A312 Church Road, Northolt: Proposed road safety …...A312 – Safety Improvement Scheme, Church Road, Northolt 3 1. Background 1.1 History of the Proposal Church Road is located

Transport for London

A312 – Safety Improvement Scheme, Church Road, Northolt

1

A312 Church Road, Northolt: Proposed road

safety improvements Feedback Report



2

Contents Page: Section Page No.

1. Background to the Proposal ........................................................................................................3

1.1 History of the proposal...................................................................................................................3

1.2 Scheme Objective..........................................................................................................................3

1.3 Description of proposals................................................................................................................3

2. Consultation/Engagement.............................................................................................................3 2.1 Design Drawing sent to stakeholders.............................................................................................4

2.2 Aims of the consultation letter sent to Borough representatives....... ...........................................6

2.3 Who did we inform about the scheme............................................................................................6

3. Results of the Consultation………………………..........................................................................6 4. Issue/Comments Matrix.................................................................................................................8

5. Conclusion......................................................................................................................................19

APPENDIX A: Consultation Letter

APPENDIX B: Stakeholder Contacts Spreadsheet

APPENDIX C: Public Contacts Spreadsheet

Author Sara Peters – Consultation & Communications Manager

Checker Chris Hall – Consultation Delivery Specialist

Approvers Laura Dyett – Senior Regional Planner

David Condon – Regional Planning Manager



3

1. Background 1.1 History of the Proposal Church Road is located along the A312, between Target Roundabout and White Hart Roundabout in Northolt. The scheme has been developed as a result of the number of reported collisions on the road particularly those involving pedestrians and speed as a contributory factor. A large proportion of the pedestrian collisions have resulted from pedestrians jumping over the guardrail in the central reservation and being struck by vehicles on the other side. In addition, some vehicle speeds in both directions along the road are significantly higher than the 30mph speed limit. 1.2 Scheme Objective The objective of the scheme is to reduce the total number of collisions involving all road users by changing the nature of the road and therefore drivers’ perception of the appropriate speed to adopt when travelling along the road.

1.3 Description of the proposals: 2. Consultation/Engagement 2.1 See design drawings below sent to stakeholders and residents as part of the engagement exercise.

The new proposal will include:

Removing long sections of pedestrian guard rail from the central reservation and replacing this with trees at regular intervals

Creating a ‘gateway’ effect at the entrance to Church Road from Target and White Hart roundabouts. This will be done by using a combination of signs, road markings and different road surfacing that will emphasise the 30mph speed limit of the road

Installing electronic speed limit reminder signs along the road instructing drivers travelling over the speed limit to slow down

Amending the layout of the bus lane at side roads in order to provide for safer turning movements into and out of these roads.



4



5



6

2.2 Aim of the Consultation letter The aim of the consultation letter was to inform stakeholders and residents about the safety improvement scheme. The consultation letter’s purpose was to hear what the borough had to say about the proposals and to answer any public queries about how the proposal would work.

The consultation letter set out how the proposed new scheme would work. Letters were sent on the 24 May 2012 and responses were asked for by the 21 June 2012. (A copy of the consultation letter is included at the back of this report under Appendix A). 2.3 Who did we inform about the scheme? The letter was sent to Ward Councillors, the local MP, London Borough of Ealing transport officers, local police, the London Cycling Campaign and residents in the immediate vicinity. See contacts spreadsheets under Appendix B in the back of this report.

3. Results of the Consultation

3.1 Feedback/Issues Raised Generally the feedback received was not in support of the scheme. LB Ealing is supportive of the scheme and in addition to their response we received 3 other stakeholder responses from Cllr Chris Summers, Brent Cyclists and the Ealing Cycling Campaign out of a total of 41 stakeholders consulted, 35 responses were received from members of the public. A total of 39 responses were received from 929 letters sent to residents and businesses in the local area and 41 stakeholders and stakeholder groups. There were 11 responses in support of the proposals, 24 responses were not in support of the proposals and 3 responses were neither in support or not supportive of the proposals. Overall response rate was 4%. The Graph below shows how responses were received,



7

Generally, the feedback received questioned the impact on the safety of cyclists, particularly from allowing HGVs to travel in the bus lanes, and the safety of removing the pedestrian guardrail. A summary of responses has been put into the table below.

