Cycle Superhighway Route 1 from Tottenham to the City of London Response to Consultation June 2015

1 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Cycle Superhighway Route 1 from Tottenham to the City of London Response to Consultation June 2015

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 2

Executive summary

This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the Cycle Superhighway Route 1 (CS1) consultation, and presents our responses to issues commonly raised.

Between 16 February and 29 March 2015, Transport for London (TfL) consulted on proposals for CS1 between Tottenham and the City of London. We received 1,036 responses to the consultation, of which 77% supported or partially supported our proposals. The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in Appendix A ‘Detailed analysis of responses’, starting on p15.

Issues raised by respondents: • We received a large number of positive comments, supporting the principle of a new Cycle Superhighway between Tottenham and the City of London and/or supporting the proposals • We received comments expressing concern about the scheme, calling for greater interventions to improve cycling safety and for CS1 to route along the A10 because of its directness. Interventions proposed included more segregated cycle tracks and further measures to reduce the speed and volume of motor traffic • There were two petitions objecting to aspects of the scheme and one calling for greater intervention (see p39):

o 3,300-name petition from Stamford Hill residents focusing on perceived danger to children from cyclists, and highlighting potentially negative impact of parking changes

o 220-name petition expressing concern over the closure of the junction of Boleyn Road and Wordsworth Road to through motor traffic

o 50-name petition from De Beauvoir Road residents calling for the closure of De Beauvoir Road to through motor traffic to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety • Some respondents expressed concern over pedestrian safety, particularly the safety of children, which they felt would be compromised by increases in cycling • Some respondents called for reductions in parking with a view to making cycling journeys safer and more comfortable, while others expressed concern that reduced parking would negatively affect residents and/or businesses • Proposals to close some junctions to through motor traffic raised concerns including increased congestion and displacement of motor traffic to nearby roads. Others supported the proposals and/or called for area-wide removal of through motor traffic, saying this would provide benefits for residents, pedestrians and cyclists

3 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

• Some respondents questioned whether the proposed interventions are in line with Superhighway standards, or whether they are more conducive to a Quietway. There were calls for the route to follow the A10, particularly in the northern sections • The section of segregated cycle track along Tottenham High Road and the upgraded pedestrian and cyclists crossings at Apex junction were the most popular proposals, although we received objections to the use of shared pedestrian-cyclist footway due to potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists • Along Balls Pond Road, there was a majority expressing support for Option B, the two-way segregated cycle track

Next steps: After considering all responses, we plan to proceed with the scheme with a number of changes, the most significant of which are: • Removing through motor traffic In response to feedback during consultation, we are working with Hackney Council to close additional junctions to through motor traffic, with a view to improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians, along with environmental benefits. This has long been requested by many residents along the route. Any such measures would be designed in agreement with the council and subject to consultation. We aim to deliver them at the same time as CS1, or soon after • Closure of Broadwater Road to through motor traffic We are working with the London Borough of Haringey to investigate the feasibility of closing the junction of Broadwater Road and Linley Road to through motor traffic. Any such scheme would be subject to further consultation • Hillside Road/East Bank alignment We plan to deliver CS1 to the alignment consulted on, via St Ann’s Road, with a view to launching the route in spring 2016. However, we will also work with the London Boroughs of Hackney and Haringey to develop proposals for improvements along alternative roads via East Bank/Hillside Road. We will consult on these proposals in due course • Balls Pond Road We are progressing with Option B, the two-way segregated cycle track, subject to technical and operational feasibility • Junction of Wordsworth Road/Boleyn Road The London Borough of Hackney will investigate a scheme to reduce through motor traffic from surrounding roads, and make the wider area more cycle-friendly. If an area-wide scheme is not achievable within CS1 timescales, the current proposal to make the junction of Wordsworth Road and Boleyn Road cycle-only will be implemented. Any new proposals to expand the cycle-only ‘filters’ to surrounding streets would be subject to further consultation to ensure they meet local needs • Junction of Ardleigh Road/Culford Road/Englefield Road We are assessing the merits of the design proposed during consultation against alternative suggestions to ensure the final scheme provides as many benefits as possible for different roads Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 4

users. We will determine the best way to engage with local people based on the outcome of our investigations

• Emergency access via Pitfield Street To accommodate the needs of emergency vehicles, particularly those using Old Street Fire Station, we will design the Pitfield Street closure to allow access to emergency vehicles • Two-stage right turn at Old Street We are considering the feasibility of providing a two-stage right-turn facility for cyclists heading south out of Pitfield Street who want to turn west along Old Street A complete list of changes to the proposal is provided in Chapter 4, ‘Conclusion and next steps’, starting on p41. Subject to the further local consultations described above and receiving relevant approvals, we plan to start construction of CS1 in July 2015.

Responses to issues commonly raised: Our response to issues commonly raised during consultation can be found in Appendix B, starting on p85.

5 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Contents

Contents ...... 6 1. Introduction ...... 7 2. Consultation ...... 10 3. Overview of consultation responses ...... 15 4. Conclusion and next steps ...... 41 Appendix A: Detailed analysis of responses ...... 43 Appendix B: Response to issues commonly raised ...... 85 Appendix C: Consultation questions ...... 108 Appendix D: Consultation leaflet ...... 110 Appendix E: Letters to properties affected by changes to parking and loading ...... 114 Appendix F: Consultation emails ...... 114 Appendix G: List of stakeholders emailed ...... 124 Appendix H: Sample petition sheets ...... 123 Appendix I: Press release and media coverage ...... 126 Appendix J: Digital marketing assets...... 127

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 6

1. Introduction

The Mayor of London’s Vision for Cycling, launched in March 2013, contains an ambitious target to double the number of people cycling in Greater London over the next decade. To achieve this growth Transport for London (TfL) is planning a far- reaching programme of cycling provision to make the capital’s streets more attractive for cycling to more people, especially those groups currently under-represented among cyclists, including women, young people and older people.

Cycle Superhighways are TfL’s flagship cycling programme and aim to provide a London-wide network of direct and high-capacity cycle routes, mostly along main roads, although also using residential and low-traffic roads where these offer an optimum solution. The Superhighways provide safe, comfortable and convenient journeys for anyone on a bicycle and essential links between London’s suburbs and the city centre, and for shorter journeys in between.

Working with the London boroughs of Hackney, Haringey and Islington, TfL proposed a major new cycle route between Tottenham and the City of London. CS1 would run from White Hart Lane to Liverpool Street station, forming part of the London-wide network of Cycle Superhighways.

1.1 Purpose of the scheme

Cycling in London has more than doubled in the last decade. However, many existing and potential cyclists are not aware of cycle routes along quieter streets, such as the route that CS1 would follow. CS1 aims to provide safe and convenient journeys along its 11km north-south route, improving conditions for existing cyclists and making cycling attractive to more people.

The southern end of the route will link to the Central London Cycle Grid for onward connections to the proposed Quietway and Cycle Superhighway networks. We will also provide appropriate links and signage where CS1 intersects existing cycle routes.

The changes proposed as part of CS1 would also provide significant benefits for pedestrians, with more and safer crossings, traffic calming, and urban realm improvements.

7 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

1.2 Description of the proposals

The CS1 proposal was for a well-signed and comfortable route away from most motor traffic. The proposals were designed to improve cycling safety and reduce conflict between motor vehicles and cyclists.

For much of its length, CS1 would run along residential streets, away from the majority of car, freight and bus traffic. Where CS1 passes along the busiest roads, cycle lanes and tracks would separate cyclists from motor traffic, and where the cycle route crosses main roads, junctions would be redesigned to make them safer and more convenient for cycling. Traffic-calming measures at many side streets would improve safety for all road users.

1.3 Overview maps

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 8

9 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

2. Consultation

2.1 Consultation structure

This CS consultation ran from 16 February to 29 March 2015. Information on the consultation can be found at tfl.gov.uk/cs1. Because of the length of the route, the proposals were broken down into 19 sections:

• Section 1: Paul Street (south) – Sun Street • Section 2: Paul Street (Blackall Street to Scrutton Street) • Section 3: Paul Street (north) • Section 4: Old Street / Great Eastern Street • Section 5: Pitfield Street (south) • Section 6: Pitfield Street (junction with New North Road) • Section 7: Pitfield Street (north) – De Beauvoir Road • Section 8: De Beauvoir Road – Culford Road • Section 9: Balls Pond Road: Options A and B • Section 10: Wordsworth Road - Kingsbury Road • Section 11: Defoe Road - Wordsworth Road • Section 12: Heathland Road – Defoe Road • Section 13: Holmdale Terrace - Heathland Road • Section 14: Ermine Road - Holmdale Terrace • Section 15: Ermine Road - West Green Road • Section 16: Broad Lane - Town Hall Approach Road • Section 17: Philip Lane • Section 18: Napier Road - Broadwater Road • Section 19: Broadwater Road - White Hart Lane

When responding online, respondents were made to answer a closed question measuring their level of support for the overall proposals. The choices were ‘support’, ‘partially support’, ‘don’t support’, ‘not sure’ or ‘no opinion’. Next, respondents were give an opportunity to provide comments on the overall proposal in an open text field.

In order to encourage respondents to provide feedback on details of the scheme, we asked respondents to express a level of support (‘support’, ‘partially support’, ‘don’t

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 10

support’, ‘not sure’, ‘no opinion’) and provide comments on any or all of the sections. To make responding easier and quicker, we grouped sections together when they were in the same area and had similar characteristics – e.g. we asked respondents to express a level of support for and comment on Sections 1-3 together because these sections involve similar interventions. The questions grouped sections together as follows. A list of questions can be found in Appendix C, starting on p108.

• Sections 1-3: Sun Street to Paul Street • Section 4: Old Street / Great Eastern Street • Sections 5-6: Pitfield Street south • Sections 7-8: Pitfield Street north to Culford Road • Section 9: Balls Pond Road: Option A • Section 9: Balls Pond Road: Option B • Sections 10-14: Wordsworth Road to Ermine Road • Sections 15-16: Tottenham High Road to Town Hall Approach Road • Section 17: Philip Lane • Sections 18-19: Napier Road to White Hart Lane

Respondents were also asked to submit their name, email address, postcode, along with information about their cycling and other travel habits. We also asked for feedback on our consultation materials and the process.

All questions were optional, apart from the question asking for the degree of support for the overall proposal. Other information, such as the respondent’s IP address and the date and time of responding, was recorded automatically. All data is held under conditions that conform to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.

11 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

2.2 Stakeholder meetings

TfL met a number of stakeholder groups before and during consultation to explain our proposals and gather feedback:

• Haringey Cycling Campaign • Hackney Disability Groups

• Haringey Cycling Campaign • Hackney Living Streets • Islington Cyclists Action Group • London Borough of Hackney • London Borough of Haringey • London Borough of Islington • London Cycling Campaign • London Cycling Campaign in Hackney • London Fire Brigade • Metropolitan Police Service • Residents’ associations • Schools

Shackleton ward residents meeting

On 24 March 2015, TfL staff took part in a residents’ meeting organised by Cllr Lufkin of Shackleton ward, Hackney, at The Shakespeare Public House, 57 Allen Road, London, N16 8RY. The meeting was attended by approximately 40 people, including representatives from the Shakespeare Neighbourhood Residents’ Association and The Garden School. Topics raised included removing non-local motor traffic from residential streets and improving pedestrian safety on CS1.

Access All Areas event

On Thursday 2 October 2014, TfL staff involved with the CS1 proposal also attended the Access All Areas event aimed at engaging with disabled and older people who use the TfL network.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 12

2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

On 16 February 2015, detailed information on the proposals was published at tfl.gov.uk/cs1. This consultation information included overview route maps, design drawings for each section, visualisations of the Old Street junction, Culford Road junction and Tottenham High Road, along with descriptions of the proposals, including a traffic impact statement. The consultation information on the website was also made available on paper on request via Freepost.

Further information about changes to parking was added to the website on 4 March 2015. We alerted people to this additional information by including a prominently placed note on the website and by emailing stakeholders and consultation respondents who had responded and had provided email addresses. We also created a web form that allowed anyone who had already responded to the consultation to change their support level or leave additional comments based on the new information.

Paper response forms were available at public events, where members of the project design teams were present to discuss the proposals with visitors and answer questions.

The consultation was publicised via the following channels:

Leaflet to properties: We sent a 16-page colour A5 leaflet outlining the proposals to all addresses within 0.25 miles of the 11km route (approximately 55,000 addresses). The leaflet summarised the proposals and encouraged recipients to find out more and respond via the consultation website. The leaflet and distribution map are reproduced in Appendix D.

Letters to properties affected by changes to parking and loading: We sent a letter and maps detailing proposed changes to parking and loading to 2,350 addresses adjacent to the proposed changes. The letter summarised the proposed parking and loading changes in the recipient’s area and encouraged them to find out more and respond via the consultation website. A sample of these letters is reproduced in Appendix E.

Face-to-face leafleting: Teams representing TfL distributed leaflets in the roads around the venues on the days of the three public events (see below for times/dates).

Emails to individuals: We emailed around 60,000 people on the TfL database who are known to cycle, drive or use transport in the area (see the email in Appendix F). The email briefly described the proposed scheme, and invited recipients to find out more and respond via the consultation website.

13 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Emails to stakeholders: We emailed approximately 1200 stakeholders (see Appendix F for the email and Appendix G for the list of recipients). The email contained a summary of the proposals and a link to the consultation website. Recipients included:

• Police and emergency services • Politicians (national, regional and local) • Local authorities • Disability rights groups • Residents’ associations • Transport user groups • Road operator groups

Press and media: TfL issued a press release on 17 February 2015. This release can be seen in Appendix I, along with links to media coverage.

Other online marketing: Targeted text-messaging and banner adverts on the TfL website. Digital marketing messages are available in Appendix J.

Public drop-in events: We held three events near the proposed route to provide an opportunity for people to give feedback. The events were at:

• Shoreditch Library, 80 Hoxton Street, London N1 6LP Thursday 5 March: 15:00-19:30 • Stamford Hill Library, 120 Stamford Hill, London N16 6QT Monday 9 March: 15:00-19:30 • Marcus Garvey Library, Tottenham Green Centre, 1 Philip Lane, London N15 4JA Saturday 14 March: 11:00-16:00

Individuals and stakeholders were invited to respond by either using the online survey on our website, by emailing TfL at [email protected], or by filling in a paper feedback form (available at events or by post on request).

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 14

3. Overview of consultation responses

3.1 Quantitative summary of responses The sample of data provided by TfL contained 1,036 responses from members of the public to the ‘overall’ aspect of the consultation. Individual sections of the consultation received responses from anywhere from 75% to 79% of the overall pool of respondents, with Section 4 receiving the most feedback and Sections 18-19 receiving the least.

Table 1: Summary of responses to CS1 consultation

Support Resp- Partial Not No Don’t Section(s) Support or partial onses support sure opinion Support support

604 20 72 Overall 1,036 193 (18%) 797 (77%) 145 (14%) (59%) (2%) (7%) 512 74 26 120 78 Sections 1-3 810 586 (72%) (63%) (9%) (3%) (14%) (10%) 554 74 19 80 86 Section 4 813 628 (77%) (68%) (9%) (2%) (10%) (10%) 514 66 27 91 Sections 5-6 804 580 (72%) 106 (13%) (64%) (8%) (3%) (11%) 499 91 18 76 Section 7-8 812 590 (73%) 128 (16%) (62%) (11%) (2%) (9%) Section 9, 387 91 50 98 809 478 (59%) 183 (23%) option A (48%) (11%) (6%) (12%) Section 9, 471 81 43 92 802 552 (69%) 115 (14%) option B (59%) (10%) (5%) (12%) Sections 452 28 118 807 105 (13%) 557 (69%) 104 (13%) 10-14 (56%) (3%) (15%) Sections 459 73 18 150 87 787 532 (68%) 15-16 (59%) (9%) (2%) (19%) (11%) 445 39 25 172 Sections 17 785 484 (62%) 104 (13%) (57%) (5%) (3%) (22%) Sections 446 42 24 171 96 779 488 (63%) 18-19 (57%) (5%) (3%) (22%) (12%)

15 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

3.2 About the respondents

3.2.1 Respondents by postcode 30% of postcodes supplied were from N16 (Stoke Newington, Hackney), 22% from N1 (‘Northern head’ district, Hackney/ Islington/ Camden), 8% from N15 (South Tottenham, Haringey/ Hackney) and 8% from N17 (Tottenham, Haringey).

Figure 1: Most frequently provided postcodes

N16 30% N1 22% N15 8% N17 8% E8 5% E5 2% N4 2% E17 1% N8 1% E1 1% O thers 16%

3.2.2 How often do you cycle? The largest proportion of respondents said they were regular cyclists, with 50% (512) riding on most days and 11% (114) riding about once weekly. Less frequent riders account for 17% (171) of respondents, while 12% (127) never cycle.

Table 2: On average, how often do you cycle? Most days (50%) 512

About once a week (11%) 114

About 1-3 times a month (8%) 80

Less often (9%) 91

Never (12%) 127

Total answered (of 1,036) (90%) 924

Not Answered (of 1,036) (10%) 108

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 16

Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Cycle most days and... Occasionally cycle and... Never cycle and...

10% 2% 12%

6% 31%

65% 4% 87% 84%

 Fully or partially support  Don’t support  Not sure / no opinion / not answered

3.2.3 How respondents said they heard about the consultation? In total 905 respondents said how they heard about the consultation. The most common source was email - 391 respondents (43%) - followed by receiving a leaflet through the door - 191 respondents (21%). 9% (79) of respondents heard about the consultation through Twitter 17% of respondents said they heard about the consultations through an ‘other’ source not listed in Figure 5. Among these ‘other’ sources, the most common were word of mouth from neighbours, friends, via newspapers, Facebook, or via the London Cycling Campaign.

Figure 5: How respondents heard about the consultation

Email 43%

Leaflet through door 21%

Twitter 9%

Online advert 4%

Mobile message (mms) 2%

Public exhibition 2%

Letter 1%

Leaflet from tfl representative 1%

Google (text) advert 0%

Other 17%

17 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

3.2.4 Comments on the consultation process and materials

186 respondents (18% of all respondents) commented on the consultation process and materials. The main themes included:

• 77 (8%) respondents commented on the printed and online materials distributed to publicise and explain the proposals:

o 55 (6%) of these provided positive comments, such as praising the ease of legibility and comprehensive nature of the drawings

o 22 (2%) were negative about the materials, with comments saying the maps were too small, too complicated, or the leaflet did not provide enough information • 58 (6%) respondents used this space to comment on the proposals, often repeating sentiments they had expressed in their overall comments • 34 (3%) of respondents complained they were not given enough notification of the proposals, and called for TfL to make greater efforts to publicise the consultations and public events • 6 (<1%) respondents claimed the consultation process was a waste of time

• 6 (<1%) respondents requested better integration of the website drawings and the question pages to make responding quicker

3.2 Summary of comments

3.3.1 Comments on the overall scheme

Of the 1,036 respondents who responded to our consultation, 650 (63%) provided a comment in the open text box for the overall scheme. A detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix A on p43. Frequently raised issues included:

• Support/positive comments 227 (22% of all respondents) offered positive comments, with the most popular being general positive comments (160 respondents, 16%), those saying the scheme would improve cycling safety (57 respondents, 6%), and respondents saying CS1 would encourage more cycling (24 respondents, 2%)

• Negative comments 95 respondents (9%) provided negative comments towards the overall scheme, including general negative comments (26 respondents, 3%), concerns about poor cyclist behaviour (23 respondents, 2%), saying the proposals do not do enough to improve cycling infrastructure

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 18

(20 respondents, 2%) or safety (18 respondents, 2%)

• Lack of segregation 71 respondents (7%) commented on the level of segregation proposed for the overall route: 49 respondents (5%) disliked that much of the route does not provide full segregation, while 11 (1%) requested more measures to segregate cyclists from motorists

• Superhighway status 47 respondents (5%) claimed the proposed interventions are not in line with ‘Superhighway’ standards or are more conducive to a ‘Quietway’

• Choice of routing and alternative alignments 41 respondents (4%) commented on the CS1 routing, with 36 (2%) disliking that the route comprises back roads, and 18 respondents (2%) suggesting alternative routings, with the most popular being along the A10

• Width of cycling lanes/roads 34 respondents (3%) commented on the width of roads within the scheme. 20 (2%) expressed concern that the roads selected for CS1 may be too narrow for cyclists to comfortably or safely share with motor traffic

• Shared spaces 15 respondents (1%) expressed concern about using shared footways and shared space at various points of the route due to potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, and between motorists and cyclists

• Parking Many respondents called for less parking to make cycling journeys safer and more comfortable. Others were concerned reduced parking would affect residents and businesses

• Pedestrian safety A number of respondents raised concerns about pedestrian safety where there are larger or increasing flows of cyclists, with the safety of school-age children being a particularly concern

• Proposed banned turns Banned turns received support from many cyclists, but there are also objections on the grounds of potential increases to congestion, displacement of motor traffic to nearby roads, and difficulties a accessing properties

3.3.2 Comments on sections of the route

This is an overview of the main issues that respondents raised about the proposals for Sections 1 to 19 and the number of comments as a percentage of responses to

19 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

that section. A detailed, section-by-section, analysis of comments is available in Appendix A on p43. Issues most frequently raised included:

• Cycling safety: Concern over sharing what are perceived as narrow roads with relatively high volumes of motor traffic, with calls for greater intervention including segregation and reductions in parking

• Alternative route alignments: Calls for CS1 to use the A10 or to route via Hillside Road instead of St Ann’s Road

• Apex junction: Positive feedback on the new pedestrian and cyclist crossings over Old Street and Great Eastern Street, although design changes were also proposed

• Closure of southern end of Pitfield Street: Support for the closure because of its positive effect on cycling and walking, with others concerned about potential effects on congestion or having to use alternative routes

• Modal filter on Ardleigh Road: Support for principle of filtering motor traffic from residential streets, but concerns over traffic displacement to nearby roads

• Cycling facilities at Balls Pond Road: Majority favouring two-way segregated option over advisory cycle lanes due to improved safety

• Junction of Boleyn Road and Wordsworth Road: Support from local residents for removing through motor traffic, but concerns about traffic displacement to nearby roads and access to properties. A 220-name petition from healthcare providers expressed concern over closing the junction to through motor traffic

• Cycle track along Tottenham High Road: Support for segregated cycling facility, but concerns over width, shared space and crossings. Also calls for tracks to use carriageway space not footway

• Philip Lane advisory cycle lanes: Concerns over lack of protection from motor traffic for cyclists

3.4 Stakeholder responses Of the 1,036 consultation responses, we identified 47 as coming from stakeholder groups. The stakeholders are grouped according to their interests and then listed in alphabetical order below. Stakeholder comments are also covered in the analysis of section-by-section responses in Appendix A.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 20

Pedestrian and disability groups

Hackney Living Streets Overall Partial support Supported motor traffic closures, traffic-calming (raised tables, humps, tighter junction radii), footway build-outs, new pedestrian crossings, guard rail removal, carriageway resurfacing, decluttering footways. Called for more area-wide reductions in through motor traffic, enlarged footways, lower speed limits, reduction in car parking, on-carriageway cycle parking, cyclist education. Said shared pedestrian- cyclist areas should have explicit pedestrian priority. Opposed parking bays inset into footways.

