A406 / Brentfield Road / Drury Way Junction Improvement Consultation Report November 2015

A406 / Brentfield Road / Drury Way

Junction Improvement

Consultation Report

Contents

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

2 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2

3 The consultation ......................................................................................................... 5

4 Overview of consultation responses ............................................................................ 8

5 Responses from members of the public .................................................................... 12

6 Responses from businesses, organisations and other stakeholders ......................... 14

7 Conclusion and next steps ........................................................................................ 21

Appendix A – Consultation material and distribution ............................................................ 23

Appendix B - List of businesses, organisations and other stakeholders consulted ............... 38

Appendix C – Summary of all issues raised ......................................................................... 43

Appendix D – Responses to issues raised........................................................................... 48

1

1 Background

We proposed to improve the junction of the A406 North Circular Road with Brentfield

Road and Drury Way in the London Borough of Brent. We proposed providing a new

southbound bus lane and bus activated signals (for local buses only) in Drury Way

(referred to later in this report as the bus priority facility), building a new left turn slip

road from the westbound A406 North Circular Road into Brentfield Road, and

signalising the pedestrian crossing across Brentfield Road.

Southbound buses crossing this junction cannot currently travel from Drury Way into

Brentfield Road across the A406 North Circular Road, with buses currently needing

to circulate via Great Central Way and the westbound A406 North Circular Road.

Northbound buses can cross directly from Brentfield Road into Drury Way.

Southbound buses therefore travel approximately 0.6 miles further than northbound

buses, leading to longer journey times.

The junction has a history of delays and poor journey time reliability. It is the only at-

grade signalised junction on the A406 North Circular Road between Staples Corner

and the Hanger Lane Gyratory. It currently has insufficient capacity during the peak

periods with the A406 North Circular Road westbound queues extending back to

Staples Corner in the morning peak.

Currently, traffic making left turns at this junction from the westbound A406 North

Circular Road into Brentfield Road can hold up westbound straight-ahead traffic on

the A406 North Circular Road. Pedestrians crossing Brentfield Road at this junction

have to wait for a gap in traffic and the crossing is not signalised.

The only right turn permitted at this junction is from Brentfield Road into the

eastbound A406 North Circular Road. All left turns and straight on movements are

permitted, except there is no straight-ahead movement from Drury Way into

Brentfield Road.

2

2 Introduction

We invited the public, road users, local residents, local businesses, organisations

and other stakeholders to comment on our proposals to improve the junction of the

A406 North Circular Road with Brentfield Road and Drury Way in the London

Borough of Brent.

2.1 Purpose of the scheme

The improvements are aimed at reducing the distance southbound buses have to

travel to cross the A406 North Circular Road and smoothing the flow of traffic,

reducing journey times and reducing queue lengths on the westbound A406 North

Circular Road for both general traffic and buses. They also aim to improve overall

safety at the junction and make it safer for pedestrians to cross Brentfield Road.

They may also lead to a slight reduction in journey time for eastbound traffic and

buses on the A406 North Circular Road.

The improvements form part of the TfL Road Modernisation Plan and are also part of

our plans to improve bus reliability and bus journey times across London.

The Road Modernisation Plan is the biggest investment for a generation consisting of

hundreds of projects to transform junctions, bridges, tunnels and pedestrian areas.

Working with London’s boroughs, it will make our roads safer and more reliable, and

London will be a better place in which to live, work and travel.

2.2 Description of the proposals

We proposed the following improvements to this junction:

Building a new bus lane and bus activated signals (referred to later in this report as the bus priority facility) in Drury Way to allow southbound buses to travel from Drury Way into Brentfield Road. The bus priority facility would be for local buses only, and only for the straight ahead movement. Coaches and cycles would not be permitted to use this facility

Building a new left turn slip road from the westbound A406 North Circular Road into Brentfield Road

Signalising the pedestrian crossing across Brentfield Road

To allow the above improvements we would also need to:

Enlarge the traffic island at the entrance of Drury Way, change the road layout in Drury Way southbound and narrow part of Drury Way northbound. This is to allow us to construct the new bus lane through the island while providing space for pedestrian crossing facilities. The existing signalised pedestrian crossings in Drury Way would be moved south slightly, with a new signalised pedestrian crossing provided across the exit from the new bus lane. We would provide pedestrian guardrail on both parts of the enlarged island. The walking distance to

3

cross Drury Way would be increased and we would need to remove the existing trees on the island

Realign the footway and build a new traffic island and signalised pedestrian crossing on the south east corner of the junction. This is to allow us to build the new left turn slip road. We would provide pedestrian guardrail on the new island. We would also build out slightly the footway on the west side of Brentfield Road. Although the overall walking distance to cross Brentfield Road would be slightly increased, we aim to make this crossing safer. We would retain the existing access to the rear of properties on the south east side of the junction but would need to realign the vehicle crossover from the A406 North Circular Road

Move southbound bus stop D in Brentfield Road, near Kingfisher Way, a short distance to the south. This is to reduce the impact of traffic building up behind buses at this stop towards the junction with the A406 North Circular Road

We also proposed to:

Provide new / replacement traffic signal warning signs on the A406 North Circular Road approaches to the junction in both directions

Provide new signs, carriageway markings and bollards as required

There would be no change to permitted / banned turns, except the introduction of the

new local bus only movement from Drury Way into Brentfield Road

The junction would operate in a similar way to the current situation. The new straight

on local bus only movement from Drury Way would operate at the same time as

traffic from Brentfield Road

4

2.3 Plan of proposed improvements

5

3 The consultation

The consultation ran for a seven week period from 16 February 2015 to 5 April 2015.

The original closing date was 29 March 2015 but we extended this by one week to

allow time to respond for some businesses and organisations whom we contacted

later. A small number of responses received after the closing date were included.

The consultation was designed to help inform and shape our final decision. We

wanted to understand the community’s opinions about our proposals to improve this

junction. The objectives of the consultation were:

To provide easily-understandable information about our proposals and allow

consultees to respond

To understand the level of support or opposition for our proposals

To understand any issues of which we were not previously aware that might

affect our proposals

To understand concerns and objections

To allow consultees to make suggestions

To help inform our decision making process

To inform where possible the detailed design of these improvements

The potential outcomes of the consultation are:

We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as proposed

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

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

3.1 Who we consulted We consulted the following:

Local residents and businesses

Local nurseries, schools and higher and further education establishments

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Bus users (who use certain routes passing through the junction)

Oyster card holders

Congestion Charge customers

Commercial drivers

Coach operators

Cycling and road user organisations

Local disability organisations

Local residents associations and community groups

Local religious organisations and places of worship

London Borough of Brent cabinet member, ward councillors and officers

Members of Parliament

London Assembly Members

London TravelWatch

6

Metropolitan Police

Other external stakeholders including national and London-wide bodies A list of the businesses, organisations and other stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix B and a summary of responses received from them is given in Section 6.

3.2 Consultation material, distribution and publicity We published the consultation on our consultation website at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/a406-brentfield-road . The web page included information about our proposals, a plan and an online survey where people could record their responses (see appendix A). All our printed material directed respondents to our website, although we also listed Freepost and email addresses for those who preferred to write in or email us with their views, and our contact centre’s telephone number for any enquiries. We publicised the consultation by the following methods (copies of the materials and the letter distribution extent are shown in Appendix A):

Letter to local residents, businesses and other premises distributed to approx. 4,300 properties in the area around the junction

Emails (and letters to those without email addresses) to businesses, education establishments, organisations and other stakeholders sent to approx. 225 addresses

Emails to customers / road users sent to approx. 133,500 addresses in London postcode areas HA9, NW10, NW2, HA0, NW4, NW11, N3, W5, W3, N12, N11, N2, N10

Poster (A4 size) posted at approx. 20 locations at and close to the junction (including shops, bus stops and on posts), visible to pedestrians and bus users (it was not practicable to provide publicity visible to other road users)

Press release

The online survey form asked the following questions:

“Do you support these proposed improvements, taking them as a whole?” (with a list of options)

“Do you have any further comments?” (free text box) “What is your name?” “What is your email address?”

“What is your postcode?”

“If responding on behalf of an organisation, business, or campaign group, please provide us with the name:”

“How did you hear about this consultation?” (with a list of options and a free text box for ‘Other’))

7

3.3 Discussions and other communications We have had discussions about this scheme with the following businesses, organisations and other stakeholders:

BAPS Shri Swaminaryan Mandir (Neasden Temple)

Brentfield Medical Centre / Dental Centre

IKEA

London Borough of Brent

Tesco

Wembley National Stadium Limited Following the consultation, we wrote to residents and local businesses very close to the south east corner of the junction. This was to inform them of some site clearance and ground investigation work we carried out on a piece of land, part of which would be required for the proposed new left turn slip road. We also sent an update to everyone who responded to the consultation (for whom we had contact details) and added an update to the consultation web page, both of which included an explanation that we expected to announce our decision and publish this report by autumn 2015.

8

4 Overview of consultation responses

In total we received 300 responses to the consultation. Of these, eight were received by email or letter, with the rest recorded on the website survey form. Table 1 below shows the respondents by category. Tables 2 and 3 below show the locations and identities of the respondents. Table 1: Consultation responses by respondent category

Sections 5 and 6 below set out the level of support for our proposals from the two respondent categories – members of the public in Section 5 and businesses, organisations and other stakeholders in Section 6. Section 6 also contains a summary of each response from businesses, organisations and other stakeholders. A large number of issues were raised during the consultation. Table 4 below provides an overview of common themes. A comprehensive summary (by theme) of all issues raised, ranked by frequency of occurrence, is shown in Appendix C and our responses to issues raised are laid out in Appendix D. A number of comments unrelated to the consultation were received. These will be passed on to relevant Transport for London departments and / or other organisations as appropriate.

