Archived decisions

Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Environment

10 December 2002

Project Appraisal: Pack Lane, Basingstoke - Traffic Calming

Report of the Director of Environment

Item 9

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

EXECUTIVE MEMBER - ENVIRONMENT

PROJECT APPRAISAL

(Externally Funded)

PROJECT:

PACK LANE, BASINGSTOKE - TRAFFIC CALMING

COMMENCEMENT DATE:

DECEMBER 2002

COMPLETION DATE:

MARCH 2003

PLANNED YEAR OF START IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAPITAL PROGRAMME: 2002/03

7.

Scheme

7.1

Introduction

In 2000 the programmed traffic calming schemes in Basingstoke and Deane Borough were prioritised using personal injury accident and traffic speed data. The Pack Lane scheme ranked fourth on the rolling programme, the first three ranking schemes being dealt with separately.

A total of 11 personal injury accidents occurred in Pack Lane between January 1996 and December 1998. Of these three involved vulnerable road users. Of the total accidents, three occurred at the Fiveway's junction. There appears to be no other common theme to the other five accidents which occurred in Pack Lane. Updating this data, a further five accidents occurred between October 1999 and October 2002

Speed data was collected during January and February 2000 in which the 85%ile speed ranged from 34.5 to 37.8 miles per hour (mph) eastbound and 35.0 to 40.0 mph westbound. Pack Lane is subject to a 30 mph speed limit.

In accordance with the Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport (BEST) and with the benefit of funding from the Borough Council, it is proposed that traffic calming is implemented in order to reduce vehicle speeds and assist with the safety of all highway users, especially vulnerable road users and school children.

7.2

Details

The traffic calming scheme for Pack Lane comprises a series of speed cushions (75 millimetres in height) located approximately every 75 metres between Fiveway's junction and Buckland Avenue. Raised tables (75 millimetres in height) are proposed at the junctions of Pack Lane with Kendal Gardens/Stratton Park, Ennerdale Close/Coniston Road and Brackley Way. A mini-roundabout is also proposed for the Brackley Way junction. Gateway features, comprising improved signage, road markings and coloured surfacing, are proposed for both the western (Fiveway's junction) and eastern (Buckland Avenue) ends of Pack Lane. The proposals are shown on attached location plans.

7.3

Standards

The design conforms to the relevant regulations and technical advice of the Department for Transport as well as to County Council policies and advice.

The scheme has been safety audited at the appropriate stages.

7.4

Statutory Procedures and Consultation

The original proposals for dealing with traffic calming in Pack Lane included amendments to carriageway markings to create small-scale right-turn lanes at junctions. At public consultation in July 2000 the public rejected this concept of measures which visually influenced driver behaviour, stating a preference for more direct physical means for reducing vehicle speeds.

The scheme was amended to include a series of gateway features (coloured surfacing, additional road markings and traffic signs), speed cushions, raised tables and a mini-roundabout at the junction with Brackley Way. A further round of public consultation took place on the revised scheme, in the form of an exhibition (at which officers were present) at the Basingstoke Rugby Club (which is accessed from Pack Lane) in July 2001. Of the 40 comments received, 83% agreed that traffic speeds along Pack Lane are excessive and 80% believed that traffic calming measures are required in Pack Lane. The results of the consultation are presented below:

Consultation results

Support

Against

Gateway features at the eastern and western entry points to Pack Lane

24 (60%)

7 (18%)

Speed Cushions

24 (60%)

11 (28%)

Raised tables at the junctions of Pack Lane with Kendal Gardens/Stratton Park, Ennerdale Close/Coniston Road and Brackley Way

28 (70%)

8 (20%)

Mini-roundabout junction of Pack Lane and Brackley Way

24 (60%)

10 (25%)

Subsequent to the second round of consultation, the statutory procedures for advertising road humps were followed. Advertisements appeared in the local press and on-street between 7 and 28 June 2002. This resulted in 18 letters of objection, one of which contained 13 signatures, and three of which were received after the closing date for comments but were included in the total. Two objections were received from residents of Pack Lane and eight from residents of adjoining or neighbouring roads. This represents a very small percentage of the residents of Pack Lane and adjoining roads, therefore it could be considered that the vast majority of directly affected residents do not oppose the scheme.

Separately the Police have written supporting the scheme; the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, the Ambulance Service and local bus operator have replied stating that they do not object to the scheme.

The objections are summarised in Appendix 1. A list of objectors is attached as Appendix 2. While the views expressed in these objections are appreciated, they do not raise material concerns which require a major revision or abandonment of the scheme. This view was supported when the scheme was approved by the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Cabinet Member in August 2002.

7.5

Policy Considerations

The proposals are consistent with the aims of the Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport (BEST), ie to reduce the harmful effects of transport, to improve the safety of all travellers and to reduce dependence on the private car.

7.6

Environmental Impacts

The scheme has been designed so as to minimise its visual impacts on the local environment and its construction will be undertaken at a level of quality so as not to detract from the local environment. When completed the scheme should lead to a reduction of traffic speeds and an improvement in the safety of all road users. It is expected to make the road less attractive to through traffic which may lead to a reduction of traffic volumes with diverted traffic routeing onto more strategic routes.

