A23 Streatham Hill Consultation Report

Home , Brixton Hill, Brixton Hill (ward), Florence Eshalomi, Streatham Hill (ward)

Consultation Report January 2021 Executive Summary

Between 10 February and 19 April 2020, we consulted on plans to transform the A23 Streatham Hill in south London, between Sternhold Avenue and Holmewood Road to make it easier, safer and more pleasant for people to cycle and walk.

We received 1118 responses to the consultation; 1094 from members of the public and 24 from Stakeholders.

We asked how safe the proposals would make people feel when travelling through the area in the following ways: walking, cycling, using public transport, and using motor vehicles for personal or business journeys.

83% of respondents thought the changes would make cycling through the area safer or a lot safer, and 70% thought it would make walking safer or a lot safer. 43% and 42% of respondents respectively, thought that the proposals would make no difference to the safety of those using public transport or motor vehicles to travel through the area.

Next Steps

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we will modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme. We are currently in the process of updating our designs based on these comments.

The key updates to the design since consultation will include:

• The closure of Tierney Road at the junction of the A23 to prevent rat-running traffic subject to further local consultation • Due to the proposed closure of Tierney Road Bus Stop T and TA will be brought back together meaning passengers will no longer need to cross Tierney Road when interchanging between these stops • We are working on a change to the design for the junction of Ardwell Road to provide an additional red route loading bay for use by local businesses, this may result in access changes to Cricklade Road, subject to further local consultation • We are working on an updated design for the Holmewood Road junction to improve the cyclist provision in this area. These changes could potentially involve access changes to Holmewood Road at the junction of the A23, subject to further local consultation • We have identified areas which we think may be viable for further tree planting and other greening. More work to explore sustainable planting will be undertaken at the next stage of design • We will continue to engage with local businesses as detailed design develops to ensure adequate loading is provided where practicable

• We will arrange a separate meeting with representatives to discuss retaining loading access for the Streatham Theatre • We will engage further with Arriva on the interaction between the scheme and buses accessing Brixton Bus Garage • We are reviewing the extents of the scheme to try and improve east – west cycle permeability

Once we have made the above amendments to the design and subject to further funding, we will aim to progress the scheme to detailed design in Spring 2021 with construction potentially starting in early 2022.

Contents

1. Summary of consultation responses ...... 1 1.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 ...... 1 1.2 Summary of responses to Question 2 ...... 2 1.3 Summary of responses to Question 3 ...... 5 1.4 Summary of responses to Question 4 ...... 6 1.5 Stakeholder responses ...... 7 2. About the consultation ...... 15 2.1 Purpose ...... 15 2.2 Potential outcomes ...... 15 2.3 Who we consulted ...... 15 2.4 Dates and duration ...... 15 2.5 What we asked ...... 16 2.6 Methods of responding ...... 16 2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 16 2.8 Equalities Assessment ...... 18 2.9 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 19 3. About the respondents ...... 20 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 20 3.2 How public respondents heard about the consultation ...... 20 3.3 Methods of responding ...... 20 3.4 Who responded ...... 21 3.5 Comments on the consultation process and material ...... 21 4. Next steps ...... 24 Appendix A: Response to issues raised ...... 25 Appendix B: Analysis of comments ...... 32 Appendix C: Consultation materials ...... 40 Appendix D: List of stakeholders consulted with ...... 46

1. Summary of consultation responses

We received 1118 responses to the consultation; 1094 from members of the public and 24 from Stakeholders. Chapter 3 on p20 summarises the demographic information about our respondents.

To clearly show the numbers of people who had a view on the aspect of the proposal, the graphs and tables in the sections 1.1 and 1.2 do not include numbers for those who did not answer each question.

1.1 Summary of responses to Question 1

1.1.1 Overall summary The first question asked how often respondents travelled through the area by the following methods: walking, cycling, using public transport, and using motor vehicles for personal or business journeys,

Walking Cycling Public transport Motor vehicle Total % Total % Total % Total % Daily 357 39% 136 16% 221 24% 98 11% 2-3 times a week 208 23% 131 15% 279 30% 188 21% 2-3 times a month 149 16% 129 15% 191 20% 190 21% Once a month 93 10% 77 9% 117 13% 94 10% Less 70 8% 95 11% 83 9% 111 12% Never 42 5% 289 34% 41 4% 231 25% Total 919 100% 857 100% 932 100% 912 100%

1.2 Summary of responses to Question 2

1.2.1 Overall summary This question asked respondents how safe they thought the proposals would make people feel when travelling through the area in the following ways: walking, cycling, using public transport, and using motor vehicles for personal or business journeys.

Almost two-thirds of respondents thought the changes would make cycling through the area safer, and 40% thought it would make walking safer. The largest number of respondents (43% and 42% respectively) thought that the proposals would make no difference to the safety of those using public transport or motor vehicles to travel through the area.

Overall, how safe do you think our proposals will make people feel when travelling through the area? 100%

11% 90% 20%

80% 40% 22%

70% 64% 25%

60%

50% 30% 42% 40%

43% 30% 19% 15% 20% 8%

8% 7% 10% 7% 3% 5% 6% 3% 4% 9% 4% 0% 2% 3% Walking Cycling Public transport Motor vehicle A lot safer 390 621 194 109 Safer 298 181 241 215 No different 149 80 421 403 Less safe 69 25 48 79 Much less safe 60 27 42 71 Unsure 16 39 25 85

Figure 1: public responses to question 2

1.2.2 Issues commonly raised Respondents were also able to leave comments in response to this question. The main comments, concerns and suggestions (ie. those where 20 or more people responded) are listed in the table below. The full code frame of responses is shown in Appendix B

General General support for the proposals (will improve conditions for active travel) 264

Recognise current layout is unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians 182 General opposition to the proposals 77 Support proposals as will reduce pollution from vehicles 25 Other Suggestions for extension to the scheme north/south and/or other locations for improvements 43 Suggest more tree planting to improve public realm 26 Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities

Support introduction of cycle tracks as will make cycling safer 196

Support extra pedestrian crossings as will improve pedestrian safety 103

Support cycle tracks as they will encourage more people to cycle 85 Concern about cyclist and pedestrian behaviour and compliance with using allocated spaces and following the rules 62 Concerned about pedestrian safety at zebra crossings over the cycle tracks and whether cyclists will stop for pedestrians (especially AM/PM peak) 55 Support pedestrian improvements as will make it much nicer and welcoming to walk 50 Concerned about safety at bus stop bypasses where it is perceived that crowding may result in pedestrians stepping onto cycle track 43 Concerned cycle track is not continuous - crossing over the road will add to journey time and will put cyclists off from using it 38 Concerned pedestrians/cyclists will not take time to understand cycle tracks and bus stop bypasses and will therefore be at risk 35 Oppose cycle tracks as existing facilities are good enough and volume of cyclists does not justify need for dedicated lanes 31 Concerned about pavement narrowing and whether there will be adequate space for pedestrians 20 Traffic Management

Concerned about loss of traffic lanes on traffic flow and queuing 112

Support reduction in speed limit to 20mph (improves safety for pedestrians and cyclists) 65 Concerned increased congestion will make air quality worse/increase the risk of traffic accidents (such as shunting) 53 Concerned about the impact of side road closures on neighbouring roads and their suitability (for example adequate widths) to manage increased traffic flows 53

Concerned increased congestion will lead to rat running on side streets 44 Parking and Loading Concern about the effect of the loss of parking and loading on businesses 30

1.3 Summary of responses to Question 3

1.3.1 Overall summary This question asked respondents to comment on whether the proposed changes would have a positive or negative impact on them or the journeys they made, and to explain how we could mitigate or reduce any negative impacts.

1.3.2 Issues commonly raised The main comments, concerns and suggestions (ie. those where 20 or more people responded) are listed in the table below. The full code frame of responses is shown in Appendix B.

