Road safety improvements on Grosvenor Place
Consultation Report July 2018
1
Contents
Executive summary ...... 4 Summary of issues raised during consultation ...... 4 Petitions ...... 4 Next steps ...... 4 1. About the proposals ...... 5 1.1 Background and purpose ...... 5 1.2 Detailed description ...... 5 2. About the consultation ...... 7 2.1 Purpose ...... 7 2.2 Potential outcomes ...... 7 2.3 Who we consulted ...... 7 2.4 Dates and duration ...... 8 2.5 What we asked ...... 8 2.6 Methods of responding ...... 8 2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 9 2.8 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 10 3. About the respondents ...... 11 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 11 3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 11 3.3 Methods of responding ...... 12 3.4 Profile of respondents ...... 12 3.5 Postcodes of respondents ...... 16 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 17 4.1 Summary of responses ...... 17 4.2 Summary of stakeholder responses ...... 18 4.3 Petitions and campaigns ...... 27 4.4 Comments on the consultation ...... 27 5. Response to the issues raised and next steps ...... 29 Appendix A: Detailed list of comments ...... 31 Appendix B: Consultation materials ...... 35
2 Appendix C: List of stakeholders consulted ...... 43 Appendix D: Petitions ...... 49 Appendix E: Quality of consultation ...... 50
3 Executive summary
Between 21 August and 1 October 2017, we consulted on proposals for road safety improvements on Grosvenor Place.
We received 554 responses to the consultation (including 22 responses from key stakeholders).
Respondents were asked to comment on our proposals. The main themes raised during the consultation are highlighted below, with a detailed summary of the results in Chapter 4 and the full list of comments in Appendix A.
Summary of issues raised during consultation
Below are some of most commonly raised issues: Concern that preventing right turns would increase congestion along adjacent roads in the area, and generally have a negative impact on local traffic Wilton Street would not be able to cope with displaced traffic and concern regarding disruption to a quiet narrow street Changes would increase both air and noise pollution New pedestrian island by the gyratory would slow traffic flow
Petitions One petition was submitted to the consultation by Wilton Street residents who strongly objected to our proposals. For full details, please go to Section 4.4.
Next steps
In response to the four commonly issues raised above we recognised that a number of respondents were worried that banning the right turns into Chapel Street and Chester Street would significantly increase the number of vehicles turning right into Wilton Street.
Our traffic modelling showed that the scheme would have a neutral impact on journey times for general traffic on Grosvenor Place. Traffic that would have made
4 one of the previously permitted right turns from or onto Grosvenor Place would disperse and use alternative routes. As a result of this feedback we have reviewed the scheme and will additionally be prohibiting vehicles from turning right into Wilton Street.
Following this change, Westminster City Council removed their objection to the scheme and advised us that they wish for us to proceed with the revised scheme.
We also propose to implement the scheme before any major traffic management scheme is developed for the nearby Victoria Gyratory network, especially in respect to strategic east to west movements through the area.
We plan to implement the banned turns in 2019. We will also further develop the plans for the crossing at the Hyde Park gyratory end of Grosvenor Place and the impact on traffic in the area before finalising our plans for implementation.
1. About the proposals
1.1 Background and purpose We are proposing road safety improvements on Grosvenor Place and the junction with the Hyde Park corner gyratory.
Analysis of data shows that there have been a number of collisions between vehicles turning right and northbound traffic on Grosvenor Place. To reduce the potential for such collisions, we are proposing to prohibit the currently permitted right turns for vehicles.
We are also proposing a new two-staged signalised crossing and larger island on Grosvenor Place close to the junction with Duke of Wellington Place to make it easier for people to cross the road.
1.2 Detailed description Our proposals covered four categories:
Banned vehicle movements to improve safety
In order to reduce potential conflicts involving right-turning vehicles, we are planning to ban the following turns for all vehicles:
5 No entry from Grosvenor Place into Chapel Street. We would ban the right and left turns for vehicles. Chapel Street would become exit only onto Grosvenor Place. Traffic counts show a maximum of 164 vehicle movements in the AM peak and 279 vehicle movements in the PM peak for right turning vehicles and a maximum of 31 vehicle movements in the AM peak and 36 vehicles in the PM peak for left turning vehicles Right turn from Grosvenor Place to Chester Street and from Chester Street to Grosvenor Place. Traffic counts show a maximum of 62 vehicles in the AM peak and 98 vehicles in the PM peak making this turn. We would also extend the existing traffic island opposite Chester Street, which would also physically prevent vehicles turning right into and out of Chester Street
Right turn from Grosvenor Place to Wilton Street and from Wilton Street to Grosvenor Place. Traffic counts show at least 50 vehicle movements every hour between 09:00 and 19:00 - sometimes reaching 70 – 80 vehicle movements
As well as reducing the potential for collisions, the changes would also improve traffic flow going south along Grosvenor Place.
New crossings and more space for pedestrians at Duke of Wellington Place
New signalised two-stage pedestrian crossing on Grosvenor Place with a larger pedestrian island at Duke of Wellington Place. This would provide an alternative to the existing subways which are not accessible and are closed overnight. The larger island would also encourage drivers to slow down when approaching the left turn onto Grosvenor Place from the gyratory. Relocating loading bay from Grosvenor Place to Chapel Street Relocate an existing loading bay (16m long) from Grosvenor Place to Chapel Street to prevent loading vehicles blocking the northbound bus lane. This relocation is expected to improve traffic flow and bus journey times Bus lane hours Extend northbound bus lane hours of operation from 7am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm Monday to Sunday, to 7am to 7pm Monday to Sunday to improve bus journey times and reliability. Taxis, motorcycles and bicycles would be allowed to use the bus lane, as they are at present.
Our traffic modelling showed that the scheme would have a neutral impact on journey times for general traffic on Grosvenor Place. Traffic that would have made one of the previously permitted right turns from or onto Grosvenor Place would disperse and use alternative routes.
6 2. About the consultation
2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:
To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond
To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware
To understand concerns and objections
2.2 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of the consultation were:
Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation
Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme
Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Chapter 4.
2.3 Who we consulted We ensured that people living and working in the areas affected by the scheme were aware of the proposals.
We posted information about the consultation directly to properties living within 400m of Grosvenor Place.
We target information at individuals who we know use bus routes nearby or lived in the areas nearby (because they had supplied their postcode to us previously via Oyster, Congestion Charging, Cycle Hire, or for another reason). In this way, we raised awareness of the consultation among motorists, cyclsts, bus users and other public transport users.
