Proposed improvements to cycle facilities along A24

A24 Epsom Road – cycle safety improvements Proposed improvements to cycle facilities along A24 Epsom Road between Central Road and Lower Lane Consultation Report February 2020

1

Contents

1 Consultation summary ...... 3 2 Background ...... 4 3 Introduction ...... 4 3 The consultation ...... 5 4 Overview of consultation responses ...... 7 5 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ...... 11 6 Next steps ...... 15 Appendix A – Copy of the consultation letter ...... 16 Appendix B – Letter distribution area ...... 19 Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 19 Appendix D – List of views and suggestions made during the consultation………… 21

2

Consultation summary

Between 8 February and 11 March 2016 we consulted on proposals to improve facilities for cyclists along the A24 Epsom Road by providing a consistent cycle facility in both directions between Central Road and Lower Morden Lane.

Our proposals included installing a new wider continuous southbound cycle lane to replace the existing narrow inconsistent cycle lane, a new bus lane between Lower Morden Lane and Rougemont Avenue and upgrading the existing pedestrian crossing facilities.

We received 154 responses to the consultation, of which 55% of respondents opposed the proposals, 18% supported the proposals, 20% partially supported the proposals, 2% of respondents were not sure, 1% had no opinion and 3% did not answer the question.

Issues raised by respondents included traffic concerns, questions as to whether the scheme was necessary and requests, changes or enhancements to the proposed cycling provision.

Next steps

We are grateful for the views received through the consultation and have considered these carefully. Following a review of the main issues raised and the results of the consultation we have decided not to proceed with the proposals that were consulted on. This is mainly because we did not receive the support of our key stakeholders, as well as concerns that were raised by local residents. Our long-term intention is still to improve the cycling facilities at this location. We will discuss any new ideas carefully with stakeholders and local residents before a future scheme is devised. This consultation report summarises the consultation exercise and responses received. Our response to issues raised during consultation is available as a separate report.

3

1 Background

We proposed to improve cycle facilities along the A24 Epsom Road. In 2012 we consulted on phase one of the scheme which was to improve cycle facilities between Morden Town Centre and Central Road, this was implemented in June 2013. We have now proposed a second phase of improvements, to provide a consistent cycle facility in both directions between Central Road and Lower Morden Lane.

We proposed the following:  Install a new wider continuous southbound cycle lane to replace the existing narrow inconsistent cycle lane  Install a new bus lane between Lower Morden Lane and Rougemont Avenue. This would be shared with cyclists to provide a continuous route for northbound cyclists  Upgrade the existing pedestrian crossing to a shared pedestrian/cyclist ‘toucan’ crossing. This would include a small section of shared footway to allow cyclists to access the cycle lanes and crossing area  Upgrade the uncontrolled pedestrian crossing facilities, including extending the tactile paving area  Improve visibility and safety for vehicles emerging from side roads by building out the kerb slightly  Build a wider, better aligned footway on the western side of the A24 Epsom Road junction with Lower Morden Lane

In order to make these changes we would need to:  Remove one traffic lane in each direction. Surveys and modelling results show that there would be no impact on traffic queues in the area  Trim back the central reservation

2 Introduction

We recently invited the public and key stakeholders to take part in a public consultation and comment on our proposals for this junction. The consultation took place between 8 February and 11 March 2016. Members of the public could take part in the consultation using the TfL consultation tool online, by email or post.

This report details responses received and will contribute to the decision on whether to go ahead with the proposed scheme or not.

2.1 Purpose of the scheme The purpose of the scheme is to improve safety for cyclists using the A24 Epsom Road between Lower Morden Lane and Central Road.

2.2 Location maps The following map shows the extent of the scheme

4

Digital Map Data (c) Collins Bartholomew Ltd (2016) 3 The consultation

The consultation ran between 8 February and 11 March 2016 and was designed to enable us to understand local opinions about the proposals.

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

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

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

5

3.1 Who we consulted The public consultation intended to seek the views of residents living close to the A24 Epsom Road in the areas between and around Central Road and Lower Morden Lane. Please see Appendix B for a map of the local area we consulted.

