Cycle Superhighway 1: Motor traffic reduction scheme for the ......the De Beauvoir area’. Between 6 October and 16 November 2015, we consulted on proposals for changes in the De

1 CS1 De Beauvoir area Consultation report

Cycle Superhighway 1: Motor traffic reduction scheme for the De Beauvoir area (Hackney) Consultation Report July 2016

Executive summary

This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation on the following scheme: ‘Cycle Superhighway 1: Motor traffic reduction scheme for the De Beauvoir area’.

Between 6 October and 16 November 2015, we consulted on proposals for changes in the De Beauvoir area as part of Cycle Superhighway Route 1 (CS1).

We sent consultation notification letters to 11,000 addresses in the De Beauvoir area, and sent details to approximately 1,000 stakeholders and 50,000 individuals on our email database.

We received 1,180 responses to the consultation, of which 57% supported or partially supported our proposals.

We received a petition against our proposals signed by 930 people. The petition opposed the closures to motor traffic and called for decisions on traffic management in the area to be evidence-driven.

We received a number of identical emails from residents in Islington objecting to the scheme on the grounds that it would displace motor traffic to nearby roads.

The main themes raised during consultation are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in Appendix A on p33.

Issues raised by respondents Of the 1,180 people who responded to this consultation, 833 provided a comment on the proposals in the open text field. The most frequently raised issues were:

• Positive comments, supporting the principle of reducing through motor traffic in the De Beauvoir area, saying the proposals would be beneficial for cycling, pedestrians, residents, road safety and pollution

• Concern from people in Hackney and neighbouring borough Islington about motor traffic displacement to nearby roads, with most concern about Southgate Road and Englefield Road. Concerns relating to congestion, road safety and air quality

• Concerns the proposal was not necessary due to current closures or motor traffic levels, with calls for measures to reduce motor traffic speed rather than volume

• Concern about the effect of the scheme on deliveries to and from businesses and domestic premises, along with the effect on trade

• Other issues raised included the potentially negative impact of the closures to motor traffic on crime, buses, schools, churches and emergency services

CS1 De Beauvoir area Consultation report 2

• Concern about the safety to pedestrians due to increases in cycling levels, with calls for stricter enforcement of road rules

• Comments on issues outside the scope of the De Beauvoir proposal, including the proposed scheme on the A10 / Stamford Road / Tottenham Road

• Concerns about the consultation process, including calls to extend the consultation and provide more information on the scheme’s impacts (p25)

Our response to issues commonly raised during consultation can be found in Appendix B on p37.

Next steps De Beauvoir: After considering all responses and after discussions with Hackney Council, the highway authority for the affected roads, we plan to go ahead with the scheme as proposed with the following changes:

• In response to feedback during consultation, we will redesign the junction at De Beauvoir Road / Stamford Road / Englefield Road to allow southbound motor traffic movements

• The road closures will be introduced using Experimental Traffic Management Orders, which are valid up to a maximum period of 18 months, the first 6 months of which form a statutory consultation period. Hackney Council will monitor the impact of the changes during the initial 6-month period and will undertake a formal review 6-12 months after implementation, including a further consultation with local residents to determine whether to make the closures permanent, remove the closures, or extend the experimental period

We acknowledge that some local people had concerns regarding potential negative impacts of the scheme, particularly regarding motor traffic journeys and congestion. However, we are confident that the overall impact of the revised scheme will be to make the De Beauvoir area a safer and more pleasant place to live, walk and cycle.

We acknowledge there are concerns from some residents in Hackney and Islington about motor traffic displacement to nearby roads, and we will work with Hackney Council and Islington Council to monitor any future motor traffic impacts.

We are satisfied that the use of Experimental Traffic Orders will provide an opportunity to fully assess the impact of the scheme on roads in De Beauvoir and neighbouring areas without it having being implemented permanently. This method of implementation will also ensure local people have a further opportunity to comment on the scheme once it has been in place for a period of time.

We intend to start work on the scheme in autumn 2016, subject to final approvals. We will write to local residents and affected properties before work starts.

3 CS1 De Beauvoir area Consultation report

Balls Pond Road: The proposed signalisation of the junction of Culford Road and Balls Pond Road and the two-way segregated cycle track on Balls Pond Road – both proposed as part of the CS1 consultation in February-March 2015 – are still under consideration.

CS1 De Beauvoir area Consultation report 4

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 6

2. Consultation ........................................................................................................ 16

3. Overview of consultation responses ................................................................... 20

4. Conclusion and next steps .................................................................................. 34

Appendix A: Detailed analysis of responses ............................................................. 35

Appendix B: Responses to issues commonly raised ................................................. 40

Appendix C: Consultation questions.......................................................................... 57

Appendix D: Consultation notification letter ............................................................... 58

Appendix E: Consultation emails ............................................................................... 65

Appendix F: List of stakeholders emailed .................................................................. 66

Appendix G: Sample petition sheets ......................................................................... 71

Appendix H: Sample campaign email ........................................................................ 73

Appendix I: Improving road user behaviour ............................................................... 74

5 CS1 De Beauvoir Consultation report

1. Introduction The 2013 Vision for Cycling contains an ambitious target to double the number of people cycling in Greater London over the next decade. To achieve this growth we are planning a far-reaching programme of cycling provision to make the capital’s streets more attractive for cycling to more people, especially those groups currently under-represented among cyclists, including women, young people and older people.

Cycle Superhighways are our flagship cycling programme and aim to provide a London-wide network of direct and high-capacity cycle routes, mostly along main roads, although also using residential and low-traffic roads. The Superhighways provide safer and more comfortable and convenient journeys for anyone on a bicycle and essential links between London’s suburbs and the city centre, and for shorter journeys in between.

Working with the London boroughs of Hackney, Haringey and Islington, we consulted on Cycle Superhighway Route 1, a major new cycle route between Tottenham and the City of London, in February-March 2015. After a successful consultation, CS1 will form part of the London-wide network of Cycle Superhighways when it opens in Spring 2016.

During the CS1 consultation, further improvements in Hackney and Haringey were identified. Petitions were submitted by local residents, including two calling for greater intervention to address problems with non-local motor traffic (see p37).

In October 2015, three motor traffic reduction schemes were put forward for further consultation, with two in Hackney (De Beauvoir area and Wordsworth Road area) and one in Haringey (Broadwater Road).

1.1 Purpose of the scheme

All three schemes were designed to reduce motor traffic in local roads, addressing the problem of ‘rat-running’ along the CS1 route. ‘Rat-running’ is a commonly used term for the behaviour of some motorists to reduce their journeys by taking short-cuts through roads less suited to heavy volumes of motor traffic. This can result in relatively minor roads being used by large volumes of non-local motor traffic, particularly at peak times.

The three motor traffic reduction schemes would allow some roads to benefit from fewer motor traffic journeys, making them more pleasant places to live, walk and cycle. These closures to motor traffic would also benefit people using CS1, making this route more attractive for cycle journeys.

CS1 De Beauvoir Consultation report 6

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-for-the-future/vision-for-cycling

1.2 Description of the proposals

1.2.1 Overview of the proposals

In response to feedback from residents during the CS1 consultation in February-March 2015, we and the London Borough of Hackney sought views on a joint proposal to close five junctions to motor traffic in the De Beauvoir area.

The proposals to close the five junctions to motor traffic were aimed at reducing the high volumes of non-local motor traffic using some residential streets, making the De Beauvoir area a safer and more pleasant place in which to live, walk and cycle.

Complementing existing junction closures in this area, the proposed closures would restrict through motor traffic to roads better suited to larger volumes of motor traffic, such as Balls Pond Road, Englefield Road, Kingsland Road and Southgate Road.

Existing motor traffic access to properties in the De Beauvoir area would be retained, and there would be minor changes to parking restrictions. Some parking bays would be added and some removed. There would be no overall reduction in parking.

The proposals include significant improvements for pedestrians, such as wider footways, safer junctions, and new pedestrian crossings.

These five closures of junctions to motor traffic would only be effective in reducing through motor traffic if all five were implemented together.

Our new proposal is not linked to an existing proposal (consulted on summer 2015) to close the junctions of Stamford Road and Tottenham Road and the A10 to motor traffic. However, the two schemes would complement one another

Explanation of the proposals can be found below, and at tfl.gov.uk/cs1-de-beauvoir.

1.2.2 Proposed closure of five junctions to motor traffic

Under our proposals, motor traffic would no longer be permitted to pass through the following junctions:

1. Ardleigh Road / Culford Road junction

2. Culford Road / Culford Grove junction

3. De Beauvoir Road / Stamford Road / Englefield Road junction

4. De Beauvoir Road / Buckingham Road junction

5. De Beauvoir Road / Tottenham Road junction


http://tfl.gov.uk/cs1-de-beauvoir

1.2.3 Ardleigh Road / Culford Road junction

Our proposals

We consulted on closing the junction of Ardleigh Road and Culford Road to motor traffic as part of CS1 during February-March 2015. In response to feedback from the consultation, there were two changes compared with the design we consulted on previously:

• New zebra crossing west of the junction • Entry to junction-wide speed hump moved south of junction with Ardleigh

Road

These are the changes to the junction that we consulted on in February-March 2015:

• Bollards and widened footways between Ardleigh Road and Culford Road • Ardleigh Road, Culford Road and Englefield Road junction realigned to make

north-south journeys safer and more convenient, with junction-wide speed hump to calm traffic

• Existing motor vehicle access retained to all properties • New trees (subject to further investigation), paving and cycle parking • Parking bays on east and west sides of Ardleigh Road reduced by 3.5 metres • Parking bay on east side of Culford Road reduced by 4 metres • Parking bay on west side of Culford Road extended 11 metres (there would

be no overall change in parking)

Impacts of our proposals

• No motor traffic movements between Ardleigh Road and Culford Road, except refuse and emergency vehicles

• Pedestrians and cyclists could still pass through the junction. We would ensure access widths are sufficient for non-standard cycles

• Improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists, such as north-south CS1 journeys

• Motor vehicle access retained for all properties • Reduced through motor traffic in Culford Road and Culford Grove • Safer crossings for pedestrians

1.2.4 Culford Road / Culford Grove junction

Our proposals

• No right turn from Culford Grove into Culford Road • Footway widened at junction


• Bollards installed on Culford Road, south of Culford Grove • One parking bay removed at on Culford Road opposite Culford Grove, with

four more bays added on Culford Road near junction with Buckingham Road


• Bollards would prevent north and southbound movements for motor traffic at the southern side of the junction of Culford Grove and Culford Road, except for refuse and emergency vehicles

• Alternative route for the ‘no right turn’ would be via Southgate Road and Englefield Road

• Pedestrians and cyclists could still pass through the junction. We would ensure access widths are sufficient for non-standard cycles

• Existing motor vehicle access retained for all properties • Reduced through motor traffic on De Beauvoir Road

1.2.5 De Beauvoir Road / Stamford Road / Englefield Road junction

Our proposals

• Widen the footways and plant trees (subject to investigation) to prevent motor traffic passing between De Beauvoir Road and Englefield Road.

