Consultation on the trial removal of traffic signals located at Stirling Corner on the Transport for London Network Consultation Report November 2011

1

Contents 1  Background 2 2  Consultation and Engagement 4 3  Core Audiences 5 4  Consultation Response Overview 6 5  Consultation Response Analysis 8 6  Traffic Analysis 9 7  Next steps - Traffic Signal Removal 15 Appendix A - Transport for London’s Traffic Signal Removal Consultation and Engagement Activity Outline 16 Appendix B – TLRN Traffic Signal Location Site Brief 17 Appendix C - TLRN Traffic Signal Consultation Strategic Stakeholders 19 

2

1 Background As the Traffic Authority for traffic signals on all roads in Greater London and with the direct relation to Proposals 30 and 80 in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, TfL see signal removal as a necessary step towards achieving Mayoral outcomes.

In December 2009, the Mayor’s Transport Advisor requested a plan to identify locations where there might be opportunities to remove traffic signals to deliver the Smoothing Traffic Flow programme and to integrate with stakeholder engagement and consultation to inform the process.

Traffic lights have a vital role to play in managing day-to-day operations on the road network; regulating traffic flow, helping to keep pedestrians moving and improving safety. However, in the last twenty years, London’s road network has seen an exponential growth in the number of signals installed due to the rise in development, population and motorised traffic.

With many signals installed on the basis of localised criteria, it has become timely to review the current situation at a strategic level. This changing approach has meant that in some locations signals appear oversubscribed and it is questionable whether signals are still needed and justify maintenance costs. Conversely, requests for the installation of new signals are subject to increased levels of scrutiny at local and strategic levels and granted only where all other options have been considered.

In July 2010, TfL identified a list of 145 proposed sites out of London’s 6,000 sets of traffic signals that could be removed and replaced with an alternative traffic calming measure to help smooth traffic flow through the Capital. On borough roads, signals will only be removed and potentially replaced with other measures if the borough decides that is what it wants to do with local consultation, where appropriate. They may also identify signals for removal. Since the list was published, 19 sets of signals have been removed across London and the process of review, discussion and updating of the list is an ongoing programme of work. www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/11351.aspx.

Building on the successful experience of boroughs, TfL have focused attention on traffic signals located on their roads, the Transport for London Network (TLRN), progressing removal and trial removals where further investigations seem necessary. The signals at Stirling Corner (ref: 30/131) were selected for a trial removal as part of this initiative. Trial removal allows TfL to ‘road test’ the absence of signals through realistic conditions and alongside stakeholder insight, a trial can confirm if a traffic signal is an appropriate candidate for removal.

3

Traffic Signal Removal Trial at Stirling Corner The Stirling Corner traffic signal removal trial is located on the A1 Stirling Corner Roundabout. The signals operate as part time signals controlling the A1 Barnet Way northbound and Barnet Road arms. The signals operate from 3.30pm to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. TfL surveys suggested they provide limited benefit due to their part time operation and greater benefits to road users could be provided without them. A trial switch off took place March 21 2011 to June 21 with an extension to 30 September 2011 in response to additional stakeholder feedback and to provide a full six month period of review. The signals control traffic flow at the junction which does not have a controlled pedestrian crossing, facility. The basis of the trial was to investigate the impact of the removal on the network at the time of their operation to confirm if they were necessary. Traffic management and congestion issues outside the operation of the signals are the subject of discussion and review with the relevant highway authorities.

4

2 Consultation and Engagement TfL’s Traffic Directorate and Surface Consultation and Engagement Centre worked closely to deliver an inclusive consultation and engagement strategy and obtained a verified equality impact assessment. Appendix A outlines the key activities and timelines leading up to trial in February 2011. The views and insight of boroughs, residents and businesses are central to the delivery of the TfL’s traffic signal removal programme. Feedback informs TfL’s proposals through endorsement or perspective which may not have been evident at selection stage. Stakeholder comment complements monitoring/data investigations undertaken at trial removal locations. TfL welcomed the insights provided by a wide range of interests from road users to local residents. This enabled detailed consideration of feedback gained at strategic, borough and local level. At the onset and during the trial, TfL consulted with technical officers at Barnet council regarding traffic and safety implications. In recognition of boundary issues, TfL met with Hertsmere council to discuss the trial and traffic management issues in the area generally. The signals are located close to the border of Hertsmere which is host to supermarket Morrisons (opened in January 2011) and near the signals. Strategic and local stakeholders were notified about the trial removal with an outline letter explaining the reason for the trial, a traffic signal site brief, photo and location map and justification criteria. Feedback was encouraged through TfL’s online consultation page or phone or letter. http://consultations.tfl.gov.uk

The consultation commenced on 11 February 2011 and ended on 30 September 2011. Comment and feedback responses arising from the consultation were received through the following channels: • TfL consultation online portal • Customer services: enquiries and complaints (emails/letters/calls) • Stakeholder Engagement Inbox • Handwritten letters to TfL’s Head of Stakeholder Engagement.

