A4 Great West Road

A4 Great West Road Proposed toucan crossing with the junction of Ridgeway Road December 2015 A4 Great West Road Proposed toucan crossing with the junction of Ridgeway Road

Contents

1 Background ...... 3 2 Introduction ...... 3 3 The consultation ...... 4 4 Overview of consultation responses ...... 6 5 Responses from members of the public ...... 8 6 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ...... 12 7 Conclusion ...... 14 Appendix A – Copy of letter to occupiers of 719 and 721 Great West Road ...... 15 Appendix B – Copy of letter and drawing to other residents ...... 18 Appendix C – Copy of the bus stop notice ...... 21 Appendix D – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 22 Appendix E – Response to issues raised ...... 23

1 Background This scheme was identified in response to requests from Isleworth and Syon School and Hounslow residents for a safe place to cross the A4 near the junction of Ridgeway Road. The nearest available at grade crossings are 350 and 400 meters away at the adjacent junctions. At the moment, pedestrians crossing the A4 are doing so via the narrow central reservation, particularly in the vicinity of the bus stops serving the H91. The scheme will aim to improve safety and confidence for both pedestrians and cyclists, and formalise the crossing points for cyclists and pedestrians in the area. 2 Introduction We proposed to provide a new ‘staggered’ toucan crossing on the A4 Great West Road, west of its junction with Ridgeway Road. It has been observed that a high number of pedestrians (including pupils from Isleworth and Syon Boys School) cross the A4 at this point. The particularly busy nature of the A4 and the speed of vehicles using it makes pedestrian safety the main reason for providing a formal place for pedestrians and cyclists to cross. This has been highlighted by the School and its Parent Teacher Association, who have asked TfL to provide such a crossing (similar to that created near Lampton School).

Preliminary designs were developed which included siting the proposed crossing to either the east or the west of Ridgeway Road. Following careful consideration, the option to site the toucan crossing to the east of Ridgeway Road was rejected because it was not on the required desire line (that is, existing path taken by pedestrians) to the nearest bus stop.

2.1 Purpose of the Scheme The overall aim of the scheme is to provide a formal crossing point from a nearby school to bus stops, recreational and other amenities. We proposed to install a signal controlled staggered toucan (cycle and pedestrian) crossing 20 metres to the west of Ridgeway Road.

2.2 Descriptions of the proposals To do this we would need to:

 Widen the carriageway on the north side to maintain the 3-lane configuration (in order to create a safe waiting area in the middle of the carriageway)

 Widen the central reservation by 2 metres to create a safe waiting area

 Move the eastbound bus stop (located on the northern side of the A4) by 5.5 metres

 Create a shared surface for pedestrians and cyclists around nearby bus stops and the crossing point. Tactile paving and signage would be used to indicate that the area is shared by pedestrians and cyclists

 Move and replant existing trees and/or plant new ones (resulting in no overall loss to the number of trees in place)

 Remove one parking bay located outside 719 and 721 Great West Road.

2.3 Location maps A map showing the location of the scheme can be found in Appendix A. 3 The consultation Consultation between 4 June and 3 July 2015 was designed to enable TfL to:

 Raise awareness of the scheme amongst local residents, stakeholders and the public  Explain the proposals  Provide an opportunity for people to tell us what they think about the proposals

Potential outcomes of all TfL’s consultations are that we:

 Decide the consultation raises no material issues that prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as originally planned  Modify the scheme in response to issues raised by consultation  Abandon the scheme as a result of issues by the consultation

The objectives of the consultation were to:

 Give stakeholders and the public clear and accessible information about the proposals to enable them to respond  Understand the level of support for, or opposition to, the proposal  Understand any issues that might affect the proposed crossing which we were not previously aware of  Understand concerns and objections  Allow respondents to make suggestions

3.1 Who we consulted Public consultation sought the views of people living close to the location of the proposed toucan crossing, users of the bus routes affected by bus stop

changes, and users of other local facilities (such as local churches, sports facilities and the local Magistrates Court). To achieve this, letters setting out the proposal were hand delivered to 563 households, businesses and other organisations in the area on 5 June 2015.

