1

Changes to the King’s Cross gyratory Consultation Report September 2016

2

Contents

1. About the proposals .......................................................................... 4

3. About the consultation ...................................................................... 5

4. About the respondents ...................................................................... 6

4.1 Number of respondents ........................................................................................................... 7

4.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ...................................................................... 7

4.3 Type of respondent ................................................................................................................. 8

4.4 How respondents usually travel in the King’s Cross area ....................................................... 8

4.5 Reason(s) for respondents spending time in King’s Cross ..................................................... 9

4.6 Postcodes of respondents ..................................................................................................... 10

4.7 Distribution of all respondents across Greater London ......................................................... 10

5. Summary of all consultation responses .......................................... 12

5.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 - Overall support ....................................................... 12

5.2 Summary of Question 2 - Considerations for improving King’s Cross .................................. 13

5.3 Summary of Question 3 - Converting one-way streets into two-way streets ........................ 14

5.4 Summary of Question 4 - Reduction in traffic to improve local environment ........................ 16

5.5 Summary of Question 5 - New and improved pedestrian crossings at key junctions ........... 17

5.6 Summary of Question 6 – New cycle facilities ...................................................................... 19

5.7 Summary of Question 7 - Comments about the proposals ................................................... 20

5.8 Summary of key stakeholder responses ............................................................................... 22

5.9 Comments on the consultation process ................................................................................ 30

6. Conclusion and next steps .............................................................. 31

Appendix A: Responses to key issues raised ........................................................... 32

Appendix B: Detailed analysis of comments ............................................................. 39

Appendix C: Respondent postcodes ......................................................................... 46

Appendix D: Consultation Leaflet ............................................................................. 48

Appendix F: Distribution Area ................................................................................... 57

Appendix E: Maps of Scheme…………………………………………………………...53

Appendix G: Stakeholder List ................................................................................... 58

Appendix H: Stakeholder event attendees .............................................................. 66

Appendix I: LCC and CCC alternative proposal ....................................................... 68

3

Executive Summary Between 8 February and 20 March 2016, we consulted on preliminary proposals to change the King’s Cross gyratory systems, in partnership with Islington and Camden Councils. The proposed changes form part of our road investment programme. The consultation looked at various proposed changes in the King’s Cross area, primarily based on changing some of the one way roads to two way operation. This included proposed improvements for pedestrians, including new and improved crossings, and improvements to local cycling facilities. About the responses:

We received 1,042 consultation responses in total. Seventy per cent of respondents that responded to the corresponding closed question said they strongly supported or supported the overall proposals, with 18% of respondents strongly opposing or opposing.

Respondents were asked to rank what they considered to be the most (and least) important for improving King’s Cross. Improved pedestrian facilities were ranked as the most important consideration followed by improved cycling facilities

Sixty three per cent of respondents who answered the corresponding closed question said they strongly supported or supported the proposal to convert some streets from one-way to two-way working

Seventy three per cent of respondents who answered the corresponding closed question strongly supported or supported the proposals to reduce traffic and improve local environment on some roads.

Eighty one per cent of respondents who answered the corresponding closed question strongly supported or supported the proposals to introduce new and improved pedestrian crossings at key junctions and 67% strongly supported or supported the introduction of new cycle facilities, including contra-flow cycle lanes and the installation of new cycle crossings at key junctions

Next steps: We are now considering all of the feedback received and will further develop our design in partnership with Camden and Islington councils. We plan to undertake further consultation on the detailed proposals, their benefits and impacts in 2017.

4

1. About the proposals

1.1 Background to the proposals

Residents, businesses and road users have told us through previous focus groups and correspondence that they find King’s Cross difficult to get around because of the gyratory systems. They also told us that they would like to see a better environment for pedestrians and cyclists in the area.

In order to respond to these concerns, we have been working on a number of projects which aim to overcome the challenges outlined above. These include:

Initial safety improvements for cyclists at King’s Cross (Gray’s Inn Road at the junction with Euston Road and York Way) which were completed in May 2015

Initial proposals for transforming the King’s Cross area by converting the one-way gyratories to two-way operation (this consultation)

Pedestrian and cycle improvements on Euston Road.

We sought views on the proposals for the King’s Cross gyratory systems at an early stage in order to help inform the more detailed proposals that we take forward. Further more detailed consultation for King’s Cross, including Euston Road will take place in 2017.

The proposed changes at King’s Cross form part of our Road Modernisation Plan – the biggest investment in London’s Roads for a generation. Working with boroughs across London, it will make our roads safer and more reliable and London will be a better place in which to live, work and visit.

1.2 Details of the proposals We have been considering a number of changes in the wider King’s Cross area, including revisions to the gyratory systems and new facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. The roads within the gyratory that we have been considering making changes to include (refer to Appendix E):

A201 King’s Cross Road

A501 Euston Road, Pentonville Road, Penton Rise, Gray’s Inn Road, Acton Street, Swinton Street

A5202 Pancras Road, Midland Road, Goods Way

A5203 Caledonian Road, Wharfdale Road

A5200 York Way

In our consultation, we set out preliminary ideas for the road network in the King’s Cross area. The ideas aimed to simplify the local road network for all road users and improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. These included:

5

Introducing two-way traffic on many of the streets that currently operate as one-way. This would reduce the length of some traffic and cycle journeys

Reducing vehicular traffic on some (mainly residential) streets to improve the local environment. This would benefit both pedestrians and cyclists

Providing new and improved pedestrian crossings at key junctions. This would enable the area to function better for pedestrians

Improving the local cycle network through the provision of new cycle facilities. These could include contra-flow cycle lanes on remaining one-way roads as well as new cycle crossings at key junctions

We produced a number of maps which showed how the proposals could change arrangements for motorists, pedestrian and cyclists. The maps are shown in Appendix E and the consultation materials and processes are described in Chapter 3 of this report.

3. About the consultation

3.1 Who we consulted

The consultation was open to everyone. However, we took particular care to ensure that people who live and work in the immediate King’s Cross area were aware of the consultation. We also contacted representative community groups and transport users groups. A full stakeholder list can be found in Appendix E of this document. 3.2 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

The consultation was published online on our dedicated consultation website at tfl.gov.uk/kings-cross-gyratory. The consultation website featured high level information about the proposals with supporting illustrative plans and drawings. It also contained an online survey which asked respondents specific questions about the proposals. We also produced a leaflet which replicated the majority of the information that was featured online. This leaflet was sent to residents and businesses located within an approximate 400 metre radius from the gyratory systems. A copy of the leaflet can be found in Appendix C and a map detailing the distribution area can be viewed in Appendix D. In the leaflet, we invited residents and businesses to a series of drop in events. The aim of these was to provide people with the opportunity to speak to members of the project team and find out more about the proposals in order to inform their consultation submissions. These drop in events were held at Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1 9AG at the following times: Monday 15 February, 18:30 – 20:30 Friday 19 February, 14:00 -17:00

6

Saturday 20 February, 10:00 – 12:00 Friday 26 February, 10:00 – 12:00 We raised awareness of the consultation by sending an email to Oyster customers

living in N1, NW1, WC1, EC1, E2, E8, N7, N5, NW5, NW8, NW3 or EC2. We also

emailed all freight, Taxi and Private Hire, Congestion Charge and Low Emission

Zone customers.

People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They

could complete the online survey on tfl.gov.uk/kings-cross-gyratory or email us at

consultations@tfl.gov.uk or write to us by post at FREEPOST TFL

CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Stakeholder meetings

We held a breakfast briefing event with some key stakeholders on 9 February 2016

at the British Library. Please refer to Appendix F for a list of the organisations that

attended. The aim of this event was to introduce the proposals, outline the strategic

context which helped to form them and provide an opportunity for local businesses

and organisations to seek information about the proposals before formally submitting

a consultation response.

We also gave a presentation about the scheme at the following events which were

attended by various stakeholders:

Design Review Group, 26/01/2016

Kings Cross Political Reference Group, 28/01/2016

HS1 Briefing, 02/03/2016

Freight Briefing, 08/03/2016

Urban Partners Business Partnership, 10/03/2016

King’s Cross Development Forum, 16/03/2016

4. About the respondents

Included in the consultation were a variety of questions which asked about the

demographics of the respondents. This provided information about the total number

of respondents, type of respondents, whether they were responding on behalf of an

organisation, modes of transport usually used to travel in the King’s Cross area and

reason(s) for spending time in the area. This section sets out details of the

responses to these questions.

7

4.1 Number of respondents

A total of 1,042 respondents replied to the consultation. Of these, 1,027 responded

via our online consultation tool. The remainder of responses were received via other

methods such as email. This included 941 individual responses, 44 individuals

supporting the proposals from the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) and Camden

Cycling Campaign (CCC), 30 respondents representing the views of the Cally South

Group and 27 stakeholders.

Table 1 shows a summary of the responses.

Table 1 - Number of respondents

Respondents Total %

Public responses 941 90

LCC & Camden Cycling Campaign

44 4

Cally South Group responses 30 3

Stakeholder responses 27 2

Total 1042 100

4.2 How respondents heard about the consultation

A total of 944 out of 1,042 respondents answered the question on where they heard

about the consultation. Table 2 shows a summary of the responses.

Table 2 - How respondents heard about the consultation

N.B. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer.

The majority of respondents heard about the consultation through receiving an email

from TfL (604 responses), followed by social media (109 responses).

‘Other’ was the third most popular source with 81 responses. The most common

‘Other’ responses included hearing about the consultation via word of mouth (25), via

the London Cycling Campaign (20), and seeing an advert on a mobile app (11).

How respondents heard Total %

Received an email from TfL 604 58

Social Media 109 10

Other (please specify) 81 8

Saw it on the TfL website 62 6

Read about it in the press 58 6

Received a letter from TfL 30 3

Not answered/not responded on the consultation portal

99 10

Total 1042 100

8

There were 62 respondents who saw the consultation on the TfL website, followed

by 58 respondents who read about it in the press and 30 respondents who received

a letter from TfL.

