Consultation on Proposed Changes to A10 Stamford Hill and Clapton Common Junction

Consultation on proposed changes to A10 Stamford Hill and Clapton Common junction

Consultation report August 2016

Contents

1 Executive summary ...... 2 2 Introduction ...... 3 3 The consultation ...... 4 4 Overview of consultation responses ...... 6 5 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ...... 17 6 Decision ...... 22 Appendix A – Copy of the consultation materials ...... 23 Appendix B - Issues raised in questions 7 & 14 ...... 32 Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 36 Appendix D – Response to issues raised ...... 38

1 Executive summary

Between 5 February and 18 March, we consulted on proposals for changes to the road layout at the Stamford Hill and Clapton Common junction. This document explains the processes, and feedback received during the consultation.

We sent notification letters to approximately 4,400 addresses within a 400m radius of the junction, and sent details to local stakeholders and approximately 19,000 individuals on our email database.

We received 730 responses to the consultation. Between 29 and 40 per cent of these said they agreed with the various proposals or some elements of them, whereas between 55 and 65 per cent said they disagreed. 338 of the responses were paper forms submitted on behalf of residents by a local councillor, all of which opposed our proposals.

Decision

Since the consultation closed we have been carefully reviewing all of these responses, and have now decided that we will only proceed with some small elements of the proposals.

Generally, respondents were concerned that the proposals would increase traffic and congestion. A large majority also felt that our proposals did not go far enough for cyclists and other vulnerable road users. We remain of the view that the proposed scheme would not have adversely affected motor traffic and would have made for quicker and more comfortable pedestrian crossings.

Our most recent monitoring has shown that safety at the junction has improved over the last year without any changes being made. Having considered this monitoring, alongside the responses to the consultation and other factors, we have decided to no longer pursue making any changes to the junction at this time. Our teams will continue to monitor the situation, but the proposal we consulted on for the crossroads will no longer be progressed at this time.

We will continue with the road safety measures north of the junction on the A10 High Road. This includes narrowing the entrances of Egerton Road and Ravensdale Road, and installing raised tables at these and Craven Park Road. Vehicle accesses will be turned into continuous footways, creating a more pleasant environment for those walking, and we will include right turn pockets on the road to improve safety. We will also proceed with relocating the loading bay from A10 High Road to Egerton Road to help protect journey times along the A10.

We hope to start implementing the changes north of the junction on the A10 High Road in early 2017, subject to available funding.

2 Introduction

We recently consulted stakeholders and the public about a proposal to change road layout in Stamford Hill and Clapton Common Junction. The A10 Stamford Hill and Clapton Common is a busy junction, and has one of the highest accident rates in all of Hackney. We came up with some proposals that aim to make this junction safer for all road users, and asked you what you thought. Our proposals included:

 Changing the layout of existing traffic islands and removing the left hand slip road from Amhurst Park into Stamford Hill to simplify the junction and make it easier for users to navigate.  Changes to pedestrian crossings to make it easier and quicker for pedestrians to cross the road,  Widening the footways and planting new trees,  Creating a new southbound bus lane on the Stamford Hill approach to the junction, this helps to protect bus journey times,  Providing advance stop lines (ASLs) on each arm of the junction to give cyclists a safe area to wait and move off ahead of other traffic when lights turn green,  Changes to the parking controls at the junction to allow more time for people to stop,  Introducing two right turn pockets on the A10 to make it easier for vehicles turning into Egerton Road and Ravensdale Road  Installing raised tables and narrowing the junctions at Egerton Road and Ravensdale Road,  Relocating a loading bay from A10 High Road to Egerton Road to provide a clearer route for buses and reduce delays,  Extending the existing lay-by on Clapton Common to provide room for an extra parking space,  Creating continuous footways over vehicle accesses to create a nicer environment for those walking,

The consultation was open from 5 Feb 2016 to 18 Mar 2016. A number of responses were received after this date but have been included in the analysis.

This report explains the background to the proposal, and summarises the responses we received.

3 The consultation

This consultation was designed to enable TfL to understand local opinion about the proposed changes to make the junction of A10 Stamford Hill with Clapham Common safer for all road users. The potential outcomes of the consultation are:  We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as proposed  We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation  We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation.

3.1 Consultation objectives We are determined to ensure London’s roads are safer for all users. The Stamford Hill \ Clapton Common junction is a very busy one with a poor collision record. Our proposals are designed to:

 Improve safety for all road users  Create a nicer environment for local residents and businesses  Reduce journey times for pedestrians crossing the junction  Protect bus journey times  Reduce traffic speeds  Make the area more attractive as a destination for people to shop

3.2 Who we consulted The public consultation intended to seek the views of people who live near to the proposed route, current users of the junction and other potential users. We also consulted stakeholders including the affected Councils, traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix D and a summary of their responses is given in Section 4.

3.3 Meetings with local ward councillors Representatives from the project team and the consultation delivery team met with the three local ward councillors for Stamford Hill on-site to discuss the proposals.

Local councillors objected to the proposals, and raised four main concerns. These were:

i. Removal of the slip road to Amhurst Park – it was felt removing this will increase traffic congestion, and inhibit those who are trying to turn right. Pedestrians in the local area were already used to a three stage crossing, so removing these should not be priority. ii. Bus lane – there were concerns that this was not necessary, and would cause more congestion. The proposed timing restriction of 7-7 was seen to be a possible cause for confusion for drivers. iii. Egerton Road – concern that the parking space on Egerton Road was next to a Doctors surgery and was well used. They believed this proposal would unfairly affect ill, elderly and less able people. iv. Crossing signals – request that pedestrian crossings should include countdown timers so people know when to cross the road. There was also a request to see if these could be audible, to help signal when to cross for visually impaired people. 4

3.4 Consultation material, distribution and publicity The consultation was published online where a dedicated webpage included the details and background for the proposal.

