Lea Bridge Road)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appendix B Questionnaire 2 Published consultation materials 4 1 Summaries of stakeholder responses This section summarises each of the responses we received from respondents whom we would consider to be ‘stakeholders’. These summaries are included only in order to assist readers of this report to understand in broad terms what issues stakeholders raised with us. The original, verbatim response from each stakeholder were analysed to identify the issues raised. We identified as a ‘stakeholder’ all those respondents we judged are notable and reasonably well known amongst the public. This includes London’s local authorities, major transport groups, local neighbourhood or residents associations, major charities, businesses and business groups and industry associations. Bridge Academy Hackney Felt that more people would walk, cycle and use public transport; and that fewer people would use private transport for personal journeys (but that there would be no effect on the number of people using by private transport for business journeys). Highlighting the potential for a greater number f people to cycle if concerns about road safety were addressed through the proposals. Canal & River Trust Made detailed comments about the potential for improvements to Quietway 2 at North Millfields Recreation Ground. Suggested that a painted walkway/cycleway be provided in the Princess of Wales car park on Waterworks lane, to improve access to the nearby towpath. Also suggested wayfinding for cyclists, to improve awareness of and connections to the proposed new Cycleway. Cllr Vincent Stops, LB Hackney Referenced an earlier suggestion for take to take an ‘area-wide’ approach to implementing cycling improvements. Was critical both that there had been no feedback to this suggestion and that it had not been possible for Hackney representatives to meet and discuss the proposals with the Walking & Cycling Commissioner. Suggested that the proposals consisted of ‘minor interventions’ which would be ‘of little benefit’. Opposed to shared spaces and highlighted difficulties pedestrians would have with these. Called for the proposed Cycleway on Downs Park Road to be moved, citing safety concerns. Suggested that streets in the Sandringham Road area be closed to through traffic. Suggested that the proposals at Boleyn Road and Crossway were ‘terribly confusing’. Concluded that the proposals would disadvantage the majority of users, and suggested the funding be spent instead on an area-wide scheme. Hackney Living Streets 2 Welcomed the proposals but suggested they ‘do not go far enough’. Called for measures to reduce through traffic, new public spaces and removal of car parking. Made detailed comments about each aspect of the proposals. London Cycling Campaign Supported the scheme with the caveat that it should be rapidly followed by the second phase (to connect to Lea Bridge Road). Made a number of detailed comments about several aspects of the proposals, including that ‘with flow’ cycle tracks should be provided on Crossway, the cobbles on John Campbell Road should be replaced or modified and highlighted potential safety issues with the contra-flow cycle lane east of the Sandringham Road/Kingsland High Street junction; amongst other issues. Mildmay Residents Association Felt that more people would walk, cycle and use public transport; and that fewer people would use private transport for personal journeys (but that there would be no effect on the number of people using by private transport for business journeys). Emphasised their view that the proposals were ‘extremely welcome’ and was fully supportive of them. RNIB Provided views on a range of issues affecting blind or partially sighted people, including the design of consultation materials, rights of way matters, streetscape design and the risks of ‘shared use’ footways. Provided no specific views on the proposals themselves. Sustrans Suggested that the proposals would ‘significantly improve’ some stretches of route, but that new or less confident cyclists would not be encouraged to use them. Suggested a number of improvements, including the provision of large ‘cycle pockets’ at the junction of Boleyn Road/Mildmay Road and Crossway, narrowing the junction at John Campbell Road and removing a shared-use area in the section from John Campbell Road to Boleyn Road. Made a number of detailed comments about each aspect of the proposals. TfL Youth Panel Was supportive of the proposals, suggesting that they would encourage a shift to cycling and improve road safety. 