A316 St Margaret's Roundabout, Twickenham

A316 St Margaret’s Roundabout, Twickenham

Proposed removal of the pedestrian footbridge and installation of a toucan crossing at St Margaret’s roundabout, Twickenham January 2015

A316 St Margaret’s roundabout, Twickenham Proposed removal of the pedestrian footbridge and installation of a toucan crossing at St Margaret’s roundabout, Twickenham

Contents

1 Executive summary...... 5 2 Background ...... 6 3 Proposal ...... 7 4 The consultation ...... 8 5 Overview of consultation responses ...... 10 6 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ...... 16 7 Conclusion ...... 18 Appendix A – Copy of the consultation letter and map ...... 19 Appendix B – Letter distribution area ...... 20 Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 20 Appendix D – Additional information added to the consultation ...... 22 Appendix E – Response to issues raised ...... 25

1 Executive Summary Between 9 June and 18 July 2014, we consulted on proposals to remove the footbridge located west of St Margaret’s roundabout, Twickenham and install a new at-grade toucan crossing. This would provide an accessible crossing on this section of the roundabout which at present is not accessible to everyone.

We received 1022 responses to the consultation, of which 90% of respondents opposed the proposal to remove the footbridge and 80% of respondents opposed the provision of at-grade toucan crossings.

The main issue raised were concerns over child safety, at present the footbridge gives school children a way of crossing the road away from traffic.

In considering all the information relating to the scheme and the consultation responses, we have modified the scheme proposals. We are going to:

 Provide an at-grade two stage toucan crossing facility on the western arm of St. Margaret’s roundabout as originally proposed – this will be installed prior to the Rugby World Cup taking place in autumn 2015  Retain the existing footbridge and undertake further maintenance to extend its service life. The structure of the bridge will be reviewed again in 24 months following the installation of the toucan crossing. The condition of the footbridge will be constantly monitored. If the structure deteriorates significantly it may be necessary to close it without warning.  TfL commits to carrying out local consultation with the community and stakeholders should any further proposals to remove the footbridge be put forward.

This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation, and our response to issues that were commonly raised.

2 Background St Margaret’s roundabout, the junction of the A316 and the A3004 in Twickenham, currently has accessible at-grade surface crossings on all of its arms apart from the western arm, where there is currently a pedestrian footbridge which people use to cross the road.

The footbridge was erected as a temporary facility in the 1970’s. The expected life of the structure was estimated to be between five and ten years. However, continuous maintenance has meant that the service life has been extended. In 2008 the footbridge was subject to various inspections which highlighted a number of issues with its foundations in particular, corrosion and water penetration. In 2011, a decision was taken to refurbish the footbridge to extend its service life by up to five years.

Since the 2011 footbridge refurbishment, additional emergency welding works and maintenance work has been undertaken to reinstate the severely corroded trestles which were no longer supporting the bridge. Further welding works were required and a large number of timbers had to be replaced to ensure structural integrity of the deck because their condition had deteriorated. In addition, the poor condition of the existing painted surface resulted in a much larger area requiring treatment.

Consequently, and with the additional consideration that the existing structure does not meet accessibility standards, work began on identifying alternatives to provide an accessible crossing. The alternatives considered were:

1. To refurbish the bridge; 2. Decommission the bridge and provide an at-grade toucan crossing facility which is fully accessible. 3. Replace the footbridge with an accessible footbridge.

The refurbishment and replacement of the footbridge was considered. However, the number of users, approximately 500 per day was considered to be low for this type of structure and as such is not economically viable. The number of users was taken from a report carried out in 2009.

Option two means that TfL would provide an accessible crossing on all arms of the junction and allow the footbridge to be removed as its service life was expiring.

3 Proposal We proposed to remove the footbridge located west of St Margaret’s roundabout and install a new toucan crossing. This would provide an accessible crossing at this section of the roundabout which at present is not accessible to everyone.

A toucan crossing allows both pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road at the same time. It is wider than other formal crossings which would mean that cyclists would not have to dismount when crossing. The toucan crossing would be staggered which means it would be a two stage crossing facility with an island in the middle.

We proposed to remove the existing sub-standard cycle lane markings from the footway and create shared pedestrian/cycle space; this would allow cyclists that use the new toucan crossing facility to continue along the footway either side of the crossing without having to dismount.