We also consulted stakeholders including Hounslow Council, London TravelWatch, the Metropolitan Police, the London Fire Brigade, Members of Parliament, London Assembly Members, local councillors, local schools, churches, and other businesses.

A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix D. A summary of their responses is given in Section 6.

3.2 Consultation material, distribution and publicity Letters and accompanying drawings explaining the proposed scheme were distributed to 563 local households and businesses. Copies of the letters and drawings are shown in Appendices A and B.

A notice was also posted on the eastbound bus stop on the north carriageway to alert customers to the proposed relocation of this stop by 5.5 metres to the west. See Appendix C for a copy of this notice.

We invited people to respond by: emailing us at [email protected]; using the TfL website (consultations.tfl.gov.uk); or writing to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS.

3.3 Meetings and site visits (if appropriate) No public meetings or exhibitions were held.

4 Overview of consultation responses We received 91 responses all of which were submitted online. The tables below show who responded (by type), the level of support for the proposal and main issues raised.

Table 1: Consultation responses by respondent

Question 2 Local Resident 73 Business Owner 1 Employed locally 9 Commuter 5 Visitor 4 Other 12 Not answered 1 Sub total 105

The majority of respondents (90%) support the proposed crossing; only 5% are opposed:

Table 2: Answers received to Question 1 – Do you support the proposed scheme?

Question 6 Strongly support 72 79.12% Support 10 10.99% Neither 2 2.198% Do not support 2 2.198% Strongly do not support 3 3.297% Not answered 2 2.198% Sub total 91 100.0%

Table 3: Common themes arising from consultation

Theme (frequency high to low) Total Per cent Will create a safe crossing point 31 22.79 Good idea 28 20.58 Will improve road safety 14 10.29 Concern about impact in traffic 7 5.14 Alternative crossing too far away 5 3.67 Alternative style crossing suggested 5 3.67 Concern about shared space 5 3.67 Will help slow traffic 3 2.20 Place crossing on the east side of Ridgeway Road 3 2.20

5 Responses from members of the public We asked six questions relating to the proposal and received 91 responses in total. The results are summarised below.

1.1. Question 1: “What is your name?”

Question 1 Name provided 90 99% Not answered 1 1% Sub total 91 100%

1.2. Question 2: Are you? (please select all boxes that apply):” People had the choice to let us know if they were visiting the area, if they had a business, were commuting through the area or were a resident. The vast majority (80%) of respondents were local residents:

Question 2 Local Resident 73 Business Owner 1 Employed locally 9 Commuter 5 Visitor 4 Other 12 Not answered 1 Sub total 105

1.3. Question 3: “What is your email address?” In response to this question the majority (85%) provided an email address which will enable us to update respondents on the outcome:

Question 3 Email 77 84.96% Not answered 14 16% Sub total 91 100.0%

1.4. Question 4: “If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name:” Seven respondents provided the name of the organisation they were responding on behalf of. Their responses are included in section six.

1.5. Question 5: “What is your postcode?” Of those that answered this question, the majority (76%) were from the location of the proposed crossing (TW7):

Question 5 KT12 1 1.19 N16 1 1.19 N7 1 1.19 RG4 1 1.19 SE16 1 1.19 SW1 1 1.19 SW12 1 1.19 TW1 1 1.19 TW2 1 1.19 TW3 3 3.57 TW4 1 1.19 TW5 1 1.19 TW7 64 76.19 TW8 1 1.19 UB2 1 1.19 V6 1 1.19 W4 3 3.57 Sub total 84 100%

1.6. Question 6: “To what extent do you support the proposed new toucan crossing west of Ridgeway Road on the A4 Great West Road?”

The majority of respondents (90%) supported the proposed crossing; only 5% were opposed:

Question 6 Strongly support 72 79.12% Support 10 10.99% Neither 2 2.198% Do not support 2 2.198% Strongly do not support 3 3.297% Not answered 2 2.198% Sub total 91 100.0% 9

1.7. Question 7: “Question 7: Do you have any further comments?” This question allowed respondents to provide additional comments (inc. suggestions) about the proposed toucan crossing. To simplify the analysis, we have categorised the 136 comments received into a list of 35 recurrent themes. Some respondents made more than one comment which is why the total number of comments is different from the total number of responses received. 29 respondents made no additional comments.