Section 1 Opposed new bollards on footway at Worship Street.

Section 4 Did not support Called for Apex triangle to be pedestrian-only with cycle tracks on border via switching cyclist and pedestrian crossings, and for additional pedestrian crossing further west on Old Street. Opposed inset loading bay on Old Street because it would conflict with pedestrian desire line, and segregation of track north of Old Street because it would restrict pedestrian movements.

Section 9 Supported Option A Supported with-flow cycle lanes because they are easier for pedestrians to cross. Opposed removal of bus lane and pedestrian crossing in Option B. Called for removal of bollards from Balls Pond Road footway.

Wheels for Wellbeing Overall Partial support Called for alignment along A10 to provide better access to shops on main road for people with mobility problems.

Section 1-3 Partial support Concerned ASL on Wilson Street is not useful for tricycle or handcycle user. Called for CS1 to link to East-West Superhighway; reduction in parking along Paul Street for safer contraflow cycling; and cycle access from Christopher Street to be enlarged to accommodate non-standard cycles.

Section 4 Supported the proposal

Sections 5-6 Not sure Concerned over interaction with perceived traffic volumes.

Sections 7-8 Not sure Concerned wider road with faster motor traffic would not feel safe.

21 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Section 9 Partial support for Option B Concerned ASL on Culford Road not useful for tricycle or handcycle user.

Section 10 Partial support Said proposal was below standard for a Cycle Superhighway.

Section 11-12 Partial support

Section 13 Partial support Called for crossing for Amhurst Park.

Sections 15-16 Partial support Called for cycle track crossings to be suitable for visually impaired people.

Section 17 Did not support Said proposal was below standard for a Cycle Superhighway.

Sections 18-19 Partial support Called for refuges on Lordship Lane to cater for larger cycles such as tandems.

Transport groups

Campaign for Better Transport - London group Overall Supported the proposal

Section 15 Partial support Concerns over shared pedestrian-cyclist areas near Seven Sisters station and Town Hall Approach. More separation and clarity needed.

CTC London Overall Partial support Supported alignment away from A10, with improved wayfinding, 20mph speed limit, traffic reduction and traffic-calming throughout.

Section 8 Called for raised table to calm traffic where CS1 crosses Englefield Road.

Section 9 Preferred Option A to facilitate east-west cycle journeys on Balls Pond Road, with call to improve cycling facilities through land acquisition.

Hackney People on Bicycles Overall Opposed current alignment, calling for segregation along A10 (eventually to Cambridge) to reduce KSIs. Broadly supported perceived “Quietway” proposal, but

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 22

called for more modal filters, prioritisation of cycling at all junctions, reduction in parking, and contrasting coloured carriageway.

Section 1 Called for CS1 to continue south to link to East-West Superhighway. Call for CS1 to have priority at Worship Street, and to widen cycle-only link to Christopher Street.

Section 2-3 Called for extension of parking restriction hours on Paul Street; area-wide filtering north of Worship Street; and delineation of CS1 across shared space linking Paul Street and Old Street.

Section 4 Supported safe route for cycling from CS1 into Rivington Street; filtering of Pitfield Street; and single-phase cycle crossing of Apex junction. Called for two-stage pedestrian crossing on east side of the junction; single pedestrian stage crossing further west along Old Street, with CS1 cycle track between these crossings. Said loading bays should be in front of a protected cycle track.

Section 5 Supported proposal for this section, with call for reduced parking.

Section 6-7 Called for five-way filter to replace roundabout, creating public space with delineated track for CS1. Remove substantial quantities of parking to increase useable road width.

Section 8 Called area-wide filtering including De Beauvoir Road and Ardleigh Road, with CS1 priority across Englefield Road. Removal of some parking and improved traffic- calming.

Section 9 Opposed Option A; Partial support for Option B Called for with-flow footway-level cycle tracks, with two signalled crossings. Option A rejected because no protection for cycling. Provisional support for Option B if eastbound cyclists given access to track; jug handle installed for westbound cyclists to turn north into CS1; and northern end of Culford Road filtered.

Section 10 Called for area-wide filtering and traffic-calming, with bus-only filter at Wordsworth Road junction. Remove parking from north-east side of Matthias Road to improve sight lines.

Section 11 Called for modal filter at Bennett Road; improvements to Butterfield Green cycle track; reduced motor traffic on Nevill Road.

23 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Section 12 Opposed Stoke Newington Church Street and Manor Road crossing proposals.

Section 13-19 Called for segregation on A10; preferred Hillside Road alignment, avoiding St Ann’s Road.

Haringey Cycling Campaign Overall Expressed preference for A10 alignment within Haringey, with segregated cycle track in carriageway, on east side of High Road.

Section 15 Called for on-carriageway cycle tracks, or acquisition of land from Apex House to provide more cycling-pedestrian space. Called for cycle-friendly junctions at West Green Road and Seven Sisters Road, with better links to cycle routes such as LCN54.

Section 16 Called for cyclists to be allowed to use footway to pass buses where Town Hall Approach narrows southbound. Concerned over conflict on shared pedestrian-cyclist area, with more space needed from carriageway.

Section 17 Supported removal of parking bays and 20mph. Called for protected space (armadillos or tracks) on Philip Lane; for signalised right turn into Town Hall Approach; and new traffic island in Napier Road to keep CS1 clear.

Section 18 Called for removal of through-motor-traffic from Broadwater Road; traffic-calmed motor traffic on Strode Road; improved signage throughout, including pedestrian priority at cut-through.

Section 19 Called for “Keep Clear” markings across Broadwater Road-Church Lane junction to prevent traffic blocking cycle movements.

Islington Cyclists Action Group

Section 9 Supported Option B but with access to segregated track for eastbound cyclists on Balls Pond Road and removal of parking from mouth of junction with Kingsbury Road.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 24

Section 10 Called for modal filter on Boleyn Road, allowing only buses, cycles and emergency service vehicles; area-wide point closures on Mildmay Road, St Jude St, and King Henry’s Walk; zebra crossings rather than signals at junction of Boleyn Road and Crossway to speed pedestrian movements; and improvements to urban realm (www.icag.org.uk/2015/mildmay-2).

Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Bicycle Users’ Group Called for protected space for cycling along the A10.

Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Overall Partial support Supported principle of putting cycling facilities on quieter roads, with lower impact on general traffic.

Section 4 Did not support Opposed to Pitfield Street closure because used by taxis, and alternative routes too narrow/residential.

Section 9 Supported Option A Concerned Option B would affect general traffic and be less convenient for cyclists.

London Cycling Campaign Overall Stated that proposal resembles a Quietway more than a Superhighway, and that A10 needs to be made safe. Cyclists should not share roads with motor traffic over 20mph nor 2000 Passenger Car Units/day. Called for use of Cycle Streets (London Cycling Design Standards, section 4.3.6) and reductions in through motor traffic route-wide and in adjoining roads. Called for realignment of Apex corner with modal filter at St.John’s junction; alternate design at Balls Pond Road; and wholesale alignment of Haringey section. Called for connection to EW/NS/CS2 south of Wilson Street, and continuation north to Brantwood Road to link with Enfield mini-Holland – link M25 to the City. Minimum to contraflow on Eldon Street to link to Liverpool Street. Supported sinusoidal humps and carriageway surfacing (where necessary); called for more cycle parking and car parking reduction: and ICAG Mildmay filtering proposal.

Section 1 Called for restored link to Finsbury Square vai Wilson Street/Sun Steet: remove traffic signals and made north-south priority. Called for better access via Christopher Street. Supported improved streetscape, calling for it to extend over whole junction. Called for contraflow lane to be mandatory.

25 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Sections 2-3 Called for area-wide filtering in two-way Paul Street, and Tabernacle Street and Epworth Street to be made two-way. Supported improved layout of Tabernacle Square with call for area-wide filtering.

Section 4 Supported Pitfield Street filter/two-way; banned right turn from Great Eastern Street; single-stage crossing; new public space; connection to Rivington Street. Called for right turn from Pitfield Street to Old Street westbound (jug handle), and supported LCC in Hackney design for Apex.

Section 5 Concerned about east-west rat-running. Called for area-wide filtering, with minimum treatment of Haberdasher Street and Chart Street.

Section 6 Supported removal of roundabout and parking bays. Called for area-wide filtering to revitalise the street economy.

Section 7 Opposed inset bays, which encourage motor traffic speed. Supported on-street cycle parking in Whitmore road, with Car Club bays nearby. Called for area-wide filtering; integration with Canal Walk; early release at Downham Road junction.

Section 8 Supported De Beauvoir Road/Northchurch Terrace design, with adjustments to

southern pedestrian crossing and position of the planters. Called for northern splitter island to match design further south. Supported Ardleigh Road filter. Called for monitoring of Englefield Road to ensure raised table reduces speeds.

Section 9 Concerned narrow general traffic lanes in Option A mean HGVs/buses will run over advisory lanes. Option B increases risk for east west cycling. Called for 1.75m cycle tracks between carriageway and footway levels, with protected crossings at each end (signals or ‘zoucan’).

Section 10 Called for bus filter on Bolyen Road, with filter farther up Wordsworth Road; removal of banned turns at Dalston Junction; more protection from motor traffic at Boleyn Road junction; area-wide filtering.

Section 11 Called for removal of Bennett Road roundabout; area-wide filtering, with cycle streets.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 26

Section 12 Concerned at Stoke Newington Church Street junction, which creates pinch point for east-west cyclists. Called for north-south priority via zebra/toucan crossing/raised table or signalisation. Called for Bouverie Road filtering and signalisation of junction Bouverie Road, Manor Road and Heathland

Section 12-13 Called for alignment via St. Kilda's Road, not Fairholt, and longer table with crossings each side on Bethune Road.

Section 14 Called for alignment via East Bank and Hillside Road; filtering of West Bank and Holmdale Terrace; improved Amhurst Park crossing; and signalised crossing over High Road to Rostrevor Avenue.

Section 15 Called for synchronised junctions at West Green Road and Seven Sisters Road. Concerned about pedestrian conflict at station: metal studs might be preferable to ‘stepping stones’. Opposed 2.4m cycle track under bridge.

Section 16 Called for cyclists to use footway to avoid stationary buses on Town Hall Approach. Called for either land acquisition from college to widen shared area or expand footway into carriageway.bus lane.

Section 17 Called for armadillos or stepped tracks on Philip Lane, with enforced 20mph, plus protected right turn into Town Hall Approach Road.

Section 18 Called for filter for Broadwater Road at junction with Linley Road. Concerned at potential cyclist/pedestrian conflict on cut-through. Called for island at junction of Napier Road and Philip Lane.

Section 19 Concerned at potential for Lordship Lane traffic to block Broadwater Road and Church Road. Called for signalised crossings, allowing segregated tracks, increasing width using land in front of electricity sub-station.

London Cycling Campaign in Hackney Overall Said current alignment is more like a Quietway, while A10 needs improvement for cycling safety. Called for more modal filtering and cycle parking route-wide, with less car parking. Supported Islington Cyclists Action Group proposal to filter Mildmay ward.

27 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Sections 1-3 Supported proposal for new streetscape in Wilson Street and new layout of Tabernacle Square. Called for improved cycle links south of Sun Street; widened entrance to Christopher Street, with modal filter moved west; priority for north-south movements across Worship Street; and for Paul Street to be filtered as part of area- wide programme with roads made two-way.

Section 4 Supported filtering and two-way Pitfield Street; some of the improvements to Apex crossing; and the Rivington Street connection. Concerns over loading bay in Old Street. Called for better layout at Apex/Pitfield Street to provide safer/easier movements for cyclists and pedestrians. Also called for area-wide filtering and removal of the East Road/Provost Street/Vestry Street one-way system.

Section 5-6 Supported traffic-calming and junction upgrades. Called for area-wide filtering, especially St John’s junction, where outside seating desirable, and raised raised table at Ashford Street.

Section 7-8 Supported De Beauvoir Road/Northchurch Terrace proposal, with adjustments, and Ardleigh Road closure. Opposed parking bays set into footway. Called for area-wide filtering with traffic via Englefield Road; reduced parking bays; and better pedestrian crossings on Englefield Road.

Section 9 Called for signalisation of both junctions with Balls Pond Road, with Danish-style 1.75m-wide stepped tracks connecting the two side streets.

Sustrans Overall Partial support Called for CS1 to follow TLRN with on-carriageway cycle tracks. Opposed in-footway cycle track and shared-space due to conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. Opposed advisory cycle lanes.

Section 1 Supported the proposal Supported public space on Wilson Street; raised table and enlarged footways at Worship Street.

Section 2 Supported peak-hour parking restrictions.

Section 3 Supported shared-use linking Tabernacle Street-Paul Street. Called for traffic- calming using trees to narrow carriageway and clear delineation of cycle track.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 28

Section 4 Partial support Supported parallel pedestrian/cycle crossings; Pitfield Street closure; and signal on Rivington Street. Called for pedestrian crossing east of cycle crossing on Old Street; segregated cycle lanes westbound on Old Street, linking with CS1.

Section 5 Partial support Opposed new parking bays.

Section 6 Partial support Supported roundabout removal; raised-entry treatments; new zebra crossing. Concerned about potential for fast-driving. Called for traffic-calming or light- segregation in mitigation.

Section 7 Supported the proposal Supported reprofiled speed humps. Called for monitoring of traffic speeds. Opposed net increase in parking.

Section 8 Supported the proposal Supported redesign of Northchurch Road-De Beauvoir Road junction (improving east-west cycle movements); closure of Ardleigh Road and new raised table; enlarged pedestrian refuge and footway outside school. Opposed moving large planter to create car parking spaces. Called for raised table on De Beauvoir Road; CS1 priority over Englefield Road; and retention of cycle parking.

Section 9 Did not support Option A; Partial support for Option B Supported segregation (3m minimum track width) and signalised crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. Opposed advisory cycle lanes, and lack of facility for east- west cycle journeys. Called for relocation of motorcycle parking bay on Kingsbury Road to improve north-bound cycle movements.

Section 10 Supported realignment of bollards on bridge; increased footway outside school; signalised pedestrian crossings at crossroads; and Wordsworth Road closure, including relocated zebra crossing and raised traffic islands. Called for trial of all- green cycling phase at crossroads and CS1 priority at junction of Kingsbury Road-St Jude Street.

Section 11 Supported raised-entry treatments, increased footways, resurfacing and reprofiled speed humps. Called for removal of mini-roundabout at Bennett Road-Wordsworth Road with north-south T-junction.

Section 12 Supported removal of parking bay on Defoe Road to provide cycle parking; reprofiled humps on Bouverie Road. Called for raised table at Manor Road-Heathland Road junction.

29 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Section 13 Supported raised-entry treatments. Called for refuge islands at West Bank-Holmdale Terrace-Amhurst Park to be closer to junction so cyclists have a safer place to wait; more traffic-calming on Amhurst Park at the approach to and the crossing; and more cycle parking at Stamford Hill station.

Section 14 Supported changed priority at Thorpe Road-Holmdale Road, with call for raised-entry treatment and removal of mini-roundabout at Vartry Road-Holmdale Terrace.

Section 15 Not sure Opposed shared-use areas due to high pedestrian-cyclist flows. Called for with-flow cycle tracks on either side of the carriageway, bypassing bus-stops.

Section 16 Not sure Opposed two-way track within footway where six carriageway lanes for general traffic.

Section 17 Partial support Supported reduced corner radii on Clyde Road. Called for with-flow cycle tracks on A10, otherwise full or light segregation in Philip Lane. Called for cycling contra-flow on Arnold Road.

Section 18 Partial support Called for side-road entry treatments to reinforce cycle priority.

Section 19 Partial support Supported reprofiled speed humps, removal of guard rail, removable bollards, and changed priority at King Street-Church Lane junction. Opposed excessive central hatching on Lordship Lane. Called for traffic-calming at staggered crossing and two- stage right turn for cyclists at junction of Church Road-High Road-Park Lane.

Tower Hamlets Wheelers Supported responses from London Cycling Campaign and LCC in Hackney.

Emergency services

City of London Police Overall Supported the proposal

Section 1 Supported the proposal Consented for gate across Wilson Street that forms part of the City Traffic and Environmental Zone to be replaced by bollards.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 30

London Fire Brigade, Hackney Concerned over potential effect of CS1 and Old Street Roundabout schemes on emergency response times from Shoreditch Fire Station after closure of Kingsland Fire Station. Called for Pitfield Street to remain open to emergency vehicles, and an alternative to cycling facilities that leave only one lane eastbound along Old Street.

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Overall Supported Mayor’s Vision for Cycling. Requested traffic modelling for CS1 construction and route, and called for important routes to remain open during construction.

Healthcare providers and businesses

Allen Pharmacy Section 10 Objected to modal filter between Boleyn Road/Matthias Road and Wordsworth Road, saying it would adversely affect access to the Barrett’s Grove GP Practice and increase delivery times.

Barrett's Grove GP Practice Section 10 Objected to modal filter between Boleyn Road/Matthias Road and Wordsworth Road, saying it would add 10-15 minutes to local journeys, adversely affecting healthcare providers and patients. Organised a petition that opposed plans to “close Wordsworth Road to all motor vehicles” and “prevent access to Barrett’s Grove Surgery” (see p39 for petition details).

Boots Pharmacy, 50 Newington Green Section 10 Objected to modal filter between Boleyn Road/Matthias Road and Wordsworth Road, saying it would add 10-15 minutes to local journeys, adversely affecting GPs’ practice and patients.

City and Hackney Clinical Commissioning Group Section 10 Objected to changes to parking and access on the grounds that the proposals could have a detrimental effect on the ease with which patients access Barrett’s Grove Surgery and ease with which the Practice conducts duties.

31 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

City and Hackney Local Medical Committee Section 10 Called for a reconsideration of parking changes on the grounds they would have a detrimental effect on health and social care providers by preventing access to the surgery from the north.

Local authorities

London Borough of Haringey Overall Support Supported southern section from Hackney to Tottenham Green, and expressed the view that there are some localised improvements that could be made to the proposals north of Town Hall Approach Road.

Section 14 Called for investigation into feasibility of a more direct route via Hillside Road/High Road as an alternative avoid St Ann’s Road. Called for re-surfacing of Holmdale Terrace. Supported acquisition of section of Ermine Road from High Road to the road closure as public highway.

Sections 15-16 Supported dedication of land by the developer of Apex House, Grainger PLC, to enable footway widening to improve the cycle track. Called for review of signal timings at Seven Sisters Road. Concerned about shared use near Seven Sisters. Called for improved signage to link with existing Tottenham cycle routes. Supported enhancement to allow cyclists to bypass stationary southbound buses on Town Hall Approach Road.

Sections 17-19 Concerned this section of CS1 would not attract sufficient numbers of new cyclists because of deviation from the 'desire line' (the High Road) is too great and that parts of the route would not be adequately safe for cyclists and other road users. Called for development of wider proposals taking into account the current road layout in Bruce Grove ward area, addressing pinch points for the W4 bus route, undertaking a parking review linked to Spurs football ground redevelopment and the ongoing work alongside the GLA/TfL on the regeneration in North Tottenham that include significant infrastructure and urban renewal.

London Borough of Islington Overall Supported improvements to cycling facilities.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 32

Section 9 Noted Balls Pond Road is abnormal load route and accommodates 76 buses per hour. Concerned Options A and B both propose loss of 75 metres of bus lane and parking, which could affect local businesses. Concerned segregated option is inadequate for cycling (narrow, with no access for eastbound cyclists) and could create conflict with pedestrians. Called for engagement with businesses and residents.

Section 10 Called for TfL to consider ICAG plans for road closures and public realm improvements at Kingsbury Road, St Jude Street, King Henry Walk and Mildmay Road as part of CS1.

Local businesses

Bootstrap Company Overall Supported the proposal Highlighted Old Street section as appealing.

Bounce Leisure Overall Not sure

Sections 1-6 Did not support Said proposals for sections 5 would make deliveries to Charles Square entrance difficult. HGVs would have to use Coronet Street-Boot Street.

Casa Leal Overall Called for safer plans, with reduction in rat-running on Boleyn Road, Mildmay Road, St Jude St, and King Henry’s Walk by installing trees or bollards. Also called for pedestrian area on King Henry’s Walk, more bike parking, seating, and urban greening to maximize the benefits for Mildmay residents.

Cyclelab Overall Supported the proposal

Section 1-3 Partial support Concerned whether scheme would allow for current location of two Plantlock planters/cycle parking units outside business premises on Pitfield Street.

33 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Donaldson/Watters Overall Partial support

Sections 1-6 Support the proposal

Section 7-8 Partial support Concerned Ardleigh Road closure would send motor traffic up Culford Road alongside cycle traffic. Noted that permitting right turns on to Southgate Road might solve problem.

Section 9-19 Supported the proposal

Flying Dutchman Bikes Overall Supported the proposal

Sinclair Innovation Overall Supported the proposal

Sections 1-19 Supported the proposal

Wilson Solicitors Overall Called for segregated cycling along High Road for commuters, reduced parking spaces

Section 16 Concerned about shared use conflicts, especially near college/station.

Section 17 Partial support Concerned advisory cycle lanes on Philip Lane would be dangerous, and scheme does not address need for cycle track on Bruce Grove. Call to acquire land in front of the swimming pool; prohibit car parking between Napier Road and Arnold Road; light control between Arnold Road and Napier Road; and ban on vehicles turning right out of Town Hall Approach into Philip Lane.

