Cycling and walking improvements between Lea Bridge

and Dalston

Phase 1 between Dalston and Clapton

Consultation Report

February 2020

2

Contents

Table of figures .........................................................................................................................3

Executive summary..................................................................................................................4

1. About the proposals........................................................................................................5

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................5

1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................5

2. About the consultation....................................................................................................6

2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................6

2.2 Who we consulted .....................................................................................................6

2.3 Dates and duration ....................................................................................................6

2.4 What we asked...........................................................................................................6

2.5 Methods of responding .............................................................................................7

2.6 Consultation materials and publicity .......................................................................7

2.7 Pre-consultation engagement ......................................................................................8

2.8 How we considered equalities in the consultation................................................8

2.9 Analysis of consultation responses ........................................................................9

3. About the respondents ................................................................................................ 10

3.1 Respondent type..................................................................................................... 10

3.2 List of responding stakeholders ........................................................................... 10

3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation ................................................ 11

3.4 Distribution of respondents ................................................................................... 11

3.5 Demographics ......................................................................................................... 13

4. Summary of all consultation responses ................................................................... 17

4.1 Question 1: Effect of proposals as a whole on the way people choose to

travel 17

4.2 Question 1 (open question) & Question 3 (open question): Effect and impact

of proposals as a whole .................................................................................................... 19

4.3 Question 4: Types of respondent ......................................................................... 20

4.4 Quality of Consultation........................................................................................... 21

5. Responses to issues raised ....................................................................................... 23

6. Next steps ..................................................................................................................... 41

3

Table of figures

Figure 1 Proportion of respondent types in summary .................................................... 10

Figure 2 Detailed respondent types .................................................................................. 10

Figure 3 How respondents heard about the consultation .............................................. 11

Figure 4 Map to show the location of respondents to the consultation within proximity

to the proposed Cycleway route ........................................................................................ 12

Figure 5 Top 10 most represented Boroughs by respondent ....................................... 13

Figure 6 The gender of respondents to the consultation ............................................... 13

Figure 7 The age of respondents to the consultation ..................................................... 14

Figure 8 The ethnicity of respondents to the consultation ............................................. 15

Figure 9 The sexual orientation of respondents to the consultation ............................ 15

Figure 10 Faith of the respondents to the consultation .................................................. 15

Figure 11 Respondents who considered that their day-to-day activities were limited

................................................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 12 Effect of proposals on the way people choose to travel (walking, cycling

and public transport) ............................................................................................................ 18

Figure 13 Top 10 most frequently raised issues ............................................................. 20

Figure 14 Who responded to the consultation ................................................................. 21

Figure 15 Assessment of the quality of the consultation ............................................... 22

4

Executive summary

We worked with the London Borough of Hackney to develop proposals to help people walk and cycle more often in neighbourhoods linking Lea Bridge and Dalston.

We held a consultation on the first phase of our proposals, which was concerned

with proposed improvements in an area between Dalston and Clapton, from 17 July – 9 September 2019 and invited a wide range of people and other stakeholders to give us their views.

Summary of results

There were 627 responses to the consultation, including from 10 organisations or

individuals we would consider to be stakeholders.

We asked respondents to judge what effect our proposals might have on walking,

cycling, using public transport and using private transport for personal or private journeys. We provided a range of effects for respondents to choose between ranging from ‘Many more people would choose to travel in this way’ to ‘Fewer people

would choose to travel in this way’. We found that:

82 per cent of respondents felt that our proposals would mean that more

people would cycle

67 per cent felt that our proposals would mean that more people would walk

40 per cent felt that our proposals would mean that more people would use

public transport

48 per cent felt that our proposals would mean that fewer people would use

private transport for personal journeys

29 per cent felt that our proposals would mean that fewer people would use

private transport for business journeys

Next steps

The feedback we received was invaluable in helping us to further improve the

scheme. We will continue to work with the London Borough of Hackney to developed

detailed designs for the joint proposals. Subject to final approval the London

Borough of Hackney currently intends to commence construction on the proposals

between Dalston and Clapton in spring 2020.

A consultation on the second phase of our proposals, which was concerned with

proposed improvements in an area linking Clapton to Lea Bridge, was held from 17

October – 16 December 2019. We will report on the outcomes of that consultation

separately, in the Spring. We will not make any decisions on the second phase of

our proposals until we have considered the issues raised in that consultation.

5

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction

Our proposals were designed to make it easier to cross busy roads, remove through traffic on some residential roads and offer a safe, segregated space for people to cycle on the busier sections of the route. We consulted on our proposals in phases:

our first phase of consultation focussed on improvements between Dalston and Clapton.

The proposals included:

A new Cycleway that people cycling can use to get around

New and upgraded signalised junctions with pedestrian and cycle facilities New and upgraded pedestrian and cycle priority crossings Changing entry to and exit from some roads along the route

Improvements to traffic calming Changes to some parking and loading provision Improvements to the public realm

Cycleways are new high-quality cycle routes that people cycling can use to get around. They link communities, businesses and destinations across London. Each new Cycleway will have its own number with on-street signs and road markings,

making them easy to use.

1.2 Purpose

The proposed improvements were designed to help us meet the target set out in the Mayor's Transport Strategy that 80 per cent of all London trips be made on foot, by

bicycle or on public transport by 2041. Changing how space is allocated to different road users throughout London is an important way of helping more people travel sustainably.

The proposed new Cycleway between Lea Bridge and Dalston was identified in our

Strategic Cycling Analysis as a key area for existing and potential cycling. This proposed new Cycleway also provides an opportunity to improve the street network by encouraging walking and cycling, increasing connectivity to key attractions, new

developments, transport hubs and the wider Cycleways network.

