Published: 30th SEPTEMBER 2019

Sustrans response to Transport for London: Cycling and walking improvements between Lea Bridge and Dalston

We support the overall aim of the scheme – to make it easier and safer for people to walk and cycle.

This is our response to the Cycling and walking improvements between Lea Bridge and Dalston: Phase 1 between Clapton and Dalston, Transport for London, submitted July 2019.


We support the overall aim of the scheme – to make it easier and safer for people to walk and cycle.

Making it easier and safer to walk and cycle forms a key part of the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy and plan for Healthy Streets. Radical improvements are essential, and urgent, to achieving the Mayor’s goals of:

  • doubling the number of journeys made by bike by 2022;
  • increasing the number of walking trips by more than one million per day (17%) by 2024, and;
  • reducing by 65% the number of people killed or seriously injured in road collisions by 2022 against 2005-09 levels.

Radical infrastructure improvements are also vital to meeting Hackney’s cycling mode share target of 15% by 2024. Meeting these targets will help Hackney, the east London borough this route connects to, and London become a safer, less-polluted, less-congested, healthier city with lower carbon dioxide emissions.

Scheme design

Summary response

These proposals would significantly improve this route for pedestrians and cyclists along some stretches. However, they are not likely to encourage less confident and new cyclists to these streets in sufficient numbers to support Hackney and London’s cycling targets. We outline below a number of improvements which could be made along the route to support this.

In particular, we:

  • Support this important route connecting Cycle Superhighway 1 to the Lea Bridge Road walking and cycling improvements in Waltham Forest.
  • Support the protected cycle lanes and limits on general traffic proposed – e.g. on the Kingsland Road-Sandringham Road Junction.
  • Support the proposal of early release and two stage right turns to improve existing infrastructure.
  • Support the proposed use of more continuous footways across side road junctions.
  • Are concerned that guard-railings on 20mph roads are being retained.
  • Support the proposed buildouts to slow traffic, but would like to see space along the route used more efficiently (could contain more greenery /SUDs/cycle parking/street furniture).
  • Wish to see the results of how the scheme scores against the Cycling Quality Criteria. Depending on the quantity and speed of traffic using the roads, it may be that additional measures to support less confident and new cyclists are needed.

Detailed comments on specific sections of the route

Comments of specific sections of the route

The following comments relate to specific sections/junctions on the route (from west to east), with reference to the detailed maps provided on each section.

Section 1 - Sheet 1 of 4

At the junction of Boleyn Road with Mildmay Road and Crossway, the two-stage right turns with the early release for cyclists are an improvement. However, this can still feel unsafe with just a cycle symbol; we recommend including large cycle pockets around the symbols to identify a safe area for cyclists to turn and wait. We recommend that the cycle lanes be marked through the junction.

The cycle lane on the approach to the junction is too narrow and should be a minimum width of 2.0m as recommended for medium flow routes in the LCDS. We recommend upgrading to a segregated track as per the northern side of the road.

The parallel crossing is beneficial for cyclists turning right out of John Campbell Road, although it requires a dangerous manoeuvre to get to. We recommend narrowing the junction mouth to reduce turning speeds. The cycle movement from John Campbell Road to Boleyn Road north in the proposal consists of mixing with traffic, a short bi-directional track, give ways, ramps, a small shared use area and an informal access to the toucan crossing. This is very inconsistent and confusing over such a short distance and creates many points of conflict. We recommend removing the shared use area and the westerly direction of the bi-directional track and encouraging cyclists to use the new with flow tracks and two-stage right turn crossing.

We recommend increasing the length of the proposed buildout on the south side of Crossway eastwards to be the same length as the buildout on the northern side of the road. This space can be used for planting/SUDs/cycle parking to tie into the healthy streets approach and create a gateway into the space, and encourage vehicles to drive with caution. This will require the removal of one or two parking bays.

