Tooley Street Healthy Streets Consultation Report & Response to Issues Raised

July 2019

Contents

Executive summary ...... 4 1. About the proposals ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 Purpose ...... 5 1.3 Detailed description ...... 5 2. About the consultation ...... 8 2.1 Purpose ...... 8 2.2 Potential outcomes ...... 8 2.3 Who we consulted ...... 8 2.4 Dates and duration ...... 8 2.5 What we asked ...... 9 2.6 Methods of responding ...... 9 2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 9 2.8 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 10 3. About the respondents ...... 11 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 11 3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 11 3.3 Profile of respondents ...... 12 3.4 Type of respondent ...... 13 3.5 Location of respondents ...... 14 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 15 4.2 Key themes raised by the general public ...... 15 4.3 Summary of stakeholder responses ...... 17 4.4 Comments on the consultation ...... 23 5. Response to issues raised ...... 24 5.1 Roads and accessibility ...... 24 5.2 Taxis ...... 25 5.3 Cycling ...... 26 5.4 General ...... 27

6. Next steps ...... 29 Appendix A: Stakeholder List ...... 30 Appendix B: Copy of customer/resident letter ...... 31 Appendix C: Copy of stakeholder email ...... 33 Appendix D: Coding framework ...... 34 Appendix E: Final List of comments ...... 36 Appendices F to I: Location of Respondents Maps ...... 38

3 Executive summary

Between 13 November 2018 and 8 January 2019 we consulted on interim proposals to change the road layout of Tooley Street. These proposals aim to make Tooley Street safer for more vulnerable road users following the completion of the improvements to London Bridge station. Our proposals form part of the Mayor of London’s plan for Healthy Streets - a long-term vision to enable more people to walk, cycle and use public transport by making London’s streets healthier, safer and more welcoming. This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation.

We received 9,387 responses to the consultation (including 30 responses from Stakeholders). Over 20 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with our overall proposals to make changes to the Tooley Street road layout. Over 78 per cent either disagreed or strongly disagreed with our proposals. The main themes are highlighted below and our response to each theme is detailed in section 5 of this report.

Summary of issues raised during consultation Most respondents (78.5 per cent) were generally opposed to this scheme. Many were unhappy that taxis were not allowed into Tooley Street, arguing that taxis are public transport and as such should be allowed to use the road.

22 per cent felt accessibility for disabled passengers who rely on taxis would be reduced making it difficult for them to get out and about. Seventeen per cent stated that congestion would increase in the surrounding streets while 10 per cent argued there would be reduced access for local businesses.

Some respondents also suggested that Cycle Superhighway 4, now known as Cycleway 4, should be extended across London Bridge and the local area.

Next steps After considering all of the consultation responses to the Tooley Street proposals we will be altering the scheme to enable licensed taxis, as well as buses and cycles, to make the left turn from Borough High Street into Duke Street Hill. This will help licensed taxis to serve the key locations of London Bridge Hospital and London Bridge Station and ensure that Tooley Street is accessible. Further minor modifications to the scheme will be considered prior to implementation.

4 1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction

In line with the Mayor’s Healthy Streets approach to make streets healthier, safer and more welcoming we proposed to change the road layout of Tooley Street. These changes would reduce road danger, improve air quality, and provide better facilities to enable people to walk, cycle and use public transport, supporting the objectives of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS).

Tooley Street was significantly impacted while enabling works were underway to deliver improvements to London Bridge Station. A number of traffic management measures were implemented at various times during the London Bridge construction works, including the restriction of traffic and the provision of a contra-flow cycle lane.

1.2 Purpose

Tooley Street is a busy thoroughfare that is used by high numbers of pedestrians and cyclists, as well as cars, taxis and delivery vehicles. It is also served by four bus routes during the day and two at night. The area has become busier since May 2018 when Network Rail opened the upgraded London Bridge station.

Our proposed changes aim to:

 Reduce traffic speeds and the number of vehicles using Tooley Street to make it safer for more vulnerable road users  Improve the provision for cyclists in advance of our aspiration to provide high quality cycle provision to London Bridge, and  Improve the attractiveness of the street in line with the Healthy Streets approach.

1.3 Detailed description

Our Proposals included:

 Introducing a 20mph speed limit along entire length of Duke Street Hill/Tooley Street (between Borough High Street and Tower Bridge Road)  Introducing a two metre wide mandatory cycle lane westbound, on Duke Street Hill/Tooley Street, running between Borough High Street and Bermondsey Street junctions, separated from traffic with wands on the Duke Street Hill section  Introducing a protected right turn ‘pocket’ for cyclists waiting to turn right into Bermondsey Street from Tooley Street

5  Making Duke Street Hill no entry, apart from cyclists and buses, from the junction with A3 Borough High Street. This will mean that eastbound traffic along Duke Street Hill and Tooley Street as far as the junction with Bermondsey Street is restricted to buses and cycles only.  Restricting access from side roads onto Tooley Street to westbound travel only. Any motorized vehicle turning onto Tooley Street from the following roads will not be able to turn onto and travel eastbound towards Bermondsey Street:  Tooley Street onto Duke Hill Street  Bridge Yard onto Tooley Street  Cottons Lane onto Tooley Street  Hay’s Lane onto Tooley Street  Battlebridge Lane onto Tooley Street

Westbound traffic would continue to be able to travel along this section of highway as it does at present (i.e. accessing via Bermondsey Street or from roads further east) which lead onto Tooley Street.

