doc document title no. document · title: equality impact assessment (eqia) form document no.:...

Title: Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) form Document No.: F1457

Issue No.: A1

Printed copies of this document are uncontrolled. of 21

Project Related Documents

Doc No.

Document title Relevant Section(s) of this Document


Issue No.: A1


Step 1: Clarifying Aims

Q1. Outline the aims/objectives/scope of this piece of work

Strategic Context The Cycleway from Greenwich to Woolwich is an end-to-end cycle route that will run from Greenwich Town Centre to Woolwich, and will connect with Cycleway 4 via the proposed Liveable Neighbourhood Scheme at Greenwich Town Centre. In June 2017, the SCA mapped the top 25 new cycling connections by current and future cycling demand, and the Cycleway from Greenwich to Woolwich (CGW) was identified as part of this list. Following two fatalities on the corridor in May 2018, the route has been brought forward in the prioritisation, due to an increased desire to deliver from both City Hall and the Royal Borough of Greenwich. The introduction of CGW directly aligns with the objectives set out in the draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS), published in June 2017. The route will contribute to the key aim of encouraging Londoners to use cars less and walk, cycle and use public transport more often; leading to 80% of journeys being made by sustainable modes by 2041. Furthermore, it has a high potential to increase levels of cycling in London, helping to address the Mayor’s ambitious target of 1.5 million cycle journeys per day by 2025/26 The introduction of cycleways like CGW is aimed at increasing the proportion of Londoners living within 400m of the cycle network to 70% by 2041. Additionally, the implementation of such routes is expected to have wider benefits, helping make London a healthier and greener city, with less traffic on the streets, a more active population and a reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on its roads. CGW will aim to directly improve the Healthy Streets scores for the roads and junctions along the route. The strategic objectives for CGW are to contribute towards the delivery of the Healthy Streets Approach whilst being devoted to the objectives set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy e.g. for Active, Safe, Efficient, Green Streets. CGW plans to align with the Surface Scorecard and contribute towards the Vision Zero for London objectives. The project objectives for CGW are to improve cycling conditions for existing cyclists (the new route will meet the updated Cycle Route Quality Design Criteria) and attract new cyclists by improving the perception of cycle safety and comfort amongst Londoners. CGW will offer new connections for cyclists and promote sustainable travel through cycling, walking, and public transport and contribute to a reduction in car dependency.

F ig ure 7: C G W propos ed alig nment

F ig ure 7: C G W propos ed alig nment


Issue No.: A1


Q2. Does this work impact on staff or customers? Please provide details of how.

Does the CFRII scheme impact on staff or customers? Yes. CGW scheme will have an impact on both staff and customers.

How does CGW impact staff or customers? Staff Development and delivery of CGW will involve TfL staff, either permanent or contracted. Some schemes will also involve staff from London boroughs or contracted services. The maintenance of the scheme will be the responsibility of the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) following delivery, and will be included in their existing road maintenance contracts. Customers A range of customers will be impacted CGW both during and after construction: • Customers travelling through, to or from the scheme area e.g. cyclists, pedestrians, private vehicle drivers, bus

passengers, commercial vehicle drivers. • Customers visiting or who own / run local businesses, services or amenities • Customers who are residents in the area • Customers who work in the area.

Negative impacts: • Customers may be impacted with increased journey times, noise, and temporary closures during construction

works. • Likely impacts will be traffic delay due to loss of running lane(s), footway closures and potentially bus stop

closures and bus route diversions during construction. However, should any footway closures occur, there will be a safe alternative route, which will be signposted, and full access ramps installed as per Chapter 8 works guidance.

• Some local retailers may be affected due to temporary road closures and suspension of parking and loading during construction. These businesses will be informed ahead of the works and alternative arrangements will be put in place to accommodate deliveries and servicing.

• Bus stop/service alterations will be advertised in advance, and notices posted to keep people informed of changes. This provision is standard for major works and will be discussed with the contractor during detailed design.

• The creation of spaces that have shared use presents potential negative impacts to those with cognitive and visual impairments

• The use of bus stop bypasses can present potential negative impacts for some older and disabled people who have advised us that crossing the cycleway to get to the bus stop, even with zebras, remains an issue

• The consolidation of bus stops, while essential for the safety of younger users, may have negative impacts on older and disabled pedestrians

Positive Impacts: • There will be many positive impacts on customers following completion of construction, with improvements to

sustainable transport access, local connectivity and road safety. The scheme is being assessed against the Healthy Streets checklist.