5

3 Core Audiences • Borough officers (transport technical) • Local politicians and representatives – ward councillors & MPs • Residents and businesses surrounding site (including schools and hospitals). • Strategic stakeholders e.g. Assembly Members • Road/Transport user groups e.g. Freight Transport Association, London Cycling

Campaign, Sustrans, Living Streets • TfL statutory consultees e.g London TravelWatch (LTW), • Diversity and inclusion organisations e.g. Age Concern, RNIB, Guide Dogs A full list of strategic stakeholders is contained in Appendix B

6

4 Consultation Response Overview Consultation and engagement for the Stirling Corner Traffic Signal Removal Trial took place between February 11 to 30 September 2011. Initially the removal trial was scheduled to take place for three months with the signals covered on 21 March 2011 to 21 June 2011 and corresponding traffic data and feedback analysed. After consideration of traffic analysis and stakeholder comments, a decision was taken not to remove the signals and return them to their part time operation.

TfL communicated this outcome to stakeholders, respondents and local residents. This generated additional stakeholder comments and calls to subject the location to further scrutiny. TfL responded with a decision to extend the trial to 30 September to account for more traffic data and seasonal variation and give extended opportunity for additional feedback to be submitted.

TfL communicated this outcome to stakeholders, respondents and local residents. This generated additional stakeholder comments and calls to subject the location to further scrutiny. TfL responded with a decision to extend the trial to 30 September 2011 to account for more traffic data and seasonal variation and give extended opportunity for additional feedback to be submitted. Throughout the trial, feedback was forthcoming from a range of stakeholders who use or have an interest in the location which includes borough councils, politicians, residents, businesses, pedestrians and motorists. This enabled a wide range of views to be considered in tandem with traffic analysis relating to the impact of removal before a final decision was reached on whether to remove the signals or retain them. All the opinions submitted were categorised and considered before a final decision was made. The analysis of the responses entailed quantifying and categorising the wide range of feedback submitted in terms of opposition and support of TfL’s proposal to remove the signals at Stirling Corner. TfL welcomed the wide range of insights provided by the removal trial. Comment was sought at strategic and local levels and was ‘open ended’ and not confined to yes/no answers. A summary analysis of feedback submitted is outlined in the following. • The trial generated feedback from 57 respondents. The majority of respondent

feedback was in the form of opposition to the proposal to remove the signals, with 53 respondents against removal of the signals and 4 respondents in support of

7

removal. Some respondents against removal also called for the signals to be functional on a full time basis.

• During the extended consultation period, a petition, including an e-petition, was submitted by The Borehamwood Driving Instructors Association (B.D.I.A). This generated in excess of 4,000 signatures, with 507 being submitted online. The petition made the following demands:

1. Lights on 24/7

2. Erect signals at Barnet Lane (Borehamwood side), A1 Southbound and exit from supermarket

3. Improve road markings which currently do not go round the entire roundabout.

• Feedback from the trial suggested some public confusion and misperception

exists surrounding the operation and purpose of the signals at Stirling Corner with some respondents thinking that they operated full time or functioned as a pedestrian crossing point. In some instances, the trial removal was cited as a contributor to incidents/accidents which occurred outside the time of operation i.e. mid morning. Some drivers contacted TfL notifying them of a continued fault as the signals remained covered for some time and submitted comments to customer service when they were informed a trial was being conducted.

• There was contribution from key stakeholder Guide Dogs who were unable to provide location specific feedback based on their network of members as they did not have ‘users’ in the area. However, they cautioned they were against the removal of any traffic signals used by pedestrians and their input was therefore acknowledged as opposition to removal. Local and strategic political stakeholders submitted opinion both in opposition and support of removing the signals. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association pledged support of TfL’s initial decision not to remove the signals when this was announced in July 2011 and so this was acknowledged as opposed to removal.

