Southwark Park Road Junction with Jamaica Road

Changes to Southwark Park Road junction with Jamaica Road

Consultation Report & Response to Issues Raised July 2019

1 Contents Executive Summary ...... 4 1. About the proposals ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 Purpose ...... 5 1.3 Detailed description ...... 5 2. About the consultation ...... 7 2.1 Purpose ...... 7 2.2 Potential outcomes ...... 7 2.3 Consultation history ...... 7 2.4 Who we consulted ...... 9 2.5 Dates and duration ...... 9 2.6 What we asked ...... 10 2.7 Methods of responding ...... 10 2.8 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 10 2.9 Equalities Impact Assessment ...... 10 2.10 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 11 3. About the respondents ...... 12 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 12 3.2 Methods of responding ...... 12 3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 13 3.4 Respondents by postcode ...... 13 3.5 Respondents’ connection to the scheme area ...... 14 3.6 Modes of travel ...... 14 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 16 4.1 Introduction ...... 16 4.2 Overall support for proposals ...... 16 4.4 Issues raised ...... 17 4.5 Quality of consultation ...... 20 4.6 Summary of stakeholder responses ...... 21 4.7 Petitions and campaigns ...... 23 5. Responses to Issues Raised ...... 24 5.1 Overall proposals ...... 24 5.10 Impact on cyclists ...... 29

2 5.11 Impact on pedestrians (Crossings) ...... 30 5.12 Other ...... 30 6. Conclusion and next steps ...... 32 Appendix A: Stakeholder List ...... 33 Appendix B: Copy of customer / resident letter ...... 34 Appendix C: Letter distribution map ...... 36 Appendix D: Copy of stakeholder email ...... 37

3 Executive Summary

Between 27 February and 2 April 2019, we consulted on our revised proposals to improve pedestrian facilities and address safety and congestion concerns at the junction of Southwark Park Road with Jamaica Road.

The proposals included banning the right turn out of Southwark Park Road for all traffic except buses, taxis and cyclists and were in response to feedback received during the autumn 2017 consultation on Cycleway 4.

We received 312 direct responses from members of the public and local businesses and 2 responses from stakeholder groups to the consultation.

We asked consultees if they supported our revised proposals for the junction of Southwark Park Road with Jamaica Road, of which 40 per cent supported the proposals, 57 per cent did not support them and 3 per cent said they neither supported nor opposed the proposals.

Summary of issues raised during consultation

Below is a summary of the main themes raised during the consultation.

 Concern that banning the right turn from Southwark Park Road will displace traffic on to other local roads  Concern about the existing congestion at the junction and in the local area  Support for proposals as it will be safer for road users than the current road layout

Further information on the key issues raised and our response to each is detailed in section 5. A full list of all themes identified from consultation responses is included in Appendix D.

Conclusion and next steps

Having carefully considered all the responses to the consultation and the impact of banning the right turn on Southwark Park Road, we have decided to proceed with the proposals as outlined in the consultation.

We recognise the concerns many respondents raised regarding the banning of the right turn out of Southwark Park Road and have published our response to these issues in section 5 of the report. We will ban the turn for an initial trial period of 12 months during which we will monitor traffic in the area before deciding on whether or not to make the banned turn permanent.

Subject to our delivery programme for Cycleway 4 we expect the 12 month trial period for the banned turn to start in spring 2020.

4 1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction In autumn 2017, we consulted on our proposals to transform roads in Southwark as part of Cycleway 4. The route is an important part of the Mayor’s Healthy Streets Approach, which aims to make London greener, healthier and more pleasant by prioritising walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

We received over 3,200 direct responses and over 1,400 campaign responses. This feedback helped us improve our designs. To find out more, read our Consultation Report and Response to Issues Raised report at tfl.gov.uk/cs4. In response to feedback received during the Cycleway 4 consultation, we carried out a further consultation on the junction of Southwark Park Road with Jamaica Road.

1.2 Purpose

We wanted to hear views on our revised proposals for the junction of Southwark Park Road with Jamaica Road as part of the improvements planned under Cycleway 4.

The Cycleway 4 scheme contributes to the ambitious target in the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy for 80 per cent of journeys to be made using cycling, walking or public transport by 2041.

1.3 Detailed description Our revised proposals would improve pedestrian facilities and address safety and congestion concerns at this junction. Our proposals (as shown in the map below) include:

 Permitting the ahead movement for all traffic from West Lane to improve local access

 Creating new straight across crossings for pedestrians on Southwark Park Road and West Lane as well as improving the desire line for the staggered crossing on Jamaica Road

 Providing new right turn pockets for cyclists to improve cycle access to the cycle track from Southwark Park Road and West Lane

6 2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose The objectives of this consultation were:

 To give stakeholders and the public easily understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond

 To understand the level of support for or opposition to the proposals

 To understand any issues that might affect the proposals of which we were not previously aware

 To understand concerns and objections

 To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of this consultation were:

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme for this junction as set out in this consultation

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the scheme for this junction in response to issues raised during this consultation and proceed with a revised scheme for this junction

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme for this junction as set out in the previous Cycleway 4 consultation

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme for this junction Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Section 6.

