consultation about proposals for a southbound contra-flow ... · consultation leaflet a...

Consultation about proposals for a southbound contra-flow bus and cycle lane on Battersea Bridge Road Summary of Responses September 2009

1

Contents 1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 4 2 Background: about the scheme ........................................................................... 5 3 Background: about the consultation ..................................................................... 7

3.1 Consultation objectives ................................................................................. 7 3.2 Consultation audience ................................................................................... 7 3.3 Consultation leaflet ........................................................................................ 7 3.4 Meetings and site visits ................................................................................. 8 3.5 Drop-In session ............................................................................................. 8 3.6 Website ......................................................................................................... 8 3.7 Advertising .................................................................................................... 8 3.8 Languages & formats .................................................................................... 8 3.9 Publication ..................................................................................................... 9

4 Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 10 5 Individual Responses ......................................................................................... 13

5.1 Format of Responses .................................................................................. 13 5.2 Who Responded ......................................................................................... 13

6 Drop-In Session ................................................................................................. 15

6.1 Feedback .................................................................................................... 15 6.2 Verbal Feedback ......................................................................................... 15

7 Detailed Analysis of Principal Elements of the Proposed Scheme .................... 17

7.1 Introduction of a ‘At Any Time’ southbound bus and cycle lane against the existing flow of traffic ............................................................................................. 17 7.2 Changes to parking and loading in the area ................................................ 19 7.3 Changes to locations of bus stops and stands ............................................ 20 7.4 Improvements to junctions .......................................................................... 24 7.5 Alterations to pedestrian facilities ................................................................ 26 7.6 Implementation of a new pedestrian island facility near Rosenau Crescent 27

2

7.7 Alterations to cycling facilities ...................................................................... 28 7.8 General Comments ..................................................................................... 29

8 Detailed Analysis by Mode of Travel or Location ............................................... 31

8.1 Mode of travel ............................................................................................. 31 8.2 Location ...................................................................................................... 31

9 Other Representations ....................................................................................... 33

9.1 Petitions ...................................................................................................... 33 9.2 Standard Form Letters ................................................................................ 33 9.3 Traffic Consultants Report........................................................................... 33 9.4 Action Group ............................................................................................... 34

10 Consultation Issues ........................................................................................... 35 11 Stakeholders ...................................................................................................... 36

11.1 Local Government .................................................................................... 36 11.2 Elected Representatives .......................................................................... 36 11.3 Emergency Services ................................................................................ 37 11.4 Interest Groups ........................................................................................ 37 11.5 Residents Groups .................................................................................... 39 11.6 Other ........................................................................................................ 40

12 Next Steps ......................................................................................................... 44 13 Appendices ........................................................................................................ 45

13.1 Appendix 1: Copy of Consultation Leaflet ................................................ 46 13.2 Appendix 2: Leaflet Distribution Area Map ............................................... 51

3

1 Overview Transport for London (TfL) recently consulted stakeholders1 and the public on proposals to implement a 24 hour southbound contra-flow bus and cycle lane through the existing northbound one-way section of Battersea Bridge Road, from the junction with Surrey Lane/ Prince of Wales Drive to the junction of Cambridge Road, and an additional southbound bus lane from the Cambridge Road Junction up to the southbound stop line at the junction with Battersea Park Road, which would allow buses and cyclists to turn right into Battersea Park Road. This report explains the background to the scheme, the consultation and summarises the responses. TfL will use the consultation results alongside other operational, cost and transport planning factors to inform decision making about whether to proceed with the scheme as proposed and/or look at a re–design of the scheme to accommodate feedback. TfL will inform stakeholders and the public of the outcome of this decision in Autumn 2009.

1 (individuals such as elected representatives and organisations such as London Boroughs , transport user groups, community & business groups)

4

2 Background: about the scheme TfL manages the red routes: 580km of London’s most important roads which carry a third of the city’s traffic despite representing only 5 per cent of the roads in London. Battersea Bridge Road is a designated red route. This project is part of TfL’s Investment Programme, which funds work that improves London’s transport system and enhances the urban environment. Bus travel in London continues to grow and improvements in the bus service are necessary to meet the expected capacity shortfall in the medium term, before tube and rail improvements are constructed. Therefore, bus capacity improvements are vital to keeping London moving. The Mayor of London is also committed to engendering a cycling revolution, and priority is being given to encourage schemes that address the barriers to cycling. Encouraging a modal shift towards the bicycle will help to deliver significant health, environmental and congestion management benefits. The Battersea Bridge Road contra-flow bus and cycle lane scheme is part of a wider project looking to improve the entire corridor of the Route 345 bus. This project is part of the 3G Corridor Programme. The objective of this programme is to deliver measures to improve or maintain bus journey times and reliability across ten of the busiest bus routes in London. In meeting this objective the programme takes a holistic view and in treating the bus route as a corridor has identified improvements for other modes including walking, cycling safety and accessibility, as well as improvements to the urban realm. Studies into the Route 345 corridor identified delays on the gyratory for southbound buses. Additionally, studies were commissioned as part of the London Cycle Network Plus programme (aiming to deliver 900km of high quality cycle routes) to look at existing cycling conditions and scope for improvements. These studies noted that southbound cyclists were observed to continue into Battersea Bridge Road to avoid the gyratory, or make a difficult right turn into Cambridge Road from Prince of Wales Drive. Therefore the separate bus and cycling studies were combined into a single scheme. The proposed scheme, a 24 hour southbound contra-flow bus and cycle lane, would allow buses and cyclists to take a shorter route, travelling against the existing flow of

5

traffic. This would assist cyclists and provide a direct and safer alternative to the gyratory and would reduce southbound bus journey times and improve reliability.

6

3 Background: about the consultation The public and stakeholder consultation ran between 5 June 2009 and 17 July 2009. The original consultation close date was 10 July 2009 but this was extended due to consultation leaflet distribution issues. It was designed to enable TfL to understand the wider local opinion about the proposed scheme before finalising the scheme and before making a decision about whether to go ahead.

3.1 Consultation objectives • To ensure that the local community understand the proposals and the reasons

behind them • To obtain clear, relevant and timely comments from the local community and

key stakeholders on the options and the overall scheme • To make amendments, where possible, to improve the scheme and to make

the scheme more acceptable to the local community • To gain a greater understanding of the local area and the possible impacts to

the local community which may have not been considered during preliminary design

• To ensure results of the consultation are factored into further decision making, and that timely feedback is given to consultation respondents that reflects this process

3.2 Consultation audience TfL gave careful consideration to who would be affected by the proposal and how they may be affected before deciding on who to consult. TfL recognised that the local population may have an opinion and tried to reach as many as possible, especially local representatives, residents, interest groups, transport users and businesses. TfL also consulted stakeholders such as London Travel Watch, Sustrans, the London Borough of Wandsworth and the Met Police

3.3 Consultation leaflet A consultation leaflet with an artist’s impression of the scheme was created to explain the proposals. This was distributed to properties in a 400m radius of the scheme which included approximately 4,200 properties. TfL also sent the leaflet to stakeholders including:

7

• Local MP • Assembly Member • Ward Councillors • Emergency Services • Transport Groups • Local community groups/societies • Resident groups

People could respond by the freepost feedback form, letter, telephone, email or the on-line feedback form.

