A4 Great West Road with Ealing Road Modernisation of traffic signals and proposed

junction improvements at A4 Great West Road with

Ealing Road

December 2015

A4 Great West Road with Ealing Road Modernisation of traffic signals and proposed

junction improvements at A4 Great West Road with

Ealing Road

Contents

1 Background....................................................................................................... 1

2 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

3 The consultation ............................................................................................... 2

4 Overview of consultation responses ................................................................. 4

5 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ................................ 8

6 Next steps ....................................................................................................... 13

Appendix A – Copy of the consultation letter ............................................................ 14

Appendix B – Letter distribution area ........................................................................ 17

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted ............................................................ 17

Appendix D – Response to issues raised ................................................................. 19

1

1 Background

We are planning to modernise the traffic signal equipment at the junction of the A4 Great

West Road with Ealing Road. The existing equipment which manages the operation of

the junction is approaching the end of its operational life, and is in need of upgrading.

The current method of control has traffic circulating the roundabout receiving a green

signal at the same time as Ealing Road, which means that traffic from Ealing Road is in

direct conflict with traffic on the roundabout. To meet the current design and safety

guidance this cannot continue, so a new method of control will be introduced to separate

the north and south flow to avoid conflicting movements. However, traffic modelling

exercises showed that implementing an additional signal phase to allow north and south

traffic to flow separately would create a build up of traffic at the junction.

In order to prevent this, we proposed to change the layout of the junction to effectively manage existing traffic flows. The changes we proposed were:

Install two new lanes across the middle of the junction which would allow motorists on either side of Ealing Road to drive directly across, rather than around the roundabout

Right turns at the junction will be carried out using a newly designed signal controlled roundabout to improve safety at the junction

Realign the existing A4 toucan crossing to a straight across crossing to shorten the distance pedestrians and cyclists have to cross

Provide new shared space footway on the northern side of the junction to improve continuity for cyclists

Drop the kerbs and install tactile paving to formalise the uncontrolled pedestrian crossing points

2 Introduction

We 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 23

February and 20 March 2015. 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

2.1 Purpose of the Scheme

The purpose of the scheme is to modernise the traffic signal equipment at the junction of

the A4 Great West Road with Ealing Road and to change the layout of the junction to

improve safety for road users, pedestrians and cyclists.

2.2 Location maps

Map 1 shows the location of the proposed scheme

Digital Map Data (c) Collins Bartholomew Ltd (2015)

3 The consultation

The consultation was designed to enable TfL to:

Raise general awareness of the scheme with local residents, stakeholders and the

public

Explain the proposed changes

Provide the opportunity for people to contact us with their feedback about the

updated proposals

The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding

with the scheme as originally planned.

We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation.

We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation.

3

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.

3.1 Who we consulted

The public consultation intended to seek the views of residents living close to the A4

Great West Road, Ealing Road junction. Please see Appendix B for a map of the local

area we consulted.

We consulted stakeholders including The Metropolitan Police, 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 wrote a letter which contained a map explaining the proposed scheme and changes

to the junction. This was distributed to 5,123 local households and businesses. A copy of

this letter and map is shown in Appendix A.

The consultation material asked one specific question regarding the proposals:

1. Do you support the proposed changes to the layout of the junction at A4 Great West

Road with Ealing Road? Yes / No / Not sure

In addition, we had a freetext area where people were able to leave their comments.

We invited people to respond to the consultation using the TfL website

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/a4-ealing-road or by writing to us at FREEPOST

TFL CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Pre-consultation

Our project team were in regular contact with the London Borough of Ealing and the

London Borough of Hounslow to talk to them about our forthcoming proposals. Both

boroughs expressed concern about different areas of the scheme.

4

4 Overview of consultation responses

A total number of 170 consultation responses were received, 10 by email, 4 by post and

156 were submitted online, see chart below.

In the consultation we asked one specific question to see how much support there was

for our proposals. Figure 1 below shows the specific question we asked in and the

number of people who answered yes, no, those who were not sure and those who did not

answer the question.

5

Figure 1 below shows the answers received to our specific question

The consultation showed that 49% of people supported the proposals, 39% of people

opposed the proposals, 9% of people were not sure, and 3% of people did not answer the

question.