Respondent Number Percentage

Members of the public 281 94%

Businesses, organisations and other stakeholders

19 6%

9

Table 2: Consultation responses from members of the public by postcode area, ranked by frequency

Postcode Area Number of respondents

Percentage

NW10 Willesden (incl. Neasden (south)) 79 28.1%

NW2 Cricklewood (incl. Neasden (north)) 37 13.2%

HA0 Wembley 19 6.8%

HA9 Wembley 17 6.0%

NW2 and HA9

Wembley and Cricklewood 1 0.4%

NW11 Golders Green 14 5.0%

W5 Ealing 12 4.3%

N3 Finchley 11 3.9%

N12 North Finchley 9 3.2%

NW4 Hendon 9 3.2%

W3 Acton 5 1.8%

N11 New Southgate 4 1.4%

N2 East Finchley 4 1.4%

HA3 Harrow 3 1.1%

N10 Muswell Hill 3 1.1%

NW6 Kilburn 3 1.1%

HA2 Harrow 2 0.7%

HA7 Stanmore 2 0.7%

HA8 Edgware 2 0.7%

N20 Whetstone 2 0.7%

UB6 Greenford 2 0.7%

N9 Lower Edmonton 1 0.4%

N16 Stoke Newington 1 0.4%

W12 Shepherds Bush 1 0.4%

W13 West Ealing 1 0.4%

NW1 Inner North West London 1 0.4%

NW5 Kentish Town 1 0.4%

SW8 South Lambeth 1 0.4%

EN2 Enfield 1 0.4%

EN5 Barnet 1 0.4%

KT12 Walton-on-Thames 1 0.4%

LU2 Luton 1 0.4%

WD6 Borehamwood 1 0.4%

Not known 29 10.3%

10

Table 3a: Consultation responses from businesses, organisations and other stakeholders

Organisation*

CTC London

Daniels Estate Agents

Document Capture Co Ltd

Future Training College, Treona Limited and Ramstein Gold Ltd

Haringey Cycling Campaign (local group of London Cycling Campaign)

IKEA, Wembley, Brent Cross

Interpharm Ltd

London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

London Borough of Brent

London Borough of Ealing

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

London TravelWatch

Metroline Travel Limited

Metropolitan Police

National Express

PBS Contracts (Design & Build) Ltd and PBS Joinery Ltd

Potters Bar and St.Albans Transport User Group

Sense With Roads

Wembley National Stadium Limited

* Five respondents indicated that they were responding on behalf of The Swaminarayan School but the contents of their responses suggest that they were all responding as individuals. These six have all been logged as members of the public

We have held discussions with three additional businesses, organisations or other stakeholders but did not receive formal responses from them. Table 3b: Discussions but no formal response received

Organisation

BAPS Shri Swaminaryan Mandir

Brentfield Medical Centre / Dental Centre

Tesco

Table 4 below provides an overview of common themes arising from the consultation. It covers the issues most frequently mentioned about the existing situation and about our proposed improvements. The information is taken from an analysis of responses from all respondents (both respondent categories) to the question “Do you have any further comments?” or equivalent content provided by respondents. 210 respondents provided such content.

11

Table 4: Common themes arising from consultation (mentioned in 10 or more responses*, ranked by frequency, from both respondent categories)

Issue No. of respondents

Existing Situation

Negative comment / concern about existing congestion / traffic in the area in general

34

Negative comment / concern about existing congestion / traffic on the A406 North Circular Road

31

Comment identifying / suggesting / rejecting existing cause(s) for congestion

25

Negative comment / concern about existing congestion / traffic in Brentfield Road (northbound)

20

Negative comment / concern about existing pedestrian provision / safety 13

Proposed Scheme

Negative comment / concern / question about disruption / timing / duration of works to construct proposed improvements

27

Positive comment about / support for improvements in traffic flow in the area in general enabled by proposed improvements

25

Negative comment / concern about exclusion of other vehicles from proposed bus priority facility

18

Suggestion / request for alternative design for junction (e.g. flyover / underpass / remove traffic lights / roundabout / traffic lanes)

17

Negative comment / concern / question about impact of proposed improvements on traffic flow in general

17

Negative comment / concern / question about impact on traffic on the A406 North Circular Road from proposed bus priority facility

16

Negative comment / concern / assertion that proposed improvements are overdue

16

Additional suggestion / request to improve traffic flow from Brentfield Road northbound

15

Negative comment / concern about impact of proposed improvements on / assertion / concern that proposed improvements will not help traffic / buses in Brentfield Road

14

Positive / neutral comment about / support for impact of proposed improvements on pedestrian provision / pedestrian safety in general

13

Positive comment about / support for improvement to buses enabled by proposed bus priority facility

12

Positive comment about / support for proposed left turn slip road 12

Positive comment about / support for improvements in traffic flow on the A406 North Circular Road enabled by proposed improvements

11

Assertion / concern that proposed improvements will not help traffic 10

Negative comment / concern / question about proposed design of island / lanes in Drury Way necessitated by proposed bus priority facility

10

Additional suggestion / request about trees / environment 10

* excludes general comments of support for or opposition to proposed improvements

More detail on the issues listed above, and our responses, is shown in Appendix D.

12

5 Responses from members of the public

Tables 5a and 5b below show how the members of the public who responded heard about the consultation. Table 5a: Answers received from members of the public to the question “How did you hear about this consultation?”

Method Number

Received an email from TfL 213

Received a letter from TfL 12

Heard about it locally 10

Saw an advert on the TfL website 6

Read about it in the press 5

Through social media 3

Saw a poster on the street 0

Other (see Table 6b below) 26

Not Answered* 6

Table 5b: Methods for ‘Other’ in Table 5a above

Method Number

Informed by school 8

Word of mouth / family / friend 6

TfL website 4

Email from local Liberal Democrats 2

Email from Brent Housing Partnership 1

Email from local councillor 1

Email from London bus users' online community 1

Email from TfL and Email from Liberal Democrats 1

From MP candidate 1

Poster in Tesco 1

13

The majority (about two-thirds) of members of the public who responded supported the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole, with about one-third not supporting them, not sure of their support, or having no opinion on them. Figure 1 below shows the level of support from members of the public. Figure 1: Responses received to the question “Do you support these proposed improvements, taking them as a whole?”

Responses to the question “Do you have any further comments?” or equivalent

information provided by respondents are summarised in Table 4 in Section 4 above

and in Appendix C, both of which also include responses from businesses,

organisations and other stakeholders.

I supportthem

I do notsupportthem

I am notsure

I have noopinion on

them

NotAnswered

*

Number of respondents 186 45 39 6 5

Percentage 66% 16% 14% 2% 2%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

14

6 Responses from businesses, organisations and other stakeholders

This section contains a summary of each of the 19 responses from businesses, organisations and other stakeholders, listed in alphabetical order. Each summary below includes the response to the question “Do you support these proposed improvements, taking them as a whole?” if the respondent used the online survey form, followed by responses to the question “Do you have any further comments?” or equivalent information provided. The latter more detailed responses have not been cross-checked for consistency against the answer to the question “Do you support these proposed improvements, taking them as a whole?”. As about a quarter of these respondents did not use the online survey form we have not provided a figure showing the level of support, or for how these respondents heard about the consultation. In summary, support for the proposed improvements from businesses, organisations and other stakeholders was mixed.

6.1 BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir We did not receive a formal response from BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir but

during discussions, it expressed support for the proposed improvements

6.2 CTC London CTC London supports the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It points out that it appears that the cycle routes would be retained and possibly slightly improved.

6.3 Daniels Estate Agents Daniels Estate Agents supports the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It makes no further comments.

6.4 Document Capture Co Ltd Document Capture Co Ltd is not sure about its support for the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It implies conditional support providing the proposed improvements improve traffic flow and reduce congestion in the area when there is an incident on one of the major routes, and have a positive effect for local residents.

15

6.5 Future Training College, Treona Limited and Ramstein Gold Ltd Future Training College, Treona Limited and Ramstein Gold Ltd do not support the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. They state that roadworks cause severe disruption to their business and students and they cannot see any benefit from the proposed improvements as buses have far too much sole access. They might support them if all traffic can use the proposed bus priority facility. They feel the enlarged traffic island in Drury Way is not good.

6.6 Haringey Cycling Campaign (local group of London Cycling Campaign) Haringey Cycling Campaign does not support the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It claims that the proposed left turn slip road to Brentfield Road creates a ‘left hook’ hazard for cycles and an increased risk from HGVs (referring to recent fatalities caused by ‘left hooks’), and says that the proposed bus priority facility would still work without the slip road. If says that there should be a push button activated cycle green light to allow cycles to use the proposed bus priority facility.

6.7 IKEA, Wembley, Brent Cross IKEA is not sure about its support for the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It is supportive of the principle of improving bus provision as part of the proposed improvements but to enable its support requires information on amendments to the signal timings, the frequency of use of the proposed bus priority facility, traffic modelling results for the existing situation and the proposed scheme, the proposed lane widths in Drury Way, and details of the construction process. It requests that construction avoids peak trading periods for IKEA (i.e. weekends) and would like more details of our proposals.

