Appendix B

Campaign 1 – text of submission and the 2 issues it contained Campaign 2 – text of submission and the 4 issues it contained Petition presented to us by Madina 11 Mosque Trust Petition presented to us at a public drop- 12 in event Summaries of stakeholder responses 13 Code frames 16

1

Campaign 1 – text of submission and the issues we identified from it

We identified the following issues in Campaign 1:

Will increase traffic on other streets Not good for the environment/ will increase pollution Concerns about crime/bike theft Will not be safe at night Will have a negative impact on Lea Bridge Road (more traffic/usage) Do not narrow road space/close roads/redirect traffic - unspecified Negative impact for businesses (deliveries/losing customers/money) Negative impact for drivers/motorists (unpleasant/not safer) Negative impact for local residents (unpleasant/not safer) Negative impact for people going to Madina Mosque/places of worship (will prevent attendance, parking restrictions) Negative impact for people with disabilities (unpleasant/not safer) Learn from past mistakes/how bad the last proposal turned out Loss of parking spaces Should improve infrastructure/traffic system on other roads (e.g. Dunlace, Blurton, Elderfield, Rushmore) Should improve public transport instead (more bus lanes/bus technology/cheaper fares)

The verbatim text is below.

To Sadiq Khan - Mayor of 8th November 2019 Transport for London Diane Abbott - MP Margaret Gordon, Ian Rathbone, Deniz Oguzkanli – Councillors for Lea Bridge Ward

Re: Letter In Protest Against The Planned Cycle Lane on Lea Bridge Road London E5 Dear Sirs/Madam, I’m a concerned resident on Lea Bridge road & I’m writing to protest against the planned cycle lane along Lea Bridge Road / Clapton Roundabout / Kenninghall Road. The cycle lane will have a very severe impact on all local residents and the community. Consideration needs to be given to all local residents / property owners along Lea Bridge Road, before implementation of the scheme. There are many wheelchair users/ less-abled residents(including parents) & family members on this road, who regularly visit would be denied access to family social gatherings/events at all times of year. The new scheme would prevent deliveries of online shopping, fast food deliveries, mini cab/Uber pickup/ drop offs, emergency services and access for community / sporting events in the park.

2

The proposed changes mean we would lose all access to parking & loading facilities, making it impossible to receive any deliveries, get maintenance work done (Tradesmen would not be able to park or have access to tools/ equipment). It is unsafe for local residents returning late at night, due to anti social behaviour, car crime, lack of Police presence, and lack of good lighting. The proposed changes would prevent the community from attending the local mosque (Madina Mosque Trust). As this a very popular and well attended place of worship. There are a large number of worshippers who have been prevented from using the other local mosque in Road, due to parking restrictions - we do not want the same thing to happen to our local mosque, which is a central part of our Muslim community. The traffic lanes on all exits to the roundabout will be drastically reduced, severely increasing traffic congestion in the whole local and neighbouring areas, increasing pollution & reducing air quality for local residents – which will go against the reasons for the introduction of the scheme. TFL / The Mayor need to ensure a balance is kept whilst making cycling and walking pleasant, with the needs / accessibility of local residents and community. There are other options available to TFL / The Mayor for westbound cycle lane – all should be fully explored and given serious consideration. We can think of 2 alternative options for the westbound cycle lane, listed below: Option 1 - Have both East and westbound cycle lanes going through North Millfields Park. (Westbound cyclists could join via, Greenway cycle path , or by crossing lights at River Lea or Chatsworth Road and then rejoin the roundabout on Upper Clapton Road. Option 2 – Westbound cyclists turn left at Chatsworth Road , right onto Millfields Road, right onto Lower Clapton Road, left onto Downs Road and then join the proposed cycle route at Queensdown Road. Both above alternatives would be safer & pleasant for the cyclists and much less disruptive to the local residents/community & enable the westbound bus lane to remain unchanged, keeping travel time for bus users in the morning to a minimum. We understand the need to reduce air pollution & thus the idea for a cycle lane. However, this needs to be carefully balanced with the needs of local residents & the local community therefore, if a cycle lane is implemented they must ensure that there is still comparable amounts of space for parking and loading along Lea Bridge road (west bound) as is currently available. Most residents have been living here for some time & are now ageing. We are very upset & concerned that we will be facing great hardship with access to our homes & everyday life & be left lonely in our old age, as family will not be able to come & care or visit us. We hope our views will be given serious consideration. Yours sincerely,

3 Campaign 2 – text of submission and the issues we identified from it

We identified the following issues in Campaign 2:

Will have a positive impact on the local area (, Hackney, Millfields Park, Lea Bridge Road, etc) Like idea of new tree lined park Negative impacts outweigh positive impacts of proposal Waste of money/will have no effect Will increase journey times (any form of transport) Will increase traffic on other streets Will not improve traffic/congestion/ will not reduce motor vehicle usage Not good for the environment/ will increase pollution Cyclists do not use dedicated cycle lanes/not enough demand to implement Cyclists will not use during inclement weather/rainy/cold seasons Local community does not match cyclist profile (BAME, young, elderly, disabled, low income) Road users will still disobey road laws (u-turns) Will cause overtaking/reckless driving/tail-gating Will increase wait times at stop lights Will not improve connections/commuting/direct links Will not reduce/change road usage/mode of transport - unspecified Women would not cycle/use cycle lanes (have buggies/shopping) Concerns about crime/bike theft Roads will not be safer/will not safely separate cyclists, pedestrians and motorists Will have a negative impact on Chatsworth Road (blocking/no left turn) Will have a negative impact on Hackney Area (more traffic/less accessible/not fit with demographics) Will have a negative impact on Lea Bridge Roundabout (Clapton Roundabout) (blocking/route changes/more traffic/worse than now) Will have a negative impact on Powell Road (blocking exit/entrance at Kenninghall/Brooke Road) Dislike relocation/loss of bus stop/route Negative impact for BAME community (increase in bus journey times) Negative impact for children/school runs (unpleasant/not safer) Negative impact for cyclists/cycling (unpleasant/not encourage/not safer) Negative impact for local residents (unpleasant/not safer) Negative impact for low income/disadvantage residents (unpleasant/not safer/not economical) Negative impact for peak hour travel (unpleasant/not safer) Negative impact for pedestrians/walking (unpleasant/not encourage/not safer) Negative impact for people going to Madina Mosque/places of worship (will prevent attendance, parking restrictions) Negative impact for people with disabilities (unpleasant/not safer)

4 Negative impact for public transport (unpleasant/not encourage/too slow) Negative impact for the elderly (unpleasant/not safer) Negative impact for work commutes (unpleasant/not safer) Biased towards/only benefits cyclist Lack of contact/discussion from TfL (to Stakeholders/Mosques/Education facilities, etc) Learn from past mistakes/how bad the last proposal turned out Loss of parking spaces Need more information (parking provision times, etc) New cycle quality criteria/requirements not met Poorly planned/poorly considered/not properly consulted schemes Should allocate funds to subsidise purchase of cycles for those that cannot afford Should improve infrastructure/traffic system on other roads (e.g. Dunlace, Blurton, Elderfield, Rushmore) Should improve/add more segregated cycle lanes (single side of road in both directions/use bus lanes at specific times/more protection)

The verbatim text is below.

The closing of Powell Road to all traffic at it’s northbound junction with Brooke Road will have an adverse impact on vehicular traffic and cyclists by adding to journey times and increasing the risk of collisions between traffic and cyclists. We used Google Maps to compare the journey times between Al Falah Primary School (Kenninghall Road) and The Mermaid (Clarence Road) with the journey expected to take 2 mins (0.3 miles). The proposed closure would divert traffic eastbound onto Lea Bridge Roundabout resulting in increased journey times by 1 min (and 0.2 miles) for each vehicle as a minimum. If traffic is diverted westbound, the journey would take an extra 6 mins having travelled 1 extra mile. The above journey times were taken for a Saturday morning average – not representing Peak Hours - which we anticipate would be even worse. Additionally, eastbound traffic will be affected as more traffic is being diverted to the roundabout from Chatsworth Road (see below) and increased waiting times at traffic lights. The net effect would be a gridlocked roundabout due to increased levels of traffic that have to navigate the roundabout from both Powell Road and Chatsworth Road. Powell Road is used to escape any traffic at the roundabout by travelling through Nightingale Road and Brooke Road. Traffic which chooses to divert westbound will have to contend with a circuitous journey bringing them into contact with cyclists along Downs Road. Parents whose children attend any number of the educational facilities along the Lea Bridge corridor would be particularly affected. They may choose to navigate to the tip of Powell Road with Kenninghall Road before u-turning and driving back south. This could bring traffic in contact with cyclists and increase the risk of collisions and fatal injuries. Similarly, the banned right from Chatsworth to eastbound Lea Bridge and corresponding left from to southbound Chatsworth would result in lengthy journey times affecting the quality of air along the Lea Bridge corridor and contributing to increased emissions being released – an irony of the stated aims of the cycleway project. Google maps modelling on a Saturday morning off-peak suggests that it takes an average of 3 mins (0.4 miles) to travel from Hanz Blitz Recordings (Chatsworth Road) to Two’s Company