• The project will provide a new high quality cycle connection between Greenwich Town Centre and Woolwich allowing more people to cycle, more safely and more often.

• Designs currently propose to improve the surrounding area by banning some turns, which may reduce rat running in residential streets, making side streets a more pleasant area to be in and improving safety by reducing conflict between people and vehicles and cyclists and vehicles.

• Improvements will be made to signalised pedestrian facilities including some new crossings and upgrades to existing crossings and footways.

• We will seek to improve bus services in the area, by providing additional bus priority measures and reviewing bus stop locations along the route.


Issue No.: A1


Step 2: The Evidence Base

Q3. Record here the data you have gathered about the diversity of the people potentially impacted by this work. You should also include any research on the issues affecting inclusion in relation to your work Consider evidence in relation to all relevant protected characteristics;

- Age - Other – refugees, low income, homeless people - Disability including carers1 - Pregnancy/maternity - Gender - Race - Gender reassignment - Religion or belief - Marriage/civil partnership - Sexual orientation

1 Including those with physical, mental and hidden impairments as well as carers who provide unpaid care for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, or a mental health issue cannot cope without their support

Travel in London: Understanding our diverse communities (Sept 2015)1 This document sets out a collection of research undertaken or commissioned by TfL to identify the barriers faced by London’s communities when accessing transport. It also describes travel patterns, the behaviour of different groups and attitudes towards issues such as fare, personal safety and security and satisfaction with the services TfL offers. Data from this report relevant to the scope of the schemes delivered under the Cycleways programme includes:

Age

• Almost all younger Londoners walk at least once a week in London (99%) • Younger Londoner’s are the most likely equality group to use the bus at least weekly; 7 in 10 Londoners aged 25

and under do so (71%) • Walking is the most frequently used type of transport by older Londoners aged 65 and over (86 per cent walk at

least once a week). Sixty-one per cent travel by bus, 45 per cent travel by car as a passenger and 45 per cent drive a car at least once a week

• Only 8 per cent of Londoners aged 65 and over sometimes use a bike to get around London however younger Londoners are just as likely as all Londoners to use a bike (18 per cent)

• The proportion of Londoners aged 65 and over who can ride a bike (72 per cent) is lower than the total population of Londoners (83 per cent). The proportion of younger Londoners who can ride a bike is higher at 88 per cent.

• Seventy per cent of older Londoners are aware of Cycleways, which is higher than the figure for all Londoners (61 per cent). However awareness is only 42 per cent in younger Londoners.

• Seven per cent of older Londoners and 17 per cent of younger Londoners say that they are likely to use Cycle ways in the future – lower than all Londoners (23 per cent)

• Barriers to transport use that older people face on our streets in particular are physical barriers e.g. long distances to bus stops and presence of steps.

• Slow journey times is also one of the main barriers to public transport use mentioned (41 per cent of all Londoners). This is a particularly big barrier for younger Londoners aged between 16 and 24 and BAME Londoners (both 50 per cent). Slow journey times are cited as a barrier by only 18 per cent of older people.

• At least 95 per cent of London’s schools have established school travel plans which encourage safe sustainable travel. Around half of London’s schools have signed up to the STAR scheme and 71 per cent of participating schools reporting that cycling increased since they participated and 86 per cent said walking has increased. Disability

14 percent of Londoners consider themselves to have a disability that impacts their day to day activities ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’. • The most commonly used types of transport by disabled Londoners are walking (78 per cent walk at least once a

week), the bus (56 per cent) and car as a passenger (47 per cent) • Disabled Londoners cite accessibility-related issues (44 per cent), cost (21 per cent) and comfort (20 per cent) as

key barriers to travel. • Internet use is lower among disabled Londoners (76 per cent compared with 93 per cent of non-disabled

Londoners). They are also less likely to use the TfL website or own a smartphone.


Issue No.: A1


• Disabled Londoners are more likely to say that they cannot ride a bike than non disabled Londoners (22 per cent compared to 15 per cent) and 73 per cent say they have never thought about cycling or have thought about cycling but decided not to.

• Sixty-four per cent of disabled Londoners are aware of Cycleways compared to 61 per cent of non-disabled Londoners and 20 per cent say they probably or definitely expect to use Cycleways in future compare with 23 per cent of non-disabled Londoners.