Email Web Total

Number of responses 6 33 39

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Number of responses



8

4. Issues/Comments Matrix

No Issue Response

1 Narrowing the traffic lanes by widening the central reservation would be dangerous.

The outside traffic lane in each direction is only being narrowed by a maximum of 20cm and this will only be done where absolutely necessary; so for the majority of the road the lane widths will not change by this amount. Drivers should not find it harder to turn left into the side roads because of this and we are amending the carriageway markings at some locations to make it easier to turn across the bus lane. The central reservation will only be widened where necessary to create the minimum space required to plant trees. Two lanes will remain in both directions that are wide enough to support free flowing traffic. The passage of emergency vehicles will be unaffected by the proposals.

2 Instead of narrowing the road TfL should use the opportunity to build in appropriate cycle lanes.

An on carriageway cycle lane would need to be at least 1.5m wide and there simply isn’t enough space to provide this whilst also maintaining two traffic lanes in each direction and a reasonable footway width to accommodate the pedestrian flows.

3 The central reservation should not be widened at the entrance to Church Road from Target Roundabout

We are not widening the central reservation at the entrance to Church Road from Target Roundabout, around the bend. We are instead providing two standard width lanes with hatched marking in between them to encourage better lane discipline around this bend.

4 There should be three lanes reducing to two lanes coming from the Target roundabout. This would eliminate sudden turns as drivers tend to do when they realise they are about to miss their turning.

There is not enough space within the highway boundary to create a third lane on the exit from Target roundabout to Church Road. The carriageway width at this roundabout is constrained because it sits on a fixed structure above the A40.

5 A third lane should be provided in both directions on Church Road

There is not enough space within the highway boundary to create a third traffic lane in either direction.

6 HGVs and Cyclists should not be allowed together in bus lanes.

We have recently implemented a separate scheme to improve cycling facilities along this road by providing shared footways on both sides of the road. These shared footways link with the cycle facilities provided in the subway systems at both Target and White Hart roundabouts at either end of the road. We would typically provide off



9

carriageway facilities for cyclists where vehicle flows and speeds are high as is the situation on Church Road. In addition traffic data that we collected in September 2009 indicated that cyclists preferred to use the footway, with 60 doing so over a 12 hour period (7am to 7pm) compared with 29 on the carriageway in both directions. The bus lanes only operate in the peak hours (7-10am and 4-7pm) so for the majority of the day cyclists are currently sharing the nearside lane with all vehicles and are doing so without recorded incident. Total collisions involving cyclists on the road are low with only one recorded collision, which resulted in a slight injury, in the three year period to May 2012. In addition traffic data collected in March 2010 shows that HGVs form a very small proportion of traffic during peak hours, on average 3.5% between 7.30-9.30am and 1.8% between 5.00-7.00pm. Left turning movements by HGVs, which are a particular risk to cyclists, are likely to be minimal because the vast majority of side roads which adjoin Church Road are residential cul-de-sacs and do not provide through routes to other destinations. Finally, evidence from the three existing HGV/Bus lanes in London shows that they did not result in an increase in cycling collisions. There has only been one cycling collision across these three locations in the three years to February 2012.

7 HGVs account for a disproportionately high share of cyclist KSIs in London. Permitting HGVs to use bus lanes will permit them to travel at higher than average speeds (compared with their speeds in general traffic lanes) and so massively increase the risk of them killing or injuring a cyclist or pedestrian.

A speed survey carried out in February 2011 at four different locations on Church Road showed that although still above the speed limit vehicle, speeds are significantly lower in the nearside lane (bus lane) than the offside lane. Therefore HGVs in the nearside lane should be travelling more slowly than if they were in the offside lane.

8 The aim of the scheme should be to make walking and cycling more convenient and pleasant. Currently some parts of the footway are designated for shared use. It would be better if the areas which have high pedestrian footfall (e.g. by the bus stop near the White Hart roundabout) had a

In February 2012 we provided shared use footways along both sides of Church Road with associated signs and line markings. We also increased the width of the footway at a number of locations and removed obstacles such as a number of sign posts. This means that cyclists can now legally and safely travel off the main carriageway between White Hart and Target roundabout and connect with the cycling provision in



10

segregated cycle path. the subway systems at these roundabouts. We have opted to provide continuous shared footways rather than transitioning between segregated cycle tracks where the footway is wider and shared footways where it is narrower. This is to ensure consistency in the cycling provision which will be less confusing to cyclists and pedestrians.

