We are pleased by the inclusion of the commitment to Chelsea Hackney Line (CHL) and the commitment to improve orbital routes such as London Overground particularly the fact that Hackney Central/Downs Stations are classified as a strategic orbital interchange. We strongly believe that the Strategic Review for CHL is brought forward and completed in a shorter timescale than the 5 years suggested by the DfT and it should be along the currently safeguarded route. The post 2018 timescale for CHL should also be brought forward.

We support Crossrail but oppose use of Planning Contributions from developments in Hackney to fund the scheme.

The document includes reference to London Overground and West Anglia routes as being the highest priorities for capacity increases beyond committed funds which should have a positive impact upon Hackney.

The scale of growth in London during the lifetime of the strategy, particularly in inner East London requires continued investment in public transport post 2018 as demand will continue to outstrip capacity particularly in the radial corridors in north east London so there need to be further aspirational public transport schemes outlined in the MTS. If CHL cannot be delivered within the lifetime of the strategy then interim public transport enhancement projects need to be considered for the north east London radial corridors.

We support the upgrades to interchanges such as Finsbury Park and Highbury & Islington which are both used by Hackney residents to access the Underground network.

The proposals only offer vague and non-specific commitments about developing the bus network to match growth and demand. However TfL's updated 2009-2018 Business Plan reveals that bus subsidy and bus route kilometres are being decreased and bus fares will rise at the Retail Price Index plus 2%, this is against a background of increased population growth which can only result in increased overcrowding. People's choice to use the bus network is heavily influenced by the frequency, reliability, and cost of the service; any reduction in frequency, and reliability, or increase in cost is likely to lead to a significant decrease in bus use and potentially corresponding increase in car use.

There is no mention of how the Mayor and TfL will cover the cost of replacing the articulated buses with the new Routemaster bus and how it may impact on road congestion due to the need to increase number of vehicles operating on these routes because capacity per vehicle is lower.

There is a commitment to improving bus passenger experience, however the proposal only mentions introducing bus priority at critical locations rather than the whole route corridor approach.

The previous reference to undertaking a fundamental review of the London bus network in the Statement of Intent (SOI) seems to have been removed. We feel that this is still necessary due to the large number of huge redevelopment and regeneration projects of such as Stratford, King's Cross and Woodberry Down which will have a massive impact on trip patterns.

The document commits to continuing support for Dial-a-Ride however there is no similar commitment to the Taxicard scheme.

Smoothing traffic flows is welcomed as long as it does not generate additional traffic growth. Hackney believes that the proposal needs to be undertaken alongside travel demand management measures to ensure that freeing up traffic movement on roads does not attract additional car journeys.

Hackney does not support two powered wheelers in bus lanes and allowing motorcycles to use the bus lanes on the A10 conflicts with the objectives of the cycle superhighway scheme which is due to be implemented on this corridor. The Mayor needs to review the conflict between the Cycle Superhighways and allowing motorcycles in bus lanes on these routes.

We would strongly support the pedestrian countdown proposals and the streetworks permitting scheme which we have been working on with TfL.

We would support new road network improvement schemes as long as they do not result in any additional traffic generation (even if they result in reduced congestion in the vicinity of the scheme).

With regards to the commitment to good repair of road network - we support this proposal as there is a definite need to reverse the trend of last few years on TLRN, sections of which is currently in a poor condition.

We support new river crossings as long as they do not increase traffic congestion on the wider east London road network and where they promote and improve sustainable transport options and support the regeneration of East London.

The proposed pedestrian and cycle links from the Isle of Dogs across the Thames is particularly positive, especially if they are implemented prior to the 2012 Games.

Nothing new - the Mayor has not addressed the need to increase funding for accessibility improvements to the public realm prior to 2012, specifically to cater for mobility impaired visitors and athletes attending the Paralympics Games.

The document offers a commitment to support Dial-a-Ride services however there is no direct reference to continuing to fund the Freedom Pass or the Taxicard scheme.