We sent emails to stakeholders who had been identified as interested in this scheme. Our contact list included disability groups, organisations representing the
7 elderly, transport user groups, businesses and major employers, trade organisations, statutory organisations, charities, local government, politicians, residents’ representatives, healthcare providers, educational establishments, and others.
2.4 Dates and duration This was a six-week consultation which ran between 21 August and 1 October 2017.
2.5 What we asked As our proposals are safety measures, we decided to have one open question which asked people if they had any comments about our proposals.
The questionnaire asked seven generic questions relating to name, email address, postcode, their relationship to the area (resident, business owner, emoployred locally etc.), organisation name (if responding on behalf of a business/stakeholder/organisation), how they heard about the consultation, and views on the quality of the consultation (respondents were asked two questions on the quality: to rate in a scale from very good to very poor; and to provide any comments).
For the complete questionnaire please see Appendix B.
2.6 Methods of responding People were able to respond to the consultation through the following channels:
By answering the survey on our consultation website at: tfl.gov.uk/grosvenor- place By sending a letter to FREEPOST TfL CONSULTATIONS By emailing: [email protected]. The Consultation Team also answered questions from members of the public and stakeholders via email
Through our Customer Services Team, it was possible to request foreign language translations, large print, braille or audio versions of our consultation materials.
8 2.7 Consultation materials and publicity We used a range of channels to raise awareness of the Grosvenor Place consultation, to ensure that members of the public and stakeholders were aware of the consultation and its purpose.
We explain the channels used below. All materials encouraged interested parties to visit our website or contact us to find out more about the scheme and how to respond.
2.7.1 Website Our website provided detailed information about our consultation, including text explanations of our proposals and a map helping to explain the proposals.
The website provided people with the opportunity to respond to the consultation by answering our questionnaire.
2.7.2 Letters We produced a letter, which summarised the proposals and gave details as to how to find out more information and to respond. This was distributed to 1281 properties within 400m of Grosvenor Place.
2.7.3 Emails to public We sent an email about the consultation to over 300,000 people who live locally or use our transport services in the area. The data for the distribution list is extracted from our master database of those who have registered their details with us – for example, through use of Congestion Charge, Oyster Card or Cycle Hire services. The email is included in Appendix B.
2.7.4 Emails to stakeholders We sent an email outlining the scheme and explaining where to find more information and respond to over 300 businesses and organisations identified as interested in road schemes in this area. The list of stakeholders we contacted can be found in Appendix C.
2.7.5 Meetings with stakeholders We worked closely with Westminster City Council from the early stages of developing proposals for Grosvenor Place. Once we had produced a design for public consultation, we met with borough officers to discuss our proposals before launching the formal consultation.
9
Other meetings
Grosvenor Estates
We contacted Grosvenor Estates before the formal consultation period to arrange a meeting where we could explain why we were exploring changes to Grosvenor Place and explain the proposals; and answer any queries. The meeting took place during the formal consultation period.
Caneparo Associates
During the formal consultation period, we were contacted by a consultancy called Caneparo Associates who were appointed by a local resident owning a property in the Grosvenor Place area. We met with representatives from Caneparo Associates to explain why we were exploring changes to Grosvenor Place and explain the proposals; and answer any queries.
General
We also held a post consultation stakeholder meeting where we agreed to also ban the turn into Wilton Street.
2.8 Analysis of consultation responses
Analysis of the consultation responses was carried out within TfL.There were two “open” questions, one seeking comments about the proposals and one on the quality of the consultation. A draft coding framework was developed for responses to these questions, which was finalised following review by another member of the team. One analyst conducted the tagging exercise with the consultation lead auditing the methodology to ensure a consistent approach. There were eight duplicate responses which were deleted or consolidated.
10 3. About the respondents
This chapter provides more information on respondents to this consultation, based on the information they provided to us in our questionnaire. For a full list of the consultation questions, see Appendix B.
3.1 Number of respondents Once any duplicate responses had been removed, there were 554 respondents. Duplicates can occur, for example, when the same person responds by email and online or when the same person responds twice online. When duplicates were identified, we combined the two responses. We filtered eight duplicates in this consultation.
Stakeholder responses are those submitted by individuals who identify themselves as representing political entities, organisations, businesses or campaign groups. Their responses are summarised in Section 4.2. There were 22 statutory stakeholder responses in total.
Respondents Total % Public responses 532 96 Statutory Stakeholder responses 22 4 Total 554
3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation We asked respondents to tell us how they heard about the consultation. A total of 483 of 554 respondents provided an answer. 71 respondents did not respond to this question.
How respondents heard Total % Received an email from TfL 346 62 Received a letter from TfL 8 1 Read about in the press 7 1 Saw it on the TfL website 40 7
Social media 72 13 Other 10 2 Not answered 71 13 Total 554
11 3.3 Methods of responding We accepted responses via our online survey; directly by email to [email protected]; and via letter sent to our FREEPOST address. We also accepted feedback passed on to us through email by our Customer Service Team.
No. of Methods of responding % comments
Website 500 90
Email/ letter 54 10
Total 554 100
3.4 Profile of respondents We asked a number of questions to profile respondents. The responses are presented in graphs below.
Are you:
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Not A A local but A local Employ A visitor taxi/priv Other A local commut interest busines ed to the ate hire (please resident er to the ed in s owner locally area vehicle specify) area the driver scheme No. of 183 30 76 79 106 35 158 30 comments
*No percentage was shown as respondents could choose more than one option
12
Gender 350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Trans Trans Gender Prefer not Male Female female male neutral to say No. of 323 78 1 4 6 48 comments (%) 58% 14% 0% 1% 1% 9%
Sexual Orientation 300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Heterosexu Prefer not Bisexual Gay man Lesbian Other al to say No. of comments 270 4 20 2 8 136 (%) 49% 1% 4% 0% 1% 25%
13
Age 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Prefer Under 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71+ not to 15 say No. of comments 1 1 17 19 48 40 47 43 54 38 33 27 21 69 (%) 0% 0% 3% 3% 9% 7% 8% 8% 10% 7% 6% 5% 4% 12%
14 180 Faith 160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0 Prefer Buddhi Christi No Hindu Muslim Sikh Jewish Other not to st an religion say No. of responses 5 168 4 19 1 11 10 105 126 (%) 1% 30% 1% 3% 0% 2% 2% 19% 23%
Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Yes, limited a Yes, limited a lot No Prefer not to say little No. of comments 9 15 348 80 (%) 2% 3% 63% 14%
15
3.5 Postcodes of respondents
Postcode Total (%)
NW 4 1% SW1A 1 0% SW1E 3 1% SW1H 3 1% SW1P 16 4% SW1V 32 8% SW1W 15 4% SW1X 35 9% SW7 1 0% W1 20 5% W2 8 2% W9 2 1% Other postcodes 242 63% Total 382
Responses were received from 37 postcode areas in total.
