Response to draft CRISP report
on LCN+ Route 9 / link 68
London Cycling Campaign in Hackney
Oliver Schick and Trevor Parsons, 10th October 2004
Additional contributions by Rik Andrew, Peter Blach,
Richard Lewis, Brenda Puech, Ralph Smyth

---

Table of Contents
General points on CRISP procedures and reports
3
Detailed comments on Route 9 / link 68 draft report
5
Comments on Appendix B (data sheets)
9
End Note
Hackney town centre route realignment proposals
18
2

---

General points on CRISP procedure and reports
Procedural observations
Delay in circulation of CRISP reports
We are concerned to be seeing CRISP reports so long after the first drafts were
produced. The CRISP guidance makes clear that a draft CRISP report should be
issued to stakeholders within three weeks of the CRIM. We finally received the
reports for Routes 9, 10 and 16 during the week beginning 20th September. We now
also have a draft report for Route 8 dated April 2004 kindly lent to us on 30th
September by Olu Soyoye. We will need to know whether this report is undergoing
any further updates before we proceed to comment on it.
Pre-CRIM reports absent
We received a schedule of works for each route before the CRIM, but have not seen
a fully compiled Stage 1 pre-CRIM report containing all of the required background
information (e.g. junction capacities, motor vehicle flows) in accordance with CRISP
guidance (see list of outputs). It is difficult for us to make fully informed comments
without having access to the full spectrum of data. We suggest that this information
be included in the final reports, for example in the currently unused `Other
comments' boxes in the data sheet section. In particular, it would be very useful to
have details of the content of police reports for the col isions which have been plotted
on the maps.
Status of CRISP guidance
We note that the executive summaries for all three reports still refer to CRISP
guidance as being in draft. Final guidance was published during the summer,
replacing the draft guidance.
Observations on content of all reports
Signs and logos
The report gives `guesstimated' allowances for signs and logos at almost every
location, which we feel are rather vague and probably excessive, resulting in oddities
such as a budget of £4,000 for signs and logos in a ten-metre stretch of Broadway
Market (9+/12.0 & 13.0). It should be taken as read that routes be given LCN identity
and direction signage, and therefore signs and logos should not be presented as
options. An overall budget should be identified for signs and logos on each route,
presented separately from the data sheets, whose purpose it is to identify the need
for more substantial works.
Direction signs should be at the optimum locations and be conspicuous, robust and
attached so they cannot be rotated. We would also encourage observance of the
local authority's policy in favour of reducing signage clutter as much as possible.
New LCN+ signs can often be mounted on existing posts, but where this
compromises the effectiveness of the LCN+ sign, it is also worth considering
relocating existing general signage onto a new post at the optimum location for the
LCN+ sign.
3

---

We support the provision of on-carriageway markings where they are helpful,
especially at locations where route choice is not obvious.
Indicative cost estimates
With the exception of estimates for signs and logos, these seem to be rather low
generally throughout the reports. These probably need to be re-examined to ensure
that they provide realistic budget forecasts for scheme programming.
TLRN schemes
It is vitally important that for the crossings of TLRN roads TfL's consent be sought
before making recommendations. It is currently not clear from the report to what
extent TfL has been consulted over such schemes, and if they have, what their
response was.
Map colours
We suggest using the standard colours used in UDP proposals maps as a basis for
the colour schemes.
General errors and proof-reading
All three reports wil require careful proof-reading before proceeding. The reports
contain quite a number of errors in spelling, captioning, and geographical references
such as street names, and the maps also have some errors in spel ing and
positioning of street names, as well as certain other omissions and mistakes in keys.
These errors of course need to be corrected before a final version is published. We
can provide marked-up copies of the reports to assist in this process.
4

---

Detailed comments on Route 9 / link 68 draft report
Notes on the southern continuation of Route 9

The report does not consider the southernmost section of the route in
Hackney, the current alignment of which is via Boundary Passage and New Inn
Yard. The CRIM visited and discussed a variation via Calvert Avenue and
Rivington Street. If this section is part of link 68 it should be considered in this
report. If it is not currently part of link 68, we suggest that it should either be
included in link 68 or in a separate study of alternatives to the existing
alignment.

