transport for london - east west cycle superhighway hyde park · 2015-08-04 · 1 east-west cycle...

East East West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation August 2015

East-West Cycle Superhighway

Hyde Park Response to Consultation

August 2015

Contents

Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3

2 The consultation ..................................................................................................... 5

3 Responses to the consultation ................................................................................ 8

4 Summary of stakeholder responses ..................................................................... 18

5 Conclusion and next steps .................................................................................... 27

Appendix A – Summary of responses (individual sections of route) ......................... 28

Appendix B – Annex to response from the Royal Parks ........................................... 52

Appendix C1 – TfL response to issues commonly raised (overall proposals for Hyde Park)

.............................................................................................................................. 54

Appendix C2 – TfL response to issues commonly raised (issues relating to individual

sections of route) .................................................................................................. 59

Appendix D – Consultation letter to residents and businesses ................................. 62

Appendix E – Distribution area for consultation letter ............................................... 68

Appendix F – Email to stakeholder groups ............................................................... 69

Appendix G – List of stakeholder groups .................................................................. 70

Appendix H – Email to Oyster users on the TfL database ........................................ 86

Appendix I – Consultation leaflet ............................................................................... 87

1 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation

Executive summary

Transport for London (TfL) originally consulted on proposals for the East-West Cycle

Superhighway between 3 September 2014 and 9 November 2014. These proposals

included high-level principles and a route alignment in Hyde Park.

Following the September 2014 consultation, the TfL Board agreed that further consultation

would take place on detailed proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde

Park, in collaboration with The Royal Parks. We consulted on these detailed proposals

between 9 February and 29 March 2015.

We received 670 responses to the February 2015 consultation, of which 79% supported or

partially supported our proposals. Comments from respondents included general support for

the proposals, concern about the alignment of the Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park, traffic

congestion as a result of the scheme, and the potential impact on pedestrians and other

park users.

After considering all of the responses to both consultations, we intend to proceed with the

overall scheme along the route alignment consulted on, although with some changes to the

detailed proposals, as summarised below. Subject to agreement with The Royal Parks, we

plan for the first phase of construction work to take place on the section of West Carriage

Drive south of North Carriage Drive to Coalbrookdale Gate. Work could begin in late August

2015, and will be phased to minimise the impact on other road and park users, and to

account for forthcoming events in Hyde Park. We will keep visitors and road users informed

of our plans and progress, including writing to local residents, businesses and other

stakeholders before undertaking work in their area. We will also provide road traffic

information to help people better plan their journeys and make informed choices about how,

where and when they travel.

Changes to proposals set out in consultation documents on West Carriage Drive

Having considered comments received, we are planning some changes to the proposals

set out for consultation, including:

Cyclists will be provided with their own dedicated signal phase to travel southbound

out of the park through the junction of West Carriage Drive and South Carriage

Drive. Cyclists may also choose to use the dedicated shared footway to cross South

Carriage Drive

For events held at the Serpentine Galleries, some deliveries may require the use of

oversized vehicles. To enable this, sections of the segregation between the cycle

track and carriageway have been designed to be overrun by these vehicles. Access

at these times will be arranged and appropriately managed by the delivery or events

company to ensure no conflict arises with pedestrians or cyclists when crossing the

footways and/or overhanging the cycle track

East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 2

Changes to proposals set out in consultation documents on North Carriage Drive and South

Carriage Drive

We will continue to work with The Royal Parks, key stakeholders, businesses and events

organisers to respond to the issues raised during this consultation, and to finalise designs

for North Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive. We will publish our response later this

year.


1 Introduction

We originally consulted on proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway between 3

September 2014 and 9 November 2014. The consultation included initial proposals and

alignment for the section of the Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park. Following the

September 2014 consultation, the TfL Board agreed that further consultation could take

place on detailed designs for the Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park.

Between 9 February and 29 March 2015, we consulted on proposals for a continuous,

largely segregated cycle route in Hyde Park. This document explains the processes of the

2015 consultation, and sets out the responses and outcomes for Hyde Park and our

answers to issues commonly raised.

1.1 Purpose of the scheme The East-West route is proposed to run through Hyde Park as it provides an attractive route

between Hyde Park Corner and Lancaster Gate, with space to physically separate cyclists

from other road users.

Hyde Park already has a number of cycle routes which are very popular including the

Broadwalk, Serpentine Road and Rotten Row; however they are shared with a large

number of pedestrians and are subject to disruption during the many events within the park.

To provide a high quality, dedicated facility for cyclists the East-West Cycle Superhighway

would follow South Carriage Drive and West Carriage Drive between Hyde Park Corner and

Lancaster Gate, providing a two-way fully separated track for cycles. This would also

connect with proposed Quietway routes to Kensington and Exhibition Road.

1.2 Description of the proposals Some of the key proposals for Hyde Park put out for consultation in February 2015

included:

Segregated two way cycle tracks would be provided on South Carriage Drive and

West Carriage Drive

Dedicated cycle track would be provided along North Carriage Drive to assist cyclists

travelling to and from Speakers’ Corner

North Carriage Drive would be made one way eastbound to vehicles (except cycles)

to enable a simplified T- junction at West Carriage Drive and North Carriage Drive

(Victoria Gate). This would also enable part of the existing highway to be turned into

up to 600 metres2 of additional park land

Junction improvements at the entrances to the park from Hyde Park Corner

Appropriate lighting, paving, planting and other improvements to enhance the

enjoyment of the park for cyclists and other park users

High-quality materials to enhance the look of the park environment and reflect their

importance and heritage


1.3 Overview map of proposed scheme


2 The consultation

2.1. Consultation structure and duration

Duration

The consultation on the East-West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park ran from 9 February

2015 to 29 March 2015.

Consultation structure

Information on the consultation, including details of the proposals consulted on, was

available online at tfl.gov.uk/east-west-consult from 9 February 2015. The proposals

were broken down into 6 sections:

Section A: North Carriage Drive

Section B: North Carriage Drive and West Carriage Drive

Section C: West Carriage Drive

Section D: West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive

Section E: South Carriage Drive

Section F: South Carriage Drive, Broad Walk and Serpentine Road

For each section and the overall scheme, respondents were asked about their level of

support for the proposals (‘support’, ‘partially support’, ‘don’t support’, ‘not sure’, ‘no

opinion’). Respondents were also given an opportunity to provide comments on each

section of the proposal and the overall scheme.

Respondents were also asked to submit their name, email address and postcode, along

with information about their cycling and other travel habits. All questions were optional,

apart from the question asking for overall views on the proposal. 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.

2.2 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

The consultation information was publicised via the following channels:

A letter and consultation drawing was sent to over 97,700 addresses in postcode sectors

beginning within a 0.5 mile radius of the route through Hyde Park, the Green Park and St

James’s Park. The letter directed people to the consultation website and invited them to

respond. The consultation letter and map of the distribution area are included in Appendix D

and Appendix E


Emails to stakeholders: We emailed around 700 different stakeholder organisations to let

them know about the consultation. Please see Appendix F for the email and Appendix G for

the list of recipients. The email contained a brief summary of the proposals and a link to the

consultation website.

Emails to individuals: We emailed over 45,000 people on the TfL database who are

known to cycle, drive or use public transport in the area (see the email in Appendix H). The

email briefly described the proposed scheme, and invited recipients to find out more and

respond via the consultation website.

Leaflet distribution to members of public: Staff distributed leaflets to members of the

public to coincide with some of the public events. Please see Appendix I for the leaflet

Consultation website

On 9 February 2015, detailed information on the proposals was published on TfL’s website

at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/8e23d698. The consultation information

included explanatory text and detailed design drawings of the scheme area.

Non-web formats

Printed leaflets, plans, accompanying descriptions and response forms were available on

request by telephone, email or writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS. The printed

material was also available at the seven public events held during the consultation period.

Public events: We held seven public events at which people could discuss the proposals

for Hyde Park with members of the project team and view printed material:

Hyde Park, at the junction of West Carriage Drive and North Carriage Drive*

Wednesday 18 February, 0730-1000

*The location of this event was changed to the junction of West Carriage Drive and

Rotten Row in order to accommodate the HGV transporting the marquee. However,

due to an error, the information was not updated. We apologise for any

inconvenience this may have caused.

Lancaster London Hotel, Lancaster Terrace, London W2 2TY

Monday 23 February, 1600-2000

Apsley Gate, Hyde Park, near Hyde Park Corner Underground station

Tuesday 3 March, 1100-1400

St. James’s Church, Sussex Gardens, W2 3UD

Sunday 8 March, 1200-1500

Wellington Arch, Hyde Park corner roundabout, W1J 7JZ


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/8e23d698


Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1 Birdcage Walk, SW1H 9JJ


Lancaster London Hotel, Lancaster Terrace, W2 2TY

Thursday 26 March, 1600-2000

Stakeholder meetings have been ongoing since October 2013. These were used to inform

our understanding of the differing requirements of different user groups, before producing

drawings for consultation. Attendees of these meetings included:

Cyclists’ Touring Club

English Heritage

Friends of Hyde Park and

Kensington Gardens

Household Cavalry

Mounted Regiment

Hyde Park Stables

King’s Troop

Limelight

Living Streets

London Cycling Campaign

London Marathon

Metropolitan Police

Ministry of Defence

No.10

PRACT (Paddington Residents' Active

Concern on Transport)

Ride London

Ross Nye Stables

Royal Mews

Serpentine Gallery

Sustrans

The Royal Parks

The Royal Parks Foundation (organisers

of the Royal Parks Half Marathon)

Westminster City Council

Winter Wonderland


3 Responses to the consultation

3.1. Overview of overall support

TfL received a total of 658

direct responses to the East-

West Cycle Superhighway

consultation. The majority of

these supported the overall

proposals, with 446 (68%)

supporting and 76 (12%)

partially supporting the scheme.

121 (18%) of respondents did

not support the proposed

scheme and 15 (3%) were not

sure or had no opinion.

The responses included submissions from members of the public, stakeholder groups and

individual businesses and employers, representing a broad range of interests. A summary

of stakeholder comments is available in Chapter 4 of this report.

3.2 About the respondents

Responses by postcode

The majority of consultation

respondents were located within

Greater London. The most popular

postcode districts as shown in Figure

3.3 comprised 38% of respondent

postcodes, with the remaining 62%

located in other parts of London and the

UK. Postcodes with high proportions of

respondents tended to be those located

along or very near to the proposed

route.

Figure 3: most popular postcode districts

16.1%

2.9%

2.4%

1.8%

1.8%

1.6%

1.6%

1.5%

1.5%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

W2

SW1P

W8

SE1

W11

NW1

W14

E1W

W9

E1W

N1

SE11

W1H

W4


Stated cycling habits

Of respondents who provided information

on their cycling habits, 55% (353) said they

cycled most days. A further 14% (93) said

they cycled weekly, and around 16% (101)

less frequently. 15% (98) of respondents

reported that they never cycle.

Respondents who cycle most days were

very likely to fully or partially support the

overall proposals, with 79% (280) fully and

14% (48) partially supporting the scheme. Among respondents who cycle less frequently,

support for the scheme was still fairly strong, with 81% (157) fully or partially in support.

Respondents who never cycle were largely opposed to the scheme. 63% (62) of this group

did not support the proposals.

Figure 3.5 Cycle most days and...

Figure 5

Occasionally cycle and... Figure 3.7 Never cycle and...

Fully or partially support Don’t support Not sure/no opinion/not answered

Figure 4 On average, how often do you cycle?

Most days 353 (55%)

About once a week 93 (14%)

About 1–3 times a month 52 (8%)

Less often 49 (8%)

Never 98 (15%)

Total answered (of 671) 645 (96%)

Not answered (of 671) 26 (4%)


3.3 How respondents heard about consultation

Well over half of respondents heard about the consultation by email (65%, 417). This was

followed by “Other (please state)” (10%, 66). This category was comprised of a wide variety

of sources such as word of mouth, cycling organisations and the TfL website. A leaflet

posted through the door was next most popular (7%, 47), followed by Twitter (7%, 43).

3.4 Comments on the consultation process and materials

270 respondents answered the question asking for any comments on the consultation

process (for example, printed materials, website, events, etc). 150 (56%) of these

respondents left comments such as “no”, “no comment”, “N/A” or were unrelated to the

question. The main themes arising from the remainder of comments included:

General praise for the material and website/leaflet content and design of consultation

(65 respondents, 24%). Respondents included Millicent Court Management Limited

and Spiramus Press Ltd

Feedback that certain parts of the consultation were unclear, in particular the details

of some maps and images (18 respondents, 7%). Respondents included Sustrans

Suggestions that the consultation should have been better publicised (11

respondents, 4%)

Suggestions that additional information should have been provided, such as greater

impact on journey times, impact on local residents, and visualisations (9

respondents, 3%). Respondents included London Chamber of Commerce and

Industry

Questioning if the consultation responses would be taken into account or expressing

concern that the decision to construct the East-West route has already been made

regardless of the consultation outcome (9 respondents, 3%)

Feedback that the consultation was too time-consuming or had a poor structure and

design which made it difficult to complete (6 respondents, 2%)

Figure 6 How respondents heard about consultation

65%

10%

7%

7%

4%

3%

1%

1%

1%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Email

Other (please state)

Leaflet through the door

Twitter

Online advert

Leaflet from a TfL representative

Letter

Public Exhibition

Google (text) advert

Mobile message (MMS)


3.5 Comments on the overall proposals for the East-West

Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park

This is a summary of responses received to the overall proposals for the East-West Cycle

Superhighway in Hyde Park. Please see Appendix A for a detailed summary of responses

for individual sections of route.