5 (Millfields Road). By changing the model of the current traffic arrangement and venturing the circuitous route via Homerton and Orient Way, which isn’t without it’s own traffic congestion issues, would increase the journey times by a multiplier of 6 and add an additional 3.4 miles to the journey. Drivers preferring the much shorter route of Lea Bridge Roundabout will see their journey times nearly doubled and mileage tripled. As a result, traffic which ordinarily would have turned left onto Chatsworth Road will be joining traffic travelling westbound on Lea Bridge and accompanying traffic from Kenninghall Road and Powell Road will cause gridlocks to Lea Bridge Roundabout along with increased wait times at stop lights for vehicle traffic. We find your modelling impact (increased journey times by 1 min or in some cases a reduction) to be an overly optimistic conclusion which doesn’t take into account nuances in driver behaviour. Furthermore, the model includes the Route 48 which we know has been withdrawn from service affecting the ability of our congregants to find increased transport infrastructure when being encouraged to desist from car usage. The relocation of the bus stop (Lea Bridge eastbound) will affect the ability of our congregants and other residents in the local area to make their onward journeys. The preferred method of many users wishing to travel east from Upper Clapton Road is to alight at Prout Road and follow the curvature to Bus Stop S – a journey of 3 mins. The re-location of the bus stop 110m east would nearly double this time which for many elderly people is unacceptable. The removal of Bus Stop R – often used by local residents who do not wish to traverse the steep gradient of Lea Bridge Road – is not ideal and does not fit the pattern of how residents use public transport in the local area. Creating a cycle way through Millfields Park and creating a new line of trees is a good proposal but it shouldn’t need a cycleway to engage in such activities. The re-location of Bus Stop T – although cautiously welcomed by the Mosque as it means elderly people have less distance to walk to use the mosque – does not take into account that vehicles will be crossing the bus lane to access the facilities of the mosque creating a blind spot for drivers should any cyclist find themselves exceeding the speed of local traffic. The re-location of the bus stop will increase the risk of collisions between traffic and the very few cyclists who actually use Lea Bridge Roundabout regularly to commute to work. The rate of collisions around Lea Bridge Roundabout remains low in comparison to other major roundabouts such as Old Street. This is due to less traffic as well as a re-developed roundabout with generous pavement space. Where segregated cycleways have been introduced – taking space from the road and pavements, there have been increased collisions and potentially increased risks of accidents not only between cyclists and vehicular traffic but between cyclists and pedestrians when engaging and disengaging from bus stops such as CS2 where the incidence rate across the borough has nearly doubled. The unregulated nature of cyclists, their bikes and the non-observance of the highway code of many cyclists all contribute towards an unsafe environment for those most vulnerable – the elderly, the young and the disabled. Furthermore, stepped tracks on approach to bus-stops belies the nature of pedestrians who may choose to not use such crossings. It is inconceivable the rationale that Transport for London would have to suggest a cycle route through Lea Bridge Roundabout – much less a segregated cycle track – when there is no evidence or logical reason to use the Roundabout as a thoroughfare for cycle traffic. Patterns of behaviour for cyclists involve the shortest possible route and the scheme between Dalston and Lea Bridge does not give cyclists enough confidence

6 to even use cycleways. The waiting time at the traffic lights, in addition to the additional roads to traverse for commuters suggests that the scheme will bring no tangible benefit due to the profiles of the average cyclist and we have carried out limited research which supports our findings – from our congregation and the wider public. Weather – Many cyclists are fair weather riders who ride for short distances (if not commuting). If it’s raining, snowing or windy, cyclists (like pedestrians) will not venture out thus making a segregated cycle track redundant during the autumn, spring and summer seasons or about 75% of the time. Timings – A cyclist would commute to work meaning anytime between 7am – 10am and 4pm – 7pm generally in warmer weather. As a result, a segregated cycleway would not be in use for the majority of the time again making the cycleway redundant for the majority of the time. Location – The location of the segregated cycleway is not opportune for cyclists who commuting from Lea Bridge to and onto Dalston or the City would as they would prefer to use the much easier cycling infrastructure at South Millfields Park and Powerscroft Road as evidenced by Google Streetview. As local residents and commuters, we are well aware of how many cyclists would use the Roundabout as a way of commuting and in comparison to other inner , there is just not the demand to substantiate a segregated cycleway. The New Cycle Quality Criteria paper (May 2019) sets out when segregated cycleways should be used – In Criteria 1, we are of the view that the condition has not been met for a segregated cycleway as there are significantly less than 1000 vehicles per hour and hardly any HGV’s pass through at peak times around Lea Bridge Roundabout. The criteria itself does not take into account whether there are 1000 cyclists or 1 cyclist which results in an absurd position and poor road designs. For Criteria 2, the roads leading to Lea Bridge Roundabout are a standard 20mph which does not meet the standard for a segregated cycleway. In relation to Criteria 3, cycles who do travel westbound would use the generous bus lane width to travel which again does not meet the requirement for a segregated cycleway. The design guidelines suggest a minimum of 1.5m for 200 cyclists per hour which could be easily incorporated into the existing bus lane. For Criteria 4, we have already discussed the impact and the increased likelihood of collisions. This may meet the criteria for a segregated cycleway but again is out of context in relation to use by cyclists. There is increased activity around the kerbside (Criteria 5) where the cycleway is being proposed – especially during peak hours – as commuters and pedestrians are on their way home. A segregated cycleway would help cyclists from crashing into pedestrians but would negatively impact on the young children and elderly as they are not so agile compared to a speeding cyclist. The final criteria again is not applicable as traffic around the Roundabout is not made up of at least 5% HGV’s. Therefore to suggest a segregated cycleway is not the most practical solution. We are unable to determine on what basis the design proposed a segregated cycleway as there was no Quality Criteria Spreadsheet attached. Moving onto the latest cycle trends report, we note the profile of cyclists who would typically cycle and although it is explored further in our analysis of the Equality Impact Analysis, we understand that the general profile is an older white male who earn above average incomes. That profile does not seem to fit that of Hackney which is made-up of many diverse communities, a younger population and in one of the more deprived areas of London. While we enjoy the place where we have been residing – many who have been in the borough for over 40 years – we do not

