Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 5 between Oval and Belgravia Response to Consultation November 2014
Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 5 between Oval and Belgravia Response to Consultation
Executive summary
Between 9 July and 14 September 2014, Transport for London (TfL) consulted on proposals for a new Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 5 (CS5) between Oval and Belgravia. We received 912 responses to the consultation, of which 72% supported or partially supported our proposals. After considering all responses, we intend to proceed with the scheme with a number of changes, the most significant of which are: • Moving the two-way cycle track from the northern side of Harleyford Road and Kennington Oval to the southern side, providing benefits for all road users compared to the previous proposals. We are inviting comments on the revised proposals for Harleyford Road and Kennington Oval from 10 November until 10 December 2014 at tfl.gov.uk/cs5-harleyford-road • Working with Westminster City Council to put in place traffic-calming measures to reduce the impact of motor traffic in John Islip Street, Ponsonby Place and Ponsonby Terrace. We are also developing a proposal to reroute northbound bus route 88 via Atterbury Street in Pimlico to address local concerns about congestion and potentially improve journey times (subject to further consultation)
Subject to feedback on the revised proposals for Harleyford Road and Kennington Oval, we plan to start construction work on CS5 between Oval and Pimlico in spring 2015. A fuller summary of our planned next steps is available in Chapter 4 of this report. The section of CS5 between Pimlico and Belgravia is being developed in partnership with Westminster City Council, which is considering the responses to consultation, with a view to consulting on detailed proposals for this section of CS5 in the future. This could include splitting the route between Route Option 1 (Belgrave Road, Eccleston Bridge, Eccleston Street and Belgrave Place) and Vauxhall Bridge Road. This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the recent consultation, and sets out TfL’s response to issues commonly raised.
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 5 2. Consultation ...... 9 3. Responses to consultation ...... 13 4. Conclusion and next steps ...... 25 Appendix A: Detailed analysis of responses ...... 28 Section 1: Pimlico to Belgravia ...... 28 Section 2: Vauxhall Bridge Road – Drummond Gate ...... 34 Section 3: Bessborough Gardens / Millbank ...... 37 Section 4: Vauxhall Bridge ...... 40 Section 5: Vauxhall Gyratory ...... 43 Section 6: Harleyford Road / Durham Street ...... 48 Section 7: Harleyford Road / Kennington Oval ...... 51 Appendix B: Response to issues commonly raised ...... 54 Appendix C: Supporting documents for Section 1 ...... 64 Appendix D: Consultation leaflet ...... 67 Appendix E: Consultation emails ...... 70 Appendix F: Press release and media coverage ...... 74
1. Introduction
The Mayor of London’s Vision for Cycling, launched in March 2013, contains an ambitious target to double the number of people cycling in Greater London over the next decade. To achieve this growth TfL is delivering a far-reaching programme of cycling provision to make the capital’s streets more attractive for cycling to more people, especially those groups currently under-represented among cyclists, including women, young people and the elderly. TfL’s flagship cycling programme is the Barclays Cycle Superhighways, which aim to provide a London-wide network of direct and high-capacity cycle routes, mostly along main roads. The Superhighways are being designed to provide safe, comfortable and convenient journeys for anyone on a bicycle, providing essential links between London’s suburbs and the city centre, and for shorter journeys in between. Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 5 (CS5) is intended to run between New Cross Gate and central London. Following consultations in December 2012 on previous proposals for CS5, TfL decided on the following phases of development for this route:
• Phase 1: Initial works from New Cross Gate to Oval (completed autumn 2013). • Phase 2: Oval to Belgravia (Oval to Pimlico due for completion autumn 2015; Pimlico to Belgravia timetable and alignment to be confirmed). • Phase 3: Major junction improvements at Oval (due for completion winter 2015).
Phase 1 has been completed, providing a continuous cycling facility between New Cross Gate and Oval, via Peckham and Camberwell. This consultation report is part of Phase 2 of the CS5 project and explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation between Oval and Belgravia.
1.1 Purpose of the scheme
Vauxhall is difficult to avoid for many cycle journeys between south-west and central London. Around 3,000 cyclists use the bridge in the rush hours alone. But Vauxhall can also be a very intimidating location for cyclists, requiring multiple manoeuvres in the middle of often fast-moving traffic. Creating cycle-friendly routes to, from and through Vauxhall is key to opening up south London to cycling.
1.2 Description of the proposals The proposals were presented in two parts:
• Between Oval and Pimlico (Drummond Gate), respondents were asked to comment on detailed proposals along a single route alignment.
• There are three options for the area between Pimlico and Belgravia (see map on p4). Westminster City Council will be developing more detailed proposals on the
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 5
selected route(s) chosen to be taken forward from views expressed during this consultation. These proposals will be the subject of future consultation.
1.2.1 Proposals for TfL sections from Oval junction to Drummond Gate The proposed design features of CS5 on TfL roads between Oval junction and Drummond Gate were: • A 1.4km segregated two-way cycle track, running from Oval junction, through Vauxhall gyratory and over Vauxhall Bridge to Drummond Gate (Pimlico), providing physical separation for cyclists from motor traffic. • Redesigned junction layouts across the route to make them safer and more convenient for cyclists and pedestrians. • Banned turns for motorists at Drummond Gate, Vauxhall Bridge Road and Harleyford Road. • Changes to footways and pedestrian crossings. Some areas of footway would be enlarged (particularly at Vauxhall), but we would also need to reduce footway space in some locations to make room for the cycle track. There would be an overall increase in footway area across the route as a whole. Eastbound bus stop moved from Harleyford Street to Durham Street (about 120 metres), with another on Kennington Oval moved about 30 metres. • Bus stop D on Vauxhall Bridge Road moved to the other side of the junction with Regency Street (approximately 50 metres west).
1.2.2 Proposals for Westminster section from Drummond Gate to Belgravia The proposed design features for between Drummond Gate to Belgravia, on Westminster City Council roads, included: • Routing along roads with significantly lower motor traffic flows, requiring a lesser degree of intervention than what has been proposed between Oval and Drummond Gate. The consultation asked for feedback on three route options (see the map on p4): • Option 1: Northbound and southbound cyclists would use Belgrave Road, Eccleston Street, Eccleston Bridge and Belgrave Place: The proposal included a contraflow cycle lane for southbound cyclists on Belgrave Place, Eccleston Bridge and Eccleston Street. • Option 2: Northbound cyclists would travel on Belgrave Road, Eccleston Street and Belgrave Place, while southbound cyclists use Elizabeth Street, Lyall Street and St George’s Drive. The proposal included segregated tracks and new traffic signals to separate southbound cyclists from coaches.
6 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
• Option 3: Northbound cyclists would travel on Belgrave Place, Belgrave Road and Eccleston Street, while southbound cyclists would turn right from Lyall Street into Ebury Street, Cundy Street, Ebury Square, Ebury Bridge, Sutherland Street and Lupus Street.
1.2.3 Explanation of potential cyclist-friendly interventions Rather than present detailed proposals for each of the three options, Westminster City Council presented a range of potential cycle-friendly interventions that could be implemented depending on the characteristics of the street along which the route would pass. The council asked respondents to give their feedback on the following different types of streets and their proposed interventions: Green. Streets with the lowest traffic speeds and volumes would have no intervention. Yellow. Streets with low traffic speeds and volumes, requiring low intervention. For example, Lyall Street could have cycle symbols painted on the carriageway. Orange. Streets with higher motor traffic speeds and volumes (containing more buses and lorries, and with parking bays on both sides of the street) would require a medium level of intervention. For example, Belgrave Road could see a 2 metre with-flow cycle lane using parked vehicles to buffer cyclists from moving motor traffic, or a 2 metre with-flow cycle lane adjacent to general traffic lanes. Red. Streets with higher traffic speeds and volumes (including more buses and lorries, parking bays on both sides of the street, and potentially hazardous vehicles movements) would see a higher level of intervention. For example, along Eccleston Bridge, a 1.75 metre segregated feeder cycle lane could lead to a cyclist-only traffic signal to allow cyclists to advance ahead of general traffic. The consultation included supporting documents, including maps, giving more information about the possible interventions for each route option, and asking for feedback. These supporting documents are reproduced in Appendix C of this report.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 7
1.3 Overview map
8 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
2. Consultation
2.1 Consultation history The phased development timetable for CS5 (see p1) has resulted in TfL consultations taking place on the following proposals for the route: • CS5 from New Cross Gate to Victoria, 3 December 2012 to 13 January 2013 This consultation asked for feedback on initial proposals for the CS5 route from New Cross Gate to Victoria. More information can be found at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/cs5. • Camberwell town centre (Medlar Street to Benhill Road), 24 January to 8 March 2013 This consultation concerned the section of CS5 running along Camberwell Church Street and Camberwell New Road. More information can be found at tfl.gov.uk/cs5camberwell. • Junction improvements at Oval Triangle, 9 July to 17 August 2014 This consultation looked at revised proposals for Oval junction, affecting CS5 between Camberwell New Road and Harleyford Road. More information can be found at tfl.gov.uk/oval-triangle. • CS5 between Oval and Belgravia, 9 July to 14 September 2014 This consultation (the subject of this document) concerned revised proposals for the section of CS5 from Oval to Belgravia. More information can be found at tfl.gov.uk/cs5.
2.2 Consultation structure This CS5 consultation ran from 9 July 2014 to 14 September 2014, and the consultation information can be viewed at tfl.gov.uk/cs5. Due to the length of the proposed route, the proposals were broken down into seven sections for consultation: • Section 1: Drummond Gate to Belgravia (three route options offered) • Section 2: Vauxhall Bridge Road and Drummond Gate • Section 3: Vauxhall Bridge / Bessborough Gardens and Grosvenor Road / Millbank junction • Section 4: Vauxhall Bridge • Section 5: Vauxhall Gyratory • Section 6: Harleyford Road and Durham Street • Section 7: Harleyford Road to Oval For each section and the overall scheme, respondents were asked about their level of support for the proposals (‘support’, ‘partially support’, ‘don’t support’, ‘not sure’, ‘no
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 9 opinion’). Respondents were also given an opportunity to provide comments on each section of the proposal and the overall scheme.
Respondents were also asked to submit their name, email address, postcode, along with information about their cycling and other travel habits. All questions were optional, apart from the question asking for overall views on the proposal. Other information, such as the respondent’s IP address and the date and time of responding, was recorded automatically. All data is held under conditions that conform to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.
2.3 Pre-consultation stakeholder meetings TfL met with a number of stakeholder groups prior to and during consultation to discuss our proposals: • Better Junctions Design Review Group, CS5 Oval to Belgravia workshop, with representatives from:
o CTC. o London Cycling Campaign, including Lambeth Cyclists and Westminster Cyclists.
o LoTAG (London Technical Advisors Group). o Sustrans. • Cab Ranks Committee:
o Licensed Taxi Drivers Association. o Unite the Union. o London Cab Drivers Club. • Express Networks Forum. • Freight Operators. • Friends of Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens. • London TravelWatch. • Residents of Harleyford Road. • Residents of FREDA, Belgravia and Ponsonby Residents’ Associations. • Local businesses and landowners.
10 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
2.4 Consultation material, distribution and publicity
On 9 July 2014, detailed information on the proposals was published at tfl.gov.uk/cs5. This consultation information included a leaflet, with an overview route map, detailed 2D design drawings for Sections 2 to 7, computer-generated 3D representations of key locations, and text descriptions of the proposals. This information was also made available on paper via freepost (on request) and on large format displays at public drop-in events held on or near the route (see p6 for details). Paper response forms were also made available at public events, and members of the project design teams were available for discussion. The consultation information was publicised via the following channels: • Leaflet to households: We sent an eight-page colour A5 leaflet outlining the proposals to all addresses in postcode sectors touching a 0.25 mile radius of the route (the leaflet and distribution map is reproduced in Appendix D). The leaflet provided a summary of the proposals and a link to the online consultation information and response survey. • Emails to individuals: We emailed around 70,000 people on the TfL database who are known to cycle, drive or use public transport in the area (see the email in Appendix E). The email contained a brief description of the proposed scheme, with a link inviting recipients to find out more and comment via the consultation website. • Emails to stakeholders: We emailed approximately 300 stakeholders (see Appendix E). The email contained a summary of the proposals and a link to the consultation website. Recipients included:
o Police and the other emergency services. o Politicians (national, regional and local) o London local authorities. o Disability rights groups. o Residents’ associations. o Transport user groups. o Road operator groups. • Press and media: TfL issued a press release on 9 July 2014. A copy of this release is in Appendix F, along with links to media coverage. • A range of marketing activities including: digital Google text ads; mobile and desktop (including Facebook) display banners, postcode-targeted MMS messaging; face-to-face leafleting to promote consultation drop-in events.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 11
• Public drop-in events: We held five events near the proposed route to provide an opportunity for people to give feedback at the following locations:
o Pimlico Library, Lupus Street, London, SW1V 3EY Thursday 10 July, 1500-1900 Saturday 12 July, 1100-1500 Saturday 6 September 1100-1500 Wednesday 10 September 1500-1900
o Montgomery Hall (joint event with the Oval Triangle consultation), 58 Kennington Oval, London, SE11 5SW Thursday 17 July, 1500-1900.
o Church Hall, St Anne and All Saints Church, Miles Street, London, SW8 1RL Thursday 24 July, 1500-1900. In all instances, individuals and stakeholders were invited to respond by either using the online survey on our website, by emailing TfL at [email protected], or by filling in a paper feedback form (available at events or by post on request).