This would be an interim scheme, reducing traffic in the short term. We would like to extend the quality cycle provision, associated with Cycleway 4, to London Bridge when the other phases of this route have been completed. This would be subject to further consultation with residents and stakeholders in the Tooley Street and London Bridge area.

6 7 2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose

The objectives of the consultation were:

 To give stakeholders and the public easy to understand information about the proposals and allow them to respond

 To understand the level of support or opposition for the proposed changes

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

 To understand concerns and objections

 To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes

The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

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

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

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme

2.3 Who we consulted

We wrote to residents, businesses and organisations in the immediate vicinity of Tooley Street. We also consulted stakeholders including the London Borough of Southwark, City of London, HCA Healthcare, Better Bankside, NHS Southwark Clinical Commissioning Group and local elected representatives. A list of the stakeholders that we consulted can be found in Appendix A.

2.4 Dates and duration

The consultation was open for eight weeks between 13 November 2018 and 8 January 2019.

8 2.5 What we asked

The questionnaire asked two questions about the proposals and 13 questions relating to the respondent including equalities information:

 If the respondent agreed with our proposals to change the layout of Tooley Street  Whether the respondent had any further comments on our proposals  Name  Age  Gender  Email address  Postcode  What the respondent was (i.e. a local resident, commuter or visitor etc.)  Organisation name (if responding on behalf of a business/stakeholder/organisation  Ethnic origin  Sexual orientation  Religious faith  Whether the respondent had a health problem or disability which limited their day to day activities, how they had heard about the consultation  Views on the quality of the consultation (respondents were asked two questions on the quality: to rate in a scale from very good to very poor; and to provide any comments)  How they found out about this consultation

2.6 Methods of responding

People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They could respond by accessing the online questionnaire; by using our freepost address at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS; or by emailing [email protected].

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity A copy of the letter that was sent to local residents and businesses can be found in Appendix B.

A copy of the stakeholder email can be found in Appendix C.

2.7.1 Website The consultation was available on our consultation website https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/tooley-street/

9 2.7.2 Meetings with stakeholders We carried out an informal stakeholder meeting on 31 October 2018, this was hosted by Team London Bridge. This meeting was an opportunity for interested parties to view the proposals for Tooley Street and Duke Hill Street and to discuss them with us and other key local stakeholders ahead of the consultation process starting.

2.8 Analysis of consultation responses

We used a third party to analyse the consultation responses to allow for an independent interpretation of the responses received. AECOM were appointed to carry out the following tasks:

 Thematic coding and analysis of one open-ended question  Quantitative analysis of the one closed question and demographic questions  Cleaning and analysis of postcode data provided  Mapping of respondent location; and  Production of a technical report

There were two “open” questions (one seeking comments about the proposals and one on the quality of the consultation). A draft coding frame was developed for responses to these questions. This code frame can be seen in Appendix D.

10 3. About the respondents

This section contains a profile of the responses.

We received 9,397 responses including 30 from stakeholders and interested groups.

Of the 9,367 public responses, 144 (two per cent) of responses were received online, with 9,223 (98 per cent) received by paper copy or email.

3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents No. of respondents (%) General public 9367 99.8% Stakeholder responses 30 0.2% Total 9397

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation

The majority, over 53 per cent (4,976), stated that they heard about the consultation through Social Media, and over 13 per cent (1,294) of the respondents stated that they read about it in the press. Over 8 per cent (767) heard about the consultation through the TfL website, 8 per cent (763) received an email from TfL while less than 1 per cent (46) received a letter from us.

How did you find out about this consultation? No. of Option comments (%) Received an email from TfL 763 8.1% Received a letter from TfL 46 0.5% Read about in the press 1294 13.8% Saw it on the TfL website 767 8.2% Social media 4976 53.1% Other (please specify) 687 7.3% Not Answered 834 8.9%

Total 9367

11 3.3 Profile of respondents

We asked a number of questions to understand the profile of respondents. We asked demographic questions about gender, ethnic group, age, sexual orientation, faith and health problem/ disability.

The majority of those responding were male, 58 percent (5,459 respondents). The most common group to respond were those aged 51-55, over 12 per cent (1,185 respondents), followed closely by those aged 46-50, 12 per cent (1,126 respondents). Over 13 per cent of respondents declared that their day-to-day activities were limited by either a health problem or disability.

AGE Option No. of comments (%) Under 15 10 0.11% 16-20 53 0.57% 21-25 237 2.53% 26-30 521 5.56% 31-35 672 7.17% 36-40 832 8.88% 41-45 883 9.43% 46-50 1126 12.02% 51-55 1185 12.65% 56-60 765 8.17% 61-65 444 4.74% 66-70 208 2.22% 71+ 178 1.90% Prefer not to say 1274 13.60% Not Answered 979 10.45% Total 9367

GENDER Option No. of comments (%) Male 5459 58.28% Female 1693 18.07% Trans female 34 0.36% Trans male 54 0.58% Gender neutral 82 0.88% Prefer not to say 1056 11.27% Not Answered 989 10.56% Total 9367

12 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? Option No. of comments (%) Yes, limited a lot 618 6.60% Yes, limited a little 691 7.38% No 5292 56.50% Prefer not to say 1758 18.77% Not Answered 1008 10.76% Total 9367

3.4 Type of respondent

We wanted to understand the type of respondent and their relationship with the proposed scheme.