Of 658 respondents to this question, 215 (33%) provided comments. As some respondents

provided more the one comment in their response, the totals below are greater than 215.

The percentages provided against each comment are a percentage of 658.

Routing

42 respondents (6%) made one or more comments about route alignment.

20 respondents (3%), including The Confederation of Passenger Transport, said that

the proposed route is not convenient enough and that a shorter route through the

park is available

19 respondents (3%), including Westminster Cycling Campaign, Tower Hamlets

Wheelers and the London Cycling Campaign, suggested a route along Serpentine

Road

6 respondents (1%) suggested a route in Kensington Gardens

4 respondents (1%) suggested a route along Broad Walk

8 respondents (1%) made a comment about an alternative route.

6 respondents (1%) suggested a route in the Park Lane area

2 respondents (<1%) suggested a route between Lancaster Gate and Bayswater

areas

Traffic / congestion

28 respondents (4%) made one or more comments about existing traffic conditions or the

impact of the proposals on them if proposals are introduced

25 respondents (4%) made a negative comment about the impact of the proposals

on traffic congestion and delays. Six of these are the following stakeholders; Millicent

Court Management Limited, Dial-a-Cab, SEBRA (South East Bayswater Residents’


Association), London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, William Sturges LLP and

Westminster Council - Marylebone High Street Ward.

7 respondents (1%) made a negative comment about existing traffic congestion

including the following stakeholders: SEBRA (South East Bayswater Residents’

Association), William Sturges LLP and Westminster Council - Marylebone High

Street Ward

4 respondents (1%) cited opposition to the closure of North Carriage Drive to

westbound motor traffic

4 respondents (1%) expressed concern about the impact on emissions / pollution

due to increase journey times / congestion

Cycling provision

27 respondents (4%) made one or more comments about provision for cyclists.

12 respondents (2%) made a comment about junctions or crossings that allow entry

to or exit from the park. 4 respondents (1%) made a comment about junctions or

crossings that allow movement inside the park

6 respondents (1%) expressed concern about cycle lane width. Four of these (1%),

including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain stated that the combined width of the two

lanes should be at least 4 metres

3 respondents (<1%), including The Royal Parks, expressed concern about provision

for cyclists on North Carriage Drive

3 respondents (<1%) expressed support for the proposals due to increased

convenience

2 respondents (<1%) criticised current cycling provision in the park

2 respondents (<1%) made a comment about the colour of the cycle track. One

respondent (<1%) suggested it should be blue, while the other respondent ,The

Royal Parks, suggested it should not be blue

2 respondents (<1%) asked for better cycle hire / parking facilities

Safety

27 respondents (4%) made a comment about segregation or areas shared between cyclists

and pedestrians.

11 respondents (2%) welcomed segregation, of these, three were the following

stakeholders; Redwing Coaches, London United Busways and Cycling Embassy of

Great Britain

8 respondents (1%) expressed concern about shared areas where cyclists and

pedestrians could clash

7 respondents (1%), including Spiramus Press Ltd, Tower Hamlets Wheelers and

London Cycling Campaign, would like segregation where it doesn’t exist under the

proposals, or better segregation

1 respondent (<1%) suggested that cyclist and pedestrians could share pavements

at narrow junctions


20 respondents (3%) made a comment about cyclist safety.

13 respondents (2%), including Redwing Coaches, stated that the proposals would

make it safer for cyclists

7 respondents (1%), including the London Cycling Campaign, Tower Hamlets

Wheelers and The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, stated that the

proposals do not make it safe enough for cyclists

12 respondents (2%) made one or more comments about pedestrian safety.

9 respondents (1%), including Millicent Court Management Limited, Tower Hamlets

Wheelers, London Cycling Campaign and The Royal Parks stated that the proposals

are not safe enough for pedestrians. Most of these cited potential clashes with cycles

due to increased cycle congestion in certain areas of the park

3 respondents (<1%) cited examples of poor current safety for pedestrians, including

an incident on Broad Walk, and several on South Carriage Drive / end of Serpentine

Road at the south east corner of the park.

1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for pedestrians

The Royal Parks stated that impact on pedestrians needs to measured and a risk

assessment undertaken

10 respondents (2%) expressed another concern.

9 respondents (1%) expressed a concern about pedestrians or cyclists entering each

other’s allocated space

1 respondent, The Royal Parks (<1%), expressed a concern about bicycle

congestion at pinch points such as at the Decimus Burton Screen.

Cycle policy

25 respondents (4%) made one or more comments about the status of roads and paths in

the park.

10 respondents (2%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, stated that motor

traffic should be banned from some or all of the main roads inside the park

7 respondents (1%), including the London Cycling Campaign and Tower Hamlets

Wheelers, asked for existing cycling routes to be retained

5 respondents (1%) made a suggestion about traffic speed and control. Four

respondents (1%), including Campaign to Protect Rural England – London,

suggested that traffic speed limits should be made lower, while one respondent

(<1%) suggested that speed bumps should be removed

2 respondents (<1%) stated that cycle routes should be well away from motor traffic

routes

2 respondents (<1%) suggested that when the Cycle Superhighway has been

established, cyclists should be banned from using other routes in the park

1 respondent (<1%) stated that all paths in the park should be available for cyclists to

use

1 respondent (<1%) stated that single lane one way motor traffic should be the only

way that traffic should be allowed to continue through the park


18 respondents (3%) made one or more comments about current behaviour and how to

improve it.

13 respondents (2%), including William Sturges LLP, asked for some form of cyclist

behaviour enforcement or education

9 respondents (1%), including William Sturges LLP, stated that cyclist behaviour is

poor currently

1 respondent (<1%) asked for some form of motorist education

18 respondents (3%) made a comment about financial matters

8 respondents (1%) made a negative comment the direct financial cost of creating

the Cycle Superhighway

3 respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects on the local or wider economy

7 respondents (1%) stated that sufficient cycling facilities already exist in Hyde Park

and that further improvements are unnecessary

19 respondents (3%) made one or more comments.

8 respondents (1%) would like to see improved signage and signalling in the park.

Two (<1%) of these, Campaign to Protect Rural England – London and The Royal

Parks, stated that they would like the look and feel of any signage to reflect the

heritage of the park.

5 respondents (1%) made a criticism of Royal Parks policy. Most of the comments

made were around The Royal Parks not offering enough provision for cyclists

2 respondents (<1%) stated that parks are for rest and recreation and not for cyclist

short-cuts

2 respondents (<1%) expressed support for the proposals as they will cut pollution /

emissions

1 respondent (<1%) stated that improving roads in general should take priority

1 respondent (<1%) commented that there should first be a process of learning from

other cycling nations

1 respondent (<1%) stated that the park will be better from an aesthetic point of view

with foreign visitors in mind

Support/positive comments

20 respondents (3%) offered positive comments.

15 respondents (2%), including Westminster Cycling Campaign, also stated general

support for the Hyde Park section of the Cycle Superhighway, while five respondents

(1%), including the University of London, stated general support for the East-West

Cycle Superhighway overall. Specific proposal-related reasons weren’t given

Operational issues

19 respondents (3%) made one or more comments about how the cycle route would

operate at night and during park closure.

8 respondents (1%) expressed concern about what route would be taken by cyclists

when the park is closed


5 respondents (1%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and The Royal

Parks expressed concern about alternative arrangements when there is a large

event in the park requiring the route to be suspended

5 respondents (1%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, stated that they

think the park should be open 24 hours

3 respondents (<1%) asked if there will be lighting to assist cyclists when it’s dark

Cycle-focused scheme

19 respondents (3%) made a comment about the focus given to cyclists relative to other

road and park users.

11 respondents (2%), including William Sturges LLP, Millicent Court Management

Limited, and Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, stated that there was

too much focus on cyclists and not enough consideration given to other users. Seven

of these (1%), specifically cited the Hyde Park proposals here

3 respondents (1%) expressed support for the planned allocation of space. Two of

these (<1%) supported reallocating space from motor vehicles to bicycles, while one

said that the proposals balance the needs of all park users

2 respondents (<1%) made a comment about mobility-impaired park users. One of

them (<1%) stated that the proposals appear to restrict the ability to drop off mobility-

impaired passengers who either require the use of a wheelchair or are unable to

walk very far. The other (<1%) stated that most cyclists travel to and from work, they

do not cycle during the day, and as a disabled driver they cannot cycle, so the

proposals discriminate against disabled drivers who drive during the day

1 respondent (<1%) stated that there should be less space for motor vehicles and

more space for people

1 respondent (<1%) asked for cycle space not to be taken out of pedestrian space

1 respondent (<1%) asked that cyclists should not have to dismount at crossings

Oppose/negative comments

7 respondents (1%) offered negative comments.

4 respondents (1%) stated general opposition towards the East-West Cycle

Superhighway, while a further 3 respondents (<1%) stated general opposition to the

Hyde Park section. Specific proposal-related reasons weren’t given

Provision for others

6 respondents (1%) made a comment about provision for groups other than cyclists.

2 respondents (<1%) stated that horse tracks should be retained. One of these

(<1%) added that they should be kept separate from bicycles

1 respondent, The Royal Parks (<1%), stated that the proposals must consider the

shared use of the park with non-cyclist groups such as pedestrians, horse riders and

wildlife

1 respondent (<1%) asked that parking spaces and other facilities be kept to help

families visiting at weekends


1 respondent (<1%) commented that the needs of people using powered

wheelchairs / mobility scooters have not been adequately addressed. They asked

why they can’t use cycle lanes

1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the main east-west pedestrian route between

Serpentine Road and South Carriage Drive would be improved if some of the horse

track was given over to pedestrians

Comments unrelated to the East-West Cycle Superhighway scheme in Hyde Park

8 respondents (1%), made such a comment.

3.6 Comments on individual sections of route

A detailed summary of comments relating to individual sections of route is available in

Appendix A. Some of the main issues raised were:


Traffic/congestion (26 respondents)

Design comments to improve the proposed cycling provision (20)

Other road and paths within the park (16)

Operational issues about how the scheme would operate when events were staged

in the park, or when the park was closed (14)

Suggestions for alternative routes (13)

The sufficiency of existing cycling facilities in Hyde Park (11)

Provision for other park user groups (5)



Traffic/congestion (19)

The segregation of the East-West Cycle Superhighway (18)


Cyclists safety, particularly regarding a left hook into North Carriage Drive (15)

Cyclist behaviour and enforcement (11)


The scheme focuses too much on cyclists (10)



Traffic/Congestion (19)

Comments on the segregation of the East-West Cycle Superhighway (15)



The scheme focuses too much on cyclists relative to other groups (12)


Cyclist behaviour and enforcement (10)

Pedestrian safety (10)



The segregation of the East-West Cycle Superhighway (19)




Comments on pedestrian safety (9)

Economic impact (9)





Other roads and paths within the park (11)


Provision for other park user groups (9)

Economic impact (8)

Section F: South Carriage Drive and the junction with Broad Walk and Serpentine

Road


Comments on the segregation of the East-West Cycle Superhighway (39)



Other roads and paths within the park (8)

Economic impact (8)

The scheme focuses too much on cyclists relative to other groups (8)


These themes are explained in greater depth along with a comprehensive analysis of other

comments received in Appendix A.


4 Summary of stakeholder responses

The stakeholder comments have been counted along with the public responses in the

previous section. We draw particular attention to the comments here, as the questions and

issues raised may be of interest to other consultees. Some stakeholders also expressed a

view on the proposals for the Green Park and St James’s Park. These comments will be

published in a separate report

The Royal Parks

The Royal Parks submitted a written response to the proposals. It said its comments were

made in the context of a wider obligation to maintain the public space for the benefit of all

park users:

The Royal Parks supports in principle a route entering at Victoria Gate, continuing

along West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive and exiting at Hyde Park

Corner

The Royal Parks reserve the right to reconfigure some existing cycle routes, such as

Mount Walk and Rotten Row, in the event that the introduction of a cycle

superhighway has a detrimental affect on these routes

The parks are not open 24 hours a day. Support in principle is on the understanding

that this is not expected to change. TfL should provide signed alternative routes


Park events may require that sections of the superhighway are temporarily closed.

Alternative routes would need to be signposted by TfL

Further studies and a safety audit will be required before the Royal Parks can

approve the scheme

A number of other points were provided in ‘Annex A’ to the letter. These points are included

in Appendix B to this report.

AEG

Partially supports

AEG is the producer of the British Summertime Concert Series in Hyde Park, which takes

place annually through June and July on the parade ground in Hyde Park. During the event

the organisers occupy North Carriage Drive, closing the road and moving the cycle path to

the north side of the road.

AEG is concerned the frequent closure of a cycle path on the south side of North Carriage

Drive would confuse cyclists and suggests the path should be built on the north side of the

road. It is also concerned that works near Apsley Arch, Hyde Park Corner and Wellington

Arch and on South Carriage Drive could impact on its event.


The British Horse Society

Opposes the proposal due to concerns with the diversion of Rotten Row near the West

Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive intersection. The Society raised two issues:

The diversion of Rotten Row past the sports pitches, where there will be activity and

sudden movement of balls and players, is likely to cause horses to spook and

become frightened. They may bolt as a result

The proposed route of the new horse track contains a right-angled turn which could

also be dangerous, as horses need to change direction through a gentler angle. A

horse that has bolted is unlikely to make this sharp turn and will most likely run

straight on

Campaign to Protect Rural England

Partially supports the route through Hyde Park, but raised the following issues:

Too much signage clutter

Park should become a 20mph zone and a restricted parking zone

Carriageways should feel like ‘park lanes’, not ‘suburban roads’

Yellow lines and centre lines should be removed, parking spaces should be

sensitively marked and a more natural colour used for the cycle track

Confederation of Passenger Transport UK (CPT)

Opposes the proposed route in Hyde Park. It requested more appropriate points of entry

and exit to Hyde Park, along Bayswater Road, and suggested a greater proportion of the

Cycle Superhighway should be retained within the park.