• Remove the mini-roundabout and redesign the junction where De Beauvoir Road joins Stamford Road, removing the traffic island, widening footways and planting new trees (subject to investigation)

• Junction-wide speed hump on Stamford Road to calm traffic


• Improved safety for all road users • No motor traffic movements between De Beauvoir Road and Englefield Road,

except for refuse and emergency vehicles • Pedestrians and cyclists could still pass between De Beauvoir Road and

Englefield Road. We would ensure access widths are sufficient for non-standard cycles

• Existing motor vehicle access retained for all properties • Reduced through motor traffic on De Beauvoir Road


1.2.6 De Beauvoir Road / Tottenham Road & De Beauvoir Road / Buckingham Road junctions

Our proposals

• Install gates and bollards on Tottenham Road and Buckingham Road, to the west of junctions with De Beauvoir Road


• No motor traffic movements between De Beauvoir Road and Tottenham Road or Buckingham Road, except for refuse and emergency vehicles

• Pedestrians and cyclists could still pass between De Beauvoir Road and Tottenham Road and Buckingham Road. We would ensure access widths are sufficient for non-standard cycles

• Improved safety for cyclists and pedestrians using Tottenham Road, Buckingham Road and De Beauvoir Road

• Existing motor vehicle access retained for all properties • Reduced through motor traffic on Buckingham Road and Tottenham Road

1.3 Overview maps The De Beauvoir consultation materials included five maps showing (1) an overview of the area and (2, 3, 4 and 5) details as to how each of the redesigned junctions would operate.


1.3.1 Overview map


1.3.2 Junction 1: Ardleigh Road / Culford Road / Englefield Road


1.3.3 Culford Road and Culford Grove


1.3.4 De Beauvoir Road, Stamford Road and Englefield Road


1.3.5 Buckingham Road / Tottenham Road and De Beauvoir Road


2. Consultation

2.1 Consultation structure

This consultation ran from 19 October to 16 November 2015. Information on the consultation was published at tfl.gov.uk/cs1-de-beauvoir.

The consultation was originally scheduled to run until 2 November 2015, but the consultation period was extended by two weeks following a number of requests (see below).

When responding online, respondents were asked to answer a mandatory closed question, asking for their level of support for the overall proposals. The choices were ‘support’, ‘partially support’, ‘don’t support’, ‘not sure’ or ‘no opinion’. Next, respondents were give an the option to provide comments on the proposal in an open text field.

Respondents were also given the option to submit their name, email address, postcode, along with information about their travel habits. We also asked for feedback on our consultation materials and the process.

All questions were optional, apart from the question asking for the degree of support for the overall proposal.

Appendix C contains the list of questions we asked.

Other information, such as the date and time of responding, was recorded automatically. All data is held under conditions that conform to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.

2.1.1 Extending the consultation

The consultation was originally scheduled to run from 19 October until 2 November 2015, but due to feedback from some stakeholders during consultation, the period was extended by another two weeks. Another CS1-related consultation that was running concurrently, which proposed a motor traffic reduction scheme for the Wordsworth Road area (tfl.gov.uk/cs1-wordsworth-road), was also extended.

2.2 Stakeholder meetings

We engaged with the following groups before and during consultation to explain our proposals and gather feedback:


http://tfl.gov.uk/cs1-de-beauvoir

http://tfl.gov.uk/cs1-wordsworth-road

Stakeholders

• Hackney refuse and recycling • Emergency services • De Beauvoir ward councillors • De Beauvoir Road petition organisers • Culford Road petition organisers • Northchurch Road petition organisers • Hackney Living Streets • London Cycling Campaign in Hackney • Hackney People on Bikes • St Matthias Church • Our Lady & St Joseph Primary School

Businesses

• E & E Lusardi Motors • Gullaksen Architects • Healthy Bag Company • Leyland SDM • Mick’s Body Shop • N1 Garden Centre • Scooterden • The Talbot Public House • Yummy’s Café

2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

On 19 October 2015, detailed information on the proposals was published at tfl.gov.uk/cs1-de-beauvoir. The consultation information on the website was also made available on paper on request via FREEPOST TfL CONSULTATIONS.

Paper response forms were available at public events, where members of the project team were present to discuss the proposals with visitors and answer questions.

The consultation was publicised via the following channels:

Letter to properties: We sent a 3-page (6-sided) colour A4 letter outlining the proposals to all addresses within 0.25 miles of the scheme (over 11,000 properties).


http://tfl.gov.uk/cs1-wordsworth-road

The letter summarised the proposals and encouraged recipients to find out more and respond via the consultation website. The letter and letter distribution map are reproduced in Appendix D.

Emails to individuals: We emailed around 50,000 people on our database who are known to cycle, drive or use public transport in the area (see the email in Appendix E). The email briefly described this and the other two proposed schemes associated with CS1, and invited recipients to find out more and respond via the consultation website.

Emails to stakeholders: We emailed approximately 1,000 stakeholders (see Appendix F for the email and Appendix G for the list of recipients). The email contained a summary of the proposals and a link to the consultation website. Recipients included:

• Police and emergency services

• Politicians (national, regional and local)

• Local authorities

• Disability rights groups

• Residents’ associations

• Transport user groups

• Road operator groups

Public drop-in events: We held three public drop-in events for the three CS1 consultations, and any scheme could be discussed at any event. One drop-in was held near Broadwater Road to provide the best opportunity for people in that area to give feedback. The other two events were in Hackney near the De Beauvoir and Wordsworth Road proposed schemes:

• St Matthias Church Hall, Wordsworth Road, London, N16 8DD 3pm-7pm, Friday 23 October 2015

• Dalston C. L. R. James Library, Dalston Lane, London, E8 3BQ 1pm-5pm, Saturday 24 October 2015

• Miller Memorial Methodist Church, The Avenue, London, N17 6TG 6.30pm-8.30pm, Wednesday 21 October 2015

Individuals and stakeholders were invited to respond by either using the online survey on our website, by emailing us at [email protected], or by filling in a paper feedback form (available at events or by post on request).


mailto:mailto:%[email protected]

Public meeting: At the request of councillors from the De Beauvoir ward, we and Hackney Council officers, along with Hackney’s Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, attended a public meeting at Kingsgate Community Centre, where they presented the benefits of the scheme and fielded questions from 70-80 local residents, including representatives of residents’ associations and local businesses.

• Kingsgate Community Centre, Tottenham Road, N1 7.30-9.30pm, Monday 19 October 2015


3. Overview of consultation responses

3.1 Summary of support for proposals

3.1.1 Support for proposals from all responses

We received 1,180 responses to the consultation. Below is an overview of the level of support for all responses.

Table 1: Support for proposal from all responses

Responses Support or partial support

Support Partial support

Don’t support

Not sure No opinion

1,180 673 (57%) 609 (52%) 64 (5%) 496 (42%) 5 (<1%) 8 (1%)

Figure 2: Support for proposal from all responses

Y es

P artia lly

No

Not s ure

No opinionSupport and partial support: 57%

Don’t support: 42%

1,180 respondents


3.1.2 Support from responses within the De Beauvoir area

There were 349 responses from roads within the De Beauvoir area (roads bounded by but not including Balls Pond Road, Kingsland Road, Downham Road and Southgate Road). Below is an overview of support for the proposal from responses from this area:

Table 2: Support from responses within De Beauvoir area



Don’t support

Not sure No opinion

349 189 (54%) 161 (46%) 28 (8%) 151 (43%) 4 (1%) 5 (1%)

Figure 2: Support from responses within De Beauvoir area

Y es

P artia lly

No

Not s ure



349 respondents


Map 2: Support from responses within De Beauvoir area

3.1.3 Support from responses from main roads bordering De Beauvoir area

We received 114 responses to the consultation from the four main roads that border the De Beauvoir area: Southgate Road, Balls Pond Road, Downham Road and Kingsland Road. Almost all of these were from addresses in Southgate Road.

Table 3: Support from responses from main roads bordering the De Beauvoir area



Don’t support

Not sure No opinion

114 20 (18%) 11 (10%) 9 (8%) 94 (82%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)


Figure 3: Support from responses from main roads bordering De Beauvoir area

Map 3: Responses from main roads bordering the De Beauvoir area

S upport

P artia l s upport

D on't s upport

Not s ure

No opinion

Support and partial support: 18%


114 respondents


3.1.4 Support from responses from Hackney

We received 686 responses to the consultation from residents in Hackney.

Table 4: Responses from Hackney



Don’t support

Not sure No opinion

686 434 (64%) 389 (57%) 45 (7%) 243 (35%) 4 (1%) 5 (1%)

Figure 4: Responses from Hackney

3.1.5 Support from responses from Islington We received 169 responses to the consultation from residents in Islington.

Table 5: Responses from Islington



Don’t support

Not sure No opinion

169 49 (29%) 42 (25%) 7 (4%) 119 (70%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%)

Y es

P artia lly

No

Not s ure



686 respondents


Figure 5: Responses from Islington

Map 5: Responses from Hackney and Islington

S upport

P artia l s upport

D on't s upport

Not s ure

Support and partial support: 29%


169 respondents


3.2 About the respondents

3.2.1 Respondents by postcode

969 respondents supplied a postcode. 324 respondents provided an N1 4-- postcode, which corresponds with addresses closest to the scheme. 189 respondents provided an N1 3-- postcode, and 87 respondents an N1 5-- postcode. There were 25 other N1 postcodes. 68 respondents provided an N16 postcode, and 51 another N postcode. 66 provided an E8 postcode, and 44 an E5 postcode, with 42 another E postcode. 63 provided a postcode in Greater London. There were 10 postcodes from outside Greater London.

Figure 4: Postcodes provided by De Beauvoir area respondents

3.2.2 How respondents heard about the consultation

1,041 out of 1180 respondents answered this question. The most common way that respondents said that they found out about the consultation was via a letter from TfL (250 respondents (21%). The next most common was via social media, with 226 respondents (19%). 159 (13%) received an email from TfL, while 154 (13%) received an email or paper notification from a stakeholder, such as campaign leaflet through the door or an email. 129 respondents (11%) said they heard through a friend or neighbour. 80 (7%) named traditional media/press as their source of information. 43 (4%) responded after seeing the consultation on the our website.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

N1 4xx

N1 3xx

N1 5xx

other N1

N16

other N

E 8

E 5

other E

other G reater L ondon

outs ide L ondon


Figure 5: How respondents heard about this consultation

3.2.3 Comments on the consultation process and materials

560 respondents (47%) provided a comment on the quality of the consultation and associated materials. The main topics were:

• 340 (29% of all respondents) made neutral or positive comments about the materials, with views such as “okay”, “adequate”, “fine”, “clear” and “excellent”

• 77 respondents (7%) said the consultation was not publicised enough, and they (or someone they knew) did not receive adequate or timely information

• 62 respondents (5%) said not enough time had been provided to consider the proposals

• 46 respondents (4%) said there should have been more information supplied, such as traffic data or potential disbenefits of the scheme

• 44 respondents (4%) used this space to comment on the proposals, rather than the consultation process or materials

• 41 respondents (4%) called for improvements or additions to the maps, or said the maps were not easy to understand

• 26 respondents (2%) made general negative comments about the consultation, such as “rubbish” or “poor”

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

T fL web

pres s

friend or neighbour

email/letter

email T fL

s ocia l media

letter T fL


• 20 respondents (2%) said they thought their views would be ignored, and that officers/councillors would not represent them effectively

• 6 (1%) respondents accused the consultation of being ineffective and/or authorities not taking an interest in responses

3.3 Summary of comments

Of the 1,180 people who responded to this consultation, 833 (70%) provided a comment in the open text box for the scheme. A detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix A. The most frequently raised issues were the impact of the scheme on local people, including residents within the area, motorists, pedestrians and cyclists:

• Respondents provided positive comments, supporting the principle of reducing through motor traffic in the De Beauvoir area and beyond, saying the proposals would be beneficial for cycling, pedestrians, residents, road safety and pollution

• Concern from people in Hackney and neighbouring borough Islington about motor traffic displacement to nearby roads, with most concern about Southgate Road and Englefield Road. Concerns relating to congestion, road safety, and air quality

• Respondents said the proposal was not necessary due to current closures or motor traffic levels, with calls for measures to reduce motor traffic speeds rather than volumes

• Respondents expressed concern about the effect of the scheme on deliveries to and from businesses, and to domestic premises, along with the effect on trade

• Other issues raised included the impact on crime, buses, schools, churches and emergency services

• Respondents expressed concern about the danger to pedestrians from cycling, with calls for stricter enforcement of road rules

• We received a number of comments on issues outside the scope of the De Beauvoir proposal, including the proposed scheme on the A10/Stamford Road/Tottenham Road

• There were a significant number of responses about the consultation process, including calls to extend the consultation and provide more information (p25)


3.4 Summary of stakeholder responses

Of the 1,180 consultation responses, we identified 38 as coming from stakeholder groups, including local businesses and organisations. There is a summary of those responses below:

Local businesses

Andrew Magurran Photography Opposed. Supported calm traffic, but concerned about access for business.