• Disabled Londoners are less satisfied with streets and pavements in London than non-disabled Londoners (51 per cent compared to 71 per cent) with 65 per cent considering the condition of pavements to be a barrier to walking and 43 per cent reporting that obstacles on pavements are a barrier to walking more. Sixty-two per cent of disabled Londoners are satisfied with the ease of crossing the road on foot compared to 79 per cent of non-disabled Londoners.

• 15% of Londoners with a disability already make trips by bicycle, which is only slightly below the percentage of non-disabled people who said they use a bicycle (18%). Gender

• Women are more likely to use buses than men (65 per cent women compared with 58 per cent men) • Women are more likely than men to be travelling with buggies and/or shopping, and this can affect transport

choices • Concerns around crime and antisocial behaviour also have an impact upon women’s frequency of public

transport use: 61 per cent report that the frequency with which they travel is affected ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’ because of these concerns, compared with 43 per cent of men

• Walking frequency is very similar for women and men however women are less likely to cycle than men: 21 per cent of men cycle in London compared with 14 per cent of women. 10% of women cycle regularly (at least once a week) in London and a further 4% cycle occasionally, with the remaining 86 per cent never using bikes as a way of getting around the Capital.

• Women are less likely than men to be able to ride a bike. Seventy-nine per cent of women living in London can ride a bike, compared with 88 per cent of men

• Fifty three per cent of women are aware of Cycleways compared to 70 per cent of men. 14 per cent of men have used a Cycleway compared with seven per cent of women

Race

• Bus use among BAME Londoners is higher than among white Londoners (68 per cent BAME compared with 57 per cent white Londoners using the bus at least once per week).

• BAME Londoners, both adults and children, are twice as likely as white Londoners to be injured on the roads. BAME Londoners are also less likely than white Londoners to say that they feel safe from road accidents when walking around London at night (60 per cent BAME compared with 74 per cent white).

• There is little difference between the frequency of walking among BAME and white Londoners. Ninety-seven per cent of BAME Londoners walk at least once a week, which is very similar to white Londoners where 95 per cent walk at least once a week.

• Cycling levels of BAME Londoners and white Londoners are very similar. Eighteen per cent of BAME Londoners cycle in London at least sometimes compared to 17 per cent of white Londoners. There is also very little difference between white and BAME Londoners in frequency of cycling (at least once a week) in London (14 per cent BAME compared with 13 per cent white). There is little difference between white and BAME Londoners in their ability to ride a bike (83 per cent BAME compared with 84 per cent white).

• The same proportion of BAME Londoners and white Londoners report that they have used a Cycleway (10 per cent). BAME Londoners are more likely than white Londoners to say they will definitely/ probably use Cycleways in the future (28 per cent BAME compared with 21 per cent). BAME Londoners are however, less likely to be aware of Cycleways: 53 per cent are aware compared to 65 per cent of white Londoners

Other – refugees, low income, homeless people • Concerns about antisocial behaviour and crime are particularly mentioned as barriers to public transport use by

Londoners living in D/E households (social grade D refers to semi- and un-skilled manual workers and E refers to state pensioners, casual/lowest grade workers and unemployed Londoners) of whom 41 per cent say that concerns about antisocial behaviour affect their travel frequency.


Issue No.: A1


• Londoners living in D/E households are less likely to use the internet than all Londoners (79 per cent compared to 92 per cent) and they are less likely to use a smart phone (58 per cent compared to 77 per cent). Both factors are related to the older age profile of D/E Londoners.

• Londoners in D/E households are less likely than all Londoners to cycle (13 per cent compared to 17 per cent of all Londoners). They are also less likely to know how to cycle (77 per cent compared with 83 per cent)

Sexual orientation There is little difference between the barriers identified by LGBT+ and all Londoners Strategic Cycling Analysis • The Strategic Cycling Analysis (SCA) provides a robust evidence base for identifying and prioritising locations for

new investment in cycling. The SCA presents corridors and locations where current and future cycle demand (and also demand for walking and public transport) could justify future investment.

• The SCA data demonstrates that current and future potential cycling demand is in the top 5-10 per cent for the majority of the route. Additionally the route includes a number of junctions with collision rates above the London average, providing the opportunity for significant improvements in these areas. The route also takes in areas of high current walking demand.

Information about the local community

During the design stages for schemes, a review of local businesses, amenities and services is undertaken to understand the local representation of groups with protected. This included the presence of nearby schools / nurseries, community centres, religious buildings, medical centres, hospitals, care homes etc. Where these are in close proximity to the scheme, particular consideration will be given to the impact of the scheme on these groups, for example, young people near schools, partially sighted people near to an eye hospital or older people near to a care home. There are several schools and churches along the CGW alignment which have been considered during the design phase for the scheme, Local stakeholder groups such as these have been pre-engaged, and will also be engaged with during consultation. These groups are outlined in step 4.