2.3 Consultation history In autumn 2017, we consulted on proposals to improve the junction of Southwark Park Road with Jamaica Road as part of our consultation on Cycleway 4 https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/cs4. Our proposals for the area (as shown in the map below) included:

 Segregated two-way cycle track on the north side of Jamaica Road, crossing to the south side at the junction with Southwark Park Road  New toucan crossing (for pedestrians and cyclists) near the junction with Cathay Street  Wider and more direct pedestrian crossing outside Bermondsey Station  No entry into Marigold Street from Jamaica Road  Cathay Street becomes one-way northbound, with a new right-turn from Jamaica Road into Cathay Street allowed 7  Changes to bus lanes and some bus stops

We received over 3,200 direct responses and over 1,400 campaign responses to our 2017 consultation on Cycleway 4. Of these, 2,941 respondents answered our question “Do you support the proposals for Jamaica Road / Southwark Park Road?”. The results are shown in the graph below.

8 Of the total direct responses to the consultation, 77 per cent strongly supported or supported the proposals for Jamaica Road / Southwark Park Road, with 11 per cent strongly opposing or opposing them.

We also asked “Do you have any comments on the proposals for Jamaica Road / Southwark Park Road?”. 517 respondents provided comments. The table below shows the ten most frequently raised issues in their responses.

The traffic modelling that we previously undertook for the Cycleway 4 proposals showed that strategic traffic from the A2 heading for Rotherhithe Tunnel may prefer to use Southwark Park Road as a result of the proposed changes along the A200. It also suggested that journey times for the P12 bus route in the evening peak may experience an increase of up to 6 minutes from Southwark Park Road to Lower Road.

In consideration of this modelling and in response to the overall feedback received during the 2017 Cycleway 4 consultation, we decided to review our proposals for this junction. We worked closely with the London Borough of Southwark regarding the revised proposals for the Jamaica Road / Southwark Park Road section of Cycleway 4.

2.4 Who we consulted We consulted with key local stakeholders, including London Borough of Southwark officers and members, the local London Assembly Member and MP, and London Cycling Campaign. We also consulted local residents and businesses around the junction and in nearby streets.

2.5 Dates and duration The consultation ran for five weeks, between 27 February and 2 April 2019.

9 2.6 What we asked We asked two questions about our revised proposals for the Southwark Park Road junction with Jamaica Road:

1. ”Do you support our proposals for Southwark Park Road junction with Jamaica Road?”

2. “Please let us have any comments on our proposals for Southwark Park Road junction with Jamaica Road.”

We also asked standard questions to identify the names, contact details, location, modes of transport used, and characteristics (to enable equality monitoring) of our respondents, how they found out about the consultation, and about the quality of the consultation.

2.7 Methods of responding We invited responses via our consultation web page, and also accepted responses by email and letter.

2.8 Consultation materials and publicity We distributed letters to 3,298 addresses around the scheme area and in nearby streets. We also sent an email to local stakeholders, including London Borough of Southwark officers and members, the local London Assembly Member and MP, and London Cycling Campaign.

We offered to provide paper copies of plans and a response form, in Braille, large text or another language if required.

A dedicated page on the TfL consultations website was created, which contained detailed information about the proposals, including maps: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/southwark-park-road/

2.9 Equalities Impact Assessment We are subject to the general public sector equality duty set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires us to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations by reference to people with protected characteristics. The protected characteristics are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. As part of our decision- making process on the proposals for Cycleways, we have had due regard to any impacts on those with protected characteristics and the need to ensure that their interests are taken into account.

An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) has been completed for the Cycleways 4 designs and shows positive impacts for black and ethnic minority groups, females, 10 disabled cyclists, and cyclists under 25 and over 65 years of age. Positive impacts have also been identified for disabled pedestrians, as the scheme involves a number of improvements to pedestrian facilities, including wider footways and new and improved crossings. Some negative impacts have been identified where footways are cut back; shared-use footway or bus stop bypasses are introduced. However, the minimum width has been maintained to allow wheelchair users to pass safely.

We will continue to have due regard to the matters set out in section 149 of the Equality Act as the project progresses and will mitigate adverse effects to the extent that it is possible and reasonable to do so.

2.10 Analysis of consultation responses The consultation responses were analysed and coded by in-house staff, with a peer review of the coding.

11 3. About the respondents

3.1 Number of respondents We received 323 responses to the consultation. Of these, nine were considered to be duplicate or additional responses from people who had already responded and their contents were merged with the earlier responses, with the most recent response used when the responses conflicted.

Of the resulting 314 responses, two were specifically recorded as being from small businesses; two were from stakeholders, with the remainder being from members of the public. The two small business responses were analysed together with the public responses.

Respondents (after merging of duplicate / additional Total % responses) Public and small business responses 312 99.4% Stakeholder responses 2 0.6% Total 314 100%

3.2 Methods of responding Of the original 323 responses (before merging of duplicate / additional responses), 317 were submitted to our consultation web page and six were sent by letter or email.

Of the six letter / email responses, two were merged with online responses from the same people. Of the remaining four letter / email responses, two were from stakeholders and are reported separately in section 4. For the remaining two letter / email responses, which were from members of the public, we only analysed the content of the response in relation to our question ‘Please let us have any comments on our proposals for Southwark Park Road junction with Jamaica Road’, and did not attempt to infer responses to any of the other questions in the consultation.

Methods of responding (before merging of duplicate / additional Total % responses) Consultation web page 317 98.1% Letter / email 6 1.9% Total 323 100%

The rest of section 3 below reports on responses from members of the public and small businesses, after merging of duplicate / additional responses, and excludes stakeholder responses. Responses from stakeholders are reported in section 4.