3.4 Meetings and site visits TfL met with borough officers during the planning of the scheme, and attended a site visit with local ward councillors prior to public consultation.

3.5 Drop-In session TfL ran a drop-in session about the scheme at the local health centre on the 11 June 2009 between 2pm and 8pm. This was an opportunity for residents, business owners and stakeholders to view detailed drawings of the scheme and to speak to the project team working on the proposals. Feedback forms were also available on the day.

3.6 Website A web page was set up on TfL’s website containing details of the scheme, a copy of the consultation leaflet and an on-line feedback form.

3.7 Advertising A media briefing was sent to local papers announcing the launch of the consultation and advertising the drop-in session. Posters for the drop-in session were also displayed outside the venue.

3.8 Languages & formats A translation service to other languages was available on request, along with Braille, audio and large font.

8

3.9 Publication This report will be made publically available on the TfL website and sent to all those who have requested a copy, either on the feedback form, in writing or by telephone. A copy will also be sent to all key stakeholders.

9

4 Executive Summary Of the 579 responses received, approximately 52.5% (305 Respondents) were broadly in support of the proposed contra-flow bus and cycle lane although this was often accompanied by additional comments (which are detailed in the scheme element of the report) and 35% (201 Respondents) were broadly opposed. TfL asked whether they were in favour of the introduction of an ‘At Any Time’ southbound bus and cycle lane against the existing flow of traffic and the following feedback was received: Opinion Number of Respondents Percentage Agree strongly 205 35.5% Agree 100 17% Neither agree with nor Oppose

40 7%

Oppose 39 7% Strongly oppose 162 28% Did not indicate 33 5.5% Of those that broadly were in favour of the contra-flow bus and cycle lane (those respondents that had selected ‘agree strongly’ or ‘agree’) they had the following opinions on the other elements of the scheme (‘agreed’ is defined as those who selected ‘agree strongly’ or ‘agree’ and the same method is adopted for those who ‘opposed’). Scheme Elements Levels of Support Agreed

with Changes

Neither agreed with nor opposed changes

Opposed to Changes

Did not indicate a comment

Changes to parking & loading in the area

66% 26% 6% 2%

Changes to location of bus stops and stands

73.5% 15% 11% 0.5%

Improvements to junctions

87% 9% 3% 1%

Alterations to pedestrian facilities

85% 10% 4% 1%

Implementation of a new 79.5% 16% 4% 0.5%

10

pedestrian island (Rosenau Crescent) Alterations to cycling facilities

76% 20% 2% 2%

Of those that were broadly opposed to the contra-flow bus and cycle lane (those respondents that had selected ‘strongly oppose’ or ‘oppose’) they had the following opinions on the other elements of the scheme (‘agreed’ is defined as those who selected ‘agree strongly’ or ‘agree’ and the same method is adopted for those who ‘opposed’). Scheme Elements Levels of Support Agreed

with Changes

Neither agreed with nor opposed changes

Opposed to Changes

Did not indicate a comment

Changes to parking & loading in the area

6% 21% 64% 9%

Changes to location of bus stops and stands

6% 12% 77% 5%

Improvements to junctions

12% 12% 67% 9%

Alterations to pedestrian facilities

16% 22% 57% 5%

Implementation of a new pedestrian island (Rosenau Crescent)

15% 23% 55% 7%

Alterations to cycling facilities

11% 28% 52% 9%

Overall the majority of respondents supported the proposals. Of those supporting the scheme there was particularly high support for improvements to junctions and alterations to pedestrian facilities. However, there were notable concerns about the changes to the locations of bus stops and stands with 11% of those supporting the scheme indicating concerns with this element of the proposal. 33 respondents did not comment on the general scheme but took the opportunity to comment on specific elements. 61% (20 of the 33 Respondents) of that group opposed the changes to bus stops and stands – all other elements only received one or two objections.

11

This was also the most frequently opposed element from those that opposed the overall scheme, with 77% of those objecting to the contra-flow bus and cycle lane also objecting to the changes to bus stops and stands. A further two scheme elements generated high levels of opposition, with 67% of those opposed to the contra-flow bus and cycle lane also opposing the changes to junctions and 3% of those supporting the overall scheme also noting reservations. In addition, 64% of those opposed to the overall scheme opposed the changes to parking and loading and 6% of those supporting the overall scheme also noted reservations.

12

5 Individual Responses A total of 579 responses to the consultation were received from individuals. The consultation received a response rate of 14% which is above average for these types of consultation. Some individuals chose to communicate through more than one of the consultation media available to them, where this was the case all their comments have been collated into one comprehensive record.

5.1 Format of Responses The consultation received responses through the following media: Media Number of Responses Consultation Leaflet – freepost questionnaire

398

Drop-In Session Feedback Form 43 On-Line Feedback Form 109 Letter 40 Email 10 Phone 6

5.2 Who Responded TfL wanted to hear from a broad range of those affected by the proposals, whether these were local residents, businesses, bus users, cyclists or pedestrians who travel in the area. It is important to note that respondents could tick more than one option when answering the question. Please note that only bus users, cyclists and pedestrians that live in the area were consulted. It was not possible to consult all those that travel through the area and would be affected by the proposal.

5.2.1 Category of respondent Of those that responded:

• 96% of Respondents lived locally (557) • 12% of Respondents worked locally (71) • 6% of Respondents owned a business locally (34)

13

• 6% of Respondents claimed to represent a residents association or local group (further analysis of these responses can be found in the Stakeholder response section).

A further 3 Respondents did not fall into either of the above categories and were responding because they:

i) Regularly cycle through the area ii) Are planning on buying a property on Battersea Bridge Road iii) Are the managing agent for the Bridge Theatre Apartments

5.2.2 Location Responses were received from most of the roads in the area and the highest response rates were received from the roads listed below (those roads with 10 or more Respondents): Road Number of Respondents Cambridge Road 92 Prince of Wales Drive 57 Battersea Bridge Road 47 Albert Bridge Road 34 Surrey Lane 24 Rosenau Crescent 17 Banbury Street 12 Edna Street 10 Shuttleworth Road 10

5.2.3 Transport Of those that responded:

• 78% regularly used the local bus services when travelling in the area (450 Respondents)

• 30% regularly cycled as a means of travel in the area (174 Respondents) • 82% regularly walked as a means of travel in the area (474 Respondents)

(Regular travel is classified as using the travel mode more than twice a week)

14

6 Drop-In Session Approximately 120 people attended the drop-in session. In addition one of the local ward members, a local trader, a representative from the Wandsworth Cycling Campaign and representatives from the Battersea Society and Battersea Bridge Road Residents Association also attended.