Consultation, engagement and feedback National Federation for the Blind UK

The New Cycle Infrastructure on London’s Streets - Summary of On-street trials (TfL, 2018) was discussed during a meeting with Will Norman. The scope of this research in relation to bus stop bypasses was to determine whether implementing a Zebra crossing was preferable to having an uncontrolled crossing. The working group helped us to agree the methodology and included Transport for All, Guide Dogs, Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), Age UK London, London Travel Watch, Living Streets, London Cycling Campaign and the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain. Both the TRL report and our summary report presented findings which suggest that Zebra crossings are easier for visually impaired people to find compared to uncontrolled crossings, particularly as they include tactile tails. Eighty-two per cent of cyclists interviewed knew that they should be giving way to pedestrians at the Zebra crossing, compared to 32 per cent for the uncontrolled crossings. The report acknowledges that “some difficulties remain for visually impaired people, even with Zebra crossings, particularly when crossing from bus stop to footway”; however in the absence of other feasible options, we considered the evidence on balance shows that Zebra crossings are preferable to uncontrolled crossings at bus stop bypasses.


Issue No.: A1


TfL Cycling Surveys and comparisons with similar projects • The introduction of the East-West and North-South Cycle Superhighways in central London has seen significant

increases in cycling as a mode of transport. Recent survey data for 2017 shows that cycle flows have increased by up to 200% since pre construction flows along East-West1

• The proportion of people choosing to cycle along North South because it feels like the safest option nearly doubled from 27% before the route was built to 56% after1.

• TfL’s London Travel Demand Survey (2016) found that there are around 8.17 million trips per average day in London that could potentially be made by bike in their entirety. This includes 62 per cent of journeys currently undertaken by motorised modes1. By encouraging people to cycle these journeys, road space can be freed up for journeys that require use of a motor vehicle.

Design guidance / standards • LCDS – TfL has used the London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) to ensure that design proposals cater for

different types of bikes including those that have been adapted to suit cyclists with a disability. • Other design standards – includes national standards for designing streets for all which will include those with

disabilities.

B) Research on issues affecting inclusion related to this work Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) Trials • The design of cycling infrastructure in London has been informed by research undertaken by the TRL into the

effectiveness of innovative design features for cycling. A series of off-street trials were undertaken by TRL into features including bus stop bypasses, low-level cycle signals and different forms of segregation. These trials included participants with visual impairments, mobility impairments, hearing impairments, people with learning difficulties and older people. Further information is included below.

Recommendations from inspections or audits • Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are undertaken throughout the design stage of projects within this programme and are

used to inform the design progression and to assess projects once constructed. • Design reviews are also undertaken to assess how well the design meets local or national guidance, including on

matters that impact diversity. Bus stop bypasses • In 2013, TfL introduced six bus stop bypasses (BSBs) on a trial basis along Cycle Superhighway 2 Extension

(CS2X) in Stratford in east London. Video surveys were carried out in late 2013 and user surveys in mid-2014 which showed support for the design from cyclists, bus users and pedestrians and also feedback on potential improvements through the use of on-street signage and announcements on buses.

• These innovative features have been informed by the results of extensive trials and International best practice, as well as road safety audits, equality impact assessments, engagement with user groups, and feedback from previous public consultations. Design features such as BSBs have now been introduced incrementally across the road network in London as part of other Cycle Superhighway schemes, with an extensive monitoring programme informing their wider use.

Shared use – A very limited amount of shared use is proposed on CGW, meaning that cyclists and pedestrians would share the same footway space. Though this infrastructure is a recognised design feature in local and national design standards such as LCDS, It may have a negative impact on disabled users who may be intimidated by the presence of cyclists due to limited mobility, hearing, sight or cognitive impairments. There may also be impacts for older or younger users who are less confident with the layout of the footway. On this scheme, shared use is not used for long sections of track, but rather at crossing points to allow cyclists to safely access the new cycle track from side roads. Below is an example of how shared use is included on this scheme with a pedestrian and cycle crossing to access the new cycle track.


Issue No.: A1


Step 3: Impact

Q4. Given the evidence listed in step 2, consider and describe what potential short, medium and longer term negative impacts this work could have on people related to their protected characteristics?