The areas between Lea Bridge and Dalston tend to be residential with vibrant high streets and green space. However, some roads through these neighbourhoods are currently dominated by motor traffic and can be intimidating and unpleasant places

for people to walk and cycle. These proposals would provide a safer and more pleasant environment and would improve connections between residential areas and

town centres. They would contribute towards the Mayor of London’s Vision Zero ambition to eradicate deaths and serious injuries from our streets by 2041.

6

2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose

The objectives of the consultation were to:

Give stakeholders and the public easily-understood information about the proposals and allow them to respond

Allow us to understand any issues or impacts that might affect the proposals of which we were not previously aware

Allow respondents to make suggestions to us

2.2 Who we consulted Our consultation was open to anyone who had a view about our proposals; although

we primarily contacted relevant residents, businesses and stakeholders in the vicinity

of our proposals in the London Borough of Hackney.

2.3 Dates and duration The consultation ran for just over six weeks, from 17 July to 9 September 2019.

2.4 What we asked

Our website included a questionnaire for respondents to complete, although they

were also free to send us their thoughts by letter or email. We asked people who

completed our questionnaire to tell us how they thought the proposals might impact

how people would travel, and additionally to explain their reasoning for their

assessment in free text.

We also asked respondents to tell us whether our proposals would positively or

negatively affect their journeys, and additionally to tell us how we might mitigate any

negative impacts they foresaw. Respondents were also asked to give us their name,

email address and postcode, along with information about their travel habits, and

certain demographic information; although all of these questions were voluntary. Our

consultation questionnaire is included in Appendix A.

Our consultation was intended to enable us to learn what issues respondents might

have with our proposals, together with any suggestions they might have for how

these issues could be mitigated (or respondents suggestions for other changes or

improvements they felt might be made to the proposals). We developed our

consultation questionnaire accordingly, and included within it a set of questions we

felt would encourage respondents to consider specifically what issues they foresaw

7

with our proposals. We made clear on our consultation website that respondents

could also submit their views to us in writing to our Freepost or email address.

2.5 Methods of responding

People were able to respond to the consultation by:

answering the questions in the survey on our consultation website at

consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/dalston-to-lea-bridge

sending a letter to FREEPOST TfL CONSULTATIONS

emailing us at consultations@tfl.gov.uk

Foreign language translations, large print, Braille or audio versions of our

consultation materials could also be requested.

2.6 Consultation materials and publicity We used a range of channels to raise awareness of the consultation and ensure that

members of the public and stakeholders were aware of its purposes.

All materials encouraged interested parties to visit our website or contact us to find

out more about the scheme and how to respond.

2.6.1 Website

Our website consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/dalston-to-lea-bridge provided detailed

information about the consultation, including overview maps, drawings and

computer-generated images. It was divided into pages which:

provided an overview of the scheme

explained our proposals for each section of the scheme in detail

included ‘Healthy Street’ assessments for each neighbourhood as well as our

Equality Impacts Assessment

A copy of the information we provided on our website is included in Appendix A.

2.6.2 Letters and leaflets

We sent letters to over 16,000 local residents and businesses (i.e. all those

properties situated within 450m of the proposed route). Our letter made clear that

the consultation had launched and included an overview of the proposals. If our

letter distribution partner could not gain access to a property to post a letter then they

posted the letter first class the next day. Copies of the letter and a map of the

distribution area can be found in Appendix A.

8

2.6.3 Emails stakeholders

We also sent an email to a wide range of stakeholders likely to be interested in the

proposals. This email is included in Appendix A, together with the list of stakeholders

we approached.

2.6.4 Press and media activity

A Press Release was distributed to local and regional media at the time the

consultation launched. The launch of the consultation was subsequently repoted

online by a number of media outlets, including Hackney Citizen, Hackney Gazette

and Taxi Point, through the links below.

https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2019/07/22/transport-for-london-new-cycleway-lea-

bridge-dalston/

https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/tfl-announces-plans-for-cycleway-linking-

dalston-to-clapton-1-6166982

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-post/2019/07/17/Plans-for-new-walking-and-

cycling-link-in-east-London

A copy of our Press Release is included in Appendix A.

2.6.5 Digital advetising

We created an animated, eye-catching advert which was played automatically to people browsing the internet in the London Borough of Hackney. When clicked-on, the advert would take a viewer straight through to our website, where they could

read about our proposals and submit a response if they wished.

2.7 Pre-consultation engagement We made contact with the following stakeholders to offer a briefing on our emerging

proposals:

Madina Mosque Trust

BSix Sixth Form College and other local schools

Homerton Hospital and the London Ambulance Service

Millfields Park Users Group

RNIB

We also met several Hackney Councillors in March 2019 to discuss our proposals for

several schemes, including our proposals for cycling, walking and public transport improvements between Lea Bridge and Dalston.

2.8 How we considered equalities in the consultation In deciding on who to consult, we had regard to our public sector equality duty under

the Equality Act 2010 and the need to consider any impacts (positive or negative) of the proposals on people with protected characteristics. To ensure that any such impacts were brought to our attention through the consultation, we took steps to

9

ensure that a number of groups representative of people with protected characteristics in the community; including elderly, disabled persons or faith

organisations, were made aware of our consultation. The measures we took to ensure these groups could participate in the consultation included:

Identifying and emailing relevant stakeholders such as British Dyslexia Association, Age UK London, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Action on Hearing Loss

and Inclusion London, and inviting them to respond to the consultation

We met with the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) to expain our

proposals and listen to their feedback

Ensuring that the materials were written in plain English, and available on request

in different formats (for example, Braille, large print, other languages)

Ensuring that consultation events were held in accessible locations and at different times of the day, and that large scale materials were available to review

at the events

Considering how best to reach our target audiences and tailoring the way of

communicating with them. For example, by preparing hard copies of our online material for those not able to access our website

Publishing an Equality Impacts Assessment (EQIA) within our consultation materials - this allowed consultees to identify any significant gaps in our thinking and bring to our attention any impacts which we had not already identified

We are fully aware of our obligations under the Equality Act 2010, in particular the

importance of the public sector equality duty on our decision-making. Some responses to consultation raised issues relating to equalities and these will be taken into account in the development of our thinking on the proposals, with mitigation of

any adverse impacts being considered. The EQIA will be kept under review and updated throughout the decision-making process.

