Proposed Improvements to the A10 High Road in Bruce Grove town centre

Consultation Report April 2017

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

Summary of 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

1.3.1 Improvements to pedestrian facilities and the town centre environment ..... 5

1.3.2 Changes to off-peak loading / unloading facilities on the High Road .......... 6

1.3.2 Changes to northbound bus stops .............................................................. 6

1.3.3 Traffic impact of these proposals ................................................................ 6

1.3.4 Location Map .............................................................................................. 7

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 ............................................................................................... 8

2.6 Methods of responding ................................................................................... 9

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ............................................................... 9

2.7.1 Website ....................................................................................................... 9

2.7.2 Letters and/or leaflets ................................................................................. 9

2.7.3 Emails to public ........................................................................................... 9

2.7.4 Emails to stakeholders .............................................................................. 10

2.7.5 Digital advertising...................................................................................... 10

2.7.6 Meetings with stakeholders ....................................................................... 10

3. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 11

3.1 Number of respondents ................................................................................ 11

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ........................................... 11

3.3 Methods of responding ................................................................................. 12

3.4 Postcodes of respondents ............................................................................ 12

4. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 13

2

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 .......................................................... 13

4.1.1 Overall support ............................................................................................ 13

4.2 Summary of responses to Question 2 .......................................................... 14

4.2.1 Ten issues most commonly raised .............................................................. 14

4.3 Summary of stakeholder responses ............................................................. 14

Local authorities & statutory bodies ....................................................................... 15

Transport and road user groups ............................................................................. 15

Businesses, employers and venues ....................................................................... 17

Local interest groups .............................................................................................. 17

4.4 Comments on the quality of the consultation................................................ 18

5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 19

Appendix A: Response to issues commonly raised ................................................... 20

Appendix B: Detailed analysis of comments ............................................................. 26

Appendix C: Analysis of comments ........................................................................... 28

Appendix D: Consultation questions ......................................................................... 32

Appendix E: Consultation letter/leaflet ....................................................................... 33

Appendix F: Letter distribution ................................................................................... 36

Appendix G: Customer Email .................................................................................... 37

Appendix H: Email/ letter to stakeholders .................................................................. 38

Appendix I: Bus stop poster ...................................................................................... 39

Appendix J: List of stakeholders consulted ............................................................... 40

Appendix K: Agenda of Stakeholder meeting ............................................................ 42

3

Executive summary This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of our consultation on proposed Improvements to the A10 High Road in Bruce Grove town centre. The document also presents our responses to issues commonly raised during the consultation.

The consultation ran between 25 October and 7 December 2016. We received 336 responses, of which 64 per cent supported or partially supported our proposals.

The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in Appendix B.

Summary of issues raised during consultation • Positive comments supporting the principle of improving the pedestrian

environment in Bruce Grove town centre, also saying the proposals would begood for residents and/or pedestrians

• Cycling provision was an important issue to local people. Our proposalreduced the crossing distances for pedestrians by widening the footways inthe High Road. We received a number of comments which expressed concernthat this reduced safety for cyclists using the A10 High Road

• Comments about current levels of traffic congestion and air pollution wereraised and respondents also suggested that the proposed scheme would notreduce traffic levels in the area

Please see Appendix A for our response to issues commonly raised in consultation.

Next steps Having considered the issues that were raised during the consultation, we will make changes to the design of the footway build-out at the pedestrian crossing. We will also retain the cycle refuge between St. Loys Road and Stoneleigh Road in the design.

We will now proceed with the detailed design work prior to construction, and intend to begin construction work on the scheme in early 2018.

4

1. About the proposals1.1 Introduction We have been working in partnership with LB Haringey to develop plans to improve the A10 High Road in Bruce Grove town centre. The plans propose improvements on the A10 between the junctions with Forster Road and Bruce Grove. These proposed improvements are part of a wider plan for regeneration in the area and intended to complement Haringey Council’s wider improvement plans. Further details of the borough’s wider plan for the area are available online at: https://tottenham.london

1.2 Purpose The purpose of the scheme is to improve the area for pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers and road users, whilst maintaining movement on the A10.

The improvements proposed are intended to deliver the following benefits: • Improved safety for all road users• Making it easier and safer for pedestrians to move through the area and

access public transport• Providing public spaces with better balance between passing traffic and the

need to create an improved place to live, work and visit• Improving cyclist safety at junctions• Providing appropriate facilities for bus users to easily interchange• Providing adequate facilities for loading and parking• Maintaining high quality bus routes in the area while balancing overall traffic

demand• Improving street environment by decluttering

1.3 Detailed description We proposed changes to the A10 High Road in Bruce Grove town centre, between the junctions with Forster Road and Bruce Grove. These proposals were designed to improve road safety, improve conditions for pedestrians with more space for walking, and create a better town centre environment.

1.3.1 Improvements to pedestrian facilities and the town centre environment

We proposed:

• Widening pavements and shortening crossing distances to improvepedestrian safety and comfort at the junction with Bruce Grove

• Introducing new advanced stop lines at all signalised junctions so cyclists canwait ahead of other traffic

• Repaving footways along the High Road from building line to kerb, includingthe shop forecourts (subject to agreement with the owners as applicable) withhigh-quality materials. Existing lampposts would be retained

• Using distinctive imprinted surfaces at busy pedestrian crossing areas

5

• Relocating the signalised pedestrian crossing north of junction with St Loy’sRoad to a more central location closer to Holcombe Road Market (oppositeLloyds Pharmacy). This would improve safety and be more convenient forpedestrians. In addition, an unsignalised crossing would be located where theexisting signalised crossing is, just north of the junction with St Loy’s Road

• Widening pavements on both sides of the relocated pedestrian crossing forimproved pedestrian safety and comfort

• Merging bus stops for northbound bus services near Bruce Grove Station,reassigning bus routes to stops to reduce overcrowding on pavements andreviewing the orientation of existing bus shelters to ensure efficient use ofspace for bus passengers and pedestrians (see below for more information)

• Investigating potential opportunities to improve the town centre environmentwith plants or the creation of greener spaces.