Section 18 Concerned that cyclists face danger in Broadwater Road and Napier Road from oncoming motor traffic and dooring. Called for signalised crossing across Lordship Lane; extended double yellows at junctions; pedestrian island on sharp bend between Napier Road and Strode Road.

Section 19 Concerned cyclists will use A10 to travel south.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 34

Local heritage and residents’ organisations

Clyde Area Residents' Association, Sustainable Haringey Overall Called for A10 to become 20mph, and to keep cyclists on main road. Opposed changing recently updated High Road pedestrian environment.

Section 18 Called for improvement in cycling safety at Napier Road-Philip Lane junction.

De Beauvoir Gardeners Overall Partial support Concerned route doesn't improve east-west cycling, only north-south journeys.

Section 7-8 Objected to removal of raised planter, maintained by community gardening organisation since 2000. Concerned that new trees not necessary due to four mature large trees near the crossing. Called for cycle parking to be relocated away from pedestrian crossing to increase space. Called alternative proposal: remove three parking places from De Beauvoir Road entrance to Northchurch Terrace, and increase parking places by three further down Northchurch Terrace by making them perpendicular to the pavement, plus expanded footway improve crossings.

Kingsland Conservation Area Advisory Committee Overall Partial support

Section 8 Concerned about traffic displacement caused by Ardleigh Road closure; conflict between east-west and north-south cycling flows at Culford Road-Northchurch Terrace junction; and perceived threat to children entering/exiting school from cycle traffic. Opposed removal of raised planter and unnecessary signage in Conservation Area. Called for new yellow lines to be pale primrose.

Shakespeare Neighbourhood Residents’ Association Section 11 Concerned over risk to pedestrians from cyclists at Allen Road entrance to Butterfield Green; motor traffic danger at Nevill Road-Walford Road junction; and illegal parking at Nevill Road/Barbauld Road junction. Called for Pedestrian Priority signage, marked pedestrian crossings, raised junctions, improvement of sight lines, and reduction of parking bays.

35 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Tottenham Civic Society Overall Supported improved cycling provision in Tottenham.

Section 15 Opposed any footway reduction between South Tottenham station and West Green Road, and the removal of mature trees. Concerned about potential cyclist-pedestrian conflict at Seven Sisters tube entrance and near Tesco. Called for reduced motor traffic on A10, and provision of on-carriageway segregated cycle tracks.

Local politicians

Joanne McCartney AM, Assembly Member for Enfield and Haringey Section 4 Supported investment in cycling. Called for redesign in line with comments from Haringey Cycling Campaign.

Section 15 Concerned about high pedestrian flows around cycle track near South Tottenham station.

Section 18 Concerned about potential conflict between cyclists and W4 bus.

Cllr Michelle Gregory (Shacklewell ward, LB Hackney) Overall Called for proposal to address the concerns over access to Barrett's Grove Surgery. Also requested a risk assessment for the proposal as it concerns emergency access to roads around Wordsworth Road.

Cllr Michael Levy, Cllr for (Springfield ward, LB Hackney) Overall Did not support Concerned CS1 would endanger safety of all pedestrians.

Cllr Richard Lufkin (Shackleton ward, LB Hackney) Overall Supported the proposal

Section 10-14 Supported the proposal Supported modal filter on Wordsworth Road to reduce rat-running. Concerned about displacing motor traffic to nearby roads. Called for area-wide filtering, including Pellerin Road and Bennett Road.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 36

Cllr Harvey Odze Springfield ward, LB Hackney) Overall Did not support Concerned CS1 would be a danger to children, and routing across Amhurst Park from West Bank to Holmwood Terrace would cause collisions. Opposed any reduction in parking bays.

Cllr Benzion Papier (Stamford Hill West ward, LB Hackney) Overall Did not support Concerend CS1 would be a danger to children in an area with many schools.

Cllr James Peters, (De Beauvoir ward, LB Hackney) Overall Supported the proposal Supported promotion of cycling in London, Hackney and De Beauvoir. Called for more education for cyclists on Northchurch Road/Terrace.

Section 8 Supported closure at Ardleigh Road, but concern over motor traffic displacement to Culford Grove/Road (including primary school entrance). Supported area-wide closures to reduce rat-running in Culford Grove/Road, Englefield Road and Buckingham Road. Called for measures to reduce rat-running in De Beauvoir Road using modal filter at Northchurch terrace, with benefits for residents and east-west cyclists. Called for enforcement of large vehicle weight restrictions on Culford Road and for scheme to respect conservation area by not installing obtrusive signposting.

Section 9 Supported Option B Supported segregation to attract more cyclists, given that buses would not be affected.

Cllr Simche Steinberger (Springfield ward, Hackney) Overall Did not support Concerned increasing cycle traffic would make streets dangerous for children, especially going to and from school. Organised a 3,300-name petition objecting to CS1 (see p38 for petition details).

Cllr Vincent Stops (Hackney Central ward, Hackney) Section 4 Concerned proposal does not resolve pedestrian-cyclist conflict, making cyclist right turns from Pitfield Street into Old Street problematic. Also, that scheme removes useful cycle facility, westbound bus lane in Old Street. Proposed alternative for this junction.

37 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Section 9 Opposed removal of bus lane, because of potential delays; opposed priority for north-south cycle journeys at expense of east-west cycle journeys. Opposed moving pedestrian crossing and introduction of kerbs into the carriageway, which inhibit pedestrian crossings. Called for bus lane to be 24 hours and enforcement of 20mph.

National heritage

English Heritage Overall Called for signage and other wayfinding not to harm setting of historic assets, and for more improvements to public realm.

Section 3 Called for reduction of bollards, use of high-quality natural materials, and co- ordinated tree-planting to provide barrier to road in sympathy with monument.

Section 16 Called for urban realm improvements, retention of mature trees, and removal of clutter. Concerned about trees in the centre of cycle track due to potential for root/maintenance problems.

Schools

Our Lady and St Joseph Primary School Overall Partial support

Section 8: Did not support Opposed closing Ardleigh Road junction due to potential displacement of motor traffic to Culford Road.

St Jude and St Paul's CE VA Primary School Overall Supported the proposal

Section 10 Concerned about danger posed to children leaving or arriving at school from increased cycling traffic. Supported widening pavement outside school. Called for zebra or marked crossing on bridge, and no parking/dropping zone outside school.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 38

3.5 Petitions

3.5.1 Stamford Hill residents Cllr Simche Steinberger of Springfield ward, Hackney, submitted a 3,300-name petition protesting against the perceived impact of CS1 on local residents in the Stamford Hill area.

The petition text opposed CS1 passing through Holmdale Terrace, Amhurst Park, West Bank, Cranwich Road, Dunsmure Road, Fairholt Road and Heathland Road, registering four objections:

1. Increased cycling as a consequence of CS1 would pose a danger to pedestrians, particularly children walking to schools in an area with a high density of children

2. The proposal would reduce parking in Cranwich Road and West Bank, harming businesses in Dunsmure Road

3. The proposal would reduce parking Fairholt Road and Heathland Road, creating inconvenience for residents

4. Increased cycling as a consequence of CS1 would increase traffic congestion during peak hours, increasing danger to all road users

An example petition sheet can be found in Appendix H on p123.

3.5.2 Barrett’s Grove GP Practice Barrett’s Grove GP Practice submitted a 220-name petition protesting against the perceived impact of the proposal to ban motor traffic movements between Boleyn Road and Wordsworth Road.

The petition text was as follows: “Please sign this petition if you are against TfL proposals to close Wordsworth Road to all motor vehicles. If closed this will prevent access to Barretts Grove Surgery.”

An example petition sheet can be found in Appendix H on p124.

3.5.3 De Beauvoir Road residents

A petition organised and signed by residents of De Beauvoir Road was submitted with 50 signatures. It raised concerns over increasingly heavy volumes of motor

39 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

traffic using De Beauvoir Road – much of it non-local traffic – presenting increased risk to pedestrians and cyclists, especially children.

The petition welcomed existing proposals (as part of CS1) to block through motor traffic from the southern end of Pitfield Street and at the Ardleigh Road/Culford Road junction with Englefield Road. It called for a further closure to motor traffic on De Beauvoir Road between Englefield Road and Downham Road, with the junction of St Peter's Church / Northchurch Terrace named as a suggestion.

An example petition sheet can be found in Appendix H on p125.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 40

4. Conclusion and next steps

We received 1,036 responses to the consultation, of which 77% supported or partially supported our proposals. After considering all responses, we plan to proceed with the scheme with a number of changes, the most significant of which are: • Removing through motor traffic In response to feedback during consultation, we are working with Hackney Council to close additional junctions to through motor traffic, with a view to improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians, along with environmental benefits. This has long been requested by many residents along the route. Any such measures would be designed in agreement with the council and subject to consultation. We aim to deliver them at the same time as CS1, or soon after • Closure of Broadwater Road to through motor traffic We are working with the London Borough of Haringey to investigate the feasibility of closing the junction of Broadwater Road and Linley Road to through motor traffic. Any such scheme would be subject to further consultation • Hillside Road/East Bank alignment We plan to deliver CS1 to the alignment consulted on, via St Ann’s Road, with a view to launching the route in spring 2016. However, we will also work with the London Boroughs of Hackney and Haringey to develop proposals for improvements along alternative roads via East Bank/Hillside Road. We will consult on these proposals in due course • Balls Pond Road We are progressing with Option B (two-way segregated cycle track), subject to technical and operational feasibility • Junction of Wordsworth Road/Boleyn Road The London Borough of Hackney will investigate a scheme to reduce through motor traffic from surrounding roads, and make the wider area more cycle-friendly. If an area-wide scheme is not achievable within CS1 timescales, the current proposal to make the junction of Wordsworth Road and Boleyn Road cycle-only will be implemented. Any new proposals to expand the cycle-only ‘filters’ to surrounding streets would be subject to further consultation to ensure they meet local needs • Junction of Ardleigh Road/Culford Road/Englefield Road We are assessing the merits of the design proposed during consultation against alternative suggestions to ensure the final scheme provides as many benefits as possible for different roads users. We will determine the best way to engage with local people based on the outcome of our further investigation

41 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

• Emergency access via Pitfield Street To accommodate the needs of emergency vehicles, particularly those using Old Street Fire Station, we will design the Pitfield Street closure to allow access to emergency vehicles • Two-stage right turn at Old Street We are considering the feasibility of providing a two-stage right-turn facility for cyclists heading south out of Pitfield Street who want to turn west along Old Street • Town Hall Approach Road We will provide a short length of off-carriageway cycle track at the southern end of Town Hall Approach Road to enable cyclists to access the crossing facility and continue southbound on CS1. This would remove any interaction with southbound bus services as they turn into Tottenham High Road • Design changes north of Tottenham Green Following feedback received regarding the proposed route north of Tottenham Green, TfL are continuing to work with the London Borough of Haringey to ensure any final design reflects local needs. Any significant changes proposed will be subject to additional consultation as necessary • Butterfield Green/Allen Road We are investigating measures to improve safety for all road users, such as additional traffic-calming on both Nevill Road and Wordsworth Road and/or changes to parking restrictions • Tottenham High Road We will implement a revised design that includes clear demarcation running along the middle of the two-way cycle track to show the two separate lanes running either side of the trees • Christopher Street We will remove the bollard from the junction between Wilson Street and Christopher Street, improving access to Finsbury Square for cyclists • Charles Square loading bay The proposed loading bay in Charles Square, at the junction with Pitfield Street, has been removed from the proposal • Junction of Paul Street and Tabernacle Street The shared space scheme linking these two streets to Tabernacle Square will no longer be implemented as part of CS1 due to this being a traffic management route for developments currently under construction in Shoreditch. However, we will update the current design with a wider segregated contraflow cycle lane. The London Borough of Hackney expects to redesign the Tabernacle Square in the future, although not within the CS1 timeframe • Resurfacing We are reviewing requirements on a site-by-site basis, and resurfacing will only take place where necessary

TfL’s responses to issues commonly raised in consultation can be found in Appendix B starting on p85.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 42

Subject to the granting of relevant approvals, and also subject to local consultation in some cases, we plan to start construction in July 2015 with completion due in spring 2016. We will write to local residents and businesses with details of any works planned in their area.

43 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Appendix A: Detailed analysis of responses

Overall scheme: Tottenham to the City of London

Number of respondents: 1,036

Figure 6: Overall support for CS1

59%

18% 14% 7% 2%

Support Partially Not sure No opinion Don't support support

Details of open-ended responses

Overall scheme The ‘overall’ open text box received the highest response rate of the consultation, with 61% of all consultation respondents providing open-ended feedback on the scheme as a whole. The breakdown of support by comments is similar to the overall quantitative support for the scheme. Prominent issues arising from the comments include: • Strong desire for a safe cycle route from north London to the city centre • Concerns over perceived low level of intervention to improve cycling safety • Calls for a segregated main road route instead of one using residential roads • Concerns the route would not have the optimum level of motor vehicle parking

Overall Positive comments: 227 respondents (22%), including Haringey Council and Islington, provided positive comments towards the overall scheme: • Non-specific positive comments (160 respondents, 16%) • Will improve cycling safety or encourage more cycling (81 respondents, 8%) • Will improve the environment (7 respondents, 1%) • Will improve public health (5 respondents, <1%)

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 44

Negative comments: 101 respondents (10%) provided negative comments on the overall scheme, including: • 44 respondents (5%) said the proposal would not do enough to improve cycling or cycling safety • 26 respondents (3%) left non-specific negative comments • 23 respondents (2%) left negative comments about poor cyclist behaviour • 8 respondents (1%) said the proposal would worsen pollution

Cycling safety: 76 respondents (8%) provided feedback in relation to cycle safety: • 65 respondents (7%), including Sustrans, commented on the level of segregation proposed for the overall route, calling for greater intervention to improve cyclist safety • 13 respondents (<1%) felt it was dangerous for cycling, specifically mentioning the use of shared space as a danger for cyclists • 11 respondents (1%) commented on the width of cycle lanes and roads within the scheme: o 5 respondents (<1%) requested that cycle lanes are wide enough for cyclists to overtake each other o 4 respondents (<1%) expressed concern that the roads selected for CS1 may be too narrow for cyclists to use comfortably or share safely with motorists o 3 respondents (<1%) were pleased with the allocation of road space • 9 respondents (1%) expressed concern about the risks of cycling next to parked cars, including from ‘dooring’

Superhighway status: 47 respondents (5%), including the London Cycling Campaign and LCC in Hackney, said the proposed interventions are not in line with ‘Superhighway’ standards or are more conducive to a ‘Quietway’.

Route alignment: 41 respondents (4%) commented on the CS1 routing: • 36 (2%), including Hackney People on Bikes and Wheels for Wellbeing, disliked that the route comprises back roads, takes cyclists away from shops and local amenities, and/or is not direct or fast enough • 18 respondents (2%), including Haringey Cycling Campaign, Kings Lynn Cycling Campaign, London Cycling Campaign, LCC in Hackney, Sustrans, and Wilson Solicitors, supported a route along the A10

45 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

• CTC London and the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association supported the proposed alignment, away from the A10 • Clyde Area Residents’ Association called for cycling on the A10, but with a 20mph speed limit

Parking: 35 respondents (4%) provided comments regarding proposed changes to motor vehicle parking provision or changes they would like to see:

• 28 respondents (3%), including Hackney Living Streets, Hackney People on Bikes, London Cycling Campaign, LCC in Hackney and Wilson Solicitors, called for further reductions in car parking to improve safety and comfort for cyclists • 6 respondents (1%) opposed any reduction in parking due to perceived negative impacts on businesses and residents • 3 respondents (<1%) welcomed the proposed changes to parking

Trees: 18 respondents (2%) commented on the impact on trees along the route:

• 7 respondents (1%) expressed concern about the removal of trees • 6 respondents (1%) called for more trees to be planted, at the expense of parking bays or to prevent through motor traffic • 4 respondents (<1%) warning against planting specific locations such as within the cycle track on Tottenham High Road or near junctions • 2 respondents (<1%) appreciated the proposals to plant additional trees

Removal of through motor traffic: 17 respondents discussed ‘modal ‘filters’ and the removal of through motor traffic

• 15 respondents (2%), including CTC London, Hackney Living Streets, Hackney People on Bikes, London Cycling Campaign and LCC in Hackney, called for greater intervention to prevent ‘rat-running’ motor traffic • 2 respondents, including Barrett’s Grove GP Practice, opposed any banned movements for motor traffic

Shared footways: 17 respondents mentioned shared footways:

• 15 respondents (1%), including Hackney Living Streets, Hackney People on Bikes, London Cycling Campaign and Sustrans, expressed concern about shared footways due to potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 46

• 2 respondents (1%) were pleased with the introduction of shared footways

Buses: 15 respondents (2%) mentioned buses or bus stops in their comments:

• 7 respondents (1%) expressed concern at negative impacts of CS1 on buses in terms of delays and congestion • 5 respondents (1%) expressed concern about moving bus stops • 2 respondents (<1%) called for an in-carriageway segregated cycle track to replace bus lane on Tottenham High Rod

Tottenham High Road cycle track: 13 respondents (1%) commented on the changes proposed for this area in their overall comments:

• 5 (<1%) were positive towards these sections for providing full segregation • 5 (<1%) expressed concern about trees within the cycle track • 3 (<1%) expressed concern about possible pedestrian-cyclist conflicts near Seven Sisters Underground station

Closure of Pitfield Street: 12 respondents (1%) expressed concern about closing Pitfield Street due to the potential for increased traffic along other roads and higher congestion near Old Street, with the London Fire Brigade calling for Pitfield Street to remain open to emergency vehicles

Extending CS1 north or south: 11 respondents (1%) requested continuation of CS1 beyond the current proposal:

• 6 respondents (<1%),, including Hackney People on Bikes and London Cycling Campaign, wanted CS1 to link to existing cycling infrastructure such as other existing or proposed Cycle Superhighways. • 5 respondents (1%), including the London Cycling Campaign, called for CS1 to extend to destinations farther north, such as Enfield

Speed humps: 11 respondents (1%) mentioned CS1’s proposals for speed humps:

• 8 respondents (1%) who mentioned humps supported speed reduction measures and the improved profile proposed for CS1 • 3 respondents (<1%) opposed speed humps as either ineffective or uncomfortable

47 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Impact on pedestrians: 10 respondents (1%) commented on how the scheme could impact pedestrians.

• 5 (<1%) respondents highlighted the number of schools and were concerned the impact of increased numbers of cyclists would have on for safety of children and other pedestrians: o 2 of these respondents (<1%) felt the proposals do not do enough to improve protection and amenity for pedestrians. • 2 respondents (<1%) would prefer to provide cycling space on roads rather than on pavements and disliked loss of footway space for cycling or having to share space with cyclists • Hackney Living Streets commented that proposals that benefited cyclists also often benefited pedestrians because they tackled motor traffic dominance

20mph: 9 respondents (1%), including Hackney Living Streets, commented on the benefits of 20mph speed limits for improving road safety

Improving cycling on other roads: 8 respondents (1%) requested cycling improvements for non-CS1 roads, with these roads mentioned: A10, River Lea towpath, New North Road (Liverpool Street to Shoreditch High Street), and the junction of Amhurst Park and Seven Sisters Road

Impact on general traffic: 8 respondents mentioned impact on traffic in their overall comments:

• 5 respondents (<1%), including London Fire Brigade and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, expressed concern about the scheme’s potential impact on traffic due to proposals such as the closure of Pitfield Street or feeling that there is not enough road space to accommodate cyclists and motorists • 3 respondents (<1%) felt that the scheme could ease congestion on local roads.

Traffic-calming: 7 respondents discussed the potential impact of traffic-calming measures (such as raised tables or tighter junctions):

• 5 respondents (<1%) ,including CTC London, Hackney Living Streets, Hackney People on Bikes, London Cycling Campaign and Sustrans, supported existing or more measures to reduce motor traffic speeds

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 48

• 2 respondents (<1%) questioned the need or effectiveness of traffic-calming measures

Cycle parking: 7 respondents called for improved cycle parking provision.

Resurfacing: 6 respondents commented on plans to resurface roads:

• 3 respondents (<1%), including Hackney Living Streets and the London Cycling Campaign, supported the planned resurfacing • 3 respondents (<1%) were dismissive of resurfacing as not a satisfactory alternative to greater cycle safety interventions

Extending CS1: 5 respondents (<1%) requested continuation of CS1 north or south of its current boundaries:

• 3 respondents (<1%), including Hackney People on Bikes and the London Cycling Campaign, called for the route to extend farther south to link with existing cycling infrastructure in Central London, the proposed East-West Superhighway and/or Liverpool Street • 2 respondents (<1%), including the London Cycling Campaign, suggested linking to destinations further north such as Enfield

49 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Sections 1-3: Sun Street to Paul Street

Overview

To view larger versions of these images, please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs1

Key proposals:

• Motor-traffic-free area on Wilson Street for pedestrians and cyclists • Shared space junction where Paul Street meets Tabernacle Street • Traffic-calming at side streets and junctions • Changes to parking restrictions

Number of respondents: 810

Figure 7: Support for sections 1-3

61%

16% 10% 9% 4%

Support Partially Not sure No opinion Don't support support

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 50

Details of open-ended responses

Overall Of the 810 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 136 (17%) provided relevant comments in the open text box (with ‘relevant’ being defined as any comment that was not ‘n/a’ or similar). The most frequently reported section-specific issues raised in relation to Sections 1- 3 are below.

Positive comments: There were 22 non-specific positive comments (3%):

• 17 respondents (2%) offered generic support or praise, such as “amazing” • 8 respondents (1%) said CS1 would improve safety or encourage cycling

Negative comments: 6 respondents (1%) gave non-specific negative feedback on the proposals, such as “Rubbish”.