4.3 Type of respondent

A total of 1,023 out of 1,042 respondents identified which classification of respondent

they represented on the consultation portal. Table 3 shows a summary of the

responses.

Table 3 - Type of respondent

Respondent Type Total %

Individual 934 9

Other 26 3

A representative of a business 17 2

A representative of a campaign group 14 1

A representative of a community or voluntary organisation

12 1

An elected member 2 0.2

A staff representation of a government organisation or local authority

1 0.1

Not answered/not responded on the portal

20 2

Total 1042 100

N.B. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer.

Respondents predominately said they were responding as an individual (934 responses).

There were 14 respondents who stated they were a representative of a campaign

group, 12 respondents as a representative of a community or voluntary organisation,

2 respondents as an elected member and 1 respondent as a staff representative of a

government organisation or local authority.

4.4 How respondents usually travel in the King’s Cross area

Respondents were asked to indicate which mode(s) of transport they use to travel in

the King’s Cross area. A total of 3,297 responses were recorded on the consultation

portal. Multiple responses were permitted. Table 4 shows a breakdown of the

responses.

9

Table 4 - Mode of transport used by respondents

Mode of transport Total %

Walk 702 67

Tube 623 60

Bus 587 56

Cycle 439 42

Train 385 37

Car 279 26

Taxi/private hire 233 22

Motorcycle or scooter 29 3

Van/lorry 15 1

Private coach 5 0.5

Total 3297

N.B. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer. Percentage figures indicate a percentage of the total 1042 responses received

The most popular mode of transport that respondents indicated they normally use to travel in the King’s Cross area was walking (702 responses). This is followed by tube (623 responses), bus (587 responses) and cycle (439 responses). 385 respondents travelled by train, 279 by car, 233 by taxi/private hire, 29 by motorcycle or scooter, 15 by van/lorry and 5 by private coach.

4.5 Reason(s) for respondents spending time in King’s Cross

Respondents were requested to indicate their reason(s) for spending time in the King’s Cross area. Multiple responses were permitted. A total of 2,089 responses were recorded on the consultation portal. Table 5 shows a breakdown of the responses.

Table 5 - Reason(s) for respondents spending time in King's Cross

Reason for spending time in King’s Cross

Total %

Travel through the area 703 67

Visit the area 415 40

Live in the area 366 35

Work in the area 291 28

Shop in the area 199 19

Study in the area 66 6

Other 49 5

Total 2089

N.B. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer. Percentage figures indicate a percentage of the total 1042 responses received

10

Respondents indicated that travelling through the area was the most frequent reason

for spending time in King’s Cross (703 responses). Other reasons included visiting

the area (415 responses), living in the area (366 responses), working in the area

(291 responses), shopping in the area (199 responses) and studying in the area (66

responses).

Of the 49 respondents who stated ‘Other’, a variety of reasons were provided with

the most common responses being: using National Rail (12) Leisure/Recreational

use within area (8) living near or used to live in area (7) hospital clinics (4).

4.6 Postcodes of respondents

A total of 828 respondents provided their postcode as part of the consultation

exercise on the portal. Table 6 shows a breakdown of the responses.

Table 6 - Postcodes of respondents

Postcode Total %

N1 194 19

NW1 68 7

N7 61 6

WC1X 41 4

N5 31 3

NW5 27 3

Other/Not answered/not responded on the portal

214 21

Total 1042 100

N.B. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer. Percentage figures indicate a percentage of the total 1042

responses received

The consultation received the largest response from residents in the areas of

Hackney, Islington, Camden and Westminster. These postcodes included N1 (194),

NW1 (68), N7 (61), WC1X (41), N5 (31) and NW5 (27). A list of all postcodes can be

found in Appendix B.

4.7 Distribution of all respondents across Greater London

The postcode analysis in Figure 1 shows the distribution of 817 out of 828

respondents who supplied a postcode. The other 11 postcodes contained errors and

could not be mapped.

11

Figure 1 - Distribution of all respondents across Greater London

12

5. Summary of all consultation responses

This section provides a summary of all 1,027 responses received via the consultation

portal showing the respondents level of support towards the overall scheme as well

as the individual proposals under consultation. A more detailed summary of

comments made in connection with each question is provided in Appendix A. The

other 15 respondents who emailed or wrote their responses did not answer

questions 1-6, but are included in the summary of free text comments on the

proposals in section 5.7 and the summary of stakeholder comments in 5.8.

5.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 - Overall support

We asked respondents to tell us whether they supported our proposals and 1,027

respondents provided an answer. Figure 2 shows the overall support for the

scheme.

Figure 2 - Respondent overall support for the scheme

Overall, 410 respondents said they strongly supported the proposals, 312 supported,

114 neither supported nor opposed the scheme, 191 either opposed or strongly

opposed. Table 7 - Overall support by respondent group - provides a breakdown of

all responses by respondent group.

Stronglysupport

SupportNeither

support noroppose

OpposeStronglyoppose

Number of respondents 410 312 114 96 95

% 40% 30% 11% 9% 9%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

13

Table 7 - Overall support by respondent group

. Strongly

support Support

Neither

support nor

oppose

Oppose Strongly

Oppose

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Individuals 402 43 306 33 86 9 65 7 82 9

LCC/CCC 2 5 2 5 0 0 29 65 11 25

Cally South

Group 1 3 1 3 25 83 2 7 1 3

Stakeholders 5 42 3 25 3 25 0 0 1 8

Total 410 40 312 30 114 11 96 9 95 9

N.B. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer.

London Cycling Campaign & Camden Cycling Campaign supporters were generally

negative towards the proposals with 29 respondents opposed and 11 strongly

opposed. In comparison 2 support the proposals and 2 strongly support them.

The Cally South Group respondents were generally undecided, with 25 individuals

stating they neither supported nor opposed the proposals, 2 opposed and 1 each for

strongly support, support and strongly oppose.

Key stakeholders that responded via the consultation portal (see section 5.8) were

generally supportive of the scheme with 5 respondents strongly supporting, 3

supporting, 3 neither supporting nor opposed and 1 strongly opposed.

5.2 Summary of Question 2 - Considerations for improving

King’s Cross

Participants who took part in the consultation were asked to rank what they think are

the most and least important elements to upgrade King’s Cross, where 1 is the most

important and 10 is the least important.

899 respondents answered this question. A full response of answers is shown in

Appendix A, and summarised below.

Improved pedestrian facilities were ranked as the most important consideration

(Rank 1) by 221 respondents followed by improved cycling facilities by 218

respondents.

The least important considerations (Rank 10) were access to taxi services by 191

respondents, maintaining journey times through the area by 178 respondents and

removing the gyratory system by 138 respondents

14

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Improved pedestrian facilities

Improved cycling facilities

Access to taxi services

Access to bus services

Enhancing links between public transportmodes, such as between rail and buses

Removing the gyratory systems

Maintaining journey times for generaltraffic in the area

Improving the local environment

Reducing crime and anti-social behaviour

Improving accessibility for those who areless mobile

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Removing the gyratory system provided a split opinion with 133 ranking this as the

most important consideration (Rank 1) whilst 138 ranked this topic as the least

important consideration (Rank 10)

Figure 3 shows the considerations for improving King’s Cross.

5.3 Summary of Question 3 - Converting one-way streets into

two-way streets

We asked respondents to indicate their level of support towards the proposals to

introduce two-way traffic on the streets that currently operate as one-way. 980 out of

the total of 1,027 online respondents answered this question. Figure 4 shows the

level of support from all respondents.

Figure 3 - Considerations for improving King's Cross

15

Figure 4 – Respondents level of support for converting one-way streets into two-way streets

A large proportion of respondents agreed with converting traffic from operating on

one-way streets into two-way streets, with 374 strongly supporting and 273

supporting the proposal. Conversely, 141 strongly opposed or opposed the proposal.

164 respondents neither supported nor opposed. Table 8 shows the breakdown of

responses by respondent type.

Table 8 - Level of support for converting streets by respondent type

Respondents Total % Individual % LCC

& CCC

% Cally South Group

% Stakeholder %

Strongly support 374 36 364 39 1 2 3 10 6 50

Support 273 27 263 28 5 11 1 3 4 33

Neither support nor oppose

164 16 151 16 8 18 3 10 2 17

Oppose 75 7 56 6 19 43 0 0 0 0

Strongly oppose 94 9 82 9 11 25 1 3 0 0

Not answered 47 5 25 3 0 0 22 73 0 0

Total 1,027 100 941 100 44 100 30 100 12 100

The majority of LCC and CCC supporters were mostly negative towards changing the operations of the road, with 19 opposed, 11 strongly opposed, 8 neither supporting nor opposed, 5 supporting and 1 strongly supporting.

Stronglysupport

SupportNeithersupport

or opposeOppose

Stronglyoppose

NotAnswered

Number of respondents 374 273 164 75 94 47

% 36% 27% 16% 7% 9% 5%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

16

Stronglysupport

SupportNeither

support oroppose

OpposeStronglyoppose

NotAnswered

Number of respondents 526 229 111 62 52 47

% 51% 22% 11% 6% 5% 5%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

22 respondents from the Cally South Group chose not to answer this question, but of those who did respond, 3 strongly supported, 3 neither supported nor opposed, 1 supported and 1 strongly opposed. Stakeholders appeared to agree with the proposal, with 6 respondents strongly supporting, 4 supporting and 2 indicated they neither support nor oppose.

5.4 Summary of Question 4 - Reduction in traffic to improve local

environment

We asked whether they would like to see a reduction in traffic to improve the

environment, with 980 out of 1,027online respondents answering the question.

Figure 5 shows the level of support from all respondents.

