Proposals to improve safety for cyclists on Shoreditch High Street between Hackney Road and New Inn Yard

Consultation Report February 2018

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

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

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

3. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 10

4. Summary of consultation responses ................................................................. 12

5. Next steps ......................................................................................................... 18

Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments ............................................................. 19

Appendix B: Consultation map .................................................................................. 22

Appendix C: Survey questions .................................................................................. 23

Appendix D: Notification emails ................................................................................. 26

Appendix E: List of stakeholders ............................................................................... 29

2

Executive summary Between 31 March and 21 May 2017, we consulted on proposals to improve safety for cyclists on Shoreditch High Street between Hackney Road and New Inn Yard.

We received 154 responses to the consultation, with 63 respondents (41 per cent) in favour of the proposals. Of these, 37 (24 per cent) said they strongly supported and 26 (17 per cent) said they supported the scheme.

77 respondents (50 per cent) were against the proposals, with 46 (30 per cent) strongly opposed and 31 (20 per cent) opposed.

A further 14 respondents (9 per cent) said they neither opposed nor supported them1.

The main themes raised during the consultation are highlighted below, with a fuller summary of the results in Chapter 4 and detailed analysis of issues in Appendix A.

Issues most frequently raised during consultation • Concern the proposals will not improve safety conditions for cycling, making

the area safe for cyclists aged 8-80 or people who want to cycle but don'tcurrently

• Opposition to the advisory cycle lane proposed for the corner of HackneyRoad, saying it will increase conflict between cyclists and motor traffic

• Concern that lane reductions in Hackney Road and Shoreditch High Streetwill increase motor traffic congestion

• General calls for segregated cycle tracks to improve comfort and safety forcycling

• Calls for the junction of Hackney Road and Shoreditch High Street to includea segregated cycle track on the corner of Hackney Road to protect cyclistsfrom turning motor traffic

• Calls for segregated cycle tracks along Shoreditch High Street to improvecomfort and safety on a road that has relatively high cycle traffic

• Non-specific calls to do more to improve cycling provision

• General support for the scheme

• Calls for through motor traffic to be prevented from using minor roads nearShoreditch High Street as ‘rat-runs’, in particular roads along the Quietwayroute such as Rivington Street and Calvert Avenue

1 This includes five respondents who replied by email and did not answer the ‘level of support’ question, but for whom we interpreted a level of support based on their comments about the scheme.

3

• Calls for the crossing between Rivington Street and Calvert Avenue to beredesigned to improve safety for cycling, with the main suggestion being tomake this a signalised crossing

Next steps For information about our next steps for the scheme, and for our responses to the issues raised during consultation, please see our separate ‘Response to Issues Raised’ document, also published at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/shoreditch.

4

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction This consultation asked for views on plans to improve safety for cyclists using the proposed Central London Grid route between Rivington Street and Calvert Avenue (find out more at tfl.gov.uk/cycle-grid). This route forms part of the Quietway 13 cycle route, linking Farringdon to Broadway Market, being developed in partnership with the London Boroughs of Hackney, Islington and Tower Hamlets.

Other measures proposed included a new southbound bus lane on Shoreditch High Street to help protect bus journey times, along with a larger traffic island and a wider cycle lane at the junction of Shoreditch High Street and Hackney Road to improve pedestrian and cycling provision.

1.2 Detailed description You can view a detailed description of the proposals, including an annotated diagram, at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/shoreditch.

1.2.1 Diagrams of proposed changes

The consultation diagrams are reproduced in Appendix B.

1.2.2 Summary of proposed changes

The following text was used to described the proposals:

We would like your views on plans to improve safety for cyclists using the proposed Central London Grid route between Rivington Street and Calvert Avenue (find out more at tfl.gov.uk/cycle-grid). This route forms part of the Quietway 13 cycle route, linking Farringdon to Broadway Market, being developed in partnership with the London Boroughs of Hackney, Islington and Tower Hamlets.

The junction changes would make cycling across Shoreditch High Street safer, helping to accommodate a predicted increase in cycling along this east-west route.

Other measures proposed include a new southbound bus lane on Shoreditch High Street to help protect bus journey times, along with a larger traffic island at the junction of Shoreditch High Street and Hackney Road to improve pedestrian and cycle provision.

