Proposed improvements between Ilford and

Consultation Report November 2019 Contents

Table of figures ...... 3 Executive summary ...... 4 1. About the proposals ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 Purpose ...... 5 2. About the consultation ...... 6 2.1 Purpose ...... 6 2.2 Who we consulted ...... 6 2.3 Dates and duration ...... 6 2.4 What we asked ...... 6 2.5 Methods of responding ...... 7 2.6 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 7 2.7 How we considered equalities in the consultation ...... 8 2.8 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 9 3. About the respondents ...... 10 3.1 Respondent type ...... 10 3.2 List of responding stakeholders...... 10 3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 11 3.4 Distribution of respondents ...... 11 3.5 Demographics ...... 13 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 17 4.1 Question 1: Effect of proposals as a whole on the way people choose to travel 17 4.2 Question 1 (open question) & Question 3 (open question): Effect and impact of proposals as a whole ...... 19 4.3 Question 2: Neighbourhoods of interest selected by respondents ...... 20 4.4 Question 4: Frequency of travel ...... 21 4.5 Quality of Consultation ...... 22 5. Responses to issues raised ...... 24 6. Next steps ...... 36

2 Table of figures

Figure 1 Public drop-in events: dates, times and venues ...... 8 Figure 2 Public and stakeholder respondents to the consultation ...... 10 Figure 3 Respondent types ...... 10 Figure 4 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 11 Figure 5 Map to show the location of respondents to the consultation within proximity to the proposed Cycleway route ...... 12 Figure 6 Table to show the number of responses received from residents of each represented borough ...... 13 Figure 7 The gender of respondents to the consultation ...... 13 Figure 8 The age of respondents to the consultation ...... 14 Figure 9 The ethnicity of respondents to the consultation ...... 15 Figure 10 The sexual orientation of respondents to the consultation ...... 15 Figure 11 Faith of the respondents to the consultation...... 16 Figure 12 Respondents who considered that their day-to-day activities were limited ...... 16 Figure 13 Effect of proposals on the way people choose to travel (walking, cycling and public transport)...... 17 Figure 14 Effect of proposals on the way people choose to travel (motor vehicles) . 18 Figure 15 Top 10 most frequently raised issues ...... 20 Figure 16 Respondents selection of the neighbourhoods their comments related to 21 Figure 17 Frequency of travel by walking, cycling, public transport and private transport ...... 22 Figure 18 Assessment of the quality of the consultation ...... 23

3 Executive summary

We worked with the Borough of Barking & to develop proposals to help people walk and cycle more often in neighbourhoods including Ilford, Barking and Barking Riverside. Our proposals are an important part of the Mayor's Transport Strategy and were guided by the Mayor's Healthy Streets Approach, which aims to encourage more sustainable travel and to make London greener, healthier and more pleasant.

We held a consultation on our proposals from 24 June – 5 August 2019 and invited a wide range of people and other stakeholders to give us their views.

Summary of results

There were 160 responses to the consultation, including from 7 organisations or individuals we would consider to be stakeholders.

We asked respondents to judge what effect our proposals might have on walking, cycling, using public transport, using private transport for personal journeys or using private transport for business journeys. We provided a range of effects for respondents to choose between, ranging from ‘Many more people would choose to travel in this way’, to ‘Fewer people would choose to travel in this way’. We also provided the option ‘I am unsure what effect the proposals might have’. We found that:

 78 per cent of respondents felt that our proposals would mean that more people would cycle  73 per cent of respondents felt that our proposals would mean that more people would walk  41 per cent of respondents felt that our proposals would mean that more people would use public transport  41 per cent of respondents felt that our proposals would mean that fewer people would use private transport for personal journeys  24 per cent of respondents felt that our proposals would mean that fewer people would use private transport for business journeys

We also received a range of written comments about our proposals. We have analysed these to identify the issues raised and have described them later in this report.

Next steps

The feedback we received was invaluable in helping us to further improve the scheme. We will continue to work with the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham to developed detailed designs, incorporating changes highlighted in the Responses to issues raised section of the report. Subject to final approval we currently intend to commence construction on the route in early 2020.

4 1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction

Our proposals were designed to make it easier for people to cross busy roads, improve walking and cycling access to the new Barking Riverside development as well as Barking and Ilford town centres; and offer a safe and comfortable space for people to cycle. Our consultation was focussed on a section of new Cycleway (and associated other improvements, including for pedestrians) between Barking and Barking Riverside. The section of the route between Barking and Ilford will be consulted on at a later date, following further feasibility work.

