Road safety improvements on Grosvenor Place · 2018. 7. 24. · Grosvenor Place close to the...
51
1 Road safety improvements on Grosvenor Place Consultation Report July 2018
Transcript of Road safety improvements on Grosvenor Place · 2018. 7. 24. · Grosvenor Place close to the...
1
Road safety improvements on Grosvenor Place Consultation Report July 2018
2
Contents
Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 4
Summary of issues raised during consultation ......................................................... 4
Petitions ................................................................................................................... 4
Next steps ................................................................................................................ 4
1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 5
1.1 Background and purpose ............................................................................... 5
1.2 Detailed description ........................................................................................ 5
2. About the consultation ........................................................................................ 7
2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Potential outcomes ......................................................................................... 7
2.3 Who we consulted .......................................................................................... 7
2.4 Dates and duration ......................................................................................... 8
2.5 What we asked ............................................................................................... 8
2.6 Methods of responding ................................................................................... 8
2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ............................................................... 9
2.8 Analysis of consultation responses .............................................................. 10
3. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 11
3.1 Number of respondents ................................................................................ 11
3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ........................................... 11
3.3 Methods of responding ................................................................................. 12
3.4 Profile of respondents .................................................................................. 12
3.5 Postcodes of respondents ............................................................................ 16
4. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 17
4.1 Summary of responses ................................................................................ 17
4.2 Summary of stakeholder responses ............................................................. 18
4.3 Petitions and campaigns .............................................................................. 27
4.4 Comments on the consultation ..................................................................... 27
5. Response to the issues raised and next steps ................................................. 29
Appendix A: Detailed list of comments ...................................................................... 31
Appendix B: Consultation materials .......................................................................... 35
3
Appendix C: List of stakeholders consulted ............................................................... 43
Appendix D: Petitions ................................................................................................ 49
Appendix E: Quality of consultation ........................................................................... 50
4
Executive summary
Between 21 August and 1 October 2017, we consulted on proposals for road safety
improvements on Grosvenor Place.
We received 554 responses to the consultation (including 22 responses from key
stakeholders).
Respondents were asked to comment on our proposals. The main themes raised
during the consultation are highlighted below, with a detailed summary of the results
in Chapter 4 and the full list of comments in Appendix A.
Summary of issues raised during consultation
Below are some of most commonly raised issues:
Concern that preventing right turns would increase congestion along adjacent
roads in the area, and generally have a negative impact on local traffic
Wilton Street would not be able to cope with displaced traffic and concern
regarding disruption to a quiet narrow street
Changes would increase both air and noise pollution
New pedestrian island by the gyratory would slow traffic flow
Petitions
One petition was submitted to the consultation by Wilton Street residents who
strongly objected to our proposals. For full details, please go to Section 4.4.
Next steps
In response to the four commonly issues raised above we recognised that a number
of respondents were worried that banning the right turns into Chapel Street and
Chester Street would significantly increase the number of vehicles turning right into
Wilton Street.
Our traffic modelling showed that the scheme would have a neutral impact on journey times for general traffic on Grosvenor Place. Traffic that would have made
5
one of the previously permitted right turns from or onto Grosvenor Place would disperse and use alternative routes.
As a result of this feedback we have reviewed the scheme and will additionally be
prohibiting vehicles from turning right into Wilton Street.
Following this change, Westminster City Council removed their objection to the
scheme and advised us that they wish for us to proceed with the revised scheme.
We also propose to implement the scheme before any major traffic management
scheme is developed for the nearby Victoria Gyratory network, especially in respect
to strategic east to west movements through the area.
We plan to implement the banned turns in 2019. We will also further develop the
plans for the crossing at the Hyde Park gyratory end of Grosvenor Place and the
impact on traffic in the area before finalising our plans for implementation.
1. About the proposals
1.1 Background and purpose
We are proposing road safety improvements on Grosvenor Place and the junction
with the Hyde Park corner gyratory.
Analysis of data shows that there have been a number of collisions between vehicles
turning right and northbound traffic on Grosvenor Place. To reduce the potential for
such collisions, we are proposing to prohibit the currently permitted right turns for
vehicles.
We are also proposing a new two-staged signalised crossing and larger island on
Grosvenor Place close to the junction with Duke of Wellington Place to make it
easier for people to cross the road.
1.2 Detailed description
Our proposals covered four categories:
Banned vehicle movements to improve safety
In order to reduce potential conflicts involving right-turning vehicles, we are planning
to ban the following turns for all vehicles:
6
No entry from Grosvenor Place into Chapel Street. We would ban the right and left turns for vehicles. Chapel Street would become exit only onto Grosvenor Place. Traffic counts show a maximum of 164 vehicle movements in the AM peak and 279 vehicle movements in the PM peak for right turning vehicles and a maximum of 31 vehicle movements in the AM peak and 36 vehicles in the PM peak for left turning vehicles
Right turn from Grosvenor Place to Chester Street and from Chester Street to Grosvenor Place. Traffic counts show a maximum of 62 vehicles in the AM peak and 98 vehicles in the PM peak making this turn. We would also extend the existing traffic island opposite Chester Street, which would also physically prevent vehicles turning right into and out of Chester Street
Right turn from Grosvenor Place to Wilton Street and from Wilton Street to Grosvenor Place. Traffic counts show at least 50 vehicle movements every hour between 09:00 and 19:00 - sometimes reaching 70 – 80 vehicle movements
As well as reducing the potential for collisions, the changes would also improve
traffic flow going south along Grosvenor Place.
New crossings and more space for pedestrians at Duke of Wellington Place
New signalised two-stage pedestrian crossing on Grosvenor Place with a larger pedestrian island at Duke of Wellington Place. This would provide an alternative to the existing subways which are not accessible and are closed overnight. The larger island would also encourage drivers to slow down when approaching the left turn onto Grosvenor Place from the gyratory.
Relocating loading bay from Grosvenor Place to Chapel Street
Relocate an existing loading bay (16m long) from Grosvenor Place to Chapel Street to prevent loading vehicles blocking the northbound bus lane. This relocation is expected to improve traffic flow and bus journey times
Bus lane hours
Extend northbound bus lane hours of operation from 7am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm Monday to Sunday, to 7am to 7pm Monday to Sunday to improve bus journey times and reliability. Taxis, motorcycles and bicycles would be allowed to use the bus lane, as they are at present.
Our traffic modelling showed that the scheme would have a neutral impact on journey times for general traffic on Grosvenor Place. Traffic that would have made one of the previously permitted right turns from or onto Grosvenor Place would disperse and use alternative routes.
7
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 any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware
To understand concerns and objections
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 Chapter 4.
2.3 Who we consulted
We ensured that people living and working in the areas affected by the scheme were
aware of the proposals.
We posted information about the consultation directly to properties living within 400m
of Grosvenor Place.