5

Our proposals are in line with the Mayor’s Healthy Streets for London plan, which aims to encourage more Londoners to walk and cycle by making streets healthier, safer and more welcoming. Find out more at tfl.gov.uk/healthy-streets-for-london).

What are we proposing? The proposed changes are described in detail below:

Junction of Shoreditch High Street with Rivington Street and Calvert Avenue: The following measures would make it safer and more comfortable for cyclists to travel east-west through this staggered junction across Shoreditch High Street:

• We would introduce a right-turn ban for all traffic except cycles exitingRivington Street into Shoreditch High Street. This would improve safety forcyclists waiting to turn into Rivington Street and pedestrians using the nearbypedestrian crossing. Our latest traffic counts show a maximum of 33 vehiclesper hour making this right turn, and we are satisfied alternative routes exist

• We would remove a southbound general traffic lane on Shoreditch High Streetto accommodate two new right-turn pockets and three new traffic islands. Thetraffic islands would protect road users waiting to turn right into eitherRivington Street (cycles only) or Calvert Avenue (all traffic)

• We would reduce the size of the footway by a small amount on the northerncorner of Shoreditch High Street and Calvert Avenue to accommodate theturning movements of larger vehicles once the new traffic islands are in place

Junction of Shoreditch High Street and Hackney Road: We would enlarge the traffic island to the west of the southbound slip road, reducing the carriageway width and the number of southbound lanes from two to one. This would create more footway space for pedestrians and reduce the distance people have to cross. Making this section of road a single lane for motor traffic would also create space for an advisory southbound cycle lane and reduce the likelihood of conflict between cyclists and motor traffic.

Shoreditch High Street: We would install a new southbound bus lane (operational Monday to Saturday, 7am to 7pm) in place of a general traffic lane from south of Rivington Street to the pedestrian crossing opposite New Inn Yard. This bus lane would also be available to cycles, taxis, motorcycles and coaches. The loading bay outside the Ace Hotel, and the existing bus stand and bus stops on Shoreditch High Street would not be affected by the bus lane.

Traffic impacts We carried out traffic modelling analysis to understand how our proposals might affect journey times through the scheme area. We found that during peak times some journey times for buses and general traffic are expected to increase and some to decrease, but all changes are expected to be less than a minute.

6

2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:

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

• To understand the level of support or opposition for the proposals

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

• To understand concerns and objections

• To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide toproceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation

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

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

The next steps for this scheme are set out in the Response to Issues Raised document, which can be found at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/shoreditch.

2.3 Who we consulted We consulted relevant stakeholders, along with customers / members of the public identified as likely to be affected by or interestedm our scheme. These included bus passengers, cyclists and motorists using routes in this area or living in this area.

2.4 Dates and duration The consultation was open for six weeks, from 31 March to 21 May 2017.

7

2.5 What we asked We asked a mandatory2 closed question about the proposals asking respondents to indicate their level of support or otherwise for the scheme. We also gave respondents an opportunity to comment on the proposals.

In addition, we also gave respondents the option to answer our standard set of questions designed to give us more information about respondents such as name, postcode, stakeholder status and so on. All questions are reproduced in Appendix C.

2.6 Methods of responding We accepted responses through our standard consultation response channels:

• Via our website’s online survey

• Email to consultations@tfl.gov.uk

• Letter or paper survey sent to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

• Telephone call to our Customer Service Team

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity

2.7.1 Website

We published materials at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/shoreditch explaining our proposals.

2.7.2 Letters

Members of the public and stakeholders near the scheme were informed via a consultation notification letter sent on the first day of the consultation. The letter was sent to 1,667 properties across an area most likely to be affected by the scheme.

2.7.3 Emails to stakeholders

We sent an email notification to 232 stakeholders identified as relevant to cycle schemes or schemes in this area. The text of the email is reproduced in Appendix D and the list of stakeholders is reproduced in Appendix E.

2 The question was mandatory when responding via our online survey. However, those who responded via email did not have to answer any survey questions. Overall, five people responded by email and did not answer the question asking for their level of support, but we were able to interpret a level of support from their comments.

8

2.7.4 Social media

The consultation was publicised by accounts including @cyclistsinthecity (22k followers).

