Proposed Station Capacity Upgrade Public consultation September – November 2017 Consultation report July 2018

Proposed Holborn Station Capacity Upgrade Public Consultation September – November 2017

Consultation report Published July 2018

Page 2 of 84 Contents 1. Summary 4 2 Introduction 6 3 Background to the scheme 7 4 Methodology 8 5 Overview of Consultation Responses 11 6 Analysis of consultation responses 17 7 Responses from stakeholders 25 8 Next steps 31 Appendix A1 – Comments on the need for a capacity upgrade (question 2) 32 Appendix A2 – Comments on our upgrade proposals (question 4) 33 Appendix A3 – Comments about the quality of consultation (question 12) 38 Appendix B – Consultation leaflet 40 Appendix C – Leaflet distribution area (800m radius of Holborn station) 43 Appendix D – Email to stakeholders 44 Appendix E – Letter to businesses within 800m radius of Holborn station 45 Appendix F – Letter to near neighbours (owners of properties) 46 Appendix G – Letter to near neighbour businesses and organisations 48 Appendix H – List of stakeholders consulted 50 Appendix I – Email to Oyster card users 59 Appendix J – Public exhibition display boards 60 Appendix K – Press Release 70 Appendix L – Questionnaire 71 Appendix M – Demographic monitoring 78 Appendix N - Support and opposition by profile of respondents 81

Page 3 of 84 1. Summary 1.1 In September 2017, we held a nine week public consultation on the need for and our emerging proposals to substantially upgrade the capacity of Holborn station. The consultation ran from 18 September to 17 November 2017. This was our first public consultation about upgrading the capacity of the station.

1.2 We also held three engagement sessions for local businesses and residents in March 2017 about our proposals. 1.3 Information about the proposals was available online. Members of the public and other stakeholders could give their views either by completing a questionnaire, responding by email or by post. The questionnaire could be filled in either online or by a paper copy. 1.4 We held a three day consultation event at Conway Hall close to Holborn station. The event ran from 08:00 to 20:00 each day. 1.5 We carried out a number of activities to support the consultation and let people know how they could participate: • Pre-consultation engagement with stakeholders • 17,711 consultation leaflets to local residents • 3,335 Royal mail addressed letters with a leaflet to businesses • 1,000 leaflets distributed to local libraries, GP centres, churches and a Citizens Advice Bureau • Emails to 103,378 Oystercard users who have used the station or passed through the station • Letters and emails to local, London wide and national statutory and non-statutory stakeholder groups and elected members • Letters and leaflets to owners of properties who are immediate neighbours of the proposed work site. We also walked around this area and spoke to many businesses about the consultation • Promotion through Twitter with tweets through @TfL linking to the consultation • Public exhibition over three days, where people could speak to the project team • Seven factsheets available online, or available in paper copy at the exhibition or on request • Leafletting outside Holborn station on days of the exhibition and a poster at the station • Station announcement over the PA system on the days of the exhibition • Press release 1.6 We received 995 responses of which 981 were from members of the public and 14 were from stakeholders and interest groups. 1.7 We asked four questions about the proposed capacity upgrade: i. Do you agree or disagree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Holborn station? ii. Please let us have any comments about the need for a capacity upgrade of Holborn station

Page 4 of 84 iii. How strongly do you support or oppose our proposals for improving the capacity at Holborn station? iv. Please let us have any comments about our proposals for improving the capacity at Holborn station 1.8 98 per cent of respondents agreed with the need to upgrade the station (86 per cent strongly agreed, 12 per cent agreed). 96 per cent of respondents supported our proposals (84 per cent strongly supported, 13 per cent partially supported). Note: figures are rounded up. 1.9 Respondents could make several comments when answering the open questions. 635 respondents provided comments to question 2 about the need for a capacity upgrade. The most frequently mentioned comment was that capacity at the station is not adequate and action needs to be taken. 1.10 464 respondents answered question 4 about our proposals for improving the capacity of the station. The comments were generally positive and supportive of our proposals. 1.11 Section 6 of the report provides a summary of consultation responses. Appendices A1 and A2 provide a full breakdown of comments made to the open ended question. 1.12 We asked for views about the quality of the consultation. 98 per cent of respondents considered the consultation to be very good, good or acceptable. 1.13 We have published a separate report, ‘Response to issues raised in 2017 Consultation’ together with this report on our consultation website tfl.gov.uk/holborn- station-upgrade. We will contact everyone who responded to the consultation and provided us with an email address to let them know that both reports are available. 1.14 Engagement on the proposals is ongoing. Since the consultation closed in November 2017 we have engaged further with Camden Council and other stakeholders. There is a project email address [email protected] and we continue to respond to requests for information. We will continue to engage with stakeholders in 2018. 1.15 Work on the project continues. We anticipate a further public consultation in 2020, on how we build the new station entrance and manage the construction. This is prior to an application for permission to carry out the capacity upgrade through a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO). 1.16 We will produce an overall consultation report, highlighting all the consultation and engagement activities carried out to inform the proposals as part of our TWAO application.

Page 5 of 84 2 Introduction 2.1 We are proposing to substantially upgrade the capacity of Holborn station. 2.2 A possible site for a new station entrance would be at the southern end of Procter Street.

2.3 We carried out a public consultation on the need for a capacity upgrade and our proposals between 18 September and 17 November 2017. The responses we received will be used to inform design and planning work before we carry out a further consultation. 2.4 Subject to support in principle, funding being agreed, further consultation and the proposal being endorsed by the Mayor, we would apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for powers to build the new second entrance and below ground works. This would be through a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO).

Page 6 of 84 3 Background to the scheme 3.1 At the busiest times, large numbers of customers are trying to enter or and leave the station, as well as changing between the Central and Piccadilly lines. Everyone who uses the station currently has to pass through a single point at the bottom of the main escalators. 3.2 During the evening peak, we often have to hold people outside the ticket gates, sometimes for as long as 20 minutes. Demand is set to increase and if we do nothing, these issues will become worse. 3.3 The station also needs improving so it can support the growing, vibrant local community and economy. Holborn is designated as a ‘Growth Area’, meaning the Greater London Authority and Camden Council have a target for 2,000 new jobs and 200 new homes in this area. 3.4 We want to provide a much better experience for passengers using the station and believe our customers would benefit from: • a new second entrance and exit to the station • step-free access from the street to trains • more escalators • more space to change between Piccadilly and Central lines 3.5 A possible site for a new station entrance would be at the southern end of Procter Street. Escalators from there could provide a direct route to the Central line platforms, and a new additional route via escalators to the platforms. This would reduce congestion below ground and relieve pressure on the existing Kingsway entrance. 3.6 We would install lifts at the Kingsway entrance to provide step-free access from street to trains. This would give our customers a greater choice of travel options; the lifts would directly benefit older people and people with accessibility requirements, as well as parents and carers with children and pushchairs, or those with heavy luggage and shopping. We would also improve the layout of the Kingsway entrance. 3.7 Below ground there would be more space, including a new concourse at the Piccadilly line level. 3.8 These changes would support future plans to increase the number of trains on the Central and Piccadilly lines. 3.9 The Mayor, Sadiq Khan, is committed to these proposals and we have allocated funds for the upgrade in our Business Plan. Increasing the capacity of Holborn station supports his Healthy Streets approach, which prioritises walking, cycling and public transport to create a healthy city. 3.10 Subject to consultation and permissions, we could start work in 2023. 3.11 We have carried out engagement with Camden Council and local stakeholders about our proposals. We held three engagement sessions for local residents and businesses on our proposals in March 2017. This was our first public consultation.

