A13 Commercial Road Consultation Report V04.Pdf

Proposed changes to A13 Commercial Road between New Road and Jubilee Street Response to consultation July 2016

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 2 1 Background ...... 5 2 Introduction ...... 5 3 The consultation ...... 10 4 Overview of consultation responses ...... 14 5 Conclusion and next steps ...... 33 Appendix A – TfL response to issues commonly raised ...... 33 Appendix B – Copy of consultation letter ...... 33 Appendix C – Letter distribution area ...... 48 Appendix D – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 49

Executive Summary

About the consultation:

Between 29 January and 11 March 2016, we consulted on proposals to improve safety, journey time reliability and the urban realm on the A13 Commercial Road between New Road and Jubilee Street. We proposed a number of changes to improve conditions for bus passengers and vulnerable road users such as changing parking restrictions, widening the bus lane, improving pedestrian crossings and introducing measures to slow traffic speeds and give pedestrians more priority.

Responses to consultation: We received 692 responses to the consultation from members of the public and a further 14 responses from stakeholders. 73% of respondents who answered a closed question about whether they supported the proposals said that they fully or partially supported them, and 20% that they opposed them. A final 7% were either not sure or had no opinion. We received a petition signed by 698 members of The Mulberry School for Girls Student Body. It called for us to address how dangerous they feel it is to cross the road outside the school and requested that we relocate the signalised pedestrian crossing outside of Tesco to outside the school. A delegation of approximately 30 traders from the local business community attended one of our drop-in sessions and called on us to re-think our proposals to implement parking restrictions during the peak periods as they were concerned this would adversely affect parking and loading for their customers. There were several common themes to the responses we received. Whilst many people acknowledged that the proposals would improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and other road users and were pleased to note the urban realm improvements, a number of requests and issues were raised. The most common theme was requests for further pedestrian crossings, in particular the request to improve crossing facilities outside Mulberry School for Girls by relocating the crossing outside Tesco. There were also a notable number of requests for dedicated cycle lanes to be provided, as well as requests for other design changes such as further reductions in parking, 20mph zones and measures to prevent pedestrians from informally crossing. A number of respondents also raised concerns with driver and cyclist behavior in the area or that the proposals would create more congestion.

We have responded to the most prominent of the specific issues raised in consultation in Appendix A of this report.

Conclusion and next steps:

Over 73% of respondents to the consultation said that they supported or partially supported our overall proposals. Having considered the responses and issues raised, we intend to progress the scheme to the next stage of detailed design. However, we are proposing a number of modifications to the changes to parking restrictions. It is hoped this will allow us to address local businesses concerns about customer access and servicing while still meeting the objectives of the scheme.

Our original proposals looked to restrict parking in the bus lanes during the AM and PM peak. So parking would only be possible from 10:00 – 16:00 and again outside red route operational hours, from 19:00 – 07:00. We are now proposing to modify this and to introduce a ‘tidal flow’ approach. The majority of traffic heads into the City in a westerly direction during the AM peak and the opposite way during the PM peak. We will therefore allow parking in the bus lane in the AM peak on the north side of Commercial Road and during the PM peak on the south side of Commercial Road. We also proposed two new loading bays. However, following requests from local business representatives, these will remain as parking bays with a 1 hour time limit. An updated design drawing can be found here.

The safety of schoolchildren and other pedestrians crossing outside the Mulberry School for Girls is of primary importance and we have reviewed the request to provide a signal controlled pedestrian crossing here. However, after careful consideration, we have concluded that it is not feasible to provide a new signalised crossing or to relocate an existing signalised crossing to outside the school. This is due to the negative impact on the capacity of the network from additional crossings and matching crossing points to key pedestrian desire lines through the area. We are committed to improving the safety for schoolchildren at The Mulberry School for Girls. We feel that our alternative proposal to convert the existing traffic island outside the school into an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing with dropped kerbs; a wider central island; and relocating some parking to improve visibility for approaching traffic, will significantly improve the safety of this crossing for pupils at the school. In addition to this, we will also investigate the possibility of introducing a 20mph limit along this stretch of the A13 (subject to the outcomes of early trials we are carrying out elsewhere on the network). During detailed design, we will also investigate the possibility of shortening the section of raised carriageway to allow room to put a raised table at the crossing point to further encourage slow traffic speeds.

Subject to internal approvals and available budget, we hope to begin construction in 2017. If we do proceed, we will work with the London Borough Tower of Hamlets to minimise the impact and co-ordinate works. We would write to local residents and businesses in advance of the works to advise them of the works programme and any likely disruption during construction.

About this document:

This document explains how this consultation was delivered, the issues that were raised by respondents and the decisions that we have taken on the future of the scheme. Appendix A contains our response to the issues that were commonly raised.

1 Background

We have identified a higher rate of collisions along the A13 between New Road and Jubilee Street compared to similar roads in London, particularly involving pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Therefore, we wanted to design a scheme to reduce the number of collisions involving these vulnerable road users.

The area also suffers from traffic congestion, particularly at peak times. Parked vehicles prevent buses from using the eastbound bus lane at busy times, which causes delays to bus passengers.

We therefore set out proposals to implement a number of changes to improve conditions for bus passengers and vulnerable road users. With the aim of:

 Improving journey times for bus routes 15, 115, 135 during the AM and PM peak.

 Improving crossing facilities for users of Watney Street Market and for School Children outside of Mulberry School for Girls

 Reducing general traffic speeds to improve conditions for all vulnerable road users

 Widening bus lanes to allow cyclists and motorcyclists to pass buses more safely

 Providing a better pedestrian experience with upgraded footway and priority given to pedestrians at side roads

 Improving the urban realm by reducing clutter and introducing new paving and a more pleasant environment, particularly around Watney Market

These proposals involved changes to parking on sections of Commercial Road and were the subject of the consultation that this report summarises. 2 Introduction As part of this consultation we proposed the following changes: Pedestrians  Raised carriageway with coloured surfacing on Commercial Road between Turner Street and Sidney Street to help lower traffic speeds and reduce collisions. There would still be a detectable kerb height between the road and the footway

 Converting the pedestrian crossing outside Watney Market to a wider, straight crossing and relocating it closer to the market. This would mean pedestrians crossing in one stage rather than waiting on a central island. Pedestrian “Countdown” at the crossing would also be provided

 Providing a wider crossing point for schoolchildren outside Mulberry School for Girls and installing electronic signs to make drivers more aware of schoolchildren crossing

 Raising the level of all side road entrances and providing kerb build outs to reduce traffic speeds, making it easier and safer for pedestrians to cross

 Providing a continuous footway across the following side roads to give priority to pedestrians and a smoother crossing surface: Richard Street; Jane Street; Anthony Street; Fenton Street; Buross Street; Hungerford Street ; Bromehead Street

 Reducing kerb heights, particularly around Watney Market, to help pedestrians

 Installing low level central islands to help pedestrians cross the road informally

 Upgrading pavements where damaged or uneven

Other Road Users

 Re-surfacing sections of the road to provide a smoother surface for cyclists and motorcyclists and to reduce noise

 Making Turner Street “no entry” to motor traffic (except cycles) from Commercial Road in order to improve safety outside Mulberry School for Girls and to prevent vehicles queuing back onto Commercial Road at busy times. Access would still be possible using other routes, and motorists would be able to exit Turner Street onto Commercial Road as they do now

 Widening bus lanes to 4.5 metres to allow cyclists and motorcyclists to pass buses more safely. We would create space for this by changing the hours of operation of the parking bays on the north side of Commercial Road