General concerns with the East-West Cycle Superhighway include the need for any

alternative coach parking facilities to be in place before existing parking is removed and the

adverse impact increased journey times will have on both commuter coaches and services

for tourists and visitors.

Crown Equerry

Opposes the route through Hyde Park. Opposes diverting the horse ride along the eastern

edge of the tennis courts by Rotten Row: This would:

Impact on safety should horses ‘bolt’ and then fail to make the new 90° turn

Be detrimental to cavalry training

Diminish the historical values of that section of the horse ride

Cycling Embassy of Great Britain

Partially supports the proposal noting:

Routes should be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week

Well-signed alternatives needed for any special event closures

Bi-directional tracks should be at least 4m wide along the whole route

Proposed route from Marble Arch onto North Carriage Drive looks untidy – cycling

route should be clear, obvious and separated from footways

Crossing into Lancaster Gate should not be shared with pedestrians


Supports the bypass/route between West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive,

but the West/South Carriage Drive junction is not adequate. The segregated route on

West Carriage Drive should extend to the Exhibition Road junction

Would prefer clear, separate crossing routes for walking and cycling at Apsley Gate

– suggests a zebra crossing with parallel priority cycle crossing

Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens

Offered partial support for the proposed route through Hyde Park, and had the following

concerns and comments:

In-principle support for the proposal, with concerns about overspill of cyclists into

non-cycling areas of the park

Noted areas of the park have been reallocated for the use of cyclists only

Possible over-use of the junction at the east end of North Carriage Drive

How will North Carriage Drive work during events

Safety of pedestrians crossing West Carriage Drive needs to be ensured

Concerned at possible overspill from West Carriage Drive into Rotten Row

Safety of pedestrians crossing the cycle track to go to the Sports Pavilion at the West

Carriage/South Carriage Drive junction has to be ensured

The South Carriage Drive/Broad Walk/Serpentine Road intersection is an entry point

to the park for a great many tourists. Concerned at possible conflict between cyclists

and pedestrians.

Very high footfall in this area during major events

This intersection is also the entrance and exit route for utility vehicles

Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment (HCMR)

Opposes due to some specific concerns with aspects of the proposal:

Does not see why the horse track at the corner of West Carriage Drive and South

Carriage Drive needs to be shortened

Shortened horse track would not allow for a ‘run off’ area at the western end of

Rotten Row, which is necessary in case a horse bolts

It would also restrict the ability of the HCMR to carry out State Ceremonial Drills

Any additional horse track must be wide enough for four horses to ride abreast

(minimum of 4m)

Concerned at the operation, in practice, of the horse crossing on South Carriage

Drive opposite Hyde Park Barracks. HCMR has no authority to stop traffic

Concerned at what would happen if a rider were unseated and a horse attempted to

cross the Cycle Superhighway

Any reduction in the width of South Carriage Drive would impact on practice for

Garter Ceremony Drills

Reduction in width of South Carriage Way and no parking restrictions could impact

on traffic flow when the Queen’s Life Guards deploy for duty at Horseguards. There

is currently enough room for the traffic to pass by on either side


London Cab Ranks Committee

Opposes, stressing the importance of east-west movement on North Carriage Drive for

taxis. The Committee also noted a taxi rank for the 2014 Winter Wonderland was located on

the site of the proposed cycle route.

London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI)

Does not support or oppose the proposal, although the LCCI opposes the scheme overall:

Its concerns with the original consultation remain – the process was rushed, there

was insufficient time to consider the environmental impact assessment and a full

economic impact assessment was not provided

TfL’s response to consultation does not adequately address concerns raised by

respondents, including increased journey times and impact on freight servicing and

deliveries

Estimated journey time increases along the whole route are still too high and would

impose an unacceptable burden on businesses

LCCI is concerned that North Carriage Drive would become one way eastbound,

displacing 89 vehicles each hour in the morning and evening peak. It is unable to

support or oppose the proposal for Hyde Park with no indication of the impact of this

displaced traffic

London Cycling Campaign (LCC)

Partially supports the scheme in Hyde Park but raised the following concerns with aspects

of the scheme:

As many route options as possible should be available for cyclists, especially as

there will be regular disruption by events and ceremonies

Concern at the failure to design for increased cycling on Serpentine Road. As a

result, there is likely to be increased congestion and risk to park users in the

Coalbrookdale Gate and Broad Walk/Speakers Corner areas

The width of the cycle track should not be reduced below four metres in any location

Cyclists southbound from Bayswater Road into West Carriage Drive must be

protected from left-turning traffic by the signal timing

North Carriage Drive corner should be built out to slow drivers

Northbound cyclists at Victoria Gate will share an unsignalised toucan with

pedestrians, leading to conflict. A zebra/toucan parallel crossing is preferred

Design should ensure traffic emerging from Serpentine Road and other access roads

does not block the cycle track

More space and separate phasing is needed for large volumes of cyclists to get

across from the Coalbrookdale Gate to South Carriage Drive

A left-hook risk for southbound cyclists still exists at Coalbrookdale Gate junction and

no consideration has been given to safe access to and from Exhibition Road

Albert Gate crossing on South Carriage Drive should be a zebra/toucan parallel

crossing to avoid conflict

The shared use pinch point leading out of the park and through to Hyde Park Corner

may cause conflict


Connectivity at Hyde Park Corner to Quietway routes and the Central London Grid is

vital and should be delivered at the same time as the East-West Cycle Superhighway

The link to Park Lane should be wider than 1.5 metres

A zebra/toucan parallel crossing should be provided over South Carriage Drive at

Hyde Park Corner

London Fire Brigade (LFB)

Partially support the proposal, noting that it supports the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling and

recognises the benefits the proposed changes will bring to London. The LFB encourages its

staff to choose more sustainable forms of transport, including cycling. The LFB requested:

Access to the high-level traffic modelling to assess the cumulative impact of TfL’s

plans on resource deployment

Detailed traffic modelling – covering both construction and the finished scheme -

relating to the scheme’s impact along with any associated mitigation

A detailed programme of works for construction and TfL’s mitigation arrangements

Traffic management orders, or other regulatory measures, do not impede on the

brigade’s core service delivery functions

Education and enforcement to ensure appropriate emergency service access and

egress is maintained to all sites and properties affected by the scheme, at all stages

London United Busways

Supports, adding there should be no conflict between cyclists and other traffic.

LRW Design: Supports the proposal with no comments.

Millicent Court Management Limited

Opposes the proposed scheme in Hyde Park, saying it would adversely affect traffic flow

and have a deleterious effect upon business and central London. It expressed the following

specific concerns:

Cycle track encourages cyclist to travel at high speeds

Proposal does not reflect the Highway Code or the take into account the safety of

pedestrians, who face an increased risk of injury

Proposal reflects the needs of the cycling fraternity only

Cyclists will not keep to the cycle track but will take short-cuts

Low traffic volumes stated for the left turn from Marble Arch into North Carriage Drive

are not reliable

Councillor Daniel Moylan, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Partially supports the proposal but is concerned the existing shared cycling/pedestrian path

that runs between the Serpentine Bridge and Victoria Gate is to be lost. Said the

segregated cycle lane on West Carriage Drive will meet the needs of commuting cyclists,

but not the visual and recreational amenity needed by leisure cyclists. The Councillor is

concerned this sets a precedent which could be used to remove other existing cycle paths,


such as the one adjacent to the Rotten Row or the shared cycling/pedestrian facility over

Policeman’s Path. He asked that:

Existing vehicular capacity on West Carriage Drive, including at the Alexandra Gate

and Victoria Gate junctions, be maintained

The existing shared pedestrian/cycle path between Serpentine Bridge and Victoria

Gate be retained

Paddington Residents' Active Concern on Transport (PRACT)

Partially supports the proposal and offers in-principle support to the East-West Cycle

Superhighway. It supports the views of the Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens

and stressed the following:

Concerned that some cyclists will take shorter routes between Victoria Gate and

Hyde Park Corner, using existing cycling routes not intended for high volumes

Requests a redesign of the road layout at the West Carriage Drive/South Carriage

Drive junction

Kerb build-out on West Carriage Drive should be removed. Left-turning traffic and

traffic going straight ahead into Exhibition Road are combined into a single lane

leading to long queues

Capacity at this junction should be maintained in case traffic reduction targets are not

achieved. The group is sceptical about these targets

Redwing Coaches

Supports the proposal. Said more use should be made of the park and the safety of cyclists

in the park should be maximised. The company suggested that North Carriage Drive should

be the main route for cyclists instead of Bayswater Road.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)

Opposes the proposal, pending further detail on the impact on traffic flow in Kensington and

Chelsea. It said:

Additional information is needed on revised signal timings, expected traffic queue

lengths and the likely extent of any rat-running

Information is needed, in particular, on queuing and journey times along Kensington

Road

Notes TfL plans to re-run ONE traffic model, in June, to quantify impacts of the

queue-balancing strategy

Welcomes advice from TfL that journey times along West Carriage Drive and South

Carriage Drive in Hyde Park are forecast to reduce, largely as a result of less traffic

entering the park

Notes that traffic entering Hyde Park from Exhibition Road will have as much green

time as it does today

RBKC made no comment on any other section, pending the information requested


Royal Parks Foundation

Partially supports the proposal. The Foundation runs the Royal Parks Foundation Half

Marathon, with around half the race taking place within Hyde Park. It requests that works in

Hyde Park not commence before this year’s event on 12 October 2015, noting that the

route had already been significantly altered to accommodate Cycle Superhighway works

outside the park.

The Foundation had the following comments on specific sections:

The current width of North Carriage Drive should be maintained, with no segregation,

so runners can use the full width of the existing roadway

The Half Marathon route has runners northbound on West Carriage Drive and then

turning east onto North Carriage Drive. Current plans for the junction would make

this impossible and an unobstructed turn, at least 4.5m wide, needs to be provided

A minimum 4.5m width is also needed to allow runners westbound on North Carriage

Drive to cross into Kensington Gardens through the gate by Victoria Gate Lodge

At least one (preferably two) drop-kerbs are needed at locations west of the planned

pedestrian crossing, ideally 5m in width, leading up to Victoria Gate Lodge

The section of West Carriage Drive immediately west of the Triangle Car Park has

runners two-way and they need to be routed south along West Carriage Drive from

the Policeman’s Path and back into the Triangle Car Park

The proposed horse track east of the tennis courts, near the West Carriage Drive

and South Carriage Drive intersection, should avoid encroaching on the event’s

festival village. The event’s production area begins on the line of the existing path

The Foundation opposes the proposal for sections on South Carriage Drive and in

the South Carriage Drive, Broad Walk, Serpentine Road area where a 5m wide

gantry is needed for the start and finish. There should be no segregation between

the carriageways and the horse track so runners can use the full width of the road

Councillor Karen Scarborough, Westminster City Council

Partially supports the proposed route through Hyde Park and notes that she agrees with

comments made by the Paddington Residents' Active Concern on Transport and South

East Bayswater Residents’ Association in relation to traffic in the park.

Serpentine Gallery

Partially supports the proposal, although it specifically opposes the section on West

Carriage Drive, saying it would impact on its business. The reduction in width of this road

would prevent 40ft vehicles driving onto the Gallery’s access road. Vehicles of this size are

required for climatically controlled art works and to deliver the large components of the

Pavilion.

South East Bayswater Residents’ Association (SEBRA)

Partially supports the proposal and agrees with the response from Paddington Residents'

Active Concern on Transport. It noted that traffic queues on West Carriage Drive are

already intolerable on many days.


Sustrans

Partially supports the proposal and provided the following comments and suggestions:

Cycle track on North Carriage Drive should be at least 4m wide

Tighten the turn radius for southbound traffic entering North Carriage Drive

Layout of the North Carriage Drive/West Carriage Drive junction should be re-

examined

Raised cyclist/pedestrian crossing at North Carriage Drive/West Carriage Drive

should be a parallel zebra crossing, or give-way markings should be added

Design for West Carriage Drive should ensure the cycle track is not blocked by

vehicles emerging from Serpentine Road and other access roads

Informal pedestrian crossing point on the cycle track bypass at the West Carriage

Drive/South Carriage Drive junction should be raised to slow cycles

Northbound cycle lane on West Carriage Drive, at Coalbrookdale Gate, should be

wider and long enough to allow cyclists to bypass queues

West Carriage Drive/South Carriage Drive still poses a left-hook risk for southbound

cyclists

Footway reduction along South Carriage Drive should be avoided

Traffic volumes and speeds need to be reduced on access roads

A shared zebra crossing is appropriate for South Carriage Drive near Serpentine

Road

An informal raised crossing should be considered at the cycle hire station on South

Carriage Drive

Design should be reviewed against the risk of pedestrians mistaking the cycle track

for the footway after using the new toucan crossing

Concerned at the shared use pinch-point at Hyde park Corner

Tower Hamlets Wheelers

Partially supports the scheme for Hyde Park, noting its supports for the London Cycling

Campaign submission.

