Proposals for Kew Bridge, Kew Bridge Road and Duke Road (Chiswick)

Consultation report July 2019

Contents

Executive summary ...... 4 Next steps ...... 4 1. About the proposals ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 Purpose ...... 5 2. About the consultation ...... 8 2.1 Purpose ...... 8 2.2 Potential outcomes ...... 8 2.3 Consultation history ...... 8 2.4 Who we consulted ...... 9 2.5 Dates and duration ...... 9 2.6 What we asked ...... 9 2.7 Methods of responding ...... 10 2.8 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 10 2.9 How we considered equalities in the consultation ...... 12 2.10 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 13 3. About the respondents ...... 14 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 14 3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 14 3.3 Methods of responding ...... 15 3.4 Respondents by postcodes and London Borough...... 16 3.5 Relationship between respondent and scheme area ...... 20 3.6 Modes of transport ...... 21 3.7 Quality of the consultation ...... 21 4 Summary of responses to open questions ...... 22 4.1 Comments on our proposals for Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road) ...... 22 4.2 Comments on our proposals for Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road ...... 23 4.3 Summary of stakeholder responses ...... 24 4.3.1 Politicians ...... 24

2

4.3.2 Transport and road user groups...... 31 4.3.3 Businesses and employers ...... 40 4.3.4 Local interest groups ...... 47 4.3.5 Schools ...... 55 5. Next steps ...... 56 Appendix A: Summary text of consultation proposals ...... 57 Appendix B: Consultation questions ...... 62 Appendix C: Consultation letters ...... 64 Appendix D: Consultation materials ...... 70 Appendix E: Stakeholders ...... 84 Appendix F: Detailed analysis of comments ...... 92 Detailed comments on our proposals for Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road) ...... 93 Detailed comments on our proposals for Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road...... 98 Comments on the quality of the consultation, the materials and the information provided ...... 106

3

Executive summary

We consulted on our proposals for Cycle Superhighway 9 in autumn 2017. We published our analysis of the responses and our responses to the issues raised at tfl.gov.uk/cs9 The scheme is an important part of the Mayor’s Healthy Streets Approach, which aims to make London greener, healthier and more pleasant through encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport. The feedback we received was valuable in helping us to further improve the scheme. Overall, we are progressing our plans for the scheme as outlined in the January 2019 Response to Issues Raised report.

In response to the feedback received, we carried out a further consultation on two parts of the route between 30 January and 26 February 2019:

 Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)  Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road

The further consultation asked for feedback on the proposals in these two areas from residents, businesses, employers, transport users and other relevant stakeholders. We publicised the consultation using leaflets distributed across a wide area, targeted email campaigns and via news stories in regional and local media.

This document explains the processes of the consultation, and provides an update on responses.

We received 1,491 responses to the consultation. 38 of the responses were from stakeholder groups, which comprised politicians, transport and road user groups, businesses and employers, local interest groups and schools. We have summarised the issues raised by these stakeholders in Appendix E. There were 12 campaign style responses from owners of properties at Kew Bridge, 8 Kew Bridge Road, these were broadly based on the response from the Key Bridge Owners Association. These have been included in the overall responses. Many of the responses provided detailed feedback which we analysed in depth to ensure we understood views raised on the scheme. Next steps

The feedback we received was valuable in helping us to further improve the scheme. We have produced a detailed Response to Issues Raised report available on our website tfl.gov.uk/kew-duke

4

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction

We consulted on our proposals for Cycle Superhighway 9 in autumn 2017. The route is an important part of the Mayor’s Healthy Streets Approach, which aims to make London greener, healthier and more pleasant through encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

We have published an analysis of the responses and our response to the issues raised here. The feedback we received was valuable in helping us to further improve the scheme.

In response to feedback received through the consultation, we carried out a further consultation on two parts of the route:

 Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)  Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road

1.2 Purpose

We wanted to hear views on the further proposals in these two areas.

Other than the two sections identified for further consultation, we will be progressing our plans for the route as outlined in the Response to Issues Raised report. No further consultation was planned on the proposals for the route except for the two parts of the route above. We will carry out local engagement on the rest of our proposals later in the process. We are intending to proceed with our proposals subject to formal approvals.

1.3 Detailed description

We published detailed proposals on our website at tfl.gov.uk/kew-duke. There, we provided an overview of the scheme, along with maps and a computer-generated image of the Kew Bridge junction showing how the junction would look if our proposals were implemented.

Our survey asked for comments about our proposals in the two areas.

The summary text of our consultation proposals is reproduced in Appendix A. The full consultation material (including section summaries, traffic impacts, maps and images) will remain available at tfl.gov.uk/kew-duke

Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)

The main change we are proposing is to provide a segregated two-way cycle track on the south side of Kew Bridge Road and South Circular Road. Previously we proposed with-flow segregated cycle tracks and a bus lane on Kew Bridge Road, the

5

South Circular and also between Wellesley Road and High Street Brentford (including Kew Bridge junction).

This change provides full segregation for cyclists throughout this section and removes the requirement for two bus stop bypasses we proposed on the north side of Kew Bridge Road. The change also addresses concerns raised about cycle safety at Kew Bridge junction, Green Dragon Lane and Lionel Road South.

We are also proposing a second southbound traffic lane on Kew Bridge to make the junction operate more effectively and to maintain bus journey times in the area.

In summary, our proposals for this section of the route include:

 A segregated two-way cycle track on the southern side of Kew Bridge Road and South Circular Road  Improved cyclist access between Capital Interchange Way and Wellesley Road  Improved pedestrian and cycle crossings at Kew Bridge junction  A new pedestrian crossing across Kew Bridge Road at High Street Brentford  Creating an additional southbound traffic lane on Kew Bridge  Changes to bus stops at Kew Bridge Station  Changes to bus lane operating hours reverting them back to the original hours of operation  Parking bays on South Circular relocated to accommodate the cycle track

Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road

The main change we are proposing is to ban the right turn out of Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road for all traffic (except cyclists) in response to safety concerns. Traffic would be able to use Annandale Road to exit east onto Chiswick High Road instead. We previously proposed to reduce Annandale Road from two lanes to one at its junction with Chiswick High Road. We are now proposing to keep two lanes on exit at this junction to facilitate traffic that may be redirected from Duke Road.

We are also proposing to maximise pavement space outside Our Lady of Grace and St Edward Church, in response to local concerns. This will require the reduction of eastbound traffic lanes on Chiswick High Road from two to one.

We proposed four additional pay and display bays on the west side of Duke’s Avenue. Following feedback from the consultation and our discussions with Our Lady of Grace and St Edward Church we are no longer proposing these bays and will instead retain the existing single yellow line as this will provide more opportunity for parking for Church services. Additionally, one proposed space on the eastern side of Duke Road opposite Bourne Place has been removed to ensure vehicles can exit this junction.

6

In summary, our proposals for this section of the route include:

 Duke’s Avenue converted to entry-only; Duke Road converted to exit-only with a banned right turn, addressing collisions involving vehicles turning at Duke Road  The eastbound approach to Duke’s Avenue would be reduced to one lane  Changes to parking and loading on Chiswick High Road, Duke’s Avenue and Duke Road  Maintaining pavement space outside the Catholic Church, extending pavement space elsewhere where possible and planting new trees

The segregated two-way cycle track on the southern side of Chiswick High Road has been retained.

7

2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose

The objectives of the consultation were:

 To give stakeholders and the public easily-understood information about the proposals and allow them to respond

 To understand any issues or impacts that might affect the proposals of which we were not previously aware

 To understand concerns and objections

 To allow respondents to make suggestions 2.2 Potential outcomes

The potential outcomes of this consultation are:

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the proposals in the two areas

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

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the proposals in the two areas. 2.3 Consultation history

We consulted in autumn 2017 on proposals for Cycle Superhighway 9 (CS9) from Kensington Olympia to Brentford town centre. An earlier consultation on measures to improve some of these streets have already taken place at Wellesley Road. Wellesley Road (traffic reduction) In summer 2016, the London Borough of Hounslow carried out a survey on traffic issues with residents and businesses in the Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gardens area. The responses received indicated high levels of concern at the volume of through traffic – 73 per cent responded that there is too much non-residential traffic in the area - and the impact of this on several issues including road safety, attractiveness of the road for walking and cycling and pollution. In late 2016, LB Hounslow consulted on proposals to reduce through traffic in the area. The majority of respondents (55 per cent) were in favour of a closure/no entry to restrict access, and closing access to the South Circular from Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gardens was the favoured change option (48 per cent, or 87 per cent of all responses in favour of change).

8

2.4 Who we consulted

We consulted the public, businesses and stakeholders in the London Borough of Hounslow, and neighbouring wards in Hammersmith & Fulham, Ealing and the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames.

We worked closely with LB Hounslow to ensure information about the consultation reached as wide an audience as possible.

 We delivered letters to local residents and businesses located on or close to the proposed route informing them about the consultation  To raise awareness among motorists, cyclists, bus users and other public transport users we emailed people who we knew used the route or lived nearby (identified from our customer database)  We sent emails to stakeholders likely to be interested in the proposals, including disability groups, organisations representing the elderly, transport user groups, businesses and major employers, trade organisations, statutory organisations, charities, local government, politicians, residents’ and tenants’ associations, amenity societies, healthcare providers, sports clubs and educational establishments, amongst others  We provided information about the proposals and the consultation via local and regional media

For a full list of the channels used, please go to Section 2.8 below.

Maps of the distribution areas for letters to local residents and a list of stakeholders can be found in Appendices C and E respectively. 2.5 Dates and duration

The consultation ran for four weeks from 30 January to 26 February 2019.

2.6 What we asked

We asked people to tell us what they thought both about the proposals in either or both of the two areas that were of interest to them, through two free text response boxes.

Respondents were also asked to submit their name, email address and postcode, along with information about their cycling and other travel habits.

A full list of questions asked as part of the consultation is available in appendix B.

9

2.7 Methods of responding

People were able to respond to the consultation by:  answering the questions in the survey on our consultation website at tfl.gov.uk/kew-duke  sending a letter to FREEPOST TfL CONSULTATIONS  emailing us at [email protected]  phoning our Customer Service Team. The team were briefed on CS9 to ensure they could answer questions and take responses. They forwarded any questions they were unable to answer to the Consultation Team for response  leaving comments and/or filling in questionnaires at one of the public drop-in sessions (or posting a questionnaire to the address above)

Foreign language translations, large print, Braille or audio versions of our consultation materials could be requested from our Customer Services Team.

2.8 Consultation materials and publicity

We used a range of channels to raise awareness of the consultation and ensure that members of the public and stakeholders were aware of its purposes.

All materials encouraged interested parties to visit our website or contact us to find out more about the scheme and how to respond.

2.8.1 Website The website tfl.gov.uk/kew-duke provided detailed information about the consultation, including overview maps, drawings and computer-generated images. It was divided into pages:  showing an overview of the scheme,  explaining the separate sections of the route,  giving in-depth information about journey impacts for motor traffic, pedestrians impacts and bus services.

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

2.8.2 Letters

Letters informing people about the consultation, accompanied by an overview map, were hand delivered to 6,892 residential and commercial addresses around Kew Bridge and to 6,033 addresses around Duke Road on 31 January 2019.

10

Copies of the letters and a map of the distribution area can be found in Appendix C.

2.8.3 Emails to public

We sent an email about the consultation to

 27,459 people around Duke Road: 25,027 who use our transport services in the area and 2,432 cyclists in the area  9,130 people around Kew Bridge: 8,567 who use our transport services in the area and 563 cyclists

The data for the distribution list was extracted from our master database of those who have registered their details with us – for example Oyster Card and Contactless customers, as well as road users such as Congestion Charge, Cycle Hire and registered Cyclists. The text of the email is reproduced in Appendix D.

2.8.4 Public drop-in events

During the consultation period we held two public drop-in events at times and locations designed to capture a broad audience of attendees. At each event, staff from TfL and LB Hounslow were available to answer questions.

Venue Date and time Wednesday 6 February 2019 Clayton Hotel, Chiswick 17:00 -21:00 Saturday 16 February 2019 Museum of Water and Steam, Brentford 11:00- 15:00

We estimate that approximately 220 people attended the Chiswick event and 120 people the Brentford event.

2.8.5 Press and media activity

A press release was distributed to local and regional media at the time the consultation launched.

2.8.6 Print and digital advertising

We advertised the consultation in local print newspapers appearing in the consultation area:

 Ealing Gazette  Richmond Twickenham Times

11

 The Chronicle & Informer (Hounslow)

A copy of the advertisements can be found in Appendix D.

2.8.7 Digital Advertising

We advertised the consultation digitally to mobile devices on 3/4G and WiFi (home and business) . Users could click through from the advertisement to find out more.

A copy of the advertisements can be found in Appendix D.

2.8.9 Social Media

Campaigns for and against the proposal used social media to highlight their views. These have not been included in consultation responses.

2.9 How we considered equalities in the consultation

We took steps to ensure that groups in the community, such as elderly, disabled or faith organisations were made aware of the proposals, their potential impacts and how to respond to the consultation. Measures taken included:  Identifying and emailing relevant stakeholders such as British Dyslexia Association, Age UK London, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Royal London Society of Blind Children, Action on Hearing Loss and Inclusion London, inviting them to respond to the consultation  Ensuring that the materials were written in plain English, and available on request in different formats (for example, Braille, large print, other languages)  Making sure that the two public events were held in accessible locations and at different times of the day and that large scale materials were available to review  Considering how best to reach our target audiences and tailoring the way of communicating with them. For example, by preparing hard copies of our online material for those not able to access our website  Sending copies of leaflets to local GP surgeries, libraries and places of workship

We are fully aware of our obligations under the Equality Act 2010, in particular the effect of the public sector equality duty on our decision-making. Some responses to consultation raised issues relating to equalities. We have produced a detailed Response to Issues Raised report which is available on our website tfl.gov.uk/kew-duke

12

2.10 Analysis of consultation responses

We commissioned Steer Davies Gleave (SDG) to analyse the consultation responses for the CS9 consultation in autumn 2017. For consistency of approach we commissioned SDG (who have changed their name to Steer) to analyse the further consultation responses for the two areas.

All closed questions were reviewed and the results tabulated and reported.

All open questions, where respondents provided comments on the overall scheme or parts of it, were analysed in detail. Each individual comment was attributed with one or more codes according to the issues raised. This information was also checked and verified by the TfL Consultation Team.

Where more than one response had been submitted from the same person, responses were combined before the data was analysed.

13

3. About the respondents

This chapter provides more information on respondents to this consultation, based on the information they provided to us in our questionnaire. For a full list of the consultation questions, see Appendix B. 3.1 Number of respondents

Once duplicate responses had been removed, there were 1,491 respondents. Duplicates can occur, for example, when the same person responds by email and online or when the same person responds twice online. When duplicates were identified, we combined the two responses. We processed 29 duplicates in this consultation. We also updated three responses where individuals asked us to add additional comments to their original responses.

Stakeholder responses are those submitted by individuals who identify themselves as representing political entities, organisations, businesses or campaign groups. Their responses are summarised in section 4.3.

Respondents Total Percentage Public responses 1,453 97% Stakeholder responses 38 3%

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation

We asked respondents to tell us how they heard about the consultation. A total of 1,290 (87 per cent of all respondents) provided an answer. Percentages are given as a proportion of the total number of respondents to this question.

14

Response Total Percentage

Received an email from TfL 387 26%

Received a letter from TfL 222 15%

Not Answered 221 15%

By word of mouth 130 9%

Read about it in the press 103 7%

Through a residents’ 93 6% group/forum/meeting

On social media like Twitter or 87 6% Facebook

Through a community 75 5% group/event/meeting

In a local newsletter (please say 74 5% which one below)

Saw it on the TfL website 17 1%

Saw a poster or banner or advert 16 1% about it

From local councillors 11 1%

Attended an event 10 1%

Saw the postcard about it 2 0%

From TfL on the street/in the station 1 0%

Other 41 3%

3.3 Methods of responding

We accepted responses via our online survey; directly by email to [email protected] or our Customer Services Team; and via letter or response form sent to our FREEPOST address.

15

Method of responding Total Percentage Website 1,284 86% Email, letters and paper response 207 14% forms

3.4 Respondents by postcodes and London Borough

Of the 1,491 respondents 1,262 (85 per cent of all respondents) gave their postcodes.

The tables below show respondents by twenty most frequently stated postcode districts and sectors.

Postcode district

Postcode Count Percentage Rank district W4 811 54% 1 TW8 108 7% 2 TW9 72 5% 3 W3 26 2% 4 W5 23 2% 5 W6 15 1% 6 TW7 11 1% 7 W13 9 1% 8 W7 8 1% 9 KT2 8 1% 9 SW19 8 1% 9 TW11 5 0% 12 SW15 5 0% 12 SW18 5 0% 12 W12 5 0% 12 TW1 5 0% 12 SE5 4 0% 17 SW13 4 0% 17 SW11 4 0% 17 SW16 4 0% 17 TW2 4 0% 17

16

Postcode sector

Postcode Count Percentage Rank sector W4 2 303 20% 1 W4 3 173 12% 2 W4 4 157 11% 3 W4 1 127 9% 4 TW8 0 73 5% 5 W4 5 51 3% 6 TW9 3 41 3% 7 TW8 8 22 1% 8 TW9 4 15 1% 9 W5 4 13 1% 10 TW9 2 13 1% 10 TW8 9 13 1% 10 W3 9 10 1% 13 W6 0 9 1% 14 W3 8 8 1% 15 W13 9 6 0% 16 W3 7 6 0% 16 W7 2 5 0% 18 W5 2 4 0% 19 TW7 6 4 0% 19 TW7 5 4 0% 19 KT2 5 4 0% 19

London Borough

The table below shows the postcode analysis by London borough (boroughs listed where there were more than twenty respondents).

Response Count Percentage Rank Hounslow 811 54% 1 Ealing 197 13% 2 Richmond Upon 97 7% 3 Thames Hammersmith & 22 1% 4 Fulham

17

Map showing location of respondents who commented about our proposals for Kew Bridge

18

Map showing location of respondents who commented about our proposals for Duke Road

19

3.5 Relationship between respondent and scheme area

We asked respondents to describe their relationship to the scheme area using the categories below, with respondents encouraged to tick one or more categories. 1,692 categories were provided by 1,303 respondents (87 per cent of all respondents). The table below shows a breakdown of these. Percentages are given as a proportion of the total number of respondents to the consultation (1,490).

