changes to a107 clapton common road safety improvements · a107 clapton common at the junctions...

Changes to A107 Clapton Common Road Safety Improvements Consultation Report July 2019

2

Contents

Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 4

Summary of main issues raised during consultation ................................................ 4

Next steps ................................................................................................................ 4

1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 5

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Detailed description ........................................................................................ 5

2. About the consultation ........................................................................................ 7

2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Potential outcomes ......................................................................................... 7

2.3 Dates and duration ......................................................................................... 7

2.4 What we asked ............................................................................................... 8

2.5 Methods of responding ................................................................................... 8

2.6 Consultation materials and publicity ............................................................... 8

2.7 Analysis of consultation responses ................................................................ 8

3. About the respondents ........................................................................................ 9

3.1 Number of respondents .................................................................................. 9

3.2 About the respondents ................................................................................... 9

3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation ............................................. 9

3.4 Methods of responding ................................................................................. 10

4. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 10

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 .......................................................... 10





4.5 Summary of stakeholder responses ............................................................. 15

4.5 Comments on the consultatiion .................................................................... 18

5. Next steps ......................................................................................................... 19

Appendix A: Consultation questions .......................................................................... 20

Appendix B: Consultation materials .......................................................................... 21

3

Appendix C: List of stakeholders consulted ............................................................... 27

4

Executive summary

Between 5 March and 10 April 2018, we consulted on proposals to install a new

parallel pedestrian and cycle crossing across Clapton Common at the junctions with

Craven Walk and Portland Avenue. This document explains the processes,

responses and outcomes of the consultation and sets out our planned next steps.

We received 148 responses to the consultation, including seven responses from

stakeholders. Of the 141 responses, 78 per cent supported or strongly supported the

proposed changes to the crossing, 5 per cent neither supported nor opposed did

them, 16 per cent opposed or strongly opposed, and 1 per cent not answer.

The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in section 4.

Summary of main issues raised during consultation

General support for the proposals/comments that the existing setup is

dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and these changes are long overdue

Concern that the signal controlled crossings would increase traffic congestion

in the area

Request for additional cycle safety measures on the carriageway for cyclists

who wish to use the roads

Next steps

After carefully considering all responses to this consultation, we plan to proceed as

consulted upon.

We plan to start work in autumn 2019.

5

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction

As part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS), an increase in active travel is being

targeted to make London a healthier, safer and greener city. A key aim of the MTS is

to increase the proportion of journeys made by sustainable modes of transport –

such as walking, cycling and public transport – to 80 per cent by 2041, up from 64

per cent today. Investment in cycling and walking forms a key part of this objective

and will work hand in hand with public transport improvements to develop an

extensive sustainable transport network across the capital.

Our Strategic Cycling Analysis has shown that this location is close to two corridors

that show very high potential for cycling and within a borough that has the highest

percentage of journeys made by cycling alone.

Statistics for the junction itself shows numerous collisions in the last five years, in

part due to informal crossing by people walking and cycling between traffic. We have

carried our various surveys to establish the desire line for pedestrians and cyclists

and this work indicates that it is at the junction with Craven Walk/Portland Avenue.

This is likely due to the Wetlands to Wetlands Greenway cycle route.

1.2 Purpose

We proposed this scheme to improve the way cyclists and pedestrians cross the

A107 Clapton Common at the junctions with Craven Walk and Portland Avenue. We

also proposed to remove a section of the bus lane south of Portland Avenue to

create better visibility and finally, we proposed to remove a small section of parking

on either side of the carriageway and add single yellow line parking restrictions to

improve access at the junctions of Castlewood, Ravensdale and Lingwood Roads.

These improvements could encourage more people to walk and to cycle. This is in

line with the Mayor of London’s Healthy Streets Approach, which aims to improve

conditions for people using public transport, walking and cycling.

1.3 Detailed description

We proposed to improve the way cyclists and pedestrians cross the A107 Clapton

Common by relocating the existing pedestrian crossing south of Portland Avenue

and installing a new parallel pedestrian and cycle crossing at the junction junctions

with Craven Walk and Portland Avenue. This new crossing for pedestrians and

cyclists would make crossing easier for all users. Craven Walk would become one-

way only (northbound) between the A107 Clapton Common Road and Belz Terrace,

except for cycles.