The toucan crossing would improve accessibility for everyone. All roads on this roundabout would then have accessible crossing points.

The project was then taken to the next stage of the process which was for the local stakeholders and local community to express views on the proposals. Following the decision to progress the project to the next stage, we invited the public and key stakeholders to give their views on the proposals by taking part in a public consultation. This report details responses received and will contribute to the decision on whether to go ahead with the proposed scheme or not. All views have been considered in the decision making process. It is also to note from the report that the consultation is part of the decision making process and not a referendum on the project.

Location maps Map 1 below shows the location of the proposed scheme

Map 1

DIGITAL MAP DATA (C) COLLINS BARTHOLOMEW LTD (2014)

4 The consultation

The consultation ran between 9 June and 4 July 2014 but following requests for additional information, we updated the website with additional information and extended the consultation period for a further two weeks to 18 July 2014. The additional information can be found in Appendix D. The further two weeks gave people the opportunity to read the information and resubmit their response if they felt that their views had changed.

The consultation was designed to enable TfL to:  Raise general awareness of the scheme with local residents, stakeholders and the public  Explain the proposed changes  Provide the opportunity for people to contact us with their feedback about the updated proposals

The potential outcomes of the consultation were:  We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as originally planned  We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation  We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation

The objectives of the consultation were:  To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond  To understand the level of support or opposition for the change  To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware  To understand concerns and objections  To allow respondents to make suggestions

Who we consulted The public consultation intended to seek the views of residents living close to St Margaret’s roundabout, as well as local schools and businesses that may have used the footbridge on a daily basis. A map showing the consultation area is shown in Appendix B.

We consulted stakeholders including London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, London TravelWatch, Metropolitan Police, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, local schools and businesses, transport groups and local interest groups.

A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix C and a summary of their responses is given in Section 5.

Consultation material, distribution and publicity We wrote a letter, with a map explaining the proposed scheme and changes to the junction, this was distributed to approximately 390 local households and businesses. A copy of this letter and map is shown in Appendix A.

We invited people to respond by emailing us at [email protected] or by using the TfL website https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/consultation-and- engagement/a316-st-margarets-crossing or by writing to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS.

Meetings and site visits The table below lists the meetings that took place during the consultation period.

Date What Where Who Reason 8 Jan Communic Phone/Email TfL Project Pre-consultation. To 2014 ations Sponsor and explain the scheme and borough officers gain boroughs support/ from Royal feedback before going to Borough of public consultation. Richmond upon Thames 14 Jan Site visit St Margaret’s TfL Project TfL Project Sponsor 2014 Roundabout Sponsor and TfL explains the scheme to Twickenham consultation TfL consultation representatives representatives. TfL consultation representatives research consultation area.

23 Jun School St Stephen’s C Head of TfL Attendance of a TfL 2014 Governors of E Primary Consultation / representative was Meeting School Head teacher / requested by the Head School Governors teacher of St Stephen’s School to speak about the proposals and answer any questions.

15 Jul Meeting City Hall TfL, GLA and To discuss the 2014 local Councillors consultation and the proposals.

5 Overview of consultation responses We received 1022 responses to the consultation including one petition. The consultation showed that 90% of respondents opposed the proposal to remove the footbridge and 80% of respondents opposed the provision of at-grade toucan crossings. Below is a breakdown of the consultation questions and responses.

We asked two specific questions about the scheme and also had a free text area for people to give us any further comments.

1) Do you support the proposed removal of the footbridge located west of St Margaret’s roundabout, Twickenham?

2) Do you support the proposed new toucan crossing west of St Margaret’s roundabout, Twickenham?

3) Do you have any further comments?

Our analysis of these questions is detailed in the tables below.

Question one: Do you support the proposed removal of the footbridge located west of St Margaret’s roundabout, Twickenham?

There were 1013 respondents that answered this question. Table 4.3 below shows the results of their answers.

Table 4.3

Answer Number of comments %

Yes 70 7%

No 922 90%

Not sure 21 2%

Not Answered 10 1%

90% of respondents indicated they do not support the removal of the footbridge located west of St Margaret’s roundabout. 7% of the respondents show support for the removal of the footbridge.

Question two: Do you support the proposed new toucan crossing located west of St Margaret’s roundabout, Twickenham?

There were 1014 respondents that answered this question. Table 4.4 below indicates the result of the answer.