Protected Characteristic Explain the potential negative impact

Age Yes During the construction process, temporary access arrangements could cause disruption and inconvenience for older pedestrians when walking through or crossing the road in the area of works that are taking place. Temporary signage and safe alternative routes will be provided. These have yet to be designed, although access requirements will be taken into account using lessons learned and best practices from previous TFL cycle projects.

Two bus stops are being consolidated as part of this scheme. Bus stop W is to be consolidated with bus stop V on Woolwich Road, outside the Royal Greenwich Trust school and the Windrush Primary school. This move has been implemented in order to make the crossing safer for schoolchildren, and remove a desire line that encouraged crossing at an unsafe point. This means that the space between bus stop B and the next bus stop heading east will increase from approx. 235m to approx. 360m. This is still within the 400m standards in the TfL design guidance. It is acknowledged that this may have an impact on those with restricted mobility (this may impact older Londoners in particularly), however, the safer and more direct crossing is a major benefit of this decision.

Our plans do not currently propose to increase bus journey times between

F ig ure 8: S ec tion of C G W outlining s hared us e


Issue No.: A1


Woolwich Ferry Roundabout and Anchor & Hope. Section 2 may be more challenging, and we would consider impacts on older and younger people as bus use is higher among these age groups.

The proposed shared use at crossings may be a challenge for older or younger users who are less confident or familiar with the layout of the footway.

This scheme has acknowledged the challenges around Standard Bus Stop bypasses, and is designing these to include zebras and Belisha beacons in line with best practice. We acknowledge that there are still some issues experienced with Standard Bus Stop Bypasses, including for some older users, and we continue to monitor this innovative infrastructure to understand whether further mitigations in particular locations is required.

Disability including carers Yes Due to potential movement of bus stops and pedestrian crossings, this

could be an additional negative impact to wheelchair users and carers who may be assisting individuals with physical disabilities as well as those with cognitive impairments for whom changes to the built environment can be difficult. Traffic Management (TM) will be considered closer to construction. Temporary signage has yet to be designed, although access requirements will be taken into account using lessons learned and best practices from previous TFL cycle projects.

Two bus stops are being consolidated as part of this scheme. Bus stop W is to be consolidated with bus stop V on Woolwich Road, outside the Royal Greenwich Trust school and the Windrush Primary school. This move has been implemented in order to make the crossing safer for schoolchildren, and remove a desire line that encouraged crossing at an unsafe point. This means that the space between bus stop B and the next bus stop heading east will increase from approx. 235m to approx. 360m. This is still within the 400m standards in the TfL design guidance. It is acknowledged that this may have an impact on those with restricted mobility, however, the safer and more direct crossing is a major benefit of this decision.

This scheme has acknowledged the challenges around Standard Bus Stop bypasses, and is designing these to include zebras and Belisha beacons in line with best practice. We acknowledge that there are still some issues experienced with Standard Bus Stop Bypasses, particularly those who are blind or visually impaired, as well as those with cognitive impairments and we continue to monitor this innovative infrastructure to understand whether further mitigations in particular locations is required. The proposed shared use crossings may have a negative impact on disabled users who may be intimidated by the presence of cyclists due to limited mobility, hearing, sight or cognitive impairments. We will carry out active engagement with disabled users during our consultation to understand these impacts in more detail and monitor impacts fully.

Gender Yes Due to reallocation of road space to accommodate new cycling

infrastructure and / or changes to signalised junctions, some schemes may lead to increased bus passenger journey times in some locations. The impact of this may be felt slightly more so by women as bus use is higher than men.


Issue No.: A1


Gender reassignment No CGW does not propose any changes to the existing highway that would

positively or negatively impact people due to gender reassignment.

Marriage/civil partnership No CGW does not propose any changes to the existing highway that would

positively or negatively impact people due to their sexual orientation.

Other – e.g. refugees, low income, homeless people

Yes Low income occupations e.g Couriers, food delivery riders, private hire

drivers etc may be affected by this work during construction as there may be some loss of road space. This could potentially impact their work if this is a popular route for their journeys

Refugees who are not familiar with the area and London’s cycling infrastructure may find the new road lay out challenging to understand. This could potentially lead to conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians.

Pregnancy/maternity Yes Pushchair users and parents with young children could be affected by the

potential changes of pedestrian crossings, bus stops and general construction of segregated cycle lanes, potentially altering access arrangements temporarily. Traffic management (TM) will be considered closer to construction. The extent of the impact will be felt more by pregnant women, or parents with young children, who may be less able to walk longer distances or more reliant on the bus network for reaching their destination. TfL specifies a minimum spacing of 400m between bus stops and any changes that introduce a greater distance would be considered to introduce a negative impact.

