Consultation Report

Proposed permanent coach parking bay on Albert Embankment Response to consultation March 2016

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 2 1 Background ...... 3 2 Introduction ...... 3 3 The consultation ...... 6 4 Overview of consultation responses ...... 8 5 Conclusion and next steps ...... 13 Appendix A – TfL response to issues commonly raised ...... 15 Appendix B – Copy of consultation letter ...... 15 Appendix C – Letter distribution area ...... 18 Appendix D – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 19

Executive Summary

About the consultation:

In August 2015, we consulted on proposals to introduce a permanent 45 metre off-peak coach parking bay on Albert Embankment, to replace some of the coach parking removed from Victoria Embankment to make way for the East-West Cycle Superhighway. The permanent bay would be in the same position as a current temporary bay: within the northbound (riverside) bus lane, outside Camelford House.

We received 63 responses to the consultation, of which 85% supported or partially supported our proposals. There was strong support from the coach industry for the principle of providing more coach parking, with many respondents saying the proposals would go some way to compensating for the parking lost to the East-West Cycle Superhighway, although some felt that more provision was needed.

A number of respondents raised concerns about the potential impact of the proposals on cyclists using the bus lane along Albert Embankment.

Conclusion and next steps:

Having considered the issues raised in the consultation, we propose to formally convert the temporary bay into a permanent bay, which will operate in the same way as was set out in the consultation documents:

 Coaches would be allowed to park free of charge at all times except between 7am- 10am and 4pm-8pm, Monday to Sunday  During operating times, coaches would be allowed to park for a maximum of one hour and would not be permitted to return within two hours

Subject to the formal Traffic Order process and temporary arrangements required for construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel, we propose to implement the permanent arrangements by the end of 2016.

About this document:

This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of this consultation. Appendix A contains TfL’s responses to issues commonly raised.

1 Background In February 2015, we announced we would go ahead with our proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway – a segregated cycle route which would mean changes to the road layout on Victoria Embankment, including relocating coach parking away from Victoria Embankment.

On 27 May 2015, we introduced a temporary 45 metre off-peak coach parking bay on Albert Embankment, to replace some of the coach parking on Victoria Embankment that will be removed as part of the construction of the East-West Cycle Superhighway. We chose Albert Embankment as one of the alternative sites because it has existing coach facilities and provides easy access to central London.

In August 2015, we consulted local properties and stakeholders on proposals to make the bay permanent, due to the ongoing need for alternative coach parking.

2 Introduction We proposed that the permanent bay would be in the same location as the existing temporary bay: within the northbound bus lane, outside Camelford House. It would be 45 metres long to provide space for three large coaches.

It would operate in the following way:  Coaches would be allowed to park free of charge at all times except 7am-10am and 4pm-8pm, Monday to Sunday  Coaches would be allowed to park for a maximum of one hour during operating times and would not be permitted to return within two hours We said that we would look to formally convert the temporary bay into a permanent bay before the end of the year.

2.1 Location map

2.2 Map of the proposed scheme

3 The consultation

We consulted on the proposals from Monday 17 August to Sunday 27 September. 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 proposal of which we were not previously aware  To understand concerns and objections  To allow respondents to make suggestions

3.1 Who we consulted

The consultation intended to seek the views of a range of different groups potentially affected by or interested in the proposals. Those we consulted included:  Local residents and businesses  Local stakeholders, including the London Borough of Lambeth, local politicians and local interest groups  Users of the existing parking and coach parking facilities  Coach industry bodies and individual operators  Other road user groups (such as cyclists)

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 a letter and map describing the proposals to 172 addresses in the vicinity of the proposed permanent coach bay. A copy of this letter is shown in Appendix B and a map of the distribution area can be found in Appendix C. The letter was also emailed to 335 stakeholder contacts. A list of the groups consulted is shown as Appendix D.

The consultation invited participants to comment on the proposed changes. There was one closed and one open question, as listed below:

1. Do you support the proposal for a permanent coach parking bay on Albert Embankment? - Support - Partially support - No opinion - Not sure - Don’t support

2. Do you have any comments on the proposal for a permanent coach parking bay on Albert Embankment?

Participants were invited to respond in the following ways:  Online survey at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/albert-embankment  Emailing [email protected]  Post

4 Overview of consultation responses

4.1 About the responses

We received 63 responses to the consultation. 57 were submitted online and 6 were received by email. 23 were from stakeholder groups and 40 were from members of the public (including coach drivers responding in a personal capacity). Please see section 4.4 for more information about stakeholder responses.