We target information at individuals who we know use bus routes nearby or lived in
the areas nearby (because they had supplied their postcode to us previously via
Oyster, Congestion Charging, Cycle Hire, or for another reason). In this way, we
raised awareness of the consultation among motorists, cyclsts, bus users and other
public transport users.
We sent emails to stakeholders who had been identified as interested in this scheme. Our contact list included disability groups, organisations representing the
8
elderly, transport user groups, businesses and major employers, trade organisations, statutory organisations, charities, local government, politicians, residents’ representatives, healthcare providers, educational establishments, and others.
2.4 Dates and duration
This was a six-week consultation which ran between 21 August and 1 October 2017.
2.5 What we asked
As our proposals are safety measures, we decided to have one open question which
asked people if they had any comments about our proposals.
The questionnaire asked seven generic questions relating to name, email address,
postcode, their relationship to the area (resident, business owner, emoployred locally
etc.), organisation name (if responding on behalf of a
business/stakeholder/organisation), how they heard about the consultation, and
views on the quality of the consultation (respondents were asked two questions on
the quality: to rate in a scale from very good to very poor; and to provide any
comments).
For the complete questionnaire please see Appendix B.
2.6 Methods of responding
People were able to respond to the consultation through the following channels:
By answering the survey on our consultation website at: tfl.gov.uk/grosvenor-
place
By sending a letter to FREEPOST TfL CONSULTATIONS
By emailing: [email protected]. The Consultation Team also
answered questions from members of the public and stakeholders via email
Through our Customer Services Team, it was possible to request foreign language
translations, large print, braille or audio versions of our consultation materials.
9
2.7 Consultation materials and publicity We used a range of channels to raise awareness of the Grosvenor Place
consultation, to ensure that members of the public and stakeholders were aware of
the consultation and its purpose.
We explain the channels used below. All materials encouraged interested parties to
visit our website or contact us to find out more about the scheme and how to
respond.
2.7.1 Website
Our website provided detailed information about our consultation, including text
explanations of our proposals and a map helping to explain the proposals.
The website provided people with the opportunity to respond to the consultation by
answering our questionnaire.
2.7.2 Letters
We produced a letter, which summarised the proposals and gave details as to how
to find out more information and to respond. This was distributed to 1281 properties
within 400m of Grosvenor Place.
2.7.3 Emails to public
We sent an email about the consultation to over 300,000 people who live locally or
use our transport services in the area. The data for the distribution list is extracted
from our master database of those who have registered their details with us – for
example, through use of Congestion Charge, Oyster Card or Cycle Hire services.
The email is included in Appendix B.
2.7.4 Emails to stakeholders
We sent an email outlining the scheme and explaining where to find more
information and respond to over 300 businesses and organisations identified as
interested in road schemes in this area. The list of stakeholders we contacted can be
found in Appendix C.
2.7.5 Meetings with stakeholders
We worked closely with Westminster City Council from the early stages of
developing proposals for Grosvenor Place. Once we had produced a design for
public consultation, we met with borough officers to discuss our proposals before
launching the formal consultation.
10
Other meetings
Grosvenor Estates
We contacted Grosvenor Estates before the formal consultation period to arrange a
meeting where we could explain why we were exploring changes to Grosvenor Place
and explain the proposals; and answer any queries. The meeting took place during
the formal consultation period.
Caneparo Associates
During the formal consultation period, we were contacted by a consultancy called
Caneparo Associates who were appointed by a local resident owning a property in
the Grosvenor Place area. We met with representatives from Caneparo Associates
to explain why we were exploring changes to Grosvenor Place and explain the
proposals; and answer any queries.
General
We also held a post consultation stakeholder meeting where we agreed to also ban
the turn into Wilton Street.
2.8 Analysis of consultation responses
Analysis of the consultation responses was carried out within TfL.There were two
“open” questions, one seeking comments about the proposals and one on the quality
of the consultation. A draft coding framework was developed for responses to these
questions, which was finalised following review by another member of the team.
One analyst conducted the tagging exercise with the consultation lead auditing the
methodology to ensure a consistent approach.
There were eight duplicate responses which were deleted or consolidated.
11
3. About the respondents
This chapter provides more information on respondents to this consultation, based
on the information they provided to us in our questionnaire. For a full list of the
consultation questions, see Appendix B.
3.1 Number of respondents
Once any duplicate responses had been removed, there were 554 respondents.
Duplicates can occur, for example, when the same person responds by email and
online or when the same person responds twice online. When duplicates were
identified, we combined the two responses. We filtered eight duplicates in this
consultation.
Stakeholder responses are those submitted by individuals who identify themselves
as representing political entities, organisations, businesses or campaign groups.
Their responses are summarised in Section 4.2. There were 22 statutory
stakeholder responses in total.
Respondents Total %
Public responses 532 96
Statutory Stakeholder responses 22 4
Total 554
3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation
We asked respondents to tell us how they heard about the consultation. A total of
483 of 554 respondents provided an answer. 71 respondents did not respond to this
question.
How respondents heard Total %
Received an email from TfL 346 62
Received a letter from TfL 8 1
Read about in the press 7 1
Saw it on the TfL website 40 7
Social media 72 13
Other 10 2
Not answered 71 13
Total 554
12
3.3 Methods of responding
We accepted responses via our online survey; directly by email to
[email protected]; and via letter sent to our FREEPOST address. We also
accepted feedback passed on to us through email by our Customer Service Team.
Methods of responding No. of
comments %
Website 500 90
Email/ letter 54 10
Total 554 100
3.4 Profile of respondents
We asked a number of questions to profile respondents. The responses are
presented in graphs below.
*No percentage was shown as respondents could choose more than one option
A localresident
A localbusiness owner
Employed
locally
A visitorto thearea
Acommuter to the
area
Notlocal butinterested inthe
scheme
Ataxi/private hirevehicledriver
Other(pleasespecify)
No. ofcomments
183 30 76 79 106 35 158 30
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Are you:
13
Male FemaleTransfemale
Transmale
Genderneutral
Prefer notto say
No. ofcomments
323 78 1 4 6 48
(%) 58% 14% 0% 1% 1% 9%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Gender
Heterosexual
Bisexual Gay man Lesbian OtherPrefer not
to say
No. of comments 270 4 20 2 8 136
(%) 49% 1% 4% 0% 1% 25%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300Sexual Orientation
14
Under15
16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71+Prefernot tosay
No. of comments 1 1 17 19 48 40 47 43 54 38 33 27 21 69
(%) 0% 0% 3% 3% 9% 7% 8% 8% 10% 7% 6% 5% 4% 12%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Age
15
Buddhist
Christian
Hindu Muslim Sikh Jewish OtherNo
religion
Prefernot tosay
No. of responses 5 168 4 19 1 11 10 105 126
(%) 1% 30% 1% 3% 0% 2% 2% 19% 23%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180Faith
Yes, limited a lotYes, limited a
littleNo Prefer not to say
No. of comments 9 15 348 80
(%) 2% 3% 63% 14%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
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?