 Converting some existing parking bays into two new loading bays

 Changing parking controls where necessary on the north side of Commercial Road by converting existing ‘all day’ parking (Mon – Sat 7am -7pm) to off-peak times (Mon Sat 10am – 4pm). This would allow the bus lane to operate at peak times (Mon-Sat 7-10am and 4-7pm)

 Providing Advanced Stop Lines for cyclists at junctions to let them wait ahead of other traffic

Urban Realm Improvements

 New tree planting where conditions allow

 Improving the urban realm – reducing clutter, better paving and a more pleasant environment particularly around Watney Market

2.1 Location map

2.2 Map of the proposed scheme: A13 Commercial Road between New Road and Jubilee Street (New Road to Hungerford Street)

2.3 Map of the proposed scheme: A13 Commercial Road between New Road and Jubilee Street (Cavell Street to Jubilee Street)

3 The consultation

We consulted on these proposals from 29 January to 11 March 2016. The potential outcomes of the consultation were:  We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as originally planned  We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation  We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation

The objectives of the consultation were:  To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond  To understand the level of support or opposition towards the proposals  To understand any issues that might affect the proposals and had not been previously considered  To understand concerns and objections  To allow respondents to make suggestions

3.1 Who we consulted

The consultation sought the views of a range of different groups potentially affected by or interested in our proposals. We sought to involve various individuals and representative groups in the consultation, including:  Local residents and businesses  Local stakeholders, including Tower Hamlets Council, local politicians and local interest groups  Cycling and road user representative bodies  Other road user groups

A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix D. A summary of their responses is given in Section 4.4.

3.2 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

We sent two maps and a letter describing the proposals to approximately 4,750 addresses in the area immediately around these proposed changes. We also hand delivered a copy to businesses along this stretch. A copy of this letter is shown in Appendix B and a map of the distribution area can be found in Appendix C. Information about the consultation was also emailed to 268 stakeholder contacts, including elected officials, transport bodies and representative groups. A list of the groups consulted is shown as Appendix D. We also sent an email to over 155,000 Oyster card holders who had registered for TfL updates and who lived locally or use buses that pass through the area.

The consultation invited participants to comment on the proposed changes. As well as asking respondents to provide their personal details such as a name and email address, we provided five closed questions and two open questions, as listed below:

1. Do you currently use the A13 Commercial Road between New Road and Jubilee Road?  Yes  No

2. If ‘Yes’ are you a (please tick all boxes that apply):

 Local resident  Business Owner  Employed locally  Visitor to the area  Commuter to the area  Not local but interested in the scheme  Other (Please specify)

3. Do you support the proposals for changes to the A13 Commercial Road?  Support  Partially support  Not Sure  No opinion  Do not support

4. Do you have any comments on the proposals for the A13 Commercial Road between New Road and Jubilee Road?

5. What types of transport do you normally use locally (please tick all boxes that apply)?

 Tube

 Taxi

 London bus

 Private coach

 Bicycle

 Walk

 Car

 Van/lorry

 Motorcycle/scooter  Other (Please specify)

6. How did you hear about this consultation? 11

 Letter from TfL  Email from TfL  Public exhibition  Consultation website  Web search  News feed  Communication from local school  Other (Please specify)

7. Do you have any comments about the quality of this consultation (e.g. the information, any printed materials, the website, events etc.)?

Participants were invited to provide their feedback using any of the following response channels:  Online survey at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/a13-commercial-road  Emailing [email protected]  Freepost address

3.3 Drop In Information Sessions

We held two drop-in sessions on the 9 and 11 February 2016 at the Ideas Store Watney Road Market, 260 Commercial Road, London E1 2FB. These were an opportunity for consultees to meet the project team and have any questions answered.

50 people attended over the two sessions. Attendees were generally supportive of the scheme and acknowledge the need to address safety issue along this stretch. However, 30 people attended together as a delegation representing local traders. They were very concerned about the changes to parking restrictions in the am/pm peak. They felt this would restrict their business and would put off customers which would cost them money and risk their viability to continue trading.

Other areas of concern by other attendees were primarily around construction, especially the timing of it and seeking assurance that works would not start until Aldgate Gyratory works had completed. There were also worries about access and servicing of business premises during construction. Some attendees were concerned at the proposed closure of Turner Street, saying traffic will use Nelson Street instead. This is already a difficult road to use due to parked vehicles on both sides. It was felt extra traffic will exacerbate the issue.

3.4 Meeting with key stakeholders

We meet with the Deputy Head of the Mulberry School for Girls to discuss our proposals in detail and to request their support in publicising the consultation to pupils and parents. It

12 was clear that the school were concerned that the proposals to improve safety outside the school did not go far enough and they would like to see a signalised pedestrian crossing. They were also concerned about the use of continuous paving on the entrances to junctions near the school. They felt it may be dangerous for pupils who may not realise the need to still check for vehicles.

Further to their representation at the drop-in Session, we have continued dialogue with representatives from the local traders to look at how we could modify the design to lessen the impact on their trade.

4 Overview of consultation responses

4.1 About the responses

We received 692 responses to the consultation from members of the public and a further 14 responses from stakeholders. Please see section 4.4 for more information about stakeholder responses. We also received a petition signed by 698 members of The Mulberry School for Girls Student Body. It called for us to address how dangerous they feel it is to cross the road outside the school, by relocating the signalised pedestrian crossing outside of Tesco to outside the school. Of those that answered the questions, 90% confirmed they used the stretch of road in question of those 66% were local residents, 19% commuted through the area and 14% were either local businesses or employed locally.

4.2 Support level

Of the 692 respondents to this consultation, 684 answered the closed question: “Do you support the proposals for changes to the A13 Commercial Road?” The results are presented in Figure 1.

Fig.1. “Do you support the proposals for changes to the A13 Commercial Road?”

Q3: Do you support the proposals for changes to the A13 Commercial Road? 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

0 Support Partially Do not support Not Sure Not Answered No opinion Support

4.3 Summary of overall comments received

The following is a summary of the issues raised by respondents in response to the open question in our consultation questionnaire asking people if they had any comments on our proposals. Our approach to analysis was to categorise the issues in responses using a series of ‘tags’. Each tag is made up of a broad theme, such as ‘Pedestrian Facilities’ and then something more specific such as ‘request for further pedestrian crossings’. This enables us to understand the detail of what people chose to raise in their consultation responses and to present it as clearly as possible in this summary report.

A table listing the themes and issues that were identified can be found in Table 1 and then a table showing how these are ranked by the number of respondents who made the comment can be found in Table 2.