Table 1: Consultation responses by respondent

Respondent Number Coach and tour operators and their representatives 17

Cycle groups 1

London boroughs 1 Members of the public (including coach drivers 40 responding in a personal capacity

Postcode analysis: Of the 50 respondents who supplied a postcode, only 3 were from the local SE area. The remainder were spread across London and the UK.

4.2 Support level

The first question asked ‘Do you support the proposal for a permanent coach parking bay on Albert Embankment?’

Table 2: Answers received to Question 1 - Do you support the proposal for a permanent coach parking bay on Albert Embankment

Do you support the proposed scheme? Number Support 49

Partially support 4 No opinion 1

Not sure 0

Don’t support 9 Not answered 0

4.3 Summary of overall comments received

There were 63 unique respondents. 48 left a comment.

The following is a summary of the most popular comment themes, with a count indicating how often it was raised. A comment theme is listed in this report if it was mentioned by 2 or more respondents.

Please see section 4.4 for a breakdown of responses by stakeholder organisations, including coach operators.

Need for coach parking

More coach parking needed: 10 respondents made a general comment requesting more coach parking in London. Although not part of this consultation, a small number took the opportunity to express displeasure at the reduction in coach parking on Victoria Embankment as part of the East-West Cycle Superhighway and note that the provisions put in place so far fall short of the space lost as a result.

A small number also noted that the time that drivers spend looking for parking contributes to congestion and pollution.

A large proportion of the respondents were coach operators or coach drivers (please see section 4.4 for a breakdown of responses by stakeholder organisations, including coach operators).

Operating hours: 9 respondents made a comment or suggestion about the operating hours of the proposed bay. Many queried the need for the restrictions to operate at the weekends. A number also asked for the proposed 1 hour maximum stay to be increased, citing the importance of accommodating drivers’ legally-required 45 minute breaks.

Welcome additional coach parking: 5 respondents made a general comment welcoming the proposed permanent bay.

Length of bay: 4 respondents were concerned that the bay is not long enough and should be extended to accommodate more coaches.

Enforcement: 4 respondents suggested that the bay should be adequately enforced to ensure other vehicles do not park in it illegally.

Importance of coach parking to tourism: 2 respondents stated that coach facilities in London are important as coaches bring large numbers of visitors to the capital.

Impacts on other road users

Impact on cyclists: 6 respondents expressed concerns about the potential impact on cyclists. They noted that cyclists would have to move out of the bus lane onto the main

9 carriageway to avoid the coach parking bay potentially bringing them into conflict with other vehicles.

A small number suggested that a segregated cycle lane should be implemented along Albert Embankment and/or a bus and coach stop bypass.

Pollution: 2 respondents expressed concerns about the level of air pollution caused by coaches in city centres. They were of the view that coaches should not be permitted in central London.

Location: 2 respondents questioned the suitability of Albert Embankment for the proposed bay. One argued that it is inconvenient, being much further away from central London than Victoria Embankment, the other questioned why a less busy route off a main road could not be found.

4.4 Summary of responses from stakeholder groups and businesses

Local Authorities:

London Borough of Lambeth  Appreciates the difficulties for TfL in trying to accommodate long term coach parking.  Objects to the proposal Concerns  Albert Embankment is a neighbourhood undergoing significant transformation and the permanent relocation of coach bays to this site would compromise Lambeth’s ability to improve this environment  A fundamental objective for Lambeth is to improve access to the river and maximise the riverfront as an asset. Providing permanent coach parking here could undermine any efforts to open up the river for new views and encourage more people to walk along this section of the river  The provision of long term coach parking on Albert Embankment may not integrate well with measures currently being developed by TfL in partnership with Lambeth, namely the plans to enhance Vauxhall Gyratory and the scheme being developed for Lambeth Palace Road  It could compromise cycle facilities along Albert Embankment. Both of the above measures seek to enhance cycling facilities along Albert Embankment and in the area generally. Without a continuous cycle lane along this stretch of Albert Embankment, there is a danger that the full benefits of these measures will not be realised  The coach parking bay would render a not insignificant section of bus lane largely unusable during operational hours, forcing cyclists back into the main carriageway. Any intervention which unnecessarily brings vulnerable mode users into conflict with cars, buses or good vehicles is to be discouraged and having large vehicles

manoeuvring in and out of areas where cyclists are passing, will lead to an increased risk of collision and injury in this location Suggestions  A complete review of coaching parking provision across the capital is needed  Coach parking facilities should be provided on site, at visitor attractions etc., not on street  The proposal needs to be considered in relation to the latest designs for Vauxhall Gyratory which include a new pedestrian crossing facility across Albert Embankment close to the proposed coach bay. Clear visibility around a pedestrian crossing is critical and a key consideration in this case

