Proposed changes to the junction of St John’s Wood Road, Northwick Terrace and Hamilton Terrace
Consultation Report November 2017
Contents
Executive summary ...... 3 1. About the proposals ...... 4 2. About the consultation ...... 5 3. About the respondents ...... 7 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 9 5. Next steps ...... 12 Appendix A: Consultation letter/leaflet...... 13 Appendix B: Letter distribution area ...... 16 Appendix C: List of stakeholders ...... 17
2 Executive summary
This document provides a summary of a recent consultation on changes to the junction of St John’s Wood Road, Northwick Terrace and Hamilton Terrace.
The consultation was took place from 14 December 2015 to 8 February 2016 and sought feedback on a set of proposals to improve cycling facilities at the junction of St John’s Wood Road, Northwick Terrace and Hamilton Terrace. The proposals included shared space for pedestrians and cyclists, and changes to the footway on St John’s Wood Road.
We received 53 responses to the consultation from members of the public and stakeholders. Of these, 38 were opposed the proposals, while 10 supported or partially supported them, with five respondents not sure or not answering.
Summary of issues raised during consultation Issues commonly raised by respondents included concerns about the potential for conflict between cyclists and pedestrians using shared space, and a belief that the proposed junction layout was poor or confusing. There were also recommendations for segregated cycling facilities.
Next steps We have produced a separate Response to Issues Raised document explaining our decisions for the future of the scheme and our response to the main issues that were addressed by respondents. The report can be found at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/hamilton-st-johns-wood.
3 1. About the proposals
1.1 Introduction The Central London Grid is a network of connected, high-quality and well-signed cycle routes in central London. They include Quietways and Cycle Superhighways.
In partnership with eight London boroughs, the City of London, the Greater London Authority, the Canal and River Trust and the Royal Parks, we have developed a series of proposed routes for the Grid. The majority of the Grid will require low levels of change to the existing road network because the routes primarily use quiet back streets and off-highway alignments.
1.2 Detailed description We proposed the following changes:
Hamilton Terrace
1. New ‘feeder’ cycle lane to guide cyclists into the right position when accessing the crossing at the junction with St John’s Wood Road. The cycle lane would also alert motorists of cyclists using Quietway facilities 2. Expansion of the refuge island to enhance protection and space for cyclists waiting to cross Hamilton Terrace, and to provide safer access to the Quietway across St John’s Wood Road
St John’s Wood Road
3. Parallel zebra crossing to provide a crossing point for cyclists and pedestrians 4. Shared-use footway to allow cyclists to continue on to the Quietway on Northwick Terrace without entering the regular flow of traffic on St John’s Wood Road. The shared-use footway would be marked by signage at the entrance and exit
Northwick Terrace
5. Pedestrian crossing distance shortened and raised to footway level. This would reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians and cyclists, improving safety for both while calming traffic
4 2. About the consultation
2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:
To give clear information about the proposals to stakeholders and the public, and allow them to respond To understand the level of support or opposition towards the proposals To understand any issues that had not previously been considered and that might affect the proposals To respond effectively to people’s concerns and suggestions by making improvements to our proposals, wherever appropriate
2.2 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of the consultation were:
Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the scheme in response to the issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme .
2.3 Consultation history The consultation sought the views of a range of different groups who might reasonably be expected to have an interest in the proposals and their outcomes. The categories of individuals and representative organisations that we sought to involve in this consultation included, but was not limited to, the following: Local residents and businesses Local stakeholders, including the local authority, local politicians and local interest groups Representatives of transport organisations and campaigns
A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown as Appendix C. A summary of their responses is provided in Section 4.2.
5 2.4 Dates and duration We consulted on these proposals from 14 December 2015 to 8 February 2016. Because the consultation included the Christmas holiday period we extended it beyond our standard duration of six weeks. This helped to ensure that individuals and stakeholder organisations had sufficient opportunities to participate in the consultation.
2.5 What we asked The consultation invited participants to comment on the proposed changes. There was one closed and one open question, as listed below:
1. Do you support our proposals for changes to the junction of St John’s Wood Road, Northwick Terrace and Hamilton Terrace?