7 believe that the cycleway is in anyway placed to deliver better lifestyle for the majority of people who live in the Lea Bridge or ward and Hackney generally. There is the perception that the cycleway is being built to cater to those who regularly cycle through the borough and not those who reside in the borough and the demographics evidence that assumption. The Equality Impact Assessment suggests that cycleways are modelled on similar schemes in Holland/Denmark which have significantly fewer population numbers and covers an exceptionally smaller geographical area – Amsterdam is about 6x smaller than London – meaning that whilst the ambition is to be encouraged, the realities of cycling in London (especially outer London boroughs) are not actively considered and thus would remain under-utilised and reduces access for other vehicles to use lanes to ease congestion. Page 2 states that the introduction of the proposal “would encourage more active travel by bicycle and provide a better pedestrian and urban realm experience.” Whilst we actively support proposals for improved public health and educate our congregants to this effect, a segregated cycleway would not encourage many given the variables (weather, other passengers, young children, elderly parents). A failure to understand the local population would run contrary to the aims of the cycleway. Page 3 sets out the proposed impact on on customers but it is noticeable that other road users (i.e: cars) are not stated to have an impact. Whether deliberate or unintentional, it underlines the fact that the assessment has been seen through very narrow lens – and not road users or local residents more widely. The evidence base does not suggest that most use will be made by those residing in the immediate area. Many young Londoners (7 in 10) would travel by bus (going to schools or colleges) and would be severely impacted by increased journey times with reduced services (the 48 has been withdrawn) and the impact on older Londoners would be lost as only 8% aged 65 or over would use a bike. Hackney has a young demographic so it’s unlikely that there will be increased use for the segregated cycle way – if they are not cycling in the first place. Women are also less likely to use cycles or cycling infrastructure as they would be with buggies and shopping and their preferred method would be either private vehicle or bus. With increased journey times, it is extremely unlikely that modes of transport will change even if congestion gets worse – thus defeating the object of less pollution and cleaner air. Additionally, crime has a negative impact on many local residents and with Hackney being the bike theft capital in London, it is an understandable concern which residents are yet to be reassured about. Furthermore, Hackney has already one of the lowest form of car ownership (65% of households car free) and whilst we work towards getting the number down – car usage in Hackney relates to transporting elderly relatives to appointments or ferrying young children to school. Theft in Hackney in most categories is rising and especially Islamophobic crimes which our service users are increasingly concerned about. Page 8 of the EIA states that the stakeholders along the proposed route will be contacted but until contact was made from Madina Mosque Trust and a push for meetings was discussed, there was no forthcoming engagement which we are incredibly disappointed with. We understand that work with local residents and support is paramount and express regret that Transport for London would disregard stakeholders in this manner. The report also states there is a significant opportunity to get the 45% of Hackney BAME population into cycling – but then fails to mention or consider how they currently use vehicle provisions. This is a glaring oversight and an

8 assumption that a few km’s of segregated cycleway would result in a radical increase in cyclists is not realistic. Page 13 lists the potential negative impact and it is glaringly obvious that increased public transport times would be a barrier to use to 50% of younger Londoners. Increasing congestion due to the proposed scheme will not result in positive experiences for public transport in light of cuts to bus routes. Bus stop bypasses also present a continuing danger to pedestrians many of whom will be elderly or females with young children. Removal of bus stops and parking bays would adversely impact on bus users – the majority of whom are from low-income and otherwise disadvantaged in some way by society. The removal of parking bays and the uncertainty of parking provisions surrounding the mosque in addition to the large number of disabled blue badge (Page 16) users living in the surrounding streets does not make a welcome atmosphere for those who are less advantaged. Page 17 incorrectly states that the proposed segregated cycleway will not impact on low income families but that is plaintively untrue. These group of people favour bus use and with increased journey times are more affected similar to other groups like BAME – who cite it as a major barrier. Page 18 states that mosques and educational facilities will be contacted but no contact had been made until the Trust made contact – probably as the majority of our service users would not fit the average cyclist profile with many of our congregants being young, BAME, and from low-income families. We remain disappointed with TfL’s response. Page 19 attempts to display positive impacts of the cycleway and whilst we do not deny many of them – it should be noted that crime and congestion remains bigger barriers to the general take-up of cycling and the profile of Hackney residents could not be successfully expected to follow the same benefits as other areas. Page 26 specifies that there may be changes to parking provision times but no details have been forthcoming which is not very helpful. The methodology of how many cyclists use or will use the cycleway is unknown which is perplexing as it would form the case for need or whether there are more advantageous routes where cycling infrastructure already exists which will deliver the same result in a less inconvenient way. We would rather the funds be used in a beneficial manner which will actually increase cycling rates such as subsidised purchase of cycles for those in one of the most deprived areas or incentives to get into cycling. It is a noble aim to get people cycling more but due to the extent of variables present within Hackney and the weather, it will not likely be a popular option. We remain opposed to any major reconfiguration of Lea Bridge Roundabout as it would adversely impact upon the local residents of Hackney and not deliver tangible benefits to the long-standing residents of the local area. It will cause increased congestion affecting the ability of residents to go about their lives and whilst that may be the intention, public transport will suffer which will have knock-on effects which TfL have failed to understand or model. It was also incredibly arrogant and disgraceful of TfL’s staff members to boldly claim and assert that car users are the lowest in the priority list when it comes to design and planning – their voices being all but drowned out and though we do not advocate on behalf of them, it is not reassuring that TfL are seeking to pit cyclists vs car users to claim a moral high ground. Car users are the most substantial form of traffic on UK roads and stating that people will switch to other modes of transport or other times of day to travel in cars has not been evidenced and when looking at the plans, they will lead to more air pollution, less safe streets, increased pedestrian casualties and increased congestion –