Please see chapter 4.5 for a breakdown of responses by stakeholder organisations

Table 1. Themes and issues emerging from the consultation

Q4: Do you have any comments on the proposals for the A13 Commercial Road between New Road and Jubilee Road? Bus Facilities Remove loading bays from bus lanes 3 Remove bus lanes 1 Request for bus stop lay-bys 1 Cycling Facilities Request for dedicated cycle lane 61 Further cycling improvements - general 16 Build-outs cause pinch points for cyclists 4 Junctions Against banned turn into Turner Street 14 Issue with raised carriageway 9 Request for further banned turns 9 Request for further design enhancements - junctions 8 Negative Increased congestion – general 45 Against schemes giving priority to other modes than cars 17 General opposition 16 Concern over pollution 9 Increased congestion - surrounding areas 9 Cyclist have other facilities nearby 5 Other Requests for further design enhancements - general 54 Issues with driver/cyclist behaviour 52 Concern over volume of roadworks in area 29 Suggestion out of geographical scope of scheme 23 Unclear comment 11 Request for further design enhancements – street furniture 6 Upgrade utilities at the same time 1 Parking Support parking restrictions 19 Against reducing parking - business access 9 Parking / loading enforcement required 8 Against reducing parking - access to religious institutions 1 Pedestrian Facilities Request for further pedestrian crossings 112 Support pedestrian Improvements 36 Against low level traffic island 21 Concern with continuous pavements 7 Against reducing kerb heights 2 Rubbish blocking pavement 2 Supportive General support 79 Support urban realm improvements 23

Table 2. Themes emerging from the consultation ranked by the number of respondents who raised the issue

Themes Ranked Count % Pedestrian Facilities: Request for further pedestrian

crossings 112 16% Supportive: General support 79 12% Cycling Facilities: Request for dedicated cycle lane 61 9% Other: Requests for further design enhancements - 5 TOP general 54 8% Other: Issues with driver/cyclist behaviour 52 8%

Negative: Increased congestion - general 45 7% Pedestrian Facilities: Support pedestrian Responses 5% > improvements 36 5% Other: Concern over volume of roadworks in area 29 4% Other: Suggestion out of geographical scope of scheme 23 3% Supportive: Support urban realm improvements 23 3%

Pedestrian Facilities: Against low level traffic island 21 3% > 2% of Responses of 2% > Parking: Support parking restrictions 19 3% Negative: Against schemes giving priority to other modes than cars 17 2% Cycling Facilities: Further cycling improvements - general 16 2% Negative: General opposition 16 2% Junctions: Against banned turn into Turner Street 14 2%

Other: Unclear comment 11 2% Responses of 1% > Junctions: Issue with raised carriageway 9 1% Junctions: Request for further banned turns 9 1% Negative: Concern over pollution 9 1% Negative: Increased congestion - surrounding areas 9 1% Parking: Against reducing parking - business access 9 1% Junctions: Request for further design enhancements - junctions 8 1% Parking: Parking / loading enforcement required 8 1% Pedestrian Facilities: Concern with continuous pavements 7 1% Other: Request for further design enhancements – street furniture 6 1% Negative: Cyclist have other facilities nearby 5 1% Cycling Facilities: Build outs cause pinch points for cyclists 4 1%

22% (152 respondents) of those that answered the closed question as to whether they supported the proposals declared that they ‘partially supported the proposals’ the top five reasons given for this are highlighted below in Table 3.

Table 3. Top 5 issues for those who partially supported the proposals

Top 5 Issues for those who partially supported the proposals Request for further pedestrian crossings 48 Request for dedicated cycle lane 24 Requests for further design enhancements - general 20 Issues with driver/cyclist behaviour 11 Against low level traffic island 9

4.4 Detail of issues raised under each theme

Bus facilities 4 respondents made 4 distinct comments about the proposed changes to bus facilities in our plans. Whilst these respondents either supported or partially supported the overall scheme, they did have some suggestions for improving the bus facilities along Commercial Road.

These comments have been separated into themes below:

Remove bus lanes / Request for bus stop lay-bys 1 respondent requested that bus lanes be removed from Commercial Road, in favour of installing dedicated lay-bys. This respondent claimed that lanes of traffic would flow more freely as it would be unimpeded by stopping buses.

Remove loading bays from bus lanes 3 respondents requested that loading bays be removed from bus lanes, claiming that “…they defeat the whole purpose”, and that they are “…a danger to other traffic namely cyclists and motorcyclists” due to buses swaying back and forth between lanes to avoid occupied loading bays.

Cycling facilities 77 respondents (11%) made 81 distinct comments about the proposed changes to cycling facilities in our plans. Whilst the vast majority of these respondents supported the need for safer cycling provisions as part of the scheme, they felt that the omission of dedicated cycle lanes would be a missed opportunity.

These comments have been separated into 3 distinct themes below:

Build-outs cause pinch points for cyclists 4 respondents commented on the danger of build outs for cyclists, claiming that the build- outs force cyclists into a narrowing lane, and therefore at risk of being hit by buses, lorries and cars. Some also noted the impact of narrowing lanes on increasing traffic congestion, which may further place cyclists at risk.

Further cycling improvements – general 16 respondents commented on the requirement for further cycling improvements in general. 5 of these respondents simply stated that not enough was being done for cyclist safety in the plans. Others made requests for safe cyclist crossing or turning points, especially at the junction between Commercial Rd and Cannon St. The remainder of requests made included ‘more signage for cyclists’, ‘early release lights for cyclists’, and ‘provisions for cyclists during construction’.

Request for dedicated cycle lanes A total of 61 respondents (9%) commented on the need for dedicated cycle lanes, separated from motorised traffic. Of these, at least 19 (almost 3%) outlined each of the following four reasons:

 To encourage more people to cycle  Sufficient space exists to warrant their installation  Dedicated cycle lanes already exist elsewhere  Bus lanes are unsafe for cycling Fewer respondents also expressed their concern that cyclists struggle to get in front of traffic at junctions, as well as highlighting that car ownership rates are low in the surrounding area.

Junctions 34 respondents (5%) made 40 distinct comments relating to the proposals to modify the junctions in our plans. These were broadly split among the four themes listed below.

Against banned turn into Turner Street We received 14 comments against our plans to ban the turn into Turner Street. Four respondents were concerned that restricting the turn would lead to increased traffic levels and congestion on the smaller back roads in the area, as traffic seeks alternative routes. Three respondents were also concerned that it would lead to more vehicles using New Road or Sidney Street and that these junctions and roads are already heavily congested.

Other issues raised included concern that it would lead to increased traffic and congestion on Commercial Road as drivers slow down to find alternative turning options; and whether due consideration had been given to fact that Turner Street has been identified as point of access for construction vehicles for the Whitechapel Estate development.

One respondent also suggested that the problem at the Commercial Road/Turner Street junction was caused by large vehicles loading /unloading and double parking, therefore restricting the entrance. They felt it would be better to restrict this vehicle type rather than close it completely.

Issue with the raised carriageway We received nine comments against our proposal to raise the carriageway as a means to slow traffic speeds. It was generally felt that this measure would not slow speeds. One respondent felt better enforcement was needed. Another was concerned about entry and exit off the raised carriageway being uncomfortable for bus passengers. There was also a comment noting concern over the colour that will be used, requesting it is sympathetic to the built environment.

Request for further banned turns We received 9 comments requesting us to consider further turning restrictions into side roads, as cars slowing and waiting to turn often cause delays to traffic on Commercial Road. 19

We also received specific requests to look at the following junctions in particular:

 Banning turn into Sidney Street to deter rat running from Whitechapel Road to Commercial Road and to help lower traffic levels on this residential road  Consider putting a right turn filter or no right turn from Commercial Road into New Road to tackle the congestion queuing traffic causes in the westbound direction on Commercial Road  Consider banning turn into Cannon Street

Requests for further design enhancements We received 9 requests for further design enhancements to the junction or general road layout (in addition to the cycling, bus and pedestrian facilities design enhancements reported in the other sections of this report). These included widening the pavements at the New Road/Commercial Road junction; request to implement speed humps or speed cameras to slow traffic; request to replace traffic lights with mini roundabouts to slow traffic and stop cars racing to beat traffic lights; and two requests to review the Sidney Street/Commercial Road junction to make this safer and to manage turning traffic, including suggestions for a ‘keep clear’ hatched box and introducing a signalised junction.