Engineering / development companies:

Tideway  Noted that construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel is due to commence shortly, with work on the Albert Embankment Foreshore site starting in 2017. Prior to this, works will need to take place in the highway to protect utilities for which the primary construction access would join the Albert Embankment; it is anticipated these works will commence in mid-2016  Does not object in principle to the proposals, provided that the bay is suspended and relocated during the period in which access is required  Noted TfL’s commitment to working with Thames Tideway to identify suitable alternative arrangements

Coach and tour representative bodies:

Alliance of British Drivers: Believes that the location of the bay is very inconvenient in comparison with the previous provision on Victoria Embankment as it is not near central London. Concerned that the Cycle Superhighways are prejudicing everyone except cyclists.

Coach Driver Forum: Requested that the bay is made even longer than proposed.

London Tourist Coach Operators Association: Suggested that there is no need for the restriction on Saturday and Sunday afternoons.

Coach and tour operators:

Ebdons Tours: Generally supportive and happy that the needs of coach tourism are being considered. Suggested that there is no need for the 1 hour parking restriction to operate during the night and that it should be increased to 1 ½ hours at other times, to ensure drivers can take their legal break.

Galloway Travel Group: Supportive, but said that more permanent bays are needed.

Golden Boy Coaches: Expressed disappointment at the 1 hour parking restriction.

Heyfordian: Said that more similar facilities are needed in central London.

Lucketts Travel: Said the provision is urgently needed.

Reading & Wokingham Coach Services Ltd: Generally supportive.

Reynolds Diplomat Coaches: Said that this provision is long overdue and that more similar spaces are needed.

Roselyn Coaches: Said that more similar facilities are needed, noting current parking difficulties due to lack of provision.

Safeguard Coaches Limited: Noted it is essential that coaches are able to park in reasonable proximity to attractions, otherwise it is difficult for them to service London’s tourist economy. Requested that the 1 hour restriction is increased to 2 hours and removed completely between midnight and 7am.

Senlac Tours and Local Knowledge Tours: Generally supportive. Noted that capacity in the Nine Elms area will be reduced due to redevelopment and that a new attraction next to the London Eye means Belvedere Road is often full - Albert Embankment is located mid- way between both. Asked to reconsider the need to restrict the operating hours of the bay, especially at weekends.

Sleeper Buses Ltd: Said that more similar facilities are needed in central London.

Other road user and transport groups:

CTC London: Concerned at the potential for conflict between cyclists and other traffic. Requested that the bus lane is widened to at least 4.5 metres to enable cyclists to keep within the bus lane.

Dial-a-Cab: Expressed disappointment that the bay is not on a less busy route.

5 Conclusion and next steps We received 63 responses to the consultation, of which 85% supported or partially supported our proposals.

There was strong support from the coach industry for the principle of providing more coach parking, with many respondents saying the proposals would go some way to compensating for the parking lost to the East-West Cycle Superhighway, although some felt that more provision was needed.

A number of respondents raised concerns about the potential impact of the proposals on cyclists using the bus lane along Albert Embankment.

Permanent arrangements for coaches on Albert Embankment

Subject to the formal Traffic Order process and temporary arrangements required for construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel (please see below), we propose to implement the permanent arrangements by the end of 2016.

Temporary arrangements for construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel

We will continue to work with Thames Tideway to accommodate the requirements for kerbside space on Albert Embankment when construction starts in mid-2016. We will need to suspend the coach parking bay for the duration of the works (expected to be about 7 months) and are working to identify suitable alternative arrangements for that period.

Integration with proposals for Vauxhall Cross

Subject to the outcome of the consultation on proposals to transform Vauxhall Cross, under the proposals for the gyratory removal, we would move the coach parking 50 metres further north on Albert Embankment to allow space for a cycle and pedestrian crossing by New Spring Gardens Walk.

More information on the consultation to transform Vauxhall Cross can be found at: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/vauxhall-cross

We continue to liaise with the London Borough of Lambeth to ensure a coordinated approach to planned and proposed schemes in the area.

Other permanent coach parking

We will continue to work closely with the coach industry to identify and introduce additional permanent coach parking to offset the provision lost to the East-West Cycle Superhighway.

TfL’s response to issues commonly raised in consultation is available in Appendix A.

Appendix A – TfL response to issues commonly raised

Issues relating to coaches

More coach parking needed in London TfL and the London boroughs work closely with the coach industry to ensure dedicated on- street facilities are provided at appropriate locations, where space permits on the London road network. In total, there are 672 coach parking facilities within Greater London, with around 57 per cent of these based within central London.