Respondent type Count Percentage A local resident 1093 73% A visitor to the area 162 11% A commuter to the area 144 10% Employed locally 125 8% A local business owner 76 5% Not local but interested in the scheme 51 3% Other 36 2% A taxi/private hire vehicle driver 5 0% Total (multi-code) 1692 114% Total number of respondents 1491 100%

20

3.6 Modes of transport

We asked respondents to tell us what modes of transport they usually use to travel locally and to tick all options that apply. 1,288 respondents answered this question (86 per cent of all respondents), with a total of 3,082 modes recorded. Percentages are given as a proportion of the total number of respondents to the consultation (1,490).

Mode of travel Count Percentage Private car 905 61% Walk/wheelchair 871 58% Bus 848 57% Cycle 755 51% Tube 737 49% Train 416 28% Taxi 266 18% Motorcycle/powered two-wheeler 29 2% Van 22 1% Coach 7 0% Lorry 2 0% Total (multi-code) 3082 207% Total number of respondents 1491 100%

3.7 Quality of the consultation

We asked respondents to tell us what they thought of the quality of the consultation, for example the information we have provided, any printed material they have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire. Options to answer were: very good, good, acceptable, poor, very poor.

1,279 respondents answered this question (86% of all respondents). Percentages are given as a proportion of the total number of respondents to this question.

Response Count Percentage Very good 287 22% Good 346 27% Acceptable 313 24% Poor 165 13% Very poor 168 13% Total 1,279 100%

We asked respondents to provide comments on the quality of consultation. 437 respondents provided comments and appendix F includes a detailed analysis of these.

21

4 Summary of responses to open questions

4.1 Comments on our proposals for Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)

965 (65 per cent) respondents provided comments on our proposals for Chiswick High Road. The table below shows the ten most frequently raised issues in their responses. Detailed analysis of all open questions is contained in Appendix F.

Theme Issue Total General General comment in support of the scheme 236 Change in congestion Concern that proposals would increase congestion 234 Concern that the proposals would pose a safety risk to Safety cyclists 147 Concern that the proposals would pose a safety risk to Safety pedestrians 102 Safety Consider the proposals would improve safety 97 Environmental impacts Concern the proposals would worsen air quality 80 Impact on motorists Concern the proposals would make motor vehicle – local access journeys more difficult for local residents 66 Concern about the proposed shared use footway on the Cycle infrastructure east side of Kew Bridge 61

Cycle infrastructure Suggestion for segregated cycle lanes on Kew Bridge 60 Change in Concern that increased traffic from new developments congestion has not been considered in the proposals 58

22

4.2 Comments on our proposals for Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road

1,209 (81 per cent) respondents provided comments on our proposals for Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road. The table below shows the ten most frequently raised issues in their responses. Detailed analysis of all open questions is contained in Appendix F.

Theme Issue Total Change in congestion Concern that the proposals will increase congestion 893

General General comment in support of the scheme 246 Concern the proposals would pose a safety risk to Safety pedestrians 233 Existing congestion Concern about existing levels of congestion 220 Environmental impacts Concern the proposals would worsen air quality 217 General General comment opposing the proposals 167 Impact on motorists Concern roads would be too narrow for high volumes of – traffic capacity traffic 163 General – alternative route Suggestion for alternative route alignment along the A4 140 General – alternative Opposition to the cycle route being along Chiswick High route Road 123 Impact on motorists Concern that the proposals would make motor vehicle –local access journeys more difficult for local residents 110

23

4.3 Summary of stakeholder responses

This section provides summaries of the 38 responses we received from stakeholders. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes. As well as being summarised here, the stakeholder responses are included in the analysis of overall responses covered in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.

4.3.1 Politicians

Caroline Russell Green Party member of the Greater London Assembly

The Assembly Member said she welcomed the improvements on the original consulted scheme, with one exception outlined below. She considers the route to be a much-delayed cycle link that will provide safe and comfortable cycling along streets that are currently hostile for many to cycle on.

1. Kew Bridge Road (High Street, Brentford to Wellesley Road)

She welcomed the continuity in the separation of people cycling from vehicle traffic and pedestrians compared to the original proposals for Kew Bridge Road and Chiswick High Road, and likewise considered access into other existing elements of the cycle network such as that along the A4 via Capital Interchange Way has been improved.

She remained concerned that other links such as to Lionel Road South are non- existent and mean that the full potential of this cycle route will not be reached. She considered every opportunity should be taken to link a strategic cycle route like CS9 to local roads if the Mayor’s target of a cycle route within 400m of Londoners is to be meaningful, ie the target contained within Proposal 3 of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS). She considered TfL should not be delivering routes that retain severance that will exclude some Londoners from the network.

2. Kew Bridge

She considers the Kew Bridge proposals to be very disappointing, and found them hard to reconcile with the Mayor’s aim in his final Transport Strategy to reduce traffic. Providing an extra lane for vehicle traffic on Kew Bridge by reducing already meagre space for walking is inconsistent with this strategy and the Mayor’s targets for mode shift targets.

She noted that Kew Bridge is on an alignment highlighted as having high potential to get more people cycling in the Strategic Cycling Analysis of 2017. She considered TfL should be using all available resources and opportunities to deliver high quality and capacity links on bridges across the Thames, and would have expected to see a form of separated cycle track on this bridge rather than a minor increase to space for shared cycling on the footway.

24

She requested a trial of cycle tracks across the bridge to free up pavement space for pedestrians and bring forward the development of a high-quality north-south link onto Cycle Superhighway 9.

She considered the proposals should be implementing the MTS on streets like the South Circular and not be using proposals for walking and cycling to increase motor traffic capacity junction by junction.

3. Duke Road (Chiswick)

She welcomed the revised proposals for this section do more work to retain existing trees, being consistent with the MTS that reallocating space from motor traffic makes this work. In addition, she considered TfL’s work with Our Lady Grace & St Edward’s RC Church to address their concerns to be a welcome engagement with local needs.

She stated that the proposals within Chiswick show that TfL can balance the requirements of a strategic cycle route, local needs and access, and considered this approach should be reflected in other sections of this scheme.

Chiswick Liberal Democrats

The group reiterated their support for improving cycle provision on Chiswick High Road that supports cyclists, pedestrians, business and the most vulnerable. They welcomed the recognition of the need for proper pedestrian space on the High Road by retaining the path space outside Our Lady of Grace and St Edward Church.

However the group considered the resulting changes to Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road will cause significant issues that compound the concerns they outlined in their original submission, specifically:

• The change of Duke’s Avenue to entry only and Duke Road to left hand turn only will have the effect of increasing through traffic through the Glebe Estate to exit to the right via Annandale Road. The Glebe Estate has extremely narrow streets with no off-street parking. There is a significant risk this could increase congestion and idling in this residential area. Aside for inconvenience for residents of the Glebe Estate, there a risk of increased pollution in an area that is already stuck between two pollution hot spot (the High Road and the A4). Given the A4 in not included in the new Ultra-Low Emission Zone (which the Chiswick Liberal Democrats have campaigned for its inclusion) the group considered this is a very poor planning decision with real risk to people’s health. • The change of Duke’s Avenue to entry only and the reduction of the eastbound lane on Chiswick High Road before the Duke’s Avenue junction is a further significant risk to increase congestion. Whilst the entry only to Duke’s Avenue may reduce cars using Barrowgate Road as a cut through to the High Road eastbound, this in turn pushes more traffic to the High Road eastbound where the road has been narrowed. Conversely the change to Duke’s Avenue does nothing to stop the more significant cut through westbound through Barrowgate Road to skip the often considerable queues on

25

Sutton Court Road to access the A4 and Grove Park. The group considered the proposal is in danger of causing considerably more congestion, more pollution, with minimal benefit. • They are concerned about the bus stop bypass and the placement of the crossing. They considered its placement and the positions of pedestrian crossings across the High Road will mean that able-bodied people are unlikely to use it and cut across the cycle lane to get to it. Given that this is a two-way cycle lane, this puts both pedestrians and cyclists at increased risk of collision. In addition, the point where the crossing is placed is at the narrowest part of the pavement and given people with mobility issues, prams etc who require space will most likely to use the crossing this seems a poor design. The group considered this is a well-used bus stop and is the only one West Bound between Turnham Green and Fishers Lane. Given the reduction in frequency in services like the E3, which will result in larger groups waiting for buses they were concerned that provision within the plans is not fit for purpose.

The group considered that the issues above are in large part the application of an off carriageway two-way cycle lane in a ‘High Street’ (street type M2/P2) setting, in direct contradiction of TFL’s own Road Taskforce Planning Guidance. They considered the appropriate approach to be an on carriageway, segregated, one way with the flow of traffic. The group highlight the TfL response to the CS9 consultation where TfL have attempted to justify the two-way cycle lane claiming that the north of the High Road is used a lot more than the south and one way, with flow segregation will take up too much road space. The group considered there are several issues with using this as the main rationale: • TFL state that a two-way cycle lane is also better for a road that on one side has significantly fewer junctions. However TfL have chosen to build the two-way cycle lane on the side of Chiswick High Road with significantly more junctions. The issues with Duke’s Avenue and Duke Road are a clear demonstration of the flaw in this planning, with significant potential increased congestion. • They considered the analysis that TFL provided for use of the north verus south of the High Road is not clear. Between Linden Gardens and Annandale Road there are two south footpaths, the one used the most is offset behind the carpark. They suggested that this is significant because the argument against two-way cycle lanes is based on ‘desire lines’ and people wanting to cross the road in multiple places. They considered TFL need to make it clear and transparent whether they took account of the use of both footpaths between Linden Gardens and Annandale Road. • The group considered there has been limited transparency from TFL as to why they rejected the one way, with flow cycle lanes. They recognised the issue of relatively heavy traffic on the High Road, however given the clear issues with the two-way cycle lane on many important levels, they requested serious consideration for one way, segregated with flow cycle lanes for Chiswick High Road.

The group considered that in general, many of their concerns could be addressed with TFl publishing: • The design options and details related to one way, on carriage-way segregated cycle lanes for Chiswick • The EQIA for Chiswick to address their concerns relating to vulnerable groups • The modelling assumptions for the original and revised journey times (they note that journey times have reduced significantly post the consultation)

26

• Journey time modelling for the E3 and 272 bus routes, which they considered are vital routes for connecting the north and south parts of Chiswick with the High Road, and used by many vulnerable groups • The Healthy Streets Assessment for Chiswick

The group stated their intent is that the High Road is cleaner, safer and a pleasant place to be. They consider they need clarity from TfL that the proposed CS9 route will achieve these things, and they do not think that TfL have demonstrated this effectively. They stated they had serious concerns with the current approach and will continue to push for the right solution for Chiswick.

Hounslow Conservative Councillors Group

The group provided a combined response to the consultation by Cllrs Patrick Barr, Joanna Biddolph, Michael Denniss, Gabriella Giles, Ranjit Gill, Sam Hearn, Ron Mushiso, Gerald McGregor and John Todd. Their response was based on comments received from Chiswick residents, representatives of independent traders, discussions with TfL experts at one of the drop-in sessions, an extended phone conversation with TfL representatives and discussions with Hounslow Cycling.

Summary The group did not support the construction of CS9 for the reasons set out in their response to the original CS9 Consultation. They consider that the benefits of the scheme are overwhelmingly for “the few” – a relatively small group of commuter cyclists and not “the many” – the large number of other road users, pedestrians and cyclists making short local journeys. They considered “the many” who will suffer of course includes anyone who works or lives on Chiswick High Road and anyone who wishes to shop there and in neighbouring streets.

General The group had serious reservations about the proposals being consulted:

1. They considered the plans that TfL provided in support of the new consultation were inadequate, and that it was impossible to consider the new proposals without proper detailed drawings. 2. They considered Chiswick High Road to be one of London’s most polluted streets, acknowledged in TfL’s own report on CS9’s impact on air quality (March 2018). They stated that this report showed that the impact of implementing the scheme will have a negligible impact on air quality (e.g. NO2 and particulates). They considered it is totally unacceptable that an expenditure of £70m by TfL should result in absolutely no measurable improvement air quality. 3. The group considered that TfL has presented no evidence that it has carried out any detailed work on the economic impact of CS9 on the businesses based on and around Chiswick High Road. Independent traders have consistently told them that CS9 will damage their businesses. 4. They stated that TfL has maintained in public statements that cyclists will be attracted to shop on Chiswick High Road and that as a group they spend more per head than other road users. They considered that this is not true as TfL’s own research shows that spend per head by cyclists is amongst the lowest for all road users (TfL’s Town Centre Report – 2016 commissioned from consultants Accent)

27

and the BBC News story “East-West superhighway costs business £5.3m a year”. 5. The group considered that TfL have ignored the option of upgrading the cycle highway that already exists along the A4 to accommodate the needs of commuter cyclists who wish to avoid the “stop-start” experience of cycling on CS9 along Chiswick High Road.

Changes at Kew Bridge

1. The group highlighted that the Kew Bridge junction is a well-known bottleneck on the South/North Circular and a main transport artery for west London. They accepted that the narrowing of the pavement on Kew Bridge and the removal of the south bound cycle lane would help reduce congestion. However, they considered that TfL needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a comprehensive redesign of this complicated and congested junction. They highlighted that the opening of the new football stadium and the construction of over 900 housing units on Capital Interchange Way will at certain times make the situation much worse. 2. They considered that the Strand-on-the Green junction at the north end of Kew Bridge is and (under the proposals being consulted on) extremely unsatisfactory for all road users including cyclists. They felt that this would be the time for this junction to be substantially modified by for example the introduction of traffic lights, or an asymmetric crossing. 3. They stated that for both pedestrians and cyclists crossing the Kew Bridge junction is a matter of moving in stages across what is often a highly congested space. They felt that ideally the new junction design should ensure that it is possible for cyclists and pedestrians to be able to cross the junction in one manoeuvre. They broadly welcomed the widening and realignment of the pedestrian crossings at the Kew Bridge junction and the new crossing to Kew Bridge Station. 4. They considered the changes to the cycle crossings at the Capital Interchange Way junction to be beneficial. 5. They suggested that TfL should look again at the design of the Lionel Road South junction particularly the pedestrian crossing that is not working well (with the opening of the new football stadium this junction is critical). They also suggested that Lionel Road south must be reopened so that traffic heading for the A4/M4 can be removed from the Chiswick Roundabout bottleneck. 6. They felt that the proposed crossing between two-directional CS9 and Green Dragon Lane will be neither simple nor safe even for experienced cyclists. They mentioned that this is a route heavily used by school children, and it is vital that further options for improving the crossing are considered including alternative routes. 7. They noted that there are concerns that traffic turning left from Kew Road into Kew Bridge Road often cuts the corner. They suggest this will place cyclists travelling east along the proposed CS9 route at risk and it is not clear how this can be completely mitigated simply by well-designed traffic light sequencing (cyclists are often observed ignoring traffic lights). 8. They considered the blocking of access in and out of Stilehall Gardens and Wellesley Road is unnecessary and will cause severe problems to residents living in the Wellesley Road, Chiswick Village enclave and the neighboring streets. With both roads blocked they considered residents wishing to go south over Kew Bridge will be forced along Brooks Road (which is very narrow) and eventually on to Chiswick High Road adding to the congestion on this already highly congested road.

28

They suggested that TfL should consult on the possible introduction of a barrier controlled by an automatic vehicle registration number system that would allow residents with CPZ parkin permits to exit (and enter) via Stilehall Gardens.

They considered the separate TfL consultation process carried out on the proposal to close access to/from the two roads was deeply flawed – there was no “remain as we are option”. Residents deserve better and should not asked to “suffer for the benefit of the greater good” particularly when no such “greater good” exists.

Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road

1. The group did not support the proposal to ban right turns from Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road. They considered this would make life difficult for residents who live in the streets to the south of Chiswick High Road. 2. They considered (in the absence of a right turn at this junction) the proposal to direct traffic south on Duke Road (eventually to exit onto the High Road via Annandale Road), is highly impractical. They noted Duke Road is narrow and already difficult to drive down it. 3. They considered residents of Duke's Avenue, Barrowgate Road, Alwyn Avenue, Wavendon Avenue, Hadley Gardens need to be able to exit onto the High Road via Duke Road. The only alternative, Sutton Court Road, is very congested in the mornings, lunch times and evenings. 4. They highlighted that when the A4 is blocked or heavily congested traffic frequently heads north along Dukes Avenue. They considered that if this scheme is implemented there would be gridlock in the back streets of Chiswick on those occasions. 5. They noted that this junction is not a straightforward one for motor vehicles to negotiate north-south or south north, and that progress is complicated by vehicles joining the High Road and Fisher's Lane and traffic slowing down before the traffic lights at Duke's Avenue. 6. The group stated they would resist strongly the idea of a ban on vehicles turning right into Fisher’s lane from Chiswick High Road. They suggested the whole CS9 scheme is marred by its failure to consider the needs of any road user proceeding north-south or south-north. 7. They considered that the new scheme will encourage rat running from Chiswick High Road into Dukes Avenue, and that traffic cutting through the Glebe Estate to Annandale Road will increase which would be unacceptable to residents. 8. They noted that to avoid cutting into the pavement in front of the Catholic Church the new proposal is to push the westbound cycle route into Chiswick High Road and reduce the road at that point from a two lane to a single lane road. They considered that this will introduce further traffic congestion and delay into a scheme that already appreciably lengthens journey times for all road users and pedestrians apart from cyclists. They noted that the plan shows the cycle way swerving sharply to avoid a tree, and consider this would be unsafe for cyclists travelling on a two-directional cycle path. 9. The group considered that the proposed removal of existing bus lanes and the creation of floating bus stops are serious backward steps creating congestion and introducing new risks for pedestrians.

29

Overall CS9 Design

The group commented on the overall CS9 scheme, including:  it will not improve air quality on roads that are already heavily polluted  pedestrians will have to negotiate the additional hazard of a two-way cycle highway that will make key shopping areas much less attractive  the removal of dedicated bus routes will add to congestion and make journey times for most road users appreciably longer  increased congestion on Chiswick High Road may divert some traffic on to surrounding roads but mainly on to routes where the existing air quality is poor and traffic congestion is already a serious problem  the failure of the scheme to address the needs of road users travelling north- south or south-north is a fundamental flaw. The junctions at Hogarth Roundabout, Sutton Court Road and the A4, and Chiswick Roundabout are not fit for purpose and road users will suffer further if CS9 is implemented as proposed.