Participants in the survey were generally supportive towards reducing traffic on

roads (those included within the gyratory proposals) to improve the local

environment, with 755 respondents strongly supported or supported the concept,

followed by 111 respondents who neither support nor oppose the proposal. One

hundred and fourteen respondents opposed or strongly opposed the proposal.

Figure 5 - Respondent support for reducing traffic to improve the local environment

17

Table 9 shows the breakdown of responses by respondent type.

Table 9 - Level of support for reducing traffic to improve local environment by respondent type

Respondents Total % Individual % LCC & CCC

% Cally South Group

% Stakeholder %

Strongly support 526 51 479 51 32 73 7 23 8 67

Support 229 22 213 23 12 27 1 3 3 25

Neither support nor oppose

111 11 110 12 0 0 0 0 1 8

Oppose 62 6 62 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Strongly oppose 52 5 52 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not answered 47 5 25 3 0 0 22 73 0 0

Total 1,027 100 941 100 44 100 30 100 12 100

LCC and CCC supporters were positive towards reducing traffic to improve the local

environment with 32 strongly supporting and 12 supporting the proposals.

From the Cally South Group, 22 out of 30 respondents chose not to answer this

question, but of those who did respond 7 respondents strongly support and 1

supports the proposed plans.

Stakeholders were also generally positive towards the proposal, with 8 respondents

strongly supporting and 3 supporting the plans. 1 respondent indicated neither

support nor opposition to the proposals.

5.5 Summary of Question 5 - New and improved pedestrian

crossings at key junctions

We asked respondents to decide what they thought about the proposed new and

improved pedestrian crossings at the main junctions in the King’s Cross area. 978

out of 1,027 online respondents chose to answer the question. Figure 6 shows the

level of support from all respondents.

18

Figure 6 - Respondent support for new and improved pedestrian crossings at key junctions

Overall, 582 respondents strongly support the introduction of new and improved

pedestrian crossings at key junctions and 248 respondents support the proposal. 86

respondents neither support nor oppose. 34 respondents oppose and 28 strongly

oppose the proposals. Table 10 shows the breakdown of responses by respondent

type.

Table 10 - Level of support for new and improved crossings at key junctions by respondent type

Respondents Total % Individual % LCC

& CCC

% Cally South Group

% Stakeholder %

Strongly support

582 57 544 58 25 57 4 13 9 75

Support 248 24 227 24 15 34 4 13 2 17

Neither support nor oppose

86 8 85 9 1 2 0 0 0 0

Oppose 34 3 32 3 1 2 0 0 1 8

Strongly oppose

28 3 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not answered 49 5 25 3 2 5 22 73 0 0

Total 1,027 100 941 100 44 100 30 100 12 100

LCC & CCC supporters were positive towards the proposal for new and improved

crossings at main junctions with 25 respondents strongly supporting and 15

Stronglysupport

SupportNeither

support oroppose

OpposeStronglyoppose

NotAnswered

Number of respondents 582 248 86 34 28 49

% 57% 24% 8% 3% 3% 5%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

19

supporting the plans. 2 respondents chose not to answer the question, whilst 1

respondent chose oppose and 1 neither supported nor opposed.

There were 22 respondents from the Cally South Group who did not answer the

question. The 8 who did respond were supportive of the proposal with 4 respondents

indicating strong support and 4 supporting the new and improved pedestrian

crossings at key junctions.

Stakeholders were mostly supportive of the proposals with 9 respondents stating

strongly support and 2 support the plans. 1 respondent opposed the proposal.

5.6 Summary of Question 6 – New cycle facilities

We asked respondents to provide their views on the potential introduction of new

cycle facilities being provided in the King’s Cross area. 977 out of 1,027 online

respondents provided an answer to the question. Figure 7 shows these responses.

Figure 7- Respondent support for new cycle facilities

In total, 506 respondents strongly support and 189 support the proposal for the

introduction of new cycle facilities, including contra-flow cycle lanes and the

installation of new cycle crossings at key junctions. 132 respondents neither support

nor oppose the installation of new cycle facilities, whilst 98 respondents strongly

oppose and 52 oppose the proposals. Table 11 shows the breakdown of responses

by respondent type.

Stronglysupport

SupportNeither

support oroppose

OpposeStronglyoppose

NotAnswered

Number of respondents 506 189 132 52 98 50

% 49% 18% 13% 5% 10% 5%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

20

Table 11 - Level of support for the implementation of new cycle facilities by respondent type

Respondents Total % Individual % LCC

& CCC

% Cally South Group

% Stakeholder %

Strongly support 506 49 463 49 34 77 5 17 4 33

Support 189 18 176 19 6 14 2 7 5 42

Neither support nor oppose

132 13 127 13 2 5 1 3 2 17

Oppose 52 5 51 5 1 2 0 0 0 0

Strongly oppose 98 10 97 10 0 0 0 0 1 8

Not answered 50 5 27 3 1 2 22 73 0 0

Total 1,027 100 941 100 44 100 30 100 12 100

Those who specified they were in favour of the alternative proposals put forward by

LCC and CCC were mostly positive towards new cycle facilities being implemented

(refer to Appendix I), with 34 respondents strongly supporting, 6 supporting, 2 chose

neither support nor oppose, 1 opposing and 1 chose not to answer the question.

The majority of Cally South Group (22 respondents) chose not to respond to this

question. Those respondents that responded were mostly positive towards the

proposal with 5 strongly supporting and 2 supporting. 1 respondent indicated they

neither support nor oppose the plans.

Stakeholders were largely in favour of the installation of new cycle facilities with 4

respondents strongly supporting and 5 supporting the plans. 2 respondents neither

support nor oppose, whilst 1 respondent opposed the proposals.

5.7 Summary of Question 7 - Comments about the proposals

We asked respondents to provide additional comments in regards to any of the

proposals within the consultation. A total of 563 out of 1,042 respondents provided

an additional comment. Percentages are taken from the total number of participants

within each respondent group.

324 (32%) of comments received from respondents were classified as being

negative towards the scheme or individual proposals

144 (14%) of comments provided by respondents were interpreted as being

positive towards the scheme or individual proposals

95 (9%) of comments were considered to be neither negative nor positive and

classified as a general comment or statement.

21

5.7.1 Issues commonly raised

Individuals

Of the 941 individuals who responded to the overall consultation, 481 (51%)

respondents provided an additional comment. Table 12 summarises the key issues

and a detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix A.

Table 12 - Issues commonly raised by individual respondents

Issue Total

Increase in traffic resulting in more pollution 90

Too much emphasis on cars and vehicle movements need to be further

restricted in the scheme 61

Fully segregated cycle lanes are required to protect cyclists from coming

into contact with vehicles 58

Better cycle facilities are required 47

Better pedestrian facilities are needed 46

Too much emphasis on cyclists and pedestrians, with other roads users not

fully considered in the proposals 43

Respondents felt the proposals would make the area more dangerous for

road users 43

Two way traffic should not be introduced on all roads 42

Respondents felt the proposals are a waste of money and will cause too

much disruption, or the current situation works as it is 32

LCC & CCC

Of the 44 individuals who are in favour of the alternative proposal put forward by

LCC and CCC, 44 (100%) respondents provided an additional comment. Table 13

shows a breakdown of the main issues put forward by respondents. Responses to

key issues raised can be found in Appendix G of this document.

Table 13 – Issues commonly raised by LCC & CCC

Issue Total

Concern was expressed that there is too much emphasis on vehicle users

and car movements needed to be further restricted 40

Better pedestrian facilities are required 38

Two way traffic should not be introduced on all roads 35

Fully segregated cycle paths need to be implemented to reduce the risk of

collusions with vehicles 35

Further cycling provision is required 10

22

Cally South Group

Of the 30 individuals who stated support for the Cally South Group, 30 (100%)

respondents provided an additional comment. Table 14 shows a breakdown of the

main issues put forward by respondents.

Table 14 - Issues commonly raised by Cally South Group

Issue Total

Concern was expressed that the traffics lights on Wharfdale Road and

Caledonian Road should be removed and returned to a junction 25

Wharfdale Road should be closed and access permitted for residents and

cyclists only 25

HGV’s and buses should not be permitted on Wharfdale Road 22

Increase in traffic resulting in more pollution 4

5.8 Summary of stakeholder responses

This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. In

total, 12 stakeholders completed the online survey and 15 written responses were

received by email or post. We have provided responses to key issues raised in

Appendix A of this document.

Stakeholder responses received include those from:

Organisation

1. Cllr Phil Jones, Camden Council

2. Cllr Paul Convery, LB Islington

3. Guide Dogs

4. Friends of Capital Transport

5. Campaign for Better Transport

6. Licenced Taxi Drivers Association

7. London TravelWatch

8. London Cycling Campaign

9. Camden Cycling Campaign

10. Confederation of Passenger Transport

11. Living Streets - Islington

12. Living Streets – King’s Cross

13. King’s Cross Development Forum

14. King's Cross Community Projects and King’s Cross Environment

23

15. British Library

16. The Knowledge Quarter

17. University of London

18. Amwell Society

19. London Canal Museum

20. Cally South Campaign Group

21. Cally South Residents Group

22. Urban Partners

23. King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership

24. High Speed 1

25. Camden Town Unlimited/Euston Town

26. Martin-Brower UK Ltd

27. London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

Responses highlighted in blue above were received via the consultation portal.

Local authorities & statutory bodies

Councillor Phil Jones – Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Transport and

Planning, Camden Council

LB Camden recognises that designing and delivering the King’s Cross project will be

challenging. However, it suggests that the scheme also provides a unique

opportunity to secure environmental, safety and public realm benefits for a wide

range of stakeholders for the long-term.

Supports the removal of the gyratory systems.to improve journey times for general

traffic and buses. Says opportunities should be sought to promote sustainable

transport modes, including walking and cycling, and to make the urban area more

attractive though landscaping. The reduction of capacity for motor vehicles should be

encouraged to allow for less polluting and more space efficient modes of travel such

as cyclists, to create a balance between movement and place.

