Oval Triangle Consultation Report

Junction improvements at Oval Triangle

Response to consultation

October 2014

Contents

1 Background ...... 3 2 Introduction ...... 4 3 The consultation ...... 5 4 Responses to the consultation ...... 7 5 The Oval Triangle consultation questionnaire ...... 10 6 Location-specific issues ...... 13 7 Summary of stakeholder responses to the consultation ...... 20 8 Improvements to the Oval Triangle green space ...... 22 9 Conclusion ...... 23 Appendix A Response to issues commonly raised ...... 24 Appendix B – Consultation letter and map ...... 28 Appendix C – Consultation letter distribution area ...... 31 Appendix D – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 32 Appendix E – Email to stakeholders ...... 34 Appendix F – Email to registered Oyster cardholders who live, work or commute in or via the affected area ...... 36

1 Background

About this report:

In July 2014 Transport for London (TfL) consulted on proposals to change four junctions around Oval station as part of its Better Junctions programme, which aims to improve conditions for cyclists. This report summarises the public consultation and responses received. It also sets out TfL’s plans following consultation and its response to issues commonly raised.

Context to proposals:

The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling was published in March 2013. It set out the Mayor’s plans to more than double London’s cycling budget to achieve a step-change in cycling provision and bring about a doubling of cycling numbers over the next 10 years. It announced that TfL’s existing Better Junctions programme would be refocused to prioritise ‘early and major improvements at and around London’s worst junctions, making them safer and less threatening to cyclists.’ It said: • Improvements at these places will include widening to allow more space for cyclists, creating more segregated cycle lanes and installing innovative ‘early- start’ traffic signals to allow cyclists to move onto the junction ahead of other traffic. • We will introduce more cycle-only paths or phases through junctions and gyratories, and more cycle bypasses around difficult junctions where an attractive and safe route through the junction itself cannot be found. • We will create a short stretch of segregated bike lane, where possible, just before busy traffic lights so cyclists can get through stationary traffic to reach the Advanced Stop Line (ASL) at the front. • We are further refining our sophisticated traffic modelling systems to take better account of cyclists. With the benefit of these, all future road and junction builds or redevelopments and transport schemes on the roads controlled by TfL will be subjected to improved forms of cycling safety assessment prior to approval.1

In its response to the Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 5 consultation, published in June 2013, TfL provided further information on its intention to re-consult on improved proposals for Oval Triangle. It said: We are developing substantial, fully-funded changes to the Oval junction to bring about safety and urban realm improvements for all road users. We will consult on our plans here early in 2014. 2

1 The Mayor's Vision for Cycling in London, Greater London Authority, March 2013, p. 18-19 (tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/gla-mayors-cycle-vision-2013.pdf) 2 Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 5 – Response to consultation, Transport for London, June 2013, p.17 3

In February 2014 the Mayor and TfL published the list of thirty-three locations that would be upgraded under the Better Junctions programme, including Oval Triangle.3

2 Introduction

The Oval Triangle Better Junctions proposals intended to deliver improved cycling facilities at four junctions around Oval station, both to cater for existing cyclists, and to attract new cyclists by breaking down negative perceptions associated with the dangers of cycling through Oval. The project would provide improved pedestrian facilities and public realm, including a redesign of the Kennington Oval Green Space.

Oval Triangle J2 scheme area

• Junction 1 – A3 Kennington Park Road with A23 Kennington Road • Junction 2 - A3 Kennington Park Road with A23 Brixton Road • Junction 3 - A3 Clapham Road with A202 Harleyford Street • Junction 4 – A202 Camberwell New Road with A23 Brixton Road

Kennington Oval Green Space is the area between Junctions 2, 3 and 4.

(consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/cs5/user_uploads/cs5_response_to_consultation.pdf) 3 “Sixties relics” to be ripped out as cycle transformation begins, Greater London Authority, February 2014 (www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2014/02/sixties-relics-to-be-ripped-out-as- cycle-transformation-begins) 4

3 The consultation

The consultation ran from Wednesday 9 July to Sunday 17 August 2014. It was designed to help TfL understand local and stakeholder opinion about the proposals and to make a well-informed decision.

The potential outcomes of the consultation are: • 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 information about the proposals that is easily understood, and allows them to respond • To understand the level of support or opposition for the change • To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were previously unaware • To understand concerns and objections • To allow respondents to make suggestions

3.1 Who we consulted

We wrote to a number of local people and key stakeholders including: • Local households and businesses in the vicinity of the scheme area (see Appendix C for details of consultation letter distribution) • 48,588 registered Oyster cardholders who live, work or commute in or via the affected area • Key stakeholders such as traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, local councils, disability, local interest and road user groups. A list of the 145 stakeholders consulted is shown in Appendix D. A summary of their responses is in Section 7.

3.2 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

Consultation material was available at www.tfl.gov.uk/oval-triangle, via post, email or at public exhibitions. Materials included an overview letter, along with written details and a consultation drawing showing the proposals.