The proposals included:

 A new high-quality cycle route that people can use to get around  A new pedestrian and cycle footbridge over Mayes Brook, with additional lighting and green space improvements  Upgraded walking and cycling crossing on Bastable Avenue to provide easier and safer access to Thames View Junior and Infant School  New ‘continuous’ pedestrian crossings at the junctions of St Awdry's Road and Eldred Road  Links to both existing and proposed cycling routes including Cycle Superhighway 3 (Barking to Tower Gateway) and the Ripple Greenway  Improved access into Barking Riverside development for people walking and cycling

1.2 Purpose

The proposed improvements were designed to help us meet the target set out in the Mayor's Transport Strategy that 80 per cent of all London trips be made on foot, by bicycle or on public transport by 2041. Changing how space is allocated to different road users throughout London is an important way of helping more people travel sustainably.

The areas between Ilford and Barking Riverside tend to be largely residential with vibrant high streets and green spaces, including Ripple Greenway and . The new development at Barking Riverside will include 10,000 new homes, new shopping areas, community and leisure facilities and schools. There are also plans for a brand new rail station with bus and river transport interchange. However, roads through these neighbourhoods are currently dominated by motor traffic and can be intimidating and unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists.

5 2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were to:

 Give stakeholders and the public easily-understood information about the proposals and allow them to respond

 Allow us to understand any issues or impacts that might affect the proposals of which we were not previously aware

 Allow respondents to make suggestions to us 2.2 Who we consulted Our consultation was open to anyone who had a view about our proposals; although we primarily contacted relevant residents, businesses and stakeholders in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. We worked closely with officers from the local authority to ensure information about the consultation reached as wide an audience as possible.

2.3 Dates and duration The consultation ran for just over six weeks, from 24 June to 5 August 2019.

2.4 What we asked Our website included a questionnaire for respondents to complete, although they were also free to send us their thoughts by letter or email. We asked people who completed our questionnaire to tell us how they thought the proposals might impact how people would travel, and additionally to explain their reasoning for their assessment in free text.

We also asked respondents to tell us whether our proposals would positively or negatively affect their journeys, and additionally to tell us how we might mitigate any negative impacts they foresaw. Respondents were also asked to give us their name, email address and postcode, along with information about their travel habits, and certain demographic information; although all of these questions were voluntary. Our consultation questionnaire is included in Appendix A.

Our consultation was intended to enable us to learn what issues respondents might have with our proposals, together with any suggestions they might have for how these issues could be mitigated (or respondents suggestions for other changes or improvements they felt might be made to the proposals). We developed our consultation questionnaire accordingly, and included within it a set of questions we felt would encourage respondents to consider specifically what issues they foresaw with our proposals. We made clear on our consultation website that respondents could also submit their views to us in writing to our Freepost or email address.

6

2.5 Methods of responding People were able to respond to the consultation by:

 answering the questions in the survey on our consultation website at tfl.gov.uk/barking-ilford  sending a letter to FREEPOST TfL CONSULTATIONS  emailing us at [email protected]  completing a questionnaire at one of the public drop-in sessions (or posting a questionnaire to the address above)

Foreign language translations, large print, Braille or audio versions of our consultation materials could also be requested.

2.6 Consultation materials and publicity We used a range of channels to raise awareness of the consultation and ensure that members of the public and stakeholders were aware of its purposes.

All materials encouraged interested parties to visit our website or contact us to find out more about the scheme and how to respond.

2.6.1 Website Our website tfl.gov.uk/barking-ilford provided detailed information about the consultation, including overview maps, drawings and computer-generated images. It was divided into pages which:

 provided an overview of the scheme,  explained the separate neighbourhoods of the route,  included ‘Healthy Street’ assessments for each neighbourhood as well as our Equality Impacts Assessment

2.6.2 Letters and leaflets We sent letters to over 22,000 local residents and businesses (i.e. all those properties situated within 450m of the proposed route). Our letter made clear that the consultation had launched and included an overview of the proposals. If our letter distribution partner could not gain access to a property to post a letter then they posted the letter first class the next day. Copies of the letter and a map of the distribution area can be found in Appendix A.

2.6.3 Emails to public and stakeholders We sent an email about the consultation to almost 80,000 people who use public transport or cycle in the area. The data for the distribution list was extracted from our master database of those who have registered their details with us – for example

7 Oyster Card and contactless customers. The text of the email is included in Appendix A.

We also sent an email to a wide range of stakeholders likely to be interested in the proposals. This email is included in Appendix A, together with the list of stakeholders we approached.

2.6.4 Public drop-in events During the consultation we held four public drop-in events at times and locations intended to be convenient for as many people as possible. At each event, staff from TfL were available to answer questions.

Venue Date and time Saturday 6 July 2019, 11:00 - 16:00 Barking Learning Centre, 2 Town Square, Barking, IG11 7ND Monday 8 July 2019, 12:00 - 19:00

Tuesday 16 July 2019 (12:00 - 19:00) Sue Bramley Children’s Centre, Bastable Avenue, Barking, IG11 0LG Saturday 20 July 2019 (11:00 - 15:00)

Figure 1 Public drop-in events: dates, times and venues

2.6.5 Press and media activity A Press Release was distributed to local and regional media at the time the consultation launched. A copy of our Press Release is included in Appendix A.