16
3.5 Postcodes of respondents
Postcode Total (%)
NW 4 1%
SW1A 1 0%
SW1E 3 1%
SW1H 3 1%
SW1P 16 4%
SW1V 32 8%
SW1W 15 4%
SW1X 35 9%
SW7 1 0%
W1 20 5%
W2 8 2%
W9 2 1%
Other postcodes 242 63%
Total 382
Responses were received from 37 postcode areas in total.
17
4. Summary of all consultation responses
4.1 Summary of responses
We received 554 responses to this consultation. Our consultation questionnaire
asked one open question therefore we cannot summarise the level of support and
opposition. The full list of comments received can be found in Appendix A.
4.1.1 Issues commonly raised
The top 20 most commonly raised issues have been summarised below:
Issue Total
Banned right turns: Increased traffic/ congestion in the area 84
Congestion on lower Grosvenor Place / Grosvenor Crescent & Hyde Park Corner 62
Generally opposed/ changes not needed 61
Changes will have negative impact on local traffic/ displace & move congestion elsewhere
45
Opposed to banned turn into Chapel Street 44
Changes will increase air/ noise pollution 38
New pedestrian island & crossing at Grosvenor Place by the gyratory would slow traffic flows to an unacceptable level
37
TfL road modernisation schemes make traffic/ pollution worse 36
Wilton Street will not be able to cope with displaced traffic volumes/ disruption to a quiet narrow street
35
Opposed to banned turn into Chester Street 32
Changes will increase traffic/journey times 30
Opposed to restricted turns in this area 29
Lack of cycle facilities/ segregated cycle lanes 20
Victoria area will become highly congested if these changes are implemented 18
Safety concern: Proposed changes will increase risk & danger on local roads 17
Implement segregated cycle lanes 17
Opposed to banned turn from Wilton onto Grosvenor Place 14
Opposed to extending bus lane times 14
Traffic calming measures needed more than restricted turns 12
Give taxis access to Belgrave Square / Lower Belgrave Street/ Chapel St 11
18
4.2 Summary of stakeholder responses
This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes. As well as being summarised here, the stakeholder responses are included in the analysis of the overall responses covered in this chapter and in Appendix A. Each summary begins with a statement explaining the stakeholder’s level of support
based on our interpretation of each respondent’s level of support based on their
comments. Where the level of support was not clear from the comments ‘no opinion’
has been recorded. Where we have inferred the level of support, this is stated in the
summary.
4.2.1 Local authorities and statutory bodies
Cllr Rachael Robathan, Westminster City Council and Tony Devenish, AM for
West Central (Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea, and City of
Westminster)
Strongly objected proposals
Cllr Robathan and Mr Devenish forwarded comments from a constituent
representing The Belgravia Society.
They objected to directing all traffic down Wilton Street stating that it is a quiet
residential street and wouldn’t be able to manage the likely volume of traffic without
disruption and impact to the residents.
Mark Field, MP for Cities of London
Partially opposed proposals (inferred from response)
Mr Field supported the concerns raised by residents of Wilton Street, namely that
this road would become a major traffic route if right turns into Chapel Street and
Chester Street are prohibited.
19
Westminster City Council
Strongly opposed proposals
Westminster City Council expressed the two main reasons for the City Council
objection to the scheme were:
They supported the strong opposition raised by many residents of Wilton
Street in relation to concerns about displaced and increased volumes of
traffic, if the scheme was implemented as per the proposals
Uncertainty on the resilience of the local road network once other road
changes are implemented, such as potential changes at Victoria Gyratory
4.2.2 Accessibility Groups
Wheels for Wellbeing
Neither supported nor opposed proposals (inferred from response)
Wheels for Wellbeing stated their disappointed that we had not included any
proposals to improve access in the area, particularly naming mobility impaired
people who would like to use the East-West Cycle Superhighway.
They also suggested it would be useful to know the type of vehicles that are affected
by the banned turns because if any were cycles, they would hope the diversion
routes would avoid using the gyratory at Hyde Park Corner.
4.2.3 Transport and road user groups
20’s plenty
Partially support proposals (inferred from response)
20’s Plenty supported the goals to reduce the number of collisions along Grosvenor
Place however had some concerns, mainly related to a lack of focus on vehicle
speeds.
Based on their analysis of vehicle speeds in this area, they believed that there is an
issue of compliance with the speed restrictions along Grosvenor Place. They felt
there was a case for measures that increase compliance to be applied to Grosvenor
Place.
They opposed the removal of the traffic island near Chapel Street because it would
encourage vehicles to speed and increase danger for pedestrians. In addition they
20
felt the island provides an informal crossing point between the Duke of Wellington
Place and Chester Street.
Addison Lee
Strongly supported proposals
Addison Lee strongly supported our proposals because they felt they would improve
road safety and speed up traffic flow.
Confederation of Passenger Transport
Strongly supported proposals (inferred from response)
Confederation of Passenger Transport believed that the measures proposed on
Grosvenor Place are a positive step towards improving traffic flow, reducing
congestion and shortening journey times.
Licensed Taxi Drivers Association
Partially supported proposals (inferred from response)
The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association preferred the right turn at Chapel Street to be
retained to allow taxis direct access to Belgrave Square and beyond. They felt that it
would be difficult to access Halkin Street and other premises from Wilton Street.
They also recommended having the right turn pocket at Chapel Street instead of
Wilton Street.
London Living Streets
Partially support proposals (inferred from response)
London Living Streets (LLS) were supportive of the goals of our proposals but raised
some concerns about certain aspects.
They were supportive of the pedestrian crossings at Duke of Wellington Place.
However they were concerned about the proposed removal of the traffic island near
Chapel Street because it may encourage vehicles to speed and cause danger for
pedestrians who may attempt to cross the road.
They also requested measures to address vehicle speeds in the area as a significant
proportion exceeds the current 30 miles per hour (mph) limit. In addition they felt
Grosvenor Place is not suitable for 30 mph due to the large number of pedestrian
movements.
21
LLS supported the increased bus lane hours of operation.
London TravelWatch
Partially supported proposals (inferred from response)
London TravelWatch supported the extension of bus lane hours of operation but
would prefer if they were in operation 24-hours seven days a week to benefit buses
and cyclists.
Passenger Bikes
Strongly opposed proposals (inferred from response)
Passenger Bikes were concerned about the proposal to prohibit right turns into
Chapel Street because they feel vehicles would divert to Grosvenor Crescent which
is already congested. Therefore they believe our proposals would block traffic
travelling northbound on Grosvenor Place and increase congestion around Hyde
Park Corner.
