Ilford to Barking Riverside Consultation Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Appendix B Summaries of stakeholder responses 2 Code Frames 4 2 Summaries of stakeholder responses This section summarises each of the responses we received from respondents whom we would consider to be ‘stakeholders’. These summaries are included only in order to assist readers of this report to understand in broad terms what issues stakeholders raised with us. The original, verbatim response from each stakeholder were analysed to identify the issues raised. We identified as a ‘stakeholder’ all those respondents we judged are notable and reasonably well known amongst the public. This includes London’s local authorities, major transport groups, local neighbourhood or residents associations, major charities, businesses and business groups and industry associations. Barking Riverside Ltd Broadly supported the proposals, citing perceived benefits for pedestrians and cyclists accessing the Barking Riverside development. Asked to be kept updated throughout the scheme development process. London Borough of Redbridge (Air Quality response) ‘Welcomed the proposals from an air quality perspective’, highlighting high levels of car ownership in the Borough. Added that respondents to a Redbridge consultation suggested they would walk and cycle more with improved infrastructure. Metropolitan Police Raised ‘no objections’ and ‘no observations’ and requested sight of preliminary designs if/when they become available. River Roding Trust Ltd Supported the proposals and requested that the path along the River Roding between Ilford and Barking be re-opened. RNIB Provided views on a range of issues affecting blind or partially sighted people, including the design of consultation materials, rights of way matters, streetscape design and the risks of ‘shared use’ footways. Provided no specific views on the proposals themselves. STIBASA (Sustainable Transport In Barking And Surrounding Areas) Commented that the proposals were ‘sensible and achievable’. Provided additional detailed comments about the proposals, including suggestions for routeing diversions at St Awdry’s Road and Sutton Gardens. 3 Sustrans Supported the proposed route but highlighted some concerns over various aspects of the scheme designs, with suggestions for how these might be mitigated. Sustrans’ comments were concerned with each section of the proposed route, but they also included suggestions for additional improvements they felt should be made. They also suggested a number of improvements in areas not directly within the proposed route alignment, but which they felt should be improved for pedestrians and pedestrians and cyclists nonetheless. 4 Code frames It would help us if you could use the space below to explain your answers to the question above. If you are commenting on a particular location, please mention it to help us analyse the responses. Code Count % Environment Would improve air quality 1 0.47% General/in- Support for unspecified reasons 18 8.49% principle Opposition for unspecified reasons 5 2.36% comments The proposals are a waste of money 11 5.19% Infrastructure The route of the proposed cycle way is not 2 0.94% sufficiently direct/too windy Provide cycle hire docking stations at Barking and 1 0.47% Ilford stations Replace the continuous crossings at side roads 1 0.47% with zebra crossings Provide more cycle parking at Barking station 1 0.47% Incorporate space nearby the cycle way for 1 0.47% activities to promote cycling/walking (eg. play area) Build a footpath & cycle way along the west bank 1 0.47% of the River Roding Support for the development of a cycle way from 1 0.47% Ilford - Barking station Address the issues at the Blake Avenue - 1 0.47% Sparsholt Road bridge Build a cycle way from Upney station - Barking 1 0.47% Riverside Repair/refurbish the footbridge connecting Tanner 2 0.94% Street and North Street Repair/refurbish the bridge connecting Harts Lane 1 0.47% to Hertford Road Provide continuous crossings at Wedderburn 1 0.47% road/Cranbourne road Divert the cycle way underneath the St Awdrys 1 0.47% Road/Eldred Rd/Wedderburn Rd bridge Divert the cycle way via Sutton Road/Feltham 1 0.47% Road/Saxham Road Ensure the cycle way is maintained to a high 1 0.47% standard Introduce an additional wheeling ramp on the 1 0.47% other side of the steps at Station Parade Incorporate traffic calming measures in the 2 0.94% proposals Objection to continuous footways (must include 1 0.47% detectable boundaries) Incorporate pedestrian crossing facilities where 1 0.47% 5 bus