Page 7 of 84 4 Methodology Scope of Consultation 4.1 The consultation was designed to seek views on the need for a capacity upgrade of Holborn station and our proposals to do this. 4.2 We consulted with a wide range of stakeholders (see appendix H). This included residents and businesses around the existing and proposed new station entrance, and customers who use or travel through the station. We also consulted with key local stakeholders including Camden Council. Any stakeholder or member of the public with a view on the proposals could participate in the consultation. Outside the scope of this Consultation 4.3 The following issues were outside the scope of this consultation (although respondents could comment on these and they have been included in our analysis): • ways to improve the public space outside the entrance; and • any construction sites, routes or requirements. 4.4 Public consultation forms part of the guidance on taking schemes through the TWAO process. Consultation enables affected parties to contribute to the development of a project at an early stage, improving the project and avoiding possible objections following submission of an application. This approach is also consistent with our own approach of ensuring that the scheme is developed in conjunction with the views of stakeholders and the public. The consultation sought to: • understand views about the need for a capacity upgrade at the station; • understand the level of support for our proposals; • identify any significant unknown issues and allow for mitigation where possible • make clear the decision-making process, timescales, future consultations and next steps; • highlight the channels through which responses to the consultation could be sent, and make participation easy and inclusive; and • further inform the design and decision-making process. Consultation tools 4.5 We used a range of methods to ensure that members of the public and stakeholders were aware of the consultation and how they could respond. The consultation was hosted on the online TfL Consultation Portal (Citizens Space). We made paper copies of the consultation and a questionnaire available on request to anyone who did not have access to the internet (appendix L). 4.6 We carried out a number of activities to support the consultation and let people know how they could participate: • pre-consultation engagement with local stakeholders including local councillors, Assembly Members, MPs, residents’ associations, conservation groups, owners of immediate neighbouring properties and businesses. This included an offer to meet them in advance of the start of the consultation (appendices F and G); • distributing 17,711 consultation leaflets to local residents within a 800 radius of the station (appendix B, C); • sending 3,335 Royal mail addressed letters with a leaflet to all businesses within a 800 metre radius of the station (appendix E);

Page 8 of 84 • distributing 1,000 leaflets to local libraries, GP centres, churches and Citizens Advice Bureau; • sending 103,378 emails to Oyster card users who used the station or passed through the station (appendix I); • sending emails and letters to local, London wide and national statutory and non- statutory stakeholder groups and individuals (appendix D); • sending letters and leaflets to owners of properties who are immediate neighbours of the proposed work site. We also walked around this area and spoke to many businesses about the consultation (appendix E, F, G); • promotion through Twitter with tweets through @TfL linking to the consultation; • conducted a public exhibition over three days, where people could speak to the project team; • produced seven factsheets available online tfl.gov.uk/holborn-station-upgrade or available in paper copy at the exhibition or on request; • distributed leaflets outside Holborn station on days of the exhibition and a poster at the station; • played station announcements advertising the consultation over the Holborn station PA system on the days of the exhibition; and • sent out a press release. 4.7 Our website had a number of technical documents that set out how we developed a short list of options for the new entrance and reached the preferred option on Procter Street. 4.8 The public exhibition was held at Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL. The Hall is close to the proposed second entrance for the station in Procter Street. 205 people attended the exhibition as shown in the table below: Date and times Numbers attending Tuesday 10 October 2017 56 08:00 until 20:00 Wednesday 11 October 2017 60 08:00 until 20:00 Thursday 12 October 2017 89 08:00 until 20:00 4.9 There were ten display boards at the exhibition (appendix J). Online survey and questionnaire 4.10 The questions were designed to provide us with: an understanding of respondents views about the need for a capacity upgrade at the station; an understanding of how much respondents supported or opposed our proposals for improving the capacity; respondents key issues, concerns and suggestions. We aimed to capture comments that could be used to inform the development of the project. We wanted to understand the profile of people responding to the consultation and if there were any differences in views. We also wanted to know how respondents felt about the quality of the consultation. The questionnaire is included as appendix L.

Page 9 of 84 4.11 The questionnaire had the following questions: a) About the need

1. Do you agree or disagree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Holborn station? 2. Please let us have any comments about the need for a capacity upgrade of Holborn station

b) About the proposals 3. How strongly do you support or oppose our proposals for improving the capacity at Holborn station? 4. Please let us have any comments about our proposals for improving the capacity at Holborn station

c) About you 5. What is your name? 6. What is your email address? 7. What is your postcode? 8. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation please provide us with the name 9. Which of the following statements best describes how you use Holborn station? (three options) 10. How often do you use Holborn station? This could be to enter or exit the station or to change trains between the Central and Piccadilly lines (six options) 11. Please let us the full post code of the final destination you usually go to when leaving the station 12. Profile of respondents (seven options for example local resident) 13. How did you hear about this consultation? (seven options) 14. Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.) (first part closed question with five options, second part an open question) Questions 15-20 were demographic questions about gender, ethnic group, age, sexual orientation, faith and health problem/disability. 4.12 Responses made using the online survey received an automated acknowledgement. 4.13 We have published a separate report, “Response to the issues raised in the 2017 consultation” together with this report on our consultation website. We will contact everyone who responded to the consultation and provided us with an email address to let them know that both reports are available.

Page 10 of 84 5 Overview of Consultation Responses Who responded 5.1 We received 995 responses, including 14 from stakeholders and interest groups. Of the 981 public responses 939 (96 per cent) of responses were received online, with 31 (three per cent) received by paper copy and 11 (one per cent) by email. Sections 5 and 6 summarise responses from members of the public. Stakeholder responses are summarised in section 7. How many people answered each question? 5.2 Not every respondent answered every question. We have excluded the non- responses in the tables in section 5 and 6 of this report for ease of understanding. The tables have a footnote with the number of non-responses. Respondent type 5.3 We wanted to understand the type of respondent and their relationship with the proposed scheme. We asked respondents if they were responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, to provide us with the name. We analysed these responses. We treated responses which appeared to be of a more individual nature (rather than on behalf of an organisation) as responses from members of the public. Location of respondent 5.4 748 (77 per cent) of the respondents provided their full postcode. If a respondent did not provide a full postcode we were unable to include them in the postcode analysis. 687 of these addresses were successfully mapped within the Greater London area. There were 62 responses from the . Section 6.16 summarises the geographical distribution of respondents supporting or opposing our proposals for the capacity upgrade. 5.5 We also asked for the full postcode of the final destination that respondents usually go to when leaving the station. We needed the full postcode to analyse this information and 528 respondents provided this information. How did the respondents hear about the Consultation? 5.6 We asked how people had heard about the consultation. Just over half of all respondents stated they heard about it through an email from TfL, and just under a third saw it on the TfL website (see figure 1). 5.7 Other ways of finding out about the consultation included: through work (35), Bee Midtown (7), word of mouth / friend or neighbour (6), station announcement about the exhibition (3), Conway Hall (3). Other channels mentioned by single respondents were Midtown Business Club presentation, blog, notice in Waitrose and a poster at the station.

Page 11 of 84 Figure 1: How respondents heard about the consultation

Base = 940. 41 respondents did not answer this question. How did respondents use the station? 5.8 We asked “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Holborn?” and people were given three options to choose from: • to enter or exit the station; • to change trains between the Central and Piccadilly lines; or • I do not use the station 5.9 Figure 2 shows that three-quarters of respondents (76 per cent) entered or exited the station, and 22 per cent of the respondents interchanged at Holborn station. Figure 2: “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Holborn station?”

Base = 950. 31 respondents did not answer this question.

Page 12 of 84 How often do respondents use Holborn station? 5.10 We asked “How often do you use Holborn station?” and people were given six options to choose from: • 5 days a week • 3 to 4 days a week • 1 to 2 days a week • 1 to 3 times a month • Less than once a month • I do not use this station Most respondents were frequent users of Holborn. Just under half of respondents (46 per cent) used the station at least three times a week (figure3). Figure 3: “How often do you use Holborn station?”

Base = 958. 23 respondents did not answer this question. Reasons for using the station 5.11 We asked about the profile of the respondents, and people were given seven options to choose from (they could choose more than one option): • Local resident • Business owner • Employed locally • Visitor to the area • Commuter • Student • Other 5.12 Respondents were most likely to describe themselves as employed locally, commuters and visitors to the area (figure 4).

Page 13 of 84 Figure 4: “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Holborn station?”

Base = 949. 32 respondents did not answer this question. Respondents could choose more than one option; therefore percentages have not been included

Final destination of customers when leaving Holborn station 5.13 We asked for the full post code of the final destination that customers usually go to when leaving Holborn station. 5.14 We advised respondents to leave their answer blank if they did not know the full post code, or go to various destinations or if they don’t regularly exit the station. 528 people responded to this question with a full postcode. 5.15 We analysed the destinations within an 800 metre radius of the station. This is also the distribution area we used for sending letters and leaflets to residents and businesses. Figure 5 shows the final destinations respondents usually go to. The most common destination was to the south-east of the station (39 per cent). The north-east and south-west both had 24 per cent of destinations.

Page 14 of 84

Figure 5: Final destination that customers usually go to when leaving Holborn station (within a 800 metre radius of the station)

Demographic Questions 5.16 We asked a number of demographic questions about gender, ethnic group, age, sexual orientation, faith and health problem / disability. This was to better understand who was responding to consultation. If the number of respondents was large enough we wanted to see if there was any difference in the level of support for the scheme, or the possible impacts on people. 5.17 The profile of respondents is set out in appendix M.

