Lower Clapton Road/Urswick Road junction changes

Consultation Report August 2017

2

Contents

Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 3

1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 4

2. About the consultation ...................................................................................... 11

3. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 14

4. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 18

5. Next steps ......................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A: Consultation questions .......................................................................... 29

Appendix B: Consultation letter ................................................................................. 31

Appendix C: Email to stakeholders ........................................................................... 33

Appendix D: List of stakeholders consulted ............................................................... 34

Appendix E: Summary of modelling results ............................................................... 36

3

Executive summary

Between 1 February and 20 March 2016, we consulted on proposals to to alter the

layout of the junction to remove existing traffic and pedestrian signals. The existing

signals would be replaced by an ‘informal’ roundabout and distinctive informal

pedestrian crossings. This document explains the processes, responses and

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

The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis from page 18.

Summary of issues raised during consultation

We received 183 responses to the consultation, of which 55 per cent supported or

partially supported our proposals. There was however, some opposition to the

scheme.

A number of respondents stating that shared space does not work for this

scheme.

A number of respondents commented that the scheme was not suitable for

this particular junction due to the location of local facilities such as the health

centre and doctors surgery nearby.

We received responses from seven stakeholder groups representing a range

of interests. Two stakeholders representing visually impaired people were

strongly against the scheme and the principles behind it.

Next steps

We have been carefully considering our position on the scheme proposed at Lower

Clapton Road/Urswick Road since we consulted in February and March 2016.

Given the significant level of stakeholder concern and the many other competing

priorities for resources across London, we do not plan to proceed at present with this

scheme in its current form. However, we hope to review the layout of the junction to

reduce road danger for people walking and cycling and improve bus journey times as

part of any future scheme, subject to available funding.

4

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction

We proposed to alter the layout of the junction to remove existing traffic and

pedestrian signals. They would be replaced by an ‘informal’ roundabout and

distinctive informal pedestrian crossings. The road surface would be raised to help

encourage lower vehicle speeds. However, there would still be a detectable kerb

height between the road and the footway.

The proposed changes had been designed to help the junction operate more

efficiently and are expected to result in improved journey times for all users,

particularly bus services. We also expected that pedestrian crossing times would

improve. The proposals had also been designed to reduce vehicle speeds and

create a more pleasant environment.

1.2 Purpose

We identified a higher rate of collisions at this junction compared to comparable

roads, including a higher rate of collisions involving pedestrians. In addition we know

that, during peak periods and weekends, the junction suffers from vehicle congestion

and long delays for pedestrians to cross the road. Therefore we were seeking to

implement a scheme that will reduce the number of casualties as well as make the

junction more convenient for people to cross.

1.3 Detailed description

Alongside the removal of the existing traffic and pedestrian signals we proposed to:

Widen footways to provide more space for pedestrians and encourage lower

motor vehicle speeds

Re-pave footways, using high quality granite paving

Increase public space outside the Health Centre

Extend loading bay hours on Lower Clapton Road (outside King’s Hall Leisure

Centre)

Loading bay relocation from Lower Clapton Road to Median Road to allow for

a new informal pedestrian crossing point.

Improved street lighting

Additional cycle parking

New trees

New seating

Other new public space amenities, including art features and a table tennis

table

5

A map and computer generated images of our proposals can be seen below:

6

7

1.3.1 Gateway features

We proposed to introduce a new signage feature to the junction, welcoming all

visitors to the area. These will be 1.2 metres high perforated metal signs positioned

next to the crossings and bearing the junction’s name in hollow letters. Their role is

to encourage drivers to give way to pedestrians and to give identity and revive

Hackney’s longstanding arboricultural heritage, promoting the study of individual

trees, shrubs, vines, and other plants.

8

1.3.2 Frequently asked questions

Where has this this type of scheme been introduced previously?

In designing our scheme, we drew inspiration from several successful applications of

the concept. For example, schemes in Bexleyheath (London Borough of Bexley),

and Poynton (Cheshire), have resulted in significant improvements to the junctions,

transforming the urban realm in areas that were previously blighted by traffic

congestion and pollution.

What is an informal roundabout?

A junction constructed to give the visual impression of a roundabout, but without the

accompanying signs and road markings.