2.6.6 Distribution of consultation leaflets We produced a leaflet which described our proposals in summary terms and included a map of the proposed route, and distributed this at a variety of locations1 throughout the consultation period. The purpose of this activity was to raise awareness of our proposals and the opportunity to take part in our consultation.

2.7 How we considered equalities in the consultation In deciding on who to consult, we had regard to our public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 and the need to consider any impacts (positive or negative) of the proposals on people with protected characteristics. To ensure that any such impacts were brought to our attention through the consultation, we took steps to ensure that a number of groups representative of people with protected characteristics in the community; including elderly, disabled persons or faith organisations, were made aware of our consultation. The measures we took to ensure these groups could participate in the consultation included:

1 These were , Barking town centre, Barking Market/East Street, Farr Avenue local Shopping Parade and the area surrounding the Sue Bramley Community Centre.

8  Identifying and emailing relevant stakeholders such as British Dyslexia Association, Age UK London, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Action on Hearing Loss and Inclusion London, and inviting them to respond to the consultation  Ensuring that the materials were written in plain English, and available on request in different formats (for example, Braille, large print, other languages)  Ensuring that consultation events were held in accessible locations and at different times of the day, and that large scale materials were available to review at the events  Considering how best to reach our target audiences and tailoring the way of communicating with them. For example, by preparing hard copies of our online material for those not able to access our website  Publishing an Equality Impacts Assessment within our consultation materials - this allowed consultees to identify any significant gaps in our thinking and bring to our attention any impacts which we had not already identified

We are fully aware of our obligations under the Equality Act 2010, in particular the importance of the public sector equality duty on our decision-making. Some responses to consultation raised issues relating to equalities and these will be taken into account in the development of our thinking on the proposals, with mitigation of any adverse impacts being considered. The EQIA will be kept under review and updated throughout the decision-making process.

2.8 Analysis of consultation responses

All responses to the closed questions in our consultation questionnaire were reviewed and the results tabulated and reported. The results are set out in the next chapter.

The open question, where respondents provided comments, were read and analysed in detail. All comments and suggestions received, whether by email, letter or through our online questionnaire were reviewed in order to identify common themes raised by respondents.

We developed a ‘code frame’ for the open questions. A code frame is simply a list of the issues raised during the consultation; together with the frequency each was raised. Every open text response was analysed and either a new code was created or the response was added to one or more of the existing codes within the code frame. Each response could be coded into multiple codes, depending on the number of issues raised by the individual. Where it was determined that a comment was providing context to an issue (rather than forming a separate point), these did not form a separate code.

9 3. About the respondents

This section provides information about the consultation respondents, including how they heard about the consultation and in what capacity they responded. Respondents have been classified into two categories: Members of the public and Stakeholders.

Respondent type Total % Member of the public 153 96% Stakeholder 7 4% Total 160 100%

Figure 2 Public and stakeholder respondents to the consultation

3.1 Respondent type Respondents were asked to select which of the following respondent types best described them. Respondents were free to select as many options as they felt were appropriate.

Total

Count % A resident living close to the proposed scheme 82 51% A cyclist who might use the proposed route, or who 45 28% cycles in the area currently A business located close to the proposed scheme 4 2% Someone who uses public transport in the area 59 36% around the proposed scheme Someone who uses private transport in the area 32 20% around the proposed scheme Not local, but interested in the proposals 16 10% Not stated 32 20%

Figure 3 Respondent types

3.2 List of responding stakeholders We received 7 responses from organisations or individuals we would consider to be stakeholders. We identified as a ‘stakeholder’ all those respondents we judged are notable and reasonably well known amongst the public. This includes London’s local authorities, major transport groups, local neighbourhood or residents associations, major charities, businesses and business groups and industry associations.

10 We have listed below all those stakeholders who responded to the consultation. We have included in Appenidx B a summary of each of the responses we received from these organisations or individuals.

STIBASA (Sustainable Transport In Barking And Surround Areas) London Borough of Redbridge (Air quality response) RNIB Barking Riverside Ltd The River Roding Trust Sustrans Metropolitan Police

3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation We asked respondents how they had heard that the consultation was taking place, and provided a variety of options for them to choose from.

Total

Count % Received an email from TfL 80 50% Received a letter from TfL 11 7% Read about in the press 4 2% Saw it on the TfL website 8 5% Social media 10 6% Other 5 3% Not stated 42 26% Total 160 100%

Figure 4 How respondents heard about the consultation

3.4 Distribution of respondents We asked respondents to provide us with their home postcode. 106 respondents did so and we have plotted the majority2 of these on the following map.

We ‘mapped’ the majority of respondents who provided a postcode to the London Boroughs of Barking & Dagenham or Redbridge. We have included a table which lists those boroughs to whom we mapped respondents to the consultation, together with the number of respondents mapped to each.