6.1 Feedback The project team made a record of the verbal comments and views that were made to them during the drop-in session. A summary of these can be found below. In addition, 46 completed feedback forms were received. The detailed analysis of the content of the drop-in session feedback forms will be considered within the wider consultation feedback, but as on overview of the 46 completed forms:

• 15 broadly agreed with the proposals • 10 neither agreed nor disagreed • 2 made no comment • 19 were broadly opposed to the proposals

6.2 Verbal Feedback Area/Topic Specifics Traffic Northbound AM peak traffic operation

Concerns that proposals would impact on northbound AM peak congestion problems. Although only marked as a single traffic lane, the width is such that it allows for two lanes of traffic. Concerns about the ability of traffic being able to access the right turn filter into Prince of Wales Road and adding to the queue lengths

Traffic/Buses Southbound Cambridge Road to Latchmere Junction • Lane capacity approaching Latchmere is two (not one) as shown –

concerns that it would increase congestion and tail backs up Cambridge Road by narrowing general traffic into one lane

• Scepticism about the ability of buses to turn right during inter-green phase and that it would result in them blocking the junction – especially if traffic tailing back along Battersea Park Road

Traffic Banning Right turn/straight ahead out of Colestown Street • Allow traffic to go straight ahead into Kersley Street • Banning right turn would have a negative affect on residents in

Colestown Street, Banbury Road and Bridge Lane, as they would no longer be able to travel south without having to take longer route around the gyratory system. Issue with rat running could be resolved by effectively enforcing the banned left turn into Stanmer Street

15

• Concerns that due consideration had not been given to the flower stall on Colestown Road – narrowing of road width would heighten risk of car swipes

Bus Stand Bus Stand on Cambridge Road Considerable number of objections made to positioning of bus stand on Cambridge Road. Justifications surrounded safety, impact on parking and suitability of residential road as a location

Loading Loading Concerns were raised about the impact of loading/unloading for residents with properties alongside the contra-flow bus and cycle lane

Bus Stop Spacing

Bus Stop Spacing Concerns raised that the proposed new location for bus stop A – is too close to the next stop north of this Concerns that the location of the new bus stop D would result in too long a distance to the next stop on Battersea Park Road

Bus Stop Locations

Bus stop C Safety concerns – second bus would obstruct exit from Banbury Street Pavement Capacity Concerns that footway width is not wide enough to accommodate new bus stop D

Cycling Local cyclist welcomed improved safety and not having to negotiate the junctions around the gyratory

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety

Concerns about right turn sight lines for vehicles exiting Cambridge Road General Comments

General Comments • Would like to see the case demonstrated for two-way cyclists only

(contra-flow cycle scheme) rather than two-way buses • Unhappy with an additional 24 buses an hour passing property • Three min journey time saving does not justify the negative impact

the scheme would have on local residents • Concerns about the impact from a recent implementation of signals

further north on Battersea Bridge Road which have negatively affected northbound AM peak congestion

• New scheme would improve access for emergency vehicles

16

7 Detailed Analysis of Principal Elements of the Proposed Scheme

This section details the views received for each of the seven elements of the scheme. TfL also provided respondents with the opportunity to record any additional comments or suggestions. Totals are not indicative of all Respondents opinions on separate issues, but represent the number of occasions that an issue was mentioned in consultation responses. It is relevant to bear in mind that most respondents only comment on what they disagree with. Therefore it is noted that the most detailed comments were typically in opposition to the proposals.

7.1 Introduction of a ‘At Any Time’ southbound bus and cycle lane against the existing flow of traffic

7.1.1 Results Of the 579 responses received, approximately 52.5% (305 Respondents) were broadly in support of the proposed contra-flow bus and cycle lane and 35% (201 Respondents) were broadly opposed. TfL asked if they were in favour of the introduction of an ‘At Any Time’ southbound bus and cycle lane against the existing flow of traffic and the following feedback was received: Opinion Number of Respondents Percentage Agree strongly 205 35.5% Agree 100 17% Neither agree with nor oppose

40 7%

Oppose 39 7% Strongly oppose 162 28% Did not indicate 33 5.5%

17

7.1.2 Comments There was no singular popular reason given by respondents as to why they supported the scheme. Most responses merely expressed approval in simple terms such as “good idea”, “grand plan” or “good scheme”. TfL received 42 positive comments that could be categorised as such. In addition, there was appreciation of the improvements this would bring to cycling safety and bus journey times ( 23 comments made reference to welcoming the bus journey time savings) with comments such as:

• “I am very pleased that somebody has finally realised what sense and vast improvement this will make to the bus route.”

• “Speeding up buses will reduce the likelihood of car use in the area.”

• “I think all the proposals in this scheme will benefit everyone in the area.

Whether they walk, cycle, drive a car or use buses.”

• “I like Battersea Bridge Road being two-way for buses. I have been on a bus at Albert Bridge Road/Battersea Park Road lights and they have changed four times before the bus could cross.”

• “These proposals would be ideal. Many people cycle against the traffic on

Battersea Bridge Road already! It would also prevent buses stopping at two additional traffic lights when travelling south.”

There were eight key themes that emerged as the main reasons for opposing the contra-flow bus and cycle lane:

• 47 comments listing concerns that the proposed contra-flow bus and cycle lane by narrowing the road widths and signalising the Prince of Wales junction would add to northbound congestion (typically AM peak – with respondents claiming queues already reach back to junction with Latchmere Road) and would also hinder access to the right hand turn filter into Prince of Wales Drive which would add to congestion issues

• 27 comments that objected to the impact on residents from an additional 24 buses an hour travelling down Battersea Bridge Road – with particular reference to increased traffic noise and environmental issues

• 22 comments stating opinions that the benefits of the scheme do not justify

the disruption it will cause to local residents

18

• 17 comments raising concerns about safety for pedestrians, cyclists or general traffic from the implementation of a contra-flow lane

• 15 comments raising concerns about the contra-flow bus lane making right hand turn manoeuvres out of Cambridge Road and Rosenau Crescent more dangerous

• 11 comments listing concerns with the requisite removal of loading/unloading

opportunities for frontages on the contra-flow

• 6 comments that stated the scheme was unnecessary as buses do not experience southbound delays

• 4 comments objecting to the scheme as the contra-flow bus lane would result

in the extension of double red lines outside their homes In addition, 38 comments that are classed as general negative comments where respondents expressed their opposition in simple terms such as “ill thought out scheme”, “strongly oppose” or “absurd suggestion”. However, there were also common themes of the negative impact to general traffic such as “will cause huge traffic disruption” and that motorists had not been considered. In addition, there were also concerns that the predicted increased congestion would be to the determinant of northbound buses and that buses would encounter more delays as the result of stops and signalised crossings.