9

Is the new junction a roundabout?

The new-look junction is designed as an informal roundabout, but is not a

conventional roundabout in the legal sense. The design intentionally requires drivers

to pass through the junction more slowly and cautiously, as there is no explicit

priority for any users or direction of traffic.

How will the junction help cyclists?

Our analysis shows that currently around 60 per cent of cyclists go through a red

light at this junction, which is significantly higher than the average for other junctions

within London. This indicates that it is not working well for cyclists. The design is

intended to create a slower, more pleasant environment for cyclists to use, with

reduced journey times as a result of the reduced congestion for all users. The flush

central reservation strip on the north side would also allow cyclists to use the middle

of the road if they so choose, something which they are currently doing. We are

proposing additional cycle parking as well as a public pump and cycle maintenance

stand.

What is an informal pedestrian crossing?

Informal pedestrian crossing points, constructed in a contrasting paving material,

would be introduced on all arms of the Lower Clapton Road/Urswick Road junction.

These crossings are so named because drivers often give way to pedestrians though

there is no statutory requirement to do so. Observations at this type of crossing have

shown that a majority of drivers stop to allow a pedestrian to cross, which means that

on average a pedestrian arriving at the informal crossing often does not have to wait,

or waits for a short time, before they are able to cross.

Why has the crossing on the north side been moved?

Our analysis shows a strong desire line, particularly for school children, to cross to

and from Median Road away from the junction. The proposed location of the

crossing better serves this demand. In addition, it allows buses and cyclists to exit

Median Road more easily while the crossing is in use by pedestrians.

What facilities will assist people who are blind or visually impaired?

Throughout the scheme, the distinction between footways and road would be defined

in the usual way by means of a wide and detectable kerb with a minimum 50mm

(approximately 2 inches) height between the two levels. Informal pedestrian crossing

points would be identified with tactile paving on the footway and be paved in a

contrasting material to assist in identifying them to people with visual impairment.

What would be the impact on bus passengers?

Over 3,000 bus passengers per hour travel through the junction. The proposed

changes are expected to reduce delays and result in improved journey time reliability

for all bus passengers.

10

Traffic impact of these proposals

The proposed changes are expected to result in improved journey times for all users,

particularly bus services. They are also expected to deliver a reduction in average

traffic speeds.

We have produced a model of traffic flows and pedestrian movements. The results of

the model show either no difference in journey time or a journey time reduction of up

to a minute for all vehicles passing through the junction. For pedestrians the model

also predicts reduction in the time taken to cross the junction, for all but one of the

crossings. For more detailed modelling results please see our detailed modelling

figures in Appendix E

11

2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose

The objectives of the consultation were:

To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about

the proposals and allow them to respond

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

proposals

To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were

not previously aware

To understand concerns and objections

To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes

The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to

proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the

proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not

to proceed with the scheme

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

2.3 Who we consulted

We consulted local residents, businesses and various stakeholder groups and

emergency services in order to gather opinions with regards to the proposals.

A list of stakeholders that we consulted with can be found in Appendix D

2.4 Dates and duration

The consultation ran for six weeks between 1 February and 13 March 2016.

Following requests from stakeholders the original consultation end date was

extended by one week, with the consultation closing on 20 March 2016.

2.5 What we asked

We asked four questions relating to the proposals and a further 10 generic questions

of the respondent. The respondent did not have to answer all of the questions. Of the

four questions relating to the proposal two were closed questions. The remaining two

were open questions and allowed the respondent was able to answer the questions

with their own views.

12

A list of the questions can be found in Appendix A

2.6 Methods of responding

We accepted responses through the following ways:

Via our website’s online survey

Email to consultations@tfl.gov.uk

Letter to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity We launched the consultation on 1 February 2016 by publishing the proposals on a

dedicated consultation page. This was followed by an email sent to stakeholders

inviting them to view the proposals and complete the questionnaire.

2.7.1 Website

The consultation material was published on the consultation page on the TfL

website. The full proposals can be viewed at

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/lower-clapton-road.

2.7.2 Letters

A consultation letter was sent out to residents in the local area.