16 4. Summary of all consultation responses
4.1 Summary of responses We received 554 responses to this consultation. Our consultation questionnaire asked one open question therefore we cannot summarise the level of support and opposition. The full list of comments received can be found in Appendix A.
4.1.1 Issues commonly raised The top 20 most commonly raised issues have been summarised below:
Issue Total Banned right turns: Increased traffic/ congestion in the area 84 Congestion on lower Grosvenor Place / Grosvenor Crescent & Hyde Park Corner 62 Generally opposed/ changes not needed 61 Changes will have negative impact on local traffic/ displace & move congestion 45 elsewhere Opposed to banned turn into Chapel Street 44 Changes will increase air/ noise pollution 38 New pedestrian island & crossing at Grosvenor Place by the gyratory would slow 37 traffic flows to an unacceptable level TfL road modernisation schemes make traffic/ pollution worse 36 Wilton Street will not be able to cope with displaced traffic volumes/ disruption to a 35 quiet narrow street Opposed to banned turn into Chester Street 32 Changes will increase traffic/journey times 30 Opposed to restricted turns in this area 29 Lack of cycle facilities/ segregated cycle lanes 20 Victoria area will become highly congested if these changes are implemented 18 Safety concern: Proposed changes will increase risk & danger on local roads 17 Implement segregated cycle lanes 17 Opposed to banned turn from Wilton onto Grosvenor Place 14 Opposed to extending bus lane times 14 Traffic calming measures needed more than restricted turns 12 Give taxis access to Belgrave Square / Lower Belgrave Street/ Chapel St 11
17 4.2 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes. As well as being summarised here, the stakeholder responses are included in the analysis of the overall responses covered in this chapter and in Appendix A.
Each summary begins with a statement explaining the stakeholder’s level of support based on our interpretation of each respondent’s level of support based on their comments. Where the level of support was not clear from the comments ‘no opinion’ has been recorded. Where we have inferred the level of support, this is stated in the summary.
4.2.1 Local authorities and statutory bodies
Cllr Rachael Robathan, Westminster City Council and Tony Devenish, AM for West Central (Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea, and City of Westminster)
Strongly objected proposals
Cllr Robathan and Mr Devenish forwarded comments from a constituent representing The Belgravia Society.
They objected to directing all traffic down Wilton Street stating that it is a quiet residential street and wouldn’t be able to manage the likely volume of traffic without disruption and impact to the residents.
Mark Field, MP for Cities of London
Partially opposed proposals (inferred from response)
Mr Field supported the concerns raised by residents of Wilton Street, namely that this road would become a major traffic route if right turns into Chapel Street and Chester Street are prohibited.
18 Westminster City Council
Strongly opposed proposals
Westminster City Council expressed the two main reasons for the City Council objection to the scheme were: They supported the strong opposition raised by many residents of Wilton Street in relation to concerns about displaced and increased volumes of traffic, if the scheme was implemented as per the proposals Uncertainty on the resilience of the local road network once other road changes are implemented, such as potential changes at Victoria Gyratory
4.2.2 Accessibility Groups
Wheels for Wellbeing
Neither supported nor opposed proposals (inferred from response)
Wheels for Wellbeing stated their disappointed that we had not included any proposals to improve access in the area, particularly naming mobility impaired people who would like to use the East-West Cycle Superhighway.
They also suggested it would be useful to know the type of vehicles that are affected by the banned turns because if any were cycles, they would hope the diversion routes would avoid using the gyratory at Hyde Park Corner.
4.2.3 Transport and road user groups
20’s plenty
Partially support proposals (inferred from response)
20’s Plenty supported the goals to reduce the number of collisions along Grosvenor Place however had some concerns, mainly related to a lack of focus on vehicle speeds.
Based on their analysis of vehicle speeds in this area, they believed that there is an issue of compliance with the speed restrictions along Grosvenor Place. They felt there was a case for measures that increase compliance to be applied to Grosvenor Place.
They opposed the removal of the traffic island near Chapel Street because it would encourage vehicles to speed and increase danger for pedestrians. In addition they
19 felt the island provides an informal crossing point between the Duke of Wellington Place and Chester Street.
Addison Lee
Strongly supported proposals
Addison Lee strongly supported our proposals because they felt they would improve road safety and speed up traffic flow.
Confederation of Passenger Transport
Strongly supported proposals (inferred from response)
Confederation of Passenger Transport believed that the measures proposed on Grosvenor Place are a positive step towards improving traffic flow, reducing congestion and shortening journey times.
Licensed Taxi Drivers Association
Partially supported proposals (inferred from response)
The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association preferred the right turn at Chapel Street to be retained to allow taxis direct access to Belgrave Square and beyond. They felt that it would be difficult to access Halkin Street and other premises from Wilton Street. They also recommended having the right turn pocket at Chapel Street instead of Wilton Street.
London Living Streets
Partially support proposals (inferred from response)
London Living Streets (LLS) were supportive of the goals of our proposals but raised some concerns about certain aspects.
They were supportive of the pedestrian crossings at Duke of Wellington Place. However they were concerned about the proposed removal of the traffic island near Chapel Street because it may encourage vehicles to speed and cause danger for pedestrians who may attempt to cross the road.
They also requested measures to address vehicle speeds in the area as a significant proportion exceeds the current 30 miles per hour (mph) limit. In addition they felt Grosvenor Place is not suitable for 30 mph due to the large number of pedestrian movements.
20
LLS supported the increased bus lane hours of operation.
London TravelWatch
Partially supported proposals (inferred from response)
London TravelWatch supported the extension of bus lane hours of operation but would prefer if they were in operation 24-hours seven days a week to benefit buses and cyclists.
Passenger Bikes
Strongly opposed proposals (inferred from response)
Passenger Bikes were concerned about the proposal to prohibit right turns into Chapel Street because they feel vehicles would divert to Grosvenor Crescent which is already congested. Therefore they believe our proposals would block traffic travelling northbound on Grosvenor Place and increase congestion around Hyde Park Corner.
Road Haulage Association
Neither opposed nor supported (inferred from response)
The Road Haulage Association (RHA) urged caution that we do not reduce road space which would increase congestion and pollution. They felt less road space would make it difficult for Heavy Good Vehicles (HGVs) to move around London. They emphasised the importance of HGVs to serve local businesses and shops.
The RHA also raised concern regarding the lack of safe spaces to load and unload for HGVs.