We raised awareness of the consultation by sending an email to approximately 19,000 registered Oyster Card holders who either live in, or use local bus routes in the area. We also sent an email to key stakeholders. Copies of the consultation material are shown in Appendix A.

People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They could respond by emailing us at [email protected] or by accessing the online consultation and survey via a website link: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/stamford-hill-clapton- common

4 Overview of consultation responses

We received 730 written responses from members of the public. Of these, 365 (50 per cent) of the responses were submitted online, and 27 (four per cent) were received by email. There were 338 responses (46%) submitted as part of the Stamford Hill community campaign, these were received in bulk from a local stakeholder.

The graph overleaf shows the breakdown of responses.

Response Type 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

0 Online Paper forms Email % 50% 46% 4% Number of replies 365 338 27

We asked 14 questions in total. Questions 1 to 7were about the proposals (six closed and one open). There were then five general questions which asked for respondents’ name, email address, postcode and if they were responding on behalf of an organisation. The last two questions asked respondents how they had heard about the consultation, and their opinion on the quality of it. In question 5 and 14, the respondents had the opportunity to give their comments in their own words.

4.1 Responses submitted in bulk by Cllr Steinberger In response to a request from Cllr Simche Steinberger, we supplied a tailored feedback form (see Appendix A), which asked respondents the same questions available online. The form also included the standard question inviting respondents to provide comments, and indicate their level of support or otherwise for the scheme.

We received 338 responses in bulk from this campaign. The vast majority of these only answered the closed questions, with only eight responses included any further detail.

The table below shows the responses of those submitted in bulk.

338 paper forms received through a local Number of comments councillor's office

Some First six Questions Yes elements Not sure No opinion No Q1. Do you agree with our proposals to simplify the junction by changing traffic islands and removing of the left hand slip road from Amhurst Park? 0 0 0 0 337 Q2. Do you agree with creating a southbound bus lane to protect bus journey times? - Do you agree with creating a southbound bus lane to protect bus journey times? 0 0 0 0 337 Q3. Do you agree with the addition of Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) on all arms of the junction? 0 0 3 1 334 Q4. Do you agree with introducing right turn pockets on A10 High Road? 1 3 6 2 326 Q5. Do you agree with creating continuous footways across junctions? 2 1 4 1 330 Q6. Do you agree with changes to the loading and parking bays? 0 1 5 0 332

In comparison, the data from those not submitted in bulk shows a much more even spread. This is shown in the table below.

All other answers (minus those Number of comments submitted in bulk)

Some No Not First six Questions Yes elements Not sure opinion No answered Q1. Do you agree with our proposals to simplify the junction by changing traffic islands and removing of the left hand slip road from Amhurst Park? 147 69 16 8 78 5 Q2. Do you agree with creating a southbound bus lane to protect bus journey times? - Do you agree with creating a southbound bus lane to protect bus journey times? 192 45 20 8 88 10 Q3. Do you agree with the addition of Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) on all arms of the junction? 190 46 27 7 80 13 Q4. Do you agree with introducing right turn pockets on A10 High Road? 184 41 47 13 61 17 Q5. Do you agree with creating continuous footways across junctions? 247 25 17 2 58 14 Q6. Do you agree with changes to the loading and parking bays? 164 40 35 38 69 15

For those purpose of this report we have analysed all the responses together, and also made reference to the level of objection from the forms submitted by Cllr Steinberger, on behalf of the Stamford Hill community. 7

4.2 Responses to questions

Q1 asked, “Do you agree with our proposals to simplify the junction by changing traffic islands and removing of the left hand slip road from Amhurst Park?

Overall, 700 people responded to this question. 147 (21 per cent) agreed, 69 (10 per cent) agreed to some elements. 16 (two per cent) were not sure, 8 (one per cent) had no opinion while 455 (65 per cent) disagreed. Of the 455 responses that disagreed, 337 originated from the Stamford Hill community response.

The graph overleaf shows a further breakdown of the responses to this question.

Do you agree with our proposals to simplify the junction by changing traffic islands and removing of the left hand slip road from Amhurst Park?

500

400

300

200

100

0 Some Not Yes Not sure No opinion No elements Answered Number of 147 69 16 8 455 5 responses % 21% 10% 2% 1% 65% 1%

Q2 asked, “Do you agree with creating a southbound bus lane to protect bus journey times”?

There were 700 responses to this question. 192 people (27 per cent) were in favour of this proposal while 425 people (61 per cent) were opposed to the idea. Of the 425 responses which indicated opposition, 337 were received as part of the Stamford Hill community campaign.

See the graph below for further breakdown of responses to this question.

Do you agree with creating a southbound bus lane to protect bus journey times? 500

400

300

200

100

0 Some No Not Yes Not sure No elements opinion Answered Number of 192 45 20 8 425 10 responses % 27% 6% 3% 1% 61% 1%

Q3 asked, “Do you agree with the addition of Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) on all arms of the junction”?

There were 701 responses to this question. 190 people (27 per cent) agreed that this was a good idea, while 414 (59 per cent) disagreed. Of the 414 who disagreed, 334 responses originated from the Stamford Hill community campaign.

See the graph below for further breakdown of the responses.