12 3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation We asked respondents to tell us how they heard about the consultation. How respondents heard about the Total % consultation Attended an event 1 0.3% By word of mouth 38 12.2% From local councillors 1 0.3% From TfL on the street/in the station 1 0.3% In a local newsletter 5 1.6% On social media (e.g. Twitter or Facebook ) 66 21.2 Read about it in the press 21 6.7% Received a letter from TfL 68 21.8% Received an email from TfL 18 5.8% Saw it on the TfL website 22 7.1% Saw the postcard about it 1 0.3% Through a community group/event/meeting 24 7.7% Through a residents’ group/forum/meeting 10 3.2% Other 14 4.5% Not answered / Not recorded 22 7.1% Total 312 100%

3.4 Respondents by postcode We asked respondents to provide their postcode if they wished. We received responses from 44 postcode districts. The table below shows the nine postcode districts from which we received three or more responses. The totals for the other 35 postcode districts, and for those where no postcode was provided or recorded, are also shown.

Postcode district No. of % respondents

SE16 154 49.4% SE1 29 9.3% SE5 13 4.2% SE15 9 2.9% SE17 6 1.9% SE22 5 1.6% SE11 3 1.0% SE14 3 1.0% SE26 3 1.0% Other postcode district 41 13.1% No postcode provided / recorded 46 14.7% Total 312 100.0%

3.5 Respondents’ connection to the scheme area We asked respondents to describe their connection to the scheme area using the categories below, with respondents encouraged to tick all that applied. Some respondents did not reply to this question.

Respondents’ connection to the Total scheme area A local resident 225 A local business owner 13 Employed locally 37 A visitor to the area 42 A commuter to the area 55 Not local but interested in the scheme 11 A taxi/private hire vehicle driver 15 Other 7

3.6 Modes of travel We asked respondents to tell us how they travel through the area, with respondents encouraged to tick all that applied. Some respondents did not reply to this question.

Mode of transport Total Private car 170 Taxi 65 Van 12 Lorry 2 Bus 139 Coach 2 Cycle 146 Walk 179 Tube 125 Train 39 Motorcycle/powered two-wheeler 12 Other 8

14 Further details on respondents covering the following questions can be found in Appendix E:

 Gender  Ethnic group  Age  Sexual orientation  Religious faith  Health problem or disability

15 4. Summary of all consultation responses

4.1 Introduction We received 314 responses to the consultation (after merging of duplicate / additional responses). Of these, 312 were from members of the public or small businesses and two were from stakeholders. Stakeholder responses are summarised in section 4.6.

4.2 Overall support for proposals We asked respondents “Do you support our proposals for Southwark Park Road junction with Jamaica Road?”

Support for Proposals (public and small business Total % respondents) Strongly support 100 32.1% Support 26 8.3% Neither support nor oppose 7 2.2% Oppose 17 5.4% Strongly oppose 160 51.3% Not recorded 2 0.6% Total 312 100%

180

160

140 120 100 80 60

40 Number ofRespondents 20 0 Neither Strongly support Strongly Not Support Oppose support nor oppose recorded oppose Total 100 26 7 17 160 2 % 32.1% 8.3% 2.2% 5.4% 51.3% 0.6%

16 4.4 Issues raised We asked respondents “Please let us have any comments on our proposals for Southwark Park Road junction with Jamaica Road.”

The responses to this question were categorised into themes.

The table below shows the key themes raised by six or more respondents. A full list of all issues raised is shown in Appendix D.

Positive No. of Respondents

Positive - General Comment On Cyclist Improvement (Including 23 Safety) from Overall Scheme

Positive - General Comment On Pedestrian Improvement (Including 13 Safety) from Overall Scheme

Positive - General Comment on Overall Scheme 11

Banned Right Turn From Southwark Park Road - Support for 9 Reduction of 'Rat Running' and Less Traffic in Southwark Park Road

CS4 Scheme - General Positive Comment 9

CS4 Scheme - Positive Comment on Detail 9

Positive - General Comment On Safety Improvement from Overall 6 Scheme (Mode not Specified)

Neutral / Conditional No. of Respondents

Conditional Support for Overall Scheme 9

Neutral - General Statement of Fact 8

Banned Right Turn From Southwark Park Road - Conditional 7 Support

17 Negative No. of Respondents

Negative - General Comment on Effect on Traffic / Motorists / 41 Congestion / Air Quality / Journey Time of Overall Scheme

Displaced traffic on to other local roads

Banned Right Turn From Southwark Park Road - Concern About 110 Displaced Traffic / Congestion / Air Quality / Noise / Poor Driving Behaviour in surrounding streets. Specifically:  West Lane / Paradise Street / Cathay Street and Cathay Street / Jamaica Road Junction  Jamaica Road  Surrey Quays Gyratory / Lower Road / ‘The Blue’ / Galleywall Road / Raymouth Road  St James's Road / Roads off St James’s Road / At Jamaica Road / Bevington Street Junction

Negative - Existing 'Rat Runs' - Other Than West Lane, Paradise 11 Street and Cathay Street / Not Specified

Banned right turn

Banned Right Turn From Southwark Park Road - Concern About 35 Lack Of / Distance To / Problems With Alternative Routes / Negative Impact on Drivers Currently Using Southwark Park Road

Banned Right Turn From Southwark Park Road - Concern About 20 Displaced Traffic / Congestion / Air Quality / Noise / Poor Driving Behaviour - General

Banned Right Turn From Southwark Park Road - Concern About U- 12 Turns in West Lane or Jamaica Road

