DOCSLIB.ORG

Central London Bus Services Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Central London Bus Services Review Consultation Report April 2019 Contents Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 3 Summary of issues raised during consultation ......................................................... 3 Petitions ................................................................................................................... 5 Next steps ................................................................................................................ 5 1. About the proposals ................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Detailed description ........................................................................................ 8 2. About the consultation ........................................................................................... 14 2.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 14 2.2 Potential outcomes ....................................................................................... 14 2.3 Who we consulted ........................................................................................ 14 2.4 Dates and duration ....................................................................................... 14 2.5 What we asked ............................................................................................. 15 2.6 Methods of responding ................................................................................. 16 2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ............................................................. 16 2.9 Equalities Impact Assessment ..................................................................... 19 3. About the respondents .......................................................................................... 21 4. Summary of all consultation responses ................................................................. 26 5. Summary of stakeholder responses ............................................................... 125 6. Next steps ....................................................................................................... 163 Appendix A: Consultation questions ........................................................................ 164 Appendix B: Stakeholder lists .................................................................................. 166 Appendix C: Consultation advertising...................................................................... 189 Appendix D: Press release ...................................................................................... 192 Appendix E: Public and stakeholder emails ............................................................ 197 Appendix F: About the respondents ........................................................................ 199 2 Executive summary This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation on the central London Bus Services Review. Between 28 September and 9 November 2018 we consulted on changes to 33 bus routes in central London and the proposed introduction of one new route. These routes run across London, but the majority of proposed changes take place in inner and central London. We received 7,184 public responses to the consultation and 134 stakeholder responses. Summary of issues raised during consultation Tottenham Court Road (routes 14 and 134) 750 people provided comments on these routes 79% of respondents felt it would increase their journey time 80% of respondents felt it would increase their amount of interchange The most common concern was on access to central London King’s Road, Piccadilly, Shaftesbury Avenue (routes 9, N9, 11, 19, 22, 311) 2,290 people provided comments on these routes 89% of respondents felt it would increase their journey time 88% of respondents felt it would increase their amount of interchange The most common concern was on access to Battersea and bus capacity Whitehall and Westminster Bridge (routes 3 and 53) 505 people provided comments on these routes 74% of respondents felt it would increase their journey time 69% of respondents felt it would increase their amount of interchange The most common concern was on access to central London Waterloo to Fleet Street (routes 4, 172 and 341) 722 provided comments on these routes 78% of respondents felt it would increase their journey time 75% of respondents felt it would increase their amount of interchange The most common concerns were on access to Waterloo and access to Waterloo for passengers with mobility issues Euston Road (routes 59 and 476) 442 provided comments on these routes 74% of respondents felt it would increase their journey time 65% of respondents felt it would increase their amount of interchange 3 The most common concern was on access to Euston station Marylebone Road (routes 205 and N205) 216 people provided comments on these routes 45% of respondents felt it would increase their journey time 36% of respondents felt it would increase their amount of interchange The most common concern was that the restructure of routes will make it harder for passengers with mobility issues to access Marylebone station Kingsway (route 171) 464 people provided comments on this route 82% of respondents felt it would increase their journey time 82% of respondents felt it would increase their amount of interchange The most common concern was access to central London Blackfriars and London Bridge (routes 35, 40, 45, 76, 100, 388, 343, RV1) 1,402 people provided comments on these routes 80% of respondents felt it would increase their journey time 76% of respondents felt it would increase their amount of interchange The most common concern was access to London Bridge and the withdrawal of route RV1 Kingsland Road (route 67, 149 and 242) 557 people provided comments on these routes 81% of respondents felt it would increase their journey time 74% of respondents felt it would increase their amount of interchange The most common concern was the worsening of public transport coverage in Hackney and access to the City London Bridge and Hackney (routes 26, 48 and 55) 827 people provided comments on these routes 81% of respondents felt it would increase their journey time 73% of respondents felt it would increase their amount of interchange The most common issue was access to London Bridge for people with mobility issues Holloway Road (271 night service) 165 people provided comments on this route 65% of respondents felt it would increase their journey time 56% of respondents felt it would increase their amount of interchange 4 The most common concerns were interchange, walking greater distances to and from bus stops at night will decrease passenger's, especially women’s safety, and access to Whittington Hospital Petitions There were 6 petitions submitted against the proposals. Four of these petitions were against changes to route 19. Together they had 3,437 signatures. The other two were against the changes to route 53 (1,938 signatures) and routes 48 and 242 (1,473 signatures). Next steps We have now published our response to issues raised document which explains our next steps. 5 1. About the proposals 1.1 Introduction The way people travel around London is constantly changing. We need to have a public transport system that adapts to varying demand, while supporting economic growth and allowing Londoners to live, work and enjoy life in the Capital. Buses play a unique role in the life of London. They are the most accessible form of public transport and they provide the widest and densest network of travel options for distances that are too long to walk or cycle. Good reliable bus services are fundamental to how our customers move around the city. The bus network is crucial to London’s continued economic and social development, and will be vital in meeting the Mayor’s Transport Strategy target of 80 per cent of journeys being made using sustainable transport options by 2041. In 2016 the Mayor introduced the Hopper fare which has already helped millions of passengers make affordable bus journeys across London. The Hopper fare allows Londoners to make multiple journeys within one hour at no extra cost. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy also stated the importance of making the most of the flexibility of the bus network to reduce and remove existing services where they are no longer required in central and inner London and use this capacity to provide new or improved services in outer London. Our investment in walking and cycling infrastructure, as well as improvements to the Overground and Tube network, are starting to change how our customers use the bus network. Our customers are now finding that they have a number of new travel options that are quicker, easier and more accessible when compared to their existing bus journeys. This change in bus use is most pronounced in central London and the map below illustrates how many people are using our buses and how this has changed considerably during the period 2014/15 – 2017/18. 6 We are taking steps to address this decline in bus use in central London. One way to address this is to improve our customer experience by tackling bus
Recommended publications
  • Park Life: Ensuring Green Spaces Remain a Hit with Londoners