Do you agree with the addition of Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) on all arms of the junction?

500

400

300

200

100

0 Some Not Yes Not sure No opinion No elements Answered Number of responses 190 46 30 8 414 13 % 27% 7% 4% 1% 59% 2%

Q4 asked, “Do you agree with introducing right turn pockets on A10 High Road”?

Overall 701 people responded to this question, with the majority 387 (55 per cent) opposing the introduction of right hand turn pockets on the A10 High road. Of the 387 who objected, 326 responses were received as part of the Stamford Hill community campaign.

Of those who responded, 185 people (26 per cent) supported this proposal while 44 (six per cent) supported some elements of it. 53 people (eight per cent) indicated that they were not sure, 15 people (two per cent) had no opinion, and 17 people (two per cent) did not answer.

The graph below shows the full breakdown of the responses.

Do you agree with introducing right turn pockets on A10 High Road? 500

400

300

200

100

0 Some No Not Yes Not sure No elements opinion Answered Number of 185 44 53 15 387 17 responses % 26% 6% 8% 2% 55% 2%

Q5 asked, “Do you agree with creating continuous footways across junctions?”.

In total, 701 people responded to this question. Of those, 249 people (36 per cent) were supportive of this proposal while 388 people (55 per cent) were opposed to it. Of the 388 that opposed this element, 330 were responses were received as part of the Stamford Hill community campaign. 26 people (four per cent) supported some elements, while 21 (three per cent) were not sure. 3 people (>one per cent) had no opinion, and 14 people (two per cent) did not answer.

The graph below shows the full breakdown of the responses.

Do you agree with creating continuous footways across junctions? 500

400

300

200

100

0 Some Not Yes Not sure No opinion No elements Answered Number of responses 249 26 21 3 388 14 % 36% 4% 3% 0% 55% 2%

Q6 asked, “Do you agree with changes to the loading and parking bays”?

701 people responded to this question. There were 164 people (23 per cent) that indicated they were in favour of the proposal. However, 401 people (57 per cent) opposed the change. Of the 401 responses, 332 responses were received as part of the Stamford Hill community campaign.

41 (six per cent) said they favoured some elements of this proposal, 40 (six per cent) were not sure while 38 (five per cent) had no opinion.

The graph below shows the full breakdown of the responses.

Do you agree with changes to the loading and parking bays? 500

400

300

200

100

0 Some Not Yes Not sure No opinion No elements Answered Number of responses 164 41 40 38 401 15 % 23% 6% 6% 5% 57% 2%

Q7 was an open question inviting people to give us their comments about the overall proposal. The top ten recurring themes are listed in the table overleaf, and the full list of comments is listed in Appendix B.

A large number of people (50 responses) that responded to this question suggested that the proposal should be reworked to include segregated cycle lanes. 48 responses said that the junction needs to be made safer for pedestrians and cyclists. 47 responses were supportive of the proposed changes while 38 responses were opposed to the removal of the Amhurst Park slip road stating that it would lead to congestion and would negatively impact residents.

Most popular comments Proposal should be reworked to include segregated lanes 50 The junction needs to be made safer for pedestrians and especially cyclists 48 Good solution 47 Removal of left hand slip from Amhurst Park will lead to congestion/misery/compromise 38 people's health Lack of segregated cycling lanes 36 ASLs on a road such as this serve no useful function 30 A10 /major junctions dangerous & unpleasant for walking cycling 26 Proposals improve access and safety for pedestrians/cyclists 26 New design will slow down traffic & create bigger/more dangerous roads 25 Lack of segregated provision for cyclists will lead to accidents 22

4.3 Profile of respondents

Q 8 – 10 asked personal details such as name and address.

Q11 asked who the respondents were, and how they knew the area, and Q12 asked for clarification on what organisation was responding. The majority of the respondents, 58 per cent (277 people) were local residents. The second largest group of respondents was commuters to the area at 13 per cent (60 people), while visitors made up 11 per cent (54 people) of the respondents. The graph overleaf shows the breakdown of respondents.

Respondents profile 300

200

100

0 Not local but Commu Visitor Employ Other Local Busines interest ter to to the ed (Please resident s Owner ed in the area area locally specify) the scheme Number of responses 277 60 54 34 21 17 11 % 58% 13% 11% 7% 4% 4% 2%

Only five out the 25 respondents above who ticked ‘other ‘hadn’t ticked any of the alternative choices. The five ‘other choices’ they listed are:  Former resident  Cyclist  Councillor  Lives in a nearby area  Visitor (not captured above)

Q13 asked respondents how they heard about the consultation.

207 respondents (58 per cent) stated that they received an email from TfL. 69 people (19 per cent) heard about it from social media, while 19 people (five per cent) stated that they had received a letter from TfL. The full breakdown is shown on the graph on the next page.

How did you hear about this consultation? 300

200

100

0 Received Saw it on Received Read Other Social Not an email the TfL a letter about in (please media Answered from TfL website from TfL the press specify) Number of 207 69 10 19 11 11 35 responses % 57% 19% 3% 5% 3% 3% 10%

4.4 Quality of consultation

Q14 asked respondents to comment on the quality of the consultation.

On the whole, people responded positively to this question. 92 respondents stated that the information was clear and easy to understand while 13 stated that the information quality was excellent. 13 people were sceptical about TfL’s motives with some stating that they believed that decisions had already been made. 6 people suggested a map comparing the existing junction to the proposals should have been provided.

