New pedestrian and cycle crossings at Charlie Brown’s Roundabout Consultation Report November 2017

2

Contents

Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 4

Summary of issues raised during consultation ......................................................... 4

Next steps ................................................................................................................ 4

1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 5

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Detailed description ........................................................................................ 6

2. About the consultation ........................................................................................ 9

2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Potential outcomes ......................................................................................... 9

2.3 Who we consulted .......................................................................................... 9

2.4 Dates and duration ......................................................................................... 9

2.5 What we asked ............................................................................................... 9

2.6 Methods of responding ................................................................................. 10

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ............................................................. 10

2.8 Analysis of consultation responses .............................................................. 11

3. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 12

3.1 Number of respondents ................................................................................ 12

3.2 About the respondents ................................................................................. 12

3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation ........................................... 12

3.4 Methods of responding ................................................................................. 13

3.5 Postcode distribution of respondents ........................................................... 13

4. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 14

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 .......................................................... 14

4.2 Summary of stakeholder responses ............................................................. 15

4.3 Comments on the consultation ..................................................................... 17

5. Next steps ......................................................................................................... 18

Appendix A: Consultation letter ................................................................................. 19

Appendix B: Consultation letter distribution area ....................................................... 23

Appendix C: List of stakeholders consulted ............................................................... 24

Appendix D: Summary of main issues raised ............................................................ 27

3

4

Executive summary

Between 30 June and 4 August 2017, we consulted on proposals to provide safer

crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists on the Charlie Brown’s Roundabout in

Redbridge. This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the

consultation and sets out our planned next steps.

We received 462 responses to the consultation, including 10 responses from

stakeholders. 84 per cent supported or strongly supported the proposed changes, 3

per cent neither supported nor opposed them, while 9 per cent opposed or strongly

opposed them. 3 per cent didn’t answer.

Summary of issues raised during consultation

General support for the proposals/comments that the existing setup is

dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and these changes are long overdue

Concern that the signal controlled crossings would increase traffic congestion

in the area

Concern that more traffic would use other roads in the local area in order to

avoid the roundabout, increasing congestion and pollution

Request for additional cycle safety measures on the carriageway for cyclists

who wish to use the roads

Request for the roundabout to be fully signalised

Concern about the speed of vehicles approaching the roundabout

Next steps

After considering all of the consultation responses, we have decided to go ahead

with the scheme as proposed. We plan to start implementing the changes in summer

2018.

5

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction

We recently consulted stakeholders and the public about our proposals to provide

safer crossing facilities on the Charlie Brown’s Roundabout in the London Borough

of Redbridge. The consultation took place between 30 June and 4 August 2017.

This report explains the background to the proposal, the consultation and

summarises the responses received.

1.2 Purpose

The objective of the scheme is to provide safer crossing facilities for pedestrians and

cyclists at the roundabout. The proposals were designed to help us achieve our

objectives of creating better, safer places to walk, improving accessibility, reducing

casualties on London’s roads and enhancing the quality of life for all Londoners. Our

proposals have been informed by representations by local residents and the London

Borough of Redbridge to provide safer crossing facilities on the Charlie Brown’s

Roundabout.

Fig 1: Map showing the location of the scheme

Digital Map Data (c) Collins Bartholomew Ltd (2017)

6

Charlie Brown’s Roundabout lies beneath the beginning of the M11 motorway. It is a

busy roundabout and an important intersection for local and strategic routes. The

western arm enables motorists to enter and exit the A406 towards Walthamstow.

The northern arm enables travel towards Chigwell. The eastern arm enables travel

towards Gants Hill. The southern arm enables travel towards Leytonstone. Between

January 2013 to December 2015, 32 collisions were reported and in November 2016

a fatal collision occurred between a HGV and a pedestrian on the eastern arm.

Our proposals would mean that pedestrians and cyclists would no longer have to

wait for gaps in traffic to cross the road. The design of the proposed crossings

means that traffic would only be stopped when pedestrians or cyclists press the

relevant crossing button. Other benefits of this proposal include reducing community

severance by making it easier to use the roundabout by pedestrians and cyclists.

1.3 Detailed description

We proposed improvements for pedestrians and cyclists by providing signalised

shared ‘Toucan’ crossings for pedestrians and cyclists on all four arms of Charlie

Brown’s Roundabout. Presently there are no signalised crossings at the roundabout.