Type of respondent No. of User responses % A commuter to the area 2972 32% A local business owner 412 4% A local resident 1166 12% A taxi/private hire vehicle driver 2740 29% A visitor to the area 1852 20% Employed locally 1958 21% Not local but interested in the scheme 592 6% Other (please specify) 308 3% Total (respondents could select multiple options) 12000

The majority of respondents indicated that they were commuters in the area, 32 per cent (2,972), followed by taxi/ private hire vehicle drivers, 29 per cent (2,740). The third group was made up of local employees, 21 per cent (1,958) followed by respondents who indicated that they lived in the area, 12 per cent (1,166).

13 3.5 Location of respondents

Over 62 per cent (5,851) of the respondents provided their full or partial home postcode. If a respondent did not provide a full postcode we were unable to include them in the postcode analysis. All the complete addresses were successfully mapped within the Greater London area. 12 per cent (701) of responses were from the London Borough of Southwark. Appendix G shows the distribution of respondents within the immediate area of Tooley Street and Appendix F the distribution within the Greater London area. There was a concentration of responses around Tooley Street. Maps showing location of respondents and the level of support/ opposition can be seen in Appendices F to I.

14 4. Summary of all consultation responses

We received 9,367 responses from the general public. Their responses are set out in sections 4.1 and 4.2.

The 30 stakeholder responses summaries are included in section 4.3.

Summary of responses

4.1 Overall support

We asked respondents “Do you agree with our proposals to change the layout of Tooley Street?” 20 per cent (1,906) of respondents either agreed or agreed strongly with our proposal. Over 78 per cent (7,358) respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal.

No. of Option comments (%) Agree strongly 1516 16.2% Agree 390 4.2% Neither agree nor disagree 55 0.6% Disagree 481 5.1% Disagree strongly 6877 73.4% No opinion/not interested 7 0.1% Not Answered 41 0.4% Total 9367

4.2 Key themes raised by the general public

Question 2 asked respondents to provide any additional comments they had on the proposals presented. The table below summarises the most common key themes that were raised and the frequency that respondents raised these individual points.

Our responses to the comments that were raised can be found in section 5 of this report ‘Responses to Issues Raised’.

15 The full list of comments and frequency can be found in Appendix E.

Do you agree with our proposals to change the layout of Tooley Street? - General comments No. of Most frequent Emerging Themes comments Roads / Accessibility Oppose – Increased congestion / congestion relocated to surrounding streets 1035 Oppose – Reduced access for local businesses (staff and customers) 600 Suggest – More enforcement of the 20mph zone 372 Taxi Drivers Oppose – Taxi drivers are public transport, therefore should be allowed to use the scheme 1572 Oppose – Disabled passengers rely on taxi access / The scheme reduces access for disabled/elderly 1383 Oppose – The plans will restrict taxi driver’s ability to earn a living/ Make taxi fares more expensive 547 Oppose – Taxis need access to London Bridge Hospital 338 Suggest – Allow taxis to use bus lanes / Electric taxis should be given more access to bus lanes 397 Cycling Oppose – Cyclists already get too much priority 287 Concern – Wands aren’t enough / More segregation is needed 395 Suggest - Extend CS4 across London Bridge/local area 516 Suggest – Introduction of early release traffic lights for cyclists 335 General Oppose - Increased pollution 586

The most frequently mentioned comments were from taxi drivers and users who argued that taxis were part of public transport and should therefore be allowed to use Tooley Street. They also stated that disabled passengers rely on taxis a lot and that the proposed scheme would limit access for the disabled and older people.

16 4.3 Summary of stakeholder responses

This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Stakeholder Support/ Oppose/ Reasons given/ recommendations general General opposition support

Better Bankside  Recommendations - Duke St Junction  Cycle pre-signal to enable cyclists to clear the Advanced Stop Line (ASL)  Marking right turning cyclist path through the junction  Enlarge pedestrian crossing  Powered traffic should not cut through Borough market environs to travel east

Freight   Opposed to vehicular restriction other than Transport buses & cycles to westbound-only travel Association along Duke Street Hill and Tooley Street  Cycle Superhighway 4 (CS4) to London Bridge must involve freight operators at the earliest planning stages.  Scheme should not be developed in isolation to other schemes in operation

London Cycling supported,  CS4 should be brought forward quickly Campaign as an  Reduce loading bays interim  Right turn from Tooley St into Bermondsey approach is not appropriately designed  Don’t allow taxis access to Duke St eastbound  Design infrastructure to accommodate growth in cycling  Design to London Cycle Design Standards with Cycling Level of Service rating of 70 or above

Southwark  Support Council  A 20mph speed limit  introduction of a 2 metre wide mandatory cycle lane  No entry into Duke Street Hill, apart from cyclists and buses, from the junction with A3 Borough High Street  Introduction of left turn bans for all motor vehicles from side streets on the north side of Tooley Street  Raising two parking/ loading bays on Tooley Street

Southwark   Support 20mph limits (recommend Cyclists measures to enforce)  Turn into Bermondsey Street should have

17 Stakeholder Support/ Oppose/ Reasons given/ recommendations general General opposition support an extended island to give more protection for waiting cyclists  All parking and loading should be outside of cycle lanes providing protection