Temporary signage has yet to be designed, although access requirements will be taken into account using lessons learned and best practices from previous TFL cycle projects.

Race No

Local demographic information shows that the Royal Borough of Greenwich has a lower percentage of BAME residents than the London average (38% compared to 40%). No areas of particular cultural importance have been highlighted on this route. Therefore, no disproportionate impact on BAME individuals is expected.


Issue No.: A1


Religion or belief Yes In designing Cycleways schemes, every effort is made to minimise the

short, medium and long term negative impacts on people with protected characteristics. However, there may be some locations where interactions may occur and these are described below:

Due to changes to the road layout, there may be some negative impacts due to the proximity of the proposals to places of worship. This may include changes to parking provision or timings, changes to bus stop locations or changes to footway space or pedestrian crossings that could impact access to places of worship. Changes to the street layout may also impact space for people to congregate outside places of worship, for example as part of religious events

No places of worship are directly along the line of route; however, some locations (such as the New Wine Church and the Christ Faith Tabernacle Cathedral) are very close to the route and will be engaged.

Sexual orientation No The Cycleways programme does not propose any changes to the existing

highway that would positively or negatively impact people due to their sexual orientation.


Issue No.: A1


Q5. Given the evidence listed in step 2, consider and describe what potential positive impacts this work could have on people related to their protected characteristics?

Protected Characteristic Explain the potential positive impact

Age Yes Segregated cycle lanes can have a positive impact on all ages as it creates a safer environment for experienced cyclists and cycle enthusiasts. With the improved crossings and footways helping the accessibility of local schools within the area and providing a cost effective alternative to traveling for pupils, parents and teachers contributing to the Healthy Streets Approach.

Infrastructure improvements (including segregated cycle tracks, new crossings, signalised junctions, reduced traffic volumes, reduced numbers of HGVs etc.) will provide physical or temporal separation, or reduced interaction between people and motor traffic. Improved safety, and / or improved perception of safety is expected to have a positive impact on those of all age groups, particularly the young and older people who may not walk or cycle currently. This is intended to increase active travel among this group.

Cycling is currently a more popular mode of transport amongst people in the 25 to 40 age group than amongst the under 25s and over 65s. One key reason for this is the perceived lack of safety for cycling in London. By installing dedicated cycle tracks which provide protected space from traffic, the perception of cycle safety should improve and encourage people under 25 and over 65 to feel more confident when cycling, and so consider cycling as a viable mode of transport. Intercept surveys for CS6 Phase 2 saw an increase of 67% in users over 45, and an increase of 62% in users aged 16-24. The proportion of 16-24 year olds feeling very safe at the point of intercept increased from 38% to 55% following construction of the route, and for users over 45, this rose from 42% to 50% (baseline: 2016, latest numbers: 2019). We will carry out similar intercept surveys for this route both pre-and post-construction to measure the impacts of this route.

Infrastructure improvements such as improved pedestrian crossings with shorter crossing distances, shorter waiting times or improved signal technologies such as pedestrian countdown, rotating cones or audible signals provide a more positive experience for people of all ages, especially younger or older people who may have slower walking speeds or be less able to walk very far. Furthermore, older people with hearing or visual impairments may find these improvements beneficial. Simplified street layouts make it easier for pedestrians of all ages to navigate and may also reduce the walking distance.

A key objective of the Cycleways programme is to improve the quality and safety of our streets by implementing new or improved infrastructure. This includes measures such as improvements to crossings, addressing maintenance issues, implementing flush crossings and providing more places for people to stop and rest. This Cycleway will be improving and simplifying existing pedestrian crossings across the entire route, which will positively impact the over 65s and young children who may find it difficult to cross currently. As older people undertake the highest proportion of their trips by foot and cite addressing physical barriers as important for encouraging them to travel more, improvements to the street environment such as more even surfaces and flush crossing will make it easier for them to navigate leading to a better experience with the potential for more active


Issue No.: A1


travel among this group

Despite older people having a greater awareness of Cycleways use of cycling as a mode of transport and use of these routes remains low. It is acknowledged that there is still more work to be done to encourage new users and we will work closely with local boroughs to promote the route to a variety of audiences alongside providing education and training opportunities. We hope that the changes may also assist those who might like to cycle or cycle more, if conditions for cycling were made more appealing.