Pedestrians and cyclists using the existing un-signalised informal crossing points

need to wait for a safe gap in the traffic to cross, which can be difficult at times and

make them feel unsafe.

As well as the new signal-controlled crossings, the proposals also included some

build outs of the kerb and central reservations to enable us to safely provide the

crossings. We have split the proposals into four sections:

Section 1 (western arm) – includes two new signalised crossings just to the west of the current uncontrolled crossing points

Section 2 (northern arm) – includes a new signalised crossing and a wider central island to slow down vehicles approaching the crossing

Section 3 (eastern arm) – includes a new staggered signalised crossing just to the east of the current uncontrolled crossing point

Section 4 (southern arm) – includes a new ‘staggered’ signalised crossing and a new wider central reservation

We are also proposing to widen the footways around the roundabout to give more

space for pedestrians and cyclists. This would involve removal of small areas of

grass verge.

7

1.3.1 Impact on bus passengers & general traffic

The proposed signalised pedestrian and cycle crossings would mean buses and

general traffic would sometimes be held at red signals to allow pedestrians or

cyclists to safely across the road. Traffic modelling analysis has been undertaken to

understand how this would affect the journey times of our customers. The change is

predicted to be slight, with no vehicular journey experiencing an increase of greater

than a minute. This is based on the predicted number of pedestrians and cyclists

being relatively low and therefore the pedestrian crossing only being requested

occasionally. We would also install the latest technology to the crossing, including

sensors which would cancel the pedestrian/cycle crossing if pedestrians or cyclists

choose not to wait for the green man. This would ensure that bus passengers and

other road users are not held at red lights unnecessarily.

1.3.2 Other options considered but not taken forward

We also looked at other options, which included full signalisation of the roundabout.

This would have meant that traffic signals would stop vehicles entering and exiting

the roundabout at given intervals to enable pedestrians and cyclists to safely cross

the road. It would have also given us the ability to install a horse crossing point

(which had been requested by a local riding group) on the eastern arm. However

modelling results showed significant increases in queuing and delay for all road

users, which meant that this option could not be justified. Without full signalisation,

we were unfortunately unable to accommodate the horse crossing due to the layout

of the site and the design requirements for a horse crossing. We met with

Fig 2. Overview map of the proposals

8

representatives from the Epping Forest Riders Association in June (see 2.7.9) to

better understand the needs of horse riders in the area. We will continue to work with

them to find a solution outside of this scheme.

The other option would be to do nothing at the roundabout. However this would

mean it would remain unattractive for pedestrians and cyclists to use.

9

2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose

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/s for the proposals

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

2.2 Potential outcomes

The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme

Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Chapter 5.

2.3 Who we consulted

We sought the views of residents and businesses in the local area. We also

consulted stakeholders including the London Borough of Redbridge, Essex County

Council, London TravelWatch, local politicians, and local resident and community

groups. A full list of the stakeholders consulted can be found in Appendix D

2.4 Dates and duration

This was a five week consultation which ran between 30 June and 4 August 2017.

2.5 What we asked

The questionnaire asked seven generic questions relating to name, email address,

postcode, organisation name (if responding on behalf of a

business/stakeholder/organisation), how they had heard about the consultation, and

views on the quality of the consultation (respondents were asked two questions on

the quality: to rate in a scale from very good to very poor; and to provide any

comments). There were also six equality monitoring questions.

10

There were two questions specific to the consultation:

What do you think about our proposals for Charlie Brown’s Roundabout?

(Respondents were given a choice of seven answers: strongly

support/support/neither support or oppose/oppose/strongly oppose/not sure/not

answered)

Do you have any other comments regarding the proposals? (there was a free

text box for respondents to provide comments)

2.6 Methods of responding

People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They

could respond by accessing the online questionnaire; by using our freepost address

at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS; or by emailing consultations@tfl.gov.uk

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity We sent out letters to more than 1100 local residents and businesses. We also

consulted stakeholders including the London Borough of Redbridge, Essex County

Council, London TravelWatch, local politicians, and other local groups.

2.7.1 Website

The consultation was published online via the TfL consultation website at

www.tfl.gov.uk/charlie-browns-roundabout

2.7.2 Letters

We sent an letter publicising to consultation to 1148 addresses in the local area. A

copy of the letter that was sent to customers can be found in Appendix A, and a map

of the distribution area can be found in Appendix B.