9 All main roads that TfL controls should be completed to Go Dutch standards, especially junctions (for cyclists) .

We are only narrowing the carriageway in each direction by a maximum of 20cm. An on carriageway cycle lane would need to be at least 1.5m wide and there simply isn’t enough space to provide this whilst also maintaining two traffic lanes in each direction and a reasonable footway width to accommodate the pedestrian flow. A segregated ‘Dutch style’ cycle facility would require even more space.

10 The treatment of junctions with side roads is unsatisfactory because pedestrians and cyclists should have priority over turning traffic, and this should be clearly indicated with give way markings and zebra crossings.

It is not possible to award priority to pedestrians and cyclists over turning traffic at side roads. This is because in reality drivers will not expect this priority arrangement to be in place because at the vast majority of side roads they have priority over those waiting to cross. As a result there is a significant risk that drivers will make the turn as usual and come into conflict with pedestrians/cyclists crossing the side road. In addition, any vehicles forced to give way to a pedestrian/cyclist would have to rapidly come to a stop on the main road and therefore there is the risk of change of lane and shunt type collisions occurring. . Although not ideal, the safest option for all road users is for pedestrians and cyclists to give way to turning vehicles at side roads.

11 There are no traffic signs on your drawings for drivers

emerging from the side roads that warn them of approaching cyclists and the need to look left and right for cyclists.

As part of our cycling scheme implemented earlier this year we introduced signs showing that the A312 footway was shared use at all side roads. This gives a visual warning to drivers to expect cyclists to be located on the footway.

12 How do westbound cyclists supposed to get from the main carriageway on to the contra-flow cycle track after Parkfield road.

We are only providing a short section of contra flow cycle lane at Langtry Road. We are doing this to provide a continuous route for cyclists travelling northbound along the service road adjacent to Church Road. Cyclists currently have to travel around the mini one way system at Langtry Road to continue up the service road. Cyclists, like pedestrians, wishing to cross over Church Road need to make their way to the



11

nearest signal controlled crossing point. The central reservation prevents them from crossing anywhere else.

13 Please don't widen the pavements here. We are not proposing to widen the footways at any location along the road.

14 The introduction of trees on a highway corridor for safety purposes is counter-intuitive and contrary to international best practice to remove objects that vehicles may collide with.

On Church Road there isn’t a significant history of vehicles losing control and leaving the carriageway. The purpose of planting trees along the road is to change the feel of the road and as a result drivers’ perception of the appropriate speed to travel. If, as anticipated, vehicles travel slower then the risk of them losing control and leaving the carriageway will be lower. In addition, the planting of trees is in line with our wider annual programme of planting trees alongside our road network.

15 The use of trees would hide the crossing pedestrians from the motorist, causing more collisions.

The trees will not be densely placed along the route but instead spaced out. The tree species we are planning to use has been specifically selected because it has a narrower tree trunk and can be trained to grow upwards and out rather than having a low canopy and foliage around base. This will help to improve visibility of those pedestrians that do chose to cross away from the provided crossing points. The guardrail is being retained around the pedestrian crossings so that visibility of those waiting to cross remains the same.

16 The use of trees would be a less efficient crash barrier.

Pedestrian guardrail is not a crash barrier. Its purpose is to encourage pedestrians to adopt a certain route when travelling along a road. It is not designed to stop vehicles that leave a carriageway.

17 How large are these trees - have you thought of root growth and leaves falling on the road in Autumn which would present a hazard for motorcyclists

We have sought the advice of a tree specialist in preparing our plans for Church Road. He will be responsible for selecting the trees used on Church Road and maintaining them. As part of this he will control root growth so that it does not affect the road surface or neighbouring properties. Tree planting on footways and central reservations is not uncommon and is in line with our wider annual programme of planting trees alongside our road network.

18 Can tree planting be such that driveways are not blocked and that access is not difficult?

No trees will be planted where they would obstruct the visibility or turning movement of vehicles exiting private driveways.

