Merrick Road Pedestrian Subway Closure Feasibility Study

MERRICK ROAD PEDESTRIAN SUBWAY CLOSURE FEASIBILITY STUDY

Feasibility Stage Report

August 2009

Produced for LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING es of pedestrian crossing facilities are shown in the

Prepared by Trevor Woodward Project Engineer

Mouchel Group Ealing 6th Floor 58 Uxbridge Road London W5 2ST

T 020 8326 3014 F 020 8326 3030 E [email protected]

Document Control Sheet

Project Title MERRICK ROAD PEDESTRIAN SUBWAY CLOSURE

Report Title MERRICK ROAD PEDESTRIAN SUBWAY CLOSURE FEASIBILITY REPORT

Revision A

Status Final Control Date August 2009

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

Final Trevor Woodward

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

London Borough of Ealing Richard Stiles 1

Mouchel Group 1

Contents

Document Control Sheet...... i

Contents...... ii

FIGURES...... iv

TABLES ...... iv

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 General...... 1

1.2 Scheme Background ...... 1

1.3 Scope of the Report...... 1

2. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION ...... 2

2.1 Site details...... 2

2.2 Pedestrian Count Survey...... 5

2.3 Pedestrian crossing assessment ...... 7

3. PROPOSED MEASURES ...... 9

3.1 Stopping-up the Subway...... 9

3.2 Option D – No Alternative Crossing Point Provided ...... 12

3.3 Option A – Pedestrian Crossing on Merrick Road...... 14

3.4 Option B – Signalisation of the Junction...... 15

3.5 Option C – Footway Improvements around Southbridge Way Junction...... 18

4. TRAFFIC MODELLING ANALYSIS ...... 21

4.1 Input data ...... 21

4.2 Existing situation...... 21

4.3 Proposed Option A - Standalone Crossing on Merrick Road...... 22

4.4 Option B ...... 23

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND TOWN CENTRE SIGNAGE AUDIT ...... 26

4.6 Existing Pedestrian Facility and Town Centre Signage Conditions ...... 26

4.7 Recommended Improvements to Town Centre Signage...... 29

5. COST ESTIMATES ...... 32

5.1 General...... 32

5.2 Stopping Up the Merrick Road Subway ...... 32

5.3 Option A – Standalone Crossing on Merrick Road...... 32

5.4 Option B – Signalisation of the Junction...... 32

5.5 Option C – Footway Improvements at Southbridge Way...... 34

6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS...... 35

6.1 Conclusion...... 35

7. APPENDICES ...... 36

Figure 1 Locality Plan ...... 2 Figure 2 Merrick Road Roundabout ...... 3 Figure 3 Elevated portion of Roundabout...... 4 Figure 4 Northern Portal of Subway...... 5 Figure 5 Looking south through the subway...... 5 Figure 6 Pedestrian count locations...... 6 Figure 7: Photos of existing Subway...... 10 Figure 8 Rubbish adjacent the northern portal ...... 11 Figure 9 Existing and proposed pedestrian routes ...... 13 Figure 10: Existing Southbridge Way / The Green junction ...... 19 Figure 11 Pedestrian facilities at Beaconsfield junction...... 27 Figure 12: Western footpath on South Road and Merrick Road, ...... 28 Figure 13 Merrick road roundabout pedestrian facilities...... 29

TABLES

Table 1 Pedestrian Flows ...... 6 Table 2 PV 2 Summary ...... 7 Table 3 – Pedestrian crossing options ...... 8 Table 4 Existing traffic flows ...... 21 Table 5 Existing Peak Hour Queue Lengths ...... 21 Table 6 Existing AM peak result summary ...... 22 Table 7 Existing PM peak result summary ...... 22 Table 8 Option A, AM peak result summary...... 23 Table 9 Option A, PM peak result summary...... 23 Table 10 Existing AM and PM peak model result summary ...... 24 Table 11 Stopping Up Cost Estimate ...... 32 Table 12 Cost estimate for Option B ...... 33 Table 13 Cost estimate for Option C...... 34

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General This report has been prepared in response to the Client Brief reference no. S01125 dated 11th February 2009. This study investigates the feasibility of closing the pedestrian subway under Merrick Road. Various options for alternative pedestrian facilities are explored in order to determine the feasibility of closing the subway. The study discusses further measures that may be considered in the vicinity of the junction to improve pedestrian safety.

1.2 Scheme Background Mouchel have been commissioned by the London Borough of Ealing (LBE) to undertake a feasibility study into the closure of pedestrian subway under Merrick Road, Southall. The subway is immediately east of the existing roundabout at the junction of Merrick Road, The Green and South Road in Southall, London. The location of the subway is shown in Figure 1.

This study was commissioned by LBE as the Merrick Road Subway is acknowledged locally as an area where anti social behaviour occurs. Poor lighting has also been reported as contributing to local people choosing to avoid using the subway. Consultation with locals has revealed that many pedestrians choose to cross at other locations where there are currently no formal pedestrian facilities, putting them in danger.

1.3 Scope of the Report The following report details the study into the feasibility of closing the Merrick Road Subway. The brief has requested a number of options to be explored to provide pedestrians and alternative safe crossing point, should the subway be stopped up. The options are outlined below:

• The introduction of a pedestrian crossing on Merrick Road to the east of the existing roundabout.

• Removing the existing roundabout and replacing it with a signalised junction. This option will incorporate pedestrian crossings.

• Footway improvements around the junction of Southbridge Way and The Green.

• An analysis of the consequences of closing the subway without providing any alternative crossing facilities for pedestrians.

MERRICK ROAD PEDESTRIAN SUBWAY CLOSURE FEASIBILTY STUDY

The scope of this study includes a traffic modelling analysis of each option in order to make a prediction of any traffic implications that new features may pose to existing traffic flows.