6.8 Interpharm Ltd Interpharm Ltd supports the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It makes some comments about access to the A406 North Circular Road at the Neasden Interchange, which is out of the scope of this consultation, but makes no further comments on this consultation.

6.9 London Ambulance Service NHS Trust London Ambulance Service NHS Trust supports the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It broadly supports any measure that would improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety and says that any measure to improve westbound traffic flow on the A406 would be greatly appreciated.

16

6.10 London Borough of Brent London Borough of Brent strongly supports several aspects of the proposed improvements, including the improved priority and reduced travel time and distance for the bus routes which would use the proposed bus priority facility, the reduction in vehicles merging into and exiting the North Circular Road from Great Central Way to Brentfield Road, the improved turning facilities for vehicles exiting the North Circular Road into Brentfield Road and the improved pedestrian facilities across Brentfield Road. It has a number of concerns regarding the final detailed design and implementation of the scheme: It is concerned about the loss of two mature trees and asks us to consider replacing them, subject to safety and visibility assessment. It points out that we have not stated how we plan to enforce the proposed bus priority facility. Its support for the proposed improvements is conditional on permanent formal enforcement (such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition CCTV) being provided. It is very concerned that cyclists have not been considered as part of this scheme. It points out that this junction could form part of a cycle route from Wembley Park to Harlesden but that this potential is removed by the proposed improvements as they currently stand. It does not support the exclusion of cyclists from the proposed bus priority facility as cyclists are permitted to use all bus lanes in Brent and it does not believe this inconsistency would be adhered to by cyclists, and as we would have no way of enforcing the restriction and that therefore it would be ineffective. It points out that other cycle safety features, such as Advance Stop Lines, which would provide for a safer cycling environment, have not been included. It feels that the other pedestrian crossings at the junction have been poorly thought out, lacking consideration for improved pedestrian convenience and safety. It feels that this would encourage non-compliance and lead to increased safety risk for pedestrians and all other road users. It particularly notes the exclusion from the proposed improvements of pedestrian crossings on the eastern side of the junction across the North Circular Road, which would require pedestrians to wait at eight separate pedestrian signals to cross between the north east and south east corners of the junction, and the indirect route of crossings of Drury Way, requiring use of four separate pedestrian signals to cross between the north east and north west corners of the junction.

17

6.11 London Borough of Ealing – cycling officer London Borough of Ealing is not sure about its support for the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It insists that the proposed bus priority facility allows cycles, asserting that otherwise cyclists would ride over the pedestrian crossings. It suggests that this could be a good place for cyclists to cross the North Circular Road, citing poor quality of the nearest alternatives, whether cyclists mix with motor traffic or pedestrians. It suggests that pedestrians should be grateful that they can cross the North Circular Road at all here. It requests that the staggers be reduced to make the crossing easier and shorter.

6.12 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority points out that congestion during the construction of these proposed improvements may impact on appliance attendance times.

6.13 London TravelWatch

London TravelWatch supports the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It advocates that buses should have priority on the roads that they use and be given privileged exemptions where this can be achieved and therefore very much welcomes the proposed bus priority facility, stating that the simplification and priority for buses would benefit many passengers. It points out that it is unclear what routes would be followed by the buses using the facility and says it would be good to consult local passengers if there are different feasible options. It feels that while the proposed left turn slip road into Brentfield Road may benefit most motor vehicles in terms of road capacity it would be less safe than a conventional left turn lane, and would welcome a review to determine if it is really necessary.

6.14 Metroline Travel Limited Metroline Travel Limited asks why bus route 224 is not listed in the information accompanying the consultation.

6.15 Metropolitan Police Metropolitan Police state that they have no objections or comments on the proposed improvements.

18

6.16 National Express (The comments from National Express are taken from email communication with us during the consultation period, which included clarification of some points made.) National Express points out that generally speaking, as they operate scheduled public transport services (many of which in London are operated on London Service Permits), local transport authorities are happy for them to use bus priority measures and it is curious to know why they would be excluded from the proposed bus priority facility. It has reviewed the proposed improvements, specifically the impact on its Wembley event coaches and the instructed route taken when departing Wembley Stadium, noting that it currently instructs coach drivers to use Great Central Way to access the A406 North Circular Road eastbound or westbound. It states that it would need to instruct coach drivers heading west that they should join the A406 North Circular Road at its junction with Great Central Way rather than at its junction with Drury Way and Brentfield Road. It later notes that this would in fact be no different from the current routing.

6.17 PBS Contracts (Design & Build) Ltd and PBS Joinery Ltd PBS Contracts (Design & Build) Ltd and PBS Joinery Ltd do not support the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. They state that traffic is bad enough on the A406 without further disruptions, and that road users in and around London already have high costs without the additional costs of delays due to higher fuel use.

6.18 Potters Bar and St.Albans Transport User Group Potters Bar and St.Albans Transport User Group supports the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It points out that Wembley generates many coach movements, and that rail replacement services are planned for some time in this area, so feels that coaches should be allowed to use the proposed bus priority facility. It points out that the junction becomes congested when large vehicles cross the road. It asserts that some of the bus services around Neasden are not that well used, compared to Wembley, and feels that some adjustments may therefore be needed.

19

6.19 Sense With Roads Sense With Roads does not support the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It feels that the proposed improvements are a big mistake and that they can only increase delays along the A406. It asserts that this is the only junction which stops traffic flow on the A406 flow for miles either side and that a bridge is needed here so that traffic from Harlesden can turn right onto the A406 without holding up the main A406 flow, and that such a bridge would also provide for the bus movements here. It feels that the proposed bus priority facility would give unfair and unreasonable priority to buses over other road users and that buses should use the road under the A406 to the north as other traffic does. It feels that our publicity for the consultation was inadequate.

6.20 Wembley National Stadium Limited Wembley National Stadium Limited is not sure about its support for the proposed improvements, taking them as a whole. It points out that this junction is one of the main routes to the Green Car Park (used on event days and non event days) and the East Gate (stadium access), so it would require assurance that our proposed works and associated changes to signal timings (both pedestrian and traffic) would not impact on the Event Day and Non Event Day ability to operate. It would like to better understand the layout and operation of the junction after the proposed improvements. It requests details of the proposed carriageway widths in Drury Way (both the left turn only lane from Drury Way onto the North Circular Road and the left turn from the North Circular Road onto Drury Way) following construction of the proposed enlarged traffic island, and evidence that this proposed change to the junction still enables all types of vehicles (including HGVs and articulated vehicles) to easily access and egress the junction. It asks us to confirm their understanding that there would be a direct impact on the route taken by bus route 206 southbound (with no change to the northbound route), a journey time saving only for bus routes 112 and 611, and no changes to bus routes 224, 232 and 332. It asks us to provide an indication of the proposed signal timings and vehicle flows and the impact of the proposed bus activated signal on the capacity of the junction. They go on to point out that a high frequency route would have regular impact on the junction signal timings.

20

It asks what information would be placed on the proposed traffic signals warning signs and whether they would have any impact on operational changes that take place during Event Day operation. It asks if these signs could have Non Event Day information and Event Day information reflecting the change in operation at the junction. It asks specific questions relating to Event Day operations: It asks for assurance that on event days all existing and amended bus services would be diverted as currently agreed (with the necessary amendments should the proposed improvements change the existing ones), on all arms of the junction and with the associated bus stop closures. It would like assurance that the proposed changes to the junction and signal timings would not impact on the ability for vehicles to arrive at the venue pre-event. It asks whether the bus activated signals would be deactivated during event day egress, stating its concern that should buses use this route during the egress period they may impact on the ability of vehicles to depart via Drury Way onto the A406 eastbound and on vehicles departing onto the A406 westbound from Great Central Way. It would like assurance that the proposed changes to the junction and signal timings would not impact on traffic management measures that greatly assist with vehicle departures post-event, specifically: It asks us to confirm that the proposed layout and operation (including signal timings) of the junction would enable the ‘Drury Way Lane Drop’ traffic management measure on the A406 North Circular Road to be maintained, and not impact on its ability to assist vehicles departing after an event. It asks us to confirm that the proposed layout and operation (including signal timings, proposed left turn slip road and proposed signalised pedestrian crossings) of the junction would enable the ‘Great Central Way Lane Drop’ traffic management measure on the A406 North Circular Road at its junction with Great Central Way to be maintained, and not impact on its ability to assist vehicles departing westbound after an event. .

21

7 Conclusion and next steps

7.1 Decision

We have decided to go ahead with our proposed junction improvements, with no

significant changes to the design.

We are satisfied that the improvements meet our two principal objectives of reducing

the distance southbound buses have to travel to cross the A406 North Circular Road,

and smoothing the flow of traffic, reducing journey times and reducing queue lengths

on the westbound A406 North Circular Road.

To construct the new left turn slip road, we need to purchase an area of land

adjacent to the south east corner of

the junction. The purchase is nearing completion. It is likely that the site, once

purchased, would need significant clearance and environmental remediation . We

intend to introduce a small ‘pocket’ park on the purchased land not required for the

slip road. We will seek suggestions for the design of this park in a separate

consultation in winter 2015.

7.2 Changes to the scheme / resulting actions

The responses we received were used to inform our decision making process.

Although we are not planning to make any significant changes to the scheme as a

result, we will do the following to address some of the issues raised:

Work with London Borough of Brent to;

o Finalise the signage and lane markings on Drury Way, to ensure only

buses use the new facility..

o Investiage what opportunities there are to improve cycle facilities

across the A406 North Circular Road (at the Neasden Lane junction)

o Determine if bus stop D in Brentfield Road can and should be moved

further south.