7.7

Land Requirement

No land acquisition required. All works to be confined within existing public highway limits.

7.8

Alternative Arrangements

Other options considered included the implementation of visual traffic calming measures (additional road edge markings, coloured surfacing and visual gateway features) augmented with small build-outs. Although this would have been a low cost option, it was rejected because the preference of local residents was for a more direct method of influencing vehicle speed using vertical deflection (such as speed cushions and raised tables at junctions) together with a mini-roundabout at the Pack Lane/Brackley Way junction. It was accepted that these measures would be more effective in reducing vehicle speed.

In view of its high ranking among the Borough Council's traffic calming schemes, the accident rate and the level of concern expressed at the public exhibition, it is concluded that to do nothing is not a viable option.

7.9

Local Member's View

Councillor Jo Kelly supports the scheme.

7.10

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

The provisions of this Act have no impact on this proposal.

7.11

Sustainability

The scheme will reduce the impact of through vehicles on the environment of Pack Lane.

8.

Financial Arrangements

8.1

Expenditure

£'000

Funds Available

£'000

Design Fee

}

6

Borough Council

115

Supervision

}

Capital Programme

Project Works

} 109

Land

Nil

____

____

Total

115

Total

115

____

____

8.2

Revenue Implications

£'000

% Variation to Committee's budget

Net increase in

current expenditure

2

0.005

Capital Charge

Nil

Nil

____

____

Total Expenditure

2

0.005

____

____

8.3

Maintenance Implications

There will be minimal revenue implications from this proposal and these will be taken into account in the setting of the annual base budget.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1.

Published works.

2.

Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE

LOCATION

Scheme Files

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

Objector

Objection

Officer's Comment

1, 8, 11, 16, 18

a)

Vertical deflection will cause additional noise and/or pollution.

Traffic Advisory Leaflet TA1/98 identifies that speed cushion schemes can reduce traffic flows by up to 24% which should lead to an overall improvement in environmental conditions.

1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18

b)

Vertical deflection will reduce emergency vehicles response times/potential injury to older people in ambulances.

The speed cushions will be up to 1.6 metres width which are identified as being appropriate for fire appliances and ambulances. The emergency services do not object to the scheme.

1, 8, 11, 16

c)

Vehicles will be diverted to neighbouring roads which are inappropriate for additional traffic; estate roads would become less safe; main roads would become more congested which would increase journey times.

Pack Lane is used as a through route for traffic which should be using the major roads.

Neighbouring residential roads are not thought to be likely alternative routes.

2

d)

No justification for the scheme.

The scheme ranks fourth in the Borough Council's ranking of traffic calming schemes in terms of accidents and speed.

2, 8, 17

e)

Expect that humps and cushions will damage own vehicle.

Transport Research Laboratory found that 75 millimetre height cushions are appropriate for vehicles on British roads. No evidence was found of vehicle damage caused by cushions or ramps.

3

f)

Suggest that cushions should be at reduced distance from the Fiveway's traffic signals.

Traffic Advisory Leaflet TA6/96 advises spacing at 50 to 100 metres to minimise noise and vibration to properties. The cushions in Pack Lane have been spaced at 75 metre distances.

3

h)

Cushions will lead to motorcycles racing up the centre of the road between the cushions.

4

i)

Motorists will be distracted by the cushions which will reduce safety.

The scheme has been safety audited. This is not a known problem with cushions.

4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16

j)

Waste of taxpayers money. Unnecessary scheme.

The scheme is aimed at reducing speeds (currently excessive for a 30 mph limit). It ranks fourth within Basingstoke's programme. Public exhibition revealed support from residents for more direct measures to slow traffic speeds.

4

k)

Additional delays for vehicles.

Overall delay for vehicles will be minimal compared to overall journey times.

4

l)

Makes retaining and recruiting public transport and taxi drivers more difficult.

This contributes little to that problem. The scheme is aimed at reducing traffic speeds.

5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17

m)

Inappropriate scheme, replace with improved pedestrian crossing/pavements/bus services/ speed cameras/weight restrictions/more mini-roundabouts/altered road markings/cycle routes.

Public exhibition revealed support from residents for more direct measures to slow traffic speeds. Pedestrian/vehicle flows are insufficient to warrant pedestrian crossings. The route is not a known heavy commercial lorry route. The scheme is felt to be appropriate for Pack Lane.

8

n)

Causes problems of access to the town centre.

Pack Lane is not classified as a major route for accessing the town centre. The alternatives are the A30 and the B3400.

8

o)

Causes difficulties for cyclists who will then use footways.

Gaps are left at the side of cushions for cyclists.

8

p)

Speed is not a cause of accidents in Pack Lane.

Measured speeds are higher than appropriate for Pack Lane. Reducing speeds will contribute to safety. Residents consider speed as a problem in Pack Lane.

8, 12

q)

Pedestrians do not have to wait long in crossing the road.

The cushions are designed to slow traffic speeds.

9

r)

Potential injuries especially to the elderly.

See Objection b) above and s) below.

18

s)

Will hinder public transport.

The public transport operator does not object to the scheme.