6

We also proposed to remove a section of the bus lane at bus stop (CU) south of

Portland Avenue on Clapton Common and convert this into a wider pedestrian

footway to create better visibility.

We also set out plans to improve vehicle access to Castlewood Road, Ravensdale

Road and Lingwood Road. To achieve this we proposed removing a small section of

parking on either side of the carriageway and implementing single yellow line parking

restrictions between 08:30-16:30 Monday to Saturday. This would create better

visibility and better accommodate turning vehicles.

1.3.1 Impact on bus passengers & general traffic

We predict no significant impact on general traffic times. Cars previously turning out

of Craven Walk onto A107 Clapton Common may have a slightly longer journey,

although by no more than a few minutes. Bus journeys would not be impacted.

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 change/s for the proposals

To understand any issues that might affect the proposal 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

Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Chapter 5.

2.3 Dates and duration

We launched the consultation on Monday 5 March 2018; it ran for five weeks, closing

on 10 April 2018.

On 7 March 2018, following a response to the public consultation, we updated the

wording on our consultation webpage, to make clearer that part of Craven Walk

would become one-way as part of these proposals.

On 15 March 2018 we again updated the wording on our consultation webpage to

make clearer that the proposals included parking restrictions on Lingwood Road. We

also added a fifth question, asking people for their views on parking on Lingwood

Road, and contacted all those who had responded to the consultation, to inform

them of this change. At this point the consultation deadline was extended to 10 April

2018, and we carried out a second letter-drop (distributed on 20 March 2018), to

8

make sure local residents and businesses were aware of the extended deadline to

respond.

2.4 What we asked

After supplying information about the proposed changes, we asked respondents the

folloiung questions:

1. Do you support our proposal to install a new parallel pedestrian and cycle

crossing at the Clapton Common junctions with Craven Walk and Portland

Avenue?

2. Do you support our proposal to remove a section of the bus lane at the bus

stop ‘CU’ and convert this into a wider pedestrian footpath?

3. Do you support our proposals to improve vehicular access on Castlewood

Road and Ravensdale Road?

4. Do you support our proposal to improve vehicular access on Lingwood Road?

(This question was added on 15 March 2018. See 2.3 for further details)

5. Do you have any other comments?

6. Information about themselves

2.5 Methods of responding

People were directed to our website to complete a survey. Alternatively they could:

Email us ay [email protected]

Write to us at FREEPOST TFL

2.6 Consultation materials and publicity

To advertise the consultation locally, we sent out letters to 1,504 local residents and

businesses. We also sent 64 emails to stakeholders. You can find copies of the

letter, email and images used on the webpage in appendix B

2.7 Analysis of consultation responses

Responses were review by our in-house analysts. The online questionnaire

contained four ‘closed’ questions, where respondents could indicate their level of

support or opposition for each elemem of the proposals and one ‘open’ question

were respondents could provide any further comments on the proposals. There was

also a further open question where respondents could comment on the quality of the

consultation.

A draft coding framework was developed from responses to these questions, which

was finalised following interanl review, which allowed the responses to be reviewed

and grouped by themes. Responses received by letter or email were coded using the

same framework.

There were five duplicate responses which were merged and deleted.

9

3. About the respondents

3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents Total %

Public responses 141 95

Stakeholder responses 7 5

Total 148 100

3.2 About the respondents

Respondents were able to choose more than one option for their response to this

question.

Are you… Total

Local resident 94

Local business owner 6

Employed locally 17

Visitor to the area 35

Commuter to the area 24

Not local but interested in the scheme 9

Other 6

Total 191

3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation

How respondents heard Total %

Received an email from TfL 3 2%

Received a letter from TfL 46 31%

Read about in the press 8 5%

Saw it on the TfL website 11 7%

Social media 54 36%

Other 7 5%

Not answered 19 13%

Total 148 100%

10

3.4 Methods of responding

Methods of responding Total %

Website 136 92%

Email or letter 12 8%

Total 148 100%

4. Summary of all consultation responses

We received 148 responses to the consultation. 141 were from members of the

public and seven were from stakeholders. A summary of the responses is set out in

sections 4.1 to 4.4. The stakeholder responses are shown in section 4.5.