It is a long-held aspiration to link routes 9 and 10, and we suggest this will best
be done at Tabernacle Square. To achieve this, it will be necessary to facilitate
westbound contraflow cycle traffic along the whole length of Rivington Street
and across Great Eastern Street, although in the interim it can be routed via
Garden Walk and Ravey Street, using the existing toucan.

Defining a new alignment for Route 9 is urgent in view of the fact that its
existing alignment via Wheler Street is currently, and for the foreseeable
future, unavailable.

The intervening Tower Hamlets section of Route 9 (Link 198) is currently being
CRISPed, and we are encouraged to hear that our favoured realignment via
Arnold Circus, Calvert Avenue and Rivington Street was examined during the
CRIM and is supported by Tower Hamlets Wheelers. We suggest that a
reference to the Tower Hamlets CRISP be included in this report, by consulting
Colin Dunighan of Colin Buchanan Partners, who is writing the CRISP reports
in Tower Hamlets.
Executive Summary
4th para
The CRISP brief was no longer in draft at the time this document
was published (September 2004). The final version was issued
in June: this part of the Executive Summary should be corrected.
6th para
We are hopeful that all of the points contained in our response
will be addressed satisfactorily, in line with the statements made
in this paragraph.
Introduction
1.0.6
The CRISP document specification is no longer in draft.
1.0.8
We draw attention to the fact that we were not circulated a copy
of the draft referred to in this paragraph. As noted in our general
comments above, this contradicts guidance for Stage 3 of the
CRISP process.
5

---

Route description
Goldsmith's Row
2.1.1
All references to `a local nursery' should be amended to
`Hackney City Farm'.
2.1.2
An additional reason for southbound cycle traffic using the
carriageway is that the segregated contraflow facility
complicates access for those wanting to turn left onto Hackney
Road. (LCN+ routes should have good linkages for those joining
and leaving the route, as well as coherent, direct, safe, attractive
and comfortable for those on the route.)
Hackney Town Centre
2.4.3
The different route options should be described in detail in this
section. It should not automatically be assumed that the Morning
Lane/Churchwell Path route is safer, since Morning Lane is
heavily used by HGVs and is not wide enough to permit
comfortable overtaking.
Our eventual preferred alignment via the length of Mare Street
Narroway is not available yet, but our interim preferred
alignment, via a short section of the southern end of Narroway
and into the old churchyard, is indeed viable and achievable
without major upheavals. (See our End Note.) This report needs
to include a clear recommendation for this alignment.
2.4.5
It is helpful that the map shows collisions on the alternative
alignment options discussed at the CRIM as wel as the existing
routing via Morning Lane. We note that there is not a significant
difference in the number of collisions between the different
alignments, even though our preferred alignment has not yet
been improved for cyclists, and seems to have more cycle traffic
than the Morning Lane route.
Powerscroft Road
2.5.1
We do not believe Clapton Passage to be substandard.
Sightlines are poor when emerging from the passage onto
Lower Clapton Road, especially in respect of pedestrian
movements, but modifications would mitigate this problem.
Methodology
3.0.2
We would like more explanation of why it proved impracticable
to produce a note of the CRIM. It is a pity that no CRIM note was
produced. Had we known that this would be difficult for the
consultant, we would have made our own note for our own and
other stakeholders' reference.
6

---

3.0.4
No pre-CRIM report was produced as required for stage 1. We
did receive a draft schedule of works.
3.0.10
We were not contacted following the CRIM to discuss Route 9,
prior to receiving the draft report in September.
3.0.11
We are not sure which consultees this refers to.
3.0.12
We would like clarification of the status of the preferred
alignment referred to here. This paragraph indicates that a
decision that the current alignment should remain was made in
conjunction with the client at the progress meeting on 25th March
2004. The note of that progress meeting reproduced in Appendix
A contradicts this, suggesting that an agreement on these lines
was made at the CRIM on 8th March.
We do not recall any kind of final decision about routing having
been made at the CRIM. During the inspection meeting we drew
attention to our interim preferred alignment via the south end of
Mare Street Narroway, and we assumed that following the CRIM
we would participate in a detailed analysis of the pros and cons
of the alternatives. (See our End Note.)
We are pleased that the data sheet appendix does indeed
include consideration of our interim preferred alignment, and that
it recommends substantial expenditure to achieve this. We hope
that this indicates that the door has not been closed to
consideration of alignments other than the status quo.
Strategic Context
4.0.2
See comments on 3.0.12 above.
4.0.4
The route does not provide a link to Dalston.
Consultation Issues
5.0.1
Please refer to comments on Table 2.
5.0.2
CRISP guidance suggests the LCN+ Project Management Team
as an additional source of traffic data. It should be possible to
get bus flow data from London Buses.
Hackney Town Centre
5.8.1
This pre-judges that Route 9 wil remain on the existing
alignment. Under the LCC's preferred alignment, Hackney
Grove would be used by southbound cycle traffic.
7