1.3.2 Changes to off-peak loading / unloading facilities on the High Road

We proposed the following changes in order to make better use of loading bays and road space:

• Increasing the length of the southbound loading bay opposite Bruce GroveStation from 12 metres to 26 metres

• Increasing the length of the northbound loading bay from 35 metres to 40metres

• Removing the southbound loading bay near the junction with Brook Street tomake space for wider footways

1.3.2 Changes to northbound bus stops

To accommodate these changes to facilities on A10 High Road, it would be necessary to change the stopping arrangements for some northbound bus routes. Bus stops J and H would be merged to form one bus stop. The existing bus shelter at stop J would be retained. Routes 149, 259, 279, 341, 349, and 476 would serve this stop Bus stop G would be increased in size and would be served by routes 123, 243, 318, and W4

This would reduce overcrowding at the stops and enable us to maintain loading facilities for businesses on High Road. Route 318 passengers would no longer share the same stop with routes 341 and 476 towards Lansdowne Road, but passengers wishing to interchange between these routes would be able to use stop F on the High Road.

1.3.3 Traffic impact of these proposals

These proposals are not expected to have an impact on traffic along this section of A10 High Road (a neutral impact).

6

1.3.4 Location Map

The scheme boundary runs from the south side of the junction of A10 High Road with Forster Road to the north side of the junction with A10 Bruce Grove. The scheme boundary includes the section of the A10 Bruce Grove from the High Road up to the junction with Moorfield Road.

For a detailed map of the scheme please see Appendix E.

7

2. About the consultation2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:

• To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information aboutthe proposals and allow them to respond

• To understand the level of support or opposition for the change/s for theproposals

• To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we werenot 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 toproceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation

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

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide notto proceed with the scheme

The next steps are set out in Chapter 5.

2.3 Who we consulted The consultation intended to seek the views of local residents, businesses, current users of buses in the area, and road users who routinely use the A10 High Road at Bruce Grove. We also consulted stakeholders including Haringey Council, traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, Ward Councillors and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix J.

2.4 Dates and duration The consultation was open for a period of six weeks between 25 October and 7 December 2016 and was scheduled to allow sufficient time for stakeholders and members of the public to consider the proposals and respond.

2.5 What we asked Respondents were asked a closed question about whether they supported the proposed improvements to the A10 High Road. For this question respondents were

8

asked to select from a list of answers (‘Support’, ‘Support most elements’, ‘Neither support or oppose’, ‘Oppose most elements’, ‘Not sure’, ‘No opinion’). This question was not compulsory.

Respondents were also given an opportunity to comment on the proposals submitting comments in an open question. This question was not compulsory.

Respondents were also asked to submit their name, email address and postcode, to indicate whether they were responding on behalf of an organisation and how they heard about the consultation. All questions were optional.

Other information, such as the respondent’s IP address and the date and time of responding, was recorded automatically. All data is held under conditions that conform to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.

2.6 Methods of responding People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods:

• emailing us at consultations@tfl.gov.uk• accessing the online consultation and survey via the following website link:

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/bruce-grove/• by post using the TfL Freepost address

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity

2.7.1 Website

The consultation was published online. A dedicated web page explained the background to the proposal and detailed the proposed changes, including the detailed design drawing of the proposals. We invited people to respond by answering specific questions, with a third question allowing for a free text area for respondents to comment on the proposals.

2.7.2 Letters and/or leaflets

We delivered a letter and illustration to local households and businesses around the A10 High Road, Tottenham in the first week of consultation. The leaflet distribution area can be found in Appendix F.

Haringey Council distributed the letter and illustration to approximately 9,000 additional addresses in the wider area in the second week of consultation. The area of the additional distribution is shown in Appendix F.

2.7.3 Emails to public

We sent an email to 36,991 customers with a registered interest in the area and in road schemes. A sample copy of this email can be found in Appendix G.

9

2.7.4 Emails to stakeholders We sent an email to stakeholders and customers with a registered interest in the area and in road schemes. The copy of the text of this email can be found in Appendix H.

2.7.5 Digital advertising

The consultation was featured on the London Borough of Haringey website and in online bulletins.

2.7.6 Meetings with stakeholders

At the request of local councillors and residents groups we agreed to meet with local interest groups on 22 November 2016 to informally discuss the proposals and to invite feedback about the scheme. The agenda for this meeting can be seen in Appendix K.

The following stakeholders and local interest groups were present or represented at the meeting:

• London Borough of Haringey• Councillor Felicia Opoku, Labour, Bruce Grove Ward• Reformed Bruce Grove Stakeholder Group• Dowsett Estate Residents Association• Tottenham Civic Society• Bruce Grove Residents Network• Tottenham Conservation Area Advisory Committee (TCAAC)• Friends of Down Lane Park• Tottenham Traders Partnership• Stop Killing Cyclists• London Women on Bikes• London Cycling Campaign

10

3. About the respondents3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents Total %

Public responses 329 98

Stakeholder responses 7 2

Total 336 100

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation

Sixteen respondents noted that they heard about the consultation through “Other” means.