2.9 Analysis of consultation responses

All responses to the closed questions in our consultation questionnaire were reviewed and the results tabulated and reported. The results are set out in the next

chapter. The open question, where respondents provided comments, were read and analysed

in detail. All comments and suggestions received, whether by email, letter or through our online questionnaire were reviewed in order to identify common themes raised by respondents.

We developed a ‘code frame’ for the open questions. A code frame is simply a list of

the issues raised during the consultation; together with the frequency each was raised. Every open text response was analysed and either a new code was created or the response was added to one or more of the existing codes within the code

frame. Each response could be coded into multiple codes, depending on the number of issues raised by the individual. Where it was determined that a comment was

providing context to an issue (rather than forming a separate point), these did not form a separate code.

10

3. About the respondents

This section provides information about the consultation respondents, including how

they heard about the consultation and in what capacity they responded.

Respondents have been classified into two categories: Members of the public and

Stakeholders.

Respondent type Total %

Member of the public 617 98

Stakeholder 10 1

Total 627 100%

Figure 1 Proportion of respondent types in summary

3.1 Respondent type

Respondents were asked to select which of the following respondent types best

described them. Respondents were free to select as many options as they felt were

appropriate.

Total

Count %

A resident living close to the proposed scheme 419 31%

A cyclist who might use the proposed route, or who

cycles in the area currently 375 28%

A business located close to the proposed scheme 29 2%

Someone who uses public transport in the area

around the proposed scheme 328 24%

Someone who uses private transport in the area

around the proposed scheme 154 11%

Not local, but interested in the proposals 42 3%

Other 14 1%

Figure 2 Detailed respondent types

3.2 List of responding stakeholders

We received 9 responses from organisations or individuals we would consider to be stakeholders. We identified as a ‘stakeholder’ all those respondents we judged are

notable and reasonably well known amongst the public. This includes London’s local authorities, major transport groups, local neighbourhood or residents associations, major charities, businesses and business groups and industry associations.

11

We have listed below all those stakeholders who responded to the consultation. We have included in Appenidx B a summary of each of the responses we received from

these organisations or individuals.

Bridge Academy Hackney

Mildmay Road Residents Association

London Cycling Campaign

TfL Youth Panel

Rio Cross Residents Association

RNIB

Hackney Living Streets

Sustrans

Cllr Vincent Stops

Canal & River Trust

3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation

We asked respondents how they had heard that the consultation was taking place,

and provided a variety of options for them to choose from.

Figure 3 How respondents heard about the consultation

3.4 Distribution of respondents

We asked respondents to provide us with their home postcode. 486 respondents did

so and we have plotted the majority1 of these on the following map.

We ‘mapped’ the majority of respondents who provided a postcode to the London

Borough of Hackney. We have also included a table which lists the top-10 most

represented boroughs in terms of responses to the consultation, together with the

number of respondents mapped to each.

1 We have focussed on an area surrounding the route of the proposed new Cycleway, which is where

the majority of respondents lived

Total

Count %

Received an email from TfL 329 53%

Received a letter from TfL 70 11 %

Read about in the press 27 4%

Saw it on the TfL website 20 3%

Social media 96 15%

Other 33 5%

Not stated 41 6%

12

Figure 4 Map to show the location of respondents to the consultation within proximity to the proposed Cycleway route

13

Borough

Number of

responses received

Hackney 298

Tower Hamlets 64

Waltham Forest 50

Islington 16

Southwark 9

Newham 8

Lambeth 5

Haringey 4

Camden/Redbridge/Wandsworth 3

Figure 5 Top 10 most represented Boroughs by respondent

3.5 Demographics

We asked respondents to tell us about themselves, although they were under no

obligation to provide any particular information to us. The following tables set out the

information respondents gave us on their gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation

and faith. We also asked respondents whether they considered their day-to-day

activities were limited because of a long-term health problem or disability.

Total

Count %

Male 336 54%

Female 187 30%

Gender Neutral 0 0%

Trans Male 1 0.2%

Trans Female 4 0.6%

Prefer not to say 45 7%

Not answered 43 7%

Figure 6 The gender of respondents to the consultation

Total

Count %

Under 15 0 0.0%

16-20 5 0.8%

21-25 16 2%

26-30 72 11%

14

31-35 114 18%

36-40 85 13%

41-45 54 8%

46-50 41 6%

51-55 56 9%

56-60 28 4%

61-65 26 4%

66-70 11 1%

71+ 16 2%

Prefer not to say 49 8%

Not Answered 43 7%

Figure 7 The age of respondents to the consultation

Total

Count %

Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi 3 0.5%

Asian or Asian British – Chinese 7 1%

Asian or Asian British – Indian 16 2%

Asian or Asian British – Other 5 0.8%

Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 2 0.3%

Black or Black British – African 8 1%

Black or Black British – Caribbean 7 1%

Black or Black British – Other 5 0.8%

Mixed – Other 23 3%

Mixed – White and Asian 10 1%

Mixed – White and Black African 1 0.2%

Mixed – White and Caribbean 3 0.5%

Other Ethnic Group 2 0.3%

Other Ethnic Group – Arab 0 0%

Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 1 0.2%

Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 5 0.8%

Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 1 0.2%

15

White – British 261 42%

White – Irish 17 2%

White – Other 113 18%

Prefer not to say 79 12%

Not Answered 47 7%

Figure 8 The ethnicity of respondents to the consultation

Total

Count %

Heterosexual 362 58%

Bisexual 10 1%

Gay man 39 6%

Lesbian 13 2%

Other 9 1%

Prefer not to say 130 21%

Not Answered 53 8%

Figure 9 The sexual orientation of respondents to the consultation

Total

Count %

Buddhist 1 0%

Christian 35 21%

Hindu 8 5%

Muslim 18 11%

Sikh 2 1%

Jewish 3 1%

Other 3 1%

No religion 28 17%

Prefer not to say 20 12%

Not Answered 42 26%

Figure 10 Faith of the respondents to the consultation

16

Total

Count %

Yes, limited a lot 23 3%

Yes, limited a little 35 5%

No 461 74%

Prefer not to say 51 8%

Not Answered 46 7%

Figure 11 Respondents who considered that their day-to-day activities were limited