Westminster Cycling Campaign
Strongly opposed proposals (inferred from response)
Westminster Cycling Campaign believe that people are reluctantly choosing to cycle on Grosvenor Place due to an absence of safe cycling connections to the southwest of Hyde Park Corner, which means that the alternatives are over 500m away.
At a minimum they would either support segregated cycle lanes on Grosvenor Place or an alternative by creating safe cycling connections along a parallel alignment.
21 4.2.4 Business groups
Grosvenor Estates (Requested further information)
Further information is required from TfL, specifically so that we know what the impact will be elsewhere on both the local and trunk networks.
1. Signage. The recommended route to avoid right turns into Belgravia will involve using Grosvenor Crescent, Belgrave Square and Upper Belgrave St. This is relatively straightforward as long as it is effectively signed at and before Hyde Park Corner (since it involves continuing further on the gyratory than drivers might be expecting). If drivers do miss this information, they will be required to complete a circuit of the Victoria gyratory and/or use Beeston Place, which would be disruptive.
2. The ban on all right turns out could be problematic. While vehicles facing SW could simply divert via Upper Belgrave St and Hobart Place, those facing NE would need to complete a circuit of the Hyde Park Corner gyratory, which would again be disruptive. Ideally, TfL should offer facilities for residents' vehicles at least to U-turn in their streets and exit to the SW.
3. There is also the question of additional traffic loads and the potential impact on the Victoria Gyratory. Although the numbers involved are likely to be small by comparison with those already on Grosvenor Crescent and Hobart Place, it would be worth checking. The potential benefit that none of these streets will offer a rat-run to avoid Grosvenor Crescent will of course also mean that Grosvenor Crescent itself, tailing back into Belgrave Square, will become more congested.
In view of the above, we need TfL to kindly confirm: The arrangements for signing at and in advance of Hyde Park Corner, provision for turning bays at the north eastern end of each street, restrictions on heavy vehicles using Headfort Place (and the arch) Loading bay provisions Modelled effects on flows and delays in the AM and PM peaks across the local network
22 Victoria BID
Partially supported proposals (inferred from response)
Victoria (V) BID supported measures to reduce collisions involving turning vehicles and the new pedestrian crossing. However they were concerned that some aspects could put pedestrians at risk.
V BID felt that vehicles queueing at the existing right turn pocket for Chapel Street and the traffic island in this location act as an obstacle which causes vehicles to slow down. Therefore they were concerned that our proposal to remove these would encourage vehicles to speed along this section of Grosvenor Place.
They also felt that the traffic island near Chapel Street is useful as an informal crossing point for pedestrians. They were concerned that removing the island would leave pedestrians vulnerable because there is a large gap between the new proposed crossing at Duke of Wellington Place and the existing formal crossing at Chester Street. Consequently they requested traffic calming to be explored in this section. They also recommended a trial period of a speed camera with a 20 mph limit.
4.2.5 Businesses, employers and venues
EMSO Asset Management
Neither supported or opposed proposals (inferred from response)
EMSO felt that the right turn into Chester Street should be allowed because the traffic lights may force cars to go to Victoria and loop around to get to Belgravia.
Irish Embassy
Partially supported proposals (inferred from response)
The Irish Embassy was in general agreement with the five categories outlined in our proposals and agreed that they were necessary to minimise vehicle collisions in the area. However they raised two points of concern: Embassy vehicles use the left turn into Chapel Street from Grosvenor Place and if banned they would have to extend their journeys considerably The Embassy’s diplomatic bays and garage entrances are located directly opposite the proposed location for the relocated loading bay from Grosvenor Place. They felt moving the loading bay would add to the congestion already existing in this area
23 One GP LPP
Supported proposals
One GP LPP (GP LPP) own and are developing the site at 1-5 Grosvenor Place into a new hotel to be known as The Peninsula London. They supported our proposals and felt they are a positive step to improving highway safety and pedestrian facilities.
GP LPP stated they would like to work with TfL to coordinate the construction programme of the proposed pedestrian crossing and construction works associated with The Peninsula Hotel. They raised some concern about the proposals being constructed in spring 2018.
Royal Parks, Park Manager for Hyde Park
Neither supported nor opposed proposals (inferred from response)
The Royal Parks (RP) emphasised the importance of the underpasses at Hyde Park Corner to facilitate safe egress from concerts.
RP also suggested a pedestrian crossing where Grosvenor Crescent meets Grosvenor Place would improve access from Hyde Park to Victoria.
The Travel Corporation
Strongly opposed proposals (inferred from response)
The Travel Corporation have offices on 11, 14 and 15 Grosvenor Place. They have a vast number of deliveries to each office at different times. Therefore relocating the loading bay from Grosvenor Place to Chapel Street with the banned right turn into Chapel Street and Chester Street would make it difficult for their delivery drivers.
4.2.6 Local interest groups
South East Bayswater Residents’ Association
Neither supported nor opposed proposals (inferred from response)
South East Bayswater Residents’ Association recommended bus lane hours should be extended to operate 22-24 hours a day because many retail outlets are open later after 19:00.
24 The Belgravia Society
Strongly opposed proposals
The Belgravia Society (TBS) strongly opposed the proposals to prohibit certain turnings to and from of Grosvenor Place for three reasons: Currently there is a fair distribution of traffic between the three streets leading off Grosvenor Place. They felt our proposals would add greater traffic on Wilton Street, which is currently a quiet residential street Allowing the right turn into Wilton Street would still present a safety problem and not address the aims of our proposals Wilton Street is the least suitable out of the three streets to bear an increased level of traffic flow
Summary of other points raised in TBS’s detailed examination of the proposals were: The perception that Wilton Street is a relatively wide street but TBS argued this was not the case At the intersection of Grosvenor Place and Wilton Street, two cars have difficulty passing. Cars waiting to turn left out of Wilton Street will block any commercial vehicles entering from Grosvenor Place Wilton Street is regularly blocked at its eastern end because there is a loading bay used by commercial traffic serving Noura, Eaton Square Restaurant, the Mango Tree and 40 Grosvenor Place. This means the intersection of Grosvenor Place with Wilton Street is heavily used by commercial vehicles The only western exit from Wilton Street is Upper Belgrave Street whereas vehicles using Chapel Street or Chester Street have other options to continue their journey. Furthermore since the narrowing of Hobart Place, Upper Belgrave Street often has queues of waiting traffic TBS felt that continuing to allow a right turn into Wilton Street would still present a road safety issue They also thought the bus stop on the eastern side of Grosvenor Place just north of the entrance to Wilton Street, where vehicles would be queuing to turn right, would present an additional problem Chapel Street would be a better option than Wilton Street for a right turn from Grosvenor Place because vehicles exiting have the opportunity to drive straight through Belgrave Square Chester Street would be a better option than Wilton Street for a right turn from Grosvenor Place because the pedestrian lights provide a natural break and a safe opportunity for traffic to turn right into Chester Street. In addition the pedestrian crossing island provides a physical barrier which protects queuing traffic from oncoming northbound traffic. Traffic exiting Chester Street also have the option of travelling further west using Eaton Place
25 TBS referred to The South Westminster Traffic Management System Study 2012 which, concluded that right turns into Grosvenor Place should be reviewed but did not consider banning right turns off Grosvenor Place TBS also suggested another option to consider is banning all right turns from Grosvenor Place so that traffic would be diverted to use Grosvenor Crescent to travel further west
Wilton Street Residents Association
Strongly opposed proposals
Wilton Street Residents Association (WSRA) strongly objected to the proposals because they believed that all traffic flow from Grosvenor Place will be directed via Wilton Street thus creating: increased safety risks to drivers, an inconvenience for the residents of Wilton Street due to increased amount of traffic, higher levels of pollution, a danger to the families living on Wilton Street especially those with children and protection for neighbouring streets while prejudicing Wilton Street.