Per Theme (frequency high to low) Total cent Will create a safe crossing point 31 22.79 Good idea 28 20.58 Will improve road safety 14 10.29 Concern about impact on traffic 7 5.14 Alternative crossing too far away 5 3.67 Alternative style crossing suggested 5 3.67 Concern about shared space 5 3.67 Will help slow traffic 3 2.20 Place crossing on the east side of Ridgeway Road 3 2.20 Incorporate CCTV into design 2 1.47 Incorporate double red lines into the design 2 1.47 Alternative suggested 2 1.47 Build subway or bridge 2 1.47 Object to loss of parking bay 2 1.47 Opposed with reason 2 1.47 Plant more trees 2 1.47 Provide better and clearer signage 2 1.47 Suggested additional features 2 1.47 Concern about Wood Lane/Syon Lane junction 1 0.73 Concern for people with mobility issues 1 0.73 Concern about future demand on the road network 1 0.73 Consultation not well publicised 1 0.73 Greater alignment with Ridgeway Road North 1 0.73 Improve cleaning and waste facilities 1 0.73 Incorporate double yellow lines into the design 1 0.73 Incorporate eastbound bus lay-by into the design 1 0.73 Keep traffic lights to a minimum 1 0.73 Move bus stops to force the use of nearby crossings 1 0.73 10

Per Theme (frequency high to low) Total cent Object to removal of cycle track 1 0.73 Provide on-board warnings about shared space 1 0.73 Provide parking spaces outside Osterley Library 1 0.73 Separate shared bus stop from crossing shared space 1 0.73 Speed camera relocation illegal 1 0.73 Spend money on more worthwhile schemes 1 0.73 Additional crossing not required 1 0.73

Total number of comments 136 100

Our response to the issues raised can be found in Appendix E.

6 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders

Cllr Peter De Vic Carey – ward councillor Agrees with the proposal to create a safe crossing point (especially pupils from Isleworth & Syon Boys School).

CTC There should be a raised table with set-back or similar at the junction of the Ridgeway Road to help cyclists and pedestrians to safely cross.

The cycle 'lane' on the key should read cycle track. The (Toucan) crossing is for cyclists and pedestrians.

CTC London A new crossing of the A4 is welcomed, but shared use creates lack of continuity of the existing cycle tracks. A single stage crossing would be preferable.

Headteacher of Isleworth and Syon School Said they had been lobbying for a crossing at the top of Ridgeway Road for a number of years - and that it is vital that this is in place for the safety of students at school (and other local residents).

Said students and locals often cross the Great West Road at the Ridgeway Road junction and expressed concern that a serious incident could occur'. Noted that students will often run after friends rather than check for their own safety. In addition, watching students waiting on the central reservation has also been a long-term concern.

Fully support this proposal and expressed thanks for a scheme that it said will, without question, make the crossing of the Great West Road much safer for students.

Hounslow Cycling Support the provision of a new pedestrian and cycle crossing at Ridgeway Road to improve local travel options and safety in the area, but object to the removal of a further section of the A4 cycle track, which it said has become a feature of every so-called improvement scheme by TfL to the A4 in LB Hounslow over the last few years. Said the cycle track should instead be upgraded to provide high quality Dutch-style cycle infrastructure on this strategic cycle route between Heathrow and London, with cycle priority at junctions.

Said TfL should explore fully making the crossing a straight across single stage crossing to avoid pedestrians and cyclists having to wait in a pen in the

middle of a six lane highway, and to avoid widening the carriageway. Linking the signal operation to those at the next signalled junctions should be explored to mitigate against causing delays to traffic on the A4.