Road Haulage Association
Neither opposed nor supported (inferred from response)
The Road Haulage Association (RHA) urged caution that we do not reduce road
space which would increase congestion and pollution. They felt less road space
would make it difficult for Heavy Good Vehicles (HGVs) to move around London.
They emphasised the importance of HGVs to serve local businesses and shops.
The RHA also raised concern regarding the lack of safe spaces to load and unload
for HGVs.
Westminster Cycling Campaign
Strongly opposed proposals (inferred from response)
Westminster Cycling Campaign believe that people are reluctantly choosing to cycle
on Grosvenor Place due to an absence of safe cycling connections to the southwest
of Hyde Park Corner, which means that the alternatives are over 500m away.
At a minimum they would either support segregated cycle lanes on Grosvenor Place
or an alternative by creating safe cycling connections along a parallel alignment.
22
4.2.4 Business groups
Grosvenor Estates
(Requested further information)
Further information is required from TfL, specifically so that we know what the impact
will be elsewhere on both the local and trunk networks.
1. Signage. The recommended route to avoid right turns into Belgravia will
involve using Grosvenor Crescent, Belgrave Square and Upper Belgrave St.
This is relatively straightforward as long as it is effectively signed at and
before Hyde Park Corner (since it involves continuing further on the gyratory
than drivers might be expecting). If drivers do miss this information, they will
be required to complete a circuit of the Victoria gyratory and/or use Beeston
Place, which would be disruptive.
2. The ban on all right turns out could be problematic. While vehicles facing SW
could simply divert via Upper Belgrave St and Hobart Place, those facing NE
would need to complete a circuit of the Hyde Park Corner gyratory, which
would again be disruptive. Ideally, TfL should offer facilities for residents'
vehicles at least to U-turn in their streets and exit to the SW.
3. There is also the question of additional traffic loads and the potential impact
on the Victoria Gyratory. Although the numbers involved are likely to be small
by comparison with those already on Grosvenor Crescent and Hobart Place, it
would be worth checking. The potential benefit that none of these streets will
offer a rat-run to avoid Grosvenor Crescent will of course also mean that
Grosvenor Crescent itself, tailing back into Belgrave Square, will become
more congested.
In view of the above, we need TfL to kindly confirm:
The arrangements for signing at and in advance of Hyde Park Corner,
provision for turning bays at the north eastern end of each street, restrictions
on heavy vehicles using Headfort Place (and the arch)
Loading bay provisions
Modelled effects on flows and delays in the AM and PM peaks across the
local network
23
Victoria BID
Partially supported proposals (inferred from response)
Victoria (V) BID supported measures to reduce collisions involving turning vehicles
and the new pedestrian crossing. However they were concerned that some aspects
could put pedestrians at risk.
V BID felt that vehicles queueing at the existing right turn pocket for Chapel Street
and the traffic island in this location act as an obstacle which causes vehicles to slow
down. Therefore they were concerned that our proposal to remove these would
encourage vehicles to speed along this section of Grosvenor Place.
They also felt that the traffic island near Chapel Street is useful as an informal
crossing point for pedestrians. They were concerned that removing the island would
leave pedestrians vulnerable because there is a large gap between the new
proposed crossing at Duke of Wellington Place and the existing formal crossing at
Chester Street. Consequently they requested traffic calming to be explored in this
section. They also recommended a trial period of a speed camera with a 20 mph
limit.
4.2.5 Businesses, employers and venues
EMSO Asset Management
Neither supported or opposed proposals (inferred from response)
EMSO felt that the right turn into Chester Street should be allowed because the
traffic lights may force cars to go to Victoria and loop around to get to Belgravia.
Irish Embassy
Partially supported proposals (inferred from response)
The Irish Embassy was in general agreement with the five categories outlined in our
proposals and agreed that they were necessary to minimise vehicle collisions in the
area. However they raised two points of concern:
Embassy vehicles use the left turn into Chapel Street from Grosvenor Place
and if banned they would have to extend their journeys considerably
The Embassy’s diplomatic bays and garage entrances are located directly
opposite the proposed location for the relocated loading bay from Grosvenor
Place. They felt moving the loading bay would add to the congestion already
existing in this area
24
One GP LPP
Supported proposals
One GP LPP (GP LPP) own and are developing the site at 1-5 Grosvenor Place into
a new hotel to be known as The Peninsula London. They supported our proposals
and felt they are a positive step to improving highway safety and pedestrian facilities.
GP LPP stated they would like to work with TfL to coordinate the construction
programme of the proposed pedestrian crossing and construction works associated
with The Peninsula Hotel. They raised some concern about the proposals being
constructed in spring 2018.
Royal Parks, Park Manager for Hyde Park
Neither supported nor opposed proposals (inferred from response)
The Royal Parks (RP) emphasised the importance of the underpasses at Hyde Park
Corner to facilitate safe egress from concerts.
RP also suggested a pedestrian crossing where Grosvenor Crescent meets
Grosvenor Place would improve access from Hyde Park to Victoria.
The Travel Corporation
Strongly opposed proposals (inferred from response)
The Travel Corporation have offices on 11, 14 and 15 Grosvenor Place. They have a
vast number of deliveries to each office at different times. Therefore relocating the
loading bay from Grosvenor Place to Chapel Street with the banned right turn into
Chapel Street and Chester Street would make it difficult for their delivery drivers.
4.2.6 Local interest groups
South East Bayswater Residents’ Association
Neither supported nor opposed proposals (inferred from response)
South East Bayswater Residents’ Association recommended bus lane hours should
be extended to operate 22-24 hours a day because many retail outlets are open later
after 19:00.