They also raised the following points within their response: Wilton Street is not suited to carrying all the additional traffic because it’s residential and there are residents’ cars parked on each side meaning there is no easy traffic flow A substantial number of cars, trucks and lorries turn right from Grosvenor Place and they have the option to use three roads. If the proposals were implemented they believe more vehicles will use Wilton Street To maintain Grosvenor Place’s “ring road” design banning all right turns would enable traffic to flow At the Wilton Street junction there is a loading bay for 40 Grosvenor Place which is used throughout the day The new Cleveland Hospital also has a loading bay on Wilton Street which will create additional traffic using the road If traffic is forced to use Wilton Street they have to turn left onto Upper Belgrave Street and have no alternative options compared with Chapel Street and Chester Street where other route options are available Upper Belgrave Street currently suffers from congestion and has cars queueing
26 4.3 Petitions and campaigns
Petitions involve people adding their names to either a paper or electronic list, backing the views of the petition organiser. Campaigns involve people copying text from another individual or group, and submitting this text as all or part of their response. We received one petition which is described below.
For the original text for the petition listed below, please go to Appendix D.
4.3.1 Petition submitted by Wilton Street residents We received a petition of 29 signatures from Wilton Street residents. The petition opposed the proposals for Grosvenor Place, specifically for Wilton Street.
4.4 Comments on the consultation We asked all respondents to rate the quality of our consultation by choosing one of the following descriptions: Very good; Good; Acceptable; Poor; Very poor. The question was not mandatory and 67 people chose not to answer.
Interest Total % Very good 135 24% Good 130 23% Acceptable 131 24% Poor 40 7% Very poor 51 9% Not answered 67 12% Total 554
We also gave respondents the opportunity to comment on the quality of the consultation and the materials. The 10 most common comments raised are summarised below:
Consultation quality comments Total Sceptical about how seriously TfL will take the feedback 22 Justification for the proposal/ detailed plans/ traffic analysis 21 Decision for proposals already made 8 Data/ figures provided out of touch 7 Poor consultation 7
27 TfL not fit for purpose 5 Lack of supporting evidence 4 Modelling data does not show what the other alternative routes are that motorists 4 can use if turning restrictions apply TfL should take feedback into account 2
28 5. Response to the issues raised and next steps
Changes to turns
Following this consultation we recognised that a number of respondents were worried that banning the right turns into Chapel Street and Chester Street would significantly increase the number of vehicles turning right into Wilton Street.
As a result of this feedback we have reviewed the schemes and will additionally be prohibiting vehicles from turning right into Wilton Street.
We also propose to implement the scheme before any major traffic management scheme is developed for the nearby Victoria Gyratory network, especially in respect to strategic east to west movements through the area.
Following these changes, Westminster City Council removed their objection to the scheme and advised us that they wish for us to proceed with the revised scheme.
Chapel, Chester and Wilton Streets are Borough Roads. We are not aware of any order by WCC to prevent a U-Turn by a resident parked on the road so they can exit via either Grosvenor Place or Upper Belgrave Street. Exiting onto Grosvenor Place would be left only in all instances.
Some respondents were concerned about the ability to make left turns off Grosvenor Place, and left turns onto Grosvenor Place. Only one left turn is proposed to be banned as part of these proposals, as in the consultation, and there are no other plans currently to review the other left turn movements on Grosvenor Place.
Signage will be considered as part of the detailed design process in line with current standards. Diversionary signage is not commonly used for permanent road changes.
Questions about congestion on nearby streets
Traffic modelling has been completed for the local area. This is to assess the impact of traffic wishing to turn right to access Chapel Street, Chester Street and Wilton Street now having to either travel down to Victoria or continue around Hyde Park corner to exit on to Grosvenor Crescent to access Belgravia.
In the AM peak period, traffic modelling indicates that vehicles are likely to re-assign on to Grosvenor Crescent (B310) to access locations in Belgravia: the numbers are not expected to be significant. A small number of vehicles might divert through Victoria gyratory on to Hobart Place to gain access to the south part of Belgravia. In the PM Peak, traffic modelling shows vehicles re-locating on to Grosvenor Crescent and little or no traffic diverting down to the Victoria Gyratory.
29 Loading bays
One loading bay will be removed on Grosvenor Place, and one provided on Chapel Street, subject to approval from Westminster City Council.
Cycling facilities
Our cycle improvement plan at Hyde Park Corner is an adjacent project which is being developed with consideration of nearby schemes.
Traffic Islands at Hyde Park Corner and Chapel Street
The traffic island to facilitate the pedestrian crossing at Duke of Wellington Place is an expansion of an existing traffic island, which is inaccessible for pedestrians. The installation of the pedestrian signals is important to ensure TfL can meet the Mayor’s Vision Zero target, by providing a safe, accessible crossing point for pedestrians that is open 24 hours a day.
We have decided not to remove the traffic island outside Chapel Street
Next steps
We plan to implement the banned turns in 2019. We will also further develop the plans for the crossing at the Grosvenor Place junction with Duke of Wellington Place and the impact on traffic in the area before finalising our plans for implementation.
30 Appendix A: Detailed list of comments
Do you have any comments on our proposals for Grosvenor Place?