Sustrans Broadly Support supportive  Introduction of a 20mph speed limit  restrictions to general traffic westbound  Introduction of a protected eastbound cycle lane Concerns  Potential for conflict between people on cycles and buses  Lack of connectivity to the wider strategic cycle network  Missed opportunity that an area-wide approach to traffic management & reduction, in partnership with the London Borough of Southwark, has not been considered  Traffic restrictions on Tooley Street could have a significant impact on rat-running traffic in the wider are

LTDA Largely  Failed to recognise the prime importance of opposed licensed taxis as part of the public transportation mix  Air quality – excluding taxis will have an impact on drivers’ willingness to upgrade their vehicles to Zero Emission Capable vehicles  Safety – TfL’s own data shows that taxi and private hire vehicles cause amongst the lowest numbers of collisions  Increased journey times – leading to higher fares  Increased congestion

The London Cab Largely  The LCDC offer no judgement on the Drivers Club opposed viability of the Tooley Street Healthy Streets plan  Taxis should be treated like buses and not excluded from access  TfL also set taxi fares, rather than the private individuals that operate taxis  Greater London Authority (GLA) Transport Committee recognises the vital role the taxi service plays in transport for the disabled and for safe travel home

Unicorn Theatre   Improvements to pavement health would likely also improve the safety and experience for access user

18 Stakeholder Support/ Oppose/ Reasons given/ recommendations general General opposition support  Improvements to traffic conditions would, most likely, improve safety and air quality  Ensure coaches have access to the theatre & are able to stop close to the entrance  Support any improvements to the safety and attractiveness of cycling

FXpansion  Protected cycle lane wands should extend Audio UK Ltd further along the street

Tokei Martial Concern  Concerned about ability to access the club Arts Club for deliveries

Trace Taxi Tours Oppose  Scheme excludes Licensed London Taxis London from the streets that they earned the right to ply for hire on

 Scheme favours cyclists  Increased congestion and pollution

Bike Taxi   Scheme will boost economy by increasing Limited - trading the speed at which we can move and deliver as Pedal Me goods  Scheme will make us more competitive against taxi and private hire Suggestion  Fully segregated cycles lanes as part of the original plan to send CS4 over London Bridge

ActivePlanning  Support  Bus and cycles only section eastbound between Borough High Street and Bermondsey Street  Air pollution reduction  additional cycle lanes Suggestion  Cycle lanes at least 2.0m wide  A cycle pre-signal combined with a larger ASL  Wider pedestrian crossings at the top and bottom of Duke Street Hill Concern  Safety of cyclists at the top end of Duke Street Hill where there will be conflicts with left-turning vehicles.

Eco Cycle  Support separated cycle routes  Lack of cycle parking in proximity to London Bridge  No mention of cycle parking provision

19 Stakeholder Support/ Oppose/ Reasons given/ recommendations general General opposition support

London Largely  Reduced access for passengers requiring a Suburban Taxi opposed door to door service, a personal Drivers Coalition transportation option for the less mobile & wheelchair user

 Increased pollution  Increased congestion

Stop Killing  20mph London Bridge to Woolwich roads Cyclists  Fully protected cycle lanes  Install pedicab stands at London Bridge  A safe link to Quietway 14 so that kids can cycle it safely  Install a protected left hand turn for people cycling from London Bridge into Tooley street  Remove car parking/delivery bays or “float” them onto road  Taxis should not be allowed to use bus only sections or turns

London Vintage Oppose  It is imperative that licensed black taxis area Taxi Association allowed access to this street. Taxis often drop off disabled and elderly at the hospital

and hotels

Gowling WLG  We are based at 4 More London Riverside and need taxis to operate in this area

Brewery Oppose  Increased congestion Logistics Group  Increased pollution  Kerbside space will be affected with the implementation of the CSH, in turn delivery vehicles will be at the kerbside longer  Productivity for logistics companies are falling due to falling road speeds which is making operators run more vehicle to make up the short fall, again working against these schemes

UNITETHEUNIO Oppose Unite the Union reject the left turn ban and calls N London & for taxis to continue to have access to Duke Street Eastern Cab Hill from London Bridge Section  Licensed taxis are recognised by government and the Mayor as an essential part of the public transport network in London  Taxis are not pre-booked and are obliged to travel the shortest distance on a street hail journey  The left turn is a useful and effective manoeuvre allowing for shorter journeys therefore less overall pollution

20 Stakeholder Support/ Oppose/ Reasons given/ recommendations general General opposition support  There are no statistics showing taxi movements to be an accident hazard.

London  Generally supports these proposals insofar as TravelWatch they provide a good level of priority for bus services and access for cycles

Points to note:  Less clear why the parking bays are being retained albeit flush with the footway. Genuine footway is preferred  Disappointing that the various traffic islands are to be removed because these allow pedestrians to cross informally in their shadow - a healthy streets requirement  Provision of a cycle lane is noted, but this is a disjointed affair that will encourage cycles to take a riding position too close to parked vehicles in the bays and too close to the junctions  Upgrade pre-existing side road entry treatments

Howard Oppose  A seriously deleterious impact on our Kennedy LLP business  Delay to courier collection & deliveries of time sensitive legal documents  Taxis picking up from Tooley Street entrance of No.1 London Bridge will take longer which might lead to taxis refusing jobs. This will lead to more staff flagging down cabs on London Bridge on the red lines near the bus stops, staff working late having to brave the streets late at night to hail a cab as booking one will be dependant whether the taxi takes the booking or not  The knock on effect it will have in Montague Place. Taxi and Car access via Borough Market will increase as they find a way to our building. This will cause delays and more disruption in Montague Place  We ask that changes be made to the traffic management on Montague Place as this is already seriously poor and will only get worse should these changes be implemented  Deliveries during the day will be delayed

London Forum Oppose  The scheme needs more consideration of of Amenity and need for improved pedestrian facilities, Civic Societies including better crossings and a continuous footway on the north side of Tooley Street.