17

4. Summary of all consultation responses

This chapter summarises the outcomes of the consultation, including what issues

were raised by respondents in their written comments. This includes responses we

received by letter or email, and those submitted by people who completed our online

consultation questionnaire.

4.1 Question 1: Effect of proposals as a whole on the way people

choose to travel

We asked respondents to tell us what effect they felt the proposals would have on

the way people choose to travel. We also asked them to explain their answers to

this question, and the issues they raised are described in section 4.2.

The percentage scores in the chart below and the following tables account for those

respondents who did not answer the relevant question in our consultation

questionnaire, for completeness.

18

Figure 12 Effect of proposals on the way people choose to travel (walking, cycling and public transport)

Walking CyclingUsing public

transport

Using motorvehicles for

personal journeys

Using motorvehicles for

business journeys

Many more people would choose to travel in thisway

35% 58% 16% 6% 6%

A limited number of extra people would choose totravel in this way

28% 21% 21% 4% 3%

The proposals would have no effect 19% 9% 33% 27% 40%

Fewer people would choose to travel in this way 6% 5% 12% 45% 27%

I am unsure what effect the proposals might have 5% 2% 10% 11% 16%

Not Answered 5% 3% 6% 7% 7%

5% 3% 6% 7% 7% 5%

2%

10% 11% 16% 6%

5%

12%

45% 27%

19%

9%

33%

27%

40%

28%

21%

21%

4% 3%

35%

58%

16% 6% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Thinking about our proposals as a whole, what effect do you think they will have on the way people choose to travel?

19

Respondents felt that our proposals would have the greatest positive impact on

people choosing to cycle: 79 per cent felt that many or a limited number of extra

people would choose to travel this way. Respondents also agreed that walking would

become a more common choice of travel mode, with 63 per cent responding that

many or a limited number of extra people would choose to walk. A slightly lesser

proportion of respondents felt that our proposals would lead to greater use of public

transport, with 37 per cent saying that our proposals would mean more people would

travel in this way.

4.2 Question 1 (open question) & Question 3 (open question):

Effect and impact of proposals as a whole

We asked respondents to explain their reasoning behind their assessment of the effects of our proposals on the way people might choose to travel. We also asked

whether our proposals would have a positive or negative effect on respondents’ travel, and how any negative impacts could be minimised. The wording of both

questions is included below for reference. Full question text (open question 1): It would help us if you could use the space

below to explain your answers to the question above. If you are commenting on a particular location, please mention it to help us analyse the responses.

Full question text (open question 3): Please let us know if the proposals would have

a positive or negative impact on you or the journeys you make. Please explain how

we could minimise any negative impacts. Please also let us know if you have

feedback about the specific effects our proposals might have on particular junctions

or areas.

We found that respondents raised similar issues in the comments they made to both

open questions in our questionnaire, and in the letters and emails we received. For this reason we developed a single ‘code frame2’, which listed all of the issues raised by respondents across the open questions in the online questionnaire and in the

letters or emails we received. We have also grouped the issues raised thematically, to make the code frame more manageable and easy to understand.

We identified more than 75 individual issues raised by respondents to the consultation. This section provides details of only the most frequently raised issues,

for ease of reading. The complete code frame is included in Appendix B. 4.2.1 Open responses: Specific issues raised

The table below lists the 10 most frequently issues, including the number of times

each issue was raised by respondents.

2 A code frame is simply a list of the issues expressed by respondents to a consultation; together with

the frequency each was raised. Each code describes an issue raised by respondents in a common and consistent way.

20

Issue Number of times

raised by respondents

Changes will improve cycling/ walking

safety 102

Generally positive 90

Changes would encourage me to cycle more 79

Makes cycling/ walking safer 64

Will cause congestion and/or pollution 38

Proposals are not fit for purpose/ do not go far enough 29

Generally negative/ opposed to proposed cycle lane 29

Shared spaces are not safe and do not promote cycling 28

Cyclists do not use dedicated cycle lane 21

Will reduce pollution3 21

Figure 13 Top 10 most frequently raised issues

4.3 Question 4: Types of respondent

We asked respondents to tell us about themselves, including on what basis they were replying to the consultation. We provided a list of options for respondents to

choose from, although they were also free to specify an alternative in free-text, if necessary.

The results are set out in the chart below.

3 The issues ‘Cyclists do not use dedicated cycle lane’ and ‘Will reduce pollution’ are separate issues,

but were raised an equal number of times by respondents

21

Figure 14 Who responded to the consultation

4.4 Quality of Consultation

We asked respondents to rate the quality of various aspects of the consultation. The

results are shown in the chart below.

A residentliving

close tothe

proposed

route

A cyclistwho might

use theproposedroute, or

whocycles inthe area

currently

Abusiness

locatedclose to

the

proposedroute

Someonewho uses

publictransport

in the

areaaround

the

proposedroute

Someonewho uses

privatetransport

in the

areaaround

the

proposedroute

Not local,but

interestedin the

proposals

Other(please

specify)

Number of respondents 419 375 29 328 154 42 14

(%) 31% 28% 2% 24% 11% 3% 1%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

How are you responding to this consultation?