The breakdown of themes is included below:

Top emerging themes/comments Good/clear/easy to understand information 92 Good printed material/graphics/maps 21 Excellent 13 Sceptical about Tfl's motives & whether feedback will be taken on-board 13 A before and after comparison map should have been provided 6

5 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders

We received 14 responses from stakeholders, identified by question 12 (If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name).

1. London TravelWatch London TravelWatch seemed broadly supportive of the plans, but raised two key points. They requested that the new southbound bus lane on Stamford Hill should operate 24/7. They felt it would cause confusion if it maintained a 7am to 7pm Monday to Saturday restriction, and only provide additional capacity at times when it is not needed.

London TravelWatch also outlined that there was a long-term aspiration for the eastbound carriageway on Amhurst Park to include a bus lane. They requested this be factored into the design.

2. Hackney Council Council officers supported the scheme in principle, however they raised a number of concerns and asked TfL to consider these further. These included

 Extend the scheme further into the Western arm of Amhurst Park, particularly giving consideration to the provision of short section of bus lane  Provision for right turning cyclists  Bus lane hours to be 24hours to provide greater protection for cyclists making straight ahead movements  Shrinking the junction slightly, and due consideration to making the footways wider  Supports the raised tables at side road junctions, but requests that the slope is steeper than usual design in order to slow vehicles down further

3. North East London Road Safety Engineering Unit, Metropolitan Police The Road Safety Engineering Unit at the Metropolitan Police raised no concerns about the proposals. They requested copies of the detailed plans to make further comments.

4. Hackney Living Streets Hackney Living Streets aim to ensure streets in the borough are fit for walking. They have some reservations about the scheme, as they felt it prioritises movement of motor traffic, and does not go far enough for pedestrians or cyclists.

Hackney Living Streets outline that the current junction is intimidating and unattractive, and has one of the highest collision rates in Hackney. They would like

this junction to have a place function, as well as a movement function. They welcome the removal of two slip roads but object to the two that are proposed to remain in place.

They support appropriate bus priority measures, but request that the junction is further tightened up to reflect the roads leading up to it, and to balance the needs of motor traffic with pedestrian and cycle movement. Hackney Living Streets requested a tighter junction envelope with straight across pedestrian crossings at each arm in a single phase, and also a feature such as at Oxford Circus with diagonal crossings. They would also like to see much wider pedestrian crossings, at least 10m in width.

While Hackney Living Streets support the provision of continuous footways where these are provided, they object to medians and long traffic islands. The belief is these create a dual carriageway effect, encouraging drivers to speed.

Along with their general response, Hackney Living Street strongly objected to the pedestrian crossings at the junction for the following reasons:

 Three stage staggered crossings cause huge inconvenience to pedestrians who have to wait on traffic islands with fast moving, polluting traffic passing on either side. Staggered crossings are particularly inconvenient and difficult to use by disabled people including wheelchair users, visually impaired people, children and those with cognitive impairments including autistic people and those who have dementia. They are not intuitive and logical and they require special skills and knowledge to negotiate.  Crossing are too narrow in width not providing pedestrian comfort.  Concern that staggered crossings are likely to lead to non-compliance by pedestrians

There was a strong objection to the increase and extension of car parking provision, particularly to the taking away of footway space for car parking.

5. The London Cycling Campaign The LCC 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 Fails” eliminated. The LCC outlined that their Hackney branch used the Junction Assessment Tool, and that the junction scored between 0 and 4, out of a possible 24. Numerous critical fails were also found.

They have concerns about how busy and dangerous the existing junction is, but believe the proposals will not change this. LCC argue there is plenty of space available at the junction, and would like to see a scheme designed to provide more space that is dedicated for cycling.

The LCC raised the following issues specifically:

 Concern that arms of the junction will contain ‘hook risks’ that might count at CloS Critical Fails.  Lane widths are not sufficient and provide CloS Critical Fails.  Lack of a safe right turn at the junction for cyclists provided  ASLs offer little to no safety benefit, and other solutions could be provided  Prefer direct pedestrian crossings, as staggered crossings inhibit pedestrians as well as cyclists.

They supported the provision of raised tables on some side streets. However, they requested that the entrance is narrowed, ideally to a single lane, in order to control vehicle speed. They asked that this is applied consistently to all the side roads in scope.

6. Hackney Cycling Campaign Hackney Cycling Campaign (HCC) has nearly 1,000 members, and represents the interests for people cycling in and through Hackney.

HCC believes the proposals prioritize motor traffic, and do not go far enough for cyclists. The junction has six lanes on some alignments, and therefore the HCC believe there is space protected cycle lanes, without affecting bus-priority or pedestrian space.

HCC support the removal of two side roads, however, they request that this needs to go further and the junction needs to be tightened further.

They object to ASLs and were concerned about the safety of cyclists that needed to do a right turn. The HCC outlined they have used the Junction Assessment Tool, and believe that of the 12 possible movements, at least 8, would be categorized as ‘red’. There is a concern that all movements have major left and right hook risks. They believe the proposal also scores a number of ‘critical fails’ using the Cycling Level of Service assessment.

Finally they also object to staggered pedestrian crossings, and additional parking located on the pavement.

The HCC request TfL to consider an alternative scheme. They would like this alternative scheme to take account of, and link to, any alterations to Seven Sisters Road, (which was recently the subject of a separate consultation run by the Woodberry Down partnership).

7. Brent Cyclists (London Cycling Campaign) Brent cyclists object to the scheme on the basis that it does not provide enough protection for cyclists.

They believe Advanced Stop Lines do not provide any safety for cyclists, and that the proposal will not improve cycle movements across the junction. As well as this they consider multi-stage crossings for pedestrians unsatisfactory.