Positive - General General positive comment about the scheme 217 Positive - Active Travel Journeys It will make it safer and easier to cycle 207 It will make it safer, easier and more pleasant to walk 111 It will encourage use of active travel options and reduce car use 77 It will improve bus journey times/reliability 40 Positive - Private Vehicle Journeys It will inconvenience drivers but still support the scheme as improves for all others 27 Positive - Environment It will improve the general feel of the area and create a better high street shopping experience 40 It will improve air quality 25 Negative - General General negative comment about the scheme 69 Negative - Private Vehicle Journeys Lane/speed restrictions will increase congestion and journey times for vehicles 146 Diversions caused by side road closures will affect journey times and access 61 It will increase congestion which will result in rat running by drivers on back roads 42 It will increase congestion which will adversely affect air quality 40 Banned turns and congestion will create rat runs on residential streets. Need traffic calming measures or other mitigation to prevent this 26 Negative - Cycling journeys Concerned that cyclists will be deterred from using the cycle track because it is not continuous on one side of the road 38 Negative - Bus Journeys It will increase journey time for buses 25

Relocating bus stops will result in longer walking times to access them and create problems interchanging between routes 20 Negative - Pedestrian Journeys Concerned cyclists and/or cars won't stop for pedestrians at zebra crossings 33 Mitigate - Cycling Journeys Requests for extension of the cycle track north/south 24 Suggest further cycle infrastructure is needed 14 Mitigate - Private Vehicle Journeys

Proposals need to better address how to reduce overall traffic volumes 20 Other Other comment not related to consultation (for example suggestions for walking/cycling improvements elsewhere in the local area and across London, suggestions for changes to Tube, bus and rail services improvements elsewhere in the local area and across London, and comments about anti-social behaviour) 71

1.4 Summary of responses to Question 4

1.4.1 Overall summary The fourth question asked respondents if they had any further comments on the proposals, the Equality Impact Assessment or any other issue within the scope of the scheme.

1.4.2 Issues commonly raised The top comments, concerns and suggestions are listed in the table below. The full code frame of responses is shown in Appendix B.

General General supportive comment 136 No further comments 100 General negative comment 48 Oppose as not a good use of public funds 26 Concerned scheme weighted to heavily in favour of cyclists at expense of public transport and private vehicles 25 Traffic Concerned about access to and impact of rat running 39 Concerned scheme will increase congestion and pollution 37 Public Realm Suggest scheme needs more tree planting 47 Other Suggestions Suggest scheme should be extended north/south or to a different area 68

Other Other comments 20 EQIA I02 - Concerned the reduction in pavement width and requirement for pedestrians to cross cycle tracks is dangerous and disadvantages older and less mobile pedestrians, those with young children etc 7 I03 - Concerned it will discriminate the elderly and less able who rely on their cars to move around 7 I01 - Concerned the scheme prioritises white middle class users over the local ethnic minority population for whom cycling is less prevalent 4 I04 - Concern that these changes will make things difficult for taxis, particularly when carrying disabled/less mobile passengers 1

1.5 Stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We sometimes condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Government departments, parliamentary bodies & politicians

Lambeth Liberal Democrats

Lambeth Liberal Democrats welcome the plans. However, they are concerned, that usage of this stretch of cycle lane will be limited due to the fact that it is not connected to any other transport hub. They feel It is essential that this scheme is quickly followed by plans to connect Streatham Hill station to Brixton tube station, and eventually onwards to join up with the existing cycle infrastructure at Oval. They are also disappointed that the cycle lane design has to cross the road twice, as they feel this may decrease usage due to inconvenience. In order to mitigate this, they request that signal timings be optimised to give a ‘green wave’ for cyclists. They also request that all side roads are usable in both directions by cyclists, with a marked contraflow lane.

They would like the air pollution to be monitored to judge the success of the scheme and for all buses on this route to be zero emissions. They would also like further thought to be given to green landscaping. They would like reassurance that accessibility issues have been considered in the rationalisation of bus stops – especially increased walking distances for those with limited mobility.

They request we work with local businesses to better understand the potential impact of reducing car parking bays on their customer base, and that adequate provision is made for those who are less able to walk to the shops. Additionally, they

7 request we put electric charging points in place and introduce Santander docking stations.

Emergency services Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

MPS reviewed the plans and had no objections to the scheme.

Accessibility Groups RNIB

The RNIB did not formally respond but in response to previous consultations have provided position papers of which their policy positions on the following would apply to this scheme:

• Kerbs, detectable footways, cycle tracks and roads • Cycling and cycle ways • Bus stop access Blind and partially sighted people must be able to tell when a footway changes into a cycle track or road and they therefore call for all designs to incorporate a ‘detectable’ kerb with an upstand of no less than 60MM. RNIB are also concerned that cycle tracks are not being designed in accessible ways. Cycle track designs which create shared use areas or paths where cycles mix with blind and partially sighted pedestrians; which cut across pedestrian walkways without accessible pedestrian crossing points; or where cycle/pedestrian segregation or right of way are unclear, all present significant barriers to people with sight loss. Where cycle tracks bisect pedestrian pathways, they call for us to ensure there are formal pedestrian crossing facilities. They call for warning markings and signage to be provided to instruct cyclists to stop when pedestrians are near or on the formal crossing. For blind and partially sighted people who find it difficult or impossible to detect the presence of bicycles, they call for all formal crossing points over cycle tracks (including crossings to access bus stop bypasses) to provide an auxiliary aid, such as an audible and tactile beacon which indicates in an accessible format when it is safe to cross.

Transport and road user groups Road Haulage Association (RHA)

The RHA strongly object to the scheme as feel the proposals will adversely and significantly impact small business and Road Freight operators. The A23 is part of the Primary Route Network and the RHA feel it’s inappropriate for such a designated

8 road to have a speed limit of 20mph. Enforcement of the existing 30mph speed limit would be of greater benefit.

The A23 is a key Road Freight route to Central London from the M25 and Distribution Centres that resupply London on a daily basis. They are concerned that the proposed cycle lane on the west side of the A23 will cause considerable difficulty for home and business deliveries along the entire length of this scheme. Where unloading bays are being either reduced or removed alternative loading and unloading facilities must be made available.

Sustrans

Sustrans support the overall aims of the scheme however they have a number of comments on specific elements. They are concerned about the lack of sufficient information on future plans for improvements north and south of the scheme. They would also like further measures to maintain and improve east-west cycle permeability across the A23 corridor. Particularly for existing local routes like Brockwell Park to Balham (Telford Avenue to Wavertree Road on the scheme) and the Lambeth Healthy Route along Morrish Road (including Holmewood Road). They call for controlled crossings in the form of Toucans or Parallel, together with bespoke access from side roads onto the cycle track.

To improve pedestrian comfort they call for continuous footways proposed across streets with low traffic flows. They support the use of floating bus stops but call for straight rather than staggered zebra crossings to access them; horizontal deflection on the approach to crossings to slow down people cycling and increase compliance with the informal Zebras; and the provision of sufficient shelter provision within the islands.

Joint submission from London Cycling Campaign and the Lambeth Group of the London Cycling Campaign

They support the scheme and as the A23 forms a major desire line for cycle trips they look forward to seeing further sections of this route brought to consultation in the near future.

They note that the transitions of the cycle track between the east and west sides of the road mean there is potential that use of the cycle track carries a time penalty compared to use of the motor traffic lanes. In order to mitigate this, they request that signal timings be optimised to give a ‘green wave’ for cyclists. They would also like to see the bus lane operation as 24/7. They request that all roads made 'exit only' as part of this scheme should be 'except cycles' with marked contraflow lane and also request that Morrish Road should be included (which has an existing entry prohibition).

They request that the cycle track starts north of Holmewood Road and runs across a continuous footway, retaining the cycle contraflow into Holmewood Road. Lambeth’s Healthy Routes plan identified a desire line from Holmewood Road to Morrish Road and they request that this be enabled as part of this scheme via a parallel crossing and an ‘except cycles’. There is also a cycling desire line from Wavertree Road to Telford Avenue and they would like this be accommodated via a Parallel crossing to the south side of the Telford Avenue junction and a short section of pavement level cycle track linking to Wavertree Road and for a cycle contraflow should be provided on Telford Avenue in any case.

Licensed Taxi Drivers Association

The LTDA are concerned about the impact of the segregated cycle track on their ability to drop off/pick up wheelchair users and the visually impaired and other customers with mobility issues. They are also concerned about the loss of the traffic lane and the impact this may have on congestion and pollution levels. They request that painted timed cycle lanes or full length peak timed bus lanes for bus, cycle and taxis be implemented instead.

Safer A23 in Streatham Campaign

They welcome the key elements of the scheme that will make the A23 safer, though they would also like to see wait times for pedestrians at crossings to be kept to a minimum to deter people from jumping the lights; the planting of an 'urban hedge' between cycle path and general traffic to increase the feeling of safety for pedestrians and cyclists; rain shelters at floating bus stop; provision of cycle parking next to shops; and buses prevented from parking on the A23.

Action Vision Zero

They note that a number of elements will have a strong positive impact on journeys by all modes in the A23 area. However, they seek reassurance that any narrowing of the footway will leave more than 2 m width to accommodate pedestrian volumes and in line with guidance on pedestrian comfort levels. They would like to see a greater use of side road closures to reduce the number of vehicles that are crossing the protected cycle track. They would like the removal of the centre white line throughout much of the scheme as it would offer opportunities for vehicle speed reduction.

They call for the efficiency of the proposed calming measures to be monitored and, if not successful, then other measures should be considered such as red-light/speed camera enforcement or additional calming measures.

