Lucia Ciccioli

Dear May M1,

Both the GLA roads and the GLA side roads are also known as red routes due to them being marked with either single or double red lines_ The London Borough of Wandsworth (LBW) and TfL as traffic and highway authorities for the roads at the junction of Lavender Hill and Elspeth Latchmere Road will work together to reduce road danger through this junction. Both authorities are seeking to reduce collisions across London. In the Mayors Transport Strategy (March 2018) , TfL has committed to a 'Vision Zero' policy, which aims to eliminate all deaths and serious injuries from road collisions on London's streets by 2041_ On receipt of your report; officers from LBW and TfL met at the junction of the A3036 (Lavender Hill) with the A3220 (Elspeth Road Latchmere Road) to discuss the six matters of concern that you raised. Of these six matters, point (3) relates to a road for which TfL is both the highway authority and traffic authority, with the remaining points relating to roads for which LBW is the highway authority: Both TfL and LBW have and will continue to work collaboratively in relation to the concerns you have made. We set out below TfL's responses to your concerns_ Matters of Concern 1and 2 (LBW is highway authority & TfL_is_the_traffic authority)
1) There is an inadequate lane up to the traffic lights leading up to the traffic lights at the junction with LATCHMERE ROAD and ELSPETH ROAD (the cycle lane is coloured pink on the Reconstruction Plan}
2) There is inadequate protection generally for cyclists riding towards the junction with LATCHMERE ROAD and ELSPETH ROAD particularly for those cyclists that wish to go straight over the said junction towards LAVENDER HILL or for those cyclists that wish to turn right at that junction into LATCHMERE ROAD TfL recognises that dedicated left-turn lanes potentially increase road danger for cyclists proceeding straight ahead. We also acknowledge that the existing cycle feeder lane into the advance line is less than the minimum width recommended in the current version of the London Cycling Design Standards. However; the lane was compliant with the relevant standards that were in place when it was first implemented. Working with LBW; TfL will investigate, including traffic modelling, whether the dedicated 'left-turn' lane can be removed at this location, reducing the number of traffic lanes from three to two: This would enable the footway on the south side of the eastern arm of Lavender Hill to be widened, and the remaining two traffic lanes to operate as a near-side 'ahead and left-turn' lane, and an off-side dedicated 'right-turn' lane. The provision of an improved cycle feeder lane will also be considered as part of the revised design, with consideration of the constraints on the western arm (see also response to points 4 and 5, below). cycle leading stop cycle

Matters_of_Concern 3 (TfL_isboth _the_highway authority and traffic authority)
3) There is a yellow box in the middle of the said junction (situated between position 3 and 4 on The Reconstruction Plan) which causes concerns t0 cyclists when are either proceeding Straight on or turning right from the junction aS are prevented from legally stopping in the said yellow box: A yellow box has been provided at the junction to help prevent obstructions_ AlI vehicles, including pedal cycles, may only enter a yellow box When the exit is clear Our observations have indicated that junction does potentially experience exit blocking from adjacent junctions. Without the yellow box facility, vehicles would remain in the centre of the junction at the end of each traffic light green stage. Vehicles entering the junction during the next traffic light green stage would then need to navigate around those vehicles already in the junction This increases road danger; as inter-visibility between vehicles is reduced. For this reason, we consider that the yellow box should be retained_ Matters of Concern_4and 5_(LBW is_highway authority and TfL_is the_traffic authority)
4) There is no cycle lane provision in LAVENDER HILL immediately past the said junction
5) The narrow aspect of LAVENDER HILL immediately past the said junction places cyclists in a vulnerable position when they arrive in LAVENDER HILL from the said junction There is no existing cycle lane on the exit side of the western arm of Lavender Hill, because there is insufficient carriageway space given the need to accommodate general traffic progressing from the two existing straight-ahead lanes on the eastern arm of Lavender Hill: Providing a lane in this scenario could give cyclists a false sense of security as wider vehicles would need to enter the cycle Iane to avoid a collision with an adjacent vehicle_ However; if the proposal to change the layout on the eastern arm is feasible (as set out under our response to concerns 1 and 2 above), this would enable a cycle lane to be provided on the western arm, parallel to a single general traffic lane. We note that there is an existing loading bay adjacent to local businesses on the exit side of the western arm of Lavender Hill which is dedicated to loading between the hours of 1Oam and 4pm Monday to Saturday but can be occupied by any vehicle outside the hours of 7am to Zpm, Monday to Saturday: Cyclists must navigate around this box when it is occupied, bringing them into further potential conflict with adjacent traffic. Unfortunately; because the footway is narrow adjacent to this loading (excluding the private forecourt) , it prevents the loading being relocated off the carriageway. However, working with LBW, TfL will investigate whether the loading can be relocated to nearby Lavender Gardens or reduce the operating hours s0 that cyclists are less likely to encounter an occupied Any changes to the loading will require consultation with the local community_ they they the cycle bay bay bay bay: bay

Working with the LBW, TfL proposes to complete a revised design of the junction and set next steps by December 2019. Subject to public consultation, any necessary approvals, and available funding; construction could begin in 2020. Matters of Concern 6 (LBW is _highway authority)
6) The dip in the road in LAVENDER HILL (between position 4 and position 5 on the Reconstruction Plan) is dangerous and is in need of urgent repair: We understand that the dip has now been repaired.