2.8 Equalities assessment of the consultation We took steps to ensure that all groups in the community, such as elderly, disabled or faith organisations were made aware of the consultation, the potential impacts of the scheme, and how to respond to the consultation. Measures taken included:

• Identifying and emailing relevant stakeholders including but not limited to theAge UK London, Guide Dogs, Royal National Institute for the Blind, andAction on Hearing Loss, inviting them to respond to the consultation

• Ensuring the materials were written in plain English, and were available onrequest in different formats such as Braille, large print and other languages

We are fully aware of our obligations under the Equality Act 2010, in particular the effect of the public sector equality duty on our decision-making.

2.9 Analysis of consultation responses Analysis of consultation responses was carried out by the consultation specialist leading on the project. We used our standard peer-review processes to verify the coding of comments. Detailed comment analysis can be found in Appendix A.

9

3. About the respondentsThis section presents information about those who responded to this consultation.

3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents Total per cent

Public responses 145 94

Stakeholder responses 9 6

Total 154 100

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation

(Figures have been rounded up to make 100 per cent)

3.3 Methods of responding

Methods of responding Total per cent

Website 149 97

Email 5 3

Total 154 100

How respondents heard Total per cent

Social media 62 40

Email from TfL 37 24

TfL website 31 20

Read about in the press 8 5

Letter from TfL 3 2

Other 3 2

Not answered 10 6

Total 154 100

10

3.4 Postcodes of respondents

Postcode Total per cent

E2 7 5

N1 6 4

Other E 34 22

Other N 22 14

Others 61 40

Not answered 24 16

Total 154 100 (Figures have been rounded down to make 100 per cent)

3.5 Interest in the scheme We asked respondents to identify what interest(s) they had in the scheme. Some respondents did not answer, while others chose one or more interests.

Interest Total per cent

Local resident 42 17

Business owner 8 3

Employed locally 33 13

Visitor to the area 65 26

Commuter to or through the area 54 22

Not local but interested in the scheme 20 8

Other 13 5

Not answered 14 6

Total 249 100

11

4. Summary of consultation responses

4.1 Summary of responses We received 154 responses to this consultation. The breakdown of responses to the closed question about the level of support for the proposals is shown below3.

4.1.1 Level of support for the proposals

All responses Public Stakeholder

Strongly supported 37 (24 per cent) 37 (24 per cent) 0 (0 per cent)

Supported 26 (17 per cent) 23 (15 per cent) 3 (2 per cent) Neither supported nor opposed 14 (9 per cent) 13 (8 per cent) 1 (1 per cent)

Opposed 31 (20 per cent) 30 (19 per cent) 1 (1 per cent)

Strongly opposed 46 (30 per cent) 42 (27 per cent) 4 (3 per cent)

Total 154 (100 per cent)

135 (93 per cent) 9 (7 per cent)

4.1.2 Issues commonly raised

Of the 154 people who responded to this consultation, 127 (82 per cent) provided a comment in the open text box for the scheme. A detailed analysis of comments is

3 Two individuals and three stakeholders responded by email and did not answer the question asking for their level of support. We have interpreted a level of support for the scheme from their comments.

05

101520253035404550

S tronglys upported

S upported Neithers upported

noroppos ed

O ppos ed S tronglyoppos ed

L evel of s upport for the propos als

All res ponses

P ublic

S takeholder

12

available in Appendix A. The issues most commonly raised in these comments were these:

Issue Public Stakeholder Total Concerns that the proposals won't improve safety conditions for cycling 24 3 27

Opposed to the use of an advisory cycle lane on Hackney Road as it will increase conflict with motor vehicles

24 3 27

Concerned that the proposed lanes reduction will cause congestion 18 2 20

Demands for segregated cycle lanes generally 18 2 20 Demands for segregated cycle lanes on the corner of Hackney Road 17 2 19

Demands for segregated cycle lanes on Shoreditch High Street (A10) 16 1 17

Demands for more to be done to improve cycling in an area with high numbers of cyclists 16 0 16

Support for the scheme generally 11 2 13 Demand for vehicular traffic to be filtered from Rivington Street, Calvert Avenue and other roads in the area to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians

11 2 13

Demand for the Rivington Street crossing to be designed in a safer way, such as by adding signals or by segregating the route in some way

9 4 13

Opposed to the narrowing of the Calvert Avenue footway to accommodate larger vehicles as this increases risk for vulnerable road users

8 3 11

Demand that the bus lane should be in place 24 hours a day 9 1 10

Demand that the proposals do more to improve pedestrian safety 7 3 10

For our responses to the issues raised during consultation, please see the ‘Response to Issues Raised’ at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/shoreditch.