Banned Right Turn From Southwark Park Road - General Negative 8 Comment

Banned Right Turn From Southwark Park Road - Concern About 8 Safety in West Lane / Paradise Street / Cathay Street and Cathay Street / Jamaica Road Junction

Cathay Street & Paradise Street

Negative - Existing 'Rat Runs' - West Lane, Paradise Street and 25 Cathay Street

18 Negative No. of Respondents

Congestion

Negative - Existing Traffic / Congestion / Poor Air Quality in the 89 Local Area

Banned Right Turn From Southwark Park Road Would Not Help 8 Congestion

Cyclist behaviour and compliance

Negative - General Comment on Cyclist Behaviour / Danger Caused 15 by Cyclists

Policy

Negative - General Comment on Prioritisation for Cyclists 8

Impact on cyclists

Negative - Existing Safety Issue in the Local Area - General 8 (Cyclists)

Accessibility

Negative - Overall Scheme Doesn't Help Pedestrians / Has a 8 Negative Effect on Pedestrians (including Safety)

Impact on pedestrians

Negative - Existing Safety Issue in the Local Area. Specifically: 14  West Lane, Paradise Street and Cathay Street  Pedestrians Crossing west of Southwark Park Road / Jamaica Road Junction

Pedestrian Provision - Concern About Safety / Distance To Cross / 8 Complexity; Suggestion - Additional / Different Pedestrian Facilities

Diagonal Cycle Crossing - Concern About Safety / Convenience 6

Prioritisation of transport modes

Negative - General Comment on Overall Scheme / Overall Scheme 36 is Not Needed (Reason for Objection Not Specified / Not Clear)

Negative - Overall Scheme Doesn't Help Congestion / Motorists 9

19 Negative No. of Respondents

Negative - Overall Scheme Doesn't Help Cyclists (including Safety) 7

Overall proposals:

CS4 Scheme - General Negative Comment 22

Negative - Safety of Overall Scheme - Safety / Health / Accidents 7

CS4 Scheme - Negative Comment on Detail - Effect On Traffic 6

Suggestion No. of Respondents

CS4 Scheme - Suggestion For Alternative Routes For CS4 8

CS4 Scheme - Suggestion - Improvements To Rotherhithe Tunnel 6 Roundabout / Approach To Rotherhithe Tunnel

Comments clearly relating to CS4 in general have been categorised as such.

Some respondents made suggestions for changes that we are already proposing. These have been treated as expressions of support for / positive comments on those changes.

4.5 Quality of consultation We asked respondents “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.)?” and “Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation material?”

Quality of consultation (public and small business Total % respondents) Very good 50 16.0% Good 79 25.3% Acceptable 86 27.6% Poor 41 13.1% Very poor 31 9.9% Not answered / not recorded 25 8.0% Total 312 100%

20 4.6 Summary of stakeholder responses We received responses from two stakeholders. These are provided below in full.

London Cycling Campaign

About the London Cycling Campaign

London Cycling Campaign (LCC) is a charity with more than 20,000 supporters of whom over 11,000 are fully paid-up members. We speak up on behalf of everyone who cycles or wants to cycle in Greater London; and we speak up for a greener, healthier, happier and better-connected capital.

This response was developed with input from LCC’s borough groups.

General comments on this scheme:

This scheme is supported. It will reduce through motor traffic using Southwark Park Road to access the Rotherhithe Tunnel, and improve access to those cycling for Cycle Superhighway CS4.

The scheme, however, should be monitored closely following implementation to not just ensure it has reduced through motor traffic without any unexpected complications, but also to identify if further amendments to the scheme are possible to further reduce through motor traffic in the area (for instance, by filtering all motor traffic bar buses from the junction in any direction).

Specific points about this scheme:

 For those riding into the cycle track in either direction from West Lane or Southwark Park Road, the provision is not good enough to enable all ages and abilities of those cycling to ride with comfort and safety here.  The presumption is that those turning left into the cycle track from either side will need to ride with ahead/left motor traffic and “take the lane”. Given the cycle track is on the opposite side of the road in both cases, this introduces the chance of a left “hook” collision. And certainly will not be a comfortable manoeuvre for many who might wish to cycle onto Cycle Superhighway CS4.  Similarly, the presumption is the right-turning pocket lights will be phased with those cycling from behind them if there is an “early release” at the lights, or the motor traffic behind them also if not. Reaching these pockets if arriving on a green signal will be uncomfortable and waiting in the one at the end of Southwark Park Road could also potentially feel uncomfortable if ahead traffic from West Lane or left turning traffic from Southwark Park Road is passing those waiting in the pocket.  Ultimately, this approach will restrict the range of people who will feel confident accessing CS4 via Southwark Park Road and West Lane.’

21 General points about infrastructure schemes:

 The Mayor‘s Transport Strategy relies on a growth in cycle trips to keep London moving. This means infrastructure schemes must be designed to accommodate growth in cycling. Providing space for cycling is a more efficient use of road space than providing space for driving private motor vehicles, particularly for journeys of 5km or less. In terms of providing maximum efficiency for space and energy use, walking, cycling, then public transport are key.

 As demonstrated by the success of recent Cycle Superhighways and mini- Holland projects etc., people cycle when they feel safe. For cycling to become mainstream, a network of high-quality, direct routes separate from high volumes and/or speeds of motor vehicle traffic is required to/from all key destinations and residential areas in an area. Schemes should be planned, designed and implemented to maximise potential to increase journeys – with links to nearby amenities, residential centres, transport hubs considered from the outset.