22

Figure 15 Assessment of the quality of the consultation

Websitestructure & ease

of finding whatyou needed

WrittenInformation

Maps, images &related

diagrams

Online surveyformat

Websiteaccessibility

Events & drop-in sessions

Promotionalmaterial

Very good 28% 27% 32% 28% 26% 6% 8%

Good 39% 37% 34% 36% 36% 9% 13%

Adequate 16% 15% 16% 18% 15% 8% 10%

Poor 2% 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3%

Very poor 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 4% 4%

Not applicable 2% 3% 1% 1% 6% 57% 48%

Not Answered 9% 12% 10% 10% 12% 13% 13%

9% 12% 10% 10% 12% 13% 13% 2%

3% 1% 1%

6%

57%

48%

4% 4%

3% 3%

2%

4%

4%

2% 3%

4% 3%

2%

3%

3%

16% 15% 16% 18%

15%

8%

10%

39% 37% 34%

36% 36%

9% 13% 28% 27%

32% 28% 26%

6% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%%

of

resp

on

de

nts

w

ho

se

lecte

d e

ach

op

tio

n

What do you think about the quality of this consultation?

23

5. Responses to issues raised

We have considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation and

we have provided an answer to each of these in the following tables. We have

grouped the issues raised by respondents into broad themes, to make this section of

the report easier to read and to provide a more readily understood overview of the

issues raised. Some respondents made positive comments about the proposals, all

of which we have noted. We have not included our response to these issues in the

table, for conciseness reasons.

Having reviewed all of the issues raised by respondents we have decided to make a

series of changes to our proposals, as follows:

Crossway junction with Boleyn Road The proposed two-way cycle track on

the north side of Crossway will now be a one-way cycle track eastbound. This

simplifies the proposals and removes the need for a shared use pavement

area. The changes incorporate recommendations made by the RNIB and

other stakeholders.

Kingsland High Street junction with Sandringham Road The westbound

traffic lane on Sandringham Road near to the junction with Kingsland High

Street will be widened to allow to allow cyclists to get to the junction safely

and access the Advanced Stop Line (ASL) at the traffic lights. In addition, a

taxi rank for two taxis will be provided on the west side of Kingsland High

Street, north of Sandringham Road. This replaces the rank that will be

removed from Sandringham Road under our original proposals.

Sandringham Road junction with St Marks Rise Two new speed humps

will be installed on St Marks Rise to the north and south of Sandringham

Road, to slow traffic approaching the junction. The existing pedestrian islands

on St Marks Rise will be widened to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the

road and to slow traffic.

Amhurst Road junction with Downs Park Road All pedestrian crossing

points will be widened to make it easier to cross the road.

There will be additional new trees and low level planting introduced at various

locations along the route.

We will provide new ‘raised entry’ treatments at John Campbell Road,

Abersham Road, Ferncliffe Road and Andre Street to provide step free

crossings and slow turning traffic.

24

Theme

Issue raised

Response

Negative

Proposals are not fit for purpose/ do not go far enough

The Cycleway proposals include major improvements to the crossing of the A10 in

Dalston and the link to Cycleway 1. The proposals have been designed in accordance with London Cycle Design Standards and our assessments show that the proposals would meet TfL’s Cycling Quality Criteria.

Proposals don't offer proper protection for

vulnerable road users

Proposals do little to stop the use of residential roads as rat

runs

Not convinced there will be a reduction in motor vehicle usage

This is similar

approach as the CS1 which is dangerous for cyclists

Provide protected cycle

lanes (Down Park Road and Sandringham Road)

Better protection

needed for cyclists and pedestrians safety

The proposals are designed to make it easier and safer to cycle between Dalston and Clapton. The chosen route follows quiet residential roads, has low traffic levels

and traffic calming features to limit vehicle speeds. Where traffic levels are higher on the route, specific measures have been proposed to reduce traffic levels. TfL and Hackney Council will monitor traffic volumes and speeds after the Cycleway is

delivered to ensure that it remains a high quality cycle route. The banned turning movements at the junction of Sandringham Road and Kingsland High Street will also

help to reduce the number of vehicles using the Cycleway. Many short local car trips are cycleable and the Cycleway will also provide more people with option to cycle rather than drive. There is evidence from other routes, including Quietway 1, that

high quality cycle routes do encourage cycling whether or not they feature segregated lanes.

25

Theme

Issue raised

Response

Minimise number of one way streets as they cause speeding &

lengthen journeys for motor vehicles

More should have been done to discourage

driving/ reduce motor vehicle traffic

Shared spaces are not safe and do not promote cycling

Shared use areas for walking and cycling are appropriate in certain situations and are designed to be safe and to suit the context of the location that they are

proposed. We have also considered feedback and made changes to the proposals. This includes re-designing the junction of Crossway and Boleyn Road so that there is no area where pedestrians and cyclists will share the pavement.

Scheme will cost a lot

of money for little effect/ waste of money

The Mayor's Transport Strategy and Healthy Streets approach set out initiatives to

improve public transportand walking and cycling infrastructure to meet the transport demands of a growing population and reduce car use. There is evidence from other Cycleways installed, that high quality cycle routes do encourage more cycling and

provide value for money. Generally opposed

Cyclists do not use dedicated cycle lanes

There is evidence that people do use good quality cycle lanes where they are

provided. It is particularly important to provide high quality cycle routes to ensure that new and less experience cyclists feel confident enough to use them.

Junction with Boleyn road is a completely

missed opportunity to make it safer for

cycling

Significant improvements are proposed, including a new segregated cycle track and

a priority crossing to the east of the junction.