Monitor the use of the new junction layout (including the new bus priority

facility and the new left turn slip road) once the scheme has been constructed,

to check that it operates as planned. Should the scheme be found not to be

self enforcing, we will also consider the possibility of installing Automatic

Number Plate Recognition CCTV cameras to enforce the new bus priority

facility.

While this scheme specifically addresses our desire to introduce a bus priority

facility, we are working on a number of related projects along the A406 North Circular

Road, all of which will help improve the journeys for those using the A406 North

Circular. We want to encourage better use of the shared use footway on the south

side of A406 North Circular. We will look at how the staggered crossing to the west

22

of Brentfield Road works and also investigate whether we can move the westbound

bus stop on the A406 North Circular Road into an existing lay-by. New, separate

consultations would be carried out on any additional proposals for changes.

7.3 Requests for detailed information

We will send detailed information to those respondents who requested it.

7.4 Construction

We anticipate carrying out the construction works between January and May 2016

(the exact dates are subject to confirmation). We are currently preparing the detailed

construction programme and associated traffic management arrangements.

Where possible, the construction of this scheme will be coordinated with other works

taking place in the Neasden area.

We or our contractors will contact residents, businesses and properties with relevant

information before we start work.

7.5 Further consultations

We will be carrying out two further consultations that are associated with this

scheme.

We will consult on the design of the area of land we have purchased to enable

the new left turn slip road

We will consult on proposed changes to bus routes 206 and 224

23

Appendix A – Consultation material and distribution

Text of consultation web page (as originally published):

24

25

26

Plan: We displayed this on the consultation web page and enclosed it with the letter to local residents, businesses and other premises

27

Online survey:

28

Letter:

29

30

31

Distribution area of letter: )

32

33

Email:

34

Emails to customers / road users:

35

Poster:

36

Press release:

37

38

Appendix B - List of businesses, organisations and other stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Elected Members

Caroline Pidgeon AM

Darren Johnson AM

Gareth Bacon AM

Jenny Jones AM

Murad Qureshi AM

Nicky Gavron AM

Andrew Boff AM

Victoria Borwick AM

Tom Copley AM

Stephen Knight AM

Fiona Twycross AM

Navin Shah AM Brent & Harrow

Patrick McLoughlin MP Secretary of State for Transport

Claire Perry MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Susan Kramer MP Minister of State (Department for Transport)

Barry Gardiner MP Brent North

Sarah Teather MP Brent Central

Cllr Aslam Choudry Dudden Hill Ward

Cllr Janice Long Dudden Hill Ward

Cllr Krupesh Hirani Dudden Hill Ward

Cllr Aisha Eniola Harlesden Ward

Cllr Bobby Thomas Harlesden Ward

39

Cllr Lloyd McLeish Harlesden Ward

Cllr Ernest Ezeajughi Stonebridge Ward

Cllr Sabina Khan Stonebridge Ward

Cllr Zaffar Vankalwala Stonebridge Ward

Cllr Ketan Sheth Tokyngton Ward

Cllr Orleen Hylton Tokyngton Ward

Cllr Muhammed Butt Tokyngton Ward

Cllr Harbi Farah Welsh Harp Ward

Cllr Amer Agha Welsh Harp Ward

Cllr Roxanne Mashari Welsh Harp Ward

Cllr George Crane Lead Member for Environment

Local Authorities

London Borough of Brent Greater London Authority

Police, Fire & Health Authorities

Brent Care Commissioning Group London Ambulance Service

Brent Safer Transport Team London Fire and Emergency Planning

Authority

Central London Care Commissioning

Group

Metropolitan Police

Transport Groups and Unions

AA Motorcycle Action Group

Association of British Drivers Motorcycle Industry Association

Association of Car Fleet Operators National Express Coaches

British Motorcyclists Federation Road Haulage Association

Freight Transport Association RMT Union

40

Green Flag Group Unions Together

Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Unite

Local Interest Groups and Stakeholders

Alice's Wonderland Nursery

Hephzibah Day Nursery (previously

Heritage Family Centre)

Almost Big School / Stonebridge

Community Nursery / Riverbank Nursery

Leopold Primary School (Gwenneth Rickus

site)

BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Mitchell Brook Primary School

BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha

North West London Chamber of

Commerce

Brent Adult and Community Education

Service, Stonebridge Centre Northbank BID

Brent Adult and Community Education

Service, Wembley Centre Park Royal Partnership

Brent Cyclists Phoenix Arch School (previously Vernon

House School)

Brent Education Tuition Service Sufra NW London

Brent Housing Partnership Sure Start, Stonebridge Centre

Brent Liberal Democrats The FA Group

Brent Oil Contractors Ltd The Swaminarayan School

Brentfield Primary School Wembley Music Centre

Carmel Hall Community Centre Wembley Stadium

College of North West London West London Alliance

Dhamecha Cash & Carry Ltd Westminster Liberal Democrats

Fawood Childrens Centre

Other Stakeholders

Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID) Joint Mobility Unit

ACS Professionals in Construction Ltd KP Engineering Works

41

Age Concern London L & B Haulage Civil Engineering

Contractors Ltd

Age UK Laxcon Construction

Alzheimer’s Society Liquid Bubble Media Ltd

Amery Construction Ltd Living Streets

Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance London City Airport

Audio Link Ltd London Councils

BT London Cycling Campaign

Campaign for Better Transport London Older People's Strategy Group

Citizens UK McDonalds

Colour Press Mercury Energy

Confederation of British Industry (CBI) McDonalds

Confederation of Passenger Transport UK

(CPT) London & South East MIND

CTC - The national cycling charity Modebest Builders Ltd

Demco Communications Ltd National Children's Bureau

Disability Alliance National Grid

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory

Committee Newton IT Holdings

Dowling & Fransen (Engineers) Ltd Oriental Foods Ltd

EDF Energy PJ Carey Group Plc

Electrical Distributing Co. Ltd Quintain Estates and Development PLC

Elite Mobile Accessories Ltd RADAR London Access Forum

Eureka Entertainment Ltd RNIB

Flannery Plant Hire Ltd Roe Green Builders Ltd

Fourways Interiors Ltd Royal Mail

Gazebo Fine Foods Ltd Royal Parks

Globe Imports Ltd Sense

GMB Sixty Plus

42

Greater London Forum for the Elderly Spud-u-Like (Group) Ltd

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Stroke Association

Harrington Builders Plc Team Relocations Ltd

Integral Memory Plc Tesco

Jade Hosiery Ltd Thames Water

Jani Taylor Associates The British Dyslexia Association

Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and

Partially Sighted People

43

Appendix C – Summary of all issues raised

This table summarises, by theme, responses to the question “Do you have any further comments?” or equivalent information provided by respondents. It includes responses from both respondent categories (members of the public, and businesses, organisations and other stakeholders) and is ranked by frequency within each category of comment.

Issue No. of respondents

Existing Situation - Negative Comments

Negative comment / concern about existing congestion / traffic in the area in general

34

Negative comment / concern about existing congestion/ traffic on the A406 North Circular Road

31

Negative comment / concern about existing congestion / traffic in Brentfield Road (northbound)

20

Negative comment / concern about existing pedestrian provision / safety 13

Negative comment / concern about existing environment 8

Negative comment / concern about existing phasing of traffic signals 6

Negative comment / concern about existing congestion / traffic in Brentfield Road (southbound)

4

Negative comment / concern / question about existing u-turn manouevres in Brentfield Road / roads off it

4

Negative comment / concern about existing cycle provision / safety 4

Negative comment / concern about existing restrictions to traffic 3

Concern about / reference to problem with existing southbound bus routing

3

Negative comment / concern about Heavy Goods Vehicles in the area 2

Negative comment / concern about existing community division caused by the A406 North Circular Road

2

Negative comment / concern about existing bus network in the area 2

Negative comment / concern about existing layout of Drury Way 1

Negative comment / concern about unnecessary operation of / excessive time given to pedestrian crossings

1

Negative comment / question about affect of future development on traffic levels

1

Negative comment / concern about behaviour of road users 1

Negative comment about success of previous attempt(s) to improve junction

1

Reference to general safety problem with existing situation 1

Existing Situation - Positive or Neutral Comments

Comment identifying / suggesting / rejecting existing cause(s) for congestion

25

Assertion / comment that existing southbound bus routing is not a problem

2

Assertion that existing junction works well 1

Neutral comment about existing congestion / traffic on the A406 North Circular Road

1

Issue (contd.) No. of respondents (contd.)

