Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
East East West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation August 2015
East-West Cycle Superhighway
Hyde Park Response to Consultation
August 2015
Contents
Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3
2 The consultation ..................................................................................................... 5
3 Responses to the consultation ................................................................................ 8
4 Summary of stakeholder responses ..................................................................... 18
5 Conclusion and next steps .................................................................................... 27
Appendix A – Summary of responses (individual sections of route) ......................... 28
Appendix B – Annex to response from the Royal Parks ........................................... 52
Appendix C1 – TfL response to issues commonly raised (overall proposals for Hyde Park)
.............................................................................................................................. 54
Appendix C2 – TfL response to issues commonly raised (issues relating to individual
sections of route) .................................................................................................. 59
Appendix D – Consultation letter to residents and businesses ................................. 62
Appendix E – Distribution area for consultation letter ............................................... 68
Appendix F – Email to stakeholder groups ............................................................... 69
Appendix G – List of stakeholder groups .................................................................. 70
Appendix H – Email to Oyster users on the TfL database ........................................ 86
Appendix I – Consultation leaflet ............................................................................... 87
1 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Executive summary
Transport for London (TfL) originally consulted on proposals for the East-West Cycle
Superhighway between 3 September 2014 and 9 November 2014. These proposals
included high-level principles and a route alignment in Hyde Park.
Following the September 2014 consultation, the TfL Board agreed that further consultation
would take place on detailed proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde
Park, in collaboration with The Royal Parks. We consulted on these detailed proposals
between 9 February and 29 March 2015.
We received 670 responses to the February 2015 consultation, of which 79% supported or
partially supported our proposals. Comments from respondents included general support for
the proposals, concern about the alignment of the Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park, traffic
congestion as a result of the scheme, and the potential impact on pedestrians and other
park users.
After considering all of the responses to both consultations, we intend to proceed with the
overall scheme along the route alignment consulted on, although with some changes to the
detailed proposals, as summarised below. Subject to agreement with The Royal Parks, we
plan for the first phase of construction work to take place on the section of West Carriage
Drive south of North Carriage Drive to Coalbrookdale Gate. Work could begin in late August
2015, and will be phased to minimise the impact on other road and park users, and to
account for forthcoming events in Hyde Park. We will keep visitors and road users informed
of our plans and progress, including writing to local residents, businesses and other
stakeholders before undertaking work in their area. We will also provide road traffic
information to help people better plan their journeys and make informed choices about how,
where and when they travel.
Changes to proposals set out in consultation documents on West Carriage Drive
Having considered comments received, we are planning some changes to the proposals
set out for consultation, including:
Cyclists will be provided with their own dedicated signal phase to travel southbound
out of the park through the junction of West Carriage Drive and South Carriage
Drive. Cyclists may also choose to use the dedicated shared footway to cross South
Carriage Drive
For events held at the Serpentine Galleries, some deliveries may require the use of
oversized vehicles. To enable this, sections of the segregation between the cycle
track and carriageway have been designed to be overrun by these vehicles. Access
at these times will be arranged and appropriately managed by the delivery or events
company to ensure no conflict arises with pedestrians or cyclists when crossing the
footways and/or overhanging the cycle track
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 2
Changes to proposals set out in consultation documents on North Carriage Drive and South
Carriage Drive
We will continue to work with The Royal Parks, key stakeholders, businesses and events
organisers to respond to the issues raised during this consultation, and to finalise designs
for North Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive. We will publish our response later this
year.
3 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
1 Introduction
We originally consulted on proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway between 3
September 2014 and 9 November 2014. The consultation included initial proposals and
alignment for the section of the Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park. Following the
September 2014 consultation, the TfL Board agreed that further consultation could take
place on detailed designs for the Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park.
Between 9 February and 29 March 2015, we consulted on proposals for a continuous,
largely segregated cycle route in Hyde Park. This document explains the processes of the
2015 consultation, and sets out the responses and outcomes for Hyde Park and our
answers to issues commonly raised.
1.1 Purpose of the scheme The East-West route is proposed to run through Hyde Park as it provides an attractive route
between Hyde Park Corner and Lancaster Gate, with space to physically separate cyclists
from other road users.
Hyde Park already has a number of cycle routes which are very popular including the
Broadwalk, Serpentine Road and Rotten Row; however they are shared with a large
number of pedestrians and are subject to disruption during the many events within the park.
To provide a high quality, dedicated facility for cyclists the East-West Cycle Superhighway
would follow South Carriage Drive and West Carriage Drive between Hyde Park Corner and
Lancaster Gate, providing a two-way fully separated track for cycles. This would also
connect with proposed Quietway routes to Kensington and Exhibition Road.
1.2 Description of the proposals Some of the key proposals for Hyde Park put out for consultation in February 2015
included:
Segregated two way cycle tracks would be provided on South Carriage Drive and
West Carriage Drive
Dedicated cycle track would be provided along North Carriage Drive to assist cyclists
travelling to and from Speakers’ Corner
North Carriage Drive would be made one way eastbound to vehicles (except cycles)
to enable a simplified T- junction at West Carriage Drive and North Carriage Drive
(Victoria Gate). This would also enable part of the existing highway to be turned into
up to 600 metres2 of additional park land
Junction improvements at the entrances to the park from Hyde Park Corner
Appropriate lighting, paving, planting and other improvements to enhance the
enjoyment of the park for cyclists and other park users
High-quality materials to enhance the look of the park environment and reflect their
importance and heritage
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 4
1.3 Overview map of proposed scheme
5 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
2 The consultation
2.1. Consultation structure and duration
Duration
The consultation on the East-West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park ran from 9 February
2015 to 29 March 2015.
Consultation structure
Information on the consultation, including details of the proposals consulted on, was
available online at tfl.gov.uk/east-west-consult from 9 February 2015. The proposals
were broken down into 6 sections:
Section A: North Carriage Drive
Section B: North Carriage Drive and West Carriage Drive
Section C: West Carriage Drive
Section D: West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive
Section E: South Carriage Drive
Section F: South Carriage Drive, Broad Walk and Serpentine Road
For each section and the overall scheme, respondents were asked about their level of
support for the proposals (‘support’, ‘partially support’, ‘don’t support’, ‘not sure’, ‘no
opinion’). Respondents were also given an opportunity to provide comments on each
section of the proposal and the overall scheme.
Respondents were also asked to submit their name, email address and postcode, along
with information about their cycling and other travel habits. All questions were optional,
apart from the question asking for overall views on the proposal. Other information, such as
the respondent’s IP address and the date and time of responding, was recorded
automatically. All data is held under conditions that conform to the requirements of the Data
Protection Act 1998.
2.2 Consultation material, distribution and publicity
The consultation information was publicised via the following channels:
A letter and consultation drawing was sent to over 97,700 addresses in postcode sectors
beginning within a 0.5 mile radius of the route through Hyde Park, the Green Park and St
James’s Park. The letter directed people to the consultation website and invited them to
respond. The consultation letter and map of the distribution area are included in Appendix D
and Appendix E
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 6
Emails to stakeholders: We emailed around 700 different stakeholder organisations to let
them know about the consultation. Please see Appendix F for the email and Appendix G for
the list of recipients. The email contained a brief summary of the proposals and a link to the
consultation website.
Emails to individuals: We emailed over 45,000 people on the TfL database who are
known to cycle, drive or use public transport in the area (see the email in Appendix H). The
email briefly described the proposed scheme, and invited recipients to find out more and
respond via the consultation website.
Leaflet distribution to members of public: Staff distributed leaflets to members of the
public to coincide with some of the public events. Please see Appendix I for the leaflet
Consultation website
On 9 February 2015, detailed information on the proposals was published on TfL’s website
at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/8e23d698. The consultation information
included explanatory text and detailed design drawings of the scheme area.
Non-web formats
Printed leaflets, plans, accompanying descriptions and response forms were available on
request by telephone, email or writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS. The printed
material was also available at the seven public events held during the consultation period.
Public events: We held seven public events at which people could discuss the proposals
for Hyde Park with members of the project team and view printed material:
Hyde Park, at the junction of West Carriage Drive and North Carriage Drive*
Wednesday 18 February, 0730-1000
*The location of this event was changed to the junction of West Carriage Drive and
Rotten Row in order to accommodate the HGV transporting the marquee. However,
due to an error, the information was not updated. We apologise for any
inconvenience this may have caused.
Lancaster London Hotel, Lancaster Terrace, London W2 2TY
Monday 23 February, 1600-2000
Apsley Gate, Hyde Park, near Hyde Park Corner Underground station
Tuesday 3 March, 1100-1400
St. James’s Church, Sussex Gardens, W2 3UD
Sunday 8 March, 1200-1500
Wellington Arch, Hyde Park corner roundabout, W1J 7JZ
Tuesday 10 March, 0730-0930
7 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1 Birdcage Walk, SW1H 9JJ
Tuesday 17 March, 1600-2000
Lancaster London Hotel, Lancaster Terrace, W2 2TY
Thursday 26 March, 1600-2000
Stakeholder meetings have been ongoing since October 2013. These were used to inform
our understanding of the differing requirements of different user groups, before producing
drawings for consultation. Attendees of these meetings included:
Cyclists’ Touring Club
English Heritage
Friends of Hyde Park and
Kensington Gardens
Household Cavalry
Mounted Regiment
Hyde Park Stables
King’s Troop
Limelight
Living Streets
London Cycling Campaign
London Marathon
Metropolitan Police
Ministry of Defence
No.10
PRACT (Paddington Residents' Active
Concern on Transport)
Ride London
Ross Nye Stables
Royal Mews
Serpentine Gallery
Sustrans
The Royal Parks
The Royal Parks Foundation (organisers
of the Royal Parks Half Marathon)
Westminster City Council
Winter Wonderland
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 8
3 Responses to the consultation
3.1. Overview of overall support
TfL received a total of 658
direct responses to the East-
West Cycle Superhighway
consultation. The majority of
these supported the overall
proposals, with 446 (68%)
supporting and 76 (12%)
partially supporting the scheme.
121 (18%) of respondents did
not support the proposed
scheme and 15 (3%) were not
sure or had no opinion.
The responses included submissions from members of the public, stakeholder groups and
individual businesses and employers, representing a broad range of interests. A summary
of stakeholder comments is available in Chapter 4 of this report.
3.2 About the respondents
Responses by postcode
The majority of consultation
respondents were located within
Greater London. The most popular
postcode districts as shown in Figure
3.3 comprised 38% of respondent
postcodes, with the remaining 62%
located in other parts of London and the
UK. Postcodes with high proportions of
respondents tended to be those located
along or very near to the proposed
route.
Figure 3: most popular postcode districts
16.1%
2.9%
2.4%
1.8%
1.8%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
W2
SW1P
W8
SE1
W11
NW1
W14
E1W
W9
E1W
N1
SE11
W1H
W4
9 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Stated cycling habits
Of respondents who provided information
on their cycling habits, 55% (353) said they
cycled most days. A further 14% (93) said
they cycled weekly, and around 16% (101)
less frequently. 15% (98) of respondents
reported that they never cycle.
Respondents who cycle most days were
very likely to fully or partially support the
overall proposals, with 79% (280) fully and
14% (48) partially supporting the scheme. Among respondents who cycle less frequently,
support for the scheme was still fairly strong, with 81% (157) fully or partially in support.
Respondents who never cycle were largely opposed to the scheme. 63% (62) of this group
did not support the proposals.
Figure 3.5 Cycle most days and...
Figure 5
Occasionally cycle and... Figure 3.7 Never cycle and...
Fully or partially support Don’t support Not sure/no opinion/not answered
Figure 4 On average, how often do you cycle?
Most days 353 (55%)
About once a week 93 (14%)
About 1–3 times a month 52 (8%)
Less often 49 (8%)
Never 98 (15%)
Total answered (of 671) 645 (96%)
Not answered (of 671) 26 (4%)
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 10
3.3 How respondents heard about consultation
Well over half of respondents heard about the consultation by email (65%, 417). This was
followed by “Other (please state)” (10%, 66). This category was comprised of a wide variety
of sources such as word of mouth, cycling organisations and the TfL website. A leaflet
posted through the door was next most popular (7%, 47), followed by Twitter (7%, 43).
3.4 Comments on the consultation process and materials
270 respondents answered the question asking for any comments on the consultation
process (for example, printed materials, website, events, etc). 150 (56%) of these
respondents left comments such as “no”, “no comment”, “N/A” or were unrelated to the
question. The main themes arising from the remainder of comments included:
General praise for the material and website/leaflet content and design of consultation
(65 respondents, 24%). Respondents included Millicent Court Management Limited
and Spiramus Press Ltd
Feedback that certain parts of the consultation were unclear, in particular the details
of some maps and images (18 respondents, 7%). Respondents included Sustrans
Suggestions that the consultation should have been better publicised (11
respondents, 4%)
Suggestions that additional information should have been provided, such as greater
impact on journey times, impact on local residents, and visualisations (9
respondents, 3%). Respondents included London Chamber of Commerce and
Industry
Questioning if the consultation responses would be taken into account or expressing
concern that the decision to construct the East-West route has already been made
regardless of the consultation outcome (9 respondents, 3%)
Feedback that the consultation was too time-consuming or had a poor structure and
design which made it difficult to complete (6 respondents, 2%)
Figure 6 How respondents heard about consultation
65%
10%
7%
7%
4%
3%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Other (please state)
Leaflet through the door
Online advert
Leaflet from a TfL representative
Letter
Public Exhibition
Google (text) advert
Mobile message (MMS)
11 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
3.5 Comments on the overall proposals for the East-West
Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park
This is a summary of responses received to the overall proposals for the East-West Cycle
Superhighway in Hyde Park. Please see Appendix A for a detailed summary of responses
for individual sections of route.
Of 658 respondents to this question, 215 (33%) provided comments. As some respondents
provided more the one comment in their response, the totals below are greater than 215.
The percentages provided against each comment are a percentage of 658.
Routing
42 respondents (6%) made one or more comments about route alignment.
20 respondents (3%), including The Confederation of Passenger Transport, said that
the proposed route is not convenient enough and that a shorter route through the
park is available
19 respondents (3%), including Westminster Cycling Campaign, Tower Hamlets
Wheelers and the London Cycling Campaign, suggested a route along Serpentine
Road
6 respondents (1%) suggested a route in Kensington Gardens
4 respondents (1%) suggested a route along Broad Walk
8 respondents (1%) made a comment about an alternative route.
6 respondents (1%) suggested a route in the Park Lane area
2 respondents (<1%) suggested a route between Lancaster Gate and Bayswater
areas
Traffic / congestion
28 respondents (4%) made one or more comments about existing traffic conditions or the
impact of the proposals on them if proposals are introduced
25 respondents (4%) made a negative comment about the impact of the proposals
on traffic congestion and delays. Six of these are the following stakeholders; Millicent
Court Management Limited, Dial-a-Cab, SEBRA (South East Bayswater Residents’
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 12
Association), London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, William Sturges LLP and
Westminster Council - Marylebone High Street Ward.
7 respondents (1%) made a negative comment about existing traffic congestion
including the following stakeholders: SEBRA (South East Bayswater Residents’
Association), William Sturges LLP and Westminster Council - Marylebone High
Street Ward
4 respondents (1%) cited opposition to the closure of North Carriage Drive to
westbound motor traffic
4 respondents (1%) expressed concern about the impact on emissions / pollution
due to increase journey times / congestion
Cycling provision
27 respondents (4%) made one or more comments about provision for cyclists.