University of London

Supports the proposed route through Hyde Park. It’s supportive of improvements to cycle

infrastructure, as many of staff and students cycle.

Westminster City Council

Westminster City Council neither opposes nor supports the proposals but expressed comments

and concerns about the proposals, including:

The operation of the pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities at the junction of West

Carriage Drive and North Carriage Drive with the potential for traffic queuing back

onto Bayswater Road

The operation of the junction of West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive, with

the potential for traffic queuing back on West Carriage Drive, and also affecting

Kensington Gore.

Cyclists travelling southbound cyclists on West Carriage Drive at this junction could

be better protected against the risk of left-turn hook accident


If the shared pedestrian and cyclist crossings are retained at this junction, the lack of

coherent links between the proposed cycle tracks, shared footway areas and points

where cyclists are expected to leave/ join the carriageway should be addressed

Westminster Cycling Campaign

Supports the proposal for Hyde Park, but listed the following concerns:

Many cyclists are likely to choose the more direct route on Serpentine Road when

travelling between Victoria Gate and Hyde Park Corner

Will the cycle track remain open when the North Carriage Drive is occupied by

vehicles servicing an event in Hyde Park

Is there a risk of conflict between southbound cyclists heading towards West

Carriage Drive and other vehicles turning left into North Carriage Drive

Is there enough capacity for cyclists proceeding from Coalbrookdale or Alexandra

Gate into South Carriage Drive?

There is some confusion whether pedestrians and cyclists crossing at Albert Gate

should keep to the right or left sides. This needs to be resolved

Wheels for Wellbeing

Offers partial support for the proposed route through Hyde Park, raising some questions

and issues:

What provision is there for visually impaired people to cross North Carriage Drive

safely

What protection is there for (slow) southbound cyclists from Victoria Gate crossing

the entrance to North Carriage Drive

Cyclists need protection from left hooks at the North Carriage Drive and West

Carriage Drive intersection

Is the crossing for northbound cyclists and pedestrians by Victoria Gate a raised

table? Visually impaired pedestrians need to be able to cross safely. Suggests a

‘new form of zebra crossing’ be explored for this location

Unclear how the Cycle Superhighway links to Hyde Park Corner. The route should

be separated from footways

William Sturges LLP: Opposes the proposal on a number of grounds:

Significant increase in the number of signalised junctions and crossings

Significant cost

Little real benefit for cyclists or pedestrians

Proposals are biased in favour of cyclists against pedestrians

Significantly increase traffic congestion

Cyclists regularly ignore traffic nights and do not need to be identified or have third party

insurance


5 Conclusion and next steps

We received 670 responses to the consultation on proposals for the East-West Cycle

Superhighway in Hyde Park. 79% of respondents supported or partially supported our

proposals. Comments from respondents included general support for the proposals,

concern about the alignment of the Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park, traffic congestion as

a result of the scheme, and the potential impact on pedestrians and other park users.

After considering all of the responses received, we intend to proceed with the overall

scheme along the route alignment consulted on, although with some changes to the

detailed proposals, as summarised below. Subject to agreement with The Royal Parks, we

plan for the first phase of construction work to take place on the section of West Carriage

Drive south of North Carriage Drive to Coalbrookdale Gate. We are still finalising detailed

plans for the route on North Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive, and will publish these

later this year.

Work on West Carriage Drive could begin in late August 2015, and will be phased to

minimise the impact on other road and park users, and to account for forthcoming events in

Hyde Park. We will keep visitors and road users informed of our plans and progress,

including writing to local residents, businesses and other stakeholders before undertaking

work in their area. We will also provide road traffic information to help people better plan

their journeys and make informed choices about how, where and when they travel.

Changes to proposals set out in consultation documents on West Carriage Drive

Having considered comments received, we are planning some changes to the proposals

set out for consultation, including:

Cyclists will be provided with their own dedicated signal phase to travel southbound

out of the park through the junction of West Carriage Drive and South Carriage

Drive. Cyclists may also choose to use the dedicated shared footway to cross South

Carriage Drive


oversized vehicles. To enable this, sections of the segregation between the cycle

track and carriageway have been designed to be overrun by these vehicles. Access

at these times will be arranged and appropriately managed by the delivery or events

company to ensure no conflict arises with pedestrians or cyclists when crossing the

footways and/or overhanging the cycle track

Changes to proposals set out in consultation documents on North Carriage Drive and South

Carriage Drive



for North Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive. We will publish our response later this

year.


Appendix A – Summary of responses

(individual sections of route)


Of 642 respondents to this section, 160 (25%) provided comments. As some respondents




26 respondents (4%) made a comment about existing traffic conditions or the impact on

them if proposals are introduced.

18 respondents (3%), including Cranleigh Property Consultants Limited, made a

negative comment about the impact of the proposals on traffic congestion and delays

9 respondents (1%), including London Cab Ranks, stated clear opposition to the

closure of North Carriage Drive to westbound motor traffic


1 respondents (1%) made a negative comment about existing traffic congestion

Support / positive comments


14 respondents (2%), including Sustrans, stated general support for Section A, while

three respondents (%) stated general support for the East-West Cycle Superhighway

overall.

5 respondents (1%) stated conditional support for this section

2 respondents (<1%) cited less pollution

1 respondent (<1%) cited increased convenience

Oppose / negative comments


11 respondents (2%) stated that sufficient cycling facilities already exist here and

that further development is unnecessary

Do you support the proposals for

Section A (North Carriage Drive) of

the East-West Cycle Superhighway

in Hyde Park?

Number of respondents: 642


5 respondents (1%) cited the direct financial cost of creating the Cycle

Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects on the local or

wider economy

4 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the Hyde Park section of

the East-West Superhighway, while three respondents (<1%) stated general

opposition to the East-West Cycle Superhighway overall

Cycling provision

18 respondents (3%) made a comment about segregation or shared areas

8 respondents (1%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, welcome the

segregated track

4 respondents (1%) would like segregation in areas where it doesn’t exist under the

proposals

4 respondents (1%) would like a physical barrier to improve the effectiveness of the

proposed segregation

2 respondents (<1%) expressed a concern about proposed shared space

1 respondent (<1%), Royal Parks Foundation, welcomed the lack of physical barrier

between road, horse track and cycle track

14 respondents (2%) made a comment about cyclist safety in general.

7 respondents (1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for cyclists

5 respondents (1%) expressed concern that the proposals do not make it safe

enough for cyclists

2 respondents (<1%) commented that it’s currently unsafe for cyclists

21 respondents (3%) made other comments

10 respondents (2%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, expressed

concern about the connections near Cumberland Gate Lodge and leaving the park to

join other roads and routes

4 respondents (1%), including Sustrans and Cycling Embassy of Great Britain,

expressed concern about cycle lane width

4 respondents (1%) suggested that instead of two-way cycle track, it would be better

to have one way paths on either side of North Carriage Drive

1 respondents (<1%) criticised current cycling provision in the park

1 respondent (<1%) made a comment about the Albion Gate crossing and asked if

there will be cycle priority there

1 respondent (<1%), AEG, suggested widening the existing shared cycle / pedestrian

pathway instead of the proposed two way segregated track

1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the provision here may encourage people to use

this route and Broad Walk, instead of the main East-West Cycle Superhighway route

of West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive


Cycle policy

16 respondents (2%) made a comment about the status of roads and paths in the park.

11 respondents (2%) stated that motor traffic should be banned from some or all of

the main roads inside the park. 8 of these (1%), including Cycling Embassy of Great

Britain, cited North Carriage Drive specifically


routes

1 respondent (<1%) asked for existing minor cycling routes to be retained

1 respondent (<1%) suggested that speed bumps should be removed

1 respondent (<1%) suggested that when the Cycle Superhighway has been


6 respondents (1%) made a comment about current park user behaviour and how to

improve it.

5 respondents (1%) asked for some form of cyclist behaviour enforcement or

education

3 respondents (<1%) stated that cyclist behaviour is poor currently

1 respondent (<1%) asked for more education for motorists

6 respondents (1%) made other comments.

3 respondents (<1%) would like to see improved signage or signalling. This included

The Campaign to Protect Rural England – London, who noted that markings should

be a more natural colour

2 respondents (<1%) made a criticism of Royal Parks policy

1 respondent (<1%) stated that improving roads should take priority



Operational issues

14 respondents (2%) made a comment about how the cycle route would operate during

events and at times of darkness.

10 respondents (2%), including AEG, Westminster Cycling and Friends of Hyde Park

and Kensington Gardensm expressed concern about alternative arrangements when

there is an event in the park

3 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about what route would be taken by cyclists

when the park or just North Carriage Drive are closed

1 respondents (<1%) asked if there will be lighting to assist when it’s dark



groups.

7 respondents (1%) stated that there was too much focus on cyclists and not enough

consideration given to other users. Three of these (<1%), including Friends of Hyde


Park and Kensington Gardens, specifically referred to the Hyde Park proposals in

their response

1 respondent (<1%) made a comment that the proposals balance the needs of all

park users well

1 respondent (<1%) expressed support for the planned allocation of space to cyclists

1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals are limiting for mobility impaired users

1 respondent (<1%) stated that there should be less space for motor vehicles and

more space for people

1 respondent (<1%) requested for cycle space not to be taken out of pedestrian

space

Routing

10 respondents (2%) made a comment about route alignment.

4 respondents (1%) said that the proposed route is not convenient enough. Three of

these (<1%) were referring to the route through Hyde Park as a whole.

3 respondents (<1%) suggested a route along Broad Walk

2 respondents (<1%) suggested a route along Serpentine Road

1 respondent (<1%) suggested a route in Kensington Gardens

3 respondents (<1%) made a comment about an alternative route.

2 respondents (<1%) suggested a route in the Park Lane area

1 respondents (<1%) suggested a route between Lancaster Gate and Bayswater

areas

1 respondent (<1%), Redwing Coaches, suggested that this should be the main

route into central London from the West, not Bayswater Road


10 respondents (2%) made a comment about pedestrian safety in general

5 respondents (<1%) stated that the proposals are not safe enough for pedestrians.

Two of these (<1%) cited increased traffic speeds due to the one way system

4 respondents (1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for pedestrians

1 respondents (<1%) commented that it’s currently unsafe for pedestrians

1 respondent (<1%), Wheels for Wellbeing, asked what provision exists to help

visually impaired people cross North Carriage Drive safely

1 respondent (<1%) asked what will happen to car parking spaces



why users can’t use cycle lanes

1 respondent (<1%) stated that horse tracks should be retained, and kept separate

from bicycles

1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the main East-West pedestrian route between





4 respondents (1%) made such a comment





Cycling provision

39 respondents (6%) made a comment about provision for cyclists.

25 respondents (4%) expressed concern about the junction or crossing near Victoria

Gate

17 respondents (3%) made a suggestion of how to improve the junction or crossing,

five of which (1%) suggested a Zoucan (zebra and toucan parallel) crossing

3 respondents (<1%) suggested that instead of two-way cycle track, it would be

better to have one way paths on either side of the road

2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about cycle lane width

1 respondent (<1%) suggested it would be better to put the cycle track on the West

side of West Carriage Drive, to avoid the two car parks that are on the East side

1 respondents (<1%) criticised current cycling provision in this area

1 respondent (<1%) suggested the cycle track should be blue

1 respondent (<1%) expressed support for the new crossing point as it is currently

difficult for runners and pedestrians to safely cross this road

1 respondent (<1%), CyclingWorks.London, suggested that the cycle track should be

further east closer to the horse track in order to encourage cyclists to stay on the

route and not go on the horse track

18 respondents (3%) made a comment about segregation or shared areas.

11 respondents (2%) expressed a concern about potential clash between cyclists

and pedestrians at the new crossing point

8 respondents (1%) welcomed the segregated track


Section B (North Carriage Drive and

West Carriage Drive) of the East-

West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde

Park?


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/54b19ea4


1 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about the proximity of the horse track



enough for cyclists. 9 of these (1%) commented that there is risk of a ‘left-hook’

collision between southbound cyclists and motorists turning left in to North Carriage

Drive.




19 respondents (3%) made a comment about existing traffic conditions or how conditions

might change with the introduction of the proposals

15 respondents (2%) made a negative comment about the impact of the proposals

on traffic congestion and delays


2 respondents (<1%) stated opposition to the closure of North Carriage Drive to


1 respondents (<1%) made a negative comment about existing traffic congestion



6 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the Hyde Park section of the East-

West Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) stated general opposition to the

East-West Cycle Superhighway overall

5 respondents (1%) cited the direct financial cost of creating the Cycle

Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects on the local or

wider economy



Routing

16 respondents (3%) made a comment about route alignment or an alternative route.

11 respondents (2%) said that the proposed route is not convenient enough. Four of

these (1%) were referring to the route through Hyde Park as a whole

4 respondents (1%) suggested an alternative route along Serpentine Road

1 respondents (<1%) suggested an alternative route in the Park Lane area



6 respondents (1%) stated general support for this section of the Cycle

Superhighway, while three respondents (<1%) stated general support for the East-

West Cycle Superhighway overall

5 respondents (1%) stated conditional support for this section

1 respondent (<1%) cited increased convenience


Cycle policy

11 respondents (2%) made a comment about current park user behaviour or how to

improve it.