Table 4.4

Answer Number of comments %

Yes 130 13%

No 816 80%

Not sure 68 7%

Not Answered 8 1%

80% of respondents indicated they do not support the proposed toucan crossing west of St Margaret’s roundabout. 13% of the respondents show support for the proposed toucan crossing.

Individual comments within every response we received have been coded to one or more codes as appropriate. As respondents mentioned more than one issue, or comment, there are more codes than the total number of respondents. For some issues sub-codes have been created in order to further analyse the responses.

The key themes are as follows:

1. Alternative suggested: respondents’ ideas for alternative ways of addressing the issues 2. Alternative suggested (keep bridge and have toucan): respondents’ suggestions to introduce the toucan crossing while maintaining the existing pedestrian bridge 3. Concern child safety: concerns about safety of students of St Stephens’s school which is located adjacent to the roundabout and pedestrian footbridge 4. Concern cycle safety: comments voicing safety of cyclist 5. Concern elderly safety: comments voicing safety of elderly people at the proposed toucan crossing and shared space 6. Concern impact on traffic: impact on traffic by installing additional set of traffic signals 7. Concern pedestrian safety: concerns about safety of pedestrians on the proposed toucan crossing 8. Concern people with mobility difficulty: concerns about safety of people with mobility issues 9. Concern shared space: concerns about safety of pedestrians, and possible conflicts at shared space 10. Consultation concern: concerns about the consultation materials and the way consultation was conducted 11. Improve road safety: comments about the need to improve road safety further 12. Lack of information and evidence: comments about the need for further information and data about the proposed scheme 13. Not scheme related: comments not directly related or within the scope of this consultation 14. Opposed generally: opposition to various aspects of the proposal without any specific reason; general

15. Opposed with reason: opposition to various aspects of the proposal for specific reasons 16. Positive comments: comments supporting the scheme as the proposed toucan crossing is going to enable pedestrians to cross more easily 17. Support: supporting for various aspects of the scheme 18. Support if: supporting the scheme under certain conditions

Out of the 1022 responses we received, 98% (1005) of the responses were submitted online, 2% (17) were received by email or post. Some respondents responded to the consultation both by online and email or post. We combined responses which came from the same respondent.

Table 4.1 below shows how responses were received

Type of response Number of % respondents

Online 1005 98%

Email or post 17 2%

Respondents were also asked how they heard about this consultation (see Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Type of source

Type of source Number of % respondents

Other 433 42%

Through social media 305 30%

Read about it in the press 117 11%

Received a letter from TfL 68 7%

Not Answered 48 5%

Received an email from 41 4% TfL

Saw an advert on the TfL 10 1% website

Following requests for further information, on 4 July 2014 when the consultation was due to close, we added additional background information onto our website, as well as information about the history of the footbridge and other options that were investigated. We then extended the consultation until 18 July 2014 to give consultees more time to read through the information and also gave them the option to resubmit their response if they felt that their view had changed. The additional information can be found in Appendix D.

We also added a question to the consultation form online:

Are you resubmitting your response? This question enabled us to distinguish between new respondents and respondents that were resubmitting their response.

69 responses were resubmitted. However, the majority of respondents did not change their views on the proposed scheme. There were nine respondents who changed their views in Question one. There were 18 respondents who changed their opinion in Question two (see table 4.5).

Table 4.5: The number of respondents who changed their view in the proposal

Question Number of % of people % of people that respondents changed their did not change that changed view their view their views

Question one

Do you support the 9 13% 87% proposed removal of the footbridge located west of St Margaret’s roundabout, Twickenham?

Question two

Do you support the 18 26% 74% proposed new toucan crossing located west of St Margaret’s roundabout, Twickenham? 14

In the consultation questions we had a freetext area that gave people the opportunity to give us any comments they had about the proposals.

There were 856 respondents who left comments. Table 4.6 below indicates the top five issues raised and our response to the issues raised can be found in Appendix E.

Table 4.6: Top five issues raised:

Top five issues Number of comments

Concerned about child safety (concerns about safety of students of St Stephens’s school which is located adjacent to the 538 roundabout and pedestrian footbridge)

Opposed with reason (opposition to various aspects of the proposal for specific 314 reasons) Concerned about the impact on traffic (impact on traffic by installing additional set 285 of traffic signal) Concerned about pedestrian safety (concerns about safety of pedestrians on 186 the proposed toucan crossing) Opposed generally (opposition to various aspects of the proposal without any 46 specific reason; general)

The most frequently mentioned comment was “concerned about child safety”. 538 respondents raised concerns that the scheme may increase the likelihood of school children getting involved in traffic accidents at the proposed new toucan crossing.