12 respondents (2%) made a comment about junctions or crossings that allow entry
to or exit from the park. 4 respondents (1%) made a comment about junctions or
crossings that allow movement inside the park
6 respondents (1%) expressed concern about cycle lane width. Four of these (1%),
including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain stated that the combined width of the two
lanes should be at least 4 metres
3 respondents (<1%), including The Royal Parks, expressed concern about provision
for cyclists on North Carriage Drive
3 respondents (<1%) expressed support for the proposals due to increased
convenience
2 respondents (<1%) criticised current cycling provision in the park
2 respondents (<1%) made a comment about the colour of the cycle track. One
respondent (<1%) suggested it should be blue, while the other respondent ,The
Royal Parks, suggested it should not be blue
2 respondents (<1%) asked for better cycle hire / parking facilities
Safety
27 respondents (4%) made a comment about segregation or areas shared between cyclists
and pedestrians.
11 respondents (2%) welcomed segregation, of these, three were the following
stakeholders; Redwing Coaches, London United Busways and Cycling Embassy of
Great Britain
8 respondents (1%) expressed concern about shared areas where cyclists and
pedestrians could clash
7 respondents (1%), including Spiramus Press Ltd, Tower Hamlets Wheelers and
London Cycling Campaign, would like segregation where it doesn’t exist under the
proposals, or better segregation
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that cyclist and pedestrians could share pavements
at narrow junctions
13 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
20 respondents (3%) made a comment about cyclist safety.
13 respondents (2%), including Redwing Coaches, stated that the proposals would
make it safer for cyclists
7 respondents (1%), including the London Cycling Campaign, Tower Hamlets
Wheelers and The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, stated that the
proposals do not make it safe enough for cyclists
12 respondents (2%) made one or more comments about pedestrian safety.
9 respondents (1%), including Millicent Court Management Limited, Tower Hamlets
Wheelers, London Cycling Campaign and The Royal Parks stated that the proposals
are not safe enough for pedestrians. Most of these cited potential clashes with cycles
due to increased cycle congestion in certain areas of the park
3 respondents (<1%) cited examples of poor current safety for pedestrians, including
an incident on Broad Walk, and several on South Carriage Drive / end of Serpentine
Road at the south east corner of the park.
1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for pedestrians
The Royal Parks stated that impact on pedestrians needs to measured and a risk
assessment undertaken
10 respondents (2%) expressed another concern.
9 respondents (1%) expressed a concern about pedestrians or cyclists entering each
other’s allocated space
1 respondent, The Royal Parks (<1%), expressed a concern about bicycle
congestion at pinch points such as at the Decimus Burton Screen.
Cycle policy
25 respondents (4%) made one or more comments about the status of roads and paths in
the park.
10 respondents (2%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, stated that motor
traffic should be banned from some or all of the main roads inside the park
7 respondents (1%), including the London Cycling Campaign and Tower Hamlets
Wheelers, asked for existing cycling routes to be retained
5 respondents (1%) made a suggestion about traffic speed and control. Four
respondents (1%), including Campaign to Protect Rural England – London,
suggested that traffic speed limits should be made lower, while one respondent
(<1%) suggested that speed bumps should be removed
2 respondents (<1%) stated that cycle routes should be well away from motor traffic
routes
2 respondents (<1%) suggested that when the Cycle Superhighway has been
established, cyclists should be banned from using other routes in the park
1 respondent (<1%) stated that all paths in the park should be available for cyclists to
use
1 respondent (<1%) stated that single lane one way motor traffic should be the only
way that traffic should be allowed to continue through the park
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 14
18 respondents (3%) made one or more comments about current behaviour and how to
improve it.
13 respondents (2%), including William Sturges LLP, asked for some form of cyclist
behaviour enforcement or education
9 respondents (1%), including William Sturges LLP, stated that cyclist behaviour is
poor currently
1 respondent (<1%) asked for some form of motorist education
18 respondents (3%) made a comment about financial matters
8 respondents (1%) made a negative comment the direct financial cost of creating
the Cycle Superhighway
3 respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects on the local or wider economy
7 respondents (1%) stated that sufficient cycling facilities already exist in Hyde Park
and that further improvements are unnecessary
19 respondents (3%) made one or more comments.
8 respondents (1%) would like to see improved signage and signalling in the park.
Two (<1%) of these, Campaign to Protect Rural England – London and The Royal
Parks, stated that they would like the look and feel of any signage to reflect the
heritage of the park.
5 respondents (1%) made a criticism of Royal Parks policy. Most of the comments
made were around The Royal Parks not offering enough provision for cyclists
2 respondents (<1%) stated that parks are for rest and recreation and not for cyclist
short-cuts
2 respondents (<1%) expressed support for the proposals as they will cut pollution /
emissions
1 respondent (<1%) stated that improving roads in general should take priority
1 respondent (<1%) commented that there should first be a process of learning from
other cycling nations
1 respondent (<1%) stated that the park will be better from an aesthetic point of view
with foreign visitors in mind
Support/positive comments
20 respondents (3%) offered positive comments.
15 respondents (2%), including Westminster Cycling Campaign, also stated general
support for the Hyde Park section of the Cycle Superhighway, while five respondents
(1%), including the University of London, stated general support for the East-West
Cycle Superhighway overall. Specific proposal-related reasons weren’t given
Operational issues
19 respondents (3%) made one or more comments about how the cycle route would
operate at night and during park closure.
8 respondents (1%) expressed concern about what route would be taken by cyclists
when the park is closed
15 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
5 respondents (1%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and The Royal
Parks expressed concern about alternative arrangements when there is a large
event in the park requiring the route to be suspended
5 respondents (1%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, stated that they
think the park should be open 24 hours
3 respondents (<1%) asked if there will be lighting to assist cyclists when it’s dark
Cycle-focused scheme
19 respondents (3%) made a comment about the focus given to cyclists relative to other
road and park users.
11 respondents (2%), including William Sturges LLP, Millicent Court Management
Limited, and Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, stated that there was
too much focus on cyclists and not enough consideration given to other users. Seven
of these (1%), specifically cited the Hyde Park proposals here
3 respondents (1%) expressed support for the planned allocation of space. Two of
these (<1%) supported reallocating space from motor vehicles to bicycles, while one
said that the proposals balance the needs of all park users
2 respondents (<1%) made a comment about mobility-impaired park users. One of
them (<1%) stated that the proposals appear to restrict the ability to drop off mobility-
impaired passengers who either require the use of a wheelchair or are unable to
walk very far. The other (<1%) stated that most cyclists travel to and from work, they
do not cycle during the day, and as a disabled driver they cannot cycle, so the
proposals discriminate against disabled drivers who drive during the day
1 respondent (<1%) stated that there should be less space for motor vehicles and
more space for people
1 respondent (<1%) asked for cycle space not to be taken out of pedestrian space
1 respondent (<1%) asked that cyclists should not have to dismount at crossings
Oppose/negative comments
7 respondents (1%) offered negative comments.
4 respondents (1%) stated general opposition towards the East-West Cycle
Superhighway, while a further 3 respondents (<1%) stated general opposition to the
Hyde Park section. Specific proposal-related reasons weren’t given
Provision for others
6 respondents (1%) made a comment about provision for groups other than cyclists.
2 respondents (<1%) stated that horse tracks should be retained. One of these
(<1%) added that they should be kept separate from bicycles
1 respondent, The Royal Parks (<1%), stated that the proposals must consider the
shared use of the park with non-cyclist groups such as pedestrians, horse riders and
wildlife
1 respondent (<1%) asked that parking spaces and other facilities be kept to help
families visiting at weekends
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 16
1 respondent (<1%) commented that the needs of people using powered
wheelchairs / mobility scooters have not been adequately addressed. They asked
why they can’t use cycle lanes
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the main east-west pedestrian route between
Serpentine Road and South Carriage Drive would be improved if some of the horse
track was given over to pedestrians
Comments unrelated to the East-West Cycle Superhighway scheme in Hyde Park
8 respondents (1%), made such a comment.
3.6 Comments on individual sections of route
A detailed summary of comments relating to individual sections of route is available in
Appendix A. Some of the main issues raised were:
Section A: North Carriage Drive
Traffic/congestion (26 respondents)
Design comments to improve the proposed cycling provision (20)
Other road and paths within the park (16)
Operational issues about how the scheme would operate when events were staged
in the park, or when the park was closed (14)
Suggestions for alternative routes (13)
The sufficiency of existing cycling facilities in Hyde Park (11)
Provision for other park user groups (5)
Section B: North Carriage Drive and West Carriage Drive
Design comments to improve the proposed cycling provision (39)
Traffic/congestion (19)
The segregation of the East-West Cycle Superhighway (18)
Suggestions for alternative routes (16)
Cyclists safety, particularly regarding a left hook into North Carriage Drive (15)
Cyclist behaviour and enforcement (11)
Other road and paths within the park (10)
The scheme focuses too much on cyclists (10)
Section C: West Carriage Drive
Design comments to improve the proposed cycling provision (32)
Traffic/Congestion (19)
Comments on the segregation of the East-West Cycle Superhighway (15)
Suggestions for alternative routes (14)
17 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
The scheme focuses too much on cyclists relative to other groups (12)
Other road and paths within the park (11)
Cyclist behaviour and enforcement (10)
Pedestrian safety (10)
Section D: West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive
Design comments to improve the proposed cycling provision (48)
The segregation of the East-West Cycle Superhighway (19)
Suggestions for alternative routes (17)
Traffic/congestion (17)
Other road and paths within the park (10)
Comments on pedestrian safety (9)
Economic impact (9)
Section E: South Carriage Drive
Design comments to improve the proposed cycling provision (24)
Traffic/congestion (14)
Suggestions for alternative routes (13)
Other roads and paths within the park (11)
Comments on pedestrian safety (10)
Provision for other park user groups (9)
Economic impact (8)
Section F: South Carriage Drive and the junction with Broad Walk and Serpentine
Road
Design comments to improve the proposed cycling provision (41)
Comments on the segregation of the East-West Cycle Superhighway (39)
Traffic/congestion (20)
Suggestions for alternative routes (15)
Other roads and paths within the park (8)
Economic impact (8)
The scheme focuses too much on cyclists relative to other groups (8)
Comments on pedestrian safety (8)
These themes are explained in greater depth along with a comprehensive analysis of other
comments received in Appendix A.
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 18
4 Summary of stakeholder responses
The stakeholder comments have been counted along with the public responses in the
previous section. We draw particular attention to the comments here, as the questions and
issues raised may be of interest to other consultees. Some stakeholders also expressed a
view on the proposals for the Green Park and St James’s Park. These comments will be
published in a separate report
The Royal Parks
The Royal Parks submitted a written response to the proposals. It said its comments were
made in the context of a wider obligation to maintain the public space for the benefit of all
park users:
The Royal Parks supports in principle a route entering at Victoria Gate, continuing
along West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive and exiting at Hyde Park
Corner
The Royal Parks reserve the right to reconfigure some existing cycle routes, such as
Mount Walk and Rotten Row, in the event that the introduction of a cycle
superhighway has a detrimental affect on these routes
The parks are not open 24 hours a day. Support in principle is on the understanding
that this is not expected to change. TfL should provide signed alternative routes
when the park is closed
Park events may require that sections of the superhighway are temporarily closed.
Alternative routes would need to be signposted by TfL
Further studies and a safety audit will be required before the Royal Parks can
approve the scheme
A number of other points were provided in ‘Annex A’ to the letter. These points are included
in Appendix B to this report.
AEG
Partially supports
AEG is the producer of the British Summertime Concert Series in Hyde Park, which takes
place annually through June and July on the parade ground in Hyde Park. During the event
the organisers occupy North Carriage Drive, closing the road and moving the cycle path to
the north side of the road.
AEG is concerned the frequent closure of a cycle path on the south side of North Carriage
Drive would confuse cyclists and suggests the path should be built on the north side of the
road. It is also concerned that works near Apsley Arch, Hyde Park Corner and Wellington
Arch and on South Carriage Drive could impact on its event.
19 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
The British Horse Society
Opposes the proposal due to concerns with the diversion of Rotten Row near the West
Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive intersection. The Society raised two issues:
The diversion of Rotten Row past the sports pitches, where there will be activity and
sudden movement of balls and players, is likely to cause horses to spook and
become frightened. They may bolt as a result
The proposed route of the new horse track contains a right-angled turn which could
also be dangerous, as horses need to change direction through a gentler angle. A
horse that has bolted is unlikely to make this sharp turn and will most likely run
straight on
Campaign to Protect Rural England
Partially supports the route through Hyde Park, but raised the following issues:
Too much signage clutter
Park should become a 20mph zone and a restricted parking zone
Carriageways should feel like ‘park lanes’, not ‘suburban roads’
Yellow lines and centre lines should be removed, parking spaces should be
sensitively marked and a more natural colour used for the cycle track
Confederation of Passenger Transport UK (CPT)
Opposes the proposed route in Hyde Park. It requested more appropriate points of entry
and exit to Hyde Park, along Bayswater Road, and suggested a greater proportion of the
Cycle Superhighway should be retained within the park.
General concerns with the East-West Cycle Superhighway include the need for any
alternative coach parking facilities to be in place before existing parking is removed and the
adverse impact increased journey times will have on both commuter coaches and services
for tourists and visitors.
Crown Equerry
Opposes the route through Hyde Park. Opposes diverting the horse ride along the eastern
edge of the tennis courts by Rotten Row: This would:
Impact on safety should horses ‘bolt’ and then fail to make the new 90° turn
Be detrimental to cavalry training
Diminish the historical values of that section of the horse ride
Cycling Embassy of Great Britain
Partially supports the proposal noting:
Routes should be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week
Well-signed alternatives needed for any special event closures
Bi-directional tracks should be at least 4m wide along the whole route
Proposed route from Marble Arch onto North Carriage Drive looks untidy – cycling
route should be clear, obvious and separated from footways
Crossing into Lancaster Gate should not be shared with pedestrians
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 20
Supports the bypass/route between West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive,
but the West/South Carriage Drive junction is not adequate. The segregated route on
West Carriage Drive should extend to the Exhibition Road junction
Would prefer clear, separate crossing routes for walking and cycling at Apsley Gate
– suggests a zebra crossing with parallel priority cycle crossing
Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens
Offered partial support for the proposed route through Hyde Park, and had the following
concerns and comments:
In-principle support for the proposal, with concerns about overspill of cyclists into
non-cycling areas of the park
Noted areas of the park have been reallocated for the use of cyclists only
Possible over-use of the junction at the east end of North Carriage Drive
How will North Carriage Drive work during events
Safety of pedestrians crossing West Carriage Drive needs to be ensured
Concerned at possible overspill from West Carriage Drive into Rotten Row
Safety of pedestrians crossing the cycle track to go to the Sports Pavilion at the West
Carriage/South Carriage Drive junction has to be ensured
The South Carriage Drive/Broad Walk/Serpentine Road intersection is an entry point
to the park for a great many tourists. Concerned at possible conflict between cyclists
and pedestrians.