• Five respondents received an email from LB Haringey• Five received emails from another stakeholder or local interest group• Three respondents were alerted to the consultation by their neighbourhood

police team• Three respondents saw a leaflet or poster• Two respondents read about the consultation in a community bulletin• One respondent heard about the consultation through word of mouth

How respondents heard Total %

Received an email from TfL 207 62

Received a letter from TfL (or Haringey) 21 6

Press 6 2

TfL website 13 4

Social Media 44 13

Other 16 5

Not answered 29 8

Total 336 100

11

3.3 Methods of responding

Methods of responding Total % Website 317 95

Email 18 5

Letter 1 <1

3.4 Postcodes of respondents 275 respondents submitted a postcode.

Postcode area Responses

N17 156

N15 56

N22 7

N8 5

E17 4

N1 3

BR1 2

E15 2

E9 2

EN3 2

N13 2

N2 2

N4 2

Other postcode (single response) 30

Total 275

12

4. Summary of all consultation responses4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 4.1.1 Overall support

We asked respondents to tell us whether they supported our proposals. 326 respondents (97%) answered this question.

Q1. To what extent do you support or oppose our proposals for improvements to the A10 High Road in Bruce Grove Town Centre? Total %

Support 145 43 Support most elements 72 21 Neither support or oppose 18 6 Oppose most elements 31 9 Oppose 54 16 Not sure 4 1 No opinion 2 1 Not Answered 10 3 Total 336 100

To what ex tent to y ou s upport or oppos e our propos als for

improv ements to the A 10 Hig h R oad in B ruc e G rov e Town C entre?

S upport

S upport most elements

Neither support or oppose

O ppose most elements

O ppose

Not sure

No opinion

Not Answered

13

4.2 Summary of responses to Question 2 We asked respondents to provide comments on the proposed scheme. Of the 336 people who responded to this consultation, 247 (74%) provided a comment in the open text box for the scheme. A detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix B. The most frequently raised issues were:

• Positive comments, supporting the principle of improving the pedestrianenvironment in Bruce Grove town centre, and also saying the proposals wouldbe good for residents and/or pedestrians

• Cycling provision was an important issue to local people. Our proposalreduced the crossing distances for pedestrians by widening the footways inthe High Road. We received a number of comments which expressedconcerns that this reduced safety for cyclists using the A10 High Road

• Comments about current levels of traffic congestion and air pollution wereraised, and respondents also noted their concerns that the proposed schemewas not designed to actively reduce motor traffic levels in the area

4.2.1 Ten issues most commonly raised

Theme Total Positive: General support 62

Negative: Should be better provision for cycling in scheme 37

Concern: Will make congestion worse 28

Comment: Current state: Traffic congestion / air pollution 26

Suggestion: Cycle Lanes or Segregated Cycle Lanes 25

Comment: Current State: Unsafe / Unfriendly for Pedestrians 20

Negative: Cycle safety: Oppose Lane reduction / pinch point 20

Negative: Scheme reduces safety for cyclists 19

Positive: Support for green spaces / planting 18

Suggestion: Additional pedestrian measures 18

4.3 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We sometimes have to condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

14

Local authorities & statutory bodies London Borough of Haringey

London Borough of Haringey (LBH) supported the principles set out by the proposals and stated that the improvements would complement their Tottenham Area Action Plan and the Strategic Regeneration Framework for Tottenham aimed at further enhancing the town centre environment. LBH believed that the proposed scheme would complement the new and expanded Holcombe Market, shop front improvements, lighting and signage to Bruce Grove Bridge and other public realm projects in Brook Street and Albert Place.

LBH noted that Council priorities for improvement to the A10 High Road in Bruce Grove town centre were: Support for more sustainable forms of transport, like walking and cycling; decluttering (which included specific requests to reposition bus shelter outside Bruce Grove Station and remove street furniture believed to encourage anti-social behaviour).

The council also highlighted that Bruce Grove town centre is a designated Conservation Area and requested that this be considered in selection of type and quality of materials used. Opportunities for greening or planting as part of the scheme were encouraged.

LBH confirmed that it will work with us to discuss the issues, responses and concerns raised through the consultation.

Councillor Stuart McNamara, Labour, Bruce Grove ward

Councillor McNamara supported the proposals and highlighted a number of additional measures which he believed should be implemented including: decluttering and realignment of specific items of street furniture; the planting of trees and shrubs; steps to prevent water pooling in completed scheme.

Councillor McNamara noted that the air quality indices in this location were very poor.

Councillor McNamara requested that the scheme aims are also extended to the adjoining sections of Forster Road, St Loy’s Road and Stoneleigh Road to remedy problematic pavement layouts and improve parking and road safety provision.

Transport and road user groups London Cycling Campaign

The LCC welcomed the opportunity to comment on the plans and submitted a response in support of the Haringey Cycling Campaign, the borough group.

15

LCC did not support the proposals and believed that the junction treatment outside Bruce Grove station would benefit pedestrians and cyclist, but that the remainder of the proposed work would decrease safety for people cycling and failed to meet the requirement for high-quality cycling provision. A redesign of the scheme was suggested.

LCC commented that the proposals were not compatible with the high numbers of people cycling in the same space as high volumes of motor traffic and that the parallel CS1 route does not provide safe segregated space for cycling. It was noted that consideration must be given to segregated space for cycling on the A10 in Bruce Grove.

LCC objected to narrowing of the existing carriageway width to 3m in each direction as it was unnecessary for pedestrian safety and it would likely increase conflict between other road users. They noted that this is likely to introduce “critical fails” under London Cycling Design Standards that must be resolved where the road width flares back out from 3m, coming into the 3.2-4m range and then leads directly into the pinch point at the pedestrian refuge.

LCC raised objections to the removal of the cycle reservation situated on High Road between junctions with St. Loys Road and Stoneleigh Road and asked that consideration be given to installing alternatives at the junctions with these roads.