Many respondents opted to submit a range of opinions in their submissions. This meant ‘themes’ or ‘views’ emerged in excess of the total number of submissions. TfL categorised the respondents in a two fold approach. Firstly, the number of respondents in support or opposition to proposals was noted which meant ‘standpoints’ were quantified. Secondly, more in depth analysis entailed categorisation of responses into ‘viewpoints’ contained within submissions, enabling consistency and range of opinion could be quantified. The following chapter presents this analysis.

8

5 Consultation Response Analysis

Analysis - Barnet 30/131 Stirling Corner - Barnet Respondents Channel Number Consultation portal 10 Customer services 21 Surface Transport inbox 15 Handwritten 5 Telephone 3 Other 3 Total 57

Consultee Standpoint Opposition Support Neutral Number 53 4 E- petition 507

Manual Petition 3,500

(estimate)

Key Stakeholder standpoint Opinion Reasons

Guide Dogs Oppose But no member

usage

Cllr Morris Bright Oppose

Cllr Clive Butchins Oppose

Brian Coleman Support Barnet Council Support Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Oppose

Range/volume of ‘views’ submitted * Opposition Support Dangerous/congested junction 42 Morrisons created extra traffic/need 14 Pedestrians/cyclists use it 10 Full time signals required 10 Reduces accidents 11 Nuisance/obstruct south - east flow 1 Oppose full signalisation and want removed 2

*NB this does not include the views expressed in the e-petition or the manual petition

9

6 Traffic Analysis This section examines the impact of covering the traffic signals at Stirling Corner on traffic along the A1 both northbound and southbound. The signals normally operate between 15:30 – 18:30 Monday to Friday, but for the duration of the trial (23rd March to 30th September) were switched off and bagged. The analysis is based on LCAP ANPR (London Congestion Analysis Project – Automated Number Plate Recognition) links through the junction. The map below shows performance relative to a base line (taken at a neutral period of time in March 2009) on the two LCAP links through Stirling Corner 00:00 to 24:00 for Tuesday 12th July. It can be seen that journey times (blue lines) very closely followed the base line (yellow lines) except southbound in the PM peak when delays were lower.

Daily impact The chart below shows how journey times on the two TLRN links through Stirling have varied since the signals were turned off. Unfortunately during most of the extended trial the southbound ANPR camera was not in operation due to a technical fault and the northbound trial has limited data for the same three months in 2010. These were due to faults on the Traffic Master camera system, which are not maintained by TFL.

Note: The arrows on both graphs represent the start of each trial.

• The original trial from 21st March – 21st June 2011 • The extended trial from 21st June – 30 September 2011

0246810121416182022

27/12/09

27/01/10

27/02/10

27/03/10

27/04/10

27/05/10

27/06/10

27/07/10

27/08/10

27/09/10

27/10/10

27/11/10

27/12/10

27/01/11

27/02/11

27/03/11

27/04/11

27/05/11

27/06/11

27/07/11

27/08/11

27/09/11

27/10/11

Journey time northbound (mins) between 15:30 and 19:00

Weekday Weekend Bank Holiday

0246810121416182022242628

27/12/09

27/01/10

27/02/10

27/03/10

27/04/10

27/05/10

27/06/10

27/07/10

27/08/10

27/09/10

27/10/10

27/11/10

27/12/10

27/01/11

27/02/11

27/03/11

27/04/11

27/05/11

27/06/11

27/07/11

27/08/11

27/09/11

27/10/11

Journey time southbound (mins) between 15:30 and 19:00

Weekday Weekend Bank Holiday

12

Summary figures The table and chart below show that journey times during the trial period 15:30 to 19:00 have not varied greatly in comparison to the baseline. Further it is noted the weekday and weekend patterns are similar indicating that the differences are accounted for more by seasonal/demand differences than the turning off of the lights at Stirling Corner.