2 We have focussed on an area surrounding the route of the proposed new Cycleway, which is where the majority of respondents lived

11

Figure 5 Map to show the location of respondents to the consultation within proximity to the proposed Cycleway route

12 Borough Number of responses received Barking & Dagenham 48 Rebridge 31 Barnet 1 Brent 1 Ealing 1 Hackney 1 Haringey 1 Havering 1 Islington 1 Lambeth 1 Newham 1 Wandsworth 1 Westminster 1

Figure 6 Table to show the number of responses received from residents of each represented borough

3.5 Demographics We asked respondents to tell us about themselves, although respondents were under no obligation to provide any particular demographic information to us. The following tables set out the information respondents gave us on their gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation and faith.

We also asked respondents whether they considered their day-to-day activities were limited because of a long-term health problem or disability.

Total

Count % Male 73 45% Female 30 19% Gender Neutral 2 1% Trans Male 2 1% Trans Female 1 1% Prefer not to say 9 6% Not answered 43 27%

Figure 7 The gender of respondents to the consultation

13 Total

Count % Under 15 1 0% 16-20 2 1% 21-25 5 3% 26-30 12 7% 31-35 15 9% 36-40 15 9% 41-45 14 8% 46-50 7 4% 51-55 9 5% 56-60 8 5% 61-65 11 6% 66-70 3 1% 71+ 3 1% Prefer not to say 13 8% Not Answered 42 26%

Figure 8 The age of respondents to the consultation

Total

Count % Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi 7 4% Asian or Asian British – Chinese 1 0% Asian or Asian British – Indian 11 6% Asian or Asian British – Other 2 1% Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 4 2% Black or Black British – African 9 5% Black or Black British – Caribbean 1 0% Black or Black British – Other 0 0% Mixed – Other 4 2% Mixed – White and Asian 1 0% Mixed – White and Black African 0 0%

14 Mixed – White and Caribbean 0 0% Other Ethnic Group 0 0% Other Ethnic Group – Arab 0 0% Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 0 0% Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 0 0% Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 1 0% White – British 39 24% White – Irish 1 0% White – Other 17 10% Prefer not to say 18 11% Not Answered 44 27%

Figure 9 The ethnicity of respondents to the consultation

Total

Count % Heterosexual 83 51% Bisexual 5 3% Gay man 3 1% Lesbian 1 0% Other 1 0% Prefer not to say 25 15% Not Answered 42 26%

Figure 10 The sexual orientation of respondents to the consultation

Total

Count % Buddhist 1 0% Christian 35 21% Hindu 8 5% Muslim 18 11% Sikh 2 1% Jewish 3 1%

15 Other 3 1% No religion 28 17% Prefer not to say 20 12% Not Answered 42 26%

Figure 11 Faith of the respondents to the consultation

Total

Count % Yes, limited a lot 3 1% Yes, limited a little 10 6% No 94 58% Prefer not to say 11 6% Not Answered 42 26%

Figure 12 Respondents who considered that their day-to-day activities were limited

16 4. Summary of all consultation responses

This chapter summarises the outcomes of the consultation, including what issues were raised by respondents in their written comments. This includes responses we received by letter or email, and those submitted by people who completed our online consultation questionnaire.

4.1 Question 1: Effect of proposals as a whole on the way people choose to travel

We asked respondents to tell us what effect they felt the proposals would have on the way people choose to travel. We also asked them to explain their answers to this question, and the issues they raised are described in section 4.2.

We have split the responses we received which related to walking, cycling and using public transport from those which related to using private vehicles for business or personal journeys. The percentage scores in this and the following tables additionally account for those respondents who did not answer the relevant question in our consultation questionnaire, for completeness.

Thinking about our proposals as a whole, what effect do you think they would have on the way people choose to travel? 100%

90% 19% Many more people would choose to travel in this way 31% 80% 40% 13% A limited number of extra 70% people would choose to travel in this way 60% The proposals would have no 28% 26% effect 50% 23% 40% Fewer people would choose to 12% 12% travel in this way 30% 11% 7% 7% 6% I am unsure what effect the 2% 20% 1% proposals might have

10% 21% 21% 24% Not Answered 0% Walking Cycling Using public transport

Figure 13 Effect of proposals on the way people choose to travel (walking, cycling and public transport)

17 Respondents felt that our proposals would have the greatest positive impact on people choosing to cycle: 63 per cent agreed that many or a limited number of extra people would choose to travel this way. Respondents also agreed that walking would become a more common choice of travel mode, with 59 per cent saying that many or a limited number of extra people would choose to walk. A slightly lesser proportion of respondents felt that our proposals would lead to greater use of public transport, with 32 per cent saying that our proposals would mean more people would travel in this way.