We also consulted stakeholders including The , Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local interest groups.

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

3.2 Consultation material, distribution and publicity We sent a letter and map explaining the proposed scheme to 2,189 local households and businesses. A copy of this letter and map is shown in Appendix A. The consultation material asked five questions regarding the proposal: 1. Do you support the proposals to improve cycle facilities along A24 Epsom Road between Central Road and Lower Morden Lane? Yes / Partially / Not sure / No opinion / No

2. Do you support the proposed new southbound cycle lane along A24 Epsom Road between Central Road and Lower Morden Lane? Yes / Partially / Not sure / No opinion / No

3. Do you support the proposed new northbound shared bus / cycle lane along A24 Epsom Road between Central Road and Lower Morden Lane? Yes / Partially / Not sure / No opinion / No

4. Do you support the proposals to upgrade the pedestrian crossing to a toucan crossing? Yes / Partially / Not sure / No opinion / No

5. Do you have any further comments?

We invited people to respond to the consultation using the TfL website https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/a24-epsom-road or by writing to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS or by emailing us at [email protected]

3.3 Pre-consultation

The London Borough of We contacted the before the consultation was published to inform them of our proposals. We asked them for their comments regarding our consultation area as well as which local community groups and resident associations they recommend we should consult.

6

4 Overview of consultation responses

A total of 154 consultation responses were received, 122 were submitted online and 32 by post or email (see figure 1 below).

Figure 1

In the consultation we asked four questions to see how much support there was for our proposals. Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 below show the questions we asked and the number of people who answered yes, partially, those who were not sure, had no opinion, those who answered no and those who did not answer the question.

7

Figure 2 below shows the answers received to question one

Figure 3 below shows the answers received to question two

8

Figure 4 below shows the answers received to question three

Figure 5 below shows the answers received to question four

Additional comments

9

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide further comments about our proposal. Of the 154 responses received, 136 provided comments. Figure 6 below shows the top 15 issues that were raised during the consultation. A complete list of views and suggestions made during the consultation can be found in Appendix D. Our full response to issues raised will be provided in a separate report, which we plan to publish later in 2016.

Figure 6: Top 15 issues that were raised during the consultation

Issue raised Number of times Will make it more difficult turning in/out of side roads to/from A24 32 Will increase traffic in the area 31 Waste of public money and time 26 Bus lane not needed 23 Changes not needed/leave as it is 21 Cycle lane should be protected/not in 'door zone' 21 Poor design 16 Segregated cycle lanes needed on both sides of road 16 Not enough cyclists in area to justify cost 15 Bus lane will cause traffic 15 Pedestrian & Cyclist conflict 15 Lower Morden Lane junction is dangerous 12 Proposals are poor compared to schemes 9 Cyclists are more likely to use carriageway 9 Motorist & Cyclist conflict 8

People who were supportive of the scheme said: “Great improvements. Please continue the extensions from CS7 current ending point at to link up to this new section of cycle lane improvements.” “Any potential improvement to road safety, for the increasing number of cyclists can only be for the greater good of all concerned, and is to be applauded and encouraged.” “Reducing traffic to one lane will hopefully stop vehicles exceeding 30mph speed limit”

People who opposed the scheme said: “There is easily enough road space for segregated cycle facilities on both sides. Trim the central reservation further.” “Making these changes to this road is going to make this road heavily congested and I believe that this would be a waste of money and will not improve the flow of traffic”. “Having cars cross the cycle lane to get to parking is poor - put the parking outside the lane!”

10

5 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders

We received seven responses from stakeholders. Their responses are summarised below.

Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) Did not specifically state whether supported or opposed proposals, but said the following:  Fully supports proposals to improve safety or journey time reliability, or to encourage modal switch to more sustainable modes  Uncertain of the aim of this scheme other than to “provide a consistent cycle facility in both directions” and would be interested to know how successful phase one of the scheme has been in encouraging cycling and achieving modal shift  This section of the A24 is not heavily used by cyclists so the impact of the proposed changes on other road users must be carefully considered  Would like to see the post implementation model validation conducted for previous similar schemes to this one in terms of traffic flows and capacity changes. This is to confirm that there would be no impact on traffic as stated in the consultation material  Concerned that proposals could have a significant impact on the A24 and alternative routes to which traffic may be displaced  Would be supportive of the new section of bus lane on the basis that it would be available to all buses and not restricted to local buses  The hours of operation of the bus lane need to ensure that buses and coaches are afforded priority at all times when congestion occurs

CTC London Generally supportive. Supportive of the proposed new southbound cycle lane, and shared bus/cycle lane and partially supportive of the toucan crossing proposals.

Get Sutton Cycling Opposed the proposals for the following reasons:  The proposed section of the A24 has potential for great cycling infrastructure but feel that the proposals are not ambitious enough  Need segregated, protected north and south bound cycle lanes, plus redesign junctions to make cycling a transport choice for everyone  The proposals do not facilitate safe and inviting cycling along this section of the A24 and do not provide a consistent cycle facility in both directions  Not supportive of southbound cycle lane as believe the changes are not significant and do not make cycling feel safe and inviting  The proposed southbound cycle lane stops where the ‘MC’ London Road / The George bus stop is, cyclists starting from the traffic lights Central Road junction will often be compelled to ignore the cycle lane and take the primary road position from the outset. This strategy is ineffective and creates conflict, horn abuse and ‘punishment passes’.

11

 There needs to be dedicated cycle lanes on both sides of the A24 Epsom Road  A floating bus stop should be incorporated in order to deliver a “consistent cycle facility”  A short distance further on, the proposed southbound cycle lane is deflected away from the kerb-side towards the right-hand side of the lane. From this point, the cycle lane is between parking bays on the left and traffic. This is not appealing any road users and certainly not for the most vulnerable.  The location of the cycle lane is also not supported because it requires the installation of the new traffic island (to protect parking), which in itself creates further problems  The proposed cycle lane is in the door zone making it dangerous for cyclists; drivers may suddenly pull out and block the lane. This danger is enhanced by the downhill gradient of the southbound carriageway, which between Central Road and Holne Close is around 1 in 30. A carelessly opened door could inflict life changing or life ending injuries.  The proposed layout also renders cycle users prone to the ‘left hook’ whereby drivers will pass closely and immediately turn left across cyclist’s path to enter a parking bay  The junction build-outs may encourage drivers to creep out further from side roads onto the carriageway creating a bigger problem  Prefer the southbound cycle lane to be between the footway and parking bays, with priority at junctions.  Believe that the construction of a good cycle path along the A24 may require loss of some existing grass verges, repositioning of some existing street furniture including lamp columns, or a reduction in the width of the central reservation.  Proposed shared space near south of Holne Close, and continuing to Rutland Drive is already shared space  Believe that shared areas are an “old way of thinking” and demonstrate a lack of aspiration and are not compatible with high levels of cycle use  Recommend a new signalised facility at the junction of Rutland Drive and Epsom Road. Feel that this would enable safe cycle movements in all directions (including between route 208 and the A24) and would remove the requirement for shared use footways.  Feel that bus stops need to be relocated north and southbound  Proposed scheme does little to make the Lower Morden Lane junction safer  The repositioned traffic island just the north of the junction with Lower Morden Lane, as well as trimming the central reservation does little to make the right hand turn into Lower Morden Lane safer for cyclists  Concerned that the repositioned traffic island does not leave enough space between the cycle lane and the cars driving past  South of the junction with Lower Morden Lane, the proposed cycle lane disappears and the second traffic island creates a nasty pinch point where people on bicycles are forced to take primary position  Opposed shared northbound bus lane, as not provided over the full length of A24 between Central Road and Lower Morden Lane (600 metres). The lane runs out at Central Road where it is needed most, a more robust cycle- friendly, facility is required here  The consultation plans do not give any indication of proposals to build a wider, better-aligned footway on the western side of Epsom Road.  Concerned that cyclists would still be in conflict with buses, minibuses, taxis and motorcycles. 12