We acknowledge the role coaches play in London and the competing demands for London’s limited road space. In 2013, we launched the Tourist Coach Action Plan (TCAP1) with London boroughs and coach industry stakeholders, to address key coach issues and support coach operators and drivers. This has included trialling coach parking schemes to maximise the use of road space such as converting loading bays into mixed–use bays from summer 2015 and marshalling at key tourist attractions. We are also supporting initiatives such as the ‘Park and Glide’ scheme offered by Thames Clipper (http://www.thamesclippers.com/sightseeing-leisure/park-and-glide), which offers free coach parking outside central London in return for passengers using the river service to enter central London. We will be investigating further locations for such schemes, in conjunction with London River Bus operators.

As part of TCAP, we continue to work with the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) to review priority (pick up and set down) locations identified by their members. Where possible, we provide additional facilities or review the operating hours in line with coach drivers’ needs.

We also continue to work with local stakeholders and the coach industry to relocate coach parking removed from Victoria Embankment as part of the East-West Cycle Superhighway.

We continue to work to identify and introduce other permanent coach parking facilities within reasonable distance of Victoria Embankment. We will also work with the Cycle Superhighway construction contractors to minimise coach parking suspensions as much as possible during works.

Operating hours Several respondents felt that the 1 hour maximum stay restriction should be increased. A number also suggested that the restrictions on the operating hours of the bay – we proposed that parking would not be allowed between 7am-10am and 4pm-8pm, Monday to Sunday – should be lifted overnight and at weekends.

1 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tourist-coach-action-plan.pdf 15

Several different types of coach parking are used throughout London to fit the purpose of the area, such as provision adjacent to any major attractions which lack nearby facilities. The coach parking bay on Albert Embankment is provided to allow drivers to take the statutory 45 minute break and wait for groups (e.g. schools, tourists), before picking up passengers closer to attractions.

Length of the bay

We have maximised the space available for coach parking on this section of Albert Embankment within the constraints of the highway layout and the need to safely accommodate all modes of transport.

To ensure traffic can flow freely through the area, the two northbound traffic lanes adjacent to the bus lane need to merge into one where they currently do, shortly after the proposed coach parking bay. The coach parking bay is positioned to minimise potential for conflict between merging traffic and coaches which may exit the parking bay into the general traffic lane. The 10 metre gap between the bus stop and the coach bay is to allow buses to safely leave the bus stop. This space cannot be further reduced.

Enforcement of the bay

The bay will be monitored and enforced by CCTV to deter coaches and other vehicles from parking in it during restricted hours.

Issues relating to other road users

Impact on cyclists

A number of respondents raised concerns about the potential impact of the proposals on cyclists using the bus lane along Albert Embankment. The bay would not operate between the hours of 7am-10am and 4pm-8pm daily, to maximise the use of the lane for the volumes of cyclists that use the bus lane during these peak times. To provide a greater gap between parked coaches and the edge of the bus lane, we will reduce the width of the bay to encourage coaches to park closer to the kerb. This will provide a gap of 1.3m between the edge of the coach parking bay and the edge of the bus lane.

Introducing painted cycle symbols could cause confusion about where cyclists should cycle when the coach parking is not in use.

We have assessed the potential to install a cycle lane bypass around the coach parking; however, this would not be feasible within the constraints of the highway layout. The side road accesses and existing highway width mean this could not be safely incorporated.

We will continue to monitor the safety of this coach parking after the changes are implemented.

Appendix B – Copy of consultation letter

Appendix C – Letter distribution area

Appendix D – List of stakeholders consulted 3663 First for Foodservice A.S. Watson AA Motoring Trust AA Roadwatch Abellio West London Ltd t/a Abellio Surrey ABSOLUTE PARTY CRUISES LTD Action Disability Kensington & Chelsea Action for Blind People Action on Hearing Loss Age Concern London Age UK London Association of International Courier & Express Services Alliance of British Drivers Anderson Travel Ltd, Arriva Kent Thameside/Kent & Sussex Arriva Guildford & W Sussex Arriva London North Ltd Arriva The Shires/ E Herts and Essex Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Association of British Drivers Association of Car Fleet Operators Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind ATCoaches t/a Abbey Travel Bankside Residents' Forum BATEAUX LONDON Bayliss Executive Travel Berkeley Group Better Bankside Bidvest Logistics Big Bus Blue Triangle Buses Ltd Brewery Logistics Group British Motorcycle Federation Buzzlines, Campaign for Better Transport CAPITAL PLEASURE BOATS Carousel Buses Ltd CBI London Centaur Overland Travel Ltd Central London Cab Trade Section Central London CTC Central London Freight Quality Partnership Chalkwell Garage & Coach Hire Ltd Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport Chauffeur and Executive Association Travel with Hunny/TWH CITY CRUISES PLC Clapham Society Clapham Transport Users' Group Clarkes Coach Driver Forum Coach Logistics, Wye Valley Engineering Ltd. FSB COLLIERS LAUNCHES Community Transport Association Confederation of Passenger Transport Cross River Partnership

