

• Notes that some elderly people have lived there all their lives and have friends or family on either side of the park and will find it most difficult to get through the park without driving

Councillor Clare Joseph

• Would like a detailed traffic impact assessment/modelling and the scheme paused and reconsulted on when this is available to allow her to draw conclusions about the benefits and disadvantages


Hackney & Tower Hamlets Friends of the Earth

• Concerned that some access restrictions on Burdett Road could displace traffic into residential streets.

• Suggest implementing no right turn from Burdett Road into St Paul’s Way in the evening to prevent displacement of coaches into residential streets.

• Safety concern with wide mouth of Clemence Street onto Rhodeswell Road. Suggested there is insufficient visibility.

• Suggested implementing one-way restriction on Turners Road (north-eastbound).

TfL Youth Panel

• Generally supportive of the proposals. • Concern with the removal and repositioning of bus stops. Suggest

avoiding this where possible to minimise the impact to bus users, particularly those who are elderly and disabled.

• Suggest replacing trees and foliage where removed on a like-for-like basis.

• Suggest making new road mediums ‘green’ rather than concrete or implement cycle parking.

Waitrose • General concerns from staff regarding loss of parking on Gore Road and access restrictions on Grove Road.

London TravelWatch

• General concerns with Bi-directional bike lanes. Suggest they are more problematic than single direction bike lanes

• Suggest that all side roads have side road entry treatment • Safety concern with Aberavon Road left turn into Mile End Road.

Suggest that design retains ‘hook risks’ for cyclists. • Concern with use of shared pavements. Suggest this is uncomfortable

for both pedestrians and cyclists. • Safety concern with swapping from two-way tracks to single-way

tracks. • Concern that some elements of proposals will lead to longer walking

distances to access bus stops. • General concerns with removal of bus stops and bus lanes. • Suggest side road treatment including continuous footways and

narrowing of junction mouth. • Suggest implementing additional advance stop lines, including for

cyclists looking to turn right into Westferry Road at the junction on West India Dock Road.


Tower Hamlets Wheelers

• Suggested access restriction on Grove Road should be extended to 24-hour operation and exclude taxis.

• Suggest removing roundabout at Old Ford Road, and replacing with crossroads or Dutch-style cycle roundabout.

• Suggest protected cycle signal phasing at Mile End junction. Suggest early release is insufficient.

• Concern that no protection is provided for a stretch of cycleway at the northern end of Burdett Road. Suggest implementing wands or kerb segregation.

• Suggest further side road treatment with either signalling or bollards to restrict access, and continuous footways where possible.

• Suggest closing off a number of side roads into Burdett Road, including Hamlets Way, Portia Way and Thomas Road.

• Concern that cycle tracks look narrow in some areas. Suggest providing wide tracks to cope with increase in cycling volumes.

Councillor Rachel Blake

• Concerned that access restriction on Grove Road would lead to displacement of traffic into residential streets and lead to increased air pollution.

Road Haulage Association

• Concern that businesses specifically on Burdett Road and Bow Common Lane would be negatively impacted by a cycle lane as this removes/reduces space for delivery vehicles to access these businesses.

• General concern that the removal of parking would be detrimental for local businesses.

• Objection to Burdett Road being made 20mph as it is a key arterial route.

• Felt that non-compliance of existing speed limit is the real issue on Burdett Road, and further enforcement is required.

• Concern that 20mph speed limit on Burdett Road will be disregarded by cyclists and creating a hazard for pedestrians.

• Concern that presence of cycle lanes exposes vulnerable elderly pedestrians to speeding cyclists.

• Concern that creation of 20mph speed limits will increase journey times and impact on hours restrictions adhered to by HGV drivers.

• General concern that the scheme will increase congestion and reduce overall air quality.

• Suggestion that further consideration needs to be taken to the road space required for HGVs, particularly where road widths are reduced to 3 metres.

• Suggestion that loading bays should have a waiting time of 40 minutes to allow for additional time required to negotiate cycle lane.

• General suggestions for sufficient loading space outside local businesses to prevent congestion from vehicles ‘cruising for space’.


Sustrans • Broadly supportive of the overall proposals and overall aim of scheme, suggesting that it would be a significant improvement for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

• Suggestion that the scheme needs to align with New Cycle Route Quality Criteria published by TfL.

• Suggestion that cycling journey times should be reported alongside motor traffic, bus and walking journey times in consultation.

• Suggest that Grove Road closure needs to be 24/7 and exclude all vehicles except for buses and cycles.

• Suggest that pedestrian crossings which are staggered need to be avoided, including at Post Office outside Mile End Park.

• Suggest further side road treatment to ensure pedestrians are given priority, including continuous footways and setting back give way markings.