 Spending money on cycling infrastructure has been shown to dramatically boost health outcomes in an area. Spending on cycling schemes outranks all other transport modes for return on investment according to a DfT study. Schemes which promote cycling meet TfL’s “Healthy Streets” checklist. A healthy street is one where people choose to cycle.

 All schemes should be designed to enable people of all ages and abilities to cycle, including disabled people.

 Evidence from TfL and from many schemes in London, the UK and worldwide shows the economic benefits, including to businesses, to be found from enabling a wider range of people to cycle more. Further evidence shows how cycling schemes also benefit air quality and reduce climate changing emissions, as well as improving resident health outcomes and reducing inactivity, as mentioned above.

 LCC wants, as a condition of funding, all highway development designed to London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS), with a Cycling Level of Service (CLoS) rating of 70 or above, with all “critical issues” eliminated. Above 2,000 Passenger Car Unit (PCUs) motor vehicle movements per day, or 20mph motor traffic speeds, cycling should be physically separated from motor traffic.

Southwark Cyclists

Southwark Cyclists strongly support the changes and welcome the commitment to monitor traffic in the area. With further changes and restrictions being made should this not be sufficient to reduce traffic on Southwark Park road.

22 4.7 Petitions and campaigns There were no petitions or campaign responses sent to us for this consultation.

23 5. Responses to Issues Raised

Following careful consideration of the most frequent issues raised during the public consultation, we have set out our response below.

5.1 Overall proposals A number of respondents raised comments about the wider proposals for Cycleway 4 which were consulted on in 2017. We published our detailed response to these issues in December 2018 which can be found at tfl.gov.uk/cs4

5.2 Prioritisation of transport modes

Some respondents raised concerns about prioritising cyclists over other road traffic, such as private cars, public transport and pedestrians while others expressed their support for prioritising active travel over motor traffic.

As part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS)1, an increase in active travel is being targeted in order to make London a healthier, safer and greener city. A key aim of the MTS is to increase the proportion of journeys made by sustainable modes of transport – such as walking, cycling and public transport – to 80 per cent by 2041, up from 64 per cent today.

Investment in cycling and walking forms a key part of this objective and will work hand in hand with public transport improvements to develop an extensive sustainable transport network across the capital. This together forms the Healthy Streets Approach2 which aims to help reduce the reliance on private vehicles and make walking, cycling and public transport the most appealing and practical choices.

We want to make it easier for people in south east London to use sustainable travel and lead active lifestyles. We also want to make the streets on the Cycleway 4 alignment healthier, safer and more welcoming places for everyone. The proposals form part of the Mayor of London’s plan for Healthy Streets, a long-term vision to encourage more Londoners to walk and cycle by making London’s streets healthier, safer and more welcoming.

1 Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018. Available: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/transport/our- vision-transport/mayors-transport-strategy-2018 2 Healthy Streets Approach. Available: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/health/transport-and- health/healthy-streets-london 24 5.3 Accessibility

A number of people said they were concerned that the scheme would not be suitable for young or elderly people, people with illnesses or disabilities or parents with children.

Our long-term aim is to improve conditions for walking and cycling, and in turn to help relieve congestion on public transport and the roads. This will benefit all public transport and road users, including vulnerable people who travel using those modes.

Cycleways aim to attract a diverse range of users. Segregated facilities provide a safe and accessible option for cyclists who are less confident in their ability, and for those who wish to increase their confidence when riding. Our tracks also adhere to the London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) as closely as possible to provide smooth road surfaces and sufficient space for various types of non-standard cycles, including bikes with trailers for children, tandems, wheelchair-friendly tricycles and hand cycles. This allows people with different needs and requirements to use our tracks.

Research shows cycling is most popular with people aged between 25 and 40. However, a key barrier to cycling is the lack of segregated facilities, and it is anticipated that introducing a segregated cycle track will encourage cycling growth among people below and above these ages. In order to encourage people from a range of age groups to use the route, Cycleway 4 will also provide connections to a variety of services and facilities, including local schools. It is acknowledged that there is still more work to be done to encourage new users and we will work closely with local boroughs to promote the route to a variety of audiences. We hope that the changes may also assist those who might like to cycle or cycle more, if conditions for cycling were made more appealing.

Cycles can act as a mobility aid for those who find walking difficult or cannot walk at all. Some people with disabilities ride standard bicycles; others use one of the many types of non-standard bicycle available such as tandems, tricycles, hand cycles or electric bikes. The Department for Transport has called for an increase in awareness of the use of cycles as a mobility aid3.

Our research found that 15 per cent of Londoners with a disability already make trips by bicycle4, which is only slightly below the percentage of non-disabled people who said they use a bicycle (18 per cent). This research also identified that 20 per cent of disabled people said they would “definitely” or “probably” use a Cycleway in the future.

3Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/512895/cycling-and- walking-investment-strategy.pdf 4Travel in London: Understanding our Diverse Communities, 2015, http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in- london-understanding-our-diverse-communities.pdf 25 5.4 Cyclist behaviour and compliance

Some respondents said they were concerned that cyclists disobey traffic lights. Others raised concerns about aggressive cycling, lack of awareness towards other road users, including pedestrians and disregard to the Highway Code.

We promote the message that the Highway Code must be adhered to by all road users, and we are strongly in favour of promoting the ethos of ‘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.