Very high footfall in this area during major events
This intersection is also the entrance and exit route for utility vehicles
Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment (HCMR)
Opposes due to some specific concerns with aspects of the proposal:
Does not see why the horse track at the corner of West Carriage Drive and South
Carriage Drive needs to be shortened
Shortened horse track would not allow for a ‘run off’ area at the western end of
Rotten Row, which is necessary in case a horse bolts
It would also restrict the ability of the HCMR to carry out State Ceremonial Drills
Any additional horse track must be wide enough for four horses to ride abreast
(minimum of 4m)
Concerned at the operation, in practice, of the horse crossing on South Carriage
Drive opposite Hyde Park Barracks. HCMR has no authority to stop traffic
Concerned at what would happen if a rider were unseated and a horse attempted to
cross the Cycle Superhighway
Any reduction in the width of South Carriage Drive would impact on practice for
Garter Ceremony Drills
Reduction in width of South Carriage Way and no parking restrictions could impact
on traffic flow when the Queen’s Life Guards deploy for duty at Horseguards. There
is currently enough room for the traffic to pass by on either side
21 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
London Cab Ranks Committee
Opposes, stressing the importance of east-west movement on North Carriage Drive for
taxis. The Committee also noted a taxi rank for the 2014 Winter Wonderland was located on
the site of the proposed cycle route.
London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI)
Does not support or oppose the proposal, although the LCCI opposes the scheme overall:
Its concerns with the original consultation remain – the process was rushed, there
was insufficient time to consider the environmental impact assessment and a full
economic impact assessment was not provided
TfL’s response to consultation does not adequately address concerns raised by
respondents, including increased journey times and impact on freight servicing and
deliveries
Estimated journey time increases along the whole route are still too high and would
impose an unacceptable burden on businesses
LCCI is concerned that North Carriage Drive would become one way eastbound,
displacing 89 vehicles each hour in the morning and evening peak. It is unable to
support or oppose the proposal for Hyde Park with no indication of the impact of this
displaced traffic
London Cycling Campaign (LCC)
Partially supports the scheme in Hyde Park but raised the following concerns with aspects
of the scheme:
As many route options as possible should be available for cyclists, especially as
there will be regular disruption by events and ceremonies
Concern at the failure to design for increased cycling on Serpentine Road. As a
result, there is likely to be increased congestion and risk to park users in the
Coalbrookdale Gate and Broad Walk/Speakers Corner areas
The width of the cycle track should not be reduced below four metres in any location
Cyclists southbound from Bayswater Road into West Carriage Drive must be
protected from left-turning traffic by the signal timing
North Carriage Drive corner should be built out to slow drivers
Northbound cyclists at Victoria Gate will share an unsignalised toucan with
pedestrians, leading to conflict. A zebra/toucan parallel crossing is preferred
Design should ensure traffic emerging from Serpentine Road and other access roads
does not block the cycle track
More space and separate phasing is needed for large volumes of cyclists to get
across from the Coalbrookdale Gate to South Carriage Drive
A left-hook risk for southbound cyclists still exists at Coalbrookdale Gate junction and
no consideration has been given to safe access to and from Exhibition Road
Albert Gate crossing on South Carriage Drive should be a zebra/toucan parallel
crossing to avoid conflict
The shared use pinch point leading out of the park and through to Hyde Park Corner
may cause conflict
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 22
Connectivity at Hyde Park Corner to Quietway routes and the Central London Grid is
vital and should be delivered at the same time as the East-West Cycle Superhighway
The link to Park Lane should be wider than 1.5 metres
A zebra/toucan parallel crossing should be provided over South Carriage Drive at
Hyde Park Corner
London Fire Brigade (LFB)
Partially support the proposal, noting that it supports the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling and
recognises the benefits the proposed changes will bring to London. The LFB encourages its
staff to choose more sustainable forms of transport, including cycling. The LFB requested:
Access to the high-level traffic modelling to assess the cumulative impact of TfL’s
plans on resource deployment
Detailed traffic modelling – covering both construction and the finished scheme -
relating to the scheme’s impact along with any associated mitigation
A detailed programme of works for construction and TfL’s mitigation arrangements
Traffic management orders, or other regulatory measures, do not impede on the
brigade’s core service delivery functions
Education and enforcement to ensure appropriate emergency service access and
egress is maintained to all sites and properties affected by the scheme, at all stages
London United Busways
Supports, adding there should be no conflict between cyclists and other traffic.
LRW Design: Supports the proposal with no comments.
Millicent Court Management Limited
Opposes the proposed scheme in Hyde Park, saying it would adversely affect traffic flow
and have a deleterious effect upon business and central London. It expressed the following
specific concerns:
Cycle track encourages cyclist to travel at high speeds
Proposal does not reflect the Highway Code or the take into account the safety of
pedestrians, who face an increased risk of injury
Proposal reflects the needs of the cycling fraternity only
Cyclists will not keep to the cycle track but will take short-cuts
Low traffic volumes stated for the left turn from Marble Arch into North Carriage Drive
are not reliable
Councillor Daniel Moylan, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Partially supports the proposal but is concerned the existing shared cycling/pedestrian path
that runs between the Serpentine Bridge and Victoria Gate is to be lost. Said the
segregated cycle lane on West Carriage Drive will meet the needs of commuting cyclists,
but not the visual and recreational amenity needed by leisure cyclists. The Councillor is
concerned this sets a precedent which could be used to remove other existing cycle paths,
23 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
such as the one adjacent to the Rotten Row or the shared cycling/pedestrian facility over
Policeman’s Path. He asked that:
Existing vehicular capacity on West Carriage Drive, including at the Alexandra Gate
and Victoria Gate junctions, be maintained
The existing shared pedestrian/cycle path between Serpentine Bridge and Victoria
Gate be retained
Paddington Residents' Active Concern on Transport (PRACT)
Partially supports the proposal and offers in-principle support to the East-West Cycle
Superhighway. It supports the views of the Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens
and stressed the following:
Concerned that some cyclists will take shorter routes between Victoria Gate and
Hyde Park Corner, using existing cycling routes not intended for high volumes
Requests a redesign of the road layout at the West Carriage Drive/South Carriage
Drive junction
Kerb build-out on West Carriage Drive should be removed. Left-turning traffic and
traffic going straight ahead into Exhibition Road are combined into a single lane
leading to long queues
Capacity at this junction should be maintained in case traffic reduction targets are not
achieved. The group is sceptical about these targets
Redwing Coaches
Supports the proposal. Said more use should be made of the park and the safety of cyclists
in the park should be maximised. The company suggested that North Carriage Drive should
be the main route for cyclists instead of Bayswater Road.
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)
Opposes the proposal, pending further detail on the impact on traffic flow in Kensington and
Chelsea. It said:
Additional information is needed on revised signal timings, expected traffic queue
lengths and the likely extent of any rat-running
Information is needed, in particular, on queuing and journey times along Kensington
Road
Notes TfL plans to re-run ONE traffic model, in June, to quantify impacts of the
queue-balancing strategy
Welcomes advice from TfL that journey times along West Carriage Drive and South
Carriage Drive in Hyde Park are forecast to reduce, largely as a result of less traffic
entering the park
Notes that traffic entering Hyde Park from Exhibition Road will have as much green
time as it does today
RBKC made no comment on any other section, pending the information requested
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 24
Royal Parks Foundation
Partially supports the proposal. The Foundation runs the Royal Parks Foundation Half
Marathon, with around half the race taking place within Hyde Park. It requests that works in
Hyde Park not commence before this year’s event on 12 October 2015, noting that the
route had already been significantly altered to accommodate Cycle Superhighway works
outside the park.
The Foundation had the following comments on specific sections:
The current width of North Carriage Drive should be maintained, with no segregation,
so runners can use the full width of the existing roadway
The Half Marathon route has runners northbound on West Carriage Drive and then
turning east onto North Carriage Drive. Current plans for the junction would make
this impossible and an unobstructed turn, at least 4.5m wide, needs to be provided
A minimum 4.5m width is also needed to allow runners westbound on North Carriage
Drive to cross into Kensington Gardens through the gate by Victoria Gate Lodge
At least one (preferably two) drop-kerbs are needed at locations west of the planned
pedestrian crossing, ideally 5m in width, leading up to Victoria Gate Lodge
The section of West Carriage Drive immediately west of the Triangle Car Park has
runners two-way and they need to be routed south along West Carriage Drive from
the Policeman’s Path and back into the Triangle Car Park
The proposed horse track east of the tennis courts, near the West Carriage Drive
and South Carriage Drive intersection, should avoid encroaching on the event’s
festival village. The event’s production area begins on the line of the existing path
The Foundation opposes the proposal for sections on South Carriage Drive and in
the South Carriage Drive, Broad Walk, Serpentine Road area where a 5m wide
gantry is needed for the start and finish. There should be no segregation between
the carriageways and the horse track so runners can use the full width of the road
Councillor Karen Scarborough, Westminster City Council
Partially supports the proposed route through Hyde Park and notes that she agrees with
comments made by the Paddington Residents' Active Concern on Transport and South
East Bayswater Residents’ Association in relation to traffic in the park.
Serpentine Gallery
Partially supports the proposal, although it specifically opposes the section on West
Carriage Drive, saying it would impact on its business. The reduction in width of this road
would prevent 40ft vehicles driving onto the Gallery’s access road. Vehicles of this size are
required for climatically controlled art works and to deliver the large components of the
Pavilion.
South East Bayswater Residents’ Association (SEBRA)
Partially supports the proposal and agrees with the response from Paddington Residents'
Active Concern on Transport. It noted that traffic queues on West Carriage Drive are
already intolerable on many days.
25 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Sustrans
Partially supports the proposal and provided the following comments and suggestions:
Cycle track on North Carriage Drive should be at least 4m wide
Tighten the turn radius for southbound traffic entering North Carriage Drive
Layout of the North Carriage Drive/West Carriage Drive junction should be re-
examined
Raised cyclist/pedestrian crossing at North Carriage Drive/West Carriage Drive
should be a parallel zebra crossing, or give-way markings should be added
Design for West Carriage Drive should ensure the cycle track is not blocked by
vehicles emerging from Serpentine Road and other access roads
Informal pedestrian crossing point on the cycle track bypass at the West Carriage
Drive/South Carriage Drive junction should be raised to slow cycles
Northbound cycle lane on West Carriage Drive, at Coalbrookdale Gate, should be
wider and long enough to allow cyclists to bypass queues
West Carriage Drive/South Carriage Drive still poses a left-hook risk for southbound
cyclists
Footway reduction along South Carriage Drive should be avoided
Traffic volumes and speeds need to be reduced on access roads
A shared zebra crossing is appropriate for South Carriage Drive near Serpentine
Road
An informal raised crossing should be considered at the cycle hire station on South
Carriage Drive
Design should be reviewed against the risk of pedestrians mistaking the cycle track
for the footway after using the new toucan crossing
Concerned at the shared use pinch-point at Hyde park Corner
Tower Hamlets Wheelers
Partially supports the scheme for Hyde Park, noting its supports for the London Cycling
Campaign submission.
University of London
Supports the proposed route through Hyde Park. It’s supportive of improvements to cycle
infrastructure, as many of staff and students cycle.
Westminster City Council
Westminster City Council neither opposes nor supports the proposals but expressed comments
and concerns about the proposals, including:
The operation of the pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities at the junction of West
Carriage Drive and North Carriage Drive with the potential for traffic queuing back
onto Bayswater Road
The operation of the junction of West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive, with
the potential for traffic queuing back on West Carriage Drive, and also affecting
Kensington Gore.
Cyclists travelling southbound cyclists on West Carriage Drive at this junction could
be better protected against the risk of left-turn hook accident
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 26
If the shared pedestrian and cyclist crossings are retained at this junction, the lack of
coherent links between the proposed cycle tracks, shared footway areas and points
where cyclists are expected to leave/ join the carriageway should be addressed
Westminster Cycling Campaign
Supports the proposal for Hyde Park, but listed the following concerns:
Many cyclists are likely to choose the more direct route on Serpentine Road when
travelling between Victoria Gate and Hyde Park Corner
Will the cycle track remain open when the North Carriage Drive is occupied by
vehicles servicing an event in Hyde Park
Is there a risk of conflict between southbound cyclists heading towards West
Carriage Drive and other vehicles turning left into North Carriage Drive
Is there enough capacity for cyclists proceeding from Coalbrookdale or Alexandra
Gate into South Carriage Drive?
There is some confusion whether pedestrians and cyclists crossing at Albert Gate
should keep to the right or left sides. This needs to be resolved
Wheels for Wellbeing
Offers partial support for the proposed route through Hyde Park, raising some questions
and issues:
What provision is there for visually impaired people to cross North Carriage Drive
safely
What protection is there for (slow) southbound cyclists from Victoria Gate crossing
the entrance to North Carriage Drive
Cyclists need protection from left hooks at the North Carriage Drive and West
Carriage Drive intersection
Is the crossing for northbound cyclists and pedestrians by Victoria Gate a raised
table? Visually impaired pedestrians need to be able to cross safely. Suggests a
‘new form of zebra crossing’ be explored for this location
Unclear how the Cycle Superhighway links to Hyde Park Corner. The route should
be separated from footways
William Sturges LLP: Opposes the proposal on a number of grounds:
Significant increase in the number of signalised junctions and crossings
Significant cost
Little real benefit for cyclists or pedestrians
Proposals are biased in favour of cyclists against pedestrians
Significantly increase traffic congestion
Cyclists regularly ignore traffic nights and do not need to be identified or have third party
insurance
27 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
5 Conclusion and next steps
We received 670 responses to the consultation on proposals for the East-West Cycle
Superhighway in Hyde Park. 79% of respondents supported or partially supported our
proposals. Comments from respondents included general support for the proposals,
concern about the alignment of the Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park, traffic congestion as
a result of the scheme, and the potential impact on pedestrians and other park users.
After considering all of the responses received, we intend to proceed with the overall
scheme along the route alignment consulted on, although with some changes to the
detailed proposals, as summarised below. Subject to agreement with The Royal Parks, we
plan for the first phase of construction work to take place on the section of West Carriage
Drive south of North Carriage Drive to Coalbrookdale Gate. We are still finalising detailed
plans for the route on North Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive, and will publish these
later this year.
Work on West Carriage Drive could begin in late August 2015, and will be phased to
minimise the impact on other road and park users, and to account for forthcoming events in
Hyde Park. We will keep visitors and road users informed of our plans and progress,
including writing to local residents, businesses and other stakeholders before undertaking
work in their area. We will also provide road traffic information to help people better plan
their journeys and make informed choices about how, where and when they travel.
Changes to proposals set out in consultation documents on West Carriage Drive
Having considered comments received, we are planning some changes to the proposals
set out for consultation, including:
Cyclists will be provided with their own dedicated signal phase to travel southbound
out of the park through the junction of West Carriage Drive and South Carriage
Drive. Cyclists may also choose to use the dedicated shared footway to cross South
Carriage Drive
For events held at the Serpentine Galleries, some deliveries may require the use of
oversized vehicles. To enable this, sections of the segregation between the cycle
track and carriageway have been designed to be overrun by these vehicles. Access
at these times will be arranged and appropriately managed by the delivery or events
company to ensure no conflict arises with pedestrians or cyclists when crossing the
footways and/or overhanging the cycle track
Changes to proposals set out in consultation documents on North Carriage Drive and South
Carriage Drive
We will continue to work with The Royal Parks, key stakeholders, businesses and events
organisers to respond to the issues raised during this consultation, and to finalise designs
for North Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive. We will publish our response later this
year.
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 28
Appendix A – Summary of responses
(individual sections of route)
Section A: North Carriage Drive
Of 642 respondents to this section, 160 (25%) provided comments. As some respondents
provided more the one comment in their response, the totals below are greater than 160.
The percentages provided against each comment are a percentage of 642.
Traffic / congestion
26 respondents (4%) made a comment about existing traffic conditions or the impact on
them if proposals are introduced.