We invited people to respond via an online survey on the TfL website, by email to [email protected], or by completing a paper survey form.

We promoted the consultation through multiple channels:

Email We emailed 145 stakeholders. A list of these stakeholders is shown in Appendix D of this report and a copy of the email is available in Appendix E.

We also emailed 48,588 people registered Oyster cardholders who live, work or commute in or via the affected area. A copy of this email is available in Appendix F

Letter We distributed a consultation letter and drawing to 5,400 properties within a quarter- mile radius of the scheme area. As well as an overview of the consultation and information on how to view the detailed proposals and respond, the letter also included details of the Cycle Superhighway Route 5 consultation, which also launched on 9 July.

Copies of the letter and drawing, and details of the distribution area, are shown in Appendices B and C.

Public exhibitions We held two public exhibitions in the Oval Triangle area order to capture local feedback. The events were held at

• Montgomery Hall (joint consultation exhibition with Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 5) 58 Kennington Oval, SE11 5SW Thursday 17 July, 1500-1900

• Oval Farmers’ Market St. Mark's Church, The Oval, SE11 4PW Saturday 19 July, 1100-1500

4 Responses to the consultation

4.1 Background questions

The Oval Triangle consultation received 419 responses. 9 were from stakeholders and 410 responses were from members of the public. 88% of responses were submitted online via the TfL Consultations website, 7% by post, and 5% by email.

Type of response Online questionnaire 368 88% Paper response 30 7% Email 21 5% Total received 419

We asked respondents how they found out about the consultation. Of those that answered the question, the majority stated they found out via an email from TfL.

How did you hear about this consultation? Email 151 52% CS5 leaflet through the door 35 12% Letter 21 7% Cycling website or blog 16 5% Public exhibition 13 4% Other website or blog 13 4% Word of mouth 17 6% Twitter 9 3% Friend or family 5 2% TfL website 4 1% Facebook 3 1% CS5 leaflet from a TfL representative 2 1% National or local press 2 1% Total answered 291

4.2 Identification questions

We asked respondents to identify themselves both by type of respondent and the types of transport they use locally (please note they were able to select as many descriptions as they felt appropriate).

4.2.1 Description of respondents

301 responses to the consultation provided information on type of respondent, selecting 413 descriptions in total. More than half (54%) of the responses came from local residents; 28% were received from commuters; and 8% were received from the workers in the area.

How respondents described themselves Local resident 224 54% Commuter 116 28% Employed locally 32 8% Visitor 18 4% Other (please specify) 13 3% Business owner 10 2% Total number of descriptions chosen 413

4.2.2 Type of transport used by respondents

297 respondents provided information on the types of transport they use locally, selecting 1031 descriptions in total.

The most common method of travelling among the respondents was cycling (22%), closely followed by walking (20%), underground and bus (both 19%). Those who drive regularly represented 13% of descriptions given, and those who regularly take a taxi represented 6%.

How respondents travel Cycle 231 22% Walk 208 20% Tube 195 19% Bus 194 19% Private car 135 13% Taxi 57 6% Other 7 1% Van 3 0% Coach 1 0% Total number of travel types chosen 1031

4.2.3 Responses by postcode

Of the 419 respondents, 285 supplied postcode information:

What is your postcode? SE11 74 26% SW9 44 15% SW8 39 14% SE17 27 9% SE5 15 5% SW2 8 3% SW4 6 2% SW17 5 2% SE1 4 1% SE15 4 1% SW16 4 1% SW11 3 1% SW12 3 1% EC1 3 1% E9 2 1% IG8 2 1% N1 2 1% SE24 2 1% SE3 2 1% SE6 2 1% SW18 2 1% SW19 2 1% EC4 2 1% Other 28 10% Total answered 285

5 The Oval Triangle consultation questionnaire

5.1 Analysis of the comments provided to the Oval Triangle consultation questionnaire

The Oval Triangle consultation questionnaire consisted of nine questions. Respondents were asked about their support for the overall proposals, and invited to comment on the scheme as a whole. Respondents were also asked about their support for the eight individual sections of the scheme area, and invited to comment on each section. For all questions, respondents were able to comment on as many issues as they wished.

The report considers the total number of respondents for each question as being the number of people who answered the closed question. The percentages relating to comments made in response to each question are therefore a proportion of the total number of respondents to that question.

5.2 The overall proposals for junction improvements at Oval Triangle

This section summarises responses to the question ‘Do you support TfL's overall proposals for junction improvements at Oval Triangle?’, highlighting the main issues raised in the comments. A section-by-section analysis of comments relating to specific sections of the proposals follows.

Do you support TfL's overall proposals for junction improvements at Oval Triangle? Yes 240 57% Partially 93 22% Yes and partially 333 79% No opinion 0 0% Not sure 7 2% No 79 19% Total answered 419

Of the 419 respondents to the question on TfL’s overall proposals, 154 left comments.

Support for proposals: Eighty-four respondents (20% of the total responses to this question) left supportive comments about the proposals, with 50 commenting that the scheme would improve safety for cyclists (12%). Seven commented that they opposed the scheme (2%).