8. Cycling Embassy of Great Britain The cycling embassy of Great Britain objects to the proposals, believing they do not improve safety for cyclists.

Particular concerns include:  Risk of left hooks from motor vehicles  Slip lane crossings  Difficulty making right turns across traffic lanes  Lack of easy access to advances stop lines

They request a reassessment of the plans, and for TfL consider to protected left turns and two stage right turns for cyclists. They also ask TfL to consider direct pedestrian crossings.

9. Springfield ward councillors, Hackney Council The three ward councillors for Springfield object to the proposals on four main grounds. These are:

a. Removal of the slip road to Amhurst Park – it was felt removing this will increase traffic congestion, and inhibit those who are trying to turn right. Pedestrians in the local area were already used to a three stage crossing, so removing these should not be priority. b. Bus lane – there were concerns that this was not necessary, and would cause more congestion. The proposed timing restriction of 7-7 was seen to be a possible cause for confusion for drivers. c. Egerton Road – concern that the parking space on Egerton Road was next to a Doctors surgery and was well used. They believed this proposal would unfairly affect ill, elderly and less able people. d. Crossing signals – request that pedestrian crossings should include countdown timers so people know when to cross the road. There was also a request to see if these could be audible, to help signal when to cross for visually impaired people.

Further correspondence from local councillors asked TfL to re-sequence the traffic lights more sensibly, and to re-introduce right turns from Stamford Hill into Amhurst Park, and from Stamford Hill into Clapton Common

10. Confederation of Passenger Transport The Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) made some observations on the proposal. CPT explained that the A10 is a key artery for all manner of traffic and links Central London and the City with a substantial residential area in Hertfordshire and 20

Essex. It is used by substantial numbers of commuters and crucially, by a number of home to school transport services for private schools, mainly in Hertfordshire.

CPT asked TfL to provide further clarification on:  Traffic flow and journey times – confirmation was requested as to whether there would be increased time for left turns into side roads, and if so does this have an impact on traffic flow  Raised/ continuous footways at junctions – concern that continuous footways remove a level of awareness from pedestrians, which may lead to safety issues.  Bus stops – confirmation that there were no plans to exclude coaches and non-TfL services from any of the bus stops in this proposal.  Bus lanes – confirmation was requested that coaches and non-TfL buses would continue to be allowed access to the bus lanes in this proposal.

11. London Fire Brigade The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) runs the London Fire Brigade (LFB), the busiest fire and rescue service in the country.

The LFB visited the site, and confirmed the proposal would have no effect on their operations. Further to this the LFB committed to work with TfL and Hackney Council to provide support and guidance on the scheme as it progresses.

12. Hatzolah Emergency Service Hatzolah Emergency Medical Service objected to the proposals. They raised concerns that if implemented the proposals would increase congestion and make it more difficult for drivers and residents to get home.

13. Citymist Services Ltd Citymist is a local business, who were concerned the proposals will create further traffic and congestion. They requested more binding assurance that traffic would not be adversely impacted as a result of the proposal.

14. All Saints Retail Ltd All Saints Retail Ltd is a local business who requested that TfL consider a segregated cycle lane, with raised kerbs to stop motor vehicles parking or loading. They believed more could be done to encourage people to cycle.

6 Decision

We had 730 responses to the consultation, which demonstrated a wide range of views. Since the consultation closed we have been carefully reviewing all of these responses, and have now decided that we will only proceed with some small elements of the proposals.

Our most recent monitoring has shown that safety at the junction has improved over the last year without any changes being made. Having considered this monitoring, alongside the responses to the consultation and other factors, we have decided to no longer pursue making any changes to the junction at this time. Our teams will continue to monitor the situation, however the proposal we consulted on for the crossroads will no longer be progressed at this time.

We hope to start implementing the changes north of the junction on the A10 High Road in early 2017, subject to available funding.

Appendix A – Copy of the consultation materials

Overview

The A10 Stamford Hill and Clapton Common is a busy junction, and has one of the highest collision rates in all of Hackney. We have come up with some proposals that aim to make this junction safer for all road users, and would like to know what you think.

What are we proposing?

Our proposals include:

 Changing the layout of existing traffic islands and removing the left hand slip road from Amhurst Park into Stamford Hill to simplify the junction and make it easier for users to navigate.

 Changes to pedestrian crossings to make it easier and quicker for pedestrians to cross the road,

 Widening the footways and planting new trees,

 Creating a new southbound bus lane on the Stamford Hill approach to the junction, this helps to protect bus journey times,

 Providing advance stop lines (ASLs) on each arm of the junction to give cyclists a safe area to wait and move off ahead of other traffic when lights turn green,

 Changes to the parking controls at the junction to allow more time for people to stop,

 Introducing two right turn pockets on the A10 to make it easier for vehicles turning into Egerton and Ravensdale Road,

 Installing raised tables and narrowing the junctions at Egerton and Ravensdale Road,

 Relocating a loading bay from A10 High Road to Egerton Road to provide a clearer route for buses and reduce delays,

 Extending the existing lay-by on Clapton Common to provide room for an extra parking space,

 Creating continuous footways over vehicle accesses to create a nicer environment for those walking,

Why are we proposing this?

We are determined to ensure London’s roads are safer for all users. The Stamford Hill \ Clapton Common junction is a very busy one with a poor collision record. Our proposals are designed to:

 Improve safety for all road users

 Create a nicer environment for local residents and businesses

 Reduce journey times for pedestrians crossing the junction

 Protect bus journey times

 Reduce traffic speeds

 Make the area more attractive as a destination for people to shop

What is a continuous footway?