The mandatory cycle lane heading eastbound on Crossway is directed into the back of parked cars at the eastern extent of the scheme. This is a critical conflict point and requires the removal of several bays.

The speed cushions on Boleyn Road south that sit within the extent of the scheme could be upgraded to sinusoidal humps.

We recommend upgrading John Campbell Road into a Home Zone, creating a social space that will benefit the local residents.

Section 1 - sheet 2 of 4

We support the removal of the eastbound movement on Sandringham Road. The signalised cycle crossing from John Campbell Road also makes a significant improvement.

We recommend that further planting, as well as seating and cycle parking, could be made westwards from the existing trees at the junction of John Campbell Road and Kingsland High Street. We recommend replacing the ramp with a dropped kerb to retain direct pedestrian lines and create a continuous surface material across the footway.

To keep consistency with the previous two-stage right turn, we recommend upgrading the two right turn cycle symbols to cycle pockets. The right turn pocket from Kingsland High Street into John Campbell Road is difficult to access due to the proposed island. We recommend flattening or removing the island.

There are only two right turn pockets for four potential movements. If further right turn pockets cannot be included, we recommend accommodating these movements through signal phasing.

Cyclists travelling south on Kingsland High street after passing the junction with John Campbell Road are not in the primary position and a pinch point is created at the disabled/ loading bay. We recommend building out the eastern footway to tie into the bays and keep cyclists in primary position. The buildouts can be planted.

The parking bays east of the Birkbeck Mews junction contradict the mandatory lane, we recommend moving these to the south side of Sandringham Road.

Section 1 - sheet 3 of 4

The change of priority on the junction of St Marks Rise with Sandringham Road is strongly supported. The existing islands seem to be retained but sit away from the desire lines. We recommend removing these and introducing informal crossings on all four arms, highlighted in alternative surface colour. The removal of the islands on St Marks Rise creates the opportunity to narrow the carriageway and provide tree planting to slow vehicles.

All side road junctions with proposed buildouts on this sheet can be raised or turned into continuous footways.

Cycle symbols seem to be in the dooring zone. We recommend moving these into primary position if the lane widths are 3.1m or lower.

We recommend removing the central line marking on Abersham Road.

We recommend changing the priority on the junction of Cecila Road with Downs Park Road.

Section 1 - sheet 4 of 4

The tightening of the Charterhouse Road and Downs Park Road junction is a significant improvement. We recommend taking it one step further and raising the junction.

For consistency, at the junction of Amhurst Road and Downs Park Road, we recommend introducing pockets around the right turn cycle symbol.

We recommend introducing a continuous footway at the mouth of Andre Street.

Section 2 - sheet 1 of 3

We support the proposal of a parallel crossing to Mossbourne Community Academy, but we are concerned that it leads to a narrow footway with high footfall on the north side of Down Park Road, creating areas of conflicts with pedestrians. The preferred solution would be to provide access directly into Hackney Downs where the parallel crossing meets the northern side of Downs Park Road.

Consideration should be given to converting Downs Park Road into a cycle street similar to Vauxhall Street along the stretch of Hackney Downs. Consideration should also be given to this stretch of Downs Park Road becoming a School Street (

The junction of Bodney Road and Downs Park Road appears to be excessively wide. We recommend tightening this to slow traffic speeds and reduce crossing distance.

Section 2 - sheet 2 of 3

We are very concerned about the proposals for the junction on the south-east corner of Hackney Downs, between Downs Park Road and Queensdown Road. Although the design states this as being a new public realm, it is in fact already public realm that appears to involve the removal of an existing tree and grassed area. The access onto and off the shared use area seems to be unsafe as the informal access creates pedestrian conflicts. We recommend taking the route through Hackney Downs from the SW to the NE.

Section 2 - sheet 3 of 3

Downs Road is a quiet residential street and may need some minor improvements such as junction narrowing or a continuous footway at the junction with Powell Road.

If you require any clarifications or further information on our response, please email Policy Officer, London at Sustrans.

Share this page