9 disenfranchising young, old, the disabled, BAME communities and virtually everyone apart from the general cyclist – the white male who earns at least double the national median wage and who merely use cycleways to commute through a borough – bringing no tangible benefits to those within it.

10 Petition submitted to us on 21 January 2020 by Madina Mosque Trust

The petition contained 751 signatures and included the following text:

“TfL are planning to build a segregated cycle way between Dalston and Lea Bridge. This will lead to increased congestion, reduced parking spaces, increased bus delays and will have negative effects on the Masjid and wider community.

We are urging TfL and Hackney to consider alternative proposals and we would like your support to help us with this. We aim to respond to the consultation on your behalf by the deadline (29 November 2019) and request your support and dua’s.”

11 Petition submitted to us on 7 December 2019 by attendees to a public drop-in event

The petition contained 95 signatures and included the following text:

“Petition in protest against the planned cycle lane on Lea Bridge Road, London E5.”

12 Summaries of stakeholder responses

This section summarises each of the responses we received from respondents whom we would consider to be ‘stakeholders’. These summaries are included only in order to assist readers of this report to understand in broad terms what issues stakeholders raised with us. The original, verbatim response from each stakeholder were analysed to identify the issues raised.

We identified as a ‘stakeholder’ all those respondents we judged are notable and reasonably well known amongst the public. This includes London’s local authorities, major transport groups, local neighbourhood or residents associations, major charities, businesses and business groups and industry associations.

Baden Powell Primary School

Highlighted a concern that changes to Powell Road might impede deliveries to the school, including food deliveries.

Canal & River Trust

Repeated comments made during the first phase of consultation about the potential for improvements to Quietway 2 at North Millfields Recreation Ground. Suggested that a painted walkway/cycleway be provided in the Princess of Wales car park on Waterworks lane, to improve access to the nearby towpath. Also suggested wayfinding for cyclists, to improve awareness of and connections to the proposed new Cycleway.

Clapton Park Methodist Church

Suggested that the proposals would make walking and cycling more pleasant but that they would provide little incentive for people to switch from motorised transport. Was generally supportive of the proposals but specifically opposed to the restrictions to turning movements at Chatsworth Road, suggesting that this proposal would create additional congestion. Suggested that the banned turns at Chatsworth Road would have a ‘seriously detrimental’ effect on their congregation.

Cllr Vincent Stops, London Borough of Hackney

Critical that consultation had taken place at a when the scheme had been ‘drawn up’ and ‘signed off’. Expressed support for cycling schemes in general but opposed to ‘half-baked, confusing and discriminatory’ cycling infrastructure. Suggested that the proposals were not compatible with the London Borough of Hackney’s Transport Strategy and other relevant Plans. Suggested that the proposals ‘ignore and disadvantage pedestrians’ and that some cyclists would choose not to use the new cycle track. Critical of TfL’s assessment of the impacts of the proposals on disabled people, and claimed that the needs of bus passengers were being ignored because the proposals would degrade the reliability of local bus routes. Suggested that the proposals would provide minimal benefits for pedestrians. Concluded that the

13 proposals were a waste of public money which discriminate against the most vulnerable road users.

Hackney Cycling Campaign

Supported the scheme and suggested that ‘many more’ people would walk or cycle as a result. Suggested that the westbound cycle track should include full segregation, and that motor traffic capacity should be reduced at Lea Bridge roundabout. Were ‘not convinced’ by the proposals for a cycle track in Millfields Park but suggested that it should be well-lit and incorporate segregation if it were to proceed. Also called for Chatsworth Road to be made bus-only, for the crossing at Kenninghall Road to be parallel and for protected cycle infrastructure along Upper and Lower Clapton Road.

Licensed Taxi Drivers Association

Raised a concern that the provision of segregated cycling facilities may make it difficult for taxis to pick up/drop off passengers, particularly disabled passengers or those with prams.