    Park Life: Ensuring Green Spaces Remain a Hit with Londoners

    EMBARGOED UNTIL WEDNESDAY 5 JULY 1017, 5AM Park life: ensuring green spaces remain a hit with Londoners Environment Committee July 2017 EMBARGOED UNTIL WEDNESDAY 5 JULY 1017, 5AM Holding the Mayor to account and investigating issues that matter to Londoners EMBARGOED UNTIL WEDNESDAY 5 JULY 1017, 5AM Environment Committee Members Leonie Cooper AM Tony Arbour AM (Chair) Conservative Labour Caroline Russell AM Joanne McCartney (Deputy Chair) AM Green Labour Jennette Arnold OBE David Kurten AM AM UKIP Labour Shaun Bailey AM Conservative The Environment Committee examines all aspects of the capital’s environment by reviewing the Mayor’s strategies on air quality, water, waste, climate change and energy. Contact Grace Loseby, Assistant Scrutiny Mary Dolan, External Relations Manager Officer Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: 020 7983 4299 Telephone: 020 7983 4603 Follow us: @LondonAssembly #AssemblyEnv facebook.com/london.assembly EMBARGOED UNTIL WEDNESDAY 5 JULY 1017, 5AM Contents Foreword ........................................................................... 4 Recommendations ............................................................. 7 1. Introduction ............................................................... 9 2. London’s green spaces ............................................. 11 3. Funding for London’s green spaces ......................... 17 4. Alternative delivery methods .................................. 23 5. Towards a greener London ...................................... 28
  • Euston Resident's Assembly Report