Do not make a cycle The path across Hackney Downs will remain an option that people can choose to

26

Theme

Issue raised

Response

path around hackney

downs - no one will be going around the park (longer route)

Cycle route not

needed/ prefer to cycle through the park

Would prefer to see a diagonal route through

the park from SW to NE

use as an alternative to the route of the Cycleway. However, the path across the

centre of Hackney Downs may be less attractive during hours of darkness and the proposed route of the Cycleway provides an alternative option.

Loss of parking spaces

In some locations it has been necessary to propose a reduction in the amount of space available for parking cars to allow the Cyclway infrastructrue to be delivered.

This is in line with the London Borough of Hackney's policy on managing space for parking private vechicles.

Cyclists/cycling are more dangerous than

other modes of transport

Cyclists also need to be mindful of other

road users & follow the rules

Put warning markings/signage

The Highway Code must be adhered to by all road users, and we are strongly in

favour of promoting ‘responsible cycling’ and mutual respect between cyclists and other road users. This means working to eliminate offences such as jumping red lights, cycling on the pavement and cycling at night without adequate lighting.

27

Theme

Issue raised

Response

instructing cyclists to

stop when pedestrians are near

Increased pollution due

to potential delays

The proposals have been designed to make improvements to junctions and crossings to help people cycling and walking whilst keeping buses moving on Kingsland High Street (A10). The propsals are not expected to cause changes to

congestion or pollution levels in the area. Over time it is expected that the proposals will contribute to reducing congestion and pollution by making it easier to walk and

cycling.

Fewer buses & more

interchanges will be required which is not

feasible for disabled travellers There are no changes to bus stops or bus services within these proposals.

Changes will have a detrimental affect for

the elderly and or people with mobility issues and or the

disabled The changes to

crossway/Boleyn road look very complicated/

not useful Changes will have a

detrimental effect on the elderly, people with

mobility issues and/or

We have considered feedback from groups including the Royal National Institute of

Blind People, and made changes to the proposals. This includes re-designing the junction of Crossway and Boleyn Road so that there is no area where pedestrians and cyclists are expected to share the pavement. The proposals include new priority

pedestrian crossings at Crossway, Downs Park Road and Sandringham Road and a number of locations where crossing distances will be reduced making it easier and

safer for all pedestrians to cross the road.

28

Theme

Issue raised

Response

the disabled

No clear evidence that

there is a demand in this area for this change

TfL's Strategic Cycling Analysis published in 2017 identifiend 25 top priority corridors for cycling across London, including the route that this Cycleway will take. Further

information is on our website: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/strategic-cycling-analysis.pdf

Changes will be an inconvenience

When changes are proposed they are carefully designed to deliver the greatest

possible benefit to as many users as possible. We will work closely with the London Borough of Hackney to ensure that construction of the scheme causes the least disruption possible.

Will increase travelling time

The proposals have been designed to make improvements to junctions and

crossings to help people cycling and walking whilst keeping buses moving on Kingsland High Street (A10). The propsals are not expected to cause a change to journey times in the area.

Changes will make it

more dangerous for pedestrians

The proposals include new priority pedestrian crossings at Crossway, Downs Park Road and Sandringham Road and there a number of locations where crossing

distances will be reduced making it easier and safer for all pedestrians to cross the road. We have also considered feedback and made changes to the proposals. This

includes re-designing the junction of Crossway and Boleyn Road so that there is no area where pedestrians and cyclists will share the pavement.

29

Theme

Issue raised

Response

Don’t implement one

way on to Sandringham Road from Birkbeck Road to

Kingsland High Street

Don’t implement the forced left into Kingsland High Street

from Sandringham Road

This is required to create a cycle and pedestrian crossing at the junction of

Sandringham Road and Kingsland High Street without causing delays to bus passengers using Kingsland High Street (A10). It will also make Sandringham Road quieter and more pleasant to walk and cycle along.The A10 is a high priority bus

corridor and the proposals are designed not to cause delays to buses. It will also make Sandringham Road quieter and more pleasant to walk and cycle along.

Lack of protected lanes will not encourage

walking/ cycling Provide segregated

cycle lanes (non-location specific, along

Down Park Road & Sandringham Road)

Segregated cycle tracks are only recommended on Cycleways where traffic volumes

are high. The chosen route follows low trafficked residential streets and segregated cycle tracks are not appropriate or necessary for the majority of the route. There is

evidence from other routes including Quietway 1, that high quality cycle routes do encourage cycling whether or not they include segregated lanes.

The one-way section on Sandringham Rd

will be inconvenient and will result in more traffic on Shacklewell

Lane

When changes are proposed they are carefully designed to deliver the greatest

possible benefit to as many users as possible.

Lack of a bus lane will lead to delays and longer bus journeys

There are no changes to bus lanes within the proposals and no changes to bus

journey times are expected.

30

Theme

Issue raised

Response

Retain the dedicated

bus lane for quicker bus journeys

Proposed changes not helpful for pedestrians

The proposals include new priority pedestrian crossings at Crossway, Downs Park Road and Sandringham Road and a number of locations where crossing distances will be reduced making it easier and safer for all pedestrians to cross the road.

Cycling improvements seem to be at the

expense of other road users

The Mayor's Transport Strategy and Healthy Streets approach set out initiatives to

improve public transportand walking and cycling infrastructure to meet the transport demands of a growing population and reduce car use. These proposals form a key part of the Mayor's strategy to make cycling easier and safer for Londoners to get

around. In some cases, the changes may make it less convenient to use a private vehicle to drive in order to make it easier to cycle, walk and use public transport.

Concerned about traffic impact at the junction

at Boleyn Road & Mildmay Road for local

residents

The proposals are not expected to have a negative impact on the way the junction

operates for traffic or buses.

Object to banning of

the left turn from Kingsland High Street into Dalston Lane

A left turn ban from Kingsland High Street into Dalston Lane is not proposed in this consultation.