2.7.4 Emails to stakeholders

An email about the consultation was sent to stakeholders including the London

Borough of Redbridge, Essex County Council, London TravelWatch, Members of

Parliament, Assembly Members, ward councillors, traffic police, 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 4.2.

2.7.5 Press and media activity

The consultation was reported online by local press sites and blogs including the

Wanstead and Woodford Recorder, Wanstead and Woodford Guardian, This is Local

London and Barkingside 21.

2.7.8 Public meetings, events and exhibitions

The scheme was presented at the Redbridge Council Scrutiny Panel meeting on 19

July 2017, where questions were taken from the public.

11

2.7.9 Meetings with stakeholders

TfL representatives met with the Epping Forest Riders Association on 7 June 2017 to

better understand the needs of horse riders in the area and discuss the possibility of

installing a ‘Pegasus’ crossing at the roundabout.

2.8 Analysis of consultation responses

Analysis of the consultation responses was carried out in-house.

There were two “open” questions (one seeking comments about the proposals and

one on the quality of the consultation). One person conducted the tagging exercise;

a draft coding frame was developed for responses to these questions, which was

finalised following review by another member of the team.

There was one duplicate response which was deleted.

12

3. About the respondents

3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents Total %

Public responses 452 98

Stakeholder responses 10 2

Total 462 100

3.2 About the respondents

Respondents were able to choose more than one option for their response to this

question.

Are you… Total

Local resident 376

Business Owner 13

Employed locally 38

Visitor to the area 35

Commuter to the area 50

Not local but interested in the scheme 18

Other 18

Total 548

3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation

How respondents heard Total %

Received an email from TfL 44 9%

Received a letter from TfL 58 13%

Read about in the press 46 10%

Saw it on the TfL website 18 4%

Social media 194 42%

Other 67 14%

Not answered 35 8%

Total 462 100%

13

3.4 Methods of responding

Methods of responding Total %

Website 449 97%

Email or letter 13 3%

Total 462 100%

3.5 Postcode distribution of respondents

14

4. Summary of all consultation responses

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1

We asked respondents to tell us what they think about our proposals for Charlie

Brown’s Roundabout. 448 respondents answered this question.

4.1.3 Issues commonly raised

Question 2 asked respondents if they had any further comments or suggestions

about our proposals forCharlie Brown’s Roundabout.. There were 71 additional

issues (positive and negative) and suggestions in response to this question. The

table below lists the top 10 issues commonly raised. A summariy of the main issues

raised comments can be found in Appendix D and a separate document will respond

to the main points raised by respondents.

Issue Total

Generally supportive comment about the proposals 137

The roundabout/crossing is currently very dangerous for pedestrians/cyclists 65

Strongly support

Support

Neither support

or oppose

Oppose Strongly Oppose

Not sure Not

Answered

Total

Number of replies 303 84 16 14 30 1 14 462

% of total 66% 18% 3% 3% 6% 0% 3% 100%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Q1. What do you think about our proposals for Charlie Brown’s Roundabout?

15

The proposed changes are long overdue and should be implemented as soon

as possible 47

This is a much needed change for the roundabout 45

The proposed changes will greatly improve pedestrian safety 43

Adding the pedestrian crossing and signals will increase traffic congestion on

and around the roundabout 41

Concern that this will lead to more traffic using surrounding roads, increasing

congestion/pollution 40

There should be safety improvements made to the carriageway at the

roundabout for cyclists using the roads 22

The whole roundabout should be fully signalised 20

Concern about the speed of cars at the roundabout and the proposed

crossings are too close to the roundabout exits 19

4.2 Summary of stakeholder responses

This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders.

The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Local authorities & statutory bodies

London Borough of Redbridge: Supported the proposal. Submitted a copy of a letter

sent to the Deputy Mayor in December 2016, in which they expressed concern about

the lack of safe crossing facilities at Charlie Brown’s roundabout, following the death

of a woman while crossing, and urged TfL to introduce the proposed new crossings

as soon as possible.

Accessibility Groups

ELHAP: Strongly supported the proposals. Believed there should be full signalisation

of the roundabout. Felt that the reason there were low numbers of pedestrians at

present was because of the dangerous crossing, and when numbers increase it may

be necessary in a few years to undertake full signalisation

Transport and road user groups

London TravelWatch: Supported the proposals. Felt that changes could be made to

the approaches to the roundabout to reduce car speeds. Would prefer to see single

stage, rather than staggered crossings.

Confederation of Passenger Transport: Neither supported or opposed the proposals.