Requests that the Congestion Charge boundary be redrawn to incorporate

proposals. Suggests that the provision for taxis and Private Hire Vehicles should be

proportionate and should not compromise delivery of a progressive scheme with

benefits for a wider public.

Recommends that the southern section of Pancras Road is closed to general traffic

(pedestrians and cyclists only). LB Camden believes that this would improve

conditions for cyclists and pedestrians by reducing air pollutants and lessen the

conflict between the public and general traffic.

24

Cllr Paul Convery – Islington Council

Supports proposals, no specific comments made

Accessibility Groups

Guide Dogs, Engagement Manager

Suggests there is currently not enough detail in the proposals to inform a detailed

response, however welcomes changes that improve facilities for pedestrians.

Transport and road user groups

Camden Cycling Campaign

Suggests that the safety of cyclists should be considered on all roads in the King’s

Cross area as they are used by large numbers of cyclists. Where there is heavy

traffic, segregated cycle lanes should be introduced. Attractive cycle routes on the

main roads should be maintained in order to provide direct journeys due to the

volume of traffic in the area. Cycles sharing bus lanes is not acceptable and the

proposed cycle routes around the gyratory are indirect.

Suggests the introduction of an east-west route on Euston Road and Pentonville

Road as well as a north-south route to run along Gray’s Inn Road and York Way.

Suggests that vehicular traffic would need to be re-routed along Caledonian Road

and Penton Rise in order to accommodate the cycle route.

Also suggests changes to local bus services in order to accommodate proposed

cycle routes.

Campaign for Better Transport

Suggests that the proposals would increase bus journey times due to the signalised

cycle crossing at Pentonville Road and right turning traffic from Penton Rise.

Suggests that buses should be rerouted and discontinue operating along King’s

Cross Bridge. Requests that any road capacity required for cycle improvements

should be reallocated from general traffic rather than from buses.

Confederation of Passenger Transport UK

Confederation of Passenger Transport does not support the introduction of two-way

traffic to all roads in the King’s Cross area. Suggests that proposals will not provide

the required capacity on roads for an area that supports a growing number of

residents and visitors. Requests that further modelling is undertaken and the case

made on a road by road basis.

25

Friends of Capital Transport Campaign

Friends of Capital Transport Campaign requests that road space in the King’s Cross

area is prioritised for pedestrians and buses rather than cyclists and private cars.

Licensed Taxi Drivers Association

The LTDA supports the proposals on the assumption that all of the junctions in the

King’s Cross area will function and improve journey times for general traffic.

Living Streets – Islington

Suggests that a more radical proposal is required that would restrict vehicular traffic

and reallocate road space to sustainable travel modes. Believes that this would

create a comfortable and safe walking and cycling environment.

Suggests that a number of smaller roads (e.g. Wharfdale Rd, Acton St and Swinton

St) should become access only for motor vehicles, and for the northern end of Gray’s

Inn Road, and the southern end of York Way, should be for buses, pedestrians and

cycles only.

Uncertain precisely what is proposed for improved pedestrian facilities. Signalised

crossings must provide frequent opportunities and adequate time and space for

pedestrians to cross the roads in very large numbers. Requests that crossings must

be straight across where possible. Praised the consultation and pleased with the

images in the consultation that indicates pedestrians will have priority over motor

traffic.

Living Streets – King’s Cross

Suggests that the design approach should prioritise the environment and be walking

led. Air quality also needs to be improved, in order to accord with the Place Plan

agreed over several years with the boroughs. The Place qualities, including walking

journey safety, efficient walking journey times and walking priority over vehicle

priority must be established by evidence Requests that the design also considers

other studies and frameworks including the Manual for Streets 2 (2010) for urban

mixed use areas. Suggests that an approach that favours vehicular traffic would not

be acceptable.

London Cycling Campaign

The London Cycling Campaign supports the principle of the scheme and support

aims to remove barriers to cyclists and pedestrians

Suggests that the removal of two-way traffic will not do enough to protect cyclists.

Suggests that there will still be significant levels of traffic which would deter the

uptake of new cyclists. They state that prioritising motorised traffic is undesirable

because if would mean that cyclists would remain vulnerable on the roads. They

request more cycling provision on main roads and suggest that alternative routes on

26

other local roads would not be desirable because these routes do not attract new

people to cycling, nor do they improve cycle safety.

They endorse the proposals put forward by Camden Cycling Campaign, which aim to

prioritise cycling and bus movements through the area north-south and east-west

using a combination of two-way roads, some retained one-ways and bus lanes and

cycle lanes as well as modal filters to restrict through traffic to main roads.

London TravelWatch

London TravelWatch reserved their position in terms of providing a detailed

response at this stage. They suggest that it is too early to do this at present. In

order to fully inform their view, they would like to see detailed proposals for cycle

facilities and any associated impacts on pedestrians, buses and public space.

Local interest groups and organisations

Amwell Society

The Amwell Society supports the principle of removing the gyratory systems. Would

like to see further traffic modelling and details about any specific impacts on bus

services and journey times. Specifically would like to see the introduction of bus

lanes.

Seeks assurance that the western end of Great Percy Street from Kings Cross Road

to Percy Circus will operate two-way traffic.

British Library

Supports the principle of two-way routes and the rationale for the proposed changes.

Specifically supports measures to improve pedestrian crossings, the local cycle

network, and the local environment.

Requests that any long-term changes to the King’s Cross Gyratory area should not

compromise the delivery of the cycle and pedestrian safety improvements to Midland

Road, Euston Road and Judd Street junction.

Suggests that converting Midland Road to two-way may improve the safety and

convenience of the road for pedestrians and vehicles – but further information about

impacts are required.

Cally South Campaigns Group

Cally South Group would like to see the reversal of the two-way Caledonian Road

scheme that was implemented in November 2014. Suggested that residents did not

receive a consultation leaflet through their door and that many residents were

27

unaware of the consultation. Opposes any plan that involves installing traffic lights at

the junction with Wharfdale Road and Caledonian Road.

Cally South Residents Group

Requests that Wharfdale Road does not accommodate large vehicles including

HGVs and buses. Suggests that buses could be rerouted using other local roads.

King’s Cross Development Forum

King’s Cross Development Forum largely supports the proposals, but requests that

more detailed proposals further consider traffic modelling, specifically the impact on

pedestrians.

Requests further information about changes to local bus routes. Suggests that some

roads could remain one-way and that the space could be better allocated to benefit

pedestrians, cyclists and other forms of public transport. Supports proposals put

forward by Camden Cycling Campaign.

Suggests reducing the traffic in the area by using interventions such as tagging and

barrier control.

Other suggestions include:

Treating the area north of King’s Cross Square similarly to the style adopted

in Exhibition Road, Kensington

Retaining one way working for vehicles between Caledonian Road,

Pentonville Road and York Way

Introducing traffic calming in Caledonian Road, Wharfdale Road, Acton Street

and Swinton Street in order to avoid rat running

Introducing one-way operation on Goods Way

Considers lessons learnt from the introduction of two-way working on

Caledonian Road

King's Cross Community Projects and kingscrossenvironment.com

Strongly support. No detailed comments provided.

The Knowledge Quarter

The Knowledge Quarter supports LB Camden’s hierarchy of road users (pedestrians,

cyclists, buses and public transport). Believes that Euston Road acts as a barrier to

organisations in the north of the area and supports any measures that improve

permeability as well as wayfinding and air quality.

London Canal Museum

Supports the principle of the scheme, but is concerned that the detailed design might

present issues and impacts.

28

Specifically concerned about Pentonville Road and York Way and whether there will

be enough road capacity to operate two-way traffic.

Requests that bus provision is given further consideration, specifically turn-back

facilities for routes that are terminating and starting in the King’s Cross area.

Requests that the routes that currently serve King’s Cross are not curtailed early at

Euston station.

University of London

Supports proposals. No detailed comments made.

Business Groups

Camden Town Unlimited/Euston Town

Generally supportive – No specific comments given

High Speed 1

High Speed 1 supports the proposals in principle and recognises that there will be

improvements to public realm, traffic calming and reduced journey times. However it

suggests that the proposals would generate some issues, including increased

congestion, poorer air quality, problematic interchange between transport modes and

a negative impact on the operation of St Pancras station.

Requests that taxis continue to serve the stations, have access to Euston Road and

stated that they are keen to explore combining the two existing taxi ranks.

Also requests that full traffic modelling is undertaken to ensure that local traffic

around the station is not detrimentally impacted. Suggests that the traffic impacts

resulting from HS2 work is also considered, especially if both schemes are to be

delivered at the same time.

Signage and wayfinding also needs further consideration.

King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership (KXCLP)

Understands that the proposals are at an early stage and that full strategic traffic

modelling or bus journey modelling has yet to be undertaken. Supports the proposals

at present, but welcomes the opportunity to make further comments in 2017 once

further design work has been undertaken.

Requests confirmation that King’s Cross Boulevard will be closed to vehicular traffic,

including buses.

29

Also seeks assurance that servicing and delivery requirements on Pancras Road

and Good Way will not be impacted as a result of proposals.

Requests that pedestrians are fully considered especially on Euston Road.

Requests that this is considered as a design priority.

Encourages a review of local bus services so that they provide an adequate service

for the new developments, including the extension of route 63 along York Way to

Canal Reach.

States that the current taxi arrangements for taxis in King’s Cross are not desirable.

Requests that taxi provision to the main stations is also further considered as part of

the design solution so that taxis are better employed using modern technology in

order to reduce queue lengths and improve air quality.

Martin-Brower UK Ltd

Comments relating to a Memorandum of Understanding to park on the red route on

Pentonville Road between 2200-0000 to service the McDonald's Restaurant located

on Pentonville Road.

Urban Partners

States that proposals must reflect the regeneration of the area in the design of the

road systems in King’s Cross and must also consider other major projects such as

Crossrail 2, HS2 and Thameslink programme. These will change how people move

through the area; these long term impacts must be considered as TfL plans any

changes to the road system.