19 A more detailed plan showing exactly where the proposed trees are to be planted was requested.

As advised in letters sent to residents and stakeholders, more detailed maps were available throughout the consultation at Northolt library. TfL are currently in the preliminary design stage of this scheme and therefore full detailed design drawings



12

are not yet available. The exact location of trees will be decided at the detailed design stage. No trees will be planted where they would obstruct the visibility or turning movement of vehicles exiting private driveways.

20 Removing pedestrian guardrail is dangerous.

The majority of pedestrian collisions on Church Road involve a pedestrian crossing the main carriageway informally either after jumping the guardrail in the central reservation or on their way to jumping it. These collisions indicate that many pedestrians are not prepared to use the crossing provided. Therefore by removing the guardrail those pedestrians who are going to cross regardless of whether a significant barrier is in the way can do so more safely. We will not be providing any additional dropped kerbs on the footway to indicate to pedestrians that they should cross informally. All road users including pedestrians do need to be responsible for their own actions and we cannot force people to only use the crossings provided and only when the green man is on. By removing the guardrail drivers will also be encouraged to travel more slowly because of the risk of pedestrians crossing. Currently average vehicle speeds are significantly higher than the 30mph speed limit.

21 Double height guardrail should be used instead. TfL’s current policy, in line with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, is to remove pedestrian guardrail unless there is a proven safety requirement for it. We no longer install new double height guardrail because it creates a motorised corridor effect with traffic dominating over pedestrians/cyclists and adjacent land uses. This creates a community severance effect for those living on either side of the road. In addition, some pedestrians will still try to cross or walk alongside the double height guardrail and the risks in doing so are very high. Finally vehicle speeds are likely to increase because drivers will feel that they can speed down the road without the risk of encountering anyone else.

22 There have been many deaths over the years due to young teenagers jumping the barrier to cross for their journey to school and being hit by oncoming traffic.

In the last 10 years (to May 2012) there have been no fatal collisions involving anyone under the age of 18 on this road. The majority of collisions (77.5%) involve pedestrians over the age of 18.

23 Speed humps should be installed. We are unable to install vertical traffic calming measures, such as speed humps, on busy main roads like the A312. There are a number of reasons for this including:

Safety – vehicles would rapidly decelerate from a high speed when



13

negotiating these measures which is likely to result in an increase in nose to tail shunt and loss of control type collisions.

Bus passengers – passenger comfort on this heavily used bus corridor would significantly decline due to buses travelling over these vertical measures. There is also an increased risk of injury to passengers who become unbalanced when the bus travels over a hump.

Pollution – due to the vehicle speeds and high volume of traffic there would be a significant increase in noise pollution as vehicles travel over these humps. In addition air pollution levels would increase as a result of frequent deceleration/acceleration along the road. Finely ground vibrations, caused by vehicles travelling over these humps, will significantly increase. All of these impacts will significantly affect those living adjacent to the road and travelling along it.

Emergency services – there would be a reduced journey time for vehicles on emergency calls and increased discomfort to patients travelling in ambulances.

24 30 mph repeater signs along the road would reduce the

number of collisions occurring. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 prohibits Highway Authorities from erecting speed limit repeater signs along 30 mph roads on which there are regularly spaced lamp columns no more than 183m apart. In addition, Section 124 of the Highway Code explains that the presence of street lights generally means that there is a 30mph speed limit unless otherwise signed and therefore drivers are expected to know that this is the speed they should adopt.

25 Drivers will simply ignore the 30mph signs if there is no enforcement activity to back it up.

We are proposing to introduce a whole package of measures to encourage drivers to reduce their speed on Church Road, not just a 30mph warning sign. Unfortunately as a Highway Authority we cannot force people to travel at the speed limit all we can do is introduce engineering measures that encourage them to do so and make it harder to speed. The police are the only ones who can enforce the speed limit and they do carry out speed enforcement activity on Church Road. The police are not funded by TfL and therefore they have to prioritise their limited enforcement resources where they feel they are most needed.



14

26 There is an absence of 30mph painted on road markings when entering the road from the Target Roundabout.

The speed limit of Target Roundabout is 30mph. National traffic regulations only allow us to install 30mph signs where there is a change in the speed limit. As Church Road also has a 30mph speed limit we cannot put 30mph signs at the entrance to it from Target Roundabout.