12 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
3. Responses to consultation
3.1 Overview of consultation responses
3.1.1 Overall support There were 912 responses to the Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia consultation. 27 were from stakeholders and 885 were from members of the public.
Figur e 1: Support or otherwise for the proposals
3.1.2 Support for each section Support or otherwise for each of Sections 1-7 is shown below:
Table 1: Summary of responses to CS5 consultation
Support Total or response Partially partially No Don’t Section s Support support support Not sure opinion support Overall 912 55% (502) 17% (156) (72%) 658 3% (29) 1% (7) 24% (218) 1 476 (52%) 63% (299) 13% (61) (76%) 360 4% (20) 3% (13) 17% (84) 2 391 (43%) 63% (246) 12% (45) (74%) 291 3% (12) 3% (11) 20% (78) 3 411 (45%) 52% (213) 13% (55) (65%) 268 3% (12) 3% (12) 29% (120) 4 417 (46%) 68% (284) 8% (35) (76%) 319 2% (10) 3% (11) 18% (78) 5 414 (46%) 52% (217) 23% (95) (75%) 312 6% (24) 2% (10) 16% (68) 6 337 (37%) 67% (226) 7% (24) (74%) 250 2% (8) 7% (23) 17% (56) 7 342 (38%) 60% (204) 12% (41) (72%) 245 5% (17) 7% (25) 16% (55)
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 13
3.1.3 Preferred route alignment for Section 1 For Section 1, respondents were invited to express a preference for one of three route alignment options, with the most favoured being Option 1. Route preferences are shown in Figure 1 below:
Figure 2: Preferred route alignment for Section 1
3.2 About the respondents
3.2.1 Responses by postcode 22% of postcodes supplied were from SW1V (central Pimlico), 14% from SW1P (eastern Pimlico), 9% from SE11 (Kennington), 8% from SW8 (south Lambeth), and 7% from SW1W (south Belgravia).
Figure 3: Top 10 postcodes
14 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
3.2.2 How often did respondents say they cycled?
Table 2: On average, how often do you cycle?
Most days 51% (314) About once a week 10% (65) About 1–3 times a month 8% (50)
Less often 11% (66)
Never 20% (125)
Total answered (of 912) 620 (68%) Not answered (of 912) 289 (32%)
Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Cycle most days and... Occasionally cycle and... Never cycle and...
Fully or partially support Don’t support Not sure/no opinion/not answered
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 15
3.2.3 How did respondents say they heard about the consultation? The most common source by which Figure 7: How respondents heard about the respondents heard about the consultation consultation was email (44% of those who answered this question, 269 respondents), followed by receiving a leaflet through the door (20%/123). 6% (36) of respondents heard about the consultation through online adverts. Nearly a quarter of respondents heard about it through an ‘other’ source. Among ‘others’, the most common were: Among ‘others’, the most common were: • word of mouth (5%/33) • social media (5%/30) • blogs, newspapers and websites (5%/29) • cycling-specific website, blogs and e- newsletters (4%/25) • the TfL website (3%/17) • and resident organisations (2%/13).
Percentages in Figures 3-7 only reflect those respondents that supplied this information.
3.2.4 Comments on the consultation
267 respondents (29% of all respondents) answered the question asking for any comments on the consultation process (for example, printed materials, website, events, etc). The main themes arising were: • General praise for material (59 respondents / 22%), with 14 (5%) highlighting the clarity of the material
• Suggestions that additional information should have been provided (17/6%), such as more data around the impact of proposals on surrounding streets and information relating to costs, background and likely completion date
• Suggestions that the consultation should have been better publicised (15/6%)
• 15 respondents expressed concerns over the consultation event, with most of these highlighting a short time between receipt of their letter and the event
• 15 respondents (6%) expressed concerns over the timing of the consultation, with some saying the consultation period was too short, and others citing the overlap with the summer holidays as inconvenient
16 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
• Comments saying the consultation website or material was complex or unclear (9/3%), with several objecting to not having the questions on the same pages as the detailed information on the proposals.
3.3 Summary of comments
3.3.1 Comments on the overall scheme Of the 912 respondents who replied to the consultation, 665 (73% of the total) provided further comments in the open text box. Common issues raised included:
General support or praise. 181 respondents (20% of all respondents) offer general support or praise the proposed design for the route.
Cycle track design. 59 respondents provided feedback on various aspects of the cycle track infrastructure. • Shared space: 24 respondents (3%), including Guide Dogs, commented on the use of shared space at various points along the track.
o 13 respondents (2%) opposed shared space due to the potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.
o 10 respondents (1.5%) requested measures to segregate pedestrians and cyclists in these areas, such as maintaining cycle track colouring, signage, or physical barriers.
o Guide Dogs asked that all crossings, including traffic islands, should have tactile paving. Although it said tactile paving should not give blind or partially sighted people a false impression of being in a pedestrian-only area. • Two-way cycle tracks: 20 respondents (2%) comment on the proposal to use two- way cycle tracks.
o 16 respondents (2%) would prefer a one-way/with flow system, citing the difficulty of accessing a two-way track from the opposite side of the road, the potential for conflict between cyclists, and possible confusion among road users arising from cyclists travelling against the usual flow of traffic.
o Two respondents were positive about using a two-way track, one suggests monitoring the two-way system upon implementation, and another provides a neutral opinion. • Width of cycle track: 14 respondents (2%) comment on the width of the track. Seven respondents would like to see wider cycle lanes, six request the lanes are designed to be ‘as wide as possible’, and one respondent is happy with the proposed width.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 17
• Use of surfacing and markings: Nine respondents (1%) commented on the track colour/markings, with four saying paint alone will not make the track safe for cyclists. • Angled kerbs: Five respondents (1%) requested the kerbs along the cycle track are angled/shallow to maximise the effective cycling area. Impact on buses. 58 respondents (6%) mentioned the scheme’s potential impact on buses through the removal of bus lane and traffic lane. • 43 respondents (5%) opposed the removal of the bus lane and any delays to buses associated with changes to the road layout. • 14 respondents (2%) expressed concern about the impact on bus journey times, but did not oppose the proposed road layout changes outright (this included eight respondents who, otherwise, fully supported the scheme). • One respondent who mentioned buses was favourable towards the changes, considering delays to buses necessary for cyclist safety. London TravelWatch said that where bus lanes are in place, they should be 4.5m wide to facilitate overtaking cyclists.
Impact on congestion. 55 respondents (6%) discussed the scheme’s potential impact on congestion. • 45 (5%) said congestion would increase as a result of this scheme, including two motorcyclists who said removal of a bus lane would affect their journeys and add to congestion in general traffic lanes. • Six (1%) respondents felt the scheme would improve or reduce congestion by providing cycling as a viable alternative. • The remaining four respondents provided other or neutral feedback.
Impact on air pollution. 51 respondents (6%) discussed how they felt the scheme would affect air pollution. • 29 (3%) felt the scheme would create more air pollution (CO2, exhaust emissions or particulate matter), because of increased motor traffic congestion. • 17 respondents (2%) were positive towards the scheme’s potential to reduce air pollution and improve the environment. • Five respondents provided neutral or other feedback/questions on pollution.
Route alignment. 13 respondents (1%) commented on potential extensions to the proposed route.
18 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
• 11 respondents (1%) would like to see the route continue east/southwards, with desired destinations including Oval, Camberwell, New Cross, and Lewisham. • Six (1%) respondents commented on the end of the route under consultation at Oval cricket ground, and would like to see further consideration given to extending the segregation to tie in with CS7 or Oval underground. • Four respondents would like to see the route continue west/northwards, with two specifying Hyde Park as a key destination.
Cyclist behaviour. 35 respondents commented on cyclists disobeying road rules or behaving in a way they saw as anti-social, with the following behaviours mentioned. • Disobeying traffic signals and/or not yielding at pedestrian crossings (22). • Riding illegally on footway/pedestrian areas (15). • Cyclists being discourteous to other road users (8). • People cycling the wrong way down one-way streets (5). Other cyclist behaviours that were highlighted included: • Overtaking vehicles on the inside (4). • Not signalling turns (3).
Section-specific comments. Some respondents used the overall question input box to provide feedback on sections of the proposal. These are included in the analyses for the relevant section. Of the 328 respondents who provided comments. (49%) said they support the proposals, 130 (20%) partially support the proposals, and 178 (27%) opposed the proposals. The remainder were ‘not sure’ or indicated they had ‘no opinion’.
3.3.2 Comments on proposals for sections of route This is an overview of the main issues raised in response to the proposals for Sections 1 to 7. A more detailed section-by-section summary of responses is available in Appendix A on p16. Issues raised included: Support for Option 1 between Pimlico and Belgravia. 66% supported Option 1, with directness given as the main reason. 23% supported Option 2 and 9% Option 3. Other issues raised in Section 1 included the need for greater segregation; potential danger from Victoria Coach Station; the need for a link to Victoria train station; and the unsuitability of some residential streets for cycling facilities.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 19
Impact of banned left turn from Drummond Gate to Vauxhall Bridge Road. 8% of respondents to Section 2 expressed support for or concern at the impact of banning this turn. Impact of banned left turn from Bessborough Gardens to Millbank. 19% of respondents to Section 3 expressed concern at the proposed ban, with the most frequently cited reason being the impact on local roads such as John Islip Street, Marsham Street, Ponsonby Terrace and Ponsonby Place. Connectivity between CS5 and CS8. 8% of respondents in Section 3 expressed concern about how cyclists would pass safely between CS5 and CS8, with 6% highlighting potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians on the shared-use area that would link Vauxhall Bridge and Millbank. Removal of bus lane on Vauxhall Bridge. 7% of respondents to Section 4 opposed the removal, citing potential delays to bus passengers. Concern at shared use area in Vauxhall: 14% of respondents to Section 5 expressed concern about the potential for conflict between cyclists and pedestrians at the traffic island opposite the Royal Vauxhall Tavern. Albert Embankment crossing. 8% of Section 5 respondents raised concern at the cyclist crossing at the northbound arm of Albert Embankment, with most saying it lacks directness. Use of underpass/tunnel. 9% of Section 5 respondents commented on the design of the cycle route through the tunnel and the underpass, calling for improvements. Access to CS5 from nearby routes. 8% of respondents to Section 5 mentioned the quality of cycle links between CS5 and nearby roads, such as Kennington Lane, Nine Elms and South Lambeth Road. Banned right turn from Harleyford Road into Kennington Lane. The banned turn at this junction caused concern for 4% respondents to Section 5. Junction of Durham Street and Harleyford Road. This is discussed by 6% of respondents to Section 6, with the main issue being the widened shared space footway on Durham Street, which respondents said would cause conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. Shared crossing where Meadow Lane meets Harleyford Road. The splitting of the cycle track and the crossing caused concern for 12% of Section 7 respondents. Change from cycle track to bus lanes at Oval. 5% of respondents to Section 7 expressed concern about the end of the CS5 cycle track, with cyclists having to ride in bus lanes between Meadow Lane and Oval junction. Junction of Kennington Oval and Harleyford Road. 4% of respondents to Section 7 said they were worried about conflict between motor vehicles and cyclists at this junction.
20 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
3.4 Stakeholder responses Of the 912 responses to consultation received, 27 were identified as originating from stakeholder groups. The stakeholders are listed in alphabetical order below, along with a summary of their comments. Stakeholder comments are also covered in the analysis of section-by-section responses in Appendix A.
Stakeholder Summary of comments
Alliance of Objected to reallocation of road space from motor vehicles to bicycle British Drivers traffic. Against banned left turns.
109/111 St Said route should integrate with proposal for walking/cycling bridge George’s Drive across Thames in Wandsworth. Concerned about parking bays Residents’ outside cycle lanes. Society
Ashmole Submitted a 242-name petition objecting to the proposal to move the Tenants’ and bus stops on Harleyford Road and Kennington Oval because of Residents’ disbenefits to elderly residents and schoolchildren. Said safe cycling Association should not be at the expense of pedestrian safety.
Asset Owners Called for more promotion of cycling and public transport, banning Disclosure private cars. Project
Battersea Concerned that removing bus lanes would mean longer bus journey Society times and additional pollution. Said scheme must take account of future gyratory works at Vauxhall Cross. Against uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.
Board of West- Called for retention of left turns from Drummond Gate and minster Gardens Bessborough Gardens, the latter because it felt it would mean extra motor traffic in residential streets.
