A316 Crossing Consultation

As we wait for El Brute to decide on the subject of their next consultation, TFL are doing a real consultation that you might actually want to take a look at. It’s the busy St Margarets roundabout on the A316 which is the subject. The proposal? Well, it’s to “improve accessibility to crossing facilities” at the roundabout. This would involve removing the existing footbridge and replacing it with new, improved ‘toucan’ crossing facilities which can be shared by pedestrians and cyclists. This relates only to the western side of the roundabout near the footbridge (soon to be ex-footbridge), with the other crossing points being up for only minor amendments to signage. According to TFL the result will be that “all roads on this roundabout would then have accessible crossing points”.

This is a busy roundabout on the A316, near housing and very close to St Stephens primary school. Lots of cars, lots of kids. In other words, it’s important to get this right. Here at twickerati HQ we don’t know a great deal about road crossings – it’s not our forte – so we’ll just content ourselves with saying that safer crossings sound like a good idea but that an existing, properly working bridge might also be regarded as a safe option. Perhaps it’s just cost that prevents a “both, said Pooh” solution being applied.

Image: TFL website

LINK:
* TFL A316 Consultation (deadline: 4th July)

18 Comments

Filed under Local Issues & News

18 responses to “A316 Crossing Consultation

  1. Ed

    I received the following email on July 4th saying that the consultation has been updated and extended to July 18th. I hope this doesn’t mean that previous responses will be discarded.

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Thank you for providing feedback on our proposal to remove the pedestrian footbridge over the A316 at St Margaret’s roundabout.

    Following requests for further information regarding the proposal we are contacting you to let you know that we have updated the consultation website with additional information and have extended the consultation period for two weeks, so the consultation will now close on the 18 July 2014 instead of 4 July 2014.

    Consultees will have the opportunity to resubmit their response if they feel that their view has changed.

    https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/consultation-and-engagement/a316-st-margarets-crossing

    Many thanks
    Yours sincerely,
    Peter Bradley
    Head of Consultation Delivery
    Transport for London

  2. Ed Randall

    The bridge is used by children from at least 4 schools – Orleans Park, Orleans Infants, St.Mary’s and St.Stephens.

  3. Cllr Alexander Ehmann

    This ‘consultation’ is an abject failure. It didn’t offer any explanations for the proposed change, no data on usage, capacity issues or indeed of the potential impacts on safety and traffic-flow. Critically, it didn’t even offer residents any options – it’s the Toucan crossings or nothing.

    If you feel (as the three local councillors and many local parents and residents do) that this consultation has been botched, please support our campaign to get TfL to withdraw their plans to remove St Margaret’s footbridge by signing our petition – https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/transport-for-london-withdraw-the-consultation-calling-for-the-removal-of-the-existing-st-margaret-s-footbridge-over-the-a316-and-its-replacement-with-toucan-crossings

  4. Huw

    Hi, I’ve just started a Facebook page on behalf of concerned mums and dads to oppose to this proposed bridge removal.

    https://www.facebook.com/saveourfootbridge

    Please support us by liking and promoting. Thanks.

  5. Botogol

    A crossing is much safer as people actually use it. With a bridge they just risk it. Railings likewise. Much safer without them as cyclists are crushed against them.

    • Adam

      I’ve never seen anyone jump over the railings but I have seen many people cross on red at the crossing by the roundabout at the junction of A316 and London Road.

    • This is a bizarre comment. People do ‘actually use’ the bridge every day, all day and night but particularly at school times when the majority of users are children. What on earth ‘risk’ are you talking about, using a footbridge over the option of crossing a dual carriageway directly? As well as the ‘danger’ you talk of regarding railings that separate us all from 40+mph heavy traffic…I am totally bemused! There has been a fair and sensible choice regarding accessibility at this roundabout, as you can choose to cross at the traffic light crossing on the Richmond side if you prefer, OR you can use the footbridge, particularly if you do have children, or in fact if you are a child walking on their own. This seems totally fair to everyone and the safest option by far…for all parties. This is not just about cyclists, this about all of us. Apart from the subject of safety and accessibility, traffic will become more congested too. This should not be about convenience (or a budget), this should about safety and common sense. If anything…we need MORE footbridges as traffic becomes heavier and drivers become more impatient, particularly where schools and colleges are in the vicinity.

  6. Adam

    Although the bridge is an eyesore, I can’t see how a crossing will be any safer (especially outside a school). I’m guessing this has move to do with LBRuT’s obsession with bicycles since they attempted to get the mini Holland funding. Cyclists can’t be expected to walk over a bridge when there’s the simple alternative of increasing traffic congestion on an already over crowded road.

  7. anonymouse

    I’ve got a Plan C:

    How about an underpass?

    It would be less obtrusive than the bridge, but safer than a crossing (outside a school with no railings).

    p.s. I also think yellow crosshatching is a good idea.

  8. Anonymous

    I think the roundabout needs yellow hatchlings on the floor. I sit there for ages waiting to get across the roundabout because people don’t think and block the road

  9. Andy Townsend

    Why on earth would they remove the railings that guard pedestrians from the fast moving traffic? Especially when there is a school there. Unbelievable – wont make a toss of difference about crossing the road, just make it a irresponsible and frankly dangerous issue. Also is the timing of this coincidence as the current conversion of the building in front of the bridge being converted into flats?

  10. Mumto1plus2

    I fear that on such a busy roundabout this could cause even more traffic problems. I already hate turning left from Richmond to St Margarets only to screech to a halt as people cross that road. Why do they have to put the crossings so close to the roundabout? Surely it makes sense to put them a few metres further on to at least allow cars to exit the roundabout and not completely stop the flow of traffic in that lane. However, I can sympathise with wheelchair users and pushchair wielders when it comes to a footbridge.

  11. geoffnoble

    The trouble with footbridges is that they involve such an extra haul that folk are tempted to take their chances and dart across the road – often in fog, darkness, or rain – and sometimes with grim consequences. At-grade crossings are much better for pedestrians and cyclists, but they can slow up the traffic. That may or may not affect capacity. If the crossings are suitably positioned, well lit and sensibly phased, the bridge will be redundant.

    As the great Ben Hamilton-Baillie (look him up) said a while ago: “Road safety isn’t rocket science. It’s much more complicated than that”.

    • Ed

      We already have choices:
      a) There’s a footbridge already available, on the west side of the roundabout. It seems to be agreeable and used by many, many people.

      b) There’s a pelican (or is it toucan, or puffin, or some other exotic species? Only had the one in my day…) crossing already available too, on the north, east and south sides of the roundabout. Which is also agreeable to the compulsive button pushers amongst us. (But not so much the northern one, which is poorly located and can be a quite perilous.)

      So why do the button pushers feel they need to rule the west side as well?
      Perhaps they enjoy watching the inevitable traffic queues, breathing the degraded air, and laughing at the ensuing gridlock which will inevitably occur when all 4 sides are controlled.