There were 314 comments opposed with reason. Majority of respondents opposed to the proposed scheme were due to child safety (231). Other reasons were impact on traffic (93) and pedestrian safety (75). Table 4.7 summarises top five reasons why the respondents opposed to the proposed scheme.

Table 4.7 Top five reasons for opposition issues

Top five issues Number of comments

Concern child safety 231

Concern impact on traffic 93

Concern pedestrian safety 75

Concern about removal of guardrail 15

Concern about shared space 11

6 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders

We received a total of 12 responses from stakeholders.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Opposed. The council would like to see the footbridge replaced or retained and a proposed new toucan crossing installed. The council is concerned that a well used footbridge is being going to be removed.

The Governing Body of St Stephen’s Primary School Opposed. Would like to see the footbridge replaced rather than removed. Concerned that drivers will not stop at the proposed new toucan crossing endangering school children and parents. Concerned that the proposed removal of the barriers on the islands and along the A316 beside the school are not a safe option. Cars colliding with these barriers are a regular occurrence. Pedestrians will not feel protected if no barrier is in place and parents will not want their children cycling, scooting or walking along this footpath without some fenced safety barrier.

Orleans Primary School – Chair of Governors Opposed. The footbridge allows children to walk to school without having to cross any major roads. There is a much greater chance of children being knocked down if they have to use a crossing.

Orleans Park Secondary School Opposed. Removal of the footbridge and installation of the toucan crossing will create risks for children crossing the road as well as slowing down traffic on the A316. 16

St Mary’s School, Twickenham Opposed. The footbridge provides a safe way for school children to cross the road, without it children’s lives will be in danger. Installing the toucan crossing will also have a negative impact on traffic in the area.

Globe IFA Ltd Supportive. With the installation of the toucan crossing the footbridge is not needed and is not attractive to look at. A pedestrian crossing will look much nicer and the time to cross the road will be much quicker.

Millfield School Opposed. The other crossings at the roundabout provide the disabled and elderly with means to cross. The footbridge should stay so children can cross safely.

St Stephen's Primary School PTA Opposed. Concerns of pedestrian, cyclist and motorist conflict as well as guardrail removal. Build the toucan crossing but keep the guardrail and the footbridge.

Richmond and Hounslow Campaign for Real Ale (RHCAMRA.org) Opposed. This is a major arterial road for London; do not put a toucan crossing there. Keep the bridge and allow traffic to flow.

St Stephen’s Church Opposed. Concerned that the road is already busy and will become hazardous for children if a crossing is installed.

Twickenham Studios Very Supportive. The removal of the footbridge will improve the look of the area.

St Margaret’s Cubs Opposed. Keep the footbridge it allows young people to cross the road safely.

7 Conclusion

The consultation showed that 90% of respondents opposed the proposal to remove the footbridge. The main reason was a perception that there would be a reduction in child safety, a perceived increase and impact on traffic and general pedestrian safety. 80% of respondents opposed the provision of at-grade toucan crossings for the same reasons.

In considering all the information relating to the scheme and the consultation responses, we have modified the scheme proposals. We are going to:

Next steps The scheme will be taken forward with a view to undertaking detailed design and allowing construction/implementation in 2015.

Appendix A – Copy of the consultation letter and map

Appendix B – Letter distribution area Map 2

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Elected Members

Andrew Boff AM Tony Arbour AM

Caroline Pidgeon AM Victoria Borwick AM

Darren Johnson AM Andrew Boff AM

Fiona Twycross AM Caroline Pidgeon AM

Gareth Bacon AM Darren Johnson AM

Jenny Jones AM Fiona Twycross AM

Murad Qureshi AM Gareth Bacon AM

Nicky Gavron AM Vincent Cable MP

Stephen Knight AM Zac Goldsmith MP

Tom Copley AM

Local Authorities

London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

London Borough of Hounslow

Police & Health Authorities

London Ambulance Service Metropolitan Police

Richmond Safer Transport Team

Transport Groups

AA Motoring Trust British Motorcyclists Federation

Association of British Drivers Motorcycle Action Group Association of Car Fleet Operators Motorcycle Industry Association