Page 15 of 84 5.18 As our proposals would implement step-free access to the station we were interested in the responses from people with a health problem or disability. We asked “Are your day to day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?” People were given four options from which to choose: yes, limited a lot; yes, limited a little; no; prefer not to say. 5.19 The majority of respondents (87 per cent) did not consider their day to day activities were limited. However nine per cent of the respondents felt they had limited activities either a little (seven per cent) or a lot (two per cent); see figure 6 below.

Figure 6: “Are your day to day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?”

Base = 936. 45 respondents did not answer this question.

Page 16 of 84 6 Analysis of consultation responses Support for the need for a capacity upgrade 6.1 Question 1 asked “do you agree or disagree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Holborn station?” 6.2 There was a high level of agreement with the need for a capacity upgrade, with 833 respondents (98 per cent) stating that they either strongly or partially agree. 12 respondents (one per cent) stated that they strongly disagree or disagree with the need for a capacity upgrade. 8 respondents (one per cent) stated that they neither support or oppose the proposals. Figure 7 displays the level of agreement there is a need for an upgrade. Figure 7: “Do you agree or disagree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Holborn station?”

Base = 969. 12 respondents did not answer this question. Comments about the need for a capacity upgrade at Holborn station

6.3 Question 2 asked “Please let us have any comments about the need for a capacity upgrade of Holborn station”. 635 respondents responded to this question. 6.4 We devised a code framework which included several overall themes and, within these themes, identified specific comments. Some respondents when answering this question made comments relating to our proposals for improving capacity and we included these in the analysis of question 4. Conversely some people when commenting under question 4 about our proposals raised issues relating for the need for a capacity upgrade and we have included these comments under question 2. 6.5 A full breakdown of all the codes for Question 2 can be found in Appendix A1. Figure 8 shows the ten most frequently mentioned comments.

Page 17 of 84 Figure 8: Most frequently mentioned comments about the need for a capacity upgrade at Holborn station

Most frequently mentioned comments for about the need for a capacity upgrade of Holborn station (question 2) Theme Comment Number of comments General need Current capacity at the station is not adequate, 302 issues action needs to be taken Crowding High levels of congestion during peak hours 151 problems Concourse for Piccadilly line/Central line inside the 112 interchange overcrowded, not adequate station Concerns - Safety concerns due to overcrowding at the 76 safety station Crowding problems Crowding/queues outside the station 46 outside the station Overcrowding/queues within the station 23 Current escalator works contribute to 20 overcrowding issues at the station Crowding Entrance is in close proximity to the problems escalators, and therefore a cause of 9 inside the overcrowding station Overcrowding makes exiting from the Central 7 line very difficult Ticket hall currently not adequate 6 6.6 The most frequently mentioned comments were therefore that capacity at the station is not adequate and action needs to be taken. Congestion problems inside and outside the station were also frequently mentioned and respondents had concerns about the safety implications arising from the congestion. 6.7 We have responded to the comments received (including stakeholder responses) in a separate Response to Issues Raised Report available on our website tfl.gov.uk/holborn-station-upgrade. Support for our proposals to improve the capacity of Holborn station 6.8 Question 3 asked “How strongly do you support or oppose our proposals for improving the capacity of Holborn station?” 6.9 There was a high level of support for our proposals, with 932 respondents (96 per cent) stating that they either strongly or partially agree. 27 (two per cent) respondents stated that they strongly or partially oppose the proposals. Eight of the respondents (one per cent) stated that they neither support nor oppose the proposals. Figure 9 displays the level of support for the proposals.

Page 18 of 84 Figure 9: Support and opposition to the proposals for improving the capacity at Holborn station

Base = 967. 14 respondents did not answer this question. Comments about our proposals for improving the capacity at Holborn station 6.10 Question 4 asked “Please let us have any comments about our proposals for improving the capacity of Holborn station”. 464 respondents responded to this question. 6.11 As with question 2 we devised a code framework and considered whether comments were best considered under ‘need’ or ‘our proposals’ (see paragraph 6.4). For analysis of this part of the question we also considered whether the response was positive, negative, a concern or a suggestion. 6.12 A full breakdown of all the codes for Question 4 can be found in Appendix A2. Figure 10 shows the ten most frequently mentioned comments. 6.13 The most frequently mentioned comments were positive and generally supportive of our proposals. Suggestions focussed on what measures could be taken to improve the congestion at the existing station entrance or the frequency/capacity of trains. 6.14 The main concern related to disruption from the proposed upgrade. Negative comments were fewer in number (see appendix A2). The most frequently mentioned negative comment related to opposition to traffic restrictions at Procter Street from the new entrance (mentioned by seven respondents). 6.15 We have responded to the comments received (including stakeholder responses) in a separate report available on our website tfl.gov.uk/holborn-station-upgrade

Page 19 of 84 Figure 10: Most frequently mentioned comments about our proposals for improving the capacity at Holborn station

Most frequently mentioned comments for our proposals for improving the capacity upgrade of Holborn station (question 4) Number of Category Theme Comment comments Generally supportive/ supportive of station access 239 improvements Support the capacity upgrade/ 90 sooner the better/ long overdue Essential changes/ will make 70 General the station safer Positive support for the Supportive of Procter St station 49 proposals entrance Supportive of step-free access/improvements for 34 people with restricted mobility/ parents with buggies Improved access/less 33 congestion Internal design Measures should be taken to – Kingsway improve congestion/ capacity at 24 Suggestions entrance the station Increase frequency and Train capacity 23 capacity of trains/ platforms Timescales Project timeline is too long 22 The major upgrade will cause Concerns Disruption serious disruption for station 22 users 6.16 There were 123 respondents who partially supported our proposals. 73 of these respondents made comments about our proposals. These comments covered a wide range of comments reflected in the overall totals in Appendix A1 and A2. The most frequently made comments by those partially supporting the proposals scheme were: • Positive – generally supportive (14), support the upgrade/sooner the better/long overdue (4); • Concern – project timescale too long (8), not convinced Procter Street is the best location for a second entrance (5), serious disruption for station users (5), changes to Procter Street will have a negative impact on traffic (4); • Suggestion – reopen Aldwych station (4) .

Page 20 of 84

Did the level of support and opposition vary for by geographical location of respondents? 6.17 Where respondents provided a full postcode we could map their responses and these findings are set out in the next diagrams. Figures 11 and 12 show support for our proposals in the nearby area to the station and Greater London. The Piccadilly and Central lines are shown on the diagrams. In the nearby area there was a focus of support in the North-east area of the existing station. There was support for the proposals along the Piccadilly and Central lines across London. 6.18 Figures 13 and 14 show opposition to our proposals in the immediate area and Greater London. This was found both in the nearby area and along the two Underground lines (clearly there was overall a relatively low level of opposition).

Figure 11: Distribution of respondents supporting our proposals within the nearby area to the Figure 12: Distribution of respondents supporting our proposals within the Greater London area station

Page 21 of 84

Figure 13: Distribution of respondents opposing our proposals within the nearby area to the Figure 14: Distribution of respondents opposing our proposals within the Greater London area station

Page 22 of 84

Did the level of support and opposition vary by any other characteristics of respondents? 6.19 We considered the characteristics of respondents to see if there were any significant differences in support for the proposals including: • How often respondents used the station (question 10) • Profile of respondents (question 12) • Health and disability (question 20/21) • Gender (question 15) 6.20 This analysis is set out in appendix N. There were no significant differences when making comparisons by these factors. The support for the need for the capacity upgrade did not vary significantly from the overall level of 96 per cent strongly or partially supporting our proposals. A base of 100 is usually required for meaningful comparison of groups (we did not carry out analysis for the other characteristics given the numbers involved). Comments about the quality of the consultation (question 11) 6.21 Question 11 asked “Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)?”. 6.22 580 respondents answered this question and 98 per cent considered that the quality was either: very good, good or acceptable (see figure 15). Figure 15: Views on the quality of the consultation

Base = 942. 39 respondents did not reply to this question. 6.23 We asked a follow up question “Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation materials?” This was an open question and 134 people responded. These comments were coded and appendix A3 provides a full breakdown. Figure 16 shows the most frequently mentioned comments from respondents replying to this question (where comments where made by three or more respondents).