2.7.3 Emails to stakeholders

We sent an email to stakeholders identified as relevant to the area surrounding the

scheme. A copy of this email can be found in Appendix C

2.7.4 Meetings with stakeholders

Government departments, parliamentary bodies & politicians

Councillor Vincent Stops – 17 March 2016

Accessibility Groups

RNIB – 9 March 2016

Hackney Disability Backup – 9 March 2016

Transport and road user groups

Hackney Cycling Campaign – 26 April 2016

2.8 Equalities Assessment

We took steps to ensure that protected groups such as older and disabled people

were aware of the proposals and their potential impacts, and were able to easily

respond to the consultation. Measures taken included identifying and emailing

relevant stakeholders and inviting them to respond to the consultation. A full list of

stakeholders contacted is available in Appendix D. We also met with RNIB on 9

13

March 2016 and Hackney Disability Backup on 9 March 2016 to discuss the

proposals and help them formally respond to the consultation

2.9 Analysis of consultation responses

We commissioned JMP Consultants to analyse the consultation responses. All

closed questions were reviewed and the results have been tabulated and reported.

All open questions, where respondents provided comments on the overall scheme or

parts of it, were read and analysed in detail. Each individual comment was attributed

one or more codes according to the issues raised. The information was also

analysed and tabulated.

All results are reported in Section 3 and Section 4 of this report.

Where more than one response had been submitted from the same person and

email address, these responses were combined before the data was passed to JMP.

Personal data was removed from responses before being passed for analysis in

accordance with data protection laws.

14

3. About the respondents

This section sets out the demographics of the respondents. It includes the overall percentages of public and stakeholder responses, how they heard about the consulation and the methods of responding.

An overview of how respondents currently use transport will also be highlighted.

Postcode analysis will also be included to provide an overview of where respondents

are from relative to the scheme.

3.1 Number of respondents

A total of 183 respondents replied to the online consultation survey. This includes

176 (96 per cent) individual responses and seven respondents (four per cent)

submitted a response on behalf of an organisation, highlighting their organisation

name. Table 1 shows a breakdown of these responses.

Table 1: Number of respondents

Respondents Total %

Public responses 176 96

Stakeholder responses 7 4

Total 183 100

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation

Respondents were asked about how they heard about the consultation.150 (82 per

cent) out of 183 respondents answered this question. Table 2 shows a breakdown of

these responses.

Table 2: How respondents heard about the consultation

N.B. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest integer.

78 respondents (43 per cent) were informed about the consultation by social media.

19 respondents (10 per cent) read about the consultation in the press, and another

19 respondents (10 per cent) saw it on the TfL website.

How respondents heard Total %

Social Media 78 43

Read about in the press 19 10

Saw it on TfL website 19 10

Received email from TfL 8 4

Received letter from TfL 2 1

Other 24 13

Not answered 33 18

Total 183 100

15

Eight respondents (four per cent) received an email from TfL and two respondents

(one per cent) received a letter from TfL.

24 respondents (13 per cent) stated other. Other categories included; family or

friends, cycle campaign groups, drop in sessions, and other interested groups.

3.3 Type of respondent

Respondents were asked to select what connection they had to the local area.

Of the 183 respondents, a total of 166 (91 per cent) respondents answered the

question. Respondents could tick more than one box where applicable. Percentages

are calculated from the 220 multiple responses. Table 3 shows a breakdown of these

responses.

Table 3: Connection to area

3.4 Types of transport

Of the 183 respondents a total of 174 (95 per cent) respondents answered the

question on the types of transport they normally use locally.

Respondents could tick more than one box where applicable. Percentages are

calculated from the 626 multiple responses. Table 4 shows a breakdown of these

responses.

Table 4: Types of transport

Connection to area Total %

Local Resident 115 52

Commuter to the area 27 12

Visitor to the area 25 11

Employed locally 19 9

Not local but interested in scheme 17 8

Business owner 8 4

Other 9 4

Total 220 100

What types of transport do you use locally Total %

Walk 145 23

Bus 127 20

Bicycle 126 20

Train 77 12

Car 63 10

Tube 46 7

Taxi 28 4

16

N.B. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest integer.

3.5 Postcodes of respondents

134 respondents (73 per cent) chose to give their postcode as part of the

consultation exercise. Table 5 shows a breakdown of these responses.