In addition, new ASLs at the junction at Bruce Grove station were welcomed; but not considered sufficient to cope with the expected increase in cyclist numbers and a review of the junction was requested to ensure that cyclists were able to turn safely in all directions.

Haringey Cycling Campaign

Haringey Cycling Campaign (HCC) opposed the majority of the proposed changes, stating that overall they decreased cycle safety and should not be implemented, but welcomed the introduction of ASLs and the proposed changes to the junction of Bruce Grove and the High Road.

HCC objected that the proposed scheme would result in the removal of the existing cycle reservation located between St. Loys Road and Stoneleigh Road which provides assistance to cyclists moving from St. Loys Road to Stoneleigh Road or transitioning to travel southbound on the High Road.

HCC opposed the proposed pavement widening on the High Road as this would narrow the existing carriageway and create an unsafe pinch point for road users. It was believed that this would lead to increased conflict between road users. HCC suggested an alternative option which maintained the existing road width but highlighted the pedestrian crossing using patterned surfacing.

16

HCC noted that the scheme compared unfavourably with a 2007 proposal for the A10 from Monument Way to St Loys Rd which included provision for cycle lanes. HCC reasoned that in lieu of traffic filtering on Broadwater Road for CS1 the A10 High Road is likely to see increased cycle traffic in the future and the current proposals would not be suitable to support an increase in cycling numbers.

Businesses, employers and venues Arriva London

Arriva London expressed concern regarding the proposed position of the bus stops in relation to loading bays in the scheme, and noted that due to the frequency of buses there are likely to be several buses at the stop at the same time. Arriva stated that this would lead to occasions when the rearmost bus will not be able to pull in to the stop causing obstruction to other traffic and following buses.

Local interest groups Bruce Grove Residents’ Network

Bruce Grove Residents’ Network (BGRN) offered support for the principle of widening footways and re-paving, particularly at the junction of Bruce Grove with the High Road but noted that only high quality materials which met standards set for conservation areas would be acceptable. BGRN cited examples of recent schemes in neighbouring areas and boroughs as examples that should be followed.

BGRN expressed concern at the lack of an overall vision for the town centre which included specific proposals for planting and street furniture.

BGRN expressed concern at the proposed change to northbound bus stops on the High Road and highlighted potential issues with sight lines caused by the added numbers of buses at the consolidated stop, and the potential for pedestrian congestion at the stop.

The proposed measures to highlight pedestrian crossing areas were encouraged, but BGRN highlighted that this would best be augmented with installation of pedestrian countdown lights at crossings or potential reductions in speed limit on the approaching sections of road.

BGRN highlighted that the cyclists dissatisfied with parallel routes such as CS1 continued to use the section of the High Road in the proposed scheme and that cyclists should be accommodated in the proposals.

Reformed Bruce Grove Stakeholder Group Reformed Bruce Grove Stakeholder Group (RBGSG) submitted an illustrative document to accompany their comments regarding the proposed scheme and made

17

additional comments about improvements that their members would like to see in the wider area.

They supported de-cluttering, specifically unused street furniture such as bike stands, but highlighted that heritage lamp columns should remain. It was suggested that installing safety railings should be considered as part of the scheme and this would also allow for baskets to be installed along the High Road. RBGSG requested that consideration also be given to tree planting in the scheme, and highlighted the opportunity to plant trees in a central reservation. It was also noted that the area immediately around Bruce Grove Station appears neglected.

In addition, RBGSG members welcomed the provision of uniform paving throughout the High Road and requested additional improvements in lighting and urban design at junction of St. Loys Road with the High Road. They also requested that road traffic signal layout and timing should be reviewed to prevent traffic trying to exit from Bruce Grove being impeded by southbound traffic on High Road. An enforced yellow-box junction was suggested as a possible option at this junction.

RBGSG expressed concern at the proposal to merge northbound bus stops and stated that it would be better to add buses to the existing northbound stop G. Countdown facilities were desired at all bus stops on the High Road.

RBGSG requested some changes to the immediate area which extended beyond the proposed scope of the existing TfL scheme. These included: suggested changes to lighting and shop signage in the alleyway parallel to St Loy’s Road; maintenance of the railway bridge at this location; changes to decorative lighting on the High Road north of the junction with Bruce Grove; improvements to building frontages on the High Road; removal of allocated parking for police vehicles; and a further review of CS1 and motor traffic at Broadwater Road.

4.4 Comments on the quality of the consultation 164 respondents (49%) provided a comment on the quality of the consultation and associated materials. The main topics were:

• 122 (74%) of respondents to this question made positive comments about theconsultation and/ or materials, with views such as “okay”, “adequate”, “fine”,“clear” and “excellent”

• 27 (16%) of respondents to this question made negative comments about theconsultation and/ or materials, with comments such as “it was not publicisedenough”, that the map was too small or expressed concern that they did notreceive adequate information

• 15 (9%) of respondents to this question provided an additional comment notrelated to the consultation quality

18

5. ConclusionWe received 336 responses to the consultation, of which 64 per cent supported or partially supported our proposals.

After considering all responses, we plan to proceed with the scheme as proposed with the following changes:

• The existing cycle refuge for cyclists continuing from St. Loys Road toStoneleigh Road or southbound High Road will be retained

• The widened footways at the new pedestrian crossing will be more graduallytapered to ease the transition of cyclists through the new pedestrian crossing

We will now proceed with work to the detailed design. We plan to begin construction on the scheme in early 2018.

Please see Appendix A for TfL’s response to issues commonly raised in consultation.

19

Appendix A: Response to issues commonly raised Below are our responses to the key issues raised. The key issues have been summarised and grouped thematically.

Cycling provision

‘The proposed scheme did not provide adequate facilities for cycling, or ‘The proposals do not do enough to encourage cyclists to use this section of the High Road.’