London Cycling Campaign

Supported the proposals in principle. Called for the pedestrian crossing at Kenninghall Road to be made a parallel crossing and for the crossings at Lea Bridge roundabout to be made direct and single-stage. Called for protected cycling schemes on Upper and Lower Clapton Road and for the removal of motor vehicle capacity, including as an alternative to a cycle track through Millfields Park. Requested full segregation for cyclists at the bridge near Princess of Wales public house. Made a series of general points about cycling infrastructure schemes, including that future schemes should be designed to accommodate growth in cycling.

London Fire Brigade

Expressed concerns that the proposed turning restrictions at Lea Bridge Road/Chatsworth Road might ‘significantly increase’ traffic congestion on Homerton High Street and Lea Bridge Road, affecting response times. Sought an opportunity to discuss the proposals.

London TravelWatch

Expressed disappointment that the proposals would increase journeys times on routes 55, 56, 425 and 308. Made detailed comments about each section of route, including by expressing ‘regret’ that bus stops W and S are to be relocated.

Madina Mosque Trust

Expressed ‘disappointment’ with the proposals and suggested that they would negatively affect large numbers of Muslims in the immediate area and beyond. Disagreed with the proposals and questioned the methodology used in determining cycling and traffic rates, and highlighted a lack of assessment of the effects of the

14 proposals on travel patterns. Questioned the justification for the proposals, including by suggesting that Lea Bridge roundabout is ‘not an accident hotspot’ and that adequate cycling infrastructure already exists. Suggested that proposed parking restrictions would limit access to the Mosque, disadvantage children, older people and attendees to religious festivals and other gatherings.

Metropolitan Police

Highlighted the parking and pedestrian demands at Madina Mosque and queried what provisions had been made for these within the proposals. Highlighted a concern with the current traffic layout at the Mosque, in relation to a potential blind- spot for traffic turning in and out of the Mosque grounds.

Millfields Users Group

Strongly supportive of the proposals in principle, but with some ‘reservations on details’. Suggested that the proposed cycle track in Millfields Park should incorporate cycle speed reduction measures, and emphasised that construction of the cycle track must not damage tree roots. Welcomed measures to reduce motorised traffic through Millfields Park.

National Federation for the Blind UK

Raised a number of detailed concerns, including that there should be extensive use of tactile paving and audible signals to help blind or partially sighted people to negotiate the area. Objected in principle to shared spaces and suggested that cyclist segregation should be a minimum height of 60mm. Was particularly concerned at the proposed use of bus stop by-passes.

Road Haulage Association

Was ‘extremely concerned’ about the impacts of the proposals on traffic flow, highlighting the importance of free-flowing traffic and open streets to freight, and the importance of freight to London.

Stagecoach Bus

Suggested that, given current traffic levels, the proposals may have a minor negative impact on the reliability of local bus services. Suggested that Chatsworth Road be made buses-only.

Sustrans

Strongly supported the proposals but found it ‘disappointing’ that new cycling infrastructure was being created by removing pedestrian space. Suggested that the needs of cyclists were being prioritised over the needs of pedestrians. Made detailed comments about each section of route.

15 Code frames

Q1 non- Q2 non- Campaign Campaign campaign campaign 1 2 respondents respondents Count % Count % Count Count TOTAL 843 1114 313 567 50 POSITIVE (GRAND NET) 356 42% 561 % 0 567 Overall (Net) 11 1% 61 5% 0 0 Generally supportive 11 1% 60 5% 0 0 Other positive overall mentions 0 0% 1 0% 0 0 Congestion (Net) 77 9% 63 6% 0 0 Will improve traffic/congestion / reduce motor vehicle usage 74 9% 50 4% 0 0 Will not increase journey times (any form of transport) 8 1% 14 1% 0 0 Pollution (Net) 45 5% 48 4% 0 0 Good for the environment / will improve air quality 41 5% 43 4% 0 0 Will reduce/help with noise levels 6 1% 10 1% 0 0 Effectiveness (Net) 58 7% 57 5% 0 0 Good for public health 11 1% 12 1% 0 0 Will change/improve road usage/mode of transport - unspecified 8 1% 2 0% 0 0 Will improve connections/commuting/direct links 16 2% 24 2% 0 0 Will improve crossings/safer and easier to cross 12 1% 11 1% 0 0 Will reduce stress/frustration 6 1% 4 0% 0 0 Other positive effectiveness mentions 8 1% 9 1% 0 0 Safety (Net) 58 7% 84 8% 0 0 Safely separates cyclists/pedestrians from road traffic 36 4% 39 4% 0 0 Will make the roads safer 21 2% 38 3% 0 0 Other positive safety mentions 2 0% 9 1% 0 0 15 Areas Affected (Net) 106 13% 163 % 0 0 Will have a positive impact on the local area (Dalston, Hackney, Millfields Park, Lea Bridge Road, 15 etc) 106 13% 163 % 0 308 39 People Who Benefit (Net) 313 37% 439 % 0 0