Barry’s Locks Opposed. Concerned about effect on local business.

David Turner Workshop Supported. Welcomed scheme’s positive contribution to the area. Called for Bentley Road between Balls Pond Road to become one-way.

De Beauvoir Candle Co Opposed. Concerned about cycling danger to pedestrians. Opposed blue paint.

E & E Lusardi Motors Opposed. Concerned about potential congestion in nearby roads, and parking and road maintenance problems.

Flowers Galore and More Opposed. Concerned about potential for increased motor traffic in Southgate Road, including effect on buses, businesses and churches.

Gullaksen Architects Opposed. Called for measures to reduce motor traffic speed, not volume. Concerned about potential displacement of motor traffic, increased congestion, lack of right turns on Englefield Road, increase in crime, effect on businesses/deliveries, cyclist safety, cycling danger to pedestrians, effect on church and schools, community division. Called for more pedestrian crossings.

Healthy Back Bag Company Opposed. Called for measures to reduce motor traffic speed, not volume. Concerned about potential displacement of motor traffic, increased congestion, lack of right turns on Englefield Road, increase in crime, effect on businesses/deliveries, cyclist safety, cycling danger to pedestrians, effect on church and schools, community division. Called for more pedestrian crossings.

Honey and Thyme Opposed. Concerned about movements of and access for larger delivery vehicles.


Leyland SDM Opposed. Concerned about movements of and access for larger delivery vehicles, including turning issues at junctions of Englefield Road/De Beauvoir Road and De Beauvoir Road/Tottenham Road, including school’s safety. Commented on A10 proposal.

Michael van der Ham Opposed. Concerned about deliveries to business premises.

Mick’s Body Shop Opposed. Concerned about potential congestion in nearby roads, and parking and road maintenance problems.

Micycle East Supported.

The Millinery Works Opposed. Concerned about increased motor traffic on Southgate Road.

N1 Garden Centre Opposed. Concerned about access for suppliers/customers/emergency services, potential for community division and increased crime. Called for traffic lights at Englefield Road/Stamford Road, and consideration of a one-way system. Asked for resurfacing to take place outside peak period. Called for consultation extension.

Pro Bike Service Opposed. Called for speed reduction.

Rosemary Works Opposed. Noted poor public transport in this area.

Scooterden Opposed. Concerned about effect on business/deliveries, congestion, cycle safety, community division, cycle danger to pedestrians,

Sweet Thursday Opposed. Concerned about displaced motor traffic on Southgate Road, effect on trade.

The Talbot Opposed. Concerned about effect on trade/deliveries, displacement of motor traffic, increased crime, effect on pollution, and cycling danger to pedestrians. Questioned CS1 alignment. Called for safety improvements at Southgate Road/Northgate Road, and resurfacing in Englefield Road. Concerned about noise pollution from buses.

Wilson Solicitors S upported. S aid scheme would benefit s taff by improving cycle safety.


X Industries Not sure. Welcomed safety improvement for cycling. Concerned about deliveries and potential for increased crime.

XFilm Opposed.

Yummy’s Café Opposed. Concerned about effect on trade and cycle safety.

Local stakeholders

De Beauvoir Association Opposed. Expressed concern about motor traffic displacement and congestion, longer journey times, right turns on Englefield Road, effect on businesses/deliveries, and cycling danger to pedestrians. Called for limited or no closures, and more zebra crossings.

De Beauvoir Place Residents’ Association Partial support. Concerned about scheme’s effect on sheltered housing, particularly potential congestion in the eastern section of Tottenham Road caused by increased motor traffic through Bentley Road, as well as difficulties for emergency services and deliveries to access properties and turn around safely.

Islington Council Islington Council wrote to us on 7 December 2015 outlining the borough’s interim position on the De Beauvoir and Wordsworth Road schemes.

Their letter also commented on the proposed two-way cycle track proposed for Balls Pond Road, which will link north-south cycling journeys on CS1 between Culford Road and Kingsbury Road. This scheme was consulted on as part of the initial CS1 consultation, which took place in February-March 2015, and we agreed to implement the cycle track subject to further feasibility studies. We are still carrying ou those studiest.

The letter also commented on a campaign by the Islington Cycling Action Group to improve provision for walking and cycling in the Mildmay area, which was submitted as part of the initial CS1 consultation.

We have summarised Islington Council’s letter below.

The borough stated its general support for measures that encourage more people to cycle, but expressed reservations about the two CS1 motor traffic reduction schemes in Hackney due to their potential impact on motor traffic in nearby Islington roads.

They expressed concern that they had not been provided with enough information about the potential motor traffic impacts of the modal filters that comprise the two


schemes, and that until they had this information, they would not be able to take a view on whether they could support the proposals in full, in part, or not at all. For this reason, they said their letter was an interim response to both consultations.

They highlighted the fact that some Islington residents had expressed concern about the potential negative impacts of the proposals. The borough sought reassurances that the proposed changes would not result in traffic displacement or diversion into residential streets in Islington.

They requested detailed information on the predicted impact of the schemes on Islington roads. They also asked for clarification of the monitoring process that would be put in place should the proposals go ahead, specifically with a view to measuring any changes in motor traffic in Islington roads. They also asked how any potentially negative impacts might be mitigated.

They asked for implementation of the schemes to be delayed until this information had been supplied to them. They said that, if necessary, further public consultation should take place.

Regarding Balls Pond Road, Islington Council asked for more information to help understand any potential impacts of implementing the two-way cycle track on motor traffic or buses, particularly when those impacts were combined with any potential impacts from the De Beauvoir or Wordsworth Road schemes. The council also called for reassurances that businesses and residents in the area were aware of the scheme’s impacts on parking, and asked that Balls Pond Road should remain an abnormal load route.

The council also noted that a request for us to consider the Mildmay proposals had not been progressed, and asked why this decision had been taken.

Living Streets Hackney Supported. Welcomed proposals to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

London Cycling Campaign in Hackney Supported. Welcomed reduced motor traffic, lower vehicle emissions, safer/quieter roads, wider footways and new pedestrian crossings, improvements for cycling. Called for filtering of Englefield Road, improved crossing for cyclists, and filter at De Beauvoir Road/Downham Road.

Oakley Road and Crowland Terrace Residents Association Opposed. Concerned about potential impact on Southgate Road.

St Matthias Church Partial support. Welcomed improvement to cycling safety. Concerned about congestion in nearby roads and increased journey times.

St Peter’s Church Opposed. Concerned about access. Called for trial scheme.


Non-local stakeholders

Association of British Drivers Opposed. Concerned scheme would displace motor traffic to other roads.

British Motorcyclists Federation Opposed. Objected to removal of through motor traffic, and growth of trees/shrubs.

Camden Music Service Supported.

Historic England No opinion.

London Remembers Supported.

Wheels for Wellbeing Supported.

3.5 Summary of petitions and campaigns 3.5.1 Petition submitted by Helene Gullaksen

We received a petition of 930 names and covering letter from Helene Gullaksen, resident of De Beauvoir Road. The petition opposed the closures to motor traffic and called for future decisions to be evidence-driven.

A sample petition sheet can be found in Appendix H.

3.5.2 Email campaign from Islington residents

We received 12 identical emails from residents within the London Borough of Islington, in the area immediately to the west of the proposed scheme. The responses objected to the scheme on the grounds that it would displace motor traffic into nearby roads, particularly Englefield Road. The emails called for us to consider installing mitigating measures to prevent rat-running in this area, and asked to be kept in touch with the decision-making process and any further developments.

A sample email can be found in Appendix H.


4. Conclusion and next steps We received 1,180 responses to the consultation, of which 57% supported or partially supported our proposals.

De Beauvoir: After considering all responses and after discussions with Hackney Council, the highway authority for the affected roads, we plan to go ahead with the scheme as proposed with the following changes:

• In response to feedback during consultation, we will redesign the junction at De Beauvoir Road / Stamford Road / Englefield Road to allow southbound motor traffic movements

• In response to feedback during consultation, the road closures will be introduced using Experimental Traffic Management Orders, which are valid up to a maximum period of 18 months, the first 6 months of which form a statutory consultation period. Hackney Council will monitor the impact of the changes during the initial 6-month period and will undertake a formal review 6-12 months after implementation, including a further consultation with local residents to determine whether to make the closures permanent, remove the closures, or extend the experimental period

We acknowledge that some local people had concerns regarding potential negative impacts of the scheme, particularly regarding motor traffic journeys and congestion. However, we are confident that the overall impact of the revised scheme will be to make the De Beauvoir area a safer and more pleasant place to live, walk and cycle.

We acknowledge there are concerns from some residents in Hackney and Islington about motor traffic displacement to nearby roads, and we will work with Hackney Council and Islington Council to monitor any future motor traffic impacts.

We are satisfied that the use of Experimental Traffic Orders will provide an opportunity to fully assess the impact of the scheme on roads in De Beauvoir and neighbouring areas without it having being implemented permanently. This method of implementation will also ensure local people have a further opportunity to comment on the scheme once it has been in place for a period of time.

We plan to start work on the scheme in autumn 2016, subject to final approvals. We will write to local residents and affected properties before work starts. Balls Pond Road: The proposed signalisation of the junction of Culford Road and Balls Pond Road and the two-way segregated cycle track on Balls Pond Road – both proposed as part of the CS1 consultation in February-March 2015 – are still under consideration.


Appendix A: Detailed analysis of responses

Of the 1,180 respondents, 833 left comments in the open text field. We have summarised the significant themes below. Percentages given are from the total 1,180 consultation respondents. General negative comments: 110 respondents (9%) provided general negative comments about the scheme:

• 68 respondents (6%) said there was no need for the proposed road closures

• 42 respondents (4%) provided general negative comments about the proposal

General positive comments: 101 respondents (9%) provided general positive comments about the scheme.