Statistics on road traffic collisions in Greater London show the number of injuries and fatalities for pedestrians in collisions involving cyclists are far lower than those involving motor vehicles. Nonetheless, cyclists are expected to follow the same rules in the Highway Code as other road users as per the Road Traffic Act 1991.

Enforcement activity is conducted in a balanced way. Enforcement is targeted most at those causing danger. More drivers are reported for offences than cyclists, and for a wider range of offences, such as speeding, driving without due care, using a mobile phone or disobeying traffic signals.

With the launch of any new cycle route, we undertake a range of engagement and enforcement activity for all road users including cyclists. This includes:

 Representatives from the Metropolitan Police present on site to provide support and assistance to the public. They educate people how to use the new road layout and advise on appropriate behaviour for all road users

 TfL Travel Ambassadors provide assistance and advice to road users and hand out leaflets informing road users about changes to road layouts and the new innovative features

We recognise that some pavement cyclists break the law to avoid the dangers of motor traffic. However, we anticipate that providing dedicated and safe space for cyclists will discourage people from riding on pavements. Providing dedicated space for cyclists can also help other road users by letting them know where to expect cyclists to be.

5.5 Policy

A number of people raised policy issues around cycling including suggesting cyclists are licenced, insured, should pay tax, follow the Highway Code or take a test. Others said it should be compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes and that bells on bicycles should be mandatory.

Any change to the law that would require cyclists to register their bikes, or to carry insurance, would require legislation at a national level and lies outside of the Mayor's

26 jurisdiction. In the case of third party damage or injury, road users can actually claim compensation for injury caused by an uninsured person, including cyclists.

Several thousand cyclists are members of cycling groups such as CTC (the national cycling charity) and the London Cycling Campaign (LCC). These groups offer automatic third party insurance for their members should they be involved in a collision with other road users, but there is no practical mechanism for making this compulsory in London. There is no other European country which has a cycle registration system.

Vehicle Excise Duty is levied on individual vehicles, with zero emission vehicles continuing to be exempt. As bicycles produce no emissions, they too would be exempt from paying the duty, were it applied to them.

5.6 Congestion

Many respondents raised concerns about the existing congestion on Jamaica Road and Rotherhithe Roundabout and that the introduction cycle tracks would make it worse.

Although we are looking to make significant improvements to facilitate new cycle tracks, there will still be some reallocation of the space away from traffic to provide space for new cycle tracks. In addition, we have needed to carefully balance the signal timings at junctions for pedestrians, cyclists and traffic flows and as a result this will mean that for some users there may be longer waiting times at some junctions.

To mitigate against this our plans include several measures to improve traffic flow at Rotherhithe Roundabout. This includes:

 Increasing lane capacity on both the Jamaica Road and Lower Road approaches to the roundabout  Extending the dedicated left-turn lane to access Brunel Road by 70 metres to help reduce queueing time for local traffic and buses accessing the peninsula  Reassigning the westbound bus lane at Rotherhithe Roundabout between Lower Road and Jamaica Road as a general traffic lane

We believe these changes will help improve traffic movements in the area. For more information about our updated traffic modelling results please see here.

5.7 Banned right turn

Many respondents raised concerns about the benefit of banning the right turn from Southwark Park Road and that it would not address the congestion issues in the area.

In December 2018 we published our response to issues raised consultation report for Cycleway 4. In this we set out how the feedback we received had helped us to improve the scheme and the changes we were making to the design as a result. 27 We understood from the responses that congestion was still a major concern for many people and therefore following a joint review of traffic movements in the area with Southwark Council, we proposed to ban the right turn from Southwark Park Road to prevent strategic traffic from using local roads to access the tunnel.

Our traffic counts show that approximately 300-400 vehicles currently turn right from Southwark Park Road on to Jamaica Road during the morning peak hour, the majority of which consists of strategic traffic heading towards Rotherhithe Tunnel. The traffic modelling that we previously undertook for the Cycleway 4 proposals showed that an additional 200-300 vehicles per hour may prefer to use Southwark Park Road if the turn is not banned. It also suggested that because of increased congestion on Southwark Park Road journey times for the P12 bus route in the evening peak could experience an increase of up to 6 minutes from Southwark Park Road to Lower Road.

Using traffic modelling to assess the impact of banning the right turn we found that the majority of traffic would be displaced away from the A200 if the turn was banned towards alternative river crossings and not on to other adjacent local roads. The traffic modelling shows that because the majority of the traffic using Southwark Park Road is coming from much further south, the decision not to use Rotherhithe Tunnel is made much earlier in the journey when alternative route choices are available.

Our assessment found that banning the right turn from Southwark Park Road would reduce congestion at peak periods at the junction, make it easier for pedestrians to cross the road and improve conditions for people who want to cycle and keep journey times for the P12 bus route neutral in the morning and evening peak. It would also ease the eastbound flow along Jamaica road towards Rotherhithe Tunnel by reducing the number of vehicles joining from Southwark Park Road.

5.8 Cathay Street & Paradise Street

Many respondents commented that banning the right turn from Southwark Park Road would lead to displaced traffic going ahead in to West Lane and using Paradise Street and Cathay Street to re-join Jamaica Road further east.

As part of the wider plans for Cycleway 4 that were consulted on in 2017 we proposed to make Cathay Street one-way northbound to address the existing rat- running issue here. The plans for Cathay Street were well supported and we intend to implement these changes concurrently with the right turn ban at Southwark Park Road to address these concerns.