This is a very positive proposal as it identifies Hackney Central/Hackney Downs stations as a strategic orbital interchange therefore making it more likely it will be prioritised for improvement, specifically implementation of the direct interchange project. We would like to see a commitment to funding this project prior to 2012 in time for the Olympics rather than the post 2018 timescale this proposal is given.

Hackney believes that continued growth at Heathrow is unrealistic and unsustainable and therefore alternative options need to be seriously considered.

Generally positive proposals about encouraging cycling in London however the Mayor's outcome target for increasing cycling mode share from 2% to 5% by 2031 is not particularly challenging and Hackney has already surpassed this target with 8% mode share for cycling. We would like to see a more challenging target for cycling proposed particularly for inner London boroughs.

Hackney would be keen to bid for `Biking Borough' status because we believe that with our already high mode share for cycling we can help other boroughs replicate our success. We welcome the aims of this proposal but strongly criticise the fact this proposal seems to be focused only on Outer London boroughs rather than all boroughs and would like to see further detail of how the proposal will be funded.

Hackney would like to see a commitment to funding and implementing additional infrastructure improvements in the Cycle Hire area to counter safety concerns.

Cycle superhighways - we support this proposal however there needs to be full consideration of ways to overcome permeability barriers such as the Stoke Newington Gyratory. It is also disappointing that the proposed A10 route does not continue past Liverpool Street through the city to London Bridge as this is also a major trip attractor for cyclists.

Highway Code changes - we support this proposal in theory but further details are required, currently we are not certain what these changes entail. At the Borough and London-wide level, effective enforcement of the Highway Code where, for example, drivers illegally stop in cyclists' ASL areas could also improve conditions.

We support the proposal to introduce minimum cycle parking standards for stations, which should be of a adequate provision to cope with substantial growth in demand over the lifetime of the strategy.

Home/residential cycle parking is also major barrier to many local families uptake of cycling. There have been some excellent home cycle parking schemes retrofitted on housing estates in recent years in Hackney, and we believe this could be developed further across London.

Whilst funding for training related to the Cycle Hire Scheme is welcomed, this funding is specifically for additional requests generated by the Scheme. Paragraph 469 of the draft Strategy outlines `A comprehensive cycle training programme for schoolchildren, complemented by life-long training options'. However, changes to LIP funding have meant that there is no longer a ring fenced budget for ongoing cycle training, and departments have to compete with each other for funding. In Hackney our cycle training budget has had to be reduced. If the Mayor is to deliver this programme to its full potential, there will need to be ongoing, ring fenced funding for cycle training.

We support the proposals in the document and Hackney is already implementing most of them. We believe that there is a need for the Mayor to offer ring fenced funding for the implementation of Legible London proposals in town centres.

Currently the document does not set specific targets at this time, just a commitment to review targets, aim for reductions and develop a new Road Safety Plan. We support the aims of these proposals however we would like to see a commitment to delivering it with funding and innovative ideas.

The 2009 DfT Road Safety Consultation Document, `A Safer Way', contains the following statement on casualty reduction targets “To improve health, the environment and congestion, we are keen to encourage more walking and cycling. We wish to reduce the risk to the individual walker or cyclist, and to take into account expected growth in activity - we are therefore proposing a target based on the rate of casualties: to reduce by at least 50% by 2020 the rate of KSI per km travelled by pedestrians and cyclists, compared with the 2004-08 average”. As the TfL 2009 Travel in London report has recently identified Hackney as the Borough with an exceptionally high volume of cycle trips, adopting a rate-based system of monitoring casualties is particularly pertinent here. The Mayor's Road Safety Plan should adopt this system in line with the DfT.

As a further measure, if barriers to cycling, both physical and psychological, are to be removed, it would also be useful to monitor Londoners' perceptions of the dangers of cycling as part of future surveys, both London-wide and in the Boroughs.