Proposed Improvements - Positive Comments

Positive comment about / support for proposed improvements in general (some include reference to specific aspects)

62

Positive comment about / support for improvements in traffic flow in the 25

44

area in general enabled by proposed improvements

Positive / neutral comment about / support for impact of proposed improvements on pedestrian provision / pedestrian safety in general

13

Positive comment about / support for improvement to buses enabled by proposed bus priority facility

12

Positive comment about / support for proposed left turn slip road 12

Positive comment about / support for improvements in traffic flow on the A406 North Circular Road enabled by proposed improvements

11

Positive comment about / support for improvement to buses in general enabled by proposed improvements

8

Positive comment about / support for proposed bus priority facility in general

7

Positive comment about / support for improvements in traffic flow enabled by proposed left turn slip road

5

Positive comment about / support for proposed Brentfield Road pedestrian crossings

4

Positive comment about / support for proposed improvements in relation to road safety

3

Positive comment about / support for consideration to cycle use in the area in future

1

Positive comment about / support for reduction in community division of the A406 North Circular Road enabled by proposed improvements

1

Positive comment about / support for improvements to the environment enabled by proposed improvements

1

Positive comment about / support for impact of proposed improvements on cycle provision / safety in general

1

Positive comment about / support for reduction in merging / demerging on the A406 North Circular Road enabled by proposed bus priority facility

1

Positive / neutral comment about / support for improvements to buses enabled by proposed left turn slip road

1

Proposed Improvements - Negative Comments

Negative comment / concern / question about disruption / timing / duration of works to construct proposed improvements

27

Negative comment / concern about exclusion of other vehicles from proposed bus priority facility

18

Negative comment / concern / question about impact of proposed improvements on traffic flow in general

17

Negative comment / concern / question about impact on traffic on the A406 North Circular Road from proposed bus priority facility

16

Negative comment / concern / assertion that proposed improvements are overdue

16

Negative comment / concern about impact of proposed improvements on / assertion / concern that proposed improvements will not help traffic / buses in Brentfield Road

14

Negative comment / concern about proposed improvements in general 12

Assertion / concern that proposed improvements will not help traffic 10

Negative comment / concern / question about proposed design of island / lanes in Drury Way necessitated by proposed bus priority facility

10

Negative comment / concern about proposed bus priority facility in general

9

Negative comment / concern / question about proposed loss of trees necessitated by proposed bus priority facility

9

45

Issue (contd.) No. of respondents (contd.)

Proposed Improvements - Negative Comments (contd.)

Concern that proposed improvements do not help cyclists 8

Comment about not understanding how proposed bus priority facility improves traffic flow

8

Negative comment / concern that proposed improvements are not sufficient

8

Negative comment / concern / question about impact on traffic flow of proposed new pedestrian crossings in Brentfield Road (and associated footway buildout)

6

Negative comment / concern / question about impact on traffic in Brentfield Road of proposed bus priority facility

6

Assertion / concern that proposed improvements will not help in general 6

Concern about cost of proposed improvements 6

Negative comment / concern about proposed left turn slip road in general 6

Negative comment / concern / question about safety of proposed bus priority facility and proposed associated changes to Drury Way

6

Comment / question about which bus routes are affected by / proposed routing of buses following proposed improvements

6

Assertion / concern that proposed improvements will not help buses / negative comment / concern about impact of proposed improvements on buses

5

Negative comment / concern about sufficiency of proposed left turn slip road

5

Negative comment / concern about impact of proposed improvements on cycle provision / safety

5

Negative comment / concern about impact of proposed improvements on pedestrian provision / safety

4

Assertion / negative comment / concern that proposed improvements do not resolve problem with traffic u-turning in Brentfield Road / roads off it

4

Negative comment / concern / question about impact of proposed improvements on traffic flow on the A406 North Circular Road

4

Negative comment / concern / question about impact of proposed improvements on Wembley event day traffic

4

Negative comment / concern about possible bus route changes enabled by proposed bus priority facility

4

Negative comment / concern / question about safety of proposed left turn slip road

4

Negative comment about requirement for proposed bus priority facility 4

Negative comment / concern / question about impact on traffic in Drury Way (including for events) of proposed bus priority facility

3

Negative comment / concern / question about enforcement of proposed bus priority facility

3

Negative comment / concern about traffic route (that is not in fact affected by proposed improvements)

3

Negative comment / concern about whether proposed improvements are worth doing / assertion that they are not

2

Suggestion that the money for proposed improvements would be better spent elsewhere

2

Negative comment / concern about moves of pedestrian crossings in Drury Way necessitated by proposed bus priority facility

2

Negative comment / concern / question about impact on traffic flow of proposed left turn slip road(including proposed new pedestrian crossing)

2

Negative comment / concern about proposed new pedestrian crossings across Brentfield Road in general

2

Negative comment / concern / assertion that proposed improvements will not help the environment

2

Negative comment that proposed improvements prioritise buses over other road users

2

46

Issue (contd.) No. of respondents (contd.)

Proposed Improvements - Negative Comments (contd.)

Negative comment / concern about complexity of proposed improvements 1

Negative comment / concern that proposed improvements do not help pedestrians

1

Negative comment / concern about impact on Woodheyes Road bus stop of proposed bus priority facility

1

Questions inclusion of proposed left turn slip road 1

Comment about not understanding how proposed left turn slip road improves traffic flow

1

Negative comment / concern about impact on side roads off Brentfield Road of proposed left turn slip road

1

Negative comment / concern about cost of proposed left turn slip road 1

Negative comment / concern about proposed bus stop move in Brentfield Road

1

Proposed Improvements - Additional Suggestions / Requests

Suggestion / request for alternative design for junction (e.g. flyover / underpass / remove traffic lights / roundabout / traffic lanes)

17

Additional suggestion / request for use of proposed bus priority facility by other vehicles

16

Additional suggestion / request to improve traffic flow from Brentfield Road northbound

15

Additional suggestion / request about trees / environment 10

Additional suggestion / request for cycle provision 9

Additional suggestion / request about bus operation and routing 7

Additional suggestion / request for pedestrian provision 6

Additional suggestion / request to allow additional turns which are currently banned

6

Additional suggestion / request about design or exclusion of proposed left turn slip road

5

Additional suggestion / request for survey / assessment work 4

Additional suggestion / request about bus stops 4

Additional suggestion / request to ban turns which are currently permitted 3

Additional suggestion / request to revise phasing of traffic signals 3

Additional suggestion / request for enforcement of proposed bus priority facility

2

Additional suggestion / request for layout of Drury Way 2

Additional suggestion / request for bus lane(s) on the A406 North Circular Road

2

Additional suggestion / request for signage 2

Additional suggestion / request about traffic signal timings for Brentfield Road northbound (but already rejected within comment)

2

Additional suggestion / request for a pilot scheme 1

Additional suggestion / request to ban a specified mode of transport 1

Additional suggestion / request to restrict modes of transport in northern section of Brentfield Road

1

Additional suggestion / request to add yellow box junction in Brentfield Road

1

Additional suggestion / request for road markings 1

Additional suggestion / request about timing of works to construct proposed improvements

1

Additional suggestion / request about traffic diversion during works to construct proposed improvements

1

Suggestion / request to propose a different scheme

1

47

Issue (contd.) No. of respondents (contd.)

Proposed Improvements - Neutral Comments / Factual Questions

Comment about no effect from / no objection to / no major concern about proposed improvements, and / or factual question

8

Neutral comment about routing for other vehicles relating to proposed bus priority facility

1

Consultation Issues

Negative comment / concern / neutral comment about exclusion of bus route proposals from this consultation

6

Concern about consultation content / materials / publicity 4

Factual Information About Respondent or Area (this information was not specifically requested and is only recorded if mentioned by respondent)

Description of respondent's own use of junction 12

Description of respondent's residential status in the area, or similar 9

Mode used by respondent – car 8

Description of the area / how traffic and pedestrians use the area (including event traffic management arrangements)

5

Mode used by respondent / group referred to - pedestrian 5

Mode used by respondent – bus 4

Mode used by respondent – cycle 2

Reference to reversion to a previous layout of junction 1

48

Appendix D – Responses to issues raised The issues listed below are those which disagree with or misunderstand our proposals, ask related questions or make additional or alternative suggestions or requests. The wording in bold denotes the issues raised and the non-bold text below shows our responses. Additionally, a large number of comments were made in agreement with our assessment of the existing situation at the junction and / or in support of our proposals, which do not require responses.

Existing situation The improvements to the A406 North Circular Road at Henlys Corner and in the Bounds Green area have made congestion at this junction worse. Traffic volumes on the A406 North Circular Road have increased. The improvements at Henlys Corner and Bounds Green have helped to improve traffic flow on this road. Our improvements will complement the changes made at Henlys Corner and Bounds Green, helping improve traffic flow at the Brentfield Road junction as well. The existing layout of the exit from Drury Way onto the eastbound A406 North Circular Road is too narrow, causes tailbacks, and should be widened using a piece of IKEA’s land. We do not consider the exit from Drury Way onto the eastbound A406 North Circular Road to have a traffic problem (except for increased traffic volumes during events, which are managed using pre-planned traffic management arrangements), or to be too narrow. Existing queues are longer in the left hand lane of the westbound A406 North Circular Road. This may be caused by existing traffic turning left into Brentfield Road which uses the left hand lane (and left-turning large vehicles may encroach on the middle lane). We expect the new left turn slip road will reduce the queue length on this approach. Lorries should not use this road / there are too many lorries. The A406 North Circular Road is one of London’s major routes for freight vehicles, connecting east and west London including motorways and other major roads, and there is no suitable alternative. Freight vehicles need to use Drury Way to access industrial areas in Wembley. There are existing restrictions on heavy vehicles in Brentfield Road which are not affected by our improvements.

The main problem at this junction is the very long traffic queue, very slow traffic flow and excessive journey times in Brentfield Road (which has the temple and schools on it) northbound approaching the A406 North Circular Road. Could the traffic signal timing be adjusted to decrease the queues? Could yellow box markings be provided across the full width of Brentfield Road at the exits of Kingfisher Way and Mitchellbrook Way?