Thinking about our proposals as a whole, what effect do you think they would have on the way people choose to travel? 100% 10% 9% 90% 8% 8%

80% Many more people would 19% choose to travel in this way 70% 32% A limited number of extra people would choose to travel 60% in this way Fewer people would choose to travel in this way 50% 30%

The proposals would have no 40% 18% effect

I am unsure what effect the 30% 11% 9% proposals might have

20% Not Answered

24% 10% 23%

0% Using private vehicles - Using private vehicles - personal journeys business journeys

Figure 14 Effect of proposals on the way people choose to travel (motor vehicles)

32 per cent of respondents felt that our proposals would mean that fewer people would choose to use a motor vehicle for personal journeys, and 19 per cent felt that fewer people would choose to use a motor vehicle for business journeys.

18 4.2 Question 1 (open question) & Question 3 (open question): Effect and impact of proposals as a whole

We asked respondents to explain their reasoning behind their assessment of the effects of our proposals on the way people might choose to travel. We also asked whether our proposals would have a positive or negative effect on respondents’ travel, and how any negative impacts could be minimised. The wording of both questions is included below for reference.

Full question text (open question 1): It would help us if you could use the space below to explain your answers to the question above. If you are commenting on a particular location, please mention it to help us analyse the responses.

Full question text (open question 3): Please let us know if the proposals would have a positive or negative impact on you or the journeys you make. Please explain how we could minimise any negative impacts. Please also let us know if you have feedback about the specific effects our proposals might have on particular junctions or areas.

We found that respondents raised similar issues in the comments they made to both open questions in our questionnaire, and in the letters and emails we received. For this reason we developed a single ‘code frame3’, which listed all of the issues raised by respondents across the open questions in the online questionnaire and in the letters or emails we received. We have also grouped the issues raised thematically, to make the code frame more manageable and easy to understand.

We identified more than 75 individual issues raised by respondents to the consultation. This section provides details of only the most frequently raised issues, for ease of reading. The complete code frame is included in Appendix B.

4.2.1 Open responses: Specific issues raised The table below lists the 10 most frequently issues, including the number of times each issue was raised by respondents.

3 A code frame is simply a list of the issues expressed by respondents to a consultation; together with the frequency each was raised. Each code describes an issue raised by respondents in a common and consistent way.

19 Issue Number of times raised by respondents Would encourage more cycling/more 19 people to cycle Support for unspecified reasons 18 The proposals are a waste of money 11 Would encourage more walking/more 10 people to walk Cycling infrastructure causes congestion/delays by reducing road 9 space for motorised vehicles Would reduce personal journeys by 7 private transport Segregate cycle ways from 6 footway/objection to shared space Opposition for unspecified reasons 5 Would not reduce personal journeys by 5 private transport Cycling infrastructure worsens air quality (by creating delays for motorised 4 vehicles)

Figure 15 Top 10 most frequently raised issues

The most frequent positive comment made was that the new proposals would benefit cyclists or encourage cycling, raised by more than a quarter of respondents making this comment (26 per cent).

4.3 Question 2: Neighbourhoods of interest selected by respondents

We asked respondents to tell us which neighbourhood their responses to the consultation were related to.

20 Which neighbourhoods do your views relate to? 60.00% 56%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00% 15% 11% 12% 10.00% 6%

0.00% Bastable Avenue St Awdry's Road Wakering Road Mayes Brook Not Answered and Sutton and Eldred Road and Sunningdale Bridge Gardens Avenue

Figure 16 Respondents selection of the neighbourhoods their comments related to

4.4 Question 4: Frequency of travel We asked respondents how often they currently use different forms of transport in the area affected by the proposals. The results are shown below.

21 How often, on average, do you travel using each of these forms of transport in the area? 100% 8% 11% 90% 9% 24% 6% 80% 4% 51% 15% 70% 18% 21% 60% 16% Everyday 50% 4-6 days a week 18% 8% 36% 2-3 days a week 40% 4% 27% Once a week 30% 11% 11% Never 3% 4% 20% Not Answered 26% 26% 10% 23% 21%

0% Walking Cycling Using public Using a private transport vehicle for business or personal travel

Figure 17 Frequency of travel by walking, cycling, public transport and private transport

4.5 Quality of Consultation

We asked respondents to rate the quality of various aspects of the consultation. The results are shown in the chart below.

22 What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)? 100%

15% 90% 20% 19% 18% 18%

80%

70% 26% 29% 25% 26% 29%

60% Very good

50% Good 14% 14% 15% 21% 14% Adequate 40% Poor 3% 4% 6% 4% Very poor 7% 5% 5% 2% 3% 30% 4% 4% 6% 4% Not applicable 2% 0% Not answered 20%

28% 28% 28% 28% 29% 10%

0% Website Written Maps, images Online survey Website structure & information & related format accessibility ease of diagrams finding what you needed

Figure 18 Assessment of the quality of the consultation

23 5. Responses to issues raised

We have considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation and we have provided an answer to each of these in the following tables. We have grouped the issues raised by respondents into broad themes, to make this section of the report easier to read and to provide a more readily understood overview of the issues raised. Some respondents made positive comments about the proposals, all of which we have noted. We have not included our response to these issues in the table, to make it easier to read.