In particular, a publicity campaign encouraging drivers of all motor vehicles to share the road safely with cyclists could have the dual function of improving road safety and increasing rates of cycling, through reducing fear of motorised traffic in potential cyclists. For example the Highway Code emphasises giving cyclists plenty of room when passing them, and time and space to move at traffic light controlled junctions. Encouraging drivers not to stop in cyclists ASL (Advanced Stop Line) areas could also merit a publicity campaign.

The document references the serious problem regarding accidents involving HGVs and cyclists and commits to getting the Government to introduce legislation but again no specific targets are set. The Mayor's decision to close down the specialist HGV unit based at the Metropolitan Police seems to contradict these policy objectives however.

The Mayor needs to make a specific commitment to reduce casualties on the TLRN (his own road network) through targeted physical engineering schemes. Significant progress has been made with reducing casualties on borough's own roads however there continues to be serious accident and casualty problems on the red route network.

We are very supportive of the proposals to implement new time-distance cameras and Hackney is about to trial this technology on Stoke Newington Church Street to enforce a new 20 mph speed limit.

Enforcement of existing speed limits is the key to reducing the likelihood and consequence of collisions.

Hackney agrees that there is a need for better and fuller partnership between Transport Providers, BTP, Met Police and Local Authorities across London. LBH Community Safety have in the past organised a Safer Transport Group that met quarterly, this was pivotal in the joining up of Hackney CCTV and Transport Providers CCTV, providing seamless coverage of the borough. It was useful in the use of resources such as FlashCams and pro-active operations, sighting and location these in Hotspot areas identified by a number of Transport Providers and a joined up approach in areas such as the GLA's `Know What Your Getting Into' campaign that we ran in the Shoreditch area over two years.

Proposal 75: As above, agreed that this process would assist in greater prioritising of resources and highlighting issues across providers and organisations. Bring better and more concise public message and reassurance. We are currently meeting and working with Transport Hub Teams to achieve this.

Proposal 76: ASB across the transport network, especially around Bus Transport hubs and school dispersal, we have as stated in this proposal undertaken education around ASB and young people on the Transport network, a requirement for a prolonged approach to this problem is something that we would support and is an area of concern.

Proposal 77: We currently undertake and have placed a Designing Out Crime Officer with Planning and Transportation in Hackney, station and transport hub improvements are an area that Community Safety advice is taken on all occasions, we support a statutory obligation as in Section 17 CDR Act, to undertake this work.

Proposal 78: This is being undertaken with Planning and Transportation in Hackney, further to this we are undertaking a review of the data currently available to increase Transport input into Strategic Assessment, this is an area we support and wish to expand.

Proposal 79: We have and support this type of work, an annual campaign in Nightime economy hotspot areas such as the Shoreditch Triangle is something we are keen to support and undertake.

Proposal 80: We are engaged with ODA on looking at potential terrorist and Crime and Disorder issues around the Olympics and Olympic Build, we also plan and respond to instances and threats through LBH Emergency Planning, this is an area we support, although some better joining up of projects and proposals would be welcomed.

This proposal is mostly positive, it reflects much of what Hackney already implements on its own roads however further details of what this initiative will entail is required including how it will be funded. We are also disappointed that this proposal seems to be focused on town centres in Outer London rather than all of London.

We are supportive of `Shared Space' schemes and the removal of traffic lights where safe and appropriate to do so however TfL needs to streamline and smooth processes for doing this with direct funding provided. Currently there is no motivation for Councils to remove traffic signals because the process is so time consuming and costly for them.

We welcome proposals by the Mayor to reduce transportation noise in London. We however note that the document does not address noise from idling buses and we feel this something that needs to be examined.

Traffic on the TLRN is a major contributor to poor air quality in London and Hackney is disappointed that TfL is not taking a more proactive approach to reducing particulates and nitrogen dioxide levels originating from vehicles on the TRLN.

The proposals place a lot of emphasis on voluntary measures many of which have been in place for a number of years, the council is of the view that at this stage when the time limits for achieving air quality objectives have been missed the emphasis should be more fiscal and compulsory measures that will achieve the objectives by the extended timescale.