3 Q1 - Coding framework A01: Negative: Proposals are not fit for purpose/ do not go far enough A02: Negative: Proposals don't offer proper protection for vulnerable road users A03: Negative: Proposals do little to stop the use of residential roads as rat runs A04: Negative: Shared spaces are not safe and do not promote cycling A05: Negative: Scheme will cost a lot of money for little effect/ waste of money A06: Negative: Cyclists do not use dedicated cycle lanes A07: Negative: Junction with Boleyn road is a completely missed opportunity to make it safer for cycling A08: Negative: Do not make a cycle path around hackney downs - no one will be going around the park (longer route) A09: Negative: Loss of parking spaces A10: Negative: Not convinced there will be a reduction in motor vehicle usage A11: Concern: Concerned that making lea bridge roundabout smaller that you'll push cars onto using side roads A12: Negative: Speed bumps on estate road connecting Kenninghall with Hackney Downs are unsafe for cyclists and should be removed A13: Negative: Generally opposed A14: Negative: Cyclists/cycling are more dangerous than other modes of transport A15: Negative:gg Increased pollution due to potential delays q travellers A17: Negative: Changes will have a detrimental affect for the elderly and or people with mobility issues and or the disabled A18: Negative: No clear evidence that there is a demand in this area for this change B01: Positive: Generally supportive B02: Positive: An improvement for people trying to cycle East/West (e.g.once Phase 2 around Upper Clapton is implemented) B03: Positive: Proposed changes may reduce traffic & allow for a calmer, safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists B04: Positive: Welcome removal of parking B05: Positive: There has been an increase in cycling along Lea Bridge Road since the cycle paths have been built B06: Positive: Route chosen connects two schools & a college to shops so might encourage more young people to cycle to school B07: Positive: Makes cycling/ walking safer B08: Positive: Crossing/ using Sandringham road as a pedestrian will be easier with the new proposal B09: Positive: This route will be a good connector from the Walthamstow project B10: Positive: Support for the proposed signal-controlled crossing over Kingsland High Street B11: Positive: Better infrastructure would encourage more cycling / walking/ use of buses & less reliance on cars B12: Positive: Positive: Proposed changes better for people's health B13: Positive: New raised junction at the junction of Queensdown Road and Downs Road to reduce traffic B14: Positive: Cycle Crossing near Mossbourne Academy C01: Suggestion: Provide protected cycle lanes (Down Park Road and Sandringham Road) C03: Suggestion: Better protection needed for cyclists and pedestrians safety C04: Suggestion: Cyclists also need to be mindful of other road users & follow the rules C05: Suggestion: Retain the dedicated bus lane for quicker bus journeys C06:Suggestion: Provide secure bike parking in more places C08: Suggestion: Implement traffic slowing techniques on side roads surrounding the roundabout to avoid congestion C10: Suggestion: Cyclists should pay road tax and insurance C11: Suggestion: Move the pedestrian crossing on Kingsland Road to the south side of John Campbell/Sandringham Road C12: Suggestion: Remove the roundabout in its entirety in favour of a less motor-centric intersection C13: Suggestion: Minimise number of one way streets as they cause speeding & lengthen journeys for motor vehicles 4 C14: Suggestion: An underpass for cyclists would be better to minimise traffic impact C15: Suggestion: Money should be spent on improving public transport not cycle lanes C16: Suggestion: More walkways needed/ do more to protect pedestrians C17: Suggestion: Changes will have a detrimental effect on the elderly, people with mobility issues and/or the disabled C18: Suggestion:gg Close pg St. Jude St at Kingy Henry's Walk. y g g the roadgg g g y Rd C21: Suggestion: Close Downs park Rd to vehicles at the railway underpass & at Amhurst Rd C23: Suggestion: Rectify the issue of duplication of buses running on the same route to reduce pollution in Hackney C23: Suggestion: Visually impaired and blind pedestrians need to have clear crossings C24: Suggestion: Remove right turn pocket on Cricket field Road to allow space for separate walking & cycling facilities C25: Suggestion: Put warning markings/signage instructing cyclists to stop when pedestrians are near C26: Suggestion: Cyclists should be given space on the carriageway rather than diverting them onto the footway (corner of Boleyn Rd) C27: Suggestion: Tighten junction of John Campbell Rd and provide improved pedestrian crossing C28: Suggestion: Tighten junction of Boleyn St to slow down traffic speeds & reduce crossing distance C29: Suggestion: Would prefer to see a diagonal route through the park from SW to NE C30: Suggestion: Do not uproot any trees/ plant more trees C31: Suggestion: Replace ramp with a dropped kerb to retain