Left turn bans: Sixty-four respondents stated they opposed the banned left turns (15%). 27 respondents were concerned about the impact displaced traffic would have on surrounding streets (6%), while three were concerned about the impact of the banned turns on congestion (1%). Three respondents expressed support for the banned left turns (1%).

Hybrid (stepped) cycle tracks: Seven respondents supported this form of segregation (2%). Six commented that kerb-segregated cycle lanes should be provided rather than stepped cycle tracks (1%). Three respondents were concerned about whether the cycle tracks would provide sufficient capacity for peak volumes of cyclists (1%). One respondent opposed the hybrid tracks because cyclists would continue to use the traffic lanes rather than the cycle tracks.

Other road users: Twenty respondents commented that the provision of facilities for cyclists should be less of a priority, and more should be done for other road users (5%). Five expressed concern that cycling facilities are being improved despite cyclists not paying vehicle tax on their bicycles (1%).

Cyclist behaviour: Six respondents expressed concern about cyclists breaking traffic regulations, such as riding on pavements and through red lights (1%).

Impact on pedestrians: Sixteen respondents expressed various concerns about the impact of the proposals on pedestrians (4%). Six were concerned about the potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists (3%), particularly at the bus stop bypasses. Five respondents opposed the removal of pedestrian crossings (1%), and three opposed the narrowing of footways (1%).

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

5.3 Overall support by postcode (five most popular outward codes)

Of the 285 responses with postcode information, 199 responses (69% of all responses with postcodes) were from the local area around Oval Triangle: SE11 (Kennington), SW9 (Stockwell), SW8 (South Lambeth), SE17 (Walworth) and SE5 (Camberwell).

What is your postcode? SE11 74 29% SW9 44 17% SW8 39 15% SE17 27 11% SE5 15 6% Total 199 69%

Overall support for Oval Triangle proposals (five most popular outward codes) Yes 94 47% Partially 56 28% Yes and partially 150 75% No opinion 0 0% Not sure 4 2% No 45 23% Total answered 199 11

5.4 Support by frequency of cycling

288 respondents provided information on how often they cycle.

Support by frequency of cycling Yes Partially Not Sure No Total Most 131 30 2 7 170 days About once a 15 7 1 9 32 week About 1-3 times a 9 6 3 18 month Less 11 7 1 5 24 often Never 10 16 2 16 44 Total 176 66 6 40 288

Support by frequency of cycling (percentage)

Yes Partially Not Sure No Total Most days 45% 10% 1% 2% 59% About once a 5% 2% 0% 3% 11% week About 1-3 times a 3% 2% 0% 1% 6% month Less 4% 2% 0% 2% 8% often Never 3% 6% 1% 6% 15% Total 61% 23% 2% 14% 100%

70% of respondents who provided information on their cycling habits said they cycle at least once a week. More than half of the respondents to the cycling frequency question supported or partially supported the junction improvements at Oval Triangle and said they cycle most days (55%). Almost half of the respondents who oppose the proposals said they never cycle (6%).

6 Location-specific issues

In addition to the question on the overall proposals, respondents were asked about their support for the eight individual sections of the scheme area, and invited to comment on each section. For all sections, respondents were able to comment on as many issues as they wished.

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

Junction 1 – Kennington Park Road and Kennington Road

Do you support the proposals for Junction 1?

Yes 175 56% Partially 42 14% Yes and partially 217 70% No opinion 0 0% Not sure 5 2% No 88 28% Total answered 310

Of the 310 respondents to the question on TfL’s proposals for Junction 1, 204 left comments.

Banned left turn from Kennington Park Road onto Kennington Road: Ninety-nine respondents opposed the introduction of the banned left turn (32% of the total responses to this question). 52 respondents raised concerns about the potential impact of displaced traffic on adjoining streets (17%), with 39 mentioning the particular impact on Ravensdon Street or Stannary Street (13%). Twenty-eight respondents were concerned about the impact the ban would have on vehicle access to the local area, and that this would lead to longer journeys for motorists (9%). Sixteen respondents expressed concern that the ban would lead to increased congestion in the area (5%). Twenty-one respondents supported removing the conflict with left-turning traffic (7%). Five respondents requested that the junction of Ravensdon Street and Kennington Park Road be closed to traffic if the banned left turn is implemented (2%).

Separate traffic light phase for cyclists: Six respondents requested that the separate phase has sufficient green time to ensure that cyclists choose to use the facility rather than the general traffic lanes (2%). Six commented that cyclists should observe red lights, and that this needs to be enforced (2%).

Deepened Advanced Stop Lines: Four respondents commented that the southbound Advanced Stop Line (ASL) on Kennington Park Road is unnecessary (1%), while one respondent suggested that it should be half-width. One respondent opposed ASLs as dangerous and should not be used. Two respondents expressed support for the deepened ASLs (1%).