13

4.2 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. Answers to the closed question about support for the scheme are shown in italics after the stakeholder name. Although we summarise responses here, the full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Politicians, government departments and parliamentary bodies

London Borough of Hackney

The Council said that the proposals would improve the safety for cyclists in Shoreditch. However they believe a more ambitious scheme could be developed to further improve safety at the junction. They recommend a segregated junction crossing for cyclists as well as the segregation of the entire length of Shoreditch High Street for a cycle lane.

In relation to the proposed bus lane, the Council also said that they prefer cycle segregation along Shoreditch High Street rather than a bus lane on the southbound lane of Shoreditch High Street. As a result they oppose this proposal as they are concerned that if a bus lane were to be introduced in the short term, it may be difficult to subsequently remove it.

Councillor for Hoxton East and Shoreditch

The councillor supported the proposals, believing they are sensible.

London Fire Brigade

The London Fire Brigade expressed concern that the reduction from two lanes to one lane for vehicles would increase congestion in an area they feel is already congested at most times. This would then impact on Emergency Service vehicles responding in the area.

Transport and road user groups

Hackney Cycling Campaign

The group expressed concern that the proposed crossing between Rivington Street and Calvert Avenue is not adequate for crossing Shoreditch High Street and will deter vulnerable and unconfident cyclists. As a result, they recommended that a segregated and signalised cycle crossing should be provided.

The group also suggested that a modal filtering scheme should be introduced in the area bounded by Great Eastern Street, Shoreditch High Street and Old Street, to reduce through vehicular traffic.

14

The Campaign said that the reduction of the footway on Calvert Avenue to allow turning movements for larger vehicles is contrary to the aims of the Quietway Scheme and would put cyclists and pedestrians at risk.

The group also suggested that a 20mph speed limit on Shoreditch High Street should be introduced and that the slip road leading from Hackney Road to Shoreditch High Street should be converted into a cycle only lane as the proposed alteration would provide little or no benefit.

Tower Hamlets Wheelers

The group was supportive of improvements to cycling provision on Shoreditch High Street and the surrounding area. However, the Tower Hamlets Wheelers said the proposals are inadequate.

The group requested a protected space to be provided at the junction of Hackney Road and Shoreditch High Street to help cyclists travelling south. Whilst out of the scope of the consultation, the group also expressed concern about the Old Street/Kingsland Road/Hackney Road/Shoreditch High Street junction. The group asked that the junction be made safer as it is a dangerous junction for both cyclists and pedestrians.

The group also suggested other measures to improve the safety of cyclists using Shoreditch High Street. One recommendation was for the speed limit to be lowered to 20mph. Another was to introduce a signalised crossing across the road as Shoreditch High Street is a busy road.

The Tower Hamlets Wheelers also requested that future Quietways be consulted upon on as a whole route, or at least in substantial sections.

London TravelWatch

London TravelWatch believed that the bus lane proposal should be in operation 24 hours a day to help support the local night time economy.

The group did express some concern that the proposed cycle lane would position cyclists too close to the kerb and parked vehicles.

Vision Zero London

The group expressed concern that the design of the scheme would create pinch points putting cyclists in danger.

15

Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School

The group expressed concern that the proposals for advisory cycle lanes would encourage vehicles to pass too close to cyclists, discouraging those less confident from using the route and not supporting vulnerable road users.

Local interest groups

East Shoreditch Neighbourhood Forum

The Forum supported the proposals for protecting right hand turns for cyclists. However they did feel that more could be done to support pedestrians in this area. They also expressed concern at the possibility of larger vehicles using Calvert Avenue through the reduction of the footway.

The Forum expressed some concern that the proposed tightening of the intersection at Hackney Road would create congestion and possibly encourage rat-running between Hackney Road and Bethnal Green Road. They said that proposed cycle lane along Shoreditch High Street did not seem long enough.

4.3 Comments on the consultation We asked all respondents to rate the quality of our consultation by choosing one of the following descriptions: Very good; Good; Acceptable; Poor; Very poor. The question was not mandatory and 12 people chose not to answer.