In addition to the options that are listed above, the scope of this report include an audit of existing pedestrian facilities and pedestrian town centre signage. Recommendations to improve town centre signage will be provided.

2. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

2.1 Site details This report investigates the feasibility of closing the Merrick Road Subway, with providing a number of alternative crossing facilities. The subway being investigated passes under Merrick Road in Southall. Refer to Figure 1 below for the location of the subway.

Figure 1 Locality Plan

The Merrick Road subway allows pedestrians to cross under Merrick Road, in the existing roundabout. The roundabout is at a three way junction of Merrick Road, The

Green and South Road. This roundabout is approximately 40m to the south of Southall railway station. There is an existing pelican crossing on the crest of the hill on South Road, directly in front of the entrance to Southall Station. Figure 2 displayed below shows the existing roundabout.

Figure 2 Merrick Road Roundabout The existing roundabout is perched at a higher level than the surrounding car parks and properties. This is achieved by means of a number of large retaining walls. The location of the retailing walls is illustrated in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 Elevated portion of Roundabout The Merrick Road subway runs approximately north-south under Merrick Road. It has two entrances, one to the north of Merrick Road, and the other to the south of Merrick Road. The northern portal is accessed from both South Road and Merrick Road. Pedestrians walking south on South Road can access the subway via a flight of stairs at road level. Pedestrians walking west on Merrick Road can access the northern portal via a ramp on Merrick Road. The southern portal can be accessed by a footpath that runs parallel to the base of the large retaining wall adjacent to the southern side of the roundabout.

Both entrances to the subway have poor lighting, and have limited visibility from the street. This is particularly the case with the southern portal. The subway is visually obscured from the street, has no signage indicating its location or where it leads to, and it was observed on site that the area of the subway smells strongly of urine. Figure 4 below displays the northern portal of the subway.

Figure 4 Northern Portal of Subway For the above mentioned reasons it has been noted on site that only a small proportion of pedestrians choose to use the subway. A pedestrian survey has been carried out in order to determine pedestrian numbers using the subway which ratified this observation. The results are displayed below.

Figure 5 Looking south through the subway

2.2 Pedestrian Count Survey In order to determine the existing pedestrian movements and desire lines sample 15 minute counts were undertaken on site. The survey was undertaken on 21st May 2009 between 14:00hrs and 15:00hrs. The weather was dry and sunny.

Table 1 below shows the pedestrian flows derived for an hour.

Derived 60 minute pedestrian flow

Location Period Pedestrian Elderly Child Pushchair / Wheelchair Total A Subway 60min 12 0 0 0 12 B South Road 60min 48 0 0 0 48 C Merrick Road 60min 100 4 8 0 112 D The Green 60min 28 28 0 0 56 E Southbridge Way 60min 336 16 28 16 396 Total 524 48 36 16 624

Table 1 Pedestrian Flows A plan displaying the survey locations is displayed below in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Pedestrian count locations The patronage of the existing subway is low. High numbers of pedestrians cross Southbridge Way, travelling north and south through the junction on the western footway. Crossing movements across Merrick Road are moderate to high. The remaining crossing points have moderate pedestrian crossing movements.

2.3 Pedestrian crossing assessment A pedestrian crossing assessment was undertaken for the site. Initially a PV 2 assessment was undertaken for all pedestrian movements in the vicinity of the junction. Table 2 below summarises the results

PV 2 Summary 1 hour flow Location PV 2 (10 8) Pedestrians Vehicles B South Road 48 949 0.432288 C Merrick Road 112 596 0.397842 D The Green 56 562 0.176873

Table 2 PV 2 Summary

A PV 2 value above 0.2 indicates that there is the potential for pedestrians to have difficulty crossing the carriageway and further assessment is recommended into options for providing crossing facilities. The PV 2 value for The Green is less than 0.2 due to the moderate pedestrian and vehicle movements, indicating that further assessment into crossing facilities at this location are not required.

The pedestrians crossing Southbridge Way is not included within the PV 2 assessment as there is no available traffic flow data. Although the pedestrian crossing movement is high at the time of the pedestrian vehicular traffic flow in Southbridge Way was negligible. However, the potential for conflict is higher when workers enter and leave the industrial estate at the beginning and end of the working day.

The PV 2 value is significantly above 0.2 for South Road. However, there is an existing pelican crossing located approximately 65m north of the roundabout. If a new crossing was introduced in South Road it would be within 50m from the existing facility, which is considered unsuitably close. It is considered that the existing crossing caters for the more vulnerable road users and pedestrians crossing further south are those who tolerate smaller gaps between traffic. Consideration may be given to providing guardrail to guide pedestrians to the existing pelican crossing; however, this shall reduce the available footway width. Signing for pedestrians at the station; informing them to use the pelican crossing to travel south via the western footway, is likely to reduce the incidence of pedestrians crossing South Road away from formal pedestrian facilities; hence improving safety.

The PV 2 value is significantly above 0.2 for Merrick Road and there are no alternative facilities for pedestrians in the vicinity of the junction (with the exception of the Subway).

The advantages and disadvantages for four types of pedestrian crossing facilities are shown in the table below.

Advantages Disadvantages Summary

Do Nothing No Construction cost. No crossfalls for Generally unsuitable for mobility impaired. pedestrian desire lines. No Minimal disruption to Low priority for crossfalls creates severance. vehicular traffic pedestrians Pedestrians will experience difficulty finding gaps to cross due to quantity of traffic.

Uncontrolled Low construction Low priority for Only suitable when vehicular crossing cost. Minimal pedestrians. Low flow and speeds are sufficiently disruption to conspicuously for low so that visible gaps in traffic vehicular traffic. crossing/waiting are sufficient for pedestrians to Crossfalls for mobility pedestrians cross comfortably. impaired

Zebra High priority for Moderate Suitable where traffic speeds, Crossing pedestrians. construction cost. pedestrian and vehicular flow Moderate vehicle are moderate. delay.