Table 1: Postcode of respondents

Postcode Total %

E5 60 45

E9 16 12

E8 11 8

E17 9 7

N16 8 6

Other 30 22

Total 134 100

The postcode location of the scheme is E5

The most popular areas from respondents were from Hackney, Walthamstow and

Stoke Newington.

Of these, 60 respondents (45 per cent) stated they had an E5 postcode, 16

respondents (12 per cent) stated they had an E9 postcode and 11 respondents

(Eight per cent) stated they had an E8 postcode.

Nine respondents (seven per cent) stated they had an E17 postcode and eight

respondents (six percent) stated they had a N16 postcode.

30 respondents (22 per cent) were classified as other. Other areas included NW1

and N1.

3.4 Distribution of respondents postcodes to consultation, in

relation to scheme area

Figure 2 shows the distribution of respondents postcodes in relation to the scheme

area.

Van/Lorry 6 1

Motorcycle/Scooter 5 1

Private coach 2 0

Other 1 0

Total 626 100

17

Figure 1: Distribution of respondent’s postcode in the scheme area

= Location of scheme

18

4. Summary of all consultation responses

We received 183 responses to the online consultation survey. Section 3 summarises

the demographic information about our respondents. This chapter provides a brief

summary of each consultation question. There were 2 closed questions and 2 open

text questions that related to the proposals. The remaining question in this section

focused on the the respondents perception of the consultation material. Stakeholder

responses are included with the results of this section, but a summary of their

individual responses are contained in Section 4.5.

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1

Of the 183 respondents, a total of 181 respondents (99 per cent) answered the

question on whether they use the junction of Lower Clapton Road/Urswick Road.

Table 6 shows a breakdown of these responses. 161 (88 per cent) use the junction, whilst 20 (11 per cent) do not use the junction.

Table 2: Junction usage by respondents

Do you currently use the junction Total %

Yes 161 88

No 20 11

Not answered 2 1

Total 183 100

4.2 Summary of responses to Question 2

We asked respondents to tell us whether they support our proposals. Figure 3 shows

a breakdown of the level of support received by the respondents.

19

Figure 3: Respondents level of support

4.3 Summary of responses to Question 3

Question 3 asked respondents if they had any comments on the proposals for Lower

Clapton Road/Urswick Road junction.

4.3.1 Issues commonly raised

Of the 183 respondents, a total of 166 (88 per cent) respondents chose to leave a

comment in the open text box field. Percentages given are from the total 183

consultation respondents.

In general 53 respondents (29 per cent) were positive towards the scheme, 100

respondents (55 per cent) were negative towards the scheme and 13 respondents

(seven per cent) left comments which were neither negative or positive towards the

scheme.

4.3.2 Most frequently raised comments

Urban Realm:

Table 7 summarises the main issues raised by respondents regarding the urban

realm. 73 respondents (40 per cent) generally commented on how the proposal will

negatively impact the urban realm.

Of these:

56 respondents (31 per cent) generally stated that the purposed shared space does not work for this scheme

11 respondents (six per cent) objected to the proposals, highlighting the

location of local facilities including health centre, shops and schools.

SupportPartiallysupport

Do notsupport

Not sureNot

Answered

Number of respondents 64 37 77 3 2

% 35% 20% 42% 2% 1%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

20

Six respondents (three per cent) suggested that a signalised junction should

be built instead

Table 3: Urban realm issues

Issue Total %

Shared space does not work 56 31

Location of facilities (including health centre, school needs to be considered) 11 6

Build a signalised junction 6 3

Pedestrians:

Table 8 shows a summary of the main issues raised for pedestrians. 84 respondents

(46 per cent) generally commented on how the proposal will impact pedestrians,

highlighting other measures.

Of these:

45 respondents (25 per cent) stated that the proposal will make it more

dangerous for pedestrians

26 respondents (14 per cent) suggested that zebra crossings should be

introduced, highlighting the danger of informal crossings

13 respondents (seven per cent) objected the proposal, highlighting the

danger for the visually impaired

Table 4: Pedestrian issues

Pedestrian Issues Total %

Scheme will make the area more dangerous for pedestrians 45 25

Zebra crossing should be introduced where informal crossings are proposed 26 14

Dangerous for visually impaired pedestrian as they will not be able to cross road without formal crossing points

13 7

Cyclists:

Table 9 shows a summary of the main issues raised for cyclists. 59 respondents (32 per cent) generally commented on how the proposal will negatively impact cyclists.