Cycling safety: 34 respondents (2%) provided feedback in relation to cycle safety, with 30 expressing negative views and 3 saying the scheme would improve safety: • 25 respondents (3%) were concerned that the lack of segregation combined with busy roads and the presence of many parked vehicles would put cyclists at risk from collisions or ‘dooring’ • 7 respondents (<1%) opposed the use of shared space at Tabernacle Square, saying it would be dangerous for cyclists • London Cycling Campaign and LCC in Hackney called for area-wide in Paul Street filtering to reduce through motor traffic

Major junctions: 25 respondents (3%) commented on junctions in these sections:

Paul Street/Worship Street: 19 respondents commented (2%) on this junction:

• 13 respondents (2%), including Hackney People on Bikes and LCC in Hackney called for Paul Street to have priority over Worship Street • 4 respondents (<1%), called for removal of parking bays from Worship Street to improve sightlines • City of London Police supported the measures to retain the City Traffic and Environmental Zone • Wheels for Wellbeing called for the proposals to accommodate non- standard cycles

51 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Leonard Circus: 6 respondents (1%) commented on the Leonard Circus junction, calling for improved cycle safety and increased traffic-calming measures or segregation.

Paul Street/Tabernacle Street: Six respondents (1%) called for safety improvements or a ban on motor vehicles for this junction:

• LCC in Hackney and Sustrans supported the proposal, but with greater traffic-calming • English Heritage called for use of natural materials and supported tree- planting at this location

Extending CS1 southwards: 19 respondents (2%), including Hackney People on Bikes, London Cycling Campaign and LCC in Hackney, called for CS1 to continue southbound to link to the existing or proposed Superhighways or Liverpool Street.

Paul Street contraflow: 14 respondents (1%) commented that the existing contraflow was not safe for cycling, with vehicles parking in it. London Cycling Campaign called for contraflow on Wilson Street to be made mandatory

Car parking: 12 respondents (1%) commented on proposed changes to car parking:

• 10 respondents (1%) called for more restrictions to parking due to risk to cyclists from lack of space or cycling near parked cars • 2 respondents (<1%) opposed the new parking restrictions

Route alignment: 8 respondents (1%) commented upon the route alignment, all of whom disliked the route using back roads as they consider it does not offer easy access to shop fronts along the main road.

Removal of contraflow lane from Tabernacle Square: 7 respondents (1%) were concerned by the removal of the contraflow lane and its replacement with shared space, which they felt would increase risk for cyclists

Superhighway status: 5 respondents (<1%) said the proposed interventions are not in line with ‘Superhighway’ standards or are more conducive to a ‘Quietway’.

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 52

Resurfacing: 3 respondents (<1%) welcomed the resurfacing of the road and said it was needed.

Link to Christopher Street: 3 respondents (<1%), which were Hackney People on Bikes, London Cycling Campaign and LCC in Hackney, called for improvements to the cycling link into Christopher Street.

Removal of through motor traffic: Hackney People on Bikes and LCC in Hackney called for more widespread removal of motor traffic from streets in these sections.

Signage: English Heritage called for signage and other assets not to harm historic settings.

53 Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation

Section 4: Old Street / Great Eastern Street

Overview

To view a larger version of this image, please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs1

Key proposals: Number of respondents: 1,326 • Wider and separated cyclist and Figure 8: Support for section 4 pedestrian crossings • Closure of southern end of 66% Pitfield Street to motor vehicles • Improved cycling facilities on Old Street, Great Eastern Street and Rivington Street 10% 11% 10% • Loading bays moved 4%

• Trees removed and new trees Support Partially Not sure No opinion Don't support support planted

Cycle Superhighway Route 1  Response to Consultation 54

Details of open-ended responses

Overall Of the 813 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 205 (26%) provided relevant comments in the open text box (with ‘relevant’ being defined as any comment that was not ‘n/a’ or similar). The most frequently reported section-specific issues raised in relation to Section 4 are below.

Positive comments: There were 54 non-specific positive comments (7%) on the proposals:

• 46 respondents (6%) offered generic support or praise (e.g. “Excellent”) • 9 respondents (1%) said the proposal would improve safety or encourage cycling • 5 respondents (1%) said Section 4 is the best element of the CS1 proposal

Closure of south end of Pitfield Street to motor traffic: 39 respondents (2%) gave feedback on this part of the proposal:

• 19 respondents (2%), including the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, expressed concern about the potential impact of the closure on motor traffic • 10 respondents (1%) expressed concern about the proposal potentially displacing motor traffic to other nearby roads • 10 respondents (1%), including Hackney People on Bikes, London Cycling Campaign, LCC in Hackney and Sustrans, approved of the removal of motor traffic • 3 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about increased emissions related to congestion

Impact on pedestrians: 28 respondents (3%) commented on how the proposals may affect pedestrians:

• 14 respondents (2%) said the proposals would improve the pedestrian experience by reducing conflict with cyclists due to separate crossings • 11 respondents (1%) said pedestrians have not been catered for or that they would be more at risk of conflict with cyclists • 6 respondents (1%) felt that the proposals are confusing or complicated, in particular changes for pedestrians • 3 respondents (<1%) suggested alternatives, such as segregation, should be put in place to prevent cyclists coming into conflict with pedestrians

55 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Separate cyclist and pedestrian crossings: 23 respondents (2%) commented on the proposal for wider and separated cyclist and pedestrian crossings for cyclists heading north-south from Pitfield Street to Paul Street:

• 15 (1%), including Sustrans, supported this proposal, saying it would reduce conflict at a busy location and was a significant improvement • 6 (1%) thought the new crossings were a poor design and would lead to more conflict • 4 (<1%) respondents, including Hackney Living Streets, London Cycling Campaign and LCC in Hackney, requested the switching of the pedestrian and cycle crossings to reduce the potential for conflict

Signal phasing: 9 respondents (1%) commented on the signal phasing for the cyclist and pedestrian crossings:

• 7 respondents (1%), including Hackney People on Bikes and the London Cycling Campaign) requested a single-stage crossing for cyclists • 2 respondent (<1%) called for phasing that would be fair to all road users

Segregation on Old Street and Great Eastern Street: 16 respondents (2%) expressed concern about the lack of segregation on Old Street and Great Eastern Street. Cllr Stops said he was disappointed the scheme would remove “a useful cycling facility” in the westbound Old Street bus lane.

Access for cyclists to/from CS1: 14 respondents (2%), including Cllr Stops, expressed concern that not enough provision has been given for cycling manoeuvres on/off CS1:

• 4 respondents (<1%) said they were concerned about how to access Old Street westbound when coming from Pitfield Street, with the London Cycling Campaign calling for a ‘jug handle’ right turn • Hackney People on Bikes, London Cycling Campaign and Sustrans supported the route between CS1 and the proposed Quietway in Rivington Street

Advanced Stop Lines: 8 respondents commented on Advance Stop Lines (ASLs):

• 5 respondents (1%) expressed concern about the use of Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) due to lack of enforcement and encouraging cyclists to pass inside left- turning vehicles • 3 respondents (<1%) had concerns over the width of the ASL heading west in Great Eastern Street, which could make it difficult to turn right

Changes to trees: 4 respondents (<1%) had concerns about the removal of trees from Old Street

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 56

Width of lanes: 4 respondents (<1%) expressed concern that the width of the cycle track may be too narrow after the curve on Pitfield Street

Superhighway status: 3 respondents (<1%) said the proposed interventions were not in line with ‘Superhighway’ standards or were more conducive to a ‘Quietway’.

East Road/Provost Road one-way system: LCC in Hackney called for the removal of this one-way system.

Pedestrian crossing on Old Street: LCC in Hackney and Sustrans called for an additional signalised pedestrian crossing on Old Street east of Apex junction.

57 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Section 5-6: Pitfield Street south

Overview

To view larger versions of these images, please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs1

Key proposals: • Pitfield Street would become two-way for general traffic • Junction treatments at side roads to make movements safer for all road users • Parking bays relocated • New trees and cycle parking

Number of respondents: 804

Figure 9: Support for sections 5-6

61%

13% 13% 9% 4%

Support Partially Not sure No opinion Don't support support

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 58

Details of open-ended responses

Overall Of the 804 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 166 (21%) provided relevant comments in the open text box (with ‘relevant’ being defined as any comment that was not ‘n/a’ or similar). The most frequently reported section-specific issues raised in relation to Sections 5-6 are below.

Positive comments: 15 respondents (2%) gave non-specific positive feedback towards the proposals:

• 11 respondents (1%) offered non-specific support for the scheme (e.g. “Excellent”) • 4 respondents (<1%) said it would improve safety or encourage more cycling

Cycling safety: 42 respondents (25%) provide comments about cycling safety:

• 40 respondents (24%), including Wheels for Wellbeing, expressed concern the proposals would make for a dangerous cycling environment:

o 20 respondents (2%), including Sustrans, expressed concern about a lack of segregation with cyclists and motorists sharing space in Pitfield Street, which was perceived as too narrow for heavy cycling flows and two-way traffic

o 7 respondents (1%) expressed concerns about having to cycle next to parked cars due to ‘dooring’ risk and the need to pull out to overtake

o 6 respondents (1%) said the proposals didn’t do enough for cycling o 6 respondents (1%) requested additional measures to slow motor traffic or reduce through motor traffic on Pitfield Street, including additional banned turns for motor vehicles for the new junction at New North Road • 4 respondents (<1%) said they felt the proposal would improve cycling safety

New North Road roundabout: 25 respondents (3%) discussed the proposed change from a roundabout to a junction: • 15 (2%) were positive towards the proposal, welcoming the new public space and , but called for an area-wide proposal to reduce through motor traffic • 8 (1%) opposed the changes, saying traffic generally flowed well through there • Hackney People on Bikes, London Cycling Campaign, LCC in Hackney and Sustrans called for further filters to remove through motor traffic

59 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Impact on congestion: 13 respondents (1%) expressed concern about the potential impact of the proposals on motor traffic:

• 10 respondents (1%) were concerned about increased delays to motor traffic in this area caused by the closure of Pitfield Street and traffic displacing to nearby roads • 3 respondents (<1%) were concerned that a two-way Pitfield Street would generate more motor traffic congestion

Parking and loading: 12 respondents (1%) commented on changes to parking and loading in the proposals:

• 8 respondents (1%), including Bounce Leisure, said changes to parking/ loading bays would cause congestion/ problems for locals or businesses • 3 (<1%) opposed changes that would make parking more difficult and one suggested changing parking restrictions/allocations in the area to keep parked cars in one area rather than along the entirety of the route • Hackney People on Bikes and Sustrans called for reductions in car parking on the current proposals

Superhighway status: 8 respondents (1%) said the proposed interventions were not in line with ‘Superhighway’ standards or are more conducive to a ‘Quietway’.

Removal of contra-flow cycling track in Pitfield Street: 7 respondents (1%) commented on the removal of the contra-flow cycle track from this section of the route:

• 4 respondents (<1%) said the removal of the contra-flow cycle track would make cycling less safe • 3 respondents (<1%) said the contraflow was inadequate and welcomed the removal

Speed humps: 7 respondents (1%), including Sustrans, responded about proposals for speed humps, saying they should be made more cycle-friendly.

Enlarged footways in Pitfield Street: 6 respondents (<1%) commented on proposals to enlarge the footways in Pitfield Street:

• 3 respondents (<1%) expressed concern that cyclists are expected to share the road with general traffic with when extra space had been given to footways • 3 (<1%) welcomed the new expanded footways

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 60

Comments in this section to measures proposed in Section 4

Closure of southern end of Pitfield Street to motor traffic: 25 respondents (3%) commented on the closure of Pitfield Street:

• 15 (2%) were positive towards the proposal to close the southern end of Pitfield Street to motor traffic • 10 respondents (1%) expressed concern about closing access to this road due to potential for increased traffic on other local roads

61 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Sections 7-8: Pitfield Street north to Culford Road

Overview

To view larger versions of these images, please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs1

Key proposals: • Redesign of the junction of Ardleigh Road, Englefield Road and Culford Road • Improvements at junction of Northchurch Terrace and De Beauvoir Road • Changes to location and numbers of parking bays • New cycle parking and trees

Number of respondents: 812

Figure 10: Support for sections 7-8

59%

16% 13% 11% 2%

Support Partially Not sure No opinion Don't support support

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 62

Details of open-ended responses

Overall Of the 812 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 235 (29%) provided relevant comments in the open text box (with ‘relevant’ being defined as any comment that was not ‘n/a’ or similar). The most frequently reported section-specific issues raised in relation to Sections 7-8 are below.

Positive comments: 25 respondents (3%) left non-specific positive comments:

• Generic support or praise (e.g. “Excellent”) from 22 respondents (3%) • 8 respondents (1%) said the proposal would improve safety or encourage cycling

Cycling safety: 87 respondents (37%) said the scheme would not do anything to improve cycling safety or would make it worse:

• 45 respondents (6%) expressed concern that the roads in this section may be too busy with motor traffic and/or parked motor vehicles to comfortably accommodate cyclists and motor vehicles • 39 respondents (5%) expressed concern about lack of segregated cycling infrastructure in these sections • 26 respondents (3%), including Wheels for Wellbeing, said the route needed greater interventions, such as reducing motor traffic speed and volumes, to improve cycling safety

Junction of Ardleigh Road, Culford Road and Englefield Road: 74 respondents (31%) made reference to the proposals for Ardleigh Road:

• 36 respondents (4%), including Donaldson/Watters and Kingsland Conservation Area Advisory Committee, expressed concern about there potentially being displaced motor traffic in nearby roads, with Culford Road and Culford Grove mentioned most frequently:

o 23 (3%) respondents, including the school, commented on potential impact of this displacement on parents and children visiting Our Lady and St Joseph’s Primary School on Culford Road • 35 respondents (4%), including Hackney People on Bikes, LCC in Hackney and London Cycling Campaign, said the area needed more banned movements for motor traffic to prevent non-local motor traffic using residential streets • 23 respondents (2%), including Sustrans, called for north-south priority for traffic (especially cyclists on CS1) at the junction with Englefield Road • 12 respondents (1%) opposed the proposal to close Ardleigh Road to motor traffic

63 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

• 9 respondents (1%), including Donaldson/Watters, discussed whether the scheme would benefit from reinstatement of the right turn from Englefield Road into Southgate Road • CTC London called for a raised table traffic-calming measure on Englefield Road

Culford Road/Northchurch Terrace/De Beauvoir Road junctions: 44 respondents (4%) commented on the proposals this section of the route:

• 17 respondents (%), including Kingsland Conservation Area Advisory Committee, expressed concern about the possible negative effect on pedestrian safety of having a ‘Cycle Superhighway’ passing through the De Beauvoir area. Cllr Peters called for more education for cyclists • 8 respondents (1%), including Cllr Peters, LCC in Hackney and London Cycling Campaign, called for a ban on motor traffic between Northchurch Terrace and De Beauvoir town to benefit residents, pedestrians and cyclists (see petitions, p39) • 7 respondents (1%), including LCC in Hackney and London Cycling Campaign and Sustrans, welcomed the proposals for improving the Northchurch Terrace/ De Beauvoir Road junction • 5 respondents (<1%) said the Northchurch Terrace/ De Beauvoir Road junction could be improved for cycling, such as by moving the planter to the north side of the road • 4 respondents (<1%), including Kingsland Conservation Area Advisory Committee, called for action to mitigate potential conflicts between east-west and north-south cycling flows where Culford Road meets Northchurch Terrace.

Route alignment: 43 respondents (5%) commented negatively towards the proposed route. The vast majority of these responses related to the displeasure at the route mainly using residential/back streets, with many calling for it to follow the A10 instead.

Speed bumps: 19 respondents (3%) commented on proposals to reprofile speed humps:

• 13 respondents (1%) supported the reprofiling of speed humps along CS1 to make them safer for cycling • 3 respondents (<1%) disagreed with any proposals for speed humps that would allow motor traffic to go faster • 3 respondents (<1%) said speed humps should have gaps for cyclists

Superhighway status: 19 respondents (2%) said they did not believe these sections met the standards required of a Cycle Superhighway.

Car parking: 17 respondents (2%) made reference to car parking changes on the route:

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 64

• 7 respondents (1%) said there should be reductions in parking to improve safety; e.g. removing bays near where CS1 crosses Englefield Road • 6 respondents (<1%) were against the proposed changes to parking • 4 respondents (<1%) supported the proposed changes to parking

Raised flower bed/planter in Northchurch Terrace: 15 respondents (2%), including De Beauvoir Gardeners and Kingsland Conservation Area Advisory Committee, objected to moving or removing the raised flower bed at Northchurch Terrace. Sustrans disagreed with moving the planter to accommodate parking.

Hyde Road/Hoxton Street junction: 14 respondents (1%) commented on this junction:

• 11 respondents (1%) expressed concern about east-west motor traffic pulling out dangerously into the path of cyclists on Pitfield Road • 3 respondents (<1%) made other comments about the junction, calling for smoother passage or for cycling priority to be retained

Impact on conservation area: 11 respondents (1%), including Cllr Peters, expressed concern the proposals would have a negative effect on a conservation area. Objections were based on a belief the carriageway might be coloured blue or there would be many new signs.

Trees: 5 respondents (1%) objected to planting trees in these sections, saying there were enough trees or their locations could interfere with visibility at junctions.

65 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Section 9: Balls Pond Road, Option A

To view a larger version of this image, please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs1

Key proposals: • With-flow advisory cycle lanes replace 75 metres of bus lane • Refuge islands at junctions make right turns safer • Changes to parking restrictions • Additional informal pedestrians crossings

Number of respondents: 809

Figure 11: Support for section 9, option A

45%

23%

12% 13% 7%

Support Partially Not sure No opinion Don't support support

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 66

Details of open-ended responses

Overall Of the 809 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 217 (27%) provided relevant comments in the open text box (with ‘relevant’ being defined as any comment that was not ‘n/a’ or similar). The most frequently reported section-specific issues raised in relation to Section 9A are below.

Positive comments: 14 respondents (2%) offered non-specific support or praise for this section of the proposal:

• 9 respondents (1%) offered generic support or praise (e.g. “Excellent”) • 5 respondents (1%) said Option A would be better for cycle safety

Option preferences: 68 respondents (7%) provided a preference for Option A or B within their comments: • 50 respondents (4%) said they preferred Option B for providing segregation along Balls Pond Road • 18 respondents (2%), including CTC London, Hackney Living Streets and the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, preferred Option A

Cycling safety: 75 respondents (5%) commented on cycling safety for Option A:

• 63 respondents (4%), including London Cycling Campaign and Sustrans, expressed concern the proposals would do nothing or too little to improve cycling safety along a road with high volumes of motor traffic • 12 (1%) believed that the proposals will improve cyclists safety • 8 respondents (1%) said the advisory lanes were too narrow • Hackney People on Bikes and the London Cycling Campaign called for with-flow segregated cycle tracks

Treatment of junctions: 37 respondents (4%) commented on the right turns for cyclists from Culford Road and Kingsbury Road into Balls Pond Road:

• 28 respondents (3%) commented on the dangers of making rights turns at these

locations: o 16 respondents (1%), including Hackney People on Bikes and London Cycling Campaign, called for signalised crossings to reduce risk for right-turning cyclists. Suggestions included ‘moving’ the existing signalised pedestrian crossing o 2 respondents (<1%) called for priority crossings for cyclists such as ‘a zebra’

67 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

• 8 respondents (1%) supported the proposal to install traffic islands to provide a safe refuge for right-turning cyclists • 3 respondents (<1%) called for banned turns for motor traffic entering and/or exiting Culford Road to make cyclist turns safer • 2 respondents (<1%) opposed traffic lights at these junctions • Cllr Stops called for no changes to either junction

Impact on pedestrians: 9 respondents (1%) commented on the impact on pedestrian crossings:

• 6 respondents (1%) called for pedestrian crossings to be moved to help cyclists cross Balls Pond Road • 2 respondents (<1%) thought the changes would disadvantage pedestrians • 2 respondents (<1%) said interventions that help cycling, such as more signals and lower motor traffic speeds, would improve pedestrian crossings • Hackney Living Streets preferred Option A because advisory lanes would allow pedestrians to cross the road easily

Route alignment: 14 respondents (2%) suggested alternative alignments:

• 5 respondents (<1%) suggested a route via King Henry Walk and Culford Mews • 4 respondents (<1%) said CS1 should avoid Balls Pond Road by following the A10 • 3 respondents, including Hackney People on Bikes, named a route via Bentley Road as one they would not support • 2 respondents (<1%) including LCC in Hackney, supported a route via Bentley Road

Traffic congestion: 13 respondents (2%) commented upon the impact of the scheme upon traffic congestion:

• 11 respondents (1%) said the proposals would bring more motor traffic congestion • 2 respondents (<1%) said changes would reduce congestion on the roads

Impact on buses: 11 respondents (1%) commented on the possible impact of the scheme on bus services:

• 7 respondents (1%), including Cllr Stops, Hackney Living Streets and Islington Council, did not want to see any changes that would affect buses • 3 respondents did not feel bus delays would be an issue • Cllr Stops called for the existing bus lane to be 24 hours

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 68

Reduction in parking: 4 respondents, including Islington Council, expressed concern the loss of parking on Balls Pond Road would affect local businesses and residents.

69 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Section 9: Balls Pond Road, Option B

To view a larger version of this image, please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs1

Key proposals: • Two-way segregated cycle track replaces 75 metres of bus lane • Signalised junction where Culford Road meets Balls Pond Road • Two new signalised pedestrian crossings • Changes to parking restrictions

Number of respondents: 802

Figure 12: Support for section 9, option B

56%

15% 11% 13% 6%

Support Partially Not sure No opinion Don't support support

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 70

Details of open-ended responses

Overall Of the 802 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 262 (33%) provided relevant comments in the open text box (with ‘relevant’ being defined as any comment that was not ‘n/a’ or similar). The most frequently reported section-specific issues raised in relation to Section 9B are below.

Positive comments: 28 respondents (3%) gave general positive feedback towards the proposals:

• 20 respondents (2%) said the proposal would improve safety and/or encourage cycling • 5 respondents (1%) offered non-specific support or praise (e.g. “Excellent”)

Option preferences: 84 respondents (10%) provided a preference for Option A or B within their comments.