Disability including carers Yes Agency Carers generally drive to their respective locations often visiting

multiple homes within close proximity to each other, introducing segregated cycle lanes provide a safe eco friendly travel alternative. The same goes for family or friends providing care for free, this offers a safe, cost effective alternative mode of transport.

We are aware that there is a community Centre in close proximity to the route (on Boneta Road) that hosts groups and events for people with disabilities. The project will seek to improve the pedestrian access to this area, to benefit these individuals.

Cycles can act as a mobility aid for a small number of people who find walking difficult or cannot walk at all. Some people with disabilities ride standard bicycles; others use one of the many types of adapted bicycle available such as tandems, tricycles, hand cycles or electric bikes. The Department for Transport has called for an increase in awareness of the use of cycles as a mobility aid.

Our research found that 15% of Londoners with a disability already make trips by bicycle, which is only slightly below the percentage of non-disabled people who said they use a bicycle (18%). This research also identified that 20% of disabled people said they would “definitely” or “probably” use new routes in the future. This route will provide a safe cycling route for people with disabilities, and will be designed to accommodate adapted cycles.

Gender

A key objective of the Cycleways programme is to improve the quality and safety of our streets by implementing new or improved infrastructure. This includes measures such as improvements to crossings, addressing maintenance issues, implementing flush crossings and providing more places for people to stop and rest. As women are more likely than men to be travelling with buggies and/or shopping, improvements to the street environment such as more even surfaces and flush crossings will make it easier for women with buggies and / or shopping to navigate leading to a better experience with the potential for more active travel among this group.

As women are less likely to cycle than men, less likely to be able to ride a bike and are less aware of Cycleways, increased visibility of high quality infrastructure along with promotion and associated route activation measures will be particularly beneficial to women, potentially leading to an increase in cycling among this group. This would be complemented by supporting measures delivered by TfL and the boroughs across London such as cycle training and awareness. Intercept surveys for CS6 Phase 2 showed the percentage of women feeling very safe at the point of intercept rose from 35% to 40%, alongside an 61% increase in women cycling on this route. We will carry out similar intercept surveys for this route both pre-and post-construction to measure the impacts of this route.


Issue No.: A1


Improvements to the street environment that help prevent anti-social behaviour and reduce crime such as improvements to street lighting, removal of street clutter or urban realm improvements may be proposed as part of Cycleways schemes. These will be beneficial to all customers but will provide particular benefits to those who identify this as a key barrier to using the network, including women

Gender reassignment No CGW does not propose any changes to the existing highway that would

positively or negatively impact people due to gender reassignment.

Marriage/civil partnership No CGW does not propose any changes to the existing highway that would

positively or negatively impact people due to marriage or civil partnership.

Other – e.g. refugees, low income, homeless people

Yes The segregated cycle lanes could provide low income families with a safe,

cost effective mode of transport. It also provides safe routes for gig economy couriers covering that area who will have safer infrastructure available to facilitate making deliveries by bike.

Pregnancy/maternity Yes Parents will feel safer cycling with their children in segregated lanes,

providing a new safe, eco friendly, cost effective and convenient travel alternative for families to benefit from.


Issue No.: A1


Race Yes A key objective of CGW is to improve the quality and safety of walking and

cycling facilities by installing new, dedicated infrastructure and promoting safer cycle routes. This forms part of a series of measures to help open up cycling as a viable mode of transport to a larger number and wider range of people.

4/5 of frequent cyclists and 3/4 of infrequent cyclists are white. Asian people are particularly unlikely to cycle frequently – only 7 per cent of frequent cyclists are Asian, compared to 17 per cent of non-cyclists. There is a significant opportunity to increase cycling among those from BAME backgrounds. BAME Londoners are more likely than white Londoners to say they will use Cycleways in the future but have less awareness of Cycleways; therefore increased promotion around scheme implementation will provide further positive impacts on this group. The improved street environment, including new cycle facilities are therefore expected to lead to more awareness and more active travel among this group.

The improvement in cycling provision as a result of this scheme forms part of a series of measures aimed at encouraging cyclists from typically underrepresented user groups to take up cycling in London.

Religion or belief No CGW does not propose any changes to the existing highway that would

positively or negatively impact people due to their religion or belief.

Sexual orientation No CGW does not propose any changes to the existing highway that would

positively or negatively impact people due to their sexual orientation.