18 respondents (3%), including Cranleigh Property Consultants Limited, made a
negative comment about the impact of the proposals on traffic congestion and delays
9 respondents (1%), including London Cab Ranks, stated clear opposition to the
closure of North Carriage Drive to westbound motor traffic
4 respondents (1%) expressed concern about the impact on emissions / pollution
1 respondents (1%) made a negative comment about existing traffic congestion
Support / positive comments
25 respondents (4%) offered positive comments.
14 respondents (2%), including Sustrans, stated general support for Section A, while
three respondents (%) stated general support for the East-West Cycle Superhighway
overall.
5 respondents (1%) stated conditional support for this section
2 respondents (<1%) cited less pollution
1 respondent (<1%) cited increased convenience
Oppose / negative comments
22 respondents (3%) offered negative comments.
11 respondents (2%) stated that sufficient cycling facilities already exist here and
that further development is unnecessary
Do you support the proposals for
Section A (North Carriage Drive) of
the East-West Cycle Superhighway
in Hyde Park?
Number of respondents: 642
29 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
5 respondents (1%) cited the direct financial cost of creating the Cycle
Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects on the local or
wider economy
4 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the Hyde Park section of
the East-West Superhighway, while three respondents (<1%) stated general
opposition to the East-West Cycle Superhighway overall
Cycling provision
18 respondents (3%) made a comment about segregation or shared areas
8 respondents (1%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, welcome the
segregated track
4 respondents (1%) would like segregation in areas where it doesn’t exist under the
proposals
4 respondents (1%) would like a physical barrier to improve the effectiveness of the
proposed segregation
2 respondents (<1%) expressed a concern about proposed shared space
1 respondent (<1%), Royal Parks Foundation, welcomed the lack of physical barrier
between road, horse track and cycle track
14 respondents (2%) made a comment about cyclist safety in general.
7 respondents (1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for cyclists
5 respondents (1%) expressed concern that the proposals do not make it safe
enough for cyclists
2 respondents (<1%) commented that it’s currently unsafe for cyclists
21 respondents (3%) made other comments
10 respondents (2%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, expressed
concern about the connections near Cumberland Gate Lodge and leaving the park to
join other roads and routes
4 respondents (1%), including Sustrans and Cycling Embassy of Great Britain,
expressed concern about cycle lane width
4 respondents (1%) suggested that instead of two-way cycle track, it would be better
to have one way paths on either side of North Carriage Drive
1 respondents (<1%) criticised current cycling provision in the park
1 respondent (<1%) made a comment about the Albion Gate crossing and asked if
there will be cycle priority there
1 respondent (<1%), AEG, suggested widening the existing shared cycle / pedestrian
pathway instead of the proposed two way segregated track
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the provision here may encourage people to use
this route and Broad Walk, instead of the main East-West Cycle Superhighway route
of West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 30
Cycle policy
16 respondents (2%) made a comment about the status of roads and paths in the park.
11 respondents (2%) stated that motor traffic should be banned from some or all of
the main roads inside the park. 8 of these (1%), including Cycling Embassy of Great
Britain, cited North Carriage Drive specifically
2 respondents (<1%) stated that cycle routes should be well away from motor traffic
routes
1 respondent (<1%) asked for existing minor cycling routes to be retained
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that speed bumps should be removed
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that when the Cycle Superhighway has been
established, cyclists should be banned from using other routes in the park
6 respondents (1%) made a comment about current park user behaviour and how to
improve it.
5 respondents (1%) asked for some form of cyclist behaviour enforcement or
education
3 respondents (<1%) stated that cyclist behaviour is poor currently
1 respondent (<1%) asked for more education for motorists
6 respondents (1%) made other comments.
3 respondents (<1%) would like to see improved signage or signalling. This included
The Campaign to Protect Rural England – London, who noted that markings should
be a more natural colour
2 respondents (<1%) made a criticism of Royal Parks policy
1 respondent (<1%) stated that improving roads should take priority
1 respondent (<1%) commented that there should first be a process of learning from
other cycling nations
Operational issues
14 respondents (2%) made a comment about how the cycle route would operate during
events and at times of darkness.
10 respondents (2%), including AEG, Westminster Cycling and Friends of Hyde Park
and Kensington Gardensm expressed concern about alternative arrangements when
there is an event in the park
3 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about what route would be taken by cyclists
when the park or just North Carriage Drive are closed
1 respondents (<1%) asked if there will be lighting to assist when it’s dark
Cycle-focused scheme
14 respondents (2%) made a comment about the focus given to cyclists relative to other
groups.
7 respondents (1%) stated that there was too much focus on cyclists and not enough
consideration given to other users. Three of these (<1%), including Friends of Hyde
31 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Park and Kensington Gardens, specifically referred to the Hyde Park proposals in
their response
1 respondent (<1%) made a comment that the proposals balance the needs of all
park users well
1 respondent (<1%) expressed support for the planned allocation of space to cyclists
1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals are limiting for mobility impaired users
1 respondent (<1%) stated that there should be less space for motor vehicles and
more space for people
1 respondent (<1%) requested for cycle space not to be taken out of pedestrian
space
Routing
10 respondents (2%) made a comment about route alignment.
4 respondents (1%) said that the proposed route is not convenient enough. Three of
these (<1%) were referring to the route through Hyde Park as a whole.
3 respondents (<1%) suggested a route along Broad Walk
2 respondents (<1%) suggested a route along Serpentine Road
1 respondent (<1%) suggested a route in Kensington Gardens
3 respondents (<1%) made a comment about an alternative route.
2 respondents (<1%) suggested a route in the Park Lane area
1 respondents (<1%) suggested a route between Lancaster Gate and Bayswater
areas
1 respondent (<1%), Redwing Coaches, suggested that this should be the main
route into central London from the West, not Bayswater Road
Provision for others
10 respondents (2%) made a comment about pedestrian safety in general
5 respondents (<1%) stated that the proposals are not safe enough for pedestrians.
Two of these (<1%) cited increased traffic speeds due to the one way system
4 respondents (1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for pedestrians
1 respondents (<1%) commented that it’s currently unsafe for pedestrians
1 respondent (<1%), Wheels for Wellbeing, asked what provision exists to help
visually impaired people cross North Carriage Drive safely
1 respondent (<1%) asked what will happen to car parking spaces
1 respondent (<1%) commented that the needs of people using powered
wheelchairs / mobility scooters have not been adequately addressed. They asked
why users can’t use cycle lanes
1 respondent (<1%) stated that horse tracks should be retained, and kept separate
from bicycles
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the main East-West pedestrian route between
Serpentine Road and South Carriage Drive would be improved if some of the horse
track was given over to pedestrians
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 32
Comments unrelated to the East-West Cycle Superhighway scheme in Hyde Park
4 respondents (1%) made such a comment
Section B: North Carriage Drive and West Carriage Drive
Of 639 respondents to this section, 140 (22%) provided comments. As some respondents
provided more the one comment in their response, the totals below are greater than 140.
The percentages provided against each comment are a percentage of 639.
Cycling provision
39 respondents (6%) made a comment about provision for cyclists.
25 respondents (4%) expressed concern about the junction or crossing near Victoria
Gate
17 respondents (3%) made a suggestion of how to improve the junction or crossing,
five of which (1%) suggested a Zoucan (zebra and toucan parallel) crossing
3 respondents (<1%) suggested that instead of two-way cycle track, it would be
better to have one way paths on either side of the road
2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about cycle lane width
1 respondent (<1%) suggested it would be better to put the cycle track on the West
side of West Carriage Drive, to avoid the two car parks that are on the East side
1 respondents (<1%) criticised current cycling provision in this area
1 respondent (<1%) suggested the cycle track should be blue
1 respondent (<1%) expressed support for the new crossing point as it is currently
difficult for runners and pedestrians to safely cross this road
1 respondent (<1%), CyclingWorks.London, suggested that the cycle track should be
further east closer to the horse track in order to encourage cyclists to stay on the
route and not go on the horse track
18 respondents (3%) made a comment about segregation or shared areas.
11 respondents (2%) expressed a concern about potential clash between cyclists
and pedestrians at the new crossing point
8 respondents (1%) welcomed the segregated track
Do you support the proposals for
Section B (North Carriage Drive and
West Carriage Drive) of the East-
West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde
Park?
Number of respondents: 639
33 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
1 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about the proximity of the horse track
15 respondents (2%) made a comment about cyclist safety in general.
11 respondents (2%) expressed concern that the proposals do not make it safe
enough for cyclists. 9 of these (1%) commented that there is risk of a ‘left-hook’
collision between southbound cyclists and motorists turning left in to North Carriage
Drive.
4 respondents (1%), including Redwing Coaches, stated that the proposals would
make it safer for cyclists
Traffic / congestion
19 respondents (3%) made a comment about existing traffic conditions or how conditions
might change with the introduction of the proposals
15 respondents (2%) made a negative comment about the impact of the proposals
on traffic congestion and delays
5 respondents (1%) expressed concern about the impact on emissions / pollution
2 respondents (<1%) stated opposition to the closure of North Carriage Drive to
westbound motor traffic
1 respondents (<1%) made a negative comment about existing traffic congestion
Oppose / negative comments
18 respondents (3%) offered negative comments.
6 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the Hyde Park section of the East-
West Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) stated general opposition to the
East-West Cycle Superhighway overall
5 respondents (1%) cited the direct financial cost of creating the Cycle
Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects on the local or
wider economy
5 respondents (1%) stated that sufficient cycling facilities already exist in Hyde Park
and that further improvements are unnecessary
Routing
16 respondents (3%) made a comment about route alignment or an alternative route.
11 respondents (2%) said that the proposed route is not convenient enough. Four of
these (1%) were referring to the route through Hyde Park as a whole
4 respondents (1%) suggested an alternative route along Serpentine Road
1 respondents (<1%) suggested an alternative route in the Park Lane area
Support / positive comments
15 respondents (2%) offered positive comments.
6 respondents (1%) stated general support for this section of the Cycle
Superhighway, while three respondents (<1%) stated general support for the East-
West Cycle Superhighway overall
5 respondents (1%) stated conditional support for this section
1 respondent (<1%) cited increased convenience
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 34
Cycle policy
11 respondents (2%) made a comment about current park user behaviour or how to
improve it.
9 respondents (1%) asked for some form of cyclist behaviour education or
enforcement
5 respondents (1%) stated that cyclist behaviour is currently poor
2 respondents (<1%) asked for some form of driver behaviour enforcement or
education
10 respondents (2%) made a comment about the status of roads and paths in the park.
4 respondents (1%) stated that motor traffic should be banned from some or all of
the main roads inside the park
3 respondents (<1%) made a comment about speed control. One of them (<1%)
suggested a 20mph speed limit for motor traffic, one (<1%) suggested that speed
bumps should be removed, and one (<1%) suggested that there should be speed
bumps for cyclists
2 respondent (<1%) stated that cycle routes should be well away from motor traffic
routes
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that when the Cycle Superhighway has been
established, cyclists should be banned from using other routes in the park
5 respondents (1%) made other comments.
4 respondents (1%) would like to see improved signage or signalling. This included
The Campaign to Protect Rural England – London, who noted that markings should
be a more natural colour
1 respondent (<1%) stated that improving roads should take priority
1 respondent (<1%) commented that there should first be a process of learning from
other cycling nations
Cycle-focused scheme
10 respondents (2%) made a comment about the focus given to cyclists relative to other
groups.
8 respondents (1%) stated that there was too much focus on cyclists and not enough
consideration given to other users. Four of these (1%, including Friends of Hyde
Park and Kensington Gardens, specifically cited the Hyde Park proposals in their
response
1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals are limiting for mobility impaired users
1 respondent (<1%) requested for cycle space not to be taken out of pedestrian
space
Provision for others
5 respondents (1%) made a comment about pedestrian safety in general.
3 respondents (<1%) stated that the proposals are not safe enough for pedestrians
2 respondents (<1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for pedestrians
35 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
1 respondent (<1%) commented that the needs of people using powered
wheelchairs / mobility scooters have not been adequately addressed. They asked
why they can’t use cycle lanes
1 respondent (<1%) stated that horse tracks should be retained, and kept separate
from bicycles
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the main East-West pedestrian route between
Serpentine Road and South Carriage Drive would be improved if some of the horse
track was given over to pedestrians
1 respondent (<1%) expressed concern that the turning from West Carriage Drive in
to North Carriage Drive would be impossible for the large amount of participants in
the Royal Parks Half Marathon. This response was from the Royal Parks Foundation
Operational issues
3 respondents (<1%) made a comment about what route would be taken by cyclists when
the park is closed.
Comments unrelated to the East-West Cycle Superhighway scheme in Hyde Park
7 respondents (1%) made such a comment.
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 36
Section C: West Carriage Drive
Of 642 respondents to this section, 135 (21%) provided comments. As some respondents
provided more the one comment in their response, the totals below are greater than 135.
The percentages provided against each comment are a percentage of 642.
Cycling provision
32 respondents (5%) made a comment about provision for cyclists.
15 respondents (2%), including London Cycling Campaign, Sustrans and Tower
Hamlets Wheelers, expressed concern about conflict at junctions. Some respondents
made suggestions for improvement. These include more control at junctions, e.g.
zebra crossings and lights, a larger buffer between cycle track and road, siting the
cycle track on the other side of the road to better avoid the car parks
15 respondents (2%) expressed a concern about cycle lane width. Many of these
stated that the track width should be at least 4 metres. Respondents included
London Cycling Campaign, Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, Tower Hamlets
Wheelers and CyclingWorks.London
1 respondent (<1%) suggested it would be better to put the cycle track on the West
side of West Carriage Drive, to avoid the two car parks that are on the East side
1 respondent (<1%) criticised current cycling provision in this area
1 respondent (<1%) suggested there should be more cycle hire stations as there is a
lot of demand in this section
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the cycle track should be painted blue
1 respondent (<1%) expressed concern that the cyclists would find an alternative
route unless quality of provision is high
15 respondents (2%) made a comment about segregation and shared areas.
9 respondents (1%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and Friends of Hyde
Park and Kensington Gardens, welcomed the segregated track
5 respondents (1%) expressed concern about the proximity of the horse track
1 respondent (<1%) stated opposition to shared areas for cyclists and pedestrians
Do you support the proposals for
Section C (West Carriage Drive) of
the East-West Cycle Superhighway
in Hyde Park?
Number of respondents: 642
37 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Traffic / congestion
19 respondents (3%) made a comment about existing traffic conditions or how conditions
might change with the introduction of the proposals
18 respondents (3%) made a comment about the impact of the proposals on traffic
congestion and delays
3 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about the impact on emissions / pollution
because of increased journey times / congestion
1 respondents (<1%) stated opposition to the closure of North Carriage Drive to
westbound motor traffic
1 respondents (<1%) made a negative comment about existing traffic congestion
Routing
14 respondents (2%) made a comment about route alignment or an alternative route.
7 respondents (1%) said that the proposed route is not convenient enough and a
shorter route to get to the other side of the park is available
6 respondents (1%) suggested an alternative route along Serpentine Road
1 respondents (<1%) suggested an alternative route in the Park Lane area
Cycle-focused scheme
12 respondents (2%) made a comment about the focus given to cyclists relative to other
groups.
5 respondents (1%) stated that there was too much focus on cyclists and not enough
consideration given to other users. Two of these (<1%), including Friends of Hyde
Park and Kensington Gardens, specifically cited the Hyde Park proposals in their
response
3 respondents (<1%) stated opposition to the retention of so many car parking
spaces in this area
2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about usage of the horse track, stating that
it is not used by horses often. One of these suggested that the track here could be
for horses and cyclists making it wider for both
1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals appear to restrict the ability to drop off
mobility impaired passengers who either require the use of a wheelchair or are
unable to walk very far.