    Euston Resident's Assembly Report

    ‘Our Euston’ A report of the work of the Euston Residents’ Assembly (September - December 2018) Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6 2 Getting around Euston ..................................................................................................... 11 3 Euston’s open spaces........................................................................................................ 20 4 Best use of space .............................................................................................................. 28 5 Summary and next steps .................................................................................................. 34 valuesfirst Page 2 of 34 Executive Summary 1 Background The decision to build HS2 and the associated development means that the area around Euston is set to change dramatically with huge challenges and potentially many benefits for local people. The redevelopment of Euston Station and adjacent sites involves HS2 Ltd, Network Rail, Transport for London, Lendlease—the Department for Transport’s Master Development Partner, and the London Borough of Camden which is the planning authority. Camden council is producing a Euston Area Planning Brief, which will support the existing Euston Area Plan in guiding the development. Public consultation on the draft brief
  • Operators Route Contracts

    Operators Route Contracts

    Company Name Routes On Contract Contract Start Date Contract End Date Extended Expiry Date Blue Triangle Buses Limited 300 06-Mar-10 07-Dec-18 03-Mar-17 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 193 01-Oct-11 28-Sep-18 28-Sep-18 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 364 01-Nov-14 01-Nov-19 29-Oct-21 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 147 07-May-16 07-May-21 05-May-23 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 376 17-Sep-16 17-Sep-21 15-Sep-23 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 346 01-Oct-16 01-Oct-21 29-Sep-23 Blue Triangle Buses Limited EL3 18-Feb-17 18-Feb-22 16-Feb-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited EL1/NEL1 18-Feb-17 18-Feb-22 16-Feb-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited EL2 18-Feb-17 18-Feb-22 16-Feb-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 101 04-Mar-17 04-Mar-22 01-Mar-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 5 26-Aug-17 26-Aug-22 23-Aug-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 15/N15 26-Aug-17 26-Aug-22 23-Aug-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 115 26-Aug-17 26-Aug-22 23-Aug-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 674 17-Oct-15 16-Oct-20 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 649/650/651 02-Jan-16 01-Jan-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 687 30-Apr-16 30-Apr-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 608 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 646 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 648 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 652 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 656 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 679 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 686 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote
  • A Co-Operative Vision for South London's

    A Co-Operative Vision for South London's

    Party Support Mailing April 2012 NATIONAL NEWS Please find below the latest news from Parliament, our national campaigns, the Co-operative Councils Network and more. Please circulate to your members or include this in your local newsletters. You can find all the latest news and opinions from the Co-operative Party at www.party.coop. A Co-operative vision for South London’s libraries Labour & Co-operative councillor Timothy Godfrey, Secretary of the London Co-operative Party, contrasts the possibilities for library services offered by co-operative solutions and the cuts and closures threatened by Croydon’s Conservatives In Croydon, local Labour & Co-operative Councillors have proposed to the ruling Conservative Council that instead of privatising the library service to a large scale private provider or another local authority under contract, the Council exploits an example of efficiency and popularity on its doorstep. The Upper Norwood Joint Library, is an independent library authority funded and run by two South London Councils, Croydon Council and Lambeth Council. Croydon Council spends £8million running one central library and 12 branch libraries. If you allow a generous £1.2million to run the central library, and its £200,000 contribution to the Upper Norwood Library (Lambeth and Croydon both contribute half the budget), that leaves a cost per branch library in Croydon at a staggering £550,000 per year. That might be acceptable, if the branch libraries in Croydon were well staffed, open long hours and in large buildings. They are not. They are small, often only open 4 days a week. To add insult to injury, the Conservative run council cut half of all qualified librarians last year in a ‘cost cutting’ drive.
  • The Go-Ahead Group Plc Annual Report and Accounts 2019 1 Stable Cash Generative