 Opposed toucan crossing. Would have low usage and cost versus benefit should be questioned. The introduction of shared use areas and toucan crossings, suggests that low levels of cycling are expected now and in the future.  Feel that the crossing is effectively already a toucan for those few that use it  No meaningful interventions are proposed at the junctions  These proposals are modest compared to central London schemes  The section of the A24 has great potential for some first class facilities for cycling, expected better from TfL.  Feel that TfL have focused on areas that are easy to do cycling improvements rather than areas that are more challenging. The proposals need to be more ambitious.  Recommend that TfL reassess the proposals in order to deliver cycling infrastructure that excels, anticipates significant growth and is transformative.  Feel that the A24 needs infrastructure that will notably enhance cycling for the traditional commuter cyclist and be a compelling proposition for everyone else.

Guide Dogs Guide Dogs are not in favour of any proposed shared space areas. Visually Impaired people are unable to tell when it is safe to enter a shared space area because they cannot hear cyclists. Cyclists should not be encouraged to mount the pavement at any time. However, Guide dogs are supportive of the proposed new toucan crossing.

London TravelWatch Partially supports proposals to improve cycle facilities along A24 Epsom Road between Central Road and Lower Morden Lane. Strongly support the implementation of a new bus lane and feel this will improve the journey time and reliability for passengers. The bus lane will be a good facility for cycles and protect them from general traffic.

Would like to see the infilling of the bus stop lay-by. Buses can trapped in the lay- by due to traffic, they encourage parking at the stop and the bus cannot approach the kerb easily which may mean the ramp cannot be deployed or boarding and alighting is difficult. A wide bus lane (4.5m) at this point would be better for all users.

The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) LFEPA did not specifically state whether they supported or opposed the scheme. They stated that they were supportive of improvements to London’s infrastructure and support developers and contractors to reduce both the risk to Londoners and the impact of works being undertaken.

They are happy to work with the borough and TfL on this work and are willing to provide support and guidance on the project. Their core principle will always be to provide the best possible service to members of public and to uphold the commitments made to the all of the communities that live and work in the borough. officers have visited the site and can confirm the proposed work will have no effect on the London Fire Brigade.

13

The London Cycling Campaign Response was developed with input from the co-chairs of their Infrastructure Review Group, as well as Get Sutton Cycling. Oppose the proposals for the following reasons:  Stated that the A24 is a major through traffic route and according to the DfT (http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/), 12,000 vehicles daily including 300 HGVs travel along the A24 (as monitored near the scheme). The A24 Epsom Road is a key potential cycling route between North Cheam and Morden. The London Cycling Campaign policy, as well as recommendation from TfL’s London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS), is that above 2,000PCUs and/or above slow motor vehicle speeds, cyclists are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Feel this is what should be happening on the A24 but is not proposed in the scheme  Believe there is space for segregated cycle lanes in both directions, particularly if the central reservation were removed  Feel that the proposals do not provide facilities likely to encourage cycling among those less confident  The bus lanes provide some improved safety for existing cyclists but often stop when needed most and are also used by motorbikes, taxi, private hire vehicles  Junctions fail to offer a safe, convenient or comfortable cycling environment, likely feature multiple “Critical Fails” under the LCDS Cycling Level of Service (CLoS) and Junction Assessment Tool (JAT) matrixes  Believe the junction at Lower Morden Lane has been designed to aid motorists turning in and out of the road, but nothing has been done to help cyclists turning right in either direction easily or safely.  Similarly the approach to Central Road clearly demonstrates any willingness to tackle hostile junctions for cycling. ASL’s are not a suitable safety feature for such a large junction, nor do they encourage those who currently do not cycle  The proposals do not provide links. The A24 from North Cheam to Morden should be considered at once with the “hardest” sections designed first, and then funding should be sought and found to create the entire route  Concerned the cycle lanes go through the bus stops forcing cyclists into general traffic  Would like to see parking bays located between track and carriageway (with an appropriate “door” buffer zone) to provide extra protection to cyclists  Both the traffic islands north and south of Lower Morden Lane may introduce “Critical Fails” on carriageway width. The side roads in this scheme should feature little traffic – so “blended” crossings may be suitable, running the cycle track and pavement across the junction mouth  There should be a raised table at the top of each side road  Shared space not ideal for this location nor is a two-stage crossing. A direct crossing, in a “tiger” layout to enable cyclists and pedestrians to access , is preferred with tracks up to the crossing and a facility for cyclists to turn right onto it  Would like as a condition of funding, all highway development designed to London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS), with a Cycling Level of Service (CLoS) rating of 70 or above, with all “Critical Fails” eliminated