A review of the gyratory systems in King’s Cross is welcomed. Although more detail

about the proposals was requested i.e. traffic modelling, journey time impacts,

construction management plan.

Suggested that Euston Road is the biggest issue in the area and requested plans

which would improve conditions for pedestrians and general congestion.

Emergency Services

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority supports improvements to London’s

infrastructure. Expressed concern that the proposals may increase congestion on

Euston Road which would in turn negatively impact the operation of Euston Fire

Station.

30

5.9 Comments on the consultation process

A total of 463 (44%) out of 1,042 respondents provided a comment on the quality of

the consultation and associated materials. The main themes discussed included:

70 (7%) respondents stated that the materials were clear and concise, 42

(4%) felt the materials were of good quality, 26 (3%) believed the information

provided was extensive and 1 (<1%) respondent felt it was easy to respond to

the consultation

79 (8%) respondents expressed that the consultation required further

information or detail. Reasons included lack of information on the impact on

journey times and traffic flows, plans about the cycle infrastructure being too

vague and bus service improvements not being taken into account in the

proposals

53 (5%) respondents felt their views would not be taken into account or there

was not enough time spent on the consultation

32 (3%) respondents raised concerns about the wording of the questions in

the survey and felt there was not enough room to comment on specific parts

of the proposals

21 (2%) respondents stated that the drawings appeared to be unrealistic and

gave little insight into what the area will look like after the changes have been

made

14 (1%) respondents requested for maps to clearly show the new cycling

facilities, proposed pedestrian crossings and turning restrictions for motorists

10 (1%) respondents requested more technical drawings and an interactive

map to show the resulting environment following the changes

8 (1%) respondents commented that there was too much written information

to take in and which needed to be broken down

3 (<%) respondents noted that they had experienced problems with the

survey in the form of the Question 2 which was deemed confusing and

tedious to complete

31

6. Conclusion and next steps

We received 1,042 consultation responses in total. Seventy per cent of respondents

that contacted us through the consultation portal supported the overall proposals,

with 18% of respondents opposing. Respondents were asked to rank what they

considered to be the most (and least) important for improving King’s Cross.

Improved pedestrian facilities were ranked as the most important consideration

followed by improved cycling facilities. Respondents ranked ‘Access to taxi services’

as the least important consideration of the options provided.

We will now work in partnership with stakeholders including the London boroughs of

Camden and Islington to further develop the design of the scheme with a view to

consulting on detailed proposals for the wider Kings Cross and Euston Road area in

2017.

32

Appendix A: Responses to key issues

raised

These are in response to the key issues raised in sections 5.7 and 5.8.

Strategy

Long-term planning

We are working with partners including Camden and Islington Councils, Crossrail 2,

HS2 and other regeneration developments to develop integrated long-term plans for

the wider King’s Cross area which takes into account future growth and anticipated

passenger numbers.

Requests that one or more modes have priority (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists etc.)

Our aim is to have a better balance of traffic throughout the King’s Cross area. Our

objectives for the wider improvements in the King’s Cross area include:

Accommodate planned growth and support anticipated increases in footfall

Improve safety for all road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists

Better balance the impact of traffic with the need to create an improved place

to live, work and visit

Improve cycling facilities throughout the area and support new cycle routes

Make it easier for pedestrians to move through the area and access public

transport

Provide appropriate facilities for taxis, private hire vehicles, coaches and

freight

Maintain high quality bus routes in the area while balancing overall traffic

demand

Improve street environment and local road air quality

The objectives are not prioritised in any order and each of the objectives carries

equal weight in the design development process. Therefore, we are not giving one

mode of transport priority over the other as part of our proposals.

The inner ring road forms part of our strategic road network, and we have a duty to

promote and maintain the expedient movement of traffic under the Traffic

Management Act (2004). It is especially important for freight and public transport

routes.

33

Maintaining the bus network

It is one of our objectives for the wider King’s Cross area to maintain high quality bus

routes in the area while balancing overall traffic demand. Indeed, people have told

us as part of this consultation that bus interchange is important.

The removal of the gyratory systems in King’s Cross would create opportunities for

us to change how the bus network operates in the area. We are considering these

opportunities and how the bus network might work in the future, including twinning

stops where possible. We will consult on any bus changes as part of the next phase

of consultation, which is due to take place in 2017.

Provision of Taxi and Private Hire facilities

As part of the design for King’s Cross, we are reviewing the provision for taxis and

private hire vehicles. As part of this, we are considering the location of ranks and the

volume of ranking space, and pick-up/drop-off locations. We will consult on any

changes as part of the next phase of consultation which is due to take place in 2017.

Value for money

We have a strategic business case in place as part of the Road Modernisation Plan

and have a duty, as a public body, to illustrate value for money. Additionally, the

project undergoes internal financial scrutiny at key stages to ensure that it continues

to represent value for money.

We believe that the investment in London’s roads, including King’s Cross, will benefit

residents and visitors for years to come.

Detail and availability of information

The proposals that we have put forward as part of this consultation are at an early

and formative stage in terms of design. We sought views on the proposals at an

early stage in order to help inform the more detailed designs that we will take forward

for further consultation in 2017.

As we develop the design further, we will have more detailed design information

available. We will publish more detailed information including traffic modelling

information as part of the next phase of consultation in 2017.

We will look at the network as a whole, as well as individual junctions and roads, to

ensure that the roads function as well they can do.

We will work to avoid, as far as possible, any unreasonable journey time delays.

Current system works fine

We do not believe that the roads in the King’s Cross area currently work in the best

way that they could do.

34

Residents and businesses have told us that they find King’s Cross difficult to get

around by road because of the gyratory systems. They have also told us that they

would like to see a better environment for pedestrians and cyclists in the area.

King’s Cross is changing at an incredible pace. Transport improvements have led to

a series of major new developments being built, including new public spaces. To

support this change, we are developing proposals to transform the road network.

The initial proposals that we have put forward, we believe, are the best solution for

King’s Cross to meet future demands.

Scheme impacts

Increased traffic

We will not be encouraging additional traffic into the area as part of our proposals,

and therefore we do not anticipate that there will be a net increase in the level of

traffic in the area.

Local Planning policy supports this. The inner ring road is a strategic road, and

therefore has to cater for through traffic to other areas- in particular buses and

freight- as well as local essential movements.

Our aim is to have a better balance of traffic throughout the King’s Cross area. We

anticipate that some streets might see more traffic as a result of two-way traffic

operation. However, some other streets, including Swinton Street, Acton Street and

Wharfdale Road, are expected to see a reduction in traffic and an improvement to

the local environment. We will undertake comprehensive traffic modelling as we

continue to develop designs and will provide information when we consult on more

detailed proposals in 2017.

Additionally, the inner ring road will form part of the new Ultra Low Emission Zone.

All buses operating within the zone will be Euro 6 compliant and therefore will be

cleaner and quieter. For more information about the Ultra Low Emission Zone, visit

our https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/kingscross

Two-way traffic on roads

Gyratory removal would enable shorter and more direct bus routes. This would

mean passengers are more likely to be able to get closer to their destination,

understand routes better and be clearer about where they may board and alight.

It would enable more direct cycle journeys to the places cyclists want to get to. .

King’s Cross is changing at an incredible pace. Transport improvements have led to

a series of major new developments being built, including new public spaces. The

35

removal of the gyratory system would support this development, helping to create

new retail, leisure, residential, and employment opportunities.

Public transport interchange

We are planning to provide the best interchange possible between public transport

routes including buses, Tube, and local, national and international rail services. This

includes working with partners including Islington and Camden Councils, Network

Rail, Eurostar and HS1 to achieve this.

As part of this process, we will review signage and wayfinding in the wider King’s

Cross area.

Safety

One of our objectives for the King’s Cross area is to improve safety for all road

users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists.

We have already undertaken road collision analysis and the outcomes have been

considered as part of our initial design proposals for King’s Cross Gyratory. We will

undertake further safety audits as part of the design process.

Disruption during construction

Whilst the full impacts of construction are not yet known, we will aim to reduce

disruption during construction where possible. We will work with other developments

and road works in the area to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum.

Traffic calming

We believe that removing the gyratory and introducing two-way working on roads in

King’s Cross would act as a traffic calming measure. Traffic would be directed onto

those roads most suitable for higher volumes, and reduced on those roads that are

less suitable.

Where some roads may suit other traffic calming measures, this will be considered at

the next design stage will be consulted on in 2017.

Other suggestions

Fully segregated cycle lanes

We are proposing to introduce segregated cycle lanes where possible, and it is our

objective to improve cycling facilities throughout the wider area and support new

cycle routes. It is not always possible to provide segregated routes on all roads,

particularly as the inner ring road serves an important function in terms of moving

freight and public transport.

36

Our proposals also include new cycle crossings at junctions and introducing contra-

flow cycle lanes on remaining one way streets. Cycle parking and docking stations

will be considered at the next stage of design.

We are proposing a range of improvements for cyclists in the area, providing east-

west and north south routes using quieter parallel streets as part of the cycle grid.

The North-South Cycle Superhighway is also planned to extend to King’s Cross. The

combination of all these measures will greatly increase cyclists’ ability to travel

through the area safely.

Better pedestrian facilities

It is our objective to make it easier for pedestrians to move through the area and

access public transport. As part of our proposals, we plan to provide new and

improved pedestrian crossings at key junctions – to enable the area to function

better for pedestrians.

We believe that removing the gyratory systems in the King’s Cross area would make

it easier for pedestrians to navigate in the area and access the bus network.

Additionally, we plan to improve wayfinding facilities, improve the general look, feel

and condition of existing facilities, and we plan to widen footways were we can.

Carriageway and footway treatments

We will consider the layout and the types of materials used for both carriageway and

footway areas as part of the detailed design process. More detail will be available as

part of the next phase of consultation in 2017.