Hackney agrees that a proportion of the air pollution affecting London arises from outside the Greater London area, however as the figures in the strategy point out the vast majority of the Nitrogen Dioxide and PM10 in London comes from emissions in London, and it is appropriate that the primary focus for addressing this must be effective action taken London wide.

Hackney welcomes the proposal to implement eco driving and would suggest that this proposal is strengthened through the use of vehicle tracking devices to monitor driver performance with retraining for drivers whose performance falls outside of acceptable limits.

Hackney welcomes the proposals to promote eco-driving for the public, freight drivers and tackling emissions from unnecessary idling.

Hackney welcomes the proposals all new buses post 2012 to be diesel hybrid buses, and would wish to see information on the number of new buses to be introduced each year included in the strategy.

Hackney welcomes the proposals to provide better information about emissions from the public transport fleet, and we would wish for comparative information on the performance of the bus operators made available, and displayed on buses and incentives/disincentives put in place to improve performance.

Hackney welcomes the proposals for targeted local action to deal with hotspots, and we would welcome the GLA and TfL to work with the council to improve air quality in the PM10 hotspots identified by DEFRA as remaining in 2011. We are aware that there are areas of predicted PM10 2011 exceedence elsewhere in the capital that are more widespread and may not lend themselves to hotspot action.

Hackney welcomes the proposals for the retention of the existing LEZ.

Hackney does not agree with the proposals for deferring Phase 3 of the LEZ and is of the opinion that other assistance, for instance the scrappage scheme could be put in place to assist affected operators. Again this is contrary to EU air quality targets.

Hackney welcomes the proposals for introducing an emission standard for NOx into the LEZ.

Hackney welcomes the proposals for additional LEZ measures should they prove necessary.

Hackney welcomes the proposals for assistance with local LEZs, but we would be concerned about the efficacy of a local LEZ on air quality.

Hackney would also suggest that measures are included to reduce emissions from excessive speeding on the major arterial road network that occur outside of peak hours, and the use of average speed cameras should be considered.

Hackney would also suggest that action is taken to reduce exposure in areas where vulnerable people are present e.g. outside schools by the use of pedestrianised areas.

Hackney supports the Mayor's proposals for promoting electric vehicles and encouraging Car Club operators to adopt low carbon vehicles however the document lacks information on how this will be implemented. We believe that the Mayor also needs to take a lead with suppliers of parking equipment to encourage them to develop Pay & Display units to be combined with electric vehicle charging points.

The Mayor talks of installing Light Emitting Diodes (LED) in traffic signals to reduce power consumption by 60% but he makes no reference to street lights and lit street furniture. There is a need to reduce illuminated street furniture where possible and where lighting is indispensable such as street lights then LED bulbs should also be used. TfL is a major consumer of electricity for street lighting through its management of the TRLN and Hackney is disappointed that the introduction of this technology is not happening faster and TfL does not seem to be tacking the lead.

The document states that unless additional demand management measures such as road user charging are implemented London will not meet the objectives of the strategy, specifically the target of 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025 and reducing traffic congestion. As illustrated by Figure 58 in the MTS document a policy gap in exists between the impacts of the current proposals in the MTS and the Mayor's 2025 CO2 emission's reduction target which equates to approximately 2 million tonnes of CO2. The document goes on to state that road user charging has the greatest potential to fill the policy gap however the Mayor has already publicly announced that he will not implement road user charging while he is in power, seemingly disregarding what is set out in his own draft strategy document. This is disappointing considering the scale of the congestion and air pollution problems in London and the vulnerability of the city to climate change and rising sea levels.

We support the Mayor's proposals for climate change impact assessment for major infrastructure schemes and an assessment of the vulnerability of transport infrastructure to climate change.

Planting additional trees is supported however if the Mayor is setting a target for the number of trees funding to boroughs must be sufficient to cover the cost of ongoing maintenance not just the initial installation.