Argued that the proposals go against the 2015 London Cycling Design Standards: • para. 4.2.2 states the benefits of coherent segregation to provide “coherence and legibility of cycle infrastructure over a distance” – the cycle track should be continuous and easily legible to all; • para. 4.6.3 “Partially segregated and shared use footways are generally not recommended alongside the carriageway where there are better ways of providing for cyclists.” and “They also represent a low level of service for cyclists”; • para. 5.2.5. “Because of this sharing and the impact on the comfort and sense of safety of vulnerable pedestrians, toucan crossings and associated shared use areas are generally not recommended unless it has been properly established that there are no better alternatives”.

Noted para. 5.2.5 of the LCDS to argue that the toucan should be upgraded to a parallel pedestrian and cycle crossing.

Strongly urged TfL to reconsider this scheme and develop an upgrade programme for the A4 cycle track throughout LB Hounslow, making it continuous across junctions, with proper signalled crossings.

London United Busways No additional comment was made other than recording support for the proposed scheme.

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority The London Fire Brigade (LFB) support improvements to London’s infrastructure. We will support developers and contractors to reduce both the risk to Londoners and the impact of works being undertaken. Following consideration of your proposals we have the following observations:

LFB officers have visited the site and the proposed changes to the A4 will not adversely affect local mobilising directly, the only potential issue would be around additional morning congestion as eastbound traffic would be adversely affected by the additional ‘on demand’ lights as the local children go to the school which is adjacent to the proposed crossing.

Thistleworth Tennis Club Said many of its members cross the Great West Road to get to Thistleworth Tennis Club which is in Ridgeway Road North. Additionally, Isleworth & Syon School frequently use its facilities and students need to cross the road.

We did not receive a response from the London Borough of Hounslow.

7 Conclusion

Isleworth and Syon School and Hounslow residents have been instrumental in putting the case forward for an additional crossing point. The majority of respondents (90%) support the proposed crossing; only 5% are opposed.

Having considered the response to consultation, we intend to go ahead with the new crossing. As a result of the comments received we will:

 Monitor the scheme after implementation and if necessary consider measures to aid the left turn out of Ridgeway Road

 Consider planting more trees within the detailed design of these proposals

 Investigate providing further signage this as part of the detailed design

 No longer relocate the camera as part of the design

7.1 Next steps We intend to introduce these improvements during the early part of 2016, subject to further discussions with the key stakeholders (including the London Borough of Hounslow). We will write to local residents and affected properties before work starts to provide a summary of this consultation, an overview of the final proposals and an outline of the construction programme.

Appendix A – Copy of letter to occupiers of 719 and 721 Great West Road

Appendix B – Copy of letter and drawing to other residents

Appendix C – Copy of the bus stop notice

Appendix D – List of stakeholders consulted

Elected Members Tony Arbour AM Ruth Cadbury MP Councillor Peter De Vic Carey Councillor Tony Louki Councillor Sheila O’Reilly Caroline Pidgeon AM Valerie Shawcross AM

Local Authorities Hounslow Council (Emergency Planning) Hounslow Council (Schools Travel) Hounslow Council (Traffic and Transport)

Emergency and health services Hounslow Clinical Commissioning Group London Fire Brigade Metropolitan Police Service (Community Police) Metropolitan Police Service (Safer Transport)

Transport Groups Campaign for Better Transport CTC – The national cycling charity Living Streets London TravelWatch Sustrans West London Alliance

Local Groups Iseworth & Syon School Osterly Library St Mary’s Church with St Lukes

Other stakeholders HM Courts Service Osterley Park Hotel Osterley Sports and Athletics Centre

Appendix E – Response to issues raised

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response

Further road safety suggestions

Respondents welcome severance along the Great West Road being TfL work very closely with the Police where we have tackled to slow down people driving too fast down the A4; where there evidence of a specific issue. We will request for have been several deaths recently and accidents resulting from both some additional enforcement to commence in line speeding and inconsiderate drivers. On a very busy stretch of road with other duties. anything to make this road safer is welcomed; the proposed extra crossing being seen as a great investment and significantly improve The A4 Great West Road is a strategic road on the safety. Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and as such, its primary function is to move traffic. Therefore, Respondents also suggested looking at road safety in a holistic manner we would not look to move traffic away from the A4 as using; (a) enforcement to deal with excess speeds; (b) reducing lane this is likely to result in vehicles seeking alternative widths, increased speed camera coverage and speed limit reductions routes on streets which are not suitable for additional through better design: and (c) reducing the dominance of vehicle vehicle flow. movement in this area. We are trialling corridors on the TfL Road Network, with Average Speed Camera systems. There are currently no plans for introduction on the A4 until the outcome of these trials is known.