• 79 respondents (10%), including Islington Cyclists Action Group and Sustrans, stated a preference in their comments for Option B because of its segregation • 5 respondents (1%) preferred Option A

Segregated cycling: 57 respondents (7%) commented on the level of segregation

• 42 respondents (4%) welcomed the segregation in Option B because it would make cycling on the main road safer • 9 respondents (1%) opposed segregation for reasons such as the impact it might have on cyclists travelling east along Ball Ponds Road. • Cllr Stops and Hackney Living Streets objected to kerbs in the carriageway because they might be an impediment to pedestrians crossing the road

Treatment of junctions: 25 respondents (1%) commented on the junctions of Culford Road and Kingsbury Road with Balls Pond Road:

• 21 respondents (<1%) said they supported the new signalised cycling and pedestrian crossings at the Culford Road junction • 2 respondents (<1%) commented negatively, saying the new traffic signals would introduce unwelcome delays for cyclists • 2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about parking bays being too close to junctions, making access for cyclists difficult

71 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Traffic congestion: 19 respondents (2%) opposed the proposal, saying it would have a negative effect on congestion.

Routing along back roads: 19 respondents (2%) disagreed with the route, saying it places cyclists away from shops/local amenities::

• 5 respondents (1%) named the A10 as their preferred route

Pedestrian crossings: 18 respondents (2%) commented on the relocation of the pedestrian crossing: • 14 respondents (1%), including Cllr Stops, expressed concern at the proposal • 4 respondents (<1%) welcomed the proposal to relocate the crossing

Impact on buses: 15 respondents (2%) commented upon the impact of the scheme upon buses:

• 8 respondents (1%) supported the proposal, with comments that the bus lane proposed to be removed ‘is used rarely to never’ • 7 respondents (1%), including Cllrs Stops, Hackney Living Streets and Islington Council, were against the proposals because of potential delays to buses • Cllr Stops called for the bus lane on Balls Pond Road to be 24 hours

Width of two-way track: 11 respondents (1%), including Islington Council, expressed concerns that the 2.5m-wide two-way cycle track would be too narrow.

East-west cycle journeys along Balls Pond Road: 5 respondents (1%), including Hackney People on Bikes, London Cycling Campaign and Sustrans, expressed concern as to how cyclists would safely continue journeys east along Balls Pond Road under the current proposal.

With-flow segregation: Hackney People on Bikes, London Cycling Campaign and LCC in Hackney, called for an alternative design using with-flow segregated cycle tracks and two signalised junctions.

Parking: Islington Council expressed concern that the loss of parking on Balls Pond Road could affect local businesses.

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 72

Sections 10-14: Kingsbury Road to Ermine Road

Overview

To view larger versions of these images, please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs1

Key proposals: Figure 13: Support for sections 10-14 • Traffic-calming measures 53% • Signalised pedestrian crossings • Closure of Boleyn Road/Wordsworth Road junction to motor traffic

• 16% Changes to parking restrictions 14% 13% 4% Number of respondents: 807 Support Partially Not sure No opinion Don't support support

73 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Details of open-ended responses

Overall Of the 807 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 231 (27%) provided relevant comments in the open text box (with ‘relevant’ being defined as any comment that was not ‘n/a’ or similar). The most frequently reported section-specific issues raised in relation to Sections 10-14 are below.

Positive comments: 24 respondents (3%) gave non-specific positive feedback towards the proposals:

• 17 respondents (2%) gave generic support or praise (e.g. “Excellent”) • 9 respondents (1%) said the proposals would improve safety, encourage more cycling and/or improve London

Cycling safety: 124 respondents (15%) commented on the safety of cycling on the roads in these sections • 52 respondents ( 6%) said the volume of motor traffic was too high for safe or comfortable cycling • 30 respondents (4%) commented on the high speeds of motor traffic in this area and its negative effect on cycling • 26 respondents (3%) commented on the lack of segregated cycling, calling for greater intervention to separate cyclists from motor traffic • 19 respondents (2%) commented on the number of parked cars along this section, expressing concern about the effect on cyclist visibility and the risk of ‘dooring’ • 8 respondents (1%) mentioned potential cycling conflict with buses or bus stops

Wordsworth Road/Boleyn Road: 75 respondents (7%) commented on the proposed banned turn for motor traffic at this junction:

• 59 respondents (6%), including Cllr Lufkin, Hackney People on Bikes and London Cycling Campaign, called for more measures to reduce through motor traffic in Wordsworth Road and surrounding roads, in particular measure to prevent through motor traffic using Bennett Road or Pellerin Road • 43 respondents (4%), including Cllr Lufkin expressed concern that implementing a single banned movement for motor traffic at the junction of Wordsworth Road and Boleyn Road would displace ‘rat-runnning’ motor traffic to nearby roads • 28 respondents (3%) supported the proposed banned turn at Wordsworth Road/Boleyn Road

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 74

• 9 respondents opposed the banned turn, with Allen Pharmacy, Barrett’s Grove GP Surgery, Boots Pharmacy, City and Hackney CCG, City and Hackney LMG, and Cllr Gregory expressing concern at impact on journey times for motor traffic (see petitions, p39) • 9 respondents, including Islington Cyclists Action Group, called for an area-wide motor traffic reduction scheme including Boleyn Road, Mildmay Road and King Henry’s Walk • 6 respondents mentioned moving the zebra crossing on Boleyn Road:

o 3 respondents (<1%) supported the new location o 3 respondents (<1%) had concerns over the relocation • 3 respondents, including Sustrans, called for the Bennett Road roundabout to be converted into a T-junction

Motor traffic on Boleyn Road: 41 respondents (4%) mentioned danger to cyclists or pedestrians from fast motor traffic using Boleyn Road: • 13 respondents (1%), including the Casa Leal, London Cycling Campaign, Islington Council and Islington Cyclists Action Group, called for more banned movements for motor traffic on Boleyn Road, Mildmay Road and King Henry’s Walk to improve conditions for cycling and walking

Alternative route alignments/Hillside Road/St Ann’s Road: 29 respondents (4%) opposed the current route alignment, calling for alternatives: • 20 respondents (2%) named the A10 as the most suitable route

o 2 respondents (<1%) said the wide footways along Stamford Hill could provide space for cycling facilities • 15 respondents (<1%) commented negatively on conditions for cycling where CS1 would use St Ann’s Road, calling for improved protection or an alternative route

• 9 respondents, including AM McCartney, Hackney People on Bikes, Haringey Council, Haringey Cycling Campaign and London Cycling Campaign, said they preferred East Bank/Hillside Road to the proposed West Bank/St Ann’s Road route • London Cycling Campaign called for an alignment via St Kilda’s Road (instead of Fairholt Road)

Pedestrian safety: 29 respondents (4%) commented on the perceived danger from increased level of cycling to pedestrians, including school children and the elderly: • 26 respondents (3%), including Cllr Levy, Cllr Odze, Cllr Papier, Cllr Steinberger, and St Jude and St Paul’s CE VA Primary School, expressed concern about potential danger to schoolchildren from increased cycling (see petitions, p39)

75 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

• 3 respondents (<1%), including Shakespeare Neighbourhood Residents’ Association, said there should be improvements to pedestrian facilities and safety around Butterfield Green

Pedestrian crossings at junction of Boleyn Road, Mildmay Road and Crossway: 18 respondents (2%) supported proposals to install four new pedestrian crossings at this crossroads:

• 14 respondents (1%) supported the proposed signalised pedestrian crossings • 4 respondents said they would prefer zebra crossings to signal-controlled pedestrian crossings at this location

Amhurst Park: 18 respondents (2%) commented on where CS1 would cross this road:

• 14 respondents (2%), including Sustrans and Wheels for Wellbeing, said there was not enough protection for cyclists crossing Amhurst Park • 2 respondents ( <1%) commented positively on the provision of new refuges to protect turning cyclists

Stoke Newington Church Street: 7 respondents (1%) commented on where CS1 would cross this road:

• 4 respondents (<1%) commented on the existing dangers at the junction • 3 respondents (<1%), including Hackney People on Bikes and the London Cycling Campaign, expressed concern the proposal would not offer adequate protection for cyclists, including east-west journeys

Superhighway status: 4 respondents (<1%), including Wheels for Wellbeing, said the proposed interventions are not in line with ‘Superhighway’ standards or are more conducive to a ‘Quietway’.

Manor Road: Hackney People on Bikes and Sustrans called for a safer crossing for cyclists.

Thorpe Road: Sustrans supported the proposed new north-south priority at this junction.

Area outside St Jude’s School: The head teacher of St Jude’s called for measures to slow motor traffic and cyclists to improve safety for people using the entrance to the school, particularly children.

Nevil Road: Shakespeare Residents’ Association called for more traffic-calming measures and improved pedestrian crossings on Nevil Road.

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 76

Sections 15-16: Tottenham High Road to Town Hall Approach Road

Overview

To view larger versions of these images, please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs1

Key proposals: • Two-way cycle track within the footway • Wider toucan crossings across West Green Road and Seven Sisters Road • Two bus stops moved

Number of respondents: 787

Figure 14: Support for sections 15-16

55%

21%

20% 11% 2%

Support Partially Not sure No opinion Don't support support

77 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Details of open-ended responses

Overall Of the 787 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 162 (21%) provided relevant comments in the open text box (with ‘relevant’ being defined as any comment that was not ‘n/a’ or similar). The most frequently reported section-specific issues raised in relation to Sections 15-16 are below.

Positive comments: 22 respondents (3%) gave non-specific positive feedback towards the proposals

• 14 respondents (2%) gave non-specific support or praise (e.g. “Excellent”) • 8 respondents (1%) said the proposal would improve safety and/or encourage more cycling

Cycle track design: 108 respondents (10%) commented on the design of the proposed two-way cycle track along Tottenham Court Road:

Segregated cycling 59 respondents (6%) commented on the desirability of segregation/protected space/separated cycle tracks in these sections:

Pedestrian-cyclist shared footway 65 respondents (7%), including the Campaign for Better Transport, Haringey Cycling Campaign, London Cycling Campaign, Sustrans, expressed concern that shared footways and crossings would introduce conflict between cyclists and pedestrians:

• 21 respondents (2%), including AM McCartney, London Cycling Campaign, Haringey Council, Tottenham Civic Society, and Wilson Solicitors, specified the area of shared footway near Seven Sisters Underground Station as a concern due to potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians

Toucan crossings 31 respondents (2%), including Haringey Cycling Campaign, expressed concerns that the proposed shared toucan crossings at Seven Sisters Road and West Green Road would create conflict between pedestrians and cyclists:

Location of the cycle track 31 respondents (2%) commented on where in the road the cycle track(s) should be located:

• 26 respondents (3%), including Haringey Cycling Campaign and Tottenham Civic Society, called for cycle facilities to be implemented using carriageway space, rather than by reducing footways • 16 (1%), including Sustrans, said they preferred a pair of with-flow cycling tracks, one of each side of the road, rather than the proposed two-way cycle track • Haringey Cycling Campaign called for a two-way cycle track to be located on the east side of Tottenham High Road

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 78

Trees in the cycle track 15 respondents (2%), including English Heritage, objected to trees within the cycle track.

Cycle track width 13 respondents (2%) gave feedback on the width of the cycle track:

• 9 respondents (1%) were negative stating that the lanes were too narrow • 3 respondents (<1%), including the London Cycling Campaign and Sustrans, said the cycle track near South Tottenham Station is too narrow • 3 respondents (1%) offered suggestions around the track design. Haringey Council called for land acquisition to improve cycle track width

Bus stop bypasses 6 respondents (<1%), including Sustrans, supported the principle of bus stop bypasses on Tottenham High Road:

• 4 respondents (<1%) said the route needed more clearly defined bus stop bypasses • 2 respondents (<1%) supported the current implementation of bus stop bypass

Route alignment: 20 respondents (3%) commented on the route alignment, saying CS1 should stay on the A10 for its entire length. Haringey Council called for CS1 to remain on the A10 north of Tottenham Green.

Town Hall Approach Road bus bypass: 5 respondents (1%), including Haringey Council, Haringey Cycling Campaign and London Cycling Campaign, called for cyclists to be allowed to use the footway to bypass stationary buses on Town Hall Approach Road

Moving bus stops: 3 respondents (<1%) objected to moving bus stops south, farther away from Tottenham station.

Tree removal: 2 respondents (<1%), including English Heritage and Tottenham Civic Society, objected to the removal of a tree in this section.

Link to other cycle routes: Haringey Cycling Campaign called for better links to existing local cycling routes, such as LCN54.

79 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Section 17: Philip Lane

Overview

To view a larger version of this image, please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs1

Key proposals: • Advisory cycle lanes in both directions on Philip Lane • Traffic islands to make right turns safer for cyclists • Removal of parking bays from Philip Lane • Traffic-calming measures on side roads and junctions • Two bus stops moved • Improvements to pedestrian crossings

Number of respondents: 785

Figure 15: Support for section 17

53%

24%

14%

5% 4%

Support Partially Not sure No opinion Don't support support

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 80

Details of open-ended responses

Overall Of the 785 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 128 (16%) provided relevant comments in the open text box (with ‘relevant’ being defined as any comment that was not ‘n/a’ or similar). The most frequently reported section-specific issues raised in relation to Section 17 are below.

Positive comments: 24 respondents (3%) gave general positive feedback towards the proposals:

• 16 respondents (2%) gave non-specific support or praise (e.g. “Excellent”) • 8 respondents (1%) improves safety or would encourage cycling

Advisory lanes/level of intervention: 46 respondents (5%), including Haringey Cycling Campaign, London Cycling Campaign and Sustrans, said the proposals were inadequate and/or the use of advisory lanes was inadequate to protect cyclists from motor traffic, with support for fully segregated cycle tracks, partial segregation (armadillos) or mandatory cycle lanes.

Route alignment: 29 respondents (4%), including Haringey Council and Sustrans, opposed the route of this section of CS1, calling for it to follow the A10 to be more direct and closer to shops and other amenities. Wilson Solicitors called for segregation on Bruce Grove.

Junctions of Napier Road and Town Hall Approach Road with Philip Lane: 13 respondents (1%), Clyde Area Residents’ Association, expressed concern at potential risk to cyclists turning right along CS1 in this section:

• 2 respondents, including Haringey Cycling Campaign, called for a signalised right turn from Philip Lane into Town Hall Approach

Parking: 13 respondents (2%) mentioned proposed changes to car parking restrictions in this section:

• 7 respondents (<1%), including Sustrans and Wilsons Solicitors, supported removal of parking:

o 4 respondents (<1%) called for more parking to be removed to make space for improved cycling facilities • 6 respondents (1%) opposed the proposals:

81 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

o 5 respondents (1%) expressed concern about possible displacement of parking to nearby roads

Superhighway status: 12 respondents (1%), including Wheels for Wellbeing, claimed the proposed interventions are not in line with ‘Superhighway’ standards or were more like a Quietway.

Bus stops: 7 respondents (1%) expressed concern at the proposal to move bus stops because of potential negative impacts on passengers.

Conflict with buses: AM McCartney expressed concern at potential conflict between W4 buses and cyclists using CS1.

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 82

Sections 18-19: Napier Road to Church Lane

Overview

To view a larger version of this image, please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs1

Key proposals: • Junctions redesigned to reduce traffic speeds and improve safety for all road users • Changes to parking restrictions

Number of respondents: 779

Figure 16: Support for sections 18-19

54%

24%

12% 6% 3%

Support Partially Not sure No opinion Don't support support

83 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Details of open-ended responses

Overall Of the 779 respondents who completed this section of the consultation, 116 (15%) provided relevant comments in the open text box (with ‘relevant’ being defined as any comment that was not ‘n/a’ or similar). The most frequently reported section-specific issues raised in relation to Sections 18-19 are below.

Positive comments: 12 respondents (2%) gave non-specific positive feedback on the proposals:

• 8 respondents (1%) gave non-specific support or praise (e.g. “Excellent”) • 4 respondents (1%) said the proposals would improve cycling safety

Route alignment: 38 respondents (5%) commented upon the route alignment for this section, with all expressing concern that the choice of routing at this end of the route is too indirect/should not use back roads. Wilson Solicitors expressed concern cyclists would use the A10 instead.

Cycling safety: 38 respondents (5%) commented that the proposals would not improve safety for cyclists, with Wilson Solicitors expressing concern about oncoming motor traffic and ‘dooring’ on Broadwater Road

• 3 respondents (<1%), including Sustrans, made reference to treatment of side roads, calling for greater traffic-calming measures

Shared pedestrian-cyclist footway: 19 respondents (2%) commented upon the proposed pedestrian-cyclist shared space/cut-through between Sperling Road and Strode Road:

• 17 respondents (2%), including London Cycling Campaign, expressed concern that this would be an area of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, with many saying the narrowness of this location made it unsuitable for use in a cycle route • 2 (<1%) respondents called for CCTV cameras to be installed in this location to deal with illegal rubbish tipping

Removing through motor traffic/banned turns: 15 respondents (2%) commented on measure to restrict motor traffic movements:

• 8 respondents (1%) supported proposals to restrict motor traffic movements, and called for more to be done to reduce volumes of motor traffic on CS1

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 84

• 7 respondents (1%) objected to the restrictions on movements for motor vehicles at Broadwater Road and Church Lane, citing inconvenience for motorists

Lordship Lane crossing: 7 respondents (1%) expressed concern over cycling safety while crossing Lordship lane using traffic islands:

• 5 respondents (1%) commented on the volume and speed of motor traffic on Lordship Lane, making crossings risky for cyclists • 3 respondents (<1%), including London Cycling Campaign and Wilson Solicitors calling for signalised crossings • Wheels for Wellbeing called for any traffic islands to accommodate non-standard cycles

Bus stops: 5 respondents (1%) commented on the proposal to relocate bus stops in this section:

• 2 (<1%) respondents expressed concern that moving the bus stops would make it difficult for elderly/disabled passenger to access the North Middlesex Hospital

Speed humps: 3 (<1%) respondents, including Sustrans, supported the proposal to rebuild humps with a sinusoidal profile.

Extension of CS1: 3 respondents (<1%) commented that they would like to see the Superhighway extended to terminate at Tottenham Hotspur’s new stadium.

Resurfacing: 2 respondents (<1%) commented on resurfacing on this route, calling for specific roads to be resurfaced.

85 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Appendix B: Response to issues commonly raised

Response to issues on overall scheme

Cycling safety

Alternative alignment along A10 A number of respondents expressed their preference for a segregated route along the A10 main road rather than the route proposed. We rejected this proposal because it would be slower, less safe, less useful and less attractive than our preferred route.

The route proposed for CS1 between Tottenham and the City is via quieter roads and will provide quicker, safer and more reliable journeys than the equivalent trip along the parallel A10. This is because cyclists travelling from the City of London to Tottenham on the A10 would have to pass through 54 traffic signals, compared to just 8 along the proposed alignment. Our research shows that it’s possible to cycle the proposed CS1 route in around 30 minutes, compared with over 40 minutes along the A10. As well as swifter journeys, using quieter streets also means fewer interactions with heavy goods vehicles, buses, kerbside activity, and busier side roads.

As stated in the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, Cycle Superhighways need not run along busy arterial roads. Alternatives should be considered if they provide cyclists with a good level of service, as they do in this case. We are confident CS1 will provide an inviting and pleasant cycling environment for existing and, crucially, new cyclists. This supports the Mayor’s strategy to normalise cycling in London. Perhaps the most successful section of existing Superhighway, CS3 between Tower and Poplar, runs on side streets.

TfL continues to develop and deliver substantial improvements to key junctions across the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) through its ambitious Road Modernisation Plan, which includes several important junctions on the A10 in North London (see p86 below ‘Cycle safety on the A10’). We are also working with London Borough of Hackney to improve provision for cycling in Mare Street in Hackney town centre.

Non-segregation of roads For much of its length, CS1 would run along residential streets, away from the majority of car, freight and bus traffic. Given the characteristics of the majority of roads chosen for CS1, segregation would not be appropriate. Where CS1 passes along short sections of busier roads, cycle lanes and tracks will provide space to make cycling alongside motor traffic safer and more comfortable. And where the cycle route crosses main roads, junctions will be redesigned to make them safer and more convenient for cycling. Traffic- calming measures throughout the route will improve safety for all road users, particularly cyclists and pedestrians.

All the roads along the route have been assessed to ascertain their suitability for increases in cycle traffic. In many locations, we have rearranged street furniture, adjusted footways,

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 86 and moved parking spaces and bus stops to widen the effective carriageway width to better accommodate cycle and motor traffic. In some locations, we have identified roads where it is beneficial to cycling to reduce motor traffic volumes, and have proposed appropriate measures:

Additional modal filter at Broadwater Road In response to feedback during consultation, we are working with colleagues at the London Borough of Haringey to examine the feasibility of introducing a new modal filter in Broadwater Road. Broadwater Road is currently used as a ‘rat-run’ for northbound traffic avoiding Bruce Grove towards Lordship Lane. An alternative scheme could introduce a modal filter at the junction with Linley Road to prevent through motor traffic, improving the road for residents and cyclists. We are investigating changes that would have to be made to the W4 bus route and traffic operations along Linley Road and Radley Road, and will make an announcement in the near future. Any additional modal filters would be subject to further consultation.

Cycling alongside parked cars When designing CS1, we needed to balance the needs of cyclists with local land use, including residential and commercial properties and associated servicing arrangements, which is why parking remains in many locations. Parking manoeuvres and sightlines were considered throughout the design process. Where we perceived there to be unacceptable risk, we redesigned these locations using measures such as footway build-outs, tighter junction geometry, relocated parking and new parking restrictions. While it is not possible to eliminate risk entirely where there are parked cars, given the lower volumes of motor traffic in many CS1 roads, we believe it will be possible to cycle the route without significant risk of 'dooring'.

20mph speed limits Excluding red routes, all roads on CS1 are or will have 20mph speed limits. CS1 crosses the red route network at four locations, with signals provided at three of these.

Cycle safety on the A10 TfL has a number of proposals in development to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians on the A10 in North London. The most high-profile of these involves working with Hackney Council on the removal of the Stoke Newington one-way system, which we believe to be the largest barrier to cycling in the borough. We hope to present the results of the feasibility study into this proposal later this year. We are also working on a proposal to introduce a 20mph speed limit on Kingsland High Street in next few months. Details of other schemes proposed for the A10 will be published when they are ready for consultation.

Extending CS1 north and south Extension south of Sun Street CS1 will terminate at Sun Street, where it will link to the new Central London Cycling Grid. This is a proposed network of cycle routes spanning Zone 1. On completion, the Grid will link CS1 to all the other Superhighways and Quietways.

