Archived decisions

Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Environment

23 July 2003

Project Appraisal: Hursley Road/Hiltingbury Road, Chandler's Ford - signal improvements

Report of the Director of Environment

Item 10

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

EXECUTIVE MEMBER - ENVIRONMENT

PROJECT APPRAISAL

(Externally Funded)

PROJECT:

HURSLEY ROAD/HILTINGBURY ROAD, CHANDLERS FORD - SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

COMMENCEMENT DATE:

SEPTEMBER 2003

COMPLETION DATE:

DECEMBER 2003

PLANNED YEAR OF START IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAPITAL PROGRAMME: 2003/04

7.

Scheme

7.1

Introduction

The Hursley Road/Hiltingbury Road, Chandlers Ford - signal improvements form part of the Knightwood Development Funded Programme. This programme was submitted to the former Roads and Development Sub-Committee on 17 January 2000. This programme has been subsequently amended with the latest amendment being approved by the Executive Member for Environment on 24 June 2003.

The above report allocated £355,000 from the Knightwood Development Funded Programme for the provision of the Valley Park to Hiltingbury cycle route with the balance required for the footbridge coming from future Capital Programmes. £120,000 of the above funding is needed for the implementation of the signal improvements.

7.2

Details

The proposals are to install a pedestrian phase at these signals (see attached location plan). The arrangement of this pedestrian phase will allow for the future cycle route to Hiltingbury. For some time there has been local concern over the difficulty of crossing Hursley Road in this area, especially in the peak traffic periods. This was particularly evident at the various consultation exercises held in the area during the development of the programme and subsequent scheme consultations, ie the Hiltingbury Traffic Management consultation.

The scheme will provide a pedestrian facility on each of the four arms of this junction, with Hursley Road south and Hiltingbury Road being designed to accommodate the future cycle route. These two will have larger `landing pads' to accommodate cycles and some street furniture will need to be relocated to create this space.

As has been noted above this junction operates at its maximum capacity during the peak periods. The addition of a pedestrian phase at these signals will inevitably add to some additional delays at this junction. However the current signalling controller is an old system and, by upgrading the controller and adding pedestrian detectors and `call cancel' to these proposals these additional delays will be reduced to an acceptable level. Requests for traffic management of other roads due to these works should not be generated.

There has also been a pattern of vehicle accidents at this junction that suggests that drives are not fully aware of other vehicles at the junction. The opportunity is being taken to increase the lighting standards in the area and add anti-skid surfacing. There has already been a low cost safety scheme to enhance the signing of the junction.

7.3

Standards

The proposals have been designed to meet current National and County standards for this type of scheme.

7.4

Statutory Procedures and Consultation

There are no outstanding statutory procedures for this project. A consultation on the whole Valley Park to Hiltingbury cycle route was undertaken in May and June 2000 and reported to the former Roads and Development Sub-Committee on 11 September 2000. Eastleigh Borough Council's Chandler's Ford and Hiltingbury Local Area Committee fully support the proposals.

7.5

Policy Considerations

The proposals are consistent with the transport policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan, the Southampton Area Transport Strategy and the County Council's Local Transport Plan. They also meet the objectives of the Knightwood Package approved by the former Roads and Development Sub-Committee on 1 June 1998, especially the encouragement of alternative forms of transport to the private car.

7.6

Environmental Impacts

As detailed above there will be some increased traffic queues at this junction because of the proposals. This will lead to a minor deterioration of the air quality in this area. There will also be a corresponding minor increase in the noise levels for residents in this area due to additional vehicles starting from a standstill at this junction.

However, this option will give the local residents sustainable alternatives to their cars, thus reducing car numbers and thereby reducing some of the increases in the above pollutants. The net environmental impact of the scheme is likely to be a very minor negative impact.

7.7

Land Requirement

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

7.8

Alternative Arrangements

Alternatives for the cycle route were proposed that looked at different routes and layouts. At this junction one of the proposals was for the cycle route to come along Baddesley Road. An alternative for this junction would then have been advanced stop lines for cyclists. This would not have provided for pedestrian movements at this junction.

Once the route through North Millers Dale and Ashbridge Rise was chosen then the only other option would be the `do minimum option'.

7.9

Local Member's View

The local Member, Councillor Davidovitz, fully supports the proposals.

7.10

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

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

7.11

Sustainability

There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that many residents whose children attend the infant and junior schools or shop in Hiltingbury Road drive there to avoid crossing this busy road in the peak hours. This project will give these people sustainable alternatives for these journeys.

With the ultimate completion of the Valley Park to Hiltingbury cycle route, these sustainability options will spread to Valley Park and include the children attending Thornden School.

8.

Financial Arrangements

8.1

Expenditure

£'000

Funds Available

£'000

Design Fee

20

Developer Funding

120

Supervision

10

Project Works

90

Land

0

____

____

Total

120

Total

120

____

____

8.2

Revenue Implications

£'000

% Variation to Committee's budget

Net increase in

current expenditure

0

0

Capital Charge

12

0.013

____

____

Total Expenditure

12

0.013

____

____

8.3

Maintenance Implications

There are no significant maintenance implications.

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

Knightwood Developments

Report to Roads and Development Sub-Committee 1 June 1998

Knightwood Development Funded Programme

Report to Roads and Development Sub-Committee 17 January 2000

Knightwood Development Funded Programme: Progress Report

Report to Executive Member

16 July 2002

Knightwood Development Funded Programme: Progress Report

Report to Executive Member

24 June 2003

Knightwood Cycle Schemes, North Baddesley and Eastleigh

Feasibility Study. March 2000

Implementation: File 10/17

Working File

Implementation: File 10/17

Environment Department

" "

" "

" "

" "

" "