Pelican/puffin High priority for Highest Most suitable for higher traffic Crossing pedestrians. construction cost. speeds, vehicular flow and Greatest delay for pedestrian volumes. High visibility for traffic pedestrians.

Table 3 – Pedestrian crossing options The provision of pedestrian crossing facilities is discussed further as part of the proposed measures.

3. PROPOSED MEASURES

The options to consider as outlined in the LBE brief are as follows.

• Option A – Provision of standalone pedestrian facilities in Merrick Road • Option B – Replacement of roundabout with signalised junction incorporating pedestrian crossings

• Option C – Improvements to footway around the junction at Southbridge Way

• Option D – An analysis of closure of the subway without providing any alternative crossing facilities.

This section of the report first discusses options for stopping-up the subway before focusing on the individual options. Option D is the first option discussed to allow the other ‘Do-Something’ options to be contrasted with the ‘Do-minimum’ Option D.

3.1 Stopping-up the Subway This section investigates the consequences of stopping up the Merrick Road Subway. To stop up the subway, it is proposed to brick-up both portals of the subway. It is not proposed to backfill the void that the subway will leave. There will not be any access provided to the disused subway by means of a door in the bricked up portal.

The northern portal is currently accessed via a flight of stairs off South Road. It is also accessed by a ramp off Merrick Road. This creates a depression that has limited visibility from the road. The depression is bound by a compound for a radio communication mast. The following 4 photos display the current situation.

Electrical tower and ramp access from Northern portal and stairs looking south Merrick Road

Pedestrian ramp from Merrick Road Northern portal looking east

Figure 7: Photos of existing Subway In order to prevent pedestrian access to the existing portal of the subway, it is proposed to brick up the entrance to the stairs on South Road. Similar treatment is proposed for the ramp entrance off Merrick Road. In addition to this it is proposed to break out the existing stairs.

It is foreseen that the depression that will be left from the old subway entrance is likely to encounter the following problems. The area directly in front of the bricked up northern portal will still have limited visibility from the street. It is likely that anti-social behaviour shall occur. Access will be possible to the area via the existing ramp off Merrick Road by vaulting over the proposed guard rail.

The depression is likely to become filled with debris and become unsightly if left as it is. The area currently partially suffers from this problem as seen in Figure 7 below.

Figure 8 Rubbish adjacent the northern portal A solution to this problem is to backfill this entire area. Then landscape or pave the slope, depending on the resulting grade. It may also be possible to landscape the batter slope with low maintenance shrubs. If the gradient is too great in places, dwarf retaining walls can be introduced in order to ensure that maximum batter slopes are not breeched. This option will minimise the possibility of anti-social in the vicinity of the northern portal of the subway. It will also improve the visual streetscape. It was raised as an issue in the brief supplied by LBE that the subway creates a poor initial impression to visitors arriving in Southall. This option will help to improve this first initial impression.

This option may incur significant cost due to high quantity of fill and landscaping. Refer to Section 5 ‘Cost Estimates’.

3.2 Option D – No Alternative Crossing Point Provided This option investigates the consequences of stopping up the Merrick Road subway, without providing pedestrians with alternative crossing facilities.

The subway provides a route for pedestrians to cross under Merrick Road. It can be seen from the results of the sample pedestrian count survey of the 624 pedestrians per hour in the vicinity of the subway, only 12 chose to use the subway, of which none are children or elderly pedestrians. The small 2% proportion indicates that the subway is not a desirable route, with pedestrians seeking alternative routes.

The extent of pedestrians diverting away from the subway provides evidence for the closure of this facility. Pedestrians presently avoid the subway using the following routes:

• Crossing South Road to use the western footway of The Green • Crossing Merrick Road further east of the Junction over the carriageway • Walking through the centre of the roundabout on the carriageway The route through the centre of the roundabout, although undertaken by few people, is of particular concern due to the high conflict with vehicles.

The only use of the subway observed on site was by pedestrians approaching the junction on the eastern kerb line of South Road travelling south, and approaching on the eastern kerb line of The Green travelling north. There was no incidence observed of pedestrians using the subway to travel east, as they choose to cross Merrick Road above ground further east of the junction.

Figure 8 below shows the existing North-South pedestrian routes and the diverted route which results from closure of the subway.

Figure 9 Existing and proposed pedestrian routes Pedestrians using the subway to travel between points 1 and 3 would be diverted via point 2 if the subway is closed. This route is approximately 75m longer, and requires pedestrians to cross Merrick Road at an uncontrolled location. As location 2 is not a formalised crossing point, there are no pedestrian crossing facilities available, such as drop kerbs for the mobility impaired, or tactile paving for the visually impaired pedestrians.

The pedestrian crossing analysis (PV 2 summary in Table 2) indicates that in the existing situation there is sufficient conflict between pedestrians and vehicles to warrant provision of formal pedestrian facilities in Merrick Road.

Due to these issues it is recommended that a formal pedestrian facility is provided in Merrick Road if the subway is closed. Furthermore, not providing a suitable alternative for pedestrians would hinder the case for the stopping up order of the subway.

It can be concluded from the above discussion that closing the subway without providing any alternate crossing facilities will have minimal impact on pedestrian movements. It is recommended, however, that a crossing facility is provided on

Merrick Road. In addition to this, it is recommended that town centre signage is introduced at the exit of the station in order to indicate to pedestrians to cross the road to the western side of South Road in order to continue their journey to Southall Town Centre more directly.

3.3 Option A – Pedestrian Crossing on Merrick Road This option explores the feasibility of introducing a pedestrian crossing on Merrick Road to the east of the roundabout to provide pedestrians with an alternative safe crossing location. The location of the proposed pedestrian crossing can be seen on Drawing 775602-101, attached in Appendix A. As discussed in Option D, assuming that the subway is stopped up, pedestrians intending on making their way to Southall Town Centre will follow the route shown in Figure 8, via Location 2. As there is no formal crossing point at this location, it is proposed to introduce a pedestrian crossing facility at this location. Location 2 is the pedestrian desire line to cross Merrick Road. This would be the ideal location for the pedestrian crossing. There is, however, a vehicle driveway at this location that services a large block of flats. For this reason, the proposed location of the crossing has been shifted further east up Merrick Road, so it does not conflict with the location of the driveway.