People who were supportive of the scheme said:

“I believe the proposed layout is a big improvement and is long overdue”

“I think the straight across lanes for Ealing Road are an excellent idea and will make a

huge improvement to traffic flow”

“This is a good proposal, much needed because of the increased volume of traffic as a

result of the new residential and commercial developments nearby”

People who opposed the scheme said:

“It will create unnecessary delays for buses and noise from road works”

“It's disappointing that a pedestrian crossing is not being introduced at the north end of Ealing Road. It seems dangerous, to add new dropped kerbs and tactile pavements here, and it suggests that it is a safe place to cross.” “An expensive solution to a problem that hardly exists”

6

Additional comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide further comments about our proposal. Of the 170 responses, 151 provided comments. The table below summarises the views and suggestions received during the consultation. Our full response to issues raised is provided in Appendix D. A summary of views and suggestions received

Support for proposals/Positive comments Number of times issue raised

Supportive comment 22

Supportive on certain conditions 10

Supportive - other suggestion 10

The current layout is dangerous and needs to change 10

Will remove confusion on priority 10

Will improve safety 9

New north/south lanes will offer a reduction in traffic on E/W 5

Petrol station entrance closure 3

Will improve cycling 2

Shared space is welcome 1

Opposition/Negative comments

Pedestrian and cyclist crossings need to be installed now, not later 22

Will increase traffic 17

Against shared space 8

The junction is fine as it is now 6

Opposed - other suggestion 6

An unnecessary expense 3

Against new north/south lanes 3

The works will create noise 2

Against petrol station closure 1

The new design is confusing for older people 1

The planned pedestrian crossings will create traffic 1

Too many traffic lights on A4 1

Concerned the no 65 bus will be caught in traffic 1

Loss of parking 1

Safety concerns

Proposals are not safe for cyclists 36

North/south lanes need segregated cycle lanes 25

Proposals will make the junction unsafe 9

Motorists will speed more 6

The proposed dropped kerbs are dangerous 3

Keep bollards to stop HGV's mounting kerb 2

Improve lighting under flyover 2

Right turn from A4 Westbound onto Northbound Ealing Road is dangerous

2

7

General comment

Improve cycling facilities at this junction 49

Improve cycling facilities along all of the A4 23

More information/question asked 17

Need more pedestrian crossings 17

Would like to see more pedestrian and cycle crossings 16

Improve north/south cycling at this junction 14

Improve east/west cycling at this junction 10

Provide pedestrian crossings on both east and west sides 6

Need yellow box junctions 5

New north/south lanes need to be wider 5

Other suggestion 5

Paving/cycle lane surface needs to be maintained 4

The road surface at this junction needs to be fixed 4

More road signage is needed at this junction 3

Traffic light phasing is too short 3

Junction needs more enforcement/cameras 2

Have 3 right turn lanes 2

HGV's should be re-routed via A406 1

Plant trees in central reservation 1

Consider pedestrian footbridge/underpass 1

Make the junction bigger 1

Give buses priority on Ealing Road 1

Have a bus stop for 65 bus inside GWQ 1

Reinstate the underpass 1

Other comments

Junction A4 Clayponds Lane is dangerous 4

Consultation process 1

8

5 Responses from statutory bodies and other

stakeholders

We received a total of six responses from stakeholders. Their responses are summarised

below.

The London Borough of Hounslow (LBH)

The London Borough of Hounslow objected to the proposals for the following reasons:

The Consultation

Said the consultation was misleading as it stated that adding in an additional red

phase for the north and south movements would create a build up of traffic at the

junction. LBH said the consultation material should have also said that the proposed

layout would also create a build up of traffic at the junction

Asked what work has been carried out to-date on trying to find a solution to the lack

of signalised pedestrian crossings, and how long this would take to be installed

Suggested a greater level of engagement should have been carried out with the

boroughs and stakeholders before the proposals went to public consultation

Disappointed at the level of background information received despite the junction

being in LBH and LBH being the traffic/highway authority for Ealing Road

Standards/Policy

Noted the consultation material’s statement that the “latest standards will not permit

the current method of control to continue.” and asked what standard this is and

confirm what consideration has been given to authorising a departure from it.