The London Borough of Merton We did not receive a response to the consultation from the borough.

14

6 Next steps

We are grateful for the views received through the consultation and have considered these carefully. At present we are not planning to proceed with the improvements consulted on in March 2016, following consideration of key stakeholder objections, as well as concerns raised by local residents in the public consultation. Our long-term intention is still to improve the cycling facilities at this location. We will discuss any new ideas carefully with stakeholders and local residents before a future scheme is devised.

15

Appendix A – Copy of the consultation letter

16

17

18

Appendix B – Leaflet distribution area

Digital Map Data (c) Collins Bartholomew Ltd (2016)

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted

Elected Members Stephen Hammond MP Richard Tracey AM Zac Goldsmith MP Valerie Shawcross AM Siobhain McDonagh MP Andrew Boff AM Dr Mathias MP Tom Copley AM David Warburton MP Stephen Knight AM Paul Scully MP Joanne McCartney AM Caroline Pidgeon Fiona Twycross AM Darren Johnson AM Nicky Gavron AM Gareth Bacon AM Steve O'Connell AM Jenny Jones AM Murad Qureshi AM

Local Authorities London Borough of Merton

Police & Health Authorities Metropolitan Police CCG NHS Central London Metropolitan Police - Community Police

19

Merton Safer Transport Team

Local Businesses / Interest Groups Aquajoy Water Gardens & West Barnes Residents' Association Bridal 88 South Thames College, Merton Campus Cycle Training Group – Merton Council St Helier’s Ward Residents Group Ecolocal cycling - Merton and Sutton St Lawrence Church Haig Housing Organisation Stonecot Surgery Living Streets - Merton The George Inn - Harvester London Cycling Campaign - Merton The James O'Riordan Medical Centre Merton Voluntary Service Council Travelodge Hotel - London Wimbledon Morden Morden Park Pool Turning Point Motorcycle Services Morden Primary School Willow Lane Trading Estate (Merton) Passenger Focus User Group

Other Stakeholders AA Motoring Trust London City Airport Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) London Councils Age Concern London London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Age UK London Fire Brigade Service Alzheimer's Society London General Buses Aquajoy Water Gardens London Older People's Strategy Group Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance London Omnibus Traction Society Association of British Drivers London TravelWatch Association of Car Fleet Operators London Underground Better Transport Metropolitan Police Heathrow Airport Brewery Logistics Group MIND British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) Motorcycle Action Group British Motorcyclists Federation Motorcycle Industry Association BT National Children's Bureau Business/ BID National Grid Campaign for Better Transport Northbank BID Canal & River Trust London Port of London Authority CCG NHS Central London RMT Union Transport Users Group RNIB Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Road Danger Reduction Forum Confederation of Passenger Transport Road Haulage Association UK CTC, The National Cycling Charity Royal Mail Department for Transport Royal Mail Parcel Force Disability Alliance Royal Parks Disability Rights UK Sense Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Sixty Plus Committee EDF Energy Stroke Association Freight Transport Association Surrey County Council GLA Strategy Access Panel members Sustrans Forum for the Elderly Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector Green Flag Group Tandridge District Council 20

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Taxi and Private hire ICE -London Thames Water Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and The British Dyslexia Association Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Joint Mobility Unit Turning Point Motorcycle Services Licenced Taxi Drivers Association Unions Together Living Streets Unite Union Victoria Business Improvement District