A continuous footway is where the pavement extends over a side road or vehicle access. Drivers are still able to turn into these junctions, but the continuous footway makes them slow down and maneuver more safely. These footways give pedestrians priority, so create a nicer environment for those walking along the road.

An example of a continuous footway

How would the proposals effect other road users?

Our traffic modelling shows that all arms of the junction would operate within capacity under the proposed layout, and we do not expect an increase in journey times through the junction.

The proposed changes would improve journey times for pedestrians at the crossings, and improve reliability for southbound buses.

Construction work

Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we plan to start construction work at the end of 2016. Construction would cause some disruption, although we will work to minimise the impact as much as possible. We would write to local residents and businesses before undertaking work.

Have your say

We would like to know what you think about our proposals to make the junction of A10 Stamford Hill with Clapham Common safer for all road users.

Please give us your views by completing the online survey below by Friday 18 March

Alternatively, you can:

 Email us at [email protected],

 or write to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

Consultation letter

Transport for London Consultation Team 10 G4, Palestra 197 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8NJ

[email protected] Dear neighbour, tfl.gov.uk

 Changing the layout of existing traffic islands and removing the left hand slip road from Amhurst Park to Stamford Hill to simplify the junction and make it easier for users to navigate,  Changes to pedestrian crossings to make it easier and quicker for pedestrians to cross the road,  Creating a southbound bus lane on the A10 to help protect journey times for bus passengers,  Providing advance stop lines (ASLs) on each arm of the junction,  Changes to parking controls at the junction to allow more time for people to stop,  Introducing right turn pockets on the A10 High Road to make it easier for vehicles turning into Egerton and Ravensdale Road The maps provided show our proposals in more detail. You can find out more about our proposals, and have your say by visiting our website: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/stamford-hill-clapton-common You can also contact us at by emailing: [email protected], or by writing to us at ‘FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS’. Please make sure you include ‘Stamford Hill Clapton Common’ in any correspondence.

Please let us know your views by Friday 18 March 2016.

Yours faithfully,

Amy Thompson Consultation Specialist Transport for London

Email to Stakeholders

Have your say on proposed changes to A10 Stamford Hill and Clapton Common junction The A10 Stamford Hill/Clapton Common junction is one of the busiest in Hackney. It also has one of the worst safety records. We are now proposing a number of changes for this junction, and would like to know what you think about our proposals. You can find out more about our proposals, and have your say by visiting our website: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/stamford-hill-clapton-common You can also contact us at by emailing: [email protected], or by writing to us at ‘FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS’. Please make sure you include ‘Stamford Hill Clapton Common’ in any correspondence.

Please let us know your views by Friday 18 March 2016.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Thompson Consultation Specialist Transport for London

Feedback Form

Appendix B - Issues raised in questions 7 & 14

Comments Concerns Concerned that the trees to be planted on North East corner of Stamford Hill do not 2 obstruct vision for drivers turning left on the slip Concerned about right turns out of Egerton Rd & Ravensdale Rd blocking the A10 right 9 turn General comments General comment: Misunderstood aspects of the proposal/unclear comment 2 Comments against the proposal (some aspects of the proposal) - current route A10 /major junctions dangerous & unpleasant for walking cycling 26 Crossing times for A10 south of junction/Clapton Common is too short 3 The 2 parts of the A10 are not properly aligned 2 Comments against the proposal (some aspects of the proposal) ASLs are dangerous 5 ASLs on a road such as this serve no useful function 30 Changes won't make much of a difference/direct funding elsewhere 7 Changing existing parking bays in Egerton Road to Loading/Disabled 4 Changing from 20 minutes parking at the bays to 1 Hour 4 Concerned about right turns out of Egerton Rd & Ravensdale Rd blocking the A10 right 6 turn Continuous footway photo provided is wrong 3 Continuous footways are dangerous for children/pedestrians 12 Driver behaviour 14 Flawed designs/poor quality proposals/outdated style of infrastructure 22 Lack of segragated cyling lanes 36 Lack of segregated provision for cyclists will lead to accidents 22 Loss of parking bays 12 New design will slow down traffic & create bigger/more dangerous roads 25 Plans do not go far enough 20 Plans unfair on drivers who pay road tax 5 Prefer current set up/do not change anything 5 Roads are narrow so installing a bus lane will cause traffic 11 The changes will mean that a significant number of residents are cut off 1 This new layout makes this crossing even more dangerous to cyclists 12 Unclear rationale for change 4 Waste of tax payers money 9 Bus lane in the middle of the road will cause confusion/danger to pedestrians & cyclists 2 Changes biased against motorists and businesses 1 No protection for pedestrians 14 Plans favour drivers only 11 Poor proposals 6