Extension north of White Hart Lane While we understand and share the desire for cycle routes to extend beyond CS1 in all directions, research shows that for journeys that are

87 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation longer than approximately 45 minutes from the City Centre, people are significantly less likely to choose to cycle. Terminating the route at White Hart Lane is in line with our current strategy to target cycling investment in routes that are most likely to be cycled.

Cycle safety on other roads Improvements to roads that are not on the route are currently outside the scope of the CS1 project. However, we will share comments made as part of this consultation with the relevant highway authorities for future consideration.

Concern CS1 is a Quietway not a Superhighway Each Cycle Superhighway route alignment is assessed against the level of service it could provide to the end user. The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling called for a change in view of Superhighways, compared to those routes already implemented. If the safest, quickest and most reliable route between two points on a bike is along quieter streets, there is no reason why this cannot be a Superhighway. For CS1, the level of design consideration, available budget, and branding support (wayfinding, marketing support, and so on) matches all other Superhighway routes.

CS3 between Tower Gateway and Barking uses quieter streets such as Royal Mint Street and Cable Street (rather than The Highway arterial road), and has seen a large growth in cyclists since its inception in 2010. CS1 would provide a similar cycling environment to many of the roads on this route.

Other Superhighways in development, such as CS4 and CS11, are likely to follow main roads predominantly because these have been deemed the best route for cyclists to get between those start and endpoints. ‘Best’ is a function of criteria including safety, speed, comfort and reliability, but not road classification.

Impact on buses and general traffic

CS1 and congestion The proposed route for CS1 is expected to have minimal impact on other road users, including general traffic and bus passengers. This is because, for much of its length, CS1 would run along residential streets, away from the majority of car, freight and bus traffic. There are three locations where more noticeable changes are expected for journey times for general traffic and buses:

Junction of Mildmay Road/Boleyn Road/Crossway We proposed signalised pedestrian crossings on all four arms of this junction to allow pedestrians to cross the road safely. This would mean other road users waiting slightly longer for a green signal to proceed.

Old Street and Great Eastern Street (Apex junction) The changes proposed at this junction are linked closely to the proposals that have been recently consulted on to transform Old Street roundabout. Together, the two schemes would affect all road users – both positively and negatively. The banned right turn from Great Eastern Street into Pitfield Street would mean that some road users would need to find alternative routes (see p88 below, ‘Banned turns for motorists’). We have published a data table showing expected changes to journey

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 88 times on some routes and journeys for general traffic, buses and cyclists, and wait times for pedestrians. This was initially published as part of the consultation on Old Street roundabout (tfl.gov.uk/old-street-roundabout), and the traffic model includes proposed changes for both schemes. The table can be found at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/old-street-traffic-impacts/user_uploads/old-st-junction- improvement-modelling-results---051102-final.pdf. For general traffic using the Apex junction, journey times would be similar to today’s journeys. Bus route 205, and other routes that follow the same path through this junction towards Old Street, would be quicker by up to one minute in the morning, but slower by up to a minute in the evening. For the same route heading south, away from Old Street, journeys would be slower by up to one minute in the morning and slower by up to two minutes in the evening.

Balls Pond Road At Balls Pond Road, we will remove 75 metres of eastbound bus lane to make space for new cycling facilities, providing safer passage for cyclists between Culford Road and Kingsbury Road. Our research shows approximately 9 out of 10 buses don’t use this bus lane, so removing it would not affect bus journey times significantly. In response to consultation feedback, we plan to introduce Option B at Balls Pond Road (subject to further investigation into its feasibility), which could mean some delays for motor traffic and buses on Balls Pond Road due to new traffic signals at the junction with Culford Road. This traffic signal would provide safe crossings for cyclists and pedestrians.

Mitigation of increases in bus journey times TfL currently has underway a £200m Bus Priority programme, which will support London’s economy by reducing the impact from expected increases in traffic levels and congestion on bus journey times and reliability, by the easing of movement through key junctions along identified bus routes. It will also unlock Opportunity Areas identified in the London Plan, increasing the mode share of the bus at these locations. Achieving these aims will protect the bus passenger experience at designated locations throughout London; and enable London to continue moving, growing and working. Funding from the Bus Priority programme has been ring-fenced to target improvements on those bus routes potentially impacted by new cycling infrastructure, in order to rebalance time lost and improve reliability. Proposals will help to safeguard bus journey times and reliability by easing traffic and movement at key junctions.

Banned turns for motorists TfL does not develop proposals that introduce traffic restrictions without carefully considering the potential impacts and exploring alternatives. Typically, new restrictions are proposed to either address a safety issue or physical constraint, or to help a signalised junction operate more efficiently. We acknowledge that restrictions inconvenience some motorists. However, we need to balance this inconvenience against the wider benefits of schemes such as CS1, particularly in regards to improved safety for vulnerable road users. Where banned turns and road closures are proposed, we ensure that residents and businesses can use alternative routes. We also provide additional loading and parking bays where necessary. We have carefully considered feedback regarding the proposed new traffic restrictions on CS1, and our responses are summarised below:

89 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Pitfield Street Banning the turns from Old Street and Great Eastern Street into Pitfield Street would prevent northbound motor traffic using Pitfield Street to avoid the A10 or Old Street roundabout. Removing this 'rat-running' motor traffic would provide significant increases in safety for cyclists along this already-popular cycling route and a less traffic- dominated environment for everyone. It would also improve air quality for residents and visitors. While discouraging non-local traffic, the banned turn would not prevent access to any properties in surrounding roads because there are alternative access routes available.

Ardleigh Road At present, the atypical geometry of the junction and the confluence of Ardleigh Road, Englefield Road and Culford Road make it a potential hazard for the many cyclists that already use this north-south route. If left untreated, the junction could also prove to be a barrier to the many new people we expect CS1 to encourage to cycle. In addition to the cycling safety element, the proposed design retains vehicle access to all properties on Ardleigh Road and Culford Road, would increase pedestrian footway area, and would provide space for the planting of eight new trees around the new junction. In response to feedback during consultation, we are further evaluating the merits of the current proposal compared with alternative design solutions, with a view to providing a solution that benefits cyclists and pedestrians, while also accommodating the needs of local residents.

Junction of Wordsworth Road/Boleyn Road The London Borough of Hackney will investigate a scheme to reduce through motor traffic from surrounding roads, and make the wider area more cycle-friendly. If an area-wide scheme is not achievable within CS1 timescales, the current proposal to make the junction of Wordsworth Road and Boleyn Road cycle-only will be implemented. Any new proposals to expand the cycle-only ‘filters’ to surrounding streets would be subject to further consultation to ensure they meet local needs.

Changes to car parking Across the 11km route, there would be a net loss of approximately 30 parking bays, which would be removed to allow for measures to provide substantial safety benefits to cyclists and pedestrians. In some instances, parking bays have been relocated to nearby streets, while in other locations, bays have been removed entirely.

Parking and residents We recognise that some residents are dissatisfied at the loss of any parking spaces. However, we have to balance the needs of residents against the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. Where parking is being moved or removed it is to provide more space for safe cycling and improved safety for pedestrians.

Parking and businesses We do not believe removing or relocating a relatively small number of parking spaces will have any significant negative effect on local shops or businesses. On the contrary, CS1 could provide a boost to businesses along the route through increased custom from cyclists. Studies in the US cities of Portland and New York found that cyclists visit neighbourhood shops more often than drivers or public transport users, and spend more overall. Cyclists travel shorter distances to shop than drivers, so are more likely to use shops near to cycle routes. In addition, a commuter who cycles

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 90 every day from Outer London (instead of using public transport) would save up to £2,000 per year. Increased disposable incomes and opportunities for spending are likely to benefit the wider economy, including businesses near CS1.

Impact on the environment

Air pollution Concerns about pollution are typically based on the perception that CS1 would increase congestion, which would cause queuing motor traffic to emit more noxious gases. However, based on our traffic modelling (see p87 above, ‘CS1 and congestion’), we do not expect CS1 to cause significant congestion or to increase air pollution.

Motor traffic is one of the major causes of air pollution in Greater London, with vehicle exhausts and braking systems contributing to NOx and particulate matter in the air. CS1 is expected to help provide a long-term improvement in air quality by encouraging more journeys to be made by bicycle, reducing the number of motor traffic journeys. The effect will be more significant in some roads: for example, Pitfield Street is known to have poor air quality, and our proposal to close it to motorised traffic at the junction with Old Street is expected to reduce vehicle emissions at this location.

Removal of trees We recognise the positive impact trees have on the urban environment, and whenever a scheme is proposed we do all we can to avoid removing trees. However, where there is no practicable alternative, we consider substantial safety improvements for cyclists or other road users justify the removal of some trees. The CS1 proposal requires the removal of eight trees (four from the central reservation on Old Street, three from Pitfield Street, and one from Tottenham High Road). We plan to plant approximately 60 new trees along the route, which would result in a net gain of 52 trees along the 11km route.

Signage and carriageway markings All new signage will be carefully considered to ensure it is necessary. Where possible, we will share locations with existing signage to reduce visual impact and reductions in useable footway space. Any redundant signs will be removed to minimise clutter or confusion.

We are not proposing any blue markings or lanes on CS1. We will use white Superhighway logos on the carriageway at regular intervals to help cyclists find their way, and these will be supported by Superhighway-branded roadside signage.

Impact on pedestrians

Cyclist behaviour We acknowledge that some people have concerns about cyclist behaviour, although our research shows that most cyclists ride responsibly, and that cyclists are no more likely to disobey road rules than other road users. Statistics on road traffic collisions in Greater London show the number of injuries and fatalities for pedestrians in collisions involving cyclists are many times fewer than those involving motor vehicles.

91 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

TfL promotes adherence to the Highway Code by all road users and encourages ‘responsible cycling’ and mutual respect between cyclists and other road users. We work to eliminate offences such as jumping red lights, cycling on the pavement, and cycling at night without lights. We do this using police enforcement and education programmes, as well as through marketing and engagement campaigns. We recognise that some pavement cyclists break the law to avoid the dangers of motor traffic, and we anticipate that providing improved cycle routes will discourage people from riding on pavements. Providing dedicated routes for cycling can also help other road users by letting them know where to expect high volumes of cyclists.

TfL contributes funding towards the Metropolitan Police’s Cycle Safety Team and are working on a strategic enforcement plan, taking into account all activities. As promised in the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, the team expanded by a quarter in 2014, with 33 officers dedicated to road safety and another 16 tackling cycle theft. Deployment is evidence- driven. The Cycle Safety Team patrols all new Cycle Superhighways when they open, encouraging appropriate behaviour by all road users and enforcing compliance. Approximately 50 per cent of offences reported are committed by car drivers and motorcycle riders, 26 per cent by commercial vehicle drivers, and 24 per cent by cyclists.

Operation Safeway TfL also works with the Metropolitan Police on Operation Safeway, which has seen up to 1,000 officers deployed at around 100 junctions in Greater London, at least two days every month. High visibility officers use a combination of both enforcement and engagement to tackle dangerous illegal behaviour by all road users, including motorists and non-motorists. Locations are chosen by analysing collision data to determine those most at risk of killed and serious injured collisions (KSIs). The results from Operation Safeway show that significantly more motorists are enforced against than cyclists. Since it was launched in November 2013, over 16,000 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) have been given to motorists and 5,000 to cyclists. The most common offences where motorists were issued FPNs are contravening traffic signals (this would include crossing an advanced stop line), using a phone while driving, and failing to wear a seatbelt. The majority of cycling FPNs were issued for contravening traffic signals (including advancing over a stop line at a junction), cycling on the footway, and cycling at night without lights.

Risk to pedestrians, including children walking to school TfL takes the safety of pedestrians, particularly children, very seriously. We perform detailed collision analysis as part of our feasibility studies for all proposed cycle routes. Collision data along the CS1 routes shows no evidence that cycling poses a significant risk to child safety. On the contrary, we are confident that CS1 would create a substantial net benefit to pedestrian safety by providing traffic-calming measures and other pedestrian improvements.

Safety improvements for pedestrians The CS1 proposals include numerous interventions likely to reduce motor traffic speeds and make pedestrian crossings safer – for example, new and improved pedestrians crossings, new raised tables (junction-wide speed humps) to slow all road users, and larger footways at junctions to help crossings and calm traffic.

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 92

Collision data analysis Looking at the most recent three years of collision data for CS1 (November 2011 to November 2014), there has only been a single case of an adult cyclist causing serious injury to a child along the entire 11km of the proposed CS1 route. This collision occurred on Tottenham High Road when a cyclist failed to stop to allow the pedestrian to cross at a signalised crossing. CS1 would avoid the carriageway at this point. During this three-year period there were no other cases of cyclists causing any other injury to children. From November 2011 to November 2014, cycle traffic was involved in only three incidents with pedestrians of all ages (two serious and one slight), with two of these occurring within the carriageway of Tottenham High Road, which will be unaffected by CS1.

By contrast, across the same area there were 47 incidents where motor vehicles caused harm to pedestrians (of all ages), including 1 fatality, 10 serious injuries and 36 slight injuries. While we accept that some people find cycle traffic intimidating and perceive it to be as dangerous, evidence strongly suggests that cyclists in London very rarely cause harm to children or adults. This contrasts sharply with the impacts of motor vehicle collisions, which – while declining in Greater London – are still the largest cause of school- age child mortality in the UK.

Reducing motor traffic danger Creating safer cycle routes provides people with an alternative to driving, potentially reducing the number of vehicles on the roads (for example, in the mornings and evenings during the school run). Rather than increase danger, the measures proposed in CS1 are likely to reduce vehicle volumes and speeds, and therefore reduce the overall risk to adults and children walking and cycling on the route.

Shared space Shared footway: cyclists and pedestrians Along the majority of the route, cyclists would ride in the carriageway or in cycle lanes or tracks, separate from pedestrians. However, there are a small number of locations where cyclists and pedestrians would share footway space, with cyclists required to give way to people on foot. At these locations, such as Pitfield Street and Tottenham High Road, we will provide clear routes for cyclists, so interactions between cyclists and pedestrians are predictable. These areas will be designed to heighten awareness between the two types of road user.

Shared space: motor traffic, cyclists and pedestrians The CS1 proposal published in February 2015 included one new location (where Paul Street meets Tabernacle Street) where motor traffic, cyclists and pedestrians would share space. Since consultation, the design has been reconsidered due to this being a traffic management route for developments currently under construction in Shoreditch. This means there’s a need for vehicular access to be maintained during the CS1 works period, restricting our ability to implement the proposed design. However, we will update the current design with a wider segregated contraflow cycle lane. The London Borough of Hackney expects to redesign the Tabernacle Square in the future, although not within the CS1 timeframe.

93 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Sections 1-3: CS1 from Sun Street to Paul Street

Cycling safety

Non-segregation of roads Given the characteristics of the roads in Sections 1-3, segregation would not be appropriate, with CS1 being routed along quieter streets, compared with the surrounding main roads. We recognise the route is through central London, which is why we have proposed traffic-calming measures such as new parking restrictions on Paul Street, a new raised table at Worship Street (including a motor traffic-free public space), and a new raised table at the Wilson Street/Dysart Street junction. The existing modal filters at Christopher Street and Worship Street will remain, as will the traffic-calming public space at Leonard Circus. Our analysis of traffic flows and collision statistics in these streets shows there is no significant risk of harm to cyclists. We will be monitoring traffic flows through these roads, with a view to evaluating the benefit of introducing further modal filters in the future. See p85, ‘Non-segregation of roads’.

Cycling in roads with parked cars See p86 above, ‘Cycling alongside parked cars’.

Junction of Paul Street and Worship Street This junction has been redesigned to improve sightlines and cycling safety, including slowing traffic on the approach.

CS1 south of Sun Street See p86 above, ‘Extending CS1 north and south’.

Shared space at Leonard Circus This was a scheme delivered by Hackney Council in Summer 2014, and there are no physical changes proposed as part of CS1.

Junction of Paul Street/Tabernacle Street See p92 above, ‘Shared space’.

Cycle access to Christopher Street The latest proposal is to remove the bollard from the junction of Christopher Street and Wilson Street to improve access for cyclists, including non-standard cycles.

Section 4: Junction of Old Street and Great Eastern Street

Impact on motor traffic

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 94

Motor traffic displacement to nearby roads Closing Pitfield Street will remove a rat-run, where currently motorists use this route to avoid the Old Street roundabout or the A10 when going to North London. The largest movement banned is the right turn from Great Eastern Street into Pitfield Street. All this motor traffic would have to use Old Street roundabout to head north, rather than using local streets. See p88 above, ‘Banned turns for motorists’.

Impact on congestion See p87 above, ‘Impact on buses and general traffic’.

Emergency access north of Pitfield Street In response to feedback from the London Fire Brigade, we have decided to maintain emergency vehicle access to Pitfield Street from Old Street because using alternative routes would adversely affect emergency response times.

Cycling safety

Protected cycling space along Old Street Eastbound along Old Street, we are proposing a new segregated cycle track between Shoreditch Fire Station and Apex junction, including new signalised right turn for cyclists turning into CS1 to the south. An advisory cycle lane would continue east beyond Apex. Westbound cyclists would share a bus lane east of Apex junction, and then a wide general traffic lane. Old Street forms part of the strategically important Inner Ring Road, and providing segregated cycling facilities throughout Old Street would significantly affect motor traffic, including buses, or pedestrians. This is because providing segregated lanes would require the removal of general traffic lanes or the cutting back of footway. Segregated tracks could also make access more difficult for local businesses as loading bays on the north and south sides of Old Street would have to be moved or removed. Travelling west, we are proposing deep ASLs on Old Street and Great Eastern Street to help cyclists get ahead of motorised traffic.

Cycling on Great Eastern Street The challenge along Great Eastern Street has been to provide a good level of service for cyclists, while maintaining capacity for general traffic on the Inner Ring Road. Although the space is restricted, we feel the proposals cater for all modes using this area. The introduction of new traffic signals at Rivington Street provides an opportunity for cyclists to safely cross Great Eastern Street without any interaction with motor vehicles. Due to the limited width of the road on the westbound approach on Great Eastern Street, it has not been possible to accommodate cycle lanes. The proposals do include Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs), which provide space for cyclists to wait ahead of motorised traffic.

TfL is working closely with the London Borough of Hackney to ensure the cycle link within the southern footway of Great Eastern Street can be accommodated, without compromising the pedestrian environment, or causing any safety concerns. Once implemented, this interaction would be monitored to ensure it operates as intended. There are ongoing discussions regarding a potential redesign of Tabernacle Square, which could

95 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation perhaps incorporate features that would reduce any issues that may arise if this area is observed to be a pinch-point.

Single-phase cycle crossing The new proposal will significantly reduce waiting times for cyclists crossing Old Street and Great Eastern Street by reducing the current three-stage crossing to two stages, as well as reducing conflict between cyclists and pedestrians by providing larger and separated crossing points, and a marked area for cyclists between the crossings. We rejected an option to stop all motor traffic to allow cyclists to cross in one movement because of the adverse effect it would have on pedestrians sharing the space between the crossings and on east-west motor traffic flow.

Cycling facility between Old Street and Pitfield Street In designing the cycling facility between Old Street and Pitfield Street, it was necessary to account for the large numbers of pedestrian movements at this location. For this reason, the marked cycling area curves and narrows to encourage reduced cycling speeds on the approach to the busy Old Street area. Despite the narrowing, we still expect there to be adequate space for large volumes of cycle traffic, not least because at peak times, a significant portion of cycle traffic will be tidal, with the majority of cyclists heading south in the morning and north in the afternoon. We believe the current design strikes the right balance between cycling utility and pedestrian safety.

Southbound cycle traffic heading west into Old Street In response to feedback during consultation, we are considering the feasibility of providing a two-stage right-turn facility for cyclists heading south out of Pitfield Street who want to turn west along Old Street.

Impact on cyclists and pedestrians

Switching pedestrian and cyclist crossings During the feasibility stage, we carefully considered alternative crossing configurations, and we are confident the proposed design is the optimum. The current configuration of the cyclist and pedestrian crossings accommodates the optimum route for cyclists heading north-south. We acknowledge that some cyclists and pedestrians will have to interact to continue their journeys east and west, but this would be true if the positions of the crossings were reversed.

Environmental impact

Removal of trees See above ‘Removal of trees’.

Sections 5-6

Impact on motor traffic

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 96

Emergency access See p93 above, ‘Emergency access north of Pitfield Street’.

Motor traffic displacement to nearby roads See p93 above, ‘Motor traffic displacement to nearby roads’.

Motor vehicle access to Pitfield Street Our proposals will not prevent vehicle access to any property in Pitfield Street nor the surrounding roads. There are a number of alternative routes to access Pitfield Street, and we do not recommend one over another. Motor traffic travelling southbound into Pitfield Street will be able to access properties directly because Pitfield Street will become two- way for all traffic as far as Boot Street.

Car parking changes/restrictions The CS1 proposals do not result in a net loss of parking or loading in this area. Some bays in Pitfield Street will be being relocated to nearby roads to provide more space for cycling but – having considered the needs for local parking and loading – we do not expect this to have a detrimental effect on residents or businesses.

Congestion See p87 above, ‘Impact on buses and general traffic’.

Cycling safety

Removing the cycle contraflow The current contraflow cycle track is being removed because it is already over-capacity during the morning peak. Cycle flows are projected to increase significantly in the near future, and increasing numbers of cyclists will make crowding worse. In addition, the cycle track suffers from maintenance issues, including flooding during wet weather. To provide adequate space for current and increasing volumes of cyclists north and south, the contraflow will be removed and Pitfield Street made two-way for all traffic. Some parking will be relocated to nearby roads. We recognise that doing this alone will not necessarily create comfortable conditions for cycling, which is why the junction of Old Street and Pitfield Street is being blocked to motor traffic. This will make this road unattractive to non- local motor traffic, reducing traffic volumes, while traffic-calming measures (see next paragraph, ‘Traffic-calming’) will reduce motor vehicles speeds. We expect the outcome of these changes to be a pleasant cycling environment that caters for much larger volumes of cycle traffic, while also providing for the needs of local residents and businesses.

Traffic-calming We are installing the following measures to calm motor traffic in and around Pitfield Street: new raised table at junction of Pitfield Street/Charles Square/Coronet Street; enlarged footways and tighter junction geometry at Buttesland Street, Chart Street, Coronet Street, Fanshaw Street, Haberdasher Street and New North Road. We are satisfied the current proposals will provide a safe and comfortable cycling environment.