• Suggestion for pedestrian guardrailing to be removed. • General suggestion for further cycle parking at key destinations along

cycle route. • Concern that there is a lack of segregated provision in Section 4.

Suggest implementing segregation at this location. Pedal Me • Suggest providing in-line crossings wherever possible rather than

staggered. • Concern that bollards implemented in Section 1 would be awkward for

access using a cargo bike. • Suggest that Grove Road closure needs to be 24/7. • Concern that there is a lack of segregated provision in Section 4.

Suggest implementing segregation at this location. • Suggest transition from one-way to two-way track should be completed

somewhere else to lessen delays to cyclists. • Suggest considering two-stage left turns in Section 7 and Section 10 –

accesses into St Paul’s Way and Commercial Road. QMCyclists • Concern banned turning movements would displace traffic onto other

cycling routes and residential streets. • Concerns over the subjective safety of two stage turns at Mile End

junction. Suggest providing physical segregation for this movement. • Suggest providing in-line crossings wherever possible rather than

staggered. • Suggest additional modal filtering on some accesses to Queen Mary

University. • Suggest upgrading pedestrian crossing at Mile End Leisure Centre to

toucan crossing or zebra crossing.


Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association

• Concern that where cycle segregation is provided, it limits access for taxis to stop, pick up or set down, particularly when the vehicle has to deploy ramps to load a wheelchair-bound passenger.

• Concern that banned turning movements could lead to much longer and less attractive taxi journeys.

• Concern that passenger journey times may increase as a result of the proposals.

Transport for All

• Concern with the provision of bus-stop bypasses. Suggest that some users find these difficult and intimidating to use.

• Concern with relocation and removal of bus stops and how this will be communicated.

• Concern with provision of shared spaces as it was suggested this creates conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. Suggest signage and enforcement to encourage cyclists to dismount if implemented.

• Concern with provision of continuous footways, as this cannot be identified easily for visually impaired people.

• Supportive of widening of pavements as part of proposals. Victoria Park Community Association

• Concern that Gore Road is not low traffic, and that current conditions lead to road rage, congestion and dangerous conditions. Suggest one-way restriction if a cycle route is to be implemented.

• Concern access restriction on Grove Road will displace traffic into Gore Road.

• Concern over removal of parking spaces. Suggest this will put pressure on residents, visitors and local businesses.

• Concern local businesses will be negatively affected by access restriction on Grove Road.

• Concern that disabled and mobility-impaired residents who rely on vehicles will be detrimentally impacted by the proposals.

Canal & River Trust

• Generally supportive of proposals. • Suggest exploring further and easier access for cyclists and other

visitors to canal, including gaps in segregation to facilitate movements into canal towpath.

• Suggest increasing wayfinding between cycle route and canal towpath. • Suggest any route mapping needs to be aware of Glengall Bridge

operation. BMF Enterprises Ltd

• No objections to the proposals as long as they do not disadvantage motorcyclists.

• Suggest ensuring the proposals align with TfL’s Motorcycle Design Handbook, including provision of space for motorcycles to filter where appropriate.


Metropolitan Police Service

• Concern that the junction at Pennyfields may cause conflict between cyclists and vehicles.

• Concerns that alterations to islands and layout of the junction at Westferry Road/West India Dock Road might encourage pedestrians to take dangerous paths.

• Concern with visibility regarding bus stop on exit to Rug Street. • Concern with visibility of police vehicles exiting station. Suggest

visibility is maintained or enhanced. • Suggest maintaining sufficient parking spaces outside Limehouse

Police Station. • Concern proposals retain left hook risks for cyclists at the southbound

approach at junction of Mile End Road, Burdett Road and Grove Road. • Concerns that access restrictions on Burdett Road could encourage

drivers to take risks, including making illegal u-turns and entering no-entry roads, leading to increased risk of collision between vehicles and cyclists.

• Concern with sightlines at junction at Skipworth Road/King Edwards Road.

• Concern with ambiguity of priority at junction of Old Ford Road/Grove Road.

Royal National Institute of Blind People

• Concern with provision of continuous footways, suggest that this is not compatible with accessible walking requirements of blind and partially sighted people.

• Concern with provision of bus stop bypasses, and the lack of auxiliary aid to enable blind and partially sighted people to negotiate their right of way over the cycletrack.

• Suggest when tactile paving is provided that this meets national guidance standards.


Appendix C: Consultation leaflet and letter




Appendix D: Demographic information from people who responded The majority of respondents to the consultation were male (54 per cent).

Gender Total % Male 1195 54.32

Female 659 29.95

Gender Neutral 17 0.77

Trans Female 2 0.09

Trans Male 2 0.09

Prefer not to say 208 9.45

While there was a good distribution in the age ranges of respondents to the consultation, a significantly fewer number of respondents were aged under 25and over 65.