Page 23 of 84 6.24 The most frequently made comments were positive about the consultation. There was interest in further information about the proposals and on the impacts of the proposed Procter Street entrance. Four respondents considered the consultation could be more widely publicised. We have considered these as part of our separate Response to Issues Raised report tfl.gov.uk/holborn-station-upgrade and will review all the comments before our next consultation. Figure 16: Most frequently made comments about the quality of the consultation

Most frequent comments on the quality of consultation (question 11) Number of Category Comment comments Content of the material is informative /clear/ succinct 42 Generally supportive 14 Positive Excellent and functional materials 8 Appreciated being consulted 6 Suggestion Provide more information/images 5 Consultation publicity campaign was not adequate 4 Negative Not enough questions to provide constructive feedback 3 Provide more info on Procter St. regarding road traffic Suggestion flow/ residents/ workers/ environmental/ architectural 3 impacts

Page 24 of 84 7 Responses from stakeholders The section summarises the responses to the consultation from government bodies, transport groups, businesses, educational organisations and resident associations. Some of these responses were received online and the organisation completed our questionnaire – where this is the case we have included their level of agreement with the need for a capacity upgrade and their level of support for our proposals. 7.1 Holborn Station Stakeholder responses Local Government bodies a. Camden Council The Council supports the proposed capacity increase at Holborn station. This will help deliver a long term priority for the council to enhance public transport capacity and accessibility in Holborn. The council welcomes the suggested public realm improvements on Procter Street as it has a long held aspiration to enhance the public realm in the Holborn area. The council will continue to work together with TfL to develop the proposals for Procter Street and High Holborn and to deliver a wider transformation of the public realm in Holborn. A key priority for the Council during the works is to minimise disruption for local residents and they are eager to work together with TfL to ensure that the closure of Procter Street during the works does not divert traffic on to residential streets. The Council is keen for the upgrade to be delivered as soon as possible and with minimal disruption. The Council welcomes the ongoing commitment from TfL to this project as outlined in the recently published TfL business plan and would like to reiterate the importance of this project being seen through to completion. b. Islington Council The response by Islington Council is focused on the potential traffic management impacts of removing general traffic from Procter Street and looking at opportunities to improve and strengthen strategic east / west cycle routes from Islington’s Clerkenwell Road / Old Street corridor through to Oxford Street (and beyond), via the Holborn gyratory area. The Council stated that TfL’s early traffic modelling outputs showed a significant increase in traffic on Mt Pleasant / Elm Street, both during construction and after completion of the Holborn station capacity improvements. Traffic increases were also noted on Clerkenwell Green, Skinner Street and Central Street in the Clerkenwell and Bunhill wards. While the streets in Islington are located at some distance from the Holborn station area, the Council wants future traffic modelling to include these streets so they can monitor any changes in traffic levels as the scheme develops. There appears to be no changes to traffic levels on Clerkenwell Rd / Old Street, which the council welcomes. The Council is developing a cycle / bus priority corridor proposal, with the support of TfL, which is looking to significantly reduce traffic along this corridor. The Council wants to avoid any increases in traffic from other proposals so requests TfL to avoid any changes that would negatively impact (increase traffic) the Clerkenwell Road / Old Street corridor and to include it in future modelling activities so the council can monitor any changes.

Page 25 of 84 Linked to the Council’s Clerkenwell Road / Old Street corridor proposal, the Council is keen to see the strategic co-ordination of improvements between the Clerkenwell Road / Old Street cycle corridor, the Holborn Station works and Oxford Street West (and east) proposals so the benefits to cyclists can be maximised. The Council welcomes the inclusion of a two-way cycle lane in Procter Street. The Council would also be keen to establish whether there is scope to include a contraflow cycle lane (westbound) on Way. Transport groups a. Railfuture Strongly agree with the need for the station capacity upgrade. Strongly support TfL’s proposals for improving the capacity at the station. Noted the upgrade of the two underground lines and that the area is continuously developing so demand at the station will increase. The single entrance is already often unable to cope with demand at peak times. Consider by the time the proposals are complete they will be long-overdue, particularly in providing step- free access. b. London TravelWatch London TravelWatch strongly agree with the need for the station capacity upgrade. Strongly support TfL’s proposals for improving the capacity at the station. Consider the proposals will go a long way to relieving the crowding for passengers who use the Central and Piccadilly lines at Holborn. This affects the journeys of a large number of passengers each day who have to spend a large amount of time queuing outside the station. Highlight in the very near future, the station will not be able to manage without the capacity increases planned. The second exit is much needed, and would provide access for passengers who work east of the station. Pleased to see that lifts would be installed at Holborn station. They are supportive of accessibility work and note that passengers, even those who do not have disabilities themselves, see value in greater accessibility. London TravelWatch hopes that the rest of the station would also be step-free to ensure that the station is fully accessible. Pleased that the proposals include both bus and cycle lanes at Procter Street. Businesses and educational organisations a. Bee Midtown (Business Improvement District (BID)) The BID, on behalf of its 420 business members, strongly supports the proposals for improving the capacity of Holborn station. They also strongly agree with the need for the station capacity upgrade. They request TfL works closely with residents, local businesses and Bee Midtown to the project in as short a timescale as possible. They hope that the remaining funding is confirmed for the post 2021 period as soon as practicable. The BID considers a capacity upgrade at Holborn station is essential to support the growing local economy in Midtown, and the vibrant local community. The BID considers the current station facilities are no long fit for purpose given the numbers of passengers it serves and the numbers expected in the future.

Page 26 of 84 Mayoral policies encourage more people to walk, cycle or use public transport. Once the welcome Central and Piccadilly line upgrades have been delivered, the station will need to accommodate a significantly higher number of passenger movements due to increased train frequency. The BID notes the station regularly has to close at evening peak time to manage congestion, with delays of up to 20 minutes. This results in large crowds blocking the pavements on Kingsway. Along with junction improvements, increased capacity, and a second station entrance, the upgrade should dramatically improve the experience of this major interchange for road traffic, cyclists and pedestrians. They also consider that the lack of step free access at such a major station and interchange is unacceptable, and a capacity upgrade would deliver this. They support the proposed location of the new entrance in Procter Street, and this is supported by the findings of the passenger survey jointly conducted by TfL and Bee Midtown. They wish to work closely on the design of the entrance and the wider public realm enhancements. They are keen to work with TfL and Camden Council to dramatically improve the pedestrian experience in the heart of the Holborn growth area given the evidence that 90% of passenger walked to their final destination from the station. The BID support the proposals to reduce the current four lane road to a single one-way bus lane and two way protected cycle lane subject to discussions with Camden Council and appropriate modelling of traffic and displacement. The BID is particularly supportive of a wider district vision for the public realm; which they would be able to take forward through their Property Group of members. Key benefits that the station upgrade proposals could deliver include: 1. Improved access to, and signage of, the innovative Bee Midtown Cycle Vault in Bloomsbury Square; 2. Improving Red Lion Square; 3. Junction improvements and better pedestrian crossings outside existing Holborn station entrance; 4. Delivering the wider Healthy Streets agenda to the area. They acknowledge the disruption any major construction project can bring and hope to work closely with TfL, Camden Council, residents and businesses to devise plans to manage this effectively. They welcome proposals to mitigate construction traffic by using the Kingsway tunnel entrance. They welcome the proposals that the station would stay in continuous operation throughout the construction process. b. Capital Eagle Ltd (owners 2-28 Procter Street) Capital Eagle Ltd note TfL’s proposals and stated that where they are able to, they will work together with TfL going forward. They reserve their right to protect their legal position with regard to any economic effect on their property (2-28 Procter Street) as a result of the proposed work. c. DAAD - German Academic Exchange Service Strongly agree with the need for the station capacity upgrade. Strongly support TfL’s proposals for improving the capacity at the station. Consider the escalator service is improving, however, the whole size of the station cannot cope with the number of people, particularly at peak times.