Safety

Asked why the current method of control is being changed when there is not an

overly high accident rate at this junction, and what analysis TfL have carried out

Asked how TfL has assessed safety concerns raised in its TSSR assessment and

what analysis has been done on whether the proposed layout will lead to an increase

or decrease in accidents

Traffic modelling

Noted that the TSSR assessment suggests the proposals would impact on traffic

flows in the morning peak but does not provide data for other times of day.

Requested that TfL provide all of the relevant traffic survey and traffic modelling data

Pedestrians and cyclists

Concerned the proposals do not cater at all for the pedestrian and cyclist east-west

movement and would like to know how any east-west pedestrian/cycle provisions will

be provided in ‘phase two’ of the project

9

Noted that TfL’s TSSR suggests that pedestrian wait times may increase from the

current maximum wait time and said this increase may lead to pedestrians crossing

without waiting for the green man stage

Disappointed that such a major change to a junction does not give more

consideration for the needs of cyclists

Buses

Requested information on whether the proposals would have an impact on bus

journey times and what TfL plans to do to mitigate this

The London Borough of Ealing (LBE)

The London Borough of Ealing objects to the proposals for the following reasons:

Safety

Felt that the consultation material should have stated the existing accident record at

the junction

Not confident that the proposals would be safer than the existing arrangement

Said the lane markings would be confusing for right turn drivers approaching from the

A4 into Ealing Road.

The placement of signal heads to achieve adequate visibility and avoid driver

confusion may prove difficult within the proposed arrangement.

Suggested cyclists would encounter significant hazards in navigating the junction,

particularly right turn movements to and from Ealing Road. LBE feel that the

proposals should address this issue and implement them at the same time as the

junction improvements.

Felt that the far sided signals near the existing toucan crossing may lead to

pedestrians mis-interpreting the crossing and crossing at a red man

Concerned that the proposed north/south lanes on Ealing Road may encourage

higher speeds and an increased possibility of one of the supporting piers being

struck.

TfL’s Traffic Signal Supplementary Report (TSSR)

Felt that information should be provided to support the TSSR’s statement that there

will be a likely increase in flows due to developments where the response is to

increase cycle time, which will “still be acceptable for pedestrians”

Concerned that the TSSR shows that, compared to the current method of control, the

proposals would significantly increase congestion on two of the arms in the AM peak.

The borough feel the impact of longer safety timings should be examined carefully as

part of scenario testing before final decisions are made.

Questioned whether the VISSIM model quoted has been deemed fit for purpose

Concerned that there is no mention of testing other peak periods, and no evidence

that surveyed turning counts have been used, and no mention of resilience scenario

testing.

10

Noted surprise that no objections were raised in the TSSR recommendation given the

high modelled saturation levels

Buses

The borough is concerned about the impact the proposals would have on buses, in

particular route 65

Pedestrian and cyclists

The borough believes more should be done to cater for the pedestrian and cyclist

movement and that some aspects of the proposals make it worse for these groups.

Standards/Policy

Noted that the TSSR states that “Current safety standards dictate that the new design

cannot be replaced like for like…..” and requested TfL clarify the legal status of these

standards.

The borough feels that that the unswerving and uncritical application of standards

and guidance can in some cases produce very undesirable results and that Ealing

Road falls into this category. Added that it is reasonable and defendable for

authorities to depart from standards from time to time if doing so produces a better

all-round solution

Argued there is a low accident rate at the junction and no convincing evidence to

suggest that accidents can be attributed to the current arrangements

Suggested TfL undertake a multi-criteria framework assessment of the pros and cons

of this scheme, including indicators such as the impact of displaced traffic, rat-

running, air quality, active and healthy travel, severance, capital and revenue cost

and benefits

Consultation

Suggested the consultation should have shown the predicted traffic impacts of the

proposed layout as well as those of introducing a separate signal stage allowing north

and southbound traffic to flow separately

Suggested that a greater level of engagement was required before the consultation

went live and would like to work with TfL and LB Hounslow when further work is being

developed

Hounslow Cycling Campaign

Hounslow Cycling Campaign objects to the proposals for the following reasons:

They feel that this is one of the worst junctions along the A4 in LB Hounslow for

pedestrians and cyclists and there is a big cycling community in this area with many

people choosing to cycle to work. Hounslow Cycling Campaign feels that the redesign

of this junction should acknowledge this community and provide a solution safe and

attractive to all cyclists and pedestrians

Feel that the proposals should prioritise vulnerable road users and provide safe

crossings now rather than later.