Concern about impact on traffic

Respondents are concerned about are worried about congestion. They TfL highway signal improvements are subject to a feel that, given Ridgeway Rd suffers from congestion at the A4 junction rigorous multi-stage traffic impact assessment, which during peak hours; the position of the proposed crossing will exacerbate takes place during design. This includes modelling the problem. When the lights of the proposed crossing are at red this will which assesses the impact that proposals have on the only exacerbate the existing problem. The London Fire Brigade says network. In this case the modelling showed that, by that whilst the proposed changes ‘…will not adversely affect local adjusting the signal timings in the AM peak, we could 23

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response mobilising directly, the only potential issue would be around additional install a crossing with minimal impact on the network. morning congestion as eastbound traffic would be adversely affected by bringing significant benefits for pedestrians. As such, the additional ‘on demand’ lights as the local children go to the school the proposal was taken forward to consultation. which is adjacent to the proposed crossing.’ Respondents suggest that it In addition, UTC SCOOT has recently been would make sense to have the crossing before this to avoid this. There implemented at many junctions along the A4. UTC is also concern that vehicles wishing to turn left out of Ridgeway Road control means we now have the ability to remotely and then turn right at the Thornbury Lane will find it difficult to cross the control the timings and SCOOT means the traffic signal carriageway in slow moving/stationary traffic. It is felt by some that the timings are continually optimised based on the amount proposed crossing will result in further traffic congestion in the area, of vehicles detected by detectors built into the road. especially at rush hour. Traffic lights should be kept to a minimum to ensure that traffic can move quickly and efficiently. It is also suggested We will monitor the scheme after implementation and, that buses stopping on the north carriageway currently causes impatient if necessary, consider measures to aid the left turn out drivers to enter the centre lane potentially causing accidents and/or of Ridgeway Road. We do not feel it will be difficult to slowing the traffic down. undertake the right turn at Thornbury Road.

Alternative style crossing suggested / concerns about shared space The central refuge/reserve is 4m wide and pedestrian Some respondents felt that the proposed central island is not wide and cycle flows are low. Therefore, we do not envisage enough for cyclists and pedestrians to pass each other and will be a conflict. point of conflict. It is also suggested that staggered crossings can be frustrating. As a result it is suggested that a single stage crossing that A single stage crossing would have a significant allows people to cross the whole way, without waiting in the middle or negative impact on traffic on the A4, which is a primary widening the central reservation, should be created. It’s also suggested route into and out of London. that linking signal operation to those at the next junctions should be explored to reduce delays to traffic. Respondents point out that the The shared use facility that we proposed is in an area proposals go against the 2015 London Cycling Design Standards which where it is not possible to provide a continuous state that ‘Because of this sharing and the impact on the comfort and segregated cycle track without conflict between bus sense of safety of vulnerable pedestrians, toucan crossings and passengers and the proposed pedestrian crossing. associated shared use areas are generally not recommended unless it There are segregated tracks along the A4 Great West has been properly established that there are no better alternatives’ Road through to the vicinity of the junction. Cyclists are (Para. 5.2.5.). TfL are asked to upgrade its proposals to a parallel required to share the crossing points and the areas

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response pedestrian and cycle crossing. An alternative view is that many disabled around the junctions. and older people could not cross all six lanes in good time and cyclists need time to cross in a steady manner that doesn't cause conflict with pedestrians. I strongly support the plan to have a two-stage crossing. A segregated facility on a toucan crossing is not Providing separate areas for pedestrians and cyclists to cross, with approved for use by the Department of Transport. tactile surfacing to aid visually impaired pedestrians, would improve safety. I apologise as I am not a signals expert, but seem to recall that this can now be done on Giraffe crossings, as an alternative to Zebra ones. If something similar can be done on a Toucan, it should be. The slightly larger width required would be of no great significance in this location.