Impact on motor traffic (negative): 316 respondents (27%) expressed concern that the proposal would negatively affect motor traffic:

• 239 respondents (20%) expressed the view that the proposal would displace motor traffic generally or to specific roads:

o 117 respondents (10%) expressed the view that the proposal would displace motor traffic to Southgate Road

o 81 respondents (7%) expressed the view that the proposal would displace motor traffic to Englefield Road (Hackney)

o 67 respondents (6%) expressed the general view that the proposal would displace motor traffic

o 33 respondents (3%) expressed the view that the proposal would displace motor traffic to Balls Pond Road with negative effects

o 17 respondents (1%) expressed the view that the proposal would displace motor traffic to Kingsland Road with negative effects

o 15 respondents (1%) expressed the view that the proposal would displace motor traffic to Englefield Road (Islington) and other roads in Islington with negative effects

o 15 respondents (1%) expressed the view that the proposal would displace motor traffic to Downham Road with negative effects


o 9 respondents (1%) expressed the view that the proposal would displace motor traffic to Essex Road with negative effects

• 71 respondents (6%) expressed the view the proposal would increase congestion

• 40 respondents (4%) objected to any increase in motorist journey times

• 13 respondents (1%) said the proposal would be worse for motorists

• 9 respondents (1%) expressed the view that the proposal would create a ‘rat-run’ through Bentley Road with negative effects

Impact on motor traffic (positive): 149 respondents (13%) commented on how the proposal could affect motor traffic in a positive way:

• 134 respondents (11%) supported the proposal to reduce motor traffic/rat-running

• 19 respondents (2%) called for more to be done to reduce motor traffic/rat-running

Impact on local people: 166 respondents (14%) commented on the proposal’s potential impact on local people (including people in neighbouring areas in Islington):

• 41 respondents (3%) said the proposal would make it difficult for domestic and/or business properties to get deliveries, with associated danger from vehicles executing three-points turns

• 38 respondents (3%) said the proposal would encourage street crime

• 35 respondents (3%) said the proposal would be bad for local business/trade

• 34 respondents (3%) said the proposal would be good for residents

• 28 respondents (3%) said the proposal would increase response times for emergency services to reach local properties

• 16 respondents (1%) said the proposal would impede access to local churches

• 15 respondents (1%) said the proposal would have a negative impact on schools in the area due to either congestion, people executing three-point turns or increased danger from cycling

• 10 respondents (1%) said the proposal would improve public health


• 3 respondents (<1%) said the closures to motor traffic would have a divisive effect on the community by blocking motor traffic movements between the west of De Beauvoir and the east (e.g. Kingsgate Estate)

• 2 respondents (<1%) objected to the visual impact of the proposed closures

Impact on cycling: 152 respondents (13%) commented on how the proposal might affect cycling:

• 130 respondents (11%) said the proposals would be good for cycling

• 19 respondents (2%) called for more to be done for cycling

• 5 respondents (<1%) said the proposals would be bad for cycling, chiefly due to predicted motor traffic displacement, such as on Englefield Road

• 5 respondents (<1%) called for any closures to motor traffic to accommodate non-standard bicycles

Impact on pedestrians: 127 respondents (11%) commented on how the proposal might affect pedestrians:

• 74 respondents (6%) said the proposals would be good for pedestrians

• 31 respondents (3%) expressed concern that cycling is dangerous to pedestrians, highlighting the vulnerability of the elderly and children

• 18 respondents (2%) called for greater law enforcement against cyclists

• 15 respondents (1%) called for more to be done to improve conditions for pedestrians, such as additional zebra crossings

Impact on the environment: 92 respondents (8%) commented on the expected impact of the scheme on the environment:

• 73 respondents (6%) said the proposal would be bad for the environment, citing increased motor traffic on some roads as likely to cause increases in air and/or noise pollution

• 19 respondents (2%) said the proposal would reduce air pollution by reducing motor traffic


Traffic management: 77 respondents (6%) made alternative suggestions for traffic management in this area:

• 42 respondents (4%) called for interventions to reduce vehicle speeds, such as road narrowing, rather than closures to motor traffic

• 19 respondents (2%) called for right turn bans on Englefield Road to be reconsidered in light of the proposed scheme

• 12 respondents (1%) called for mitigation measures such as traffic-calming or improved signage in residential roads in Islington to prevent rat-running

• 8 respondents (1%) called for intervention in Southgate Grove to reduce rat-running, particularly if the proposal were to go ahead

Impact on road safety: 64 respondents (5%) commented on the proposal’s impact on road safety:

• 34 respondents (3%) said the reduction in motor traffic would improve road safety

• 18 respondents (2%) said the proposal would be bad for road safety, due to motor traffic danger being displaced into other roads

• 10 respondents (1%) commented on the proposed removal of the mini-roundabout on Englefield Road:

o 6 respondents (1%) supported the removal of the mini-roundabout and said the current layout is dangerous

o 4 respondents (<1%) expressed concern at the loss of priority for north-south cycling if the mini-roundabout were removed

• 7 respondents (1%) called for authorities to tackle problems with motorbikes and scooters in the area

Design of closures: 34 respondents (3%) commented on the design or location of the proposed closures to motor traffic:

• 5 respondents (<1%) called for a priority crossing for cyclists where Ardleigh Road and Culford Road meet Englefield Road

• 3 respondents (<1%) called for additional measures to prevent rat-running between Balls Pond Road and Southgate Road


• 2 respondents (<1%) called for the closure at De Beauvoir Road and Englefield Road to be moved further south towards Northchurch Terrace

• 2 respondents (<1%) opposed the removal of the mini-roundabout on Englefield Road

• 2 respondents (<1%) called for bollards to be used instead of gates

Impact on buses: 31 respondents (2%) said the proposal would increase bus journey times due to its perceived impact on motor traffic

Impact on parking: 15 respondents (1%) commented on the proposal’s impact on parking:

• 7 respondents (1%) suggested reductions in parking either generally or at specific locations to improve safety

• 3 respondents (<1%) said the proposed changes would make parking more difficult

Outside scope of this consultation: 44 respondents (4%) commented on issues outside the scope of this consultation:

• 9 respondents (1%) called for segregated cycling facilities on nearby main roads such as the A10 or Balls Pond Road

• 7 respondents (1%) commented on the proposed changes to the junction Stamford Road and Tottenham Road at the A10

• 6 respondents (1%) commented on the junction of Northchurch Road and Culford Road:

o 4 respondents (<1%) called for CS1 to be realigned away from this junction

o 2 respondents (<1%) called for junction to be redesigned to make it safer

• 4 respondents (<1%) expressed the view that motorists pay for roads and should be prioritised above other modes such as cycling and walking

• 2 respondents (<1%) called for the junction of Ardleigh Road and Southgate Road to be made safer to benefit pedestrians or cyclists


Appendix B: Responses to issues commonly raised

The consultation process Petitions submitted during initial CS1 consultation There were a number of enquiries during this consultation asking what petitions had been received by ourselves and Hackney Council as a result of the initial consultation on CS1, which took place from February-March 2015.

During 2015, we and Hackney Council were presented with three petitions from local people relating to CS1, two of which called for measures to reduce non-local motor traffic:

• De Beauvoir residents (244 names): Called for an area-wide motor traffic management scheme of the type we have proposed

• De Beauvoir Road residents (50 names): Called for the closure of De Beauvoir Road between Englefield Road and Downham Road to remove non-local motor traffic

The third petition called for CS1 to be realigned away from Northchurch Terrace:

• Northchurch Terrace residents (13 names): Called for the realignment of CS1 away from Northchurch Terrace; measures to tackle a perceived problem with inconsiderate cycling in this area; and the retention of the planter on the corner of Northchurch Terrace and De Beauvoir Road

Length of the consultation period Initially, the consultation was launched for four weeks, which we considered appropriate for a scheme of this size. However, after feedback from some residents and stakeholders in the De Beauvoir area, we extended the consultation period to six weeks. We are satisfied that six weeks provided enough time for local people to consider the proposals and respond to the consultation.

Distribution of notification letters Some households and businesses expressed concern that not enough roads or properties were included in the letter distribution area. We go to considerable lengths to inform relevant parties of consultations. As part of the publicity effort for the De Beauvoir consultation (see p17), our agents hand-delivered over 11,000 letters to potentially affected properties. These were delivered to an area that extended significantly beyond roads within De Beauvoir, including thousands of properties west of Southgate Road, as far as Essex Road in the London Borough of Islington (see map below).


Map 1: Area to which notification letters were sent

Consulting residents in Islington Some respondents expressed concern that residents in Islington areas near the scheme were not included during the consultation. However, people in areas of Islington near the scheme were invited to express their views via the consultation notification letter (see distribution area map above).

Delivery of consultation notification letters Some households and businesses expressed concern that some properties did not receive the consultation notification letter, even though these properties were within the distribution area.

We use a delivery company that records GPS tracks of the movements of individual delivery agents, which it can use to provide evidence of delivery to roads and properties. Based on the evidence provided by our delivery agent, we are satisfied that notification letters were delivered to all roads and properties as requested. The map below shows a sample GPS track for a section of Englefield Road and adjoining roads. The blue lines show the movements of delivery agents moving along the roads, delivering letters to the areas as they were instructed.


Map 2: Sample delivery GPS tracks for Englefield Road

Impact on motor traffic Evidence that high volumes of non-local motor traffic use residential routes Some respondents questioned the necessity of the scheme and the existence of high volumes of motor traffic in local roads. However, traffic flow data collected on roads in the area shows strong evidence that Ardleigh Road and De Beauvoir Road are routes used by non-local motor traffic.

In addition, this scheme was proposed in response to feedback from the initial CS1 consultation, in which some residents complained about non-local motor traffic using their roads as ‘rat-runs’. These residents wanted their roads to benefit from fewer motor traffic journeys, making them more pleasant place to live, walk and cycle.

Motor traffic displacement to other roads and/or increased congestion Some respondents expressed concern that our proposals would create congestion on nearby roads. We have conducted traffic counts on existing routes, and are


confident the reallocation of motor traffic will not pose any significant concerns regarding congestion. The reconfiguration of traffic movement is based on Hackney Council’s knowledge of the road layout and established travel patterns, including earlier and recent motor traffic counts.

Previous schemes of this type have shown there tends not to be a direct shift on to adjacent streets for all those currently using a particular route. We expect that some extra motor traffic will use surrounding roads such as Downham Road (Hackney section), Southgate Road, Balls Pond Road and Kingsland Road. However, we do not expect all journeys that currently pass through the De Beauvoir area will switch to these roads because:

• Many motorists using local roads are making journeys that originate outside De Beauvoir. If local roads are made unavailable, they could transfer to roads immediately adjacent, or they could choose to change their journey to avoid the area completely

• Some people are likely to change their journey habits: for example, they could change their driving journey from a peak time to an off-peak time, reducing the likelihood of congestion as a result of the scheme

• Removing through motor traffic from local roads means that some current motor vehicle journeys are more likely to be taken by other modes such as walking and cycling. This switch is most likely to occur for short journeys

Sustainable transport journeys have risen considerably in this area in recent years (cycling in Hackney and Islington has more than doubled in the last decade), and this scheme forms part of a London-wide strategy to increase use of sustainable modes of transport. This strategy is set out in the 2013 Vision for Cycling.

The population of London is growing significantly, with an additional 800,000 residents expected over the next decade. As set out in the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, we and the boroughs are working together to mitigate the impact of this population growth on London’s roads by making other modes of transport more viable, particularly for short journeys. CS1 and the De Beauvoir motor traffic reduction scheme form part of that strategy.

Our London Travel Demand Survey (2013-14) found that 66% of all car journeys in Greater London are under three miles, and do not involve carrying goods or passengers that might require them to be driven. Encouraging people to walk or cycle these types of journeys is important to free up road space for essential journeys such as vehicles used by disabled people or vehicles transporting goods.