---

5.8.6
Realigning the route via the southern end of Mare Street
5.8.7
Narroway and the churchyard would require some works, but
these are wel within the scope of LCN+ funding and would in
fact be less major than the works proposed for the Morning Lane
routing. (See our End Note.)
There could in addition usefully be a review of flow priorities at
the Amhurst Road / Mare Street junction, but the LCN+ scheme
could be achieved without this. In the longer term, town centre
public realm works could provide an opportunity to establish a
more pedestrian-friendly, longer-term solution at this location.
This CRISP is the major current opportunity to develop a new
alignment for Route 9. There is no reason to postpone it.
Clapton Passage to Powerscroft Road
5.9.2
If read in conjunction with the data sheets for 34.0 - 36.0, it is
not whol y clear what is proposed here. In any case, our
preference is for an upgrade to all-traffic two-way working and
the signalisation of the junction with Lower Clapton Road to
include a cycle phase (see options for this section in our
comments on Appendix B).
Powerscroft Road / Millfields Recreation Ground
5.11.2
Add: And a surface crossing on Lea Bridge Road.
Goldsmith's Row
5.12.2
Please consider using a more neutral term than 'laboured'.
LCCiH supports the provision of contraflow cycling in
Goldsmith's Row, along with measures outlined in our comment
on data sheet 1.0. We support only minor interim alterations to
the existing track in advance of our preferred solution here.
5.12.3
The minutes of the 25th March progress meeting do not contain
any note of the decision mentioned here. Considering that the
LCN+ is a long-term programme, the options for a contraflow
facility within the carriageway should be included in the report.
Conclusions and recommendations
6.0.4
We are not convinced of the accuracy of this estimate, given
evidence in Appendix B.
8

---

Appendix B
Data Sheets
1.0
Option 2 needs more detail and the indicative cost seems
particularly low. We would prefer to wait on this until full two-way
operation can be achieved. We suggest the introduction of
provisions to reduce speed of cyclists on the cycle track either
side of the farm entrance, to reduce conflict with pedestrians.
New option 3 (our recommendation): Introduce (interim)
contraflow southbound lane with splitter islands at each end of
the one-way section of Goldsmith's Row. The current alignment
does not cater for cyclists turning left onto Hackney Road.
In the longer term, we would like to see this street returned to
the standard format, with two-way working, normal conflict-free
footways either side and a sympathetic treatment of the street
scene as part of any new development taking place on the site
of the former Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children. A new light-
controlled crossing could be introduced, staggered across the
junctions of Hackney Road with Goldsmith's Row and Warner
Place, possibly synchronised with the existing pedestrian
crossing from Tuilerie Street (Haggerston Park) and Columbia
Road.
3.0
Option 1. £10,000 seems too little. Widening the access is a low
priority compared with our overall preferred solution. Agree with
improved crossing facility.
4.0
Delete options 2.
5.0
Add option 3: Remove or reduce car parking. If this is not
possible, then consider either:
removing centreline; or
moving centreline towards middle of remaining carriageway
width in order to equalise priority of travel in both directions
and reduce traffic speed
Addition to all options: Adjust profile of speed humps to more
cycle-friendly sinusoidal shape.
6.0
We agree that the junction with the very lightly trafficked Dove
Row does not need any further engineering work.
9