11

Suggest that a signalled crossroads would work better (like other junctions on the A4)

and believe that the only positive aspect of this scheme is the closure of the petrol

station entrance, which is positioned dangerously.

Object to the removal of the section of cycle track, and would like TfL to upgrade and

extend the cycle tracks to provide a direct and continuous route through the junction

as well as provide separate traffic signals for cyclists.

Believe that the proposed shared use footways either side of Ealing Road provide a

very low level of service to both pedestrians and cyclists and that TfL are going

against the 2015 London Cycling Design Standards and The London Mayor's Cycling

Vision would support the proposed straightening of the existing toucan crossing of the

A4 if proper feeder cycle tracks are provided either side to enable cyclists to

conveniently and safely cross the A4 and turn on and off it to/from Ealing Road.

Request a second crossing on the west arm of the junction for northbound cyclists on

Ealing Road.

Concerned that if high quality cycle tracks and crossings are not provided cyclists will

continue to use the carriageway. They would like the proposed north/south lanes to

be a minimum of 4.5 metres wide to allow larger vehicles to overtake slower cyclists

safely.

Request that TfL 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.

Ealing Cycling Campaign

The Ealing Cycling Campaign did not answer the question ‘Do you support the proposed

changes to the layout of the junction at A4 Great West Road with Ealing Road?’

However; they were concerned about a number of aspects of the proposals:

The current layout of the junction is unsatisfactory both for motorists and cyclists,

and even if the junction has a low accident rate it can be a stressful experience

negotiating it

The proposals do not provide continuous cycle routes in either E-W or N-S

directions, albeit that the proposed E-W shared use will be better than the present

arrangement

Suggest cycle signage directing west-bound cyclists on the north side of the A4

towards the crossing on Ealing Road, as well as for east-bound cyclists on the

south side of the A4

Ask whether the E-W cycle/pedestrian crossings over the Ealing Road approaches

will be signalled as a separate stage. They feel it may be necessary to provide a

delayed start for the West to North and East to South movements, to achieve this

Suggest that mandatory cycle lanes are installed alongside the new north/south

lanes, adding that the toucan crossing is too far and will not attract much use.

12

Ealing Fields Residents Association (EFRA)

Ealing Fields Residents Association (EFRA) objects to the proposals for the following

reasons:

Concerned about how the proposals will affect the safety of pedestrians using the

junction and feel that more could be done overall for pedestrians at this junction

Suggested that a pedestrian crossing should be installed to the west of the

junction (as there is to the east)

Concerned that the proposed changes at the junction will create significant bottle

necks, particularly for traffic travelling south. This will have ramifications for

congestion in our area and will potentially cause tail backs of traffic down Windmill

Road, Occupation Road and elsewhere

Supported the London Borough of Hounslow's and the London Borough of Ealing's

objections to the proposals

Cyclists' Touring Club

The Cyclists’ Touring Club did not answer the question ‘Do you support the proposed

changes to the layout of the junction at A4 Great West Road with Ealing Road?’

However; they showed concern about the proposals for the following reasons:

Believe that the proposals prioritise traffic capacity over local cyclist and pedestrian

safety and that TfL's proposals for the layout and signalling would be a wasted

opportunity as existing conditions at the junction are terrible

Would like TfL to install toucan crossings of both arms of Ealing Road, with a

separate protected phase and would like this to be done now rather than at a later

stage

13

6 Next steps

The consultation showed that 49% of people supported the proposals, 39% of people

opposed the proposals, and 9% of people were not sure.

We are grateful for the views received through the consultation and have considered

these carefully. Following review of the main issues raised, and in particular those raised

by the London Boroughs of Hounslow and Ealing, we have decided to postpone the

scheme whilst we investigate alternative design options.

Our traffic signal modernisation team have agreed to maintain the signals for as long as

possible to give us time to develop an alternative option.