Commented that the current arrangements at the roundabout have some safety

issues for all road users (not just pedestrians and cyclists). Were concerned that the

16

new signalised crossings would have a negative impact on traffic flow and would like

assurances that signal sequencing would maximise green light phases for both road

traffic and that crossing the road.

Epping Forest Riders Association: Commented that horse riders frequently make the

dangerous crossing at Charlie Brown’s while using the Roding Valley Way. Hoped

that horse riders would be carefully considered by TfL as they found no reference to

them in the proposals.

Redbridge - London Cycling Campaign: Strongly supported the proposals for the

new crossings. Felt that the Southend Road crossing (section 3) would be an

improvement to the Roding Valley Way. Suggested that the pavement section near

and on the bridge requires widening and improved signage/markings.

Sustrans Supported the proposals, but raised some additional recommendations –

In section1, felt that additional urban realm improvements needed to be made in the

area around the new crossing on the western arm of the roundabout to create an

inviting pedestrian and cycling environment. Suggested that that at the very least

there should be additional lighting and greening.

In section 3, suggested that improvements could be made to the facilities along

Roding Valley Way as part of these proposals. In particular the removal of the dog-

leg to the existing crossing at Lechmere Avenue and instead widening the footway

on the north side of Southend Road to create a shared use path from the path

access to the proposed new crossing on east side of the roundabout.

In section 4, felt that the width of the refuge island on the southern arm of the

roundabout (Chigwell Road) needed to be widened to accommodate pedestrians

and cyclists.

Also suggested that shared use paths needed to be as wide as possible in line with

London Cycling Design Standards, and should be aligned away from the

carriageway with a green buffer in between the road and the path. Commented that

the consultation drawings did not provide details of how cyclists would connect to

other shared use paths in the surrounding area. Recommended that linked signals

be used on staggered crossings to reduce waiting times.

South Herts Cyclists Strongly supported the proposals. Welcomed the use of toucan

crossings but suggested that they are set up to minimise delays to cyclists

(particularly on the staggered crossing) to avoid them jumping the lights or using the

roundabout. Asked if the staggered crossing on Chigwell Road could be changed to

a one-stage crossing, and felt it would be helpful for the crossings to have

Pedestrian Countdown timers.

17

Local interest groups

Barkingside 21: Supported the proposals

Broadmead Baptist Church: Strongly supported the proposals. Felt this is about

making the roundabout less dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, not more

attractive.

4.3 Comments on the consultation

There were 438 (95%) responses about the quality of the consultation and

associated materials. 357 (77%) thought it was good or very good, 57 (12%) said it

was acceptable and 24 (5%) felt it was poor or very poor. 75 respondents provided

an additional comment and the main topics were:

Concern that some local residents did not receive information about the

consultation from TfL

The consultation material was clear and easy to understand

The consultation material wasn’t detailed enough

A wider range of consultation methods should have been used rather than just

a letter and webpage

Responding to the consultation will make no difference as a decision had

already been made.

18

5. Next steps

Having reviewed and considered all of the responses, we have decided to proceed

with the scheme as consulted on. We plan to start implementing the changes in

summer 2018.

19

Appendix A: Consultation letter

20

21

22

23

Appendix B: Consultation letter distribution

area

24

Appendix C: List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Local Authorities

London Borough of Redbridge

Essex County Council

Elected Members

Keith Prince AM Havering & Redbridge

Caroline Pidgeon AM Londonwide (Transport Committee)

Tom Copley AM Londonwide (Transport Committee)

David Kurten AM Londonwide (Transport Committee)

Joanne McCartney AM Enfield & Haringey (Transport Committee)

Caroline Russell AM Londonwide (Transport Committee)

Shaun Bailey AM Londonwide (Transport Committee)

Nicky Gavron AM Londonwide

Andrew Boff AM Londonwide

Sian Berry AM Londonwide

Peter Whittle AM Londonwide

Valerie Shawcross Deputy Mayor for Transport

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford and Woodford Green

John Cryer MP Leyton and Wanstead

Mike Gapes MP Ilford South

Wes Streeting MP Ilford North

Cllr Ian Bond Roding Ward

Cllr Gwyneth Deakin Roding Ward

Cllr Lloyd Duddridge Roding Ward

Cllr Gurdial Bhamra Clayhall Ward

Cllr Robert Cole Clayhall Ward

Cllr Alan Weinberg Clayhall Ward

Police, Emergency Services and Health Authorities

Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

London Ambulance Service

London Fire Brigade

Metropolitan Police service

Redbridge Safer Transport Team

Transport Groups

Association of British Drivers

Association of Car Fleet Drivers

British Motorcyclists Federation

Confederation of Passenger Transport

CTC – The National Cycling Charity

Freight Transport Association

25

Green Flag Group

Licenced Taxi Drivers Association

Living Streets

London Cab Drivers Club

London Councils

London Cycling Campaign (Redbridge)