---

7.0
Add comment: this is the interchange between LCN 9 and 16.
Junction design
Option 1: Options for junction design should be included,
together with costings:
1a Remove roundabout and install priority junction with N-S
bound cycles / traffic having priority. This option removes priority
LCN+ route 16, but route 9 is much more important.
1b Mini-roundabout with much tighter corner radii and raised
overrun areas to facilitate access by larger / longer vehicles.
1c Signalisation as currently under consideration by Hackney
engineers and favoured by local residents' association.
Hackney engineers have agreed to produce a design for 1a, to
compare with their existing design for 1c.
The main problem with this junction is the rat-running between
the A10 and Mare Street. If this were removed or reduced, it
would greatly facilitate sympathetic junction redesign.
8.0
Correct location box detail: delete 'Pritchard's Road' and replace
with 'Goldsmith's Row'.
Consider removing centre line as a 'de-engineering' measure.
9.0
Add to all options: prioritise resurfacing of bridge area and
especially southern approach ­ this is probably the most cycle-
unfriendly surface on the whole route.
Option 1: clarify suggested location of raised table. Any vertical
deflection on the route itself could cause difficulty for
southbound LCN+ cycle traffic already dealing with gradient.
Note future option to improve pedestrian connection across the
canal: remove kerbing and guard railing, reduce footway height
to carriageway height, narrow road width with bol ards.
Possibility to introduce bus and cycle gate at this point as part of
area-wide traffic management and regeneration (discussed with
Hackney engineers 4th October 2004, and see also comments
on 15.0 below).
11.0 ­ 14.0
Broadway Market has further problems with motor traffic
congestion and excessive speeding. The surface is poor in
places and should be repaired.
Although it is unlikely to be achievable under LCN+ budgets, the
report should note that a renewed street scene treatment is
needed for Broadway Market. Consider resurfacing the street in
a similar way to Brick Lane, putting footway and carriageway at
the same level (although car parking should be reduced and
controlled more effectively than in the Brick Lane scheme).
10

---

15.0
Correct location box: this is the junction of Broadway Market with
Lansdowne Drive / Westgate Street (depending on what map
you are looking at), not Welshpool Street / Duncan Road.
Short-term: repair detector strips and make dropped kerbs flush
with carriageway.
The current layout, although tolerable, is not optimal. The cycle
crossing is confusing for those who are not familiar with it, and
cyclists often choose to ignore it and stay on the carriageway.
The problem is that the cycle crossing is exactly on the main
pedestrian desire line. In any solution, the pedestrian crossing
should be realigned to follow this line, and the cycle crossing
should be moved further east.
We would like to see the junction realigned as a four-way,
making the northern arm of the LCN+ route equal y as important
as the other three arms of the junction. This would be much
clearer for all users and would reduce conflict between
pedestrians and cyclists.
Some remodelling of the entrance area to London Fields would
be necessary to set cycle traffic in the correct alignment. This
could be done as part of a streetscape programme to create a
more inviting entrance to the park with the aim of increasing
footfall and reducing anti-social behaviour.
Options for the four-way junction:
the whole junction raised, with priority to Lansdowne Drive /
Westgate Street, with a zebra crossing at the pedestrian
desire line and yellow box or keep clear markings across the
junction to assist LCN+ traffic.
signalise junction, with parallel working and an all green
pedestrian phase on demand. Explore viability of installing
cycle-detection loops on the LCN+ approaches to trigger
green for north-south cycle traffic.
Future option: bus and cycle gate across the top of Broadway
Market. This could operate in conjunction with the bus and cycle
gate we suggest for the canal bridge in our comments on 9.0.
17.0
Current entrance/exit has unrealistic turning angles. These
should be revised if possible. Care should be taken when
constructing kerb build-outs (to displace parking) that parking is
not just shifted further to create a new obstruction where
previously there was none.
18.0
Parking should be removed along this stretch; at a minimum,
double yel ow lines should be applied to the narrowest section.
11