21 Stakeholder Support/ Oppose/ Reasons given/ recommendations general General opposition support

Forster  Agree with the proposal to change the layout of Communications Tooley Street.

20's Plenty for  Support Us  This is a really good and bold delivery of the healthy streets programme on a very significant part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) where people and vehicle mix in large numbers  Steps are an excellent interim (ahead of a design for CS4) to rebalance the street in favour of the numbers who are using it in the greatest number (i.e. pedestrians) and to increase levels of safety with a 20mph limit Concern  The issue is more difficult west bound as general traffic will still be permitted, but firstly there are some signs of attempting to encourage compliance with the removal and non-replacement of the centre white line over large parts of the road in the recent resurfacing Suggestions  Other low cost measures that should be considered to increase compliance include 2D speed cushions – the Lower Speeds Toolkit suggests that Virtual 2D Humps had an impact of -1.7mph  Other elements that are low cost and could be considered are light segregation of a greater proportion of the proposed cycle lane  Mandatory lane between Battle Bridge Lane and Cottons Lane segregated with wands (as per Duke Street Hill)  A greater number of 20mph roundels to the east of Bermondsey St  A greater use of appropriate interventions from the Toolkit would be welcomed as a means of increasing compliance

Team London  We support the Mayor’s London Plan and Bridge Transport Strategy aspirations for improved air quality and more active travel.

Our extensive stakeholder engagement exercise revealed that over 70 per cent of business members that responded support measures to increase the safety and attractiveness of cycling. However, we will seek assurance that the measures proposed are only interim in nature.

22 Stakeholder Support/ Oppose/ Reasons given/ recommendations general General opposition support This means:  If there is significant detrimental reputational impact on London Bridge as a place for business, then the scheme can be reverted or modified  The scheme does not go far enough to provide improved priority for pedestrians outside the station, which will need to be addressed through follow-up capital measures

4.4 Comments on the consultation

Respondents were asked: ‘What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)?’

In total 93 per cent of respondents (8,567) completed this question, with a majority- 38 per cent (3,589) indicating that the quality of the consultation was acceptable, 18 per cent (1,699) felt that the quality was good. Around 27 per cent (2,594) indicated that the quality was either poor or very poor.

No. of Option comments (%) Very good 685 7.31% Good 1699 18.14% Acceptable 3589 38.32% Poor 1385 14.79% Very poor 1209 12.91% Not Answered 800 8.54% Total 9367

23 5. Response to issues raised

Below are our responses to the key issues raised by consultation respondents:

5.1 Roads and accessibility

5.1.1 Oppose – Increased congestion / congestion relocated to surrounding streets 1

As part of the temporary traffic management put in place to facilitate the London Bridge station refurbishment, Tooley Street was subjected to a number of traffic restrictions which prohibited general traffic from using portions of the road at various times. During these periods we received minimal reports of increased congestion on local streets as a result of displaced traffic. We therefore do not expect the surrounding streets to experience a significant increase in congestion levels as a result of the Tooley Street Healthy Streets scheme.

5.1.2 Oppose – Reduced access for local businesses (staff and customers)

Tooley Street will still be accessible by foot, cycle and using public transport, either by bus or London Underground via London Bridge station. It will also be accessible using private vehicles travelling westbound from Bermondsey Street. Further, our revised proposals will now permit licensed taxis to travel eastbound on Duke Street Hill and Tooley Street from Borough High Street (see sections 5.2 and 6), providing an additional means of access to local businesses in the most western part of Duke Street Hill and Tooley Street.

5.1.3 Suggest – More enforcement of the 20mph zone

Our plan for Tooley Street is an interim scheme to reduce road danger, improve air quality, and provide better facilities to enable people to walk, cycle and use public transport. Through this interim scheme we will introduce a 20mph speed limit along the entire length of Duke Street Hill/ Tooley Street (between Borough High Street and Tower Bridge Road).

The enforcement of speed limits in London is undertaken by the Metropolitan Police, typically using on-street officers, mobile speed cameras and fixed speed cameras. We would like to extend the quality cycle provision, associated with Cycleway 4, to London Bridge when the other phases of this route have been completed. Through this transformational scheme we will consider further opportunities to make the new 20mph speed limit more self- enforcing.

1 This theme is an amalgamation of a number of responses expressing concerning that surrounding roads would experience increased congestion.

24 5.2 Taxis

5.2.1 Oppose – Taxi drivers are public transport, therefore should be allowed to use the scheme

In line with the Mayors Transport Strategy, TfL is working with the boroughs and stakeholders, to prioritise space efficient modes of transport to tackle congestion and improve the efficiency of streets for the movement of people and goods.

After analysing all of the responses received it has been decided that licensed taxis, as well as buses and cycles, will be able to make the left turn from Borough High Street into Duke Street Hill and Tooley Street. General traffic will still be unable to make this movement.