London Suburban Taxi-Drivers Coalition

Motorcycle Action Group

Motorcycle Industry Association

Road Haulage Association

Sustrans

The AA

Local Interest Groups/Stakeholders

1st City Van Hire

Epping Forest Riders Association

Oakdale Infants School

Oakdale Junior School

South Leytonstone Area Development Association (SLADA)

Woodbridge High School

Accessibility Groups

Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID)

Age Concern London

Age UK

Alzheimer’s Society

Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance

Better Transport

Campaign for Better Transport

Disability Alliance

Disability Rights UK

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

GLA Strategy Access Panel

Greater London Forum for the Elderly

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

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

Joint Mobility Unit

London Older People’s Strategy Group

MIND

National Autistic Society

National Children’s Bureau

RNIB

Sense

Sixty Plus

Stroke Association

The British Dyslexia Association

26

Other Stakeholders

BT

Canal & River Trust London

EDF Energy

ICE - London

National Grid

Royal Mail

Thames Water

27

Appendix D: Summary of main issues raised

Positive

Generally supportive comment about the proposals 137

The proposed changes are long overdue and should be implemented as soon as possible 47

This is a much needed change for the roundabout 45

The proposed changes will greatly improve pedestrian safety 43

The crossing will increase connectivity and allow road users to cross without risk. 17

The current setup is terrible and discourages cycling 15

Helps limits the number of pedestrians and keeps traffic flow disruption to a minimum 4

Partially agree with proposals 2

Negative

Adding the pedestrian crossing and signals will increase traffic congestion on and around the roundabout 41

Concern that this will lead to more traffic using surrounding roads, increasing congestion/pollution 40

Concern about the speed of cars at the roundabout and the proposed crossings are too close to the roundabout exits 19

The proposals are unnecessary and a waste of money 16

Don't agree with the new crossings in Section 1, 3 and 4 as there is already a subway available there for pedestrians and cyclists. 11

Generally against proposal 11

Not enough pedestrians cross at this location to justify the proposals 9

The layout should be kept the same 4

Negative comment about TfL/sceptical about proposal 4

Concerned with the time it will take to build the proposed changes and the impact on driving time whilst it is being completed. 3

The cycle lane is in a dangerous location 2

Suggestion

There should be safety improvements made to the carriageway at the roundabout for cyclists using the roads 22

The whole roundabout should be fully signalised 20

There should be construction of a under passages/bridge/additional greenery 15

Introduce one-stage crossings rather than staggered crossings 12

Add enforcement cameras on and around the roundabout 10

Introduce a crossing at the roundabout for horses 7

Modernise and adapt the existing underpass under the A406 (from Lancet Road to Cowslip Road) for cyclists 6

Wider pavements and crossings on all sections of the roundabout needed. 6

A general clean up of the area needs to be done. 5

Speed limits around the roundabout should be reduced 5

Can Chigwell Road be widened while you are carrying out this work 4

Fully signalise the junction if pedestrian numbers increase 4

The pedestrian crossing lights need to change promptly 4

Alter the road layout on the roundabout for drivers turning left into Chigwell Road as they currently cut across lanes towards the A406 3

Introduce a safer cycling route running parallel to the A406 3

Request for improvements to the pavement and carriageway of Chigwell Road 3

28

between Waverley road and Maybank road

There needs to be better signposting as to what lane you are supposed to be in 3

A cycling overpass lane should be created. 2

Are there any proposals for a green barrier in the near future? 2

Don't remove grass verges 2

Motor traffic should be seriously restrained here to improve the pedestrian environment further 2

Only one crossing is needed on section 1 2

Pedestrian Countdown timers would be helpful at the crossings 2

Project should be done in phases and not on weekdays as this will affect 179 and 123 bus route in peak times 2

Install pedestrian crossing on Chigwell Road 2

Other

The roundabout/crossing is currently very dangerous for pedestrians/cyclists 65

Has a pedestrian underpasses been considered? 2

Unclear comment 2