Of these:

28 respondents (15 per cent) suggested that the proposal should include

segregated cycling facilities

23 respondents (13 per cent) generally commented that the proposal will

make it more dangerous for cyclists

Eight respondents (four per cent) objected to the cycle parking in the centre

island

21

Table 5: Cyclists issues

Cyclist Issues Total %

Segregated cycle facilities should be introduced 28 15

Scheme will make area more dangerous for cyclists 23 13

Cycle Parking in centre island will not work/and needs better protection 8 4

Traffic Congestion:

Table 10 shows a summary of the main issues raised for traffic. 31 respondents (17 per cent) generally commented on how the proposal will negatively impact traffic.

Of these:

19 respondents (10 per cent) generally commented that the propsal will not reduce congestion

11 respondents (six per cent) objected the school proposal, highlighting an

increase in more congestion

Table 6: Traffic issues

Local road impact:

Table 11 shows a summary of the main issues raised regarding the local road network. Nine respondents (five per cent) generally commented on how the proposal will negatively impact local road traffic, highlighting more cycling provision.

Of these:

Five respondents (three per cent) objected to any increase in motor traffic on Median Road

Two respondents (one per cent) commented that the proposal should include more cycle route links, highlighting the surrounding area of Lower Clapton Square

Two respondents (one per cent) suggested that more cycling provision (cycle lane) should be made on Median Road

Traffic Congestion Issues Total %

Scheme will not reduce traffic congestion 19 10

Does not want or makes reference to school proposals at police station site 11 6

Traffic calming measures will not work 1 1

22

Table 7: Local road impact

4.4 Summary of responses to Question 4

Question 4 asked respondents if they had any comments on the proposals for the

Gateway Feature Lower Clapton Road/Urswick Road junction.

4.4.1 Issues commonly raised

Of the 183 people who responded to this consultation, 82 respondents (45 per cent) provided a comment in the open text box field on proposals for the gateway feature.

In general 21 respondents (11 per cent) were positive towards the scheme, 50 respondents (27 per cent) were negative towards the scheme and 11 respondents (six per cent) were ‘neither negative or postitive’ towards the scheme.

4.4.2 Most frequently raised comments

Table 12 shows a summary of the most frequently raised issues.

Table 12: Gateway feature issues

Gateway Feature Issues Total %

Looks good and the design is nice 24 13

Concern was expressed that the feature will easily be damaged through either vandalism or road traffic collisions

16 9

Feature does nothing to improve road safety 16 9

Size of the feature is too small and insignificant , and may potentially ‘hide’ children from vehicular traffic when they are crossing road

12 7

Money would be better spent elsewhere (7 stating road safety, 2 Trees and 1 other)

10 5

Feature is not wanted or required 8 4

Concern that the feature will not be illuminated during hours of darkness 5 3

Feature will enhance area 5 3

Design: 24 respondents (13 per cent) generally commented on the design,

highlighting the positives. 16 respondents (nine per cent) expressed concern

that the feature will be easily damaged, highlighting road collisions and

vandalism. Five respondents (three per cent) commented that the feature will

enhance the local area

Local Road Impact Issues Total %

The scheme will increase bus/car traffic of Median road 5 3

Improve cycle links around Lower Clapton Square 2 1

Improve cycling provision (cycle lane) on Median Road 2 1

23

Road safety: 16 respondents (nine per cent) generally commented that they

feature does not improve road safety and 12 respondents (seven per cent)

highlighted the feature is too small

Cost: 10 respondents (five per cent) objected to the cost of the feature whilst

eight respondents (four per cent) commented that the feature is not wanted or

required

Enhancement of the local area: Five respondents (three per cent)

commented that the feature will not me illuminated at night and two

respondents (one per cent) stated that it does not reflect the local area

4.5 Summary of stakeholder responses

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

sometimes have to condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full

stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Emergency services

The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) – Support

LFB officers have visited the site and can confirm the proposed work will have

no effect on the LFB

Accessibility Groups

Guide Dogs – Do not support the proposals

Guide Dogs are not in favour of any shared space or informal crossing design,

as they do not give visual impaired people (VIPs) any confidence to cross the

road safely or when it is safe to do so. The lack of tail for the tactile paving

means VIPs will not be able to find the crossing point

A similar scheme installed in Hackbridge was condemned by all and

controlled crossing point was subsequently installed. Guide Dogs would

strongly recommend that this scheme does not go forward and that any

crossing point is controlled.