They are concerned about the degree of stagger on the Brixton Hill crossing and request the western arm of the northern crossing be moved closer to the eastern arm to ensure a greater relationship with the east-west walking desire line. They also call for the bus lane to be in operation 24/7 with appropriate allowance for off peak

loading; that cycle times at signalised junctions will meet new DfT walking speed recommendations; and for more greening to soften the environment.

London Living Streets

London Living Streets is supportive of the scheme. However, they are concerned that in places the cycle way is at the expense of the footway not the carriageway and more footway should be provided to cater for increased journeys by foot. They are concerned about the degree of stagger on the Brixton Hill crossing and request the western arm of the northern crossing be moved closer to the eastern arm to ensure a greater relationship with the east-west walking desire line. They also call for the bus lane to be in operation 24/7 and for more greening to soften the environment, for example a greater canopy of trees. They seek reassurance that cycle times at signalised junctions will be adjusted to ensure pedestrian safety in terms for reduced waiting times as far as is possible.

Brewery Logistics Group

They are concerned about the impact on servicing and the potential increase in risk to cyclists, pedestrians and delivery teams from crossing the segregated cycle way with goods. They are concerned that time spent at the kerbside will increase, that the scheme will have a negative effect on road speeds, and that operators will need to increase the amount of vehicles they use due to increased delivery times. They call for the cycle lanes to move to the centre of the road to minimise disruption.

Streatham Action Transport Group

SATG state that key elements of the scheme will make the A23 safer for all who live and work around Streatham. However, they request additional aspects to be looked at further including loading capacity and disability access for the theatre (Barrhill Road); adequate provision of short-term parking on both side of roads to allow access to shops; ensuring wait times at pedestrian crossings are kept to a minimum; greater greening of the area; rain shelters at floating bus stops; provision of cycle parking next to shops; and preventing buses parking on the A23.

United Cabbies Group

They would like assurances that full taxi access to bus lanes will be maintained. They are concerned about a reduction in pavement widths and the cycle track which may cause potential problems for the use of the ramp and also their ability to drop off/pick up disabled passengers safely.

Business groups InStreatham BID

InStreatham greatly appreciates this investment in Streatham Hill and is pleased that the plan includes removing the central reservation and making both sides of the road more easily accessible for pedestrians. They are pleased that the road will be less dominated by vehicular traffic making it a more liveable area. However, they are concerned about the reduction of both loading and parking and the impact that this will have on the businesses based along this stretch of the A23 to continue to trade effectively. They accept that a loss in parking may be necessary to accommodate these changes, but loading is essential to the success of these businesses, and request that the plans are amended to address the loss of loading and to include electric vehicle charging points as a compromise on loss of parking. They would also prefer for the cycle lanes to be on both sides of the road in line with traffic. They would like confirmation that the loading and parking on side roads will remain as per the current provision unless specifically indicated.

Businesses, employers and venues Theatres Trust

The Theatres Trust represent Streatham Hill Theatre. The theatre is currently not in use but there is realistic potential for it to be returned to use as a multi-purpose community facility and arts centre. They are supportive of the overall objectives and principle of this project. However, are concerned about the pavement width outside the theatre and whether it would be sufficient width to handle large numbers of people gathering and moving to and from the theatre. They are also concerned that the cycle track outside the theatre would compromise servicing to the building; while general deliveries could likely be managed, performance venues have unique needs because touring shows and performers can require prolonged parking and the delivery/removal of substantial equipment and sets. They request that the loading bay on Barrhill Road be moved to the side of the theatre to allow for servicing access to mitigate this.

The Friends of Streatham Hill Theatre

They support the aim to encourage pedestrians, cyclists and the use of public transport to access the area. However they are concerned that the proposals would affect available footpath space at the front/side/rear to cater for safe ingress/egress of attendees, accessibility to the venue for disabled visitors, and loading access (in terms of bays and access to bays due to banned turns) which could put the future viability of the regeneration of the theatre at risk. They suggest a number of design amendments which could mitigate these concerns.

ELB Partners Ltd

They are concerned about the loss of road space and the impact this will have on congestion and journey times which may result in more delivery vehicles being required.

Bike Taxi Ltd (Pedal Me)

They support the segregation of cyclists. However, they are concerned that the cycle track switching sides of the road will lead to delays and that having a two-way cycle lane makes servicing businesses on the opposite side of the road harder for them. They would also like cycles to be exempt from side road entry restrictions.

Scott Fleary Productions Ltd

Support the scheme.

Marks and Spencers

They have raised concerns about the access to the loading bay on Ardwell Road and have called for access to be maintained to the A23.

Leyland SDM

They are concerned about the loss of the loading bay to the front of the store. As a supplier to the building industry their customers need close access for loading.

Local interest groups Holmewood Neighbourhood Association

The area the association cover includes Cotherstone Road, Holmewood Gardens, Maplestead Road and Holmewood Road. It is situated between the South Circular and Brixton Hill. It is already used by through traffic as a short cut between these two main roads to avoid the A23/A205 crossroads.

The Association are concerned that the increase in journey times on the A23 will mean the Holmewood area will become an even busier rat-run and could lead to a deterioration in safety and air quality in the area. They are concerned that the LTN proposed as a mitigation does not cover their area. They would like reassurance that that the potential impact in the Holmewood area, including potential worsening of air pollution and speeding traffic, has being taken into account as part of our proposals.

St Margaret the Queen Church Community Generally support the scheme but are concerned about increased congestion during construction and would like further information on how rat running will be prevented on Amesbury, Barcombe, Cricklade and Downtown Avenues.

Others Mums 4 Lungs

They are very supportive of the Healthy Streets scheme on Streatham Hill. However, they seek assurances that the scheme is being developed together with implementation of the two identified Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: north and south of Leigham Court Road in order to ensure a borough-wide approach to successfully tackling the issue associated with road transport.

2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:

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

• To understand the level of support or opposition for the change/s for the proposals

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

• To understand concerns and objections

• To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

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

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

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Chapter 4.

2.3 Who we consulted We consulted members of the public and stakeholder groups who may have a view on the proposals. A list of the stakeholders we consulted can be found in Appendix D.

2.4 Dates and duration We launched the consultation on Monday 10 February, it initially ran for six weeks, closing on Sunday 22 March 2020. Six weeks is a typical length for a consultation of

this size and scope. However, due to the emerging situation with Coronavirus at that time we extended the consultation to 19 April 2020 to enable those who may not have had chance to respond.

2.5 What we asked After supplying information about the proposed changes, we asked respondents:

1. Overall, how do you travel through the area and how often? 2. Overall, how safe do you think our proposals will make people feel when travelling through the area in the following ways? 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 and how we could mitigate or reduce any negative impacts? 4. Do you have any further comments on the proposals, the Equality Impact Assessment or any other issue within the scope of the scheme?

We also asked questions about the quality of the consultation and consultation material, and gathered equality monitoring data.

2.6 Methods of responding

Customers where directed to our website to fill out a survey. Alternatively, they could: • email us at [email protected] • write to us at/return a questionnaire to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity To publicise the consultation we distributed 16,765 letters, and 330,000 emails to those who live, work or travel through the area.

Copies of materials were available on request in other formats: translations, large print, Braille, audio.

Website

A dedicated A23 Streatham Hill webpage was established which detailed information about our proposals. Explanatory text, maps and computer generated images showing before and after were displayed to help explain the proposals. The website

16 also included details of predicted impacts to pedestrians, cyclists, buses and general traffic.

The webpage also provided people with the opportunity to respond to the consultation by answering our questionnaire.

Letters and/or leaflets A letter was distributed to approx 16,765 residents living close to the proposed scheme. The letter contained a summary of the proposals, and directed people to the website for full information on the proposals and details of when and where the drop-in events would take place. We encouraged them to complete our online questionaire to have their say and provided the option for paper copies of the proposals and questionaire. We also provided a freepost address to send back completed questionnaires or letters.

A copy of this leaflet can be found in Appendix C.

Emails to public/stakeholders

We sent an email to approximately 330,000 members of the public who have registered details with TfL. These receipients would be users of TfL services in the Streatham Hill area, as well as national, regional and local stakeholder groups and representatives. A copy of this email can be found in Appendix C.

The Streatham Town Centre BID arranged a mailout to local businesses to promote the consultation to the business community and followed this up with visits to all business in the vicinity of the scheme.

Media activity

An article, including maps, of the scheme was published in LoveStreatham magazine which was delivered to all business, schools and community services within the vicinity of the scheme. Copies of the magazine were also left at key venues within the community that are accessible to the public including Streatham Tate Library, and Streatham Space project. The article was also shared by Heart of Streatham media via their social media channels. A copy of the article is included in Appendix C.

We issued a press release to local media.

Information was also shared in Lambeth Council e-bulletin which was distributed to diversity and inclusion groups and schools in the locality.