Removal of traffic lights on Wharfdale Road

The request to remove traffic lights at Wharfdale Road (at the junction with

Caledonian Road) will be considered further at the next stage of detailed design.

Whether or not traffic lights are required or can be removed depends on various

factors, including the forecast volume of traffic on both Wharfdale Road and

Caledonian Road, the requirements for safe pedestrian crossing facilities and

provision for cyclists.

Restricting traffic on Wharfdale Road

One of the project objectives is to improve street environment and local road air

quality and as part of this we aim to remove non-local traffic as much as possible

from residential streets such as Wharfdale Road. Whilst Wharfdale Road may see a

reduction in non-local vehicular traffic, due to highway design constraints in the wider

King’s Cross area, it is unlikely that traffic on Wharfdale Road can be restricted to

local traffic, cyclists and pedestrians only. Further design and traffic assessments,

including assessment of the bus network, will be undertaken in the coming months to

evaluate this. More detail will be available as part of the next phase of consultation in

2017.

37

Removing two-way working on Caledonian Road

Two-way operation on Caledonian Road is an essential part of the King’s Cross

gyratory proposals, as set out in our consultation.

As part of the proposals to introduce two-way traffic in the wider King’s Cross area,

two-way traffic on Caledonian Road contributes to removing non-local traffic from

residential streets such as Wharfdale Road. In addition, the removal of the complex

one-way system would create new and direct routes for cyclists. These would help

to improve the street environment and local air quality, which would not be achieved

by changing the southern section of Caledonian Road (south of Wharfdale Road) to

one way operation.

Restricting motor traffic movement on Gray’s Inn Road and York Way

Grays Inn Road and York Way form part of the strategic road network, and we have

a duty to promote and maintain the expedient movement of traffic under the Traffic

Management Act (2004). These roads are specifically important for freight and

public transport routes.

One of our objectives for the area is to better balance the impact of traffic with the

need to create an improved place to live, work and visit.

Restricting traffic in this way on Gray’s Inn Road and York Way would not be

possible without creating significant traffic delays in the area.

Congestion charge boundary

As part of the next stage of detailed design, we will consider any changes to the road

layout in the context of the Congestion Charging zone and will make local changes

to the zone’s boundary if required.

Pancras Road

We will progress a single option for Pancras Road which will provide a safer more

inviting environment for all road users, while allowing access for buses, taxis and

service vehicles. During the design development, consideration will be given to how

Pancras Road could be closed in the future if traffic conditions change. TfL will

continue to work in partnership with stakeholders, including the London Boroughs of

Camden and Islington, to further develop the design of the scheme with a view to

consulting on detailed proposals for the wider King’s Cross area in 2017.

King’s Cross Boulevard

King’s Cross Boulevard is currently a private road which is contained within a

development managed by Argent. As our design develops, we will continue to

discuss our aspirations for the wider area with Argent. We do not envisage a change

in the existing operation of the road which is accessible only by pedestrians and

cyclists.

38

Cycling provision on Euston Road

A part of our long-term plans for Euston Road, we plan to improve crossings for

pedestrians and cyclists. These will be subject of further consultation in 2017.

These proposals will link up with other planned cycle improvements in the area

including the North-South Cycle Superhighway and London Cycle Grid. We are

working with partners including the London Borough of Camden to provide new

cycling facilities in the wider King’s Cross area.

Servicing businesses on Euston Road

We aim to maintain journey times for traffic and buses on Euston Road so that local

businesses and organisations will be able function as normal without experiencing

traffic delays. The inner ring road forms part of our Strategic Road Network, and we

have a duty to promote and maintain the expedient movement of traffic under the

Traffic Management Act (2004). It is especially important for freight and public

transport routes.

Great Percy Street

We can confirm that Great Percy Street would operate as a two-way street as part of

our current proposals.

Access and loading on Pancras Road and Goods Way

We are considering the detail of access and loading in these roads as part of the

detailed design for the wider area. More information about this will be available as

part of our second phase of consultation in 2017.

Consultation

Promotion of the consultation

Please refer to section 3.2 of this document for information on how the consultation

was promoted. It was designed to be open to everyone and opportunities were

provided for residents and businesses to engage with us and find out more

information about the proposals before submitting their formal consultation

responses.

Availability of detailed information

The proposals put forward as part of the consultation are at an early stage of design,

and as such, detailed information about the scheme is not yet available. This

includes information such as proposed bus routes and traffic modelling information.

We sought views on the proposals at an early stage in order to help inform the more

detailed designs that we will take forward for further consultation in 2017. We plan to

39

provide more detailed information about our proposals as part of the next stage of

consultation planned for 2017.

Appendix B: Detailed analysis of comments

Participants who took part in the consultation were asked to rank what they think are

the most and least important elements to upgrade King’s Cross, where 1 is the most

important and 10 is the least important. Of the 899 responses to Question 2, the

following responses were ranked as follows:

Of the 1,042 respondents, 563 (55%) left a comment in the open text field for

Question 7. Each respondent group has been analysed separately and we have

summarised the significant themes under the headings below. Percentages given

are from the total number of participants in each respondent group.

Individual respondents

A total number of 481 out of 941 individual respondents provided a further comment

in regards to specific proposals or the scheme as a whole.

General negative comments: 247 (26%) respondents provided general negative

comments about the scheme.

General positive comments: 140 (15%) respondents provided general positive

comments about the scheme.

Neither negative nor positive comments: 94 (10%) respondents provided general

comments that were neither negative nor positive about the scheme.

Rank / Option

Improved pedestrian facilities

Improved cycling facilities

Access to taxi services

Access to bus services

Enhancing links between public transport modes

Removing the gyratory systems

Maintaining journey times for general traffic in the area

Improving the local environment

Reducing crime and anti-social behaviour

Improving accessibility for those who are less mobile

1 221 218 52 43 28 133 81 61 29 33

2 215 148 36 90 74 77 85 65 56 53

3 100 91 40 157 154 71 50 98 59 79

4 83 53 54 138 164 74 58 141 46 88

5 57 47 71 134 132 77 64 117 82 118

6 51 43 73 102 100 66 88 145 105 126

7 38 62 87 95 96 68 69 110 148 126

40

Void response: 7 (1%) respondents provided a comment which could not be

categorised, including ‘N/A’ or ‘None’.

Negative impact on motor traffic: 80 (9%) respondents stated that the proposals

would displace motor traffic generally or to specific roads, including:

42 (4%) respondents expressed that two-way traffic should not be introduced

on all roads as it will reduce road width and create more accidents, examples

include Midland Road, Goods Way and Pancras Road

17 (2%) respondents expressed concerns that the proposals to make some

roads two-way will encourage more motor traffic onto Euston Road

11 (1%) respondents felt that the recently installed traffic lights on Wharfdale

Road and Caledonian Road cause significant congestion and journey delays,

with many concerned that these proposals will result in a similar situation

11 (1%) respondents felt that traffic speeds need to be reduced and 20mph

zones enforced, most notably down York Way

10 (1%) respondents believed that the off-street parking or drop-off points

between King’s Cross and St Pancras require improvement as cars are often

double-parked to drop off and taxis are constantly doing U-turns in the middle

of the road

10 (1%) respondents expressed concerns over the impact on traffic flow and

volume further up Grays Inn Road near the junction with Guilford Street

9 (1%) respondents felt the new road layout would be confusing and illogical

for motorists driving through the area as many motorists are used to the one-

way system of the gyratory.

9 (1%) respondents commented that the road layout needs improving as

traffic lanes do not follow through various junctions, an example is in front of

King’s Cross where there is a filter lane on the right for the station.

9 (1%) respondents complained about the taxi ranks as they are causing a

major obstruction on roads such as Goods Way and Pancras Road.

8 (1%) respondents thought the traffic light timing need altering as they cause

significant delays, particularly on Midland Road, Wharfdale Road and

Caledonian Road

41

8 (1%) respondents believed the proposals would be negative for motorists as

reduced road space will make journeys harder for vehicle users to navigate

the area

8 (1%) respondents commented on the increase in traffic congestion that will

be seen on York Way as cars currently park on one side of the road and

buses stop on the other side which will cause a bottleneck if the road is

converted from a one-way operating road to two-way.

7 (1%) respondents felt that turning restrictions for motorists will encourage

‘rat runs’ on residential streets, including Northdown Street, Acton Street,

Wynford Road, Rodney Street and Calshot Street.

Positive impact on motor traffic: 64 (7%) respondents commented on how the

scheme could affect motor traffic in a positive way:

41 (4%) respondents supported the proposal to remove the gyratory as it will

create more logical and direct routes for motorists, particularly on York Way

23 (2%) respondents commented that the proposals would be positive for traffic levels as it would diffuse traffic on roads such as Euston Road and Midland Road

Impact on public transport: 52 (6%) respondents commented on how the scheme would affect public transport use:

28 (3%) respondents objected to any increase in bus journey times, in

particular slowing down public transport use by the potential removal of the

bus lane on Pentonville Road, heading from Angel to King’s Cross.

24 (3%) respondents raised concerns that public transport use would become

unreliable if the proposals are implemented due to the narrowing of road

lanes, introduction of traffic lights and more crossings slowing down the traffic.

Impact on cycling: 161 respondents (17%) commented on how the proposal might

affect cycling:

58 (6%) respondents stated that full segregation is required on the roads to ensure safety for cyclists, specifically all along York Way, Judd Street, Argyle Street, Birkenhead Street, Grays Inn Road, Euston Road and Pentonville Road

47 (5%) respondents felt that further cycling provision is needed in the form of more cycle hire docking stations, new cycle parking facilities and better signage, in particular around the Pancras Road area.