We will update stakeholders and consultation respondents once we have come to a

decision.

Our response to issues commonly raised in consultation is available in Appendix D.

14

Appendix A – Copy of the consultation letter

15

16

17

Appendix B – Letter distribution area

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted

Elected Members

Tony Arbour AM Mary Macleod MP

Caroline Pidgeon AM Virenda Sharma MP

Richard Tracey AM Angie Bray MP

Valerie Shawcross AM Stephen Pound MP

Joanne McCartney AM Onkar Sahota AM

Local Authorities

London Borough of Ealing

London Borough of Hounslow

© Crown copyright and database rights (2015) Ordnance Survey

18

Police & Health Authorities

Metropolitan Police Ealing Safer Transport Team

London Ambulance Service Hounslow Safer Transport Team

Metropolitan Police - Community Police

Local Interest Groups

London Cycling Campaign (Hounslow) Ealing Civic Society

London Cycling Campaign (Ealing) Ealing Passenger Transport Users' Group

West London Alliance West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society

Norwood Green Residents' Association West Twyford Residents' Association

Medway Estate Residents' Forum Ealing Fields Residents Association

Other Stakeholders

AA Motoring Trust London Fire and Emergency Planning

Authority

Age Concern London London Older People's Strategy Group

Age UK London Omnibus Traction Society

Alzheimer's Society London TravelWatch

Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Metropolitan Police Heathrow Airport

Association of Car Fleet Operators MIND

Better Transport Motorcycle Action Group

British Motorcyclists Federation Motorcycle Industry Association

BT National Children's Bureau

Campaign for Better Transport National Grid

CCG Hounslow National Grid - electricity

CCG NHS Central London Northbank BID

Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Port of London Authority

19

Department for Transport RMT Union

Disability Alliance RNIB

Disability Rights UK Road Haulage Association

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Royal Parks

EDF Energy Sense

Freight Transport Association Sixty Plus

Greater London Forum for the Elderly Stroke Association

Green Flag Group Sustrans

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Taxi and Private hire

Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS)

Thames Water

Joint Mobility Unit The British Dyslexia Association

Liberal Democrats Unions Together

Licenced Taxi Drivers Association Unite Union

Living Streets Victoria Business Improvement District

London Councils

Appendix D – Response to issues raised

Issues that were raised regarding cycling facilities at the junction A4

Great West Road with Ealing Road

The cycling facilities along the A4, in particular at this junction need to be

improved. There needs to be continuous segregated cycle lanes.

Cycle tracks run on both sides of the A4 between Syon Lane and Chiswick roundabout, it

terminates on the northern side between Ealing Road and Windmill Road where a

continuous track cannot be provided due to petrol station and service road access

requirements. This design is proposing to make improvements outside the petrol station

which would include widening and providing a shared pedestrian and cyclist area to

improve continuity.

The cycle tracks work well but require cyclists to share the areas around junctions. There

is not enough space at the junction to provide full segregated facilities.

20

Why are cycle tracks being removed in your proposals?

The only cycle track being removed is a small section on the north east corner of the

junction where it is deemed unsafe as it runs into the opposing traffic in the carriageway.

In our proposals we are widening the footpath and taking cyclists out of the carriageway

and into a shared use area, leading to new dropped kerb facilities on Ealing Road.

The London Mayor's Cycling Vision heralded an end to "confusing shared use

pavements". Why are they being proposed at this junction?

The shared use facility that we proposed is in an area where it is not possible to provide a

continuous segregated cycle track without acquisition of third party land. There are

segregated tracks along the A4 Great West Road through to the vicinity of the junction.

The proposed new north/south lanes should have cycle lanes.

The possibility of a segregated lane through the centre of the roundabout was discounted

due to issues with both build and safety. Cyclists would merge into one lane with traffic

exiting the junction on Ealing Road. This could increase the risk of collisions and/or lead

to cyclists mounting the pavement and colliding with pedestrians.

The kerb buildout should be lessened on the proposed new north/south lanes to

allow enough space for a cyclist and a car to ride abreast through to the other side

of the roundabout safely.

The lane widths have been designed so cyclists pass through the junction in the main

traffic stream. The risk of providing wider lanes is that this may encourage drivers to

overtake cyclists and may encourage illegal right turns in and out of the north/south

central lanes.