49

We recognise that this queueing exists and understand the effects on northbound buses and local residents but we are unable to relieve it in the short term as part of this scheme (for example by extending the traffic signal green time for traffic from Brentfield Road). To do so would worsen congestion on the A406 North Circular Road. We need to balance the traffic flow on all arms of this junction, as well as allow pedestrians to cross the A406 North Circular Road safely. The actual traffic signal timing varies depending on what is happening on the network in real time. At no time is traffic on Brentfield Road held for longer than two minutes within each traffic signal cycle. In normal operation, the green time given to the northbound movement from Brentfield Road varies between 12 and 16 seconds depending on the time of day, and in the short term this timing will remain. Buses using the new bus priority facility will cross the junction at the same time as traffic exits from Brentfield Road. This means that there may be some additional delay and a lengthening in the queue for northbound traffic (including buses) in Brentfield Road. However we will monitor the operation of the junction once the scheme has been constructed and might be able to adjust the traffic signals to give more green time to Brentfield Road northbound in future. For Temple events, our control centre has already implemented revised traffic signal timings to assist departing traffic, and is able to adjust these in real time. Providing yellow box markings in Brentfield Road falls under the responsibility of London Borough of Brent and we will pass this request (and an alternative of ‘Keep Clear’ markings) to them. Vehicles of residents of the Kingfisher Way and Mitchellbrook Way areas have to wait for the traffic signals on the A406 North Circular Road to turn red to allow a break in traffic to enable them to turn into Brentfield Road. The proposed left turn slip road would make this worse. With the new left turn slip road in place there will still be breaks in traffic when the new signalised pedestrian crossing in the slip road is in use. This crossing will display a green man for pedestrians when traffic on the A406 North Circular Road is held at red lights and when traffic from Brentfield Road and buses from the bus priority facility have green lights. While southbound buses may be entering Brentfield Road during this period, they have some distance to travel across the junction so there should be sufficient gaps in traffic for vehicles from the Kingfisher Way and Mitchellbrook Way areas to enter Brentfield Road and turn left. Buses do not currently cause much of the congestion on the westbound A406 North Circular Road so introducing the bus priority facility cannot reduce the impact of buses. The bus priority facility is not designed to reduce congestion on the A406 North Circular Road caused by buses – it is designed to reduce the southbound bus journey distance.

50

If we are concerned about morning peak traffic backing up from Hanger Lane to Staples Corner, why were we forced into accepting London Borough of Barnet's Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Brent Cross development, which predicts 29,000 extra cars per day, and still applies in the planning consent that the borough gave ? The figure of 29,000 additional vehicle movements is taken from the Regeneration Area Development Framework, which was prepared in 2003 and 2004 and considered a number of developments including the Brent Cross Cricklewood regeneration project. The figure was generated using basic assessment methods. Since then more precise modelling has been carried out and more accurate assessments and predictions have now been accepted by both London Borough of Barnet and by us. The predicted flow arising from the Brent Cross Cricklewood development is 8000 vehicles over a 12 hour period. The traffic light phasing currently doesn't give enough time for traffic going both eastbound and westbound at this junction. We use our traffic signals to balance traffic on the road network, including in this case currently three arms of the junction which compete for the traffic signal green time. We give more green time to the A406 North Circular Road than to Brentfield Road as it has more traffic demand, and it has one of the longest periods of green time in London. Any increase in green time for the A406 North Circular Road at this stage would result in unacceptable further delays for traffic in Brentfield Road and for pedestrians waiting to cross the A406 North Circular Road. Bus stops, including the one on the westbound A406 North Circular Road just west of Brentfield Road, should be placed in lay-bys as otherwise they cause traffic build-up. We normally only use lay-bys for bus stops where there is a road safety problem or significant congestion between buses. However we agree that the westbound stop referred to does affect traffic flow and in this case we are investigating whether it can be moved into a lay-by in conjunction with an existing parking area. We will explore options here separately to the scheme consulted on.

51

Proposed improvements in general Negative comments about the scheme in general. Traffic volumes on the A406 North Circular Road have increased. Our improvements will complement the changes made elsewhere on this road, helping improve traffic flow at the Brentfield Road junction as well. Doing nothing is not an option. As a highway authority, we have a duty to make the best use of our assets for our customers. The proposed improvements are overdue. In the past we did not have the funds to undertake a strategic review covering all modes of transport using this junction and make improvements to it. This would not be the first attempt to overcome this traffic bottleneck. A previous attempt about three years ago had limited success. This time we have carried out a strategic longer term review covering all modes of transport and have not limited it to just this junction. By relieving this pinch point we are improving the further A406 North Circular Road corridor between the A5 and the A404. It is a good idea to reduce traffic / support for reduced / speeded up traffic. Our improvements do not aim to reduce traffic volume or increase traffic speed at this junction. However they do aim to improve the existing traffic flow on the westbound A406 North Circular Road in the peak hours. The proposed improvements would greatly improve the volume of traffic crossing the lights at this junction / support for proposed improvements to increase traffic flow. Our improvements do not aim to increase traffic volume at this junction as it already has insufficient capacity. However they do aim to improve the existing traffic flow on the westbound A406 North Circular Road in the peak hours. We should make improvements for traffic to flow quickly away from this junction. Operation of junction during event and market days Our improvements do not aim to improve the flow of traffic away from this junction. However, they do aim to reduce the traffic queue length on the westbound A406 North Circular Road approach to the junction. Our improvements and the associated traffic signal timings are designed for normal operation. However during event days our traffic control centre, which monitors operation of the road network in real time, can implement special traffic signal timings as required. The new bus priority facility will continue to operate as normal during the event day egress period. We should spend some time in the area to see how bad it is. We should assess the impact on traffic of the proposed improvements. The Transport for London road network is monitored and managed through both camera observations from our control room and by our route management staff. Information about traffic flow is captured and used as part of our review process. In addition for this scheme we have held a number of site visits, and have carried out careful assessment and traffic modelling of the proposed junction layout and operation.

52

We are spending too much money on this / we are wasting public money / it’s another way to tax the public. Our improvements will benefit most road user groups. We will also achieve significant savings to public money from the reduction in the distance travelled by southbound buses. Effect on traffic flow This junction is a key pinch point and needs addressing as a priority scheme. An initial idea for a bus priority facility has enabled a strategic review of the junction. Our principal objectives are therefore to reduce bus journey times and to reduce congestion on the westbound A406 North Circular Road. These can only both be achieved by a combination of the new bus priority facility and the new left turn slip road. The combination of both meets our benefit to cost requirements, but each of them in isolation does not. Our assessment of the traffic impact of the improvements has been carried out using UTC-VISSIM traffic modelling software, which has been validated and which we consider to be robust. The new bus priority facility will lead to a distance saving of around 0.6 miles per journey for southbound local buses using it, which will also no longer need to wait in the traffic queue on the westbound A406 North Circular Road. It will also simplify the bus network. We do not expect the new bus priority facility itself to improve general traffic flow. Our traffic modelling shows that, in combination with the new left turn slip road, it will not have a significant impact on traffic except that there may be some additional delay and a lengthening in the queue for northbound traffic (including buses) in Brentfield Road. However we will monitor the operation of the junction once the scheme has been constructed and might be able to adjust the traffic signals to give more green time to Brentfield Road northbound in future. Buses using the new bus priority facility will cross the junction at the same time as traffic from Brentfield Road so the facility will have no significant effect on traffic on the A406 North Circular Road. The new bus priority facility without the new left turn slip road would reduce the capacity of the junction too much to be acceptable. The traffic flow improvements will be achieved by the new left turn slip road. It will ease the passage of traffic turning left from the westbound A406 North Circular Road into Brentfield Road. The improvement will also reduce delays for westbound straight-ahead traffic (particularly those caused by larger vehicles, which turn more slowly and sometimes need to move into or encroach onto the centre lane in order to turn left). The results of our traffic modelling show significant journey time savings on the westbound A406 North Circular Road in the morning peak period with the new left turn slip road. For example, average journey times in the westbound direction should reduce by approximately 3 minutes in the morning peak period when the queue is currently longest, with a substantial reduction in the traffic queue, and an increase in journey time reliability from 86% to 93%. This improvement in capacity will also apply throughout the day. This should also reduce delays to bus routes 112, 232, 332 and 611 which use the westbound A406 North Circular Road.

53

We do not expect these improvements will eliminate the westbound traffic queues, but our improvements are justified by the expected significant improvement to traffic flow on the westbound A406 North Circular Road. The new signalised pedestrian crossing across Brentfield Road is not expected to have any effect on existing traffic flows. This is because the green man for pedestrians will be displayed during the existing phase when traffic is flowing on the A406 North Circular Road (both directions) and stopped on Brentfield Road northbound, and traffic turning left into Brentfield Road will be using the new left turn slip road which bypasses the new pedestrian crossing. The new pedestrian crossing on the new left turn slip road will only display a green man for pedestrians when traffic on the A406 North Circular Road is held at red lights and when traffic from Brentfield Road and buses from the bus priority facility have green lights, so will have no additional impact on traffic flow. There will be no change to when the existing and moved pedestrian crossings operate and no negative effect on traffic flow from them. We will not be reducing the space available for cars except for some narrowing of lanes in Drury Way, which will have no effect on the capacity of the road. If we do nothing at this junction it is likely that delays for traffic and bus passengers will continue or increase and the high number of collisions occurring at the junction and its approaches will not be addressed. Support for a reduction in vehicles merging and exiting the A406 North Circular Road between Great Central Way and Brentfield Road. We recognise that southbound local buses which currently need to use the short section of the westbound A406 North Circular Road between Great Central Way and Brentfield Road will no longer need to do so, and their absence would therefore improve capacity and contribute to improved traffic flow on this section. However this only applies to local buses and the relatively low frequency means that this will not be a significant contribution. Could a right turn lane from the westbound A406 North Circular Road into Drury Way be provided to prevent vehicles u-turning in Brentfield Road or Kingfisher Way? We are not able to provide a right turn from the westbound A406 North Circular Road into Drury Way as to do so would worsen congestion on the eastbound A406 North Circular Road. Most traffic from the westbound A406 North Circular Road wishing to turn right or u-turn should be using the existing left turn into Great Central Way and under the A406 North Circular Road. We recognise that u-turning vehicles are an existing issue in Brentfield Road and will be working with Brent Council to establish if anything further can be done to limit this action. Left-turning traffic from the westbound A406 North Circular Road, which will use the new left turn slip road, will not be permitted to subsequently turn right into Brentfield Road.