Campaign for Better Transport Freight Transport Association

Local Groups

Community and Local Police Liaison Group (St Margaret’s and North North St Margaret’s Residents Association Twickenham)

Environment Trust for Richmond upon St Margaret’s Association of Residents Thames (ETRuT)

Richmond Cycling Campaign St Margaret's Estate Residents Association

St Stephen's Church of England Primary School

Other Stakeholders

Age Concern London MIND BT National Grid - electricity CTC, the national cycling charity RADAR London Access Forum EDF Energy RNIB Greater London Forum for the Elderly Road Haulage Association Green Flag Group Sense

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Sixty Plus Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Thames Water Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Joint Mobility Unit The British Dyslexia Association Living Streets London Councils London Older People's Strategy Group

Appendix D - Additional information added to the consultation on 4 July 2014

A316 St Margaret’s Roundabout, Twickenham – Proposed Toucan Crossing and removal of Pedestrian Footbridge

This document provides additional background to the proposal to install a toucan crossing and remove the pedestrian bridge across the A316 near St Margaret’s roundabout.

During the current consultation, requests were made for additional background information relating to the proposal and options to be made available. This information is contained within this document.

As this information has been provided during the consultation period, the consultation period has been extended by a further two weeks. Stakeholders will be contacted as well as all those that have previously responded to the consultation and left an email address, advising them that this document is available. The opportunity for those who may wish to re-submit their views on the proposals is also available.

Background to the proposal

The existing Pedestrian Footbridge was erected as a temporary facility in the 1970’s. The expected timeline for the structure was estimated to be between five and ten years; however continuous maintenance has meant that the service life has been extended. Over the years, the bridge was subject to various inspections; the earliest available recorded inspection is from May 1997.

In March 2008 a bridge inspection was undertaken by external consultants on behalf of TfL, which highlighted a number of issues with the bridge structure as follows:

 Horizontal bracing support trestles suffering from moderate to heavy corrosion;  Paint loss on ramp spans;  Panel fixings on parapet corroded;  End of the cross timbers sub-floor suffering from water penetration.

As a result of the inspection, a decision was taken to refurbish the footbridge in 2011 to extend its service life by five years.

Since the 2011 bridge refurbishment, additional emergency welding works and footings were undertaken to reinstate the severely corroded trestles which were no longer supporting the bridge. Further welding works were required to enable a secure fix of the decking panels to the structure. In addition, a large number of timbers had to be replaced to ensure structural integrity of the deck because their condition had deteriorated.

The poor condition of the existing painted surface resulted in a much larger area requiring treatment. Consequently, and with the additional consideration that the existing structure does not meet accessibility standards, work began on identifying alternatives to provide an accessible crossing.

Despite the 2011 refurbishment, minor signs of corrosion have already begun reappearing. Work is required to carry out weld repairs to section losses, corrosion removal and repainting. Although recently refurbished, the nature of the existing footbridge design means that it traps water which results in faster deterioration of critical members which support the footbridge.

Options considered

As part of this scheme and based on the facts relating to service life of the bridge and the report undertaken in 2008, the options considered were as follows:

4. Refurbish the bridge; 5. Decommission the bridge and provide an at-grade toucan crossing facility which is fully accessible

A replacement footbridge was considered; however the number of users (800-1000 per day) is considered to be low for this type of structure and as such is not economically efficient.

Pursuing option two means that TfL would provide an accessible crossing on all arms of the junction and allow the footbridge to be removed.

In order to assess possible impacts of the new crossing, a computer simulation modelling exercise was undertaken to ascertain what impacts on traffic flows/ volumes and delays there would be. In general, the modelling showed that the implementation of the pedestrian crossing on the western arm of the roundabout would have minimal impacts on general traffic on the A316 and St. Margaret’s roundabout. This crossing would be controlled using an adaptive system which fluctuates as and when there are changes in traffic levels.

As a result, the option to de-commission the footbridge and provide an at-grade crossing facility was taken forward to the next stage of development, which is consultation.

Consultation

The objectives of the consultation are: 23

 Raise awareness of the proposals;  Provide the opportunity for people to raise any issues not already considered;  Provide sufficient information for people to make an informed decision about the scheme;  Provide the opportunity for people to contact us with their feedback about the proposals.

What are the next steps following the consultation TfL will review the views expressed during the exercise and make an informed decision on the proposal.