Age Total % Under 15 6 0.27 16-20 18 0.82 21-25 111 5.05 26-30 279 12.68 31-35 298 13.55 36-40 249 11.32 41-45 245 11.14 46-50 210 9.55 51-55 160 7.27 56-60 119 5.41 61-65 94 4.27 66-70 61 2.77 71+ 36 1.64 Prefer not to say 210 9.55


The majority of respondents to the consultation were of White British ethnicity.

Ethnicity Total %

White – British 1020 46.36

White – Irish 66 3.00

White – Other 353 16.05

Black or Black British – African 9 0.41

Black or Black British – Caribbean 20 0.91

Black or Black British – Other 4 0.18

Asian or Asian British – Bangladesh 95 4.32

Asian or Asian British – Chinese 22 1.00

Asian or Asian British – Indian 29 1.32

Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 13 0.59

Asian or Asian British – Other 10 0.45

Mixed – White and Asian 29 1.32

Mixed – White and Black African 5 0.23

Mixed – White and Caribbean 4 0.18

Mixed – Other 51 2.32

Other Ethnic Group – Arab 6 0.27

Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 3 0.14

Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 10 0.45

Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 4 0.18

Other Ethnic Group 8 0.36 Prefer not to say 323 14.68

The majority of respondents were Heterosexual.

Sexual orientation Total %

Heterosexual 1325 60.23

Gay man 119 5.41

Bisexual 38 1.73

Lesbian 23 1.05

Other 18 0.82 Prefer not to say 523 23.77


The majority of respondents stated they had no religion or preferred not to define their faith to us.

Faith Total %

Christian 368 16.73

Muslim 118 5.36

Jewish 23 1.05

Hindu 13 0.59

Buddhist 21 0.95

Sikh 3 0.14

Other 48 2.18

No religion 1007 45.77 Prefer not to say 456 20.73

The majority of respondents considered that they do not have a health problem or disability.

Health problem or disability/day-to-day limitations Total %

Yes, limited a lot 57 2.59

Yes, limited a little 139 6.32

No 1638 74.45 Prefer not to say 249 11.32


Appendix E: Borough specific information from people who responded Where people provided a postcode for Tower Hamlets:

• 712 (38%) of the 1,873 respondents lived in Tower Hamlets • Although the consultation didn’t directly ask whether respondents supported

the scheme 44% (313) of residents had supportive comments • 22% (160) of residents had negative comments

General support/positive impact to journey Total

Reduction in motorised traffic/car usage 51

Improved air quality 28

Encouraging more cycling/improving cycle access 183

Improved safety for cyclists 67

Encourage walking/beneficial to pedestrians 71

Encourage public transport use/beneficial for public transport users

21

Top 10 issues in Tower Hamlets Total

Increased vehicle congestion/journey times 191

Increased pollution from vehicles 77

Concerns: safety 67

Rat-running/displaced traffic 64

Closure of Grove Road 56

Reduction in road space 54

Burdett Road access restrictions 32

Parking restrictions 28

Increased bus unreliability/journey times 27

Restricted access for residents 26


Where people provided a postcode for Hackney:

• 433 (23%) of the 1,873 respondents lived in Hackney • Although the consultation didn’t directly ask whether respondents supported

the scheme 44% (192) of residents had supportive comments • 17% (78) of residents had negative comments

General support/positive impact to journey Total

Reduction in motorised traffic/car usage 28

Improved air quality 17

Encouraging more cycling/improving cycle access 133

Improved safety for cyclists 40

Encourage walking/Beneficial to pedestrians 46

Encourage PT use/ beneficial for public transport users 14

Top 10 issues in Hackney Total

Closure of Grove Road 112

Increased vehicle congestion/journey times 106

Rat-running/displaced traffic 83

Increased pollution from vehicles 66

Concerns: safety 54

Reduction in road space 36

Lack of use by cyclists (with regards to Canal towpath and parks)

31

Parking restrictions 17

Elderly (age) 17

Disabled/mobility issues/health issues (disability) 17


For all respondents, where a local road was mentioned the majority mentioned Grove Road.

The roads people mentioned Total

Grove Road 449

Burdett Road 248

Lauriston Road 112

Victoria Park Road 110

Gore Road 90

Old Ford Road 82

Mile End Road 69

Hamlets Way 52

Mare Street 50

Roman Road 45

Bow Common Lane 33

Westferry Road 28

Thomas Road 18

Southborough Road 9

Penshurst Road 1

Bishops Way 1


Date post:	25-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Cycling and walking improvements between …...Executive summary This report explains the processes,...

Documents