9 respondents (1%) asked for some form of cyclist behaviour education or

enforcement

5 respondents (1%) stated that cyclist behaviour is currently poor

2 respondents (<1%) asked for some form of driver behaviour enforcement or

education



the main roads inside the park

3 respondents (<1%) made a comment about speed control. One of them (<1%)

suggested a 20mph speed limit for motor traffic, one (<1%) suggested that speed

bumps should be removed, and one (<1%) suggested that there should be speed

bumps for cyclists

2 respondent (<1%) stated that cycle routes should be well away from motor traffic

routes




4 respondents (1%) would like to see improved signage or signalling. This included

The Campaign to Protect Rural England – London, who noted that markings should

be a more natural colour

1 respondent (<1%) stated that improving roads should take priority





groups.


consideration given to other users. Four of these (1%, including Friends of Hyde

Park and Kensington Gardens, specifically cited the Hyde Park proposals in their

response

1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals are limiting for mobility impaired users


space


5 respondents (1%) made a comment about pedestrian safety in general.

3 respondents (<1%) stated that the proposals are not safe enough for pedestrians

2 respondents (<1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for pedestrians




why they can’t use cycle lanes


from bicycles




1 respondent (<1%) expressed concern that the turning from West Carriage Drive in

to North Carriage Drive would be impossible for the large amount of participants in

the Royal Parks Half Marathon. This response was from the Royal Parks Foundation

Operational issues

3 respondents (<1%) made a comment about what route would be taken by cyclists when

the park is closed.


7 respondents (1%) made such a comment.






Cycling provision


15 respondents (2%), including London Cycling Campaign, Sustrans and Tower

Hamlets Wheelers, expressed concern about conflict at junctions. Some respondents

made suggestions for improvement. These include more control at junctions, e.g.

zebra crossings and lights, a larger buffer between cycle track and road, siting the

cycle track on the other side of the road to better avoid the car parks

15 respondents (2%) expressed a concern about cycle lane width. Many of these

stated that the track width should be at least 4 metres. Respondents included

London Cycling Campaign, Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, Tower Hamlets

Wheelers and CyclingWorks.London

1 respondent (<1%) suggested it would be better to put the cycle track on the West

side of West Carriage Drive, to avoid the two car parks that are on the East side

1 respondent (<1%) criticised current cycling provision in this area

1 respondent (<1%) suggested there should be more cycle hire stations as there is a

lot of demand in this section

1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the cycle track should be painted blue

1 respondent (<1%) expressed concern that the cyclists would find an alternative

route unless quality of provision is high

15 respondents (2%) made a comment about segregation and shared areas.

9 respondents (1%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and Friends of Hyde

Park and Kensington Gardens, welcomed the segregated track

5 respondents (1%) expressed concern about the proximity of the horse track

1 respondent (<1%) stated opposition to shared areas for cyclists and pedestrians


Section C (West Carriage Drive) of


in Hyde Park?






18 respondents (3%) made a comment about the impact of the proposals on traffic

congestion and delays

3 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about the impact on emissions / pollution

because of increased journey times / congestion

1 respondents (<1%) stated opposition to the closure of North Carriage Drive to



Routing


7 respondents (1%) said that the proposed route is not convenient enough and a

shorter route to get to the other side of the park is available





groups.


consideration given to other users. Two of these (<1%), including Friends of Hyde


response

3 respondents (<1%) stated opposition to the retention of so many car parking

spaces in this area

2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about usage of the horse track, stating that

it is not used by horses often. One of these suggested that the track here could be

for horses and cyclists making it wider for both

1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals appear to restrict the ability to drop off

mobility impaired passengers who either require the use of a wheelchair or are

unable to walk very far.


space

Cycle policy



the main roads inside the park. 1 respondent (<1%) stated that private cars should

be banned from central London

2 respondents (<1%) made a comment about speed control for cyclists. One of them

(<1%) suggested painted rumble strips. The other (<1%) suggested that there should


be speed bumps for cyclists and that it’s important for cyclists to slow down,

respecting that this is a park environment and not an ordinary road


routes



9 respondents (1%) made a comment about current park user behaviour or how to improve

it.

6 respondents (1%) asked for some form of behaviour education or enforcement for

cyclists


2 respondents (<1%) asked for some form of behaviour enforcement or education for

drivers


5 respondents (1%) made a negative comment the direct financial cost of creating

the Cycle Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects on the

local or wider economy




3 respondents (1%) would like to see improved signage or signalling in the park,

including Campaign to Protect Rural England

1 respondent (<1%) stated that improving roads should take priority generally



1 respondents (<1%) commented on The Royal Parks’ policy on cycles, stating that

they should be encouraging cycling more

1 respondent (<1%), the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, expressed

concern about the loss of current ‘leisure’ routes, to be replaced by faster A to B type

track

1 respondent (<1%), the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, suggested

there should be suitable monitoring of traffic flows on West Carriage Drive, including

at Alexandra Gate and Victoria Gate junctions




3 respondents (<1%), including Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens,

stated that the proposals are not safe enough for pedestrians

3 respondents (<1%) stated that it cycling areas should be clear to pedestrians so

they don’t walk in to them



1 respondent (<1%) asked why people using powered wheelchairs / mobility

scooters can’t use cycle lanes

1 respondent (<1%), Serpentine Gallery, stated that a road width restriction under

the proposals would cause operational problems

1 respondent (<1%) suggested more safe pedestrian crossings here as cyclists will

be travelling fast




1 respondent (<1%) expressed concern about event runner routing around the

Triangle Park area. This response was from the Royal Parks Foundation


from bicycles


8 respondents (1%) offered positive comments. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t

given

6 respondents (1%), including Westminster Cycling Campaign and Cycling Embassy

of Great Britain, stated general support for this section of the Cycle Superhighway.

2 respondents (<1%) stated general support for the East-West Cycle Superhighway

overall.




West Superhighway.

3 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the East-West Cycle Superhighway

overall. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given

Operational issues

3 respondents (<1%) made a comment about how the cycle route would operate at night

and during park closure.



1 respondent (<1%) suggested that this section should be lit after dark








Cycling provision

49 respondents (8%) made a comment about provision for cyclists

26 respondents (4%), including the following four stakeholders; Sustrans, Tower

Hamlets Wheelers, Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and the London Cycling

Campaign, expressed support for the bypass for cyclists between West Carriage

Drive and South Carriage Drive


10 respondents (2%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, welcomed the

segregated track.

8 respondent (1%), including CyclingWorks.London, stated opposition to shared

areas for cyclists and pedestrians


17 respondents (3%), including Tower Hamlets Wheelers and the London cycling

Campaign, expressed concern about cycling through Coalbrookdale Gate related to

safety or convenience. 9 respondents (1%) including Tower Hamlets Wheelers and

the London cycling Campaign expressed concern about cycling through

Coalbrookdale Gate and accessing South Carriage Drive. Most of these suggested

better signalling and more space at the crossing. 1 respondent (<1%) suggested that

there should be clear priority for cyclists making the reverse movement – from South

Carriage Drive through Coalbrookdale Gate

14 respondents (2%) expressed concern about entering and leaving the park

through Alexandra Gate. Most concern was related to joining or leaving the Cycle

Superhighway in the park conveniently or safely. Suggestions for improving Cycle

Superhighway connectivity here included creating cyclist crossings next to

pedestrian crossings, and ‘simultaneous green’ signalling


Section D (West Carriage Drive and

South Carriage Drive) of the East-

West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde

Park?


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/b235ed8a



enough for cyclists. 3 of these (<1%) commented that there is risk of a ‘left-hook’

collision between southbound cyclists and motorists turning left in to South Carriage

Drive. Respondents included Sustrans, Tower Hamlets Wheelers and London

Cycling Campaign

4 respondents (2%) including Sustrans and Cycling Embassy of Great Britain,

expressed a concern about cycle lane width. Three of these (<1%) stated that the

track width should be at least 4 metres

2 respondents (<1%), including Redwing Coaches, stated that the proposals would


2 respondents (<1%) stated that this section is complicated and needs simplification

2 respondents (<1%) suggested that it’s better to have one way cycle tracks on

either side of the road, instead of a two way cycle track


Routing


11 respondents (1%), including PRACT, said that the proposed route is not

convenient enough and that a shorter route to get to the other side of the park is

available






17 respondents (3%), including PRACT, made a comment about the impact of the

proposals on traffic congestion and delays



2 respondents (<1%), including PRACT, made a negative comment about existing

traffic congestion

Cycle policy



the main roads inside the park. 1 respondent (<1%) stated that private cars should

be banned from central London


routes

1 respondent (<1%) made a comment about speed control for cyclists, suggesting

speed bumps for cyclists and that it’s important for cyclists to slow down, respecting

that this is a park environment and not an ordinary road

1 respondent (<1%) suggested that Alexandra Gate could be closed to motor traffic

to negate the need for shared pedestrian / cyclist space in this area




1 respondents (<1%) asked for existing minor cycling routes to be retained




4 respondents (1%) made a negative comment about the direct financial cost of

creating the Cycle Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects

on the local or wider economy


it.


cyclists



drivers





they felt they should be encouraging cycling more







3 respondents (<1%), including Friends of Hyde Park, stated that the proposals are

not safe enough for pedestrians

2 respondent (<1%) commented that it’s currently unsafe for pedestrians

1 respondent (<1%) expressed concern about cyclists entering pedestrian areas


3 respondents (<1%), including Crown Equerry, The British Horse Society and

HCMR (Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment), stated that the proposals aren’t

safe enough for horses

2 respondents (<1%), Crown Equerry and HCMR, stated that the proposals aren’t

convenient for horse drills



1 respondent (<1%) stated that horse tracks should be retained without modification,

and kept separate from bicycles






8 respondents (1%) offered positive comments. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t

given

6 respondents (1%), , stated general support for this section of the Cycle

Superhighway.


overall.


8 respondents (1%) offered negative comments. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t

given


West Superhighway 4 respondents (<1%) stated general opposition to the East-West

Cycle Superhighway overall



groups.


consideration given to other users. Two of these (<1%), specifically cited the Hyde

Park proposals in their response

1 respondents (<1%) stated opposition to the retention of car parking spaces in this

area





space

Operational issues

2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about what route would be taken by cyclists when

the park is closed








Cycling provision


14 respondents (3%) including CyclingWorks.London, London Cycling Campaign,

Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and Tower Hamlets Wheelers expressed concern

about cycle track width. Most respondents suggested a width of at least 4 metres

10 respondents (2%) stated that they would like signals removed at Albert Gate.

Seven respondents (1%) suggested a zoucan (zebra-toucan) parallel crossing here

instead, and three respondents (<1%) suggested a zebra crossing. Respondents

included London Cycling Campaign and Tower Hamlets Wheelers


segregated track


3 respondents (<1%), including London Cycling Campaign and Westminster Cycling

Campaign , commented that it’s currently unsafe for pedestrians

3 respondents (<1%), including Redwing Coaches, stated that the proposals would


2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern that the proposals do not make it safe

enough for cyclists

5 respondents (1%) stated support for the removal of signals at Edinburgh Gate

2 respondents (<1%) suggested that it’s better to have one way cycle tracks on

either side of the road, instead of a two way cycle track

2 respondents (<1%) expressed another concern about Albert Gate. One respondent

(<1%) stated that the crossing was too narrow, and the other respondent (<1%),


Section E (South Carriage Drive) of


in Hyde Park?


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/b056730f


Westminster Cycling Campaign, expressed uncertainty about which side of the

crossing cyclists and pedestrians should take










Routing

13 respondents (2%) made a comment about route alignment.

8 respondents (1%) stated that the proposed route through the park is too long and

not convenient enough

6 respondents (1%), including Westminster Cycling Campaign, Tower Hamlets

Wheelers and the London Cycling Campaign, suggested a route along Serpentine

Road

1 respondent (<1%) suggested a route along Rotten Row


1 respondent (<1%) suggested a route in the Park Lane area

Cycle policy



the main roads inside the park.


routes



1 respondent (<1%) Sustrans, suggested that there should be a traffic speed

reduction in this area


1 respondent (<1%) asked for full access for taxis to be retained









it.


cyclists



drivers


3 respondents (<1%) would like to see improved signage or signalling in the park,



they felt they should be encouraging it more






5 respondents (1%), including London Cycling Campaign, commented that it’s

currently unsafe for pedestrians


3 respondents (<1%) stated that the proposals are not safe enough for pedestrians


1 respondents (<1%), Sustrans, stated that footway reduction should be avoided

1 respondent (<1%), the Royal Parks Foundation, stated that there should be no

physical segregation between the carriageways and the horse track, giving runners

in their event the full width of the road








1 respondent (<1%), CyclingWorks.London, suggested there should be a pedestrian

island between the opposing lanes of cycle traffic

1 respondent (<1%) stated that horse tracks should be retained without modification,

and kept separate from bicycles

1 respondent (<1%) suggested a traffic light at the bottom of the slope to allow

pedestrians to cross the road more safely

1 respondent (<1%), HCMR (Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment), expressed

concern about convenience and safety during horse movements




7 respondents (1%), stated general support for this section of the Cycle

Superhighway. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given






West Superhighway. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given





groups.


consideration given to other users. Three of these (<1%), including Friends of Hyde


response



unable to walk very far

1 respondent (<1%) stated there should be less space for cars and more for cyclists

and pedestrians

1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals balance the needs of all well

Operational issues

3 respondents (<1%) made a comment about how the cycle route would operate at night

and during closure. One of these respondents (<1%) specifically mentioned ceremonial

events.




Section F: South Carriage Drive and the junction with Broad

Walk and Serpentine Road




Cycling provision



33 respondents (5%) expressed concern about the shared areas for cyclists and

pedestrians. Many of these suggested additional segregation in these areas.