Belgravia Said there’s already cycle facility along Lupus St, not used. Parking is Residents’ narrow and risk of 'dooring'. Option 1: Eccleston Bridge heavily Association / congested, so contraflow ill-advised; Option 2: No space on Elizabeth High Street St beside Victoria Coach Station for cycle lane, would compromise Society parking and taxi drop-offs; Option 3: Require road widening on Ebury Bridge and Sutherland Street. Commuter cyclists likely to use Vauxhall Bridge Road.
Confederation of Against removal of parking for coaches. Said aspects of the Passenger proposals would increase journey times for public transport and Transport UK likely cause pollution and congestion. Said scheme must include safe London & SE turning for 15m coaches throughout. Supported route Option 3 in
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 21
Westminster, as it has the lightest traffic.
Cycling Supported safe and attractive conditions for cycling, with reservations Embassy of about design. Said two-way track not ideal, if implemented kerbing Great Britain should be shallow to maximise effective width. Support Option 1 as most direct of proposed routes, but greater intervention needed to create attractive cycling conditions: filtered permeability to remove through motor traffic or one-way motor traffic to create space for cycling.
Dolphin Square Called for use of wider, less residential Vauxhall Bridge Road for CS5 Tenants’ as Lupus Street is narrow and has many schoolchildren. Suggested a Association (part one-way facility on Belgravia Road and Vauxhall Bridge Road. of Pimlico Against banned left turn from Bessborough Gardens. FREDA)
Eccleston Said Belgrave Road is too narrow for a two-way cycle route; favour Square lighter intervention. Parking in central reservation inappropriate. Pro Residents’ 20mph. Concerned about dangers to cyclists near Victoria Coach Association Station and suggested using Vauxhall Bridge Rd for at least one direction.
Go Ahead Buses Opposed loss of bus priority on Vauxhall Bridge, Harleyford Road and Kennington Oval, saying it would mean longer journeys for passengers. Seven bus routes would be affected.
Guide Dogs Against shared space, particularly where tactile paving gives visually impaired people a false impression of being in a pedestrian-only environment. Said controlled crossings should span cycle track, otherwise visually impaired will be unable to cross safety. Crossings, including traffic islands, should have tactile paving.
Lambeth Strong support for segregation, though better to have with-flow Cyclists (part of tracks. Route must be quick for commuters. Supporting measures the London need to connect South Lambeth Road and Nine Elms Lane. Cycling Pedestrian and cyclist traffic signals should not cause undue delay. Campaign) Pedestrian/cyclist shared use areas are a concern, separation better.
Licensed Taxi Said important there is space for taxis to pick up and drop off Drivers’ passengers; e.g. at Oval Cricket Ground. Against loss of bus lanes, Association which cause delays, and banned left turns. Said on-carriageway cyclist right turn into Grosvenor Road from Bessborough Gardens should be banned because of new off-carriageway facility.
London Said Vauxhall gyratory and bridge major barriers to cycling, so Assembly segregation welcome. Cyclists essential to Nine Elms regeneration, Labour and CS5 should connect to Battersea Power Station and beyond.
22 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
London Supported strategy to increase cycling, along with improved buses TravelWatch and pedestrian environment. Opposed shared space areas and removal of bus lanes. Supported monitoring of safety outcomes, and 4.5 metre wide bus lanes to facilitate buses overtaking cyclists.
Lorimer & Co Against two banned left turns from Drummond Gate and Vauxhall Bridge Road due to difficulty in driving to Embankment. Said banned turns increase CO2 and particulate pollution.
Oval Partnership Supported principle of cycle route but said details were wrong. Suggested conflict likely at Oval Cricket Ground, opposed bus stop relocation. Recommended routeing along Vauxhall Bridge Road, saying other routes were away from cyclist desire line.
Residents of Said cycle track on south side better, making crossings safer. Harleyford Road However, junction with Durham Street problematic and community garden gateway could be affected by bus stop. Lorries turning from Durham Street into Harleyford Road could endanger cyclists.
RCP Riverwalk Highlighted proposed planting of four new trees on the corner of House LLP Millbank and Vauxhall Bridge Road and requested TfL ensure no conflict between trees and cycles in shared space area.
Sainsbury’s Supported measures to make roads safer for all road users. Need to Supermarkets ensure deliveries can still be made to retail premises without compromising driver safety, store staff and other road users.
Sense with Any scheme that could make motor traffic journeys longer is Roads unacceptable. Against banned left turns.
Sustrans Welcomed overall benefits, though prefer with-flow cycle tracks. Two- way cycle track should be at carriageway level. In favour of shared use area when help cyclist turns, though design must encourage considerate cycling. Need right turns between CS5 and CS8, with waiting areas where two-stage turns. Supported cycle track over bridge, though bus lane should be retained. Supported public realm improvements, such as trees.
Victoria Route Option 1: additional congestion likely to increase pollution. Business Coaches present significant danger to cyclists. Lack of directness of Improvement other route could encourage southbound cyclists to use unsafe District routes. Supported buffer zones for cycle lanes using parked cars and public realm improvements.
Vision Zero In favour of the scheme.
Westminster Supported safe cycle routes through Victoria and Vauxhall, which are
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 23
Cyclists (part of major barriers to cycling. Supported banned turns from Bessborough London Cycling Gardens into Millbank, and safe cyclist right turns at major junctions. Campaign)
3.5 Petitions
3.5.1 Millbank Spice restaurant petition against relocation of bus stop D on Vauxhall Bridge Road A 73-name petition objected to the proposed relocation of bus stop D near Rampayne Street. The concerns it raised included: • Noise, disruption, invasion of privacy and access difficulties for diners. • Narrowness of the footway where the bus stop was proposed.
3.5.2 Ashmole Tenants and Residents’ Association petition objecting to relocation of bus stop from Harleyford Road to Durham Street A 242-name petition objected to the proposed bus stop relocation due to the impact it would have on elderly residents and schoolchildren. The accompanying email said the petition had been developed in consultation with St Peter's Residence, the Headteacher of St Mark's school, residents of the sheltered housing on Ashmole Estate, and residents of Harleyford House. It raised concerns including: • Elderly residents relying on the close proximity of the current bus stop on a well lit street close to a pedestrian crossing. • Several schools in the area using the bus stops, with potential for overcrowded pavements and fights between the different school pupils. • Safety of pedestrians should not be compromised for safe cycling.
24 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
4. Conclusion and next steps
4.1 CS5 between Oval and Pimlico Overall, 72% of consultation respondents said they supported or partially supported TfL’s proposals for Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 5 between Oval and Belgravia. Having considered the issues raised in consultation, TfL intends to proceed with the scheme, although we are proposing changes to the design along Harleyford Road and Kennington Oval. Please see below for details of changes to the original proposals, and Appendix B for TfL’s response to issues commonly raised in consultation.
4.1.1 Proposed changes to scheme on Harleyford Road and Kennington Oval We are proposing to move the two-way cycle track from the northern side of Harleyford Road and Kennington Oval to the southern side. This would have the following benefits over the previous proposals: • Improvements to the junction of Harleyford Road and Kennington Oval, adding a dedicated crossing for cyclists, so CS5 cycle traffic no longer crosses the existing pedestrian-cyclist shared use area • Reduced journey times for all road users compared to the previous proposal • Right turn from Harleyford Road into Kennington Lane remains open to motorists • A new signal-controlled pedestrian crossing outside St Anne’s Primary School on Durham Street • Improved layout at the junction of Durham Street and Kennington Lane, with new crossings for pedestrians, and reduced journey times for motorists. • CS5 cyclists would no longer cross Durham Street or Kennington Oval, although they would cross the quieter junction with Vauxhall Grove. • Moving the proposed relocated loading bay from Harleyford Road closer to The Beehive pub on Durham Street to facilitate deliveries The changes would mean a new bus stop bypass for cyclists on Harleyford Road, as well as other substantial changes to the road layout. View and comment on the revised proposals from 10 November until 10 December 2014 at tfl.gov.uk/cs5-harleyford-road.
4.1.2 Proposals to help mitigate any impact of the banned left turn from Bessborough Gardens on to Millbank, including possible changes to the route of northbound bus route 88 While TfL does not expect a substantial increase in motor traffic in nearby residential streets, given the relatively low number of turning vehicles and availability of other routes, it does acknowledge local concerns over the potential for rat-running. To mitigate the risk,
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 25 we are working with Westminster City Council (the responsible Highway Authority for John Islip Street, Ponsonby Place and Ponsonby Terrace) to put in place traffic-calming measures to deter additional traffic from rat-running.
TfL is also developing a proposal to reroute northbound bus route 88 towards Camden Town, so it would use Millbank and Atterbury Street before joining John Islip Street. It would no longer serve bus stop S on John Islip Street, but would instead serve nearby bus stop T on Millbank. The route towards Clapham Common would not change. This would address local concerns about buses blocking John Islip Street at the junction with Bessborough Gardens. It would also improve bus journey times, as buses would bypass the traffic lights at the junction of Bessborough Gardens and John Islip Street. TfL will undertake a separate consultation with Westminster City Council, local people and bus users before any decision is made.
TfL will also work to provide drivers with advance information to help them plan suitable alternative routes (as described in Appendix B).
4.1.3 Shared pedestrian/cyclist space between Millbank and Vauxhall Bridge Scheme designs have been amended to provide a clearer layout for pedestrians and cyclists without the need for shared space. The revised proposals include a segregated cycle track at the junction, with clearly-marked space for cyclists and pedestrians. Clear signage and tactile paving will be provided where necessary to assist pedestrians and cyclists using the area.
4.1.4 Bus stop D on Vauxhall Bridge Road Several respondents questioned the proposed new location of bus stop D on Vauxhall Bridge Road to the north of Regency Street junction, saying there would be issues with space and sight lines. There was also a 73-name petition against the proposals. Following further investigations, we are now proposing to relocate the bus stop approximately 30 metres north of the Rampayne Street junction, outside 44-46 Vauxhall Bridge Road. Relocating the bus stop simplifies the junction layout at Regency Street, meaning buses are not pulling in and out at this junction. The relocated bus stop will also provide space for two buses to stop.
4.1.5 Zebra crossing over cycle track at Bridgefoot Due to high pedestrian flows at the crossings over Bridgefoot, and in response to comments about crossing the cycle track, we intend to provide a zebra crossing over the track (subject to Department for Transport approval).
26 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
4.1.6 Bus lane improvements on Vauxhall Bridge
The short westbound bus feeder lane from Vauxhall Bus Station to Vauxhall Bridge will be extended to make it easier for buses to join the general traffic flow going west over the bridge.
4.2 CS5 between Pimlico and Belgravia The section of CS5 between Pimlico and Belgravia is being developed in partnership with Westminster City Council. The Council is considering the responses to consultation and will consult on detailed proposals for this section of route in the future. This includes the possibility of splitting the route between Route 1 and Vauxhall Bridge Road. Having considered the consultation responses and undertaken further investigations, Westminster City Council considers that having a two-way cycle route along Belgrave Road, Eccleston Bridge, Eccleston Street and Belgrave Place (Route 1) is probably not viable, as it is likely to require the narrowing of the footways and loss of some well-used residents’ parking. Further discussions are therefore needed on a suitable alternative, which might include splitting the route between Route 1 and Vauxhall Bridge Road.
4.3 Completion of CS5 between Oval and Pimlico There are no other significant changes to the CS5 proposals on TfL roads that were put out for public consultation from to 9 July to 14 September 2014. TfL’s response to issues commonly raised is available in Appendix B. Subject to feedback on the revised proposals for Harleyford Road and Kennington Oval, we plan to start construction work on CS5 between Oval and Pimlico in spring 2015. We will write to local residents and affected properties before work starts to provide a summary of this consultation, an overview of the updated proposals, and an outline of the construction programme.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 27
Appendix A: Detailed analysis of responses
Section 1: Pimlico to Belgravia
Overview
Key proposals: Number of respondents: 476 Section One offered three options for the route Support or partially support: 76% between Vauxhall Bridge and Belgravia. These route options were proposed by Westminster City Council. Following this consultation, the Council will develop more detailed proposals on the chosen route for further consultation. • Option 1: Cyclists travel in both directions along Route 1 through construction of a contraflow cycle lane for southbound cyclists.
• Option 2: Northbound cyclists use Route 1 and southbound cyclists use Route 2. Preferred Option: • Option 3: Northbound cyclists use Route 1 and southbound cyclists use Route 3 via Lyall Street.
Other proposals: • Banned left turn from Drummond Gate to Vauxhall Bridge Road (see Section 2). • Banned left turn from Vauxhall Bridge Road to Millbank (see Section 2).