Negative 81 respondents (12%) made 101 negative comments about the proposed scheme as a whole. The largest majority of these comments (45) were concerns that the proposals would create more congestion, as it would reduce the speed of the road and lengthen journey times. There were a further 9 comments concerned that this would add to pollution in the area. There were 17 comments objecting to the scheme prioritising other modes over the motorist and 9 comments concerned that the scheme would add to congestion in the wider area. There were 5 comments questioning the need to make changes to improve cycling facilities when there are dedicated cycle routes in the local vicinity (Cycle Superhighway 2) and cyclists should be encouraged to use those.

We also received 16 comments classified as demonstrating general opposition to the scheme. With statements such as “Keep as it is. You are wasting tax payer’s money” and “Stop messing up the roads, you are already creating havoc on A11”.

Other 152 respondents (22%) made 175 generic comments about the scheme that do not relate to the broader themes. These have been separated into the following 7 categories, and summarised in the sections that follow:

 Requests for further design enhancements – general;  Requests for further design enhancements – street furniture;  Issues with driver/cyclist behaviour;  Concern over volume of roadwork in area;  Suggestion out of (geographical) scope of scheme;  Unclear comment; and  Upgrade utilities at the same time.

Requests for further design enhancements – general 53 respondents (8%) made requests for further design enhancements in general. Some of the more popular enhancements included the reduction or removal of parking, installation of measures to reduce traffic speeds (such as applying 20 mph speed limits or installing speed bumps), relocating bus stops, and installing railings (or other barrier) to separate traffic carriageways from pedestrian pavements to prevent informal pedestrian crossing.

All of the requests for relocation of a bus stop appear to refer to the ‘Watney Market (Stop F)’. Respondents have requested this stop be moved further to the west for two reasons:

1. 5 respondents made this request to reduce pollution to Peter House and Painter House situated above the current bus stop location. Most of these respondents identified outside of the Holiday Inn as a more suitable location for the bus stop; and 2. 1 respondent requested the relocation to prevent pedestrians crossing dangerously from Watney Market in a rush to catch their bus. Other notable but less common requests included improving traffic lights, increased or improved signage, smaller sidewalks, and while not technically a design enhancement, increased police presence / patrolling.

Requests for further design enhancements – street furniture 6 respondents made comments requesting additional street furniture. Requests included:

 Improved street lighting for both carriageways and footpaths (such as dual arm LED lamps)  Fixings that allow festival banners and lighting  Public art  More plants / greenery / landscaping  Stands or parking for bicycles  Something that acknowledges the history of the area

Issues with driver/cyclist behaviour A total of 52 respondents (8%) commented on issues related to the behaviour of both drivers and cyclists on and around Commercial Road. The issue of drivers being irresponsible, aggressive, disobedient, or speeding made up 40 of these. 23 comments identified cyclists breaking the Highway Code, some reporting that cyclists have been cycling on pedestrian pavements. Other comments (typically fewer than 5) mentioned the following:

 Vehicles encroaching on cycle / bus lanes, and ASLs  Cars undertaking dangerously  Cars double parking  Expressing the need for better education of all road users

Concern over volume of roadworks in area 29 respondents (4%) expressed their concerns over the volume of roadworks in the area. Over half of these respondents highlighted their frustration over the disruption currently

21 caused by works elsewhere, especially the Cycle Superhighway 2 works between Aldgate and Bow.

7 comments related to the length of time the proposed works would take to complete, while 8 related to concerns over the severity of disruption created by the proposed works (such as the “…closure of lanes”, and “…how will buses travel during closures?”). There were also 2 comments relating to the potential noise, and its impacts on residents, that would be created by the proposed works.

Suggestion out of geographical scope of scheme 23 respondents (3%) made suggestions outside the geographical boundaries of this proposal. The majority of these suggestions were to extend the proposed designs further along Commercial Rd or into its many side streets. 4 of these suggestions specifically requested extension of the designs west towards Whitechapel Road and Aldgate, and 4 of these suggestions specifically requested extension of the designs east towards Limehouse.

Other notable suggestions included improving the junction where Commercial Road meets Whitechapel High Street, general improvements to Whitechapel High Street itself, and installing a crossing / traffic controls at the junction of Sidney Square (beside the park).

Unclear comment A total of 11 respondents made comments that were unclear or did not make sense in the context of this consultation.

Upgrade utilities at the same time 1 respondent highlighted the opportunity to improve certain utilities during the works proposed along this section of Commercial Road. Utilities identified for improvement included Water, Gas, Electricity and Fibre Optics.

Parking

36 (5%) Respondents made a total of 37 comments relating to the proposals to modify parking facilities along this stretch of Commercial Road. These were broadly split among the four themes listed below.

Support parking restrictions We received 19 comments supporting our plans to modify current parking arrangements to off-peak only. In addition to statements of general support, respondents also noted that it would help to ease congestion and improve traffic flow and bus journey times, as well as improving safety for pedestrians by improving visibility.

There were 5 calls for us to take our proposals further and to consider making this stretch a red route clearway. As well as request for a review of parking in other roads such as Cannon Street, and extending the changes down Commercial Road to Poplar.

There were also 3 comments regarding issues with commercial parking which was reported at times as careless, such as double parking, which led to congestion.

Parking and loading enforcement required We received 8 comments in which respondents called for us to ensure that the new parking restrictions would be adequately enforced to ensure compliance.

Against parking restrictions – business access There were 9 comments noting opposition to the proposal to modify the parking bay hours. Principally, it was suggested the changes would be detrimental to local businesses along Commercial Road. Respondents said the majority of businesses are wholesalers whose customers have large vehicles and, if restricted until off-peak hours, may not be able to find any places to park. In addition, current opening hours are 8.30 -19.00, so this would affect customers who need to come early in the morning or later in the day.

One respondent also noted concern about the reduction in parking bays between New Road and Philpot Street. They felt there was not enough provision as there was, and that businesses’ customers would not walk long distances with large heavy bags.

One respondent suggested instead of amending the parking bay hours that the pavement should be narrowed on the eastbound side to allow the extension of the bus lane.

Against reducing parking – access to religious institutions One respondent was concerned about the impact on worshippers at local religious institutions who use the parking bays at the weekend.

Pedestrian Facilities

162 respondents (24%) made a total of 180 comments relating to the proposed changes to pedestrian facilities along this stretch of Commercial Road. These were broadly split among the six themes listed below.

Request for further pedestrian crossings There were 112 comments received making requests for further pedestrian crossings. Of those, 84 were requests to improve crossing provision outside the Mulberry School for Girls. Many called for a signalised pedestrian or zebra crossing to be installed to ensure safe travel for pupils. The majority of respondents also suggested that the current crossing be relocated from outside Tesco to outside the school rather than installing an additional crossing. Some of the respondents also noted their concerns with central median strip, questioning the appropriateness of allowing informal crossing opportunities with school children, and raising safety concerns with expecting them to wait in the middle of a busy road.

Other issues raised in comments included requests for more pedestrian crossings in general instead of the central median strip, and requests to install zebra rather than signalised crossings. There were also specific requests for the following additional crossings:

 Commercial Road/New Road and New Road/Cannon Street Road to accommodate the large number of expected pupils at the newly opened Wapping High School  Two crossings at Watney Market – one for the bus stops and one for the next stop to the west of it  Crossing at end of Sidney Street where it meets Commercial Road  Crossing outside of Watney Market/Ideas Store

There was also a suggestion for a series of pedestrian bridges that would allow pedestrians to cross without interfering with traffic, and a call for zebra crossings at end of side roads as the respondent felt traffic would not take notice of raised pedestrian walkways.

Support pedestrian improvements There were 36 comments in support of the proposed changes to pedestrian facilities. The most popularly citied, with 23 comments, was support for the relocation of the crossing closer to Watney Market and converting it to a straight across crossing. Other pedestrian improvements that were noted included comments in support of providing continuous footway across side roads to give priority to pedestrians; comments in support of the central median strip to help informal road crossing; and requests for countdown facilities at the signalised crossings.