Removing through motor traffic from an area such as De Beauvoir creates a safer and calmer road environment for people who want to walk or cycle short journeys. The De Beauvoir proposal will make a significant area of London more attractive for people who want to walk or cycle – both for people who live there, but also for people who live outside the area but might want to walk or cycle to it or through it. In


https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/london-travel-demand-survey

this way, this proposal, in conjunction with other similar schemes nearby and elsewhere, can help to reduce the total number of vehicle journeys, rather than simply moving them into other roads.

All schemes of this type are monitored to understand their operation and any issues that may arise. This will normally be done within the initial 12 months after implementation and will involve further surveys within the area and ongoing discussions with residents and businesses.

Southgate Road is “residential” Some respondents commented that Southgate Road is “residential”, and asked why this road is considered more suitable for motor traffic than roads within the De Beauvoir area from which we are proposing to remove through motor traffic.

Southgate Road is “residential” in the sense that it is primarily fronted by residential properties rather than commercial or retail premises. However, that does not mean it is not also a road with an important movement traffic function. Southgate Road is a designated ‘B road’ and a key bus route, and so forms part of London’s Strategic Road Network and Hackney and Islington’s Borough Distributor Road network. As such, it is subject to greater traffic demand than many other roads in the borough.

In Greater London, there are many examples of minor and major distributor roads where people also live in large numbers.

A more appropriate distinction between the roads affected by these proposals would be to call them either ‘local’ or ‘non-local’ roads. ‘Local roads’ refers to those roads primarily suitable for access to residential and local business properties; while ‘non-local roads’ would refer to those roads with a more strategic function – for example, those that are suitable as a route for bus services or as a well-established thoroughfare suitable for higher numbers of vehicles.

It is recognised that it is desirable to reduce the volume of motor traffic on all roads in the borough in the longer term, but to do achieve this it is necessary to make sustainable travel options – such as walking and cycling – more attractive, particularly for short journeys. The Cycle Superhighway project and the De Beauvoir motor traffic reduction scheme are both part of that strategy.

This reduction in overall levels of motor traffic is likely to take time, and it can be difficult to find the balance between creating a safer and more attractive environment on as many roads as possible to encourage this mode shift, while minimising as far as possible any potential negative impacts on the remaining roads. Any proposals of this nature will have an influence on local traffic patterns and we understand that some roads may experience an increase in traffic in the short-to-medium term as a result. We consulted on our proposals to allow any potentially affected residents to put their views forward.


Increase in motor traffic in Southgate Road Some respondents expressed concern that Southgate Road would experience large increases in motor traffic volumes. We do not expect all journeys that currently pass through the De Beauvoir area to switch to adjacent alternatives. Many motorists using local roads are making journeys that originate outside De Beauvoir. If local roads were made unavailable, they could choose to change their journey significantly, avoiding the area completely.

De Beauvoir Road was closed from 10 August to November 2015 to accommodate improvement works to the signals at the junction with Downham Road. This is one of the primary ‘through routes’ that would be affected by the closure proposals and so was a good test of how traffic patterns in the area might respond. We are not aware of this closure causing any significant changes to traffic volumes on Southgate Road (although we did not carry out traffic volume monitoring during this closure period). This suggests the likely impact of the closures will not be as significant as some respondents have claimed.

As a worst-case example, the majority of traffic currently using De Beauvoir Road-Ardleigh Road to cut through the area could use Downham Road and Southgate Road instead. This could add in the region of 150 vehicles per hour in each direction. Traffic lights, such as those at the Englefield Road junction, run on a 72-88 second cycle, which means approximately 40 to 50 cycles per hour. This would add in the region of three vehicles to the queue at the signals in each direction every cycle. However, as stated above, we do not expect all displaced journeys to switch to adjacent alternatives.

We acknowledge concerns from some residents and businesses in Southgate Road about the potential for increased motor traffic to negatively affect pollution, road safety and/or travel times for buses or motorists. We will work with Hackney Council and Islington Council to monitor traffic levels in Southgate Road once the scheme has been implemented, and we will use this information to assess whether measures to mitigate any impacts are necessary.

Increased motor traffic on Englefield Road (Hackney) Some respondents expressed concern our proposal would increase motor traffic in the Hackney section of Englefield Road. However, the most likely outcome is that our proposal will have no effect on the volumes of motor traffic on this part of Englefield Road. There could be fewer motor traffic journeys on this section of road, so long as the current right turn bans at the junctions with Kingsland Road and Southgate Road were maintained.

This is because much of the motor traffic that uses Englefield Road does so as part of the wider east-west route between Englefield Road (Islington) and Richmond Road (Hackney). This movement will be unaffected by the proposals.


However, this traffic flow is supplemented by an equally large number of vehicles travelling along certain parts of Englefield Road as part of longer journeys that cut through the area. Specifically, there are sizeable vehicle movements along the following routes:

• Ardleigh Road > Englefield Road > De Beauvoir Road (in both directions) • Englefield Road (Islington) > De Beauvoir Road (southwards) • Englefield Road (Islington) > Stamford Road (north-eastwards) • Englefield Road (westbound from the A10) > Beauvoir Road (southbound)

Three of these journeys will not be possible when the proposed scheme is implemented, which is likely to reduce traffic on Englefield Road. While there are some obvious alternatives along the boundary roads (Southgate Road, Downham Road, Kingsland Road, and Balls Pond Road), we do not expect all journeys that currently pass through the De Beauvoir area to switch to these roads. Many motorists using local roads are making journeys that originate outside De Beauvoir. When local roads are made unavailable, they could transfer to roads immediately adjacent, or they could choose to change their journey significantly, avoiding the area completely.

Similarly, reducing motor traffic in local roads could mean that some current motor vehicle journeys are likely to switch to other modes such as walking and cycling. Sustainable transport journeys have risen considerably in this area in recent years (cycling in Hackney has more than doubled in the last decade), and this scheme forms part of a London-wide strategy to increase sustainable modes of transport.

Saying that, we recognise that transport patterns within an area are more complex than just two or three key routes, so it is extremely difficult to predict the impact on every journey through the area. This is why we are suggesting the overall impact is likely to be neutral, because while the changes should reduce some journeys, as detailed above, inevitably some will continue to use Englefield Road as part of wider journeys through the area.

Increased motor traffic in Downham Road or Englefield Road in Islington Some respondents expressed concern that motor traffic in Downham Road (Islington) and Englefield Road (Islington) would increase significantly. A significant amount of the non-local motor traffic currently using De Beauvoir Road and Ardleigh Road travels north-west and south-east through the area during the morning and evening peaks. This motor traffic heads towards or originates from Newington Green, Green Lanes, Finsbury Park and/or Highbury/A1. The Islington sections of Downham Road and Englefield Road will not be intuitive alternative routes for these motorists when the De Beauvoir scheme is put in place. For that reason, we do not expect these roads to gain significant extra motor traffic as a result of our proposals.


Additional motor traffic in Islington Some respondents expressed concern about the potential for increased motor traffic volumes in Islington roads. We do not expect additional traffic on Islington's road network, including the Islington section of Downham Road. We will work with Islington Council to monitor whether traffic conditions change as a result of the scheme. The exception to this could be Southgate Road, which is a boundary road with Hackney (see above).

Removal of right turn bans on Englefield Road Some respondents called for the removal of the existing right turn bans from Englefield Road into Southgate Road and Kingsland Road in order to facilitate motor traffic journeys should the proposals be put in place. However, removing the existing right turn bans on Englefield Road at the A10 and Southgate Road junctions is not being considered at this time. These restrictions have been in place for over 50 years and removing them could have significant ramifications. The potential volume of right turning traffic is extremely difficult to quantify and the junction layouts provide limited opportunity to accommodate large volumes of right turning traffic. Allowing these movements could result in significant junction blocking, leading to larger queues and congestion on Englefield Road. Allowing the right turn movements is also likely to make Englefield Road a more attractive route for motor traffic moving between Islington and Hackney. Should the scheme go ahead, a formal review of these junctions could be implemented as part of a scheme-monitoring process.

Vehicle access to Southgate Road from the De Beauvoir area Some respondents expressed concern as to how vehicles would access Southgate Road from the De Beauvoir area. Currently, many motor vehicles on Englefield Road use Ardleigh Road to access Southgate Road. In future, they will not be able to do this due to the new closures to motor traffic. They will also not be able turn right from Englefield Road into Southgate Road due to the existing banned right turn. Motorists wanting to go in this direction will use alternative routes – for example, via Balls Pond Road or Downham Road.

Vehicle access to Kingsland Road from the De Beauvoir area Some respondents expressed concern as to how vehicles would access Kingsland Road from the De Beauvoir area. Vehicles in De Beauvoir will be able to access the A10 from Englefield Road (left turn only) and from Downham Road (left and right turns permitted).

Removal of right-turn ban from Balls Pond Road into Southgate Road Some respondents called for the removal of the right-turn ban from Balls Pond Road


into Southgate Road to facilitate motor traffic movements. Removing the right turn ban from Balls Pond Road into Southgate Road is currently being explored. The existing junction layout can accommodate a dedicated right-turn lane, and we and Hackney Council can reasonably predict the expected number of movements based on existing data to feed into the assessment process.

Impact on Southgate Grove Some respondents expressed concern about current and future traffic levels on Southgate Grove. The issue of increased traffic on Southgate Road/Ufton Road as a result of the De Beauvoir scheme was raised by some residents during consultation. We and Hackney Council acknowledge that under the current scheme there is a potential for increased traffic in these roads, but it is not possible to know for sure whether this will happen or not.

We are aware that a number of residents in Southgate Grove and Ufton Road have raised concerns in the past over the volume of traffic using these roads to bypass the traffic lights at the junction of Southgate Road and Downham Road. A consultation was undertaken in 2008 on proposals to close these roads to through motor traffic in response to local concerns. However, the proposals encountered significant local opposition and were withdrawn.

Hackney Council will undertake additional traffic surveys in Southgate Grove/Ufton Road before scheme construction to better understand the volume of traffic currently using these roads. Similar data will be collected after the changes have been introduced to assess the impact on Southgate Grove/Ufton Road. Should these roads be subject to an increase in traffic volumes as a result of the scheme, Hackney Council will decide if further measures are necessary in these roads to mitigate the impact. Whether this would be a further closure proposal, traffic-calming changes, or other measures is unclear at this stage, and will depend on the results of the traffic-monitoring work.

Request for modelling data Some respondents called for us to publish modelling information as part of the consultation. However, tactical/strategic vehicle reassignment modelling has not been undertaken for this scheme. The development of tactical/strategic reassignment models is usually reserved for major proposals that are likely to significantly impact the main road network in London, such as a major new road, the removal of a one-way system, or another major road layout change. We and Hackney Council are satisfied the potential traffic displacement in this area can be reasonably estimated using existing data.


Support for some closures to motor traffic but not others This scheme proposes the closure of five junctions to motor traffic, and some respondents supported some closures but not others. However, these closures are designed to work together, and with existing closures to motor traffic in the area, in order to reduce through motor traffic across a wide area. If motor traffic were allowed through one or more of these proposed closures, then the scheme would not prevent non-local motor traffic passing through the area as intended.

Trial instead of permanent closures to motor traffic Some respondents called for the closures to be implemented on a trial basis instead of as permanent measures. Closing local roads to motor traffic has been proven to work in the De Beauvoir area, in Hackney, and in other London boroughs. As such, we have confidence that the proposed design in this area will have the desired positive impacts on the De Beauvoir area.

The road closures would initially be introduced using Experimental Traffic Management Orders, which are valid up to a maximum period of 18 months, the first 6 months of which form a statutory consultation period. Hackney would seek to monitor the impact of the changes during the initial 6 month period and would undertake a formal review 6-12 months after implementation, including a further consultation with local residents to determine whether to make the closures permanent, remove the closures or extend the experimental period.