General support for the proposals: Thirty-four respondents offered general support for the proposals at Junction 1 (11%). Twenty-one respondents said the designs would improve safety for cyclists (7%), with 10 supporting the hybrid (stepped) cycle tracks 7%).

Kennington Park Road (between Junctions 1 and 2)

Do you support the proposals for Kennington Park Road (between Junctions 1 and 2)? Yes 176 74% Partially 28 12% Yes and partially 204 86% No opinion 3 1% Not sure 7 3% No 24 10% Total answered 238

Of the 238 respondents to the question on TfL’s proposals for Kennington Park Road between Junctions 1 and 2, 109 left comments.

Cycle bus stop bypass: Fourteen respondents expressed concern that the northbound bus stop bypass would lead to conflict between pedestrians and cyclists (6%). Thirteen respondents supported the introduction of the bus stop bypass (5%).

Hybrid (stepped) cycle tracks: Eight respondents supported the introduction of hybrid (stepped) tracks. Six respondents requested that the hybrid tracks be wide enough to cater for the volume of cyclists during peak hours (3%). Three respondents opposed the hybrid (stepped) tracks (1%).

General support for the proposals: Thirty-three respondents offered general support for the proposals for this section (14% of the total responses to this question). Three respondents opposed the proposals in general (1%).

Junction 2 – Kennington Park Road and Brixton Road

Do you support the proposals for Junction 2? Yes 180 73% Partially 24 10% Yes and partially 204 83% No opinion 5 2% Not sure 9 4% No 27 11% Total answered 245

Of the 245 respondents to the question on TfL’s proposals for Junction 2, 107 left comments.

Separate traffic light phase for cyclists: Thirteen respondents supported removing the conflict with left-turning traffic (5%). Seven respondents expressed support for the cycle traffic light bypass from Kennington Park Road onto Brixton Road (3%). Six respondents commented that cyclists should observe red lights, and that this needs to be enforced (2%).

New junction layout: Nine respondents were concerned that the southbound lane reduction would cause congestion at the junction (4%). Six respondents were concerned that shortening the bus lane would lead to longer bus journey times (2%).

General support for the proposals: Thirty-three respondents offered general support for the proposals at Junction 2 (13% of the total responses to this question), with eight respondents commenting that the designs would improve safety (3%). Two respondents left comments expressing general opposition to the proposals (1%).

Kennington Park Road (between Junctions 2 and 3)

Do you support the proposals for Kennington Park Road (between Junctions 2 and 3)? Yes 161 74% Partially 22 10% Yes and partially 183 84% No opinion 6 3% Not sure 7 3% No 22 10% Total answered 218

Of the 218 respondents to the question on TfL’s proposals for Kennington Park Road between Junctions 2 and 3, 82 left comments.

Cycle bus stop bypass: Eighteen respondents expressed concern that the southbound bus stop bypass would lead to conflict between pedestrians and cyclists (8% of the total responses to this question). Nine respondents supported the introduction of the bus stop bypass (4%).

Hybrid (stepped) cycle tracks: Ten respondents welcomed the introduction of hybrid (stepped) tracks due to the safety benefits they would offer cyclists (5%). Four respondents requested that the hybrid tracks be wide enough to cater for large volumes of cyclists (2%). Four respondents commented that room for the hybrid tracks should be provided by reducing carriageway width, not cutting back footway (2%).

Cyclist behaviour: Six respondents commented that cyclists should observe red lights, and that this needs to be enforced (3%).

Support for the proposals: Seventeen respondents offered general support for the proposals for the section of Kennington Park Road between Junctions 1 and 2 (8%). Two respondents commented that the existing layout is adequate (1%).

Junction 3 – Kennington Park Road, Camberwell New Road, Clapham Road and Harleyford Street

Do you support the proposals for Junction 3? Yes 135 49% Partially 65 23% Yes and partially 200 72% No opinion 4 1% Not sure 8 3% No 65 23% Total answered 277

Of the 277 respondents to the question on TfL’s proposals for Junction 3, 142 left comments.

Banned left turn from Clapham Road onto Harleyford Street (except for cyclists): Seventy respondents left comments opposing the banned left turn (25% of the total responses to this question). Forty-four respondents commented that the ban would displace traffic onto surrounding streets (16%). Thirty-five respondents expressed concern that more vehicles would use Fentiman Street as a result (13%), while seven respondents identified Windmill Row as an alternative route (3%). Thirteen respondents supported the banned left turn (5%).

Separate traffic light phase for cyclists: Nine respondents requested that a separate cyclist-only traffic light phase be introduced at Junction 3 (3%). Five respondents proposed that introducing such a phase would remove the need to ban the left turn from Clapham Road onto Harleyford Street (2%).

Redesigned pedestrian crossing on Harleyford Street: Six respondents supported the redesigned, straight-across pedestrian crossing (2%). Two respondents opposed it as unnecessary (1%)

General comments on the proposals: Sixteen comments offered general support for the proposals for Junction 3 (6%). Five comments opposed the proposals in general (2%).

