... the most likely thing that I can think of would be increased foot traffic from the recent housing development south of Oldfield Lane – or a change in attitude. ....
I didn't know it before that housing development, but logic suggests that prior to the construction of housing on and just off Oldfield Road this path would have had limited use, providing a meandering official route from the earlier built up part of Westbury towards Dilton Marsh - initially via fields but from the opening of the cutoff line via a level for crossing. Also (at that time) probably already providing a further access into the station - but again really not used very much as the lack of housing at Oldfield Road meant that there were few residents in that area to make use of it.
I'm trying to figure out how old the houses are ... picture attachment of one I found online in one of the closes just off Oldfield Road. The agent's details state:
Westbury is a small medieval town that lies not far from its famous White Horse hill-carving at the western extremity of Salisbury Plain. Westbury offers a range of shopping and leisure facilities including a library, sports centre, schools, churches, doctors, dentist surgeries, post office and the oldest swimming pool in the country. The main railway line has fantastic links to Bath, Bristol and London. Travelling by car to Salisbury, Bristol and Swindon takes approximately one hour making it very desirable for commuters.Highly unusual for estate agent'e details in a "remote and rural county" such as Wiltshire to talk about rail line before road ones, which gives you the flavour of just how good these properties are for commuters. And as well as Bath, Bristol and London you can easily commute from there to Salisbury, Southampton, Swindon and Reading.
Unless it's a response to a recent incident, which is really another aspect of change of attitude (to safety). So what could be done to make the crossing safer? Barriers, lights and alarms, like a road crossing? Or do NR» feel that would be setting a precedent against their policy of no new LCs▸ ? Could the developer of the new housing be persuaded to build a footbridge as condition for planning permission?
I fear that a footbridge would need long ramps for disabled access ... and there's already an alert and light system installed but it's covered up / out of use. Not sure what happened there. In the media term, the development has a road going through it which is planned to include a new bridge not very far along to the west to provide a second access to the housing, and if that's not too far along it would be a sensible permanent compromise.
If the problem is actually lorries on the access road, I agree with the white line suggestion. At one lorry every 8-10 minutes, two lorries in opposite directions are unlikely to meet, so effectively a pedestrian area and a vehicle area.
If the problem is actually lorries, then (in my view) there's a far bigger problem directly outside the station entrance. Passengers arriving off trains spill out on a fairly narrow pavement. In front of them is the road, with (directly across) end-on bays for passenger drop off and pick up. No formal crossing. As well as the lorries, all cars parking for longer term at the station pass along this road, and people to / from their parked cars also pass along it, no formal footpath though of late traffic cones and tape have added a sort of footway. Waiting taxis park up one side of the road and those buses which call at the station pass through this area twice - once to get to where they can turn at the top of the car park and once as they pass back to get to the bus stop.
In contrast, the access road's just like a minor road anywhere in the countryside where the divers of vehicles should take care that there met be pedestrians around. There aren't the plethora of hazards there which exist at the station entrance, and it should be within the ability of the drivers of vehicles to allow for the hazard on the access road.
I believe that preventing people walking along the access road is intended to reduce traffic over the crossing, which cannot be closed without a long procedure. If I'm correct and this was explained to the public, the public wouldn't feel they were being sold porkies. And if it was accompanied by forward thinking to provide a permanent good solution for all parties, the public would feel very much more involved and be much more inclined to take a more positive attitude. With the current lane closure seen as vindictive by some people I've spoken to, and reponses to complaints as being patronising, the public are hardly on board with the closure and trust of Network Rail is lacking.
Click on the map to explore geographics