Vehicles servicing 130

Kingsland High Street will block the eastbound cycle way

The London Borough of Hackney will consider how best to accommodate loading

facilities for the site at 130 Kingsland High Street, taking into account the Cycleway proposals. The Cycleway proposals do already include an extended parking and

loading bay on the east side of Kingsland High Street approximately 30 metres to

the south of 130 Kingsland High Street.

Difficulties for cyclists moving off when

The proposals include an Advanced Stop Line (ASL) for cyclists approximately 5

metres ahead of the stop line for general traffic. This gives cyclists somewhere to

31

Theme

Issue raised

Response

waiting at traffic signals

at the hill on Kingsland High Street west

wait ahead of other traffic. In addition, cyclists waiting at the ASL will be given a

green light to go ahead of the signal for general traffic.

Concerns for visually

impaired pedestrians using the footpath to the west of Kingsland

High Street

The concern is noted, in particular with regard to people with visual impairments.

This is relevant to many situations where changes are made to the way streets and

junctions operate. We will consider how best to communicate the changes to ensure that local people are aware.

Concerns about the effect of the proposals on customers leaving

the Rio Lane cinema (with a suggestion that

there will be a ‘shared space’ section near the cinema)

The proposals do not include a shared space area. There will still be a significant paved area for pedestrians coming out of the cinema to congregate around, with a

cycle track passing through it.

Concerns that the two-

stage turn at Boleyn Road/Mildmay Road will not be used by a

majority of cyclists

The two-stage right turn facility serves as an additional option for less confident

cyclists. It does not prevent more confident cyclists waiting in the middle of the road to turn, as they do now.

Concerns that cyclists would have limited

visibility of traffic turning from Crossway

into John Campbell Road

This concern is noted. Following feedback received on the proposals for Crossway,

the design has been updated. In the original proposal the cycle track on the north

side of Crossway was a two-way cycle track. It is now proposed to be a one-way cycle track eastbound. Therefore the parallel crossing will only be used by cyclists

accessing John Campbell Road from Crossway. Cyclists will not be directed to use

the parallel crossing as they exit John Campbell Road.

Suggestions Provide secure bike parking in more places

The London Borough of Hackney is investing in Cycle Parking facilities across the borough. For more information see https://hackney.gov.uk/cycle-safety-and-security

32

Theme

Issue raised

Response

Move the pedestrian

crossing on Kingsland Road to the south side of John

Campbell/Sandringham Road

A pedestrian crossing to the south side of Sandringham Road would conflict with traffic turning left from Sandringham Road into Kingsland High Street.

Money should be spent on improving public

transport not cycle lanes

The Mayor's Transport Strategy and Healthy Streets approach set out proposals to

improve public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure to meet the transport demands of a growing population and reduce car use.

More walkways needed/ do more to

protect pedestrians

The proposals include new priority pedestrian crossings at Crossway, Downs Park Road and Sandringham Road and a number of locations where crossing distances

will be reduced making it easier and safer for all pedestrians to cross the road.

Close Sandringham Rd

to vehicles at Kingsland Rd/ make it

one way exit onto Amhurst Rd

Closing Sandringham Road to motor vehicles at Kingsland High Street was not

considered as a viable option due to the access requirements of the Argos Store at the western end of Sandringham Road.

Close Downs park Rd

to vehicles at the railway underpass & at

Amhurst Rd

This was not considered as part of these proposals. Network Rail have plans to close Downs Park Road at the junction of Bodney Road to motor traffic for one year to carry out maintenance work on the railway bridge underneath. Timings of the

closure are still to be confirmed by Network Rail.programming. Following the temporary closure, TfL and Hackney would monitor the impacts and consider

whether a permanent closure would be appropriate.

Visually impaired and

blind pedestrians need to have clear crossings

The proposals include new pedestrian crossings at Crossway, Downs Park Road

and Sandringham Road and a number of locations where crossing distances will be reduced making it easier and safer for all pedestrians to cross the road.

Cyclists should be given space on the

We have amended the proposals to remove the shared use area at the corner of Boleyn Road and Crossway.

33

Theme

Issue raised

Response

carriageway rather

than diverting them onto the footway (corner of Boleyn Rd)

Tighten junction of John Campbell Rd and

provide improved pedestrian crossing

The proposals include tightening the junction of John Campbell Road and providing an improved pedestrian crossing.

Tighten junction of Boleyn St to slow down

traffic speeds & reduce crossing distance

This would require the removal of the right turn lane from Crossway to Boleyn Road

which would delay the 236 bus and therefore was not considered as part of these proposals.

Do not uproot any trees/ plant more trees

We had not proposed the removal of any trees. In fact, the final designs will incorporate additional trees and planting along the Cycleway.

Replace ramp with a dropped kerb to retain

direct pedestrian lines and create a

continuous surface (John Campbell rd & Kingsland hg St.)

The proposals at the junction of John Campbell Road and Kingsland High Street will

create a dedicated cycle track where pedestrians can expect to see cyclists. This is prefered to creating a continuous shared use area due the high number of pedestrians using the high street area.

Install a pavement on

Cecilia Road/provide pedestrian refuge junction of Crossway &

Boleyn rd

Providing a pavement on Cecilia Road is not in the scope of these proposals. Providing a pedestrian refuge at the junction of Crossway and Boleyn Road require the removal of the right turn lane which would delay the 236 bus and therefore was

not considered as part of these proposals.

More routes needed

e.g. the roads North and East of Hackney

TfL is working to develop a network of Cycleways. Further routes are not in the scope of this consultation.

34

Theme

Issue raised

Response

downs.

Cycle route should have priority going over

Celia Road

This is not within the scope of the consultation. TfL and the London Borough of Hackney will review whether additional proposals would be appropriate for the

junction of Cecilia Road and Downs Park Road.