7.2 Changes to parking and loading in the area

7.2.1 Results TfL asked whether they were in favour of the proposed changes to parking and loading in the area and the following feedback was received: Of the 579 responses received, approximately 39% were broadly in support of the proposed changes and 26.5% were broadly opposed. Opinion Number of Respondents Percentage Agree strongly 112 19% Agree 113 20% Neither Agree with nor Oppose

147 25.5%

19

Oppose 31 5% Strongly Oppose 124 21.5% Did Not Indicate 52 9%

7.2.2 Comments As reported in 7.2.1, there were 11 comments regarding respondent’s opposition to the resultant loss of loading/unloading facilities for frontages adjacent to the contra-flow lane. In addition, 19 comments specifically raised concerns with the relocated parking provision. A number of reasons were given for this with the most common complaint being loss of parking outside homes, which is regarded as detrimental to residents, and that this would be all the time due to contra-flow operating at ‘Any Time’, with specific concerns about unloading heavy shopping, receiving deliveries and coping with small children. There were concerns that this would result in a net loss of parking and that this would put additional pressure on neighbouring streets. There were specific concerns about the actual locations of some of the replacement parking with concerns that the proposed parking in substitution for bus stop A would introduce further obstructions to traffic; that the new parking provision at the bottom of Cambridge Road would block visibility to pedestrians (especially school children) trying to cross the road to get to the bus stop; and that the replacement parking bays were now in a more busy and narrower section of Battersea Bridge Road. TfL received comments on the loss of parking on Cambridge Road but this will be covered in the following section on bus stops and stands

7.3 Changes to locations of bus stops and stands

7.3.1 Results TfL asked whether they were in favour of the proposed changes to the locations of bus stops and stands in the area and the following feedback was received: Of the 579 responses received, approximately 43% were broadly in support of the proposed changes and 39% were broadly opposed. Opinion Number of Respondents Percentage Agree Strongly 120 21% Agree 128 22% Neither Agree with nor Oppose

82 14%

20

Oppose 53 9% Strongly Oppose 176 30% Did Not Indicate 20 4%

7.3.2 Comments (Bus Stand) TfL received 165 comments noting opposition to the proposed new location of the bus stand. These were broadly split along 3 themes:

• 44 raised concerns about the location on grounds of safety • 66 raised environmental/suitability of the road issues • 57 comments were received about the loss of parking on a road which already

does not have enough parking provision

7.3.2.1 Safety There were two prevalent safety issues that were raised. The first raised concerns that stationary buses would restrict traffic flow, and cause a bottle neck when entering Cambridge Road and that traffic flow was very heavy especially in the PM peak and this would add to congestion. The second raised concerns about the appropriateness of the location as Respondents felt that the red lines at suggested locations denoted where it is inappropriate to park vehicles. Another frequent concern was the impact of stationary buses on sight lines for driveways near the proposed location and for traffic exiting from Foxmore Street. In addition, there were concerns about the impact of stationary buses obstructing the view of oncoming traffic for pedestrians which would make crossing the road less safe. It was also noted that this is a road with a high level of families in residence and that Cambridge Road was a main pedestrian through fare to access Battersea Park. Other concerns were that Cambridge Road is a narrow residential road and Respondents believe it is not suitable for large vehicles, and that traffic flow is already heavy and the proposals would increase it. In addition, several Respondents raised concerns about the speed of traffic, that traffic can take the corner too fast when entering Cambridge Road, and that traffic comes from three different directions. They believed that having buses parked so close to the junction would cause additional problems. There was also one comment that the turning points onto Battersea Bridge Road from Cambridge Road were too narrow to accommodate buses.

21

7.3.2.2 Environmental Issues/Suitability of the road Comments received on this theme were largely that Cambridge Road is a solely residential road and Respondents believed that the bus stand would result in unacceptable noise and pollution levels due to buses waiting and transiting to and from the stand. Other perceived issues was a bus stand would spoil the character of the area (which is a Conservation Area ) and the location would block the vista of the park and obscure an attractive walled garden with mature trees. In addition, several people commented that the street is not currently used for buses and they suggested that the bus stand should be located in a road where buses currently run and/or is more suitable in terms of width and traffic flows – examples such as locations on Prince of Wales Drive, Albert Bridge Road, Battersea Bridge Road (outside the police station or the shops opposite Petworth Street) were provided. There was also a concern noted about the width of Cambridge Road and how currently if there is an obstruction (delivery etc.) it narrows to one lane which results in the road becoming heavily congested and that allowing buses to also use the road would make the situation considerably worse.

7.3.2.3 Parking Comments received were largely about the existing pressure on parking provision in the road and how the removal of spaces to make way for the bus stand may exacerbate the issue. There were concerns that this could lead to cars parking on neighbouring streets and increasing the parking pressures on these streets. Concerns that the re-located provision would be utilised by Albert Bridge Road residents was expressed. The safety implications for women and young people parking at night who would not be able to access spaces close to homes and increased distances for those with mobility issues were also raised. A concern about the implications for car theft from parking not in sight of properties was also noted. In addition, one comment was received that stated it was unacceptable that the bus stand was being moved to Cambridge Road in order to re-provide parking on Battersea Bridge Road on the basis that the parking to be provided would be ‘Anytime’ parking and not designated for residents. It was suggested that the proposed four additional spaces are foregone and that bus stand remains where it is.

22

7.3.3 Comments (Bus Stops) There were 22 comments noting concerns with bus stop spacing and 45 comments noting concerns with proposed bus stop locations.

7.3.3.1 Bus Stop Spacing The most prevalent comment was with regard to the relocation of bus stop A and its proximity to the stop north of this. There was also marked concern about the loss of interchange facilities by moving Bus Stop D – in its current location it is near to a bus stop serving two other routes (44 and 344). There was concern about the knock on effect for the next available bus stop that would allow interchange and for the 344/44 routes which would experience more demand. In particular, one comment raised concerns that this would result in shifting the interchange to the next stop where the road is not as wide and would result in tail backs from traffic being unable to overtake buses. In addition, two themes were noted about the relocation of bus stop C - the increase in distance for people to access the stop from streets south of Battersea Park Road and the increased distance between the new location and the previous stop which is by the Railway Bridge. There was also a request to move Bus Stop D closer to the junction or onto Battersea Park Road after the right turn from Battersea Bridge Road.

7.3.3.2 Bus Stop Locations Bus Stop D Several respondents raised concerns about the increase in walking distance for those who live south of Battersea Park Road and east of Prince of Wales Drive, with noted concerns about the implications for the elderly and those with mobility issues. Several comments were received complaining about the new location of bus stop D as it is outside a residential block of flats and concerns were raised about the possible noise levels, litter and mess. In addition, concerns were raised as to whether the pavement was wide enough at the point to accommodate waiting passengers. In addition, a Respondent asked if bus stop D could be moved closer to the Kersley Street Junction or if an additional stop could be provided near Atherton Street. A

23

number of Respondents requested an additional southbound stop near Prince of Wales Drive. Bus Stop C The proposed relocation of bus stop C generated two main concerns from Respondents. The first concerns local businesses who felt passing footfall and spontaneous business from waiting passengers would be lost. The second concern was about the perceived safety for vehicles exiting Bridge Lane as sight lines may become blocked by buses and that the current stop is frequently used by two buses at a time, and that the new location may result in buses blocking the exit from Banbury Street. In addition, one Respondent said the replacement of parking provision was being given priority over the needs of pedestrians as moving bus stop C further north would be of detriment to these who live east of Battersea Bridge Road for whom there is no other northbound bus service until Queenstown Road. Bus Stop A There were several perceived safety concerns noted about the proposed location of Bus Stop A due to the proximity of the southbound stop with Petworth Street junction. One comment was also received that claimed the new locations may encourage bus passengers to cross the road un-regulated, as the new stops were further from pedestrian crossing facilities. There was a general theme of discontent with the increase in walking distance to reach all the new bus stop locations.