---

19.0
Is it a mistake that option 2 is not recommended? We would
favour option 2.
Gateway features could be added to the proposed raised
crossing, to deter speeding on the approaches.
This is an important pedestrian crossing, as wel , and
consideration needs to be given to the option of adding a parallel
zebra crossing on the raised table.
In any case, the alignment of the cycle crossing should be
emphasised over the road alignment. Skid marking, which has
recently been proposed for this location, would emphasise the
latter and visually de-prioritise the crossing.
20.0
The status of the track is unclear to many pedestrians, as wel
as to motorists. Move the mention of bollards to 21.0, which
deals with the junction rather than the link.
21.0
Add installation of bol ard(s) to option 1.
We are not sure why this junction is referred to as a crossing. If
it is because the option for cyclists of crossing the Town Hal
Square into Wilton Way is taken into consideration, then
consider providing for alternative routing via Town Hall Square /
Wilton Way / Mare Street, to enable cyclists to bypass busy bus
stop area. Replace rising barrier outside town hall with rising
bol ards, with contribution from other budgets.
12

---

22.0 and 23.0
22.0 and 23.0 are best considered together.
Add to 22.0 that the table at the junction of Reading Lane and
Mare Street needs upgrading ­ poor and uneven surface gives
uncomfortable ride.
Clarification is needed on the location of the dedicated right-turn
facility recommended in 23.0. Is this intended to facilitate
crossing between Paragon Road and Reading Lane? If so, this
would appear to be a variation from the marked southbound
alignment via Richmond Road and should be made explicit.
Also, there wil be no need for this variation if our preferred
interim and/or long-term realignment via Narroway is adopted.
(See our End Note.)
There is currently much right-turning southbound cycle traffic
from Mare Street into Reading Lane (and contraflow into Wilton
Way/Town Hall Square/Reading Lane). This right-turning cycle
traffic will increase if our interim and/or long-term realigment
proposals are pursued.
Currently the signal phases of the Paragon Road/Mare Street
junction provide few breaks between the different traffic flows
emerging from it northbound, causing long waits and difficult
crossing conditions for these right-turning cyclists. Consideration
should therefore be given to re-phasing these lights to provide
longer breaks.
24.0
The short text provided does not make quite clear which
measures are recommended. As there is only one left turn in the
whole junction (Mare Street southbound to Morning Lane
eastbound), we assume that this is where segregation of left-
turn facilities is recommended. It is difficult to assess this
recommendation without further information on available
carriageway widths. Such segregation often leads to a more
oppressive environment for cyclists owing to tight geometries
between kerbs, and while the left-turning flare is excessively
generous and facilitates high turning speeds which put cyclists
at risk, a less heavily engineered solution would undoubtedly be
preferable. This junction already suffers from extreme measures
such as blanket guardrailing and dual carriageway separation,
and more of the same is unlikely to be beneficial.
13

---

25.0
We are unsure about what is meant by dedicated cycle access
to Hackney Central station. The narrow passageway from Mare
Street/Amhurst Road wil certainly remain a shared-use facility
but could be widened to assist those with cycles in hand.
The cycle parking stands around the entrance are currently
obstructed by the unbroken guard railing around here. If this
junction is reviewed as suggested in our realignment proposals
(see our End Note), guard railing could be replaced with cycle
parking stands. The main opportunities for longer-term cycle
parking wil necessarily be in the station car park. This has little
passive surveillance so cycle lockers would probably be
required.
It should be noted here that Hackney Central station is included
in the major Integrated Transport Programme being funded by
the Hackney Strategic Partnership in 2004-2006.
26.0-28.1
Although it is interesting to see approximate costings, we would
recommend against more money being spent on this section
within the scope of LCN+ Route 9. We would like the
realignment via Narroway and the churchyard (see our End
Note) to be fully costed and recommended.
26.0
We recommend that LB Hackney should investigate returning
this superfluous gyratory to two-way operation as soon as
possible. This would be the single most beneficial measure for
cyclists here, in preference to more cosmetic changes.
Photo caption should say `across Morning Lane' rather than
`from Morning Lane', as ML is actual y in the picture.
27.0
We are pleased to see that our favoured interim realignment via
Narroway and the churchyard (see End Note) is recommended
as an option here.
The caption with the photo is incorrect. It should read: `Looking
north along Mare Street.'
27.1
See above. Note that an alternative option exists to route
northbound cycle traffic north of the church tower.
28.0
This junction is not on our preferred alignment for route 9, so we
would be reluctant to see funds diverted for use here, especially
if used to signalise the junction with resulting delays to all traffic,
especially to cycle traffic using Morning Lane. An alternative
non-signalised option to consider is a raised table and mini-
roundabout with tight geometry and increased emphasis to
Churchwell Path.
28.1
The erroneous caption under the missing photo should be
removed.
14