54

Request for details of the amendments to the signal timings and the traffic modelling results for the existing and proposed scheme. Request for an indication of the signal timings and vehicle flows. Following construction we expect general traffic flows and patterns to remain the same as existing. The new bus and traffic movements and new signalised pedestrian crossings will operate within the existing traffic signal cycle and timings. Once the scheme is in place and operating well we may adjust traffic signal timings to balance the use of the junction for all users. Is anything planned for the A4088 Neasden Lane access onto the A406 North Circular Road to enable vehicles to filter in more easily? This is equally a bottleneck in heavy traffic. We investigated this junction and could not ease access from the A4088 as this would reduce the capacity of the A406 North Circular Road and may cause more collisions due to traffic accelerating and merging. Allowing buses to turn right from Drury Way would increase the time the traffic signals on the A406 North Circular Road are at red. We have no intention of allowing buses to turn right from Drury Way. The new bus priority facility will only allow them to go straight across into Brentfield Road. The delayed pedestrian signals are unnecessary. Traffic lights for pedestrian crossings are not a good idea Signalised pedestrian crossings are safer for pedestrians at this junction. We are confident that they should all operate without additional delays to traffic.

55

Effect of proposed improvements on buses (not covered elsewhere) Effects on specific bus routes In this consultation we decided to focus on the physical junction improvements and did not describe how specific bus routes might be affected. Our proposals for the associated bus route changes were not complete at the time this consultation was launched. The major benefits to bus routes which cross the A406 North Circular Road from north to south into Brentfield Road (routes 206 and 224) would be from the construction of the new bus priority facility and not the new left turn slip road. The new bus priority facility would lead to a distance saving at all times of day of around 0.6 miles per journey for bus routes 206 and 224 and they would no longer need to wait in the traffic queue on the westbound A406 North Circular Road. It would also simplify the bus network. We will be carrying out a public consultation later in 2015 on proposed changes to bus routes 206 and 224. We expect that the new left turn slip road will benefit the other bus routes which use the westbound A406 North Circular Road (routes 112, 232, 332 and 611), due to improved traffic flow on this section. Buses on other routes would only use the new bus priority facility if they are local bus routes (i.e. not coaches), on diversion. Position of southbound bus stop D The bus stop move is subject to agreement with London Borough of Brent and we will discuss the exact positioning with them. Could we provide bus lanes on the westbound and eastbound A406 North Circular Road to improve bus journeys? Providing bus lanes would unacceptably reduce the capacity of the A406 North Circular Road.

56

Effect of proposed improvements on cyclists (not covered elsewhere) We will not be making any changes to cycling facilities at the junction as part of this scheme. We will investigate, once this scheme is constructed, whether cycle facilities can be provided at the existing staggered signalised pedestrian crossing across the A406 North Circular Road west of Brentfield Road. We are currently investigating, with London Borough of Brent, improved cycle facilities on their preferred route across the A406 North Circular Road at the Neasden Lane junction. We are also investigating improving the existing shared use footway along the south side of the A406 North Circular Road between Neasden Lane and Brentfield Road, to encourage more use of this facility by cyclists. Additionally, we are hoping to provide cycle parking on the area of land we are purchasing to enable the new left turn slip road.

Effect of proposed improvements on pedestrians (not covered elsewhere) General comments on pedestrian crossings in the area With these improvements, all crossings at the junction will have signalised pedestrian crossings, making it safer to cross the road. While the distance and time for pedestrians to cross Drury Way and Brentfield Road will be extended we will improve the surfacing and overall quality of the junction for the benefit of all users. The delayed pedestrian signals are unnecessary. Traffic lights for pedestrian crossings are not a good idea. We are providing new signalised pedestrian crossings to cater for existing pedestrian demand and to make it safer to cross Brentfield Road. They will not negatively affect existing traffic flow. Traffic turning left into Brentfield Road could have a filter to make it easier for pedestrians. Our improvements will make it easier for pedestrians to cross Brentfield Road by providing a new signalised pedestrian crossing across the new left turn slip road and a new signalised pedestrian crossing across Brentfield Road itself. Request for existing pedestrian crossing across the A406 North Circular Road to be made straight across / have the central island widened / be allocated more crossing time / have markings added to designate pedestrian and cycle sections We are proposing changes to this crossing as part of this scheme. We consider that the existing layout and the space provided is adequate in normal operation for the existing volume of pedestrians and dismounted cyclists using it. It is designed to be used in two stages, with people waiting between stages in the central area. We have investigated the possibility of realigning this crossing to allow pedestrians to walk straight across the A406 North Circular Road in one stage. However, this would

57

mean holding traffic in both directions on the A406 North Circular Road for a longer period of time (not shorter), due to the length of the resulting single crossing. This would impact on traffic congestion at the junction. Adding extra time for pedestrians to cross would have the same result. Shortening the ‘stagger’ at this crossing without making it a straight across crossing would provide minimal improvement for pedestrians crossing here as they would still need to wait in the central area of the crossing as they do now. However, once this scheme is constructed and we have updated traffic data, we will again review this crossing. This will include consideration of shared use by pedestrians and cyclists and / or a straight-across crossing. There should be pedestrian crossings on the eastern side of the junction across the A406 North Circular Road as well as on the western side. The proposed design means pedestrians would have to wait at eight separate pedestrian signals to cross from the north east corner to the south east corner of the junction. We have considered providing pedestrian crossings on the eastern side of the junction as well as on the western side. However, this would unacceptably worsen congestion. Although we are adding two additional pedestrian crossings, which increases the total number needed to cross the junction, all pedestrian crossings will be signalised which will make them safer and more attractive for vulnerable users. The existing footbridge at Woodheyes Road (about 320 metres east of the junction) provides an alternative single crossing for the route referred to and may be more convenient for some pedestrians. Crossing Drury Way would become indirect. The proposed design means pedestrians would have to wait at four separate pedestrian signals to cross from the north east corner to the north west corner of the junction. Could we provide a straight across pedestrian crossing across Drury Way? It will not be possible to provide a straight across pedestrian crossing across Drury Way. The bus lane in the bus priority facility will be a live carriageway so we need to provide an additional signalised pedestrian crossing to allow safe crossing by vulnerable users including visually impaired people. This crossing has to be as close as possible to the A406 North Circular Road to allow the maximum queueing space for buses to prevent buses blocking Drury Way for other traffic. Could we build a bridge for pedestrians? We have considered providing a footbridge. However there is no existing room for a bridge and the necessary ramps to make it fully accessible, and a footbridge would have high maintenance costs. We therefore will not be providing a new footbridge at this junction. There is already a footbridge at Woodheyes Road, about 320 metres east of the junction.

58

Alternative designs for junction

The junction should be redesigned as a standard signalised crossroads with all movements permitted. Allowing general traffic to go straight on and turn right from Drury Way would be more convenient and save time and fuel We prioritise east – west movement at this junction due to traffic demand but allow some movement from the other arms of the junction. Adding additional traffic signal phases to allow additional turns would lead to much worse congestion on the A406 North Circular Road. A flyover / bridge / underpass (maybe with an associated roundabout) should be provided as at other junctions, and would result in fuel and time savings and a reduction in pollution. While a flyover, bridge or underpass would provide benefits to this junction, these are outweighed by the very high cost and time of implementation (including the compulsory purchase of land / property which would be required here). A roundabout-only junction would not work with the expected volume of traffic. Traffic from Brentfield Road onto the A406 North Circular Road should use a slip road without traffic signals rather than holding up traffic on the A406 North Circular Road. We have previously considered a slip road from Brentfield Road onto the westbound A406 North Circular Road, but the cost of land to enable this would outweigh the benefit. A slip road from Brentfield Road onto the eastbound A406 North Circular Road would not be practical as the width of Brentfield Road would not accommodate an underpass to reach the eastbound A406 North Circular Road and a slip road would take too much space from the eastbound A406 North Circular Road. Remove or restrict provision for traffic crossing the A406 to improve east-west journey times The existing layout allows some movement from all arms of the junction. We wish to maintain this to minimise diversions, not move congestion to local roads and adjacent junctions, or restrict existing movements. Removing all traffic signals, removing the whole junction, allowing left turns only, or restricting northbound traffic at the north end of Brentfield Road to certain types would have these effects. Removing all traffic signals, removing the whole junction, or allowing left turns only would also prevent us from introducing the new bus priority facility and would considerably lengthen northbound bus journey distance.