Some of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation called for changes to the proposals. We have considered these with officers from the Borough and, where we jointly believed that the changes would enhance and improve the scheme, we have adopted them. In summary these changes are:

 Providing a new raised continuous crossing at the junction of Endeavour Way and Bastable Avenue  Providing new cycle parking at the junction of Endeavour Way and Bastable Avenue  Reviewing whether new traffic calming measures, together with new lighting and CCTV could be provided

In other cases, we and the Borough judged that the suggested changes would either not be possible, or that they would reduce the effectiveness of our proposals in encouraging trips on foot or by bike. We and the Borough have explained in each case whether or not we could make the changes suggested, including our reasoning.

24 Theme Issue raised Response

Environment Would improve air quality Support for unspecified reasons We noted these responses. Opposition for unspecified reasons There is a high potential demand from people who wish to cycle but currently do not feel able to do so along the route proposed. The new development at Barking Riverside, for example, will include 10,000 new homes, new shopping areas, community and General/in-principle comments leisure facilities and schools. There are also plans for a brand new London Overground station with bus and river transport interchange. However, roads through these neighbourhoods are currently dominated by motor traffic and can be intimidating and unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists. The scheme will make it easier for people to cross busy roads, improve walking and cycling access to the new Barking Riverside development as well as Barking and Ilford town centres, and offer a safe and The proposals are a comfortable space for people to cycle. waste of money Infrastructure The route follows back streets that are parallel to busier main The route of the roads such as Movers Lane and therefore offer a comparable proposed cycle way is not degree of directness. The quieter back streets avoid signalised sufficiently direct/too junctions that can cause delay to cycle journeys, and may also windy offer higher air quality and lower noise levels. Provide cycle hire docking stations at Barking and Ilford There are currently no plans to expand Santander Cycle Hire to stations Barking or Ilford town centres. Replace the continuous Our proposals would give priority to pedestrians crossing the side

25 Theme Issue raised Response

crossings at side roads roads at these locations, where traffic volumes are low. Replacing with zebra crossings the ‘continuous crossing’ at these locations with zebra crossings would therefore not provide a significant benefit to users. We are working with the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham and C2C, who manage Barking Station, to determine whether it Provide more cycle might be possible to install additional cycle parking here. This parking at Barking station would not form part of these cycle route proposals. We are working with the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham to look at opportunities to further encourage people to walk and cycle more, although this is outside the scope of this particular Incorporate space nearby scheme. the cycle way for activities to promote Information is provided on our website about our work across cycling/walking (e.g. play London to encourage active travel: area) https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/active-travel Build a footpath & cycle way along the west bank of the River Roding Extend the cycle way via Renwick Road towards Castle Green Address the issues at the Blake Avenue - Sparsholt Road bridge Build a cycle way from These issues called for infrastructure improvements which are Upney station - Barking outside the scope of proposals. All feedback received during this Riverside consultation will help to inform planning for future investment in Repair/refurbish the the area. footbridge connecting

26 Theme Issue raised Response

Tanner Street and North Street Repair/refurbish the bridge connecting Harts Lane to Hertford Road Provide continuous crossings at Wedderburn road/cranbourne road Re-open the riverside path along the River Roding between Barking and Ilford Introduce the Lea-Lee- Epping cycle circular route Divert the cycle way underneath the St Awdrys Road/Eldred Rd/Wedderburn Rd The new Cycleway would pass underneath the St Awdrys bridge Road/Eldred Rd/Wedderburn Rd bridge as suggested. Support for the development of a cycle The support is noted and we will be developing a set of proposals way from Ilford - Barking for this section of the route with the London Borough of station Redbridge. Divert the cycle way via Sutton Road/Feltham The current alignment is more direct than the proposed alternative Road/Saxham Road and remains our preferred route alignment. Ensure the cycle way is The route will be maintained as part of the London Borough of maintained to a high Barking and Dagenham’s asset maintance programme.

27 Theme Issue raised Response

standard Introduce an additional wheeling ramp on the The London Borough of Barking & Dagenham will investigate other side of the steps at whether an additional wheeling ramp could be added at this Station Parade location. We will review whether additional traffic calming measures could Incorporate traffic be beneficial along the route with the London Borough of Barking calming measures in the & Dagenham. If necessary, these would be proposed and proposals consulted on locally. We noted this objection. The continuous footways are proposed at Objection to continuous locations with low traffic flows, and the detailed designs will be footways (must include developed to ensure they are appropriate for each individual detectable boundaries) location. Incorporate pedestrian crossing facilities where bus stop bypasses are We did not include any new bus stop bypasses within our proposed proposals. All use of tactile paving must be to established We will follow established guidelines in the design and use of new guidelines tactile paving within the proposals. Provide a raised continuous crossing at Endeavour Way/Bastable We recognise the benefits that a new raised continuous crossing Avenue with a reduced would provide at this location and we will incorporate it within our turning radii detailed plans. Provide cycle parking at Endeavour Way/Bastable We recognise the benefits that new cycle parking at this location Avenue would provide and we will incorporate it within our detailed plans. Provide a contraflow Eldred road is too narrow to safely provide a contra-flow lane for