RNIB – Do not support the proposals

RNIB welcomed the opportunity to respond to the public consultation on

changes to the junction of Lower Clapton Road/Urswick Road. In Hackney

there are over 1,000 people on Hackney’s sight loss register. It did not appear

that TfL made any attempt to engage with local blind and partially sighted

people living in Hackney.

24

The removal of controlled crossings and lowering of kerb heights below

conventional levels, will cause difficulties for blind and partially sighted

residents and need to be reconsidered.

The scheme is at a busy junction with a large number of pedestrians. A lot of

facilities in the area including doctors, health centre, leisure centre and

schools etc, attract a high level of pedestrian footfall especially from

vulnerable user groups.

Blind and partially sighted people will not people able to tell when this is safe

to cross; in order to cross safely they need a controlled crossing point. The

nearest the nearest zebra crossings are some distance away and the signal

controlled crossings will be even further away. This is unacceptable and

discriminates against blind and partially sighted pedestrians.

RNIB noted that the plans show that a minimum 50mm kerb will be installed,

but research in fact recommends 60mm as an effective kerb height enabling

blind and partially sighted people to detect it.

They noted the use of chequered paving materials in this area. TfL will need

to ensure that the footways and carriageway are sufficiently contrasting to

enable all road users to differentiate the two including at times of low

illumination and materials must also be slip resistant in all weather conditions.

To maintain a consistent palette of materials and reduce the number of trip

hazards, future maintenance of the scheme needs to be considered, including

reinstatement works by utility contractors etc.

RNIB welcome a reduction in street clutter and A boards and hope the street

remains as clear as in the visuals

Transport and road user groups

London Cycling Campaign – Do not support the proposals.

This proposal does not offer any safe space for cyclists, with the volume of

traffic using the junction, cyclists should be segregated from motor vehicles to

improve safety for cyclists. For the scheme to be successful it would require

the removal of a dramatic proportion of motor vehicle traffic (including buses)

or a total redesign that separate cyclists from motor traffic, it’s likely this

junction will allow motor vehicle drivers to dominate the environment here.

They believe instead, segregated space for cycling could be included in a

design for this junction – for instance, a cycle track would be feasible onto

Urswick Road given space appears to have already been taken from the

medical centre’s boundary.

25

They also believed that in the current proposals, encouraging cyclists to use

the central reservation puts them into direct conflict with pedestrians crossing

and formalises behaviour that arises out of frustration and fear, rather than

designing for all types of cyclists to ride in comfort.

The London Cycling Campaign also wanted, as a condition of funding, all

highway development designed to TfL’s London Cycling Design Standards

(LCDS), with a Cycling Level of Service (CLoS) rating of 70 or above, and all

“Critical Fails” eliminated. They believed that this scheme likely retains several

critical fails – most notably “hook” risks at the junction.

Cycling Embassy of Great Britain – Do not support the proposals.

The scheme has little benefit for anyone walking or cycling through the area,

and the lack of formal crossing facilities across multiple lanes of traffic is

likely to be concerning for those who are less confident or frail, at the very

least a zebra crossing should be provided on each arm of the junction

The proposals do little to slow vehicular speeds and the mix of cyclists and

motor vehicles in areas, will intimidate cyclists. Cycle routes should be

separated from motor traffic at a junction with such a high volume of motor

traffic

The Confederation of Passenger Transport – Supports the proposals

CPT fully supports measures to improve traffic flow and reduce journey times.

They fully support these changes which we believe will have a positive impact

for all road users locally.