The PV 2 value is significantly above 0.2 for Merrick Road, additionally this crossing movement would become the only option for pedestrians if the subway is closed. Therefore further consideration was given to providing a pedestrian crossing at this location.

Merrick Road presently experiences moderate pedestrian crossing and vehicular traffic flow. Under these conditions the preferred option is to provide a Zebra crossing. If the quantity of pedestrians, or vehicular traffic were significantly higher then a puffin crossing may provide the best compromise.

It is intended to locate the crossing facility as close to the roundabout and pedestrian desire line as possible, whilst still conforming to all design constraints such as sight distance and clearance to driveways. Traffic modelling has also be performed to analyse the effect of placing a pedestrian crossing at this location, to ensure that traffic does not queue back into the roundabout.

The proposed location for the zebra crossing is illustrated in Drawing 775602-101. Consideration has been given to keep the diversion for pedestrians using the existing subway to a minimum; the diversion from the existing north-south route using the subway is approximately 85m.

It is concluded that this option combined with town centre signage is an effective, safe and cheap option as an alternative pedestrian route to using the subway.

3.4 Option B – Signalisation of the Junction This option explores the feasibility of removing the existing Merrick Road Roundabout and replacing it with a signalised junction. Refer to Drawing 775602-103 attached in Appendix A of this report.

In order to signalise the junction, the following needs to occur:

• Existing roundabout and flower bed demolished

• Junction re-graded

• Kerbs re-aligned

• Existing services relocated, raised or lowered to match proposed finished levels.

The above mentioned design considerations are discussed below in further detail.

3.4.1 Horizontal Geometry

The proposed junction layout is shown on Drawing 775602-103 attached in Appendix A of this report. The junction will be converted from a roundabout to a T-junction, in which Merrick Road intersects The Green and South Road. The proposed junction will be arranged as follows.

Northbound on The Green it is proposed to introduce two lanes, one for through traffic travelling towards South Road, and a dedicated right turn lane for Merrick Road. Southbound on South Road has a single lane for both through traffic to The Green and left turners into Merrick Road. Westbound on Merrick Road two lanes are provided, one left turns and one for right turns.

In order to achieve the new layout, two large kerb build outs have been proposed. The existing flower bed will have to be removed to allow the construction of the new junction. An area of landscaping has been proposed on the southern kerb build-out to replace the flower bed that has been removed. This will also restrict pedestrian access to this ‘dead space’. It also allows space for some soft landscaping to balance the loss of the flower bed, which will be easier on the eye, and also reduce cost and surface water run-off.

3.4.2 Pedestrian Facilities

The proposed layout drastically enhances pedestrian facilities in the junction. Currently pedestrians have only one safe option to cross via the subway. As previously discussed, a number of pedestrians opt not to use the subway and cross at dangerous locations, putting both themselves and other road users and risk.

In the proposed layout, pedestrians have been supplied with two staggered pelican crossings, one crossing Merrick Road and one crossing The Green. Pedestrians currently have the option to cross South Road at the pelican crossing adjacent Southall train station approximately 75m north of the junction.

The crossing on Merrick Road is almost directly above the subway. This crossing replaces the subway. The crossing of the Green alleviates the issue of pedestrians attempting to cross The Green south of Southbridge Way. This movement is dangerous for pedestrians and other road users due to the lack of sight distance for vehicles exiting the roundabout. These vehicles are usually travelling quite fast.

3.4.3 Disabled Access

Currently, disabled access from Southall Station to Southall town centre is via the subway, or by crossing the road using the pelican crossing adjacent Southall Station. The footpath ramp leading down to the Subway’s northern portal is quite steep at a grade of approximately 1 in 14.

The proposed layout will require the existing retaining wall to be slightly re-aligned to allow pedestrian access to The Green (refer to Drawing 775602-103 in Appendix A). This will require approximately 10m of the existing wall to be demolished and a new wall to be reconstructed. It is possible to grade this section of path at 1 in 14 in order to allow disabled access, which a similar grade to the existing disabled access ramp to the subway.

3.4.4 Junction Grading

The junction is currently graded for a roundabout. As the junction is being shifted to the west and the proposed traffic lanes are under the existing flower bed, the whole junction will need to be re-graded. It is recommended that this exercise is performed using a civil 3d package to grade the proposed kerbs, lanes and build-outs. This will assist in determining the quantities of cut and fill, and determining the amount by which the existing road surface needs to be raised and lowered.

In order to re-grade the junction, it is likely that a number of existing services in the junction will need to be raised or lowered to match the proposed finished levels. It may also be necessary to relocate some services or service inspection chambers. This may prove to be a costly exercise.

Another design consideration worth noting when re-grading the junction is the surface water drainage design. There are currently a number of gully pits draining the junction. This existing drainage layout will need to be re-configured to fit the proposed layout and grading.

3.4.5 Vehicle Tracking

A vehicle tracking analysis was performed in order to ensure that large vehicles can negotiate the proposed junction. The analysis was done in Autotrack. The design vehicle that was adopted for the analysis was a ‘maximum legal articulated vehicle’. The design speed adopted is 5km/h. The design vehicles dimensions are shown below:

Overall length: 16.50m Overall Width: 2.50m Lock to lock time: 6 seconds Kerb to kerb turning radius: 6.87m

The vehicle trackings can be viewed in 775602-SK01 and 775602-SK02 attached in Appendix A of this report.

The results of the analysis are as follows.