Public meetings drop in sessions

During the consultation period we held three drop-in events. Members of the TfL team and colleagues from Lambeth council were available at each of the exhibitions to discuss the proposals and printed materials of the proposed scheme were available to view. The drop-events were at:

• Thursday 27 February, 10:30 - 18:45 Streatham Tate Library, 63 Streatham High Road

• Wednesday 4 March, 15:15 - 20:30 Streatham Space Project, Sternhold Avenue

• Saturday 7 March, 13:15 - 16:15 Streatham Tate Library, 63 Streatham High Road

Meetings with stakeholders

Before consultation began we met with the following stakeholders:

London Borough of Lambeth Marks and Spencer London Cycling Campaign & Lambeth Cyclists Metropolitan Police Streatham Action Transport Group sub-committee Ward Councillors and Local Groups Safer A23 Group Streatham Action Transport Group sub-committee Chukka Umunna MP

Additionally, representatives of Lambeth Council visited all business adjacent to the scheme to ensure that they had received notification of the consultation, were aware of planned consultation events and knew how to respond to the consultation.

2.8 Equalities Assessment

In considering the design of our streets, we closely consider the needs of all users throughout the design process. As this scheme is a significant infrastructure project we:

• Have completed an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) to review potential impacts on equality target groups, including disabled people • Carried out public consultations, including targeted engagement with specific user groups

• Continue to ensure we comply with established guidance – such as the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges – which includes detailed requirements for disabled people

The Equality Impact Assessment carried out on these proposals shows positive impacts have been identified for disabled pedestrians or people walking with restricted mobility, as the scheme proposes a number of improvements to pedestrian facilities including enhanced crossing facilities, increased pavement widths and new pedestrian crossings. A positive impact has also been identified in relation to the segregated cycle facilities proposed as part of the scheme, as this element will provide a safe environment for cyclists of all ages, improving health and wellbeing.

Some negative impacts have been identified for those people who rely on private cars to make their journeys, where we are proposing a reduction in traffic lanes (increasing in journey time for general traffic). There are also some negative impacts for those people using some bus routes which are expected to experience minor journey time delays.

A perceived negative impact has also been identified in relation to bus stop bypasses where pedestrians must cross the cycle track to get between the pavement and the bus stop. To mitigate this concern, all bus stop bypasses would include zebra crossings with tactile paving and be raised to footway level to create a flush surface. Our research has found that bus stop bypasses are safe for all road users, including those with protected characteristics. Click here for more information on bus stop bypasses.

Using the information available on local demographic we contacted national, regional and local stakeholder representative groups by email to encourage participation in the consultation. As well as using our own local contacts we ensured that the consultation drop-in events were in accessible locations and would enable us to meet the needs of the local community. We monitored response to the consultation and due to the low level of response from those who identify as Black and Asian and Ethnic minorities we engaged with Lambeth Council to raise awareness with stakeholders signed up to their Diversity and Inclusion bulletin.

2.9 Analysis of consultation responses Development of a codeframe which summarises and counts the number of comments for the four open questions and analysis of the consultation responses has been carried out by two of our in-house Consultation Analysts. The full codeframe can be seen in Appendix B.

We received 106 responses by letter or email, which were manually entered onto our online consultation portal for analysis.

We received 14 duplicate responses and these were consolidated. 3. About the respondents

3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents Total % Public responses 1094 98% Stakeholder responses 24 2% Total 1118 100%

3.2 How public respondents heard about the consultation

How respondents heard Total % Received a letter from TfL 178 17% Received an email from TfL 407 37% Social Media 238 22% Saw it on the TfL website 22 2%

Read about it in the press 15 1%

Other 90 8% Not answered 144 13% Total 1094 100%

3.3 Methods of responding Most responses from the public were received via our online consultation portal.

Methods of responding Total % Website 988 90% Email/letter 106 10% Total 1094 100%

3.4 Who responded This question allowed members of the public to say in what capacity they were responding to the consultation. Respondents could choose more than one category.

Respondent type Total Local resident 812 Local business owner 31 Employed locally 76 A visitor to the area 141 A commuter to the area 138 Not local but interested in the scheme 45 A taxi/private hire vehicle driver 13 Other 24

3.5 Comments on the consultation process and material We asked respondents to let us know what they thought about the following seven aspects of the consultation process:

• Website structure & ease of finding what you needed • Written information • Maps, images & related diagrams • Online survey format • Website accessibility • Events & drop-in sessions • Promotional material

The graph below shows the responses to these questions. This does not include numbers for those who did not answer the question, in order to show the numbers of people who had a view on each of these aspects of the quality of the consultation.

What do you think about the quality of the consultation? 100% 7% 9% 90%

26% 11% 30% 27% 28% 80% 34% 15%

9% 70%

2% 10% 2% 60% 3% 2% 50% 36% 36% 36% 36% 31% 40%

30% 50% 41% 20% 11% 13% 13% 13% 13% 1% 10% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 7% 2% 1% 2% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1% Maps, Online E vents & Webs ite Written images & Webs ite Promotional survey Drop in S tructure Informa tion related Accessibility Materials format sessions diagrams Very good 30% 27% 34% 28% 26% 7% 9% Good 36% 36% 31% 36% 36% 11% 15% Adequate 13% 13% 13% 13% 11% 9% 10% Poor 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% 3% Very poor 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% Not applicable 2% 2% 1% 1% 7% 50% 41%

Figure 2: public responses to question 11

Most respondents felt the quality of the consultation was generally either good or very good.

Respondents were also able to give us their comments about the quality of the consultation. The top responses are listed in the table below; the full list of responses to this question can be found in Appendix B.

Positive comments Generally positive 17 Negative comments Documents biased, not showing detailed work leading to these proposals 12 Poor resolution maps/not optimised for mobile use 12 Not convinced TfL will take feedback seriously 11 Leave It alone/changes not needed 10 Suggestion Consultation should have been advertised more widely 17 3D Visualisation of entire street/more images required 10

4. Next steps

The key updates to the design since consultation will include:

• The closure of Tierney Road at the junction of the A23 to prevent rat-running traffic, subject to further local consultation • Due to the proposed closure of Tierney Road Bus Stop T and TA will be brought back together meaning passengers will no longer need to cross Tierney Road when interchanging between these stops • We are working on a change to the design for the junction of Ardwell Road to provide an additional red route loading bay for use by local businesses, this may result in access changes to Cricklade Road, subject to further local consultation • We are working on an updated design for the Holmewood Road junction to improve the cyclist provision in this area. These changes could potentially involve access changes to Holmewood Road at the junction of the A23, subject to further local consultation • We have identified areas which we think may be viable for further tree planting and other greening. More work to explore sustainable planting will be undertaken at the next stage of design • We will continue to engage with local businesses as detailed design develops to ensure adequate loading is provided where practicable • We will arrange a separate meeting with representatives to discuss retaining loading access for the Streatham Theatre • We will engage further with Arriva on the interaction between the scheme and buses accessing Brixton Bus Garage • We are reviewing the extents of the scheme to try and improve east – west cycle permeability

Once we have made the above amendments, we will progress the scheme to detailed design in Spring 2021, with construction potentially starting in early 2022 subject to funding.

Appendix A: Response to issues raised

The most commonly raised issues and concerns raised during the consultation period are listed below, along with our responses.

Issue Response

Concern about the Prior to consultation we carried out detailed modelling to understand how effect of traffic lane our proposals might affect journey times for people who are driving or reduction/speed using buses. To do this we assessed how London's roads would operate restrictions/increased in 2021 (taking into account factors such as population growth, bus lane operation developments that are committed to happen and other road times on improvements). We then tested how London's roads would operate in congestion/journey 2021 with the changes that are proposed as part of this scheme. Doing times/pollution this allows us to isolate the predicted impacts of this proposed scheme from other changes which are not part of this consultation. Traffic modelling predictions indicate that the journey time for bus routes on this section of the A23 in the morning peak will increase by around 30 seconds and in the evening peak will increase or decrease by up to 60 seconds. There will be minimal impact on general traffic heading north in the morning and evening peaks because three northbound lanes are being retained at the junction of the A205 South Circular. Traffic going south on the A23 is expected to have delays between two and three minutes in both morning and evening peaks. This is because traffic is moved into one lane at the southern end of the scheme, at Leigham Court Road to accommodate the cycle lane and bus lane. The modelling results outlined above do not take into account any reassignment of traffic to other modes or any changes in traffic volumes as a result of Covid-19 or the separate Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) proposals – therefore they are considered a cautious view of how the road network will perform. As a result of the scheme we would hope that a number of the journeys currently made using private vehicles would switch to a different mode, either cycling, walking or public transport. Air Quality modelling has also been undertaken for the scheme, it summarised that the Scheme would have a generally positive impact on air quality in the study area and there are potentially significant beneficial impacts at some selected receptors for NO2. It is considered that overall, the scheme is not significant in terms of air quality impacts.