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1

We asked respondents to tell us what they think about our proposals for a new

pedestrian cycle crossing on Clapton Common at the junction with Craven Walk and

Portland Avenue. 146 respondents answered this question.

Stronglysupport

SupportNeither

support oroppose

OpposeStronglyoppose

NotAnswered

No. of responses 102 13 8 3 20 2

(%) 69% 9% 5% 2% 14% 1%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Do you support our proposal to install a new parallel pedestrian and cycle crossing at the Clapton Common

junctions with Craven Walk and Portland Avenue?

11


We asked respondents to tell us what they think about our proposals to remove a

section of the bus lane at the ‘CU’ stop and widen the footpath. 146 respondents

answered this question.

Stronglysupport

SupportNeither

support oroppose


NotAnswered

No. of responses 65 28 30 6 17 2

(%) 44% 19% 20% 4% 11% 1%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Do you support our proposal to remove a section of the bus lane at the bus stop CU, and convert this into a wider

pedestrian footpath?

12


We asked respondents to tell us what they think about our proposals to improve

vehicular access on Castlewood and Ravensdale Road. 145 respondents answered

this question.

Stronglysupport

SupportNeither

support oroppose


NotAnswered

No. of responses 54 27 37 10 17 3

(%) 36% 18% 25% 7% 11% 2%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Do you support our proposals to improve vehicular access on Castlewood Road and Ravensdale Road?

13


We asked respondents to tell us what they think about our proposals to improve

vehicular access on Lingwood Road. 119 respondents answered this question.

Stronglysupport

SupportNeither

support oroppose


NotAnswered

No. of responses 43 24 32 6 14 29

(%) 29% 16% 22% 4% 9% 20%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Do you support our proposal to improve vehicular access on Lingwood Road?

14


Question 4 asked respondents if they had any further comments about our

proposals. The main comments are listed in the table below.

General comments General opposition to proposals 13

General support for proposals 10

Oppose plans as cycle flows not high enough to warrant inconvenience to other road users 2

Parallel Crossing Positive comments

Support making it easier for cyclists to cross 7

Support making it easier for pedestrians to cross 11

Suggestions

Suggest staggered crossing to reduce traffic congestion 1

Suggest zebra crossing to reduce pedestrian wait time 4

Suggest footway needs to be widen to accommodate waiting pedestrians 1

Suggest additional measures to improve safety 1

Making Craven Walk One-Way Negative comments

Oppose as will increase congestion on neighbouring roads 19

Oppose as neighbouring roads not suitable to hold increased traffic (safety because of school &synagogue/narrow road widths/unsuitable for large vehicles) 11

Oppose as it will make conditions unsafe for cyclists 1

Suggestions

Suggest circular system of one-way streets to manage traffic impact 12

Suggest restricting parking on Craven Way instead as this would allow for better two-way traffic flow 6

Suggest cycle path should be on Clapton Common instead 6

Suggest implementing one-way system from the other end of Craven Walk 1

Suggest bollards and effective enforcement are required for one-way proposal to be successful 2

Increase scope of one-way proposal and include other roads 2

Suggest closing Craven Walk to vehicle traffic 1

Suggest further traffic calming measures on Craven Walk and surrounding roads to manage congestion 1

Parking Restrictions Negative comment

Oppose parking restrictions on Lingwood Road during daytime hours 1

Positive comment

Support for parking restriction proposals 3

Suggestions

Suggest further parking restrictions on Craven Walk 2

Suggest further parking restrictions on Overlea Road 2

Suggest further parking restrictions on Ravensdale Road 2

Suggest planned parking restrictions should operate 24/7 to address evening and 1

15

weekend issues

Suggest parking restrictions must be enforced for them to be useful 4

Suggest further parking restrictions on Castlewood Road 2

Suggest parking restrictions on Spring Hill 1

Suggest parking restrictions at junction of Leadale Road and Fairweather Road 1

Footway Widening

Negative comments

Concerned about impact of emergency vehicles being able to overtake (en route to Homerton Hospital) 2

Oppose as will adversely impact traffic flow 1

Positive comment

G01 - Support as allows for better positioning of cyclists on Clapton Common 1

Cycling Facilities (other) Suggestions for further cycling facilities

Suggest further traffic calming measures are needed ton Craven Walk to improve conditions for cycling 2