• The design vehicle was unable to turn left from Merrick Road into The Green if it is to stay wholly within the dedicated left turn lane. It is unlikely that a vehicle of such large proportions will be making this turn often. Therefore it has been deemed expectable if the design vehicle strays into the right turn lane in order to complete the turn. When the design vehicle encroaches on the right turn lane, it can complete the manoeuvre. (7755602-SK01)

• The design vehicle can turn right into South Road. It does clip the painted chevron. This however, is not a problem. (775602-SK02)

• The design vehicle can easily turn right from The Green into Merrick Road (775602-SK02)

• The left turn from South Road into Merrick Road (775602-SK02) is a tight manoeuvre, though is possible.

It should be noted that some of these manoeuvres shown in 775602-SK01 and 775602-SK02 may be considered to be tight. There is scope to adjust the kerb alignment of the build-outs, shift the traffic islands and slightly adjust the traffic lanes in order to allow the design vehicle to more easily negotiate the turns if necessary.

3.4.6 Traffic Implications

The proposed junction is horizontally geometrically feasible. That is, it is possible to fit a signalised junction within the existing boundaries. The proposal is therefore limited by the traffic implications that signalising the junction may have on local traffic flows. Traffic modelling has been performed in order to assess the traffic implications. This will be discussed in detail in Section 4 under Traffic Modelling.

3.4.7 Re-Alignment of Existing Retaining Wall

The proposed re-alignment of the existing retaining wall will create a pedestrian pinch point on the eastern footpath on The Green adjacent the bank, shown on Drawing 775602-103. The proposed ramped footpath will be 1.8m wide. The existing footpath will be reduced to 1.5m. This however has not been deemed to be a problem as the existing footpath at the base of the existing retaining wall is like to have much less pedestrian traffic if Option B of this report was to be implemented. As there will be controlled pedestrian crossings in the junction, pedestrians will be able to cross at the junction. The proposed crossing on Merrick Road lies on a pedestrian desire line for people wishing to get to Southall Station, coming from Southall town centre.

The existing footpath adjacent to the base of the existing retaining wall will still be used by pedestrians wishing to travel between Merrick Road and The Green. This footpath is also used as an access to the large advertising billboard that is perched above the footpath.

3.4.8 Summary

Option B discussed above greatly enhances pedestrian facilities in the junction. This option will also be more aesthetically pleasing than the existing roundabout and pedestrian subway. This will particularly be the case if the entrance to the subway is backfilled and landscaped.

3.5 Option C – Footway Improvements around Southbridge Way Junction Option C investigates improvements to the footway around the junction of Southbridge Way with The Green. The proposals are shown in Drawing 775602-104 in Appendix A. It can be seen in the results of the pedestrian survey that 396 pedestrians crossed Southbridge Road at the time of the survey. There were a total of 624 pedestrians per hour in the vicinity of the roundabout. Therefore 64% of the pedestrians in this area crossed at this location. This is a substantial percentage, and it clearly indicates that there is high pedestrian traffic crossing Southbridge Way at this location.

Figure 10 below shows the existing junction.

Looking north Boarded up vehicle access of Phoenix House

Looking south

Figure 10: Existing Southbridge Way / The Green junction The existing situation can be viewed Figure 10 above. On the southwest corner of the junction is Phoenix House. It currently appears to be derelict. There also appears to be a disused access to this property that is boarded up. The boundary is marked by a row of bollards that are linked together with a chain. This can be seen in Figure 10 above. It is also noted that there appears to be a slip lane for vehicles entering this premises or to turn left into Southbridge Way, if travelling north along The Green.

As discussed above, there is high pedestrian traffic crossing Southbridge Way at this location. As the existing slip lane adjoins the boundary forcing pedestrians to walk on the carriageway, it is proposed to build out the kerb in this location in order to provide pedestrians footway to walk on. This will improve pedestrian safety as they will no longer be forced to walk on the road.

There is a development proposal to redevelop Phoenix House. This development will require vehicular access from Southbridge Way and The Green. There is currently an existing access to this property adjacent Kingston Road. There will be ample space to create vehicular access off Southbridge Way assuming the proposed kerb build-out is implemented. This will improve the existing situation as the current access is right on the junction, which is less then ideal.

The radius is proposed to be 3m. This radius was adopted in order to provide ample footway width for pedestrians. Another reason that this radius has been adopted is due to the fact that there are existing services in the road. Adopting a 3m radius on the kerb return minimises the disturbances to these services. Drop kerbs will also be incorporated with the proposed build-out, along with tactile paving to improve pedestrian facilities in this junction.

Introducing a raised table across the entry to Southbridge Way was investigated. This however was subsequently dismissed, as Southbridge Way leads to a heavy industrial area, resulting in HGVs using this junction.

4. TRAFFIC MODELLING ANALYSIS

4.1 Input data Existing traffic flow data and queue data for the South Road / Merrick Road / The Green junction has been derived from Savill Bird and Axon West Southall modelling report dated March 2009 and associated TRANSYT models for the AM and PM peak hours. There was no traffic flow data available for the give-way junction of Southbridge Way / The Green. The derived classified turning counts are shown in Table 4 below.

Destination AM Peak Hour South Road Merrick Road The Green Total South Road 0 467 482 949 Merrick Road 488 0 89 577 Origin The Green 430 49 0 479

Destination PM Peak Hour South Road Merrick Road The Green Total South Road 0 367 410 777 Merrick Road 533 0 63 596 Origin The Green 510 52 0 562

Table 4 Existing traffic flows Queue lengths for the AM and PM peak are shown in Table 5 below.

Approach AM Peak PM Peak

South Road 14 9 Merrick Road 0 0 The Green 0 1

Table 5 Existing Peak Hour Queue Lengths

4.2 Existing situation Industry standard roundabout analysis package, ARCADY 6, has been used to model the existing roundabout.

The geometry of the junction has been measured from the existing topographical survey and input into the model.