Concern about the We are proposing changes to side road access from the A23 to try and knock-on effect of the minimise vehicle movements across the path of cyclists in the segregated changes on local cycle track; this will improve safety for those who cycle and also help to residential roads (eg.

25 rat running, more reduce rat-running traffic through residential roads. difficult access for We have worked closely with the London Borough of Lambeth to develop residents) plans for a Low Traffic Neighbourhood to the east of the scheme; this has been introduced on an experimental basis as part of the council’s Covid- 19 response. This will complement the scheme on the A23 by protecting local streets from through traffic - and will help deliver wider objectives such as creating green and sustainable transport routes on local roads. We expect local traffic to use Blairderry Road to access Ardwell Road, Blairderry Road and Telford Avenue and through traffic to continue on the A23 and A205. Due to issues raised by local residents during consultation regarding a potential increase in rat-running on Tierney Road between the A23 and the A205, we have altered the design. We are now proposing to close Tierney Road at the junction of the A23, subject to further local consultation.

Is it possible for the This scheme proposes to continue the phased improvements from scheme to be extended Streatham High Road into Streatham Hill. Data suggests that there is further? significant cycle potential on this corridor. We therefore propose segregated cycle lanes in this section of Streatham, but we are mindful of access to or from side roads as well as the A23. Furthermore, following our publication in 2017 of the Strategic Cycling Analysis, Oval to Streatham is outlined as one of the top 15 potential connections recommended for further investigation including design and consultation in due course. We know that the corridor is also important for large numbers of bus passengers. This A23 corridor presents an opportunity to improve air quality, safety and active travel for people who visit, study, live and work in the area. Between Oval and Streatham there are significant challenges, including space constraints, to overcome. Through local engagement, TfL are working with Lambeth Council to determine appropriate interventions to achieve improvements in air quality, safety and active travel for the remainder of the corridor. The beginning and ends of the scheme have been designed in order to accommodate future proposals interfacing with this scheme in Brixton Hill and Streatham High Road that are yet to reach formal design stage or consultation. There was a press release from TfL and City Hall in May 2020 announcing an Oval to Streatham corridor temporary Streetspace Scheme as part of TfL’s and Lambeth’s Covid-19 response. This is a complex part of the network and is a key bus corridor. This scheme will continue to be developed throughout the winter, with these measures being consistent with what we have covered in this consultation.

Concern about A key aim of this scheme it to provide safe crossing points for all pedestrian safety when pedestrians across the cycle track, including those with protected crossing cycle lanes (at characteristics. In 2016, TfL commissioned TRL to undertake on-street zebra crossings and trials of zebra crossings at bus stop bypasses on Cycle Superhighways. bus stop bypasses) The trial undertook accompanied visits to bus stop bypasses with people especially for those with disabilities, it was found that zebra crossings were marginally with mobility or vision preferred over uncontrolled crossings in terms of feeling safe and difficulties comfortable. The report noted that a key advantage of the zebra crossing is the strip of tactile tiles across the footway which identifies to those who are blind and visually impaired where the crossing is located. As such, we are proposing zebra crossings across the cycle track to assist people accessing bus stop bypasses. We are also proposing the introduction of zebra crossings across the cycle track to get pedestrians to a floating island where they will then be able to cross the road using a formal signalised pedestrian crossing. This approach will initially be introduced as a trial to test effectiveness and a monitoring strategy will be put in place to assess their impact. An option to introduce signalised straight across pedestrian crossings from footway to footway, including the cycle track was investigated, however traffic modelling indicated this would result in significant bus journey time delays due to extended pedestrian clearance times to complete the crossing in a single phase. We will monitor the impact of the zebra crossing once the scheme has been implemented to ensure that cyclists and pedestrians observe the zebra crossing. With the launch of any new cycle route, we undertake a range of engagement and enforcement activity for all road users including cyclists. This includes: • Representatives from the Metropolitan Police present on site to provide support and assistance to the public. They educate people how to use the new road layout and advise on appropriate behaviour for all road users • TfL Travel Ambassadors provide assistance and advice to road users and hand out leaflets informing road users about changes to road layouts and the new innovative features

Why is the cycle track Initially the cycle track is with the traffic flow, meaning that the cycle track not continuous along runs adjacent to and in the same direction as motorised traffic. This is one side of the road? due to space constraints and helps to get cyclists from the existing traffic Were alternatives such lanes into the segregated cycle lanes. At Ardwell Road the new as cycle routes on quiet pedestrian crossing provides a parallel facility for cyclists to cross to a roads or a cycle track two-way cycle track on the western side of the carriageway. The western in the centre of the side was selected for the cycle track at this point as it would cross fewer carriageway side roads, therefore reducing conflict between cyclists and motor traffic considered? and improving cyclist journey times overall.

On approach to the A205, north of Tierney Road, cyclists are directed to a parallel cycle crossing which brings cyclists into a segregated two-way cycle track on the eastern side of the carriageway. This allows for the signals at the junction of the A205 to be more efficient, reducing the journey time delays for traffic and buses and allowing cyclists to cross the A205 safely. Experience from another segregated cycleway in the Victoria Embankment and Upper Thames Street corridor shows that it is possible for an alignment to switch sides and still attract a high number of cyclists. As mentioned above, in the 2017 Strategic Cycling Analysis, the A23 Oval to Streatham is outlined as one of the top 15 potential connections recommended for further investigation. By retaining the cycle track on the A23 this provides the most direct route into central London, making it an attractive route for the largest number of cyclists. It also means that the route will pass intermediate locations There are various issues with having a cycle track in the centre of the carriageway, as with an example in Tolworth Broadway in Kingston, as regular access and egress for cyclists would be challenging - and have a greater impact on both bus and traffic journey times. Additionally, more vehicle movements would need to be banned to allow for a cycle lane in the centre of the carriageway.

How will the 20mph Various traffic calming measures are included as part of our proposals, limit be enforced? these include raised tables at crossings and tighter turning radii, these should assist in making the 20mph speed limit self-enforcing. We also plan to optimise the signal timings throughout the scheme to encourage drivers to drive at 20mph. With the launch of the new cycle route we will undertake a range of engagement and enforcement activity for all road users, including drivers.

Concern that the loss of We recognise that there are concerns from local businesses regarding parking and loading will the reduced parking and loading. A key aim of this scheme is to increase have a negative effect the number of people using sustainable transport modes in Streatham Hill on businesses and there is insufficient space to do this and maintain existing levels of parking and loading. Parking and loading surveys have been undertaken and using data from these surveys we aim to provide sufficient loading to ensure that the shops and businesses on Streatham Hill can continue to thrive. We will continue to engage with local businesses as the detailed design develops to ensure adequate loading is provided. As outlined in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, it is TfL policy to reduce dependency on cars and promote the use of sustainable modes of transport, whilst discouraging unnecessary journeys by car. There are economic benefits associated with active travel – you can find the latest evidence reports and findings by clicking on this link; https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/economic-benefits-of-

walking-and-cycling Concern about loss of The proposals will only result in a very small reduction in footway space footway space, loading, on the corner of Barrhill Road, this is in order to accommodate the cycle disability access for track and a 5m set-back to allow space for vehicles to wait between the cycle-track and the carriageway. The width of the footway immediately Streatham Theatre outside the entrance to the proposed theatre remains unchanged at should it reopen around 5m.

We will arrange a separate meeting to discuss retaining access for the Streatham Theatre, noting the aspiration that this should reopen.

Concern about new bus Southbound bus stop D has been relocated 50m further south to stop locations (eg. accommodate the new pedestrian crossing at Ardwell Road. This will longer walking provide a better interchange between the bus stop and Streatham Hill distances and more train station. difficult interchange) We have updated proposals based on consultation feedback, and the interchange between stops T and TA no longer requires passengers to cross Tierney Road to move between the stops, resulting in a better passenger interchange between routes. The table below shows the distance in metres between the bus stops - there are no walking distances in excess of the recommended maximum of 400m.

Distance Distance from prev. from prev. stop (m) - stop (m) - Northbound Stop Code Existing Proposed Mt.Ephraim Road Stop K NA NA Ardwell Road Stop A/B 330m 330m Barhill Road/Theatre Stop S 114m 150m Removed - merged Telford Ave Stop N 129m w ith stop S Tierney Road Stop T/A 56m 230m

Scheme Scheme Extents Staplefield Close Stop BS 165m 110m Brixton Hill Place Stop BT 245m 245m Distance Distance from prev. from prev. stop (m) - stop (m) - Southbound Stop Code Existing Proposed Brixton Hill Place Stop BF NA NA Stapleford Close Stop BH 300m 305m Telford Ave Stop R 181m 130m Wavertree Road Stop Q 20m 120m

Scheme Scheme Extents Barcome Avenue Stop D 315m 310m Leigham Ct Road Stop E 181m 130m

Concern that splitting Due to issues raised by local residents during consultation, regarding a bus stops at Tierney potential increase in rat-running on Tierney Road between the A23 and Road will be the A205 we have altered the design. We now plan to close Tierney Road inconvenient/hazardous at the junction of the A23, subject to further local consultation. This will for waiting passengers allow for stops T and TA to be located adjacent to each other, and crossing the road to passengers will not have to cross the road to move between the stops. move between stops as both stops will be served by routes to the same destinations.