28 Theme Issue raised Response

cycle lane on Eldred cycling. Wedderburn Road is a two-way road and there are no Road or Wedderburn plans to make it one-way with a contraflow lane as part of these Road proposals. This is not sufficient room at the junction of St Awdrys Road and Provide a turning island Wedderburn Road to provide a ‘turning island’ (which we at St Awdrys interpreted to mean a pedestrian refuge island) given that we also Road/Wedderburn Road intend to provide a continuous footway here. Changes to the road layout at this location were considered, Replace one traffic lane however, Barking town centre is rapidly changing with new at Ripple Road (east of developments, and there will be an opportunity to create a more Axe Street) with a cycle direct cycle route through the proposed redevelopment of the lane Vicarage Fields shopping centre. Provide a bi-directional, There is not sufficient space on Wakering Road to provide such a segregated cycle track on facility, however a new single-direction contraflow lane on Wakering Road Wakering Road is proposed to be delivered. Provide a shared-use foot/cycle way on This has recently been delivered as part of a local improvement Thames Road scheme, and is therefore not included as part of these proposals. A number of the junctions on Thames Road are currently used by large heavy goods vehicles and continuous footways were not considered to be appropriate for safety and maintenance reasons. Provide continuous Improvements to Thames Road have been delivered as a footways at the Thames separate local improvement scheme and are not included as part Road junctions of these proposals. There is not sufficient space available on Sunningdale Avenue to provide a segregated cycle lane without removing a large number Provide a segregated of existing car parking spaces on a residential road. In addition, it cycle lane on is expected that there will be an opportunity to provide a more Sunningdale Avenue direct route into Barking town centre through the redevelopment of

29 Theme Issue raised Response

the Vicarage Fields shopping centre avoiding Sunningdale Avenue. Improve lighting along the route Provide CCTV along the We will develop proposals to improve lighting and CCTV at certain route locations along the route in the next stage of detailed design. Provide a pedestrian crossing on Longbridge There is already a pedestrian crossing on Longbridge Road, close Road to Barking station. Whilst this location falls outside of the proposed Cycleway, ongoing feasibility work on the Longbridge Road Healthy Streets Provide traffic calming on Corridor is continuing separately, led by the London Borough of Longbridge Road Barking & Dagenham. Miscellaneous This was a genuine consultation; no decisions had been made. Decisions have already We hope that this report, which identifies changes made to the been made/consultation proposals in light of the issues raised by respondents, has no purpose demonstrates that the consultation had a valid purpose. Comments that are not related to TfL consultations but which are about a TfL matter can be sent to us via our website: Unrelated comments tfl.gov.uk/contact Any criticisms of TfL or the Mayor of London (which relate to TfL’s Criticisms of TfL/the activities on the Mayor’s behalf) should be sent to us at Mayor of London tfl.gov.uk/contact Introduce a car sharing This is outside of the scope of the proposals. scheme and lobby for tax incentives for users of it Concern the scheme The proposals are funded by TfL as part of the Healthy Streets would lead to an increase programme of investment and will not lead to an increase in in Council Tax residents’ Council Tax.

30 Theme Issue raised Response

Comments about Comments about the Sustrans proposals should be directed to Sustrans Greenway Sustrans. proposals There will be promotion and wayfinding along the route.

We also promotes cycling as a healthy transport choice through The proposals would be our website: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycling/, which includes beneficial only if properly details on available routes and how to access training. promoted The consultation materials were developed to provide sufficient information to enable respondents to come to an informed point of view. We recognised that some people might have questions however, and so we also arranged several ‘roadshow’ events, where TfL staff would be available. We promoted the times, dates and locations of the roadshow events on our website, together with our post and email address.

Comments about the Any additional or specific comments about the materials we consultation materials published could be sent to [email protected] Accelerate feasibility We and the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham are working work to improve Renwick with Barking Riverside Limited to maintain and improve walking Road for walking/cycling and cycling facilities during the construction of Barking Riverside. Put the A13 into a tunnel This is not part of the scope of these proposals. Would not reduce The comments are noted. In the long-term, we expect our personal journeys by proposals to make walking and cycling more attractive and private transport contribute to reducing motor traffic congestion and improving road Negative impacts on road users Would not encourage safety by encouraging more people to walk or cycle short cycling/lead to fewer journeys, instead of driving. cyclists

31 Theme Issue raised Response

Road space Cycleways are intended to make cycling a more attractive transport option for journeys at all times of day.