Place crossing on the east side of Ridgeway Road

It is suggested that, because Ridgeway Road is a well used route, it It is proposed to locate the pedestrian crossing to the would make sense to have the crossing before it (westbound); west of Ridgeway Road as pedestrian surveys show positioned nearer to the speed camera. This would ensure traffic from this serves the existing pedestrian desire line for Ridgeway Road does not get caught up behind traffic stopped by the pedestrians using the bus stops located to the west of proposed crossings signals and pedestrians and cyclist will be able to Ridgeway Road. Moving the crossing to the east side cross over the A4 more safely. It would remove the need to move the of Ridgeway Road away from the existing pedestrian bus stop, trees and parking bays as proposed. desire line is likely to result in pedestrians continuing to cross the A4 on the west side of the junction in the vicinity of the bus stops serving the H91.

Incorporate CCTV into design

Respondents suggest adding CCTV cameras around the crossing and CCTV cameras are not used to monitor users acting increased use of speed cameras. responsibly at crossing points.

There are specific criteria for the installation of new

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response speed cameras on the TfL Road Network. The site has an existing camera on the westbound carriageway in advance of the crossing point. The location does not meet the requirements for new camera installation on the eastbound carriageway.

Incorporate double red / yellow lines into the design

Installing double red lines was suggested This is a red route clearway which is signed using clearway signs. Red route clearways are not indicated by double red lines, except at some roundabouts and junctions. We will monitor the situation and undertake enforcement or further action if required.

Alternative suggested

Respondents say that road safety should be looked at in a holistic The A4 Great West Road is a strategic road on the manner along the A4 corridor, using reduced lane widths and speed Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). Its limits to ‘design out’ poor driver behaviour. primary function is to move traffic. As such, there are no plans to reduce lane widths along the corridor as a Bus stop bypasses are suggested for maintaining the cycle tracks and whole. There are current safety concerns where the safety of all users by reducing the shared space and need for lots of cycle track drops into the bus laybys. A corridor-wide tactile paving. strategy is being developed to address this issue.

The cycle track should be upgraded to provide high quality Dutch-style Dutch-style cycle infrastructure with priority at junctions cycle infrastructure instead with cycle priority at junctions. is outside the scope of this scheme to install a pedestrian crossing.

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response

Build subway or bridge

TfL are asked to consider building a subway or bridge to reduce the In general, pedestrians and cyclists prefer to use at impact on traffic. However, another respondent says that a toucan level crossing facilities due to inconvenience and crossing is more likely to be used than a pedestrian overpass. security concerns when using subways/bridges. Furthermore, underpasses/bridges are not accessible to all users, are costly to install and maintain, and would cause disruption while being constructed. We do not consider them to be an appropriate option at this location.

Object to loss of parking bay

Respondents express concern at the loss of much needed parking This proposal assessed the requirements of parking space on the A4 at a time when Hounslow Council plans to create a and pedestrian numbers and usage. In this case by Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in Ridgeway Road which will displace removing a parking bay we can provide significant parking in the area. TfL is asked to revise its plan so that no residential benefits for a number of pedestrians. parking bays are lost outside 719 and 721 Great West Road.

Opposed with reason

Respondents opposed to the proposal say that it is a waste of time, The nearest crossings are 350 and 400 meters away at effort and money as two existing crossings at Thornbury Road and the adjacent junctions. Pedestrians, including school Wood Lane adequately enable cyclists and pedestrians to cross the A4. children, are currently crossing in the vicinity of the It is also argued that it makes it harder for cyclists and people using the Ridgeway Road junction via the central reservation by bus to see one another. judging gaps in fast moving traffic. Isleworth and Syon School and Hounslow residents have been instrumental in putting the case forward for an additional crossing point.

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response Modelling outputs show that a crossing can be installed at the junction with minimal impact on the network and significant benefits for pedestrians and cyclists.

Plant more trees

It is suggested that TfL should plant as many as possible and affordable The opportunity to plant more trees will be considered to improve the natural environment (over and above the loss of trees) to within detailed design of these proposals. enhance air quality and provide noise screening.