28 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Details of responses for Section 1
Responses to overall proposal for Section 1 476 respondents completed this section of the consultation. Of these, 205 (43%) provided comments. The most commonly raised issues were:
Types of cycling interventions. Route segregation is mentioned by 45 respondents: Calls for more segregation. 16 respondents (4%), including the Cycling Embassy of GB and Lambeth Cyclists, either called for protected space for cyclists along the entire length of CS5, offering suggestions for further separation measures (e.g. physical barriers), or they stated that the provision of as much segregation as possible will help cyclists to feel safe. Orange intervention (see p3). 17 respondents (4%) commented on the Orange interventions, with 10 of these saying they favoured the cycle lanes protected by vehicle parking – Option A (10 respondents (2%) – rather than cycle lanes running adjacent to general traffic lanes. The 109/111 St George’s Drive Residents’ Association had concerns about parking outside cycle lanes. Yellow intervention (see p3). Three respondents (1%) discussed ‘Yellow’ interventions, saying using logos on the carriageway would be an inadequate standard or an absolute minimum level of intervention. Red intervention (see p3). Three respondents mentioned ‘Red’ interventions, all of whom expressed concern about the suggested signalling that would give cyclists a head start at junctions.
Route alignment. 19 respondents (4%), including Oval Partnership, said they would prefer CS5 to continue along Vauxhall Bridge Road, rather than any of the three options presented for consultation. Six (1%) respondents would like to see the route continue to Hyde Park.
Pedestrian safety. 14 comments (3%) mentioned pedestrian safety along the proposed routes. Potential for pedestrian/cycle conflict: Eight comments expressed concern that having the cycle route through predominantly residential areas would cause conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. A number of areas of potential conflict were highlighted, including residents/visitors getting out of cars, cyclists mingling with pedestrians along busy shopping areas (e.g. Lupus Street, Elizabeth Street), cyclists showing disregard for signals/procedures at junctions, and pedestrians (including hotel visitors) forgetting to check for bicycles before crossing streets.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 29
Crossing facilities: Six respondents (1%) expressed concern about pedestrian crossing facilities at junctions/areas, including Victoria Gyratory (due to high traffic volumes), Belgrave Road (due to lack of crossings), Belgrave Road/Warwick Way junction (due to motorists ignoring signals), and St George’s Drive (due to lack of crossings).
20mph speed limit. Eccleston Square Residents’ Association proposed a 20mph speed limit where appropriate.
Route alignment options
Of the 476 respondents who completed Section 1 of the consultation, 413 (87%) provided relevant further comments in the text box relating to the proposed route choice. • Within the open text box, 314 respondents (86%) provided a preference for either Option 1, 2, or 3. • 27 respondents (7%) said they supported two out of the three routes, or did not have a preference between options. • 26 respondents (7%) said they did not support any of the options. • The remaining 99 respondents provided general comments without referring to any route option. Of those that commented on the route options 258 (62%) indicated full support, 58 (14%) indicated partial support, and 67 (16%) said they did not support the proposals. 41 respondents also stated a route preference in the ‘Overall comments on CS5’ question. Of these, 17 respondents (2%) supported Option 1, 11 (1%) supported Option 2, and 11 (1%) supported Option 3.
Comments on Option 1 (Belgrave Road)
207 respondents (56% of total respondents to the question) expressed support for Option 1. A total of 257 comments were received about this option. Some respondents included their comments on Section 1 in their comments on the overall proposal, and these are summarised at the bottom of this section.
Directness. 81 respondents (17%), including the Cycling Embassy of GB and Westminster Cyclists, considered Option 1 to be the most direct and, therefore, preferred route for this section. Westminster Cyclists also suggested the direct and two-way nature of the route would help wayfinding for cyclists.
30 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Compatibility with Belgrave Road/Eccleston Street. The impact of Option 1 on Belgrave Road and Eccleston Street was discussed by 30 respondents (6%). 21 (4%), including Belgravia Residents’ Association/High Street Society and Ecclestone Square Residents’ Association, expressed their concern that these roads would be too narrow and/or congested to accommodate a cycle lane (particularly at Eccleston Bridge), which they suggest would result in increased local congestion (and pollution; Victoria Business Improvement District). Conversely, six respondents (1%) considered the route to be wide enough to accommodate cycle lanes.
Proximity to Victoria tube/rail station. 25 respondents (5%) noted that Option 1 is in close proximity to Victoria rail/tube station. This was seen as a positive aspect of the route for 22 (5%) respondents. The remaining three (1%) respondents were concerned the proximity to Victoria would result in cyclists frequently mixing with motor traffic from the station, making for a dangerous environment.
Avoidance of Victoria Coach Station. 21 respondents (4%), including the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, Ecclestone Square Residents’ Association and Victoria Business Improvement District, mentioned the coach station in relation to Option 1. Of these, 16 (3%) favoured the fact that Option 1 avoids the coach station. The remaining five respondents (1%) said there would still be conflict between coaches and cyclists on this route and/or that further interventions would be needed to reduce potential conflict.
Greater intervention for cyclists. The Cycling Embassy of GB proposed the use of either modal filters on streets to remove through motor traffic, or making them one way for motor traffic to create more space for cycling facilities. Westminster Cyclists also proposed greater intervention to protect cyclists in Belgrave Road, particularly those travelling south- east.
Comments from responses to overall proposal. Option 1: 15 respondents (3%) mentioned this option, with three (1%) supportive and 11 (2%) opposing this option. Non- supporters cited a lack of space on Belgrave Road and the possibility of more congestion, disruption to residential areas, and conflict with pedestrians.
Comments on Option 2 (Elizabeth Street)
73 respondents (20%) supported Option 2. A total of 137 comments were received about this option. Some respondents included their comments on Section 1 in their comments on the overall proposal, and these are summarised at the bottom of this section. Proximity to Victoria Coach Station (VCS). 24 respondents (5%) mentioned the coach station in relation to Option 2. Of these, 17 (3.5%), including the Confederation of
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 31
Passenger Transport UK and the Victoria Business Improvement District, said the routing of Option 2 would put cyclists into conflict with coaches entering and exiting the station. Three (1%) respondents did not consider the routing past VCS to be problematic. Three (1%) respondents supported Option 2 suggest further changes are needed to this area to make cycling safe.
Directness. 18 (4%) respondents discussed Option 2 in relation to its directness. Of these, 12 (2.5%) considered Option 2 to provide a direct route, while five (1%) did not consider the routing direct enough..
Impact on other road users. 22 respondents (5%) discussed Option 2 in relation to the disruption/impact they said it might have on road users. Of these, 15 respondents (3%) felt that Option 2 would have minimal disruption/impact, particularly compared to Option 1. Another six respondents (1%) said Option 2 provides the best ‘balance’ among all road users. However, seven respondents (1%) expected Option 2 to have a negative impact locally, largely due to routing past VCS and using residential streets, which some respondents felt are already congested. Belgravia Residents’ Association/High Street Society suggested there would be a negative impact on parking and taxi pick-ups and set- downs on Elizabeth Street.
With-traffic flow. 14 respondents (3%) supported the fact that Option 2 routes cyclists with the flow of traffic, as opposed to the two-way/contraflow system proposed in Option 1.
Comments from responses to overall proposal. Option 2: 14 respondents (3%) mentioned Option 2, 10 (2%) of whom did not support it because of its proximity to the coach station, potential conflict with pedestrians, and perceived disruption to residential areas. Two respondents (1%) supported this route and a further two took a neutral stance towards it.
Comments on Option 3 (Sutherland Street)
34 respondents (9%), including the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, support Option 3. A total of 97 comments were received about this option.
Directness. 20 respondents (5%), including Sustrans, did not feel that Option 3 would be a direct enough route, with concerns cyclists would avoid it in favour of more direct options. Sustrans said splitting the route would lead to wayfinding problems for cyclists. The Victoria Business Improvement District said lack of directness could encourage cyclists to use other unsafe routes.
32 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Proximity to Victoria Coach Station (VCS). Nine respondents (2%) commented on Option 3 in relation to VCS, with four preferring Option 3 as it avoids the coach station and five feeling that the coach station would cause conflict between coaches and cyclists on this route.
Lupus Street. Six respondents (1%), including Belgravia Residents’ Association/High Street Society, said that routing cyclists along Lupus Street would cause congestion and create an unsafe environment, as Lupus Street caters to buses, private vehicles and delivery vehicles, all of which stop frequently.
Further traffic-calming. Victoria Business Improvement District said traffic-calming would be needed to mitigate the impact of a northbound cycle route, to ensure pedestrians would not be disadvantaged.
Comments from responses to overall proposal. Option 3: 17 respondents (4%) discussed Option 3. 11 (2%) opposed the route as they felt it would be indirect and could cause conflict along Lupus Street (including Dolphin Square Residents’ Association). Four respondents (1%) supported this route and two (1%) suggested further intervention would be necessary to make the route viable, such as ensuring conflict with coaches is minimised and significant road widening (Belgravia Residents’ Association/High Street Society).
Alternative routes Seven respondents (2%) would prefer CS5 to continue along Vauxhall Bridge Road, while other routes were also mentioned. Dolphin Square Residents’ Association suggested routing cyclists one way along Belgravia Road, returning along Vauxhall Bridge Road, with and Ecclestone Square Residents’ Association also suggesting the use of Vauxhall Bridge Road in at least one direction.
Note on the analysis A small number of respondents (24) who did not support the overall scheme for Section 1 went on to select a preference among the proposed options. Their responses have been included in the analysis above.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 33
Section 2: Vauxhall Bridge Road – Drummond Gate
Overview
Key proposals: Number of respondents: 391 • Segregated two-way cycle track Section replaces eastbound bus lane on support: Vauxhall Bridge Road and eastbound traffic lane on Bessborough Gardens. • Banned left turn from Drummond Gate to Vauxhall Bridge Road. • Unsignalised pedestrian crossing east of John Islip Street replaced with signalised crossing. • Unsignalised pedestrian crossing west of John Islip Street removed.
34 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Details of responses to Section 2 Of the 391 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 187 (48%) provided relevant comments in the open text box.
General support or praise. 25 respondents (6%) offered general support or praise in their comments about the proposed design for this section of the route.
Banned left from Drummond Gate to Vauxhall Bridge Road. The proposal to ban left turns from Drummond Gate to Vauxhall Bridge Road appeared in 32 comments (8%). • Opposition to the banned turn: 17 respondents (4%) did not support the banned turn, including the Board of Westminster Gardens and Lorimer & Co. One respondent suggested reinstating the banned left turn from Rampayne Street into Vauxhall Bridge Road to mitigate the effect of the new banned turn from Drummond Gate. Opponents said they feared increased congestion and pollution. • Support for the banned turn: 10 respondents (2%) supported the banned turn and four (1%) questioned whether the turn also applies to cyclists. Sustrans called for the cyclist turns to be retained. The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK supported the banned left turn, but asked that the right turn be wide enough for large vehicles. Westminster Cyclists supported the ban, suggesting few vehicles used the turn.
Divergence of cycle route at Bessborough Gardens. 12 respondents (3%) expressed concern at the requirement for westbound cyclists to cross Bessborough Gardens diagonally at John Islip Street. Eight respondents, including Sustrans, would like to see well-timed, separate signals at this junction to allow cyclists to proceed regularly through the crossing, as well as a yellow box across the junction.
Regency Street. Eight respondents (2%), including Westminster Cyclists, mentioned the cycle link to Regency Street, saying this link is useful and important.
Left turn from Bessborough Gardens to Drummond Gate. Eight respondents (2%) mentioned this left turn, including Cycling Embassy of GB, saying the proposed cycle lane would not provide enough protection for cyclists from left-turning vehicles, with requests for physical segregation to reduce the risk to cyclists.
Pedestrian crossings. Eight respondents (2%) mentioned specific issues relating to pedestrian crossings throughout the Section 2 proposal area. Issues included:
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 35
• Concern about how pedestrians will cross the cycle track at Bessborough Gardens near John Islip Street (2); with a suggestion for speed bumps to encourage cyclists to slow down (1). • Concern that removing the unsignalised pedestrian crossing (at Bessborough Gardens, west of John Islip Street) would not deter pedestrians crossing at this point as the other available crossings represent detours for those wishing to access Drummond Gate (2). • Concern about cyclist and pedestrian conflict in the shared areas (2). • Concern the crossing at John Islip Street could not handle high volumes of pedestrians (1).
Relocation of bus stop D. A 73-name petition was submitted by the Millbank Spice restaurant objecting to the proposed relocation of bus stop D near Rampayne Street. The concerns it raised included • Noise, disruption, invasion of privacy and access difficulties for diners • Narrowness of the footway where the bus stop was proposed
Seven other respondents (2%) questioned the relocation of this bus stop, highlighting issues in moving the bus stop 50m west. Concerns included: • Disrupting access to this bus stop for those residents that live closest (2). • Insufficient space to host multiple buses in the new bus stop area, which could lead to Rampayne Street being blocked by buses (2). • Expectation there would be poor sight lines for road users from Regency Street when buses are using the stop (1). • Creation of additional bus noise for residents nearest the new bus stop (1). • Potential disruption on Osbert Street due to the proximity of the bus stop to this junction (1).
Cycle track design. Sustrans called for cycle tracks to be at carriageway level.