Appendix E – Response to issues raised

Theme/Issue TfL Response It is agreed that if the footbridge were to be removed there would be an increased risk to The removal of the footbridge road users as the crossing provision would may result in children / pedestrians being injured when change from no conflict to some conflict. crossing the road However, there are many traffic signals all over London and they are generally very safe to use providing they are used in the correct manner.

The installation of the toucan There are many of these traffic signals all over crossing may result in children / pedestrians running across London and they are generally very safe to use the road and being injured providing they are used in the correct manner.

The new signals at the Traffic simulation modelling has shown that proposed new toucan crossing there will be minimal impact on traffic queues will create additional traffic on and times at the roundabout and along the the A316 A316.

Shared footway is one of the only effective ways to allow cyclists to access toucan crossing There will be conflict between facilities without having to dismount or go across pedestrian and cyclists on shared pathways a pedestrian only area. Public highway users are expected to be conscious of others and to use the highway in a safe manner.

One aim of the consultation was to make sure that the local community were able to provide The consultation distribution views on the proposals. We received over 1000 area was too small replies to the consultation and believe the views expressed in the exercise are the views of the community.

The consultation material contained information There was not enough about our proposals and why we were proposing information in the consultation them. Following requests for further information, material additional material was added to the consultation website.

Keep the footbridge and install As part of the consultation process and in view the toucan crossing of the responses received, consideration will be

given to the option to keep the footbridge and install an at-grade crossing

Motorists are expected to use the highway in a safe manner. Prior to installing any crossing, TfL will consider the merits of the individual site to Motorists may jump the lights ensure that motorists can clearly see the light in at the proposed toucan all weather conditions and at all times. If crossing putting pedestrians in motorists are jumping red lights, then this would danger be down to the police to enforce. However, if required, red cameras are also installed in some cases.

All highway users in general are expected to use the road in a safe manner. This means ensuring Children may run across the that they do not cross when there is a red man. road when the green man is An adult / guardian is expected to be with those about to end on the new children who are not fully trained to use an at toucan crossing grade crossing facility alone. In addition, road safety training is available for schools

Concerns about the safety of An adult / guardian is expected to be with those students of St Stephens’s children who are not fully trained to use an at school which is located adjacent to the roundabout and grade crossing facility alone. In addition, road pedestrian footbridge safety training is available for schools

At the moment, cyclists / vulnerable users do not have an Equalities Act fully accessible crossing Concerns about the safety of facility across the western arm of St. Margaret’s cyclists using the new roundabout. The provision of a new toucan proposed toucan crossing crossing will allow cyclists to get across by using an accessible facility, which, if used properly, will be safe.

As part of TfL’s continuous programme to Cycling facilities on the A316 improve cycling facilities within London, the should be improved A316 will continue to benefit from improvements to cycling facilities

The following options were considered:

Footbridge refurbishment

Footbridge replacement (no designs undertaken What other options were but it was almost certain that TfL does not own considered all of the land required to allow the provision of a

fully accessible bridge)

Footbridge decommissioning and provision of a surface level crossing

At the moment, cyclists/ vulnerable users do not have an Equalities Act fully accessible crossing Concerns about the safety of facility across the western arm of St. Margaret’s elderly people at the proposed roundabout. The provision of a new toucan toucan crossing crossing will allow vulnerable users to get across by using an accessible facility, which, if used properly, will be safe.

Would people with mobility Yes. Providing the facility is used properly and issues be safe using the users cross when the green man signal is proposed new toucan crossing shown, then it is considered as a safe facility.

Concerns about the impact the As part of the impact assessment process, an new crossing will have on the environmental impact assessment was environment undertaken. This showed that the impact of the new facility on air and noise would be negligible. We carried out a Pedestrian Survey on 21 July to see how many people currently use the footbridge. Between the hours of 08:00 and 10:00 there were 237 users and between 14:30 The footbridge is highly used, and 17:00 there were 192 users. We also looked are you aware of how many at how many people use the existing crossing users there are, were any located on the eastern arm of St Margaret’s studies carried out roundabout. There were 468 people that used the crossing between the hours of 08:00 and 10:00 and 386 users of the crossing between 14:30 and 17:00.

Road safety on the A316 TfL continuously monitors road safety collisions needs to be improved further along all of its roads. Where required, remedial measures are considered to address issues.