The group considered that the CS9 scheme should be withdrawn by TfL and that work should begin immediately on devising a scheme that makes the roads of Chiswick more accessible to cyclists, significantly reduces air pollution, and that fully supports Chiswick High Road’s central role as a retail hub and centre of employment.

Hounslow Green Party

The party stated it is very much in favour of CS9.

Kew Bridge

The party stated it is fundamentally very in favour of the proposals because of three main reasons:

 the proposals are in line with the Mayor's air quality improvement plans  the junction is already in need of work so may as well incorporate cycling routes  this an important junction for getting around between W4 and TW8 – a key point for CS9 to go through  support for full segregation for cyclists, as this makes the scheme more appealing to safety conscious and less confident cyclists

The party considered, however that the the approach from Strand-on-the-Green is very dangerous, and cars are always cutting each other up on the keep clear area. They suggested another set of lights there might make the area safer.

Duke Road

The party stated it is mostly very pleased with the changes, notably Duke Road being converted to exit-only with a banned right turn, addressing collisions involving vehicles turning at Duke Road. This would make the area much safer.

30

The party was critical, however of the proposal to maximise pavement space outside Our Lady of Grace and St Edward Church. They considered there is an entrance/exit on the side which is adequate for access and the congregation to meet and depart.

Ron Mushiso, Local Ward Councillor, Turnham Green

Kew Bridge

The councillor partly supported the proposals of Kew Bridge because it seems to have been simplified somewhat to make it easier for all road users to share the road.

He noted however how busy the junction is and was concerned at the blocking of the Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gardens with the North Circular and resulting bottle necks, particularly Oxford Road. The councillor suggested for both roads residents could be given a special key connected to a road bollard which only open exclusively for residents.

Duke Road

The councillor rejected the proposals for this area, as he did the previous proposals for Chiswick High Road. He considered that TfL is listening mainly to the cycling lobby rather than the residents who were overwhelming opposed to the proposals for the area. He suggested there should be more education for road users and pedestrians rather than coercing people to take up cycling.

Ranjit Gill, Local Ward Councillor, Turnham Green

The councillor suggested that TFL needs to consider in more detail the impact on traffic and pollution due to the diversion to Duke Road and surrounding roads.

He suggested that TfL carry out a trial run to assess the scheme and seek detailed responses from residents.

He considered that the two way cycle highway in itself is dangerous to cyclists. He considered in general that the overall proposals will be more dangerous for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians, and that the additional traffic lights and stops are not acceptable.

4.3.2 Transport and road user groups

Ealing Cycling Campaign

Kew Bridge

The group broadly supported the changes to the Kew Bridge junction part scheme, but with some caveats.

31

They welcomed reconfiguration to avoid merging cycling traffic with buses but noted that this comes at the cost of the connection from Green Dragon Lane onto the eastbound cycleway. They considered connections to orbital cycling routes are essential for the success of this scheme, and they hoped to see access on and off the route improved at Lionel Road South and Green Dragon Lane.

They welcomed the reintroduction of the signalled crossing from Wellesley Road to Capital Interchange Way.

The group considered the Wellesley Road junction needs to be engineered so that motor vehicles cannot gain unauthorised access to the A315 via the cycleway. They suggested that filtering measures used here must accommodate a wide variety of human-powered mobility aids such as long tandem bicycles, wide cargo tricycles, and the wide "sociable" two-seated tricycle employed by the Middlesex Association for the Blind.

They did not welcome the reduction of pedestrian and cycling space on Kew Bridge to make room for an extra carriageway lane and suggested this seems contradictory to the Mayor's Healthy Streets principles. They requested that the cycleway is extended across the bridge instead.

Duke Road

The organisation supported the proposals for Dukes Road.

Hounslow Cycling Campaign

Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road

The group supported the overall proposals subject to the comments below. They also supported the proposal to provide a segregated bi-directional track through this section instead of with-flow tracks and a bus lane.

They raised concerns that the informal crossing to/from the bi-directional CS9 to Green Dragon Lane will not be easy for inexperienced cyclists and suggested this be improved.

They highlighted that traffic turning left from Kew Road into Kew Bridge Road tends to cut the corner which is dangerous for eastbound cyclists and sequencing of the traffic lights should in practice ensure sufficient separation. They suggested that traffic light phasing should enable cyclists and pedestrians to cross Kew Bridge junction in on phase rather than as currently in short hops.

The group welcomed the broadening and realignment of pedestrian crossings at the

32

Kew Bridge junction and the new crossing to Kew Bridge Station.

They did not support the proposed narrowing of the western pavement over Kew Bridge and consequent banning of cyclists. They noted that the Kew Bridge junction has a tendency to gridlock due to tailbacks when southbound buses stop on Kew Bridge or vehicles from Strand-on-the Green block the southbound carriageway of Kew Road. They noted that TfL considers the frequency of gridlocks will become unacceptably high if the traffic light phasing is amended to accommodate the proposed route, and accepted that the extra southbound lane is a pragmatic short term solution. They suggested three main mitigation measures: the rationale for the design should be explained more clearly as part of the consultation response; TfL should consider improvements to the un-signalled junction across Strand-on-the Green at the north end of Kew Bridge as soon as possible: and TfL should ensure that the east to west crossings on the Kew Bridge approaches are very bike-friendly as cyclists travelling from Kew to Brentford will be tempted to use the narrow west pavement (illegally) or the vehicle carriageway to avoid crossing Kew Road twice.

They suggested that the Lionel Road South junction be improved by TfL and the Council.

The group is concerned at the potential risk of non-compliance with the banned turns at the end of Stile Hall Gardens and Wellesley Road, with gaps of no more than 1.5m to physically enforce the bans and suggested clear signage about the new access arrangements.

They noted that Marlborough Road, Burlington Road and Oxford Road North already experience some rat run traffic hacking between Sutton Court Road lights and the Chiswick Roundabout, and that this may increase as a result of the changes to Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gardens. They suggested that the Council considers a Liveable Neighbourhoods treatment (with coherent modal filtering) when time and resources allow.

Duke Road

The group supported the proposal to ban right turns from Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road and maximise pavement space around the Roman Catholic Church. They considered that the ban on right turns will significantly reduce the volume of rat run traffic using Barrowgate Road and Duke's Avenue to cut the corner from Sutton Court Road to Chiswick High Road. This will improve cyclist and pedestrian safety and improve the quality of life for local residents.

They are disappointed that there is little discouragement for rat run traffic turning from Chiswick High Road into Duke's Avenue. Traffic cutting through the Glebe Estate to Annandale Road may increase. They considered this could be addressed by a modal filter on Duke's Avenue just south of the Library. They suggested that the Council develops a Liveable Neighbourhood treatment (with coherent modal filtering) as soon as possible and also consider the feasibility of a “school streets” scheme for St Mary's Catholic Primary School and William Hogarth Primary School.

They highlighted that cyclists turning left onto CS9 from Duke's Avenue are expected

33

to go via Bourne Place and Duke Road. They suggested that it is likely that many cyclists won't make this diversion in practice, and there should be signage should encourage them to dismount where the pavement widens to protect them from oncoming vehicles and to protect pedestrians.

Safety at Duke Road is a concern for the group, even with the proposed reduction in traffic and the improvements under the scheme. They also suggested a ban on right turning vehicles (with the exception of the 272 bus) could be considered for Fisher’s Lane.

They noted that the design of the exit from Annandale Road will have to be tweaked as a consequence of the proposed changes to Duke Road. They suggested consideration should be given to the ease and safety of the bike crossing to Turnham Green Terrace.

Overall CS9 Design

In summary, the group considered that CS9 as proposed is true to the aim of making London's streets greener, healthier and more pleasant through encouragement of cycling.

They welcomed the intention to change the misleading branding of CS9 as a "cycle superhighway" as it will be a bike lane suitable for use by cyclists of all kinds. They considered TfL's design is (as it should be) a carefully devised compromise between the needs of all residents and users of the busy streets.

They stated that they look forward to TfL and LB Hounslow bringing forward plans to extend CS9 from Brentford to Hounslow and further routes to Heathrow and Feltham to benefit the west of the borough.

London Cycling Campaign

The campaign supported the proposals with caveats. The organisation considered the proposals represent further positive refinement of the plans for Cycle Superhighway CS9, solving specific issues and improving the scheme in these locations. However, the organisation had some remaining concerns and/or which are altered in these new proposals.

Kew Bridge

 The organisation considered Strand-on-the-Green to be an even bigger cause for concern with shared space/cycling on the western side of Kew Bridge, as more cyclists, travelling in both directions, are likely to be crossing this road. They considered the junction mouth is too wide. They suggested this should be narrowed, and access along Strand-on-the-Green to further destinations should be restricted or filtered in order to reduce turning movements at this location.  They stated that Lionel Road South remains a concern for pedestrians, and further work should be done to improve this crossing – ideally by removing through motor traffic from Lionel Road South.

34

 The organisation highlighted that it is important that physical filtering with 1.5m gaps from building line is used on Wellesley Road to ensure driver compliance with the scheme here.  They did not support the proposal to increase carriageway lanes on Kew Bridge is not welcome. They considered this risks increasing motor traffic capacity across the bridge and through the junction, when such capacity should be reducing. They highlighted the vital importance of dedicated cycling facilities on the bridge, as the bridge is on a high potential alignment highlighted in TfL’s Strategic Cycling Analysis and this potential cannot be fulfilled by shared space/use arrangements. They suggested trialling cycle tracks across the bridge to free up pavement space for pedestrians, instead of adding an extra lane of traffic.  The organisation stated that TfL’s Strategic Cycling Analysis highlights further links north and south from CS9 that these proposals do not enable or improve that should be considered – for instance Twickenham Road, Boston Manor Road, Gunnersbury Avenue and Turnham Green Terrace (into Bath Road).

Duke Road

 The organisation suggested that the proposals for Duke Road and Duke Avenue, as with other proposals for roads running between Chiswick High Road and the A,4 should be monitored and through motor traffic should be eliminated as far as possible with further filtering or amendments to the scheme where necessary.  They considered the new proposals will likely overall reduce traffic in this area by offering a less viable route between the two main roads. They also considered that simplifying the access arrangements for these roads should reduce the risk of turning collisions across the cycle track.

General points about infrastructure schemes

 The organisation noted that the Mayor‘s Transport Strategy relies on a growth in cycle trips to keep London moving. This means infrastructure schemes must be designed to accommodate growth in cycling. Providing space for cycling is a more efficient use of road space than providing space for driving private motor vehicles, particularly for journeys of 5km or less. In terms of providing maximum efficiency for space and energy use, walking, cycling, then public transport are key.

 They highlighted the success of recent Cycle Superhighways and mini-Holland projects mean people cycle when they feel safe. For cycling to become mainstream, a network of high-quality, direct routes separate from high volumes and/or speeds of motor vehicle traffic is required to/from all key destinations and residential areas in an area. Schemes should be planned, designed and implemented to maximise potential to increase journeys – with links to nearby amenities, residential centres, transport hubs considered from the outset.

 The organisation noted that spending money on cycling infrastructure has been shown to dramatically boost health outcomes in an area. Spending on cycling schemes outranks all other transport modes for return on investment according to a DfT study. A healthy street is one where people choose to cycle.

35

 They highlighted that all schemes should be designed to enable people of all ages and abilities to cycle, including disabled people.

 The organisation noted the evidence from TfL and from many schemes in London, the UK and worldwide shows the economic benefits, including to businesses, to be found from enabling a wider range of people to cycle more. Further evidence shows how cycling schemes also benefit air quality and reduce climate changing emissions, as well as improving resident health outcomes and reducing inactivity..

 The organisation noted that they want, as a condition of funding, all highway development designed to London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS), with a Cycling Level of Service (CLoS) rating of 70 or above, with all “critical issues” eliminated. Above 2,000 Passenger Car Unit (PCUs) motor vehicle movements per day, or 20mph moto traffic speeds, cycling should be separate from motor traffic.

London TravelWatch

Kew Bridge

The organisation considered the proposal will be complex for users. They noted the proposal includes bi-directional running for cycles. They considered there will be confusion for road users that will not be expecting cycles to be travelling in an unexpected direction. They suggested that cyclists making local journeys will have to dismount or get out on the lane to cross to local destinations and routes such as Green Dragon Lane.

They considered cycling across uncontrolled side roads will be problematical and may lead to conflicts with other road users. They also were unclear how cyclists would continue towards Chiswick Roundabout at Wellesley Road.

London United Busways

Kew Bridge

The organisation noted there is very limited road space at Kew Bridge and hope the proposals take this into consideration.

They sought clarity on how the new Brentford community stadium would impact the proposals and whether the increased footfall been taken into consideration with the traffic modelling.

The organisation welcomed the addition of an extra lane on Kew Bridge as this will improve traffic flow over the bridge. They questioned the introduction of a designated

36

right turn from the A205 into Kew Green on the southern side, as the traffic turning right is minimal, and considered this creates a bottle neck as drivers would think they are in the “wrong” lane.

They suggested that on the northern side traffic would improve with the introduction of a no right turn from Strand-on-the-Green as this very narrow back street is used to “rat run” around Chiswick High Rd and Gunnersbury roundabout.

They noted that bus stop K westbound on Chiswick High Rd has a double height kerb this would need to be addressed to make it DDA compliant. They stated that the bus lane times are 24/7 east-bound on Kew Bridge Rd and Chiswick High Rd (Capital Interchange Way) and they would like these to remain.

Duke Road

They considered the proposals for this junction are focussed on the needs for cyclists in an attempt to appease the Church on the corner of Duke’s Avenue. Road space would be taken away where buses and other traffic needs to be.

They considered that Chiswick High Street is quite constricted and the introduction of a designated left turn into Duke’s Avenue is not necessary as this is a back street into a residential area.

They welcomed the no right turn from Duke Road.

They stated they would like to see bus lane times along Chiswick High Rd 24/7 and include Sundays as the parking along this main road is problematic.

Richmond Cycling Campaign The organisation supported the provision of this mostly high quality cycle route, and welcomed the ambition it shows. They stated they were excited to be having proper cycling specific infrastructure so close to their borough, and hope to be able to see more in the area.

The organisation supported the points raised by Hounslow Cycling Campaign in their response around Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road, especially concerns around quick, safe crossings for those walking and cycling.

They stated they hope that TfL and the borough will be able to work together to bring a safe route all the way up Kew Road, and onto Kew Bridge. They highlighted the question of cyclist access across Kew Bridge, and hoped a solution can be found to the current less than helpful designs.

Road Haulage Association

The Association stated they will continue to work with authorities in London to promote safer roads for the benefit of all road users and pedestrians. However they

37

considered unacceptable the removal of one lane at any point on the CS9 route which will lead to increased journey times and result in higher pollution levels where this road width reduction takes place.

The Association stated they believe every journey matters for all road users and roads need to work well for all road users.

The Association noted that they responded to the previous consultation and highlighted their serious concern about the removal of carriageway lanes restricting motorised traffic flow. They expressed their concern about freight deliveries to both business and private homes, and considered that TfL have not addressed their concern over these deliveries, especially home deliveries.

They opposed the proposal to retain the existing footway width outside Our Lady of Grace and St Edward Church, by proposing to reduce the eastbound approach to the junction of Duke’s Avenue from two lanes to one to make space for the cycle track on the carriageway. They considered this will reduce available road space for motorised traffic and in turn will create congestion.

They noted that the proposals include reducing the length of the loading bay on the north side of Chiswick High Road west of Fishers Lane from 28 metres to 18 metres to reduce the impact on the footway. They opposed this as they considered this to be a substantial reduction in the loading bay and this will severely and adversely impact road freight deliveries to the many local shops and small businesses along this section of road and in the immediate vicinity. They suggested that road freight vehicles will have to circulate until space becomes available, creating traffic congestion and reducing air quality.

They suggested that failing to accommodate freight will undermine road safety and add unnecessary costs that will have to be met by the people and businesses of London. They highlighted that the road haulage sector will be required to grow to accommodate the additional trips required each day, and that road freight transport will be key to unlocking the potential of London and its growing population.

Sustrans

Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road

The organisation strongly supported the revision to the initial proposals to provide an entirely segregated route for cyclists through the junction, and for the closure of Stile Hall Gardens and Wellesley Road.

They stated that cyclists would be required to carry out multiple stage crossings of the road. They highlighted the importance of detection technology and signal phasing to be implemented to ensure minimal delay to cyclists using the route, and that journey times for cyclists should be quicker or equal to vehicle journey times (otherwise many cyclists will opt to use the main carriageway).

They were concerned about a number of aspects of the proposals. These included

38

the bi-directional cycle track on the south side of Kew Bridge Road, as the organisation prefer continuous segregated cycle tracks on both sides of the road.

They considered the proposals entail complicated, staggered, multi-stage crossings for pedestrians on a heavily trafficked and polluted road. They suggested signal phasings should minimise delays for pedestrians, particularly in the school peak, when school children will be using the junction and breathing polluted air. They were concerned about the removal of pedestrian crossing islands on Kew bridge road, thereby removing all crossing facilities (formal and informal) between the pedestrian crossing to the west of Kew Bridge Road, and the complicated crossings at the junction of Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road.

They were concerned at the small size of some of the waiting areas for cyclists making west-east and east-west movements, potentially accommodating very few cyclists which may be an issue at peak time. They considered any overspill of cyclists out of the waiting areas will increase the risk of collisions occurring between cyclists and vehicles, lead to non-compliance or act as a deterrent for cyclists from using the cycle tracks around the junction.

The organisation stated that the Advanced Stop Lines (ASL) on Kew Bridge Road outlined in the initial proposals appears to have been removed in the 2019 consultation. They requested that the ASL is reinstated.

They suggested that bus-lane operation times should be extended, prioritising bus travel time over private vehicles at all times of day and were concerned that the proposals revert to the original hours of operation (reversing the decision to extend operating hours as set out in the previous version of the designs).