36 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Section 3: Bessborough Gardens / Millbank
Overview
Key proposals: Number of respondents: 411 • Segregated two-way cycle track replaces Section traffic lane. support: • Banned left turn from Bessborough Gardens to Millbank, except for cycles. • Shared space area to help cyclists connect with CS5.
Details of responses to Section 3 Of the 417 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 224 (54%) provided relevant comments in the open text box. General support or praise. 23 respondents (6%) offered general support or praised the proposed design for this section of the route.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 37
Banned left turn from Bessborough Gardens to Millbank. This banned left turn was discussed by 102 respondents (25%). • 81 (19%) were not in favour of the banned turn, including the Board of Westminster Gardens, Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, the Dolphin Square Tenants Association (Pimlico FREDA), the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, and Lorimer & Co). • 11 respondents (2%) neither supported nor opposed the banned left proposal. • 10 respondents (2%) supported banning the turn, including Sustrans and Westminster Cyclists.
The most commonly cited reason for disapproval (83 comments/20%) was the perception that banning the left turn would redirect vehicles down John Islip Street and local side streets, particularly Ponsonby Place and Ponsonby Terrace. Specific concerns cited regarding this proposal include: • The roads likely to be affected by redirected traffic are narrow residential roads, which respondents did not consider suitable for increased traffic volumes (49 comments/12%), would cause congestion (28 comments/5%), or would become ‘rat-runs’ for diverted vehicles (18 comments/4%). • The expected increase in motor traffic would pose a safety risk for residents and visitors to local amenities, such as the Tate Gallery and Chelsea College of Art (37 comments/9%). • Local air quality would be affected by the redirected traffic (22 comments/5%), and higher emissions would affect the conservation status of some roads (17 comments/4%). • The ban would move conflict with cyclists along Millbank. Redirected motorists would need to cross the eastbound CS8 when turning from side streets into Millbank (11 comments/3%).
In offering a potential solution: • 13 respondents (3%) suggested changing the direction of traffic along Atterbury Street which would allow redirected traffic to access Millbank without passing through Ponsonby Place or Ponsonby Terrace. • Four (1%) suggested providing clear signage for motorists directing them to alternative routes. • Four (1%) suggested restricting Ponsonby Place and Ponsonby Terrace to local access only. Concerns over the banned turn were also raised in 45 responses to the overall comments question.
38 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Connectivity between CS5 and CS8. 32 respondents (8%) expressed concern about how cyclists will pass safely from CS5 to CS8 and vice versa (including the Oval Partnership and Westminster Cyclists). • Seven respondents (2%) suggested providing clear signage for cyclists. • Four (1%) suggested implementing a cyclist ‘scramble’/simultaneous green signal phase allowing cyclists from all directions to move to their desired path. • Two (1%) suggested widening the cycle path to provide waiting areas for cyclists making turns. • The Licensed Taxi Driver Association proposed banning cyclists turning right from Bessborough Gardens into Grosvenor Road because of the off-carriageway alternatives. • Sustrans called for right-turn waiting areas to facilitate two-stage right turns able to cope with high demand.
Shared space at Millbank/Vauxhall Bridge. 26 respondents (6%) commented on the shared space area for pedestrians and cyclists, with the majority opposing or partially opposing the design. • 17 (4%) expressed concern about the shared space design feature, saying:
o It could cause potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians (10 respondents/2%)
o It could be a confusing or inadequate way of transferring between routes (six respondents/1%). • Seven respondents (2%) opposed the shared space design outright. • 10 (2%) respondents suggested clear signage and on-ground markings would improve the shared space design, including Lambeth Cyclists, who called for a cycle track link between Millbank and Vauxhall Bridge. • Two respondents (<1%) supported the shared space design as it is, including Sustrans. • Developer RCP Riverside raised concerns over its proposed tree-planting conflicting with new pedestrian and cyclist movements.
Reduction in footway to accommodate left-turn lane. Sustrans objected to the reduction in the size of the southern footway at the western end on Vauxhall Bridge in order to accommodate an extra left-turn lane.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 39
Section 4: Vauxhall Bridge
Overview
Key proposals: Number of respondents: 273 • Segregated two-way cycle track Section replaces eastbound bus lane. support: • No blue surfacing used along Vauxhall Bridge for heritage reasons.
Details of responses to Section 4 Of 417 respondents who responded to this section of the consultation, 224 (54%) provided relevant further comments.
General support or praise. 34 respondents (8%) offered general support or praise the proposed design for this section of the route.
40 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Removal of bus lane. The removal of the bus lane to accommodate the cycle track was the most discussed proposal for Section 4, appearing in 41 comments (10%). • 27 (7%) of these respondents opposed the proposal to remove a bus lane due to the impact on bus journey times (including Battersea Society, Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, Go Ahead Buses, and London TravelWatch). Sustrans opposed the bus lane removal, but supported the two-way cycle track. • Eight respondents (2%) did not support or oppose the removal, but offered other solutions (see below). • Two respondents (1%) expressed support for removing the bus lane, saying delays are acceptable to improve the safety of cyclists.
11 respondents offered alternatives to the removal of the bus lane, such as: • Using existing road space (e.g. removing a lane of general traffic) to accommodate the cycle track (5). • Retaining the bus lanes, but allowing this lane for general use in off-peak hours (3). • Providing a peak flow bus lane in the centre of the bridge which can change direction during am/pm peaks to accommodate bus traffic in the appropriate direction (2). • Retaining the eastbound bus lane towards the southeast end of the bridge and shortening the westbound bus lane, thereby keeping a section of both bus lanes on the approaches to each bridgefoot with a view to easing congestion (1). • Extending the Congestion Charge Zone to cover the bridge (1). • The Oval Partnership suggested routing CS5 along the centre of the bridge.
Two-way vs. one-way cycle track. 24 respondents (6%) discussed the proposed two- way cycle track. • 12 (3%) would prefer cycling facilities on either side of the road, with the flow of general traffic. Concerns raised with the two-way system included:
o It would increase conflict between cyclists; o The tracks would be more difficult for pedestrians to cross; o The lanes would often not be wide enough to accommodate the volume of cyclists;
o Cyclists might choose to ignore the tracks and ride in traffic with the usual flow; o Roads at the opposite side of the track or junctions would be difficult to access. • Four (1%) respondents were favourable towards the two-way system.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 41
• The Licensed Taxi Driver Association raised concerns about pick-ups and set-downs near the track.
Width of track. 21 respondents (5%) mentioned the width of the cycle track: • 19 respondents (4%) would like to see a wider cycle track in places to reduce potential conflict between cyclists and help overtaking, or for the track to be as wide as possible. • 2 respondents (1%) called for angled kerbs with a view to maximising useable cycling lane width.
Cycle track colour. The proposal not to colour the track was discussed by 12 respondents (3%). • Six respondents (1%) supported the proposal, saying fully segregated sections of the route would not need colouring. • Four respondents (1%) would prefer the track to be coloured, saying the colour provides additional visual signs to other road users that the track is a cyclist space. • Two respondents (1%) questioned why the bus lane could be coloured red yet the cycle track could not be coloured blue.
Lanes on the bridge: The Licensed Taxi Driver Association called for northbound bridge lanes to terminate with two right turn lanes, one ahead only lane, one ahead/left lane, and one left turn lane.
42 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Section 5: Vauxhall gyratory
Overview
Key proposals: Number of respondents: 414 • Segregated two-way cycle track Section replaces eastbound traffic lane at support: bridgefoot and Kennington Lane rail tunnel. • New cycle crossing and shared space area linking to CS5. • Wider footway and relocated pedestrian crossing to align with the subway entrance to Vauxhall station. • Banned right turn to Kennington Lane, except emergency vehicles.
• Modification of footbridge over Kennington Lane to create space for cycle track.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 43
Details of responses to Section 5 Of the 414 respondents who responded to this section of the consultation, 254 (61%) provided relevant further comments.
General support or praise. 95 respondents (23%) offered general support or praise the proposed design for this section of the route.
Kennington Lane/Harleyford Road shared use area. This shared space crossing was discussed by 60 respondents (14%): • 56 (14%) of these respondents expressed concern about potential for conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, particularly due to the proximity to the Royal Vauxhall Tavern, which was highlighted in 22 comments (5%). Guide Dogs said blind and partially sighted people would be particularly vulnerable, with tactile paving potentially giving a false impression of being in a pedestrian-only environment. • Five respondents (1%) said they believed cyclists would avoid the shared space area and continue through Vauxhall Gyratory on the roads. Lambeth Cyclists said the delay for cyclists should be minimised, and less than the current wait. • Sustrans objected to the double crossing facility at this location, suggesting a single toucan would facilitate journeys via Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens. Many respondents suggested ways they believe potential conflict in shared use areas could be reduced. • 20 respondents (6%), including the Cycling Embassy of GB, suggested continuing the segregation across the junction, such as by extending the blue colouring, using fencing or physical barriers, or providing signage. • 11 respondents (3%) suggested reconsideration of the crossings at this junction, such as by providing separate crossings for cyclists and pedestrians or combining the two crossings along Kennington Lane into one large toucan crossing. • Lambeth Cyclists suggested moving the Legible London post away from cyclists desire lines. The shared space was also discussed by 13 respondents to the ‘Overall proposals’ question, with most requesting further measures at this location to reduce potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
Cycle tracks, including use of underpass/tunnel. 38 respondents (9%) expressed concern about various aspects of the section of track using the rail underpass/tunnel. The following issues were raised:
44 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
• Conflict with pedestrians might occur along the eastbound track and outside the Royal Vauxhall Tavern (RVT) (12 comments/3%). • The westbound cycling environment might be unappealing due to the high volume of traffic within the underpass (7 comments/2%); similarly, lighting within the underpass might be insufficient (2 comments/1%). • The proposed width of the cycle tracks might not be able to accommodate the volume of cyclists expected (4 comments/1%). Lambeth Cyclists and Sustrans said the 1.5m lanes would be too narrow, with the latter calling for 2m minimum. • The width of the tunnel opening for eastbound cyclists would be narrow and restrict visibility (4 comments/1%). • There would still be too many motor traffic lanes on the gyratory (Sustrans).
Suggested measures to improve the appeal of this section of track included: • Keeping both tracks together, facilitated by routing both tracks through the northern cycle tunnel (2 comments/1%) or by removing another lane of road traffic (3 comments/1%). • Using the existing subway (where cycle parking/murals are located) for the track (3 comments/1%) • Providing clear separation of the eastbound cycle track to prevent pedestrian conflict, such as by dropping the cycle track below footway height (3 comments/1%). • Widening the arch as suggested in the proposal (2 comments). • Improving lighting within the underpass (2 comments). • Providing a convex mirror at the eastbound RVT exit to increase visibility and reduce pedestrian conflict (1 comment) or fences to discourage pedestrians from stepping onto the track (1 comment). • Moving the cycle track to the opposite side of road (Oval Partnership), with cyclists joining modified road layout at Vauxhall Bus Station.
Albert Embankment crossing. 35 respondents (8%) were critical of the cyclist crossing at the northbound arm of Albert Embankment: • 25 comments (6%) said it would not provide a direct route for cyclists, with most suggesting either moving the crossing south or straightening it. • 8 comments (2%) said the turns of the cycle track at this crossing would be too sharp for cyclists.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 45
• Three respondents were concerned this area could become congested with cyclists waiting to go through the crossing, and two express concern about the potential for conflict with pedestrians. • The Battersea Society raised concerns over the proposal for two unsignalled pedestrian crossings over the cycle track, while Guide Dogs also opposed unsignalled crossings, which it felt posed unacceptable risk to blind and partially sighted pedestrians crossing the cycle track. Conversely, the Cycling Embassy of GB said that all crossings over the cycle track should be informal priority crossings for pedestrians, rather than signalled ones. Sustrans called for unsignalled and signalled crossings to be lined up at Bridgefoot. • Three respondents suggested altering the signal phasing could provide a better flow for cyclists and to reduce the required waiting area for motorists near the cycle track.
Access to CS5 for cyclists from nearby roads. 33 respondents (8%) mentioned access to CS5 from nearby roads, questioning how access to CS5 will be possible from: • Wandsworth Road/Nine Elms Lane (16 comments/4%). • South Lambeth Road (17 comments, including Lambeth Cyclists/4%). • Kennington Lane (13 comments/3%). • Vauxhall Station (Sustrans). • Nine Elms (Lambeth Cyclists, London Assembly Labour). • Battersea Power Station (London Assembly Labour).
Banned right turn from Harleyford Road to Kennington Lane. The banned turn at this junction was discussed by 24 (5%) respondents • 15 (3%) disagreed with the banned turn proposal, with many expressing concern that it would result in more traffic being directed through the Vauxhall gyratory to access Kennington Lane (Confederation of Passenger Transport UK). • Five respondents (1%) supported the banned turn, including Sustrans. • Three (1%) did not clearly state a preference but, rather, highlighted the implications of the proposal for congestion within the gyratory and access to local roads. The proposed ban was also discussed by nine respondents to the ‘Overall proposals’ question who mainly expressed concern that it would redirect extra traffic through Vauxhall gyratory.