Against low-level traffic island / central median strip We received 21 comments objecting to the proposed low level traffic island to help pedestrians cross informally. These were principally along two lines, either concerns for pedestrian safety and/or the safety issues it presented to cyclists/motorcyclists. Those citing pedestrian safety concerns questioned why we would encourage people to cross the road away from formal crossing points, given the busyness and speed of traffic along this road. In addition, the islands would be particularly unsafe for those with young children or school students. Those with concerns about cyclists/motorcyclists felt they formed a barrier that hindered the safe overtaking of vehicles and also presented an obstacle to allowing cycles/motorcycles to filter through traffic to the front at junctions. It was also noted that removing the island would also allow adequate space to implement dedicated cycling lanes.

Concern with continuous pavements We received 7 comments detailing concerns about our proposals to implement continuous pavements at side roads in order to give pedestrians priority. The largest concern was pedestrian safety and that it may confuse pedestrians who may walk without expecting vehicles or may loiter/wait assuming its part of the pavement. One respondent noted concern about the implementation of the measure on the side roads near the school as it would be confusing for both students and drivers at these busy junctions.

Against reducing kerb heights We received two comments against the reducing of kerb heights. These were because of concerns for pedestrian safety, especially for young children, as a raised kerb signifies a barrier/edge and without this it was felt there would be an increased risk of children running into the road. In addition, it was noted that kerbs mark the edge of the carriageway for drivers. 24

Rubbish blocking pavements We received two comments complaining about local businesses blocking pavements with their rubbish and requests that this is addressed as presents obstacles to pedestrians.

Supportive 99 respondents (14%) made 102 supportive comments about the proposed scheme as a whole. These comments have been separated into those supporting the proposed urban realm improvements, and more general supportive comments.

General support 79 respondents (nearly 12%) made comments classed as general support. Of these respondents, 75 indicated that they Support the proposal as a whole, 3 Partially Support the proposal, and 1 was Not Sure.

The majority of the comments indicated that improved safety for cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users formed the basis of respondent’s support. Other less common themes identified in the comments included:

 Improving the aesthetics of Commercial Road;  Prioritising buses over other road users;  Improved safety for school students; and  Improved air quality.

Support urban realm improvements 23 respondents (3%) made supportive comments about the urban realm improvements that have been proposed in this scheme. Over 10 of these comments were about the planting of more trees along Commercial Road. Other comments supported the urban realm improvements around the Watney Market area.

4.5 Summary of responses from statutory bodies and stakeholder groups

We received a total of 14 responses from statutory bodies and stakeholder groups. Of these three were broadly in support of the proposals, a further seven supported the proposals but with a number of requests for modifications, two firmly opposed the plans, one’s position was unclear and one was unsure whether they supported the plans.

Statutory Bodies

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Tower Hamlets Council broadly support the proposals to improve road safety and improve the crossing of Commercial Road for pedestrians, but have a number of comments on the design that they would like considered.

They believe the long speed table stretching the full length of the area will reduce its impact as a traffic calming feature, as vehicles will have the opportunity to increase speed once up on the “table top” before reaching the down ramp. Raising the individual pedestrian crossing points would have more impact. They are also concerned that the raised levels would increase footway parking potentials as vehicles would have little curb face to drive over.

They have requested more information regarding the proposal to ban vehicles turning into Turner Street to allow them to understand numbers of vehicles that would need alternative routes.

They have requested that the school carriageway logos (westbound) should be further east, in the vicinity of Anthony Street, in advance of Mulberry School and that the road is converted to a 20mph zone.

London Fire Brigade

London Fire Brigade broadly support the proposals, in particular the change in times to parking on the Northside to ease congestion, moving the crossing closer to Watney Market and introducing an electronic school sign to improve safety, but are concerned about maintaining and preserving current attendance times. They would like more information on how much longer journey times will be with these changes.

Metropolitan Police Service - Traffic Unit

They are broadly in support of the scheme but have concerns about the implementation of a wide uncontrolled crossing outside the school as the priority will be ambiguous. They would prefer to see the implementation of a zebra or signalised crossing and have concerns about the adequacy westbound approach sightlines, given the proximity of the loading bay.

The issue is that the proposed informal crossing suggests a "more formal" arrangement than simply providing a central refuge, and could therefore be seen to encourage pedestrians to cross the road at this location, without providing the legally enforced priority of a zebra/signal crossing nor the accompanying zig zag markings necessary for adequate sightlines and intervisibility.

They also noted concern regarding the use of a granite / contrasting colour for the central reservation strip, particularly approaching Cannon Street Road outside the school. Whilst this feature is positive in regard to separating opposing traffic flows and contributing to the slowing of traffic generally, in an area with such high numbers of pedestrians crossing, they feel this is likely to be used as a sanctuary by many of them. Without a kerbed upstand, there would be limited protection for these pedestrians.

London TravelWatch

London TravelWatch said it supported the scheme as it offers improvements for all users, particularly pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists and bus passengers.

They requested that the bus lanes should operate 24/7 to provide dedicated road space for buses and safer cycling with exception for loading at times likely to cause least delays to bus services.

Stakeholder Groups

CTC London

Confirmed they supported the proposals but did not provide any detailed comments.

Alliance of British Drivers

Alliance of British Drivers do not support our proposals. It’s their view that these proposals are prejudicial to vehicle and other road users (even cyclists and motorcyclists) and the raised platforms will also be particularly uncomfortable for bus users. In addition, they oppose all forms of road humps and we would prefer the bus lanes be removed rather than extended.

20s Plenty For Us

20s Plenty For Us were unsure as whether they support the proposals. They are disappointed that more is not being proposed in terms of speed management given the high street location. They would like to see the introduction of a 20mph speed limit. They feel this will allow some reduction in vehicle speeds, integrate the road better into the speed environment of Tower Hamlets which has a borough-wide 20mph limit, and set a speed limit context that will permit further work in the future to reduce vehicle speeds.

Mulberry School for Girls

The school partially supported the proposals, but said it is essential that a safer road crossing is placed directly outside Mulberry School for Girls. They requested that the pedestrian crossing outside Tesco should be relocated nearer the school entrance. There are over 1,400 girls entering and exiting the front gate and they feel plans to increase a raised kerb in the middle of the road will encourage more girls to stand in the middle of the road to informally cross the road. This is what happens at present with the small island directly outside the school. They feel this is dangerous because motorcycles and large commuter coaches often speed down the bus lane, whilst the main road is often stationary, making it dangerous for girls crossing two lanes of traffic.

Students are moving in and out of the school when the road is at its busiest. Whilst they acknowledge that the Tesco crossing may be used steadily throughout the day, they think the safety of young children must be prioritised. They feel it is more likely that people throughout the day will move to cross outside the school as opposed to large masses of teenagers moving to cross further down at Tesco (they do not now).

They also have concerns with continuous paving across Richard Street, as people stand in that area and (even now when there is currently a road) pupils and adults do not look before they cross this road. This means it is dangerous when any car turns into Richard Street partly because of traffic speeding down the bus lane but also because people do not look before they cross anyway. Richard Street is also the only vehicle entrance to Mulberry School for Girls.

They support making Turner Street one way and regard reducing the parking bays as sensible to improve visibility; putting school signs up - preferably ones that flash if people are speeding - is essential.

They have requested at least one bay big enough for a coach (as the school often has trips and there is nowhere for a coach to wait safely).