42

15 (2%) respondents thought introducing two-way traffic on all roads would be positive for all roads users, in particular cyclists who would benefit from the reduction in speeds and volume of motor traffic

13 (1%) respondents were concerned that the proposals would mean cyclists will be pushed from the main street onto the back streets, which are less direct and result in longer journeys. The main roads identified include Euston Road, Pentonville Road, Grays Inn Road and York Way

17 (2%) respondents believe that the proposals will make it safer for cyclists. Examples include Acton Street, York Way and Midland Road which will benefit from improved facilities for cyclists.

11 (1%) respondents felt that the cycle provision will be better as a result of contra-flow cycle facilities being provided on most one-way streets and that crossing Pentonville Road by cycle will be improved

Impact on pedestrians: 100 respondents (11%) commented on how the proposal

might affect pedestrians:

46 (5%) respondents said that better pedestrian facilities are needed than those proposed near the station entrances on Pentonville Road and the pedestrian environment needs improving on the south side of Euston Road between Birkenhead Street and Crestfield Streets.

36 (4%) respondents believed that pedestrian crossings required more improvement than those proposed particularly in the form of widening the pavement on York Way, further crossings on Midland Road and a light-controlled pedestrian crossing is needed on the corner of Euston Road and Judd Street

18 (2%) respondents expressed that the changes would be positive for pedestrians with the improvements made to pedestrian facilities on Pentonville Road, Caledonian Road, Grays Inn and Goods Way

Impact on environment: 159 (17%) respondents commented on the proposals

potential impact on the local environment:

61 (6%) respondents requested that there should be further restrictions on vehicles and that cars should be removed from the King’s Cross area wherever possible, examples include closing Swinton Place to traffic, pedestrianising King’s Cross Bridge and reducing the traffic flow of large vehicles on most residential streets off Grays Inn Road.

43 (5%) respondents commented that the proposals would make the area more dangerous for all road users, in particular for cyclists at the junctions of Euston Road, York Way, Grays Inn Road and Pentonville Road. The contra-flow cycle lanes are also considered more likely to cause cyclists to hit pedestrians

43

29 (3%) respondents said the proposals would create a better environment by removing the gyratory and make the area less hostile to pedestrians and cyclists

16 (2%) respondents suggested that the proposals will result in the area being safer for all road users due to slower traffic speeds and reduce pollution levels on roads such as Swinton Street

10 (1%) respondents felt that the environment would be negatively affected by the proposals with many requesting more trees to be planted and the concern over pollution caused by waiting times at the new traffic lights

Other: 124 (13%) respondents provided general comments about the proposals:

43 (5%) respondents felt the proposals place too much emphasis on cyclists and pedestrians, with other roads users not being taken into consideration

32 (3%) respondents expressed that the scheme was a waste of money and would cause too much disruption, and felt the existing conditions are adequate

26 (3%) respondents commented that cyclists behaviour is dangerous and they will continue to use the roads and pavements even if cycle lanes are provided

12 (1%) respondents wished to see a shared road space with all road users intermixed in with one another rather than segregated.

11 (1%) respondents raised concerns about problems with the survey, in particular with Question 2 as it was considered confusing and tedious to rank all options.

LCC & CCC respondents

General negative comments: 44 respondents (100%) provided general negative

comments about the scheme.

Key themes that emerged from responses included:

40 (91%) respondents wished to see car movements further restricted as

removing the gyratory whilst trying to retain motor vehicle capacity at current

levels will result in disconnected routes for cycling and issues for pedestrians.

38 (86%) respondents stated that pedestrian movements need to be

prioritised in the area

44

35 (80%) respondents suggested that the priority should be to include safe

space for cycling east-west and north-south through the area

35 (80%) respondents believed that two-way traffic should not be introduced

on all roads given the widths of some roads and that some of the existing

gyratory should be retained as one-way.

The London Cycling Campaign and Camden Cycling Campaign designed a standard

response for members to copy and paste into the online survey. A total of 34 out of

44 responses were structured in a similar manner and the standard response is as

follows:

“I support the London Cycling Campaign's and Camden Cycling Campaign's

concerns regarding this scheme and their alternative proposals for the streets

around Kings Cross. Removing the gyratory completely while trying to retain motor

vehicle capacity at current levels results in disconnected routes for cycling and

issues for pedestrians too. Instead a priority should be to include safe space for

cycling east-west and north-south through the area (these main roads have seen

fatalities and serious injuries to cyclists) and also to prioritise pedestrian movements.

Given the widths of some roads, that will likely mean not all of the gyratory should be

returned to two-way motor vehicle flow.”

Cally South Group respondents

General negative comments: 29 respondents (97%) provided general negative

comments about the scheme.

General positive comments: 1 respondent (3%) provided general positive

comments about the scheme.

Key themes that emerged from responses included:

25 (83%) respondents felt that the recently installed traffic lights on Wharfdale

Road and Caledonian Road should be removed as an increase in congestion

and pollution has been experienced

25 (83%) respondents requested restrictions on motor vehicles on Wharfdale

Road and for it to become cyclists and residential access only

22 (73%) respondents stated that buses and HGVs should not be permitted to

travel along Wharfdale Road as this is negatively impacting the aesthetic

value of the residential streets

45

The Cally South Group designed a standard response for members to copy and

paste into the online survey. A total of 20 out of 30 responses were structured in a

similar manner and the standard response can be read below:

“I live/work in the area and I am a member of the Cally South Campaign Group.

This is our proposal: We believe that any changes to the Kings Cross gyratory must

result in:

1. A significant reduction in vehicular air and noise pollution in the Cally South

Triangle

2. A much safer and more welcoming environment for pedestrians and cyclists

We believe that this can be achieved by:

1. Making Wharfdale Road for access only and cyclists

2. Ensuring that there is no need for traffic lights at the junction of Wharfdale and

Caledonian Roads.

In order to achieve this, alternative routes must be found for the buses, HGVs and

other vehicles that currently use Wharfdale Road.”

Stakeholder respondents

General negative comments: 4 respondents (33%) provided general negative

comments about the scheme.

General positive comments: 3 respondents (25%) provided general positive

comments about the scheme.

Neither negative nor positive comments: 1 respondent (8%) provided general

comments that were neither negative nor positive about the scheme.

Void response: 1 (8%) respondent provided a comment which could not

categorised, including ‘N/A’ or ‘None’.

Key themes that emerged from responses included:

4 (33%) respondents requested more information or detail on what cycle

facilities are proposed and the expected impact of the changes on

pedestrians, buses and public space

46

2 (17%) respondents wished to see bus lanes retained as they currently work

well and the installation of the signalised cycle crossings on Pentonville Road

would increase bus journey times

2 (17%) respondents felt that the proposals will encourage further vehicle

dominance in the area and the priority should be to create a safe and inviting

space for cycling and walking through the area

Appendix C: Respondent postcodes

Postcodes

Postcode No. respondents % Postcode No. respondents %

N1 194 23% EX23 1 0%

NW1 68 8% G42 1 0%

N7 61 7% GU21 1 0%

WC1X 41 5% HA1 1 0%

N5 31 4% HA5 1 0%

NW5 27 3% HA8 1 0%

NW3 23 3% HA9 1 0%

E8 22 3% HG1 1 0%

WC1H 22 3% HP3 1 0%

E2 17 2% IG5 1 0%

N4 16 2% IG6 1 0%

WC1N 16 2% IG8 1 0%

EC1V 15 2% IG9 1 0%

EC1R 14 2% KT1 1 0%

SE1 11 1% KT2 1 0%

N16 10 1% LU6 1 0%

NW8 10 1% N13 1 0%

N19 7 1% N17 1 0%

E17 6 1% N18 1 0%

N8 6 1% N2 1 0%

NW6 6 1% N21 1 0%

E1 5 1% N3 1 0%

E3 5 1% NE6 1 0%

E5 5 1% NG34 1 0%

N1C 5 1% NW11 1 0%

W9 5 1% NW2 1 0%

E15 4 0% OX25 1 0%

E4 4 0% PE38 1 0%

SW1V 4 0% PO7 1 0%

W12 4 0% RG22 1 0%

E7 3 0% RH16 1 0%

EC1M 3 0% RH19 1 0%

EC1N 3 0% RM12 1 0%

EC2Y 3 0% RM3 1 0%

N22 3 0% RM9 1 0%

47

SE11 3 0% S1 1 0%

SE15 3 0% S2 1 0%

SE17 3 0% SE10 1 0%

WC1E 3 0% SE13 1 0%

AL1 2 0% SE19 1 0%

CB4 2 0% SE2 1 0%

E10 2 0% SE20 1 0%

E14 2 0% SE21 1 0%

EC1Y 2 0% SE24 1 0%

N12 2 0% SE25 1 0%

N15 2 0% SE26 1 0%

N5 2 0% SE4 1 0%

NW10 2 0% SE6 1 0%

SE16 2 0% SE8 1 0%

SE23 2 0% SG12 1 0%

SE5 2 0% SG7 1 0%

SS4 2 0% SL7 1 0%

SW11 2 0% SM2 1 0%

SW16 2 0% SO19 1 0%

SW2 2 0% SO22 1 0%

SW6 2 0% SS7 1 0%

W1T 2 0% SW12 1 0%

W4 2 0% SW14 1 0%

BN2 1 0% SW17 1 0%

BR1 1 0% SW1E 1 0%

BR3 1 0% SW3 1 0%

CB1 1 0% SW4 1 0%

CB2 1 0% TW12 1 0%

CB3 1 0% TW13 1 0%

CM16 1 0% TW16 1 0%

CR4 1 0% UB9 1 0%

CT2 1 0% W11 1 0%

DA1 1 0% W13 1 0%

E12 1 0% W1F 1 0%

E12 1 0% W1W 1 0%

E16 1 0% W2 1 0%

E18 1 0% W3 1 0%

E1W 1 0% W6 1 0%

E9 1 0% W7 1 0%

EC2A 1 0% WC1B 1 0%

EN1 1 0% WD25 1 0%

EN11 1 0% WD5 1 0%

EN5 1 0% WF1 1 0%

EN6 1 0% Total 828 100%

48

Appendix D: Consultation Leaflet

49

50

51

52

Appendix E: Maps of scheme

53

54

55

56

57

Appendix F: Distribution Area

NB. The area contained within the pink area contains the original distribution area.