Provide better and clearer signage

If a large shared space is to be used, respondents suggest that clear We will investigate this as part of the detailed design. signage at eye level – and at child/wheelchair height - and very large pavement markings are essential to avoid conflict. They should be repeated and not just placed at either end of the shared use area

Suggested additional features

It is suggested that the proposal should include a raised table (with set- The A4 is a strategic route into Central London with the back or similar) at the junction of the Ridgeway Road to help cyclists principal purpose of moving traffic. As the speed limit and pedestrians to safely cross. on the A40 is currently 40mph vertical deflections on side roads have not be considered.

The proposed position will make it significantly harder for people using The opportunity to plant more trees will be considered the bus stop and cyclists to see each other on the southbound shared within detailed design of these proposals. footway/cycleway. Trees should be repositioned alongside the segregated cycle lanes.

Concern about Wood Lane/Syon Lane junction 28

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response

Serious concern is expressed about the road junction at Gillette Corner; This is outside the scope of the scheme. especially turning right from the Tesco side on to the A4. Visibility is considered poor especially when high-sided vehicles are queuing to turn TfL is currently designing a safety scheme at the right. TfL is asked whether there are any proposals to put a filter at this A4/Syon Lane (Gillette Corner) junction. This is early major junction. stages of design. Designs will be consulted on in 2016.

Concern for people with mobility issues

Respondents are concerned that shared use spaces are dangerous and Accessibility requirements are met within the design. unpleasant for disabled people which tactile paving will not address. Footways leading to and from the crossing points are wide and flat and accessible to all. The crossing has It is also suggested that a one-stage toucan or other crossing should not been designed with minimal gradients for ease of be considered as disabled and older people would be unable to cross all access and egress of the carriageway. Tactile paving six lanes in good time; and cyclists need time to cross in a steady and tactile cones will be installed to support the visually manner that doesn't cause conflict with pedestrians. impaired.

TfL are asked to confirm whether or not ‘Countdown timers’ will be A one-stage toucan crossing is not being considered installed and to include this feature in all consultation material. as it would have a significant negative impact on A4 traffic which is a primary route into and out of London. The road will be crossed in two stages. Pedestrian signal timings will give enough time for all users to cross into the central reservation before negotiating the next carriageway.

Countdown timers will be incorporated into all new pedestrian crossing installations.

Concern about future demand on the road network

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response

Concern is expressed about access from Ridgeway Road to the Great When the crossing is called we would expect that West Road when the lights are red. The proposed crossing will remove some gaps will remain in slower moving traffic for current gaps in traffic flow and result in traffic build up particularly at residents to exit Ridgeway Road, but TfL peak times. This would be particularly problematic for vehicles joining acknowledges residents concerns and will monitor the the A4 at Ridgeway Road and moving across the carriageway to turn issue after implementation and investigate further right at the Thornbury Lane junction. measures if necessary

Respondents point out that the Golden Mile is a significant growth area All new development proposals are considered and that will create additional vehicle demand on the A4 and increase in their impact on the network assessed. Where they north-south pedestrian movement across the A4. TfL is asked to impact the network TfL will seek mitigation measure to consider looking at how the pedestrian/vehicle balance is addressed; to keep any impact to a minimum. avoid an increase in pedestrian crossing facilities adversely impacting traffic the dominance of vehicle movement in the area should be reduced.

Consultation not well publicised

It is suggested that a lot of local people were unaware of the Letters and accompanying drawings explaining the consultation because it had not been well publicised. proposed scheme were hand delivered to 563 local households and businesses. Copies of the letters and drawings are shown in Appendices A and B.

We also informed Hounslow Council, London TravelWatch, the Metropolitan Police, the London Fire

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response Brigade, Members of Parliament, London Assembly Members, local councillors, local schools, churches, and other businesses; to help promote the consultation and respond in their own right.

A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix D and a summary of their responses is given in Section 6.

We invited people to respond by: emailing us at [email protected]; using the TfL website (consultations.tfl.gov.uk); or writing to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS.