Proposals contradict the mayor's cycling vision 5 Proposals fail to meet the cycling junction assessment standard 7 Removal of left hand slip from Amhurst Park will lead to congestion/misery/compromise 38 people's health Staggered crossing 14 There is enough pollution & noise so do not make it worse 3 Yellow boxes not on map/provision for blind pedestrians 3 Comments for the proposal (some aspects of the proposal) Current route: Slip road Amhurst A10 is important/it relieves congestion 12 Changing from 20 minutes parking at the bays to 1 Hour 3 Closing of slip roads and tightening of the junction is welcome as slow down traffic 7 Conditional support 11 Continuous footways 6 Drivers will have a better view of all users of the public highway 2 Good solution 47 In favour of ASLs 14 Introduction of right turn pockets on A10 High Road 2 New bus lane 9 Proposals improve access and safety for pedestrians/cyclists 26 Removal of bays 3 Removal of bus stop 1 Postive comment/support: Reduced congestion 1 Suggestions Have bigger teams of construction workers to finish the construction quickly 1 Change parking provision on Clapton Common east of Leweston 1 Consider diagonal crossing/traffic light phase 6 Consider Dutch-style safe infrastructure 8 Continuous pathways need signage indicating pedestrian priority 5 Cyclist should be registered and accountable 1 Enforce 20mph speed limit 5 Ensure kerbside bollards are removed throughout the lengths of bus clearways as hey 2 block wheelchair and buggies Fix the derelict public toilets outside Sainsbury's which are an eyesore! 2 Get rid of those 3-stage staggered pedestrians crossings 4 Improve lighting in the area 2 Introduce right turn from Stamford Hill to Clapton Common & from Stamford Hill to 2 Amhurst Park Introduce Toucan crossings as they are much safer for everyone 4 Keep clear line outside the estate Stamford Lodge on Amhurst park (near Sainsbury’s) 3 Left turns should be protected 4 Make pedestrian crossings longer 6 Make the new bus lanes operational 24hrs 6 More parking bays needed 4 33

Motorway-style slip roads should be removed as these encourage excessive traffic 2 speed Plant more trees in the area 4 Proposal should be reworked to include segregated lanes 50 Redirect funding elsewhere 3 Reduce parking bays 7 Reintroduce right turns from Stamford Hill into Amhurst Park & from Stamford Hill into 1 Clapton Common Remove central reservations to slow down cars/use freed space for segregated cycle 3 paths Re-sequence traffic lights 6 TfL should base this design on the successful ones they have implemented recently 6 The junction needs to be made safer for pedestrians and especially cyclists 48 Use floating bus stops 2 Wider road and a bridge crossing would be much more helpful and way safer 2

Question 14

Option Total Further information required: Impact assessment/timescales 3 Further information required: More details about this proposal 2 Comments against the quality of the proposal A before and after comparison map should have been provided 6 Awful content 2 Consulting on a finalised design is less useful than giving people alternative designs 4 Fails to provide either a target or actual Cycling Level of Service assessment (CLoS) and Junction assessment tool (JAT) for the junction 2 Lack of file upload provision 2 No explanation on how cyclist safety will be improved 2 No provision to give the comments that respondents want to give 2 No rationale given on how TfL arrived at these plans 2 Information unclear 10 Questions assume respondent relevant information not provided 1 Sceptical about TfL’s motives & whether feedback will be taken on board 13 Some of the terminology is hard to understand 5 TfL has ignored residents requests before 1 The photo of the continuous footway is wrong 2 There should be more than one option to choose from 4 Positive comments about the quality of the consultation Appreciate being consulted 6 Excellent 13 Good printed material/graphics/maps 21 Good/clear/easy to understand information 92 Suggestion Consult a wider area of residents 1 Consultation should have offered alternatives/better questions for each topic 7 It would be helpful to move between information and survey 2 More thought needs to go into how to portray the maps 1 Provide 3D representation with reasoning behind the proposals 1 Provide additional street view computer modelled impressions 2 Provide pictures of the areas being mentioned under each question for ease of reference 2 Provide printed material/email as well 1

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Elected Members Caroline Pidgeon AM Valerie Shawcross AM Jeanette Arnold AM Joanne McCartney AM Richard Tracey AM Tom Copley AM Darren Johnson AM Navin Shah AM Dr Onkar Sahota AM Victoria Borwick AM Steve O'Connell AM Roger Evans AM Patrick McLoughlin MP Secretary of State for Transport, Department of Transport Susan Kramer MP Minister of State, Department of Transport Claire Perry MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Transport Dianne Abbott MP Hackney North and Stoke Newington Meg Hillier MP Hackney South and Shoreditch David Lammy MP Tottenham Cllr Feryal Demirci Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Sustainability Cllr Simche Steinberger Springfield ward, Hackney Council Cllr Harvey Odze Springfield ward, Hackney Council Cllr Michael Levy Springfield ward, Hackney Council Cllr Dhiren Basu Seven Sisters ward, Haringey Council Cllr Joe Goldberg Seven Sisters ward, Haringey Council Cllr Claire Kober Seven Sisters ward, Haringey Council

Local Authorities London Borough of Hackney London Borough of Haringey

Police & Health Authorities Metropolitan Police London Ambulance Service London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority NHS CCG City and Hackney Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Transport Groups AA Motoring Trust Association of British Drivers Association of Car Fleet Operators British Motorcyclists Federation Bus Watch West Haringey Campaign for Better Transport 36

Hackney Safer Transport Team Haringey Safer Transport Team CTC, the national cycling charity Freight Transport Association Green Flag Group London Cycling Campaign (Hackney) London Cycling Campaign (Haringey) Motorcycle Action Group Motorcycle Industry Association Road Haulage Association West Hampstead Amenity and Transport

Other Stakeholders Action on Hearing Loss Age UK Age Concern London Alzheimer’s Society BT British Dyslexia Association Canal and River Trust (London) Disability Alliance Disability Rights UK Disabled Persons Transport Committee EDF Energy Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Joint Mobility Unit National Children’s Bureau RNIB Royal Mail Sense Stroke Association Thames Water London Councils London Older People’s Strategy Group Licenced Taxi Drivers Association Living Streets MIND National Grid Unite Union RMT Union

Appendix D – Response to issues raised

Cycling infrastructure

A number of respondents made suggestions concerning what elements had, and had not, been included for cyclists. These included:

Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) do not serve a useful function

We install ASLs at signal-controlled junctions to help reduce the conflict between cyclists and motorists when pulling away. Some respondents were concerned that ASLs do not provide cyclists with any useful advantage. However, ASLs are a recognised method of ensuring that cyclists do have a degree of priority. ASLs help cyclists to position themselves in drivers’ line of sight, avoid conflict with left turning vehicles, wait away from direct exhaust fumes, and enjoy a head start over motorised traffic.