---

29.0
We welcome option 1. It would be helpful to elaborate it to make
clear that a continuous Clarence Road-Mare Street corridor can
be re-established here, as part of a town centre re-design.
It should be noted that the opportunity now exists for the
borough to install a camera under the Traffic Management Act
2004 to prevent unauthorised vehicular traffic using the
Narroway. This is a long-standing problem for Hackney and
enforcement has until now not been possible.
30.0
We are unclear why this junction is separately included in this
report, as the potential that exists appears to be covered
adequately in 29.0.
31.0-32.0
Likewise, there appears to be duplication with these two points.
32.0
Option missing of a toucan crossing with closed eastern arm of
Clapton Square. The crossing should be moved to reflect actual
desire lines. An update should be sought on the status of the St
John's Churchyard regeneration project. Two or three years ago
we suggested an option (as part of the LBPI) that would involve
closing the eastern arm of the access lane to the Churchyard,
but it seems that the proposed car park hasn't been
implemented yet.
Hackney Today, the Council's free newspaper, of the 4th October
2004 has a short article on £1.79m of funding that has now been
secured to improve the churchyard, with work expected to begin
in March or April 2005. Integrating and co-ordinating LCN+
works with these works is a significant opportunity that should
not be missed. The timescale is such that we would suggest
prioritising the Clapton Square crossing as one of the first
projects to be tackled under LCN+. Contingency funding should
urgently be sought from LCN+ for the financial year starting in
April 2005 to enable the Council to make cycling an integral part
of the churchyard improvement. People to contact, among
others, are Matthew Carrington of Groundwork East London and
Kevin Moore of the Hackney Society. There wil undoubtedly
also be a contact at Hackney Council who has worked on this
project.
33.0
Change 'Clapton Place' to 'Clarence Place' in the location box, if
indeed the north end of Clapton Square is correctly called
Clarence Place. Clapton Place does not exist.
15

---

34.0
Any crossing should be along the desire line, not off it to one
side. We favour full two-way working in Powerscroft Road with
signalisation of this junction. This would assist with queue
management in view of the complex junction further south, and
greatly facilitate the movement of the southbound 242 bus into
Lower Clapton Road (re-routed along Powerscroft Road or not).
Correct caption to read: 'Looking east from Clapton Passage
into Powerscroft Road'.
35.0
We assume that Option 1 refers to a point no-entry/false one-
way at the junction of Powerscroft Road and Lower Clapton
Road, in which case change 'proposed by Clapton Passage' to
'proposed at the junction of Powerscroft Road and Lower
Clapton Road'. As above, we welcome the recommendation for
two-way working but would prefer two-way access for all traffic
at the junction with Lower Clapton Road.
We suggest changing the location here to 'Powerscroft Road
between Lower Clapton Road and Median Road', as 35.0 should
be clearly read as describing the link, while 34.0 should be
clearly read as describing the junction.
Note should be made of upcoming Lower Clapton traffic review.
36.0
If two-way working is re-introduced in Powerscroft Road, this
junction needs considerable redesign, for which the proposed
funding seems inadequate.
Location box correction: change Churchill Walk to Median Road.
37.0-38.0
Once again, note possible impact of Lower Clapton traffic
review, which may affect Powerscroft Road.
39.0
Note that £70K has been allocated to be used for slight
enhancements along the length of Chatsworth Road.
More detail on options for this junction is necessary. Non-
exclusive options include:
Straight crossing between Millfields and Powerscroft Road,
removing dogleg;
Motor traffic reduction in Powerscroft Road by measures such
as bus/cycle gate this junction;
Raised table with zebra crossings.
40.0-41.0
This point is duplicated and one needs to be deleted.
Correct 'Water Walks' to 'Waterworks' in location box.
16