Interest Total per cent

Very good 31 20

Good 48 31

Acceptable 42 27

Poor 13 8

Very poor 8 5

Not answered 12 8

Total 154 100 (Figures have been rounded up to make 100 per cent)

16

We also gave respondents the opportunity to comment on the quality of the consultation and the materials. The topics raised are summarised below:

• 7 respondents (5 per cent of all respondents) called for more information to be provided in the consultation materials

• 4 respondents (3 per cent) said the maps could be clearer

• 2 respondents (1 per cent) said the consultation materials were good

• 1 respondent (1 per cent) said the consultation could have been advertised better

• 3 respondents (2 per cent) cast doubt on the authenticity of the consultation process

17

5. Next steps For information about our next steps for the scheme, and for our responses to the issues raised during consultation, please see our separate ‘Response to Issues Raised’ document, also published at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/shoreditch.

18

Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments Of the 154 respondents, 127 provided comments on the scheme. We have summarised the significant issues raised below. Please note that some respondents raised more than one issue, meaning the number of respondents for each specific issue will not equal the number of respondents who commented on a theme (eg ‘Effect on cyclists’). Percentages are calculated based on the total number of respondents.

Effect on cyclists

75 respondents (49 per cent) commented on how cyclists would be impacted by the proposals:

• 27 respondents (18 per cent) expressed concern that the proposals won'timprove safety conditions for cycling

• 27 respondents (18 per cent) opposed to the use of an advisory cycle lane onHackney Road as it will increase conflict with motor vehicles

• 20 respondents (13 per cent) called for cycle tracks/segregation generally

• 19 respondents (12 per cent) called for cycle tracks/segregation on the cornerof Hackney Road

• 17 respondents (11 per cent) called for cycle tracks/segregation onShoreditch High Street

• 16 respondents (10 per cent) called for more to be done to improve cyclingprovision, particularly in an area with large numbers of cyclists

• 13 respondents (8 per cent) called for motor traffic to be filtered fromRivington Street, Calvert Avenue and other roads in the area to improvesafety for cyclists and pedestrians

• 11 respondents (7 per cent) opposed the trimming the Calvert Avenuefootway to accommodate larger vehicles, saying this increases risk forvulnerable road users

• 7 respondents (5 per cent) expressed concern that the proposed new trafficislands will create pinch-points for cyclists using Shoreditch High Street

• 3 respondents (2 per cent) said that advanced stop lines (ASLs) are not agood solution to improve cycle safety

19

Effect on motor vehicles

22 respondents (14 per cent) commented on how motor vehicles would be affected by the proposals:

• 20 respondents (13 per cent) said the proposed lanes reduction will cause congestion

• 7 respondents (5 per cent) said they opposed the banned turn from Rivington Street to Shoreditch High Street on the ground that it would increase journey times for motorists

Effect on buses

13 respondents (8 per cent) commented on how the proposals would impact bus services:

• 10 respondents (6 per cent) said that the proposed bus lane should be in operation for 24 hours a day to support the Shoreditch night time economy

• 3 respondents (2 per cent) supported the proposed new bus lane

Crossings

20 respondents (13 per cent) commented on the impact on crossings by the proposals:

• 13 respondents (8 per cent) called for the Rivington Street crossing to be designed in a safer way, such as adding signals or by segregating the route

• 8 respondents (5 per cent) supported the Quietway crossing

• 3 respondents (2 per cent) called for a Dutch-style continuous footway across Calvert Avenue to improve safety

Effect on pedestrians

17 respondents (11 per cent) commented on the impact on pedestrians:

• 13 respondents (8 per cent) called for motor traffic to be filtered from Rivington Street, Calvert Avenue and other roads in the area to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians

• 10 respondents (6 per cent) called generally for the scheme to do more to favour pedestrian safety and comfort

• 5 respondents (3 per cent) called for the removal of the Hackney Road slip road to improve cycling and pedestrian safety

20

Pollution

9 respondents (6 per cent) expressed concern that increased congestion caused by the scheme will increase air pollution.

Comments out of scope

8 respondents (5 per cent) made a specific request for a change that is outside the scope of this scheme, such as changes to Old Street or the Shoreditch Triangle.