46 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Barclays Cycle Hire. Seven respondents (1%) commented on the proposal’s impact on the Barclays Cycle Hire docking stations and requested that the removed docking points were relocated elsewhere in the area, citing a high demand for bikes in this area.
Gyratory removal. Six respondents (1%) advocated removing the gyratory system at Vauxhall entirely. The Battersea Society were among those who said the CS5 proposals should be delivered in conjunction with the planned wider gyratory removal scheme and should not be delivered independently..
Deliveries to commercial premises. Sainsbury’s Supermarkets questioned how deliveries to its Vauxhall Station store would continue, raising the importance of driver and store staff safety.
Conversion of shared use area to pedestrian only. Sustrans objected to conversion of crossing over South Lambeth Place to pedestrian only, calling for retention of the toucan and the subway to be shared use.
ASLs on the gyratory. Sustrans called for ASLs on the gyratory to be retained.
Tree-planting. Sustrans and the Victoria Business Improvement District supported tree- planting and environmental improvements.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 47
Section 6: Harleyford Road / Durham Street
Overview
Key proposals: Number of respondents: 264 • Segregated two-way cycle track Section replaces traffic lane with double red lines support: along cycle track to prevent motor vehicles from stopping. • Loading/disabled parking area and bus stop added to Durham Street from Harleyford Road (see Section 7). • Durham Street footway widened near junction with Harleyford Road to provide shared space access to CS5.
Details of responses to Section 6 Of the 337 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 131 (39%) provided relevant comments in the open text box. General support or praise. 54 respondents (16%) offered general support or praise the proposed design for this section of the route.
48 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Durham Street/Harleyford Road junction. This junction was discussed by 22 respondents (6%). A key issue among respondents was the widened shared space footway on Durham Street (12 comments/4%), which these respondents considered would cause conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians. Other issues highlighted around this junction included: • Concern about large vehicles turning at the Durham Street junction (4 respondents). The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK asked if the widened footway would prevent large vehicles turning. The Residents of Harleyford Road were concerned about large vehicles overtaking and potentially turning into cyclists on the left turn from Durham Street. • The lack of blue colouring across Durham Street (2 respondents). • Lambeth Cyclists said cyclists should have the same straight-ahead green time as motorists. • Sustrans commented on the shared space proposal, saying it must be designed to encourage considerate cycling. • A call for signage at the junction of Durham Street and Harleyford Road, so drivers would be aware they were approaching a cycle track (1 respondent). Impact on bus and traffic journey times. Nine respondents (1%) expressed concern about the impact removing a lane of traffic will have on journey times, including Go Ahead Buses. Proximity to local schools. Eight respondents (2%) discussed the proposals in relation to St Anne’s and St Mark’s schools. Respondents raised various issues, including: • Concerns about possible conflict between cyclists and children (4 comments), especially with the cycle track at footway level (2 comments). • Concerns the proposals would mean reduced parking for staff and parents near St Anne’s School (1 comment). • Concerns about the relocated bus stop leading to overcrowding as children from different schools will both use these bus stops (1 comment) and the requirement for students to cross a busy road to access St Anne’s (as most will not walk to the junction at Durham Street to cross) (1 comment). • Lambeth Cyclists were positive that the cycle track provides a link to St Anne’s, while another respondent also hoped the cycle track would encourage cycling and walking to the school. Bus stop relocation. Five respondents (1%) raised concerns over the proposal to relocate a bus stop from Harleyford Road in Section 7 to Durham Street in this section. Comments on this proposal are included in the analysis for Section 7. Cycle track at footway level. Five respondents (1%) expressed concern about the cycle track operating at footway level; three of these suggested lowering the track to road level or using fencing to clearly separate cyclist and pedestrian spaces.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 49
Pedestrian crossings. Five respondents (1%) commented about pedestrian crossing areas throughout this section, including: • Questioning why the cycle track narrows at the Vauxhall Grove crossing (1). • Concern that the removal of the traffic island at Durham Street would make the crossing appear less safe for pedestrians (1). • Praise for the new crossing at Durham Street (1). • A suggestion that the pedestrian crossing at Vauxhall Grove be amended to an ‘informal priority crossing’ where it meets the cycle track (Cycling Embassy of GB). • A request for additional pedestrian crossings along the road and cycle track (1). Banned right turn from Harleyford Road to Kennington Lane. Five respondents (1%) discussed the banned right turn in Section 5 of the CS5 route, and highlighted the potential for more traffic to be redirected through Vauxhall gyratory, in Section 6, as a result of this access limitation. Loading bay relocation. Two respondents (1%) were concerned about the impact of relocating the Harleyford Road loading bay to western side of Durham Street due to the potential negative impact on deliveries to The Beehive Bar & Restaurant.
Issues arising from previous consultation on CS5 in Harleyford Road In June 2013, TfL published a report on the CS5 consultation that took place from 3 December 2012 to 13 January 2013. That consultation noted objections from a number of Harleyford Road residents on the perceived impact the proposed two-way cycle track would have on them: • Difficulties accessing property by motor vehicle, including refuse collections, caused by the proposed cycle track and new parking restrictions • Potential danger posed to pedestrians by the raised kerb and two-way track • Increase in journey times for bus passengers and general traffic • Inconvenience to motorists of banning the right turn into Kennington Lane • Poor access to/from the cycle track at Durham Street • Problems caused to residents by large vehicles being unable to negotiate some turnings The revised scheme proposed under this latest consultation addressed some of the residents’ concerns by removing the previously proposed kerbing outside residential properties, putting the cycle track at footway level. The revisions also addressed some of the issues raised with the previously proposed junction layout at Durham Street. However, some residents remained concerned at the new proposals, and expressed this in consultation responses, at public meetings, and at consultation events.
50 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Section 7: Harleyford Road / Kennington Oval
Overview
Key proposals: Number of respondents: 342 • Segregated two-way cycle track Section replaces bus lane. support: • Loading/disabled parking area and bus stop near St Mark’s COE School moved to Durham Street (see Section 6). • Shared crossing at Oval for westbound cyclists to join CS5.
Details of responses to Section 7 Of the 342 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 147 (43%) provided relevant comments in the open text box. General support or praise. 52 respondents (15%), including the Cycling Embassy of GB, Lambeth Cyclists and Sustrans, offered general support for the proposed design for this section of the route.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 51
Shared crossing at Oval/Meadow Lane. The splitting of the cycle track near the end of the route and the process for northbound cyclist to cross to the segregated two-way cycle track was discussed by 42 respondents (12%). Issues highlighted included: • Potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists when using the shared crossing (15 respondents/4%). • The possibility of long waits for pedestrians and cyclists at this crossing (14 respondents, including Lambeth Cyclists/4%). • The possibility of cyclists remaining in the northbound traffic route instead of switching to the cycle route to save time, particularly if signal phasing is not favourable to cyclists (13 respondents/4%). • Potential for conflict and crossing difficulties due to high pedestrian volumes resulting from cricket matches at the Oval Cricket Ground (3 respondents/1%). The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association commented on potential difficulties picking up and setting down passengers here. • Suggested solutions offered by respondents include well-timed traffic lights to avoid cyclists ‘bunching’ and to reduce cyclists using the road, as well as providing clear demarcation between pedestrian and cyclist provision at the crossing.
End of route and filter into bus lanes. 16 respondents (5%), including Sustrans, expressed concern about the termination of the cycle track, with particular concern over having to join bus lanes (9 respondents/3%). Four (2%) respondents would like to see the cycle track continue to Oval underground station. The issue was also discussed by seven respondents to the ‘Overall proposals’ question, who expressed concern about the cycle track splitting and crossing the road near the Oval Cricket Ground, saying that either clear instruction to cyclists will be required or that the design should be reviewed further.
Kennington Oval/Harleyford Road junction. 13 respondents (4%) mentioned this junction. • Eight respondents (2%) expressed concern about potential conflict between cyclists and motorists exiting the Kennington Oval side road into Harleyford Road due to concerns that motorists would not give way; one of these respondents was concerned about the possibility that vehicles would block the cycle track. Lambeth Cyclists suggested making this junction cycling and walking only. • Two respondents (1%) were positive towards the proposed junction design, including Sustrans.
52 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
• Residents of Harleyford Road commented that cycle track on southern side of road would reduce conflicts at this junction.
Bus stop relocation. The Ashmole Tenants and Residents’ Association organised a 242-name petition strongly objecting to the stop relocation due to the impact it would have on elderly residents and schoolchildren. The accompanying email raised concerns including: • elderly residents rely on the close proximity of the current bus on a well lit street close to a pedestrian crossing • the area has several schools using the bus stops; overcrowded pavements and fights between the different school pupils could occur • safe cycling, it should not be at the expense of safety to ordinary pedestrians. Besides the petition, six respondents to this section (2%) and five to the previous section (1%) expressed concern about relocating the bus stop from Harleyford Road to Durham Street due to the implications it would have on schoolchildren and elderly residents needing to walk further to reach bus services. They also considered the impact it might have on congestion along Durham Street if more vehicles were routed along this route.
Cricket ground. Eight respondents (2%) discussed the potential impact of placing the cycle route alongside the Oval Cricket Ground. Respondents stated that cyclists and spectators could come into conflict on event days and/or that the cycle track might face closure on match days to help manage crowds.
CS5 on the south side of the road. Three respondents (1%), including the Oval Partnership, suggested routing CS5 along the south side of the road to avoid the major junctions with Oval and Durham Street.
Removal of bus lane on Kennington Oval. Go Ahead Buses and the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association opposed the removal of the bus lane from Kennington Oval, due to the impact on bus and other journeys.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 53
Appendix B: Response to issues commonly raised
Response to issues on overall scheme
Measures to mitigate impacts of banned turns TfL uses targeted email and publicity campaigns to provide drivers with information about new banned turns in advance of their implementation. These include details of the banned turns and information about alternative routes. We also propose installing appropriate signage and mitigation measures where appropriate to ensure drivers are aware of the banned turns. In addition, we are liaising with satellite navigation companies so their devices incorporate the banned turns at the earliest opportunity, providing many drivers with alternative routings that do not use local streets. See the responses to sections below for discussion of specific banned turns.
Concern over journey time impacts for general traffic and buses
Our analysis shows that the completed scheme would mean longer journeys at busy times for most motorists and bus passengers in the Vauxhall area, as well as at some other points along the route. The revised design along Harleyford Road would most likely have less of an impact than the previous proposals, as it provides more capacity for general traffic. However, we continue to study the traffic impact of these latest proposals.
We have concluded that the impact on traffic is reasonable when balanced against the substantial safety improvements that the proposals would bring for the many cyclists who pass through the scheme area each day, along with those who would do if they felt it to be safer.
We will work to mitigate the impact on traffic as much as possible. We are developing wider traffic management plans for central London to help reduce the traffic impacts of this scheme and others, including those proposed by London local authorities and developers. This will include investing in advanced traffic signal technology to allow us to better manage traffic depending on differing conditions at any given time. There will also be customer information to enable road users to make informed journey choices and campaigns to encourage road users to check before they travel.
Where there are increases in journey times for bus routes impacted by the scheme, a programme of work is being developed to save time elsewhere along the affected routes by addressing delays and giving priority to buses at certain pinch-points.
The corridor covered by CS5 from Pimlico to Oval addresses an existing lack of infrastructure for cyclists along a route with some of the highest cycle flows in London. Currently, 60% of the proposed route has no cycling infrastructure in either direction. In the 36 months from January 2011 to January 2014 there were 67 collisions involving injury to
54 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation cyclists - 33% of total collisions in this area. The changes proposed as part of CS5 are designed to improve safety for cyclists. We also expect the new cycle route would encourage many more people to choose bicycle transport, potentially relieving the pressure on public transport and road networks, particularly at peak times.
Cycle track design
Footway-level cycle tracks The level of the cycle track is determined by local conditions - for example, underground utilities or tree roots, or requirements for level kerbside access. Where the track is at footway level, a clear visual and physical separation will be provided (such as a small concrete ridge) which will differentiate between footway and cycle track without posing a trip hazard. The track and footway widths have been designed to safely accommodate their expected normal use, meaning there should be no need for cyclists to stray on to the footway or vice-versa.
Width of cycle tracks The cycle track has been designed to accommodate large numbers of cyclists, with space to overtake in both directions wherever possible. The fact that the track is bi-directional also makes it even easier for cyclists to overtake one another, offering flexibility for the large tidal flows of cyclists expected to use CS5. We have generally made space for a wide track by removing a bus or general traffic lane .Nevertheless, there are still restrictions on space along the route, which would make expanding the width of the cycle tracks difficult without removing more space from buses, general traffic and/or pedestrians. We believe the current design provides a fair balance between different road users.