59

Traffic routes and banned / permitted turns The route taken by coach drivers departing Wembley Stadium events to the westbound A406 North Circular Road would need to change. It will not need to change. Coaches will still be able to follow the existing route via Great Central Way passing under the A406 North Circular Road, then turning left onto the westbound A406 North Circular Road. The right turn from Drury Way onto the A406 North Circular Road is banned for all traffic including coaches and will remain so. Would it still be possible to drive west on the A406 North Circular Road from Henlys Corner and turn north up Blackbird Hill to access the Welsh Harp sailing clubs? Yes, this route is not affected by this scheme. Concerns about ability to make existing permitted movements All existing permitted movements will remain as they are. The only change to permitted movements is a new southbound movement for local buses only across the A406 North Circular Road into Brentfield Road, and there will be no effect on existing permitted movements at the Neasden Lane junction. If you miss the new left turn slip road would you still be able to turn left into Brentfield Road? No, all traffic from the westbound A406 North Circular Road turning left into Brentfield Road will need to use the new slip road. Would it be possible to allow traffic from Drury Way (particularly traffic leaving IKEA) to turn right onto the westbound A406 North Circular Road? This would save motorists time, fuel and congestion. We are unable to provide this additional turn as the additional traffic signal green time needed would increase congestion on the other arms of the junction. Traffic from Drury Way for the westbound A406 North Circular Road will still be able to use the existing route via Great Central Way and under the A406 North Circular Road.

60

Prioritisation of different road user groups All the focus is on the users of the A406 North Circular Road. Our improvements provide benefits to bus users, pedestrians and local residents as well as drivers on the A406 North Circular Road. The proposed bus priority facility gives unfair and unreasonable priority to buses over other road users. Buses should use Great Central Way to cross the A406 North Circular Road, as other traffic does. We are committed to improving reliability and journey times on the bus network. Bus priority is needed to link Wembley with Neasden more directly. The new bus priority facility will help to achieve this, but when combined with the other improvements at this junction will benefit most road user groups. The proposed bus priority facility should be usable by cars / motorcycles / coaches / cycles / all traffic, not just buses, perhaps just during busy periods. The new bus priority facility is specifically to reduce the distance and journey time for local buses and is not aimed at a wider group of users. We cannot allow general traffic / cars / motorcycles to use the new bus priority facility at any time. We have considered this but to do so would require longer traffic signal green time which would significantly reduce the capacity of the junction and increase congestion, particularly during busy periods. There is also insufficient space in Drury Way for traffic (other than buses) to queue to cross the A406 North Circular Road. We cannot allow cyclists to use the new bus priority facility at any time. This is because we do not consider it would be safe to allow cyclists to cross the A406 North Circular Road alongside buses as the route is narrow in sections and crosses six traffic lanes. Additionally, the facility would provide a poor service for cyclists. The new bus priority facility is not a standard bus lane. It consists of a short length of bus lane leading to a bus-activated traffic signal. It will be used relatively infrequently in normal operation, so cyclists could be faced with a very long wait for a green signal. To allow a separate traffic signal phase called by cyclists using a push button would cause more congestion on the A406 North Circular Road. There are a number of existing similar bus priority facilities across London, not all of which permit cycles, with decisions made on a case-by-case basis. Dismounted cyclists can cross the A406 North Circular Road at the existing staggered signalised pedestrian crossing west of Brentfield Road and using the footbridge near Woodheyes Road, which is about 320 metres east of the junction. We cannot allow coaches to use the new bus priority facility. Coaches using the facility, even if on scheduled services, would mostly need to turn right from Drury Way onto the westbound A406 North Circular Road and we are unable to allow this movement as the additional traffic signal green time needed would increase congestion on the other arms of the junction. Also on Wembley event days, with large numbers of coaches, use of the facility by coaches is likely to lead to unacceptable delays to traffic on the A406 North Circular Road and the local road network, and to the local bus routes using the facility.

61

Individual design issues (not covered elsewhere) We have not stated how we plan to enforce the proposed bus priority facility. Support would be conditional on permanent formal enforcement (such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition CCTV) being provided. Cyclists may be tempted to / would definitely use the proposed bus priority facility to cross into Brentfield Road. This would be unsafe. Cycles are permitted to use all other bus lanes in Brent and this inconsistency would not be respected by cyclists. We will monitor the bus priority facility once it is in use to check that it is operating as expected. This will include checking whether cyclists are using or attempting to use the facility, although from our surveys we believe that cycling demand is low in the area. If we find cyclists and / or other non-permitted vehicles are using the facility we may provide mobile enforcement cameras on site. We are considering installing Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras at this junction. The new bus priority facility is not a standard bus lane. It consists of a short length of bus lane leading to a bus-activated traffic signal. Signage will clearly indicate that the facility is for local buses only. We will discuss with London Borough of Brent if additional signs could be provided. The proposed bus priority facility would cause a narrowing of both sides of Drury Way at its junction with the eastbound A406 North Circular Road, including replacing hatching with kerbs. This narrowing would make the junction less safe. Some large vehicles turn here and a wider space would be better and prevent vehicles turning north from excessively slowing thus causing delays to following vehicles. We have checked the ability of the narrowed sections of Drury Way to accommodate all vehicles likely to use them, and consider them to be adequate. Would drivers emerging from Brentfield Road northbound see anything different on their traffic signals depending on whether or not the proposed bus priority facility had been activated? Would it be obvious to these drivers, if turning right on to the eastbound A406 North Circular Road, that a southbound bus had priority? Drivers from Brentfield Road northbound will not see anything different on their traffic signals but may need to give way to southbound buses crossing the junction. This will be no different to many other junctions where right turning traffic needs to give way to oncoming traffic.

62

Moving the pedestrian crossing on the northbound side of Drury Way closer to the A406 North Circular Road would reduce the space available for traffic waiting at the crossing and, with the high volume of traffic using this section, may lead to traffic blocking the A406 North Circular Road, disrupting traffic flow. We will move the pedestrian crossing a short distance south as planned, to reduce the distance pedestrians need to walk to cross Drury Way. Our traffic modelling did not show this to cause a problem with traffic queueing. If in practice traffic waiting at this crossing does block the eastbound A406 North Circular Road we can adjust the time at which the pedestrian crossing operates. Concerns about safety of left turn slip road The new left turn slip road is a necessary part of the overall improvements as without it the new bus priority facility would worsen congestion at the junction. It has been designed to conform to national standards and we consider the new layout to be appropriate for use. The new signalised pedestrian crossing across the new left turn slip road will enable pedestrians to cross it safely. The visibility of the new crossing has been considered as part of its design. Currently, the sharp left turn from the westbound A406 North Circular Road into Brentfield Road causes vehicles to move out from the kerb to make the turn. The new left turn slip road will improve lane discipline by drivers. There is an existing shared use area alongside the south side of the A406 North Circular Road between Neasden and Brentfield Road which cyclists can use. We are investigating improving this, to encourage more use of this facility by cyclists. When in the traffic signal sequence would the proposed pedestrian crossing on the proposed left turn slip road display a green man for pedestrians? The proposed pedestrian crossing on the proposed left turn slip road would hold traffic for longer. The new pedestrian crossing on the new left turn slip road will only display a green man for pedestrians when traffic on the A406 North Circular Road is held at red lights and when traffic from Brentfield Road and buses from the bus priority facility have green lights. Which design of pedestrian signals would be used? Would the green man be on the near side of the crossing above the push button or on the far side of the crossing? Highway authorities seem to use either nowadays, inconsistently. All pedestrian signals at this junction will display the red man and green man on the far side at high level, with ‘Wait’ lights on the push-button units on the near side Would the proposed junction layout (with or without the proposed left turn slip road) be big enough to guarantee a bus to get through without blocking the A406 North Circular Road? The junction layout will ensure that a southbound bus will clear the A406 North Circular Road with the new left turn slip road in place. We have considered the possibility that buses may become blocked by non-compliant drivers on the A406 North Circular Road and we will monitor the bus priority facility once it is in use to ensure that it is operating as planned.

63

Environment issues (not covered elsewhere) Why are the trees in Drury Way being removed? Can they be replaced? We need to remove the two trees, due to their locations, to allow us to construct the new bus priority facility. We considered retaining them but were advised that this would result in them gradually dying and becoming a public safety risk. We propose to provide new plants, including at least one semi-mature tree, in the area of land we are purchasing to enable the new left turn slip road. We will be consulting later in 2015 on the design of this area of land. Concerns about traffic-based pollution We recognise that pollution and noise are a concern on this and other major roads. We continuously review our road network and the Roads Task Force has been considering the long term operation of this road and how best to improve its performance and to reduce environmental impacts.

Construction impacts How long would the construction take / would the disruption be for? Can we avoid events and other busy times? We anticipate carrying out the construction works over a between January and May 2016 (the dates are subject to confirmation). We are currently still preparing the detailed construction programme and associated traffic management arrangements. We intend to carry out most work at night, when traffic flow is reduced, thereby minimising disruption. We are in the in the process of developing our detailed construction programme, elements of which may include works being carried out over a continuous 24hr period (or longer). Our contractors will notify local residents prior to overnight works. Would access to Lynton Place and Yeats Close be affected during construction works? If so, what would the alternatives be? There will be no restriction on access to and from Lynton Place, Yeats Close and Great Central Way as a result of construction works on these improvements specifically. Our contractors will contact affected residents and businesses before works start. Do we have plans to alleviate additional delays on roads feeding this junction during the construction works? We accept that traffic on roads in the area may be disrupted during construction and we will seek to minimise this through appropriate signage to divert vehicles away from the area where possible.

64

Consultation issues Our consultation publicity was inadequate. We contacted by letter and email a wide range of people who live in the area and who may drive through the junction, and posted a notice at a number of sites around the junction where it would be visible to everyone using the footways. However, it was difficult to reach drivers who pass through the junction between diverse locations.