Concern that buses There is an existing issue of buses queuing on the A23 outside Brixton entering/exiting, or Garage particularly in the late evenings. We will be discussing this issue stopped outside the further with Arriva in light of A23 proposals. bus garage will increase congestion

Is it possible to have In order to facilitate the reallocation of road space the central planters more planting/greenery needed to be removed. In addition to allowing for additional road space to improve public realm this positively contributes to speed reduction by influencing driver and a green wall to behaviour. There is insufficient space within the scheme to include a separate cycle lane green wall between cyclists and the road. from footway? We have identified areas which we think may be viable for further tree planting and other greening. More work to explore sustainable planting will be undertaken at the next stage of design, as we need to consider utility networks under the footway, and details such as the type of tree.

Is it possible to include Although not shown on the consultation plans, the bus shelters will be shelters on floating bus relocated to the floating islands where required. stops?

Is it possible to include We hope to utilise space on the floating islands to provide additional cycle parking near cycle parking and will provide further detail on this as we develop our shops and/or extend detailed designs. We will explore the request for a Cycle Hire docking Santander Cycle Hire? station as part of the Cycle Hire expansion programme.

Reassurance about London Borough of Lambeth have implemented a low traffic how this scheme will neighbourhood in the Streatham Hill area to the east of the scheme on an relate with the LTNs experimental basis, as part of the Council’s Covid-19 response. This will proposed by Lambeth complement the scheme on the A23 by protecting local streets from Council through traffic and will help deliver wider objectives such as creating green and sustainable transport routes on local roads. There has been partnership working between TfL and Lambeth Council during the development of the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, and this was reflected in TfL’s traffic modelling.

Appendix B: Analysis of comments

The analysis of the consultation responses has been carried out by our in-house Consultation Analysts.

A draft coding framework of the same or similar themed comments was developed by the analysts for responses to the three ‘open’ questions. This was finalised following validation, allowing the responses to be reviewed and grouped into themes – these are listed in the tables below, along with the number of comments we received for each theme.

Question 2 - Overall, how safe do you think our proposals will make people feel when travelling through the area?

A - General A01 - General support for the proposals (will improve conditions for active travel) 264

A03 - Recognise current layout is unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians 182 A02 - General opposition to the proposals 77 A04 - Support proposals as will reduce pollution from vehicles 25 A05 - Out of scope/not relating to consultation 11 A06 - The changes don't go far enough to improve things for pedestrians and cyclists 6 B - Other B01 - Suggestions for extension to the scheme north/south and/or other locations for improvements 43 B02 - Suggest more tree planting to improve public realm 26 C - Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities

C01 - Support introduction of cycle tracks as will make cycling safer 196 C03 - Support extra pedestrian crossings as will improve pedestrian safety 103

C02 -- Support cycle tracks as they will encourage more people to cycle 85 C13 - Concern about cyclist and pedestrian behaviour and compliance with using allocated spaces and following the rules 62 C09 - Concerned about pedestrian safety at zebra crossings over the cycle tracks and whether cyclists will stop for pedestrians (especially AM/PM peak) 55 C04 - Support pedestrian improvements as will make it much nicer and welcoming to walk 50 C08 - Concerned about safety at bus stop bypasses where crowding may result into pedestrians spilling onto cycle track 43 C11- Concerned cycle track is not continuous - crossing over the road will add to journey time and will put cyclists off from using it 38

C07 - Concerned pedestrians/cyclists will take time to understand cycle tracks and bus stop bypasses and will therefore be at risk 35 C06 - Oppose cycle tracks as existing facilities are good enough & volume of cyclists does not justify need for dedicated lanes 31 C12 - Concerned about pavement narrowing and whether there will be adequate space for pedestrians 20 C10 - Concerned cycle tracks crossing traffic lanes is dangerous 18 C20 - cycle provision should be through more quietways, not by taking away road space from major roads 11 C26 Oppose bi-directional & contraflow cycle lanes. 10 C05 - Support pedestrian crossing improvements (especially raising them to improve visibility) 8 C30 - suggest putting cycle lane in the middle of the carriageway 8 C14 - Suggest pedestrian crossing times need to be extended to better cater for children and older people 6 C15 - Suggest we provide more cycle parking 6

C29 - how will the scheme benefit less mobile and wheelchair users? 6 C25 - signal timings should prioritise pedestrians & cyclists 6 C16 - Suggest cycle track needs to be obvious to stop pedestrians drifting into them (e.g. raised kerbs) 5 C18 - concern that the crossings at the junction with Streatham Pl/Christchurch Rd is staggered, not straight across 3 C27 - Concern about bike access from cycle track into side roads and shops etc on the other side of the road 2 C17 - Request for further information on how right turning cyclist will be protected at the Christchurch Road junction 1 C19 Suggestion for a physical barrier between traffic and cycle lanes to further improve safety 1 C21 - suggest a narrow segregated cycle lane on pavement for slower or less experienced cyclists to allow for an on-road cycleway for faster cyclists 1 C22 - Suggest zebra crossings instead of signalised 1 C23 - Suggest continuous footways for pedestrians 1

C24 - not clear if scheme allows cycle access to Barhill Rd & Telford Ave 1

C28 - extending the cycle hire scheme would further encourage cycling 1 D - Traffic Management

D03 - Concerned about loss of traffic lanes on traffic flow and queuing 112 D01 - Support reduction in speed limit to 20 mph (improves safety for pedestrians and cyclists) 65 D04 - Concerned increased congestion will make air quality worse/increase the risk of traffic accidents (such as shunting) 53

D07- Concerned about the impact of side road closures on neighbouring roads and their suitability (for example adequate widths) to manage increased traffic flows 53 D06 - Concerned increased congestion will lead to rat running on side streets 44 D08 - Suggest 20 mph zone will require enforcing to be effective 22 D11 - Oppose Introduction of 20mph speed limit due to impact on journey times/traffic flow 22 D16 - support removal of traffic lanes/central reservation and measures to slow down traffic 21 D14 - Concern that removal of central reservation between carriageways will make things less safe for all road users 20 D18 Tierney Rd concern 16

D05 - Concerned modelling underestimates the journey time impacts 9 D02 - Support signalisation outside bus garage as will safely managed bus movements 6 D13 - support side road closures/priority changes 6 D17 - suggest banning motor vehicles altogether 5 D10 - Suggest other speed reduction measures such as speed bumps will be required 4 D19 - concern about confusion caused by major changes to road layout will cause accidents 2 D09 - Suggest extension of ULEZ would be a better way to manage volumes and polluting vehicles 1 D12 - Concerned that using public transport is not a practical option for a variety of journey types in the suburbs 1 D15 - removal of parking spaces will reduce antisocial behaviour 1 E - Parking and Loading E01 - Concerned about the effect of the loss of parking and loading on businesses 30 E05 - concern about access to Streatham Theatre 11 E02 - Concerned about the effect of the loss of parking on disabled/less mobile 6 E03 - Suggest addition of charging points for electric vehicles 6 E04 - Support removal of parking bays 3 F - Buses and Bus Lane F01 - Support extension of bus lane and operating times to improve journey times for bus passengers 19 F03 - Concerned about volume of buses causing congestion/lane blocking into and out of the bus garage 19 F07 - the position of the bus stops by Tierrney Rd are dangerous 16 F02 - Oppose exemption of bus lane operating hours to apply on Saturdays as it will result in greater private vehicle congestion 13 F09 - distances between new stops will be too far 9 F04 - support new bus stop locations 6

F05 - moving bus stop D will result in more pollution and congestion 3 F08 -Moving bus stop D will create a blind spot for motorists exiting Amesbury Ave 3 F06 - suggest bus shelters at all new stops 1 F10 - public transport options should be increased 1

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, and how we could mitigate or reduce any negative impacts.