25
The Belgravia Society
Strongly opposed proposals
The Belgravia Society (TBS) strongly opposed the proposals to prohibit certain
turnings to and from of Grosvenor Place for three reasons:
Currently there is a fair distribution of traffic between the three streets leading
off Grosvenor Place. They felt our proposals would add greater traffic on
Wilton Street, which is currently a quiet residential street
Allowing the right turn into Wilton Street would still present a safety problem
and not address the aims of our proposals
Wilton Street is the least suitable out of the three streets to bear an increased
level of traffic flow
Summary of other points raised in TBS’s detailed examination of the proposals were:
The perception that Wilton Street is a relatively wide street but TBS argued
this was not the case
At the intersection of Grosvenor Place and Wilton Street, two cars have
difficulty passing. Cars waiting to turn left out of Wilton Street will block any
commercial vehicles entering from Grosvenor Place
Wilton Street is regularly blocked at its eastern end because there is a loading
bay used by commercial traffic serving Noura, Eaton Square Restaurant, the
Mango Tree and 40 Grosvenor Place. This means the intersection of
Grosvenor Place with Wilton Street is heavily used by commercial vehicles
The only western exit from Wilton Street is Upper Belgrave Street whereas
vehicles using Chapel Street or Chester Street have other options to continue
their journey. Furthermore since the narrowing of Hobart Place, Upper
Belgrave Street often has queues of waiting traffic
TBS felt that continuing to allow a right turn into Wilton Street would still
present a road safety issue
They also thought the bus stop on the eastern side of Grosvenor Place just
north of the entrance to Wilton Street, where vehicles would be queuing to
turn right, would present an additional problem
Chapel Street would be a better option than Wilton Street for a right turn from
Grosvenor Place because vehicles exiting have the opportunity to drive
straight through Belgrave Square
Chester Street would be a better option than Wilton Street for a right turn from
Grosvenor Place because the pedestrian lights provide a natural break and a
safe opportunity for traffic to turn right into Chester Street. In addition the
pedestrian crossing island provides a physical barrier which protects queuing
traffic from oncoming northbound traffic. Traffic exiting Chester Street also
have the option of travelling further west using Eaton Place
26
TBS referred to The South Westminster Traffic Management System Study
2012 which, concluded that right turns into Grosvenor Place should be
reviewed but did not consider banning right turns off Grosvenor Place
TBS also suggested another option to consider is banning all right turns from
Grosvenor Place so that traffic would be diverted to use Grosvenor Crescent
to travel further west
Wilton Street Residents Association
Strongly opposed proposals
Wilton Street Residents Association (WSRA) strongly objected to the proposals
because they believed that all traffic flow from Grosvenor Place will be directed via
Wilton Street thus creating: increased safety risks to drivers, an inconvenience for
the residents of Wilton Street due to increased amount of traffic, higher levels of
pollution, a danger to the families living on Wilton Street especially those with
children and protection for neighbouring streets while prejudicing Wilton Street.
They also raised the following points within their response:
Wilton Street is not suited to carrying all the additional traffic because it’s
residential and there are residents’ cars parked on each side meaning there is
no easy traffic flow
A substantial number of cars, trucks and lorries turn right from Grosvenor
Place and they have the option to use three roads. If the proposals were
implemented they believe more vehicles will use Wilton Street
To maintain Grosvenor Place’s “ring road” design banning all right turns would
enable traffic to flow
At the Wilton Street junction there is a loading bay for 40 Grosvenor Place
which is used throughout the day
The new Cleveland Hospital also has a loading bay on Wilton Street which will
create additional traffic using the road
If traffic is forced to use Wilton Street they have to turn left onto Upper
Belgrave Street and have no alternative options compared with Chapel Street
and Chester Street where other route options are available
Upper Belgrave Street currently suffers from congestion and has cars
queueing
27
4.3 Petitions and campaigns
Petitions involve people adding their names to either a paper or electronic list, backing the views of the petition organiser. Campaigns involve people copying text from another individual or group, and submitting this text as all or part of their response. We received one petition which is described below. For the original text for the petition listed below, please go to Appendix D.
4.3.1 Petition submitted by Wilton Street residents
We received a petition of 29 signatures from Wilton Street residents. The petition
opposed the proposals for Grosvenor Place, specifically for Wilton Street.
4.4 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 67 people chose not to answer.
Interest Total %
Very good 135 24%
Good 130 23%
Acceptable 131 24%
Poor 40 7%
Very poor 51 9%
Not answered 67 12%
Total 554
We also gave respondents the opportunity to comment on the quality of the
consultation and the materials. The 10 most common comments raised are
summarised below:
Consultation quality comments Total
Sceptical about how seriously TfL will take the feedback 22
Justification for the proposal/ detailed plans/ traffic analysis 21
Decision for proposals already made 8
Data/ figures provided out of touch 7
Poor consultation 7
28
TfL not fit for purpose 5
Lack of supporting evidence 4
Modelling data does not show what the other alternative routes are that motorists can use if turning restrictions apply
4
TfL should take feedback into account 2
29
5. Response to the issues raised and next
steps
Changes to turns
Following this consultation we recognised that a number of respondents were
worried that banning the right turns into Chapel Street and Chester Street would
significantly increase the number of vehicles turning right into Wilton Street.
As a result of this feedback we have reviewed the schemes and will additionally be
prohibiting vehicles from turning right into Wilton Street.
We also propose to implement the scheme before any major traffic management
scheme is developed for the nearby Victoria Gyratory network, especially in respect
to strategic east to west movements through the area.
Following these changes, Westminster City Council removed their objection to the
scheme and advised us that they wish for us to proceed with the revised scheme.
Chapel, Chester and Wilton Streets are Borough Roads. We are not aware of any
order by WCC to prevent a U-Turn by a resident parked on the road so they can exit
via either Grosvenor Place or Upper Belgrave Street. Exiting onto Grosvenor Place
would be left only in all instances.
Some respondents were concerned about the ability to make left turns off Grosvenor
Place, and left turns onto Grosvenor Place. Only one left turn is proposed to be
banned as part of these proposals, as in the consultation, and there are no other
plans currently to review the other left turn movements on Grosvenor Place.
Signage will be considered as part of the detailed design process in line with current
standards. Diversionary signage is not commonly used for permanent road changes.
Questions about congestion on nearby streets
Traffic modelling has been completed for the local area. This is to assess the impact
of traffic wishing to turn right to access Chapel Street, Chester Street and Wilton
Street now having to either travel down to Victoria or continue around Hyde Park
corner to exit on to Grosvenor Crescent to access Belgravia.
In the AM peak period, traffic modelling indicates that vehicles are likely to re-assign
on to Grosvenor Crescent (B310) to access locations in Belgravia: the numbers are
not expected to be significant. A small number of vehicles might divert through
Victoria gyratory on to Hobart Place to gain access to the south part of Belgravia. In
the PM Peak, traffic modelling shows vehicles re-locating on to Grosvenor Crescent
and little or no traffic diverting down to the Victoria Gyratory.
30
Loading bays
One loading bay will be removed on Grosvenor Place, and one provided on Chapel
Street, subject to approval from Westminster City Council.
Cycling facilities
Our cycle improvement plan at Hyde Park Corner is an adjacent project which is
being developed with consideration of nearby schemes.
Traffic Islands at Hyde Park Corner and Chapel Street
The traffic island to facilitate the pedestrian crossing at Duke of Wellington Place is
an expansion of an existing traffic island, which is inaccessible for pedestrians. The
installation of the pedestrian signals is important to ensure TfL can meet the Mayor’s
Vision Zero target, by providing a safe, accessible crossing point for pedestrians that
is open 24 hours a day.
We have decided not to remove the traffic island outside Chapel Street
Next steps
We plan to implement the banned turns in 2019. We will also further develop the
plans for the crossing at the Grosvenor Place junction with Duke of Wellington Place
and the impact on traffic in the area before finalising our plans for implementation.