They stated they were deeply concerned by the proposal to reduce footway width and accommodate an additional traffic lane on Kew Bridge. They believe that this contradicts the stated aims of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and of the Healthy Streets approach, and they strongly oppose this aspect of the designs in its current form. They understand that the aim is to minimise delay to bus users, but considered this should be addressed with the provision of priority bus lanes rather than by reducing travel time for all motorised vehicles (including private vehicle users).

They considered prohibiting cycling on the western footway of the bridge through the repurposing it as a pedestrian only space will reduce the convenience of cycling, lead to non-compliance or force cyclists into the main carriageway. They considered it is unrealistic to expect cyclists travelling from Kew Green (west) to Kew Bridge Road (west) to cross Kew Road twice. They considered the provision of four traffic lanes at the southern end of Kew Road will also increase the traffic dominance of the area, contributing to noise and air pollution.

Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue

The organisation supported the banning of the right turn from Duke Road onto the A315 Chiswick High Road. To maximise compliance with the new road layout, they

39

suggest the kerb line could be realigned to physically prevent vehicles from undertaking the right turn.

They supported the proposal for a widened footway outside Our Lady of Grace and St Edward Church, and would welcome a similar width further along Chiswick High Road. To minimise the impact of the reduction in traffic lanes on bus journey time, due to widened footways, they suggested a bus gate could be proposed at the signalised junction upstream (similar to that in operation at Angel Underground Station), ensuring buses are not held up by general traffic.

They welcomed the proposed reduction of car parking provision is welcome. They suggested that consideration should be given to providing cycle parking rather than car parking on the carriageway, particularly given the proximity to the High Street.

They opposed the proposal to revert back to plans to retain two lanes of traffic on Annandale Road to accommodate displaced traffic from Duke Road. They considered the reduction to one lane of traffic as outlined by the previous proposals will reduce crossing distance for pedestrians, enables the provision of cycle lanes on Annandale Road connecting to the segregated facility on Chiswick High Road and discourages the use of private vehicles, in line with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

They stated they were disappointed that while detailed modelling reports have been provided to quantify the impact of the proposals on bus and private vehicle journey times, no information or analysis has been provided regarding pedestrian and cyclist journey times, particularly through the staggered crossings and new junctions. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy clearly states that pedestrians are prioritised at the top of the transport mode hierarchy, and these proposals are an opportunity to reduce wait times at crossings and increase the convenience and appeal of walking.

They would strongly disapprove of any increases signal cycle times, pedestrian / cycle red time or overall pedestrian / cycle journey time through this area.

4.3.3 Businesses and employers

Active 360 (Kew Bridge based paddleboarding company)

Kew Bridge

The company considered the proposals to be a good improvement and noted that the area is at present traffic clogged and dangerous for cyclists.

Duke Road

The company considered the proposals to be an improvement.

Bedford Park Estates Ltd

Duke Road

40

The company commented on their client's shop property which is at the junction of Duke's Avenue and Chiswick High Road. They stated that this property has been empty for two years and considered that this is due to reduction of pavement on the High Road frontage planned by this scheme. They considered that there is a recommended minimum depth for pavements outside shops and the reduction planned outside this shop seems to contradict that depth.

The company were concerned that if the property ever finds a tenant the customers leaving the shop will be at great risk of being in danger of colliding with bicycles.

Da Vinci Properties Ltd

Da Vinci Properties Limited are the owners of apartment 102 Kew Bridge. They made comments which were similar to the Key Bridge Owners Association (see their response later in this section).

Devstars Ltd (Chiswick based web design company)

Kew Bridge

The company considered that this is a great proposal. They stated that this junction probably one of the most dangerous to navigate in London currently.

Duke Road

The company supported the proposals. They highlighted the positive element of the scheme that cyclists crossing a minor road (Dukes Road) will be treated equally and have priority when on the main road.

Esta Charkham Associates (acting representation agency based at British Grove)

The agency commented on the revised proposals for the CS9 scheme, rather than the proposals at Kew Bridge and Duke Road.

They were concerned the only access to British Grove will be from Goldhawk Road. They were therefore concerned over long waits at traffic signals, longer journeys to get into the street, increased congestion and pollution.

They highlighted that the only way out of British Grove will be straight ahead into Goldhawk Road, with no turning left into Chiswick High Road and that access from King Street will not be possible either.

They raised safety concerns that any trucks, refuse, recycling, food deliveries will have to navigate the narrow one way street at the bottom of the Grove in order to get out.

They felt that if the proposals go ahead there will be many drivers breaking the law by accessing British Grove from the other end for convenience and speed and this

41

will make a mockery of the one way system that currently exists on the second half of the street.

They highlighted that British Grove is a small street, however there are two nursery schools, one large architect studio and a world famous recording studio that brings many visitors every day.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)

Kew Bridge

GSK’s West London cycle user group consists of over 1000 members of staff and contractors. The company stated that it is supportive of CS9 as an important enhancement to the transport infrastructure of West London, that would help to provide a safe cycle route for their staff and visitors, and which would encourage people to commute in a healthier and more sustainable way.

The company highlighted however, that a number of their staff have raised concerns about the new plans in relation to the changes proposed for Kew Bridge itself, specifically the narrowing of pavements, removal of shared use facilities on the west side of the bridge, and the addition of an extra southbound traffic lane. They expressed concerns that these changes will make their journeys more dangerous, by reducing the space available to people who cycle, and forcing them into increased conflict either with pedestrians on a single side of the bridge, or with motor vehicles, which will now be four abreast, with little space remaining for vulnerable road users.

The company therefore stated that it could not support the new plans in relation to the changes proposed to Kew Bridge itself, as a result of the negative impact that these will have on cycle users who use this route already, and because they are likely to discourage others from cycling via the bridge in future.

Kew Bridge, at 8 Kew Bridge Road Residential block of flats – response by the Development Manager

The Manager considered that the introduction of a two-way cycle lane will cause vehicles entering and exiting the development difficulty, because currently the single cycle lane causes a hazard, and to introduce two way cycle traffic will increase the risk of someone being injured.

The Manager stated that the proposed bus stop on the development side of Kew Bridge Road will cause a vision reduction for vehicles exiting the development. It will mean an increased number of buses stopping at the one stop and the number of people waiting at the one stop will also increase, causing a denser crowd and reduction or possibly blocked vision of vehicles moving from the junction along Kew Bridge Road.

The Manager highlighted with the Brentford FC stadium being completed in 2020, with new residential developments being built, and increased traffic flow from Green

42

Dragon Lane, the whole area will become busier and considers that the proposals do not take this into account.

The Manager stated concerns for schoolchildren as a result of the proposals and considers that the proposals would mean some would cross the road via informal crossings, resulting in a risk of injuries.

Kew Bridge Owners Association

Kew Bridge

The Association represents over 140 owners through the Kew Bridge Owners Association (8 Kew Bridge Road). The Association had serious concerns about how the revised proposals would, if implemented, adversely affect them, their neighbours and other users of Kew Bridge Road/Kew Bridge.

They noted this area of Kew Bridge Road and around Kew Bridge is often extremely busy and congested and is a truly complicated traffic area and far from a low risk environment for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and other vehicular traffic. They also highlighted the heavily congested Chiswick roundabout and the congested roads leading from and to it which often cause backing up of traffic into and/or exacerbates the congestion problems in the area.

The Association highlighted further significant new developments including many multi-unit/ tower block residential developments – and not only those around the new Brentford FC stadium - are planned for or are under construction in this area. They considered that the long term impacts of these new developments on the consultation area do not appear to have been acknowledged by TFL in relation to the revised proposals. They considered that those long term impacts will reinforce the view that the CS9 revised proposals in relation to the consultation area are misconceived and raise too many issues regarding congestion, unacceptable air quality caused by that congestion, adverse impacts on the small businesses in the consultation area (difficulties regarding access and other adverse impacts arising from increased congestion).

They considered the risks to pedestrians and cyclists are likely to increase broadly in proportion to the increase in the scale of traffic movements and the volume of pedestrians and cyclists.

They are opposed that TfL still plans to bring CS9 through the area. They request that TfL reconsiders whether it has properly and fully assessed, against an appropriate and detailed evidence base, taken into account the impacts of the revised proposals, including those faced by local businesses. They considered TfL should take independent expert advice on all relevant traffic, health and safety, economic and environmental implications of the revised proposals for the consultation area.

The Association hope that a new, better and safer route for CS9 will emerge and will be adopted by TfL as a result of the responses to this consultation process and TfL's

43

proper consideration of all those responses. However if TfL decide to implement the revised proposals broadly in line with its plans set out in the consultation, the Association suggested detailed proposals to improve the design.

Kew Bridge Road has car parking for residents, business tenants and their respective visitors and contractors. The vehicular exit and entrance is on the south side of Kew Bridge Road approximately opposite the junction of Green Dragon Lane and Kew Bridge Road. The Association noted this is currently a very difficult and quite dangerous exit/entrance point - particularly for vehicles leaving the development and turning right out onto Kew Bridge Road (in the direction of Chiswick/Kew Bridge). This is because they currently have to navigate into the heavy traffic on Kew Bridge Road and also the additional traffic turning (in either direction) out of or into Green Dragon Lane. Sight lines are often obstructed by buses stopped at or approaching/leaving the bus stops to the right and sometimes by commercial vehicles near those bus stops and by the many pedestrians using the footpath. They also noted the "keep clear" signs on the north side of Kew Bridge Road opposite this entrance/exit from 8 Kew Bridge Road (which were intended to help such vehicles entering the traffic at that point) are often not honoured i.e. not kept clear because other vehicles using this four-way junction frequently stop in that space. The Association is concerned that if CS9 is built as now proposed, such vehicles turning right from this development would first have to cross the two-lane cycle super highway and then have to face up to the current challenges as described above (as exacerbated by the impacts of the new developments referred to above).

They requested consideration by TfL and London Borough of Hounslow to include in the plans some measures to significantly reduce the traffic using Green Dragon Lane; they state that this is a well-known and well used "rat run" and that "rat run" traffic is already putting significant additional pressure on what is a very congested and dangerous point on Kew Bridge Road. They also suggested including a pedestrian crossing nearer to this junction.

The Association highlight that vehicles arriving at 8 Kew Bridge from the direction of Chiswick or Kew Bridge and turning left into the property currently have to take care (e.g. in relation to pedestrians) when navigating around buses stopped at the two bus stops on the south side of Kew Bridge Road near this entrance/exit point. They were concerned that if CS9 is built as now proposed, those vehicles turning left into 8 Kew Bridge Road at that point would additionally face the challenge of moving around those stopped buses and turning across the proposed dual-direction cycle superhighway (cyclists using the route in the westerly direction would be hidden from view for the drivers of those vehicles behind such stopped buses) raising real safety concerns for such cyclists, for those turning vehicles and for pedestrians including those disembarking from those buses.

They suggested that the above challenges around the junction of Kew Bridge Road and Green Dragon Lane would be reduced by the re-positioning of the proposed signal controlled cycle crossing (currently planned to be built to the west of Heritage Walk) to a new position between Heritage Walk and Green Dragon Lane and for that crossing to also include pedestrians. They suggested that this would have several advantages: (a) it would provide "gaps" in traffic for the more efficient and safer operation of the four-way junction at Green Dragon Lane/Kew Bridge Road; and

44

(b) it would significantly reduce the obvious risks around pedestrians wanting to cross Kew Bridge Road in this area - particularly pedestrians wanting to get to the (proposed re-positioned) bus stops on either side of Kew Bridge Road.

The Association considered it is unrealistic to expect those pedestrians to use the pedestrian crossings near Kew Bridge/Kew Bridge Station. They highlighted that, currently, many pedestrians choose to cross Kew Bridge Road near the Green Dragon Lane junction (and not at the pedestrian crossing near Kew Bridge Station). They suggested that in the absence of a safer pedestrian crossing in this area, the revised proposals would not reduce the numbers of pedestrians crossing here as currently, with those numbers probably increased because of the proposed changes to the bus stops and the impacts on the numbers of pedestrians in the area associated with new developments.

The Association supports the additional traffic lane over Kew Bridge towards Kew. However, they consider the benefits to traffic flows would reduce proportionately at the point when those two lanes become one - so the longer those two lanes are maintained, the more benefit on traffic flows. They requested TfL to look again at maintaining those two lanes up to or towards the junction with Mortlake Road.

They are concerned that the two vehicle lanes eastbound at the Kew Bridge junction would, under the proposals, be reduced to one lane and to be shared with buses with implications for increased congestion. They requested that further consideration be given to maintaining the two vehicle lanes eastbound by using additional road space created by making the two-way cycle track on the south side of Chiswick High Road (leading up to the Kew Bridge Junction) a shared pedestrian and cycle route.

We received very similar responses from 12 owners of properties at 8 Kew Bridge based on the response from the Key Bridge Owners Association.

Ksubaka (retail technology company based in Turnham Green)

Kew Bridge

The company welcomed the proposals.

Duke Road

The company considered that, on balance, the proposals appear safer.

London & Quadrant

The organisation responded to the previous consultation stating the importance of improving transport infrastructure in the area and stating their support for the proposals.

They noted they have housing developments in the area under construction (Chiswick High Road) and planned (Citroen site). They stated these have been designed to encourage residents to adopt sustainable modes of transport such as

45

cycling. They consider the further proposals will improve cyclist access between Capital Interchange Way and Wellesley Road, increase overall safety for cyclists and encourage a greater number of residents to consider cycling. They asked for the proposals to be implemented as soon as possible.

Outsider Tart

Duke Road

The business opposed the proposals. They considered the proposals would cause tremendous disruption and significant traffic thus increasing pollution. They considered TfL has failed to address business parking especially for the evening economy, and that single yellow line parking has been eliminated yet no parking has been added to replace it.

Regatta Point directors (Residential Development Kew Bridge Road)

The company requested that either Wellesley Rd or Stilehall Gardens remains open for cars, due to the difficulties of travelling to Kew Bridge Road from Chiswick given the congestion at Chiswick Roundabout.

Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew

The organisation noted that a significant proportion of their visitors arrive at Kew Bridge Station, cross the A315 Kew Bridge Road and make their way to Kew via the western pavement of Kew Bridge.

They stated they welcome improvements to safety for cyclists in this area, however are concerned about the proposal to create a separate cycle path on Kew Bridge with a corresponding reduction in the width of the western pavement.

They noted many of their visitors arrive in groups. They considered having a wide pedestrian pavement is therefore required to safely accommodate the volume of pedestrian use and requested that it is retained.

The organisation highlighted that a wider pavement is also necessary to allow space for the bus stop at the southern end of the Kew Bridge so that visitors and others crossing Kew Bridge can get past, and were concerned the proposal to reduce the pavement width would mean insufficient space between the bus stop and the balustrade of the bridge.

SKY

The company stated they supported TfL’s plans for CS9. They highlighted their own commitment to cycling for employees and stated an even larger proportion of our

46

employees would cycle to work if they felt comfortable and safe on the roads.

As well as a cycle route connecting Hounslow to central London, they stated they would also like to see the original plan of extending the route to Hyde Park in the east, and Heathrow Airport in the west progressed.

Stone & Wood Gallery (flooring contractor based in Chiswick)

The company considered the cycle superhighway to be totally unnecessary and that it would cause untold disruption especially to businesses.

4.3.4 Local interest groups

Chiswick Village Community Group

Kew Bridge

The group stated that Chiswick Village has a total of 280 flats, equating to over 500 residents. They have the option of three exits from Chiswick Village - Wellesley Road heading east into Chiswick, Wellesley Road heading west to Brentford (these two exits via Brooks Road) and Stilehall Gardens heading east to Kew Bridge.

The group is opposed to the closure of the exit of Wellesley Rd East, and Stilehall Gardens East for a number of reasons: any journey to Kew Bridge from Chiswick Village would mean doubling back (going east on Wellesley Road) and going to the busy Chiswick roundabout; this would add not just time onto the journey, but pollution into the environment from being stuck in traffic.

They highlighted that there is an old peoples home on Brooks Road, and all ambulances need the quickest route to the nearest hospital (West Middlesex) which, at present, is down Stilehall Gardens. With the proposed changes this would mean doubling back up Wellesley Rd and then going via Chiswick roundabout, again adding valuable time onto their journey.

The group highlighted the development of the Brentford FC stadium and new housing developments near Chiswick roundabout completed which they consider will increase traffic around Chiswick roundabout significantly.

The group suggested camera’s at the end of both roads with number plate registration with bollards or barriers that raise and lower at the end of each road that have a pin code to exit. They suggested clear signs on Wellesley Road (at the end of Oxford Road North) that entry into that area is for residents and there are no exits from those Roads onto the A315. They also suggested traffic slowing is measured on Wellesley Road where the proposed ‘residents only’ sign would be.

47

Glebe Estate Residents' Association (GERA)

The association noted that in their previous consultation response, they expressed particular concern about the proposals to make Dukes Avenue one way south and Duke Road one way north at their northern end. They stated that they find the revised proposals, while helping the issues raised by the local Roman Catholic Church, are even more problematic for the residents of the approximately 500 homes on the Glebe Estate as well as those in its surrounding area.

They noted that the Glebe Estate is situated south of Chiswick High Road between Duke Road in the west and Devonshire Road in the east. The only points of direct access/egress to the estate from Chiswick High Road are a two way access in the west at Duke Road and southbound only access along Devonshire Road in the east. The eastern northbound exit is via Annandale Road outside the eastern boundary of the estate. In addition to its residential areas, the estate also includes two primary schools – The William Hogarth School and St Mary’s Catholic Primary School. These are accessed by vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.

Removal of right turn out of Duke Road

The association stated that the elimination of the right turn out of Duke Road will adversely affect the Glebe Estate to an even greater extent than the original proposals because all eastbound traffic from the estate will now only have the single option of taking a complicated journey along Glebe Street, Devonshire Road, Ingress Street and exiting via Annandale Road. They considered this route will be made even more congested by the traffic coming north up Dukes Avenue which wishes to travel east on the High Road. It will be unable to exit eastwards via Bourne Place and Duke Road to travel east along Chiswick High Road as was originally proposed.