Positive - General A01 - General positive comment about the scheme 217 Positive - Active Travel Journeys B03 - It will make it safer and easier to cycle 207 B02 - It will make it safer, easier and more pleasant to walk 111 B01 - It will encourage use of active travel options and reduce car use 77 B04 - It will improve bus journey times/reliability 40 Positive - Private Vehicle Journeys C03 - It will inconvenience drivers but still support the scheme as improves for all others 27 C01 - It will improve the safety of vehicles and cyclists outside the bus garage 4 C02 - Reduction in traffic speed will improve safety turning into and out of side roads 2 Positive - Environment D01 - It will improve the general feel of the area and create a better high street shopping experience 40 D02 - It will improve air quality 25 Negative - General E01 - General negative comment about the scheme 69 Negative - Private Vehicle Journeys F01 - Lane/speed restrictions will increase congestion and journey times for vehicles 146 F03 - Diversions caused by side road closures will affect journey times and access 61 F04 - it will increase congestion which will result in rat running by drivers on back roads 42 F02- It will increase congestion which will adversely affect air quality 40 F05 - Banned turns and congestion will create rat runs on residential streets. Need traffic calming measures or other mitigation to prevent this 26 Negative - Cycling journeys G01- Concerned that cyclists will be deterred from using the cycle track because it is not continuous on one side of the road 38 G02 - Concerned that cyclist not using the cycle track will slow traffic 4 Negative - Bus Journeys

H01 - It will increase journey time for buses 25 H02 - relocating bus stops will result in longer walking times to access them and create problems interchanging between routes 20 Negative - Pedestrian Journeys I02 - Concerned cyclists and/or cars won't stop for pedestrians at zebra crossings 33 I01 - Concerned too much footway will be lost making pedestrian experience less pleasant/safe 12 Negative - Other J03 - Removing parking bays will affect businesses as shoppers less likely to pop in 10 J04 - Concerned about removal of loading bays for servicing of businesses 7 J02 - Impacts unknown 6 J01 - Concerned relocating bus stops will affect trade to businesses 2 Mitigate - Cycling Journeys K03 - Requests for extension of the cycle track north/south 24 K02 - Suggest further cycle infrastructure is needed 14 K01 - Suggestion cycle lane needs to be wider to safely accommodate two way cycling 2 K04 - Cycle track needs to join Wavertree Road (allow access towards Tooting Common) 1 Mitigate - Public Transport Journeys L03 - There needs to be more public transport options in the area 5 L05 - Buses need more capacity 5 L01 - Need to rationalise number of bus stops (especially northbound) to help to manage congestion 4 L04 - Extend bus shelter canopies 1 Mitigate - Private Vehicle Journeys M01 - Proposals need to better address how to reduce overall traffic volumes 20 M02 - Disabled parking bays are needed 1 Neutral N01 - Will not impact journey 12 Other O1 – Other comment not relating to consultation (for example suggestions for walking/cycling improvements elsewhere in the local area and across London, suggestions for changes to Tube, bus and rail services improvements elsewhere in the local area and across London, and comments about anti-social behaviour) 71

Question 4 - Do you have any further comments on the proposals, the Equality Impact Assessment or any other issue within the scope of the scheme?

A - General A02 - General supportive comment 136 A03 - No further comments 100

A01 - General negative comment 48 A05 - Oppose as not a good use of public funds 26 A04 - Concerned scheme weighted to heavily in favour of cyclists at expense of public transport and private vehicles 25 B - Cycling B01 - Concerned about the cycle track not being continuous on one side 18 B03 - Concerned about Cyclist and/or pedestrian behaviour and its limited enforceability 8 B04 - Suggest central planter is used as cycle track instead 5 B07 - Suggest more cycle parking required 5 B06 - Concerned cyclists will still use carriageway so will be waste of time 4 B08 - Suggest better cycle access from A23 to Morrish Road required 3 B09 - Suggest traffic entering/exiting side roads must give priority to cyclists 3 B02 - Request for clarification as to how cyclist join cycle track from A205 2 B05 - Suggest cyclists should be made to use side roads instead 2 C- Pedestrian C02 - Request to ensure crossings are disabled friendly 5 C01 - Suggest relocate crossing between Morrish and Holmewood Roads to be closer to bus stop (desire line) 2 D - Buses D01 - Suggest further improvements required to manage buses and bus garage access 6 D02 - Suggest more bus capacity and frequency required 4 E - Traffic E06 - Concerned about access to and impact of rat running (particularly Telford Park/Blairderry Rd areas) 39 E02 - Concerned scheme will increase congestion and pollution 37 E01 - Suggest more ambition is required to reduce car usage/need to look at the bigger picture 15 E05 - Suggest speed limit will require enforcement 8 E07 - Support closure of side roads to stop rat running 7 E03 - Request further information on impact of increased congestion on emissions 4 E04 - Concerned journey time impacts are not correct 4 E08 - Concerned whether width of side road entrances are wide enough 1 F- Public Realm F01 - Suggest scheme needs more tree planting 47 F02 - Concerned about loss of trees and planting from removal of central reservation 5 G - Other Suggestions G02 - Suggest scheme should be extended north/south or to a different area 68 G01 - Suggest scheme need to do more to improve safety 14 H - Other H02 – Out of scope/not relating to consultation 38

H01 - Concerned reduction in parking and increased congestion will negatively affect trade to businesses 17 H04 - During construction please prioritise pedestrians and buses 2 I - EQIA I02 - Concerned the reduction in pavement width and requirement for pedestrians to cross cycle tracks is dangerous and disadvantages older and less mobile pedestrians, those with young children etc 7 I03 - Concerned it will discriminate the elderly and less able who rely on their cars to move around 7 I01 - Concerned the scheme prioritises white middle class users over the local ethnic minority population for whom cycling is less prevalent 4 I04 - Concern that these changes will make things difficult for taxis, particularly when carrying disabled/less mobile passengers 1

Question 11 - What do you think about the quality of the consultation?

Positive comments A01: Generally positive 17 A02: Appreciate being consulted 5 A04: More Cycling infrastructure needed in this area (currently unsafe 4 A03: Good illustrative maps, diagrams and images 3 A05: Good/ clear information 1 Negative comments B06: Documents biased, not showing detailed work leading to these proposals 12 B10: Poor resolution maps/ not optimised for mobile use 12 B11: Not convinced TfL will take feedback seriously 11 B13: Leave It alone/ changes not needed 10 B07: Not enough information given to make an informed decision 9 B14: Too much information provided/ should be succinct with links for further information 8 B09: Sessions timing not favourable for people working during the day 6 B02: Online too short/ not enough detail 5 B12: Biased against local residents 5 B16: Online survey wasn't easy to find 4 B01: Failure to ask if respondent agrees or disagrees with proposed change 3 B15: Questionnaire too singular in its agenda/too focussed on safety neglecting other important factors 3 B03: Survey biased against motorists who will be inconvenienced 2 B04: Unrealistic/ misleading to show that traffic will decrease after closing a lane 2 B08: No question asked about pedestrians 1 B17: Too much demographic information collected 1 B05: Lack of- pollution, travel & equality impacts assessments 0 Suggestion

C05: Should have been advertised more widely 17 C04: 3D Visualisation of entire Street / more images 10 C10: Environmental and time frames very important/ needed 8 C13: Plans for the local side roads should have been released at the same time as this consultation 6 C02: Artist's impression should be more realistic 5 C12: Focus should be about what makes Streatham Hill a more environmentally sustainable area/ conducive for business 4 C01: Use bigger font/ print 3 C06: Before & after images for comparison esp.(night images) 3 C07: Maps should be interactive to allow zooming in & out 2 C03: Only implement changes if over half of respondents support 1 C09: Provide information on signal phases for the traffic light junctions 1 C11: Multiple choice questions preferable as proposals very detailed 1 C08: Create more pleasant relaxing spaces/ more greenery 0