1 respondent (<1%) requested for cycle space not to be taken out of pedestrian
space
Cycle policy
11 respondents (2%) made a comment about the status of roads and paths in the park.
6 respondents (1%) stated that motor traffic should be banned from some or all of
the main roads inside the park. 1 respondent (<1%) stated that private cars should
be banned from central London
2 respondents (<1%) made a comment about speed control for cyclists. One of them
(<1%) suggested painted rumble strips. The other (<1%) suggested that there should
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 38
be speed bumps for cyclists and that it’s important for cyclists to slow down,
respecting that this is a park environment and not an ordinary road
2 respondents (<1%) stated that cycle routes should be well away from motor traffic
routes
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that when the Cycle Superhighway has been
established, cyclists should be banned from using other routes in the park
9 respondents (1%) made a comment about current park user behaviour or how to improve
it.
6 respondents (1%) asked for some form of behaviour education or enforcement for
cyclists
4 respondents (1%) stated that cyclist behaviour is currently poor
2 respondents (<1%) asked for some form of behaviour enforcement or education for
drivers
9 respondents (1%) made a comment about financial matters
5 respondents (1%) made a negative comment the direct financial cost of creating
the Cycle Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects on the
local or wider economy
4 respondents (1%) stated that sufficient cycling facilities already exist in Hyde Park
and that further improvements are unnecessary
6 respondents (1%) made other comments.
3 respondents (1%) would like to see improved signage or signalling in the park,
including Campaign to Protect Rural England
1 respondent (<1%) stated that improving roads should take priority generally
1 respondent (<1%) commented that there should first be a process of learning from
other cycling nations
1 respondents (<1%) commented on The Royal Parks’ policy on cycles, stating that
they should be encouraging cycling more
1 respondent (<1%), the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, expressed
concern about the loss of current ‘leisure’ routes, to be replaced by faster A to B type
track
1 respondent (<1%), the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, suggested
there should be suitable monitoring of traffic flows on West Carriage Drive, including
at Alexandra Gate and Victoria Gate junctions
Provision for others
10 respondents (2%) made a comment about pedestrian safety in general.
4 respondents (1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for pedestrians
3 respondents (<1%), including Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens,
stated that the proposals are not safe enough for pedestrians
3 respondents (<1%) stated that it cycling areas should be clear to pedestrians so
they don’t walk in to them
39 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
5 respondents (1%) made a comment about provision for groups other than cyclists.
1 respondent (<1%) asked why people using powered wheelchairs / mobility
scooters can’t use cycle lanes
1 respondent (<1%), Serpentine Gallery, stated that a road width restriction under
the proposals would cause operational problems
1 respondent (<1%) suggested more safe pedestrian crossings here as cyclists will
be travelling fast
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the main East-West pedestrian route between
Serpentine Road and South Carriage Drive would be improved if some of the horse
track was given over to pedestrians
1 respondent (<1%) expressed concern about event runner routing around the
Triangle Park area. This response was from the Royal Parks Foundation
1 respondent (<1%) stated that horse tracks should be retained, and kept separate
from bicycles
Support / positive comments
8 respondents (1%) offered positive comments. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t
given
6 respondents (1%), including Westminster Cycling Campaign and Cycling Embassy
of Great Britain, stated general support for this section of the Cycle Superhighway.
2 respondents (<1%) stated general support for the East-West Cycle Superhighway
overall.
Oppose / negative comments
8 respondents (1%) offered negative comments.
4 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the Hyde Park section of the East-
West Superhighway.
3 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the East-West Cycle Superhighway
overall. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given
Operational issues
3 respondents (<1%) made a comment about how the cycle route would operate at night
and during park closure.
2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about what route would be taken by cyclists
when the park is closed
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that this section should be lit after dark
Comments unrelated to the East-West Cycle Superhighway scheme in Hyde Park
5 respondents (1%) made such a comment.
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 40
Section D: West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive
Of 640 respondents to this section, 145 (23%) provided comments. As some respondents
provided more the one comment in their response, the totals below are greater than 145.
The percentages provided against each comment are a percentage of 640.
Cycling provision
49 respondents (8%) made a comment about provision for cyclists
26 respondents (4%), including the following four stakeholders; Sustrans, Tower
Hamlets Wheelers, Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and the London Cycling
Campaign, expressed support for the bypass for cyclists between West Carriage
Drive and South Carriage Drive
19 respondents (3%) made a comment about segregation and shared areas.
10 respondents (2%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, welcomed the
segregated track.
8 respondent (1%), including CyclingWorks.London, stated opposition to shared
areas for cyclists and pedestrians
1 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about the proximity of the horse track
17 respondents (3%), including Tower Hamlets Wheelers and the London cycling
Campaign, expressed concern about cycling through Coalbrookdale Gate related to
safety or convenience. 9 respondents (1%) including Tower Hamlets Wheelers and
the London cycling Campaign expressed concern about cycling through
Coalbrookdale Gate and accessing South Carriage Drive. Most of these suggested
better signalling and more space at the crossing. 1 respondent (<1%) suggested that
there should be clear priority for cyclists making the reverse movement – from South
Carriage Drive through Coalbrookdale Gate
14 respondents (2%) expressed concern about entering and leaving the park
through Alexandra Gate. Most concern was related to joining or leaving the Cycle
Superhighway in the park conveniently or safely. Suggestions for improving Cycle
Superhighway connectivity here included creating cyclist crossings next to
pedestrian crossings, and ‘simultaneous green’ signalling
Do you support the proposals for
Section D (West Carriage Drive and
South Carriage Drive) of the East-
West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde
Park?
Number of respondents: 640
41 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
5 respondents (1%) expressed concern that the proposals do not make it safe
enough for cyclists. 3 of these (<1%) commented that there is risk of a ‘left-hook’
collision between southbound cyclists and motorists turning left in to South Carriage
Drive. Respondents included Sustrans, Tower Hamlets Wheelers and London
Cycling Campaign
4 respondents (2%) including Sustrans and Cycling Embassy of Great Britain,
expressed a concern about cycle lane width. Three of these (<1%) stated that the
track width should be at least 4 metres
2 respondents (<1%), including Redwing Coaches, stated that the proposals would
make it safer for cyclists
2 respondents (<1%) stated that this section is complicated and needs simplification
2 respondents (<1%) suggested that it’s better to have one way cycle tracks on
either side of the road, instead of a two way cycle track
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the cycle track should be painted blue
Routing
17 respondents (3%) made a comment about route alignment or an alternative route.
11 respondents (1%), including PRACT, said that the proposed route is not
convenient enough and that a shorter route to get to the other side of the park is
available
10 respondents (2%) suggested an alternative route along Serpentine Road
1 respondents (<1%) suggested an alternative route in the Park Lane area
Traffic / congestion
17 respondents (3%) made a comment about existing traffic conditions or how conditions
might change with the introduction of the proposals
17 respondents (3%), including PRACT, made a comment about the impact of the
proposals on traffic congestion and delays
3 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about the impact on emissions / pollution
because of increased journey times / congestion
2 respondents (<1%), including PRACT, made a negative comment about existing
traffic congestion
Cycle policy
10 respondents (2%) made a comment about the status of roads and paths in the park.
4 respondents (1%) stated that motor traffic should be banned from some or all of
the main roads inside the park. 1 respondent (<1%) stated that private cars should
be banned from central London
2 respondents (<1%) stated that cycle routes should be well away from motor traffic
routes
1 respondent (<1%) made a comment about speed control for cyclists, suggesting
speed bumps for cyclists and that it’s important for cyclists to slow down, respecting
that this is a park environment and not an ordinary road
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that Alexandra Gate could be closed to motor traffic
to negate the need for shared pedestrian / cyclist space in this area
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 42
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that when the Cycle Superhighway has been
established, cyclists should be banned from using other routes in the park
1 respondents (<1%) asked for existing minor cycling routes to be retained
9 respondents (1%) made a comment about financial matters
5 respondents (1%) stated that sufficient cycling facilities already exist in Hyde Park
and that further improvements are unnecessary
4 respondents (1%) made a negative comment about the direct financial cost of
creating the Cycle Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects
on the local or wider economy
7 respondents (1%) made a comment about current park user behaviour or how to improve
it.
6 respondents (1%) asked for some form of behaviour education or enforcement for
cyclists
4 respondents (1%) stated that cyclist behaviour is currently poor
1 respondents (<1%) asked for some form of behaviour enforcement or education for
drivers
7 respondents (1%) made other comments.
4 respondents (1%) would like to see improved signage or signalling in the park,
including Campaign to Protect Rural England
2 respondents (<1%) commented on The Royal Parks’ policy on cycles, stating that
they felt they should be encouraging cycling more
1 respondent (<1%) stated that improving roads should take priority generally
1 respondent (<1%) commented that there should first be a process of learning from
other cycling nations
Provision for others
9 respondents (1%) made a comment about pedestrian safety in general.
4 respondents (1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for pedestrians
3 respondents (<1%), including Friends of Hyde Park, stated that the proposals are
not safe enough for pedestrians
2 respondent (<1%) commented that it’s currently unsafe for pedestrians
1 respondent (<1%) expressed concern about cyclists entering pedestrian areas
6 respondents (1%) made a comment about provision for groups other than cyclists.
3 respondents (<1%), including Crown Equerry, The British Horse Society and
HCMR (Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment), stated that the proposals aren’t
safe enough for horses
2 respondents (<1%), Crown Equerry and HCMR, stated that the proposals aren’t
convenient for horse drills
1 respondent (<1%) asked why people using powered wheelchairs / mobility
scooters can’t use cycle lanes
1 respondent (<1%) stated that horse tracks should be retained without modification,
and kept separate from bicycles
43 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the main East-West pedestrian route between
Serpentine Road and South Carriage Drive would be improved if some of the horse
track was given over to pedestrians
Support / positive comments
8 respondents (1%) offered positive comments. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t
given
6 respondents (1%), , stated general support for this section of the Cycle
Superhighway.
2 respondents (<1%) stated general support for the East-West Cycle Superhighway
overall.
Oppose / negative comments
8 respondents (1%) offered negative comments. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t
given
4 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the Hyde Park section of the East-
West Superhighway 4 respondents (<1%) stated general opposition to the East-West
Cycle Superhighway overall
Cycle-focused scheme
8 respondents (1%) made a comment about the focus given to cyclists relative to other
groups.
5 respondents (1%) stated that there was too much focus on cyclists and not enough
consideration given to other users. Two of these (<1%), specifically cited the Hyde
Park proposals in their response
1 respondents (<1%) stated opposition to the retention of car parking spaces in this
area
1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals appear to restrict the ability to drop off
mobility impaired passengers who either require the use of a wheelchair or are
unable to walk very far.
1 respondent (<1%) requested for cycle space not to be taken out of pedestrian
space
Operational issues
2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about what route would be taken by cyclists when
the park is closed
Comments unrelated to the East-West Cycle Superhighway scheme in Hyde Park
4 respondents (1%) made such a comment.
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 44
Section E: South Carriage Drive
Of 644 respondents to this section, 116 (18%) provided comments. As some respondents
provided more the one comment in their response, the totals below are greater than 116.
The percentages provided against each comment are a percentage of 644.
Cycling provision
24 respondents (4%) made a comment about provision for cyclists.
14 respondents (3%) including CyclingWorks.London, London Cycling Campaign,
Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and Tower Hamlets Wheelers expressed concern
about cycle track width. Most respondents suggested a width of at least 4 metres
10 respondents (2%) stated that they would like signals removed at Albert Gate.
Seven respondents (1%) suggested a zoucan (zebra-toucan) parallel crossing here
instead, and three respondents (<1%) suggested a zebra crossing. Respondents
included London Cycling Campaign and Tower Hamlets Wheelers
9 respondents (1%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, welcomed the
segregated track
8 respondents (1%) made a comment about cyclist safety in general.
3 respondents (<1%), including London Cycling Campaign and Westminster Cycling
Campaign , commented that it’s currently unsafe for pedestrians
3 respondents (<1%), including Redwing Coaches, stated that the proposals would
make it safer for cyclists
2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern that the proposals do not make it safe
enough for cyclists
5 respondents (1%) stated support for the removal of signals at Edinburgh Gate
2 respondents (<1%) suggested that it’s better to have one way cycle tracks on
either side of the road, instead of a two way cycle track
2 respondents (<1%) expressed another concern about Albert Gate. One respondent
(<1%) stated that the crossing was too narrow, and the other respondent (<1%),
Do you support the proposals for
Section E (South Carriage Drive) of
the East-West Cycle Superhighway
in Hyde Park?
Number of respondents: 644
45 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Westminster Cycling Campaign, expressed uncertainty about which side of the
crossing cyclists and pedestrians should take
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the cycle track should be painted blue
Traffic / congestion
14 respondents (2%) made a comment about existing traffic conditions or how conditions
might change with the introduction of the proposals
14 respondents (2%) made a comment about the impact of the proposals on traffic
congestion and delays
3 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about the impact on emissions / pollution
because of increased journey times / congestion
1 respondents (<1%) made a negative comment about existing traffic congestion
Routing
13 respondents (2%) made a comment about route alignment.
8 respondents (1%) stated that the proposed route through the park is too long and
not convenient enough
6 respondents (1%), including Westminster Cycling Campaign, Tower Hamlets
Wheelers and the London Cycling Campaign, suggested a route along Serpentine
Road
1 respondent (<1%) suggested a route along Rotten Row
1 respondents (<1%) suggested a route along Broad Walk
1 respondent (<1%) suggested a route in the Park Lane area
Cycle policy
11 respondents (2%) made a comment about the status of roads and paths in the park.
5 respondents (1%) stated that motor traffic should be banned from some or all of
the main roads inside the park.
2 respondents (<1%) stated that cycle routes should be well away from motor traffic
routes
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that when the Cycle Superhighway has been
established, cyclists should be banned from using other routes in the park
1 respondent (<1%) Sustrans, suggested that there should be a traffic speed
reduction in this area
1 respondents (<1%) asked for existing minor cycling routes to be retained
1 respondent (<1%) asked for full access for taxis to be retained
8 respondents (1%) made a comment about financial matters
4 respondents (1%) stated that sufficient cycling facilities already exist in Hyde Park
and that further improvements are unnecessary
4 respondents (1%) made a negative comment about the direct financial cost of
creating the Cycle Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects
on the local or wider economy
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 46
7 respondents (1%) made a comment about current park user behaviour or how to improve
it.
6 respondents (1%) asked for some form of behaviour education or enforcement for
cyclists
4 respondents (1%) stated that cyclist behaviour is currently poor
1 respondents (<1%) asked for some form of behaviour enforcement or education for
drivers
5 respondents (1%) made other comments.
3 respondents (<1%) would like to see improved signage or signalling in the park,
including Campaign to Protect Rural England
2 respondents (<1%) commented on The Royal Parks’ policy on cycles, stating that
they felt they should be encouraging it more
1 respondent (<1%) stated that improving roads should take priority generally
1 respondent (<1%) commented that there should first be a process of learning from
other cycling nations
Provision for others
10 respondents (2%) made a comment about pedestrian safety in general.
5 respondents (1%), including London Cycling Campaign, commented that it’s
currently unsafe for pedestrians
3 respondents (<1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for pedestrians
3 respondents (<1%) stated that the proposals are not safe enough for pedestrians
9 respondents (1%) made a comment about provision for groups other than cyclists.