Requests for use of angled kerbs We will use angled kerbs on CS5 wherever we are laying new kerbline - generally on one side of the track - thereby providing additional effective width for cyclists. Where feasible, we will also install angled kerbs on existing kerblines.
Angled kerbs (see photo below) provide a sloped rather than a perpendicular edge between the cycle track and footway or segregating island. This enables cyclists to safely cycle closer to the kerb edge, maximising the effective width of the cycle track.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 55
Two-way cycle track or with-traffic lanes Some respondents suggested building with-traffic cycle lanes as opposed to a bidirectional cycle track. TfL has considered numerous options for the cycle track, including with-traffic cycle infrastructure. However, we have decided to proceed with the design based on a bidirectional cycle track arrangement for the following reasons: • To provide with-traffic cycle lanes or segregated cycle tracks, additional lane removal would be required due to the space required for the infrastructure and suitable buffer distances. • The route includes significant changes to traffic signals at junctions along the route in order to eliminate conflicts between cyclists and other vehicles. The two-way track offers a more efficient operation of traffic signals by allowing cyclists in both directions to pass through junctions at the same time as non-conflicting traffic movements, thereby minimising additional waiting times for all users. • The two-way track also makes easier for cyclists to overtake one another, offering flexibility for the tidal flows of cyclists expected to use CS5.
Anti-social cycling
TfL acknowledges that people are concerned about anti-social cycling, although our research shows that most cyclists ride responsibly, and that cyclists are no more likely to disobey road rules than other road users. Statistics on road traffic collisions in Greater
56 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
London show the number of injuries and fatalities for pedestrians in collisions involving cyclists are many times fewer than those involving motor vehicles.
TfL promotes adherence to the Highway Code by all road users and encourages ‘responsible cycling’ and mutual respect between cyclists and other road users. We work to eliminate offences such as jumping red lights, cycling on the pavement, and cycling at night without lights. We do this using police enforcement and education programmes, as well as through marketing and engagement campaigns.
We recognise that some pavement cyclists break the law to avoid the dangers of motor traffic. However, we anticipate that providing dedicated and safe space for cyclists will discourage people from riding on pavements. Providing dedicated space for cyclists can also help other road users by letting them know where to expect high volumes of cyclists.
TfL partially funds the Metropolitan Police’s Cycle Safety Team and are working on a strategic enforcement plan, taking into account all activities. Any deployment will be evidence driven. The Cycle Safety Team will be patrolling Cycle Superhighway 5 between Oval and Belgravia when it opens, encouraging appropriate behaviour by all road users and enforcing compliance.
Concerns over crossings or shared space for pedestrians and cyclists New areas of shared space have been proposed for certain areas to meet specific needs, such as connecting to other cycle routes. It has only been proposed where there is enough space and visibility to safely accommodate expected use. Please see section responses below for comments on specific locations where shared space is proposed.
Co-ordination with wider Vauxhall gyratory proposals The CS5 designers have been working closely with those on the Vauxhall Cross project to ensure the schemes complement each other. The vast majority of CS5 is proposed to remain unchanged in the Vauxhall Cross scheme, although there might need to be some change to the Harleyford Road / Kennington Lane junction. The exact configuration of this junction will be reviewed following the consultation on the key principles of the Vauxhall Cross scheme, which starts on 10 November. CS5 is planned for delivery at least three years before the gyratory could be removed as part of the Vauxhall Cross scheme. However, the gyratory is a barrier to cycling now, and we have concluded that the benefits CS5 offers to cyclists are needed in advance of the longer term project, and that deferring construction of CS5 would delay tackling the existing safety issues.
You can have your say on the wider Vauxhall Cross proposals at tfl.gov.uk/vauxhall- cross. That consultation closes on Friday 19 December.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 57
Extending the CS5 route/cycle track While requests to extend the route and the cycle track east and west have been noted, and will be duly considered, these fall outside the remit of this consultation.
Response to issues for Section 1: Pimlico (Drummond Gate) to Belgravia Having considered the consultation responses and undertaken further investigations, Westminster City Council (the highway authority for Section 1) considers that having a two-way cycle route along Belgrave Road, Eccleston Bridge, Eccleston Street and Belgrave Place (Route 1) is probably not viable, as it is likely to require the narrowing of the footways and loss of some well-used residents’ parking. Further discussions are therefore needed on a suitable alternative, which might include splitting the route between Route 1 and Vauxhall Bridge Road.
Westminster City Council will consider the consultation responses received as part of its ongoing design work. It will continue its liaison with local stakeholders and residents throughout the design process. A second, more detailed, public consultation will take place once more detailed designs have been developed. This includes the possibility of splitting the route between Route 1 and Vauxhall Bridge Road.
58 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Response to issues for Section 2: Vauxhall Bridge Road / Drummond Gate
Banned left turn from Drummond Gate into Vauxhall Bridge Road Banning the left turn from Drummond Gate into Vauxhall Bridge Road brings significant benefits for both cyclists and pedestrians, as they are able to cross Vauxhall Bridge Road at the same time as right-turning traffic. The banned turn also allows us to widen the footway and simplify the pedestrian crossings over Vauxhall Bridge Road and Drummond Gate. With these significant benefits in mind, and considering the very low number of vehicles currently making this turn, we intend to retain the banned turn in the design. We will work to provide drivers with advance information to help them plan suitable alternative routes (as described above).
Pedestrian crossings at John Islip Street and Drummond Gate Significant improvements are proposed to pedestrian crossings over Drummond Gate and Vauxhall Bridge Road through building out the footway and reducing the crossing distances. These improvements will benefit the large numbers of pedestrians already using the crossings.
We are also planning to signalise the southern crossing over Vauxhall Bridge Road, which is currently unsignalised over six traffic lanes. The crossing will be signalised, with a straight-ahead movement over the traffic lanes and an unsignalised crossing over the cycle track, along with dropped kerbs and tactile paving.
Improvements to the above crossings caters for all of the pedestrian desire lines and are much safer than the two uncontrolled crossings over Vauxhall Bridge Road that exist now. We propose removing the northern uncontrolled crossing over Vauxhall Bridge Road to ensure pedestrians cross at the safest locations while still catering for desire lines. It is not possible to signalise the northern crossing without adding significant delays to traffic.
Cyclist links to Regency Street For cyclists wishing to head north into Westminster and towards Victoria Street, an extension of the bidirectional cycle track has been provided. This provides an important link northbound, with Regency Street being considered for future cycle route upgrades by Westminster City Council. Westbound cyclists are catered for at the Vauxhall Bridge Road/John Islip Street junction by means of a dedicated cycle crossing and signals phase. This enables cyclists to cross Vauxhall Bridge Road and continue on either Drummond Gate or Vauxhall Bridge Road.
Relocation of bus stop D on Vauxhall Bridge Road Following further investigations, we are now intending to relocate the bus stop approximately 30 metres north of the Rampayne Street junction, outside 44-46 Vauxhall Bridge Road. Relocating the bus stop simplifies the junction layout at Regency Street,
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 59 meaning buses are not pulling in and out at this junction. The relocated bus stop will provide space for two buses to stop.
Response to issues for Section 3: Bessborough Gardens / Millbank
Mitigation of banned left turn from Bessborough Gardens to Millbank While TfL does not expect a substantial increase in motor traffic in nearby residential streets, given the relatively low number of turning vehicles and availability of other routes, it does acknowledge local concerns over the potential for rat-running. To mitigate the risk, we are working with Westminster City Council (the responsible Highway Authority for John Islip Street, Ponsonby Place and Ponsonby Terrace) to put in place traffic-calming measures to deter additional traffic from rat-running.
TfL is also developing a proposal to reroute northbound bus route 88 towards Camden Town so it uses Millbank and Atterbury Street before joining John Islip Street. It would no longer serve stop X on Vauxhall Bridge or stop S on John Islip Street, but would instead serve nearby stop T on Millbank. This would give a common stop with route 87 for passengers travelling to Parliament Square, Whitehall and Trafalgar Square. The route towards Clapham Common would not change. This would address local concerns about traffic conflicts at the junction of John Islip Street and Bessborough Gardens. It could also improve bus journey times, as buses would bypass the traffic lights at the Bessborough Gardens / John Islip Street junction. TfL will undertake a separate consultation with Westminster City Council, local people and bus users before any decision is made.
We will also work to provide drivers with advance information to help them plan suitable alternative routes (as described above).
Shared space between Millbank and Vauxhall Bridge Scheme designs have been amended to provide a clearer layout for pedestrians and cyclists without the need for shared space. The revised proposals include a segregated cycle track at the junction, with clearly marked space for cyclists and pedestrians. Clear signage and tactile paving will be provided where necessary to assist pedestrians and cyclists using the area.
Links to Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 8 CS5 intersects and links with many existing and proposed cycle routes. At the junction of Millbank and Vauxhall Bridge Road, a connection between CS5 and CS8 will be provided. Our designers have ensured that all movements between the two routes are catered for, while signage and wayfinding will be used to guide cyclists at the junction. In response to feedback, the shared use area on the north-east corner of Millbank will be redesigned to
60 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation provide a clearer layout for pedestrians and cyclists (described above). This will provide an essential link between the two routes, as well as facilitating other turning movements.
TfL is seeking to implement facilities such as two-stage right turns across London once Department for Transport regulations permit them, and will consider additional provision at this junction at an appropriate time. Due to the junction operation and traffic signals timings, it is not possible to provide an all-green phase for cyclists. While this could be an attractive facility for cyclists, the impacts on traffic would bring significant increases in queuing and congestion at the junction.
Response to issues for Section 5: Vauxhall gyratory
Banned right turn into Kennington Lane The banned right turn into Kennington Lane from Harleyford Road was proposed in order to reduce the chances of conflict between turning motorists and cyclists using the two-way east-west cycle track between Vauxhall gyratory and Harleyford Road. TfL has re- examined the designs for Harleyford Road and – in response to feedback and using new traffic modelling and design evidence – is proposing substantial changes to the design of this section of CS5. The new design for Harleyford Road does not ban right-turning motor traffic between Harleyford Road and Kennington Lane.
Cycle route across Albert Embankment The proposed cycle track has been designed with sufficient width and suitable angles to accommodate non-standard bikes, such as cargo or child-carrying bicycles. The signals are designed to ensure cyclists receive coordinated green lights to ensure there is no delay compared with cycling on the carriageway. The slight chicane in the track is essential to leave enough space for left-turning traffic to wait at a red light when cyclists are crossing. Without this waiting area, left-turning vehicles would block traffic on the gyratory.
Use of underpass/tunnel for cycle track on Kennington Lane There are many challenges in this area, including the structural limitations of the railway arches and the highway layout. We have considered a number of different options but concluded that the proposed scheme offers the best solution. Due to width constraints, it was not considered viable to route cyclists both ways through the pedestrian/cycle tunnel. Similarly, we concluded that removing two lanes of traffic from Kennington Lane would have too great an impact on other road users. We will ensure that appropriate signage and markings provide a clear layout for pedestrians and cyclists. In addition, the proposed changes to the scheme on Harleyford Road provide additional separation between cyclists and pedestrians compared to the previous proposals. Surveys and design investigations for the tunnel widening are ongoing, and we are working closely with Network Rail to deliver this.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 61
Kennington Lane/Harleyford Road crossings The scheme proposals in this area have been amended, with the cycle track now running parallel to the southern footway on Harleyford Road. This enables provision of a straight- ahead cycle crossing for CS5, away from the existing shared crossings and footway. This provides significant benefits, as cyclists on CS5 would be provided with a dedicated route without needing to share the space with pedestrians. We therefore expect cyclist use of the existing shared areas would reduce significantly.
Bridgefoot shared use area Enhancements have been made to markings and signage in order to make the layout easier for pedestrians and cyclists to understand. Due to proposed future works in this area - as part of the proposed Quietways programme, as well as the long-term Vauxhall gyratory project - it is proposed to retain the shared use area, although the area will be kept under review after construction.
Cyclist links to Wandsworth Road At Wandsworth Road, a dedicated straight ahead cycle-crossing over Bridgefoot will provide easy crossing of the large carriageway away from the existing shared crossings, which also brings benefits for pedestrians.
Cyclist links to South Lambeth Road At South Lambeth Road, connections are being improved through relocating the CS5 bidirectional track to the south side of Harleyford Road.
Response to issues for Section 6: Harleyford Road (west) / Durham Street
Crossings at Durham Street and Kennington Oval Our revised proposal to move the cycle track to the southern side of Harleyford Road would remove any conflict between CS5 cyclists, pedestrians and motor traffic at these junctions.
Relocation of bus stop from Harleyford Road to Durham Street We acknowledge the concerns of some local people and stakeholders regarding the proposed bus stop move. The bus stop is being relocated to make space for the cycle track. Although the cycle track would be on the other side of the road relative to the previous proposals, the space needed for the track would mean the remaining traffic lane would not be wide enough for other vehicles to overtake waiting buses. There is good alternative bus stop provision in the area, with both the relocated bus stop and an alternative stop on Kennington Oval within 200 metres of the existing stop.