Page 27 of 84 d. Furrier and Frey GB Limited Strongly agree with the need for the station capacity upgrade. Strongly support TfL’s proposals for improving the capacity at the station. Highlighted that the station can be difficult to get into at peak times and they have clients who complain a lot about this. Consider every pound invested in transport in London grows the economy dozens of times over. e. London Communications Agency Strongly agree with the need for the station capacity upgrade. Strongly support TfL’s proposals for improving the capacity at the station. Consider the proposals are badly needed and that it the station becomes dangerous when the crowds spill out into the street. Note it can take a long time to even get in the station. f. London School of Economics The LSE considers there is an urgent need to improve capacity and facilities at Holborn Station which is the closest underground station to the School. The LSE's area has a Public Transport Accessibility Level rating of 6b: Excellent, and the School positively encourages staff, students and visitors to use public transport, to cycle, or to walk to and from the School. LSE has ambitions to continue its work with Westminster City Council to pedestrianise and traffic-calm streets in the neighbourhood in order to provide a welcoming, healthy and safe public realm for the LSE community and the public. The LSE notes that access to and from the School by underground is currently not a positive experience given the overcrowding and the lack of facilities at Holborn station. This is compounded by the traffic and pedestrian congestion at the junction of High Holborn and Kingsway making arrival and departure from LSE an unpleasant, stressful and unhealthy experience. The LSE highlight that they are a world-class university attracting students, staff and visitors from around the world and they wish their visits to the School to be pleasant experiences. The LSE is also concerned that the opening of in 2018 at Tottenham Court Road with its interchange with the Central Line will further exacerbate the overcrowding problems at Holborn. The School notes that a second station entrance on Procter Street would reduce pressure on the existing entrance on Kingsway and they support this. However, the LSE community is likely to continue to use the Kingsway entrance as it will be closer to the School and safer as it avoids crossing High Holborn. The LSE would therefore wish TfL to ensure that the capacity of the Kingsway entrance is increased as much as possible and as quickly as possible. In terms of wider London transport strategy the LSE are interested to know if TfL had considered the future role of the Aldwych branch line platforms in relation to the provision of an additional north-south tube route to Waterloo Station and beyond. While supporting the public realm improvements for the new Procter Street entrance, the LSE also wishes to see public realm improvements around the existing station building including but not necessarily limited to Kingsway, High Holborn, Gate Street, New Turnstile and Little Turnstile. These routes lead to and

Page 28 of 84 from Lincoln's Inn Fields which provides a safer, healthier and more attractive route between the station and LSE. They also highlight that the arrival point on Kingsway is not a positive user experience, as the adjoining pavement is severely congested and is impeded by market stalls and kiosks – these should be repositioned. Wayfinding and signage indicating the direction and route to the LSE would be very helpful. The LSE notes the constraints on implementing the proposals, however is concerned that the existing overcrowding will continue until the Kingsway entrance reopens in 2027. The LSE urges TfL to identify any short term measures which can alleviate the problem in the interim period. g. Movement Strategies (management consultancy) Strongly agree with the need for the station capacity upgrade. Strongly supportTfL’s proposals for improving the capacity at the station. 100% agree that the lack of capacity at Holborn, for interchange, entry and exit passengers needs to be addressed. Queried whether step-free access would be provided down to Central line platforms under the proposals. Consider there are only two escalators and a staircase proposed for the new shaft up to Procter Street from the ticket hall, but three escalators are proposed up from lower concourse level – consider this will create a bottleneck in that exit route. Highlighted that there would need to be very good wayfinding, to try and limit the amount of conflict between passenger flow in opposite directions – there are multiple routes available for interchange and entry/exit. Consider the scheme introduces a significant number of 90 degree corners, which have poor sight lines, which will result in a significant number of collisions between passengers walking in opposing directions. Suggest curved corners should be considered. Queried whether an alternative site for the new station entrance had been considered on the ground floor of Templar House, rather than the Procter Street option (if the constrained site at street level is restricting the capacity provided). h. National Housing Federation Strongly agree with the need for the station capacity upgrade. Strongly support TfL’s proposals for improving the capacity at the station. Noted that it is almost impossible to enter or exit the station throughout the day, everyday. Consider that the proposals seem ok and well thought through, and the Federation does not have any objections. i. Xargle Limited (IT Consultancy) Strongly agree with the need for the station capacity upgrade. Strongly support TfL’s proposals for improving the capacity at the station. Noted frustration when Holborn temporarily shuts because of overcrowding during evening rush hour, therefore an upgrade is needed. Noted the area can be very busy during the day because of proximity to – consider it can be dangerous when primary school classes travel to Holborn and there is little space for lining up and getting to street level.

Page 29 of 84 Consider the proposals look a good solution in an area which is undergoing regeneration. Community organisations and Resident Associations a. 10 Red Lion Square Residents Association Strongly agree with the need for the station capacity upgrade. Strongly support TfL’s proposals for improving the capacity at the station. Supportive of the entrance in Procter Street, increasing the capacity of Holborn Tube, closing Procter Street to traffic and making it bus, cycle and pedestrian only. However, the Association highlighted that 10 Red Lion Square private car park is situated beneath Procter St (next to Gymbox) and provision will need to be made for residents to be able to enter and leave the car park entrance which is in Catton Street. Suggest that this will either need to be done by making Catton Street two way when it reopens and allowing exit right or left out of Catton Street into , or allowing residents car access into Procter Street so that they are able to park in the garage.

Page 30 of 84 8 Next steps 8.1 We will continue to engage with local residents, businesses, landowners and stakeholders to involve them in the progress of the proposals, seeking ways to mitigate any impacts where practicable. 8.2 We anticipate a further round of consultation in 2020 on how we would build the new station entrance and manage the construction impacts. 8.3 Subject to the outcome of the consultations we intend to apply in 2022 for powers to carry out a capacity upgrade of Holborn station through a TWAO. If permission is granted by the Secretary of State for Transport, the main works could start in 2023 and take about six years to complete. Please note these are revised timescales from those mentioned in the consultation materials because of changes resulting from our business planning process.

Page 31 of 84

Appendix A1 – Comments on the need for a capacity upgrade (question 2) Question 2 asked “Please let us have any comments about the need for a capacity upgrade of Holborn station”.

The ten comments with the highest frequency counts are highlighted.

Need for a capacity upgrade General comments Current capacity at the station is not adequate, action needs to be 302 taken Poor customer journey experience through the station 72 Crowding problems inside the station High levels of congestion during peak hours 151 Concourse for Piccadilly/ Central line interchange overcrowded, not 112 adequate Overcrowding/ queues within the station 23 Current Escalator works contributes to overcrowding issue at 20 station Entrance is in close proximity to escalators, and therefore a cause 9 of overcrowding Overcrowding makes exiting from Central line difficult 7 Ticket hall currently not adequate 6 Signage and maps within the station are badly placed 5 Staff not helpful when station is overcrowded 5 Walkways in station too narrow 5 Appreciate staff escorting blind passengers at the station 2 Staff at Holborn doing a good job managing people traffic 1 Supportive of the trial of standing-only up escalators 1 Crowding problems outside the station Crowding/ queues outside station 46 Overcrowding at station access has negative impact on pedestrians 4 Overcrowding at station access has negative impact on road users 4 Other Anti social behaviour on at station entrance 2

Concerns Safety concerns due to overcrowding at station 76 Station environment not user friendly for mobility impaired users 1 Negative The proposed changes not needed 3

Page 32 of 84 Appendix A2 – Comments on our upgrade proposals (question 4)

Question 4 asked “Please let us have any comments about our proposals for improving the capacity upgrade of Holborn station”.

The ten comments with the highest frequency counts are highlighted.

Positive Generally supportive/ supportive of station access improvements 239 Support the capacity upgrade/ sooner the better/ long overdue 90 Essential changes/ will make the station safer 70 Supportive of Procter St station entrance 49 Supportive of step-free access/improvements for people with restricted mobility/ parents with buggies 34 Improved access/less congestion 33 Supportive of additional escalators/lifts 16 Supportive of street changes at Procter St. 10 Good design layout and use of space 8 Supportive of access to existing station during upgrade works 7 Support the reuse of the Aldwych platform 7 Changes will have positive impact for those travelling to airport 4 Supportive of proposed changes on tube lines interchange at station 3 Improvement on capacity vital for the tourists & visitors to the area 1 Changes will have positive impact in local area i.e. growth/population 1

Concerns Project timeline is too long 22 The major upgrade will cause serious disruption for station users 22 Not convinced that Procter Street is the best location for a new station entrance 9 Changes to Procter St will have negative impact on traffic 8 Changes will not resolve platform overcrowding 7 The changes will not resolve platform overcrowding 6 Concerned on the impact closure of Kingsway entrance will have on station users 5 The new station entrance will have higher demand than the estimated 50% 2 Closure of Kingsway entrance will cause overcrowding at Procter St entrance 2 The new entrance will have a long connection to reach tube platforms, people will use shortcuts 2