1 respondents (<1%), Sustrans, stated that footway reduction should be avoided
1 respondent (<1%), the Royal Parks Foundation, stated that there should be no
physical segregation between the carriageways and the horse track, giving runners
in their event the full width of the road
1 respondent (<1%) asked why people using powered wheelchairs / mobility
scooters can’t use cycle lanes
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the main East-West pedestrian route between
Serpentine Road and South Carriage Drive would be improved if some of the horse
track was given over to pedestrians
1 respondent (<1%) asked why people using powered wheelchairs / mobility
scooters can’t use cycle lanes
1 respondent (<1%), CyclingWorks.London, suggested there should be a pedestrian
island between the opposing lanes of cycle traffic
1 respondent (<1%) stated that horse tracks should be retained without modification,
and kept separate from bicycles
1 respondent (<1%) suggested a traffic light at the bottom of the slope to allow
pedestrians to cross the road more safely
1 respondent (<1%), HCMR (Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment), expressed
concern about convenience and safety during horse movements
47 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Support / positive comments
9 respondents (1%) offered positive comments.
7 respondents (1%), stated general support for this section of the Cycle
Superhighway. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given
2 respondents (<1%) stated general support for the East-West Cycle Superhighway
overall. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given
Oppose / negative comments
9 respondents (1%) offered negative comments.
5 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the Hyde Park section of the East-
West Superhighway. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given
4 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the East-West Cycle Superhighway
overall. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given
Cycle-focused scheme
6 respondents (1%) made a comment about the focus given to cyclists relative to other
groups.
5 respondents (1%) stated that there was too much focus on cyclists and not enough
consideration given to other users. Three of these (<1%), including Friends of Hyde
Park and Kensington Gardens, specifically cited the Hyde Park proposals in their
response
1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals appear to restrict the ability to drop off
mobility impaired passengers who either require the use of a wheelchair or are
unable to walk very far
1 respondent (<1%) stated there should be less space for cars and more for cyclists
and pedestrians
1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals balance the needs of all well
Operational issues
3 respondents (<1%) made a comment about how the cycle route would operate at night
and during closure. One of these respondents (<1%) specifically mentioned ceremonial
events.
Comments unrelated to the East-West Cycle Superhighway scheme in Hyde Park
8 respondents (1%) made such a comment.
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 48
Section F: South Carriage Drive and the junction with Broad
Walk and Serpentine Road
Of 636 respondents to this section, 150 (23%) provided comments. As some respondents
provided more the one comment in their response, the totals below are greater than 150.
The percentages provided against each comment are a percentage of 646.
Cycling provision
41 respondents (6%) made a comment about provision for cyclists.
39 respondents (6%) made a comment about segregation and shared areas.
33 respondents (5%) expressed concern about the shared areas for cyclists and
pedestrians. Many of these suggested additional segregation in these areas.
Respondents included Sustrans, Wheels for Wellbeing, CyclingWorks.London,
Tower Hamlets Wheelers, Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and London Cycling
Campaign
7 respondents (2%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, welcomed the
segregated track
2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about the proximity of the horse track
19 respondents (3%), including Sustrans, Tower Hamlets Wheelers, cycling
Embassy of Great Britain and London Cycling Campaign, made a suggestion on how
to improve crossing the road in this area. 11 respondents (2%, including, Sustrans,
Tower Hamlets Wheelers and London Cycling Campaign stated that they preferred a
zebra or other manual crossing as opposed to the proposed signalised one. Other
suggestions included phasing of the signals to help improve safety and convenience
for cyclists while recognising that a shared space exists
12 respondents (2%), including Cycling Embassy of Great Britain and the London
Cycling Campaign, expressed concern about cycle track width. Six (1%) respondents
specifically cited width of the new cycle link to Park Lane
Do you support the proposals for
Section F (South Carriage Drive,
Broad Walk and Serpentine Road)
of the East-West Cycle
Superhighway in Hyde Park?
Number of respondents: 636
49 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
8 respondents (1%) made a comment about cyclist safety in general.
5 respondents (1%), including Redwing Coaches, stated that the proposals would
make it safer for cyclists
2 respondents (<1%), including Westminster Cycling Campaign, commented that it’s
currently unsafe for pedestrians
1 respondent (<1%) expressed concern that the proposals do not make it safe
enough for cyclists
6 respondents (1%), including CyclingWorks.London, suggested changing the cycle
path route not through the shared pedestrian one, but through a different, nearby
gate
6 respondents (1%), including Wheels for Wellbeing, expressed concern about
cycling on the busy road and routing just after leaving, or just before entering, the
park
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that it’s better to have one way cycle tracks on either
side of the road, instead of a two way cycle track
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that the cycle track should be painted blue
Traffic / congestion
20 respondents (3%) made a comment about existing traffic conditions or how conditions
might change with the introduction of the proposals
16 respondents (3%) made a comment about the impact of the proposals on traffic
congestion and delays
5 respondents (<1%) made a negative comment about existing traffic congestion
3 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about the impact on emissions / pollution
because of increased journey times / congestion
Routing
15 respondents (2%) made a comment about route alignment or an alternative route.
5 respondents (<1%) said that the proposed route isn’t direct or convenient enough
for where they want to go
5 respondents (1%) suggested a route along Serpentine Road
3 respondents (<1%) suggested a route along Broad Walk
2 respondents (<1%) suggested a route in the Park Lane area
1 respondent (<1%) questioned the new cycle link to Park Lane, as most cyclists go
up Broad Walk instead
Provision for others
10 respondents (2%) made a comment about pedestrian safety in general.
4 respondents (1%) commented that it’s currently unsafe for pedestrians
3 respondents (<1%) stated that the proposals would make it safer for pedestrians
3 respondents (<1%), including Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens,
stated that the proposals are not safe enough for pedestrians
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 50
7 respondents (1%) made a comment about provision for groups other than cyclists.
3 respondents (<1%) stated that motor traffic should be prioritised less in this part of
the park
3 respondents (<1%), including Royal Parks Foundation and HCMR (Household
Cavalry Mounted Regiment), expressed concern about provision for horses. Horse
track width and separation from others were issues raised
1 respondent (<1%) asked why people using powered wheelchairs / mobility
scooters can’t use cycle lanes
Oppose / negative comments
10 respondents (2%) offered negative comments.
5 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the Hyde Park section of the East-
West Superhighway. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given
5 respondents (1%) stated general opposition to the East-West Cycle Superhighway
overall. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given
Cycle-focused scheme
8 respondents (1%) made a comment about the focus given to cyclists relative to other
groups.
7 respondents (1%) stated that there was too much focus on cyclists and not enough
consideration given to other users. Four of these (1%), including Friends of Hyde
Park and Kensington Gardens, specifically cited the Hyde Park proposals in their
response
1 respondents (<1%) stated that they thought the proposals balance the needs of all
well
1 respondent (<1%) stated that the proposals appear to restrict the ability to drop off
mobility impaired passengers who either require the use of a wheelchair or are
unable to walk very far.
Cycle policy
8 respondents (1%) made a comment about the status of roads and paths in the park.
3 respondents (<1%) stated that motor traffic should be banned from some or all of
the main roads inside the park. 1 respondent (<1%) stated that should be charged
for using the park
2 respondents (<1%) stated that cycle routes should be well away from motor traffic
routes
1 respondent (<1%) suggested that when the Cycle Superhighway has been
established, cyclists should be banned from using other routes in the park
1 respondents (<1%) asked for existing minor cycling routes to be retained
8 respondents (1%) made a comment about financial matters
4 respondents (1%) stated that sufficient cycling facilities already exist in Hyde Park
and that further improvements are unnecessary
51 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
4 respondents (1%) made a negative comment about the direct financial cost of
creating the Cycle Superhighway, while two respondents (<1%) cited harmful effects
on the local or wider economy
8 respondents (1%) made a comment about current park user behaviour or how to improve
it.
7 respondents (1%) asked for some form of behaviour education or enforcement for
cyclists
4 respondents (1%) stated that cyclist behaviour is currently poor
2 respondents (<1%) asked for some form of behaviour enforcement or education for
drivers
5 respondents (1%) made other comments.
3 respondents (1%) would like to see improved signage or signalling in the park,
including Campaign to Protect Rural England
1 respondents (<1%) commented on The Royal Parks’ policy on cycles, stating that
they felt they should be encouraging cycling more
1 respondent (<1%) stated that improving roads should take priority generally
1 respondent (<1%) commented that there should first be a process of learning from other
cycling nations
Support / positive comments
7 respondents (1%) offered positive comments.
4 respondents (1%), stated general support for this section of the Cycle
Superhighway. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given
3 respondents (<1%) stated general support for the East-West Cycle Superhighway
overall. Specific proposal related reasons weren’t given
Operational issues
4 respondents (1%) made a comment about how the cycle route would operate at night and
during park closure.
2 respondents (<1%) expressed concern about what route would be taken by cyclists
when the park is closed
2 respondent (<1%) suggested that there should be lighting
Comments unrelated to the East-West Cycle Superhighway scheme in Hyde Park
8 respondents (1%) made such a comment.
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 52
Appendix B – Annex to response from the
Royal Parks
Additional comments on the proposed new East-West cycle route through Hyde Park
There can be no blue coloured surface treatment of routes within the parks.
A key element of the Superhighway will be the signage and way finding. It is not
clear how this would be treated in the parks. In keeping with TRP core principles,
any new signage must complement the park environment and heritage.
The operational requirements for hosting events in Hyde Park may either preclude
some design proposals for both Superhighway and Quietway routes in the park or
require specific extended designs to facilitate event operations.
The proposed changes to North Carriage Drive (NCD) are not part of the
Superhighway route but are contained in the consultation. TRP has concerns that
the proposal as it stands does not resolve an umber of conflict issues identified,
associated with the operation of events within the Parks. TRP believes that any
cycle route on NCD should be on the north side of the road in order to function
safely.
Existing quieter cycle routes within the park, such as Serpentine Road and the
Broad Walk are not suitable for larger volumes of cyclists and must be considered
holistically in the proposals for the Superhighway to accommodate event activity
and vast pedestrian movements and closures due to events or other activities.
TRP is concerned about access into the parks for pedestrians and how the traffic
modelling will affect pedestrian crossing times in some busy locations, for example
the pedestrian crossings on West Carriage Drive facilitating access to the
Serpentine and Serpentine Sackler Galleries.
The views of key stakeholders including the Police, Fire Brigade and Ambulance
Services, the Army and Royal Parks Friends Groups will be essential in agreeing
any changes to accommodate additional cycling in the parks.
The introduction of the East-West Superhighway in Hyde Park will be a large step
change and will encourage more cycling into the park which can cause issues with
other users, both existing and future. We are not sure if TfL has anticipated the
impacts of the increase in cycling and what will happen if the routes become very
congested - particularly at pinch points such as at the Decimus Burton Screen
adjacent to Apsley House.
All proposals must consider other users of the parks including pedestrians,
vulnerable users, animals and wildlife. An Equalities Impact Assessment will need
to be undertaken by TfL on all of its key proposals.
Safe access to the parks must be maintained and enhanced. The design proposals
on Bayswater Road at the Lancaster Gate Station area do not, in TRP's view,
reflect either pedestrian desire lines or the significant volume of pedestrians who
53 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
cross at this point and enter Kensington Gardens at the Italian Gardens via
Marlborough Gate. The proposed pedestrian refuge areas are not large enough.
TRP requires that TfL show more information, for example through park-based
surveys, on how the proposals will impact on pedestrians and their enjoyment of
the parks. Also, TfL must demonstrate how it intends to treat the parks holistically
in terms of cycling movements throughout, including undertaking appropriate risk
assessments of design options and safety audits. How will designs ensure the
larger volumes of cyclists remain on the road based segregated routes and how
will TfL prove that this has been achieved?
Any modifications to junction layouts, lighting levels or sections of the route will
need to be the subject of safety audits or risk assessments.
Recognising park visitor, ceremonial and event use, the road based solutions must
enable the park and organisations, such as the Serpentine Gallery, to operate in
the parks safely.
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 54
Appendix C1 – TfL response to issues
commonly raised (overall proposals for Hyde
Park) This appendix contains TfL’s response to issues commonly raised as part of the
consultation on detailed proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park.
Our response to issues relating to the wider route can be found in our report on the
September 2014 consultation, available at tfl.gov.uk/cycle-east-west.
Support for alternative/ additional routes through Hyde Park
The East-West Cycle Superhighway is proposed to run through Hyde Park as it provides an
attractive route between Hyde Park Corner and Lancaster Gate, with space to physically
separate cyclists from other road users.
Hyde Park already has a number of cycle routes which are very popular including the
Broadwalk, Serpentine Road and Rotten Row; however they are shared with a large
number of pedestrians and are subject to disruption during the many events within the park.
To provide a high quality, dedicated facility for cyclists, the East-West Cycle Superhighway
will follow South Carriage Drive and West Carriage Drive between Hyde Park Corner and
Lancaster Gate, providing a two-way fully segregated track for cyclists. This will also
connect with proposed Quietway routes to Kensington and Exhibition Road.
The proposals for an improved cycle track on North Carriage Drive would provide a
connection between West Carriage Drive and Speakers’ Corner.
Cyclists will still be able to enjoy riding on existing shared-use routes within the park
following the introduction of the East-West Cycle Superhighway. The new segregated cycle
track will complement the shared-use routes, accommodating the needs of all park users.
Suggestions that the route is not needed
The East-West cycle track will be a priority route for cyclists and is designed to ensure they
have the most uninterrupted and dedicated route across the park throughout the year. The
existing routes in the park on Broadwalk and Serpentine Road will remain, although they
are shared use and subject to closures, which reduces the level of service for cyclists.
Preference for alternative routes not using Hyde Park
The East-West Cycle Superhighway is proposed to run through Hyde Park as it provides an
attractive route between Hyde Park Corner and Lancaster Gate, with space to physically
separate cyclists from other road users. TfL acknowledges there is a demand for dedicated
cycle facilities along a number of popular roads in this area. However, such routes are not
within the scope of this scheme.
55 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Some of the roads suggested by respondents are the responsibility of Westminster City
Council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and we will share with them
any comments relating to their roads which do not directly relate to the East-West Cycle
Superhighway in Hyde Park.
TfL and Borough partners will also be delivering a number of cycle schemes across London
as part of the Mayor’s Cycling Vision, including Quietways, the central London Grid,
additional Cycle Superhighways and the Mini Hollands programme.
Request for cycle track to be on the opposite side of West Carriage Drive
The East-West Cycle Superhighway through Hyde Park provides a 4 metre two-way track
that has been positioned on the park side of West Carriage Drive to reduce the number of
junctions and conflict points for cyclists. This layout allows cyclists to access other cycle
paths in the park and the Santander Cycles docking station without having to cross West
Carriage Drive.
Traffic impact of these proposals
The overall proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway are expected to mean longer
journeys for motorists and bus, coach and taxi passengers at busy times, although we
made changes to the overall scheme following the September 2014 consultation to reduce
the impact. We are satisfied that the impact on traffic is reasonable when balanced against
the substantial safety improvements the East-West Cycle Superhighway would mean for
thousands of existing cyclists and the likely growth in cycling along this route, including
people who would cycle if they felt it to be safer. Please see the response to the September
2014 consultation at tfl.gov.uk/cycle-east-west for more information.
The planned changes to the road layouts in the parks are not in themselves expected to
have a significant impact on traffic. We will provide signage with new traffic restrictions and
work with satellite navigation companies to help motorists affected by the proposed traffic
restrictions on North Carriage Drive plan the most appropriate route for their journey.
Impact on pedestrians and other park users
The proposals provide segregated space for cyclists on the traffic roads in the park and
would provide an attractive alternative to other existing routes through the park which are
shared with pedestrians.