5.9 Displaced traffic on to other local roads

Some respondents raised concerns that the displaced traffic from the banned right turn would continue to look for alternative routes through the area and use other local roads instead.

28 We undertake detailed traffic modelling as part of our design process to predict what impact the proposed changes could have on all road users for the busiest times of the day. Our traffic modelling shows that the majority of strategic traffic affected by the banned right turn from Southwark Park Road would be displaced away from the A200 towards alternative river crossings as a result of the changes and not on to adjacent local roads as some respondents have suggested.

However we understand the concerns that many local people have raised and recognise that despite the sophistication of our traffic models, all traffic modelling is only ever indicative; it is intended to give an idea of where the impacts of changes in journey choice are most likely to occur. It assumes that drivers have perfect knowledge of the network and will always choose the quickest route available. For this reason we intend to ban the right turn from Southwark Park Road for an initial trial period of 12 months to allow driver behaviour to bed in. During this period we would work with Southwark Council to monitor and review the impact on surrounding roads before deciding on the permanent conditions.

During the 12 month trial period local traffic wishing to travel east from Southwark Park Road will be able to access Jamaica Road via Clements Road and St James’s Road.

5.10 Impact on cyclists 5.10.1 Switching the cycle track

Some respondents commented that switching the cycle track from the north side to south side at the junction would lead to longer waiting times for cyclists and other road users.

At the junction of Southwark Park Road cyclists will be given their own dedicated stage to switch to the other side of the cycle track while all other traffic will be held at a red signal. It is important for the cycle track to be on the south side of Jamaica Road east of Southwark Park Road as this enables cyclists to bypass the Rotherhithe Roundabout - one of London’s most dangerous junctions for vulnerable road users.

As part of the traffic modelling undertaken for Cycleway 4 we have assessed the impact of the proposals on journey times and modelled them with the appropriate green time to cope with the expected demand. During operation we will install cycle sensors at the junction to dynamically manage the green time, balancing the need for cyclists against other road users.

5.10.2 Cycle turning pockets

Some respondents suggested that the provision for cyclists joining the cycle track from West Lane and Southwark Park Road should be improved further.

29 The number cyclists joining the cycle track from either side road is expected to be very low and the introduction of the right turn ban at Southwark Park Road reduces the frequency of turning traffic further. The frequency of the P12 bus route exiting Southwark Park Road is currently six buses per hour and the volume of traffic travelling straight ahead exiting West lane is expected to be low, and local. Owing to these factors the provision of right turn pockets is considered to be an appropriate facility within which cyclists should be comfortable waiting to turn right.

5.11 Impact on pedestrians (Crossings) Some people raised concerns about the existing pedestrian crossings at the junction, in particular across West Lane and the lack of crossing facilities on the western arm of the junction.

Our plans for the junction include new straight across crossings on Southwark Park Road and West Lane as well as improving the desire line for the staggered crossing on the eastern arm of the junction. When reviewing potential design options for the junction, consideration was given to providing an additional crossing facility on the western arm. However, it was found that this would increase the number of traffic stages at the junction and have a significant impact on junction capacity and network performance, creating excessive queues and an increase to overall pedestrian wait times. Therefore increasing the number of traffic stages was considered not to be viable as it would lead to further congestion in the area.

5.12 Other Other themes of note identified during the consultation include:

 Route Alignment

Some respondents suggested alternative routes for CS4, including along the riverside or back streets to avoid the A200.

The route alignment for CS4 was considered at length by TfL and the local boroughs over many years with detailed assessments undertaken to inform this. The aim of the scheme is to encourage more people to choose sustainable travel over motorised options in order to contribute towards the Mayor’s aspiration for 80 per cent of trips be made by cycling, walking and public transport by 2041. To be successful, the scheme must be an attractive route for cyclists with useful connections to local amenities and address current barriers such as safety. It must also contribute to the Heathy Streets approach to improving streets for the benefits of all road users including pedestrians and access to public transport. The chosen alignment for Cycleway 4, which connects a number of amenities along the A200, is integral to achieving these outcomes as it allows Healthy Streets interventions to be

30 targeted to the right audiences in the right places. See our response to issues raised report for the 2017 Cycleway 4 consultation for more information.

 Bus journey times

Some respondents were concerned about increased journey times and the existing delays to bus services in the area.

To accommodate the segregated cycle track we have proposed to remove some sections of bus lane along the route. However, throughout the design process we have recognised the need to balance the requirement for improved cycling provision while maintaining bus journey times and reliability.

We undertook detailed traffic modelling on the plans for Cycleway 4 to understand how the route could affect journey times for all road users, including bus passengers. Our updated traffic modelling undertaken on our revised proposals predicts that journey times for most bus routes would improve, while some routes could see an increase.

For more information about our updated traffic modelling results please see here.

 Exemption for taxis

Some respondents expressed concern about exempting taxis from the banned right turn from Southwark Park Road.

Our traffic counts show that a very small number of taxis currently make this movement during the peak hours and therefore the impact on the performance of the junction and other road users is fairly negligible. During the 12 month trial period we would look to monitor the junction to ensure there is no adverse impact.

 Construction impacts

Some people were worried about disruption during construction of the route, with several stating that this would adversely affect businesses and reduce cyclist safety.