stop bypasses are proposed All use of tactile paving must be to established 1 0.47% guidelines Re-open the riverside path along the River Roding 1 0.47% between Barking and Ilford Introduce the Lea-Lee-Epping cycle circular route 1 0.47% Provide a raised continuous crossing at 1 0.47% Endeavour Way/Bastable Avenue with a reduced turning radii Provide cycle parking at Endeavour Way/Bastable 1 0.47% Avenue Provide a contraflow cycle lane on Eldred Road or 1 0.47% Wedderburn Road Provide a turning island at St Awdrys 1 0.47% Road/Wedderburn Road Replace one traffic lane at Ripple Road (east of 1 0.47% Axe Street) with a cycle lane Provide a bi-directional, segregated cycle track on 1 0.47% Wakering Road Provide a shared-use foot/cycle way on Thames 1 0.47% Road Provide continuous footways at the Thames Road 1 0.47% junctions Provide a segreated cycle lane on Sunningdale 1 0.47% Avenue Miscellaneous Decisions have already been made/consultation 1 0.47% has no purpose Unrelated comments 4 1.89% Criticisms of TfL/the Mayor of London 1 0.47% Introduce a car sharing scheme and lobby for tax 1 0.47% incentives for users of it Concern the scheme would lead to an increase in 1 0.47% Council Tax Comments about Sustrans Greenway proposals 2 0.94% The proposals would be beneficial only if properly 1 0.47% promoted Comments about the consultation materials 1 0.47% Accelerate feasibility work to improve Renwick 1 0.47% Road for walking/cycling Put the A13 into a tunnel 0.00% Negative Would not reduce personal journeys by private 5 2.36% impacts on transport road users Would not encourage cycling/lead to fewer cyclists 2 0.94% Positive Would encourage more cycling/more people to 19 8.96% impacts on cycle road users Would encourage more walking/more people to 10 4.72% walk Would have no effect on public transport journeys 1 0.47% 6 Would reduce personal journeys by private 7 3.30% transport Road space Cycling infrastructure is unused outside peak 1 0.47% times Cycling infrastructure causes congestion/delays 9 4.25% by reducing road space for motorised vehicles Reduce pedestrian crossing times to 1 0.47% favour/provide more time for motorised vehicles Cycling infrastructure worsens air quality (by 4 1.89% creating delays for motorised vehicles) Segregate cycle ways from footway/objection to 6 2.83% shared space Segregate cycle lanes from traffic 4 1.89% Widen the footway/provide more space for 1 0.47% pedestrians Safe routes already exist for safe cycling between 1 0.47% Ilford and Barking Objection to loss of car parking spaces on 1 0.47% Wakering Road Take enforcement action illegal parking 1 0.47% Close side roads to rat running 1 0.47% Remove the roundabout north of Sutton Gardens 1 0.47% Prohibit parking on Sunningdale Avenue 1 0.47% Safety & Concerns about anti-social cyclists/cycling 3 1.42% security Concerns about anti-social behaviour at Mayes 2 0.94% Brook underpass Safety concerns about the bus/delivery only 1 0.47% section in Barking centre Potential for confrontation at the shared section on 1 0.47% Sunningdale Avenue Concerns about the potential for anti-social 1 0.47% behaviour along the route Invest in PCSO presence along the route 1 0.47% TOTAL 167 78.77% 7 Please let us know if the proposals would have a positive or negative impact on you or the journeys you make. Please explain how we could minimise any negative impacts. Please also let us know if you have feedback about the specific effects our proposals might have on particular junctions or areas. Theme Code Q3 % Environment Would improve air quality 1 0.47% General/in- Support for unspecified reasons 4 1.89% principle Opposition for unspecified reasons 3 1.42% comments Improve lighting along the route 2 0.94% Provide CCTV along the route 1 0.47% Provide a pedestrian crossing on Longbridge Road 1 0.47% Provide traffic calming on Longbridge Road 1 0.47% Extend the cycle way via Renwick Road towards 1 0.47% Castle Green Build a footpath & cycle way along the west bank of 1 0.47% the River Roding Unrelated comments 1 0.47% Put the A13 into a tunnel 1 0.47% Would not encourage cycling/lead to fewer cyclists 1 0.47% Positive Would encourage more cycling/more people to cycle 18 8.49% impacts on Would encourage more walking/more people to walk 1 0.47% road users Would reduce personal journeys by private transport 2 0.94% Road space Cycling infrastructure is unused outside peak times 0.00% Cycling infrastructure causes congestion/delays by 5 2.36% reducing road space for motorised vehicles Safety & Concerns about anti-social cyclists/cycling 1 0.47% security TOTAL 45 21.23% .