On West Carriage Drive, the existing cycle tracks on the footway would be removed and
replaced with a segregated two-way cycle track on the carriageway, reducing the potential
interaction between pedestrians and cyclists. This dedicated space for cyclists will be wider
than the existing provision.
24 hour access
The East-West Cycle Superhighway in Hyde Park will be available for cyclists from 05:00-00:00
daily. These times may vary during event periods.
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 56
There is limited data on cycling demand during 00:00 and 05:00. However, estimates from
Santander Cycles usage data suggest that a small number of trips take place in London
during that five hour period, though this is slightly higher in the summer months.
TfL and Westminster City Council are also developing 24 hour alternative routes in the area
as part of the Central London Grid, for example on Quietway routes through Mayfair and
Marylebone.
Preference for traffic-free Hyde Park
It is The Royal Parks’ aspiration to reduce the number of motor vehicles in the Royal Parks.
It does not feel an immediate ban on cars in Hyde Park is considered feasible given the
impact that this would have on those who currently visit by car and taxi. The implications on
traffic outside the park would also need to be taken into account.
TfL would not seek to remove traffic from Hyde Park completely. The roads within the Park
provide connections between Bayswater and Paddington to the north and Knightsbridge/
Kensington to the south. Removing vehicles would have a significant impact on the traffic
network, increasing local and wider queuing.
Park signage
TfL will work with The Royal Parks to provide new signage to help cyclists navigate through
Hyde Park. Alternative cycle routes through the park – where cyclists share the space with
pedestrians – will be maintained and signposted differently to the East-West Cycle
Superhighway, promoting them as quieter routes for cyclists travelling at a slower pace.
Hyde Park is a Grade 1 listed landscape, and the signage installed will be appropriate to
this setting.
Concerns about the impact of events in Hyde Park on construction and operation of
the cycle facilities
We are working with The Royal Parks and event operators to coordinate construction
around their events programmes. The planned and proposed designs will improve the event
operations, particularly along North Carriage Drive, by providing a permanent cycle route
separated from the pedestrian route, while maintaining a safe event working zone.
The Royal Parks Half Marathon
Following meetings with Limelight, the event operator, we have been able to incorporate all
of their requirements in our designs.
Concerns about the interaction between cyclists and horses
We have worked with key stakeholders to provide a dedicated area for cyclists, separate
from horse ride facilities, which will help to minimise interaction between cyclists and horse
riders.
57 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Concerns about cyclist behaviour
TfL is working with The Royal Parks, The Royal Parks Police, Westminster City Council and
park user groups to review cycling as a whole in Hyde Park, with a view to encouraging
appropriate cycle speeds and behaviour in shared areas.
TfL acknowledges concerns raised about cyclist behaviour, although our research shows
that most cyclists ride responsibly, and that cyclists are no more likely to disobey road rules
than other road users. Approximately 50 per cent of offences reported are committed by car
drivers and motorcycle riders, 26 per cent by commercial vehicle drivers and 24 per cent by
cyclists. Statistics on road traffic collisions in Greater London show the number of injuries
and fatalities for pedestrians in collisions involving cyclists are many times fewer than those
involving motor vehicles.
TfL promotes adherence to the Highway Code by all road users and encourages
responsible cycling and mutual respect between cyclists and other road users. We work to
eliminate offences such as jumping red lights, cycling on the pavement and cycling at night
without lights. We do this using police enforcement and education programmes, as well as
thorough marketing and engagement campaigns.
We recognise that some pavement cyclists break the law to avoid the dangers of motor
traffic. However, we anticipate that providing dedicated and safe space for cyclists will
discourage people from riding on pavements. Providing dedicated space for cyclists can
also help other road users by letting them know where to expect high volumes of cyclists.
The Cycle Safety Team will patrol the new East-West Cycle Superhighway when it opens,
working closely with The Royal Parks Police to encourage appropriate behaviour by all park
users and enforce compliance.
TfL is working with the Royal Parks, The Royal Parks Police and local stakeholder groups
to manage the impact of the new route on parks users. This will include monitoring the
existing shared-use routes and non-cycle paths in the park. The monitoring may result in
design solutions being installed to slow cyclists on shared-use routes and prevent cycling
on non-cycle paths.
Operation Safeway
TfL also works with the Metropolitan Police on Operation Safeway, which sees up to 1,000
officers deployed at around 100 junctions, at least two days every month. High visibility
officers use a combination of both enforcement and engagement to tackle dangerous illegal
behaviour by all road users, including motorists and non-motorists. Locations are chosen by
analysing collision data to determine those most at risk of killed and serious injured
collisions (KSIs).
The results from Operation Safeway show that significantly more motorists are enforced
against than cyclists. Between launch in November 2013 and January 2015, over 15,000
FPNs have been given to motorists, and 5,000 to cyclists. The most common offences
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 58
where motorists were issued FPNs are contravening traffic signals (this would include
crossing an advanced stop line), using a phone while driving, and failing to wear a seatbelt.
The majority of cycling FPNs were issued for contravening traffic signals, cycling on the
footway, and using a pedal cycle without lights.
Cyclists paying road tax
The maintenance of roads in the UK is funded through general taxation and not through
specific taxes on road users, such as Vehicle Excise Duty. Therefore, most cyclists already
contribute to the cost of maintaining roads. Vehicle Excise Duty is levied on individual
vehicles and the amount payable is dependent on the levels of emissions produced by a
vehicle. Vehicles that produce no emissions do not have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty.
Therefore, if such a tax were applied to bicycles, they would be exempt from paying the
duty. Vehicle Excise Duty does not contribute to the cost of road maintenance.
Mobility scooters in cycle lanes
Mobility scooters are not allowed in cycle lanes under UK law. This is not proposed to
change as part of the East-West Cycle Superhighway.
Response to other issues raised in relation to overall plans for
the East-West Cycle Superhighway
The overall proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway were consulted on in
September 2014. Following that consultation, we decided to proceed with the route,
although with some changes to reduce the journey time impact on motor traffic.
Our response to more general issues around the introduction of the East-West Cycle
Superhighway can be found in our response to the September 2014 consultation. Relevant
information is also available in the papers from the meeting of the TfL Board on 4 February
2015, where proposals for the route were discussed and approved.
59 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Appendix C2 – TfL response to issues
commonly raised (issues relating to individual
sections of route)
Section A – North Carriage Drive We will continue to work with The Royal Parks, key stakeholders, businesses and events
organisers to respond to the issues raised during this consultation, and to finalise the layout
of the cycle track and segregation along North Carriage Drive. We will publish our response
later this year.
Section B – North Carriage Drive and West Carriage Drive Working with The Royal Parks, key stakeholders, businesses and events organisers, we
are considering concerns raised regarding the operation of the Victoria Gate junction and
the potential impact of summer and winter events on North Carriage Drive. We will publish
our response later this year.
Section C – West Carriage Drive
Concerns regarding cycle lane widths on West Carriage Drive and Serpentine Bridge
We have generally designed the two-way cycle track to be between 3 and 4 metres wide.
The track has been designed to allow cyclists to overtake one another wherever possible.
The nature of the two-way track also offers a degree of flexibility in allowing cyclists to use
the other side of the track to overtake when there are no oncoming cyclists.
The cycle track narrows to 3 metres in places on West Carriage Drive, where there is
insufficient width to sustain a 4 metre wide cycle track. It also narrows to 3 metres on
Serpentine Bridge in order to accommodate the new section of segregated horse track. The
segregated horse track will allow horse riders to cross the Serpentine without having to
interact with traffic.
Suggestions that more space should be provided between the cycle track and the car
park access roads
While the available carriageway widths limit the amount of additional space that can be
provided at side roads, the track has been designed to ensure it is not blocked by stationary
vehicles, and to help motorists appreciate that they are expected to give way.
Temple Gate and access to Kensington Gardens
We will widen the footway and install a traffic island at the Temple Gate crossing to provide
more space for pedestrians, while maintaining consistent road space for vehicles.
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 60
Operational requirements of the Serpentine Galleries
For events held at the Serpentine Galleries, some deliveries may require the use of
oversized vehicles. To enable this, sections of the segregation between the cycle track and
carriageway have been designed to be overrun by these vehicles. Access at these times
will be arranged and appropriately managed by the delivery or events company to ensure
no conflict arises with pedestrians or cyclists when crossing the footways and/or
overhanging the cycle track
Raised junction entry treatments and pedestrian crossings
The cycle track will be at carriageway level on the eastern side of West Carriage Drive. All
of the junction approaches adjacent to the cycle track will be raised to footway level to give
priority for cyclists and reduce the speed of vehicles as they cross the cycle track. We will
provide raised pedestrian crossing points to highlight areas where cyclists and pedestrians
interact.
Section D – West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive
Suggestions that the crossing between Rotten Row and Mount Gate should be
signalised
After reviewing this crossing with The Royal Parks and key stakeholders, we consider the
current crossing to be suitable for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
We expect fewer cyclists to use Rotten Row once the East-West Cycle Superhighway
opens. This, along with the separation of cyclists from pedestrians on the eastern footway,
will help to reduce the likelihood of conflicts between the two users.
The junction of West Carriage Drive and South Carriage Drive
Following consultation, the design has been amended so that southbound cyclists will now
be provided with their own dedicated signal phase to travel through the junction into South
Carriage Drive, or to exit the park through Alexandra Gate. Cyclists may also choose to use
the shared footway and cross to South Carriage Drive.
Northbound cyclists exiting Coalbrookdale Gate will be able to access the new cycle
facilities by using the existing signalised crossings at the junction. The crossings and
adjacent footways will be widened to reduce the likelihood of conflict between cyclists and
pedestrians. If cyclists choose to turn right from within the carriageway, gaps in the
segregation island in South Carriage Drive will enable them to join the segregated cycle
track east of the junction. Cyclists will be able to use the wider shared crossings to connect
with the new and existing facilities, which are consistent with other entry points into the
park.
The shared footways and crossings have been significantly widened to accommodate
pedestrians and cyclists. The design and layout of the crossings are consistent with the
other entry/exit points to and from the park.
61 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Length of the cycle facilities at Coalbrookdale Gate
Owing to the fixed width of the gates into the park, wider cycle facilities can only be
provided after entry into the park. In addition, the existing central reservation cannot be
moved or the footway narrowed, meaning it is not feasible to provide a longer cycle lane.
Following consultation, the junction design will provide cyclists with their own dedicated
signal phase to travel southbound through the junction and out of the park. Cyclists may
also choose to use the dedicated shared footway and cross South Carriage Drive with
pedestrians using the shared Toucan crossing if desired.
Concerns regarding the kerb build-out / removal of left turn flare for motorists on West
Carriage Drive
The build-out has been designed to segregate the carriageway and cycle track and will be
implemented as set out in the consultation material. Whilst the short lane available for left
turning vehicles will be removed, this change is not anticipated to affect journey times within
the park.
Informal pedestrian crossing point on the cycle bypass
The design will include measures to raise cyclists' awareness that pedestrians are likely to
be crossing the cycle track.
Sections E and F – South Carriage Drive, Broad Walk and
Serpentine Road
We will continue to work with The Royal Parks, key stakeholders, businesses and events
organisers to respond to the issues raised during this consultation, and to finalise designs
for South Carriage Drive and the junction at Apsley Gate. We will publish our response later
this year.
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 62
Appendix D – Consultation letter to residents
and businesses
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 68
Appendix E – Distribution area for
consultation letter
Approximately 97,700 Letters were distributed to postcodes commencing within 0.5 miles of
the proposed alignment.
69 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Appendix F – Email to stakeholder groups
Dear Stakeholder
We would like to hear your views on further proposals for the following sections of the East-
West Cycle Superhighway:
Lancaster Gate: Revised proposals for the route between Sussex Gardens and Brook
Street / Hyde Park, featuring a two-way segregated cycle track on the east side of
Westbourne Street and one-way segregated cycle tracks in each direction on Bayswater
Road
Hyde Park: Detailed proposals for a continuous, segregated cycle route through the park,
including North Carriage Drive becoming one-way eastbound for motorists
St James’s Park and the Green Park: Detailed proposals for improved cycling provision
through the parks. This includes revised proposals for the Horse Guards Road / Storey’s
Gate junction, with changes to the previously-proposed traffic restrictions
Victoria Embankment / Northumberland Avenue: Revised proposals to aid traffic flow on
Victoria Embankment, including a banned right turn from Northumberland Avenue to
Victoria Embankment and removal of a bus/coach stop and pedestrian crossing
Please click the links above for details of the proposals for each section and to have your
say. The deadline for comments is Sunday 29 March 2015.
We consulted on overall proposals for the East-West Cycle Superhighway in September
2014. Please click here for more information, including changes made following
consultation and TfL’s response to issues commonly raised. TfL Board has now approved
the overall scheme, subject to the above consultations.