The association raised a number of concerns regarding the new proposal:  lorries and heavy goods vehicles making deliveries to the eastern part of Chiswick High Road and coming from the A4 via Dukes Avenue will be forced along a convoluted route through the Glebe Estate  these vehicles would join the existing constant flow of vans and cars visiting the estate making similar trips and thus causing a significant imposition on this quiet residential area  any drivers unfamiliar with the area will struggle to find their way along this route without significant extra intrusive sign posting  the extra traffic will also increase the air pollution from traffic in this residential area to the detriment of the health of those who live in the area and those who study or work at the two schools located on the estate  congestion on the estate will be further increased on a weekly basis when rubbish and recycled materials are picked up. The collecting lorries block whole streets for 10 to 15 minutes at a time.  there will be considerable further strain placed on Duke Road southbound as the extra through traffic is added to the existing traffic entering the Glebe Estate through this narrow street with parking on both sides. The street has poor sight lines which exacerbates the problems of vehicles passing in a single traffic lane.  forcing increased and heavier traffic down this narrow street will cause much more “gridlocking” of traffic unable to move in either direction. This will affect the

48

residents of the area as well as both adults and children travelling to the two schools on the estate and will create increased dangers particularly to children using cycles and travelling on foot  it will impose a severe deterioration in the environment of the quiet and narrow residential streets of the estate.

The reduction of eastbound lanes at the Chiswick High Road – Dukes Avenue eastbound junction

The association considered the proposal to remove one of the eastbound lanes at the Chiswick High Road/Dukes Avenue junction, so that there is now only one lane here, will create further congestion on the High Road west of Dukes Avenue. They considered this is because the increased traffic resulting from the closure of Duke Road southbound will be using this junction together with existing flows wishing to travel south along Dukes Avenue to enter the Glebe Estate via Dukes Avenue and Bourne Place and Duke Road. They considered queuing of this right turning traffic in the High Road at this junction is inevitable, and will create chaos as traffic waiting to turn right into Dukes Avenue will block emergency vehicles, buses, lorries, vans, and cars trying to travel east along the High Road.

Traffic Study and Count

Members of the association carried out a traffic count on traffic flows at the peak hours of 0800- 0900 and 1600-1700 in Duke Road north of Glebe Street, Duke Road at the junction with Chiswick High Road (CHR), Dukes Avenue at the junction with Bourne Place, Dukes Avenue at the junction with CHR and Fisher’s Lane at the junction with CHR.

The association provided full details of their count to TfL. The conclusions were that the revised proposals have even worse effects on the Glebe Estate than the original ones to which they previously objected to. They estimated that the increase in traffic on Duke Road of 47% and in Bourne Place of 163% will cause regular instances of gridlock as well as a major ongoing long term disruption to the residents of the Glebe Estate. They considered that traffic forced through the Glebe Estate by the elimination of the of the right turn at the junction Duke Road and Chiswick High Road will cause further congestion throughout the northern part of the Estate and increased pollution in this residential area.

Revised proposals by the association

The association provided alternative proposals if the route has to run along Chiswick High Road at all. Their previous consultation submission suggested that the solution to the problems of the junctions of Chiswick High Road with Dukes Avenue, Duke Road and Fisher’s Lane was to leave traffic flows as they are and to install a further set of traffic lights at the Chiswick High Road/Duke Road/Fisher’s Lane junction. These lights could be either:

 in addition to those at the Dukes Avenue junction or

49

 could replace those at the Dukes Avenue junction or  the lights could be a single set controlling Chiswick High Road/Dukes Avenue/Duke Road/Fisher’s Lane junction

They suggested whichever of these options is considered, the lights should be arranged with separate phasing for Duke Road and Fisher’s Lane similar to the phasing of the lights at Annandale Road/Chiswick High Road/Turnham Green Terrace junction.

They suggested the Duke Road entrance should remain two way and this will require the abandonment of the redesign of the north end of Duke Road which, it is proposed will be narrowed to one lane, as well as abandoning the introduction of two new parking spaces on the east side of the street north of Bourne Place.

Similarly they suggested the Dukes Avenue junction should remain two lanes and two way. While this will reduce (but need not eliminate entirely) the extra paved area for the Church in Dukes Avenue, the now proposed changes retaining the existing pavement width fronting Chiswick High Road will ensure the external area outside the Church is not affected. No extra space is needed. The proposed removal of the parking bays from the west side of Dukes Avenue and the retention of the existing single yellow line will assist the Church with issues it has raised.

They consider that an extra set of traffic lights is a good solution to the problems at this location because 1. It eliminates the need to change the existing flows and thus puts no further pressure on the Glebe Estate by maintaining north and south flows in Duke Road and Dukes Avenue. 2. The current high levels of traffic exiting Fisher’s Lane to the Chiswick High Road requires the control brought by these new traffic lights. 3. It eases the flows of right turning traffic out of both Duke Road and Dukes Avenue without imposing on the Glebe Estate the adverse consequences of the new proposals. It also eliminates the existing conflicts caused by east and west turns out of Fisher’s Lane on to the High Road. These are not addressed in the revised proposals for the Cycle Highway scheme. 4. The proposed “KEEP CLEAR” markings in Chiswick High Road south of Fisher’s Lane and north of Duke Road will hinder the dangerous intermixing of traffic including the 272 and 440 buses turning out of Fisher’s Lane with the main westward flow. The proposed traffic lights relieve this problem. 5. It eliminates the problems caused by the cycle lane priority over traffic entering and leaving Duke Road which will result in tailbacks south in Duke Road and into Bourne Place. 6. It eases issues identified with the Annandale Road/Chiswick High Road junction as through traffic from Dukes Avenue will not have to be routed through the Glebe Estate. 7. Even if it is necessary to keep the Dukes Avenue traffic restricted to southbound only at its northern end, the installation of traffic lights will enable Duke Road to remain a two way entrance/exit to the estate with right and left hand turns into Chiswick High Road. While this will not alleviate the problems in Bourne Place (but see alternative proposal below concerning this), it will not require all traffic coming up Dukes Avenue and having to travel east to be forced though the Glebe Estate.

50

8. It will save the cost of remodelling the Duke Road/Chiswick High Road junction.

The association suggested other changes are needed in addition to their proposal for traffic lights. They noted the proposal for Chiswick High Road at the Dukes Avenue junction involves the removal of the existing traffic separation island immediately west of the junction. This will allow west going traffic to turn right into Clifton Gardens. They suggested that to avoid further problems in this congested area (which will be made worse by the narrowing of the High Road to one lane in each direction) this right turn movement should be prohibited. They also suggested that the extra parking position proposed on the west side of Duke Road immediately south of Bourne Place should not be created, to ensure the flow of traffic turning right out of Bourne Place into Duke Road southbound is not further obstructed. This flow will increase significantly if the revised proposals are implemented as explained above.

The association made three additional alternative proposals if their proposal for installing an extra set of traffic lights is not adopted:

1. They requested that all six parking spaces are removed from the south side of Bourne Place. This proposal combined with: a. the widening of Bourne Place at its eastern end where it joins Duke Road and b. their recommendation to remove the proposed new parking bay on the west side of Duke Road immediately south of Bourne Place will enable two lanes of traffic to travel along this narrow street to accommodate all the extra traffic that will be using this local service road. Lane markings should indicate that the right lane is for south bound traffic entering the Glebe Estate via Duke Road. The left hand lane should be indicated for traffic wishing to travel north along Duke Road to Chiswick High Road.

2. The exit from the A4 into Dukes Avenue should be closed to prevent the worst of the consequences of heavy goods traffic and other vehicles travelling though and impacting on the quiet residential areas of the Glebe Estate outlined above. If this is not possible, as a minimum, they requested that signage should be erected on the A4 east bound carriage way indicating that there is no through route along Duke’s Avenue to Chiswick High Road.

3. Action will be needed to adjust the traffic light phasing for traffic exiting Annandale Road into Chiswick High Road so that there is a longer green phase for this flow to allow for the extra load on this exit without causing prolonged backups down Annandale Road.

Resident opposed to GERA submission

We received a letter from a resident living in Duke Road stating that GERA is not a body that they recognise, or that they or their neighbours belong to, and disagreed with the GERA consultation response letter. They felt any increase in congestion in nearby streets is a necessary one to implement the CS9 scheme. They considered that in time, car drivers will not casually drive through the Glebe Estate using Glebe Street as a rat run if the route is not straight forward. They considered the whole

51

point of CS9 and similar initiatives is to get more people to walk and use bicycles, as a healthier option to driving their cars, especially for local trips.

They suggested there are other routes out of the Glebe Estate that GERA omits altogether, such as Duke Road/ Fraser Street/ Devonshire Road/ Ashbourne Grove. They stated that they do not need traffic lights at the junction of Duke Road and Chiswick High Road as the GERA letter suggests as there are already enough traffic lights in the area.

Kew Neighbourhood Association

The association is a charity connecting local volunteers with those needing practical help or companionship to maintain their independent lives in the community. They stated their comments are primarily from the pedestrian point of view.

Kew Bridge

They noted that Kew Bridge has always been problematic for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians particularly those who may be less mobile, in relation both to road crossings and to bus stop locations.

They highlighted that push buttons at traffic lights generally, and particularly at dedicated pedestrian crossings, too often have inappropriate delays: they should respond as soon as practical. They noted this is a major problem on the south end of Kew Bridge where pedestrians often stand exposed to the elements for minutes at a time (by contrast, traditional zebra crossings give pedestrians immediate right of way when they set foot on the crossing). They considered all crossings should be located as close as possible to where people want to go, at junctions rather than being set yards away.

They suggested bus stops should be located as close as possible to where people want to go, in particular: 1. stop W, for southbound 65 bus on A315 Kew Bridge Road should be moved east, closer to Kew Bridge station, not even further west as currently proposed; 2. stops T and S, for westbound 65, 391, 237 & 267 buses on A315 Kew Bridge Road should be moved east, closer to Kew Bridge station, not west as proposed; 3. stop H, for southbound 65 & 391 buses on Kew Bridge should be moved north, closer to Strand-on-the-Green junction and to Kew Bridge station (the proposed extra lane removes the problem of tailback, which was presumably the reason for the current inconvenience); 4. stop Z, for northbound 65 & 391 buses on Kew Bridge should be moved south, closer to Kew Green.

They welcomed the proposed second southbound traffic lane on Kew Bridge, to

52

ease congestion at the north end, provided there is proper marking of the merge point at the pedestrian crossing on Kew Green. However the association was concerned that the removal of the shared-use footway on the west side of the Kew Bridge will expose northbound cyclists to fast vehicles on the bridge. They suggested there could be retained existing shared use on the western and eastern footways.

Linden Gardens Residents Association

Duke Road

The Association strongly opposed the proposals.

They considered the left hand turn only out of Duke Road makes any easterly movement through Glebe Estate complicated and lengthy. They highlighted that these are very narrow, residential streets with two schools which would suffer from increased traffic flow and pollution.

They suggested that Duke Road should not be looked at in isolation from Fisher's Lane. The conflict will be relieved to some extent by the left hand turn only out of Duke Road but it does not resolve completely the traffic congestion as traffic from Fisher's Lane turns right. This will also be more difficult from either road because of a bi-directional cycle lane and the effect of the nearby bus stop forcing traffic out which will be extremely dangerous.

They stated that Dukes Avenue is a key junction on the Chiswick High Road and turning traffic into Bourne Place, a very narrow road, will inevitably create traffic congestion leading into Duke Road. They suggested traffic coming from the west will create congestion in Sutton Court Lane and nearby streets instead.

Overall they considered the proposals will lead to traffic congestion and pollution and and the more complex the movements, the more likelihood of accidents. They considered the loss of pavement width is unacceptable, and contrary to TfL’s aims of wanting to encourage walking as well as cycling.

Our Lady of Grace and St Edward's Catholic Church

Duke Road

The church stated that much of their community is grateful for TfL's revised proposal for the full retention of the footway space in front of the church.

The church expressed concern that with just one westbound lane on the High Road to accommodate the footway space, it would be difficult for any traffic (for example funeral vehicles or wedding vehicles, or even simply elderly or frail parishioners being dropped off for Sunday or weekday services) to stop on the High Road. Therefore the church supported the further revised proposal to retain a single yellow line on the western side of Duke's Avenue beside the church. They considered this

53

revised proposal to be essential vital to the long-term interests of the Catholic community. They felt that the previous proposal (in the form of four pay and display parking bays on the western side of Duke’s Avenue) would not allow the church to function. For example hearses and limousines would not be able to park given their length, and blue badge holders would find it difficult to park if all the bays were taken.

The church therefore emphasised the importance of the single yellow line on Duke’s Avenue to ensure the practice of the faith can continue without drastic hindrance.

The Kew Society

Kew Bridge

The Society expressed concern that the traffic blockage that will be alleviated at the Kew Bridge Road end by the additional southbound lane on Kew Bridge lane will be shifted to the Kew Green end, increasing already unlawful levels of air pollution through the effects of stationary traffic waiting to turn. They suggested this might be mitigated having a long right hand turn lane beginning mid-Bridge over the River, so that southbound traffic heading for Mortlake Road and Kew Road would be forced into the nearside lane over the river, well before the pedestrian lights, the right-hand turn and Kew Green. If traffic backs up, they considered this suggestion would mean air pollution would be dispersed over the river, and it would also mean there would not be a block to the forward movement of other vehicles whilst waiting for a gap in northbound traffic to turn right.

The Society also expressed concern that the western pavement is to be narrowed to 2 metres wide and made pedestrian only. They considered that northbound cyclists at Kew Green are unlikely to cross over from the western side of the roadway at the pedestrian traffic lights to access and use the shared footway on the eastern side of the bridge. They felt they may continue to use the western footway and, with the reduced width, this would increase safety concerns for the pedestrians on the narrowed footway. They suggested some form of cycle barrier at the south entrance to the western footway, which does not restrict pedestrians/pushchairs/wheelchairs etc.

W4 CS9 opposition group

Kew Bridge

The group considered closing the west end of Wellesley Rd to traffic will create chaos as (mostly commuters heading south of the river) hundreds of drivers will be forced to use Thames Road and the Strand-on-the-Green. They considered Kew Bridge junction would become even more dangerous.

Duke Road

54

The group considered making Dukes Avenue a one way southbound road will create havoc as all eastbound traffic off the A4/W4 will use Sutton Court Road to access east Chiswick.

4.3.5 Schools

Kew House School

Kew Bridge

The school considered that that Lionel Rd South should be access only and coupled with the same status for Capital Interchange Way. They stated they have noted a significant increase in the speed and volume of traffic using Capital Interchange Way as a short cut to the A4 passing the Kew House School at speed.

The school stated it supported all other modifications made.

St Mary’s Primary School, Chiswick

Duke Road

The school stated it was concerned about the impact of increased traffic and pollution that the Glebe Estate would experience should the proposals go ahead.

They were concerned any increase in traffic on small roads would have a considerable impact on the safety and health of young children and families walking to and from school. They requested that the impact on the wider community be given more consideration and the project not be handled purely to facilitate the flow of traffic.

55

5. Next steps

The feedback we received was valuable in helping us to further improve the scheme. We have produced a detailed Response to Issues Raised report available on our website tfl.gov.uk/kew-duke

56

Appendix A: Summary text of consultation proposals

We consulted on our proposals for Cycle Superhighway 9 in autumn 2017. The route is an important part of the Mayor’s Healthy Streets Approach, which aims to make London greener, healthier and more pleasant through encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

We have published an analysis of the responses and our response to the issues raised here. The feedback we received was valuable in helping us to further improve the scheme.

In response to feedback received through the consultation, we are now carrying out a further consultation on two parts of the route:

 Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)  Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road

We would like to hear your views on these further proposals. A map of the areas where we are carrying out further consultation can be found below.

Kew Bridge and Duke Road overview map (PDF 989KB)

Other than the two sections identified for further consultation, we will be progressing our plans for the route as outlined in the Response to Issues Raised report. No further consultation is planned on the proposals for the route except for the two parts of the route above. We will carry out local engagement on the rest of our proposals later in the process. We are intending to proceed with our proposals subject to formal approvals.

Following feedback from respondents and the Mayor’s announcement of a new brand for London’s growing network of high-quality cycle routes in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, this route will no longer be called a Cycle Superhighway. We will work closely with our borough partners on the most appropriate wayfinding for this scheme.

Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)

The main change we are proposing is to provide a segregated two-way cycle track on the south side of Kew Bridge Road and South Circular Road. Previously we proposed with-flow segregated cycle tracks and a bus lane on Kew Bridge Road, the South Circular and also between Wellesley Road and High Street Brentford (including Kew Bridge junction).

This change provides full segregation for cyclists throughout this section and removes the requirement for two bus stop bypasses we proposed on the north side of Kew Bridge Road. The change also addresses concerns raised about cycle safety at Kew Bridge junction, Green Dragon Lane and Lionel Road South.

57

We are also proposing a second southbound traffic lane on Kew Bridge to make the junction operate more effectively and to maintain bus journey times in the area.

In summary, our proposals for this section of the route include:

 A segregated two-way cycle track on the southern side of Kew Bridge Road and South Circular Road  Improved cyclist access between Capital Interchange Way and Wellesley Road  Improved pedestrian and cycle crossings at Kew Bridge junction  A new pedestrian crossing across Kew Bridge Road at High Street Brentford  Creating an additional southbound traffic lane on Kew Bridge  Changes to bus stops at Kew Bridge Station  Changes to bus lane operating hours reverting them back to the original hours of operation  Parking bays on South Circular relocated to accommodate the cycle track

Image of the proposals for the area

A map of the proposals for Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road to Wellesley Road can be found below.

Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road proposals map (PDF 2.35MB)

Appendix A - detailed information on these proposals (PDF 237KB)

The original proposals for this section can be found here

58

Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road

The main change we are proposing is to ban the right turn out of Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road for all traffic (except cyclists) in response to safety concerns. Traffic would be able to use Annandale Road to exit east onto Chiswick High Road instead. We previously proposed to reduce Annandale Road from two lanes to one at its junction with Chiswick High Road. We are now proposing to keep two lanes on exit at this junction to facilitate traffic that may be redirected from Duke Road.

We are also proposing to maximise pavement space outside Our Lady of Grace and St Edward Church, in response to local concerns. This will require the reduction of eastbound traffic lanes on Chiswick High Road from two to one.