5.2.2 Oppose – Disabled passengers rely on taxi access / The scheme reduces access for disabled/elderly

After analysing the responses received it has been decided that licensed taxis, as well as buses and cycles, will be able to make the left turn from Borough High Street into Duke Street Hill and Tooley Street. General traffic will still be unable to make this movement.

This decision is taken to enable licensed taxis to provide a service to and from Tooley Street, and particularly London Bridge Station and London Bridge Hospital. This will assist people who are reliant on licensed taxis for their journeys to access these key locations.

5.2.3 Oppose – The plans will restrict taxi driver’s ability to earn a living/ Make taxi fares more expensive

5.2.4 Oppose – Taxis need access to London Bridge Hospital

Following the responses received it has been decided that licensed taxis, as well as buses and cycles, will be able to make the left turn from Borough High Street into Duke Street Hill and Tooley Street. General traffic will still be unable to make this movement.

The ability of licensed taxis to provide a door-to-door service to and from London Bridge Hospital for passengers reliant on taxis for their journeys has been a key consideration in making this decision.

25 5.2.5 Suggest – Allow taxis to use bus lanes / Electric taxis should be given more access to bus lanes

Bus lanes increase journey time reliability and safety for certain vehicles and encourage the use of sustainable transport such as public transport and cycling. The hours when you can or can't use bus lanes will differ due to the volume and frequency of buses using a given route. However, bus lanes aren't always just for buses. Across London, taxis, motorcyclists and cyclists can use many of them too. Anyone can use a bus lane outside the hours of operation.

The operation of bus lanes, including access to bus lanes by taxis, is not within the scope of this consultation. For more information on bus lanes in London please go to https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes/rules-of-red-routes/bus-lanes

5.3 Cycling

5.3.1 Oppose – Cyclists already get too much priority

Tooley Street is a key corridor for cyclists wishing to access London Bridge and is also used as a cycle route to and from central London. It is important to improve Tooley Street to make sure it is a safer and more comfortable environment for people choosing to cycle in this location.

5.3.2 Concern - Wands aren’t enough / More segregation is needed

This scheme is intended as an interim scheme to reduce road danger, improve air quality and provide better facilities to enable people to walk, cycle and use public transport. Our proposals include a short section of light segregation on Duke Street Hill as it is understood that people cycling tend to feel at greater risk when cycling uphill. The wands protecting the westbound cycle lane are therefore proposed to provide increased safety and comfort for cyclists on the approach to the junction with Borough High Street.

We would like to extend high quality cycle provision to London Bridge and will consider additional measures to improve cycle safety and comfort as part of any potential future plans for Tooley Street.

5.3.3 Extend Cycleway 4 across London Bridge/local area

The proposed scheme is intended only as an interim proposal to reduce traffic levels and provide a safer and more comfortable environment for people walking, cycling and using public transport in the London Bridge area. We would like to extend the quality cycle provision, associated with Cycleway 4, to London Bridge when the other phases of this route have been completed. This would be subject to further consultation with residents and stakeholders in the Tooley Street and London Bridge area.

26 5.3.4 Suggest – Introduction of early release traffic lights for cyclists

The proposed scheme is intended only as an interim proposal to reduce traffic and provide a safer and more comfortable environment for people walking, cycling and using public transport in the area. We would like to extend high quality cycle provision to London Bridge and will therefore consider the inclusion of early release traffic lights as part of a potential future scheme.

5.4 General

5.4.1 Oppose – Increased pollution

Our plans for Tooley Street form part of the Mayor of London’s plan for Healthy Streets - a long-term vision to enable more people to walk, cycle and use public transport by making London’s streets healthier, safer and more welcoming. These changes will reduce road danger, improve air quality, and provide better facilities to enable people to walk, cycle and use public transport.

These changes to Tooley Street aim to help support an improvement in air quality and we do not anticipate an increase in pollution as a result of these changes. We also do not anticipate an increase in pollution in local borough roads caused by displaced traffic which will no longer be able to travel eastbound on Duke Street Hill / Tooley Street between Borough High Street and Bermondsey Street. During the London Bridge refurbishment works general traffic was unable to use this section of road at various times and we received minimal reports of increased traffic in the surrounding streets. As such, we do not expect an increase in pollution levels in the Tooley Street area as a consequence of increased levels of traffic.

In addition to Healthy Streets improvements, the Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, is taking action to reduce emissions from vehicles on London’s streets, to improve air quality and support London reaching compliance with UK and EU legal limits as soon as possible.

To help improve air quality, an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) now operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every day of the year within the same area of central London as the Congestion Charge zone. This includes Tooley Street. Most vehicles, including cars and vans, need to meet the ULEZ emissions standards or their drivers must pay a daily charge to drive within the zone. All of TfL’s buses travelling within the ULEZ now meet the highest Euro VI standard for emissions.

We are also taking steps to reduce emissions from taxis and private hire vehicles operating in London. Since 1 January 2018, new TfL licensing regulations mean that all taxis presented for licensing for the first time now need to be Zero Emissions Capable (ZEC). ZEC taxis with petrol engines also need to meet the latest Euro VI emissions standard. In addition to this, first-time taxi vehicle licences are also no

27 longer granted to diesel taxis. Since 1 January 2018 all private hire vehicles (PHVs) licensed for the first time must have a Euro VI petrol or diesel engine, or a Euro IV petrol-hybrid engine.