Page 33 of 84 Concerns Step free access will only be at Kingsway entrance 2 Concerned whether adding lifts at Kingway entrance will help reduce overcrowding 2 New entrance only has two escalators 1 Brexit will have a negative effect on the project 1 The changes will have negative impact on access to Red Lion Square Estate 1 The crossing at Kingsway is currently dangerously congested 1 The proposed Procter St entrance building is not sympathetic to local architecture 1 The proposed changes seem complicated 1 The proposed cycle path could pose risk to pedestrians 1 Reducing number of escalators at Kingway entrance will not help reduce congestion 1 TfL should focus on more pressing upgrades such as Bakerloo Line extension 1

Negatives Opposed to traffic restriction at Procter St. 7 Opposed to blocking access to the old Aldwych station 3 Project timeline is too long 3 Changes not needed/issue will be resolved once escalator works are complete 2 Generally opposed 2 Opposed to implementation of cycle lanes 2 Proposals need cost benefit analysis 2 Poor planning, assessment should have been carried out when station escalators were operating 2 Opposed to changes as it affects Gymbox 1 Opposed to closure of Kingsway entrance 1 Opposed to cyclists having priority over motorists 1 Opposed to the proposed step free access as it's not considerate for those with mobility limitations i.e. longer route 1 Opposed to further TfL works disruptions 1

Suggestions - internal design Heritage Maintain the heritage style of Holborn station 7 Retain original tiling/ decoration of Aldwych platforms 3

Suggestions - internal design Procter Street entrance Procter St entrance should be two way 4

Page 34 of 84 Suggestions - internal design Kingsway entrance - internal Measures should be taken to improve congestion/ capacity at existing station 24 Improve connection between Central/ Piccadilly lines 15 Extend/ widen platforms 8 Kingsway entrance should remain open 5 Station should remain open when carrying out upgrade works 4 Fully install step-free access to ensure that the station is fully accessible 4 Improve signage/maps at the station 3 Improve the reliability of all the associated infrastructure including escalators, trains and signalling 3 Implement measure to counter high winds on Central Line (Westbound) exit stairs 1 Kingsway entrance should not be lifts only 1 Provide more staff during rush hour to manage crowds 1 There should be free access between the lines/ platforms 1

Suggestions - internal design General suggestions Provide more escalators to improve access 3 Provide more ticket gates to improve station access/ exit 3 Build more stairs to encourage walking 2 Improve traffic flow within station i.e. separate traffic going in opposite direction 2 More space from platform to concourse/ more barriers 2 Please do not remove any existing tunnelling 2 Proposed new entrance should be used for entry and another for exit only 2 Provide more lifts at station 2 Provide more ticket barriers to improve access 2 Step-free must be available at station 2 Station upgrade must consider entry/ exit to station and remove the current blockages 2 Connection for changing between lines should be as short as possible 1 Crossrail connection at Holborn station should be considered 1 Extend escalators down to platform level on Piccadilly line 1 Prioritise project for step free access, for those with reduced mobility 1 Proposed changes should be carried out sooner 1 Provide a convenient maze-like route within station to reduce congestion 1 Separate passenger traffic entry/ exit to improve traffic flow within station 1 Should be able to reach all platforms using escalators without using steps 1 Should provide escalators to Central line 1

Page 35 of 84 Suggestions - internal design General suggestions TfL should ensure proposal benefits customers/improve safety 1 Facilities at the station need to be fully functional prior to proposed changes are considered. 1 Make walkways at station wider 1 Make station brighter/ colourful 1 Proactive investment/maintenance would improve station access 1 Provide an art platform for students to exhibit their artwork at Holborn station 1 Should anticipate capacity for next 20 years 1

Suggestions - external/ public realm design issues Kiosks outside station should be removed to improve access 6 Pedestrianize Kingway to improve access to station 2 Integrate the plans with the surrounding developments to minimise disruption 2 Make footpaths wider outside the station entrance 2 Holborn High/Southampton Row should be reviewed 1 Improve lighting at Proctor Street to improve safety at night 1 Plant more greenery 1 Provide segregated cycle lanes at Proctor St. 1 Provide subway entrances at Kingsway 1 Red Lion Square should be redeveloped 1 Provide diagonal pedestrian crossing at Kingsway junction 1 Diverted traffic should not be directed to small residential roads 1 Provide more shelter for people queueing outside station 1 TfL should discourage smoking outside station, put up signs 1

Suggestions - other entrances Consider re-opening Aldwych station 12 Provide a new entrance on or in the direction of Lincoln's Inn Fields 4 Provide more than 2 station entrances 4 Consider using the former British Museum station for access 2 Consider exiting/ entrance in Gate Street, convenient for LSE students 1 Provide an additional exit on the western side of Kingsway using one of Aldwych platforms 1

Page 36 of 84 Suggestions - other Increase frequency of trains and capacity of trains/ platforms 23 Air conditioning on Central and Piccadilly line trains 4 Implement glass barriers at platform to improve safety 3 Provide an additional interchange for Central/ Piccadilly lines at another station 2 Provide toilets at Tube stations 2 Should not change norms of escalator use (escalator experiment), should be standard as any other Tube station 2 Investment should be focused on improvement transport access to outer boroughs 2 All tube stations in London should have step free access 1

Further Info How would day-to-day access to the station be affected while the works are being done? How long will the works take? 2 Will the platforms be widened? 2 How would Crossrail affect capacity at Holborn? 1 Where will the construction sites and construction traffic be located at Proctor St? 1

Page 37 of 84 Appendix A3 – Comments about the quality of consultation (question 12) Do you have any comments about the consultation? (clarity of information, the supporting documents, roadshows etc).

Positives Content of the material is informative / clear/ succinct 42 Generally supportive 14 Excellent and functional materials 8 Appreciated being consulted 6 Exhibition at Conway Hall very helpful/ staff very helpful 2 3D model useful for visualisation 1

Negatives Consultation publicity campaign was not adequate 4 Not enough questions to provide constructive feedback 3

Lack of information on implications from proposed changes 2 No cost/ benefit analysis 2 Personal information/ equality monitoring not necessary 2 Sceptical TfL takes feedback into account 2 It's not clear whether the existing entrance/ exit will continue to be in use 2 Consultation does not accept partial post codes 1 Images were not clear/ too small 1 No information on bus routes and whether affected 1 Not clear what will happen to current infrastructure 1 3D layout of the station is difficult to follow 1 PDF documents were difficult to follow 1

Suggestions Provide more information/ images 5

Provide more info on Procter St. regarding road traffic flow/ residents/ workers/ environmental/ architectural impacts 3 Provide floor plans of proposals 2 Provide more information on disruption caused by works 2 Provide more information on how commuters will be impacted 2 Improve mobile device compatibility 1 Project time scale could be improved 1 Provide a balanced view of the pros/cons of scheme 1 Provide a project timeline 1 Provide consultation materials in different languages i.e. French/Italian etc 1 Provide full process of consultation 1

Page 38 of 84 Suggestions Provide info on how data is calculated concerning 50% of passenger traffic going to new entrance 1 Provide option for customers to feedback on whether they avoid station but can’t due to lack of step-free 1 Provide snapshot summary of proposed changes 1 Provide summarized info on key plans 1 Should have provided a CGI walkthrough of the station 1 More detailed plans of tunnels would have been useful 1

Further info More information about the reuse of the Aldwych platform as a concourse 1

Highlighted comments are the most frequently mentioned comments (mentioned by at least three respondents)

Page 39 of 84

Appendix B – Consultation leaflet

Page 40 of 84

Page 41 of 84

Page 42 of 84

Appendix C – Leaflet distribution area (800m radius of Holborn station)

Page 43 of 84

Appendix D – Email to stakeholders

Page 44 of 84 Appendix E – Letter to businesses within 800m radius of Holborn station

Page 45 of 84 Appendix F – Letter to near neighbours (owners of properties)

Page 46 of 84

Page 47 of 84 Appendix G – Letter to near neighbour businesses and organisations

Page 48 of 84

Page 49 of 84 Appendix H – List of stakeholders consulted

London Borough of We emailed councillors whose wards had neighbouring Camden boundaries to Holborn and ward in Camden. This included ward councillors from Camden Council, Islington Council, and City of London. We also contacted several other councillors with specific responsibilities relevant to the consultation. Councillor appointments as at the start of the consultation in September 2017.