CROWN RIVER CRUISES Croydon Coaches (UK) Ltd t/a Coaches Excetera, CRUISE LONDON CTC Cycling Embassy of Great Britain Department for Transport DHL Dial-a-Cab Disabled Motoring UK E Clarke & Son (Coaches) Ltd, t/a Clarkes of London East End Express (X1) ECESurface TEAM English Heritage Ensign Bus Company Ltd Eurostar Group Federation of Small Businesses First Beeline Buses Ltd, First Group Freight Transport Association Go-Ahead London Go-Coach Hire Ltd Golden Tours (Transport) Ltd Greater London Forum for Older People Guild of British Coach Operators Ltd Herne Hill Forum HR Richmond Ltd t/a Quality Line ICOMOS UK Institute of Advanced Motorists J Brierley & E Barvela t/a Snowdrop Jeremy Reese t/a The Little Bus Company Coaches KING CRUISES King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Lambeth Safer Transport Team Lambeth Traffic and Transport Working Group Land Securities LCC Licenced Private Hire Car Association Line Line Coaches (TGM) Living Streets Local Knowledge Tours London Ambulance Service NHS Trust London Borough of Lambeth London Cab Drivers' Club Ltd London Chamber of Commerce London Chamber of Commerce and Industry London City Tour (LCCI) London Duck Tours Ltd London Fire Brigade London First London General London Mencap LONDON PARTY BOATS London Private Hire Board LONDON RIB VOYAGES LONDON RIVER CRUISES LTD. London Suburban Taxi Drivers' Coalition

London Taxi Drivers' Club London Tourist Coach Operators Association (LTCOA) London TravelWatch London United Busways Ltd, London Visual Impairment Forum LPHCA LTDA Marshalls Coaches MAYNARD LAUNCHES Megabus/Stagecoach Metrobus Ltd, Metropolitan Police Service Metropolitan Police TCJOCU Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) National Autistic Society National Express Ltd National Motorcycle Council Northbank Guild Olympus Bus & Coach Company Original Tour Porcellio Ltd t/a Meridian Duck Tours, Premium Coaches Ltd Purple Parking Ltd R Hearn t/a Hearn's Coaches RAC RAC Foundation for Motoring Radio Taxis Red Rose Travel Redwing Coaches (Pullmanor Ltd), REEDS RIVER CRUISES Reliance Travel, Reynolds Diplomat Coaches RIB TOURS LONDON RIVER THAMES BOAT HIRE RNIB (Royal National Institute for Blind RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf People) People) Road Danger Reduction Forum Road Haulage Association Road Space Management - Sponsorship Roadpeace Royal Mail Logistics SCOPE South Bank Neighbourhood Plan Southbank Employers Group Stagecoach Streatham Vale Property Occupiers Association Students Union University of the Arts Sullivan Bus and Coach Ltd London Sustrans Terravision Transport Ltd / Stansted Transport Ltd TfL Press Office THAMES & ORWELL MARINE SERVICES THAMES CLIPPERS THAMES CRUISES THAMES EXECUTIVE CHARTERS THAMES LEISURE

THAMES LIMO LTD THAMES LUXURY CHARTERS THAMES RIB EXPERIENCE THAMES RIVER SERVICES Thames Tideway project The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind The Big Bus Company Ltd The British Motorcyclists' Federation The Ghost Bus Tours Ltd The Kings Ferry The Kings Ferry Ltd The Original London Sightseeing Tour /London Pride Sightseeing Ltd The Road Haulage Association LRSM. TOPSAIL CHARTERS Tower Transit Operations Ltd Transport for All TURK LAUNCHES UKinbound Vauxhall Gardens Estate Tenants & Vauxhall One BID Residents Association Virtual Norwood Forum VISCOUNT CRUISES/CAMPION LAUNCHES Walk London Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign Waterloo BID WESTMINSTER PARTY BOATS WOODS RIVER CRUISES www.silvercanetours.com

Ends