Mulberry School for Girls Student Body

The Student Body has submitted a letter with 698 signatories calling on TfL to introduce a signalised pedestrian crossing outside the school, in order to address how dangerous it is to cross the road outside the school. A copy of the letter is available in appendix E. They are requesting that the current signalised crossing outside Tesco is relocated to outside the school. They note 1,400 pupils are required to do this twice daily and that their safety should be a higher priority for TfL than traffic flow or shoppers access to Tesco.

Their position on the overall proposals is unclear.

Canary Wharf Management Limited

It is their view that the position will not be too different from what is now in place, though the road layout will be more clearly defined. However, they would like clarification on the anticipated start date and duration of the works, as well as, an overview of the expected impact on alternate routes during the works, particularly the Highway. They would also like to understand how the new loading area zones will be enforced, as in their opinion there seems to be minimal enforcement in place for the existing parking/loading zones at present.

Confederation of Passenger Transport

CPT supports the principle of measures to improve safety, improve traffic flow and reduce journey times. However, they have some concerns that the work as proposed at this location may have a disproportionate effect on traffic flow, leading to longer journey times for all road users. In addition, they question the effectiveness of raising the carriageway and reducing kerb heights in contributing to the reduction in the risk of collision between pedestrians and vehicles.

They also question the value of converting this crossing to a “straight through” type as the inevitable increase in red man time will yield no real benefit to pedestrians, particularly the less able, who will be tempted to rush across the full width rather than pause on the central island.

They question the effect the building out of kerb lines will have and whether this will improve safety, arguing that the raising of the carriageway at these junctions will reduce any effect the build outs might have and the lower kerb lines will further discourage traffic from slowing. They also feel that the raised footway will make pedestrians less aware of approaching traffic.

They appreciate that substantive measures are desirable to reduce the speed of vehicles entering the side roads, but are concerned that to do this will mean traffic slowing in the kerbside lane in order to turn left and that buses will slow down as a result. They feel this will only increase the transit times for buses along this stretch.

They believe that all schools should be accessible by coaches in order to allow for a broader range of curricular activities to be undertaken. They call for the mixed use of loading bays in order to allow this. In particular, they request : i) The proposed new loading bay on Commercial Rd, immediately north-east of the junction with New Rd, is designated as a “mixed use” bay for the use of coaches up to a maximum of 20mins. This would allow access to Wapping High School for coaches ii) The parking bay on the westbound carriageway, outside Mulberry School, is considered for conversion to a “mixed use” bay in order to cater for coach access to Mulberry School

They also note that the Bishop Challoner School and St Michael & St Mary Primary School, although situated on the A13 slightly further east than the area being considered here, would also benefit from similar measures for the loading bays in that vicinity.

Lastly, they would welcome confirmation that access to the bus stops will not be restricted in any way which could prevent coaches from using them for pick-up/ set-down.

Tower Hamlets Wheelers

They do not support the proposed scheme as despite highlighting the high rate of collisions involving vulnerable road users they feel the proposals do not include any substantial safety improvements for cyclists. They have requested we:  Impose a 20mph limit and enforce with average speed cameras  Remove the central median strip to allow protected cycle tracks to be installed. They feel these would provide far more extensive safety improvements for all cyclists rather than simply widening the bus lanes which is only a real benefit for motorcyclists  Install a straight across pedestrian crossing outside Mulberry School for Girls instead of encouraging informal crossing. The proposed safety enhancement of "electronic signs to make drivers more aware of schoolchildren crossing" is not sufficient  Convert the pedestrian crossing at Philpot Street to straight across

Tower Hamlets Living Streets

They broadly support the proposals but have a number of observations and requests. They support the low-level informal traffic island and the provision of a direct pedestrian crossing at Watney Market. However, they question the provision of an un-signalled informal crossing outside Mulberry School. Currently there is a small informal refuge between two poles. This is used by many pedestrians, including mothers with baby buggies. So it is an all-day crossing, rather than school-only times. They consider a signalised pedestrian crossing would be safer and serve the rest of the community better.

Given the poor quality of current street surfaces, particularly in wet conditions, they welcome the proposed continuous footway across side streets, and build-outs.

They are concerned about the impact of parking time restrictions on the operation of local wholesale businesses and request that some side-street parking on the north side, specifically for trade, or an increase in the loading bay time as mitigation.

They request we give careful consideration to the location of street lighting. For example, in one illustration near Sidney Street, the lighting pole is in the middle of the pavement near the bus stop. This is a narrow part of the pavement, and the pole is an obstruction in getting to the bus stop. Poles near the road edge are preferable.

Representatives from traders along Commercial Road

The wholesale traders stated their support for improvements to safety in the area. As wholesale businesses they are dependent on a large number of deliveries/collections to their premises on a daily basis. They said that wholesale businesses operate differently to other retail businesses, and their customers are reliant on parking as they tend to travel large distances to visit their premises – and will then purchase items in bulk. Parking is therefore key to attracting new and retaining existing customers. Generally wholesale businesses in the area operate between 07.30 and 20.00 each day, with deliveries/collections and customers visiting throughout this time.

Their principal concerns were:  Businesses felt that a reduction in parking spaces and hours of operation will adversely impact their businesses, and lose them trade in an already hostile economic climate. Request for us to consider extending parking to 5pm  Expressed concern regarding loading bays, which currently have a maximum loading time of 20 minutes. Said the length of time allowed for loading is inadequate and asked this be extended or the bays turned into parking bays  Request for us to consider whether the pavement be used for inset of loading bays  Request for more loading bays to be situated in nearby side streets – particularly Philpot Street. Noted concern with the proposed parking bay in Turner Street as it is regularly used for loading and unloading deliveries and could be potentially full of parked cars  Expressed concern over proposal to ban turns into Turner Street as larger vehicles tend to use Turner Street to unload. The proposed no right-turn into Turner Street may cause drivers to use the current McDonalds drive thru as a means of u-turning.

4.6 Comments about our consultation process

335 respondents answered the question asking for feedback on the quality of our consultation. From those responses, there were 304 generally positive comments about the consultation process and the quality of the consultation materials provided, and a further 18 appreciating the opportunity to comment on the proposals. There were also a number of negative comments spread across a range of different issues, from concerns that the decision had been taken already and criticisms of the missing delivery of leaflets to suggestions such as allowing separate questions for each different element of the proposals.

5 Conclusion and next steps

We have responded to the most prominent of the specific issues raised in consultation in Appendix A of this report.

Next steps

Subject to internal approvals and available budget, we hope to begin construction in 2017. If we do proceed, we will work with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to minimise the 33 impact and co-ordinate works. We would write to local residents and businesses in advance of the works to advise them of the works programme and any likely disruption during construction.

Appendix A – TfL response to issues commonly raised

Issue Response

Bus Facilities

Remove loading [and parking] bays from There are numerous small businesses bus lanes along this stretch of Commercial Road, including wholesale businesses, who require parking for their customers and deliveries. We therefore are looking to strike a balance between enabling them to continue their normal business activity while fulfilling our duty to manage the road network effectively. Our proposal increases the number of parking bays, but we will need to modify their locations in order to deliver the full benefits of the scheme.

Cycling Facilities

Build outs cause pinch points for cyclists Build-outs will only be used across entrances to side roads (not Commercial Road itself) and are installed to reduce vehicle speeds, to shorten crossing distances and improve accessibility for pedestrians. Reducing vehicle speeds entering and exiting side roads should improve conditions for cyclists as turning manoeuvres will be slower and should be safer

Request for dedicated cycle lanes The type of cycling facilities we propose in any scheme depends on the type of cycle route being designed. We are not proposing dedicated cycle lanes along Commercial Road because we are delivering and promoting two Cycle Superhighway routes 2 and 3 on parallel corridors (Cable Street and the A11).

