Key information
Request reference number: MGLA110319-7561
Date of response:
Summary of request
Was any discussion held between the Mayor and any Labour elected official in LBHF about CS9.
If so, when did the discussion or discussions take place?
If so, how long did they last?
Who was involved from TfL, the Mayor’s office and LBHF?
Were there any direct conversations between the Mayor and the Leader of LBHF council about CS9? If so, what was said. Please provide any emails or notes of conversations.
At all or any such discussions did representatives of LBHF ask the Mayor and to TfL NOT to run CS9 down King Street or Hammersmith Road
In any representations, what points were made?
What was said about the inevitable gridlock to traffic?
What was said about the inevitable discrimination against disabled, elderly, infirm, mothers with children and those not able to ride a bike?
What was said about the decline in cycling, including the net closure of bicycle shops in London?
What was said about the extraordinarily high cost per cyclist attracted to the new crop of cycle superhighways - £62,000 per cyclist?
What was said about the inevitable restriction of access to emergency vehicles and the consequent increased risk to life?
What was said about the manifest inequity of giving 30% of road space exclusively to fewer than 3% of road-users?
What was said about the fact that outside rush hour, the cycle superhighways are almost always totally empty, whilst other vehicle traffic is regularly jammed?
What was said about the manifesto commitment NOT to run CS9 down Hammersmith Road and Chiswick High Road?
If any or all of the above points were made by LBHF, what was the response of the Mayor and/or of TfL?
What consideration was given by the Mayor / TfL to the fact that the proposed route of CS9 did not have the support of the local community in LBHF, as evidenced by the outcome of the local elections?
What was said by the Mayor and/or TfL that persuaded the Council to back down on its manifesto commitments?
Related documents
MGLA110319-7561 - FOI response