Appendix C: Consultation materials

Letter to local residents

Stakeholder email

Media article

Appendix D: List of stakeholders consulted with

A B O U T BATS Citizens UK AA BBC City Bikes (Vauxhall Walk) AA Best Bike Training / Cycletastic City of London Police Abellio Beyond Barriers Citymapper Access in London bhs bikeability CitySprint Action on Disability and Work Bidvest Logistics Clapham Park Forum UK bikeXcite Clapham Society Action on Hearing Loss Blue Triangle Buses Limited / Clapham Transport Users Group AECOM Docklands Buses Limited / Clear Channel UK Age UK Lambeth London Central Bus Company Community food growing Age UK London Limited / London General projects Ageing Well in Lewisham Transport Services Limited / Computer Cab Aid&Trade London Metrobus Limited Confederation of Passenger ALDI Borough Cycling Officers Group Transport Alive in Space Landscape and Brakes Group Connect Urban Design Studio Brewery Logistics Group Contact a Family All Party Parliamentary Cycling Brewing, Food & Beverage CoolTan Arts Group Industry Suppliers Association Coop Alliance Healthcare British Airways Costain Alzheimer's Society British Association of Removers County Hall Owners and Alzheimer's Society Lambeth British Beer & Pub Association Residents Association (CHORA) Angel (BBPA) Cross River Partnership Ann Frye British Cycling Croydon - People First Anxiety Alliance British Land CT Plus Argos British Medical Association CTC Arriva British Motorcycle Federation CVU Arriva London North Ltd, British Polio Fellowship Cycle Confidence Arun Access Group for the Brixton BID Cycle Experience Disabled Brixton Forum Cycle Systems Arup BT Cycle Training UK (CTUK) AS Watson (Health and Beauty Buses4homeless Cyclelyn UK) C T Plus C I C Cycle-wise Thames Valley Asda Camden People First Cycling Embassy of Great Britain Asian elders and carers group, Campaign for Better Transport cycling4all lewisham Campbell's Cyclists in the City Asian Peoples Disabilities Canal & River Trust DASH Alliance Capital City School Sport Deloitte ASLEF Partnership Department for Transport Aspire CareNet Design for London Aspire Wellbeing Carers First DHL Association of British Drivers Carers Information Service Dial-a-Cab Association of Car Fleet Carers network Disability Alliance Operators Carousel Disability Inspired Alliance Association of International & Cemex Disability Rights UK Express Couriers Central London CTC Disabled Go Association of Town Centre Central London Freight Quality Disabled Motoring Management Partnership DMD Pathfinders ATCoaches t/a Abbey Travel, Centre for Accessible Dogs for Good ATOMONOUS Environments Douglas Campbell Consulting Attitude is Everything Charcot-Marie-Tooth UK DPD Group UK Auxins-Social Mobility Chartered Institute of Logistics DPTAC London Bike Hub Badaccessuk and Transport (CILT) London Borough of Lambeth Barnes Hospital Chauffeur and Executive London Cab Drivers Club Barts Health Trust Association Heathrow

Driver & Vehicle Licensing Hertfordshire County Council London Chamber of Commerce Agency (DVLA) HHCD/RCA/HnS and Industry (LCCI) DriverNet Highams Park Planning Group London Councils Drivetech Transport Group London Cycling Campaign Duchenne UK Highgate School London Cycling Campaign East London Bus and Coach HR Richmond Ltd t/a Quality (Lambeth) Company Ltd/ South East Line, London European Partnership London and Kent Bus Company ICE -London for Transport Ltd ICE -London London Fire and Emergency East Surrey Rural Transport In Streatham Planning Authority Partnership t/a Polestar Travel, Inclusion London London Fire Brigade EDF Energy Independent Disability Advisory London First ELB Partners Group London General ELFT Institute for Sustainability London Gypsies & Travellers End Violence Against Women Institute of Advanced Motorists London Hire Ltd English Heritage Institute Of Couriers London Living Streets English Heritage - London Institution of Civil Engineers London Older People's Strategy Ensignbus Interactive UK Group Epsom Coaches / Quality Line Institute Of Directors London Omnibus Traction ETOA – European tourism ITS United Kingdom Society association Bikeability London Private Hire Board ETUG Jigsaw London Region National Euromix Concrete John Hersov and Co (Valuing Pensioners Convention European Dysmelia Reference People (TfL's learning disability London Strategic Health Information Centre group)) Authority Eurostar Group John Lewis Partnership London Suburban Taxi-drivers' Evolution Cycle Training Joint Committee on Mobility of Coalition Experts by Experience Blind and Partially Sighted London Taxi PR Eyes For Success People (JCMBPS) London TravelWatch Faiths Together in Lambeth, Joint Mobility Unit London United Busways Ltd, Fawcett Society Kelly Group London Vision Federation of Wholesale Kenny Stuart LTD London Visual Impairment Distributors (FWD) KIPPA Forum Fowler Welch Lambeth Cyclists London Wildlfe Trust FREENOW Lambeth Food Partnership Look Ahead Freight Transport Association Lambeth Multi-Faith Action Lookahead Friends of Capital Transport Group Loomis UK Friends of Gipsy Hill Lambeth Parent Forum Loughborough Junction Action Friends of the Earth Lambeth Safer Transport Team Group Fujitsu Lambeth Talk magazine Marks & Spencer GBM Drivers Lambeth Martin-Brower UK GeoPost UK Lambeth Accessible Transport Mcdonnell transport GLA Strategy Access Panel Services McNicholas members Lambeth Family Information Mental health and wellbeing Gnewt Cargo Service network Golden Tours (Transport) Ltd, Latin American Disabled Metroline Ltd Goss Consultancy Ltd Peoples Project Metropolitan Police Greater London Authority Leonard Cheshire MI6 Greater London Forum for the Licenced Private Hire Car MITIE Elderly Association MJB Research Services Greater London Photos Licenced Taxi Drivers Mode Transport Greenhill Cumberland Group Association Motorcycle Action Group Guide Dogs for the Blind Living Streets The Rt Hon Bell Ribeiro-Addy Association Living Streets London MP Great Western Railway London Ambulance Service The Rt Hon Florence Eshalomi HA Boyse and Son London Assembly Green Party MP HCT Group Group The Rt Hon Helen Hayes MP Health Poverty Action London Association of Funeral MSS SLTs Healthwatch Lambeth Directors MTR Crossrail Hearing Dogs UK NAS Lambeth Branch

National Autistic Society Railfuture Ltd Streatham Vale Property National Express RBKC International Women's Occupiers Association National Federation of the Blind day event Stroke Association National Federation of the Blind React Accessibility Ltd Sullivan Bus and Coach of the UK Real Surrey County Council National Grid Remploy Waterloo Sustrans National Motorcycle Council Research Institute for Disabled Suzy Lamplugh Trust National Trust Consumers Swallow Coaches NCT- Brixton Reynolds Technicolour Tyre Company NCT- Streatham Riverford Thames Water Network Rail RLSB Thamesmead Business Services NFB London Branch RMT London Taxi The 14% NFBUK RMT Union The Big Bus Company Ltd, NHS London RNIB The British Dyslexia Association NHS Property Services Road Danger Reduction Forum The British Motorcyclists' NHS South East London Road Haulage Association Federation No Panic Road Safety Markings The Children's Trust Norwood Action Group Association The Clapham Society Norwood Forum Roadpeace The Clubhouse Nutmeg Royal Association for Deaf The Co-operative Group OBAC - Organisation for Blind people The Driver-Guides Association African-Caribbeans Royal Institute of British The Original Tour Ocean Youth Connexions Architects The Purple Penguin Club Office Depot Royal Institute of Chartered The Royal Geographical Society Office for Disability Issues Surveyors The Royal Parks (DWP) Royal London Society for Blind The Salvation Army On Demand Transport People Theobald associates On Your Bike Cycle Training Royal Mail Thomas Pocklington Trust On Cue Transport Royal Mail Parcel Force Thorney Island Society One Place East Royal Society of Blind Children Thoughtistic/tfa Opinari Ltd Royal Town Planning Institute TKMaxx Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (RTPI) TNT Parkinson's UK RSSB Tony Gee and Partners Parliamentary Advisory Council Sainsbury's Supermarkets Tour Guides for Transport Safety (PACTS) SCMSTC Tower Transit Operations PaxTrans Ltd Scope Tradeteam PCOrentals SE5 Forum for Camberwell Traffic Commissioners for Great PCS (Public & Commercial www.se5forum.org.uk/news/ Britain Services Union) Sense Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy Philip Barham Freelance Shopmobility Waltham Forest UK Consulting Ltd SITA UK Transport Focus Philip Kemp cycle training Skanska Transport for All Pimlico FREDA Smiths News Transport Systems Catapult Planning Design South Mobility Forum Merton Twelve Winds Plexal South West Rail Uber Portaramp UK Limited South Eastern Railway UCLH National Federation of the Blind Space Syntax UK Power Networks of the UK Spokes Cycling Instruction Unions Together Prevention Team (Healthy Stagecoach Unite the Union London Partnership) Station to Station University College Hospital PrioritEyes Ltd Stay Safe Universitybus Ltd / UNO Private Hire Board STMGROUPLTD UPS PTRC Training Stockwell Forum Urban Movement Puzzle Focus Ltd Strategic Access Panel Vandome Cycles Queen Elizabeth's Foundation Stratford Original Vauxhall Gardens Estate for Disabled People Streatham Action Transport Tenants & Residents Association Queen Mary University of Group Vision 2020 London Streatham Action Visually Impaired Pedallers RAC Motoring Foundation Streatham BID Walk London Rail Delivery Group Warburton

Westway Community Transport Whizz Kidz Cyclinginstructor Wheelchairtaxis.net Wilson James Young Lambeth Wheels for Wellbeing Wincanton Group Whitbread Group Women in Transport

As well as sharing details of the consultation with the above stakeholders information was also sent to Transport for London customer database and, via the London Borough of Lambeth, to all education establishments and Diversity and Inclusion organisations within the Borough