    The Go-Ahead Group Plc Annual Report and Accounts 2019 1 Stable Cash Generative

    Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 29 June 2019 Taking care of every journey Taking care of every journey Regional bus Regional bus market share (%) We run fully owned commercial bus businesses through our eight bus operations in the UK. Our 8,550 people and 3,055 buses provide Stagecoach: 26% excellent services for our customers in towns and cities on the south FirstGroup: 21% coast of England, in north east England, East Yorkshire and East Anglia Arriva: 14% as well as in vibrant cities like Brighton, Oxford and Manchester. Go-Ahead’s bus customers are the most satisfied in the UK; recently Go-Ahead: 11% achieving our highest customer satisfaction score of 92%. One of our National Express: 7% key strengths in this market is our devolved operating model through Others: 21% which our experienced management teams deliver customer focused strategies in their local areas. We are proud of the role we play in improving the health and wellbeing of our communities through reducing carbon 2621+14+11+7+21L emissions with cleaner buses and taking cars off the road. London & International bus London bus market share (%) In London, we operate tendered bus contracts for Transport for London (TfL), running around 157 routes out of 16 depots. TfL specify the routes Go-Ahead: 23% and service frequency with the Mayor of London setting fares. Contracts Metroline: 18% are tendered for five years with a possible two year extension, based on Arriva: 18% performance against punctuality targets. In addition to earning revenue Stagecoach: 13% for the mileage we operate, we have the opportunity to earn Quality Incentive Contract bonuses if we meet these targets.
  • Churches of Marylebone (Pdf)

    Churches of Marylebone (Pdf)

    The Churches of Marylebone The Parish Church: Marylebone owes its name to its parish church. Although originally dedicated to St John the Baptist, the Parish Church has, since 1400, been dedicated to The Blessed Virgin Mary. A parish church is recorded by the 12th century and this building was situated on, what is today, Oxford Street. The parish church has always been the parish church of the Manor of Tyburn and when the parish church was moved to a position opposite the old manor house (at the top of what is now Marylebone High Street) St Mary by the Ty Bourne got shortened to Mary-le bone and then to Marylebone. The present parish church building dates from 1817 and was designed by the architect Thomas Hardwicke. Now, just off the High Street, there are three churches. They are from different Christian traditions, with different patterns of worship and different emphases in the faith, but they work together. They are one in following Jesus and his way of love. The Parish Church and Hinde Street Methodist Church signed a formal Covenant to work together in 2007. They have active links with other faiths: with the West London Synagogue, the London Central Mosque and the Buddhist Temple on Margaret Street. The parish of St Marylebone once encompassed an enormous geographical area stretching from Oxford Street in the south to Maida Vale in the north and Edgware Road in the west to the boundary with Camden in the east: the old manors of Tyburn and Lillestone. Today, this area is served by many other parish churches, all carved out of the historic parish of St Marylebone.
  • Proposed Cycling and Pedestrian Improvements on A21 Farnborough Way at Green Street Green

    Proposed Cycling and Pedestrian Improvements on A21 Farnborough Way at Green Street Green

    Proposed cycling and pedestrian improvements on A21 Farnborough Way at Green Street Green Consultation Report October 2013 1 Contents 1. Introduction……………………………………………….….……………………..2 2. The Consultation.................………………………………………………………4 3. Results of the consultation…......………………………………………….......... 4 4. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….10 Appendix A – copy of consultation letter…………………………..……...….…11 Appendix B – list of stakeholders consulted.……………………………..…….13 2 1 Introduction Background In 2005 a petition with 100 signatures was received by Transport for London (TfL) from Bob Neill (London Assembly Member), asking us to provide a signal controlled crossing on the A21 near the junction with Cudham Lane North. An investigation into providing improved crossing facilities was initiated the same year resulting in a design consisting of a staggered signal controlled crossing which was consulted on in January 2010. Subsequently it was decided that the scheme was not deliverable as collision data for the road was not sufficient to justify the cost of the scheme or impact on general traffic movements. An alternative scheme for addressing pedestrian improvements was subsequently designed (as detailed below). Objectives The proposals are designed to improve pedestrian and cycling accessibility and connectivity around the A21 Green Street Green roundabout and in particular to provide improved pedestrian and cycle links between A21 Farnborough Way and A21 Sevenoaks Way as well as the residential developments in Cudham Lane North and the centre of Green Street Green, without significant impact on general traffic movements. General Scope of proposals The proposals would see the introduction of a new wide uncontrolled pedestrian and cycle crossing facility across A21 Farnborough Way, improvements to the existing crossing facility across Cudham Lane North, and improved shared pedestrian and cycle routes.
  • Foodbank in Demand As Pandemic Continues