We have considered all the comments received during consultation and accept that some cyclists would like additional provision and infrastructure on this section of the High Road. However, the A10 High Road is part of a major arterial route for bus and road traffic to and from central London and we have had to consider the requirements of all users, including cyclists and pedestrians, in the proposals.

CS1 provides quicker, safer and more reliable journeys than the equivalent trip along the parallel A10. For example, cyclists travelling from Tottenham to the City of London on the A10 pass through 54 traffic signals, compared to just 8 along CS1, with the latter providing shorter and more reliable journey times.

Using quieter streets also means fewer interactions with heavy goods vehicles, buses, kerbside activity, and busier side roads.

Some respondents submitted comments which were related directly to CS1. Whilst changes to CS1 are not in the scope of this consultation, these have been shared with our cycle superhighway team. Our cycle superhighways are monitored and reviewed, and these comments will be considered carefully.

In addition, we have considered responses to the consultation and the existing cycle refuge between St. Loy’s Road and Stoneleigh Road will be retained.

‘Can you provide dedicated cycle lanes / Extend links from CS1 at Tottenham Green direct along A10 High Road’?

There is limited space available along this part of the A10 and this means that our ability to provide dedicated cycle segregation is restricted.

We have been careful to consider the needs of all road users in the proposed design. There is insufficient space to accommodate a dedicated segregated cycle lane at the same time as delivering the proposed enhanced pedestrian facilities and maintaining the flow of motorised road traffic.

The CS1 route runs parallel to the A10 High Road and already provides a safer alternative for cyclists in the area to travel from Tottenham to the City, or

20

intermediate destinations. We will share the request for improved and extended links to CS1 with our Cycle Superhighway team for their consideration. ‘The proposals will reduce cyclist safety by removing the existing cycle refuge between St. Loy’s Road and Stoneleigh Road’ In response to consultation, we have reviewed the proposed provision for cyclists at the section of the A10 High Road adjacent to the junctions with St Loy’s Road and Stoneleigh Road and will accommodate the existing refuge into the new design. ‘Widening the footways on the High Road will reduce cyclist safety by creating a ‘pinch point’ on the highway’

Some consultation responses revealed concern about increased potential for conflict with other road users caused by the widening of the footway at the pedestrian crossing on the High Road.

It is important to reduce the crossing distance at this point for two reasons:

• To encourage pedestrians to use the crossing to cross safety rather then crossing between traffic.

• To provide enough space for pedestrians to wait at the crossing without blocking the pedestrian footways.

We do plan to proceed with the widening of the footway at the crossing point, but we have now amended the proposal to ensure that the widened footways are tapered more gradually in length up to the pedestrian crossing point. This will ensure a more gradual transition for cyclists through the new pedestrian crossing point.

Traffic impacts ‘The proposals will increase traffic and congestion in the local area’ We have modelled the traffic impacts of the proposals using modelling software to assess the impact of the proposed changes on existing traffic flow. The scheme was appraised as having a ‘neutral’ impact, meaning that there would be no detrimental effect to journey time and traffic levels through the junctions in the scheme. Nevertheless, TfL and LB Haringey will actively monitor and manage traffic conditions on the A10 High Road and surrounding local streets following the delivery of the scheme. We will take any appropriate measures to manage the effects of any traffic reassignment that may result from the changes.

21

We are continuing to invest in advanced traffic signal technology to allow us to better manage traffic, and work to improve road user information so that people can make informed journey choices before they travel. ‘The proposals will not improve congestion or air quality on the High Road’ Our traffic modelling shows that the traffic movement will remain consistent through Bruce Grove town centre once the scheme has been implemented. We do not expect that additional traffic congestion will be caused as a result of the changes and would therefore not expect existing air quality to worsen as a result. A key aim of the proposal is to make the pedestrian environment more attractive in Bruce Grove town centre, and enable pedestrians to gain easier and safer access to their local amenities and public transport. Encouraging more people to walk short journeys or take public transport to local shops and amenities, instead of using motor vehicles is a key element of the Mayor’s Healthy Streets for London plan, which aims to reduce car use to create healthier environment and efficient roads. In addition to these proposals, this section of the A10 High Road will be included in the new Low Emission Bus Zone between Edmonton to Seven Sisters. This means that bus routes operating in this zone will be run using buses which meet Euro VI emission standards, which we hope will contribute significantly to the reduction of pollutants and in improving air quality in the local area. ‘The proposals do not do enough to reduce traffic on the High Road’ The High Road is part of the A10, a major arterial route for bus and road traffic to and from central London, and we have considered the requirements of all users, including cyclists and pedestrians, in the proposed changes. This scheme aims to improve facilities and safety for pedestrians using the High Road at a centrally located crossing point. Encouraging pedestrian activity and improving the town centre environment is essential to encourage residents to use local shops and amenities. The scheme is aligned with the Healthy Streets for London approach which aims to help Londoners use cars less and walk, cycle and use public transport more. We have also encouraged modal and behavioural change through the provision of CS1, which runs parallel to the A10 High Road, linking Tottenham directly to the City. We will continue to work with LB Haringey to look at ways in which sustainable transport and behavioural change can be encouraged in the area, to further reduce the impact of motor traffic. ‘The proposed changes to bus stops for northbound services will cause traffic congestion’ The traffic impact of the scheme has been appraised using software modelling, which demonstrated a neutral impact on traffic movement and journey times along