- Support - Partially support - No opinion - Not sure - Don’t support
2. Do you have any comments on the proposals for changes to the junction of St John’s Wood Road, Northwick Terrace and Hamilton Terrace?
2.6 Methods of responding Participants were invited to respond in the following ways:
Online survey at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/hamilton-st-johns-wood Emailing [email protected] Post via FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS
2.7 Consultation materials and publicity We sent a letter and map describing the proposals to 9,850 addresses within a radius of approximately 400 metres of the junction. A copy of this letter is shown in Appendix A and a map of the distribution area can be found in Appendix B. The letter was also emailed to various local and pan-London stakeholder groups. A list of the groups consulted is shown as Appendix C.
6 2.8 Analysis of consultation responses We commissioned ITP to analyse the consultation responses.
Answers to open questions, where respondents provided comments on the scheme, were read and analysed according to an agreed methodology. Each individual comment with the responses was assigned a tag, according to the issue it addressed. This information was also analysed and tabulated.
Where more than one response had been submitted from the same person and email address, these responses were combined before the data was analysed. Throughout this process we were mindful of our responsibilities under the Data Protection Act.
3. About the respondents
Some of the questions in our survey were intended to provide background information about respondents so that we can monitor the effectiveness of our consultation process and understand the different interests that our respondents are representing.
3.1 Number of respondents There were 52 responses to the consultation.
Respondents Total % Public responses 47 90 Stakeholder responses 5 10
3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation 37 respondents told us how they had heard about this consultation.
How respondents heard Total % Saw it on TfL website 13 35 Social media 10 27 An email from TfL 9 24
A letter from TfL 3 8 Read about it in the press 1 3 Other 1 3
7 3.3 Methods of responding It was possible to respond to the consultation directly through our website or by sending us either an email or letter.
Methods of responding Total % Website 36 69 Email or letter 16 31
3.4 Postcodes of respondents Valid UK postcodes were provided by 35 respondents.
Postcode Total % NW postcode areas 11 31 Other inner London postcode areas 21 60 Postcode areas outside London 3 9
8 4. Summary of all consultation responses
Fifty-one respondents answered a question covering overall support or opposition for the proposals. Of these, ten supported or partially supported the proposals, 38 were opposed, and two were not sure.
"Do you support our proposals?" 7 (14%)
3 (6%)
Yes 3 (6%) Partially Not sure No
38 (74%)
4.1 Issues commonly raised As well as a closed question on the proposals, we asked respondents to provide comments so that we could understand the detail of any suggestions or concerns. These comments were categorised using a number of different themes and a statistical breakdown of these is shown below. We have also provided a short summary of the main issues that were contained in comments listed under each theme.
Number of Issue comments
Shared pedestrian/cyclist space will increase conflict 16 between traffic modes
Junction layout is poor or confusing 15
Segregated cycle space is needed 14
Central island will add to conflict between cyclists and 12 motor traffic
9 Increased congestion resulting from proposals 9
'Feeder' lane will cause conflict between cyclists and other traffic modes 5
Junctions should be signalised 4
'Hatching' across St. John's Wood Road should be moved or replaced 4
General negative comments about grid scheme or cyclists in general 4
Segregated tracks on both sides of St. John’s Wood road 3
Bidirectional cycle lane needed 3
Junction will not be usable by adaptive or larger cycles 3
London Cycling Design Standards were not met 3
Scheme is a waste of resources 3
Zebra crossing required across Northwick Terrace at the junction with St John’s Wood Road 3
4.2 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We sometimes have to condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes. There were five responses from stakeholders and stakeholder organisations, summarised below.
Alliance of British Drivers The organisation was not supportive of the scheme. It felt that the widening of pavements on Northwick Terrace and Hamilton Terrace was unnecessary and would increase the potential conflicts between motor vehicles and cyclists.