7.4 Improvements to junctions

7.4.1 Results We asked whether they were in favour of the proposed improvements to junctions in the area and the following feedback was received: Of the 579 responses received, approximately 53% were broadly in support of the proposed changes and 27% were broadly opposed. Opinion Number of Respondents Percentage Agree Strongly 164 28% Agree 142 25% Neither Agree with nor Oppose

70 12%

24


7.4.2 Comments Comments received regarding proposed changes to the junctions centre around three main themes:

• 47 comments regarding the capacity of Latchmere Road Junction • 38 comments in opposition to banning the right turn out of Colestown Street • 13 comments listing concerns with the introduction of signalised crossing at

Prince of Wales Drive on traffic flow

7.4.2.1 Latchmere Road The main concern centred on junction capacity and the impact on the already heavily congested northbound (Latchmere Road) and westbound (Battersea Park Road) approaches. There were also concerns that it would result in tail backs up Cambridge Road. Issues were raised with the required additional time to allow the right turn and buses blocking the yellow box junction. One respondent noted that a similar arrangement at Clapham Junction resulted in buses turning during the pedestrian phases. Other comments were that it was felt that there were already high accident levels at the junction, and that this would add to the problem. In addition the junction is a major crossing point for school children and adding a bus lane would make this crossing more dangerous for them.

7.4.2.2 Colestown Street Respondents were opposed to banning the right turn from Colestown Street as it would mean that there would be no option to travel south from any of the road south of Surrey lane without having to go round the gyratory system. The Respondets felt that this would add to journey times , increase congestion on the gyratory and increase emissions . In addition, one respondent felt it would lead to Kersley Street becoming a rat run for vehicles trying to avoid the gyratory. Several comments were made about the banned left turn into Stanmer Street where noted. It was felt that if properly enforced or the kerb realigned to make entry harder, than this would suffice in discouraging rat running.

25

7.4.2.3 Signalised Crossing at Prince of Wales Drive The most prominent issue raised was the perception that signalised pedestrian crossings are regarded as less efficient than zebra crossings, making traffic and pedestrian flows more rigid with the likelihood of continuous tailbacks and increased congestion. The current system works well was a frequent comment and one respondent felt that signalising the crossing would be dangerous and would lead to drivers making risky sprints against the red light.

7.4.2.4 Other - Flower Stall There is a currently a flower stall located on the junction of Colestown Street. TfL received several complaints that this stall had been omitted from the technical drawings. The stall owner also made representations as the proposed changes would mean it would no longer be viable for his stall to remain there due to narrowed road widths.

7.5 Alterations to pedestrian facilities

7.5.1 Results TfL asked whether they were in favour of the proposed alterations to pedestrian facilities in the area and the following feedback was received: Of the 579 responses received, approximately 54% were broadly in support of the proposed changes and 23% were broadly opposed. Opinion Number of Respondents Percentage Agree Strongly 154 27% Agree 158 27% Neither Agree with nor Oppose

95 16%


7.5.2 Comments Further to the comments received about the impact of changes to Prince of Wales Drive junction on traffic flow, other comments on alterations to pedestrian facilities were received; which were a mixture of positive and negative in nature.

26

Those that supported the changes welcomed the improved access to the Doctor’s Surgery and several felt that the current zebra crossing at Prince of Wales Drive was dangerous as cars approached the junction at speed and at times fail to stop. Others said they would be pleased to see changes at Battersea Bridge Road/Battersea Park Road junction which they felt was currently dangerous to cross. However, two comments were received stating opposition to the removal of the pedestrian island as they felt the junction was too wide and cyclists do not obey red lights. There was a predominant theme that signalising Prince of Wales Drive was not required and constitutes a waste of money. Comments suggested that the current system works well and that timed signals may result in pedestrians crossing at non-specified points because they do not want to wait for the signals. One respondent also noted that they felt both that the current & proposed crossings were obstructive to pedestrians as many people wish to cross from Cambridge Road to reach the westside of Battersea Bridge Road and they can not do this directly, this also impacts on pedestrian flows to the Battersea Park.

7.6 Implementation of a new pedestrian island facility near Rosenau Crescent

7.6.1 Results TfL asked whether they were in favour of the proposed implementation of a new pedestrian island facility near Rosenau Crescent and the following feedback was received: Of the 579 responses received, approximately 51% were broadly in support of the proposed changes and 22% were broadly opposed. Opinion Number of Respondents Percentage Agree Strongly 150 26% Agree 144 25% Neither Agree with nor Oppose

118 20%


27

7.6.2 Comments TfL received a few comments concerning the location of the proposed pedestrian island, in particular that its location would be adjacent it the underground car park of the Bridge Theatre Apartments. This would present a challenge to being able to safely enter the car park as it requires drivers to take a wide sweep on the approach that would no longer be possible. Another concern was that adding further crossing facilities would slow down traffic flow further. TfL received two comments in support of the pedestrian island, one thought the island would be required to assist passengers accessing the bus stops, and the second felt the island would help improve access to the health centre for those with mobility and/or sight impairment.

7.7 Alterations to cycling facilities

7.7.1 Results TfL asked whether they were in favour of the proposed alterations to cycling facilities in the area and the following feedback was received: Of the 579 responses received, approximately 46% were broadly in support of the proposed changes and 20% were broadly opposed. Opinion Number of Respondents Percentage Agree Strongly 153 26% Agree 117 20% Neither Agree with nor Oppose

147 25%


7.7.2 Comment TfL received nine comments in favour of the alterations to cycling facilities a prominent theme was support for improving access and conditions for cyclists, and that the cyclists would welcome the opportunity to travel directly south avoiding the one-way system which involves difficult lane crossing. Indeed several respondents noted that cyclists currently use the pavement in order to avoid the gyratory. TfL received some general negative comments around the behaviour of cyclists (ignoring Highway Code, cycling through reds, cycling on the pavement etc.) and

28

that the proposals and associated cost and construction to accommodate cyclists were not justified.

7.8 General Comments In addition to the comments received on the seven main elements of the scheme, there were additional comments received across a broad range of other issues. Only comments directly relating to this scheme have been recorded.