Alternative proposals to reduce the speed of motor traffic Some respondents called for alternative measures to our proposals to close roads to motor traffic. These alternatives included measures to reduce motor traffic speeds in – for example by narrowing Ardleigh Road or De Beauvoir Road to encourage slower vehicle speeds. However, because the problem identified by borough officers and residents during the CS1 consultation was high volumes of non-local motor traffic in local roads, we do not consider these suggested alternative measures to be suitable. Speed-reduction measures would not address the identified issue in that they could calm motor traffic but would be highly unlikely to reduce motor traffic volumes.

Motor traffic in Bentley Road Some respondents expressed concern that the closures to motor traffic that we have proposed would have an adverse effect on congestion in Bentley Road, and that this route might become a new ‘rat-run’. We are aware of the access needs of local businesses and the car park, and that further restrictions here could significantly impact these road users. At present, no additional restrictions or changes are proposed for the Bentley Road area. While we are aware that this potentially leaves it open as a through route, we do not consider it likely to be used as such given the wider restrictions that are proposed and the layout/nature of the ‘alley’ that connects


to Balls Pond Road. This location will be kept under to review to identify any issues that might arise, with further measures considered if necessary.

Congestion in Bentley Road blocking access to the east of Tottenham Road Some respondents expressed concern that increased motor traffic in Bentley Road would cause congestion at the junction of Tottenham Road and Bentley Road, with stationary vehicles preventing access to the eastern end of Tottenham Road. Bentley Road is not considered a likely route for through vehicles given the wider restrictions that are proposed and the layout/nature of the ‘alley’. As such, we do not expect congestion around Bentley Road to block access to Tottenham Road. The Bentley Road area will be kept under to review to identify any issues that might arise, with further measures considered if necessary.

Impact on motorists Longer motor traffic journeys within De Beauvoir Some respondents objected to the fact that their motor traffic journeys might become longer in time or distance. We acknowledge that some motor traffic journeys for people within the De Beauvoir area will take longer (depending on the route), but this will be balanced against the benefits of living in an area that has significantly less motor traffic. Less motor traffic will mean safer roads, and less noise and air pollution.

For example, a vehicle travelling from Northchurch Terrace to Tottenham Road will need to go via De Beauvoir Road, Downham Road, the A10, Englefield Road and De Beauvoir Road. This will increase a current off-peak journey from approximately two minutes to six minutes. It is our view, and that of Hackney Council, that an increase of a few minutes for a motor traffic journey is acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the scheme.

We note that the same journey would take eight minutes to walk and four minutes to cycle. We accept there are some people who have to drive, but for a journey of a few hundred metres most can choose whether to drive, walk or cycle.

We and Hackney Council share a strategy to encourage more walking and cycling for local journeys because of the long-term benefits in improving air quality and public health, reducing congestion and improving road safety. The De Beauvoir scheme and the wider CS1 project are both part of that strategy.

Driving children to school Some respondents expressed concern that they would no longer be able to drive their children to schools in the area. However, under our proposals, all existing


properties, including schools, within the area affected by the proposals will remain accessible by motor vehicle. The ‘school run’ is a major cause of motor traffic congestion in the morning and evening peak. Our proposals will make local walking and cycling journeys more attractive, and could help reduce motor traffic congestion and improve road safety around schools by encouraging local people to walk or cycle school run trips, instead of driving.

Updating mapping tools with new traffic restrictions Some respondents expressed concern that ‘satnavs’ and google maps would be out of date, and would cause problems for delivery or other drivers. As with all other schemes that we deliver that propose changes to the road layout, this scheme will be communicated via the appropriate channels to ensure mapping information is up to date. As such, we expect ‘sat-navs’ and online maps to accurately relay the new traffic restrictions to road users using those tools.

Impact on local people

Deliveries and loading Some respondents expressed concern that our proposals would harm businesses by removing opportunities for loading or parking. Loading bays will not be affected by our proposals, and delivery vehicles will be able to access all properties that they can currently, although sometimes using different routes. (See below).

Trade and local businesses Some respondents expressed concern that local businesses would suffer reduced trade because of the scheme because customers would no longer be able to drive to their premises. It is not our view that this scheme will have a negative effect on customers using local businesses. All existing access to properties by motor vehicle will be retained, and there will be minimal effects on parking. Some local motor traffic journeys will become longer, but this is balanced against the fact that many cycling and walking journeys will become more attractive.

The Department for Transport’s 2011 Local Transport White Paper states that pedestrians, cycle and public transport users bring as much spending to urban areas as car users, if not more (p16, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/3890/making-sustainable-local-transport-happen-whitepaper.pdf).

Similarly, a London Councils report into the effect of parking in Greater London found that businesses frequently overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by motor vehicle, sometimes by twice as much, and underestimate the proportion


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3890/making-sustainable-local-transport-happen-whitepaper.pdf



who walk, cycle and use public transport (p66, http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/ services/parking-services/parking-and-traffic/parking-information-rofessionals/ review-relevance).

Deliveries in the De Beauvoir area Some respondents expressed concern about deliveries being made to business premises in De Beauvoir Road. The junction of De Beauvoir Road and Englefield Road is a local collision ‘hot spot’. Our proposals will simplify the junction and make it safer. Residents and businesses could access De Beauvoir Road from Downham Road, which is less constrained in terms of not having any banned movements at the Downham Road/A10 and Downham Road/Southgate Road junctions.

We recognise that businesses have different servicing needs, and we are keen to work with local businesses to address specific concerns/issues that might arise from the scheme. We and Hackney Council met a number of local businesses during the consultation to discuss potential impacts on individual businesses.

The servicing of businesses is clearly a key consideration, and every effort has been made to provide circulation routes within the area to minimise the need for three-point turns or reversing. However, some vehicles on certain roads may have to perform manoeuvres of this nature, although we do not expect this to cause significant risk to other road users (see below).

Risk from three-point turns Some respondents expressed concern that vehicles turning in local roads would present a significant danger to other road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists. We accept that when roads are closed to through motor traffic, then some vehicles will have to execute three-point turns in order to access a property and then leave along the same road. We will ensure that adequate space for turning vehicles, where necessary and practical, is provided to ensure businesses can be serviced.

We are not aware of any evidence that slow vehicle manoeuvres of this type in local roads pose a significant risk of harm to pedestrians, cyclists or other road users. We are confident that any minor negative impacts of turning traffic are outweighed by the safety benefits of removing a significant volume of motor traffic from local roads.

Public transport users Some respondents expressed concern that the scheme would affect bus journey times in Englefield Road or other nearby main roads. However, we do not expect the scheme to have any significant impact on public transport journey times or services.


http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/parking-services/parking-and-traffic/parking-information-rofessionals/review-relevance



Access to homes, churches, workplaces and Dial A Ride services Some respondents expressed concern about vehicle access to local properties, including the church, St Peter’s, for services/weddings/funerals/etc. We are no preventing access to any local amenities because existing vehicle access will be maintained to all properties, although some people will need to use different routes – potentially longer ones – because some junctions will be closed to motor traffic.

Ambulances, police and fire services Some respondents expressed concern about the impact on emergency service response times. The closures to motor traffic proposed as part of this scheme have been designed to have the minimum impact on emergency services. For the most part, the closures are passable by emergency vehicles, whose drivers have a key that opens the gates. Opening and closing the gates or lockable bollards takes a short amount of time, and they are design features with which emergency response teams across London are familiar. This small additional response time is considered to be acceptable, given the significant safety benefits the scheme will bring for residents, pedestrians and cyclists within the affected area.

After discussions with emergency services, the closure at the junction of De Beauvoir Road/Englefield Road was designed using camera enforcement only, rather than the physical measures used for the other closures in this scheme.

Refuse collection Some respondents expressed concerns about the impact on refuse collection services in the De Beauvoir area. The proposals have been designed to accommodate the movements of refuse services, which will operate as usual.

Parking Some respondents objected to any removal of parking in the area. However, our proposals will have a very low impact on parking. Across the whole of the De Beauvoir area the scheme is parking-neutral, with approximately four bays removed and four bays added:

Ardleigh Road and Culford Road: We will reduce parking to allow footways to be widened, slowing vehicles and providing more space for pedestrians:

• Ardleigh Road: Two parking bays reduced by 3.5 metres each • Culford Road: One parking bay reduced by 4 metres

Culford Road: We will remove one parking bay near the junction with Culford Grove, while adding four parking bays further north in Culford Road.


Visual impact of gates and bollards Some respondents expressed concern about the visual impact of the closures. Every effort will be made to minimise the visual impact of the filters.

Street crime in roads with reduced motor traffic Some respondents expressed concerns that removing through motor traffic might encourage street crime because roads would become ‘quieter’. However, it is not considered that people in cars typically provide an effective source of natural surveillance for an area because of their higher speeds. Encouraging slower-moving cyclists and pedestrians, by removing through motor traffic, could increase natural surveillance, and help reduce street crime.

Analysis of crime figures from the last three years in De Beauvoir – an area where these closures to motor traffic have existed for many years – does not show that crime is more prevalent in roads that are closed to through motor traffic than those where through motor traffic is allowed. For these reasons, we don’t expect our proposal to affect crime levels.

Community division and roads with reduced motor traffic Some respondents expressed concern that closing roads to motor traffic could damage community cohesion by preventing motor traffic driving between different parts of De Beauvoir, such as properties at the eastern and western ends of Tottenham Road and Buckingham Road. It was suggested that our proposals will sever these communities, reducing community cohesion.

However, we are not aware of any evidence that ‘community severance’ is caused by schemes that reduce motor traffic in residential areas. On the contrary, existing evidence suggests that roads with larger volumes of motor traffic are more likely to experience weaker community cohesion. For example, a 2008 study from the University of Western England analysed roads in Bristol and found that “the number of friends and acquaintances reported by residents was significantly lower on streets with higher volumes of motor traffic“(p2, http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/15513/1/WTPP_ Hart_ParkhurstJan2011prepub.pdf).

Impact on the environment Air pollution caused by longer vehicle journeys and/or congestion Some respondents expressed concern that our proposals would increase air pollution, by making existing motor traffic journeys slower or longer. We recognise that air pollution is a problem in London, which is why this scheme is one of many


http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/15513/1/WTPP_Hart_ParkhurstJan2011prepub.pdf

http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/15513/1/WTPP_Hart_ParkhurstJan2011prepub.pdf

promoted by ourselves and Hackney Council to encourage walking and cycling, modes of transport that do not pollute the air. A major proportion of London’s air pollution is caused by motor traffic (exhaust emissions and particles from vehicle braking systems). Roads that are hostile to cycling and walking – for example, when they used by large volumes of non-local motor traffic) – encourage people to drive, even for short journeys, and to increase air pollution.

The De Beauvoir motor traffic reduction scheme and CS1 are part of a London-wide strategy to encourage walking and cycling. Cycling journeys have more than doubled in Greater London in the last decade, and these schemes will contribute to increasing that figure, and reducing air pollution.

While we acknowledge that some local motor traffic journeys might become slightly longer, increasing the marginal output of some vehicles, the scheme is likely to encourage more walking and cycling, providing a long-term reduction in air pollution.

Impact on pedestrians Cycling danger to pedestrians Some respondents expressed concern about pedestrian safety being compromised by existing cyclists on CS1 and in other local roads, with potential increases in cycling as a result of CS1 likely to exacerbate the problem. Movements of parents and children to and from local schools were highlighted as a particular concern, as was the vulnerability of De Beauvoir residents who are elderly or have a disability.