Respondents included Sustrans, Wheels for Wellbeing, CyclingWorks.London,

Tower Hamlets Wheelers, Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and London Cycling

Campaign


segregated track


19 respondents (3%), including Sustrans, Tower Hamlets Wheelers, cycling

Embassy of Great Britain and London Cycling Campaign, made a suggestion on how

to improve crossing the road in this area. 11 respondents (2%, including, Sustrans,

Tower Hamlets Wheelers and London Cycling Campaign stated that they preferred a

zebra or other manual crossing as opposed to the proposed signalised one. Other

suggestions included phasing of the signals to help improve safety and convenience

for cyclists while recognising that a shared space exists

12 respondents (2%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and the London

Cycling Campaign, expressed concern about cycle track width. Six (1%) respondents

specifically cited width of the new cycle link to Park Lane


Section F (South Carriage Drive,

Broad Walk and Serpentine Road)

of the East-West Cycle

Superhighway in Hyde Park?


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/b056730f





2 respondents (<1%), including Westminster Cycling Campaign, commented that it’s

currently unsafe for pedestrians

1 respondent (<1%) expressed concern that the proposals do not make it safe

enough for cyclists

6 respondents (1%), including CyclingWorks.London, suggested changing the cycle

path route not through the shared pedestrian one, but through a different, nearby

gate

6 respondents (1%), including Wheels for Wellbeing, expressed concern about

cycling on the busy road and routing just after leaving, or just before entering, the

park

1 respondent (<1%) suggested that it’s better to have one way cycle tracks on either

side of the road, instead of a two way cycle track










Routing


5 respondents (<1%) said that the proposed route isn’t direct or convenient enough

for where they want to go

5 respondents (1%) suggested a route along Serpentine Road


2 respondents (<1%) suggested a route in the Park Lane area

1 respondent (<1%) questioned the new cycle link to Park Lane, as most cyclists go

up Broad Walk instead



4 respondents (1%) commented that it’s currently unsafe for pedestrians


3 respondents (<1%), including Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens,

stated that the proposals are not safe enough for pedestrians



3 respondents (<1%) stated that motor traffic should be prioritised less in this part of

the park

3 respondents (<1%), including Royal Parks Foundation and HCMR (Household

Cavalry Mounted Regiment), expressed concern about provision for horses. Horse

track width and separation from others were issues raised






West Superhighway. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given





groups.


consideration given to other users. Four of these (1%), including Friends of Hyde


response

1 respondents (<1%) stated that they thought the proposals balance the needs of all

well




Cycle policy


3 respondents (<1%) stated that motor traffic should be banned from some or all of

the main roads inside the park. 1 respondent (<1%) stated that should be charged

for using the park


routes












it.


cyclists



drivers





they felt they should be encouraging cycling more


1 respondent (<1%) commented that there should first be a process of learning from other

cycling nations



4 respondents (1%), stated general support for this section of the Cycle

Superhighway. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given



Operational issues

4 respondents (1%) made a comment about how the cycle route would operate at night and

during park closure.



2 respondent (<1%) suggested that there should be lighting




Appendix B – Annex to response from the

Royal Parks

Additional comments on the proposed new East-West cycle route through Hyde Park

There can be no blue coloured surface treatment of routes within the parks.

A key element of the Superhighway will be the signage and way finding. It is not

clear how this would be treated in the parks. In keeping with TRP core principles,

any new signage must complement the park environment and heritage.

The operational requirements for hosting events in Hyde Park may either preclude

some design proposals for both Superhighway and Quietway routes in the park or

require specific extended designs to facilitate event operations.

The proposed changes to North Carriage Drive (NCD) are not part of the

Superhighway route but are contained in the consultation. TRP has concerns that

the proposal as it stands does not resolve an umber of conflict issues identified,

associated with the operation of events within the Parks. TRP believes that any

cycle route on NCD should be on the north side of the road in order to function

safely.

Existing quieter cycle routes within the park, such as Serpentine Road and the

Broad Walk are not suitable for larger volumes of cyclists and must be considered

holistically in the proposals for the Superhighway to accommodate event activity

and vast pedestrian movements and closures due to events or other activities.

TRP is concerned about access into the parks for pedestrians and how the traffic

modelling will affect pedestrian crossing times in some busy locations, for example

the pedestrian crossings on West Carriage Drive facilitating access to the

Serpentine and Serpentine Sackler Galleries.

The views of key stakeholders including the Police, Fire Brigade and Ambulance

Services, the Army and Royal Parks Friends Groups will be essential in agreeing

any changes to accommodate additional cycling in the parks.

The introduction of the East-West Superhighway in Hyde Park will be a large step

change and will encourage more cycling into the park which can cause issues with

other users, both existing and future. We are not sure if TfL has anticipated the

impacts of the increase in cycling and what will happen if the routes become very

congested - particularly at pinch points such as at the Decimus Burton Screen

adjacent to Apsley House.

All proposals must consider other users of the parks including pedestrians,

vulnerable users, animals and wildlife. An Equalities Impact Assessment will need

to be undertaken by TfL on all of its key proposals.

Safe access to the parks must be maintained and enhanced. The design proposals

on Bayswater Road at the Lancaster Gate Station area do not, in TRP's view,

reflect either pedestrian desire lines or the significant volume of pedestrians who


cross at this point and enter Kensington Gardens at the Italian Gardens via

Marlborough Gate. The proposed pedestrian refuge areas are not large enough.

TRP requires that TfL show more information, for example through park-based

surveys, on how the proposals will impact on pedestrians and their enjoyment of

the parks. Also, TfL must demonstrate how it intends to treat the parks holistically

in terms of cycling movements throughout, including undertaking appropriate risk

assessments of design options and safety audits. How will designs ensure the

larger volumes of cyclists remain on the road based segregated routes and how

will TfL prove that this has been achieved?

Any modifications to junction layouts, lighting levels or sections of the route will

need to be the subject of safety audits or risk assessments.

Recognising park visitor, ceremonial and event use, the road based solutions must

enable the park and organisations, such as the Serpentine Gallery, to operate in

the parks safely.


Appendix C1 – TfL response to issues

commonly raised (overall proposals for Hyde

Park) This appendix contains TfL’s response to issues commonly raised as part of the

consultation on detailed proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park.

Our response to issues relating to the wider route can be found in our report on the

September 2014 consultation, available at tfl.gov.uk/cycle-east-west.

Support for alternative/ additional routes through Hyde Park

The East-West Cycle Superhighway is proposed to run through Hyde Park as it provides an

attractive route between Hyde Park Corner and Lancaster Gate, with space to physically

separate cyclists from other road users.

Hyde Park already has a number of cycle routes which are very popular including the

Broadwalk, Serpentine Road and Rotten Row; however they are shared with a large

number of pedestrians and are subject to disruption during the many events within the park.

To provide a high quality, dedicated facility for cyclists, the East-West Cycle Superhighway

will follow South Carriage Drive and West Carriage Drive between Hyde Park Corner and

Lancaster Gate, providing a two-way fully segregated track for cyclists. This will also

connect with proposed Quietway routes to Kensington and Exhibition Road.

The proposals for an improved cycle track on North Carriage Drive would provide a

connection between West Carriage Drive and Speakers’ Corner.

Cyclists will still be able to enjoy riding on existing shared-use routes within the park

following the introduction of the East-West Cycle Superhighway. The new segregated cycle

track will complement the shared-use routes, accommodating the needs of all park users.

Suggestions that the route is not needed

The East-West cycle track will be a priority route for cyclists and is designed to ensure they

have the most uninterrupted and dedicated route across the park throughout the year. The

existing routes in the park on Broadwalk and Serpentine Road will remain, although they

are shared use and subject to closures, which reduces the level of service for cyclists.

Preference for alternative routes not using Hyde Park

The East-West Cycle Superhighway is proposed to run through Hyde Park as it provides an

attractive route between Hyde Park Corner and Lancaster Gate, with space to physically

separate cyclists from other road users. TfL acknowledges there is a demand for dedicated

cycle facilities along a number of popular roads in this area. However, such routes are not

within the scope of this scheme.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cycle-east-west


Some of the roads suggested by respondents are the responsibility of Westminster City

Council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and we will share with them

any comments relating to their roads which do not directly relate to the East-West Cycle

Superhighway in Hyde Park.

TfL and Borough partners will also be delivering a number of cycle schemes across London

as part of the Mayor’s Cycling Vision, including Quietways, the central London Grid,

additional Cycle Superhighways and the Mini Hollands programme.

Request for cycle track to be on the opposite side of West Carriage Drive

The East-West Cycle Superhighway through Hyde Park provides a 4 metre two-way track

that has been positioned on the park side of West Carriage Drive to reduce the number of

junctions and conflict points for cyclists. This layout allows cyclists to access other cycle

paths in the park and the Santander Cycles docking station without having to cross West

Carriage Drive.

Traffic impact of these proposals

The overall proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway are expected to mean longer

journeys for motorists and bus, coach and taxi passengers at busy times, although we

made changes to the overall scheme following the September 2014 consultation to reduce

the impact. We are satisfied that the impact on traffic is reasonable when balanced against

the substantial safety improvements the East-West Cycle Superhighway would mean for

thousands of existing cyclists and the likely growth in cycling along this route, including

people who would cycle if they felt it to be safer. Please see the response to the September

2014 consultation at tfl.gov.uk/cycle-east-west for more information.

The planned changes to the road layouts in the parks are not in themselves expected to

have a significant impact on traffic. We will provide signage with new traffic restrictions and

work with satellite navigation companies to help motorists affected by the proposed traffic

restrictions on North Carriage Drive plan the most appropriate route for their journey.

Impact on pedestrians and other park users

The proposals provide segregated space for cyclists on the traffic roads in the park and

would provide an attractive alternative to other existing routes through the park which are

shared with pedestrians.

On West Carriage Drive, the existing cycle tracks on the footway would be removed and

replaced with a segregated two-way cycle track on the carriageway, reducing the potential

interaction between pedestrians and cyclists. This dedicated space for cyclists will be wider

than the existing provision.

24 hour access

The East-West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park will be available for cyclists from 05:00-00:00

daily. These times may vary during event periods.



There is limited data on cycling demand during 00:00 and 05:00. However, estimates from

Santander Cycles usage data suggest that a small number of trips take place in London

during that five hour period, though this is slightly higher in the summer months.

TfL and Westminster City Council are also developing 24 hour alternative routes in the area

as part of the Central London Grid, for example on Quietway routes through Mayfair and

Marylebone.

Preference for traffic-free Hyde Park

It is The Royal Parks’ aspiration to reduce the number of motor vehicles in the Royal Parks.

It does not feel an immediate ban on cars in Hyde Park is considered feasible given the

impact that this would have on those who currently visit by car and taxi. The implications on

traffic outside the park would also need to be taken into account.

TfL would not seek to remove traffic from Hyde Park completely. The roads within the Park

provide connections between Bayswater and Paddington to the north and Knightsbridge/

Kensington to the south. Removing vehicles would have a significant impact on the traffic

network, increasing local and wider queuing.

Park signage

TfL will work with The Royal Parks to provide new signage to help cyclists navigate through

Hyde Park. Alternative cycle routes through the park – where cyclists share the space with

pedestrians – will be maintained and signposted differently to the East-West Cycle

Superhighway, promoting them as quieter routes for cyclists travelling at a slower pace.

Hyde Park is a Grade 1 listed landscape, and the signage installed will be appropriate to

this setting.

Concerns about the impact of events in Hyde Park on construction and operation of

the cycle facilities

We are working with The Royal Parks and event operators to coordinate construction

around their events programmes. The planned and proposed designs will improve the event

operations, particularly along North Carriage Drive, by providing a permanent cycle route

separated from the pedestrian route, while maintaining a safe event working zone.

The Royal Parks Half Marathon

Following meetings with Limelight, the event operator, we have been able to incorporate all

of their requirements in our designs.

Concerns about the interaction between cyclists and horses

We have worked with key stakeholders to provide a dedicated area for cyclists, separate

from horse ride facilities, which will help to minimise interaction between cyclists and horse

riders.


Concerns about cyclist behaviour

TfL is working with The Royal Parks, The Royal Parks Police, Westminster City Council and

park user groups to review cycling as a whole in Hyde Park, with a view to encouraging

appropriate cycle speeds and behaviour in shared areas.

TfL acknowledges concerns raised about cyclist behaviour, although our research shows

that most cyclists ride responsibly, and that cyclists are no more likely to disobey road rules

than other road users. Approximately 50 per cent of offences reported are committed by car

drivers and motorcycle riders, 26 per cent by commercial vehicle drivers and 24 per cent by

cyclists. Statistics on road traffic collisions in Greater London show the number of injuries

and fatalities for pedestrians in collisions involving cyclists are many times fewer than those

involving motor vehicles.

TfL promotes adherence to the Highway Code by all road users and encourages

responsible cycling and mutual respect between cyclists and other road users. We work to

eliminate offences such as jumping red lights, cycling on the pavement and cycling at night

without lights. We do this using police enforcement and education programmes, as well as

thorough marketing and engagement campaigns.

We recognise that some pavement cyclists break the law to avoid the dangers of motor

traffic. However, we anticipate that providing dedicated and safe space for cyclists will

discourage people from riding on pavements. Providing dedicated space for cyclists can

also help other road users by letting them know where to expect high volumes of cyclists.

The Cycle Safety Team will patrol the new East-West Cycle Superhighway when it opens,

working closely with The Royal Parks Police to encourage appropriate behaviour by all park

users and enforce compliance.