7.8.1 Alternative Suggestions & Requests TfL received 16 specific comments in favour of the introduction of a southbound ‘cycle only’ lane, a frequent suggestion was to widen the pavement and create a joint pedestrian/cycle facility. Several comments offering alternative suggestions to the contra-flow bus lane these ranged from making Battersea Bridge Road two-way working for all vehicles, to reversing the one-way system on Prince of Wales Drive, and allowing two-way working on Albert Bridge Road. A further suggestion was to extend the bus lane on Battersea Park Road from the junction with Albert Bridge Road to Battersea Bridge Road Junction or to have a bus lane on Albert Bridge Road on the approach to the traffic lights to allow improved access to the lights. There were also a few requests to keep the route the same and allow an additional stop on Albert Bridge Road. Several respondents also raised concerns about driver behaviour at the Battersea Bridge Road/Battersea Park Road junction, where vehicles turn into Battersea Bridge Road and perform u-turns in order to access Latchmere Road. Options such as an island reservation were suggested in order to combat this problem. Several respondents questioned why the contra-flow lane had to be operational at ‘Any Time’ and whether it would be available to motorcycles. There was also a request for a northbound cycle lane. A few comments were received suggesting that the original system was put in response to safety concerns and pedestrian fatalities. Several respondents stated concerns about general traffic speeds in the area and whether measures could be implemented to tackle this. A request was received to allocate a parking bay to a car share club. One respondent requested a ‘keep clear’ area be implemented to allow traffic to turn into Kersley Street as the entrance often gets blocked currently and the new scheme would this problem worse.

29

Other comments about this junction included a request to have a camera enforcing the yellow box, a ‘diagonal’ pedestrian crossing facility and advanced stop lines for cyclists. In addition, the length of green time apportioned to traffic travelling north from Latchmere Road was also noted.

7.8.2 Scheme Justification TfL received 29 comments suggesting the scheme was a ‘waste of money’. A common theme was that respondents felt the expected benefits did not justify the disruption caused and the cost of the scheme. In addition, several respondents questioned the prudency of spending money on such a scheme in the current economic climate and others felt the money would be better spent elsewhere. It was also noted that the road had only just been re-surfaced and to dig the road up again was not acceptable. TfL received 15 comments that the scheme was not required, justifications for which were that the current system works well or that this scheme does nothing to address the real problem in the area which is northbound congestion in the morning and this is the major problem for buses in the area.

7.8.3 Other TfL received 7 comments regarding the parking restrictions. The majority complained about the ‘Any-Time’ provision on the red route in the area and that these spaces are abused by people who do not live locally adding unnecessary parking pressures for residents. Any net gain in parking spaces would not be of benefit to residents if the parking restrictions followed current provisions. TfL also received 12 comments regarding the new signals further north on Battersea Bridge Road which are considered to have added to the northbound congestion issues. Concerns about the impact of the scheme on property prices was also raised by several respondents, reporting that a local estate agent had predicted a loss in the value of properties by 10-20% if the scheme was implemented.

30

8 Detailed Analysis by Mode of Travel or Location

8.1 Mode of travel Of those that responded

• 78% regularly used the local bus services when travelling in the area (450 Respondents)

• 30% regularly cycled as a means of travel in the area (174 Respondents) • 82% regularly walked as a means of travel in the area (474 Respondents)

(Regular travel is classified as using the travel mode more than twice a week) Bus Of those that declared that they regularly used buses as a means of transport in the area, 59% (266 Respondents) were broadly in favour of the introduction of a ‘At Any Time’ southbound bus and cycle contra-flow lane and 31% (140 Respondents) were broadly opposed. Bicycle Of those that declared that they regularly used a bicycle as a means of transport in the area, 66% (115 Respondents) were broadly in favour of the introduction of a ‘At Any Time’ southbound bus and cycle contra-flow lane and 28% (48 Respondents) were broadly opposed. Pedestrian Of those that declared that they regularly walked as a means of transport in the area, 56% (267 Respondents) were broadly in favour of the introduction of a ‘At Any Time’ southbound bus and cycle contra-flow lane and 34% (163 Respondents) were broadly opposed.

8.2 Location The roads with the highest level of responses(10 or more) agreed with or opposed the introduction of ‘At Any Time’ southbound bus and cycle contra-slow lane as follows: Road Number of

Respondents % Broadly in favour

% Broadly opposed

Albert Bridge Road 34 76% 15% Banbury Street 12 50% 25% Battersea Bridge Road

47 23% 70%

31

Cambridge Road 92 26% 46% Edna Street 10 60% 40% Prince of Wales Drive 57 70% 18% Rosenau Road 17 82% 12% Shuttleworth Road 10 90% 10% Surrey Lane 24 58% 38% Respondents living in Prince of Wales Drive and Albert Bridge Road were the most supportive of the proposed contra-flow bus and cycle lane. They were supportive of all elements of the scheme, although concerns with the location of bus stops and stands and changes to parking and loading did raise objections from approximately 10 – 20% of those that responded. Respondents living in Battersea Bridge Road and Cambridge Road were most opposed to the proposed contra-flow bus and cycle lane. 70% of respondents from Battersea Bridge Road objected to the proposed bus and cycle lane. Similarly high levels of opposition were demonstrated to all elements of the scheme apart from alterations to cycling facilities which remained more evenly divided. 46% of respondents from Cambridge Road objected to the contra-flow bus and cycle lane, however there were particularly high levels of objections to the changes to parking and loading in the area and changes to locations of bus stops and stands, with 51% being opposed to parking & loading changes and 91% being opposed to the proposed changes to the locations of bus stops and stands.

32

9 Other Representations In addition, to the consultation questionnaires, drop-in session feedback forms, online feedback forms, letters, emails and phone calls, TfL also received the following representations.

9.1 Petitions A petition facilitated by the Battersea Bridge Road Residents’ Association with 161 signatures objecting to the proposed changes to the one-way section of Battersea Bridge Road with the introduction of a contra-flow bus lane. On the grounds that it would result in increased traffic noise and congestion, increased pollution and the erosion of the local community. A petition from the residents of Cambridge Road with 43 signatures opposing the proposed location of the bus stand on Cambridge Road on the grounds listed below and asking TfL to site the Bus Stand on a street that is more suited to this in the locality:

• Safety concerns arising from associated poor sight lines /lack of visibility on the corner of the road with Prince of Wales Drive for incoming traffic

• Loss of residents parking on a street that already suffers from a severe lack of residents parking

• Negative impact on the Conservation Area • Noise pollution • Further congestion on an already busy and congested road • Pollution from bus emissions • Overall loss of amenity on a residential road

9.2 Standard Form Letters In addition TfL received 31 standard form letters from residents on Cambridge Road objecting to the positioning of the bus stand on similar grounds outlined in the petition. These have been included in the individual consultation response analysis.

9.3 Traffic Consultants Report TfL received a professional assessment from Paul Mew Associates (Traffic Consultants) on the proposed location of the bus stand. This had been commissioned by a number of residents on Cambridge Road (undisclosed). Their report concluded that the current position of the bus stand should be retained. It is their opinion that this is an acceptable and workable alternative and that the

33

proposed scheme is far from ideal. They based this on two main issues; firstly safety concerns with sightlines which they claim would fall below accepted standards and would therefore create safety concerns (in particular affecting vehicular access from No.41 Albert Bridge Road and No.2 Cambridge Road). Secondly, that the proposal would result in undue parking stress on permit holder only bays.