As this is not a continuous cycle route and because of local conditions such as width constraints and need to accommodate on-street loading and bus stops, we are not able to provide

dedicated cycle lanes. However, the scheme has been designed to provide more space for cycling in widened bus lanes rather than segregated lanes. We feel this represents a better balance between the competing demands of different modes; as it allows more space for cycling than in the current road layout while protecting bus journey times and improving safety for motorcyclists, who are involved in half of the collisions in this area. Safety measures on the side roads, for example entry treatments, will also improve cycle safety.

Junctions

Objections to banning the turn into The proposal to ban entry into Turner Turner Street Street from Commercial Road is intended to reduce queuing and delays on the A13, lower the number of conflicting movements at the junction and reduce the risk of collisions.

At present, vehicles waiting to turn right into Turner Street from Commercial Road block westbound traffic by occupying the offside lane. This junction already has a high number of schoolchildren crossing from Mulberry Girls School, and vehicles manoeuvring into parking and loading bays with heavy traffic in both directions including HGVs. Closing the Turner Street entrance to northbound traffic would reduce the conflicts at this junction and make it safer and less congested, particularly at school times.

Local traffic, deliveries and residential access can use New Road and Cavell Street to access Turner Street. Traffic can continue to turn onto Commercial Road from Turner Street.

This proposal would also reduce congestion on Turner Street as, due to parked vans and cars, two-way traffic

can often not pass each other. Southbound access through Turner Street onto Commercial Road would be maintained as at present.

Our traffic counts show that currently, approximately 70 vehicles an hour in the morning peak and 76 in the evening peak make this turn. Traffic flows of this number of vehicles should be dispersed into the wider road network without a significant impact. Displaced traffic will be able to use a number of other routes, particularly New Road, and we therefore do not anticipate a large volume of traffic on quieter residential streets.

Issues with the raised carriageway A raised coloured carriageway surface with ramped approaches at either end is proposed. The purpose of this measure is to make drivers aware that they are entering a mixed use area with higher numbers of pedestrians and cyclists crossing Commercial Road. The coloured surface, combined with other measures such as a raised central pedestrian island, encourages drivers to reduce their speed by making them more aware of vulnerable road users. The ramps are designed to make drivers aware that they are entering a different type of area rather than to significantly reduce driver speed as a traffic calming feature

The design of the raised carriageway will be consistent with TfL’s guidance for traffic calming on bus routes.

Requests for further banned turns: We are unable to consider banning the turning movements at these junctions as  Sidney Street they are heavily used, and the impact  New Road from displaced traffic would be too great.  Cannon Street Both New Road and Cannon Street Road are part of a signalised junction which is designed to allow traffic to move efficiently through it and Sidney Street 37

has a dedicated right turn pocket which reduces queuing and delays on the A13.

Requests to review Sidney A raised entry treatment will be provided Street/Commercial Road junction to at the entrance to Sidney Street from make this safer and to manage turning Commercial Road, to slow turning traffic. traffic

Negative

Scheme will create more congestion Our traffic modelling shows that overall the scheme will have a very marginal impact on general traffic movement on this stretch of Commercial Road during the peak hours we have assessed.

We will reduce the impact of changing the crossing outside Watney Market from a staggered arrangement to straight across by changing the timings of the traffic signals. We do not anticipate any significant increase in traffic congestion arising from this scheme. Pedestrians may have to wait longer than they currently do for the green man but once on the crossing it will be quicker for them as they will not have to wait on the staggered island.

The proposed changes to parking restrictions will improve bus journey times in the morning and evening rush hours as they will free up the bus lanes currently occupied by parked vehicles.

Objections to prioritising other modes All highway authorities, including TfL, over motorists have a ‘Network Management Duty’, as defined by the Traffic Management Act 2004, to ensure all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers, motorcyclists and general traffic have equal priority in using the road network. The demands from different road users often compete with each other and it can be very difficult to develop schemes that benefit all users equally. Our approach often involves finding a balance between

transport modes, developing schemes for changes to the highway which resolve the issues without creating new ones. We feel we have adopted the right approach in developing these proposals and a balance has been reached that fairly considers the requirements of all road users.

Other

Relocate Watney Market bus stop The current bus stop (westbound) is in an ideal location as it serves the market and main pedestrian desire line. As part of our plans we will relocate the eastbound bus stop closer to the new straight across pedestrian crossing making it more accessible from the market and main pedestrian movements.

Issues with driver and cyclists behaviour Our approach is to promote the message that the Highway Code must be adhered to by all road users, and we promote an ethos of ‘responsible cycling’, ‘responsible driving’ and mutual respect between all road users. This means working to eliminate offences such as speeding, jumping red lights, dangerous and aggressive driving, cycling on the pavement and cycling at night without adequate lighting.

Enforcement activity is conducted using a balanced approach between motorists and cyclists and action is taken against motorists who behave irresponsibly – for example, driving while using a mobile phone or disobeying traffic signals.

Cyclists who go through red lights, or cycle on pavements, can be given a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), which carries a fine of £50.

In certain circumstances, cyclists could be fined up to £2,500 for dangerous cycling and up to £1,000 for careless

cycling.

However our emphasis is on improving cyclist and other road user behaviour through a balanced programme of education and enforcement. We fund a Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Safer Transport Team (STT) in every London borough, which provides high-visibility policing on the road and surface transport network. The police will concentrate their resources on those issues of most concern based on intelligence. Concerns relating to a particular location can be reported to the Metropolitan Police Service via the Road Safe London website (www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon), which has been set up to allow the public to pass on information in confidence about illegal or nuisance road use.

We have also worked with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to create the new MPS Roads and Transport Policing Command (RTPC), comprising over 2,300 officers, all making road safety and road reliability a key priority. We work in close partnership with the MPS RTPC to reduce Killed and Serious Injury (KSI) casualties on London’s roads through targeted enforcement, engagement and education.

Concerns over volume of roadworks in Essential roadworks will be co-ordinated the area with any other schemes in the area to minimise disruption. The major schemes currently being built (including Aldgate Gyratory) will be completed well before these works commence. If necessary, the schedule for these works will be amended to minimise the overall impact on the local network.

Request for confirmation of construction All concerned would be notified of the start and duration of works in advance. 40 period and expected disruption At present the exact construction dates and methodology are not finalised.

Parking

Better parking and loading enforcement We have raised this issue with our required Enforcement Team and they have agreed to review the hours during which enforcement is carried out.

Against parking restrictions because of We have held on going discussions impact on access to local businesses about the proposed changes to parking restrictions with representatives of local business owners. We have been looking at how we can address local businesses concerns about customer access and servicing while still meeting the objectives of the scheme. Our original proposals looked to remove parking from the bus lanes during the AM and PM peak. So parking would only be possible from 10:00 -16:00 and again from 19:00 – 07:00. We are now proposing to modify this and to introduce a tidal flow approach. The majority of traffic heads into the City in a westerly direction during the AM peak and the opposite way during the PM peak. We will therefore allow parking in the bus lane in the AM peak on the north side of Commercial Road and during the PM peak on the south side of Commercial Road.

We have also offered support to the local businesses about how they can retime deliveries and communicate changes to their customers.

The traders did ask us to consider extending parking until 17:00 on the north side but this is not appropriate as it would present continued delays to bus passengers along this corridor during the evening rush hour. It would also be inconsistent with our overall approach to managing bus lane operating hours on our network where the PM peak is

recognised as 16:00 to 19:00.Customers and suppliers will be able to park on the south side after 4pm and the height of the central island, with only a 25mm upstand, will be fine for trolleys to move over.