28 6. Next steps

After considering all of the consultation responses to the Tooley Street proposals we will be altering the scheme to enable licensed taxis, as well as buses and cycles, to make the left turn from Borough High Street into Duke Street Hill. This will help licensed taxis to serve the key locations of London Bridge Hospital and London Bridge Station and ensure that Tooley Street is accessible. Further minor modifications to the scheme will be considered prior to implementation.

29 Appendix A: Stakeholder List

Local Authorities City of London London Borough of Southwark

Transport groups London Cycling Campaign Living Streets

Elected Members - Southwark Richard Livingstone Cabinet Lead Adele Morris Borough & Bankside Anood Al-Samerai North Bermondsey Damian O’Brien London Bridge & West Bermondsey David Noakes Borough & Bankside Eliza Mann North Bermondsey Graham Neal St George's Ward Hamish McCallum North Bermondsey Helen Dennis Chaucer Humaira Ali London Bridge & West Bermondsey Karl Eastham Chaucer Leanne Werner South Bermondsey Leo Pollak South Bermondsey Maria Linforth St. Georges Ward Rajul Islam Chaucer Sunny Lambe Borough & Bankside Victor Chamberlain London Bridge & West Bermondsey William Houngbo London Bridge & West Bermondsey Peter John Leader of the Council Johnston Situ Old Kent Road

Local Businesses Action for Blind People HCA Healthcare (London Bridge Hospital) Savills Team London Bridge Hilton London Tower Bridge Network Rail Howard Kennedy Better Bankside TLBE Ltd NHS Southwark Clinical Commissioning Group

30 Appendix B: Copy of customer/resident letter

13 November 2018

Dear resident

Proposed changes to Tooley Street and Duke Street Hill

I am writing to tell you about our proposals to change the layout of Tooley Street. These changes will reduce road danger, improve air quality, and provide better facilities to enable people to walk, cycle and use public transport, supporting the objectives of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS).

Tooley Street is a busy thoroughfare that is used by pedestrians, cyclists, cars, taxis and delivery vehicles. It is also served by four bus routes during the day and two at night. The area has become busier since May 2018 when Network Rail opened the upgraded London Bridge station.

Our plans form part of the Mayor of London’s plan for Healthy Streets - a long-term vision to enable more people to walk, cycle and use public transport by making London’s streets healthier, safer and more welcoming.

Restricting all traffic (except buses and cyclists) from entering Duke Street Hill from Borough High Street will create a safer and less traffic dominated environment.

Our Proposals include:

 Introducing a 20mph speed limit along entire length of Duke Street Hill / Tooley Street (between Borough High Street and Tower Bridge Road).  Introducing a 2 metre wide mandatory cycle lane westbound, on Duke Street Hill / Tooley Street, running between Borough High Street & Bermondsey Street junctions, separated from traffic with wands on the Duke Street Hill section  Introducing a protected right turn ‘pocket’ for cyclists waiting to turn right into Bermondsey Street from Tooley Street.  Making Duke Street Hill no entry, apart from cyclists and buses, from the junction with A3 Borough High Street. This will mean that eastbound traffic along Duke Street Hill and Tooley Street as far as the junction with Bermondsey Street is restricted to buses and cycles only.  Restricting access from side roads onto Tooley Street to westbound travel only. Any motorized vehicle turning onto Tooley Street from the following roads will not be able to turn onto and travel eastbound towards Bermondsey Street:

o Tooley Street onto Duke Hill Street o Bridge Yard onto Tooley Street o Cottons Lane onto Tooley Street o Hay’s Lane onto Tooley Street o Battlebridge Lane onto Tooley Street

31 Westbound traffic will continue to be able to travel along this section of highway as it does at present (i.e. accessing via Bermondsey Street or from roads further east which lead onto Tooley Street.

This will be an interim scheme, reducing traffic in the short term. We are working on a more transformational scheme for Tooley Street, to extend the high-quality cycling provision proposed as part of Cycle Superhighway 4 towards London Bridge.

A map setting out our proposals is attached.

We would like to know what you think about our proposals. From Tuesday 13 November you can let us know your views online at: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/tooley-street/ and in writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS, or by emailing: [email protected]

Please let us know your views by Tuesday 8 January 2019.

Yours faithfully

The Consultation and Projects Team Transport for London

32 Appendix C: Copy of stakeholder email

Dear Stakeholder

Full details can be found on our website: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/tooley-street/ and a map showing our proposals is attached for reference.

We would like to know what you think about our proposals. You can let us know your views online at: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/tooley-street/ in writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS, or by emailing: [email protected].

Please let us know your views by Tuesday 8 January 2019.

Yours faithfully

Local Communities & Partnerships Transport for London

33 Appendix D: Coding framework

Roads / Accessibility 1. Oppose – Increased congestion / congestion relocated to surrounding streets 2. Oppose – Reduced access to hospital 3. Oppose – Reduced access for local businesses (staff/ customers/ deliveries) 4. Oppose – Restricted eastbound traffic / not being able to turn left 5. Oppose – Restricted westbound traffic / detours and traffic increased 6. Support – 20mph zone / It is too quick and dangerous at the minute / should be extended 7. Suggest – More enforcement of the 20mph zone 8. Support – Roads are currently too dangerous / too many accidents 9. Oppose – Increased congestion on Borough High St 10. Oppose – Increased congestion on Long Lane 11. Oppose – Increased congestion on and around London Bridge 12. Oppose – Parking Bays taking away pedestrian/cycle space 13. Oppose – Delivery vehicles need access 14. Support – Reduced congestion