Brent Cyclists The organisation was not supportive of the scheme. They contributed the following five suggestions and observations:
10 1. The cycle and pedestrian crossing would be better placed at the northeast corner of Hamilton Terrace, to allow cyclists to make the crossing from Hamilton Terrace to St John’s Wood road more easily 2. Provision of a shared-use footway was not acceptable, and suggested that segregated cycle tracks on St John’s Wood Road should be investigated 3. A protected right turn on Northwick Terrace should be considered if one is being implemented on Hamilton Terrace 4. Concern was raised that the number of cyclists using this route was not very high 5. The only likely way of increasing cycle volumes would be to filter Hamilton Terrace or provide protected space
London Cycling Campaign The organisation was not supportive of the scheme. It felt that the crossing would be confusing and that there were inherent risks in expecting cyclists to cross lanes of traffic in order to reach dedicated cycling facilities. It was argued that there is sufficient space across the junction to provide protected space for cyclists and a fully signalised junction. The LCC felt that this scheme would not meet the stated aims of Quietways, and that consistent design standards should be used for all Quietway schemes in different boroughs across the capital.
Cllr Gotz Mohindra (Council Member - Regent’s Park) The councillor opposed the scheme, in particular objecting to the expansion of the refuge island at the south of Hamilton Terrace. He expressed concern that this would lead to increased congestion on Hamilton Terrace, particularly at peak hours.
Westminster Cycling Campaign The organisation was not supportive of the scheme. It felt that the scheme did not meet the London Cycling Design Standards. Westminster Cycling Campaign suggested that a signalised junction be implemented at Hamilton Terrace/St John’s Wood Road, in addition to bidirectional cycle tracks on St John’s Wood Road. It was suggested that a section of Cycle Superhighway 1, on Balls Pond Road, was a good example of the type of junction that should be implemented instead.
4.3 Comments on the consultation Respondents were asked to provide feedback on the quality of the consultation process, including the material that we had produced for it, and the ways in which we had brought it to the attention of interested stakeholders. There were nine responses to this question. Of these, six gave positive feedback about the consultation process and materials. One respondent gave general comments regarding the poor nature of the consultation process, one respondent queried whether there should have been more engagement with cycling groups prior to the launch of the consultation, and one person queried whether the consultation should be longer.
11 5. Next steps
We have prepared a separate report that explains our response to each of the main issues raised through consultation, along with our decisions on how to proceed. It is available at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/hamilton-st-johns-wood.
12
Appendix A: Consultation letter
13
14 15 Appendix B: Letter distribution area
16 Appendix C: List of stakeholders
In some instances, more than one individual or department within each organisation was contacted at the start of the consultation. In those instances, the name of the organisation is listed only once.
London TravelWatch
Elected representatives Karen Buck MP Westminster North Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking, Councillor Heather Acton WCC Deputy Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Councillor Robert Rigby Parking, WCC Cabinet Member for City Management and Councillor Melvyn Caplan Communities, WCC Cabinet Member for City Management and Councillor Jacqui Wilkinson Communities, WCC Councillor Barbara Little Venice, WCC Arzymanow Councillor Ian Adams Little Venice, WCC Councillor Melvyn Caplan Little Venice, WCC Councillor Daniel Astaire Regent's Park, WCC Councillor Gotz Mohindra Regent's Park, WCC Councillor Robert Rigby Regent's Park, WCC Councillor Aziz Toki Church Street, WCC Councillor Barbara Grahame Church Street, WCC Councillor Vincenzo Rampulla Church Street, WCC
Local Authorities Westminster City Council
Police and Health Authorities Metropolitan Police
London Ambulance Service
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
CCG Central London (Westminster)
CCG NHS Central London
King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
17 Westminster Safer Transport Team Metropolitan Police Service London Ambulance Service
Transport groups Automobile Association (AA) Green Flag Group
AA Drive Tech AA Motoring Trust
Association of British Drivers Motorcycle Action Group
Association of Car Fleet Operators Motorcycle Industry Association
British Motorcyclists Federation Road Haulage Association
Freight Transport Association Brent Safer Transport Team
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Institute of Advanced Motorists Committee
Transport for Greater Manchester Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association
Paddington Residents Active Concern on Office Rail Regulation (ORR) Transport
RAC Foundation for Motoring Road Haulage Association
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Transport for All Traders
Thales Rail Signalling Solutions Ltd. Transport Focus
Non-exclusive list of other stakeholders Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) London Older People's Strategy Group
ABC Catering and Party Equipment Hire Age Concern London
Age Concern London MIND
Age UK National Children's Bureau
Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance National Grid
Association for Consultancy in Alzheimer’s Society Engineering (ACE)
Angel AIM Balfour Beatty Plc.