We would plan construction carefully to minimise disruption to those who live, work and travel through the areas. We would also aim to minimise construction impacts as much as possible. We will carry out extensive communications and engagement with local residents, cyclist groups, businesses and other stakeholders to ensure they have the information they need to plan ahead and adapt their travel arrangements where necessary, reducing any impact on their journeys and operations during the construction period. We also provide road traffic information to help people better plan their journeys and make informed choices about how, where and when they travel.

31 6. Conclusion and next steps

Having carefully considered all the responses to the consultation and the impact of banning the right turn on Southwark Park Road, we have decided in discussion with Southwark Council to proceed with the proposals as outlined in the consultation.

We recognise the concerns many respondents raised regarding the banning of the right turn out of Southwark Park Road and have published our response to these issues in Section 6 of the report. We would ban the turn for an initial trial period of 12 months during which we would monitor traffic in the area before deciding on the permanent conditions.

Subject to our delivery programme for Cycleway 4 we expect the 12 month trial period for the banned turn to start in spring 2020.

32 Appendix A: Stakeholder List

Local Authorities

London Borough of Southwark

Elected Members

Neil Coyle MP – Bermondsey & Old Southwark

Florence Eshalomi Assembly Member – Lambeth and Southwark

Richard Livingstone Councillor & Cabinet Lead

Anood Al-Samerai Councillor – North Bermondsey

Eliza.Mann Councillor – North Bermondsey

Hamish Mccallum Councillor – North Bermondsey

Stephanie Cryan Councillor – Rotherhithe

Kath Whittam Councillor – Rotherhithe

Bill Williams Councillor – Rotherhithe

Transport Groups

London Cycling Campaign

33 Appendix B: Copy of customer / resident letter

Tuesday 15 February 2019

Dear Sir or Madam,

Have your say on our proposals for Southwark Park Road with Jamaica Road.

In autumn 2017 we carried out a public consultation on our proposals to transform roads in Southwark as part of Cycle Superhighway 4 (CS4). CS4 is an important part of the Mayor’s Healthy Streets Approach, which aims to make London greener, healthier and more pleasant through prioritising walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

We received over 3,200 direct responses and a further 1,400 campaign responses to the CS4 consultation. The feedback we received has helped us to improve the scheme’s design, and we currently intend to proceed with the scheme with minor modifications. A copy of the Consultation Report and our Response to the Issues Raised is available, including details of the changes we have made at tfl.gov.uk/cs4.

In response to feedback received during the initial consultation on the overall proposals for CS4, we are carrying out a further consultation on the junction of Southwark Park Road with Jamaica Road.

Our revised proposals for this junction include:

 Banning the right turn out of Southwark Park Road on to Jamaica Road for all traffic except buses and cyclists. This is in response to safety and congestion concerns raised regarding additional strategic traffic using Southwark Park Road to access Rotherhithe Tunnel

 Permitting the ahead movement for all traffic from West Lane to improve local access

 Creating new straight across crossings on Southwark Park Road and West Lane as well as improving the desire line for the staggered crossing on Jamaica Road

 Providing new right turn pockets for cyclists to improve cycle access to CS4 from Southwark Park Road and West Lane Detailed proposals and additional information can be viewed at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/southwark-park-road/

34 Have your say on the proposals

We want to hear what you think about our proposals for the junction of Southwark Park Road, so please visit https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/southwark-park-road/ to find out more and to fill in the online survey. The deadline for comments is 22 March 2019.

You can also request paper copies of plans and a response form, copies in Braille, large text or another language by emailing [email protected], writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS, or calling 0343 222 1155.

Next steps

We will analyse and consider all responses received to this onsultation and publish our response in due course.

Yours faithfully,

Consultation Team Transport for London

35 Appendix C: Letter distribution map

36 Appendix D: Copy of stakeholder email

From: TfL Consultations Sent: 27 February 2019 10:49 To: TfL Consultations Subject: Have your say on our revised proposals for Southwark Park Road junction with Jamaica Road

Dear Sir or Madam

As you know, in Autumn 2017 we carried out a public consultation on our proposals to transform roads in Southwark as part of Cycle Superhighway 4 (CS4). The route is an important part of the Mayor’s Healthy Streets Approach, which aims to make London greener, healthier and more pleasant through prioritising walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

In response to feedback received during the initial consultation on the overall proposals for the route, we are carrying out a further consultation on the junction of Southwark Park Road with Jamaica Road.

Our revised proposals for this junction include:

 Banning the right turn out of Southwark Park Road on to Jamaica Road for all traffic except buses, taxis and cyclists. This is in response to safety and congestion concerns raised regarding additional strategic traffic using Southwark Park Road to access Rotherhithe Tunnel. We would ban the turn for an initial trial period of 12 months during which we would monitor traffic in the area before deciding on the permanent conditions  Permitting the ahead movement for all traffic from West Lane to improve local access  Creating new straight across crossings on Southwark Park Road and West Lane as well as improving the desire line for the staggered crossing on Jamaica Road  Providing right turn pockets for cyclists to improve cycle access to CS4 from Southwark Park Road and West Lane

Detailed proposals and additional information can be viewed at: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/southwark-park-road/.

37 Have your say on our proposals

We want to hear what you think about our proposals for the junction of Southwark Park Road, so please visit: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/southwark-park- road/ to find out more and to fill in the online survey. The deadline for comments is Tuesday 2 April 2019.

You can also request paper copies of plans and a response form, copies in Braille, large text or another language by emailing: [email protected], or writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS.

Next steps

We will analyse and consider all responses received to this consultation and publish our response in due course.

Yours faithfully