While we accept that a minority of cyclists behave in an anti-social manner, we are not aware of any evidence to support the view that cycling in De Beauvoir poses a significant risk of harm to pedestrians, including children. Cycling carries a much reduced risk of harm to other people when compared with motor traffic.

Creating safer cycle routes provides people with an alternative to driving, potentially reducing the number of vehicles on the roads (for example, in the mornings and evenings during the school run). Rather than increasing danger, the measures proposed are likely to reduce vehicle volumes, reducing the overall risk to all road users in the area.

Full-width speed humps Some respondents called for the use of speed humps that span the full width of the road, rather than speed cushions that only cover part of the road. We agree that full-width speed humps with a smooth profile provide the best balance between safety, comfort and speed reduction for all road users. Along the CS1 route, speed cushions have been replaced with full-width humps. Speed hump replacement works on other roads are outside the scope of the CS1 project.


Zebra crossing on Englefield Road Some respondents expressed concern about whether cyclists and pedestrians can cross Englefield Road safely. We hope the overall proposals will have a positive impact on Englefield Road, reducing the volume of motor traffic using this road. However, we expect Englefield Road to remain as a through route for some journeys, and recognise that it is used by some larger vehicles and 76 buses. As such, the zebra crossing is an appropriate solution. The additional zebra crossing on Englefield Road is designed to make this crossing safer, providing a priority crossing point for pedestrians along a known north-south desire line.

Additional zebra crossings near primary schools Some respondents called for additional zebra crossings near either one or both primary schools in the area. We recognise that some residents and pedestrians have concerns over high volumes of cyclists and potential pedestrian-cycle conflict, particularly near schools, and for these reasons have requested additional zebra crossings. However, collision statistics analysed during the feasibility studies for CS1 (p93, https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/cs1/user_uploads/cs1-consultation-report.pdf) show that motor traffic presents the most significant risk to the safety of pedestrians (and to all other road users) in the De Beauvoir area. As such, our proposals to remove through motor traffic across the wider area represents a significant safety improvement for the roads on which the schools are located. It is our view that the new lower-traffic environment negates the need for zebra crossings at these location. As with the implementation of all new road layouts, we will monitor this location to assess whether any additional crossings are necessary in future.

Impact on cycling

Englefield Road more dangerous for cycling Some respondents expressed concern that our scheme would make Englefield Road more dangerous for cycling. The proposals for the Englefield Road/Ardleigh Road/Culford Road junction will simplify the junction for all road users and remove a proportion of motor traffic using the junction – particularly vehicles travelling to and from Ardleigh Road. In addition, the new raised junction treatment is designed to slow all traffic passing through the junction. Our proposals also include a new zebra crossing on Englefield Road, which will help pedestrians, but also north-south crossing cyclists by creating gaps in the predominantly east-west motor traffic. Given that the impact on motor traffic along Englefield Road will be neutral as a result of our scheme, we expect safety for all road users using this junction, including cyclists, to improve.


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/cs1/user_uploads/cs1-consultation-report.pdf

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/cs1/user_uploads/cs1-consultation-report.pdf

Appendix C: Consultation questions Questions about our proposals The first question was mandatory, while the second was optional:

• Do you support our proposal to reduce motor traffic in the De Beauvoir area? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion

• Do you have any comments about our proposal to reduce motor traffic in the De Beauvoir area?

Questions about the respondent

All questions were optional:

• What is your name?

• What is your email address?

• What is your postcode?

• If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name:

• What types of transport do you normally use locally (please tick all boxes that apply)? Private car, Taxi, Van, Lorry, Bus, Coach, Bicycle, Walk, Tube, Train, Motorcycle/scooter

• How did you hear about this consultation? Email from TfL, Letter from TfL, Social media, Media/press, Other

• Do you have any comments about this consultation (e.g. printed materials, website, events etc.)?


Appendix D: Consultation notification letter







Map of leaflet distribution area The CS1 De Beauvoir area consultation notification letter was distributed the following area, including to 11,187 addresses in roads on and adjoining the proposed scheme:


Appendix E: Consultation emails Email to stakeholders and individuals on our database

The following email was sent to over 51,000 recipients on our road user contact list. We also sent a similarly worded email to over 1000 stakeholders telling them about the three CS1 consultations. For a list of stakeholder organisations, see Appendix X.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Dear [recipient/stakeholder],

We would like your views on proposed changes to Broadwater Road in Haringey, and in the Shacklewell and De Beauvoir Town areas in Hackney. The proposals include closing junctions to motor traffic and changes to bus route W4.

For full details and to share your views, please click here

These consultations, which relate to Cycle Superhighway Route 1, will run until Monday 2 November 2015.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Hardy Head of Sponsorship Road Space Management

These are our consultation customer service updates. To unsubscribe, please click here

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/cs1

Appendix F: List of stakeholders emailed 3663 First for Foodservice AA AA Motoring Trust Abellio West London Action for Blind People Action on Hearing Loss (Formerly RNID) Age Concern London Age UK Age UK London Alan Hughes Alive in Space Landscape and Urban Design Studio Anderson Travel Andrew Boff AM Andrew Dismore MP Andrew Rosindell MP Andrew Slaughter MP Angela Watkinson MP APC-Overnight Arriva Kent Thameside/Kent & Sussex Arriva Guildford & W Sussex Arriva London North Arriva Shires/ E Herts and Essex Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Association of British Drivers Association of Car Fleet Operators Association of Town Centre Management aswaston - superdrug ATCoaches t/a Abbey Travel Automobile Association Barking and Dagenham Barry Gardiner MP Best Bike Training //Cycletastic Better Transport

Bexley Accessible Transport Scheme Bexley Council BHS Bikeability Bidvest logistics Bikeworks BikeXcite Blue Triangle Buses Bob Blackman MP Bob Stewart MP Boris Johnson MP Breakspears Road Project Brentwood Community Transport Brewery Logistics Group British Cycling British Land British Medical Association British Motorcyclists Federation British Retail Association British School of Cycling BT Bucks Cycle Training Bus Watch West Haringey Business B t/a Expeditional Buzzlines CABE - Design Council Camden Council Camden mobility forum Campaign for Better Transport Campbell's Canal & River Trust London Capital City School Sport Partnership Caroline Pidgeon AM Carousel Buses Catherine West MP CBI CBI-London

Centaur Overland Travel Central London Cab Trade Section Central London CTC Central London Forward Central London Freight Quality Partnership Central London NHS Trust Centre for Accessible Environments Chalkwell Garage & Coach Hire Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport Chris Grayling MP Chris Philip MP Christopher Stephen Hunn t/a Travel with Hunny/TWH Chuka Umunna MP City Bikes (Vauxhall Walk) City link City of Westminster City of London City of London Access Forum Clive Efford MP Cobra Corporate Servics Community Transport Association Confederation of Passenger Transport Covent Garden Market Authority Crispin Blunt MP Cross River Partnership Croydon Coaches UK t/a Coaches Excetera Croydon mobility forum CT Plus t/a Hackney Community Transport CTC Cycle Confidence Cycle Confident


Cycle Experience Cycle Newham Cycle Systems Cycle Training East Cycle Training UK (CTUK) Cyclelyn Cycle-wise Thames Valley Cycling Embassy of Great Britain Cycling Tuition cycling4all Cyclists in City Darren Johnson AM David Burrowes MP David Evennett MP David Gauke MP David Lammy MP Dawn Butler MP Department for Transport DHL DHL Express DHL UK & Ireland Diane Abbot MP Diane Abbott MP Disability Alliance Disability Rights UK Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Dominic Raab MP Dr Mathias MP E Clarke & Son (Coaches) t/a Clarkes of London Ealing Council East and South East London Thames Gateway Transport Partnership East Surrey Rural Transport Partnership t/a Polestar Travel ECESurface TEAM EDF Energy Edmonton CLP Eleanor Laing MP Emily Thornberry MP Enfield Council English Heritage

English Heritage - London Ensign Bus Company Evolution Cycle Training Express Network Forum Representatitive from (Robin Parr-Davis will co-ordinate response) Federation of Small Businesses Fiona MacTaggart MP Fiona Twycross AM First Beeline Buses Freight Transport Association Friends of Earth FTA Future Inclusion G4S Gareth Bacon AM Gareth Thomas MP Gatwick Flyer Gavin Barwell MP GLA Strategy Access Panel members Go-Coach Hire Golden Tours (Transport) Grant Shapps MP Greater London Authority Greater London Forum for Older People Greater London Forum for Elderly Green Flag Group Green Urban Transport Greg Hands MP Guide Dogs Guide Dogs Association Guide Dogs for Blind - Inner London District team Guide Dogs for Blind Association Hackney Safer Transport Team Haringey mobility forum Haringey Safer Transport Team Harriet Harman MP Health Poverty Action

Heidi Alexander MP Helen Hayes MP Hermes Europe Hertfordshire County Council Highgate Society Hillingdon Council Hillingdon mobility forum Homerton Hospital Hounslow mobility forum HR Richmond t/a Quality Line Iain Duncan Smith MP IBM Inclusion London Independent Disability Advisory Group Institute for Sustainability Institute of Advanced Motorists Institution of Civil Engineers Islington Council Islington mobility forum J Brierley & E Barvela t/a Snowdrop Coaches James Berry MP James Bikeability James Brokenshire MP James Cleverly MP Jane Ellison MP Jennette Arnold AM Jenny Jones AM Jeremy Corbyn MP Jeremy Reese t/a Little Bus Company Jim Dowd MP Jim Fitzpatrick MP Jo Johnson MP Joanne McCartney AM John Biggs AM John Cryer MP John Lewis Partnership John McDonnell MP Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Joint Mobility Unit Jon Cruddas MP


Justine Greening MP K&C mobility forum Karen Buck MP Kate Hoey MP Kate Osamor MP Keir Starmer MP Keith Gould Keltbray (construction) Kingston Mobility Forum Kit Malthouse MP Kwasi Kwarteng MP Laing O'rourke Lambeth Cyclists LB of Barking and Dagenham LB of Barnet LB of Bexley LB of Brent LB of Bromley LB of Camden LB of Croydon LB of Ealing LB of Enfield LB of Hackney LB of Hammersmith LB of Haringey LB of Harrow LB of Havering LB of Hillingdon LB of Hounslow LB of Islington LB of Lambeth LB of Lewisham LB of Merton LB of Newham LB of Redbridge LB of Richmond LB of Southwark LB of Sutton LB of Tower Hamlets LB of Waltham Forest LB of Wandsworth LCC in Hackney Len Duvall AM Leonard Cheshire Disability Lewisham Council

Lewisham Cyclists Licenced Taxi Drivers Association Licensed Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA) Line Line Coaches (TGM) Living Streets Living Streets London Local Government Ombudsman London Ambulance Service London Bike Hub London Cab Drivers' Club London Central Cab Section London Central LD London Chamber of Commerce and Industry London City Airport London Climate Change Partnership London Councils London Cycling Campaign London Duck Tours London European Partnership for Transport London Fire and Emergency Authority London Fire Brigade London First London General London Mencap London Older People's Strategy Group London Omnibus Traction Society London Private Hire Board London Strategic Health Authority London Suburban Taxi Drivers' Coalition London Taxi Drivers' Club London Tourist Coach Operators Association (LTCOA) London TravelWatch London Underground London United Busways