We support the proposals here but are disappointed that there is nothing very new or innovative and the commitments to smarter travel initiatives and travel planning are generally vague and non-committal. We support the proposals to require Construction Logistic Plans and Delivery, Servicing Plans for new larger developments in London.

The Mayor's prioritisation of cycle hire and electric vehicle charging points (and specific parking provision for low-emission cars) are welcomed in principle as they encourage more sustainable measures of transport. However, parking spaces are at a premium in central London (in Hackney, the area Hoxton, Shoreditch and Old Street areas) and care must be taken to avoid creating additional parking pressures when locating these on the carriageway, especially in the short-to-medium term while the schemes are being embedded. On this basis, it is important that boroughs are given the flexibility to implement such schemes in a manner that is phased, relates to local demand and is informed by local knowledge.

Similarly, restricting the use of lanes (for example bus lanes, the Olympic Route Network) can further increase parking stress. Expansion of these networks and any further measures (for example, the proposed cycle superhighways) should be carefully considered in the context of their effects on local parking supply.

Hackney is concerned by the lack of commitment to keeping the Freedom pass in its current form, and the language relating to concessionary fares can be interpreted in any number of ways, providing no guarantees for low income residents currently reliant on it for accessing services.

The rules for parking signs and lines are set by statute. The Mayor's Transport Strategy should not recommend clearer signage as councils have very limited scope to dictate the format of parking signs.

While consistency can help motorists understand the regulations, councils also must prioritise parking space according to the needs of local residents and businesses - which requires local restrictions to suit local challenges. We feel the Mayor's Transport Strategy should explicitly acknowledge the need to balance the two.

Other than the above, we generally support the proposals outlined here but again but little detail is provided and much of what is proposed already occurs, for example Hackney already applies differential parking charges based on engine size and alternative fuels.

The removal of the Western Extension is a concern to Hackney because of the predicted impacts on bus journey times and the increased traffic generation/congestion which will likely result in poorer air quality for London as a whole. This action contradicts the Mayor's proposals to improve air quality, reduce CO2 emissions and the need to generate income to fund transport improvements in London.

The document leaves options open to possibly introduce additional road user charging schemes where appropriate if traffic increases and congestion worsens which the document states is inevitable (by up to 14% by 2031 even with the successful implementation of proposals and schemes such as Crossrail, cycling improvements and smoothing traffic). However the Mayor has since stated publicly that there will be no expansion of congestion charging while he is Mayor - contradicting his own policy proposals and suggesting that this consultation exercise is futile and he does not plan to be guided by his own policy document.

Hackney believes that the implementation of a London wide road user charging scheme is essential to reduce traffic congestion, improve road safety, encourage mode shift to sustainable modes of transport, improve air quality and help London meet its carbon emissions reduction targets

The development of the Chelsea-Hackney Line along the safeguarded route at the earliest opportunity, ensuring the strategic review of scheme is completed as soon as possible

Integrating London's transport system, particularly by enabling new orbital public transport trips by prioritising the upgrade and improvement of strategic orbital interchanges such as Hackney Central/Hackney Downs stations, Highbury & Islington station and Finsbury Park.

Capacity improvements to the West Anglia Line routes and London Overground routes

Managing the road network to maintain it to a good standard, street works permitting and trial of pedestrian countdown signals.

Fundamental review of the bus network to take account of trip pattern changes due to the impact of major strategic developments such as Stratford City, King's Cross and Nine Elms.

Removing barriers to cycling and improving permeability through the removal of gyratories

Implementation of Cycle Superhighway as long as it fully considers the removal of barriers such as gyratories

Introduction of the central London Cycle hire scheme with associated permeability and public realm improvements

Olympic cycle routes and associated permeability improvements

Safer roads and public realm through reduced speeds enforced by new technology such as time-distance cameras and intelligent speed adaption, with increased active enforcement by the Police to catch drink drivers, uninsured and untaxed drivers

Use of planning powers to ensure developments provide appropriate levels of cycle parking and changing facilities

Enhancing the public realm through better design of streets, decluttering and permeability improvements

Shared space schemes and traffic signal removal where safe and appropriate

Implementation of Legible London in all London town centres.