The same situation currently exists at White Hart Roundabout but we have taken the decision to raise the speed limit of the roundabout to 40mph so that we can place 30mph signs where the speed limit changes to 30mph on Church Road. We feel that it is appropriate to raise the speed limit to 40mph on White Hart Roundabout because vehicles will not be able to actually travel at that speed due to the need to stop at traffic signals around the roundabout, the small distance between traffic signal stop lines and entrances/exits, and the 30mph approach speeds on most arms of the junction.

We feel that it is less appropriate to take this action at Target Roundabout because we do not want vehicles travelling at a high speed up the A40 slip roads to Target Roundabout (the speed limit changes to 30mph on the slip roads) and then having to brake suddenly on receiving a red light at the traffic signals or alternatively continuing their high speed through a green light onto Church Road. In addition, because the roundabout is larger than White Hart it will be easier to build up to speeds of 40mph around it.

27 The speed limit should be increased to 40mph

The current speed limit is 30mph and we feel this is appropriate considering the residential nature of the surrounding land use and relatively constrained width of the road.

28 Install more "vehicle activated signs" for 30 mph. Research shows that vehicle activated signs become less effective the more that they are used. This is because drivers become used to seeing the message they portray and as a result take less notice of them. This is why we have taken the decision to only install two signs in each direction towards the start and ends of the road. These signs together with the speed camera warning signs already in place will



15

remind drivers at three intervals along the route what the speed limit is.

29 Electronic speed limit signs should be closer to the roundabout entrances, before the first pedestrian crossings.

We don’t want to just slow vehicles down on entering Church Road, we want to encourage them to maintain this speed all the way down the road. The ‘gateway’ treatments will hopefully encourage vehicles to slow down and then the speed camera warning signs located near the start of the road will remind people what the speed limit is. The vehicle activated signs which follow on will warn drivers who are still going above the speed limit to slow down.

30 If safety is an issue then put in place a 20 mph speed limit. The provision of a 20mph speed limit on a main road such as Church Road which carries over 50,000 vehicles per day would not be appropriate. In addition the speed limit is unlikely to be adhered to considering the level of non-compliance with the existing 30mph speed limit.

31 Rumble Strips will do nothing other than cause more vibration from the road than is currently suffered every night.

We are not proposing to introduce Rumble Strips.

32 Timed cameras at the start and finish of this road may help reduce collisions.

Speed cameras will cause more problems with cars slowing up and speeding between cameras

Flashing 30 mph signs will only work on a small percentage of drivers.

We are not proposing to introduce safety cameras. This is because we do not meet the minimum collision criteria required to install fixed safety cameras and we do not believe these would reduce speeds along the entire length of the road. The implementation of average speed cameras (timed cameras) is a developing policy area within TfL and as such they are not yet available for general use on our roads although this may be something we will look to introduce on Church Road in the future. Evidence shows that vehicle activated signs (‘flashing 30mph signs’) do reduce vehicle speeds and collision levels.

33 Additional crossings should be provided on Church Road An analysis of collisions involving pedestrians shows that a number of them occurred in close proximity to the pedestrian crossings. This shows that even when a crossing is located nearby some pedestrians will still choose to cross Church Road informally. The introduction of any new formal pedestrian crossings would increase congestion as vehicle flow along the road would be disrupted. Therefore we have to have strong justification to introduce new crossings. In the case of Church Road there are three signal controlled crossings on a 1km stretch of road and subway crossings at either end. We feel this is sufficient to meet the main pedestrian desire lines along the



16

route.

34 Zebra crossings should be provided on Church Road We are unable to introduce Zebra crossings on roads where average vehicle speeds are higher than 30mph. This is because of the risk posed to pedestrians should a vehicle fail to observe them crossing and the risk of shunt type collisions occurring if a vehicle fails to observe the one in front of them rapidly decelerating on seeing a pedestrian waiting to cross.

35 People should be able to cross Church Road via the pedestrian crossings in one stage not two

The existing pedestrian crossings are two stage (staggered) because this reduces the amount of time vehicles are held on a red signal. The length of the green man stage is determined by the width of the road pedestrians are crossing. Therefore if pedestrians crossed the entire width of the dual carriageway in one stage the green man would be on for a lot longer. This would result in a significant increase in congestion on Church Road, which already suffers from congestion issues.