21

Appendix B: Consultation drawing

22

23

Appendix C: Survey questions We asked respondents the following questions, with only Question 1 being mandatory:

1. Do you support our proposals for Shoreditch High Street between Hackney Road and New Inn Yard?

• Strongly support • Support • Neither support nor oppose • Oppose • Strongly oppose

2. Do you have any comments on our proposals for Shoreditch High Street between Hackney Road and New Inn Yard?

3. What is your name?

4. What is your email address?

5. Please provide us with your postcode?

6. Are you (please tick all boxes that apply):

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

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

24

8. How did you find out about this consultation?

• Received an email from TfL • Received a letter from TfL • Read about in the press • Saw it on the TfL website • Social media • Other (please specify)

9. What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)?

• Very good • Good • Acceptable • Poor • Very poor

Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation material?

25

Appendix D: Notification letter and emails

Notification letter

The following letter was sent to all properties within 250 metres of the scheme, which included 1,667 addresses. The letter also included copies of the consultation drawings in Appendix B.

26

27

Stakeholder email

The following email was sent to 232 stakeholders that had been identified as having an interest in the in the proposals:

Dear Stakeholder,

We want your views on proposals for Shoreditch High Street between Hackney Road and New Inn Yard, including a banned right turn out of Rivington Street

We invite you to send us your feedback on plans to improve safety for cyclists using the proposed Central London Grid route between Rivington Street and Calvert Avenue.

The proposed junction changes would make cycling across Shoreditch High Street safer, helping to accommodate a predicted increase in cycling along this east-west route.

Other measures proposed as part of this scheme include a new southbound bus lane on Shoreditch High Street to help protect bus journey times, along with a larger traffic island at the junction of Shoreditch High Street and Hackney Road to improve pedestrian and cycle provision.

Please visit consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/shoreditch for more information and to respond.

Yours faithfully

Mike Cavenett Consultation Team Transport for London

28

Appendix E: List of stakeholders Action for Blind People Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) Age Concern London Age UK Alzheimer's Society Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Association of British Drivers Association of Car Fleet Operators Better Transport Borough Cycling Officers Group British Cycling British Motorcyclists Federation BT Campaign for Better Transport Canal & River Trust London CCG City and Hackney Central London NHS Trust Clapham Transport Users Group Cllr Barry Buitekant, Haggerston Ward, London Borough of Hackney Cllr Jonathan McShane, Haggerston Ward, London Borough of Hackney Cllr Ann Munn, Haggerston Ward, London Borough of Hackney Cllr John Pierce, Weavers Ward, London Borough of Tower Hamlets Cllr Mohammed Mukit MBE, Weavers Ward, London Borough of Tower Hamlets Confederation of Passenger Transport Confederation of British Industry CTC, the national cycling charity Cycle Confidence Cycle Confident Cycle Experience Cycle Training UK (CTUK) Cycling Embassy of Great Britain Cycling4all Cyclists in the City Department for Transport Disability Alliance Disability Rights UK Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee EDF Energy

London Borough of Enfield Freight Transport Association Gatwick Airport GLA GLA Strategy Access Panel members GMB Greater London Forum for the Elderly Green Flag Group Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Hackney Community Transport HCT Hackney Safer Transport Team Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust ICE -London Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Joint Mobility Unit Licenced Taxi Drivers Association Living Streets London Ambulance Service London Borough of Brent London Borough of Hackney London Cab Drivers Club London City Airport London Councils London Cycling Campaign London Cycling Campaign (Hackney) London Cycling Campaign (Tower Hamlets) London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority London Older People's Strategy Group London Suburban Taxi-drivers' Coalition London TravelWatch London Underground Merton Community Transport (MCT) Metropolitan Police Heathrow Airport Metropolitan Police Service Metropolitan Traffic Units MIND Motorcycle Action Group Motorcycle Industry Association

29

National Children's Bureau National Grid Northbank BID Port of London Authority Powerscroft Road Initiative for Neighbourhood Community & Environment RMT Union RNIB Road Haulage Association Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Royal Mail Royal Parks Sense

Sixty Plus Stroke Association Sustrans Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector Taxi and Private hire Thames Water The AA The British Dyslexia Association TPH for Heathrow Airport Unions Together Unite Wheels for Wellbeing Whizz-Kidz

30