Camberwell New Road (between Junctions 3 and 4)

Do you support the proposals for Camberwell New Road (between Junctions 3 and 4)? Yes 143 68% Partially 26 12% Yes and partially 169 81% No opinion 9 4% Not sure 5 2% No 26 12% Total answered 209

Of the 209 respondents to the question on TfL’s proposals for Junction 3, 73 left comments.

Mandatory 2-metre-wide cycle lanes: Eleven respondents commented that the cycle lanes should be segregated (5% of the total responses to this question). Three respondents requested that the cycle lanes be wider (1%).

Raised carriageway: Three respondents expressed concern that the raised carriageway would be unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians (1%). Three respondents supported the raised carriageway (1%).

General comments on the proposals: Thirteen respondents offered general support for the proposals for this section (6%). Four respondents opposed the proposals, commenting that TfL funds should not be spent on them (2%).

Brixton Road (between Junctions 2 and 4)

Do you support the proposals for Brixton Road (between Junctions 2 and 4)? Yes 140 73% Partially 20 10% Yes and partially 160 83% No opinion 5 3% Not sure 7 4% No 20 10% Total answered 192

Of the 192 respondents to the question on TfL’s proposals for Brixton Road between Junctions 2 and 4, 77 left comments.

Hybrid (stepped) cycle tracks: Three respondents supported the introduction of hybrid cycle tracks on Brixton Road (2% of the total responses to this question). Three respondents requested the cycle tracks be wider than 2 metres (2%). Three respondents commented that the cycle tracks should be at carriageway level (2%).

General comments on the proposals: Eighteen respondents (9%) offered general support for the proposals. Eight respondents opposed them in general (4%).

Junction 4 – Brixton Road and Camberwell New Road

Do you support the proposals for Junction 4? Yes 126 58% Partially 37 17% Yes and partially 163 75% No opinion 5 2% Not sure 13 6% No 37 17% Total answered 218

Of the 218 respondents to the question on TfL’s proposals for Junction 4, 115 left comments.

Banned left turn from Camberwell New Road onto Brixton Road: Twenty-seven respondents opposed the banned left turn (12% of the total responses to this question). Twenty-two respondents raised concerns about the potential impact of displaced traffic on adjoining streets (10%). Six respondents supported the banned turn (3%).

Pedestrian crossings: Twenty-respondents opposed the removal of the northern pedestrian crossing on Brixton Road, between the Green Space and Kennington

Park (10%). Seven respondents requested that the southern pedestrian crossing on Camberwell New Road be signalised (3%).

Shared-use space for pedestrians and cyclists: Six respondents (3%) opposed the shared space, commenting that it would cause conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. Four respondents proposed that a cycle lane be installed to allow cyclists to turn left from Camberwell New Road onto Brixton Road (2%).

‘Early release’ signals for cyclists on Brixton Road southbound: Nine respondents supported the ‘early release’ signals (4%).

Two-stage right turns from Camberwell New Road onto Brixton Road in both directions: Eight respondents were unsure how the two-stage right turns would work (4%). Two respondents proposed that a traffic island or light segregation be provided instead of the two-stage facilities (1%). Twelve respondents supported the two-stage right turns (6%).

Separate traffic light phase for cyclists on Brixton Road northbound: Ten respondents offered support for the separate traffic light phase on Brixton Road (5%)

General support for the proposals: Sixteen respondents offered general support for the proposals for Junction 4 (7%). Two respondents opposed the proposals, commenting that TfL funds should not be spent on them (1 %).

7 Summary of stakeholder responses to the consultation

Concerned about the impact of the banned turns on Cleaver Square, Cleaver traffic displacement and congestion. Commented Street and Bowden Street that the overall scheme area should be extended to Residents' Association include Kennington Cross. Concerned about the banned turn at Junction 3, the potential for traffic displacement onto Fentiman Fentiman Road and Road, and for congestion at the junction. Richbourne Terrace Commented that the existing traffic-calming Residents' Association measures along Fentiman Road have not had the desired impact on traffic volumes. Concerned that the proposals prioritise the Friends of Kennington Park requirements of cyclists over pedestrians, and opposed the banned turns. Concerned about the impact on surrounding streets of the banned turn from Kennington Road onto Kennington Park Road. Commented that stopping Heart of Kennington up Ravensdon Street would discourage traffic Residents' Association displacement, but would also limit access for local residents. Requested that TfL and Lambeth Council review traffic management for the Kennington area, including Kennington Cross. Concerned about the impact of the banned turns on traffic displacement, congestion and taxi journey times. Commented that the introduction of cycle tracks would reduce kerbside access for wheelchair London Cab Ranks Committee users and other less able passengers. Supported cycle bus stop bypasses as they separate cyclists from general traffic. Opposed deeper Advanced Stop Lines on the grounds that cyclists wait beyond the stop line in any case. Raised a number of concerns, including the removal of a section of bus priority lane, additional journey times for buses. Concerns for pedestrians included London TravelWatch the use of bus stop bypasses and staggered pedestrian crossings. Welcomed the introduction of deeper ASLs. Concerned about the impact of the banned turns on surrounding streets and congestion. Concerns about Oval Partnership and KOV the impact on pedestrians of the proposals included Forum opposition to the removal of the pedestrian crossing on Brixton Road. However, welcomed the upgraded pedestrian crossing on Camberwell New Road.