Road layout design – They would like to draw attention to the extended

footways and express their concerns for long vehicles such as coaches

making the turns, particularly Urswick Rd into Lower Clapton Rd, and seek

conformation adequate space will be allowed in the design to allow larger

vehicles to safely make these turns.

Bus Stops - They would welcome coaches and non-TfL buses to be permitted

to set-down and pick-up on at least one stop in either direction at the stops on

Lower Clapton Rd. They understand that there are currently restrictions to

local buses only on these stops. This would greatly assist the safe boarding

and alighting for coaches and home to school transport services in particular.

Hackney Living Streets – Do not support the proposals

Their conclusion is that they cannot support the scheme as proposed, though

they recognise that this is an important junction and would like to support

Hackney Council and TfL to get the right design.

26

There are a lot of vulnerable user groups in the area that use the current

crossing, including users of the health centre, hospital, leisure centre,

secondary and primary school – and people using the shops. It is too

dangerous for shared space and informal crossings to be used across two

lanes of traffic, as this puts pedestrians in danger.

The scheme does not address or seek to minimise the high volume of

vehicular traffic (congestion and pollution) through area, nor does it do

enough to slow traffic speeds.

A Zebra crossing would send a stronger signal to drivers to give way to

pedestrians, and help pedestrians cross. A trial for a “courtesy crossing” that

can be used when needed especially for vulnerable pedestrians could be

used

With regard to the loading bay in front of Kings Hall leisure centre that has

been carved out of the footway, we are pleased to see that it has been raised

to footway level. However, they are concerned that outside loading bay times

it is to be used as a free parking bay. At no time should this be permitted to be

used as a standard parking bay whether free or not.

They are not keen on median strips and prefer to see wider footways and

shorter crossing points. They believe median strips create a dual carriageway

effect encouraging drivers to go faster.

4.6 Comments on the consultation

Question 12 asked respondents if they had any comments on the quality of the

consultation material.

4.6.1 General

71 respondents (39 per cent) provided a comment on the quality of the consultation

and associated materials.

58 (32 per cent) of respondents made neutral or positive comments about the

materials with views such as “excellent”, “very good”, “good” and “okay”

13 (seven per cent) of respondents made negative comments about the materials

with views such as “poor” and “unhelpful”

4.6.2 The most frequently raised issues were:

Of the 71 respondents, 25 (35 per cent) thought the consultation was of good quality,

with concise and informative information

10 (14 per cent) suggested that the pictures provided were of use and helped them

to visualise scheme.

27

Eight (11 per cent) thought the consultation was not publicised enough, and they (or

someone they knew) did not know about the consultation

Four (six per cent) said that the website was good, clear and very detailed.

Three (four per cent) respondents wanted more maps and pictures,

Three (four per cent) respondents wanted more detail on carriageway widths to be

included

Three (four per cent) thought not issuing hard copies of the report was excluding

others from theconsultation.

Two (three per cent) suggested that the pictures were unrealistic

Two (three per cent) suggested the consultation was difficult to fill out on a mobile

phone.

28

5. Next steps

We have been carefully considering our position on the scheme proposed at Lower

Clapton Road/Urswick Road since we consulted in February and March 2016.

Given the significant level of stakeholder concern and the many other competing

priorities for resources across London, we do not plan to proceed at present with this

scheme in its current form. However, we hope to review the layout of the junction to

reduce road danger for people walking and cycling and improve bus journey times as

part of any future scheme, subject to available funding.

29

Appendix A: Consultation questions

Questions about our proposals

1. Do you currently use the Lower Clapton Road/Urswick Road junction?

Yes; No

2. Do you support the proposals for Lower Clapton Road/Urswick Road?

Support; Partially support; Do not support; Not sure; No opinion

3. Do you have any comments on the proposals for Lower Clapton

Road/Urswick Road?