22

this part of A10 High Road. This modelling included consideration of the proposed bus stop changes and bus movements. Sufficient ‘headway’ exists in the current schedules for buses serving the stop at Bruce Grove Station to pull in, allow passengers to board or exit, and move away from the stop, without subsequent buses queueing back past the limits of the proposed bus cage. The changes to bus stops will not create additional delays to journey time on the A10 High Road. ‘Illegal parking is obstructing traffic’ We have a dedicated Enforcement team who monitor the A10 High Road at Bruce Grove using closed circuit television. Our team will continue to monitor the area to prevent and remedy any illegal parking or other behaviour which is a cause of concern or obstruction. Pedestrian impacts ‘Pavements are overcrowded and the existing road layout needs improvement’ We agree that the current footways along the High Road are too narrow at parts and require improvement. Subject to reaching agreement with the relevant property owners, we will seek to provide a clear walking space to make the High Road a safer and more comfortable environment for pedestrians. The improved and widened footways at the relocated pedestrian crossing will encourage and allow pedestrians and vulnerable users to more safely cross the High Road. The proposed footway design provides more space for waiting pedestrians than at the previous location and reduces the crossing distance for the comfort of more vulnerable pedestrians. ‘Why aren’t you widening the footway at Brook Street or Holcombe Market?’ The footway between Brook Street and Holcombe Market measures up to 8 metres wide at its widest point, and is of adequate width to accommodate the current footfall, providing the footway remains unobstructed. We will work in close co-operation with LB Haringey to ensure that footways on the A10 High Road remain clear and unobstructed where possible. Changes to pedestrian crossings ‘Relocating the signalised crossing will inconvenience existing bus passengers travelling to or from bus stop “G’’’ The scheme will provide a shorter crossing distance and more central location for the main pedestrian crossing on the A10 High Road. This will mean that the crossing is safer for pedestrians and will encourage greater use of a central signalised crossing. This relocated crossing point is better aligned with desire lines for pedestrians on the High Road and will better serve the greatest number of pedestrians crossing the A10 in this location.

23

In addition, the new design will improve capacity at the crossing and on the footways approaching the crossing. The pedestrian signals will be equipped with tactile provisions for visually impaired pedestrians. The new location of the signalised crossing will not significantly increase the time taken for pedestrians accessing the town centre from bus stop ‘G’ to the south. Bus passengers alighting at stop ‘G’ would also be able to make use of the new unsignalised crossing point / pedestrian refuge north of the junction of the High Road and St.Loys Road to access the west side of the High Road. ‘Will you review pedestrian crossing times?’ We will review the pedestrian crossing times to ensure an appropriate balance is achieved to suit the needs of all users. We need to ensure that traffic movement remains adequate and that safe pedestrian crossings can be achieved. Loading / Parking changes ‘Please don’t make changes to existing loading bays’ The scheme makes changes to the location of loading bays on the High Road but doesn’t reduce overall provision for loading on the High Road. The relocation of the existing loading bays is required in order to make space for the improvements to pedestrian footways. ‘Loading bays should be provided on parallel or side-roads’ Additional parking and loading facilities on parallel and adjacent roads are provided and maintained by LB Haringey. No changes are proposed to these other facilities as a result of this scheme. Green spaces and planting along A10 High Road The responses we received during consultation demonstrated that opportunities to create new green spaces or additional planting along the A10 High Road would be welcomed. We will be working closely with LB Haringey to identify and develop appropriate opportunities for ‘greening’ and maintenance of plants on the High Road. Bus stops ‘Bus stop ‘J’ at Bruce Grove will become overcrowded’ This scheme has been appraised using traffic impact modelling software, which includes a consideration of the intervals between buses at the northbound stop at Bruce Grove Station ‘headway’. The impact on traffic movement was assessed as being neutral, meaning that buses would continue to serve the merged stop at the required frequency.

24

We don’t anticipate that there will be overcrowding at the stop as a result of these changes, providing that services are operating on-time. ‘Route 318 should retain a bus-stop with the 476 and 341 (towards Lansdowne Rd)’ We will provide more effective passenger interchange between buses at stop ‘J’ by merging it with stop ‘H’, but it has not been possible to accommodate all bus services with common destinations. To retain route 318 at stop J would require additional space for buses stopping which would mean we would not be able to provide the pedestrian improvements at the centre of this scheme. The walking distance between bus stops ‘G’ and ‘J’ remains within the bus network standards for passenger comfort for passengers wishing to interchange between corresponding services towards Lansdowne Road. Materials ‘What materials will be used on the footways?’ The materials used throughout the scheme will be of high quality and will meet TfL Streetscape Guidance, as well as being maintainable.

25

Appendix B: Detailed analysis of comments Of the 336 respondents, 247 left comments in the open text field. We have summarised the significant themes below. Percentages given are from the total 336 consultation respondents. A full list of all the comments ranked by frequency themes can be found in Appendix C. General positive comments: 62 respondents (18%) provided general positive comments about the whole scheme. General negative comments: 14 respondents (4%) provided general negative comments about the whole scheme. Impact on motor traffic:

• 28 respondents (8%) expressed concern that the proposals would have a negative impact on road traffic by making the High Road more congested, or journey times slower.