97 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Risk of ‘dooring’ In Sections 5-6 we are planning to move 15 parking bays from Pitfield Street into side roads to provide more space for cycling. This will reduce the risk of dooring from people in parked cars. While we recognise the presence of any parked cars means there is a risk of ‘dooring’, we are satisfied this risk is low. See p86 above, ‘Cycling alongside parked cars’.

Speed humps Throughout CS1 we will use the most up-to-date designs for speed humps, which use a ‘sinusoidal’ profile. This is a shape that provides all traffic with smoother passage over the hump, while also encouraging speed reduction.

Risk of cyclist-pedestrian collisions A number of respondents expressed concern at the risk of cyclists from pedestrians crossing the road in front of them. We recognise that Pitfield Street has relatively high pedestrian flows, and that informal crossing could present some risk to cyclists. However, the main desire line for pedestrians is north-south, not across Pitfield Street. At some locations pedestrians will have a shorter distance to cross because of enlarged footways. Also, the removal of the contraflow cycle track will remove what is currently a cause of confusion for some pedestrians, making collisions with cycle traffic less likely. We are confident pedestrians do not present a significant risk to cyclists at this location.

Concern CS1 is a Quietway not a Superhighway See p87 above, ‘Concern CS1 is a Quietway not a Superhighway’.

Sections 7-8: Pitfield Street north to Culford Road

Cycling safety

Non-segregation of roads We are satisfied our proposal provides a safe and comfortable environment for cycling. However, all schemes are monitored and evaluated after implementation, and we would use the evidence gathered to judge the benefits of any additional filters or traffic-calming measures. See p85 above ‘Non-segregation of roads’.

Hyde Road/Hoxton Street junction This is a recently implemented borough-led scheme. Hackney Council is monitoring the performance of the junction, with a view to taking action if necessary.

Risk of cyclist-cyclist collisions Some respondents expressed concern that CS1 would bring increased risk of cyclist- cyclist collisions at the junction of Culford Road and Northchurch Terrace, the confluence of a north-south and an east-west cycle route. However, because this junction is motor traffic free, has excellent visibility and lots of wide space, we consider the risk of cyclist-

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 98 cyclist collisions to be low. On completion, we will monitor the scheme to establish if there are any unforeseen risks.

Calls for alternative alignment See p85 above, ‘Alternative alignment along A10’.

Speed bumps See p96 above, ‘Speed humps’.

Concern CS1 is a Quietway not a Superhighway See p87 above, ‘Concern CS1 is a Quietway not a Superhighway’.

Impact on motor traffic

Ardleigh Road modal filter See p88 above, ‘Banned turns for motorists’.

Traffic displacement due to Ardleigh Road modal filter In response to feedback during consultation, we are further evaluating the merits of the current proposal compared with alternative design solutions, with a view to providing a solution that benefits cyclists and pedestrians, while also accommodating the needs of local residents. See p88 above, ‘Banned turns for motorists’.

Banned right turn from Englefield Road In response to the proposal to ban the movement of motor traffic between Ardleigh Road and Culford Road, a number of respondents called for the removal of the ban on motor traffic turning right from Englefield Road into Southgate Road. We are currently in discussions with the London Boroughs of Hackney and Islington over the Ardleigh Road closure, the outcome of which will include any decision on movements between Englefield Road and Southgate Road. See p88 above, ‘Banned turns for motorists’.

Accessing private driveways Some respondents expressed concern that increased cycle flows in Northchurch Terrace would make it more difficult for residents to enter and exit off-carriageway parking spaces. Northchurch Terrace is a short section of CS1, and cyclists will have turned into the road from either Culford Road or De Beauvoir Road. For these reasons we expect cyclists to be travelling at a modest speed. It is important for motorists to be aware of cycles and pedestrians and other traffic when accessing private driveways. CS1 will not affect the need for drivers to take care at all times.

Impact on pedestrians

Risk from increased cycle flows As part of the feasibility study for CS1, we undertook collision analysis of the entire route. This analysis did not raise concerns over pedestrian-cyclist collisions on what is already a busy cycle route through the De Beauvoir area. We do not expect the CS1 proposals to change that situation. See p91 above, ‘Risk to pedestrians, including children walking to school’.

99 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Environmental concerns

Raised planter on Northchurch Terrace We are not proposing the removal of this planter. It will be moved a few metres to accommodate an improved junction design for cyclists and pedestrians. We are aware of existing maintenance arrangements with local residents, and will endeavour to accommodate their needs when the planter is moved.

Signage and blue paint in Conservation Area See p90 above, ‘Signage and carriageway markings’.

Section 9: Balls Pond Road, Option A

Cyclist safety

Advisory cycle lanes Some respondents expressed concern that advisory cycle lanes would not provide adequate protection from motor traffic on Balls Pond Road. Others said the proposed advisory lanes are too narrow. Due to the lack of available space for mandatory or segregated lanes on the relatively short stretch of Balls Pond Road between Culford and Kingsbury Road, the advisory lanes are considered suitable provision for cyclists. The width of the lanes is in line with current design standards, serving to provide space for cyclists, as well as announcing the presence of a cycle route to drivers.

Traffic signals to protect right-turning cyclists Some respondents called for the installation of traffic signal to protect cyclists turning right into Balls Pond Road from the risk of collision with motor traffic. The key design challenge at Balls Pond Road has been to protect cyclists turning right out of either Culford Road (heading north) or Kingsbury Road (heading south). In terms of minimising risk to cyclists, the design team are satisfied this manoeuvre is provided for in the proposals. Traffic on Balls Pond Road has been observed to come in ‘platoons’, due to nearby signals and the general configuration of local streets, and in the peak hours, eastbound traffic queues back on the approach to Dalston Junction. Option A is considered to provide suitable protection for right-turning cyclists, given the nature of the traffic flow. Option A presents an opportunity for cyclists to make the right turn across Balls Pond Road in two movements, without the need to negotiate both east and westbound movements. We are also proposing to reduce the number of lanes cyclists would have to negotiate from three to two.

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 100

Section 9: Balls Pond Road, Option B

Impact on motor traffic

Impact on buses and general traffic Signalisation of Culford Road is the key design feature that would introduce delay to buses. Initial modelling has been conducted, with more detailed analysis currently underway to determine the impact on traffic more accurately. The results from this modelling will contribute to whether this option is considered feasible. See p87 above, ‘CS1 and congestion’.

Cycling safety

Width of two-way cycle track Due to the restricted width of Balls Pond Road, and requirement to meet minimal lane widths for general traffic on this strategic corridor with high frequency bus services, the bidirectional cycle track is proposed to be 2.5m wide. A 2.5m facility that provides physical segregation from general traffic is considered acceptable because of the the relatively short distance the track (approximately 100 metres between Culford Road and Kingsbury Road) and the ‘tidal’ nature of cycling (predominantly southbound in the morning peak and northbound in the afternoon peak).

With-flow segregated cycle tracks The London Cycling Campaign proposed installing with-flow segregated cycle tracks. The design would be accommodated by taking space from the southern footway where it is currently heavily bollarded (and not useable by pedestrians) and by negating the need for a central waiting zone by installing signalled junctions where Balls Pond Road meets Culford Road and Kingsbury Road. We consider this proposal unfeasible due to the delays that would be introduced by installing two sets of traffic signals in close proximity on Balls Pond Road, which forms part of the Strategic Bus Network, as well as carrying significant volumes of general traffic.

East-west cycling along Balls Pond Road A recent audit of the proposals did not return any issue with the design’s ability to safely cater for east-west cycle movements along Balls Pond Road. That said, the performance of the new facility would be monitored once implemented, to ensure there is no undue exposure to risk for all modes, including cyclists.

Parking near junction access points Analysis has been undertaken to ensure the proposed road layout, including the position of parking bays, would not create any obstructions or necessitate unsafe manoeuvres. As part of the design process, parking bays have been reconfigured within this section of the route.

101 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Alternative alignment along A10 See p85 above, ‘Alternative alignment along A10’.

Impact on pedestrians

Relocation of pedestrian crossing Option B includes a new signalised crossing for pedestrians at the junction of Culford Road, replacing one further east on Balls Pond Road. We will monitor these crossings after implementation to ensure the new design caters for pedestrian movements.

Section 10-14: Kingsbury Road to Ermine Road

Cycling safety

Non-segregation of roads See p85 above ‘Non-segregation of roads’.

Cycling across Amhurst Park The proposals for this section include two new traffic islands either side of Holmdale Terrace, creating an opportunity for cyclists to cross Amhurst Park in two movements, if necessary. Other design options were considered at this location, as the team recognise Amhurst Park as a busy, strategic road adjacent to a key interchange at Stamford Hill station. Given the context of this location, the current proposals are considered the most suitable in facilitating cycle movements between Holmdale Terrace and West Bank.

Cycling across Stoke Newington Church Street The proposals for this section include the implementation of two new traffic islands either side of the junctions of Defoe Road and Bouverie Road. This approach is consistent with the treatment of other ‘dog-leg’ with which cyclists on CS1 would be familiar, creating an opportunity to cross Stoke Newington Church Street in two separate movements, if necessary.

St Ann’s Road/Hillside Road alignment We recognise this as a ‘dog-leg’ on the route, along a road that has restricted width to accommodate formal cycling infrastructure. We are satisfied the proposals are suitable in context of this environment, with no issues raised in a recent safety audit of the designs. However, following consultation, we are planning to progress an additional alignment for CS1 between Dunsmure Road in Hackney and Tottenham High Road via East Bank and Hillside Road (subject to technical feasibility). The current proposals via West Bank and St Ann’s Road will be delivered to complete a whole route within the agreed programme.

Boleyn Road/King Henry's Walk Requests for a filtered permeability scheme in Boleyn Road and King Henry’s Walk are out of scope of CS1. We are satisfied with the proposed alignment, and will pass on consultation feedback to the relevant boroughs for review.

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 102

Impact on pedestrians

Motor traffic in roads adjacent to Wordsworth Road In response to feedback from consultation concerning the closure of Wordsworth Road/Boleyn Road junction potentially causing motor traffic displacement to nearby roads (which could adversely affect local residents) we and the London Borough of Hackney will investigate a scheme to reduce through motor traffic from surrounding roads, and make the wider area more cycle-friendly, with benefits for pedestrian safety. If an area-wide scheme is not achievable within CS1 timescales, the current proposal to make the junction of Wordsworth Road and Boleyn Road cycle-only will be implemented. Any new proposals to expand the cycle-only ‘filters’ to surrounding streets would be subject to further consultation to ensure they meet local needs.

Risk to pedestrians, including children walking to school See p91 above, ‘Risk to pedestrians, including children walking to school’.

Relocation of zebra crossing on Boleyn Road The close proximity of the proposed zebra crossing to Wordsworth Road is designed to make crossing Boleyn Road safer for pedestrians, as drivers will be able to see it further in advance than currently. The zebra crossing would also provide increased awareness for drivers on the approach. This coupled with the proposed traffic islands would reduce vehicle speeds on the bend, and increase protection for cyclists turning into and out of Wordsworth Road.

Impact on motor traffic

Motor vehicle access to Wordsworth Road and Barrett’s Grove We received a petition of approximately 220 names objecting to our proposals for Wordsworth Road and Barrett’s Grove (see p39, ‘Petition details’). However, the petition’s two objections did not correspond with our proposals, in that the CS1 proposals consulted on would not prevent motor traffic accessing properties on Wordsworth Road or Barrett’s Grove. In response to feedback during consultation from local residents concerned about ‘rat-running’ and displacement of motor traffic to nearby roads, the London Borough of Hackney will investigate a scheme to reduce through motor traffic from surrounding roads, and make the wider area more cycle-friendly. If an area-wide scheme is not achievable within CS1 timescales, the current proposal to make the junction of Wordsworth Road and Boleyn Road cycle-only will be implemented. Any new proposals to expand the cycle-only ‘filters’ to surrounding streets would be subject to further consultation to ensure they meet local needs.

103 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Sections 15-16: Tottenham High Road to Town Hall Approach

Impact on cyclists and pedestrians

Potential for pedestrian-cyclist conflicts Seven Sisters Underground Station Following feedback from consultation, the design is being altered outside the entrance to Seven Sisters tube station to mitigate potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. At the northern exit, we will extend the existing barrier to deflect pedestrians away from the cycle track. We are also reviewing the benefits of alternative ways to ‘break up’ the cycle track visually within the footway to raise awareness of pedestrian-cyclist footways.

Link to Town Hall Approach Road The project team recognise there is limited space available to accommodate a cycle track within the footway that links to Town Hall Approach Road. The space is further constrained by the presence of the college, and a mature tree with raised planter. Alternative options were considered for this location, including the removal of the tree. However, we concluded that the current configuration of a shared footway to access Town Hall Approach Road was the most appropriate solution. This site will be monitored in the longer-term to ensure the quality of the walking and cycling environment is not significantly compromised. If this is the case, we can reinvestigate alternative design proposals at this location.

Approaches to crossings and toucans at Seven Sisters Road and West Green Road The approaches to the crossings at Seven Sisters Road and West Green Road are currently shared between pedestrians and cyclists. The proposals are catering for an anticipated increase number of cyclists using these facilities, so we would widen the crossing area available, and realign them slightly to better serve the north-south movements. We are reviewing the design details of the cycle track, and how this visually ‘breaks-up’ on approach to areas shared with pedestrians, including these crossing points.

South Tottenham Station We recognise concerns regarding the narrowing of the cycle track to 2.4 metres at South Tottenham Station, owing to the proximity of the bridge wall. However, we have ensured our design provides clearly defined cycle and pedestrian spaces within the footway from the earliest opportunity along the High Road. The consistent layout, with the cycle track remaining at the back of the footway until it meets the next major junction at Seven Sisters Road, will help minimise conflict. The narrow section will only run for a distance of 11 metres, and we consider that the design will accommodate expected usage. Alternative designs would delay the scheme and affect traffic operations. We will monitor this section of the route, and if the volume of cyclists and pedestrians outgrows the space provided, we will revisit this section of the cycle track to accommodate increased flows.

Preference for with-flow cycle tracks See p85 above, ‘Alternative alignment along A10’.

In-carriageway cycle track The significantly wide western footway on the A10 presents an opportunity to

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 104 accommodate space for cyclists, avoiding interaction with traffic signals, bus stops and motorised traffic. See p85 above, ‘Alternative alignment along A10’.

Two-way cycle track on east side of High Road The western footway is considered a more logical position for the cycle track, primarily due to its significant width, and the fact that it is an existing space shared between pedestrians and cyclists. If the cycle track was proposed to run along the eastern footway, cyclists would have to cross the busy A10 to access it from other sections of CS1 north and south. This would be less direct than the current proposal, and would increase journey times.

Trees in the cycle track Since consultation, the design of the cycle track in this location has been altered. The design shown in the consultation document uses a single surface material, with the trees used to define a boundary between north and southbound cyclists. It is recognised this could be confusing, with a perception that the trees are perhaps an obstacle in the middle of a single track. The revised design therefore includes a clear area running along the middle of the two-way track to show that it consists of two separate lanes, running either side of the line of trees. This alteration to surface materials, as well as logos and branding within the lanes themselves, should serve to minimise any confusion.

Bus stop bypasses The current proposal recognises the benefits of having cyclists avoiding interaction with buses using bus stops. The design of the bus stop bypasses is different from those on CS2 or those proposed on CS5, but cyclists will still be able to cycle behind the bus stop shelters, without interacting with buses in the carriageway. The design also aims to avoid conflict with bus passengers.

Section 17: Philip Lane

Cycling safety

Advisory cycle lanes Philip Lane presents an opportunity to significantly improve facilities for cyclists compared to the current situation. The scheme will introduce advisory cycle lanes to provide unbroken provision between Town Hall Approach Road and Napier Road. Due to the width of the road, it was not possible to accommodate kerb-segregated cycle tracks. This is considered a suitable approach, serving to announce the presence of cyclists to drivers. The use of wands or ‘armadillos’ was evaluated as part of the design process, but was felt to be more visually intrusive and would reduce the effective width of the cycle lanes unless footways were cut back.

Interaction with buses The current layout of bus stops was considered to present a safety concern, given the

105 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation restricted lane widths. Our design moves the bus stops 65 metres east, to a wider section of Philip Lane, allowing all traffic to pass more safely when buses are stopped.

Napier Road We recognise the restricted width available along Napier Road. CS1 will maintain the current operation for cyclists along here by retaining the northbound contraflow facility. This arrangement is considered suitable due to the current traffic flows on this residential street, with our designs including measures to calm motor traffic speeds, and maintain a clear line of sight for all users. CS1 will run along a large number of residential streets over its 11km length, and the designs have needed to strike a balance to maintain access for local residents and businesses, whilst encouraging increased cycle trips. We will monitor CS1 after it opens to ensure the design continues to be fit for purpose. If cycle numbers increase significantly along Napier Road, further adjustments to the design could be considered in the longer term to accommodate this.

Right turn into Town Hall Approach Road One of the key design considerations along Philip Lane has been the provision for right- turning cyclists using CS1, both at Town Hall Approach Road (travelling south) and Napier Road (travelling north). Our designs include new traffic islands at both of these junctions to create space for a right-turn pocket to make cycling turns safer. This level of design intervention was considered to be suitable for this location, given the traffic flows and character of the street. The introduction of traffic signals would cause unnecessary delay to all traffic.

Impact on motor traffic

Car parking in Philip Lane To accommodate the improvements to cycling facilities along Philip Lane, it is necessary to remove some pay and display parking, as well as residents’ parking bays. It is anticipated that the adjacent side roads will be used as an alternative location, namely Arnold Road, which is closest to the part of Philip Lane that would see a reduction in parking spaces. We acknowledge the removal of parking on Philip Lane could inconvenience adjacent residents. However, given the presence of nearby alternatives and the benefits the new layout would bring to cyclists, we have decided to go ahead with removing these parking bays to create more space for cyclists.

Impact on bus passengers

Moving bus stops The current layout of bus stops presents a safety concern, given the restricted lane widths. We have therefore decided to move two bus stops (G and P) 65 metres eastwards, to a wider section of Philip Lane, allowing traffic to pass more safely when buses are stopped. Our research does not indicate that moving the bus stops a short distance will have a significant impact on access to local amenities.

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 106

Section 18-19: Napier Road to Church Lane

Cycling safety

Route alignment See p85 above, ‘Alternative alignment along A10’.

Parked cars See p86 above, ‘Cycling alongside parked cars’.

Non-segregation See p85 above, ‘Non-segregation of roads’.

Traffic filtering See p86 above, ‘Additional modal filter at Broadwater Road’.

Traffic-calming at Ranelagh Road The existing junction mouth of Napier Road and Ranelagh Road is wide, and lends itself to fast approach speeds. It also presents a large crossing distance for pedestrians, which is a particular concern for those with mobility or visual impairments. Our design for this location narrows the mouth of the junction, and provides a central pedestrian refuge island with tactile paving. This reduces the crossing distance for pedestrians and is designed to reduce speeds of turning vehicles. Due to the angle at which Ranelagh Road meets Napier Road, it is not possible to tighten the junction any more without affecting the movement of refuse vehicles, which regularly use this junction.

Narrow sections on Lordship Lane For cyclists travelling either east or westbound along Lordship Lane, the proposed traffic lane width of 4m is not deemed to compromise cycling safety. A recent audit of the designs did not identify any safety concerns with the proposed road layout at this location.

Crossing Lordship Lane The design challenge at Lordship Lane was to protect cyclists turning right out of either Broadwater Road (heading north) or Church Lane (heading south). In terms of minimising risk to cyclists, we are satisfied this manoeuvre is provided for in our proposals. Although heavy, motor traffic on Lordship Lane has been observed to come in ‘platoons’, due to close proximity of roundabouts and the configuration of local streets. The provision of new traffic islands and banned movements for motorised vehicles will provide suitable protection for right-turning cyclists, given the nature of the traffic flow. The design provides an opportunity for cyclists to make the right turn across Lordship Lane in two movements, without the need to negotiate both east and westbound movements at once.

Traffic signals Due to the close proximity of four junctions, we do not propose introducing new signals at this location. Technical requirements mean a new crossing would need 20 metres between Church Lane and Broadwater Road, and there is insufficient space between these crossing points. In addition, any new signals would have a significant impact on traffic flow on this busy corridor, and is not considered feasible.

Impact on pedestrians

107 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Shared pedestrian-cyclist cut-through The pedestrian-cyclist cut-through between Napier Road and Sperling Road provides a useful link to maintain the north-south alignment of CS1. Following feedback from consultation, we are aware of the need to maintain a clear space that pedestrians and cyclists can safely share, with appropriate signage, branding and lighting provision. On the approach, cyclists need to turn into the facility, which serves to reduce their speed before any interaction with pedestrians. Although this space is restricted, it is not considered to cause any safety issues due to good lines of sight, and the fact that it covers a relatively short distance. The situation will be monitored post-implementation to ensure any increased volume of cyclists can be safely accommodated alongside pedestrian flows.

Impact on motorists

Banned turns The banned turns proposed for Lordship Lane’s junctions with Broadwater Road and Church Lane have been proposed to improve the conditions for cycling and remove conflict with motorised vehicles. Access to properties will be maintained.

Parking The extension of double yellow lines at the junction of Broadwater Road and The Avenue will improve lines of sight for all road users to make this a safer manoeuvre. See p89 above, ‘Change to car parking’.

Impact on bus passengers

Moving bus stops We acknowledge that the relocation of bus stop LE from Lordship Lane into Bruce Grove will remove the ability for bus passengers to change services at the same bus stop to continue north on route 318 towards Enfield and the North Middlesex Hospital. Bus stop LE will be relocated to accommodate new traffic islands in Lordship Lane at the junctions with Broadwater Road and Church Lane. These islands are designed to provide protection for right-turning cyclists travelling north-south along CS1, allowing them to cross the A10 in two separate movements. Our data shows that only a small number of passengers change between services at this location. By moving the stop into Bruce Grove, these passengers would need to walk a short distance to either bus stop Y in Lordship Lane, or bus stop RT on The Roundway.

Extending CS1 northwards See p86 above, ‘Extending CS1 north and south’.

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 108

Appendix C: Consultation questions

Questions about our proposals

All questions were optional except the first question, which had to be answered:

• Do you support our overall CS1 proposals? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion • Do you have any comments about our overall proposals for CS1?