31
Appendix A: Detailed list of comments
Do you have any comments on our proposals for Grosvenor Place?
Final list of comments No. of comments
Clarity needed
Will you ban left turns onto Grosvenor Place out of Wilton St, Chester St & Chapel St 1
Is the consultation reviewing the entire gyratory? 1
Concerns
Banned right turns: Increased traffic/ congestion in the area 84
Wilton Street will not be able to cope with displaced traffic volumes/ disruption to a quiet narrow street
34
Changes will increase traffic/journey times 30
Lack of cycle facilities/ segregated cycle lanes 20
Lack of access to Belgrave Square 9
Planned project works will cause disruption 6
Pedestrian facilities inadequate/ main pedestrian issues not addressed 5
Concern: Concerned crossing at gyratory not suitable due to heavy traffic 4
Lack of access for taxis to Belgrave Square 3
Reduction of road space would make it difficult for HGVs to make deliveries 1
Further information request
Project timescales 1
How changes fit into the cycle improvement plans at Hyde Park Corner 1
General comments
Cycle lanes have made traffic worse in London 6
Much more interested in better traffic management & overall improved movement around London
3
Negative comments
Congestion on lower Grosvenor Place / Grosvenor Crescent & Hyde Park Corner 62
Generally opposed/ Changes not needed 61
Changes will have negative impact on local traffic/ displace & move congestion elsewhere 45
Opposed to banned turn into Chapel Street 44
Changes will increase air/ noise pollution 38
New pedestrian island & crossing at Grosvenor Place by the gyratory would slow traffic flows to an unacceptable levels
37
TfL road modernisation schemes make traffic/ pollution worse 36
Opposed to banned turn into Chester Street 32
Opposed to restricted turns in this area 29
32
Victoria area will become highly congested if this changes are implemented 18
Safety concern: Proposed changes will increase risk & danger on local roads 17
Opposed to banned turn from Wilton onto Grosvenor Place 14
Opposed to extending bus lane times 14
Extending bus lane hours will increase congestion/ pollution 9
Relocation of loading pay & banning turning will makes deliveries near impossible for local businesses
9
Inconvenience to local residents living having to look for alternate routes 8
Modelling is all wrong, it'll make it worse 7
Proposed changes disruptive without any real benefits 7
Increased traffic in Hobart Place & Upper Belgrave Place 6
New pedestrian crossings not needed 6
Knock-on effects of restricting turns not considered/ explained 6
Waste of funds 5
Safety concern: Removal of the pedestrian island by the junction with Chapel St 4
Creating gridlock when the park closes for the changing of the guard 3
Unfair prioritising bus traffic 3
Lack of cycle facilities 3
Changes make difficult for drivers to getting around/ no obvious impact on safety 2
Fails to meet mayor's meet the mayors Healthy streets proposal 2
Impact on local businesses 2
Unfair to allow taxis to use bus lanes but not private hire vehicles 2
Impact on safety for road users 1
Lack of focus on vehicle speeds/ drivers exceed 30mph constantly in this area 1
Positive comments
Generally supportive 86
New pedestrian crossing/ Pedestrian improvements on Grosvenor Place near the Hyde Park gyratory
38
Improvement on safety for road users 33
Improvement on traffic flow 17
Restricted turns along Grosvenor Place 16
Extended bus lane hours 11
Chapel Street turning restriction 10
Right turn into Chapel Street/ improved quality of life/ air quality 10
Improvement on commuter /cycle/ pedestrian facilities 8
Chester Street turning restriction 5
Removal of loading bay on Grosvenor Place to minimise delays 3
Extended bus lane hours 3
Restricted turning from Wilton Street into Grosvenor Place 3
33
Easier for residents to access their driveways/ Improved safety for residents/ minimised damage to parked cars
2
Proposed changes will reduce congestion/ shortening journey times 1
Partial support: Bus lane ext: Mon to Fri 7-7 bus lane hours but not weekend proposals 1
Suggestions
Buses/ bus lane/ bus stops
Bus gate to allow buses/ bicycles to move to the front of the lights (northern end of Grosvenor Place)
1
Bus stop opposite Wilton St needs to be moved a few metres back 2
Buses should be banned from this area/ rerouted elsewhere 1
Buses should have priority on all the roads they use 2
Extend bus lanes hours say to 24hrs 3
Get rid of the bus lane entirely & have three lanes for all traffic 2
Bus lanes should not apply on Sundays as traffic is lower and The Mall is often part closed 1
Widen bus lanes 1
Pedestrian crossings
Create overground/bridges (with lifts for disabled) or underground paths would relieve congestion
1
Install pedestrian crossing where Grosvenor Crescent meets Grosvenor Place to improve access from/to Hyde Park
1
Instead of new pedestrian crossing improve the pedestrian underpass instead 1
More pedestrian crossings needed 1
Suggestion: Pedestrian crossing should be straight across both lanes not staggered 2
Traffic lights/control
Consider filtered permeability on all side streets leading onto Grosvenor Place 1
Control south bound right turns in conjunction with pedestrian crossings using traffic lights 1
Install traffic lights at the junction instead of introducing a no right turn into Chapel street 4
Instead of restricted turns, incorporate a filter lane with a timed/ pelican crossing 1
Proposed new pedestrian crossing should traffic light controlled 1
Put stop lights at Grosvenor Crescent to help traffic problems at Hyde Park corner 2
Traffic calming measures needed more than restricted turns 12
Traffic light at the end of Wilton Street with a green light for a turn to the left on a street - Upper Belgrave Street
1
Traffic lights for northbound traffic on Grosvenor Place 4
Install red light above green filter arrow that only allows right turn into Chester Place when the pedestrian lights are red
3
Use of technology/ 'intelligent traffic' lights would be preferable 1
Turning restrictions
Allow turning into Halkin St to drop off at the Halkin Hotel & Caledonian Club 2
Bring Hobart Place junction into play for a new right turn into Belgravia 1
Keep one of the right turns to regulate traffic flow 7
Reinstate the right turn into Halkin Street 3
34
Restrict turning into Halkin Street instead of Chapel Street ban 1
Retain access/ right hand turn into Chapel Street 6
Review banned turns e.g. only during rush hour/day etc 1
General suggestions
Implement segregated cycle lanes 17
Give taxis access to Belgrave Square / Lower Belgrave Street/ Chapel St 11
Direct traffic to the wide Grosvenor Crescent and make the Victoria one-way system easy to navigate
4
Carry out works with minimal impact 4
Widen Grosvenor Place to improve traffic flow 4
Add ramps & CCTV to the subways/ surrounding areas for increased safety & accessibility 4
Advance stop line at Duke of Wellington Plc junction to give cyclists a head start 3
Ban cars from central London/ Reduce PHV at peak times & enforce the law to reduce traffic
3
Vehicles must also be banned from turning into Wilton Street from Grosvenor Place 2
Increase congestion charge to improve traffic volume/ flow/ improve pollution 2
A kerb or bollards to impede right turns into and out of Chapel Street preferable 1
Advance signage for two lanes in roundabout that leads to Victoria to avoid last minute change of direction
1
Install 2 roundabouts to help vehicles displaced by restricted right turns from/to Grosvenor Place
1
Introduce a green corridor from the streets in the direction of a right turn pocket extended to Wilton St
1
Legitimate loading should be accommodated either on side roads or at times that least affects congestion
1
Make Wilton and Chester Streets one-way in opposite directions 1
Remove taxis and motorcycles from bus lanes to reduce traffic and pollution 1
Widen Grosvenor Place pavement turning for increased pedestrian safety 1
Ban cyclists at Grosvenor Place to improve safety/bus service 1
Instead of restricted turns, develop safer right turning lanes on Grosvenor Place Southbound
1
35
Appendix B: Consultation materials
This section includes the following:
1. The consultation drawing which was used on our consultation web page and
sent out with the consultation letter
2. The letter that was sent to residents and businesses close to the area of
proposals
3. A map of the distribution area for the letter
4. A copy of the email that was sent to registered users of our services
5. A copy of the email that was sent to stakeholder organisation at the beginning
of the consultation
6. The questions that were part of our consultation questionnaire
36
Consultation drawing showing proposals
37
Letter to local residents and businesses
38
39
Distribution area of consultation letter
The consultation letter was sent to all addresses (1281) within the distribution area
shown in red:
40
Email to registered users of our services
41
Email to stakeholders
42
Consultation Questionnaire
Below are the questions we asked in our consultation questionnaire
1. Do you have any comments on our proposals for Grosvenor Place?
Questions about the respondents
2. What is your name?
3. What is your email address?
4. Please provide us with your postcode?
5. Are you (please tick all boxes that apply):
A local residents, A local business owner, Employees locally, A visitor to the area, A
commuter to the area, Not local but interested in the scheme, A taxi/private hire
vehicle driver, Other (Please specify)
6. If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please
provide us with the name:
7. How did you find out about this 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, Word of mouth, other (please specify)
8. 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?
43
Appendix C: List of stakeholders consulted
Majority of the below stakeholders were sent the email in Appendix B. Those we did
not have an email address were sent information to postal addresses.
AA
Abbey Travel
Abellio London Limited/ Abellio West London Limited
Abellio Surrey
Access in London
Action on Disability
Action on Disability and Work UK
Action on Hearing Loss
Addison Lee
Age UK London
Aggregate Industries UK
ALDI Chelmsford
Alive in Space Landscape and Urban Design Studio
All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group
Alliance Healthcare
Alzheimer's Society
Anderson Travel
Ann Frye
Anxiety Alliance
Anxiety Care
Anxiety UK
Argos
Arriva London Ltd
AS Watson (Health and Beauty UK)
Asda
Aspire
Association of British Drivers
Association of International & Express Couriers
Association of Town Centre Management
ATOC
Barking and Dagenham
Bayswater Residents Association
BBC
Belgian Embassy
Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum
Belgravia Residents Association
Best Bike Training / Cycletastic
Bexley Council
BHS Bikeability
Bidvest Logistics
Bikeworks
Bikexcite
Borough Cycling Officers Group
Brains Trust
Brakes Group
Breakspears Road Project
Brentwood Community Transport
Brewery Logistics Group
Brewing, Food & Beverage Industry Suppliers Association
British Association of Removers
British Beer & Pub Association
British Cycling
British Land
British Medical Association
British Motorcycle Federation
Buckingham Palace
Bucks Cycle Training
44
C T Plus
Camden Council
Campaign for Better Transport
Campbell's
Capital City School Sport Partnership
Carers Information Service
Carousel Buses
CBI-London
CCG Central London (WESTMINSTER)
Cemex
Central London CTC
Central London Forward
Central London Freight Quality Partnership
Central London NHS Trust
Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport
Chauffeur and Executive Car Association
City Bikes (Vauxhall Walk)
City of London
City of London Police
CitySprint
Clapham Transport Users Group
Clear Channel UK
Collect Plus
Confederation of Passenger Transport
Confederation of Passenger Transport UK
Connect
Coop
Covent Garden Markets Authority
Cross River Partnership
CTC
Cycle Confidence
Cycle Confident
Cycle Experience
Cycle Newham
Cycle Systems
Cycle Training East
Cycle Training UK
Cyclelyn
Cycle-wise Thames Valley
Cycling Embassy of Great Britain
Cycling4all
Cyclists in the City
Department for Transport
Design for London
DHL
Disability Rights UK
Disabled Go
Dogs for Good
DPD group UK
DPTAC
Dyslexia Action
Ealing Council
East and South East London Thames Gateway Transport Partnership
East London Vision
East Surrey Rural Transport Partnership t/a Polestar Travel
EDF Energy
Ehlers Danlos Support UK
ELB Partners
Embassy of Bahrain
Embassy of Bolivia
Embassy of Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast)
Embassy of Hungary
Embassy of Ireland
Embassy of Libya
Embassy of Luxembourg
Embassy of Serbia
45
Embassy of the Kingdom of Norway
Embassy of the Kingdom of Spain
Embassy of the Syrian Arab Republic
Enfield Council
English Heritage
English Heritage - London
Ensignbus
Epsom Coaches / Quality Line
Euromix Concrete
European Dysmelia Reference Information Centre
Evolution Cycle Training
Federation of Wholesale Distributors
Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association
Fowler Welch
Freight Transport Association
Friends of Capital Transport
Friends of the Earth
Future Inclusion
GeoPost UK
GMB
Gnewt Cargo
Go-ahead
Golden Tours (Transport)
Greater London Authority
Greater London Forum for Older People
Greggs
Grosvenor Estates
HA Boyse and Son
Hackney Community Transport
Harrow Macular Disease Society
Harrowby and District Residents Association
Health Poverty Action
Hearing Dogs UK
Heart of London Business Alliance
High Commission for Trinidad & Tobago
Hillingdon Council
House of Commons
ICE -London
In & Around Covent Garden
In Holborn
Inclusion London
Independent Disability Advisory Group
Institute forSustainability
Institute of Advanced Motorists
Institute Of Couriers
Institution of Civil Engineers
Islington Council
Italian Cultural Institute
James Bikeability
John Lewis Partnership
Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People
Kelly Group
Kuehne Nagel
Lambeth Cyclists
LB Croydon
LB Hammersmith & Fulham
LB Hillingdon
LB Hounslow
LB Islington
LB of Lewisham
LB of Sutton
LB of Westminster
LB Tower Hamlets
Learning Disabled service User
Leonard Cheshire Disability
Lewisham Council
Licensed Private Hire Car Association
46
Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association
Living Streets
Living Streets - Brentwood
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
Local Government Ombudsman
London Ambulance Service
London Association of Funeral Directors
London Bike Hub
London borough of Brent
London Borough of Croydon
London Borough of Havering
London Cab Drivers' Club Ltd
London Chamber of Commerce and Industry
London Climate Change Partnership
London Councils
London Cycling Campaign
London Cycling Campaign (Westminster)
London Duck Tours Ltd
London European Partnership for Transport
London Fire Brigade
London First
London General
London Omnibus Traction Society
London Private Hire Board
London Region National Pensioners Convention
London Riverside
London Strategic Health Authority
London Suburban Taxi Drivers' Coalition
London Taxi Drivers' Club
London Tourist Coach Operators Association
London TravelWatch
London United Busways
London Visual Impairment Forum