9.4 Action Group An action group of residents living at 177-191 Battersea Bridge Road has formed in opposition to the contra-flow bus and cycle lane proposal which would require a double red line to be introduced outside of their properties. The action group organised a petition signed by 73 residents & owners of properties from 177-191 Battersea Bridge Road and surrounding streets objecting to the installation of a bus and cycle contra-flow system on Battersea Bridge Road. Please note that we have not carried out a cross reference exercise to see if there is duplication of names on the various petitions.

34

10 Consultation Issues There were 48 complaints that the consultation process was unsatisfactory. The most prominent were complaints of non-delivery of the consultation leaflet and that the drop-in session had not been adequately advertised. In addition, some respondents felt the consultation area did not go sufficiently south of the scheme. There were also complaints about errors on the consultation map which included the omission of the flower stall that trades on the bottom of Colestown Street and the incorrect road marking for Surrey Lane, which implied a reversal of the one-way westbound between Battersea Bridge Road and Bridge Lane. Further complaints were made that the consultation map did not clearly identify a new section of double red line north of Battersea Bridge Road/Prince of Wales Drive/Surrey Lane junction.

35

11 Stakeholders As well as individual responses, we invited responses from a number of stakeholders. These included individuals such as MPs and GLA members, and organisations such as the London Borough of Wandsworth , emergency services, transport user groups, residents’ associations and community, business or health representatives.

11.1 Local Government

11.1.1 London Borough of Wandsworth No formal submission has yet been received from the Borough. They are awaiting the results of the public consultation before informing TfL of their position.

11.2 Elected Representatives

11.2.1 Richard Tracey AM (Wandsworth & Merton) Wished to await the full consultation of local residents and the wider area of Battersea before providing a position.

11.2.2 Martin Linton MP The MP highlighted the two petition received from the Battersea Bridge Road Resident’s Association and the residents of Cambridge Road, as well as the letter of objection from the Battersea Society. In addition, the MP raised his concerns about the benefit from this scheme for people living in the consultation area and concerns about the effect on traffic flow. He also raised concerns about safety before road users get used to the new arrangement.

11.2.3 Cllrs Davies, Hallmark & Strickland (Local Ward Councillors – St Mary’s Park)

The councillors expressed their significant concerns about five main issues: • Width of the road and congestion (in addition concerns about the capacity of

Battersea Park Road junction to deal with right turning buses) • Parking & safety (in particular loading/unloading and residents having to park

and cross busy road) • Location of bus stand • Noise (from additional 25 buses an hour)

36

• Cost – believe the money could be better spent given the limited gains and local opposition

11.3 Emergency Services

11.3.1 MET Police – Traffic Management Unit The Police expressed some reservations about the scheme which led them object to the scheme:

• Whether the Battersea Park Road junction is wide enough to safely accommodate right turning movements of buses and cyclists

• The impact on traffic flow from the signalisation of the Prince of Wales Junction

• The impact from the banned right turn out of Colestown Street creating a circuitous diversion for local residents

• Concerned bus lane widths not wide enough in places leading to likely pinch points and concerns for cyclists safety

• Concerns about large vehicles entering Prince of Wales Drive without encroaching into bus lane/cycle advance area

• Cycle slip lane at Cambridge Road likely to be ineffective as cyclists will be unlikely to give way if they can carry on and merge with the traffic further down

11.4 Interest Groups

11.4.1 London Travel Watch London Travel Watch welcomes the proposal. In particular they:

• Support the use of bus lanes as an effective method to ameliorate the effect of traffic congestion on bus services and their passengers as well as improving bus stop accessibility. They particularly welcome contra-flow bus lanes which address the problems of one-way systems and are sure that the proposals would be supported by bus passengers and cyclists using Battersea Bridge Road

• Welcomes the direct crossing at the junction with Battersea Park Road/Latchmere Road and would also like to see a direct crossing at Prince of Wales Drive

• Would support a new pedestrian island near Rosenau Crescent

11.4.2 Wandsworth Access Association Wandsworth Access Association neither agreed with nor opposed the proposals. They did request that if the scheme is installed that new crossings should be Puffin

37

crossings as these allow people to reach the other side before the lights can change. In addition warning signs should be erected to remind cyclists not to jump red lights and to watch their speed. Bus stops should have adequate seating for the disabled and elderly and a space within the shelter for wheelchair users. They would also request signage at bus stops asking passengers to help visually impaired people by telling them which bus has arrived at the stop.

11.4.3 Sustrans Sustrans supported the proposals, in particular the introduction of the contra-flow bus and cycle lane and the alterations to pedestrian facilities and the implementation of a new pedestrian island facility near Rosenau Crescent. They did request that TfL ensure they consider cyclists travelling northbound as the increase in parking/loading on the west side may have a knock on effect and that lots of cyclists make the right turn into Prince of Wales Drive. In addition, they noted that vehicles turning right out of Cambridge Road, onto Battersea Bridge Road, could potentially cause conflict.

11.4.4 Wandsworth Cycling Campaign The Wandsworth Cycling Campaign supports the proposals and believes that the proposals will encourage modal shift away from private motorised modes to ‘active travel’ and public transport. They believed the proposals will improve the permeability of the area to people using bicycles and buses will enhance safety of pedestrians and cyclists for example by reducing traffic speeds. In addition, they offered detailed suggestions to enhance the proposals further:

• Permeability could be enhanced by exempting cyclists from proposed restricted turns – this would enable them to use minor roads and to stay out of major traffic streams

• Installation of cycle logos in the middle of the running lane would promote cyclists safety on the offside of the proposed new car parking bays

11.4.5 The Battersea Society The Society objected to the proposals for the southbound contra-flow bus and cycle lane and the removal of the southbound Latchmere Road bus stop outside Travis Perkins. Their objection was based on seven issues:

• Increased traffic congestion – the capacity of the junction to deal with right turning vehicles which will exacerbate current congestion issues and will also impeded flow out of Cambridge Road. Buses on stand will add to congestion

38

there and traffic turning north out of Cambridge Road may also experience problems. They do not believe the predicted bus journey time savings

• Battersea Bridge/Battersea Park/Latchmere Road junction – danger for cyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrian journey time is already small, other hazards include traffic ignoring the traffic restrictions and carrying out dangerous manoeuvres. The increase in congestion at this junction will make this more dangerous

• Loss of amenity for residents south of Battersea Park Road & east of Latchmere Road - Relocating bus stop D would result in the loss of the interchange facility and in the loss of a facility for these residents, especially for the less able. Bus stop C is already a considerable walk for these residents and moving it further north would make this worse

• Loss of amenity for residents on Battersea Bridge and Cambridge Roads – the Society endorses the concerns of the residents of these roads and is also concerned that those living on Cambridge Road will experience added pollution and noise through backed up, slow-moving traffic and the addition of buses travelling too and from the stand

• Lack of consultation – the Society feels that the re-siting of bus stop D represents a major change for bus travellers south of Battersea Park Road and therefore the consultation area should have been extended further south. In addition, the area should have been extended further north to capture car drivers who will be affected by increased congestion