Taxi drivers 20. Oppose – The plans will restrict taxi driver’s ability to earn a living 21. Oppose – Taxi drivers are public transport, therefore should be allowed to use the scheme 22. Oppose – Disabled passengers rely on taxi access / The scheme reduces access for disabled/elderly 23. Suggest – Allow taxis to us bus lanes / Electric taxis should be given more access to bus lanes 24. Oppose – Taxis need access to Tooley St 25. Oppose – Taxis need access to Duke St Hill 26. Oppose – Taxis need access to London Bridge Hospital 27. Oppose – Taxis need access to London Bridge Station 28. Oppose – The scheme is similar to the Bank junction changes

Cycling 40. Support – Will improve cyclist safety / cyclist safety is currently poor 41. Support – More cyclist provision in general 42. Concern - Parking bays – dangerous to cyclists 43. Concern – Bus stops in cycle lanes / bus crossing cycle lane 44. Suggest – Dutch style bus stops/cycle lanes that go behind the bus stop/ behind parking bay 45. Support – Wands to separate traffic and cyclists 46. Concern – Wands aren’t enough / More segregation is needed 47. Suggest - Extend CS4 across London Bridge

34 48. Oppose – Cycle lanes (general) / Cycle lanes taking road space 49. Oppose – Cyclists already get too much priority 50. Suggest - Other change to cycle provision (not mentioned codes 40-49)

Pedestrian 60. Suggest – More/wider pedestrian crossings needed 61. Support – Crossing Tooley street needs to be easier / safer 62. Support – Pedestrian crossings / walking infrastructure 63. Suggest – Wider/better quality pavements

General 80. Oppose – General 81. Support – General 82. Oppose - Keep the same/not needed 83. Support – General improvement of safety 84. Support – Reduced pollution 85. Oppose – Increased pollution 86. Suggest – Go further to make the area/London traffic free 87. Other – General criticism of TfL/Council/Mayor 88. Other – General criticism of the consultation 89. Other – Other comments

35 Appendix E: Final List of comments

Do you agree with our proposals to change the layout of Tooley Street? - General comments No. of Frequency Table comments Roads / Accessibility Concern/ Oppose Oppose – Increased congestion / congestion relocated to surrounding streets 1035 Oppose – Reduced access for local businesses (staff and customers) 600

Oppose – Restricted eastbound traffic / not being able to turn left 188

Oppose – Reduced access to hospital 157 Oppose – Increased congestion on Borough High St 97 Oppose – Increased congestion on Long Lane 67 Concern – Buses/Driving Quality (poor) / Dangerous on the roads 59 Oppose – Restricted westbound traffic / detours and traffic increased 57 Oppose – Increased congestion on and around London Bridge 55 Oppose – Parking Bays taking away pedestrian/cycle space 54 Oppose – Delivery vehicles need access 30 Oppose – Increase congestion on Bermondsey St 27 Oppose – 20mph zone 10 Support Support – Reduced congestion 299 Support – 20mph zone / It is too quick and dangerous at the minute / should be extended 151 Support – Roads are currently too dangerous / too many accidents 26 Suggestion Suggest – More enforcement of the 20mph zone 372 Taxi Drivers Opposition Oppose – Taxi drivers are public transport, therefore should be allowed to use the scheme 1572 Oppose – Disabled passengers rely on taxi access / The scheme reduces access for disabled/elderly 1383 Oppose – The plans will restrict taxi driver’s ability to earn a living/ Make taxi fares more expensive 547 Oppose – Taxis need access to London Bridge Hospital 338 Oppose – Taxis need access to Duke St Hill 121 Oppose – The scheme is similar to the Bank junction changes 103

36 Oppose – Taxis need access to London Bridge Station 84 Suggestion Suggest – Allow taxis to use bus lanes / Electric taxis should be given more access to bus lanes 397 Cycling Concern Concern – Wands aren’t enough / More segregation is needed 395 Concern – Bus stops in cycle lanes can be very dangerous 8 Opposition Oppose – Cyclists already get too much priority 287 Oppose – Cycle lanes (general) / Cycle lanes taking road space 128 Support Support – Cyclist provision in general 500 Support – Will improve cyclist safety / cyclist safety is currently poor 498 Support – Wands to separate traffic and cyclists 65 Suggestion Extend CS4 across London Bridge/local area 516 Suggest – Introduction of early release traffic lights for cyclists 335 Suggest – Dutch style bus stops/cycle lanes 37 Pedestrian Support – Crossing Tooley Street needs to be easier / safer 318 Support – Pedestrian crossings / walking infrastructure 50 Suggestion Suggest – More/wider pedestrian crossings needed 19 Suggest – Wider/better quality pavements 11 General Opposition Oppose - General 741 Oppose - Increased pollution 586 Oppose - Keep the same/not needed 277 Support Support – General 341 Support – General improvement of safety 210 Support – Reduced pollution 158 Suggest – Go further to make the area/London traffic free 376 Other Other – General criticism of TfL/Council/Mayor 536 Other – Other comments 467 Other – General criticism of the consultation 115

37 Appendices F to I: Location of Respondents Maps

Location of respondents – Greater London area

38 Appendix G: Location of Respondents – Tooley Street Area

39 Appendix H: Location of Respondents – Level of Support around Tooley Street

40 Appendix I: Location of Respondents – Level of opposition around Tooley Street