18 BT RADAR London Access Forum
British Museum British Youth Council
Baker Street Quarter Partnership Bankside Residents’ Forum
Sustrans Bexleyheath Town Ctr. (BID)
Blackheath Joint working party Camden Town Unlimited
Campaign for Better Transport RNIB
Bayswater Residents’ Association Belgravia Residents’ Association
Centre for Cities Central London Connexions
Campaign for Clean Air in London Canal and River Trust London
London Chamber of Commerce and Civil Engineering Contractors Industry (LCCI) Association (CECA)
Canary Wharf Group Capita
City Year London Crossrail Ltd.
Construction Youth Trust Citizens UK
Croydon BID Dbrief Monthly
Engineering Employers’ Federation Envision (EEF)
Eurostar Group Guide Dogs for the Blind Association
Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Fitzrovia Partnership Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS)
Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector Gatwick Airport
GLA Strategy Access Panel Members Girlguiding UK
Goldstein Wein Architects Hainault Business Park BID
HammersmithLondon Harrowby District Residents’ Association
Heart of London Business Alliance (BID) Heathrow Airport Holdings
Historic Royal Palaces Enterprises House of Commons
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) - HS2 Ltd London
19 In and Around Covent Garden In Holborn
Inclusion London Independent Disability Advisory Groups
Independent Shoreditch InMidtown BID
Institution of Engineering and InStreatham Technology
Irwin Mitchell Joint Mobility Unit
Kimpton Industrial Estate BID Kingston First BID
Thames Water Leonard Cheshire Disability
Lewis Silkin LLP The British Dyslexia Association
London Riverside BID London Visual Impairment Forum (LVIF)
London Youth Joint Mobility Unit
Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership Marylebone Association
MENCAP Merlin Entertainments Group
MiNet/ROTA Morris Visitor Publications
Multiple Sclerosis Society Muscular Dystrophy Campaign
National Autistic Society National Children’s Bureau
Neighbourcare St. John’s Wood and National Grid Maida Vale
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. New West End Co.
North East Chamber of Commerce Nissan (NECC)
North West London Chamber of Living Streets Commerce
Paddington BID Park Royal Partnership
Parkinson’s UK Parsons Brinkerhoff
Pimlico FREDA Port of London Authority
Princes Trust PwC
Riegate and Banstead Council Residents Society for Mayfair and St.
20 James
Royal Borough of Kingston-upon- RMT Thames
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Royal London Society for the Blind (RICS) (RSLB)
Royal Mail Royal Mail Parcel Force
Royal Parks Scope
Better Bankside (BID) Brent Cross Shopping Ctr.
Merton Chamber of Commerce MIND
London Cycling Campaign London First
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Royal Mail
London Fire and Emergency Planning CTC, The national cycling charity Authority
SKANSKA Society of London Theatre (SoLT)
Disability Alliance Sense
Soho Society Somerset House Trust
South Bank Employers’ Group South Bermondsey Partnership
South East Bayswater Residents’ St. Germans Terrace Assocation Association
Streatham Vale Property Occupiers’ Stansted Airport Association
Student Central Surrey County Council
Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector Suzy Lamplugh Trust
Tandridge District Council Tate Modern
Team London Bridge BID The British Dyslexia Association
The Langdon Way Residents’ The St. Marylebone Society Association
The Westcombe Society The Who Cares? Trust
21 Thomas Pocklington Trust Thorney Island Society
Tommy’s Toyota
Turner and Townsend Unions Together
Vauxhall Gardens Estate Tenants and Uprising Residents’ Association
Vauxhall One BID V & A Museum
Victoria BID Vinspired
Virgin Atlantic Airways Virtual Norwood Forum
Vision 2020UK Visit Britain
Waterloo Quarter BID West London Alliance
Westfield Management Company Ltd. Whizz-Kidz
YMCA England Young Minds
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Sixty Plus Committee
EDF Energy Stroke Association
Greater London Forum for the Elderly Victoria BID
22