16 Q1 non- Q2 non- Campaign Campaign campaign campaign 1 2 respondents respondents Count % Count % Count Count Positive journey impacts (all road users, pedestrians, businesses, 39 cyclists, children/school runs, etc) 313 37% 439 % 0 0 Positive Miscellaneous (Net) 20 2% 17 2% 0 567 Like idea of new tree lined park 10 1% 4 0% 0 567 Other positive miscellaneous mentions 10 1% 15 1% 0 0 58 NEGATIVE (GRAND NET) 571 68% 641 % 313 567 11 Overall (Net) 128 15% 124 % 0 259 Generally opposed 13 2% 37 3% 0 0 Leave as is/No changes needed 45 5% 40 4% 0 0 Negative impacts outweigh positive impacts of proposal 2 0% 1 0% 0 259 Waste of money/will have no effect 71 8% 49 4% 0 259 33 Congestion (Net) 295 35% 366 % 313 567 Will increase journey times (any 14 form of transport) 96 11% 152 % 0 567 Will increase traffic on other streets 39 5% 58 5% 313 308 Will not improve traffic/congestion/ will not reduce 23 motor vehicle usage 241 29% 259 % 0 308 Other negative congestion mentions 0 0% 1 0% 0 0 11 Pollution (Net) 112 13% 117 % 313 567 Not good for the environment/ will 10 increase pollution 110 13% 116 % 313 567 Will increase/not help with noise levels 7 1% 5 0% 0 0 16 Effectiveness (Net) 203 24% 177 % 0 567 Cyclists do not use dedicated cycle lanes/not enough demand to implement 54 6% 36 3% 0 567 Cyclists will not use during inclement weather/rainy/cold seasons 6 1% 4 0% 0 567 Local community does not match cyclist profile (BAME, young, elderly, disabled, low income) 2 0% 0 0% 0 259

17 Q1 non- Q2 non- Campaign Campaign campaign campaign 1 2 respondents respondents Count % Count % Count Count Not good for public health 8 1% 5 0% 0 0 Road users will still disobey road laws (u-turns) 70 8% 51 5% 0 567 Will cause overtaking/reckless driving/tail-gating 11 1% 16 1% 0 308 Will increase stress/frustration 42 5% 36 3% 0 0 Will increase wait times at stop lights 5 1% 10 1% 0 259 Will not improve connections/commuting/direct links 25 3% 24 2% 0 259 Will not improve crossings/not easier to cross 16 2% 18 2% 0 0 Will not reduce/change road usage/mode of transport - unspecified 22 3% 5 0% 0 567 Will slow traffic down/too much 13 2% 18 2% 0 0 Women would not cycle/use cycle lanes (have buggies/shopping) 0 0% 0 0% 0 259 Other negative effectiveness mentions 8 1% 3 0% 0 0 Safety (Net) 65 8% 76 7% 313 567 Concerns about crime/bike theft 10 1% 8 1% 313 567 Roads will not be safer/will not safely separate cyclists, pedestrians and motorists 40 5% 47 4% 0 567 Will cause more accidents/fatalities 21 2% 22 2% 0 567 Will not be safe at night 5 1% 2 0% 313 0 Other negative safety mentions 3 0% 5 0% 0 0 27 Areas Affected (Net) 250 30% 298 % 313 567 Will have a negative impact on Clapton Village/ Clapton Road / Clapton (more traffic/usage) 8 1% 10 1% 0 0 Will have a negative impact on Chatsworth Road (blocking/no 16 left turn) 121 14% 180 % 0 259 Will have a negative impact on Cricketfield Road area (more traffic/usage) 6 1% 8 1% 0 0 Will have a negative impact on Dunlace Road (more traffic/usage) 6 1% 8 1% 0 0

18 Q1 non- Q2 non- Campaign Campaign campaign campaign 1 2 respondents respondents Count % Count % Count Count Will have a negative impact on Hackney Area (more traffic/less accessible/not fit with demographics) 23 3% 24 2% 0 567 Will have a negative impact on Homerton High Street (more traffic/usage) 22 3% 43 4% 0 0 Will have a negative impact on Lea Bridge Road (more 11 traffic/usage) 108 13% 127 % 313 0 Will have a negative impact on Lea Bridge Roundabout (Clapton Roundabout) (blocking/route changes/more traffic/worse than now) 54 6% 67 6% 0 567 Will have a negative impact on Leyton area (more traffic/usage) 13 2% 12 1% 0 0 Will have a negative impact on Lower Clapton Road/Area (blocking/more traffic) 36 4% 61 5% 0 0 Will have a negative impact on Millfields Park/Area (more usage/loss of green space) 26 3% 16 1% 0 0 Will have a negative impact on Powell Road (blocking exit/entrance at Kenninghall/Brooke Road) 23 3% 30 3% 0 567 Will have a negative impact on Powerscroft Road (more traffic/usage) 7 1% 14 1% 0 0 Will have a negative impact on Upper Clapton Road/Area (blocking/more traffic) 11 1% 10 1% 0 0 Will have a negative impact on Walthamstow area (more traffic/usage/less accessible) 19 2% 12 1% 0 0 Other negative areas affected mentions 24 3% 27 2% 0 0 11 Route Specifics (Net) 149 18% 122 % 313 567 Dislike relocation/loss of bus stop/route 47 6% 29 3% 0 567 Do not narrow road space/close roads/redirect traffic - unspecified 92 11% 84 8% 313 0 Do not narrow/reduce pavement/walk ways/paths 16 2% 4 0% 0 0