Welcomed the banned turn at Junction 1, but expressed concern about the impact of the banned turn at Junction 3 on surrounding streets. Suggested Southwark Living Streets a 20mph speed limit throughout the scheme area. Concerned that the footway cutbacks and removal of the Brixton Road pedestrian crossing would have a negative impact on pedestrians.

Welcomed the banned turns at Junctions 1 and 3 due to their safety benefits for cyclists and pedestrians. Supported separate traffic light phases for cyclists, but requested that the cycle lane capacity at each junction be increased. Welcomed deeper ASLs, bus stop bypasses, improved pedestrian crossings at Junctions 1 and 3, and the Sustrans entry treatment at Magee Street. Raised a number of concerns, including the reduction in footway, the removal of the Brixton Road pedestrian crossing, the potential for conflict between northbound cyclists and buses on Clapham Road, and the potential for left-turn conflict at Junction 3 from traffic turning from Camberwell New Road onto Clapham Road.

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

8 Improvements to the Oval Triangle green space

Alongside the proposed junction upgrades at Oval, we asked respondents what improvements they would like to see to the Green Space north of St. Mark’s Church, Kennington.

122 respondents answered this part of the consultation.

• Support for improvements – 85 respondents supported improving the green space (70% of the total responses to this section) o Twenty-three respondents proposed planting new vegetation and “greening” the space (19%) o Fourteen respondents requested better bike facilities such as lockers and air pumps (12%) o Eleven respondents requested the fountain be repaired and improved (9%) o Nine respondents supported opening a cafe and retail space (7%) o Six respondents suggested new and improved seating (5%) • Opposition to improvements – sixteen respondents opposed any changes to the green space, citing reasons such as its proximity to Kennington Park, and to A roads and heavy traffic (13%) • The remaining comments included general expressions of support for cycling improvements from five respondents (4%). Seven respondents were uncertain about where the green space is (6%), while two respondents assumed the green space is the space directly outside St Mark’s Church (2%).

9 Conclusion

79% of respondents to the consultation said they supported or partially supported TfL’s overall proposals for junction improvements at Oval Triangle. Having considered the issues raised in consultation, TfL has decided to proceed with the scheme, incorporating proposals to mitigate the impact of the banned turns on adjoining streets.

TfL will work with Lambeth Council and the residents of Lambeth to ensure that local roads are not significantly affected in the long term as a result of the banned turns. We will work with the Council to develop mitigation measures, including closing the junction of Ravensdon Street and Kennington Park Road if this is supported by local residents. We will also monitor any changes in traffic flows on Vassall Road and Fentiman Road to understand if any further measures are required on these roads.

There are no other changes to the proposals we put out for public consultation. Our response to issues commonly raised in consultation is available in Appendix A.

We plan to start work in December 2014. We will write to local residents and affected properties before work starts to provide a summary of this consultation, an overview of the updated proposals, and an outline of the construction programme.

As part of the main scheme, TfL will work with Lambeth Council to improve the triangular island just north of St Mark’s Church, with the Council working collaboratively with the local community to develop improvements to the island. By April 2015, we envisage that plans for the island will be finalised and agreed by all parties, including the local community, Lambeth Council and TfL. If possible, these would then be introduced in the main delivery programme for completion by March 2016.

Appendix A Response to issues commonly raised

Banned turns

Banned left turn from Kennington Road onto Kennington Park Road

Banning this turn will eliminate the potential for conflict between left-turning traffic and cyclists, as well as creating space for improved cycle facilities across the junction. In response to concerns about the banned left turn, the TfL is working closely with Lambeth Council on measures to discourage traffic using Stannary Street and Ravensdon Street as an alternative route. Five consultation responses suggested the closure of Ravensdon Street, which is one of the measures currently being considered, alongside traffic calming on Stannary Street.

Banned left turn from Clapham Road onto Harleyford Street

Road safety is a key priority for TfL, a major element of which is reducing the number of casualties. In 2010 a cyclist was killed at this junction, while in the past three years there have been three slight collisions and one serious collision involving cyclists. Banning the turn will resolve the conflict between left-turning traffic and cyclists continuing northbound on CS7.

While the banned turn will offer safety benefits to cyclists, we do acknowledge concerns over what the impact could be on surrounding streets such as Fentiman Road. We will therefore review the traffic count and collision data one year after banning the turn to ascertain its impact on Fentiman Road and the surrounding area.