Findings The key findings of this report are:

• Average Journey times have not varied greatly in comparison to the baseline. However, when compared to the average, there are more frequent occurrences where journey times are increasing by 1.5 times. Although this could be the result of number of different factors, we believe there is a direct correlation as a result of removing the signals;

• When incidents do occur, without traffic signals operational it is not possible to regulate traffic flow through the traffic signal strategies currently configured;

• In the same 6 month period in 2010 there were 2 incidents of journey time greater than 14 minutes for northbound traffic. In the 6 month trial period there were 14 such incidents for northbound traffic showing a seven fold increase over the 2010 results;

Weekday Weekend Weekday WeekendSimilar period last year(12 weeks: Sun 04/04/10 to Sat 26/06/10) 8.6 6.1 10.5 6.0Before trial(10 weeks: Sun 09/01/11 to Sat 19/03/11) 9.8 7.2 9.6 5.7During trial(12 weeks: Sun 27/03/11 to Sat 18/06/11) 9.2 6.2 8.6 5.8

Northbound Southbound

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend

Northbound Southbound

Journey time (mins) northbound and southboundthrough Sterling Corner 15:30 ‐ 19:00

Similar period last  year(12 weeks: Sun 04/04/10 to Sat 26/06/10)

Before trial(10 weeks: Sun 09/01/11 to Sat 19/03/11)

During trial(12 weeks: Sun 27/03/11 to Sat 18/06/11)

13

• For the southbound approach, there was 1 incident where the journey time was greater than 16 minutes. During the 6 month trial period there were 3 such incidents for southbound traffic, representative of a three fold increase;

• During the monitoring period in 2010, the longest journey time on the northbound approach was recorded at 16 minutes. During the trial, the highest recorded was 22 minutes. On the southbound approach the longest journey time in 2010 was 20 minutes and during the trial this was recorded at 24 minutes;

• TfL only have journey time monitoring cameras on its networks (Barnet Way and Barnet-By-Pass) therefore we do not have any data for Barnet Lane which is under Hertsmere jurisdiction. This road feeds one arm of this roundabout. It has been reported at meetings with Hertsmere and in the local press that that there has been an increase in traffic queue and delay on both these roads since the trial began. On Barnet Lane it has been reported that traffic is regularly queuing further back than the roundabout at Furzehill Road which is approximately 500m away and it is alleged this has only happened since the trial began.

Conclusion The Traffic Management Act places a network management duty of Local Traffic Authorities to manage their road network with a view to achieving, so far as may be reasonably practicable having regard to their other obligations, policies and objectives to 1) secure the expeditious movement of traffic on the authorities road network and 2) facilitate the expeditious movement of traffic on road networks for which another authority is the traffic authority. It is evident that without the traffic signals, TfL is unable to fulfil this duty: Without the traffic signals we are unable to regulate traffic flows or the increased number of incidents that are evident from our monitoring. This concurs with the feed back from Hertsmere with regards to the increased traffic queuing and delay on their road network. Therefore, in conclusion, TfL have decided that the traffic signals will be retained reverting to the existing arrangement – PM Part Time.

14

Acknowledgements London Borough of Barnet provided comments on this report and it is acknowledged that:

• It is difficult to directly compare data from last year and during the trial due to the dates when Easter fell between the two years. A direct comparison between the identified periods where traffic levels should be similar to the previous year (Mon 10/05/2010- Fri 2/07/2010 and Mon 9/05/2011- Fri 01/07/201) can be made available.

• The ANPR cameras take a sample of vehicles for journey time analysis and

take more or less readings according to the amount of congestion they are recording. They cannot be used to count individual vehicles.

• No allowance was made for missing periods in the data collection.

• Spikes were identified in the graphs and in the case of the northbound the

journey time of 14 minutes was chosen as a measure as there was the largest discrepancy between the trial period and the same period last year. The same approach was used for the Southbound where 16 minutes was identified. It is acknowledged that these are arbitrary figures but was intended to enable a simple comparison to be made.

• Classified turning counts can be provided by TfL but these are not within the

monitoring period. TfL can make these available if requested.

• In the previous report there was data missing in the graphs for the majority of July 2011. This was a system error and not an ANPR camera error. This data has now been recovered and included in the graph. There was still an ANPR camera error from August 2011 until the end of the trial on the southbound direction so no data is available for this period for comparison.

15

7 Next steps - Traffic Signal Removal As the Traffic Authority for traffic signals on all roads in Greater London and with the direct relation to Proposals 30 and 80 in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, TfL see signal removal as a necessary step towards achieving Mayoral outcomes. Since July 2010, TfL and the boroughs have taken steps to remove unnecessary traffic signals on borough and TLRN roads. The process of review and discussion with boroughs is ongoing and the list is constantly evolving and can be found on TfL’s Smoothing Traffic Flow web page. www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/11351.aspx.