Final list of comments No. of comments Clarity needed
Will you ban left turns onto Grosvenor Place out of Wilton St, Chester St & Chapel St 1 Is the consultation reviewing the entire gyratory? 1 Concerns Banned right turns: Increased traffic/ congestion in the area 84 Wilton Street will not be able to cope with displaced traffic volumes/ disruption to a quiet 34 narrow street Changes will increase traffic/journey times 30 Lack of cycle facilities/ segregated cycle lanes 20 Lack of access to Belgrave Square 9 Planned project works will cause disruption 6 Pedestrian facilities inadequate/ main pedestrian issues not addressed 5 Concern: Concerned crossing at gyratory not suitable due to heavy traffic 4 Lack of access for taxis to Belgrave Square 3 Reduction of road space would make it difficult for HGVs to make deliveries 1 Further information request Project timescales 1 How changes fit into the cycle improvement plans at Hyde Park Corner 1 General comments Cycle lanes have made traffic worse in London 6 Much more interested in better traffic management & overall improved movement around 3 London Negative comments Congestion on lower Grosvenor Place / Grosvenor Crescent & Hyde Park Corner 62 Generally opposed/ Changes not needed 61 Changes will have negative impact on local traffic/ displace & move congestion elsewhere 45
Opposed to banned turn into Chapel Street 44 Changes will increase air/ noise pollution 38 New pedestrian island & crossing at Grosvenor Place by the gyratory would slow traffic 37 flows to an unacceptable levels TfL road modernisation schemes make traffic/ pollution worse 36 Opposed to banned turn into Chester Street 32 Opposed to restricted turns in this area 29
31 Victoria area will become highly congested if this changes are implemented 18 Safety concern: Proposed changes will increase risk & danger on local roads 17 Opposed to banned turn from Wilton onto Grosvenor Place 14 Opposed to extending bus lane times 14 Extending bus lane hours will increase congestion/ pollution 9 Relocation of loading pay & banning turning will makes deliveries near impossible for local 9 businesses Inconvenience to local residents living having to look for alternate routes 8 Modelling is all wrong, it'll make it worse 7 Proposed changes disruptive without any real benefits 7 Increased traffic in Hobart Place & Upper Belgrave Place 6 New pedestrian crossings not needed 6 Knock-on effects of restricting turns not considered/ explained 6 Waste of funds 5 Safety concern: Removal of the pedestrian island by the junction with Chapel St 4 Creating gridlock when the park closes for the changing of the guard 3 Unfair prioritising bus traffic 3 Lack of cycle facilities 3 Changes make difficult for drivers to getting around/ no obvious impact on safety 2 Fails to meet mayor's meet the mayors Healthy streets proposal 2 Impact on local businesses 2 Unfair to allow taxis to use bus lanes but not private hire vehicles 2 Impact on safety for road users 1 Lack of focus on vehicle speeds/ drivers exceed 30mph constantly in this area 1 Positive comments Generally supportive 86 New pedestrian crossing/ Pedestrian improvements on Grosvenor Place near the Hyde 38 Park gyratory Improvement on safety for road users 33 Improvement on traffic flow 17 Restricted turns along Grosvenor Place 16 Extended bus lane hours 11 Chapel Street turning restriction 10 Right turn into Chapel Street/ improved quality of life/ air quality 10 Improvement on commuter /cycle/ pedestrian facilities 8 Chester Street turning restriction 5 Removal of loading bay on Grosvenor Place to minimise delays 3 Extended bus lane hours 3 Restricted turning from Wilton Street into Grosvenor Place 3
32 Easier for residents to access their driveways/ Improved safety for residents/ minimised 2 damage to parked cars Proposed changes will reduce congestion/ shortening journey times 1 Partial support: Bus lane ext: Mon to Fri 7-7 bus lane hours but not weekend proposals 1 Suggestions Buses/ bus lane/ bus stops Bus gate to allow buses/ bicycles to move to the front of the lights (northern end of 1 Grosvenor Place) Bus stop opposite Wilton St needs to be moved a few metres back 2 Buses should be banned from this area/ rerouted elsewhere 1 Buses should have priority on all the roads they use 2 Extend bus lanes hours say to 24hrs 3 Get rid of the bus lane entirely & have three lanes for all traffic 2 Bus lanes should not apply on Sundays as traffic is lower and The Mall is often part closed 1 Widen bus lanes 1 Pedestrian crossings Create overground/bridges (with lifts for disabled) or underground paths would relieve 1 congestion Install pedestrian crossing where Grosvenor Crescent meets Grosvenor Place to improve 1 access from/to Hyde Park Instead of new pedestrian crossing improve the pedestrian underpass instead 1 More pedestrian crossings needed 1 Suggestion: Pedestrian crossing should be straight across both lanes not staggered 2 Traffic lights/control Consider filtered permeability on all side streets leading onto Grosvenor Place 1 Control south bound right turns in conjunction with pedestrian crossings using traffic lights 1 Install traffic lights at the junction instead of introducing a no right turn into Chapel street 4 Instead of restricted turns, incorporate a filter lane with a timed/ pelican crossing 1 Proposed new pedestrian crossing should traffic light controlled 1 Put stop lights at Grosvenor Crescent to help traffic problems at Hyde Park corner 2 Traffic calming measures needed more than restricted turns 12 Traffic light at the end of Wilton Street with a green light for a turn to the left on a street - 1 Upper Belgrave Street Traffic lights for northbound traffic on Grosvenor Place 4 Install red light above green filter arrow that only allows right turn into Chester Place when 3 the pedestrian lights are red Use of technology/ 'intelligent traffic' lights would be preferable 1 Turning restrictions Allow turning into Halkin St to drop off at the Halkin Hotel & Caledonian Club 2 Bring Hobart Place junction into play for a new right turn into Belgravia 1 Keep one of the right turns to regulate traffic flow 7 Reinstate the right turn into Halkin Street 3
33 Restrict turning into Halkin Street instead of Chapel Street ban 1 Retain access/ right hand turn into Chapel Street 6 Review banned turns e.g. only during rush hour/day etc 1 General suggestions Implement segregated cycle lanes 17 Give taxis access to Belgrave Square / Lower Belgrave Street/ Chapel St 11 Direct traffic to the wide Grosvenor Crescent and make the Victoria one-way system easy to 4 navigate Carry out works with minimal impact 4 Widen Grosvenor Place to improve traffic flow 4 Add ramps & CCTV to the subways/ surrounding areas for increased safety & accessibility 4 Advance stop line at Duke of Wellington Plc junction to give cyclists a head start 3 Ban cars from central London/ Reduce PHV at peak times & enforce the law to reduce 3 traffic Vehicles must also be banned from turning into Wilton Street from Grosvenor Place 2 Increase congestion charge to improve traffic volume/ flow/ improve pollution 2 A kerb or bollards to impede right turns into and out of Chapel Street preferable 1 Advance signage for two lanes in roundabout that leads to Victoria to avoid last minute 1 change of direction Install 2 roundabouts to help vehicles displaced by restricted right turns from/to Grosvenor 1 Place Introduce a green corridor from the streets in the direction of a right turn pocket extended to 1 Wilton St Legitimate loading should be accommodated either on side roads or at times that least 1 affects congestion Make Wilton and Chester Streets one-way in opposite directions 1 Remove taxis and motorcycles from bus lanes to reduce traffic and pollution 1 Widen Grosvenor Place pavement turning for increased pedestrian safety 1 Ban cyclists at Grosvenor Place to improve safety/bus service 1 Instead of restricted turns, develop safer right turning lanes on Grosvenor Place 1 Southbound
34 Appendix B: Consultation materials
This section includes the following:
1. The consultation drawing which was used on our consultation web page and sent out with the consultation letter 2. The letter that was sent to residents and businesses close to the area of proposals 3. A map of the distribution area for the letter 4. A copy of the email that was sent to registered users of our services 5. A copy of the email that was sent to stakeholder organisation at the beginning of the consultation 6. The questions that were part of our consultation questionnaire
35 Consultation drawing showing proposals
36 Letter to local residents and businesses
37
38 Distribution area of consultation letter
The consultation letter was sent to all addresses (1281) within the distribution area shown in red:
39 Email to registered users of our services
40 Email to stakeholders
41 Consultation Questionnaire
Below are the questions we asked in our consultation questionnaire
1. Do you have any comments on our proposals for Grosvenor Place?
Questions about the respondents
2. What is your name?
3. What is your email address?
4. Please provide us with your postcode?
5. Are you (please tick all boxes that apply): A local residents, A local business owner, Employees locally, A visitor to the area, A commuter to the area, Not local but interested in the scheme, A taxi/private hire vehicle driver, Other (Please specify)
6. If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name:
7. How did you find out about this consultation? Received an email from TfL, Received a letter from TfL, Read about it in the press, Saw it on the TfL website, Social media, Word of mouth, other (please specify)
8. 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.? Very good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, Very poor
Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation material?
42 Appendix C: List of stakeholders consulted
Majority of the below stakeholders were sent the email in Appendix B. Those we did not have an email address were sent information to postal addresses.
AA Association of Town Centre Abbey Travel Management Abellio London Limited/ Abellio West ATOC London Limited Barking and Dagenham Abellio Surrey Bayswater Residents Association Access in London BBC Action on Disability Belgian Embassy Action on Disability and Work UK Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum Action on Hearing Loss Belgravia Residents Association Addison Lee Best Bike Training / Cycletastic Age UK London Bexley Council Aggregate Industries UK BHS Bikeability ALDI Chelmsford Bidvest Logistics Alive in Space Landscape and Urban Bikeworks Design Studio Bikexcite All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group Borough Cycling Officers Group Alliance Healthcare Brains Trust Alzheimer's Society Brakes Group Anderson Travel Breakspears Road Project Ann Frye Brentwood Community Transport Anxiety Alliance Brewery Logistics Group Anxiety Care Brewing, Food & Beverage Industry Anxiety UK Suppliers Association Argos British Association of Removers Arriva London Ltd British Beer & Pub Association AS Watson (Health and Beauty UK) British Cycling Asda British Land Aspire British Medical Association Association of British Drivers British Motorcycle Federation Association of International & Express Buckingham Palace Couriers Bucks Cycle Training
43 C T Plus Cycle Experience Camden Council Cycle Newham Campaign for Better Transport Cycle Systems Campbell's Cycle Training East Capital City School Sport Partnership Cycle Training UK Carers Information Service Cyclelyn Carousel Buses Cycle-wise Thames Valley CBI-London Cycling Embassy of Great Britain CCG Central London Cycling4all (WESTMINSTER) Cyclists in the City Cemex Department for Transport Central London CTC Design for London Central London Forward DHL Central London Freight Quality Disability Rights UK Partnership Disabled Go Central London NHS Trust Dogs for Good Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport DPD group UK Chauffeur and Executive Car DPTAC Association Dyslexia Action City Bikes (Vauxhall Walk) Ealing Council City of London East and South East London Thames City of London Police Gateway Transport Partnership CitySprint East London Vision Clapham Transport Users Group East Surrey Rural Transport Partnership t/a Polestar Travel Clear Channel UK EDF Energy Collect Plus Ehlers Danlos Support UK Confederation of Passenger Transport ELB Partners Confederation of Passenger Transport UK Embassy of Bahrain Connect Embassy of Bolivia Coop Embassy of Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Covent Garden Markets Authority Embassy of Hungary Cross River Partnership Embassy of Ireland CTC Embassy of Libya Cycle Confidence Embassy of Luxembourg Cycle Confident Embassy of Serbia
44 Embassy of the Kingdom of Norway Heart of London Business Alliance Embassy of the Kingdom of Spain High Commission for Trinidad & Embassy of the Syrian Arab Republic Tobago Enfield Council Hillingdon Council English Heritage House of Commons English Heritage - London ICE -London Ensignbus In & Around Covent Garden Epsom Coaches / Quality Line In Holborn Euromix Concrete Inclusion London European Dysmelia Reference Independent Disability Advisory Group Information Centre Institute forSustainability Evolution Cycle Training Institute of Advanced Motorists Federation of Wholesale Distributors Institute Of Couriers Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association Institution of Civil Engineers Fowler Welch Islington Council Freight Transport Association Italian Cultural Institute Friends of Capital Transport James Bikeability Friends of the Earth John Lewis Partnership Future Inclusion Joint Committee on Mobility for GeoPost UK Disabled People GMB Kelly Group Gnewt Cargo Kuehne Nagel Go-ahead Lambeth Cyclists Golden Tours (Transport) LB Croydon Greater London Authority LB Hammersmith & Fulham LB Hillingdon Greater London Forum for Older People LB Hounslow Greggs LB Islington Grosvenor Estates LB of Lewisham HA Boyse and Son LB of Sutton Hackney Community Transport LB of Westminster Harrow Macular Disease Society LB Tower Hamlets Harrowby and District Residents Learning Disabled service User Association Leonard Cheshire Disability Health Poverty Action Lewisham Council Hearing Dogs UK Licensed Private Hire Car Association
45 Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association London Region National Pensioners Living Streets Convention Living Streets - Brentwood London Riverside Living Streets - Islington London Strategic Health Authority Living Streets - Kings Cross (Camden) London Suburban Taxi Drivers' Coalition Living Streets - Merton London Taxi Drivers' Club Living Streets - Sutton London Tourist Coach Operators Living Streets - Tower Hamlets Association Living Streets - Wandsworth London TravelWatch Living Streets Action Group London United Busways Living Streets London London Visual Impairment Forum Living Streets Southwark Look Ahead Local Government Ombudsman Loomis UK London Ambulance Service Lupus UK London Association of Funeral Malaysian Embassy Directors Marks & Spencer London Bike Hub Martin-Brower UK London borough of Brent Marylebone Association London Borough of Croydon McNicholas London Borough of Havering Mencap London Cab Drivers' Club Ltd Merton Council London Chamber of Commerce and Industry Metrobus London Climate Change Partnership Metroline London Councils Metropolitan Police service London Cycling Campaign Mitie Mobile Cycle Training Service London Cycling Campaign (Westminster) Mode Transport London Duck Tours Ltd Motorcycle Action Group London European Partnership for MS Society Transport National Autistic Society London Fire Brigade National Autistic Society London First National Express London General National Motorcycle Council London Omnibus Traction Society National Pensioners Forum London Private Hire Board