    Foodbank in Demand As Pandemic Continues

    ENFIELD DISPATCH No. 27 THE BOROUGH’S FREE COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER DEC 2020 FEATURES A homelessness charity is seeking both volunteers and donations P . 5 NEWS Two new schools and hundreds of homes get go-ahead for hospital site P . 6 ARTS & CULTURE Enfield secondary school teacher turns filmmaker to highlight knife crime P . 12 SPORT How Enfield Town FC are managing through lockdown P . 15 ENFIELD CHASE Restoration Project was officially launched last month with the first of many volunteering days being held near Botany Bay. The project, a partnership between environmental charity Thames 21 and Enfield Council, aims to plant 100,000 trees on green belt land in the borough over the next two years – the largest single tree-planting project in London. A M E E Become a Mmember of Enfield M Dispatch and get O the paper delivered to B your door each month E Foodbank in demand C – find out more R E on Page 16 as pandemic continues B The Dispatch is free but, as a Enfield North Foodbank prepares for Christmas surge not-for-profit, we need your support to stay that way. To BY JAMES CRACKNELL we have seen people come together tial peak in spring demand was Citizens Advice, a local GP or make a one-off donation to as a community,” said Kerry. “It is three times higher. social worker. Of those people our publisher Social Spider CIC, scan this QR code with your he manager of the bor- wonderful to see people stepping “I think we are likely to see referred to North Enfield Food- PayPal app: ough’s biggest foodbank in to volunteer – we have had hun- another big increase [in demand] bank this year, most have been has thanked residents dreds of people helping us.
  • Agenda Reports Pack PDF 2 MB

    Agenda Reports Pack PDF 2 MB

    AGENDA Meeting GLAOversightCommittee Date Thursday7November2013 Time 2.00pm Place CommitteeRoom5,CityHall,The Queen'sWalk,London,SE12AA Copiesofthereportsandanyattachmentsmaybefoundat http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/oversight MostmeetingsoftheLondonAssemblyanditsCommitteesarewebcastliveat http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/webcasts whereyoucanalsoview pastmeetings. MembersoftheCommittee LenDuvallAM(Chair) TonyArbourAM(DeputyChairman) JennetteArnoldOBEAM AndrewBoffAM DarrenJohnsonAM JoanneMcCartneyAM SteveO'ConnellAM CarolinePidgeonMBEAM ValerieShawcrossCBEAM AmeetingoftheCommitteehasbeencalledbytheChairoftheCommitteetodealwiththebusiness listedbelow.Thismeetingwillbeopentothepublic.Thereisaccessfordisabledpeople,and inductionloopsareavailable. MarkRoberts,ExecutiveDirectorofSecretariat Wednesday30October2013 FurtherInformation Ifyouhavequestions,wouldlikefurtherinformationaboutthemeetingorrequirespecialfacilities pleasecontact:JohnBarry,SeniorCommitteeOfficer;Telephone:02079834425;Email: [email protected];Minicom:02079834458. FormediaenquiriespleasecontactMarkDemery,02079835769. Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutindividualreportspleasecontactthereportauthorwhosedetailsare attheendofeachreport.Thereislimitedundergroundparkingfororangeandbluebadgeholders, whichwillbeallocatedonafirst-comefirst-servedbasis.PleasecontactFacilitiesManagement(020 79834750)inadvanceifyourequireaparkingspaceorfurtherinformation. Ifyou,orsomeoneyouknow,needsacopyoftheagenda,minutesorreports inlargeprintorBraille,audio,orinanotherlanguage,thenpleasecalluson
  • View Call List: Chamber PDF File 0.08 MB