Banned left turn from Camberwell New Road onto Brixton Road

Banning this turn resolves the conflict between left-turning traffic and cyclists continuing westbound on Camberwell New Road. It also creates space for improved pedestrian and cycle facilities across the junction. We acknowledge the concerns of local people over the potential for increased traffic on their roads, and will therefore review the traffic count data and collision data one year after implementation of the scheme to ascertain its impact on Vassall Road and the surrounding area.

Driver education, signage and satellite navigation devices.

We will use targeted email and publicity campaigns to provide drivers with information about the Oval Triangle improvements in advance of their implementation. These will include details of the banned turns, and the alternative routes available. We will install appropriate signage in Kennington, Stockwell and Camberwell to ensure that drivers are made aware of the banned turns before they reach Oval Triangle. We are liaising with satellite navigation companies so that their devices incorporate the banned turns and provide drivers with alternative routings.

Taken together, these measures will mitigate the impact of the banned turns on traffic displacement and congestion in the Oval Triangle area. Drivers wanting to make these turns will be presented with alternative routings before they approach Oval Triangle.

Bus stop bypasses

Bus stop bypasses are used elsewhere in London, the UK and Europe, and were introduced in 2013 on Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 2 between Bow and Stratford. We have assessed their usage, and the interaction between cyclists and pedestrians at these points, via on-street surveys and video monitoring. The designs for the bus stop bypasses at Oval Triangle have taken account of these studies.

Journey time impacts for general traffic and buses

Our analysis shows that the Oval scheme would mean longer journey times for some road users at the busiest times, although some journeys would be quicker. In most cases, the changes in journey time for general traffic and buses would be less than one minute, although certain movements could incur longer delays. The biggest predicted increase is by up to 3 minutes in the busiest part of the morning rush hour for general traffic travelling from Brixton Road (south of Junction 4) to Kennington Road (north of Junction 1). Conversely, analysis also shows that some journeys could improve, such as a one minute improvement for journeys from Clapham Road (south of Junction 3) to Kennington Park Road (north of Junction 1). Bus passengers could experience changes in journey times of between one minute longer and one minute quicker at the busiest times of day.

The changes at Oval have primarily been designed to improve safety for cyclists, who are not well catered for by the current layout. There were 54 collisions involving injury to cyclists in the 36 months from January 2011 to January 2014 – 50% of total collisions in this area. We have therefore concluded that the impact on traffic is reasonable when balanced against the substantial safety improvements that the proposals would bring for the many cyclists who pass through the junction each day.

We will work to mitigate the impact on traffic as much as possible. We are developing wider traffic management plans for central London to help reduce the traffic impacts of this scheme and others, including those proposed by London local authorities and developers. This will include investing in advanced traffic signal technology to allow us to better manage traffic depending on differing conditions at any given time. There will also be customer information to enable road users to make informed journey choices and campaigns to encourage road users to check before they travel.

Where there are increases on journey times for bus routes impacted by the scheme, a programme of work is being developed to save time elsewhere along the affected route by addressing delays and giving priority to buses at certain pinch-points.

Hybrid (stepped) cycle tracks

We received thirteen comments about the width of the hybrid cycle tracks, in particular along Brixton Road and Kennington Park Road. We have analysed current and predicted cycle flows through the junctions, and conducted on-street observations in Oval Triangle. Based on this, we have concluded that a cycle track width of 2 metres is suitable for current and future volumes of cyclists through the scheme area. The length of green time provided to both to left-turn and straight- ahead cycle movements will be long enough to service the volume of cyclists using the facilities.

Deeper Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs)

Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) help cyclists to position themselves in drivers’ line of sight, wait away from direct exhaust fumes, and enjoy a head start over motorised traffic. Research has show that ASLs have a very low or zero effect on junction capacity. Where provision for cyclists is on-carriageway, such as at Junctions 1, 3 and 4, we will aim to incorporate ASLs. We have taken account of the revised layouts, traffic flows and movements at each junction in the scheme area. We consider that installing deeper ASLs at Oval Triangle will provide safety benefits to cyclists, without affecting general traffic flows.

Concerns about cyclist behaviour

We acknowledge that some people are concerned about antisocial cycling, although we also believe that most cyclists ride responsibly.

TfL promotes adherence to the Highway Code by all road users and encourages ‘responsible cycling’ and mutual respect between cyclists and other road users. This means working to eliminate offences such as jumping red lights, cycling on the pavement, and cycling at night without adequate lighting. We do this through marketing and engagement campaigns, and by working with the Police on education and enforcement activity. Research has shown that more motorists pass through red lights compared to cyclists. Our work to address the issue therefore covers all road users, and includes targeted enforcement and behaviour change campaigns.

TfL also funds the Police’s Cycle Safety Team, which is committed to embedding responsible road user behaviour by both cyclists and motorists. The Cycle Safety Team will be patrolling Oval Triangle when it opens, ensuring appropriate behaviour by all road users and enforcing against non-compliance.

If required, the Police, TfL and Lambeth Council will identify and implement any additional measures following scheme completion.