TfL is working with the Royal Parks, The Royal Parks Police and local stakeholder groups

to manage the impact of the new route on parks users. This will include monitoring the

existing shared-use routes and non-cycle paths in the park. The monitoring may result in

design solutions being installed to slow cyclists on shared-use routes and prevent cycling

on non-cycle paths.

Operation Safeway

TfL also works with the Metropolitan Police on Operation Safeway, which sees up to 1,000

officers deployed at around 100 junctions, at least two days every month. High visibility

officers use a combination of both enforcement and engagement to tackle dangerous illegal

behaviour by all road users, including motorists and non-motorists. Locations are chosen by

analysing collision data to determine those most at risk of killed and serious injured

collisions (KSIs).

The results from Operation Safeway show that significantly more motorists are enforced

against than cyclists. Between launch in November 2013 and January 2015, over 15,000

FPNs have been given to motorists, and 5,000 to cyclists. The most common offences


where motorists were issued FPNs are contravening traffic signals (this would include

crossing an advanced stop line), using a phone while driving, and failing to wear a seatbelt.

The majority of cycling FPNs were issued for contravening traffic signals, cycling on the

footway, and using a pedal cycle without lights.

Cyclists paying road tax

The maintenance of roads in the UK is funded through general taxation and not through

specific taxes on road users, such as Vehicle Excise Duty. Therefore, most cyclists already

contribute to the cost of maintaining roads. Vehicle Excise Duty is levied on individual

vehicles and the amount payable is dependent on the levels of emissions produced by a

vehicle. Vehicles that produce no emissions do not have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty.

Therefore, if such a tax were applied to bicycles, they would be exempt from paying the

duty. Vehicle Excise Duty does not contribute to the cost of road maintenance.

Mobility scooters in cycle lanes

Mobility scooters are not allowed in cycle lanes under UK law. This is not proposed to

change as part of the East-West Cycle Superhighway.

Response to other issues raised in relation to overall plans for


The overall proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway were consulted on in

September 2014. Following that consultation, we decided to proceed with the route,

although with some changes to reduce the journey time impact on motor traffic.

Our response to more general issues around the introduction of the East-West Cycle

Superhighway can be found in our response to the September 2014 consultation. Relevant

information is also available in the papers from the meeting of the TfL Board on 4 February

2015, where proposals for the route were discussed and approved.


https://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/board-papers

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/board-papers


Appendix C2 – TfL response to issues

commonly raised (issues relating to individual

sections of route)

Section A – North Carriage Drive We will continue to work with The Royal Parks, key stakeholders, businesses and events

organisers to respond to the issues raised during this consultation, and to finalise the layout

of the cycle track and segregation along North Carriage Drive. We will publish our response

later this year.

Section B – North Carriage Drive and West Carriage Drive Working with The Royal Parks, key stakeholders, businesses and events organisers, we

are considering concerns raised regarding the operation of the Victoria Gate junction and

the potential impact of summer and winter events on North Carriage Drive. We will publish

our response later this year.

Section C – West Carriage Drive

Concerns regarding cycle lane widths on West Carriage Drive and Serpentine Bridge

We have generally designed the two-way cycle track to be between 3 and 4 metres wide.

The track has been designed to allow cyclists to overtake one another wherever possible.

The nature of the two-way track also offers a degree of flexibility in allowing cyclists to use

the other side of the track to overtake when there are no oncoming cyclists.

The cycle track narrows to 3 metres in places on West Carriage Drive, where there is

insufficient width to sustain a 4 metre wide cycle track. It also narrows to 3 metres on

Serpentine Bridge in order to accommodate the new section of segregated horse track. The

segregated horse track will allow horse riders to cross the Serpentine without having to

interact with traffic.

Suggestions that more space should be provided between the cycle track and the car

park access roads

While the available carriageway widths limit the amount of additional space that can be

provided at side roads, the track has been designed to ensure it is not blocked by stationary

vehicles, and to help motorists appreciate that they are expected to give way.

Temple Gate and access to Kensington Gardens

We will widen the footway and install a traffic island at the Temple Gate crossing to provide

more space for pedestrians, while maintaining consistent road space for vehicles.


Operational requirements of the Serpentine Galleries


oversized vehicles. To enable this, sections of the segregation between the cycle track and

carriageway have been designed to be overrun by these vehicles. Access at these times

will be arranged and appropriately managed by the delivery or events company to ensure

no conflict arises with pedestrians or cyclists when crossing the footways and/or

overhanging the cycle track

Raised junction entry treatments and pedestrian crossings

The cycle track will be at carriageway level on the eastern side of West Carriage Drive. All

of the junction approaches adjacent to the cycle track will be raised to footway level to give

priority for cyclists and reduce the speed of vehicles as they cross the cycle track. We will

provide raised pedestrian crossing points to highlight areas where cyclists and pedestrians

interact.

Section D – West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive

Suggestions that the crossing between Rotten Row and Mount Gate should be

signalised

After reviewing this crossing with The Royal Parks and key stakeholders, we consider the

current crossing to be suitable for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

We expect fewer cyclists to use Rotten Row once the East-West Cycle Superhighway

opens. This, along with the separation of cyclists from pedestrians on the eastern footway,

will help to reduce the likelihood of conflicts between the two users.

The junction of West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive

Following consultation, the design has been amended so that southbound cyclists will now

be provided with their own dedicated signal phase to travel through the junction into South

Carriage Drive, or to exit the park through Alexandra Gate. Cyclists may also choose to use

the shared footway and cross to South Carriage Drive.

Northbound cyclists exiting Coalbrookdale Gate will be able to access the new cycle

facilities by using the existing signalised crossings at the junction. The crossings and

adjacent footways will be widened to reduce the likelihood of conflict between cyclists and

pedestrians. If cyclists choose to turn right from within the carriageway, gaps in the

segregation island in South Carriage Drive will enable them to join the segregated cycle

track east of the junction. Cyclists will be able to use the wider shared crossings to connect

with the new and existing facilities, which are consistent with other entry points into the

park.

The shared footways and crossings have been significantly widened to accommodate

pedestrians and cyclists. The design and layout of the crossings are consistent with the

other entry/exit points to and from the park.


Length of the cycle facilities at Coalbrookdale Gate

Owing to the fixed width of the gates into the park, wider cycle facilities can only be

provided after entry into the park. In addition, the existing central reservation cannot be

moved or the footway narrowed, meaning it is not feasible to provide a longer cycle lane.

Following consultation, the junction design will provide cyclists with their own dedicated

signal phase to travel southbound through the junction and out of the park. Cyclists may

also choose to use the dedicated shared footway and cross South Carriage Drive with

pedestrians using the shared Toucan crossing if desired.

Concerns regarding the kerb build-out / removal of left turn flare for motorists on West

Carriage Drive

The build-out has been designed to segregate the carriageway and cycle track and will be

implemented as set out in the consultation material. Whilst the short lane available for left

turning vehicles will be removed, this change is not anticipated to affect journey times within

the park.

Informal pedestrian crossing point on the cycle bypass

The design will include measures to raise cyclists' awareness that pedestrians are likely to

be crossing the cycle track.

Sections E and F – South Carriage Drive, Broad Walk and

Serpentine Road



for South Carriage Drive and the junction at Apsley Gate. We will publish our response later

this year.


Appendix D – Consultation letter to residents

and businesses


Appendix E – Distribution area for

consultation letter

Approximately 97,700 Letters were distributed to postcodes commencing within 0.5 miles of

the proposed alignment.


Appendix F – Email to stakeholder groups

Dear Stakeholder

We would like to hear your views on further proposals for the following sections of the East-

West Cycle Superhighway:

Lancaster Gate: Revised proposals for the route between Sussex Gardens and Brook

Street / Hyde Park, featuring a two-way segregated cycle track on the east side of

Westbourne Street and one-way segregated cycle tracks in each direction on Bayswater

Road

Hyde Park: Detailed proposals for a continuous, segregated cycle route through the park,

including North Carriage Drive becoming one-way eastbound for motorists

St James’s Park and the Green Park: Detailed proposals for improved cycling provision

through the parks. This includes revised proposals for the Horse Guards Road / Storey’s

Gate junction, with changes to the previously-proposed traffic restrictions

Victoria Embankment / Northumberland Avenue: Revised proposals to aid traffic flow on

Victoria Embankment, including a banned right turn from Northumberland Avenue to

Victoria Embankment and removal of a bus/coach stop and pedestrian crossing

Please click the links above for details of the proposals for each section and to have your

say. The deadline for comments is Sunday 29 March 2015.

We consulted on overall proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway in September

2014. Please click here for more information, including changes made following

consultation and TfL’s response to issues commonly raised. TfL Board has now approved

the overall scheme, subject to the above consultations.

Yours sincerely

Oliver Birtill

Consultation Team

Transport for London

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/82f4da86

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/8e23d698

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/9c956f89

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/a8130262

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/eastwest


Appendix G – List of stakeholder groups

3663 First for Foodservice

A.S. Watson

AA Motoring Trust

Abellio West London Ltd t/a Abellio Surrey,

ABSOLUTE PARTY CRUISES LTD

Action Disability Kensington & Chelsea

Action for Blind People

Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID)

Addison Lee

AECOM

Age Concern London

Age UK London

Alive in Space Landscape and Urban Design Studio

All Hallows by the Tower church

All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group

Anderson Travel Ltd,

Angel BID

Apex Hotel and Addendum Restaurant

Argall BID

Arriva Kent Thameside/Kent & Sussex, Arriva Guildford & W Sussex,

Arriva London North Ltd,

Arriva The Shires/ E Herts and Essex,

Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance

Association of British Drivers

Association of Car Fleet Operators

Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind

Association of Town Centre Management

Association of British Drivers

AT Coaches t/a Abbey Travel,

Automobile Association

Baker Street Quarter

Barking & Dagenham Cycling Campaign

Barking & Dagenham Safer Transport Team

Barking and Dagenham

Barnet Cyclists

Barnet Safer Transport Team

Baroness Flather

BATEAUX LONDON

Bayliss Executive Travel

Baynard House Car Park


Bayswater BID

Bayswater Residents Association

BBC

Belgravia Residents Association

Best Bike Training / Cycletastic

Best Bike Training/ Cycletastic

Better Bankside

Bexley Accessible Transport Scheme,

Bexley Council

Bexley Cyclists

Bexleyheath BID

bhs bikeability

Bidvest Logistics

Big Bus

bikeworks

bikeXcite

Birmingham City Council

Blue Triangle Buses Ltd,

Borough Cycling Officers Group

Borough Cycling Officers Group (BCOG)

Brasserie Blanc

Breakspears Road Project

Brent Cyclists

Brent Safer Transport Team

Brentwood Community Transport,

Brewery Logistics Group

British American Tobacco

British Cycling

British Land

British Medical Association

British Motorcyclists Federation

British Retail Association

British School of Cycling

Bromley Cyclists

Bromley Safer Transport Team

Brookline

BT

Bucks Cycle Training

Business B Ltd t/a The Expeditional,

Buzzlines,

CABE

CABE - Design Council

Cabinet Office:

Camden Council


Camden Cyclists

Camden mobility forum

Camden Safer Transport Team

Camden Town Unlimited

Campaign for Better Transport

Campbell's

Canary Wharf Management Ltd

CAPE CUVIER LTD

Capital City School Sport Partnership

CAPITAL PLEASURE BOATS

Carlton Motors Ltd

Carousel Buses Ltd

CBI-London

CCG Central London (WESTMINSTER)

CCG City and Hackney

Centaur Overland Travel Ltd,

Central London Cab Trade Section

Central London CTC

Central London Forward

Central London Freight Quality Partnership

Central London NHS Trust

Centre for Accessible Environments

Chalkwell

Chalkwell Garage & Coach Hire Ltd,

Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport

CHAS NEWENS MARINE

Chauffeur & Executive Assn

Chauffeur and Executive Association

Chelsea Socity

Children's Society

Christopher Stephen Hunn t/a Travel with Hunny/TWH,

City Bikes (Vauxhall Walk)

CITY CRUISES PLC

City Cyclists

City of London

City of London Access Forum

City of London Police

City of Westminister

Clarkes

Cobra Corporate Servics Ltd,

CoL School

Colas Volker Highways URS

COLLIERS LAUNCHES


Community Transport Association

Computer Cab

Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

Confederation of Passenger Transport

Conway AECOM

Covent Garden Market Authority

Cross River Partnership

Crown Equerry

CROWN RIVER CRUISES

Croydon

Croydon Coaches (UK) Ltd t/a Coaches Excetera,

Croydon Council

Croydon Cycling Campaign

Croydon mobility forum

Croydon North

Croydon Safer Transport Team

CRUISE LONDON

CSC

CT Plus Ltd t/a Hackney Community Transport,

CTC

CTC ‘Right to Ride’ Network

Cycle Confidence

Cycle Confident

Cycle Experience

Cycle Newham

Cycle Systems

Cycle Training East

Cycle Training UK (CTUK)

Cyclelyn

Cycle-wise Thames Valley

Cycling Embassy of Great Britain

Cycling Tuition

cycling4all

Cyclists in the City

Daily Express

Department for Transport

Design for London

DHL

DHL Express

DHL UK and Ireland

Dial-a-Cab

Disability Alliance

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee


DNB Bank

Downing Street

E Clarke & Son (Coaches) Ltd, t/a Clarkes of London,

E J LANGLEY

E11 BID (Leytonstone)

Ealing Broadway BID

Ealing Council

Ealing Cycling Campaign

Ealing Passenger Transport Users' Group

Ealing Safer Transport Team

East and South East London Thames Gateway Transport Partnership

East End Express (X1)