Yours sincerely
Oliver Birtill
Consultation Team
Transport for London
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 70
Appendix G – List of stakeholder groups
3663 First for Foodservice
A.S. Watson
AA Motoring Trust
Abellio West London Ltd t/a Abellio Surrey,
ABSOLUTE PARTY CRUISES LTD
Action Disability Kensington & Chelsea
Action for Blind People
Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID)
Addison Lee
AECOM
Age Concern London
Age UK London
Alive in Space Landscape and Urban Design Studio
All Hallows by the Tower church
All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group
Anderson Travel Ltd,
Angel BID
Apex Hotel and Addendum Restaurant
Argall BID
Arriva Kent Thameside/Kent & Sussex, Arriva Guildford & W Sussex,
Arriva London North Ltd,
Arriva The Shires/ E Herts and Essex,
Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance
Association of British Drivers
Association of Car Fleet Operators
Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind
Association of Town Centre Management
Association of British Drivers
AT Coaches t/a Abbey Travel,
Automobile Association
Baker Street Quarter
Barking & Dagenham Cycling Campaign
Barking & Dagenham Safer Transport Team
Barking and Dagenham
Barnet Cyclists
Barnet Safer Transport Team
Baroness Flather
BATEAUX LONDON
Bayliss Executive Travel
Baynard House Car Park
71 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Bayswater BID
Bayswater Residents Association
BBC
Belgravia Residents Association
Best Bike Training / Cycletastic
Best Bike Training/ Cycletastic
Better Bankside
Bexley Accessible Transport Scheme,
Bexley Council
Bexley Cyclists
Bexleyheath BID
bhs bikeability
Bidvest Logistics
Big Bus
bikeworks
bikeXcite
Birmingham City Council
Blue Triangle Buses Ltd,
Borough Cycling Officers Group
Borough Cycling Officers Group (BCOG)
Brasserie Blanc
Breakspears Road Project
Brent Cyclists
Brent Safer Transport Team
Brentwood Community Transport,
Brewery Logistics Group
British American Tobacco
British Cycling
British Land
British Medical Association
British Motorcyclists Federation
British Retail Association
British School of Cycling
Bromley Cyclists
Bromley Safer Transport Team
Brookline
BT
Bucks Cycle Training
Business B Ltd t/a The Expeditional,
Buzzlines,
CABE
CABE - Design Council
Cabinet Office:
Camden Council
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 72
Camden Cyclists
Camden mobility forum
Camden Safer Transport Team
Camden Town Unlimited
Campaign for Better Transport
Campbell's
Canary Wharf Management Ltd
CAPE CUVIER LTD
Capital City School Sport Partnership
CAPITAL PLEASURE BOATS
Carlton Motors Ltd
Carousel Buses Ltd
CBI-London
CCG Central London (WESTMINSTER)
CCG City and Hackney
Centaur Overland Travel Ltd,
Central London Cab Trade Section
Central London CTC
Central London Forward
Central London Freight Quality Partnership
Central London NHS Trust
Centre for Accessible Environments
Chalkwell
Chalkwell Garage & Coach Hire Ltd,
Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport
CHAS NEWENS MARINE
Chauffeur & Executive Assn
Chauffeur and Executive Association
Chelsea Socity
Children's Society
Christopher Stephen Hunn t/a Travel with Hunny/TWH,
City Bikes (Vauxhall Walk)
CITY CRUISES PLC
City Cyclists
City of London
City of London Access Forum
City of London Police
City of Westminister
Clarkes
Cobra Corporate Servics Ltd,
CoL School
Colas Volker Highways URS
COLLIERS LAUNCHES
73 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Community Transport Association
Computer Cab
Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
Confederation of Passenger Transport
Conway AECOM
Covent Garden Market Authority
Cross River Partnership
Crown Equerry
CROWN RIVER CRUISES
Croydon
Croydon Coaches (UK) Ltd t/a Coaches Excetera,
Croydon Council
Croydon Cycling Campaign
Croydon mobility forum
Croydon North
Croydon Safer Transport Team
CRUISE LONDON
CSC
CT Plus Ltd t/a Hackney Community Transport,
CTC
CTC ‘Right to Ride’ Network
Cycle Confidence
Cycle Confident
Cycle Experience
Cycle Newham
Cycle Systems
Cycle Training East
Cycle Training UK (CTUK)
Cyclelyn
Cycle-wise Thames Valley
Cycling Embassy of Great Britain
Cycling Tuition
cycling4all
Cyclists in the City
Daily Express
Department for Transport
Design for London
DHL
DHL Express
DHL UK and Ireland
Dial-a-Cab
Disability Alliance
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 74
DNB Bank
Downing Street
E Clarke & Son (Coaches) Ltd, t/a Clarkes of London,
E J LANGLEY
E11 BID (Leytonstone)
Ealing Broadway BID
Ealing Council
Ealing Cycling Campaign
Ealing Passenger Transport Users' Group
Ealing Safer Transport Team
East and South East London Thames Gateway Transport Partnership
East End Express (X1)
East Surrey Rural Transport Partnership t/a Polestar Travel,
EDF Energy
Edgware Road Partnership
Enfield Council
Enfield Cycling Campaign
Enfield Safer Transport Team
English Heritage
English Heritage - London
Ensign Bus Company Ltd,
Enterprise Mouchel
ETOA
Evolution Cycle Training
Express Networks Forum
Express Newspapers
Federation of Small Businesses
First Beeline
First Beeline Buses Ltd,
First Group
Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association
Fitzrovia Partnership
Freight Transport Association
Friends of the Earth
Future Inclusion
Future Inclusion/IDAG
G4S
Garratt Business Park (Earlsfield)
Gatwick Flyer Ltd,
Get Sutton Cycling
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
GLA (Planning)
GMB
75 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Go-Coach Hire Ltd
Golden Tours
Golden Tours (Transport) Ltd,
Greater London Authotity
Greater London Forum for Older People
Greater London Forum for the Elderly
Green Flag Group
Green Line (Arriva)
Green Urban Transport Ltd,
Greenwich Cyclists
Greenwich Safer Transport Team
Guide Dogs
Guide Dogs Association
Guide Dogs for the Blind - Inner London District team
Guide Dogs for the Blind Association
Hackney Cycling Campaign
Hackney Safer Transport Team
Hainault Business Park
Hamilton-Baillie Associates Ltd.,
Hammersmith & Fulham Action on Disability
Hammersmith & Fulham Cyclists
Hammersmith & Fulham Safer Transport Team
HammersmithLondon
Haringey Cyclists
Haringey mobility forum
Haringey Safer Transport Team
Harrow Cycling Campaign
Harrow Safer Transport Team
Harrowby and District Residents Association
Hartnell Taylor Cook
Havering
Havering Safer Transport Team
Health Poverty Action
Heart of London Business Alliance
Heathrow Airport
Heritage London
hertfordshire County Council
HF Cyclists
Hillingdon Council
Hillingdon Cycling Campaign
Hillingdon mobility forum
Hillingdon Safer Transport Team
Historic Royal Palaces (HM Tower of London)
HMRC
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 76
HMS President
Honourable Artillery Company, Army Ceremonial requirements
Hounslow Cycling Campaign
Hounslow Safer Transport Team
Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment
HQS Wellington
HR Richmond Ltd t/a Quality Line,
Hyde Park Estate Association
Hyde Park Stables
IBM
ICOMOS UK
Ifs learning
Ilford Town BID
In & Around Covent Garden
In Holborn
Inclusion London
Independent Disability Advisory Group
Independent Shoreditch
Inmidtown
Inner and Middle Temple
Inner Temple institution
Institute for Sustainability
Institute of Advanced Motorists
Institution of Civil Engineers
inStreatham
Islington Cycle Action Group
Islington mobility forum
Islington Safer Transport Team
IT Skillfinder
J Brierley & E Barvela t/a Snowdrop Coaches
James Bikeability
Jeremy Reese t/a The Little Bus Company,
John Lewis Partnership
Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People (JCMD)
Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People
(JCMBPS)
Joint Mobility Unit
Keith Gould
Keltbray Limited
Keltbray ltd (construction)
Kensington & Chelsea Safer Transport Team
77 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Kensington and Chelsea Cyclists
Kimpton Industrial Park (Sutton)
KING CRUISES
Kings Troop
Kingston Cyclists
Kingston First
Kingston mobility forum
Kingston Safer Transport Team
Laing O'Rourke
Lambert Council
Lambeth Cyclists
Lambeth Safer Transport Team
Lancaster London Hotel
Land Securities
LCC Enfield
Leonard Cheshire Disability
Lewisham Council
Lewisham Cyclists
Lewisham Safer Transport Team
Liam O'Connor Architects
Liberal Democrats
Licenced Private Hire Car Association
Licensed Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA)
Licensed Taxi Drivers Assoc (LTDA)
Licensed Taxi Drivers Association
Line Line Coaches (TGM),
Living Streets
Living Streets - Brentwood
Living Streets - Hackney
Living Streets - Islington
Living Streets - Kings Cross (Camden)
Living Streets - Merton
Living Streets - Sutton
Living Streets - Tower Hamlets
Living Streets - Wandsworth
Living Streets Action Group
Living Streets London
Living Streets Southwark
Living Strrets
Local Government Ombudsman
London ambulance Service
London Bike Hub
London Borough Hammersmith & Fulham
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 78
London Borough of Barnet
London Borough of Bexley
London Borough of Brent
London Borough of Bromley
London Borough of Bromley
London Borough of Camden
London borough of Croydon
London Borough of Ealing
London Borough of Enfield
London Borough of Greenwich
London Borough of Hackney
London Borough of Hammersmith
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
London Borough of Haringey
London Borough of Harrow
London Borough of Havering
London Borough of Hillingdon
London Borough of Hounslow
London Borough of Islington
London Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
London Borough of Lambeth
London Borough of Lewisham
London Borough of Merton
London Borough of Newham
London Borough of Redbridge
London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames
London Borough of Southwark
London Borough of Sutton
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
London Borough of Waltham Forest
London Borough of Wandsworth
London Cab Drivers' Club
London Central Cab Section
London Chamber of Commerce
London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI)
London City Airport
London Civic Forum
London Climate Change Partnership
London Councils
London Cycling Campaign
London Cycling Campaign (Ealing)
London Cycling Campaign (Hammersmith and Fulham)
London Cycling Campaign (Kensington and Chelsea)
79 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
London Cycling Campaign (Lewisham)
London Cycling Campaign (Tower Hamlets)
London Cycling Campaign (Westminster)
London Duck Tours Ltd
London European Partnership for Transport
London Fire
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
London Fire Brigade
London First
London General
London Mencap
London Older People's Strategy Group
LONDON PARTY BOATS
London Private Hire Board
LONDON RIB VOYAGES
LONDON RIVER CRUISES LTD.
London Riverside (Rainham)
London Strategic Health Authority
London Suburban Taxi Drivers' Coalition
London Tourist Coach Operators Association (LTCOA)
London Transport Users' Committee
London TravelWatch
London Underground
London United Busways Ltd,
London Visual Impairment Forum
Lonon borough of Lambeth
LoTAG
LoveWimbledon BID
LOWER THAMES & MEDWAY
LPHCA
LTCOA
M Moser associates
Marshalls
Marshalls Coaches,
Marylebone Association
MAYNARD LAUNCHES
Medway Estate Residents' Forum
Megabus/Stagecoach
Merton Council
Merton Cycling Campaign
Merton Metropolitian Police Service
Merton Safer Transport Team
Met Police
Metrobus Ltd,
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 80
Metroline Ltd
Metropolitan / City Police
Metropolitan Police
Metropolitan Police - Community Police
Metropolitan Police Service
Middle Temple institution
MIND
Ministry of Defence
Mobile Cycle Training Service
Mode Transport
Motorcycle Action Group
Motorcycle Action Group (MAG)
Motorcycle Industry Association
MP
Mullany's Coaches,
National Autistic Society
National Children's Bureau
National Express Ltd
National Grid
National Motorcycle Council
National Trust
National Trust - London
Neighbourcare St John's Wood & Maida Vale
New Addington BID
New West End Company (NWEC)
Newham Cyclists
Newham Safer Transport Team
NHS London
NHS Tower Hamlets CCG
Northbank BID
Northbank Business Improvement District (BID)
Northbank Guild
Norwood Green Residents' Association
Ocean Leisure
Ocean Youth Connexions
Olympian
Olympus Bus & Coach Company t/a Olympian Coaches,
On Demand PR & Marketing Ltd.,
On Your Bike Cycle Training
One Events
Original Tour
Orpington 1st
Oxford Tube (Stagecoach)
81 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Oxford Tube (Thames Transit),
Paddington BID
Paddington Residents Active Concern On Transport (PRACT)
Parliament Security
Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS)
Parliamentary Estates
Passenger Focus
Pedal4Health
Permium Tours
Phil Jones Associates
philip kemp cycle training
Pimlico FREDA
Planning Design
Porcellio Ltd t/a Meridian Duck Tours,
Port of London Authority
Premium Coaches Ltd,
Private Hire Board
Purple Parking Ltd,
Puzzle Focus Ltd
Queen Mary University of London
Queensbridge House Hotel
R Hearn t/a Hearn's Coaches,
Rabobank
RAC
RAC Foundation for Motoring
RADAR London Access Forum
Radio Taxis
Rank and Highways Representative for Unite
RB Kingston
RBKC Cycling
Red Rose Travel
Redbridge Cycling Campaign
Redbridge Cycling Centre
Redbridge Safer Transport Team
Redwing (Evan Evans)
Redwing Coaches (Pullmanor Ltd),
REEDS RIVER CRUISES
Reliance
Reliance Travel,
Residents Society of Mayfair and St James's
Reynolds Diplomat Coaches
RIB TOURS LONDON
Richmond Cycling Campaign
Richmond Safer Transport Team
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 82
RICS / Roux Restaurant
Ringway Jacobs
RIVER THAMES BOAT HIRE
RMT
RMT London Taxi branch
RNIB
RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf People)
Road Danger Reduction Forum
Road Haulage Association
Roadpeace
Royal Borough of Greenwich
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Royal Greenwich Cycle Training
Royal Horse Artillery
Royal Household
Royal Institute of British Architects
Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
Royal London Society for Blind People
Royal Mail
Royal Mews
Royal Parks
Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI)
RS Hispaniola
Sainsbury's Supermarkets
Sardar Ali Khan t/a Red Eagle,
SCOPE
SEBRA
Sense
Sixty Plus
Sloane Robson Investment securities
Soho Society
Somerset House
South Bucks Cycle Training
South East Bayswater Residents Association
South East London PCT
South Herts Plus Cycle Training
South London Business Forum
South London Partnership
Southbank Employers Group
Southdown PSV Ltd,
Southgate & Finchley Coaches Ltd
Southwark Cyclists
83 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Southwark Safer Transport Team
Space Syntax
Spokes Cycling Instruction
St Helen's Residents' Association
St John's Wood Society
STA Bikes Ltd.
Steer Davies Gleave
Stratford Renaissance Partnership
Stroke Association
Successful Sutton
Sullivan Bus and Coach Ltd
Supreme Court
Sussex Square Residents Association
Sustrans
Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector
Sutton mobility forum
Sutton Safer Transport Team
Tattershall Castle
Taxi and Private hire
Team London Bridge
Technicolour Tyre Company
Terravision Transport Ltd / Stansted Transport Ltd,
Tesco
TGM Group Ltd
THAMES & ORWELL MARINE SERVICES
THAMES CLIPPERS
THAMES CRUISES
THAMES EXECUTIVE CHARTERS
THAMES LEISURE
THAMES LIMO LTD
THAMES LUXURY CHARTERS
THAMES RIB EXPERIENCE
THAMES RIVER SERVICES
Thames Tideway project
Thames Water
The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind
The Automobile Association
The Big Bus Company Ltd,
The British Dyslexia Association
The British Motorcyclists' Federation
The Cabinet Office
The Canal & River Trust
The City of Oxford Motor Services Ltd,
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 84
The company of watermen and lightermen
The Excel Centre
The fishmongers company
The Ghost Bus Tours Ltd
The Grange City Hotel
The hung drawn and quartered
The Kings Ferry
The Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association
The Mermaid Centre
The Novotel, City
The O2
The Original London Sightseeing Tour /London Pride Sightseeing Ltd,
The Road Haulage Assoc. Ltd.
The Southwark Cyclists
The Supreme Court
The Wellington Trust
The Yacht London (Temple Pier)
Thomas's London Day Schools (Transport) Ltd
Thorney Island Society
Time for Twickenham
TNT
TOPSAIL CHARTERS
Tower Hamlets mobility forum
Tower Hamlets Safer Transport Team
Tower Hamlets Wheelers
Tower Place West Facilities Manager
Tower RNLI
Tower Transit Operations Ltd,
Traffic Police
Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy UK
Transport for All
Transport for Greater Manchester
Transport Initiatives
TURK LAUNCHES
Tyssen Community School Cycle Training
UK Power Networks
UK Supreme Courts
Unite
Unite The Union
Unite the Union (taxis)
University College London
University of Westminster
Universitybus Ltd t/a uno,
85 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
UPS
Urban Movement
Vandome Cycles
Vauxhall One BID
Victoria BID
VISCOUNT CRUISES/CAMPION LAUNCHES
Vision Impairment Forum
Vogt and Maguire shipbroking Ltd
Walk England
Walk London
Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign
Waltham Forest Safer Transport Team
Wandsworth - London Cycling Campaign
Wandsworth Cycling Campaign
Wandsworth mobility forum
Wandsworth Safer Transport Team
Waterloo Quarter
West London
West London Alliance
West Twyford Residents' Association
Westfield London
Westfield Shepherds Bush
Westminster Abbey
Westminster City Council Conservation Officer
Westminster Cycling Campaign
WESTMINSTER PARTY BOATS
Westminster Safer Transport Team
Westminster School
Westminster Special Events
Westway Development Trust
Wheels for Wellbeing
Whizz-Kidz
Willow Lane Trading Estate (Merton)
Wilsons Cycles
Wincanton
Woodfines
WOODS RIVER CRUISES
www.cyclinginstructor.com
X90 (Oxford Bus Co)
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists
East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation 86
Appendix H – Email to Oyster users on the TfL
database
87 East-West Cycle Superhighway Hyde Park Response to Consultation
Appendix I – Consultation leaflet