Separate traffic light phases for cyclists

As part of the design process we have modelled the signal phases for all four of the junctions at Oval Triangle. This has allowed us to identify the appropriate amount of green time to cater for the volume of general traffic and cyclists at each arm of each junction. We will monitor the performance of the traffic signals following their introduction, and make adjustments as required.

Pedestrian crossings at Junction 4 (Camberwell New Road and Brixton Road)

The pedestrian crossing on Camberwell New Road, outside the southern entrance to Kennington Park, will be converted to a fully signalised, straight-across crossing.

We received twenty-two responses requesting to keep the existing two-stage crossing to the north of the junction on Brixton Road. The removal of the existing crossing is required to provide space for the junction improvements, and is offset by the improved controlled pedestrian facility on Camberwell New Road.

Appendix B – Consultation letter and map

Appendix C – Consultation letter distribution area

Appendix D – List of stakeholders consulted

AA Motoring Trust London City Airport Action on Hearing Loss (formerly London Councils RNID) London Cycling Campaign Age Concern London London Fire Brigade Age UK London Older People's Strategy Group Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance London TravelWatch Association of British Drivers Metropolitan Police Association of Car Fleet Operators MIND Bankside Residents' Forum Motorcycle Action Group British Motorcyclists Federation Motorcycle Industry Association BT National Children's Bureau Campaign for Better Transport National Grid Clapham Society NHS Central London Clinical Clapham Transport Users Group Commissioning Group Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Port of London Authority CTC, the National Cycling Charity RADAR London Access Forum Disability Alliance Road Haulage Association Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Royal Mail Committee Royal National Institute of Blind People EDF Energy (RNIB) Eurostar Group Royal Parks Freight Transport Association Sense Greater London Authority Sixty Plus Greater London Forum for the Elderly St. Mark's Church, Kennington Green Flag Group Streatham Vale Property Occupiers Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Association Herne Hill Forum Stroke Association Hertfordshire County Council Sustrans Joint Mobility Unit Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector Kennington Oval Partnership Thames Water King's College Hospital NHS The British Dyslexia Association Foundation Trust The Clapham Society Lambeth Safer Transport Team Vauxhall Gardens Estate Tenants & Lambeth Traffic and Transport Residents Association Working Group Virtual Norwood Forum Living Streets London Ambulance Service

London Borough of Hillingdon

London Borough of Lambeth London Borough of Sutton London Cab Ranks Committee

Members of Parliament

Kate Hoey MP Tessa Jowell MP Seema Malhotra MP Chuka Umunna MP

London Assembly Members

Jennette Arnold AM Gareth Bacon AM Andrew Boff AM Victoria Borwick AM Tom Copley AM Nicky Gavron AM Darren Johnson AM Jenny Jones AM Stephen Knight AM Joanne McCartney AM Caroline Pidgeon AM Murad Qureshi AM Valerie Shawcross AM Fiona Twycross AM

Appendix E – Email to stakeholders

Dear Stakeholder,

Have your say on proposed junction improvements at Oval Triangle Transport for London (TfL) is working closely with cycling, road user and community groups, London boroughs and the Police to review and improve cycling provision and safety at junctions. As part of this work, we have developed proposals to substantially redesign four junctions around Oval station.

View the proposals and have your say Please visit tfl.gov.uk/oval-triangle to see details of the proposed changes and have your say. The deadline for comments is 17 August 2014.

About the proposed new route The proposed improvements are shown on the attached map and include: • A combination of hybrid (stepped)*, segregated and upgraded cycle lanes, to separate cyclists from traffic and buses • New junction designs, including low-level signals, two-stage right turns, and junctions which separate cyclists from left-turning traffic to remove conflict (some features subject to Department for Transport approval) • Three banned left turns to reduce conflict between cyclists and vehicles • Bus stop bypasses, where cyclists are directed behind the bus stop and along a cycle lane at carriageway level. This would reduce the risk of conflict between cyclists and general traffic • Deeper 7.5m Advanced Stop Lines to let cyclists wait ahead of other vehicles • A better road layout, with more visible traffic signals to help smooth journeys, discourage speeding and reduce collisions • Simplified crossings to improve pedestrian journeys through Oval Triangle

* the hybrid (stepped) cycle lanes would be higher than the road surface but lower than the footway

Public exhibitions We invite you to one of our public exhibitions, where you can view the proposals and speak to members of the project team:

• Montgomery Hall, 58 Kennington Oval, SE11 5SW Thursday 17 July, 1500-1900 • Oval Farmers’ Market, St. Mark's Church, SE11 4PW Saturday 19 July, 1100-1500

Improvements to the Oval Triangle green space Alongside the proposed junction upgrades at Oval, TfL and Lambeth Council are working closely to deliver improvements to the Green Space north of Kennington Church. We would like to hear your views on how best to provide a high-quality, attractive public space that is accessible and safe for all. Please complete the online survey at tfl.gov.uk/oval-triangle to let us know your thoughts.

Yours faithfully,

Alex Morrison Consultation Delivery Team Surface Transport Transport for London

Appendix F – Email to registered Oyster cardholders who live, work or commute in or via the affected area