The traders also asked to provide parking over loading bays as their customers are predominately wholesale and 20 minutes is not sufficient time to load/unload. We have agreed to do this. We will keep any existing loading bays, but the two new proposed bays will instead be parking bays with a maximum wait time of one hour.

They also asked us to explore the possibility of additional loading and parking bays on Philpot Street. Tower Hamlets Council is responsible for this side road and we will explore the possibility of this with them.

In addition, in response to their concerns about proposed parking bays on Turner Street limiting their ability to load/unload, we have agreed not to implement these bays and for it to remain as is with single yellow lines.

Pedestrian Facilities

Provide signalised crossing outside The safety of schoolchildren and other Mulberry Girls School (relocating one pedestrians crossing outside the school from outside Tesco’s) is of primary importance and we have carefully considered the request to provide a signal controlled pedestrian crossing here.

All highway authorities, including TfL, have a ‘Network Management Duty’, as defined by the Traffic Management Act 2004, to ensure all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers and general traffic, have equal priority in using the road network. The demands

42 from different road users often compete with each other and it can be very difficult to develop schemes that benefit all users equally. When developing new schemes on our highway, our approach involves finding a balance between transport modes which can have competing demands, and finding solutions which resolve the issues without creating new ones.

For example, it is not feasible to provide a signalised pedestrian crossing outside the school without relocating an existing crossing (e.g. Philpot Street). This is because the impact on traffic flows and congestion would be too great if there are numerous traffic signals within a short distance. Pedestrian counts have been taken outside the school and at the existing signal crossing at Philpot Street. Our surveys show that three times as many people use the Philpot Street crossing (1,945) compared to those using the island outside the school (670). Relocating the existing crossing would be unpopular with the majority of users for whom the main desire line is between Watney Road and Whitechapel. In addition, the current layout sees the even spacing of crossings along this stretch of Commercial Road. After careful consideration, we cannot justify relocating the crossing.

We would of course always recommend pupils use the signalised crossings at Philpot Street or at the New Road junction, although we recognise that this involves a short detour and many pupils choose to cross directly outside the school.

We are committed to improving the safety of this crossing for schoolchildren at The Mulberry School for Girls. We feel

that our alternative proposal to convert the existing traffic island outside the school into an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing with dropped kerbs, a wider central island, and relocated some parking to improve visibility for approaching traffic, will significantly improve the safety of this crossing for pupils at the school. In addition to this, we will investigate the possibility of introducing a 20mph speed limit along this stretch of the A13 subject to the outcomes of the early trials we are carrying out elsewhere on the network.. During detailed design, we will also investigate the possibility of shortening the section of raised carriageway to allow room to put a raised table at the crossing point to further slow traffic speeds.

Requests for additional crossings: At the Commercial Road/New Road/Cannon Street Road junction,  Commercial Road/New Road traffic is held giving a green light to  New Road/Cannon Street pedestrians on all four arms.

Pedestrian safety concerns with low level We designed the low level central island traffic island in response to the existing high levels of informal crossing which happens along this stretch of Commercial Road. From the outset, our proposals have sought to lower the impact traffic has on the area by reducing the community severance that a major road can create. The low level central island will allow us to balance the needs of pedestrians and motorists by providing a safe refuge for those crossing the road away from the formal crossings. Similar low level central reservations have been built at other locations with similar traffic volumes (for example Southall Broadway Boulevard) and have a good safety record.

Concerns low level island would present We have been clear that a key part of obstacle to allowing safe overtaking for this scheme is to reduce the impact cycles/motorcycles traffic has on the area by making it more attractive and better balancing the needs of motorists with those of vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians. In doing so, it is necessary to recognise that trade-offs between the impact on different road users is sometimes inevitable.

However, by widening the bus lanes we are confident that we are improving conditions for both cyclists and motorcyclists by providing more space away from the raised central islands and parked vehicles.

Continuous pavements presenting safety These are provided at junctions where risk for pedestrians traffic volumes are very low and on ‘no- through’ side roads.

Appendix B – Copy of consultation letter

Appendix C – Letter distribution area

Appendix D – List of stakeholders consulted More than one member of some organisations listed below were contacted about the consultation, but in each case the organisation is listed only once.

Airports Transfer Benugo House Of Moli - Commercial Road Apartments Brit College Hung Tou Costcutter Husk Coffee & Creative Space East of East Flowers Ideas Store Watney Market East One Cars Intercontinental Traders (clothes shop) Fashion Forever Ltd iPhoneWorldwide London Grill Kabilla Jim Fitzpatrick MP Home Soul John Biggs AM Jeenuk Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People Ladbrokes Joint Mobility Unit Limehouse Marina Elite Lahore Two Pure aldgate Licenced Taxi Drivers Association Sainsbury's Ligne Roset City - furniture deliveries / collections Seven 2 Eleven Limehouse Fried Chicken & Spice Takuro - outdoor clothing Limehouse Town Hall The George Tavern Living Streets Watney Market London Ambulance Service William Hill London Borough of Tower Hamlets AA Motoring Trust London Councils Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) London Cycling Campaign (Tower Hamlets) Age Concern London London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Age UK London Older People's Strategy Group Alzheimer's Society London TravelWatch Aneej Jack Limited Marlin Apartments - Aldgate Another Group Ltd McDonald's Commercial Road Apartment Zenith Metropolitan Police service Apple Apartments @ E14 Metropolitan Works Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance MIND Association of British Drivers Motorcycle Action Group Bank Of Baroda Motorcycle Industry Association Basilico Mulberry School for Girls Bathstore Docklands National Children's Bureau Best Kebab National Grid Best One NHS Tower Hamlets CCG Better Transport Peak Solutions Bishop Challoner Catholic Federation of Schools Port of London Authority British Motorcyclists Federation Property Matters (Britain) Ltd BT Railway Tavern Campaign for Better Transport Rajboy Indian Restaurant Canary Wharf Management Ltd Ray Flector Sunglasses Cari RNIB 49

Charlie's Shopfitting Co Road Haulage Association Chill Grill Royal Mail Cllr Abdul Asad Royal Mail Parcel Force Cllr Aminur Khan Ruman Food Cllr Ayas Miah Rupa Food Supermarket Cllr Harun Miah Rushanara Ali MP Cllr Oliur Rahman Sense Cllr Rabina Khan Shq Apartments Cllr Sabina Akhtar Sixty Plus Cllr Shahed Ali SOHO Wholesale Ltd Commercial Cars Speedster-IT Ltd Coral apartments St Mary and St Michael Catholic Primary School CRN Contract Services Ltd Stephen Hawking School CTC, the national cycling charity Super Miss London Ltd Dineshco Textiles Sustrans Disability Alliance Sylvia's Corner Disability Rights UK Tai Pan Restaurant Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Taxi in E1 Megna Cars E2 Taxi City Carriage Tesco Commercial Rd Express EDF Energy Tesco Express Famous Chicken & Pizza Thames Water Fashion Forever Ltd The British Dyslexia Association Freight Transport Association The Castle Fruit for the Apocalypse The London Language Foundation Gabriel Moon The Mulberry School for Girls GLA Strategy Access Panel members The Worshipful Company of Gunmakers GR Holiday Apartment Lime House Top Marks Of London Greater London Authority Tower Diy Ltd Greater London Forum for the Elderly Tower Hamlets Safer Transport Team Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Tower Hamlets Wheelers Habib Allied International Bank PLC Troxy Holiday Inn Commercial Road

Ends