Suggest cycle facilities must be designed to accommodate non-standard bikes 1

Suggest additional cycle crossing required Craven Walk/Portland Ave/Clapton Common 3

Suggest additional cycling facilities including more dedicated cycle lanes 8

Consultation Consultation flawed

Concerned that a question on whether people support making Craven Walk on-way is missing 4

Concerned consultation materials missing key information 6

Concerned local residents have not been asked 4

Concerned that views will not be taken into account 6

Diagrams confusing/ unclear 4

Suggestions

Request for meetings with local groups 2

Suggest consultation is scrapped and started again 1

Out of Scope Out of scope of these proposals 11

4.5 Summary of stakeholder responses

This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We

sometimes condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full stakeholder

responses are always uses for analysis purposes.

Hackney Cycling Campaign

Strongly support all the proposals. They state this road is currently a key barrier on

the Wetlands to Wetlands cycling and walking route. They said that providing a safe

crossing will significantly improve the route and reduce the severance created by the

main road.

16

They commented they would welcome additional modal filtering and the removal of

further parking on Craven Road, to diminish the effect of rat running and that they

would also welcome a raised table at the 'informal crossing' to be maintained when

the signalised crossing is moved.

London Cycling Campaign

This scheme is supported, as it represents a major improvement for those cycling

and walking across the A107, and should increase safety at a location that already

features a cluster of collisions and injuries with vulnerable road users.

There is a clear need for and demand for an improved crossing at this location,

which is also directly on a cycling route between Walthamstow and Tottenham

wetlands.

Nearby modal filters have suffered from drivers unwilling to behave sensibly,

including driving across the pavement to avoid filters. Therefore it is vital that any

filter at this location is designed with bollards or other barriers to car access set at

1.5m gaps across the entire filter alignment from building line to building line.

The area to the west that this crossing leads into should become a “low traffic

neighbourhood” with further modal filters to exclude all through motor vehicle traffic

cutting between the A10 and A107. On top of this, further work should be done with

the communities living around this area to reduce car ownership and use, as motor

vehicles dominate not just the main road here but many side streets also.

Could the uncontrolled crossing to the south of the junction be signalised and run in

parallel to the main junction signals?

The A107 itself also needs further consideration for walking and cycling

improvements. Around 700 cycle journeys are made here daily, amongst 22,000

motor vehicles, including 1,000 buses and coaches, with high motor vehicle speeds

often in evidence. The road should be designed for 20mph, and cycling flows should

be separated from motor vehicles.

The Spring Hill junction also features a cluster of collisions and is an urgent

candidate for further work along this stretch of road also.

Watermint Quay Residents Association

Strongly oppose Craven Walk being made one way. This will put undue pressure

and congestion on Spring Hill, Ashtead and Lingwood Roads, and on the other side

at Castlewood and Lingwood.

We have huge problems with traffic jams due to lack of parking restrictions. Also

concerned about lorries that need access to the bottom of Craven Walk and that

often gets stuck and cause major jams.

17

We need the top end of Craven Walk to have double yellow lines and to have the

parking rules enforced. We had these for a while a few years ago and the traffic

moved smoothly.

This will sort out a lot of the issues.

We have a problem of too many cars in the neighbourhood. Just making Craven

Walk one-way will exacerbate the traffic jams.

Clapton Common User Group

The section about making a segment of Craven Walk one-way (northbound,

entrance) only is very poorly planned.

The effect will be that all traffic heading up Craven Walk (southbound) will have to

turn left at the junction with Belz Terrace, forcing even greater traffic including large

vehicles onto Belz Terrace, which already struggles to bear a school and synagogue

entrance, and into the curves of Overlea Road, already very convoluted and difficult

to navigate.

The traffic alleviation you seek to accomplish would be better achieved by leaving

that neck of Craven Walk open to two-way traffic, but not available for parking during

most of the day. Without the presence of parked cars, there is adequate space for

two-way traffic on that segment, and the bottleneck which often occurs there would

be gone.

North East London Ramblers

North East London Ramblers supports improvements to pedestrian crossings which

improve safety for walkers.