19 Q1 non- Q2 non- Campaign Campaign campaign campaign 1 2 respondents respondents Count % Count % Count Count Other negative route specifics mentions 11 1% 14 1% 0 0 30 People Who Suffer (Net) 326 39% 336 % 313 567 Negative impact for all journeys (unpleasant/not safer) 18 2% 35 3% 0 0 Negative impact for BAME community (increase in bus journey times) 0 0% 0 0% 0 259 Negative impact for businesses (deliveries/losing customers/money) 40 5% 46 4% 313 0 Negative impact for children/school runs (unpleasant/not safer) 43 5% 51 5% 0 567 Negative impact for cyclists/cycling (unpleasant/not encourage/not safer) 79 9% 62 6% 0 567 Negative impact for drivers/motorists (unpleasant/not safer) 49 6% 53 5% 313 0 Negative impact for emergency services/hospitals (unpleasant/not safer/takes longer/health impact) 31 4% 18 2% 0 0 Negative impact for local residents (unpleasant/not safer) 74 9% 95 9% 313 567 Negative impact for low income/disadvantage residents (unpleasant/not safer/not economical) 7 1% 2 0% 0 567 Negative impact for peak hour travel (unpleasant/not safer) 19 2% 23 2% 0 567 Negative impact for pedestrians/walking (unpleasant/not encourage/not safer) 83 10% 53 5% 0 308 Negative impact for people going to Madina Mosque/places of worship (will prevent attendance, parking restrictions) 23 3% 31 3% 313 259 Negative impact for people with disabilities (unpleasant/not safer) 42 5% 27 2% 313 567 Negative impact for public transport (unpleasant/not encourage/too slow) 78 9% 66 6% 0 567

20 Q1 non- Q2 non- Campaign Campaign campaign campaign 1 2 respondents respondents Count % Count % Count Count Negative impact for the elderly (unpleasant/not safer) 31 4% 20 2% 0 567 Negative impact for work commutes (unpleasant/not safer) 23 3% 24 2% 0 567 Rising prices for road users (insurance/childcare fees/taxes) 21 2% 17 2% 0 0 Other people who suffer mentions 4 0% 4 0% 0 0 14 Negative Miscellaneous (Net) 172 20% 158 % 313 567 Biased towards/only benefits cyclist 47 6% 29 3% 0 567 Disruption during construction/road work phase 13 2% 17 2% 0 0 Lack of contact/discussion from TfL (to Stakeholders/Mosques/Education facilities, etc) 3 0% 0 0% 0 259 Learn from past mistakes/how bad the last proposal turned out 32 4% 40 4% 313 259 Loss of parking spaces 27 3% 33 3% 313 567 Need more information (parking provision times, etc) 10 1% 9 1% 0 259 New cycle quality criteria/requirements not met 2 0% 1 0% 0 259 Poorly planned/poorly considered/not properly consulted schemes 80 9% 58 5% 0 567 Other negative miscellaneous mentions 19 2% 14 1% 0 0 15 NEUTRAL (GRAND NET) 123 15% 162 % 313 567 15 Suggestions For Change (Net) 123 15% 162 % 313 567 Cyclists should be licensed/insured/pay road taxes/obey laws 5 1% 5 0% 0 0 Should allocate funds to subsidise purchase of cycles for those that cannot afford 0 0% 1 0% 0 567 Should be promoting more use of electric/alternative fuel source vehicles 6 1% 5 0% 0 0 Should improve infrastructure/traffic system on other roads (e.g. Dunlace, 41 5% 60 5% 313 259

21 Q1 non- Q2 non- Campaign Campaign campaign campaign 1 2 respondents respondents Count % Count % Count Count Blurton, Elderfield, Rushmore) Should improve parking areas (for all forms of transport) 4 0% 4 0% 0 0 Should improve public transport instead (more bus lanes/bus technology/cheaper fares) 29 3% 32 3% 313 0 Should improve/add more pedestrian/walking lanes (footway surfacing/coloured tarmac/curb/crossing improvements/seating) 21 2% 27 2% 0 0 Should improve/add more segregated cycle lanes (single side of road in both directions/use bus lanes at specific times/more protection) 36 4% 46 4% 0 259 Should improve/add traffic lights/phasing/signage 15 2% 32 3% 0 0 Should improve/enforce speed restrictions (speed bumps/limits/cameras) 13 2% 7 1% 0 0 Other suggestions for change mentions 20 2% 30 3% 0 0

22