• 26 respondents (8%) expressed dissatisfaction at the existing levels of congestion and air pollution along the High Road

• 16 respondents (5%) expressed concern that the proposed bus stop changes will have a detrimental impact on road traffic

• 14 respondents (4%) opposed the proposals because they do not reduce motor traffic along the High Road

Impact on cycling: • 37 respondents (11%) stated that the proposals did not provide adequate

provision or improved infrastructure for cyclists • 25 respondents (7%) commented that cycle lanes or segregated cycle lanes

should be considered • 20 respondents (6%) specifically opposed the widening of the footway as it

reduced cycle safety by creating a pinch point • 19 respondents (6%) stated that the scheme would have the effect of

reducing safety for cyclists • 14 respondents (4%) specifically opposed the removal of the cycle refuge at

the junction of High Road with St. Loys Road • 13 respondents (4%) commented that the current road layout is unsafe for

cyclists

Impact on pedestrians: • 20 respondents (6%) commented that they considered the existing road

layout was not safe for pedestrians and required improvement • 18 respondents (6%) suggested additional pedestrian improvements

26

• 16 respondents (5%) specifically supported the proposed widening of footways

• 13 respondents (4%) opposed the widening of footways • 12 respondents (4%) opposed the changes to the signalised crossing

between St. Loys and Brook Street • 12 respondents (4%) submitted comments supporting the proposed changes

to the signalised crossing at Bruce Grove Bus services:

• 12 respondents (4%) suggested alternatives to the proposed bus stop arrangements

Public Space / Planting:

• 18 respondents (5%) expressed support for the creation of additional green spaces / planting.

• 12 respondents (4%) specifically supported decluttering / removing street furniture

Not in scope / Outside the extents of this scheme: Some respondents commented on concerns that were not in the immediate scope of the proposals.

• 15 respondents (4%) commented on issues unrelated to the scheme aims, or outside the scope of the proposed improvements

• Ten respondents (3%) commented on issues relevant to another existing scheme

• Eight respondents (2%) commented on issues related to another TfL controlled road

• Four respondents (1%) made comments related to issues relating to a borough controlled road

Comments included suggestions such as:

• Extending pavement widening along A10 Bruce Grove beyond the junction with Moorefield Rd

• Extending pedestrian improvements further south (pedestrian links to Tottenham Green, Leisure Centre etc.) – including crossing at Holy Trinity Church

• Extending scheme north along High Road past junction with Bruce Grove • Improvements on adjacent roads such as Stoneleigh Road and concerns

about “rat-running” on adjoining roads • improvements to railway bridges at St. Loys Road and Bruce Grove • Plans for improvements to Bruce Grove Station forecourt

27

Appendix C: Analysis of comments

Theme Frequency % of total respondents

Positive: General support 62 18 Negative: Should be better provision for cycling in scheme 37 11 Concern: Will make congestion worse 28 8 Comment: Current state: Traffic congestion / air pollution 26 8 Suggestion: Cycle Lanes or Segregated Cycle Lanes 25 7 Comment: Current State: Unsafe for Pedestrians 20 6 Negative: Cycle safety: Oppose Lane reduction / pinch point 20 6 Negative: Scheme reduces safety for cyclists 19 6 Positive: Support for green spaces / planting 18 5 Suggestion: Additional pedestrian measures 18 5 Concern: Bus Stop Change: traffic impact 16 5 Positive: Wider footways 16 5 Not in scope: Unrelated to proposal 15 4 Negative: Oppose: does nothing to reduce traffic 14 4 Negative: Oppose removal of cycle refuge 14 4 Negative: Oppose generally 14 4 Negative: Oppose: Don't widen pavement - not needed 13 4 Comment: Current state: Unsafe for cyclists 13 4 Positive: Support: decluttering / remove street furniture 12 4 Negative: Oppose changes to signalised crossing: St Loys/Brook Street 12 4 Positive: Support: changes to signalised crossing at Bruce Grove 12 4 Concern: Not best use of money 12 4 Suggestion: Alternative Bus stopping 12 4 Positive: Support: General Pedestrian improvements 11 3 Positive: Support: Cycling safety improvements 11 3 Comment: Current State: Enforcement 10 3 Comment: Current state: Motorist behaviour 10 3 Not in scope: Other TfL scheme 10 3 Suggestion: Better cycling connections 10 3 Concern: crossing changes 9 3 Positive: Support: Investment / Regeneration of area 9 3 Suggestion: Reduce traffic 8 2

28

Theme Frequency % of total respondents

Suggestion: Enforcement measures (Motorist) 8 2 Not in scope: TfL Road - not within scheme extents 8 2 Suggestion: Additional Cyclist Safety Measure 8 2 Comment: Concern related to CS1 8 2 Negative: Oppose: Not an improvement for motorists 7 2 Suggestion: Green spaces / planting 7 2 Concern: Crossing time 7 2 Suggestion: Alternative Road layout 7 2 Negative: Oppose: bus stop change: inconvenience/ longer walk to destination 7 2 Positive: Support: Bus stop changes / reduce overcrowding at stops 7 2 Concern: Cycle safety: Lane reduction / pinch point 6 2 Comment: Current State: Bus stop crowding 6 2 Concern: Bus stop changes will inconvenience passengers 6 2 Negative: Oppose: Lane reduction: motorist 5 1 Comment: Current State: No green/ planting 5 1 Suggestion: additional street furniture 5 1 Positive: Support: Imprinted surfaces 5 1 Negative: Oppose: Loading bay changes 5 1 Concern: Disruption during construction 5 1 Concern: Materials 5 1 Suggestion: Bus stop facilities 5 1 Negative: Oppose: Too focussed on motorists 4 1 Comment: Current state: Anti-social behaviour / Personal safety 4 1 Concern: Will reduce safety: Pedestrian 4 1 Suggestion: Diagonal crossing at Bruce Grove 4 1 Support: Changes to signalised crossing: St Loys/Brook Street 4 1 Not in Scope: Suggestion: Highways (borough road) 4 1 Suggestion: More parking spaces 4 1 Concern: Cyclist behaviour 4 1 Concern: Cyclist movement will be more difficult 4 1 Negative: Oppose: Cycle Movement will be more difficult 4 1 Concern: Carriageway width reduction will encourage rat-running 3 1 Suggestion: Add traffic calming measures 3 1