Cllr Sabrina Francis Bloomsbury

Cllr Adam Harrison Bloomsbury

Cllr Rishi Madlani Bloomsbury

Holborn and Covent Cllr Julian Fulbrook Garden

Holborn and Covent Garden/ Chair of the Culture and Environment Cllr Awale Olad Scrutiny Committee

Holborn and Covent Cllr Sue Vincent Garden

Cantelowes/ Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Cllr Phil Jones Transport and Planning

King’s Cross/ Cabinet Member for Customers, Cllr Abdul Hai Communities and Culture

Cllr Sarah Haywood King’s Cross

King’s Cross/ Cabinet Member for Protecting Cllr Jonathan Simpson Culture and Communities

Cllr Georgia Gould Leader of the Council

Cllr Heather Johnson Chair of the Planning Committee

City of London George Abrahams Farringdon Without John Absalom Farringdon Without

Caroline Addy Farringdon Without

Gregory Jones QC Farringdon Without

Page 50 of 84 Gregory Lawrence Farringdon Without

Edward Lord OBE Farringdon Without

Paul Martinelli Farringdon Without

Wendy Mead OBE Farringdon Without

Ruby Sayed Farringdon Without

William Upton Farringdon Without

Oliver Sells QC Farringdon Without

Westminster City Louise Hyams St James Ward Council Tim Mitchell St James Ward

Cameron Thomson St James Ward

Paul Church West End

Jonathan Glanz West End

Glenys Roberts West End

Islington Council Alice Donovan-Hart Clerkenwell Raphael Andrews Clerkenwell

James Court Clerkenwell

Claudia Webb Executive member for Environment and Transport

Greater London Chair of the Transport Authority (September 17) Committee Deputy Chair of the Transport Committee

Member of the Transport Committee

Member of the Transport Tom Copley Committee

Member of the Transport Florence Eshalomi Committee

Member of the Transport David Kurten Committee

Member of the Transport Joanne McCartney Committee

Page 51 of 84 Member of the Transport Steve O’Connell Committee

Member of the Transport Navin Shah Committee

Member of the Transport Committee

Member for Barnet and Andrew Dismore Camden

Val ShawCross Deputy Mayor Transport

Gareth Bacon Bexley and Bromley

Andrew Boff London wide

Nicky Gavron London wide

Dr Ealing and Hillingdon

Fiona Twycross London wide

Shaun Bailey London wide

Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea, Tony Devonish City of Westminster

MPs (constituency Sir Kier Starmer Holborn and St. Pancras covers both a Piccadilly line and Central line City of London & station) Mark Field Westminster Ealing Central and Acton Hammersmith

Stephen Pound Ealing North

Emma Dent Coad Kensington

Ruislip, Northwood and Nick Hurd Pinner

Uxbridge and South Boris Johnson Ruislip

MPs (constituency Enfield Southgate covers a Piccadilly line station) Hornsey & Wood Green Islington South & Finsbury Brent North

Page 52 of 84 Brent Central

Gareth Thomas Harrow West

Jeremy Corbyn Islington North

Ruth Cadbury Brentford & Isleworth

Seema Malhotra Feltham & Heston

John McDonnell Hayes & Harlington

Virendra Sharma Ealing Southall

David Lammy Tottenham

MPs (constituency Bethnal Green and Bow covers a Central Line station) Chingford and Woodford Ian Duncan-Smith Green

Eleanor Lang Epping Forest

Wes Streeting Ilford North

Mike Gapes Ilford South

John Cryer Leyton and Wanstead

Jim Fitzpatrick Popular and Limehouse

Lyn Brown West Ham

Karen Buck Westminster North

Department for Transport Officers

Resident and community Calthorpe Street W1 Marchmont Association organisations Residents Group Mullen Towers TRA Newton Street Action Forum

Tybalds Close TRA

Other Camden groups Camden & Westminster Camden Carers Refugee Training Partnership

Camden Drug Intervention Camden Libraries (Holborn) Project

Camden Elderly Irish Support Camden LGBT Forum Group

Camden LINk Camden Mobility Forum

Camden People First Camden Volunteer

Page 53 of 84 Bureau

Camden Women’s Institute London West End (Ladies of the Lock) Women’s Institute

The Camden Society

Camden advice agencies Camden Chinese Holborn CAB Community Centre

Camden Cypriot Women's Camden Somali Cultural Centre Centre

Ethiopian Community in Hopscotch Asian Womens Britain Centre

St Pancras Refugee Centre Somali Community Centre

Doorstep Homeless DISC (Disability in Camden) Families Project

Camden under 25s Advice Mary Ward Legal Centre Centre

Camden Community Bengali Workers' Association Bedford House Centres Community Centre Covent Garden Community Covent Garden Dragon Centre and Seven Dials Club Hall Trust

London Chinese Community London Irish Centre Association

Millman Street Community 1A Arts Centre Centre

Camden Children’s Thomas Coram Centre Centres 1a Children's Centre

Parents and toddlers Turtles Nursery Covent groups Garden

Faith groups Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church of Saint Anselm & Mosque Saint Cecilia

Holborn Muslim Community Shah Jalal Masjid (Euston and Welfare Association Mosque)

St George's Church St George's Church Bloomsbury Holborn

UK Islamic Mission (UKIM)

Health & Social Services Camden and Islington NHS Camden Clinical organisations Foundation Trust Commissioning Group Camden Community Drug Camden Council (Public

Page 54 of 84 Service Health)

Central and North West London NHS Foundation Camden Healthwatch Trust

City and Hackney Clinical NHS Trust Commissioning Group

Covent Garden Medical Great Ormond Street Centre Hospital

Health & Safety Executive Holborn Medical Centre

MIND in Camden Museum Medical Practice

New Horizon Youth Centre Public Health England

Thames Reach Spectrum University College Centre Hospital

Women and Health Camden

Community groups Camden Cypriot Women’s Afghan Community Centre Organisation

Camden Safer Neighbourhood English Folk Dance and Board Song Society

Hopscotch Asian Women's Somali Elderly and Centre Disabled Centre

Voluntary Action Camden Volunteer Centre Camden (VAC)

Schools St Albans C of E Primary & St George the Martyr Nursery School Primary School

St Josephs Catholic Primary School

Universities Birbeck University London School of Business and Finance

London School of Economics Syracuse University

University of London University of the Arts Central St Martins

University of the Arts London

Environment and Bloomsbury Conservation Camden Civic Society Heritage groups Area Advisory Committee Camden Council Heritage Design Council Office

Page 55 of 84 English Heritage Environment Agency

Historic England Natural England

Business organisations Bee Midtown Business Gym Box Improvement District

Northbank Business Midtown Business Club Improvement District At the start of the consultation we wrote to all owners of nearby properties and sent a letter to all businesses within a 800 metre radius of Holborn station. We also visited nearby businesses at the start of the consultation.

Travel organisations Association of British AA Motoring Trust Drivers

Association of Car Fleet British Motorcyclists Operators Federation

Camden Cyclists (The Camden Railway Heritage Camden Branch of the Trust London Cycling Campaign)

Confederation of Campaign for Better Transport Passenger Transport

CTC, the national cycling Freight Transport charity Association

Heathrow Airport Consultative Licenced Taxi Drivers Committee Association

Living Streets London Cab Drivers Club

London Suburban Taxi Drivers London Tourists Coach Association Coalition Operators Association

London TravelWatch Motorcycle Action Group

Motorcycle Industry Office of Rail and Road Association

Rail Delivery Group Road Haulage Association

Taxi Private Hire for Sustrans

Transport for all

Equality groups Action on Hearing Loss Age UK (Camden and (Londonwide) (formerly RNID) London) Asian Peoples Disabilities Alzheimer's Society Alliance

Page 56 of 84 City of London Access British Dyslexia Association Group

Disability Alliance Disability Rights UK

Disabled Persons Transport Faiths Forum 4 London Advisory Committee

Greater London Forum for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Elderly Association

Joint Committee on Human Rights and Equalities Mobility of Blind and Network Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS)

Leonard Cheshire Joint Mobility Unit Disability

London Gypsies and London Older People's Travellers Strategy Group

MIND Mumsnet

National Children's National Autistic Society Bureau

Parkinsons UK Race Equality Foundation

Refugee Action Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)

Royal Society of Blind Runnymede Trust Children

Sense Stroke Association

Thomas Pocklington Trust Three Faiths Forum

Trailblazers Muscular Whizz-Kids Dystrophy UK

Other organisations Canal & River Trust BT London

EDF Energy Foyer Federation

GLA Strategy Access Panel GMB Union

Independent Disability Institute of Civil Engineers Advisory Group (TfL)

London Ambulance Service London Councils

London Fire and Emergency London Wildlife Trust Planning Authority

Page 57 of 84 City of London Police/ Metropolitan Police Service/ National Grid Camden Safer Transport Team

RMT Union Royal Mail

SGN Thames Water

Unions Together Unite Union

UK Power Networks

Page 58 of 84 Appendix I – Email to Oyster card users

Page 59 of 84

Appendix J – Public exhibition display boards

Page 60 of 84

Page 61 of 84

Page 62 of 84

Page 63 of 84

Page 64 of 84

Page 65 of 84

Page 66 of 84

Page 67 of 84

Page 68 of 84

Page 69 of 84 Appendix K – Press Release

TfL seeks views on plans to improve Holborn station 23 October 2017

Upgrade would see the station more than double in size

"Upgrading the station will make it more spacious and accessible" Mark Wild, Managing Director of

• Proposals include step-free access and a new second entrance and exit

There are four weeks remaining in a public consultation on 's (TfL's) proposals to modernise and improve Holborn Tube station.