62 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
The petition from Ashmole Tenants and Residents’ Association also raised concerns over pedestrian safety. All of our schemes are subject to a multi-stage Road Safety Audit process, which has not highlighted any issues with the planned relocation. We are also proposing a new pedestrian crossing on Durham Street to improve access to the stop for residents, businesses and people using St Anne’s RC Primary School.
Relocation of loading/ disabled parking bay to Durham Street Following additional investigation, we are now proposing to move this bay to the east side of Durham Street, which would provide better access to The Beehive pub.
Response to issues for Section 7: Harleyford Road (east) / Kennington Oval Conflict between cyclists and pedestrians near Oval Cricket Ground The potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on match days at Oval would be significantly reduced by the proposed relocation of the cycle track to the south side of Harleyford Road.
Shared use crossing at Kennington Oval/Meadow Lane The shared area and crossing at this location provides an important link between CS5 and London Cycle Network Route 3 (LCN3). Both the crossing and footway areas have been widened to provide sufficient space for cyclists and pedestrians to cross.
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 63
Appendix C: Supporting documents for Section 1
Link to documents for Option 1: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/07b574de/supporting_documents/WCC%20Route% 20Option%201%20cln.pdf
64 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
WCC supporting documents for Option 2 https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/07b574de/supporting_documents/WCC%20Route% 20Option%202%20cln.pdf
WCC supporting documents for Option 3
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 65 https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/07b574de/supporting_documents/WCC%20Route% 20Option%203%20cln.pdf
66 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Appendix D: Consultation leaflet
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 67
68 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Map of leaflet distribution area
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 69
Appendix E: Consultation emails
Email to stakeholders An email was sent to 310 stakeholders potentially affected by the route. The email text is reproduced below, with the names of the stakeholders listed on p48:
Dear stakeholder,
Transport for London and Westminster City Council would like your views on proposals for a new cycle route between Oval and Belgravia.
View the proposals and have your say: Please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs5 to see details of the proposals and have your say. The final deadline for your comments is 14 September 2014.
About the proposed new route: The new proposals for Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 5 (CS5) would mean some substantial changes to the road layout between Oval and Pimlico, including: • A 1.4km two-way segregated cycle track running from Oval, Vauxhall, over Vauxhall Bridge to Pimlico. Road space would be reallocated from general traffic and buses to create improved conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, with connections to other local cycle routes • Redesigned junction layouts to make them safer and more convenient for cyclists and pedestrians • Banned turns for motorists at Drummond Gate, Vauxhall Bridge Road and Harleyford Road • Changes to footways and pedestrian crossings. Some areas of footway would be enlarged (particularly at Vauxhall), but we would also need to reduce footway space in some locations to make room for the cycle track. There would be an overall increase in footway area across the route as a whole
TfL is working with Westminster City Council on three options for the route between Pimlico and Belgravia. On-street cycle routes would be provided on quieter but direct roads, with a range of measures proposed to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, while reflecting the local surroundings and road conditions.
Public exhibitions: We invite you to one of our four public exhibitions, where you can view the proposals and speak to the project team:
• The Constitution, 42 Churton Street, SW1V 2LP Thursday 10 July 15:00-19:00
• Pimlico Library, Lupus Street, SW1V 3EY Saturday 12 July 11:00-15:00
• Montgomery Hall, 58 Kennington Oval, SE11 5SW Thursday 17 July 15:00-19:00
• Church Hall, St Anne and All Saints Church, Miles Street, SW8 1RL Thursday 24 July 15:00-19:00
Yours faithfully,
Alex Morrison Consultation Delivery Team Transport for London
70 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
72 Grove Lane Tenants and Residents’ Association City West Homes A Picture of Health for SE London Community Action Southwark Addey and Stanhope School Confederation of Passenger Transport UK AE Wilson Cycles Cornmill Gardens Age Concern Westminster Cossali Park Age UK London Crawford Primary School All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group Crown Estate All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group Secretariat CTC All Saints Church Cycle Surgery (Victoria) Apostolic Church (Lambeth) Cycling Embassy of Great Britain Apostolic Faith Mission Debre Sahl Eritrean Orthodox Christian Saint Michael's Church Archbishop Tenisons School Department for Communities and Local Government Ashmole Primary School Department for Transport Association of British Drivers Design for London Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind Eaton Square School Avery Associates Eaves Housing Bellenden Residents’ Group Edmund Waller Primary School Bellingham Local Assembly Elmington Regeneration Steering Group Bessborough Nursery School Embassy of Lithuania Big Yellow Self Storage - Kennington Evolution Quarter Residents Association Blue Elephant Theatre Fordham Park Borough Cycling Officers Group (BCOG) Freight Transport Association Brandon Baptist Church Friends of Kennington Park Breakspears Road Project Friends of the Earth Brewery Logistics Group Friends of Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens British Cycling Future Inclusion British Motorcycle Federation Gas Works Art Brockley Baptist Church Girls Day School Trust Brooke Hall - University of the Arts GLA Burdett Coutts and Townsend CE Primary Goldsmiths College, University of London Cab Shelter Fund Good Neighbours House Calais Gate & Coligny Court Tenants & Residents’ Assoc. Gordon Hospital Calvary Temple Green Alliance Trust Camberwell Campus - University of the Arts Grosvenor Britain & Ireland Camberwell Choir School Grove Chapel Evangelical Church Camberwell College of Arts Guide Dogs Camberwell Magistrates Guide Dogs Association Camberwell Probation Service Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inner London District team Campaign for Better Transport Haberdashers Askes Girls School Campaign for Learning Harris Academy at Peckham Carey Court Sheltered Housing Hatchem Gardens Castlemead Tenants and Residents’ Association Hatchem Mews Business Centre Cathedral Area Residents’ Group Head Start Day Nursery and PreSchool Catherine House Day Nursery Health Poverty Action Catholic Truth Society Health Professionals Council Central London Cab Trade Section Henry Fawcett Primary School Central London CTC Hermes London Dental Clinic Central London Fencing Club Hollington Club for Young People Central London NHS Trust Inclusion London Central Venture Park Independent Theatre Council Charles Edward Brooke CE Secondary Girls School Institute of Advanced Motorists Charlie Chaplin Adventure Playground Institute of Psychiatry Kings College London Children's Society Institution of Civil Engineers Christ Faith Tabernacle International Theatre Institute Christ the King Sixth Form College John Donne Primary School Christchurch (Brixton) CE Primary School Ju Dachi Martial Arts Association Church of Christ at New Cross KCA International City Bikes (Vauxhall Walk) Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall Forum City of London Kings College Hospital
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 71
City Property Association & Westminster Property Association Lambeth Cyclists Lambeth Primary Care Trust Peabody Land Securities Peckham Fire Station Lewisham Association of People with Disabilities Peckham Library Lewisham Central Local Assembly Peckham Power Lewisham Cyclists Peckham Society Lewisham Homes Peckham Space Liberty Living Peckham Vision Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association Peckhamresidentsnetwork.wordpress.com Lillian Baylis Technology School People's Republic of Southwark Little Gems Day Nursery Pimlico Dental Care Living Streets Pimlico F.R.E.D.A. Living Streets Southwark Poets Corner Tenants and Residents’ Association London Amateur Boxing Association Portuguese Catholic Mission London Ambulance Service Private Hire Board London Borough of Lambeth Queens Road Surgery London Borough of Lewisham RAC Foundation for Motoring London Borough of Southwark RADAR London Access Forum London Cab Drivers' Club Ltd Rambers London Chamber of Commerce Rethink London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) RMT London Branch London Councils RMT London Taxi branch London Cycling Campaign RNIB London Fire Brigade RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf People) London First Road Haulage Association London Groundwork Roadpeace London Private Hire Board Royal Horticultural Halls and Conference Centre London Strategic Health Authority Sacred Heart Roman Catholic School London Suburban Taxi Drivers' Coalition Salvation Army -Camberwell London Taxi Drivers' Club Sceux Gardens London Transport Users' Committee SE1 website: http://www.london-se1.co.uk London TravelWatch se5 Forum for Camberwell Long and Ryle Ltd (Art College) Soho Fire Station Look Ahead Housing and Care Somerville Adventure Playground LoTAG South East London PCT LPHCA South Eastern Trains Lucas Vale Primary School South London Business Forum Luxmore Gardens South London Gallery Lyndhurst Primary School South London Guide Marlowe Business Centre Southeastern Railway Metropolitan Police Service Southern Millbank Estate Management Organisation Ltd Southwark Civic Association Millbank Primary School Southwark Cyclists Mission Care Home Southwark Group of Tenants Organisation Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) Southwark Pensioners Action Group Myatts Fields Park Southwark Pensioners Centre National Literacy Trust Southwark Primary Care Trust National Motorcycle Council Southwark Rail Users Group National School of Government Southwark Town Hall Network Rail St Anne's Catholic Primary School New Cross Fire Station St George's Nursing Home New Cross Gate Trust St Giles's Church - Camberwell New Cross Local Assembly St Giles's Trust New Cross Natural Therapy Centre St Gregorios Indian Orthodox Church New Testament Church of God St James Hatcham CE School NHS London St James RC Church NOKIA St James the Great Catholic Primary School Office of National Statistics St James the Less Church Oliver Goldsmith Primary School St John with St Andrew Church Oval House Theatre St John’s Medical Centre
72 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation
Owner Drivers’ Society St Johns Holy Trinity Church Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) St Johns the Divine CE Church St Joseph's Catholic Infants School The Well Community Church St Margaret's Church The Westminster Society St Margaret's Drop in Centre Theatre Peckham St Marks CE Primary School Transcendental Mediation Centre St Mark's Church (Kennington) Transport for All St Marylebone with Bloomsbury Division Trinity College London Examinations Board St Matthew Academy Tuke School St Michaels and All Angels CE Academy University College London St Peter's Church University of the Arts - Chelsea College of Art and Design St Peters Eaton Square CE Primary School Vassall Road Pre School St Saviours Church Vauxhall Christian Centre St Stephens CE School Vauxhall City Farm St Stephen's Vicarage Vauxhall Gardens Estate Residents and Tenants’ Association St Thomas the Apostle College Victim Support St Vincent De Paul RC Primary School Victoria BID Stroke Care Victoria Palace Theatre Studio Crown Reach Vincent Square Residents' Association Surrey County Cricket Club Walk London Sustrans Waterloo Ambulance Station Tate Britain Westminster Archdiocese TBG learning Westminster Cathedral Tea House Theatre Westminster Cathedral Choir School Telegraph Hill Local Assembly Westminster Cathedral RC Primary School Thamesmead Business Services Westminster City Council The AA Westminster City Hall The Big Issue Westminster City School The Gasworks at Oval Westminster Cyclists The Grey Coat Hospital: CE Comprehensive School Westminster Kingsway College The Highshore School Westminster Property Owners Association The Royal Horticultural Society Westminster Under School The Synergy Centre Wilsons Cycles The Thorney Island Society World Development Movement The Vauxhall Society Wyndham and Comber Tenants and Residents’ Association The Villa School and Nursery Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists
Email to individuals registered on TfL database The following email was sent to 60,000 recipients on the TfL database:
Dear
I am writing to let you know that Transport for London and Westminster City Council would like your views on proposals for a new Barclays Cycle Superhighway between Oval and Belgravia.
The new route would mean substantial changes to the road layout to create a largely segregated two-way cycle track between Oval and Pimlico and on street cycle routes between Pimlico and Belgravia. This will improve safety for cyclists.
For full details and to have your say, please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs5
The consultation closes on Sunday 14 September 2014.
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Hardy Road Space Management Sponsorship Transport for London
Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation 73
Appendix F: Press release and media coverage
Press release Text of the TfL press release publicising the CS5 Oval to Belgravia consultation can be found here: http://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2014/july/new-segregated-cycle-superhighway-plans-publish
Media coverage Below is a selection of the media coverage highlighting the new route:
Broadcast media ITV London http://www.itv.com/news/london/2014-07-09/new-bike-lane-at-most-notorious-london-road-junction/ BBC London http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28227212
National and regional media Evening Standard http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/new-segregated-cycle-routes-to-beat-vauxhalls-nastiest-gyratory- 9594727.html The Metro http://metro.co.uk/2014/07/09/london-is-getting-a-cycle-superhighway-and-it-looks-brilliant-4792852/ Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2685788/CYCLE-DEATH-ROADS-TO-BE-MADE-SAFER.html
Trade publications Cycling Weekly http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/segregated-cycle-route-plans-dangerous-london-junction- released-129694 New Civil Engineer http://www.nce.co.uk/plans-unveiled-for-londons-first-segregated-cycle-superhighway/8665499.article#
Blogs Cyclist in the City http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/2014/07/blimey-vauxhall-to-pimlico-cycle-track.html Londonist.com http://londonist.com/2014/07/plans-for-vauxhall-gyratory-segregated-cycle-lanes-released.php
74 Cycle Superhighway 5 Oval to Belgravia Response to Consultation