East Surrey Rural Transport Partnership t/a Polestar Travel,

EDF Energy

Edgware Road Partnership

Enfield Council

Enfield Cycling Campaign

Enfield Safer Transport Team

English Heritage

English Heritage - London

Ensign Bus Company Ltd,

Enterprise Mouchel

ETOA

Evolution Cycle Training

Express Networks Forum

Express Newspapers

Federation of Small Businesses

First Beeline

First Beeline Buses Ltd,

First Group

Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association

Fitzrovia Partnership

Freight Transport Association

Friends of the Earth

Future Inclusion

Future Inclusion/IDAG

G4S

Garratt Business Park (Earlsfield)

Gatwick Flyer Ltd,

Get Sutton Cycling

Gibson Dunn and Crutcher

GLA (Planning)

GMB


Go-Coach Hire Ltd

Golden Tours

Golden Tours (Transport) Ltd,

Greater London Authotity

Greater London Forum for Older People

Greater London Forum for the Elderly

Green Flag Group

Green Line (Arriva)

Green Urban Transport Ltd,

Greenwich Cyclists

Greenwich Safer Transport Team

Guide Dogs

Guide Dogs Association

Guide Dogs for the Blind - Inner London District team

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Hackney Cycling Campaign

Hackney Safer Transport Team

Hainault Business Park

Hamilton-Baillie Associates Ltd.,

Hammersmith & Fulham Action on Disability

Hammersmith & Fulham Cyclists

Hammersmith & Fulham Safer Transport Team

HammersmithLondon

Haringey Cyclists

Haringey mobility forum

Haringey Safer Transport Team

Harrow Cycling Campaign

Harrow Safer Transport Team

Harrowby and District Residents Association

Hartnell Taylor Cook

Havering

Havering Safer Transport Team

Health Poverty Action

Heart of London Business Alliance

Heathrow Airport

Heritage London

hertfordshire County Council

HF Cyclists

Hillingdon Council

Hillingdon Cycling Campaign

Hillingdon mobility forum

Hillingdon Safer Transport Team

Historic Royal Palaces (HM Tower of London)

HMRC


HMS President

Honourable Artillery Company, Army Ceremonial requirements

Hounslow Cycling Campaign

Hounslow Safer Transport Team

Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment

HQS Wellington

HR Richmond Ltd t/a Quality Line,

Hyde Park Estate Association

Hyde Park Stables

IBM

ICOMOS UK

Ifs learning

Ilford Town BID

In & Around Covent Garden

In Holborn

Inclusion London

Independent Disability Advisory Group

Independent Shoreditch

Inmidtown

Inner and Middle Temple

Inner Temple institution

Institute for Sustainability

Institute of Advanced Motorists

Institution of Civil Engineers

inStreatham

Islington Cycle Action Group

Islington mobility forum

Islington Safer Transport Team

IT Skillfinder

J Brierley & E Barvela t/a Snowdrop Coaches

James Bikeability

Jeremy Reese t/a The Little Bus Company,

John Lewis Partnership

Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People (JCMD)

Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People

(JCMBPS)

Joint Mobility Unit

Keith Gould

Keltbray Limited

Keltbray ltd (construction)

Kensington & Chelsea Safer Transport Team


Kensington and Chelsea Cyclists

Kimpton Industrial Park (Sutton)

KING CRUISES

Kings Troop

Kingston Cyclists

Kingston First

Kingston mobility forum

Kingston Safer Transport Team

Laing O'Rourke

Lambert Council

Lambeth Cyclists

Lambeth Safer Transport Team

Lancaster London Hotel

Land Securities

LCC Enfield

Leonard Cheshire Disability

Lewisham Council

Lewisham Cyclists

Lewisham Safer Transport Team

Liam O'Connor Architects

Liberal Democrats

Licenced Private Hire Car Association

Licensed Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA)

Licensed Taxi Drivers Assoc (LTDA)

Licensed Taxi Drivers Association

Line Line Coaches (TGM),

Living Streets

Living Streets - Brentwood

Living Streets - Hackney

Living Streets - Islington

Living Streets - Kings Cross (Camden)

Living Streets - Merton

Living Streets - Sutton

Living Streets - Tower Hamlets

Living Streets - Wandsworth

Living Streets Action Group

Living Streets London

Living Streets Southwark

Living Strrets

Local Government Ombudsman

London ambulance Service

London Bike Hub

London Borough Hammersmith & Fulham

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham


London Borough of Barnet

London Borough of Bexley

London Borough of Brent

London Borough of Bromley

London Borough of Bromley

London Borough of Camden

London borough of Croydon

London Borough of Ealing

London Borough of Enfield

London Borough of Greenwich

London Borough of Hackney

London Borough of Hammersmith

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

London Borough of Haringey

London Borough of Harrow

London Borough of Havering

London Borough of Hillingdon

London Borough of Hounslow

London Borough of Islington

London Borough of Kingston Upon Thames

London Borough of Lambeth

London Borough of Lewisham

London Borough of Merton

London Borough of Newham

London Borough of Redbridge

London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

London Borough of Southwark

London Borough of Sutton

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

London Borough of Waltham Forest

London Borough of Wandsworth

London Cab Drivers' Club

London Central Cab Section

London Chamber of Commerce

London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI)

London City Airport

London Civic Forum

London Climate Change Partnership

London Councils

London Cycling Campaign

London Cycling Campaign (Ealing)

London Cycling Campaign (Hammersmith and Fulham)

London Cycling Campaign (Kensington and Chelsea)


London Cycling Campaign (Lewisham)

London Cycling Campaign (Tower Hamlets)

London Cycling Campaign (Westminster)

London Duck Tours Ltd

London European Partnership for Transport

London Fire

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

London Fire Brigade

London First

London General

London Mencap

London Older People's Strategy Group

LONDON PARTY BOATS

London Private Hire Board

LONDON RIB VOYAGES

LONDON RIVER CRUISES LTD.

London Riverside (Rainham)

London Strategic Health Authority

London Suburban Taxi Drivers' Coalition

London Tourist Coach Operators Association (LTCOA)

London Transport Users' Committee

London TravelWatch

London Underground

London United Busways Ltd,

London Visual Impairment Forum

Lonon borough of Lambeth

LoTAG

LoveWimbledon BID

LOWER THAMES & MEDWAY

LPHCA

LTCOA

M Moser associates

Marshalls

Marshalls Coaches,

Marylebone Association

MAYNARD LAUNCHES

Medway Estate Residents' Forum

Megabus/Stagecoach

Merton Council

Merton Cycling Campaign

Merton Metropolitian Police Service

Merton Safer Transport Team

Met Police

Metrobus Ltd,


Metroline Ltd

Metropolitan / City Police

Metropolitan Police

Metropolitan Police - Community Police

Metropolitan Police Service

Middle Temple institution

MIND

Ministry of Defence

Mobile Cycle Training Service

Mode Transport

Motorcycle Action Group

Motorcycle Action Group (MAG)

Motorcycle Industry Association

MP

Mullany's Coaches,

National Autistic Society

National Children's Bureau

National Express Ltd

National Grid

National Motorcycle Council

National Trust

National Trust - London

Neighbourcare St John's Wood & Maida Vale

New Addington BID

New West End Company (NWEC)

Newham Cyclists

Newham Safer Transport Team

NHS London

NHS Tower Hamlets CCG

Northbank BID

Northbank Business Improvement District (BID)

Northbank Guild

Norwood Green Residents' Association

Ocean Leisure

Ocean Youth Connexions

Olympian

Olympus Bus & Coach Company t/a Olympian Coaches,

On Demand PR & Marketing Ltd.,

On Your Bike Cycle Training

One Events

Original Tour

Orpington 1st

Oxford Tube (Stagecoach)


Oxford Tube (Thames Transit),

Paddington BID

Paddington Residents Active Concern On Transport (PRACT)

Parliament Security

Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS)

Parliamentary Estates

Passenger Focus

Pedal4Health

Permium Tours

Phil Jones Associates

philip kemp cycle training

Pimlico FREDA

Planning Design

Porcellio Ltd t/a Meridian Duck Tours,

Port of London Authority

Premium Coaches Ltd,

Private Hire Board

Purple Parking Ltd,

Puzzle Focus Ltd

Queen Mary University of London

Queensbridge House Hotel

R Hearn t/a Hearn's Coaches,

Rabobank

RAC

RAC Foundation for Motoring

RADAR London Access Forum

Radio Taxis

Rank and Highways Representative for Unite

RB Kingston

RBKC Cycling

Red Rose Travel

Redbridge Cycling Campaign

Redbridge Cycling Centre

Redbridge Safer Transport Team

Redwing (Evan Evans)

Redwing Coaches (Pullmanor Ltd),

REEDS RIVER CRUISES

Reliance

Reliance Travel,

Residents Society of Mayfair and St James's

Reynolds Diplomat Coaches

RIB TOURS LONDON

Richmond Cycling Campaign

Richmond Safer Transport Team


RICS / Roux Restaurant

Ringway Jacobs

RIVER THAMES BOAT HIRE

RMT

RMT London Taxi branch

RNIB

RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf People)

Road Danger Reduction Forum

Road Haulage Association

Roadpeace

Royal Borough of Greenwich

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames

Royal Greenwich Cycle Training

Royal Horse Artillery

Royal Household

Royal Institute of British Architects

Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors

Royal London Society for Blind People

Royal Mail

Royal Mews

Royal Parks

Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI)

RS Hispaniola

Sainsbury's Supermarkets

Sardar Ali Khan t/a Red Eagle,

SCOPE

SEBRA

Sense

Sixty Plus

Sloane Robson Investment securities

Soho Society

Somerset House

South Bucks Cycle Training

South East Bayswater Residents Association

South East London PCT

South Herts Plus Cycle Training

South London Business Forum

South London Partnership

Southbank Employers Group

Southdown PSV Ltd,

Southgate & Finchley Coaches Ltd

Southwark Cyclists


Southwark Safer Transport Team

Space Syntax

Spokes Cycling Instruction

St Helen's Residents' Association

St John's Wood Society

STA Bikes Ltd.

Steer Davies Gleave

Stratford Renaissance Partnership

Stroke Association

Successful Sutton

Sullivan Bus and Coach Ltd

Supreme Court

Sussex Square Residents Association

Sustrans

Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector

Sutton mobility forum

Sutton Safer Transport Team

Tattershall Castle

Taxi and Private hire

Team London Bridge

Technicolour Tyre Company

Terravision Transport Ltd / Stansted Transport Ltd,

Tesco

TGM Group Ltd

THAMES & ORWELL MARINE SERVICES

THAMES CLIPPERS

THAMES CRUISES

THAMES EXECUTIVE CHARTERS

THAMES LEISURE

THAMES LIMO LTD

THAMES LUXURY CHARTERS

THAMES RIB EXPERIENCE

THAMES RIVER SERVICES

Thames Tideway project

Thames Water

The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind

The Automobile Association

The Big Bus Company Ltd,

The British Dyslexia Association

The British Motorcyclists' Federation

The Cabinet Office

The Canal & River Trust

The City of Oxford Motor Services Ltd,


The company of watermen and lightermen

The Excel Centre

The fishmongers company

The Ghost Bus Tours Ltd

The Grange City Hotel

The hung drawn and quartered

The Kings Ferry

The Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association

The Mermaid Centre

The Novotel, City

The O2

The Original London Sightseeing Tour /London Pride Sightseeing Ltd,

The Road Haulage Assoc. Ltd.

The Southwark Cyclists

The Supreme Court

The Wellington Trust

The Yacht London (Temple Pier)

Thomas's London Day Schools (Transport) Ltd

Thorney Island Society

Time for Twickenham

TNT

TOPSAIL CHARTERS

Tower Hamlets mobility forum

Tower Hamlets Safer Transport Team

Tower Hamlets Wheelers

Tower Place West Facilities Manager

Tower RNLI

Tower Transit Operations Ltd,

Traffic Police

Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy UK

Transport for All

Transport for Greater Manchester

Transport Initiatives

TURK LAUNCHES

Tyssen Community School Cycle Training

UK Power Networks

UK Supreme Courts

Unite

Unite The Union

Unite the Union (taxis)

University College London

University of Westminster

Universitybus Ltd t/a uno,


UPS

Urban Movement

Vandome Cycles

Vauxhall One BID

Victoria BID

VISCOUNT CRUISES/CAMPION LAUNCHES

Vision Impairment Forum

Vogt and Maguire shipbroking Ltd

Walk England

Walk London

Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign

Waltham Forest Safer Transport Team

Wandsworth - London Cycling Campaign

Wandsworth Cycling Campaign

Wandsworth mobility forum

Wandsworth Safer Transport Team

Waterloo Quarter

West London

West London Alliance

West Twyford Residents' Association

Westfield London

Westfield Shepherds Bush

Westminster Abbey

Westminster City Council Conservation Officer

Westminster Cycling Campaign

WESTMINSTER PARTY BOATS

Westminster Safer Transport Team

Westminster School

Westminster Special Events

Westway Development Trust

Wheels for Wellbeing

Whizz-Kidz

Willow Lane Trading Estate (Merton)

Wilsons Cycles

Wincanton

Woodfines

WOODS RIVER CRUISES

www.cyclinginstructor.com

X90 (Oxford Bus Co)

Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists


Appendix H – Email to Oyster users on the TfL

database


Appendix I – Consultation leaflet

transport for london - east west cycle superhighway hyde park · 2015-08-04 · 1 east-west cycle...

Documents