We know that people are becoming increasingly attracted to cycling. The number of cycling journeys made in London has grown by 131 per cent since 2000. We know too that investment in cycling infrastructure yields a return in terms of extra trips made by bike. As an example, in the two years after the East-West Cycling infrastructure is Cycle Superhighway opened, there had been a 54 per cent unused outside peak increase in cycling rates along the section from Parliament Square times – Tower Hill. This scheme does not significantly reduce road space for vehicles. However, where road space is reduced on schemes, in Cycling infrastructure the long-term, we expect our proposals to make walking and causes congestion/delays cycling more attractive and contribute to reducing motor traffic by reducing road space congestion and improving road safety by encouraging more for motorised vehicles people to walk or cycle short journeys, instead of driving. The Mayor’s Healthy Streets approach to managing London’s road network encourages walking, cycling and the use of public transport. Making busy roads easier and safer to cross is an important part of this approach. For this reason there are no plans to reduce pedestrian crossing times to favour motorised vehicles. Reduce pedestrian crossing times to More information on the Healthy Streets approach is available favour/provide more time online: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning- for motorised vehicles for-the-future/healthy-streets Cycling infrastructure We expect our proposals to make walking and cycling more worsens air quality (by attractive and contribute to reducing motor traffic congestion and creating delays for improving road safety by encouraging more people to walk or

32 Theme Issue raised Response

motorised vehicles) cycle short journeys, instead of driving. The scheme includes only very short sections which cyclists and Segregate cycle ways pedestrians would share, and these are in locations where the from footway/objection to volume of pedestrians and cyclists using the shared secton are shared space expected to be low in comparison to other areas. This Cycleway is proposed to predominantly follow quieter backstreets parallel to main roads where providing segregated tracks is not necessary or appropriate.

TfL’s Cycling Quality Criteria which be found here (https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/cycling) , Segregate cycle lanes details how a high quality cycle route can be delivered along quiet from traffic streets with low volumes of motor vehicles. Widen the The proposals include widening the footway in a number of areas footway/provide more along the proposed route. Doing so would provide greater space space for pedestrians for cyclists and pedestrians without disrupting traffic flow. Safe routes already exist There are currently no signed routes connecting Barking Riverside for safe cycling between and Ilford. This route will make it more attractive and easier to Ilford and Barking cycle enabling more peope to cycle for local journeys. The changes remove three parking bays, and there is an abundance of pay and display bays on the southern side of the Objection to loss of car town centre. The loss of car parking spaces on Wakering Road parking spaces on would make it possible to introduce the improvements for Wakering Road pedestrians and cyclists that are proposed here. Illegal parking can be reported to the local authority here Take enforcement action https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/report-illegal-parking-obstructing-a- illegal parking dropped-kerb Close side roads to rat This is not part of the scope of these proposals. The traffic running volumes along the route are already low. However, this will be

33 Theme Issue raised Response

kept under review and future proposals could be brought forward by the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham to reduce traffic in the residential areas around the route. Remove the roundabout north of Sutton Gardens This is not part of the scope of these proposals. This was not considered to be necessary as part of this scheme. In addition, it is expected that there will be an opportunity to provide a more direct route into Barking town centre through the Prohibit parking on redevelopment of the Vicarage Fields shopping centre avoiding Sunningdale Avenue Sunningdale Avenue. Safety & Security We provide a range of opportunities for people to take advantage of cycling training, to help embed and encourage responsible and safe cycling. Further details are on our website: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycling/cycling-in-london/cycle- skills?intcmp=2386. We are also working with the Metropolitan Police Service and other enforcement partners to tackle anti- Concerns about anti- social and illegal road-user behaviour, including anti-social social cyclists/cycling cycling. Concerns about anti- We and the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham are working social behaviour at together to investigate what opportunities there are to improve Mayes Brook underpass lighting and CCTV throughout the route. In addition, increasing Concerns about the numbers of people walking and cycling along the route will have potential for anti-social the effect of increasing ‘natural surveillance’, which in turn can behaviour along the route reduce anti-social behaviour. Safety concerns about the bus/delivery only Due to the absence of general traffic, the number of vehicles section in Barking centre using this short section of route is low. Potential for confrontation We are relocating street furniture including the bus shelter to at the shared section on make more space for both cyclists and pedestrians. We believe

34 Theme Issue raised Response

Sunningdale Avenue that this would allow pedestrians and cyclists to share this section of Sunningdale Avenue. In addition, there will be an opportunity in the future to create a more direct cycle route through the proposed redevelopment of the Vicarage Fields shopping centre which would avoid this area on Sunnningdale Avenue.

The deployment of Police Community Support Officers is a matter for the Metropolitan Police. The increase in the number of people walking and cycling along the route will have the effect of increasing ‘natural surveillance’, which in turn can reduce anti- social behaviour. Other meaures, such as lighting, CCTV are also Invest in PCSO presence proposed to help address crime and anti-social behaviour in the along the route area.

35 6. Next steps

The feedback we received was invaluable in helping us to further improve the scheme. We will continue to work with the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham to developed detailed designs, incorporating the changes highlighted in the responses in the table below. We currently intend to commence construction on the route in early 2020.

36