The traffic turning movements have been input directly into the model for each hour period, a 10% HGV proportion was assumed for a robust analysis.

Maximum Average Maximum Total Demand Queue queuing delay Approach RFC (vehicles) (min/veh)

Arm A - South Road 870.8 0.923 9.6 0.29 Arm B - Merrick Road 529.5 0.400 0.7 0.05 Arm C - The Green 439.5 0.396 0.7 0.06

Table 6 Existing AM peak result summary Maximum Average Maximum Total Demand Queue queuing delay Approach RFC (vehicles) (min/veh)

Arm A - South Road 713.0 0.757 3.0 0.15 Arm B - Merrick Road 546.9 0.397 0.7 0.05 Arm C - The Green 515.7 0.478 0.9 0.07

Table 7 Existing PM peak result summary The results indicate that the junction operates with minimal queuing and delay during the AM and PM peak periods with the exception of the South Road approach during the AM peak period which is subject to moderate queuing.

The modelling results correlate well with site observations and recorded queue length data.

A detailed model output is included in Appendix B of this report

4.3 Proposed Option A - Standalone Crossing on Merrick Road Option A, which introduces a proposed zebra crossing on Merrick Road was modelled in ARCADY. This was achieved based on the models for the existing situation, with additional data input for the proposed zebra in Merrick Road 65 meters west of the junction included. A flow of 112.0 pedestrians per hour was input for the pedestrian demand on Merrick Road as derived in the sample pedestrian count (Table 1).

Maximum Average Maximum Total Demand Queue queuing delay Approach RFC (vehicles) (min/veh)

Arm A - South Road 870.8 0.923 9.6 0.29 Arm B - Merrick Road 529.5 0.400 0.7 0.05

Arm C - The Green 439.5 0.396 0.7 0.06

Table 8 Option A, AM peak result summary Maximum Average Maximum Total Demand Queue queuing delay Approach RFC (vehicles) (min/veh)

Arm A - South Road 713.0 0.757 3.0 0.15 Arm B - Merrick Road 546.9 0.397 0.7 0.05 Arm C - The Green 515.7 0.478 0.9 0.07

Table 9 Option A, PM peak result summary

The output results are identical to the existing situation, which indicates the introduction of a zebra crossing on Merrick Road has a negligible impact on the operation of the junction. The proposed zebra crossing is situated with sufficient distance from the roundabout to not affect the flow of vehicle queuing on the approach or block vehicles from exiting the roundabout.

A detailed model output is included in Appendix B of this report

4.4 Option B Modelling analysis of The Green / South Road / Merrick Road junction has been undertaken in industry standard junction analysis package, LINSIG v2.4 to access the capacity of the junction for proposed Option B.

The proposed junction is shown in drawing number 775602-103 in Appendix A. The proposed 3 arm T junction consists of:

• South Road, single lane approach (ahead and left) – Northern arm

• Merrick Road, single lane approach (right turn) with a 30m nearside flare (left turn) – Western Arm

• The Green, single lane approach (ahead) with a 12m offside flare (right turn). There is a right turn storage area in front of the stop line can accommodate 3 waiting vehicles.

There are reverse stagger pedestrian crossings on the Merrick Road and The Green approaches.

Saturation flows have been modelled according to RR67 calculations based on lane widths and turning radii measured from topographical survey.

The proposed method of control operates in two stage streams as illustrated below. The Green and South Road operate in the same stage with the right turn from The

Green operating Give Way. The traffic flow for this movement is sufficiently low to allow the right turning vehicles to clear during gaps and intergreen. The second stream is dedicated to the pedestrian crossing on the exit of The Green and an associated internal stopline only.

To provide a robust analysis the models assume a 100% pedestrian demand, i.e. the pedestrian crossings appears every traffic cycle. Given the pedestrian flows (Table 1) demand is likely to be significantly lower.

Both peak periods are modelled using a 60 second cycle time which is considered to allow the best compromise between capacity, delay and pedestrian waiting time.

A detailed model output is included in Appendix B of this report.

1 Min: 7 3 Min: 5 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 5

A H

C I E B 8 29s 16 7s 8 42s 5 5s

Option B Stage Stream 1 Option B Stage Stream 2

AM Peak PM Peak Link MMQ Delay MMQ Delay DoS (%) DoS (%) (PCU) (PCU hr) (PCU) (PCU hr)

1/1 South Road Left Ahead 84.9 15.4 5.3 75.7 11.5 2.2 2/1 Merrick Road Right Left 84.7 11.3 5.9 77.5 10.1 2.9 3/1 The Green Ahead Right 40.4 4.3 1.3 51.5 6.1 1.2 6/1 The Green Internal Stopline 40.5 1.9 0.5 33.6 2.0 0.1 Ahead

Table 10 Existing AM and PM peak model result summary

The results indicate that the junction operates within capacity for all links. However there is reasonable queuing on the Merrick Road and South Road approaches created by signal control. The most significant queue is 15.4 PCU on South Road in the morning peak. This queue would extend approximately 75m from the stopline and as a result may impact on the existing pedestrian crossing outside Southall Station.

Queuing on the internal stopline of the Green is significantly below 3PCU with a negligible delay, indicating that the parallel stream operation would not cause queuing back or experience operational issues.

4.5 Summary The baseline data and existing ARCADY model indicate that queuing and delay in the existing situation is minimal with the exception of some queuing on the South Road approach.

The modelling results for proposed Option A indicate that the introduction of a zebra crossing on Merrick Road has a negligible impact to capacity at the junction while delivering improved pedestrian facilities for pedestrians at the junction and providing an adequate alternative to the subway.

The modelling results for Option B indicate that the proposed signal junction operates within capacity with low pedestrian and vehicular delay. However there is moderate queuing, particularly on the South Road approach, which may affect the pedestrian crossing outside Southall Station. Queuing and delay at the junction is moderately increased compared to the existing situation, while delivering significantly improved pedestrian facilities on Merrick Road and The Green and an adequate alternative to the subway.