Open text box for respondents own views

4. Do you have any comments on the design of the Gateway feature?

Open text box for respondents own views

Questions about the respondent

5. What types of transport do you normally use locally? (please tick all boxes

that apply)

Walk; Bicycle; Car; Bus; Tube; Train (London Overground/National Rail); Taxi;

Motorcycle/Scooter; Van/Lorry; Private coach; Other (respondents were given

the opportunity to specify other options)

6. What is your name?

7. What is your email address?

8. Please provide us with your postcode

9. Are you? (please tick all boxes that apply)

Local resident; Business owner; Employed locally; Visitor to the area;

Commuter to the area; Not local but interested in the scheme; Other

(respondents were given the opportunity to specify)

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

please provide us with the name

11. How did you hear about the consultation?

Received an email from TfL; Received a letter from TfL; Read about it in the

press; Saw it on the TfL website; Social media; Other (respondents were

given the opportunity to specify)

12. Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for

example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have

received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)

13. Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability

which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? (Please include

problems related to old age)

Yes, limited a lot; Yes, limited a little; No; Prefer not say

14. If you answered yes to the above question please tell us which category

below best describes your health problem or disability (Please tick all that

apply)

30

Hearing; Vision; Mobility, Other (respondents were given the opportunity to

specify)

31

Appendix B: Consultation letter

Proposed changes to the junction of Lower Clapton Road and Urswick Road Dear Sir/Madam

We are currently consulting on proposals to redesign the junction of Lower Clapton

Road and Urswick Road in Hackney.

We have identified a higher rate of collisions at this junction compared to comparable

junctions, including a higher rate of collisions involving pedestrians. Therefore, we

are proposing a scheme that is designed to reduce the number of casualties, as well

as make the junction more convenient for people to cross. In addition, the proposals

are expected to improve journey times for road users through the junction, which

currently experiences congestion during peak periods and at weekends.

About the proposals

We are proposing to alter the layout of the junction to remove existing traffic and

pedestrian signals. They would be replaced by an ‘informal’ roundabout and

distinctive informal pedestrian crossings. The road surface would be raised to help

encourage lower vehicle speeds. However, there would still be a detectable kerb

height between the road and the footway.

The proposals also include:

Wider footways to provide more space for pedestrians and encourage lower

motor vehicle speeds

Re-paved footways, using high quality granite paving

Increased public space outside the health centre

Extended loading bay hours on Lower Clapton Road (outside King’s Hall

Leisure Centre)

Loading bay relocated from Lower Clapton Road to Median Road to allow for

a new informal pedestrian crossing point.

Improved street lighting

Additional cycle parking

New trees

New seating

Other new public space amenities, including art features and a table tennis

table

32

The proposed changes have been designed to help the junction operate more

efficiently and are expected to result in improved journey times for all users,

particularly bus services. We also expect that pedestrian crossing times would

improve. The proposals have also been designed to reduce vehicle speeds and

create a more pleasant environment

A map showing the proposed changes can be seen in figure 1.

When would these changes take place?

Dependant on the results of the consultation, it would be our intention to start

construction of the scheme in summer 2016. We would write to you nearer the time

to inform you of the start and end dates for the works.

How to comment on these proposed changes

You can find more details and leave feedback on our proposals on our website at

consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/lower-clapton-road. You can also write to us at

FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS or via email at: consultations@tfl.gov.uk.

Please let us know your views by 13 March 2016.

Yours sincerely

David Silvey

Consultation Team

Transport for London

33

Appendix C: Email to stakeholders

34

Appendix D: List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Local Authorities

London Borough of Hackney

Elected Members

Caroline Pidgeon Assembly Member

Jennette Arnold Assembly Member for North East

Valerie Shawcross Assembly Member

Diane Abbott MP Hackney North and Stoke Newington

Meg Hillier MP Hackney South and Shoreditch

Cllr Robert Chapman Homerton

Cllr Guy Nicholson Homerton

Cllr Sally Mulready Homerton

Police and Health Authorities

Hackney Safer Transport Team

Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

London Ambulance Service

London Fire Brigade

Metropolitan Police service

NHS Care Commissioning Group City and Hackney

Transport Groups

ICE - London

Living Streets

London Cycling Campaign (Hackney)

Accessibility Groups

Age Concern

Age UK

Beyond Barriers

Beyond Barriers

Disability Rights UK

Guide Dogs

Hackney Disability Backup

RNIB

Royal London Society for Blind People (now known as Royal Society for Blind Children

35

Local Interest Groups

East London Vision

Powerscroft Road Initiative for Neighbourhood Community Environment

36

Appendix E: Summary of modelling results