The proposed upgrade would see the station more than double in size and feature a new second station entrance and exit on Procter Street.

Three new lifts in the existing Kingsway entrance would provide step-free access to both the Central and Piccadilly lines and new interchange routes between the two lines would greatly reduce crowding during peak periods.

Holborn is currently the 11th busiest station on the London Underground, with around 63 million customers using the station every year. By the 2030s, the number of passengers using the station is expected to rise by up to nearly 30 per cent and the station - designed in the early 1900s - needs to be upgraded to cope with growing demand.

Mark Wild, the Managing Director of London Underground, said: "Holborn is one of the busiest stations in London, with hundreds of thousands of people using it every day, and upgrading the station will make it more spacious and accessible. It will also improve the only interchange between two of our busiest lines, the Central and Piccadilly lines."

Tass Mavrogordato, CEO of BeeLondon, said: "On behalf of the business community of Midtown we absolutely welcome TfL's expansion plans for the station and we, and the businesses we represent, are delighted to be taking part in this consultation phase."

Notes to Editors:

• The public consultation will run until 17 November 2017. Please visit tfl.gov.uk/holborn- station-upgrade. • An artist's sketch of the station entrance is available here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tflpress/albums/72157687429717751

Page 70 of 84 Appendix L – Questionnaire

Page 71 of 84

Page 72 of 84

Page 73 of 84

Page 74 of 84

Page 75 of 84

Page 76 of 84

Page 77 of 84 Appendix M – Demographic monitoring Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Gender Total % Male 524 53% Female 372 38% Trans female 1 0 Trans male 0 0 Gender neutral 4 0 Prefer not to say 40 4% Not Answered 40 4% Total 981 100%

Ethnicity Total % Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi 10 1% Asian or Asian British – Chinese 14 1% Asian or Asian British – Indian 41 4% Asian or Asian British – Other 14 1% Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 14 1% Black or Black British – African 6 1% Black or Black British – Caribbean 16 2% Black or Black British – Other 0 0 Mixed – Other 11 1% Mixed – White and Asian 12 1% Mixed – White and Black African 3 0 Mixed – White and Caribbean 3 0 Other Ethnic Group 4 0 Other Ethnic Group – Arab 2 0 Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 0 0 Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 4 0 Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 1 0 2 0 White – British 525 54% White – Irish 24 2% White – Other 159 16% Prefer not to say 71 7% Not Answered 45 5% Total 981 100%

Page 78 of 84 Age Total % Under 15 7 1% 16-20 35 4% 21-25 108 11% 26-30 158 16% 31-35 133 14% 36-40 106 11% 41-45 92 9% 46-50 87 9% 51-55 64 7% 56-60 47 5% 61-65 20 2% 66-70 28 3% 71+ 10 1% Prefer not to say 43 4% Not Answered 43 4% Total 981 100%

Sexuality Total % Bisexual man 10 1% Bisexual woman 16 2% Gay man 88 9% Heterosexual man 348 35% Heterosexual woman 282 29% Lesbian 12 1% Other 7 1% Prefer not to say 158 16% Not Answered 60 6% Total 981 100%

Faith Total % Buddhist 6 1% Christian 266 27% Hindu 19 2% Muslim 31 3% Sikh 6 1% Jewish 14 1% Other 20 2% No religion 431 44% Prefer not to say 136 14% Not Answered 52 5% Total 981 100%

Page 79 of 84 Day to day activities limited by a long term illness or disability lasted or expected to last at least 12 months Total % Yes, limited a lot 15 2% Yes, limited a little 61 6% No 810 83% Prefer not to say 50 5% Not Answered 45 5% Total 981 100%

If you answered yes to above question which category best describes your long-term illness or disability lasted Total % Hearing 15 2% Vision 11 1% Mobility 48 5% Other 20 2% Prefer not to say 62 6% Not Answered 850 87% Total 981 100%

Page 80 of 84 Appendix N - Support and opposition by profile of respondents Level of support or opposition for our proposals and how respondents use Holborn station (q3, q9): “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Holborn station?” To enter or To change I do not use exit the trains between the station station different branches of

the Central and Piccadilly lines % Number % Number % Number Strongly 84% 602 86% 176 17 support Partially 13% 91 11% 23 4 support Neither support 1% 5 1% 2 1 nor oppose Partially 1% 9 1% 2 1 oppose Strongly 1% 11 1% 2 1 oppose 100% 718 100% 205 24 Base = 950. 31 respondents did not answer both questions.

Percentages have not been included in this table for respondents not using the station given the small number indicating this as their profile.

Page 81 of 84 The level of support or opposition to our proposals and frequency of use of Holborn station (q3, q10) “How often do you use Holborn station? This could be to enter or exit the station or to change trains between different branches of the Central and Piccadilly lines”.

5+ days a week 3 to 4 days a 1 to 2 days a 1 to 3 times a Less than once I do not use week week month a month the station

Strongly % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number support 81% 242 82% 114 83% 113 88% 212 86% 106 14 Partially 15% 43 14% 19 13% 18 10% 25 10% 12 3 support Neither support 1% 3 1% 2 1% 1 0 1 0 0 1 nor oppose Partially 2% 6 1% 2 1% 1 0 1 1% 1 1 oppose Strongly 1% 3 1% 2 2% 3 0 1 3% 4 1 oppose 100% 297 100% 139 100% 136 100% 240 100% 123 20 Base = 955. 26 respondents did not answer both questions.

Percentages have not been included in this table for respondents not using the station given the small numbers indicating this as their profile.

Page 82 of 84

The level of support or opposition to our proposals based on profile of respondents (q3, q12)

“Are you?” Business Employed Visitor to the Local resident Commuter Other owner locally area % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number Strongly support 76% 68 18 84% 370 88% 188 83% 318 30 Partially support 17% 15 4 13% 56 9% 20 13% 51 3 Neither support nor oppose 1% 1 0 1% 6 0 1 1% 2 1 Partially oppose 3% 3 0 1% 5 1% 2 1% 5 0 Strongly oppose 2% 2 0 1% 4 1% 3 2% 7 1 Base = note respondents could choose more than one option in question 10. Percentages have not been included in this table for business owners and “other” given the small numbers indicating these as their profiles.

Page 83 of 84

The level of support or opposition to our proposals based on health/ disability of respondents (q3, q21) “Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which as lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? (Please include problems related to old age)”

Yes, limited a Yes, limited a lot No Prefer not to say little

Strongly % Number % Number % Number % Number support 12 43 86% 696 32 Partially 2 15 11% 90 11 support Neither support 1 2 0 4 1 nor oppose Partially 0 1 1 6 3 oppose Strongly 0 0 1 11 3 oppose 100% 15 100% 61 100% 807 100% 50 Base = 558. 39 respondents did not answer both questions.

Percentages have not been included in this table for respondents stating “yes, limited a lot”, “yes, limited a little” or “prefer not to say” given the small numbers indicating these as their profiles.

The level of support or opposition to our proposals based on gender (q1, q17)

Q1 Male Female Prefer not to say

Strongly % Number % Number % Number support 88% 458 301 25 Partially 52 59 7 support Neither support 0 6 1 nor oppose Partially 4 3 4 oppose Strongly 9 2 3 oppose 523 371 40 Base = 934. 47 respondents did not answer both questions.

Other gender categories with small number of respondents not shown for clarity of table information. Percentages for respondents stating they would prefer not to say given the small numbers indicating this.

Page 84 of 84