We proposed four additional pay and display bays on the west side of Duke’s Avenue. Following feedback from the consultation and our discussions with Our Lady of Grace and St Edward Church we are no longer proposing these bays and will instead retain the existing single yellow line as this will provide more opportunity for parking for Church services. Additionally, one proposed space on the eastern side of Duke Road opposite Bourne Place has been removed to ensure vehicles can exit this junction.

In summary, our proposals for this section of the route include:

 Duke’s Avenue converted to entry-only; Duke Road converted to exit-only with a banned right turn, addressing collisions involving vehicles turning at Duke Road  The eastbound approach to Duke’s Avenue would be reduced to one lane  Changes to parking and loading on Chiswick High Road, Duke’s Avenue and Duke Road  Maintaining pavement space outside the Catholic Church, extending pavement space elsewhere where possible and planting new trees

The segregated two-way cycle track on the southern side of Chiswick High Road has been retained.

A map of the proposals for Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junction with Chiswick High Road can be found below.

Duke Road and Duke's Avenue proposals map (PDF 968 KB)

Appendix B - detailed information on these proposals (PDF 241KB)

The original proposals for this section can be found here

How would the proposals affect journey times?

We have carried out detailed traffic modelling on the proposals to understand how our proposals might affect journey times for general traffic, buses, cyclists and pedestrians.

59

Despite the sophistication of our traffic models, all traffic modelling is only ever indicative; it is intended to give an idea of where the impacts of changes in journeys are most likely to be felt. It assumes that drivers have perfect knowledge of the network and will always choose the quickest route available

We have undertaken traffic modelling on the proposed changes to the scheme, which has indicated the following:

Kew Bridge section

This section has undergone extensive design changes following feedback from the previous consultation, including concerns about the impact on journey times through the junction. The new design changes the ‘with flow’ cycle track into a bi-directional cycle track and provides additional capacity north and southbound on Kew Bridge. As a result, three approaches to the junction will have either an increase in green signal time or an increase in lane capacity, which leads to improved journey times on bus routes 237 and 391 in both directions and bus route 65 east bound compared to the previous designs. One approach to the junction will see a reduction in green signal time which as a consequence, has a minor negative impact on journey times for the 65 westbound bus route.

Duke’s Avenue section

The design changes at this location have been made to protect trees and retain footway space outside Our Lady of Grace and St Edward Church. There is no longer a right turn lane, but there is space in front of the stop line for up to two right turning vehicles without blocking vehicles travelling east, including buses. As the predicted traffic volumes are low, this junction is expected to operate effectively and the design change is predicted to have minimal impact on overall bus and traffic journey times.

Detailed results of our traffic modelling can be found below.

Traffic modelling results AM (PDF 186KB)

Traffic modelling results PM (PDF 185KB)

Equalities

We are subject to the general public sector equality duty set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires us to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations by reference to people with protected characteristics.

Our autumn 2017 consultation set out how we had due regard to the duty and can be found here.

We have updated our Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) for the proposed changes. The EqIA undertaken for this scheme shows positive impacts for black and ethnic minority groups, females, disabled cyclists, and cyclists under 25 and over 65 years of age. Positive impacts have also been identified for disabled pedestrians, as the

60

scheme proposes a number of improvements to pedestrian facilities including enhanced crossing facilities, increased pavement widths and new pedestrian crossings.

Some negative impacts have been identified where pavements are proposed to be cut back or shared use is proposed, however we have ensured that they are appropriate for number of pedestrians in the area and that they allow two wheelchair users to pass safely. Shared use areas would be provided only where there is sufficient space for pedestrian and cyclists. Some negative impacts have also been identified where we are proposing to install bus stop bypasses. We recently agreed therefore to include zebra crossings at all bus stop bypasses. The crossings would have tactile paving and would be raised to footway level to create a flush surface.

Public drop-in events and have your say

We will be holding public drop-in events at which staff involved in the project will be available to answer your questions:

 Wednesday 6 February 2019 (17:00 to 21:00), Clayton Hotel Chiswick, 626 Chiswick High Road, W4 5RY  Saturday 16 February 2019 (11:00 to 15:00), Museum of Water and Steam, Green Dragon Lane, Brentford, TW8 0EN

You can let us know your views on these proposals by taking part in our online survey below.

Have your say

We would like to know what you think about our proposals.

Please give us your views by completing the online survey below by Tuesday 26 February 2019.

Alternatively, you can:

 Email us at [email protected]  or write to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

You can also request paper copies of all the consultation materials and a response form by emailing [email protected], or writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS.

61

Appendix B: Consultation questions

1. Please let us have any comments on our proposals for Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)

Comments (open text box)

2. Please let us have any comments on our proposals for Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road.

Comments (open text box)

About you (all optional)

3. What is your name? 4. What is your email address? 5. Please provide us with your postcode 6. Are you? Please select all that apply (Options: Local resident/ Local business owner/ Employed locally/ Visitor to the area/ Commuter to the area/ Not local but interested in the scheme/ Taxi/private hire vehicle driver/ Other) 7. How do you travel through the area? Please select all that apply (Options: Private car/Taxi/ Van/ Lorry/ Bus/ Coach/ Cycle/ Walk/wheelchair/ Tube/ Train/Motorcycle/powered two-wheeler/ Other) 8. If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with a name 9. How did you find out about this consultation? 10. What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)

Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation material?

Equality monitoring (all optional)

11. Gender 12. Ethnic Group 13. Age 14. Sexual Orientation: 15. Faith 16. Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? (Please include problems related to old age)

62

17. If you answered yes to the above questions, please tell us which category best describes your disability of health problem.

63

Appendix C: Consultation letters

Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road) page 1

64

Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road) page 2

65

Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road page 1

66

Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road page 2

67

Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road page 3

68

Maps of distribution areas for consultation letters

Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)

Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road page 1

69

Appendix D: Consultation materials

Email to public

We sent emails to over 36,000 people who live or use TfL transport services locally including Oyster and Contactless customers, as well as road users such as Congestion Charge, Cycle Hire and registered Cyclists.

Example emails are shown below.

70

Email to Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)

Home Plan journey Status update Driving

Dear Test email recipient,

Have your say on our revised proposals for Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)

We want your views on proposals to improve facilities for cyclists and pedestrians at Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road).

Following our consultation for Cycle Superhighway 9 (CS9) from Kensington Olympia to Brentford town centre, in response to feedback received we are proposing further changes to this section of the route.

The revised proposals include a new segregated two-way cycle track on the southern side of Kew Bridge Road and South Circular Road, an additional southbound traffic lane on Kew Bridge, a new pedestrian crossing and changes to bus stops on Kew Bridge Road.

For full details and to share your views, please visit tfl.gov.uk/kew-duke

This consultation will run until 26 February 2019.

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Hardy Head of Programme Sponsorship

Email sign up Social Media Fares Maps

Copyright in the contents of this email and its attachments belongs to Transport for London. Any unauthorised usage w ill infringe that copyright. © Transport for London

These are our consultation email updates. If you no longer w ish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe.

71

Email to Duke Road

Home Plan journey Status update Driving

Dear Test email recipient,

Have your say on our revised proposals for Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road

We want your views on proposals to improve facilities for cyclists and pedestrians at Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road.

Following our consultation for Cycle Superhighway 9 (CS9) from Kensington Olympia to Brentford town centre, in response to feedback received, we are proposing further changes to this section of the route.

We proposed that Duke Road would be exit only, and we’re now also proposing a banned right turn onto Chiswick High Road, addressing collisions involving turning vehicles in this area. The eastbound approach to Duke’s Avenue junction would be reduced to one lane, to maximise pavement space outside Our L ady of Grace and St Edward Church.

For full details and to share your views, please visit tfl.gov.uk/kew-duke

This consultation will run until 26 February 2019.

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Hardy Head of Programme Sponsorship

Email sign up Social Media Fares Maps

Copyright in the contents of this email and its attachments belongs to Transport for London. Any unauthorised usage w ill infringe that copyright. © Transport for London

These are our consultation email updates. If you no longer w ish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe.

72

Press advertisement

73

Digital advertisements

We also advertised the consultation digitally locally on mobile devices.

Users could click through from the advertisement to find out more.

An example of how the advertisement looked on screen can be seen below

Banner advertisement

74

Consultation press release

This press release was published on 30 January 2019.

TfL moves forward with plans for major new cycle route in west London

30 January 2019 TfL is inviting the public to have their say on proposed improvements to the design at two locations along the route "I'm really pleased that the improved plans will deliver further improvements for walking and cycling, helping to reduce car use which is crucial to cleaning up London's toxic air" Will Norman London's Walking and Cycling Commissioner

TfL is moving forward with plans to start construction of a major new 7km cycle route later this year, which will transform roads between Kensington Olympia, Hammersmith and Brentford Town Centre - making walking and cycling safer and easier and making the local environment more attractive for residents and visitors.

A consultation on Cycle Superhighway 9 (CS9) in 2017 received more than 5,000 responses, with nearly 60% of respondents either supporting or strongly supporting the proposals and many saying the scheme would have a positive impact on cycling and walking in the area, as well as improving provision for buses.

Recent TfL research has highlighted the economic benefits of walking and cycling to town centres, with infrastructure improvements such as new cycle routes leading to increased retail spending of up to 30%. TfL has now published a report with its responses to issues raised during the consultation on CS9.

New designs

75

In response to this feedback, TfL has developed new designs along sections of the route, which address comments raised during the consultation. TfL is inviting people to have their say on new designs in two sections between:

 Kew Bridge/ Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)  Duke Road and Duke's Avenue on Chiswick High Road

At Kew Bridge and throughout Kew Bridge Road, the improved designs would provide two-way segregated cycle lanes on the south side of Kew Bridge Road and South Circular Road, rather than the partially segregated cycle tracks on both sides of the road that were proposed in the earlier consultation designs.

This change will ensure that people cycling are fully segregated from traffic throughout this section and it also removes the requirement for two bus stop bypasses on the north side of Kew Bridge Road.

The change also addresses concerns raised about cycle safety at Kew Bridge junction, Green Dragon Lane and Lionel Road South.

The new consultation will also propose a second southbound traffic lane on Kew Bridge to improve the efficiency of the Kew Bridge junction. In addition, the changes will make crossings wider and easier to use, with cyclists signalled separately from conflicting traffic at the Kew Bridge junction.

Benefits for cyclists

Along Chiswick High Road, the existing space for pedestrians on Duke's Avenue outside Our Lady of Grace and St Edward Church has been retained, whilst maintaining the proposed benefits for cyclists and the fully segregated cycle track, by removing the right turn lane into Duke's Avenue.

Banning the right turn for vehicles will also reduce the likelihood of collisions at this junction.

TfL continues to work with both Hounslow and Hammersmith and Fulham Councils to improve facilities for people walking and cycling across the boroughs.

In Hounslow, TfL is supporting the council in developing a range of measures to improve the local community, including improving pedestrian routes under Kew Bridge and improving air quality on Chiswick High Road through the Mayor's Low Emissions Bus Zone initiative.

76

TfL and Hammersmith and Fulham Council have also agreed to look into an opportunity to enable more people to cycle and walk safely along the A4, between Hammersmith Town Hall and the Hammersmith gyratory.

This is in addition to creating a new segregated two-way cycle route along the A315 and the improvements along the A4 represent additional investment and provide connections for people on bikes or on foot south of the gyratory and to Hammersmith Bridge.

TfL will continue to work with Hammersmith and Fulham on this opportunity to improve the local community for people walking and cycling.

Will Norman, London's Walking and Cycling Commissioner, said: 'I'm delighted that construction on this high-quality route will start later this year. We know there is a high demand for cycling in the area and these plans will make it safer and easier, opening it up to even more budding riders.

'I'm really pleased that the improved plans will deliver further improvements for walking and cycling, helping to reduce car use which is crucial to cleaning up London's toxic air.'

Growing cycle network

Ben Plowden, TfL's Director of Strategy and Network Development, said: 'This new route between Olympia, Hammersmith and Brentford is a hugely important addition to London's growing cycle network as part of the Mayor's Healthy Streets programme.

'The route will encourage even more people in west London to cycle and walk and help us to achieve the Mayor's Vision Zero goal of no deaths or serious injuries on the capital's streets.

'We will continue to work towards starting construction later this year to build on both boroughs' efforts to create healthy streets in this part of London.'

Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of Hounslow Council, said: 'Hounslow Council is committed to improving facilities for cyclists between our town centres which will help reduce collisions, improve air quality and encourage more physical activity which assists in reducing a number of health issues related to inactivity.

'This new cycle route could help us achieve that goal. We are encouraged that TfL has worked so hard to try and address issues with the original scheme raised by our residents in the first consultation.

77

'We urge people to engage again with this new consultation, the results from which the council will consider later in the year when we take a decision on this first phase of the route.'

Councillor Stephen Cowan, Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, said: 'We listened to residents and cyclists and have since worked very closely with TfL on their behalf to agree a safer cycle route along King Street for riders of all abilities.

'We also asked the borough's resident-led Independent Disabled People's Commission to review this scheme so it works for all. The improved cycle facilities alongside the A4 will be a much better fit for those riders who simply want to get from A to B as quickly and safely as possible.'

Michael Robinson, Co-ordinator, Hounslow Cycling Campaign, said: 'We welcome the new plans for this vital cycle route and are pleased that TfL has listened to local responses.

'The changes will help link the town centres of Chiswick and Brentford and rebalance their high streets away from motor vehicle traffic in favour of people walking and cycling.

'This will enhance the environment and improve safety for all. We hope that TfL and the London Boroughs of Hounslow, and Hammersmith and Fulham will proceed with these plans as soon as possible.

'We look forward to local people of all ages being able to benefit from healthier streets once this long overdue project is completed.'

Benefit the community

Fr Michael Dunne, Parish Priest at Our Lady of Grace and St Edward's Church in Chiswick, said: 'I can now endorse the TfL consultation process.

'TfL has listened to the church community and in their revising proposals for the cycle route made very significant changes conscientiously and adequately addressing concerns both for the safety of church-goers and other pedestrians and the impeding of the practice of the faith.

'If the cycle lane cannot be re-routed away from Chiswick High Road altogether, TfL has proved to me that engaging in the consultation brings changes which benefit the community.'

78

The consultation on the revised designs for two sections of the route is now open and will run until 26 February 2019. Responses can be submitted online at tfl.gov.uk/kew-duke, by post or by e-mail.

All responses to the improved designs will be listened to and responded to whilst TfL continues working towards construction on the rest of the cycle route.

Construction on the route is planned to start later in the year, subject to formal approvals by Hounslow and Hammersmith and Fulham councils, with the route expected to be complete in 2021.

Mayor's Cycle Action Plan

Construction work on another cycle route, between Tower Bridge and Greenwich, is set to begin this summer whilst construction work on routes between Camden and Tottenham Hale, and Hackney and the Isle of Dogs could also begin later in the year, subject to consultation.

In December 2018, the Mayor's Cycle Action Plan set out ambitious targets for bringing the capital's cycling network to even more Londoners and significantly increasing the number of cycle journeys made.

TfL and the Mayor committed to expanding the capital's cycle network at pace and increasing the proportion of Londoners who live within 400 metres of the cycling network to 28% by 2024, up from 9%.

By 2024, the plan aims for 1.3 million trips to be made by bike every day, up from 0.7 million in 2017. The Mayor's Transport Strategy target is for 80% of journeys to be made by walking, cycling and public transport by 2041.

Following the Mayor's Cycle Action Plan, TfL will begin using a single brand for all cycle routes from later this year, merging the two existing Cycle Superhighway and Quietway brands into a single system where a Pan-London network is delivered in line with new quality criteria, supported by simple, easy-to-use signs.

This comes after clear feedback from Londoners on the current brands, which can be misleading - especially for those new to cycling - and is in line with best practice from the world's top cities for cycling. The identity for the new network will be revealed over the coming months.

Liveable Neighbourhoods programme

79

TfL's plans for new routes follow a number of recently opened additions to London's cycle network. In September 2018, a major extension to a cycle route through the heart of the capital opened, connecting Elephant and Castle to King's Cross through key destinations in central London.

Other recently opened routes include a 12 km connection between Walthamstow and Bloomsbury, along with a route connecting Blackfriars and Tower Bridge Road in central London.

TfL is working with the boroughs to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport through its Liveable Neighbourhoods programme, which provides funding for a wide range of community-supported projects.

These could include the creation of green spaces, new cycling infrastructure, redesigned junctions and the widening of walking routes to improve access to local shops, businesses and public transport.

This follows on from TfL's funding to Enfield, Kingston and Waltham Forest to create a network of cycle routes and improve streets and public areas, which are nearing completion.

These schemes are driving significant increases in cycling in outer London, whilst improving health and local air quality.

Segregated cycle lanes on the A105 Green Lanes in Enfield have seen a 52% increase in cycling and research from Waltham Forest has shown that five year olds are predicted to live an extra six weeks longer, thanks to improvements in air quality.

Notes to editors

 TfL intends to proceed with its proposals subject to formal approvals by the London Boroughs of Hounslow and Hammersmith and Fulham ends

80

Consultation leaflets

Leaflets were distributed at public events, via face to face leafleting outside public events and copies were sent to GP surgeries, libraries and churches.

There were separate leaflets for Kew Bridge and Duke Road.