• Abandonment of cycle contra flow proposal – the Society would support a cycle contra-flow proposal

• Congestion problems in the area – scheme does not address northbound congestion and the Society has concerns that added congestion at the Battersea Bridge Road/Battersea Park Road junction would increase incidents of rat running along existing and new roads

11.5 Residents Groups

11.5.1 Battersea Bridge Road Residents’ Association The Battersea Bridge Road Residents’ Association objected toTfL’s proposals on the grounds that it would have a detrimental effect on their local community for the following reasons:

• Negative impact to local residents – they feel it will lead to a loss of a sense of community that has developed by being able to cross the road to speak with neighbours. They are concerned that TfL has not made provision for the local flower seller who is an integral part of the local community. In addition, they are concerned that the historical safety concerns that prompted the introduction of the gyratory would be re-introduced (pedestrian fatalities )

39

• Noise and pollution – currently unacceptable noise levels due to Heathrow and Heliport flight paths and designation of the road as a red route against strong local opposition. This scheme would increase noise and pollution from HGV buses by 100%

• Traffic Congestion – the scheme does not address existing congestion which is predominantly south to north and rat running in side streets. In addition the scheme will result in the loss of a traffic lane, resulting in pinch points which will cause delay and congestion. They also question the junction capacity at Latchemere Road and the impact on congestion

• Loss of parking bays will be relocated to positions that do not benefit those that will be affected by their removal. The introduction of a double red line means residents will never be able to load/unload outside their homes (particularly worrying for elderly and disabled residents)

• Conservation Area – they feel the scheme would be detriment to the area status as a conservation area

• Loss of property value – estimated loss in value of 10-20% They would support the introduction of joint pedestrian/cycle path. In their view the pavement widths of 280cm east side and 230cm west side are wide enough to support this – similar to the scheme on Cheyne Walk where pavement width is 240cm. In addition, they would support the extension of the bus lane along Battersea Park Road from junction with Albert Bridge Road to junction with Battersea Bridge Road.

11.6 Other In the consultation questionnaire TfL asked whether respondents were representing a residents association or other interest group and the following responses were received. Listed below are the specific comments they made in relation to the scheme. Their views have also been incorporated in the analysis of individual responses. Not included below are those that claimed to represent a group for whom we have received a formal stakeholder response, or for those that did not provide an official name for their group

11.6.1 Norfolk Mansions Residents Association (Prince of Wales Drive)

Indicated that they supported the scheme but did not provide any specific comments

11.6.2 21 – 40 Cambridge Mansions Leaseholders Association Their submission objected to the location of the proposed bus stand on the grounds of:

40

• Safety concerns arising from associated poor sight lines /lack of visibility on the corner of the road with Prince of Wales Drive for incoming traffic and stationary buses causing a bottleneck

• Loss of residents parking on a street that already suffers from limited residents parking

• Overall loss of amenity on a residential road that does not have a bus route on it

11.6.3 1 – 10 Cambridge Mansions Resident’s Association Their submission objected to the location of the proposed bus stand on the grounds of:

• Safety concerns arising from associated poor sight lines /lack of visibility on the corner of the road with Prince of Wales Drive for incoming traffic and stationary buses causing a bottleneck

• Loss of residents parking on a street that already suffers from limited residents parking.

• Overall loss of amenity on a residential road that does not have a bus route on it

11.6.4 Ethelburga Tower Residents Association (Rosenau Road) Indicated they supported the scheme especially as cyclists already use the southbound pavement and this is hazardous for pedestrians.

11.6.5 Cyril Mansions Residents’ Association (Prince of Wales Drive)

Indicated they supported the scheme. They would require the contra-flow lane to be wide enough for buses and bicycles to travel side by side as this is safer. They do not support changing the zebra crossing to timed signals at Prince of Wales Drive as they consider it un-necessary.

11.6.6 St James Grove Residents Association (Culvert Road) Indicated they supported the overall scheme but were concerned that the re-located bus stop D would be too far for people travelling from Culvert Road and other roads beyond Battersea Park School.

11.6.7 Bridge Lane Management Co Ltd Indicated that they opposed the scheme but did not provide any specific comments

11.6.8 Gardiner House (Surrey Lane Estate) Indicated they were broadly opposed to the proposals, apart from improvements to junctions and alterations to pedestrian facilities but did not provide specific comments.

41

11.6.9 Cranbourne Court Residents Association Indicated they were broadly opposed to the scheme but would welcome a cycle only lane. Although they do not think the pavements are wide enough for it to be a joint path.

11.6.10 Board of Directors, Park Mansions (Prince of Wales Drive) Indicated they broadly supported the scheme, however they were opposed to the location of the bus stand. They would like to see it either outside the police station or the shops opposite Petworth Street.

11.6.11 Triangle Residents Association (Knowsley Road) Indicated that they were opposed to the scheme, raising concerns about increase in congestion from buses turning right onto Battersea Park Road and whether the benefits from the scheme justify the cost.

11.6.12 Remus Management (Managing Agents for Bridge Theatre Apartments, Battersea Bridge Road)

Remus Management did not comment on the overall scheme but presented concerns about the location of the new pedestrian island near Rosenau Crescent. This would be adjacent to the underground car park of the Bridge Theatre Apartments and would seriously hinder the safe access to the car park.

11.6.13 Masstruce Ltd (representing owners/occupiers of 11-20 and 41-61 Cambridge Mansions)

Indicated they were opposed to the scheme, fundamentally on the grounds of the location of the bus stand. Reasons provided were:

• Safety concerns arising from associated poor sight lines /lack of visibility on the corner of the road with Prince of Wales Drive for incoming traffic

• Loss of residents parking on a street that already suffers from a severe lack of residents parking

• Negative impact on the Conservation Area • Noise pollution • Further congestion on an already busy and congested road • Pollution from bus emissions • Overall loss of amenity on a residential road • Waste of public money

11.6.14 Soudan & Brynmaer Residents Association Indicated they were opposed to the proposals. The justifications for this were predominately around the relocation of bus stops marked D and C. The new locations would present an unacceptable increase in distance for those accessing

42

the stops from east of Prince of Wales Drive, especially for the elderly or those with mobility issues, and that for bus stop C parking provision had taken priority over need of pedestrians/bus passengers. In addition they expressed concern about junction capacity at Latchmere Road and how this would impact on congestion.

43

12 Next Steps TfL will use the consultation results alongside other operational, cost and transport planning factors to inform decision making about whether to proceed with the scheme as proposed and/or look at a re–design of the scheme to accommodate feedback. TfL will inform stakeholders and the public of the outcome of this decision in Autumn 2009.

44

13 Appendices Appendix 1: Copy of Consultation Leaflet Appendix 2: Leaflet Distribution Area Map

45

13.1 Appendix 1: Copy of Consultation Leaflet

46

51

13.2 Appendix 2: Leaflet Distribution Area Map

consultation about proposals for a southbound contra-flow ... · consultation leaflet a...

Documents