Cycleway along

Sandringham Road will only work if HGVs are

rerouted or discouraged from using the road

We will monitor traffic levels, including HGV volumes, after the Cycleway has been

delivered. The banned right turn from Sandringham Road to Kingsland High Street and the no entry to Sandringham Road from Kingsland High Street are expected to reduce the overall number of vehicles including HGVs using Sandringham Road.

Junction of Kingsland

Road and Sandringham Road needs urgent attention

as it is not very safe to cross on a bike

The proposals will create a signal controlled crossing for pedestrians and cyclists at

the junction of Kingsland High Street and Sandringham Road making it easier and safer to cross.

The section of road immediately east of

Dalston sees a lot of pedestrians and needs to be improved There are a number of improvements for pedestrians within these proposals.

Segregate the cycle lane at the Downs Park road/ Amhurst road

junction

The proposals include early release cycle signals to help cyclists get across the

junction ahead of other traffic. The traffic volumes on Downs Park Road are low, and therefore segregated cycle lanes are not required to create a high quality cycle route. In addition, there is limited space to create segregated cycle tracks and

maintain pavements.

Cycle route should be

linked up to Hackney Marshes & the Queen

This is not within the scope of the consultation, however, TfL and Hackney are working to create a joined up network of Cycleways and this will be considered.

35

Theme

Issue raised

Response

Elizabeth Olympic Park

(QEOP) to encourage more people to use these facilities

Sandringham Road should be closed

entirely to motor vehicles

Closing Sandringham Road to motor vehicles at Kingsland High Street was not

considered as a viable option due to the access requirements of the Argos Store at the western end of Sandringham Road.

Provide a cycle link from Dalston to

Hackney Downs Our proposals will provide a link between Dalston and Hackney Downs

Enforcement of 'no entry' turns required

Add loading bays on both sides of John

Campbell Rd to prevent delivery vehicles from

obstructing cycle route Monitoring and enforcement will be considered where necessary.

Allow more time for

people to cross at traffic lights safely

TfL is reviewing signal operations across London to optimise timings and where possible, provide additional time to pedestrians.

Shared use at Pembury Rd not fit for

purpose: redesign junction to

accommodate cycling & walking

The proposals will be refined during detailed design to ensure the space is well designed and can accommodate pedestrians and cyclists safely and comfortably.

36

Theme

Issue raised

Response

Signalised pedestrian

crossings needed across cycle ways

There are signalised crossings proposed at junctions along the Cycleway including Crossway, Sandringham Road and Amhurst Road.

Ease congestion by removing some parking spaces outside Argos

on Sandringham road

Aproximately three parking bays will be removed on the south side of Sandringham

Road, close to Argos.

General comment: John Campbell Road not suitable, Bradbury

Street would be more ideal

John Campbell Road is already closed to traffic at the junction of Kingsland High

Street and leads to a direct crossing of the High Street into Sandringham Road making it the best option.

Rental and buying schemes for bikes

should be made available

TfL already operates the Santander Cycle Hire scheme (although not in the vicinity

of our proposals), which provides over 750 docking stations across London. Further details are on our website: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycling/santander-cycles. The

introduction of a bicycle purchasing scheme is out of scope of our proposals.

Provide hatching at

shared use areas at Boleyn Road/Mildmay Road

No shared use footway is proposed, so the tactile paving will be the standard tactile

paving used for the relevant crossing type.

Query around stopping

arrangements for vehicles at parallel crossings

Vehicles are required to stop for all pedestrians and cyclists using the parallel zebra crossing.

Provide a parallel

crossing at Boleyn Road/Mildmay Road for visually-impaired

There are no plans to introduce a new type of crossing facility as part of this

Cycleway. It would not be feasible to introduce a signalised crossing point so close to the Boleyn Road junction and to the side road. The preference is noted, however,

for signal controlled crossing points for visually impaired pedestrians wherever

37

Theme

Issue raised

Response

pedestrians possible.

Out of scope Concerned that making

Lea Bridge Roundabout smaller that you'll push cars

onto using side roads

We noted these issues, and judged that they were out of scope of our consultation.

Speed bumps on

estate road connecting Kenninghall with

Hackney Downs are unsafe for cyclists and should be removed

Implement traffic

slowing techniques on side roads surrounding the roundabout to

avoid congestion

Cyclists should pay road tax and insurance

Close St. Jude St at King Henry's Walk.

Upgrade CS1 on Boleyn Rd. & make a

two way segregated track on the east side of the road

Rectify the issue of duplication of buses

running on the same

38

Theme

Issue raised

Response

route to reduce

pollution in Hackney

Remove right turn pocket on Cricket field Road to allow space for

separate walking & cycling facilities

Filter King Henry’s

Walk south of the junction with St. Jude

St & Mildmay Grove North

Relocate modal filter from the junction

Downs Park Road (east) to the junction of Downs Park Road &

Clarence Road

Make a simple priority

junction (Cricketfield Road and

Queensdown Road)

The junction of Downs

Road & Queensdown Road should be turned

into a filtered public square

39

Theme

Issue raised

Response

Introduce a bus-and-

cycle only gate in Matthias Road

Protection for cyclists and pedestrians through the carpark (a

painted walkway/cycleway at

Waterworks lane)

Junction of Downs

Park Road/Queensdown

Road should be closed entirely to motor vehicles

Restructure layout & right turns at the Crossway/Shacklewell

Lane junction of Kingsland High St to enhance safety

Remove the roundabout in its entirety in favour of a

less motor-centric intersection

An underpass for cyclists would be better

40

Theme

Issue raised

Response

to minimise traffic

impact

41

6. Next steps

The feedback we received was invaluable in helping us to further improve the

scheme. We will continue to work with the London Borough of Hackney to developed

detailed designs for the joint proposals. Subject to final approval the London

Borough of Hackney currently intends to commence construction on the proposals

between Dalston and Clapton in spring 2020.