    View Call List: Chamber PDF File 0.08 MB

    Issued on: 19 April at 5.37pm Call lists for the Chamber Tuesday 20 April 2021 A list of Members, both virtually and physically present, selected to ask Oral Questions and to speak in response to Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements; and a list of Members both physically and virtually present selected to participate in substantive proceedings. Call lists are compiled and published incrementally as information becomes available. For the most up-to-date information see the parliament website: https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/ CONTENTS 1. Oral Questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs 1 2. Urgent Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Afghanistan 6 3. Ministerial Statement: Minister for Equalities on Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities 7 4. Finance Bill: Committee Stage (Construction industry scheme etc and tax avoidance or evasion) 8 5. Finance Bill: Committee Stage (Stamp duty land tax, enveloped dwellings) 9 6. Finance Bill: Committee Stage (VAT, steel removed to Northern Ireland, banking) 11 ORAL QUESTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN, COMMONWEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRS After prayers Order Member Question Party Virtual/ Minister replying Physical 1 Ben Everitt (Milton What steps the Government Con Physical Secretary Raab Keynes North) is taking to help ensure that children in fragile and conflict-affected countries can access education and learning. 2 Sarah Champion Supplementary Lab Virtual Secretary Raab (Rotherham) 2 Tuesday 20 April 2021 Order Member Question Party Virtual/ Minister replying Physical 3 Chris Law (Dundee Supplementary SNP Virtual Secretary Raab West) 4 + 5 Rachel Hopkins (Luton What recent assessment he Lab Virtual S+B5:F21ecretary South) has made of the (a) human- Raab itarian and (b) human rights situation in Tigray, Ethiopia.
  • Commercial Street Taxi Rank Summary

    Commercial Street Taxi Rank Summary

    Consultation Summary A1202 Commercial Street loading bay changes February 2017 [Type text] Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 2 The consultation ....................................................................................................... 3 3 About the respondents .............................................................................................. 4 4 Overview of responses ............................................................................................. 5 5 Summary and conclusion .......................................................................................... 6 Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted ............................................................... 7 Appendix B - Consultation material .............................................................................. 9 2 1 Introduction We consulted on proposals to convert an existing loading bay into a shared use night-time taxi rank and daytime loading bay on the A1202 Commercial Street near Spitalfields Market. The consultation ran from 25 January 2016 to 19 February 2016. 1.1 About the proposals Our proposal would create a new night-time taxi rank for licenced black cabs to help people get home. The existing loading bay outside property numbers 105 and 107 Commercial Street would operate as a taxi rank Monday-Sunday 7pm-7am. Other vehicles would not be able to wait in the bay during these times. The existing loading bay hours
  • London Assembly

    London Assembly

    Appendix 2 Transport Committee – Wednesday, 6 December 2017 Transcript of Agenda Item 8 – Cycling Infrastructure Keith Prince AM (Chairman): It now gives me great pleasure to welcome Andrew [Gilligan], a man I worked with a few years ago when he was the Cycling Czar. He is not any more. His title is ‘Cycling Czar emeritus’ or something, in the Latin. We are now going to do a section on all sorts of things to do with cycling. Thank you very much for coming along. I am going to kick off with the first question and it goes like this. You have been critical of recent delays in getting cycling infrastructure built. What do you think has gone wrong? Andrew Gilligan (Former Cycling Commissioner): It is weak political leadership. The key condition for cycling improvements to happen is strong political leadership. We have seen that in the Mini-Hollands in Waltham Forest and in Enfield, which are the only schemes to have seen anything really happening on the ground in the last 19 months. We have not seen that from City Hall. There does not seem to be any real willingness to make decisions that significantly alter the status quo on the roads. Keith Prince AM (Chairman): Secondly, is borough capacity still a problem for delivering schemes and what are your views on plans for Cycle Superhighway (CS) 4 and CS9? Andrew Gilligan (Former Cycling Commissioner): Broadly, borough capacity was always the most serious problem we faced. Not very many boroughs are both willing and capable. Some boroughs were willing but not capable.