Following the recent improvement in the junction’s safety record, and having considered the responses to the consultation and other factors, we have decided not to make changes to the junction at this time. This includes the provision of ASLs. Our teams will continue to monitor the situation, but the proposal we consulted on for the crossroads will no longer be progressed.

Lack of segregated cycle facilities

Some respondents expressed their disappointment for the lack of segregated cycle facilities, with many concerned that the proposals did not go far enough for cyclists.

We need to balance the need of all road users, and recognise that this is a major arterial route for motor traffic. We have looked at a number of different options for improvement but have not identified a workable solution involving segregation for cyclists. As a result of this initial feasibility work we decided to propose only minor interventions in order to ensure the junction continues to function at its current capacity. We have recently launched Cycle Superhighway 1, which largely runs parallel to the A10 on quieter backstreet roads and provides safer quicker and more pleasant cycling than the A10. Cyclists on the route pass through just eight traffic signals, compared with 54 traffic signals for the equivalent journey along the A10.

Safety

Safety at the junction needs to be improved

Our proposal was predominately a road safety scheme, aimed at creating a safer junction for all road users. Many respondents did express concerns that the existing junction was unsafe for more vulnerable road users.

We are continuing with implementing some of the road safety measures on the A10 High Road, such as right turn pockets to make sure there is space for people to turn easily.

These will have benefits for all road users by giving a dedicated space to wait before turning.

Our research shows that safety at the junction has improved over the last year, and in 2015, fewer collisions were recorded than in previous years. Therefore, for now, we will continue to monitor safety at the junction.

Pedestrian provision

The junction and High Road is an unpleasant area to walk around, with little to no protection for pedestrians

Respondents were concerned that the area around the junction was daunting for pedestrians. Safety at the junction has improved over the last year, and we will continue to monitor this and investigate other viable options for improvement.

We are implementing some safety measures on the A10 High Road, including installing raised tables at Craven Park Road, Ravensdale Road and Egerton Road. This will slow traffic down as it is turning and increase visibility. We are also going to narrow the junctions at Egerton Road and Ravensdale Road to make it easier and quicker for pedestrians to cross. We will also continue with installing the continuous footways over vehicle accesses. This will help to improve the experience of those walking along the A10 High Road.

Pedestrian crossings should not be staggered, and TfL should consider ‘Oxford Street’ style diagonal crossing

The A10 is a major arterial route and carries a large volume of traffic. Therefore, we have to make sure this junction continues to operate effectively.

When looking at potential designs for the junction we wanted to ensure journey times would not increase dramatically. If we were to remove all the staggered crossings, or install a diagonal crossing, there would be a hugely detrimental impact on journey times for all other road users. Instead, our initial proposals aimed to balance the needs of all users, while still making it easier and quicker for pedestrians to cross.

Continuous footways are dangerous for pedestrians

Some respondents were concerned that continuous footways could be dangerous for pedestrians. A continuous footway is when the pavement is extended over a driveway or side road. These footways give pedestrians priority and make vehicles slow down, creating a safer and nicer environment for those walking along the road.

Traffic and congestion

Proposals will slow down traffic

A large majority of the responses received were concerned that our proposals would slow traffic down and cause congestion. Our modelling showed that if implemented the proposals would not increase journey times through the junction, and that there would be an improvement for pedestrians trying to cross.

Removal of slip road from Amhurst Park will lead to congestion

Respondents were concerned that congestion would get worse if we removed the slip road from Amhurst Park. We proposed to remove this slip road and adjust the green light time on this arm of the junction. These measures combined would have meant that journey times for road users would remain the same. The removal of the slip road also had an additional benefit, as it reduced the number of road crossings from three to two.

Installing a bus lane will cause traffic congestion, and the hours of the bus lane will be confusing

Some respondents were concerned that installing a southbound bus lane, operational between 7am-7pm, would cause congestion, be confusing for other drivers, and only provide minor benefits for bus passengers. We believe the introduction of a southbound lane here would provide a measurable benefit for bus passengers, and that this would improve reliability of bus journey times.

Design

The design is flawed and outdated

Some respondents criticised us for not going far enough, explaining that they felt the proposals would not make a big enough change from the existing situation.

We have to balance the needs of all road users. These proposals aimed to keep the junction working effectively while also making safety improvements.

At this time we no longer plan to make any changes to the junction layout itself. For now, we will continue to monitor the junction and investigate to see if there are other viable options for improvement.

Loss of parking bays

We will be relocating the loading bay on the A10 High Road to Egerton Road, in order to reduce congestion on the High Road. Some people were concerned that this would result in a loss of parking on Egerton Road, making it difficult for those visiting the local doctor’s surgery. However, the loading bay will enable Blue Badge Holders visiting the local doctor’s surgery to stop for 3 hours, and parking along the rest of Egerton Road is unrestricted. Access will be maintained for the most in need, and the net reduction in parking will be minimal.