81

Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)

Side 1

Side 2

82

Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road

Side 1

Side 2

83

Appendix E: Stakeholders

Email sent to stakeholders

84

List of Stakeholders emailed and consulted

Couriers Association of Town Centre 92 Dental Management AA ATCoaches t/a Abbey Travel Abellio London Limited/ Abellio West BAA Heathrow London Limited Baker Street Quarter Access in London BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha Action Disability Kensington & Chelsea Barbed Ltd Action on Disability Barnes Hospital Action on Disability and Work UK Bathrooms etc ltd Action on Hearing Loss BBC Active360 Bedford Park Estates Acton Lane Medical Centre Bedford Park Society Age UK Bedford Park Surgery Alive in Space Landscape and Urban Belmont Primary School Design Studio Best Bike Training /Cycletastic All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group Better Bankside BID Alliance Healthcare bhs bikeability Alliance of British Drivers Bidvest Logistics Alzheimer's Society bikeXcite Anderson Travel Ltd Blue Triangle Buses Limited / Andrew Slaughter MP Docklands Buses Limited / London Angel Central Bus Company Limited / Ann Frye London General Transport Services Anxiety Alliance Limited / Metrobus Limited Anxiety UK Bookcase London Argos Borough Cycling Officers Group Argyll & Glyn Co-operative Ltd - Boulis Dentist Centre Housing Assoc Brackenbury Residents Association Arlington Park Mansions Ltd Brains Trust Arriva London North Limited/ Arriva Brakes Group London South Limited/ Arriva Kent Branemark London Thameside/ TGM Group Limited/ Breakspears Road Project Arriva The Shires Ltd Arrow Electrical Brent Community Transport AS Watson (Health and Beauty UK) Brent Cyclists ASD Properties UK Brent Safer Transport Team Asda Brentford Chamber of Commerce Brentford Community Council Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Brentford Dock Council Tenants Aspire Association Association of British Drivers Brentford FC Association of Car Fleet Operators Brentford Towers Residents Association of International & Express Association

85

Brewers Decorator Centres Chiswick High Road Action Group Brewery Logistics Group Chiswick Horticultural Society Brewing, Food & Beverage Industry Chiswick House and Gardens Trust Suppliers Association Chiswick Protection Group British Airways Chiswick Protection Society British Association of Removers Chiswick Quay Freeholds Limited British Beer & Pub Association Contact British Cycling Chiswick Smiles Advanced Aesthetic British Dyslexia Association Dentistry British Grove Group Chiswick Village (Residents Group) British Land Chiswick W4 Forum British Medical Association City Bikes British Motorcycle Federation City of London Access Group BT CitySprint C T Plus C I C Clarke Associates Cambridge Grove and Leamore Street Clear Channel UK Residents Association Cllr Alexander Ehmann Campaign for Better Transport Cllr Asif Siddique Campbell's Cllr Bora Kwon Canal & River Trust Cllr Corinna Smart Capital City School Sport Partnership Cllr Elizabeth Campbell Carers First Cllr Gabriella Giles Carers Information Service Cllr Gareth Richards Caroline Pidgeon AM Cllr Gerald McGregor Caroline Russell AM Cllr Graham Henson Carousel Cllr Guy Lambert Cassel Hospital Cllr Hanif Khan CBI Cllr Iain Cassidy Cemex Cllr Ian Craigie Central Ealing Neighbourhood Forum Cllr J-F Burford Central London CTC Cllr Joanna Biddolph Central London Forward Cllr John Todd Central London Freight Quality Cllr Jonathan Caleb-Landy Partnership Cllr Julian Bell Chairman - Pocklington Lodge TA Cllr Keith Burrows Charing Cross Hospital Cllr Lotte Campanale Chartered Institute of Logistics and Cllr Mel Collins Transport Cllr Michael Denniss Chauffeur and Executive Association Cllr Mike Sabiers Chiswick & Bedford Park Preparatory Cllr Muhammed Butt School Cllr Patricia Quigley Chiswick Buzz Cllr Patrick Barr Chiswick Dental Cllr PJ Murphy Chiswick Family Doctors Practice Cllr Ranjit Gill Chiswick Family Practice Cllr Ray Puddifoot

86

Cllr Ron Mushiso DPD Group UK Cllr Sam Hearn DPTAC Cllr Shama Tatler Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency Cllr Stephen Cowan (DVLA) Cllr Steve Curran Dukes Meadow Trust Cllr Varsha Parmar Ealing Broadway BID Cllr Wesley Harcourt Ealing Civic Society Cllr William Pascall Ealing Community Transport Computer Cab Ealing Passenger Transport Users' Confederation of Passenger Transport Group Connect Ealing Safer Transport Team Co-op East Chiswick Residents Association Cross River Partnership East Surrey Rural Transport Partnership t/a Polestar Travel CTC Eco Cycle CVU EDF Energy Cycle Confidence Ehlers Danlos Support UK Cycle delik Ltd ELB Partners Cycle Experience Ellesmere Residents Association Cycle Systems Emma Dent Coad MP Cycle Training UK Enfield Community Transport Cyclehoop English Heritage Cyclelyn Enjoy Work Chiswick Business Park Cycle-wise Thames Valley Ensignbus Cycling Embassy of Great Britain Epsom Coaches / Quality Line Cycling4all Euromix Concrete Cyclists in the City Evolution Cycle Training David Kurten AM Federation of Wholesale Distributors Dental Kids Ferry Quays Residents Association Dentart London Flora Gardens Primary School Department for Transport Florence Eshalomi AM Design for London Foster Books Devstars Ltd Fowler Welch DHL Freight Transport Association Dial-a-Cab Friends of Capital Transport Digby Mansions Residents Association Friends Of Chiswick House Ltd. Disability Alliance Friends of Stile Hall Disability Network Hounslow Friends of the Earth Disability Rights UK Future Inclusion Disabled Go Gareth Bacon AM Disabled Persons Transport Advisory GBM Drivers Committee GeoPost UK Dogs for Good GLA Strategy Access Panel members Dogtown Ltd GlaxoSmithKline Douglas Rackley & Partners Glebe Estate Residents Association

87

Glebe Street Surgery HR Richmond Ltd t/a Quality Line, Gnewt Cargo ICE -London Goat Wharf & Ferry Lane Residents Inclusion London Association Independent Disability Advisory Group Golden Tours (Transport) Ltd Institute for Sustainability Greater London Authority Institute of Advanced Motorists Greater London Forum for Older Institute Of Couriers People Institute of Directors Greater London Forum for the Elderly Institution of Civil Engineers Grove House Residents Association James Bikeability Grove Park Group JFS School Brent Grove Park Group Residents Joanne McCartney AM Association John Betts Primary School Grove Park Residents Association John Lewis Partnership Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Joint Committee on Mobility for Gunnersbury Station Action Group Disabled People HA Boyse and Son Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind Hammersmith & Fulham Safer and Partially Sighted People Transport Team Joint Mobility Unit Hammersmith Broadway Safer Keith Prince AM Neighbourhood Panel Kelly Group Hammersmith Grove Residents Association Kensington & Chelsea Safer Transport Hammersmith London Team Kew Bridge News Hammersmith Mall Residents Association Kew Bridge Owners Association Hammersmith Surgery Kew House School Harrow Association for Disabled Kew Residents Association People Kew Riverside Residents Association Harrow Community Transport Kew Society Harrow Passenger Transport Users Kew Traders Association Association KIPPA Harrow Safer Transport Team L & Q Group Hatton Gardens Latymer Upper School Health Poverty Action Latymer Upper School and West Healthy London Partnership London Free School Prevention Team Lausten Lehrmann Hearing Dogs UK Le Hérisson School Heathrow Airport Consultative Learning Disabled service User Committee Leonard Cheshire Disability Heathrow Airport Limited Licenced Private Hire Car Association Hillingdon Safer Transport Team Licenced Taxi Drivers Association Holland Gardens Residents Living Streets Community London Ambulance Service Holy Trinity Hounslow London Association of Funeral Hounslow Chamber of Commerce Directors Hounslow Safer Transport Team

88

London Bike Hub Lupus UK London Borough of Brent Lyric Hammersmith London Borough of Ealing Make it Ealing (BID) London Borough of Hammersmith & Marks & Spencer Fulham Martin-Brower UK London Borough of Harrow McNicholas London Borough of Hillingdon Medway Estate Residents' Forum London Borough of Hounslow Mencap London Cab Drivers Club Metroline Ltd London Chamber of Commerce and Metroline Travel Limited/ Metroline Industry West Limited London Councils Metropolitan Police London Cycling Campaign Metropolitan Police - Community London Cycling Campaign (Brent) Police London Cycling Campaign (Ealing) Metropolitan Police - Road Safety London Cycling Campaign Engineering Unit (Hammersmith and Fulham) Metropolitan Police Heathrow Airport London Cycling Campaign (Hillingdon) MI6 London Cycling Campaign (Hounslow) Middlesex Association for the Blind London Cycling Campaign MIND (Kensington and Chelsea) Mission Hall Community Group London Cycling Campaign (Richmond) MITIE London European Partnership for Mobile Cycle Training Service Transport Mode Transport London Fire Brigade Mornington Avenue Mansions London First Freehold Limited London Forum of Amenity and Civic Motorcycle Action Group Societies Motorcycle Industry Association London General MS Society London Gypsies & Travellers Nadine Baggott The Beauty Know It All London Living Streets National Autistic Society London Older People's Strategy Group National Express Ltd London Omnibus Traction Society National Grid London Private Hire Board National Motorcycle Council London Region National Pensioners Navin Shah AM Convention New West End Company London Riverside NHS Ambulance Services - West London Strategic Health Authority London London Suburban Taxi-drivers' NHS Care Commissioning Group Coalition (CCG) London Travel Watch NHS London London United Busways Ltd, Nick Hurd MP London Visual Impairment Forum No Panic London Wildlfe Trust North West London Hospitals NHS Look Ahead Trust Loomis UK Norwood Green Residents'

89

Association RMT London Taxi NOW Comms RMT Union Nutmeg RNIB Ocean Youth Connexions Road Danger Reduction Forum Office Depot Road Haulage Association Olympia London Roadpeace On Your Bike Cycle Training Royal Borough of Kensington & Orchard House School Chelsea Organisation of Blind Afro Caribbeans Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia Osterley and Wkye Green Residents's Cultural Bureau in London Association Royal Institute of British Architects Our Lady of Grace & St Edward's Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors church Royal London Society for Blind People Outsider Tart Royal Mail Paddington Now (BID) Royal Mail Parcel Force Pan-London Dementia Alliance Royal Parks Parkinson's UK Royal London Society of Blind Parliamentary Advisory Council for Children Transport Safety Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) Pascall + Watson Ltd Ruth Cadbury MP Philip Kemp Cycle Training Saferoading Ltd Pimlico FREDA Sainsbury's Supermarkets Planning Design Partnership Ltd Scope Port of London Authority SeLVIS Private Hire Board Sense Public Health Team in WCC, LBHF Shaun Bailey AM and RBKC SITA UK Puzzle Focus Ltd Sixty Plus Queen Mary University of London Sky UK Ltd (Property Services Group) Quintain Smile Care Dental Clinic Quinton Court Tenants & Residents Smiths News Association South West London Environment RAC Motoring Foundation Network Rail Delivery Group Southfield Conservatives RATP Dev London Space syntax Ravenscourt Dental Practice Spokes Cycling Instruction Ravenscourt Park Prep School St Paul’s Church Ealing Ravenscourt Park Preparatory School St Paul's CE Primary School Ravenscourt Park Pre-School St Peter's Residents' Association Really Nice Dentist St Thomas Red Routemaster St. Peter's CoE Primary School Reynolds St. Peter's Residents Association Richmond BID Station to Station Richmond Royal Hospital Stay Safe Riverford Stop Killing Cyclists

90

Strand On The Green Association Transport Focus Strategic Access Panel Transport for All Stroke Association Try Twickenham Sullivan Bus and Coach Tyssen Community School Cycle Sustrans Training Team London Bridge Uber Technicolour Tyre Company UK Power Networks Teddington Memorial Hospital Unions Together Thames Water Unite the Union The AA Unite the Union London Central Cab The Advocacy Project Section The Association of Guide Dogs for the University College London Blind Universitybus Ltd / UNO The Bedford Park Society UPS The Big Bus Company Ltd, Urban Movement The British Dyslexia Association Valuing People (TfL's learning The British Motorcyclists' Federation disability group) The Canal & River Trust Vandome Cycles The Co-operative Group Vision 2020 The Driver-Guides Association Vision Zero London The Fulham Society Walk London The Godolphin and Latymer School Warburton The Hammersmith Society Waterloo Quarter The Linden Gardens Residents' West Chiswick & Gunnersbury Society Association, Chiswick West Chiswick and Gunnersbury The Original Tour Society The Royal Geographical Society West London Alliance The Royal Parks West London Business The West Chiswick & Gunnersbury West London Free School Society West London Free School Primary Thomas Pocklington Trust West London River Group Thornton Mayfield Residents West Twyford Residents' Association Association Westside School TKMaxx Westway Community Transport TNT Wheels for Wellbeing Tom Copley AM Whitbread Group Tomlinson Close White Dental & Cosmetic Rooms Tony Arbour AM Whizz-Kidz Tony Devenish AM Wilson James Tour Guides Wincanton Group Tower Transit Operations Winslow Road Amenity Group TPH for Heathrow Airport www.cyclinginstructor.com Tradeteam x electrical Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain Yiewsley & West Drayton Town Centre Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy UK Action Group

91

Appendix F: Detailed analysis of comments

92

Detailed comments on our proposals for Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road)

965 respondents provided comments on our proposals for Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road). The issues raised are shown below. Percentages are calculated from the overall number of respondents to the consultation (1,490). Percentages above one per cent have been rounded. Only comments that occurred more than twice are included.

General comments are presented first. Other comments have been grouped into the categories below listed in order of how frequently they were mentioned.

General

404 (27 per cent) respondents made general comments on the proposals for Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road.

 236 (16 per cent) respondents made a general comment in support of the scheme  43 (3 per cent) respondents supported the proposals as they are an improvement or safer than the original designs for the area  42 (3 per cent) respondents made a general comment opposing the proposals  26 (2 per cent) respondents opposed the overall cycle route  23 (2 per cent) respondents supported the overall cycle route  20 (1 per cent) respondents supported the proposal to add a traffic lane on Kew Bridge  12 (<1 per cent) respondents opposed the proposal to add a traffic lane on Kew Bridge

General - alternative route

14 (<1 per cent) suggested an alternative route alignment of which 11 suggested along the A4.

Safety

464 (31 per cent) respondents commented on the safety aspects of the proposals for Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road, including:

 148 (10 per cent) respondents were concerned that the proposals would pose a safety risk to cyclists. Concerns included Kew Bridge (48), unspecified location (26), A315/A205 Kew Bridge junction (19), Green Dragon Lane junction (17), A205/Lionel Road junction (7), A205/Strand on the Green junction (8), A205/Kew Green junction (7), A205/Aitman Drive junction (5), A315 Kew Bridge Road (4), A205/Capital Interchange Way junction 4, Green Dragon Lane (3)

93

 103 (7 per cent) respondents were concerned that the proposals would pose a safety risk to pedestrians. Concerned included Kew Bridge (57), unspecified location (35), safety risk to children (7), A205/Lionel Road South junction (4)  97 (7 per cent) respondents considered the proposals would improve safety, including for cyclists (68), for pedestrians (18), unspecified modes (7), for motorists (4)  52 (3 per cent) respondents made suggestions for clear signage and enforcement. These suggestions included: to communicate banned turns/no- entry systems crossing the cycle track at Wellesley Road (12), at unspecified locations (12) and at Stile Hall Gardens (10). Other signage and enforcement suggestions included: for traffic calming measures on Green Dragon Lane (12) traffic offences such as speeding (3) and to communicate cycle-only tarmac space at A315 / A205 Kew Bridge junction (3)  34 (2 per cent) respondents considered the proposals would be a safety risk for motorists, including unspecified locations (21), Strand on the Green (6), Kew Bridge (4) and Brooks Road (3)  19 (1 per cent) respondents were opposed to the additional traffic lane on Kew Bridge as they felt it would decrease safety

Change in congestion

357 (24 per cent) respondents considered that the proposals would increase or reduce congestion, including:

 234 (16 per cent) respondents were concerned that the proposals would increase congestion, including unspecified locations (75), at Chiswick roundabout/Chiswick High Road (57), on Kew Bridge (29), A315 Kew Bridge Road (22), Oxford Road North (16), A205 South Circular (7), Wellesley Road (7), Brooks Road (7), Stile Hall Gardens (5), Sutton Court Road (4), Kew Green (4)  58 (4 per cent) respondents were concerned that increased traffic from new developments has not been considered in the proposals  27 (2 per cent) respondents were opposed to proposed additional traffic lane on Kew Bridge because they considered it would worsen congestion  26 (2 per cent) respondents supported the proposals as they felt it would reduce congestion including at Stile Hall Gardens (8), Kew Bridge (8), unspecified locations (6), Wellesley Road (6)  13 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested that the additional traffic lane is extended south of Kew Bridge

Cycle infrastructure 260 (17 per cent) respondents commented on issues relating to cycle infrastructure, including:

94

 61 (4 per cent) respondents said they were concerned about the proposed shared use footway on the east side of Kew Bridge  61 (4 per cent) respondents suggested segregated cycle lanes on Kew Bridge  44 (3 per cent) respondents supported the segregation of cyclists from motor traffic and pedestrians under the proposals  33 (2 per cent) respondents commented on the loss of a shared use footway on the west side of the bridge. 28 respondents were concerned about the loss of this and 5 suggested a shared use footway be retained on both sides of the bridge  19 (1 per cent) respondents suggested improved cycle crossing facilities at A315/Green Dragon Lane junctions  11 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned that the two way cycle track is a safety risk  9 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested clear signage (6) or a physical barrier (3) to avoid conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on the shared use footway on Kew Bridge  4 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested improved cycle crossing facilities at A205/Lionel South Road junction  4 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested making the proposed additional traffic lane at Kew Bridge a two way cycle track instead  4 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested linking the cycle route with other cycle routes in the Kew Bridge area

Junctions

158 (11 per cent) respondents commented on issues relating to junctions in the area, including:

 67 (4 per cent) respondents commented on the proposal to ban motor traffic from exiting Wellesley Road onto the A205 South Circular. 46 respondents opposed and 21 supported the proposal  66 (4 per cent) respondents commented on the proposal to ban motor traffic from exiting Stile Hall Gardens onto the A205 South Circular. 39 respondents opposed and 27 supported the proposal  5 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested that the A205/Strand on the Green junction is controlled by traffic lights  3 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested banning the right turn from the A205 South Circular into Kew Green

Existing congestion

141 (9 per cent) respondents commented on existing levels of congestion, including: Chiswick roundabout and Chiswick High Road (46), in general - unspecified locations (43), Kew Bridge (28), Stile Hall Gardens (11), Kew Bridge Road (6), Wellesley Road (4)

95

Impact on pedestrians

116 (8 per cent) respondents commented on the impact on pedestrians in the area, including:

 46 (3 per cent) respondents said they were concerned at the loss of pavement areas. 32 mentioned Kew Bridge, 11 unspecified location and 3 on the A205 at Kew Bridge station  18 (1 per cent) respondents suggested that traffic light phasing/”green man time” should minimise waiting time for pedestrians and cyclists  14 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested improved pedestrian crossing facilities at A315/Green Dragon Lane junction  14 (<1 per cent) respondents supported the proposals for making it easier for pedestrians to cross junctions, 6 of which mentioned the A205 South Circular  10 (<1 per cent) respondents said they were concerned the proposed layout will be confusing for pedestrians. 5 mentioned the A315/A205 Kew Bridge junction and 5 mentioned the A205/Strand on the Green junction

Environmental impacts

102 (7 per cent) respondents commented on environmental impacts in the area, including:

 80 (5 per cent) respondents stated they were concerned the proposals will worsen air quality. 63 respondents did not specify a location, 14 mentioned Kew Bridge and 3 Chiswick roundabout  11 (<1 per cent) respondents supported the proposals as they will improve air quality. 5 respondents did not specify a location, 3 mentioned Stile Hill Gardens and 3 Wellesley Road  6 (<1 per cent) respondents commented on trees/greenery. 3 respondents were concerned about a negative impact on these and 3 suggested adding more trees/greenery

Impact on motorists – local access

92 (6 per cent) respondents commented on issues relating to the local access impacts for motorists, including:

 66 (4 per cent) respondents stated they were concerned that the proposals would make motor vehicle journeys more difficult for local residents. This included the A315 (19), Stile Hall Gardens (17), Wellesley Road (17), unspecific (4), Aitman Drive (3), Kew Green (3), Brooks Road (3)  18 (1 per cent) respondents suggested traffic calming measures instead of closing motor vehicle access to the A205 South Circular. 9 respondents mentioned Wellesley Road and 9 mentioned Stile Hall Gardens

96

 3 (<1 per cent) respondents stated they were concerned the proposals would make parking more difficult for local residents on Stile Hall Gardens/Wellesley Road

Principles of the scheme

88 (6 per cent) respondents commented on the principles of the scheme, including:

 54 (4 per cent) respondents were opposed to the proposal to add traffic lane on Kew Bridge because it prioritises motor traffic  18 (1 per cent) respondents supported the cycle route as it will increase levels of cycling  14 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned the cycle route will be ineffective at increasing levels of cycling

Impact on cyclists

71 (5 per cent) respondents commented on the impact on cyclists, including:

 34 (2 per cent) respondents were concerned cyclists would need to cross A205 twice to use shared use footway on Kew Bridge  20 (1 per cent) respondents suggested 'green man time' is generous at cycling crossings allowing ample time to cross  9 (< 1 per cent) respondents supported proposals for making it easier for cyclists to cross junctions (unspecific locations)  8 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned the proposals do not help cyclists exiting Strand on the Green

Impact on bus users

46 (3 per cent) respondents commented on the impact on bus users, including:

 16 (1 per cent) respondents were concerned the proposals will negatively impact bus users  10 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested the additional traffic lane on A205 Kew Bridge is made a bus lane  9 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested relocating the bus stops around A315 / A205 Kew Bridge Junction  6 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned the proposals will negatively impact the operation of the bus stops in scheme area  3 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned bus stop bypasses are a safety risk for cyclists and pedestrians

Local businesses

20 (1 per cent) respondents were concerned that the proposals would have a negative impact on local businesses.

97

Detailed comments on our proposals for Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road

1,209 respondents provided comments on our proposals for Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road. The issues raised are shown below. Percentages are calculated from the overall number of respondents to the consultation (1,490). Percentages above one per cent have been rounded. Only comments that occurred more than twice are included.

General comments are presented first. Other comments have been grouped into the categories below listed in order of how frequently they were mentioned.

98

General

482 (32 per cent) respondents made general comments on the proposals for Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road, including:

 246 (17 per cent) respondents made a general comment in support of the scheme  167 (11 per cent) respondents made a general comment opposing the proposals  25 (2 per cent) respondents supported the proposals as they are an improvement or safer than the original designs for the area  20 (1 per cent) respondents opposed the overall cycle route  17 (1 per cent) respondents supported the overall cycle route  5 (<1 per cent) respondents opposed the proposals because they are not an improvement on the original designs for the area

General - alternative route

264 (17 per cent) respondents made general comments on alternative route for the proposed scheme, including:

 140 (9 per cent) respondents suggested an alternative route alignment along the A4  123 (8 per cent) respondents opposed the cycle route being on Chiswick High Road

Change in congestion

988 (66 per cent) respondents commented on the impacts of the proposals on congestion , including:

 893 (60 per cent) respondents were concerned that the proposals would increase congestion. Locations included on Glebe Road/Glebe estate (217), Chiswick High Road (104), Duke Road (103), unspecified (78), Annandale Road (65), Sutton Court Road (46), Bourne Road (43), school run traffic specifically at Duke Road (43), Wavedon Avenue (39), Devonshire Road (35), Duke’s Avenue (34), Barrowgate Road 26), Alwyn Avenue/Alwyn Road (20), Hadley Gardens (16), Ingress Street (9), Heathfield Terrace (5), Fraser Street (3)  85 (6 per cent) respondents specifically mentioned that the banned right turn from Duke Road would cause congestion in surrounding roads  10 (<1 per cent) respondents supported the proposals as they felt it would reduce congestion

99

Safety

421 (28 per cent) respondents commented on the safety aspects of the proposals for in the area, including:

 233 (16 per cent) respondents were concerned that the proposals would pose a safety risk to pedestrians. Concerns included: o Chiswick High Road (97), including elderly people (18), children/families (18) o Unspecified locations (59) including children/families (12), elderly people (8) o Glebe Street /Glebe estate (40) including children/families (20) o Risk to mobility impaired people crossing the cycle track on Chiswick High Road (15) o Duke Road (14), including children / families (12), elderly people (2) o Bourne Place (3) all mentioning children/families o Annandale Road (2)  97 (7 per cent) respondents were concerned that the proposals would pose a safety risk to cyclists. Concerns included: o Unspecified locations (24) o Chiswick High Road junctions in general as motorists cross the two way cycle track to enter / exit Chiswick High Road (13) o Duke Road / Chiswick High Road junction as motorists cross the two way cycle track to exit Duke Road (10) o Duke's Avenue / Chiswick High Road junction (10) o Glebe Street / the Glebe Estate (6) o Duke's Avenue / Chiswick High Road junction as motorists cross the cycle track to enter Duke's Avenue (4) o vehicles will block the cycle track while queueing to exit Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road - when there is a bus in the bus stop on Chiswick High Road, drivers exiting Duke Road won't be able to see and will pull forward across the cycle track (4) o the cycle track curvature outside Our Lady of Grace & St Edward church is a safety risk to cyclists due to narrow width of track (4) o Duke Road (3)

Junctions

378 (25 per cent) respondents commented on issues relating to junctions in the area.

204 (14 per cent) respondents commented on the Duke Road junction with Chiswick High Road including:

100

81 (5 per cent) respondents opposed the proposal to ban right turn out of Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road  32 (2 per cent) respondents supported proposal to ban right turn out of Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road  24 (2 per cent) respondents suggested right turns out of Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road are permitted and controlled by traffic lights  19 (1 per cent) respondents suggested the Duke Road / Fisher Lane junction with Chiswick High Road is controlled by traffic lights  14 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested Duke Road is made entry only from Chiswick High Road  13 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned at vehicles exiting Fisher's Lane onto Chiswick High Road conflicting with traffic exiting Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road  5 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned at Duke Road becoming exit only onto Chiswick High Road  5 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested banning right turns out of Fisher Lane onto Chiswick High Road for all traffic except buses  4 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested cyclists are not permitted to turn right out of Duke Road onto eastbound general traffic lane of Chiswick High Road

174 (12 per cent) respondents commented on the Duke’s Avenue junction with Chiswick High Road including:

 83 (6 per cent) respondents opposed the proposal to make Duke's Avenue entry only from Chiswick High Road  27 (2 per cent) respondents were concerned at Duke's Avenue becoming entry only from Chiswick High Road  13 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned traffic turning right from Chiswick High Road eastbound to Duke's Avenue southbound will block traffic flow on Chiswick High Road eastbound  13 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested the exit from Duke's Avenue to Chiswick High Road is permitted and controlled by traffic lights  12 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested Duke's Avenue is made exit only onto Chiswick High Road  7 (<1 per cent) respondents supported making Duke's Avenue entry only from Chiswick High Road  5 (< 1 per cent) respondents supported cycle track priority over Duke Road & Duke's Avenue  4 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested continuous footway at Duke's Avenue / Chiswick High Road junction  3 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested traffic lights are retained at Duke's Avenue junction with Chiswick High Road

101

Impact on motorists – traffic capacity 349 (23 per cent) respondents commented on issues relating to traffic capacity, including:

 163 (11 per cent) respondents were concerned roads would be too narrow for high volumes of traffic. Specifically mentioned were Duke Road (105), Glebe Road/Glebe Road estate (38), Devonshire Road (14), Annandale Road (6)  88 (6 per cent) respondents were concerned that the proposals would reduce traffic lanes/motor vehicle capacity. 81 respondents specifically were concerned about Chiswick High Road outside Our Lady of Grace & St Edward church, 7 did not specify a location  43 (3 per cent) respondents were concerned that traffic lights at Annandale Road traffic lights have only a short green phase for vehicles travelling north onto Chiswick High Road  24 (2 per cent) respondents were concerned Bourne Place/Duke Road/Glebe Street & Glebe Estate are too narrow for HGVs to traverse safely from Duke's Avenue to Chiswick High Road  11 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned at the loss of loading bays / freight parking capacity on Chiswick High Road  10 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested making Duke Road one way only

Environmental impacts

336 (23 per cent) respondents commented on environmental impacts in the area, including:

 217 (15 per cent) respondents stated they were concerned the proposals will worsen air quality. Locations mentioned were Chiswick High Road (60), unspecified (58), Glebe Street/Glebe Estate (55), Duke Road (20), Annandale Road (11), Duke’s Avenue (8), Bourne Place (5)  62 (<4 per cent) respondents were concerned that trees would be removed along Chiswick High Road  29 (2 per cent) respondents were concerned the proposals would increase noise pollution. 12 respondents mentioned Glebe Street/Glebe Estate. Other locations were unspecified (7), Annandale Road (4), Duke Road (3)  11 (<1 per cent) respondents supported the proposals as they will improve air quality. 5 respondents did not specify a location, 3 mentioned Stile Hill Gardens and 3 Wellesley Road  11 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested adding more trees/greenery. 6 did not specify a location and 5 mentioned along Chiswick High Road  10 (<1 per cent) respondents supported the proposals as they would improve air quality, 8 of these specifically mentioning Chiswick High Road  7 (<1 per cent) respondents supported the proposals for retaining trees outside Our Lady of Grace & St Edward church

102

Existing congestion

220 (15 per cent) respondents commented on existing levels of congestion, including: Duke Road (54), Sutton Court Road (32), Chiswick High Road (29), Glebe Street/Glebe Estate (23), Annandale Road (19), Duke's Avenue (13), Devonshire Road (10), Barrowgate Road (7), Bourne Place (7), unspecific location (6), Wavendon Avenue (6), Ingress Street (4), and on the A4 (4).

Impact on motorists – local access

165 (11 per cent) respondents commented on issues relating to the local access impacts for motorists, including:

 110 (7 per cent) respondents stated they were concerned that the proposals would make motor vehicle journeys more difficult for local residents. This included Duke’s Avenue (26), Glebe Street/Glebe Estate (15), Wavendon Avenue (11), Barrowgate Road (11), unspecified locations (9), Foster Road (9), Duke Road (8), Hadley Gardens (7), Alwyn Avenue /Alwyn Road /Alwyn Gardens (5)  15 (1 per cent) respondents were concerned the proposals would restrict the mobility of elderly/mobility impaired people who rely on motor vehicles  10 (<1 per cent) respondents stated they were concerned the proposals would make parking more difficult for local residents  6 (<1 per cent) respondents made suggestions for Bourne Place. 3 suggested the direction of Bourne Place is reversed and 3 suggested the road is made two way and that existing Duke’s Avenue onto Chiswick High Road is permitted  5 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested reducing parking capacity/permitted parking hours on Chiswick High Road to discourage local driving  3 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested closing the Duke’s Avenue junction with the A4

Impact on churches

146 (10 per cent) respondents commented on the how the proposals would impact Our Lady of Grace and St Edward church, including:

 70 (5 per cent) respondents were concerned that the revised proposals address concerns raised the church at the expense of other road users  43 (3 per cent) respondents supported the proposals for retaining footway space outside the church  11 (<1 per cent) respondents support retaining single yellow line parking on Duke's Avenue outside the church  10 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned no footway space should be lost outside the church

103

 6 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned at proposed parking / loading arrangements outside the church

Impact on pedestrians

124 (8 per cent) respondents commented on the impact on pedestrians in the area, including:

 73 (5 per cent) respondents were concerned at the loss of pavement areas. 57 mentioned Chiswick High Road, 16 did not specify a location  22 (1 per cent) respondents were concerned the proposals would make it harder for pedestrians to cross Chiswick High Road  9 (< 1 per cent) respondents supported the proposals because pedestrian space would be retained  6 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested more continuous footways across side roads joining Chiswick High Road  5 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested keeping zebra crossings rather than installing pelican/toucan crossings

Cycle infrastructure 99 (7 per cent) respondents commented on issues relating to cycle infrastructure, including:

 36 (2 per cent) respondents were concerned the two way cycle track is a safety risk  30 (2 per cent) respondents supported full segregation of cyclists from motor traffic and pedestrians  10 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested providing cycle crossings to allow safe access to the cycle track from north of Chiswick High Road (e.g. Fisher's Lane, Clifton Gardens, Turnham Green Terrace)  9 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested cycle tracks should be "with flow" (i.e. one way, on both sides of road) on Chiswick High Road rather than two-way  4 (<1 per cent) suggested increasing cycle parking to encourage cycling to local shops

Principles of the scheme

77 (5 per cent) respondents commented on the principles of the scheme, including:

 24 (2 per cent) respondents were concerned the proposals will damage the quality of life in the area  19 (1 per cent) respondents were concerned the cycle route will fail to increase levels of cycling

104

 14 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested improving public transport in the Chiswick area  13 (<1 per cent) respondents supported the cycle route as it will increase levels of cycling  5 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned the proposals retain too much motor vehicle capacity / access on side streets off Chiswick High Road

Impact on bus users

81 (5 per cent) respondents commented on the impact on bus users, including:

 53 (4 per cent) respondents were concerned the proposals will negatively impact bus journey times and/or reliability  24 (2 per cent) respondents were concerned bus stop bypasses are a safety risk for cyclists and pedestrians  4 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested extending bus lane operating hours (ie to be in operation on Sundays)

Local businesses

74 (5 per cent) respondents were concerned that the proposals would have a negative impact on local businesses. 13 specifically mentioned they were concerned the cycle track would deter pedestrian footfall on Chiswick High Road, impacting local businesses.

Impact for emergency vehicles

15 (1 per cent) respondents were concerned the proposals would lead to delays for emergency vehicles. 4 respondents mentioning accessing areas south of Chiswick High Road, 4 mentioned on Chiswick High Road itself and 4 did not specify a location.

Impact on cyclists

15 (1 per cent) respondents commented on the impact on cyclists, including:

 5 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned that the cycle church outside Our Lady of Grace and St Edward church would be blocked by churchgoers  5 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested traffic light phasing is generous at cycling crossings allowing ample time to cross

Construction impacts

5 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned about disruption during the construction period.

105

Comments on the quality of the consultation, the materials and the information provided

Question 21: Do you have any comments on the quality of this consultation, the materials or the information provided?

427 (29 per cent) respondents answered this question, and the main issues are reported below. Percentages are calculated from the overall number of respondents (1,490) and where above one per cent have been rounded. Only comments that occurred more then twice are included.

Non specific comments 70 (5 per cent) respondents made general comments about the consultation, including:

 32 (2 per cent) respondents made a positive comment about the consultation  38 (3 per cent) respondents made a negative comment about the consultation  6 (<1 per cent) respondents said they appreciated being consulted

Comments on materials 171 (11 per cent) respondents commented on the consultation materials, including:

 39 (3 per cent) respondents considered that the materials lacked detail  39 (3 per cent) respondents considered that the materials could be clearer  19 (1 per cent) respondents considered that the information was good/ very clear or well set out  17 (1 per cent) respondents considered that the information provided about the scheme was biased  14 (<1 per cent) respondents considered that there was a lack of detail about modelling impacts of traffic which would be rerouted as a result of the proposals  14 (<1 per cent) respondents suggested there could have been a wider map of the area to help when commenting on the impacts of rerouting of traffic  11 (<1 per cent) respondents considered that the diagrams and images were misleading  6 (<1 per cent) respondents considered that the consultation material was hard to navigate  5 (<1 per cent) respondents considered there should be more information about the impacts on trees  4 (<1 per cent) respondents considered that the materials were too detailed

106

Comments about the process 142 (10 per cent) respondents commented on the consultation and engagement process, including:

 91 (6 per cent) respondents were concerned that local people and businesses were not being listened to and/or TfL were listening too much to people who lived outside of the area  43 (3 per cent) respondents said they were concerned that the proposals would be implemented regardless of the consultation  8 (1 per cent) respondents considered that the consultation period was too short

Comments about the publicity for the proposals 47 (3 per cent) respondents commented that they considered there should have been more publicity for the consultation, including the previous CS9 consultation.

Comments about public events 17 (1 per cent) respondents commented on the drop-in events, including:

 5 (<1 per cent) respondents were concerned that the events were led by staff who did not know the areas or the likely impacts  3 (<1 per cent) respondents made negative comments about the Chiswick drop-in venue including that it was some way from the route or cramped  3 (<1 per cent) respondents made positive comments about the drop-in sessions including staff being helpful  3 (<1 per cent) respondents made negative comments about staff attitude

Other comments about the scheme 105 (7 per cent) respondents made general comments about the proposals rather than the consultation, including:

 75 (5 per cent) respondents made negative comments about the proposals  17 (1 per cent) respondents suggested the route should be along the A4  13 (<1 per cent) respondents were positive about the scheme and/ or suggested that TfL just get on with implementing the scheme

11 (<1 per cent) other comments were received about the consultation.

107