29

Theme Frequency % of total respondents

Comment: Conservation Area 3 1 Concern: Green spaces / Planting 3 1 Suggestion: Measure to prevent ASB 3 1 Suggestion: Remove/relocate street furniture (specific) 3 1 Concern: Imprinted surfacing 3 1 Suggestion: Unsignalised crossing 3 1 Negative: Oppose: Widening in wrong places 3 1 Comment: Current State: Cyclist behaviour 3 1 Concern: Need to avoid water pooling 3 1 Comment: Improvement for Motorists 2 1 Concern: Vehicle Turning 2 1 Suggestion: 20mph speed limit 2 1 Suggestion: Limit or ban HGV traffic on High Road 2 1 Comment: Current state: Litter / Cleanliness 2 1 Suggestion: Improve way-finding 2 1 Suggestion: Alternative crossing location 2 1 Suggestion: Enforcement measures: Retail 2 1 Concern: Disabled parking space 2 1 Concern: Loading bay changes (general) 2 1 Concern: Loading bay changes: cycle safety 2 1 Suggestion: Reduce or remove Loading 2 1 Negative: Oppose: Scheme is to appease cyclists 2 1 Suggestion: Specific Materials 2 1 Concern: Abnormal loads using High Road 1 <1 Concern: Carriageway narrowing will hinder Emergency vehicles 1 <1 Concern: Removal of yellow box junction at St. Loys 1 <1 Negative: Oppose: No improvement for powered two-wheelers 1 <1 Suggestion: Allow right turn High road into Bruce Grove 1 <1 Suggestion: Ban left turn from Bruce Grove to High Road 1 <1 Suggestion: Pick up - drop off point for PHV / Taxi 1 <1 Positive: Support: Reduction to single lane: Improves safety 1 <1 Comment: Current State: Pedestrian Behaviour - negative 1 <1 Negative: Oppose: Changes to signalised crossing: Bruce Grove / High Road 1 <1 Negative: Oppose: imprinted surfacing 1 <1

30

Theme Frequency % of total respondents

Suggestion: Level surface of road/pavement 1 <1 Suggestion: Renew existing surfaces - don't widen 1 <1 Not in scope: Pedestrian improvements (borough road) 1 <1 Not in scope: Suggestion: Enforcement 1 <1 Negative: Oppose: Gentrification 1 <1 Concern: Pavement widening will lead to shared use 1 <1 Suggestion: run a pilot scheme 1 <1 Comment: Bus driver behaviour: negative 1 <1 Comment: Reduce number of buses on High Road 1 <1 Concern: Bus stop changes will cause increased pavement congestion 1 <1

31

Appendix D: Consultation questions Questions about our proposals

1. To what extent to you support or oppose our proposals for improvements to the A10 High Road in Bruce Grove Town Centre?

2. Do you have any comments on the proposals?

Questions about you

3. What is your name? 4. What is your email address? 5. Please provide us with your postcode? 6. Are you (please tick all boxes that apply):

Local resident Business Owner Employed locally Visitor to the area Commuter to the area Not local but interested in the scheme Other (Please specify)

7. If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name: (open field)

8. How did you hear about this consultation? Received an email from TfL Received a letter from TfL Read about in the press Saw it on the TfL website Social media Other (please specify)

9. Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.) (open field)

32

Appendix E: Consultation letter/leaflet

33

34

35

Appendix F: Letter distribution

Fig.1 Phase 1 letter distribution

Fig.2 Phase 2 letter distribution (provided by London Borough of Haringey)

36

Appendix G: Customer Email

37

Appendix H: Email/ letter to stakeholders

38

Appendix I: Bus stop poster Displayed at bus stops on A10 High Road between juctions with Forster Road and St Loys Road.

39

Appendix J: List of stakeholders consulted Elected Members Andrew Boff AM Greater London Assembly Caroline Pidgeon AM Greater London Assembly Caroline Russell AM Greater London Assembly David Kurten AM Greater London Assembly Fiona Twycross AM Greater London Assembly Joanne McCartney AM Greater London Assembly

Kemi Badenoch AM Greater London Assembly Nicky Gavron AM Greater London Assembly

Peter Whittle AM Greater London Assembly Shaun Bailey AM Greater London Assembly Sian Berry AM Greater London Assembly Tom Copley AM Greater London Assembly Catherine West MP Hornsey and Wood Green David Lammy MP Tottenham

Councillor Alan Strickland Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning, Haringey

Councillor Felicia Opoku Bruce Grove Ward, Haringey Councillor Joseph Ejiofor Bruce Grove Ward, Haringey Councillor Lorna Reith Tottenham Hale Ward, Haringey Councillor Peray Ahmet Cabinet Member for Environment, Haringey Councillor Reg Rice Tottenham Hale Ward, Haringey Councillor Stuart McNamara Bruce Grove Ward, Haringey Councillor Vincent Carroll Tottenham Hale Ward, Haringey

Local Authorities London Borough of Haringey

Police & Health Authorities London Ambulance Service London Fire Brigade Metropolitan Police Transport Groups Bus Watch West Haringey Haringey Safer Transport Team London Cycling Campaign London TravelWatch

40

Local Interest Groups Brook Street Chapel Bruce Grove Residents Network Bruce Grove Youth Space Dowsett Estate Residents Association Friends of Down Lane Park Haringey Cycling Campaign Haringey Law Centre Holcombe Market Stall Holders Reformed Bruce Grove Stakeholder Group St Marks Methodist Church The Last Elm Tottenham Civic Society Tottenham Conservation Area Advisory Committee Tottenham Traders Partnership

Other Stakeholders Disability Rights UK RNIB ICE London Royal Mail Department for Transport Edmonton CLP TPH for Heathrow Airport London Omnibus Traction Society

41

Appendix K: Agenda of Stakeholder meeting

42