The proposals could do more to direct west-bound cyclists on the north side of the

A4 towards the crossing on Ealing Road, as well as east-bound cyclists on the

south side of the A4. Introduce cycle signage to guide cyclists.

We are proposing to widen the footpath and provide a shared use area, leading to new

dropped kerb facilities on Ealing Road. The shared area will be supported by

cycle/pedestrian signs.

The cycle tracks at this junction and along the A4 are in poor condition

We have raised these concerns with the London Borough of Hounslow, who are

responsible for cleaning the cycle tracks. There are currently proposals to resurface

some of the worst sections between the A4 Great West Road Lionel Road and Chiswick

Roundabout. The rest of the tracks will be assessed and maintained in priority order.

Feeder cycle tracks should be provided either side of the existing toucan crossing

to enable cyclists to conveniently and safely cross the A4 and turn on/off it to/from

Ealing Road.

The footway widths on Ealing Road north leading to the toucan crossing east of the

junction are not wide enough to accommodate dropped kerbs and feeder lane facilities.

There is no crossing facility across the A4 on the west side. Cyclists can cross the

21

junction from Ealing Road in the main stream of traffic using the north and south through

lanes supported by advance cycle stop lines without the need to navigate the roundabout.

Issues raised regarding pedestrian and cyclist crossings at the

junction

The redesign of this junction should acknowledge the importance of the cycling

community and provide a solution safe and attractive to all cyclists and

pedestrians.

Approval to progress this scheme would only be given with conditions that further

pedestrian and cycle improvements are delivered within a second phase.

Has a pedestrian underpass been considered?

Yes. Surveys show that there are a low number of pedestrian and cyclists using this

junction. In general, pedestrians and cyclists prefer to use at level crossing facilities due

to inconvenience and security concerns when using subways. Furthermore, underpasses

are not accessible to all users and are costly to install and maintain. We do not consider

them to be an appropriate option at this location.

Improve pedestrian crossings across the roundabout to travel from Ealing towards

Brentford, and on the west side of the junction

The existing crossing on the east side of the junction would be relocated to allow for the

elongated roundabout design. The crossing would be changed from a staggered

crossing to a straight across to provide a direct route for pedestrians and cyclists. We

considered taking pedestrians through the centre of the roundabout, but as this is not a

consistent crossing approach on the A4 it may not be anticipated by drivers and was

therefore discounted on safety grounds. In addition, the stop lines on the A4 would need

to be set back which would increase delays at the junction. The M4 piers supporting the

structure, combined with the existing petrol station access, gives very little opportunity to

provide a new signalised crossing in close proximity to the west of junction. We expect

that pedestrians would make the small detour to the signalised crossing point provided

east of the junction to cross.

Pedestrian crossings should be installed as part of this phase. What work has been

done so far for phase two and when will it be implemented?

Various crossing options were modelled during preliminary design, but a signal crossing

solution was not found. We are aiming to have design options for crossing facilities on

Ealing Road drafted by the end of this calendar year. Approvals to proceed will only be

given on provision that the pedestrian and cycling issues are addressed within phase two

of this scheme.

With the new arrangement will the pedestrian wait times increase at the existing

crossing on the eastern side of the junction?

Pedestrian wait times would be within the current acceptable standard on the Transport

for London Road Network.

22

The proposed new ‘straight ahead’ toucan crossing may lead to pedestrians

misinterpreting the crossing signals on the far side section of the crossing and

cross on a red man

The proposed ‘straight ahead’ toucan crossing island is 7.5 metres wide, the minimum

island width required is 6 metres. We have adequate width to ensure pedestrians do not

see through the junction and misinterpret the far side signal.

Issues that were raised relating to the road layout / design of the

junction

Would the proposals create a build-up of traffic at the junction?

During the preliminary design stage we had to compare our proposals against a scenario

rather than an existing situation, given that the signals need to be replaced and safety

guidance would not allow the existing arrangement to be re-installed. We therefore

predicted what would happen if we left the junction as it is and added in an additional red

phase to remove the existing conflict between traffic coming from Ealing Road and traffic

coming off the roundabout. Such a layout would have a greater impact on traffic

compared to the scheme we consulted on.

