Post on 24-Feb-2019
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
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.
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