The hatched area includes areas where the distribution area was widened to include

complete roads.

The blue line on the drawing contains the roads included in the proposed changes

58

Appendix G: Stakeholder List

British Library

Disability in Camden

Disability Rights UK

Camden Society

King's Cross Environment

King's Cross Community Projects

Caroline Pidgeon AM

Richard Tracey AM

Valerie Shawcross AM

Jeanette Arnold AM

Jeremy Corbyn MP

Emily Thornberry MP

Neighbour care St John's Wood & Maida Vale

London Cycling Campaign (Camden and Islington)

London Borough of Camden

RNIB

Metropolitan Police

NHS CCG Camden

London Ambulance Service

Camden Safe Transport Team

In Holborn

Belsize Park Residents' Association

London TravelWatch

West Hampstead Amenity And Transport

ICE -London

Association of Disabled Professionals

Kingston First BID

Clapham Transport Users Group

Institute of Advanced Motorists

Garratt Business Park BID

ABC Catering & Party Equipment Hire Ltd

Baker Street Quarter Partnership Ltd

Office of Rail Regulation

EEF (Engineering Employers' Federation)

Age UK London

Action on Hearing Loss (RNID)

VISION 2020UK

Virgin Atlantic Airways

Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd

Brent Cross Shopping Centre

59

Transport Focus

Westfield Management Company UK Ltd

Department for Transport (DfT)

Victoria BID

London City Airport

Independent Shoreditch

Waterloo Quarter BID

Northbank BID

Kimpton Industrial Estate BID (KIPPA)

Nissan

North East Chamber of Commerce (NECC)

Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)

Gatwick Airport

Council for Disabled Children

Envision

Action on Hearing Loss (RNID)

Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA)

EEF (Engineering Employers' Federation)

Transport Focus

Thales Rail Signalling Solutions Ltd

Toyota

Vauxhall One BID

Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE)

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

New West End Company (NWEC)

RAC Foundation for Motoring

InStreatham

Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT)

Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB)

London Riverside BID

Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)

Whizz-Kidz

Society of London Theatre (SoLT)

Disabled Motoring UK

London Luton Airport

Stansted Airport

Living Streets

Suzy Lamplugh Trust

SCOPE

Gatwick Airport

National Autistic Society

RAC Foundation for Motoring

Lewis Silkin LLP

60

Irwin Mitchell

Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

Goldstein Ween Architects

PwC

WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff

Turner & Townsend

HS2 Ltd

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Better Bankside

Skanska UK plc

Historic Royal Palaces Enterprises

Merlin Entertainments Group

Morris Visitor Publications

Kensington Hilton and President, The Society of the Golden Keys

Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

Northbank BID

Fawcett Society

Fitzrovia Partnership

Guide Dogs

AA DriveTech

Automobile Association (AA)

Gatwick Airport

Capita

Institution of Engineering and Technology

CTC

London Riverside BID

MENCAP

Freight Transport Association (FTA)

Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)

Road Haulage Association (RHA)

Victoria BID

Paddington BID

London TravelWatch

Leonard Cheshire Disability

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Inclusion London

YMCA England

East London Business Alliance

InMidtown BID

Young Minds

Suzy Lamplugh Trust

London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI)

61

Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE)

London and Partners

Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT)

London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI)

British Youth Council

The Who Cares? Trust

Brixton BID

Office of Rail Regulation

Angel AIM

Toyota

Action on Hearing Loss (RNID)

British Museum

Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership

London Visual Impairment Forum (LVIF)

British Hospitality Association (BHA)

Team London Bridge BID

Camden Town Unlimited

City Year London

Princes Trust

London Youth

Friends of the Earth

Campaign for Better Transport

Visit Britain

SCOPE

Westminster City Council

Student Central

London First

Heart of London Business Alliance BID

Transport for All

RAC Foundation for Motoring

Fitzrovia Partnership

Centre for Cities

Muscular Dystrophy Campaign

Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB)

Girlguiding UK

Heart of London Business Alliance BID

Rail Delivery Group (RDG)

MiNet/ROTA

Somerset House Trust

Tate Modern

Better Bankside

Parkinson's UK

Central London Connexions

62

Victoria & Albert Museum

Department for Transport (DfT)

vInspired

Parkinson's UK

Ealing Broadway BID

Bexleyheath Town Centre BID (Bexley)

Multiple Sclerosis Society

Ilford Town BID

London Borough of Waltham Forest

Hainault Business Park BID

E11 BID

Croydon BID

LoveWimbledon BID

HammersmithLondon

Cubic Transportation Systems Ltd

Harrow Macular Disease Society

Merton Chamber of Commerce

Uprising

Thomas Pocklington Trust

Waterloo Quarter BID

Historic Royal Palaces Enterprises

South Bank Employers Group

Balfour Beatty plc

Tommy's

Team London Bridge BID

Canary Wharf Group

Sustrans

Islington Transport Aware

Thomas Pocklington Trust

Waterloo Quarter BID

Historic Royal Palaces Enterprises

South Bank Employers Group

Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA)

Tommy's

Team London Bridge BID

Canary Wharf Group

VISION 2020UK

Independent Shoreditch

Northbank BID

Kimpton Industrial Estate BID (KIPPA)

Nissan

North East Chamber of Commerce (NECC)

Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)

63

Council for Disabled Children

Envision

Action on Hearing Loss (RNID)

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT)

Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB)

London Riverside BID

National Autistic Society

Lewis Silkin LLP

Irwin Mitchell

Skanska UK plc

Historic Royal Palaces Enterprises

Inclusion London

YMCA England

East London Business Alliance

Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT)

British Hospitality Association (BHA)

Flaxman Court Tenants and Residents Association

London Contemporary Dance School at The Place

Pascal Theatre Company

Friends of Argyle Square

Argyle Primary School

Kings Cross Community Safety Partnership

Kings Cross Neighbourhood Centre

Kings Cross Chinese Group

Euston Station

West Euston Partnership

West Euston Healthy Community Project

Green Light Wellbeing Centre

Shaw Theatre

YHA London St Pancras

Urgent Care Centre University College Hospital

British Library

Francis Crick Institute Visitor Centre

University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Low Vision Centre

New Horizon Youth Centre

Camley Street Natural Park

Kings Cross Development Forum

Regents Place Transport Forum

St Mungos Registered Care Home (Argyle Street)

Camden Chinese Community Centre

St Aloysius Catholic Infant School

64

Maria Fidelis Convent School Lower School

Knowledge Quarter

Bloomsbury Improvement Group

Camden Town Urban Design Improvement Society

Kings Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Bloomsbury Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Marchmont Association

Camden Town Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Bloomsbury Association

Fitzrovia Partnership

Bloomsbury Village Neighbourhood Plan

Camden Civic Society

Regents Place Transport Forum

Green Light Wellbeing Centre

Acton and Swinton Streets Residents Association

Brunswick Tenants and Residents Association

Drummond Street Tenants and Residents Association

Flaxman Court Tenants and Residents Association

Fitzroy Square Neighbourhood Association

Handel Mansions Tenants and Residents Association

Hastings House Tenants and Residents Association

Knollys House Residents Association

Mecklenburgh Square Residents Association

Mornington District Association

Ossulston Tenants and Residents Association

Phoenix Court Community Tenants Association

Regent Square Residents Association

Russell Court Bloomsbury Management Limited

Russell Court Residents Association

Somers Town Tenants Association

Tavistock Mansions Leaseholders and Residents Association

Walker House Tenants and Residents Association

Winston Tenants Association

Witley Court Residents Association

Woburn Walk Residents and Traders Association

Lambs Conduit Street Traders Association

Crowndale Road Business Forum

Cultural Bloomsbury

London Transport Camden Liaison Committee

London Travelwatch

Sustrans London Office

Camden Cyclists

Camden and Kings Cross Living Streets Group

65

University College Hospital (UCH)

Camden Climate Action Network (Camden Can)

Friends of the Earth Camden Group

Age UK Camden Membership

Friends of Argyle Square

Elm Village Management Company Limited

Francis Crick Institute Visitor Centre

Mornington District Association

West Euston Partnership

Somers Town Tenants Association

King's Cross Station

St Pancras International Station

British Medical Association

Knowledge Quarter (and member organisations - includes Crick and British Library)

Urban Partners (and member organisations)

University College London

BMJ

Royal College of Physicians

RCGP

Harriet Martin

CDE Catapult

Google

The Guardian

British Library

Crick

LGIU

Age Khan Uni

MRC Technology

The Place

London Canal Museum

Kings Place

Impact Hub - Kings Cross

Pemier Inn

Institute of Physics

Travel Lodge

Macmillan Publishers

Argent

Argent

Urban partners

University of the Arts

Arlington Association

Creative Islington

66

Friends of Barnsbury Square Gardens

Heritage of London Trust

Islington Building Preservation Trust

Islington Chamber of Commerce

Islington Leaseholders Association

Islington Private Tenants

Islington Society

Islington Somali Community

Friends of Barnsbury Square Gardens

Amwell Society

Save Finsbury Health Centre

Access to Sports

Bemerton TMO

Cally Festival

Cally Market

Crumbles Castle Adventure Playground

Global Generation

King's Cross Church

King's Cross Environment

Kings Place

The Parent House

Prospex

St Andrews Islington

Sparkplug

Team Cally

Thornhill Square Association

XLP Islington

Appendix H: Stakeholder event attendees

Organisation

The Guardian

The British Library

Argent

The Francis Crick Institute

London Canal Museum and The Knowledge Quarter

Aga Khan University

Network Rail (High Speed)

HS1

Eurostar International Ltd

67

Appendix I: LCC and CCC alternative

proposal