Pedal Me

When designing cycle facilities care should be taken to ensure that non-standard

bicycles, such as the ones that we use for our business, can use the facility. Narrow

gaps between bollards, for example, are very problematic and cause delays for the

business as we have to find alternative routes.

London Travelwatch

Support the proposals but made no specific comment.

In addition to the stakeholder responses, TfL representatives met with a

representative from the Jewish Community Council and two LB Hackney councillors,

both from Springfield Ward on 22 March 2018, to discuss the proposals.

Both the JCC representative, and the two LB Hackney Councillors, were opposed to

our proposals, and raised a number of concerns including:

18

Concern that making part of Craven Walk one-way will encourage higher speeds

by drivers

Why it’s necessary for part of Craven Walk to be made one-way only for vehicular

traffic

Concern about impact on surrounding roads, particularly in terms of congestion

Concern about the length of the consultation.

Neither the JCC nor the two councillors responded to the consultation.

4.5 Comments on the consultation

Of those that responded, 136 told us what they thought about the quality of the

consultation itself and the associated materials. Of those, 92 respondents (60 per

cent) felt the quality of the consultation was good or very good, 23 (15 per cent)

thought it was acceptable, and 21 (14 per cent) felt it was poor or very poor.

Additionally, 25 respondents left a further comment about the quality of the

consultation. Of the further issues raised, the main issue was that the diagrams were

not clear. This was raised by six respondents. Other issues raised included

comments that stated that they did not think views would be taken seriously and that

they did not receive a letter despite living locally and concern that the consultation

took place in the weeks leading up to Passover.

19

5. Next steps

After carefully considering all responses to this consultation, we plan to proceed as

consulted upon.

We plan to start work in autumn 2019.

20

Appendix A: Consultation questions

Questions about our proposals

Do you support our proposal to install a new parallel pedestrian and cycle

crossing at the Clapton Common junctions with Craven Walk and Portland

Avenue

Do you support our proposal to remove a section of the bus lane at the bus

stop ‘CU’, and convert this into a wider pedestrian footpath?

Do you support our proposals to improve vehicular access on Castlewood

Road and Ravensdale Road?

Do you support our proposal to improve vehicular access on Lingwood Road?

If you have any further comments about our proposals, please enter them in

the box below?

Questions about our proposals (all questions were optional)

What is your name?

What is your email address?

What is your postcode?

Are you: A local resident, a business owner, employed locally, a visitor to the

area, a commuted to the areas, not local but interested in the scheme, a

taxi/private hire driver, other

If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group,

please provide us with the name:

How did you find out about the consultation? Received an email from TfL,

received a letter from TfL, read about it in the press, saw in on TfL website,

social media, other

What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the

information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any

maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)? Very good, good,

acceptable, poor, very Poor

Equality Monitoring

21

Appendix B: Consultation materials

Two letter-drops were carried out to support this consultation (see section 2.3 for

further details). Both letters included the diagrams below

24

Both letters (5 and 20 March 2018) were sent to the same 1,504 addresses below

25

Stakeholder email

26

Webpage introduction

27

Appendix C: List of stakeholders consulted

Local Authorities, statutory and advisory bodies

London Borough of Hackney

Greater London Authority

London TravelWatch

Accessibility groups, community groups and charities

National Autistic Society

Royal National Institute of Blind People

HCT Group

Disability Rights UK

Education and health

Homerton Hospital

London Ambulance Service

National Health Service

Transport, local businesses and user groups

Hackney Living Streets

Heathrow Airport

Hackney Cycling Campaign

Government departments, parliamentary bodies and politicians

Members of Parliament

Meg Hillier MP

Diane Abbott MP

Assembly Members

Caroline Pidgeon AM

Jennette Arnold AM

Nicky Gavron AM

Andrew Boff AM

Tom Copley AM

Fiona Twycross AM

Shaun Bailey AM

Sian Berry AM

David Kurten AM

Caroline Russell AM

Peter Whittle AM

Hackney

Cllr Feryal Demirci, Cabinet member for Health, Social Care, Transport and Parks

Cllr Simche Steinberger

Cllr Michael Levy

Cllr Harvey Odze

changes to a107 clapton common road safety improvements · a107 clapton common at the junctions...

Documents