---

42.0
With an eye to the recommendation for surface crossing of Lea
Bridge Road made in 43.0, we suggest upgrading access to and
through the environs of the pub (need to investigate land
ownership), with improvements to lighting and surfaces and
attention to sightlines to improve personal security.
43.0
We welcome this recommendation ­ should be a combined
pedestrian and cycle crossing. Tall traffic signal posts required
to offset poor sightlines owing to humpback bridge.
Funding should in any case be dedicated to improving the
quality of the bridge underpass (mirrors, lighting, surface
improvements, gradient adjustment on north side).
Table 2
Oliver Schick:
The Mare Street Narroway routing is not really sought as an
Problems and
`additional' route, but as the main future alignment of Route 9.
disadvantages
(See our End Note.)
of the route in
general for you
In the case of northbound cycle access being available in the
future for the full length of Mare Street Narroway, our favoured
long-term alignment is Narroway, Clarence Road, Clarence
Place, Clapton Passage etc. The reference to A107 Lower
Clapton Road should be deleted.
Dale McKenzie
Have the junctions with the TLRN, viz. A10 and A107, been
discussed in detail?
17

---

End Note
Hackney town centre route realignment proposals
We favour realignment of Route 9 via the town centre of Hackney. We propose both
an interim realignment and a long-term solution.
The main reason why we favour these realigments is because the current alignment
removes LCN+ traffic from the key destination, Hackney Town Centre. The long-
term alignment is preferable because it permits access to more of the town centre,
and because cycle traffic would have the speed and surface advantages of
remaining on the carriageway.
A further advantage of both the suggested realignments is route legibility ­ both
routes would be the same northbound and southbound.
Interim realignment (same northbound and southbound)
Hackney Grove, Reading Lane, Mare Street, Mare Street Narroway, route through
old churchyard to join Churchwel Path at Sutton Place.
This could be achieved without changing bus routing.
Northbound movement from Mare Street into Mare Street Narroway.
This movement is the main challenge in this realigment. Two possible solutions
occur to us for this, though there may be more:
Solution 1: Re-prioritise the junction with Amhurst Road as a t-junction with priority to
Mare Street and Narroway. Northbound LCN+ traffic would make a straight-on
movement rather than a right turn.
Solution 2: Provide a central refuge to protect northbound LCN+ traffic waiting to turn
right into Narroway.
Routing from Narroway into churchyard
Two possible solutions present themselves:
Solution 1 (preferred): Cycle traffic would proceed north and turn right into the
churchyard after the Old Town Hal (former HSBC bank), to connect with Churchwel
Path. The presence of a loading bay outside Marks and Spencers indicates that
sufficient width is available for a contraflow facility.
Solution 2: Cycle traffic would be directed via Bohemia Place, and a ramp
constructed to permit access to the churchyard (clearly more expensive; safety
issues with crossing path of buses exiting bus stop).
Long-term realignment (same northbound and southbound)
Hackney Grove, Reading Lane, Mare Street, Mare Street Narroway, Clarence Road,
Clarence Place, Clapton Square, Clapton Passage.
This would require re-routing of southbound buses out of the Narroway, semi-
pedestrianising it and permitting cycle access in both directions for its whole length.
18

---

There was support for examining the option of bus re-routing at a meeting held in
June 2003 between Steve Walker, LBH head of traffic and transportation, Cllr
Vincent Stops, Matthew Carrington of Groundwork East London and ourselves to
discuss town centre plans.
Legacy alignment via Morning Lane
Northbound:
Hackney Grove, Reading Lane, Mare Street, Morning Lane, Churchwell Path.
Southbound (current alignment):
Churchwel Path, Morning Lane, Valette Street, Paragon Road, Mare Street,
Richmond Road, Martel o Street.
Southbound (Mayer Brown's apparent variation ­ see our comments on 22.0 and
23.0):
Churchwel Path, Morning Lane, Valette Street, Paragon Road, Mare Street,
Hackney Grove.
The current Route 9 alignment on Morning Lane could remain as an option for those
who wish to avoid the town centre.
Alternative non-town centre alignment
Since Morning Lane in the legacy alignment is not ideal due to high HGV flows, it
may be worth substituting a new non-town centre option to LCN+ 9, perhaps funded
as a local cycle link. One suggested route is Martello Street, London Lane, across
Mare Street into St Thomas's Square, via an appropriate routing to Chatham Place
and crossing into Churchwell Path.
19

---