Building on the experience of boroughs and TfL’s first TLRN traffic signal removal/trial removal initiative, TfL are committed to continuing this programme of work to deliver the Mayor’s Smoothing Traffic Flow programme using both existing sites and with the selection of new locations.

16

Appendix A - Transport for London’s Traffic Signal Removal Consultation and Engagement Activity Outline

June 2010 In the early part of 2010, drawing on the detailed knowledge of the network, Transport for London (TfL) identified 145 sites where traffic signals may no longer be useful in traffic, pedestrian or safety terms and could potentially be removed to support the delivery of Mayoral targets for the year 2010/11. This entailed 121 roads on the principle borough network and 24 on the TLRN. This list was shared with boroughs and stakeholders in June 2010. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/11351.aspx December 2010 In December 2010, TfL began consulting with key stakeholders and local residents on the potential removal of seven of the 24 previously identified traffic signal sites on the TfL Road Network. TfL also announced trialling the removal of traffic signals at two of the seven sites to study the impact on traffic or pedestrian flows in the local area. TfL contacted stakeholders to give them prior notification, outline information on the consultation process and to advise the removal of two of the nine sites which had no impact on pedestrian movements and/or are obsolete or unused. January 2011 An Equality Impact Assessment on the Minor Capital Works programme (with a focus on TLRN traffic signal removal) was submitted to TfL’s Equality and Inclusion unit. This meant that TfL were compliant with legal obligations under the Equality Act and also demonstrated consideration and assessment of the issues which may potentially involve vulnerable groups.

A presentation on TLRN traffic signal removal programme was made to the Red Route Forum which represents a broad range of equality and inclusion organisations on 10 January 2010.

17

Appendix B – TLRN Traffic Signal Location Site Brief Borough: Barnet Ownership: Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) Signal type: Junction Site ref: 30/131 Site address: Stirling Corner Background The site is located on the A1 Stirling Corner Roundabout operating as part time signals controlling the A1 Barnet Way northbound and Barnet Road arms. The signals operate from 3.30pm to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Surveys suggest they provide limited benefit due to their part time operation and greater benefits to road users can be provided without them. A trial switch off will take place from 1st March 2011 for a period of 3 months. If the trial period indicates there are no adverse impacts, we will conclude that the site is an appropriate candidate for the signals to be removed completely. Traffic signal site location

The Scheme is located on the A1 Stirling Corner Roundabout, Please refer to the location plan and photo below.

Digital Map Data (c) Collins Bartholomew Ltd (2011)

18

Justification These signals have been identified for potential removal on the basis that this site has operated part time for a number of years (3.30pm to 6.30pm Monday to Friday). Surveys indicate they provide very limited benefit due to their part time operation and greater benefits to road users can be provided without them. A trial ‘switch off’ for a period of three months, with monitoring to evaluate the impact of removal from the network will determine whether these signals are candidates for removal or should be retained. If the trial period indicates there are no adverse impacts, we will conclude that the site is an appropriate candidate for the signals to be removed completely. Proposal The intention is to initially switch off the signals for a time period of 3 months. The performance (safety and capacity) will be assessed periodically before the final decision is made about whether to remove the signals or retain their part time status. Alternatives: no alternative/substitution measures identified as necessary subject to successful trial switch off.

19

Appendix C - TLRN Traffic Signal Consultation Strategic Stakeholders GLA Assembly Members

• Murad Qureshi • Steve O'Connell • Brian Coleman • James Cleverly • Jennette Arnold • Joanne McCartney • Kit Malthouse • Victoria Borwick • Caroline Pidgeon • Jack Beck • Navin Shah • Len Duvall • Valerie Shawcross • Richard Tracey • Jenny Jones • John Biggs

MPs – for specific sites • James Clappison • Theresa Villiers

Stakeholder Organisations • AA • Association of British Drivers • British Motorcyclists Federation • Age Concern London • DPTAC (Disabled Persons Transport

Advisory Committee) • Freight Transport Association • Green Flag Group • IDAG • Living Streets • LPHCA • LTDA (Licensed Taxi Drivers

Association) • London Cycling campaign • London TravelWatch • London Visual Impairment Forum • Motorcycle Action Group • Motorcycle Industry Association • Motorist's Forum • RAC Motoring Services • Road Haulage Association • RNIB • Sustrans • The Association of Guide Dogs for the

Blind • Travel for All

Ward councillors

• Bridget Perry • Wendy Prentice • David Longstaff • Rowan Turner • Anita Campbell • Andrew Strongolou