The consultation material stated that the latest standards would not permit the

current method of control to continue. What standard is this referring to?

The latest European standards adopted in the UK, specification TR2500 & BS EN 12675,

identifies green/green conflicts as a major fault resulting in the controller shutting down. In

the case of this junction it would be traffic from Ealing Road being in direct conflict with

traffic coming off the roundabout).

Is it possible to widen both the north and southbound Ealing Road junctions to

accommodate cars turning left?

There are commercial and residential properties bounding the junction. There is no

opportunity to widen Ealing Road north and southbound without compulsory land

purchase.

The road surface is at this junction is very poor

The road would be resurfaced as part of the scheme. This will remove any existing

potholes and defects.

Safety and enforcement issues

The consultation does not mention a history of accidents at the junction; does the

layout need to be changed?

Yes, this is not a road safety scheme. The objectives of this scheme are to modernise

the signal equipment that are at the end of their effective life and are in need of

replacement. In most cases this would be on a like for like basis. However, to meet the

most up to date signal policies, the method of control at this junction needs to be changed

to remove conflict points that currently exist.

23

There needs to be a stronger police presence at this junction to monitor dangerous

drivers

TfL work very closely with the Police where we have evidence of a specific issue. If

required and if the scheme is implemented, we will would ask for tougher enforcement.

The proposed new layout may cause motorists to speed more

As with all TfL highway schemes of this nature, a rigorous multi-stage Road Safety Audit

process takes place both during design and after construction. Any concerns regarding

safety would be addressed.

Yellow boxes need to be introduced at this junction

If the scheme is implemented, we would carefully monitor the operation of the junction

and yellow boxes would be considered after we assessed how the junction is performing

under the new arrangement.

HGV’s are dangerous and should be banned from this junction

The A4 Great West Road is a strategic road on the Transport for London Road Network

(TLRN). Its primary function is supporting commuting and the transportation of freight. As

such, we would not ban HGV’s on the A4. Larger vehicle counts are very low at

approximately one vehicle every 15 minutes, which is not considered to cause an issue.

The design has been assessed and accommodates these HGV movements.

Leave the bollards in place to stop HGVs from mounting the kerbs when turning

from the A4 into Ealing Road

We would implement measures to ensure that footways cannot be mounted.

Urban Realm issues

Can you improve the appearance of the central reservation with grass and plants

rather than concrete?

We have considered urban realm improvements including grass, flowers and flora.

Unfortunately the M4 structure above the junction means very little daylight reaches

below. Greenery, plants or grass would not flourish in such an environment. We are

investigating the feasibility of providing lighting enhancements at the pedestrian crossings

to improve the visual appearance of this space.

The lighting under the flyover needs to improve, especially for the benefit of

pedestrians and cyclists

We are currently progressing designs under the M4 to light the undercroft spaces used by

cyclists and pedestrians. In addition to this the lighting at the junction on the carriageway

is due to be upgraded to new LED columns.

24

Bus related issues

The proposed new layout may create delays to bus routes 65 and H91

Our proposals would mean that the route 65 bus would have a direct reduction in travel

time as it would be able to travel straight through the roundabout after it receives a green

signal on Ealing Road.

The route H91 would have a wider outside lane to manoeuvre; we anticipate that our

proposals would not cause any delays to this route.

Issues raised that were not directly related to the scheme

The junction where Clayponds Lane/Clayponds Avenue crosses the A4 is

dangerous

The Clayponds junction is a cross road arrangement which exits between the M4 piers.

Due to the constraints of the M4, there is very little opportunity to change the

arrangement at the junction. We are aware of the number of collisions at this junction,

many which include shunt (nose to tail) type collisions on approach to the signals and

change of lane collisions. We are proposing to make changes at the junction which

include installing new LED signals. These would enhance the visibility of the signal

equipment and reduce the number of shunts occurring. We will review opportunities to

mitigate against vehicles changing lanes through the junction as part of this scheme.

Have a bus stop for the 65 in the Great West Quarter (GWQ for buses towards

Kingston)

This is private land owned by Barratts developers, any new bus route and bus

infrastructure inside the GWQ would be subject to Barratts permission and a full public

consultation.