• Do you support our proposal for CS1 from Sun Street to Paul Street (Sections 1 to 3)? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion • Do you have any comments about our proposal for CS1 from Sun Street to Paul Street (Sections 1 to 3)?

• Do you support our proposal for CS1 at the junction of Old Street and Great Eastern Street (Section 4)? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion • Do you have any comments about our proposal for CS1 at the junction of Old Street and Great Eastern Street (Section 4)?

• Do you support our proposal for CS1 on Pitfield Street south (Sections 5 and 6)? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion • Do you have any comments about our proposal for CS1 on Pitfield Street south (Sections 5 and 6)?

• Do you support our proposal for CS1 from Pitfield Street north to Culford Road (Sections 7 and 8)? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion • Do you have any comments about our proposal for CS1 from Pitfield Street north to Culford Road (Sections 7 and 8)?

• Do you support our proposal for CS1 on Balls Pond Road: Option A (Section 9)? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion • Do you have any comments about our proposal for CS1 on Balls Pond Road: Option A (Section 9)?

• Do you support our proposal for CS1 on Balls Pond Road: Option B (Section 9)? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion • Do you have any comments about our proposal for CS1 on Balls Pond Road: Option B (Section 9)?

• Do you support our proposal for CS1 from Kingsbury Road to Ermine Road (Sections 10 to 14)? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion • Do you have any comments about our proposal for CS1 from Kingsbury Road to Ermine Road (Sections 10 to 14)?

• Do you support our proposal for CS1 from Tottenham High Road to Town Hall Approach (Sections 15 and 16)? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion • Do you have any comments about our proposal for CS1 from Tottenham High Road to Town Hall Approach (Sections 15 and 16)?

109 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

• Do you support our proposal for CS1 on Philip Lane (Section 17)? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion • Do you have any comments about our proposal for CS1 on Philip Lane (Section 17)?

• Do you support our proposal for CS1 from Napier Road to Church Lane (Sections 18 and 19)? Yes, Partially, No, Not sure, No opinion • Do you have any comments about our proposal for CS1 from Napier Road to Church Lane (Sections 18 and 19)?

Questions about the respondent

All questions were optional:

• Are you (please tick all boxes that apply): Local resident, Employed locally, Business owner, Commuter, Visitor, Other

• What types of transport do you normally use locally (please tick all boxes that apply)? Private car, Taxi, Van, Lorry, Bus, Coach, Bicycle, Walk, Tube, Train, Motorcycle or scooter

• On average, how often do you cycle? (please tick all boxes that apply): Daily, Once per week, 1-3 times month, Less often, Never

• How did you hear about this consultation? Email, leaflet through door, Twitter, Online advert, Leaflet from TfL representative, Letter, Public exhibition, Google (text) advert, Mobile message

• Do you have any comments about this consultation (e.g. printed materials, website, events etc.)?

• What is your name?

• What is your email address?

• What is your postcode?

• If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name:

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 110

Appendix D: Consultation leaflet

111 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 112

Map of leaflet distribution area

The CS1 leaflet was distributed to approximately 55,000 addresses in the following roads on and adjoining the proposed route:

113 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Appendix E: Letters to properties affected by changes to parking and loading

Below is a sample of the eight different letters sent to 2250 addresses in close proximity to locations where there were proposed changes to parking and loading along CS1. Each letter included a print-out of the relevant section of the CS1 proposal drawings to which the content of the letter referred:

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 114

Appendix F: Consultation emails

Email to stakeholders, sent 17 February 2015 The following email was sent to over a thousand stakeholder email recipients on 17 February 2015 telling them about the CS1 consultation. For a list of stakeholder organisations, see Appendix G.

Dear Stakeholder,

The public consultation on Cycle Superhighway Route 1 (CS1), from Tottenham to the City of London, has opened and runs until Sunday 29 March. Find out more and have your say at tfl.gov.uk/cs1.

We have been working with the London boroughs of Hackney, Haringey and Islington, and are proposing a major new cycle route from White Hart Lane to Liverpool Street station, forming part of the London-wide network of Cycle Superhighways. CS1 aims to provide safe and convenient journeys along its 11km north-south route, improving conditions for existing cyclists and making cycling attractive to more people.

For much of its length CS1 would run along residential streets, away from the majority of car, freight and bus traffic. Where CS1 passes along the busiest roads, cycle lanes and tracks would separate cyclists from motor traffic, and where the route crosses main roads, junctions would be redesigned to make them safer and more convenient for cycling.

The new route would provide safer and faster cycling journeys than using the parallel A10. Our research shows cyclists could ride from Tottenham to the City in around 30 minutes on CS1, compared with over 40 minutes for a similar journey on the main road. Cyclists on CS1 would pass through just 8 traffic signals, compared with 54 traffic signals for the equivalent journey along the A10.

The changes proposed for CS1 would also provide significant benefits for pedestrians, with more and safer crossings, traffic-calming measures, and public realm improvements such as larger footways, attractive paving, and new seating and trees.

Please visit tfl.gov.uk/cs1 to view detailed information about CS1 and give us your feedback.

There’s also an opportunity to give feedback at our public events, where TfL staff will be available to answer your questions about CS1:

Shoreditch Library, 80 Hoxton Street, London N1 6LP Thursday 5 March, 1500-1930

Stamford Hill Library, 120 Stamford Hill, London N16 6QT Monday 9 March, 1500-1930

Marcus Garvey Library, Tottenham Green Centre, 1 Philip Lane, London N15 4JA Saturday 14 March, 1100-1600

115 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

You can also give feedback or request paper copies of plans, response forms, information in Braille, large text or another language by emailing [email protected], writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS, or calling 0343 222 1234.

Kind regards

Oliver Birtill Consultation team Transport for London

Email to individuals registered on TfL database

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 116

Email to consultation respondents following publication of additional information on parking

The following email was sent to 409 consultation respondents on 10 March 2015 telling them about updates to the information on parking proposals on the CS1 consultation website:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for responding to our consultation on Cycle Superhighway Route 1.

We are writing to inform you that we have updated the CS1 website (tfl.gov.uk/cs1) with new information on proposed changes to parking in some areas. Unfortunately, this information was not shown in the diagrams and descriptions on the website between 16 Feb and 4 March 2015. We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Below is a summary of the new information, which you can also find here, along with links to the section pages with updated diagrams and descriptions. You can use this online survey to leave any additional comments you might have.

Location Update Section

Wilson Street Parking bays removed to make space for new motor 1 traffic free public space

Chart Street New loading bay 5

Coronet Street New parking bay 5

New North Road Pay & Display parking and electric vehicle parking 6 bays moved from Pitfield Street

Pitfield Street, south of Grange Parking bay reduced by 10 metres 7 Street

Hyde Road New 43 metre parking bay 7

De Beauvoir Road Parking bay reduced by 5 metres 7

De Beauvoir Road, north of New 8 metre parking bay 8 Northchurch Terrace

De Beauvoir Road, south of Parking bay reduced by 8 metres 8 Northchurch Terrace

junction of De Beauvoir Road Parking bay moved 8 and Northchurch Terrace

Culford Road, north of Parking bay extended 11 metres 8 Englefield Road

117 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Culford Road, north of Parking bay reduced by 4 metres 8 Englefield Road

Ardleigh Road Parking bay reduced by 3.5 metres 8

Kingsbury Road Parking bay extended 3 metres 9

Matthias Road Parking bay reduced by 3 metres 10

Wordsworth Road New 15 metre parking bay 10

Boleyn Road New 10 metre parking bay 10

junction of Healthland Road New double yellow line parking restrictions 13 and Fairholt Road

junction of Cranwich Road and Double yellow line parking restrictions extended 13 Fairholt Road

Yours faithfully

Oliver Birtill Consultation team Transport for London

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 118

Appendix G: List of stakeholders emailed

3663 First for Foodservice Better Bankside Central London Forward AA Better Transport Central London Freight Quality AA Motoring Trust Bexley Accessible Transport Partnership AA Public Affairs Scheme Central London NHS Trust Abellio West London Ltd t/a Bexleyheath BID Centre for Accessible Abellio Surrey bhs bikeability Environments Action for Blind People bidvest logistics Chalkwell Garage & Coach Hire Ltd Action on Hearing Loss (RNID) bikeworks Chartered Institute of Logistics Age Concern London bikeXcite and Transport Age UK Blue Triangle Buses Ltd Chris Grayling MP Age UK London Bob Blackman MP Christopher Stephen Hunn t/a Alive in Space Landscape and Bob Neill MP Travel with Hunny/TWH Urban Design Studio Bob Stewart MP Chuka Umunna MP All Party Parliamentary Cycling Borough Cycling Officers Group City Bikes (Vauxhall Walk) Group Breakspears Road Project City link Alzheimer's Society Brentwood Community Transport City Of London Anderson Travel Ltd Brewery Logistics Group City of London Access Forum Andrew Dismore AM British Cycling City of London Police Andrew Boff AM British Land City of Westminster Andrew Rosindell MP British Medical Association Clapton Pond Andrew Slaughter MP British Motorcycle Federation Clive Efford MP Andy Love MP British Retail Association Cobra Corporate Servics Ltd Angel BID British School of Cycling Community Transport Association Angela Watkinson MP BT Confederation of British Industry Angie Bray MP Bucks Cycle Training (CBI) APC-Overnight Bus Watch West Haringey Confederation of Passenger Argall BID Business B Ltd t/a The Transport UK Arriva Kent Thameside/Kent & Expeditional Covent Garden Market Authority Sussex Arriva Guildford & W Buzzlines Crispin Blunt MP Sussex CABE - Design Council Cross River Partnership Arriva London North Ltd Camden Mobility Forum Croydon Arriva The Shires/ E Herts and Essex Camden Town Unlimited Croydon Coaches (UK) Ltd t/a Coaches Excetera Asian Peoples Disabilities Campaign for Better Transport Alliance Campbell's Croydon mobility forum Association of British Drivers Capital City School Sport CT Plus Ltd t/a Hackney Community Transport Association of Car Fleet Partnership Operators Caroline Pidgeon AM CTC the national cycling charity Association of Town Centre Carousel Buses Ltd Cycle Confidence Management CBI-London Cycle Confident Aswaston - Superdrug CCG City and Hackney Cycle Experience ATCoaches t/a Abbey Travel CCG Islington Cycle Newham Baker Street Quarter CCG NHS Central London Cycle Systems Barking and Dagenham Centaur Overland Travel Ltd Cycle Training East Barry Gardiner MP Central London Cab Trade Cycle Training UK (CTUK) Bayswater BID Section Cyclelyn Best Bike Training //Cycletastic Central London CTC Cycle-wise Thames Valley

119 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Cycling Embassy of Great Britain G4S Independent Shoreditch Cycling Tuition Gareth Bacon AM Inmidtown cycling4all Gareth Thomas MP Institute for Sustainability Cyclinginstructor.com Garratt Business Park (Earlsfield) Institute of Advanced Motorists Cyclists in the City Gatwick Flyer Ltd Institution of Civil Engineers Darren Johnson AM Gavin Barwell MP inStreatham David Burrowes MP Glenda Jackson MP Islington Cycling Action Group David Evennett MP Go-Coach Hire Ltd Islington mobility forum David Gauke MP Golden Tours (Transport) Ltd Islington Safer Transport Team David Lammy MP Grant Shapps MP Islington Transport Aware Department for Transport Greater London Authority J Brierley & E Barvela t/a Design for London Greater London Forum for Older Snowdrop Coaches DHL Express People James Bikeability DHL UK & Ireland Greater London Forum for the James Brokenshire MP Elderly Diane Abbott MP James Clappison MP Green Flag Group Disability Alliance James Cleverly AM Green Urban Transport Ltd Disability Rights UK Jane Ellison MP Greg Hands MP Disabled Persons Transport Jennette Arnold AM Advisory Committee Guide Dogs for the Blind - Inner Jenny Jones AM London District team Dominic Raab MP Jeremy Corbyn MP Guide Dogs for the Blind E Clarke & Son (Coaches) Ltd t/a Jeremy Reese t/a The Little Bus Association Clarkes of London Company Hackney Safer Transport Team E11 BID (Leytonstone) Jim Dowd MP Hainault Business Park Ealing Broadway BID Jim Fitzpatrick MP HammersmithLondon East and South East London Jo Johnson MP Haringey Cycling Campaign Thames Gateway Transport Joan Ruddock MP Partnership Haringey LINk Joanne McCartney AM East Surrey Rural Transport Haringey mobility forum John Biggs AM Partnership t/a Polestar Travel Haringey Safer Transport Team John Cryer MP Ed Davey MP Harriet Harman MP John Lewis Partnership EDF Energy Harringey Primary Care Trust John McDonnell MP Edgware Road Partnership Health Poverty Action John Randall MP Edmonton CLP Heart of London Business Joint Committee on Mobility of Eleanor Laing MP Alliance Blind and Partially Sighted People Emily Thornberry MP Heidi Alexander MP (JCMBPS) English Heritage Hermes Europe Joint Mobility Unit English Heritage - London Hertfordshire County Council Jon Cruddas MP Ensign Bus Company Ltd Highgate Society Justine Greening MP Evolution Cycle Training Hillingdon mobility forum K&C mobility forum Express Network Forum Homerton University Hospital Karen Buck MP Representatitive NHS Foundation Trust Kate Hoey MP Federation of Small Businesses Hounslow mobility forum Keith Gould Fiona MacTaggart MP House of Commons Keltbray ltd (construction) Fiona Twycross AM HR Richmond Ltd t/a Quality Line Kimpton Industrial Park (Sutton) First Beeline Buses Ltd Iain Duncan Smith MP Kingston First Fitzrovia Partnership IBM Kingston mobility forum Frank Dobson MP Ilford Town BID Kit Malthouse AM Freight Transport Association Inclusion London Kurdish Centre Friends of the Earth Independent Disability Advisory Kwasi Kwarteng MP Future Inclusion Group

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 120 laing o'rourke London Borough of Lambeth Lynne Featherstone MP Lambeth Cyclists London Borough of Lewisham Malcolm Rifkind MP Lee Scott MP London Borough of Merton Margaret Hodge MP Len Duvall AM London Borough of Newham Mark Field MP Leonard Cheshire Disability London Borough of Redbridge Marshalls Coaches Liberal Democrats London Borough of Richmond Mary Mcleod MP Licenced Taxi Drivers Association upon Thames Matthew Offord MP Licensed Private Hire Car London Borough of Southwark Meg Hillier MP Association (LPHCA) London Borough of Sutton Metrobus Ltd Line Line Coaches (TGM) London Borough of Tower Metropolitan Police Heathrow Living Streets Hamlets Airport Living Streets - Brentwood London Borough of Waltham Metropolitan Police Service Forest Living Streets - Hackney Michael Fallon MP London Borough of Wandsworth Living Streets - Islington Mike Freer MP London Borough of Westminster Living Streets - Kings Cross Mike Gapes MP London Borugh of Hackney (Camden) MIND London Cab Drivers' Club Ltd Living Streets - Merton Mobile Cycle Training Service London Central Cab Section Living Streets - Sutton Mode Transport London Chamber of Commerce Living Streets - Tower Hamlets Motorcycle Action Group London Chamber of Commerce Living Streets - Wandsworth Motorcycle Industry Association and Industry (LCCI) Living Streets Action Group MP for Hackney North and Stoke London City Airport Living Streets London Newington London Climate Change Living Streets Southwark MP for Hackney South and Partnership Local Government Ombudsman Shoreditch London Councils London Ambulance Service NHS MP for Tottenham London Cycling Campaign Trust Mullany's Coaches London Duck Tours Ltd London Bike Hub Murad Qureshi AM London European Partnership for London Borough of Barking and National Autistic Society Transport Dagenham National Children's Bureau London Fire and Emergency London Borough of Barnet Planning Authority National Express Ltd London Borough of Bexley London Fire Brigade National Grid London Borough of Brent London First National Grid - electricity London Borough of Bromley London General National Motorcycle Council London Borough of Camden London Mencap Navin Shah AM London Borough of Croydon London Older People's Strategy New Addington BID London Borough of Ealing Group New West End Company (NWEC) London Borough of Enfield London Private Hire Board NHS London Borough of Greenwich London Riverside (Rainham) NHS Care Commissioning Group London Borough of Hackney London Strategic Health Authority NHS London London Borough of Hammersmith London Suburban Taxi Drivers' NHS London Strategic Health London Borough of Hammersmith Coalition Authority and Fulham London Taxi Drivers' Club Nick deBois MP London Borough of Haringey London Tourist Coach Operators Nick Hurd MP London Borough of Harrow Association (LTCOA) Nick Raynsford MP London Borough of Havering London TravelWatch Nicky Gavron AM London Borough of Hillingdon London Underground North London Strategic Alliance London Borough of Hounslow London United Busways Ltd Northbank BID London Borough of Islington London Visual Impairment Forum Northbank Guild London Borough of Kingston LoveWimbledon BID Ocean Youth Connexions Upon Thames Lynne Brown MP

121 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Olympus Bus & Coach Company Royal Greenwich Cycle Training Successful Sutton t/a Olympian Coaches Royal Institute of British Architects Sullivan Bus and Coach Ltd On Your Bike Cycle Training Royal Institute of Chartered Sunwin Service Group Onkar Sahota AM Surveyors Sustrans Orpington 1st Royal London Society for Blind Sutton Centre for Voluntary Oxford Tube (Thames Transit) People Sector Paddington Royal Mail Sutton mobility forum Parcel Force Royal National Institute of Blind Taxi and Private hire People Parliamentary Advisory Council Taxi Rank & Interchange for Transport Safety (PACTS) Royal Parks Manager Passenger Focus Royal Town Planning Institute Team London Bridge (RTPI) Paul Burstow MP Technicolour Tyre Company Rushanara Ali MP Philip Kemp Cycle Training Teeresa Pearce MP Sadiq Khan MP Planning Design Terravision Transport Ltd / Sainsbury's Supermarkets Porcellio Ltd t/a Meridian Duck Stansted Transport Ltd Tours Sam Gyimah MP Tesco Port of London Authority Sarah Teather MP Tessa Jowell MP Powerscroft Road Initiative for Sardar Ali Khan t/a Red Eagle The Canal & River Trust Neighbourhood Community & SCOPE The City of Oxford Motor Services Environment Seema Malhotra MP Ltd Premium Coaches Ltd Sense The Ghost Bus Tours Ltd Private Hire Board Simon Hughes MP The Kings Ferry Ltd Purple Parking Ltd Siobhain McDonagh MP The Licensed Taxi Drivers' Puzzle Focus Ltd Sixty Plus Association Queen Mary University of London South Bucks CycleTraining The Original London Sightseeing Tour /London Pride Sightseeing R Hearn t/a Hearn's Coaches South East London PCT Ltd RAC South Eastern Railway The Owner Drivers’ Society RAC Foundation for Motoring South Herts Plus Cycle Training The Road Haulage Assoc. Ltd. RADAR London Access Forum South London Business Forum The Royal Parks Red Rose Travel South London Partnership The Southwark Cyclists Redbridge Cycling Centre Southbank Employers Group Theresa Villiers MP Redwing Coaches (Pullmanor Southdown PSV Ltd Ltd) Thomas's London Day Schools Southgate & Finchley Coaches (Transport) Ltd Reliance Travel Ltd Time for Twickenham Reynolds Diplomat Coaches Southwark Cyclists TNT Richard Harrington MP Space Syntax Tom Brake MP Richard Ottaway MP Spokes Cycling Instruction Tom Copley AM Richard Tracey AM STA Bikes Ltd. Tony Arbour AM RMT Union Stella Creasy MP Tower Hamlets mobility forum RNIB Stephen Hammond MP Tower Transit Operations Ltd RNID (Royal National Institute for Stephen Pound MP Deaf People) Trade Team Stephen Timms MP Road Danger Reduction Forum Trailblazers Muscular Dystrophy Stephen Knight AM UK Road Haulage Association Steve O'Connell AM Transport for All Roadpeace Steve Reed MP Triangle Roger Evans AM Stratford Renaissance Tyssen Community School Cycle Royal Borough of Greenwich Partnership Training Royal Borough of Kensington & Stroke Association UK Power Networks Chelsea Stroud Green Residents Unions Together Royal Borough of Kingston upon Association Thames Unite Union

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 122

University College London Vincent Cable MP Whittington NHS University of Westminster Vincenzo Coppola AM Whizz-Kidz Universitybus Ltd t/a uno Virendra Sharma MP Willow Lane Trading Estate UPS Vision Impairment Forum (Merton) Urban Movement Walk London Wilsons Cycles Valerie Shawcross AM Wandsworth Cycling Campaign Wincanton Vandome Cycles Wandsworth mobility forum Yodel Vauxhall One BID Waterloo Quarter Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists Victoria BID West London Mental Health NHS Zac Goldsmith MP Victoria Borwick AM Trust Victoria Business Improvement Westminster Cyclists District Wheels for Wellbeing

123 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Appendix H: Sample petition sheets

Stamford Hill residents’ petition (see p39 for petition details)

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 124

Barrett’s Grove GP Practice petition (see p39 for petition details)

125 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

De Beauvoir Road residents’ petition (see p39 for petition details)

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 126

Appendix I: Press release and media coverage

Press release Text of the TfL press release publicising the CS1 consultation, sent out on Tuesday 17 February 2015, can be found here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/february/new-cycle- superhighway-will-be-a10-bypa

Media coverage

Coverage included national cycling media, plus regional and local media: http://www.cityam.com/209633/boris-johnsons-crossrail-bikes-link-tottenham-stoke- newington-dalston-and-city-london http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/environment/route_of_new_cycle_superhighway_t hrough_hackney_unveiled_as_scheme_is_put_to_public_1_3967150 http://londonist.com/2015/02/new-cycle-superhighway-to-be-a10-bypass.php http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2015/02/27/cycling-superhighway-criticised/ http://road.cc/content/news/144597-shoddy%E2%80%99-and-overly-circuitous-cycle- superhighway-north-east-london-criticised

127 Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation

Appendix J: Digital marketing

Multimedia text message

The following message, providing a link to the CS1 consultation, was sent to 10,000 people who had expressed a preference to receive TfL digital marketing communications:

Cycle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 128