36 Pedestrians cross the road to the bus stops by Makepeace Road and also to connect to the alleyway which leads to the estate on the other side of the road. Moving the nearby pedestrian crossing here (or by adding another) would reduce collisions. When the bus stop was moved the crossing was not, and the doctor's surgery it was meant to serve is no longer used.

It is unfortunately not possible to provide signal controlled crossings between each set of bus stops along the road because this would be too disruptive to traffic. The current crossings are evenly spaced along the road (approx 390m apart) to best serve residents living along the whole of the road.

37 This scheme will cause an increase in collisions All of our schemes are subject to a road safety audit at two stages prior to construction that identify any safety risks of the measures we are planning to introduce. This scheme has had its first safety audit done and it did not identify any major safety risks in implementing the measures. In addition all of our schemes are closely monitored after implementation to ensure collision levels do not increase as a result of the measures introduced. If they do then we will take further action to address this.

38 It is very dangerous exiting the side roads when the bus lane is operational especially from Makepeace Road due to the blind spot created by the bus stop. Can this stop be

We have passed your comments regarding the relocation of this stop to our London Buses colleagues.



17

relocated? 39 The entire A312 corridor should be subject to a major

strategic study to determine a long term strategy for the road. The segment between White Hart and Target Roundabouts will need particular consideration. Funding limitations should not preclude developing short, medium and long term approaches to the route which are protected.

As part of the Mayor’s election manifesto he committed to establishing a Roads Task Force that will establish a long term strategy for London’s roads. This Task Force is likely to look at the busiest corridors in London, which may include the A312, and options for improving them. In the meantime, collision levels are high on Church Road and we need to take action now to address this.

40 Why have benches recently been installed on the road?

The benches were introduced as part of the separate cycling scheme that was implemented in February 2012. They assist those mobility impaired pedestrians who are unable to walk long distances or stand and wait for buses.

41 The roundabouts either end of this stretch of road should also be considered. In particular, the Target roundabout has a very narrow pedestrian / cycle bridge over the A40 with blind corners at either end; this forces pedestrians and cyclists to slow down unnecessarily, causes delay and deters people from walking. The bridge should be made at least 3-4m wide, as there is plenty of space.

We should encourage pedestrians to use the subways at the Target Roundabout so they do not jump over the guardrail on Church Road.

This scheme specifically addresses road safety issues on Church Road. The subway facilities at Target Roundabout are not included in the scope of the scheme and it would be very complicated and costly to widen the bridge structure suspended beneath the roundabout.

42 At White Hart Roundabout the traffic lights cause vehicles to block off the entrances leading onto the roundabouts. Yellow boxes should be considered and monitoring take place at all times of day.

This scope of this scheme is to reduce collisions on Church Road. Safety and congestion issues at White Hart Roundabout are outside of the scope.

43 I am waiting for a response from TfL regarding speeding drivers on the A40 Westway?

I have passed your enquiry for the A40 Westway to my colleagues dealing with that location for comment.

44 We have previously been told that no more work was in the pipeline to be carried out on this section of the A312

This scheme will not go ahead until late 2013 which will be almost two years after the resurfacing work that took place in 2011 and early 2012. Where possible we try to coordinate the work happening on our roads but in this case the resurfacing work was deemed too urgent to postpone until this road safety scheme was ready to



18

construct.

45 The need for comprehensive monitoring of this scheme and review by both TfL in partnership with Council following implementation.

All of our schemes are closely monitored after implementation to ensure collision levels do not increase as a result of the measures introduced. If they do then we will take further action to address this. We will also conduct another speed survey after implementation to monitor whether speed levels have reduced. In addition, we will collect bus journey time data and overall traffic journey time data both before and after to monitor the impact of the schemes on journey times. This data will be shared with the Council.



19

5. Conclusion:

This scheme aims to address a significant safety issue that has been identified by creating a better balance between all road users on Church Road. The response to the engagement undertaken received mainly negative responses. However, considering a previous scheme which addressed improvements for cyclists, TfL considers that there is a sufficient basis to take forward the works with a view that the engagement exercise was well publicised and that feedback has been collected.