Cycle lanes referred to in the consultation drawings should have That is correct. The facility is on the footway and been marked as cycle tracks therefore is technically a cycle track. This is an error within the consultation material, but one which does not make a fundamental change to the proposal being consulted on.

Greater alignment with Ridgeway Road North

TfL are asked if TfL can line up the route more directly with Ridgeway Pedestrian surveys have been undertaken. The Road North to further encourage use of the proposed crossing. proposed crossing is located where there is an existing desire for pedestrian and cyclists to cross the road. Moving the crossing to the junction of Ridgeway Road

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response will result in pedestrians continuing to cross the A4 on the west side of the junction in the vicinity of the bus stops serving the H91.

Improve cleaning and waste facilities

TfL is asked to ensure that maintenance contracts ensure regular We will raise these concerns with the London Borough cleaning takes place and proper waste bins are provided at the bus of Hounslow, who are responsible for cleaning and stops to address concerns about litter and broken glass around bus waste facilities. stops; a particular issues for cyclists riding over broken glass. .

Incorporate eastbound bus lay-by into the design

If the proposed crossing goes ahead it is suggested that a bus stop Only 4 buses an hour in each direction use this route. layby should be built on the north side in order to allow traffic to flow Based on bus numbers and bus patronage we feel that better. This will reduce the incidence of buses stopping and taking up a it is better to keep the bus bay within the carriageway lane that causes impatient drivers to merge into the centre lane and leave the space for pedestrians and cyclists. potentially causing accidents and causing general traffic flow to slow down.

Move bus stops to force the use if nearby crossings

It is suggested that we get rid of the Ridgeway Road bus stop as it is not An ideal spacing for bus stops is approximately 400m. far to Osterley Library and Wood Lane. This, it is argued, would The gap between the Ridgeway Road stop and encourage children to use one of the existing crossings (as was the Osterley Library is approximately 196m. The gap case earlier in 2015 when the bus stop was closed for cycle track between the Ridgeway Road stop and the Wood Lane repairs). stop is 270m. So removing the stop would be very unpopular. 32

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response

Object to removal of cycle track

The proposal is objected to because it will further remove a section of The shared use facility will remove any conflicting the A4 cycle track which, it is argued, is a feature of every improvement movements between cyclists, bus passengers and scheme proposed by TfL for the A4 in Hounslow over the last few years. users of the proposed crossing point.

There are segregated tracks along the A4 Great West Road through to the vicinity of the junctions. Cyclists are required to share crossing points and areas around junctions.

Provide on-board warnings about shared space

It is suggested that buses affected by these proposals should have on– Cycle flows along the A4 are low and the risk of conflict board announcements (similar to the CS2X) warning bus passengers between bus passengers and cyclists is considered to alighting at the stops to look out for cyclists; something that TfL should be low. We will monitor the scheme after consider for all stops that are sited in shared-use footways/cycleways. implementation and if there is an issue we can explore bus announcements further.

Provide parking spaces outside Osterley Library

Whilst the crossing is supported TfL are asked to install of a couple of Although outside the scope of this scheme, we are short term parking spaces outside Osterley Library on the north side of looking into the feasibility of this request. the road.

Separate shared bus stop from crossing shared space

TfL are asked to move the bus stops out of the shared use space and It is proposed to locate the pedestrian crossing to 33

Summary of comments/issues raised TfL response away from the toucan (if possible). serve the existing pedestrian desire line including pedestrians using the bus stops. Moving the bus stops will change the existing pedestrian desire line and it is likely to result in pedestrians creating a new desire line in the vicinity of the new bus stop location.

Speed camera relocation illegal

It is suggested that relocating the speed camera contravenes the The camera will no longer be relocated as part of the regulations on locating speed cameras design

Spend money on more worthwhile schemes

It is argued that the current proposal will simply add to existing traffic Modelling outputs show that a crossing can be installed congestion in the area and that the money should be spent much more at the junction with minimal impact on the network and productively on, for example, repairing and resurfacing roads. significant benefits for pedestrians and cyclists.

Funding this scheme will not impact our maintenance budget to maintain the highway.