London Visual Impairment Forum Lynne Brown MP Margaret Hodge MP Mark Field MP Marshalls Coaches Matthew Offord MP Matthew Pennycook MP Meg Hillier MP Merton Council Metrobus Metroline Metropolitan Police Heathrow Airport Metropolitan Police Service Michael Fallon MP Mike Freer MP Mike Gapes MP MIND Mobile Cycle Training Service Mode Transport Motorcycle Action Group Motorcycle Industry Association Mullany's Coaches Murad Qureshi AM National Autistic Society National Children's Bureau National Express National Grid National Motorcycle Council Naveed Ahmed Navin Shah AM Neil Coyle MP NHS Care Commissioning Group NHS London Nick de Bois MP Nick Hurd MP Nicky Gavron AM North London Strategic Alliance Northbank BID Ocean Youth Connexions Oliver Dowden MP


Olympus Bus & Coach Company t/a Olympian Coaches On Your Bike Cycle Training Onkar Sahota MP Oxford Tube (Thames Transit) Parcel Force Parcelforce Worldwide Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) Passenger Focus Patrick McLoughlin MP Paul Scully MP Philip Kemp Cycle Training Planning Design Porcellio t/a Meridian Duck Tours Port of London Authority Powerscroft Road Initiative for Neighbourhood Community & Environment Premium Coaches Private Hire Board Purple Parking Puzzle Focus Queen Mary University of London R Hearn t/a Hearn's Coaches RAC RAC Foundation for Motoring Red Rose Travel Redbridge Cycling Centre Redwing Coaches (Pullmanor) Reliance Travel Reynolds Diplomat Coaches Richard Harrington MP Richard Tracey AM Richmond Council RMT Union RNIB RNID Road Haulage Association Robert Neill MP Roger Evans AM

Royal Borough of Greenwich Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Royal Institute of British Architects Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Royal London Society for Blind People Royal Mail Royal Mail ParcelForce Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) Rupa Huq MP Rushanara Ali MP Ruth Cadbury MP Sadiq Khan MP Sainsbury's Supermarkets Sam Gyimah MP Sardar Ali Khan t/a Red Eagle SCOPE Seema Malhotra MP Sense Siobhain McDonagh MP Sixty Plus South Bucks Cycle Training South East London PCT South Herts Plus Cycle Training South London Business Forum South London Partnership Southdown PSV Southgate & Finchley Coaches Southwark Cyclists Space syntax Spokes Cycling Instruction STA Bikes Stella Creasy MP Stephen Hammond MP Stephen Knight AM Stephen Pound MP Stephen Timms MP

Steve O'Connell MP Steve Reed MP Stroke Association Stroud Green Residents Association Sullivan Bus and Coach Sunwin Service Group Sustrans Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector Sutton Mobility Forum Tania Mathias MP Taxi and Private hire Taxi Rank & Interchange Manager Technicolour Tyre Company Teresa Pearce MP Terravision Transport / Stansted Transport TfL Press Office TGM Group Thames Water Thamesmead Business Services Association of Guide Dogs for Blind Big Bus Company British Dyslexia Association British Motorcyclists' Federation Canal & River Trust City of Oxford Motor Services Ghost Bus Tours Kings Ferry Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association Original London Sightseeing Tour / London Pride Sightseeing Owner Drivers’ Society Road Haulage Association Royal Parks Theresa Villiers MP Thomas's London Day Schools (Transport) TNT Tom Brake MP



Tom Copley AM Tony Arbour MP Tower Hamlets Mobility Forum Tower Transit Operations Trade Team Traffic Management Police Partnership Unit Trailblazers Muscular Dystrophy UK Transport for All Triangle Tulip Siddiq MP Tyssen Community School Cycle Training

UK Power Networks Unions Together University College London University of Westminster Universitybus t/a uno UPS Urban Movement Valerie Shawcross AM Vandome Cycles Victoria Borwick AM Victoria Business Improvement District Vincenzo Coppola MP Virendra Sharma MP Vision Impairment Forum

Walk London Wandsworth Cycling Campaign Wandsworth Mobility Forum Westminster Council Westminster Cyclists Wheels for Wellbeing Whizz-Kidz Wilsons Cycles Wincanton www.cyclinginstructor.com Yodel Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists Zac Goldsmith MP

Councillors notified of the consultation

Below is a table showing the Hackney and Islington councillors to whom we sent email notifications when the De Beauvoir consultation launched in October 2015:

Ward CouncillorsDe Beauvoir (Hackney) Laura Bunt

James Peters

London Fields (Hackney) Anntoinette Bramble Mcan Ozsen

Dalston (Hackney) Soraya Adejare Peter Snell

Haggerston (Hackney) Jonathan McShane Ann Munn Barry Buitekant

Hoxton West (Hackney) Carole Williams Clayeon McKenzie Philip Glanville

St Peter’s (Islington) Gary Doolan Martin Klute Alice Perry

Canonbury (Islington) Alex Diner Clare Jeapes Nick Wayne

Mildmay (Islington) Joe Caluori Jenny Kay Olly Parker

Appendix G: Sample petition sheets



Appendix H: Sample campaign email Below is a sample of the text sent by 12 Islington residents as email responses, objecting to the De Beauvoir proposals. Ten of the emails said “a resident of East Canonbury”, while two said “a resident of Englefield Road”.

To whom it may concern,

I write to you as a resident of East Canonbury (Islington) in connection with the road traffic consultation outlined on tfl.gov.uk/cs1-de-beauvoir.

I wish to object to the likely increase in traffic on Englefield Road outlined in this proposal and request that appropriate calming measures and/or deterrent road signage are put in place to prevent that from happening. Englefield Road should not be encouraged to become even more of a rat run for traffic to use to avoid using Balls Pond Road, New North Road, Southgate Road and Essex Road.

I would like to understand how this matter will be decided (and who decides), the steps taken to reach the final decision and when the results of the consultation will be published. Would you please advise me of any planned public meetings or formal deliberations where I can attend to offer my opinion.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes

<sender’s name>


Appendix I: Improving road user behaviour

Our approach is to 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.

Cyclists are expected to follow the same rules in the Highway Code as other road users as per the Road Traffic Act 1991.

Cyclists who go through red lights, or cycle on pavements, can be given a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), which carries a fine of £50. FPNs of up to £50 can also be given to cyclists who do not use lights outside of daylight hours.

In certain circumstances, cyclists could be fined up to £2,500 for dangerous cycling and up to £1,000 for careless cycling. These could include incidents where cycling on a pavement has severely compromised the safety of another road user and/or resulted in the injury of a pedestrian.

Enforcement activity is conducted using a balanced approach between motorists and cyclists, and action is taken against motorists who behave irresponsibly – for example, driving while using a mobile phone or disobeying traffic signals.

Enforcement

Our emphasis is on improving road user behaviour through a balanced programme of education and enforcement.

We fund a Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Safer Transport Team (STT) in every London borough, which provides high-visibility policing on the road and surface transport network. All STTs have six main objectives, one of which is improving cyclist safety. STTs engage with the public to help them set their policing priorities, and work alongside MPS Safer Neighbourhood Teams as necessary.

The police will concentrate their resources on those issues of most concern based on intelligence. Concerns pertaining to a particular location can be reported to the Metropolitan Police Service via the Road Safe London website (www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon), which has been set up to allow the public to pass on information in confidence about illegal or nuisance road use.

Press release on the Mayor backing Police Road Safety operation:

https://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2014/05/mayor-backs-police-road-safety-operation-as-serious-cyclist


http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/



Roads and Transport Policing Command (RTPC)

We have worked with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to create the new MPS Roads and Transport Policing Command (RTPC), comprising over 2300 officers, all making road safety and road reliability a key priority. We work in close partnership with the MPS RTPC to reduce Killed and Serious Injury (KSI) casualties on London’s roads through targeted enforcement, engagement and education. The RTPC went operationally live in December 2014.

The creation of the RTPC is featured under commitment 4 of the ‘Safe Streets for London: Our six road safety commitments.’ This document can found at: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/safe-london-streets-our-six-road-safety-commitments.pdf.

Cycle Safety Team (formerly known as the Cycle Task Force)

We fund officers within the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Cycle Safety Team to engage and educate all road users and enforce against irresponsible behaviour.

All are qualified traffic officers, trained police pursuit drivers and motorcyclists with qualifications in collision investigation and vehicle examination. Most are also qualified to drive Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs).

The team leads on the Exchanging Places programme (see below), which gives cyclists the opportunity to see the road from the driver’s seat of an HGV, and these officers have also advised at HGV driver training (Certificate of Professional Competence) courses run by Crossrail.

The team engages in enforcement of all road users. Approximately 50 per cent of offences reported are committed by car drivers and motorcycle riders, 26 per cent by commercial vehicle drivers and 24 per cent by cyclists.

City of London Police

Transport for London provides funding to the City of London Police to carry out cycle safety education and enforcement. Their ongoing ‘Operation Atrium’ sees officers in both high visibility and plain clothes providing advice and enforcement to all road users at key junctions. More than half of all cyclists caught committing offences have subsequently participated in the Exchanging Places programme to have their ticket rescinded.

Exchanging Places

Exchanging Places events allow cyclists the opportunity to get into the cab of a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) or bus and learn about their blind spots to get a better


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/safe-london-streets-our-six-road-safety-commitments.pdf

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/safe-london-streets-our-six-road-safety-commitments.pdf

understanding of what the driver can and can’t see, especially in regards to cyclists on the nearside and directly in front of the vehicle. Exchanging Places events take place on average once a week in London, and are run by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and City of London Police. The scheme is organised by MPS Roads and Transport Policing Command and the City of London Police in partnership with Transport for London and a number of freight operators, and works with private and public bodies to tailor events.

Up to August 2015, approximately 20,000 cyclists had taken part in an MPS Exchanging Places event since they started in 2007. Feedback shows that 99 per cent of participants would recommend the programme to a friend and 97 per cent will change their riding habits as a result of the experience. The Exchanging Places programme was awarded a Prince Michael International Road Safety Award in 2013.

To learn more about Exchanging Places, visit www.tinyurl.com/explacesvideo. Details of future events can be found at http://content.met.police.uk/Site/safertransportcyclesafety.

Capital Cycle Safe

The MPS Cycle Safety Team has piloted a new Penalty Notice for offences committed by cyclists. Cyclists may be offered the opportunity to complete the Capital Cycle Safe online cycle safety course for a reduction of the penalty amount. Up until August 2015, the Cycle Safety Team had issued over 4,000 notices for the course, which is produced by AA Drivetech. This scheme is being updated and is being rolled out to other UK police forces.

Community Roadwatch

We are working in partnership with the Metropolitan Police Service and City of London Police to run Community Roadwatch, a road safety initiative that aims to reduce speeding in residential areas.

Community Roadwatch gives local residents the opportunity to work side by side with their local police teams, and use speed detection equipment to identify speeding vehicles in their communities. Warning letters are issued where appropriate, and the information captured may help to inform the future activity of local police teams.

Community Roadwatch is being rolled out across London in phases, with a commitment to reach all London boroughs by December 2015.

If you would like to take part in Community Roadwatch, or wish to suggest a residential area where there are community concerns around speeding, contact the teams via www.tfl.gov.uk/CommunityRoadwatch.


http://www.tinyurl.com/explacesvideo

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/safertransportcyclesafety

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/CommunityRoadwatch

Documents

Cycle Superhighway 1: Motor traffic reduction scheme for the ......the De Beauvoir area’. Between 6 October and 16 November 2015, we consulted on proposals for changes in the De