Appendix D - A list of views and suggestions made during the consultation

Number of times Support for Proposals/Positive comments issue raised Supportive of bus lane 3 Great improvements 3 Will increase safety for cyclists 2 Will reduce speeding 2 Bus lane will improve journey time for passengers 1 Proposals are sensible 1 Supportive of toucan crossing 1 Opposition/Negative comments Will make it more difficult turning in/out of side roads to/from A24 32 Will increase traffic in the area 31 Waste of public money and time 26 Bus lane not needed 23 Changes not needed/leave as it is 21 Poor design 16 Segregated cycle lanes needed on both sides of road 16 Pedestrian & Cyclist conflict 15 Not enough cyclists in area to justify cost 15 The bus lane will cause traffic 15 These proposals are poor compared to central London schemes 9 Cyclists more likely to use carriageway 9 Opposed shared space 8 Opposed toucan crossing 8 Reducing the central reservation will make it hard for vehicles 7 emerging from side roads Cycle facilities should not run through the bus stop 4 Cyclists do not contribute to roads or transport 4 Scheme favours cyclists over other road users 4 Will increase air pollution 4 Junction build-outs will encourage motorists to encroach further 3 into carriageway Proposals wont make a meaningful change 3 The right turn lane into Central Road not long enough 3 21

Increased journey time for road users 3 Concerns increased journey time for buses 3 Do not reduce central reservation/grass verges 2 Main problem is turning from A24 into and out of Lower Morden 2 Lane Money should be spent on prosecuting cyclists 2 Will increase rat running on side roads 2 Inconvenient 1 Shared space make it hard for visually impaired people 1 Does not create links 1 Keeping parking will reduce road space 1 Proposals not ambitious enough 1 Does not follow LCDS 1 Reposition of Traffic island 1 Spend money elsewhere 1 Will ruin the local landscape 1 Safety concerns The cycle lane should be protected/not in 'door zone' 21 Lower Morden Lane junction is dangerous 12 Restrict parking near side roads to improve visibility 9 Motorist & Cyclist conflict 8 Road users will use side roads this could lead to accidents 5 Bus / cyclist conflict 5 Junction buildouts are needed for Rutlands Drive 3 Upgrade the speed camera 3 Gradient of road dangerous for cyclists 2 Southbound cycle lane too narrow 2 No cycle lane opposite George Inn 2 Lane removal will hopefully reduce speed of cars 1 Traffic island means emerging parked cars are forced directly 1 into traffic General comment The Right turn filter lane into Lower Morden Lane not long 7 enough for peak traffic Proposals need more research/traffic studies 6 Time restrictions for bus lane not mentioned 5 New Asda store will bring more traffic 4 Buttons on existing crossing often fail 3 Ensure junction build outs are enough to improve visibility 2 Request for further info 2 A pedestrian bridge would be more helpful 1 Hillcross Avenue is a difficult route for buses 1 Should have pedestrian priority in shared space areas 1 Take space from the footway 1 Suggestions Trim back central reservation further to accommodate cycle 8 lanes Start bus lane from Thames College/ Morden South 4

22

Continue cycle lane past traffic lights at Central Road to church 3 Create an island bus stop 3 Improve cycle links to Morden Park 3 Introduce mini roundabout near Lower Morden Lane 3 Give priority to cyclists at junctions 2 Make The George Inn left turn only 1 Add southbound bus lane 1 Display 30mph sign 1 Extend CS7 at Colliers Wood to link to these cycle facilities 1 Have a cycle path on Hillcross Avenue 1 Have traffic leaving Rutland Drive left-turn only and utilise space 1 occupied by central reservation Install box junction at Road/Stonecot Hill 1 junction Install CCTV along route 1 Install double red lines along route 1 Make top of Lower Morden Lane shared space to allow cyclists 1 easier transition onto A24 Have northbound bus stop next to Rougemont Avenue or The 1 George Inn Install yellow box at Holne Chase 1 Install pedestrian crossing between Rougemont Avenue and The 1 George Inn Reduce pedestrian waiting time at crossing 1 Relocate southbound traffic island to allow 3 lanes northbound 1 Widen Lower Morden Lane to allow for one right and one left turn 1

23