The proposal will be implemented late in 2013



20

Appendix A – Consultation Letter

Dear Sir/Madam A312 Church Road, Northolt: Proposed road safety improvements Transport for London (TfL) has developed proposals to improve road safety on the A312 Church Road between Target Roundabout and White Hart Roundabout. These proposals are shown on the attached plans and summarised below. A more detailed version of the plans can be viewed at Northolt Library. The proposed scheme aims to reduce the number of collisions that have occurred on Church Road, particularly those involving pedestrians, by reducing the average vehicle speeds on the road, which are significantly higher than the 30mph speed limit currently in place in both directions. We are intending to implement a range of measures that aim to address these issues by reducing the dominance of traffic and changing the character of the road. The proposals include:

Removal of long sections of pedestrian guard rail from the central reservation replacing with trees planted at regular intervals.

Creating a ‘gateway’ effect at the entrance to Church Road from Target and White Hart Roundabouts. This will be done by using a combination of signs, road markings and different road surfacing that will emphasise the 30mph speed limit of the road.

Installing electronic speed limit reminder signs along the road instructing drivers travelling over the speed limit to slow down.

Amending the layout of the bus lane at side roads in order to provide safer turning movements into and out of these roads.

In order to replace the pedestrian guard rail with trees the central reservation needs to be widened into the outside vehicle lane in both directions. This will mean that these two lanes will be slightly narrower than at present. Therefore, in order to prevent wider vehicles overhanging the inside lane HGVs over 7.5 tonne in weight will be permitted to use the bus lanes during operational hours. It is not anticipated that this will impact on local bus journey times. This combined package of measures will encourage people to drive more cautiously by creating a narrower road and highlighting to drivers that they are entering and travelling through a residential area. Removal of the pedestrian guard rail in the central reservation will also reduce drivers’ perceptions that no pedestrians will cross the road and therefore they can drive less cautiously. If you require any further information or have any comments about these proposals then please return these to us using the contact details provided above by 21 June 2012.

Sara Peters Consultation and Engagement Manager Consultation Delivery Team



21

Appendix B – Public Contacts Area Map



22

Appendix C – Stakeholder Contacts Spreadsheet

Salutation First Name Last Name Suffix Job Title Ms Caroline Pidgeon Chair Transport Ctte City Hall Ms Valerie Shawcross Deputy Chair - Transport Ctte City Hall Mr Darren Murphy Met Police Mr David Leibling Chair London TravelWatch Mr Russell Roberts Principal Transport Planner London Borough of Ealing Mr Will Brooks Environment & Street Services London Borough of Ealing Mr Tim Melhuish Principal Transport Planner London Borough of Ealing

Mr Nick O'Donnell Asst Director, Strategic Transport London Borough of Ealing

Ms Victoria Borwick AM GLA Transport Cttee Ms Jeannette Arnold AM GLA Transport Cttee Mr Tom Copley AM GLA Transport Cttee Mr Andrew Dismore AM GLA Transport Cttee Mr Roger Evans AM GLA Transport Cttee Mr Darren Johnson AM GLA Transport Cttee Ms Joanne McCartney AM GLA Transport Cttee Mr Steve O'Connell AM GLA Transport Cttee Mr Murad Qureshi AM GLA Transport Cttee Mr Richard Tracey AM GLA Transport Cttee Mr David Lomas London Cycling Campaign (Ealing) Ms Anne Stevens Senior Transport Planner London Borough of Ealing

Ealing LINk Mr John Beeston Ealing Passenger Transport Users' Group

Ealing Safer Transport Team Cllr Eileen Harris Northolt Manderville Ward Cllr Ara Iskanderian Northolt Manderville Ward Cllr Chris Summers Northolt Manderville Ward Cllr Bassam Mahfouz Northolt West End Cllr Brian Reeves Northolt West End Cllr Lauren Wall Northolt West End



23

Dr Onkar Sahota AM for Ealing & Hillingdon Mr Stephen Pound MP Mr Martin Gorst London Cycling Campaign (Ealing) Mr Peter Mynors London Cycling Campaign (Ealing) Mr Charlie Lloyd London Cycling Campaign Mr Colin McKenzie London Borough of Ealing

Northolt Library Dr Hilary Macaulay Principal & CEO The West London Academy

Mr Chris Rampley Road Haulage Association Ms Louisa Bellee Freight Transport Association

A312 Church Road, Northolt: Proposed road safety …...A312 – Safety Improvement Scheme, Church Road, Northolt 3 1. Background 1.1 History of the Proposal Church Road is located

Documents