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND TOWN CENTRE SIGNAGE AUDIT

4.6 Existing Pedestrian Facility and Town Centre Signage Conditions 4.1.1 General

Currently there is no town centre signage for either pedestrians or motorists in the vicinity of the Merrick Road Subway or the roundabout. Outlined below is an audit of pedestrian facilities on the below named roads.

4.1.2 The Green, from Osterley Park Road to Merrick Road

This audit starts at Osterley Park Road in the south and heads north towards Merrick Road. This stretch of The Green has wide paved footpaths on both sides of the road. There is no guard rail along The Green along the stretch in question, except for a couple of metres opposite Southbridge Road, before the footpath drops along the base of the retaining wall. Below is an audit of the pedestrian facilities crossing the side roads of The Green.

• At the junction of Osterley Park Road and The Green there is a raised table, complete with buff tactile paving on either side of the junction.

• There is a Zebra crossing The Green approximately 40m north of the junction with Osterley Park Road.

• At the junction of Kingston Road and The Green there is no raised table. There is a dropped kerb on either side of the junction. There is however buff tactile paving only on the south side of the junction.

• At the junction of Hortus Road and The Green there is no raised table. There is dropped kerb and no tactile paving on both sides of the junction.

• Refer to Option C for the existing conditions of the pedestrian facilities in the junction of Southbridge Way with The Green.

4.1.3 South Road, between Beaconsfield Road and The Green

This audit begins at Beaconsfield Road in the north and heads south towards Merrick Road. This stretch of South Road has wide paved foot paths on both sides of the road, with full height kerb up-stands. The junction of South Road with Park Road and Beaconsfield Road is a signalised junction. There are pelican crossings on Park Avenue Beaconsfield Road and South Road on both north and southern sides of the junction. There are pedestrian refuge islands on 2 of these pelican crossings, one on Beaconsfield Road and the other on South Road on the northern crossing. There is also an uncontrolled crossing of The Crescent complete with buff tactile paving. The

Crescent is one-way northbound. Refer to the Figure 11 below for the pedestrian facilities in this junction.

Figure 11 Pedestrian facilities at Beaconsfield junction There is existing guard rail on the outside of the footpath on either side (i.e. other side to the traffic) of South Road. This is due to the large height difference of the retaining walls, as the road rises to cross the railway line.

There is a pelican crossing on the crest of the hill on South Road, adjacent to the entrance of Southall Station.

Continuing south, on the eastern side of South Road there are the existing stairs that provide access to the Merrick Road Subway. On the Western side of South Road, there is a wide footpath that continues behind the flower bed towards Southbridge Way. There is guard rail on the outside of this footpath as this section of the road is still supported on top of a large retaining wall. Figure 10 below shows the footpath behind the flower bed.

Footpath looking north Footpath looking south

Figure 12: Western footpath on South Road and Merrick Road, This audit starts at the petrol station on Merrick Road in the east and heads north towards Merrick Road. Merrick Road south of the petrol station has wide footpaths on both sides of the road. On the western side there is a cycleway that is separated from the carriageway by means of a kerb. The roundabout on Merrick Road nearest the petrol station has uncontrolled crossings on all roads entering and exiting the roundabout. These crossings have dropped kerbs. They do not have tactile paving. There is a pedestrian refuge island on both the exit and approach to the roundabout on Merrick Road. Figure 13 below displays the pedestrian facilities in this roundabout.

Figure 13 Merrick road roundabout pedestrian facilities Heading west on Merrick Road towards the roundabout junction with The Green and South Road, Merrick Road has a wide paved footpath on the southern side. On the northern side of Merrick Road the footpath is paved, narrower and crosses three crossovers that lead into a commercial business park. There are no further pedestrian facilities to the next roundabout.

4.7 Recommended Improvements to Town Centre Signage Outlined below are recommendations to pedestrian signage to Southall Town Centre for pedestrians arriving at South Station. Pedestrians walking south on South Road will also find the new signage beneficial. Recommendations will also be provided to improve Southall Station signage for pedestrians making there way towards Southall Station from Southall Town Centre or Merrick Road.

4.1.4 No Alternate Pedestrian Crossing Provided

The following discussion provides recommendations to improve Southall Town Centre signage, assuming that the subway is stopped up with no alternative pedestrian crossing facilities provided. The intention of the recommendations supplied below is to encourage as many pedestrians as possible to use the existing pelican crossing adjacent Southall Station to cross to the western side of South Road. From this location pedestrians can continue south on the existing footpath south towards Southbridge Way, and completely by-pass the subway altogether. Please refer to Drawing 775602-105 attached in Appendix A for proposed Southall Town Centre signage improvements.

• Pedestrian Facilities Improvements.

It is proposed to improve the pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Merrick Road Subway, in the region discussed above in the pedestrian facility audit. The following measures are proposed.

• Implement the kerb build-out at the junction of The Green and Southbridge Way as detailed in Option C

• Provide tactile paving to all the drop kerbs discussed in the audit that do not currently have tactile paving.

• Provide extra guard rail for pedestrian safety opposite Southbridge way on The Green.

4.1.5 Crossing Provided on Merrick Road

• Town Centre Signage

The following section provides recommendations to improve Southall Town Centre signage, assuming that the zebra crossing discussed in Option A is implemented. As discussed in detail in Option A, this proposed Zebra crossing is very close to a pedestrian desire line, assuming that the subway is stopped up. It is therefore intended to encourage pedestrians to use the existing pelican crossing adjacent Southall Station as discussed above. Refer to Drawing 775602-105 for proposed improvements for Southall Town Centre signage assuming that the Merrick Road zebra crossing is implemented that is discussed in Option A.

• Pedestrian Facilities

The proposed measures to improve pedestrian facilities for this option will be the same as discussed above, with the exception of the zebra crossing being implemented on Merrick Road.