Using the planning system to promote car free developments and clear zones.

Particular emphasis on road safety engineering improvements on the TLRN

Blanket 20mph speed limit on all of London's residential roads

Promoting behaviour changes and smarter travel initiatives to encourage mode shift to sustainable transport

Encouraging the uptake of cleaner vehicles, particularly electric vehicles as long as it does not promote electric vehicles at the expense of walking, cycling and public transport.

Introduce targeted local improvement measures in air quality hotspots

Planting additional trees where funding covers ongoing maintenance.

Bring forward implementation of phases 3 and 4 of the LEZ scheme to 2010

Use the planning system to promote car free/low carbon zones

Actively pursue options for introducing a London wide road user charging scheme

Reduce the use and need for lit street furniture and replace highway street lighting bulbs with LEDs to reduce power consumption (street lighting).

Smarter travel initiatives, travel planning, travel awareness campaigns

Construction Logistic Plans

Delivery and Servicing Plans

Local journey planning information

Differential parking charges

Travel Plans required not just encouraged for all new developments over a certain size

Area wide travel plans in town centres, industrial parks and business estates.

Tackling theft, fraud and misuse of Blue Badges. Hackney has introduced a team dedicated to tackling Blue Badge fraud and is investigating expanding it to cover other parking permits and vouchers. Fraud can happen across borough boundaries and encouraging similar teams across London would help combat fraud, reducing the demand for stolen Blue Badges and freeing up parking space for genuine badge holders. Hackney also offers a free “Companion Badge” to Blue Badge holders. It allows holders to park in the same places as a Blue Badge, but is specific to one vehicle so is useless to thieves. The badge is currently limited to use inside Hackney, but the creation of a London-wide standard Companion Badge would further increase accessibility and guard against theft.

Hackney believes that the implementation of a fair London wide road user charging scheme is essential to reduce traffic congestion, improve road safety, encourage mode shift to sustainable modes of transport, improve air quality and help London meet its carbon emissions reduction targets.

Hackney disagrees with allowing two powered wheelers to use bus lanes, particularly on the A10 which is due to become a Cycle Superhighway corridor.

We disagree with the proposals for `Biking Boroughs' to only be an option for Outer London boroughs rather than all boroughs.

We disagree with the focus on public realm improvements in Metropolitan town centres not all town centres.

The decision to defer introduction of Phase 3 of the LEZ.

The Mayor's statement that additional London wide road user charging will not be implemented during his term in office prior to the results of this consultation exercise.

The outcome of a 15% increase in traffic congestion by 2031.

The removal of the Western Extension is a concern to Hackney because of the predicted impacts on bus journey times and the increased traffic congestion which will likely result in poorer air quality for London as a whole. This action contradicts the Mayor's proposals to improve air quality, reduce CO2 emissions and the need to generate income to fund transport improvements in London.

Paragraph 694, p246, states “there is growing concern from drivers and stakeholders in London that enforcement can be unfair and unreasonable and that regulations across London are inconsistent and confusing.” From Hackney's perspective, it does not appear that there is a growing concern - rather, it appears motorists' acceptance of the system may instead be increasing. Compliance with regulations is increasing and complaints are decreasing, both in number and ferocity. The increasing percentage of PCNs contested could be seen as indicating greater public confidence in the system - that drivers understand how to appeal and have confidence that their appeal will be treated fairly. This may be a result of the greater transparency and consistency brought in by the Traffic Management Act, which came into force in March 2008.

The principle of a Drivers' Charter (paragraph 697) is fine, but the draft circulated by London Councils on 05 November 2009 was ambiguous and open to interpretation. The charter must be worded in a way so that any local authorities that sign up to it are able to deliver what it promises. This requires the charter to precisely state its requirements or to be suitably high-level that local authorities are given flexibility to apply the concessions it considers appropriate to meet the goals of the charter.