Issue No.: A1


Step 4: Consultation

Q6. How has consultation with those who share a protected characteristic informed your work? Some pre-engagement is being carried out ahead of consultation in January 2020. The groups on the following list have been identified as key groups that represent those with protected characteristics. These groups have been sent communications with some early information about the project, giving them a chance to share their views ahead of the consultation, and give them some additional notice of the consultation launch, so that they can engage their members. We will also carry out active outreach and engagement with disability groups as part of this consultation, to discuss the impacts of the proposals, both positive and negative, directly with those affected. Schools, Religious Associations Meridian Primary School St Afege with St. Peters Church of England Primary School James Wolfe Primary School with centre for the deaf St Ursula’s Convent School Disability and Carers Groups: Greenwich Association of the Disabled (GAD) Wheels for Wellbeing Limited Edition South East London Vision Care Commissioning Group Greenwich Places of Worship: New Wine Church Christ Faith Tabernacle Potters House Woolwich St Alfege Church Charlton Mosque Committee No results from pre-engagement have currently been received from the groups listed above. Any results received at a later stage will be added to this document, along with the results of the consultation.


Issue No.: A1


Q7. Where relevant, record any consultation you have had with other projects / teams who you are working with to deliver this piece of work. This is really important where the mitigations for any potential negative impacts rely on the delivery of work by other teams.

The key project impacting delivery of CGW is the Greenwich Town Centre (GTC) Liveable Neighbourhood scheme. This scheme seeks to redesign the Historic Greenwich Town Centre by removing the gyratory system, and making two arms of the centre pedestrian/cycles only, with the other two arms becoming two-way traffic. We work closely with the GTC team, both our internal TfL colleagues in Network Sponsorship, and colleagues working in Greenwich. We meet with them periodically to update them on our designs, and receive updates from them on project progress. We will continue this approach to allow us to flag issues early, and ensure the two projects collaborate and deliver an integrated solution.


Issue No.: A1


Step 5: Informed Decision-Making

Q8. In light of the assessment now made, what do you propose to do next? Please select one of the options below and provide a rationale (for most EqIAs this will be box 1). Please remember to review this as and when the piece of work changes

1. Change the work to mitigate against potential negative impacts found

We have mitigated the issues raised so far in the design development (see Action Planning for details) and will mitigate any further issues raised during the consultation.

2. Continue the work as is because no potential negative impacts found

3. Justify and continue the work despite negative impacts (please provide justification)

4. Stop the work because discrimination is unjustifiable and no obvious ways to mitigate


Issue No.: A1


Step 6: Action Planning

Q9. You must address any negative impacts identified in step 3 and 4. Please demonstrate how you will do this or record any actions already taken to do this. Please remember to add any positive actions you can take that further any positive impacts identified in step 3 and 4.

Action Due Owner

Pre-engage with the groups listed in the consultation section to understand concerns/opportunities

November 2019

Continue conversations with the GTC Liveable Neighbourhood delivery team to ensure an integrated solution

Ongoing

Arrange suitable traffic management and temporary access for the route during construction

Pre-construction (date tbc)

Ensure mitigations highlighted in step 5 are incorporated into the design that goes to consultation

August 2019

Carry out VISSIM modelling on the scheme to understand the full impacts on bus and car journey times

November 2020

Carry out direct engagement with disability groups during consultation, particularly South London Vision

January-February 2020

If the shared use crossings remain following the consultation, bring the proposals to IDAG for consideration

May 2020

If the shared use crossings remain in the final design, implement post-construction monitoring to ensure safety of design feature

Post-construction (date tbc)

No specific issues have been raised by Mitigations included


Issue No.: A1


groups representing those with protected characteristics during our pre-engagement. As our consultation begins in January 2020, we have not yet formally consulted with groups with protected characteristics to understand their specific concerns. However, with the research we have conducted to date, the following considerations have been added to our designs so far:

- Making the Angerstein Roundabout safer to cross – we understand that many people, in particular parents with young children, will make large diversions 9to Westcombe Park overbridge) to avoid crossing this junction. We have taken this on board and will provide more direct, safer crossings.

- Crossing points near schools – we understand from traffic counts that the crossings near Windrush School are not sufficiently safe for accessing bus stops nearby. We are now including this improvement in our design.

- Access for local groups - The Clockhouse Community Centre on Boneta St runs many events for faith groups, children, older people and disabled people and is a key community hub. As we are also constructing a link to the proposed Woolwich to Lea Green Quietway on this stretch of road, we will ensure that safe access is available to reach the Clockhouse Community Centre, particularly from the residential area to the south of the A206.

in designs as of September 2019