4.1.6 Signalisation of Junction Implemented

Signage improvements for this option will be similar to Option A. As there will now be a controlled crossing on Merrick road above the subway, it is not as important to direct pedestrians across to the western footpath of South Road at the pelican crossing adjacent Southall Station. It is recommended to split the number of pedestrians between the two crossing facilities. This should be marked clearly with signage to allow pedestrians to choose which route is ideal for them.

5. COST ESTIMATES

5.1 General Cost estimates are provided below for the various options that have been discussed in this study.

5.2 Stopping Up the Merrick Road Subway The estimated cost for this option is £29,875. Refer to the Table 11 below.

ESTIMATED / MEASURED BILL OF QUANTITIES DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT COST (£) SUBTOTAL (£) Brick Up both subway portals 1 item 25 £25 Fill 550 m3 35 £19,250 Landscaping 260 m2 40 £10,400 Removal of existing drainage 1 item 200 £200 TOTAL COST £29,875

Table 11 Stopping Up Cost Estimate

5.3 Option A – Standalone Crossing on Merrick Road The estimated cost for this option is £15,000. This includes all road marking, belisha beacons and associated electrical ducting and 50m of ant-skid surface treatment on the approaches to the crossing.

5.4 Option B – Signalisation of the Junction Option B is very approximate due to the uncertainty of a large number of factors of this design at feasibility stage. Such factors include the number of services that need to be relocated, raised or lowered, and to what extent. This cannot be determined until finished surface levels have been determined. This also applies to the earthworks associated with this design. The total cost of Option B is expected to be £433,737. Refer to Table 12 below.

ESTIMATED / MEASURED BILL OF QUANTITIES DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT COST (£) SUBTOTAL (£) PROPOSED Yellow Linemarking (incl. Yellow 470 m 2 £940 Box Junction Concrete island infill 70 m2 15 £1,050 ASP pavers 240 m2 50 £12,000 Drop kerbs 8 each 10 £80 Kerb 310 m 50 Guard rail 80 m 80 £6,400

Landscaping 300 m2 40 £12,000 Buff tactiles 6 m2 45 £270 Red Tactiles 45 m2 45 £2,025 Arrows 10 each 55 £550 Pedestrian studs 55 m 7 £385 Illuminated Bollards 2 each 150 £300 Retaining Wall 10 m 220 £2,200 Chevron Linemarking 160 m2 50 £8,000 New road build-up / Asphalt 1,650 m2 70 £115,500

REMOVAL OF EXISTING Remove existing retaining wall 10 m 125 £1,250 Relocate / Remove / Raise / 1 Item 20000 £20,000 Lower Services Demolish exisitng junction 2,600 m2 40 £104,000 Subtotal £286,950 Traffic Management 10 % £28,695 Contingency 10 % £28,695 Contractors SubTotal £344,340 GDP Inflator 2005 - 2006 2.53% % £8,711.80 £353,051.80 GDP Inflator 2006 - 2007 2.46% £8,685.07 £361,736.88 GDP Inflator 2007 - 2008 2.78% £10,056.29 £371,793.16 GDP Inflator 2008 - 2009 2.75% £10,224.31 £382,017.47 GDP Inflator 2009 - 2010 1.75% £6,685.31 Contractors Total £388,702.78 Detail Design and 11.200 % £43,534.71 Implementation Fees Traffic Order £1,500.00 TOTAL COST £433,737

Table 12 Cost estimate for Option B

5.5 Option C – Footway Improvements at Southbridge Way The cost estimate for Option C is £15,169. Refer to Table 13 below.

ESTIMATED / MEASURED BILL OF QUANTITIES COST SUBTOTAL DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT (£) (£) PROPOSED Kerb 45 m 50 £2,250 Drop Kerb 2 each 10 £20 ASP Pavers 50 m2 70 £3,500 Buff Tactiles 10 m2 45 £450 Double Yellow Lines 30 m 2 £60 Line Marking 60 m 2 £120 REMOVAL OF

EXISTING Kerb 15 m 10 £150 Linework 110 m 2 £220 Gully Pits 1 No. 450 £450 Raise / Lower exisitng 1 Item 2000 £2,000 services Subtotal £9,220 Traffic Management 5 % £461 Contingency 10 % £922 Contractors £10,603 SubTotal GDP Inflator 2005 - 2006 2.53% % £268.26 £10,871.26 GDP Inflator 2006 - 2007 2.46% £267.43 £11,138.69 GDP Inflator 2007 - 2008 2.78% £309.66 £11,448.34 GDP Inflator 2008 - 2009 2.75% £314.83 £11,763.17 GDP Inflator 2009 - 2010 1.75% £205.86 Contractors Total £11,969.03 Detail Design and 14.200 % £1,699.60 Implementation Fees Traffic Order £1,500.00 TOTAL COST £15,169

Table 13 Cost estimate for Option C

6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Conclusion This report has explored the consequences of stopping up the Merrick Road pedestrian subway. It has investigated a number of options as alternatives for pedestrians. These options are all good alternatives. They have a large variance in cost. They range from signage, of which the cost is almost negligible, to the option of replacing the roundabout with a signalised junction. This option is like to cost upwards of half a million pounds. The various options that have been explored may be implemented individually or a combination may be implemented simultaneously. For example, Option B may be implemented only, and it will provide an effective solution to providing access for pedestrians in the junction. It is however expensive and will increase delay times for local traffic. Option A may be implemented with Option C and town centre signage improvements for a cheap effective alternative to the pedestrian subway.

It should be noted that it is not recommended to close the subway with providing pedestrians alternative crossing facilities for the reasons discussed in the report. It can be recommended that any combination of the other options will provide a good solution, depending on the budget.

7. APPENDICES

List of Appendices:

Appendix A – Drawings

Appendix B – Traffic Modelling Data

APPENDIX A – Drawings

APPENDIX B – Traffic Modelling Data