Look Ahead
Loomis UK
Lupus UK
Malaysian Embassy
Marks & Spencer
Martin-Brower UK
Marylebone Association
McNicholas
Mencap
Merton Council
Metrobus
Metroline
Metropolitan Police service
Mitie
Mobile Cycle Training Service
Mode Transport
Motorcycle Action Group
MS Society
National Autistic Society
National Autistic Society
National Express
National Motorcycle Council
National Pensioners Forum
47
Neighbour care St John's Wood & Maida Vale
New West End
NHS London
No Panic
Northbank BID
Ocean Youth Connexions
Office Depot
On Your Bike Cycle Training
Paddington Residents Active Concern On Transport
Pan-London Dementia Alliance
Parcelforce
Parkinson's UK
Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety
Passenger Focus
Philip Kemp Cycle Training
Pimlico FREDA
Planning Design
Portugese Embassy
Private Hire Board
Puzzle Focus
Queen Mary University of London
RAC
RAC Foundation for Motoring
Redbridge Cycling Centre
Residents Society of Mayfair and St James's
Reynolds
Richmond Council
Riverford
RMT
RNIB
Road Danger Reduction Forum
Road Haulage Association
Roadpeace
Romanian Cultural Institute
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Royal College of Defence Studies
Royal Institute of British Architects
Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
Royal London Society for Blind People
Royal Mail
Royal Town Planning Institute
Sainsbury's Supermarkets
Scope
Selvis
Singapore High Commission
SITA UK
Smiths News
Soho Society
South Bucks CycleTraining
South East Bayswater Residents Association
South East London PCT
South East London Vision
South Herts Plus Cycle Training
Southwark Cyclists
Space Syntax
Spokes Cycling Instruction
St John's Wood Society
Stagecoach Buses
Sullivan Bus and Coach
Sustrans
Sutton mobility forum
Systra
Taxi Rank & Interchange Manager
Technicolour Tyre Company
Thamesmead Business Services
48
The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind
The Big Bus Company
The British Motorcyclists' Federation
The Canal & River Trust
The Co-operative Group
The Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association
The Original Tour
The Royal Parks
The Southwark Cyclists
The St Marylebone Society
Thomas Pocklington Trust
Thorney Island Society
TKMaxx
TNT
Tour Guides
Tower Transit Operations
TPH for Heathrow Airport
Tradeteam
Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy UK
Transport for All
Travis Perkins Plc
Turkish Embassy
Tyssen Community School Cycle Training
Uber
UK Power Networks
Unite - London Central Cab Section
United Cabbies Group
University College London
Universitybus
UPS
Urban Movement
Vandome Cycles
Victoria Business Improvement District
Vision 2020
Walk London
Wandsworth - London Cycling Campaign
Wandsworth Community Transport
Wandsworth Mobility Forum
Warburton
Westminster Council
Westminster Cyclists
Westminster Safer Transport Team
Westminster Society
Westway Community Transport
Wheels for Wellbeing
Whitbread Group
Whizz-Kidz
Wilson James
Wilsons Cycles
Wincanton
Wm Morrisons Supermarkets
www.cyclinginstructor.com
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists
49
Appendix D: Petitions
We have reproduced the text that was provided with the petition as reported in section 4.3.
Petition text from Wilton Street residents
“We, the undersigned, are the residents of Wilton Street, SW1 and we unanimously and vigorously object to the draft road plans to Grosvenor Place and specifically to Wilton Street.
TfL has suggested banning all right turns from Grosvenor Place except into Wilton Street. This will convert Wilton Street from a residential road into a major road thoroughfare carrying all the traffic from Hyde Park Corner going west to Chelsea and onwards south and west out of London. We strongly urge TFL to reconsider.
At present, there are three right hand turn options from Grosvenor Place and we propose it will be safer and more efficient road-planning to keep that solution in place as it distributed the traffic in a manageable way that’s already proven to work.”
50
Appendix E: Quality of consultation
What do you think about the quality of this consultation No. of comments
Clarity needed
Reason behind asking respondents for personal details 2
Further information request
Cost/ benefit analysis 3
Justification for the proposal/ detailed plans/ traffic analysis 21
Negative comments
Confusing trying to make sense of all the proposed changes 1
Consultation not well publicised 3
Data/ figures provided out of touch 7
Decision already made 8
Difficulty in navigating the consultation 1
Equality monitoring not needed 1
Lack of data on pedestrian movements and existing flows 2
Lack of detail on timings make figures hard to judge 1
Lack of supporting evidence 4
Lacks information about access to Victoria station from Park Lane 1
Leading questions/biased outlook 2
Length by which the section for turning right into Wilton Street would be extended did not match the description in the text
1
Modelling data does not show what the other alternative routes are that motorists can use if turning restrictions apply
4
No quantification of the supposed safety benefits 1
Poor consultation 7
Poor presentation 4
Printing error 0
Sceptical about how seriously TfL will take the feedback 22
Some of the data provided is misleading/incorrect 1
TfL not fit for purpose 5
Underhanded to run the consultation over summer when many people may be away on holiday
1
Generally Negative 2
Lack of information on changes' impact on air quality 1
51
Map not clear/difficult to understand 1
Proposal/Content/Maps/ not clear 1
Relocating loading bay should refer to Chapel St not Chester St 2
Positive comments
Appreciate being consulted 2
Content / Maps clear/ easy to understand 12
Generally positive 5
Suggestions
Before & after maps would be useful as well as a list of the negatives that you have considered
1
Better/ wider publicity 1
Consult taxi drivers on improvements to the traffic flow as they use the roads all day long 1
Interactive maps/ images would be useful 1
Questionnaire could specifically ask a question or two about each part of the scheme to get a more focused response
1
Take feedback into account 2
Before/After pictures would be useful 1
Proposals need a rethink/ and another consultation 1
Separate maps for proposed new crossings at Duke of Wellington Place & the traffic changes on Grosvenor Place
2