46 Neighbour care St John's Wood & Roadpeace Maida Vale Romanian Cultural Institute New West End Royal Borough of Kingston upon NHS London Thames No Panic Royal College of Defence Studies Northbank BID Royal Institute of British Architects Ocean Youth Connexions Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Office Depot Royal London Society for Blind People On Your Bike Cycle Training Royal Mail Paddington Residents Active Concern Royal Town Planning Institute On Transport Sainsbury's Supermarkets Pan-London Dementia Alliance Scope Parcelforce Selvis Parkinson's UK Singapore High Commission Parliamentary Advisory Council for SITA UK Transport Safety Smiths News Passenger Focus Soho Society Philip Kemp Cycle Training South Bucks CycleTraining Pimlico FREDA South East Bayswater Residents Planning Design Association Portugese Embassy South East London PCT Private Hire Board South East London Vision Puzzle Focus South Herts Plus Cycle Training Queen Mary University of London Southwark Cyclists RAC Space Syntax RAC Foundation for Motoring Spokes Cycling Instruction Redbridge Cycling Centre St John's Wood Society Residents Society of Mayfair and St Stagecoach Buses James's Sullivan Bus and Coach Reynolds Sustrans Richmond Council Sutton mobility forum Riverford Systra RMT Taxi Rank & Interchange Manager RNIB Technicolour Tyre Company Road Danger Reduction Forum Thamesmead Business Services Road Haulage Association
47 The Association of Guide Dogs for the Walk London Blind Wandsworth - London Cycling The Big Bus Company Campaign The British Motorcyclists' Federation Wandsworth Community Transport The Canal & River Trust Wandsworth Mobility Forum The Co-operative Group Warburton The Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association Westminster Council The Original Tour Westminster Cyclists The Royal Parks Westminster Safer Transport Team The Southwark Cyclists Westminster Society The St Marylebone Society Westway Community Transport Thomas Pocklington Trust Wheels for Wellbeing Thorney Island Society Whitbread Group TKMaxx Whizz-Kidz TNT Wilson James Tour Guides Wilsons Cycles Tower Transit Operations Wincanton TPH for Heathrow Airport Wm Morrisons Supermarkets Tradeteam www.cyclinginstructor.com Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy UK Young Lewisham and Greenwich Transport for All Cyclists Travis Perkins Plc Turkish Embassy Tyssen Community School Cycle Training Uber UK Power Networks Unite - London Central Cab Section United Cabbies Group University College London Universitybus UPS Urban Movement Vandome Cycles Victoria Business Improvement District Vision 2020
48 Appendix D: Petitions
We have reproduced the text that was provided with the petition as reported in section 4.3.
Petition text from Wilton Street residents
“We, the undersigned, are the residents of Wilton Street, SW1 and we unanimously and vigorously object to the draft road plans to Grosvenor Place and specifically to Wilton Street. TfL has suggested banning all right turns from Grosvenor Place except into Wilton Street. This will convert Wilton Street from a residential road into a major road thoroughfare carrying all the traffic from Hyde Park Corner going west to Chelsea and onwards south and west out of London. We strongly urge TFL to reconsider. At present, there are three right hand turn options from Grosvenor Place and we propose it will be safer and more efficient road-planning to keep that solution in place as it distributed the traffic in a manageable way that’s already proven to work.”
49
Appendix E: Quality of consultation
No. of What do you think about the quality of this consultation comments
Clarity needed Reason behind asking respondents for personal details 2 Further information request Cost/ benefit analysis 3 Justification for the proposal/ detailed plans/ traffic analysis 21 Negative comments Confusing trying to make sense of all the proposed changes 1 Consultation not well publicised 3 Data/ figures provided out of touch 7 Decision already made 8 Difficulty in navigating the consultation 1 Equality monitoring not needed 1 Lack of data on pedestrian movements and existing flows 2 Lack of detail on timings make figures hard to judge 1 Lack of supporting evidence 4 Lacks information about access to Victoria station from Park Lane 1 Leading questions/biased outlook 2 Length by which the section for turning right into Wilton Street would be extended did not 1 match the description in the text Modelling data does not show what the other alternative routes are that motorists can use if 4 turning restrictions apply No quantification of the supposed safety benefits 1 Poor consultation 7 Poor presentation 4 Printing error 0 Sceptical about how seriously TfL will take the feedback 22 Some of the data provided is misleading/incorrect 1 TfL not fit for purpose 5 Underhanded to run the consultation over summer when many people may be away on 1 holiday Generally Negative 2 Lack of information on changes' impact on air quality 1
50 Map not clear/difficult to understand 1 Proposal/Content/Maps/ not clear 1 Relocating loading bay should refer to Chapel St not Chester St 2 Positive comments Appreciate being consulted 2 Content / Maps clear/ easy to understand 12 Generally positive 5 Suggestions Before & after maps would be useful as well as a list of the negatives that you have 1 considered Better/ wider publicity 1 Consult taxi drivers on improvements to the traffic flow as they use the roads all day long 1 Interactive maps/ images would be useful 1 Questionnaire could specifically ask a question or two about each part of the scheme to get 1 a more focused response Take feedback into account 2 Before/After pictures would be useful 1 Proposals need a rethink/ and another consultation 1 Separate maps for proposed new crossings at Duke of Wellington Place & the traffic 2 changes on Grosvenor Place
51