Archived decisions

Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Environment

15 June 2004

Project Appraisal: Hedge End Area Transport Strategy - Moorgreen Road Safety Improvements

Report of the Director of Environment

Item 7

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

EXECUTIVE MEMBER - ENVIRONMENT

PROJECT APPRAISAL

(Externally Funded)

PROJECT:

HEDGE END AREA TRANSPORT STRATEGY - MOORGREEN ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

COMMENCEMENT DATE:

JULY 2004

COMPLETION DATE:

SEPTEMBER 2004

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

7.

Scheme

7.1

Introduction

In August 2000 WSP Consultants were appointed by the County Council to undertake a study into the transport needs of the Hedge End area. The final report was received in March 2001.

In July 2001 Members of the County Council, Eastleigh Borough Council and Hedge End, West End and Botley Local Area Committee (HEWEB) approved a preferred list of projects from the WSP report. This list was recommended for approval by the former Southampton Area Transport Strategy Joint Members' Panel in November 2001.

In October 2001 Atkins was commissioned to review the reports prepared by WSP in order to assess the likely costs and timescales. A number of short-term `quick win' schemes were identified and agreed with the HEWEB group on 13 February 2002. The longer term schemes which would require more preliminary work, of which Moorgreen Road is one, were agreed and prioritised by the HEWEB group (including County Council Members) on 7 April 2002.

Moorgreen Road is a local connector road linking Botley Road and Bubb Lane (see attached location plan). The section south of the M27 overbridge has residential development on both sides of the carriageway, with St James Primary School situated in Monarch Way. North of the M27 bridge the road becomes more rural with residential development only on the west side. The existing speed limit is 30 miles per hour (mph) from Botley Road to immediately north of the M27 overbridge, where it changes to 40 mph as far as Burnetts Lane.

There is evidence that Moorgreen Road is used as a `rat-run' between Bubb Lane and Botley Road to avoid congestion at the Botley Road/Tollbar Way roundabout in Hedge End. Vehicle speed checks have been undertaken in Moorgreen Road and show an 85%ile of 42 mph. Traffic volume counts have also been undertaken and show a total flow of around 3,800 vehicles a day. These relatively low flows (three vehicles a minute, each way, in the peak hour) suggest that generally the traffic calming features will not cause the congestion sometimes associated with this type of scheme.

A trial of the scheme in the busiest area of Moorgreen Road (between the school and Chapel Road) has recently taken place. The build-outs were set out using concrete mono-blocs, with the appropriate signing and lining. Observations have shown this to work well, with traffic slowing and the alignment of the road means they do not rush for the gaps as previous concerns have feared. With only minimal queuing at the build-outs no road blocking or locking up occurred. However, it is anticipated that as rat-running vehicles learn of the scheme they will change their route to the main roads and the queue length will decrease.

One accident occurred on Moorgreen Road during the trial. This was the result of a taxi approaching the build-out at speed and failing to notice the `Trial Traffic Calming Scheme Ahead' signs and other warning markings. In addition, the build-outs have reflective bollards placed upon them.

Support has been received following the trial from the Residents' Association, the School and the Police.

7.2

Details

The scheme introduces priority build-outs and pinch-points at regular intervals along the entire section of Moorgreen Road. Some of these features will incorporate pedestrian crossing facilities involving dropped kerbs, tactile paving, bollards and associated coloured surfacing and markings. In addition, where priority build-outs are to be provided, there will be cycle escape lanes along the rear of the build-out to provide a safer route for cyclists.

Kerb lines at the junction of Monarch Way (near the school) will be realigned to discourage `kiss and run' parking and a coloured surface will be applied to highlight the junction area. A pedestrian guardrail will be installed opposite the school to encourage pedestrians (schoolchildren) to cross Moorgreen Road at the appropriate crossing points.

Bus stops in the vicinity will be repositioned to minimise congestion and improve visibility for other road users.

The footway across the entrance to the Southampton Arms public house will be improved for pedestrians with the addition of a pedestrian refuge to regularise vehicle movements.

7.3

Standards

Design standards adhere to the County Council's standards. Safety audits have been undertaken at appropriate stages, and all concerns have been satisfactorily resolved.

7.4

Statutory Procedures and Consultation

Consultation with local residents affected was undertaken in September 2003 in the form of staffed and unstaffed public exhibitions. Residents were informed of the exhibition by a letter drop which targeted some 370 households. The staffed exhibition was well attended - over 100 residents came to view the proposals and the scheme was well supported by two-thirds of those who filled in questionnaires. The local school (St James Primary) has been closely involved and has already published its School Travel Plan.

In response to the initial consultation, the scheme was extended to the Burnetts Lane junction, giving a total cost for the whole scheme of £190,000. This was reported to the former South West Hampshire Transportation Panel on 4 November 2003 and the modification made available to residents by way of a public exhibition in November 2003.

In addition, the following key consultees were sent copies of the scheme plans (including the scheme extension) and invited to comment:

(i) County and District Members;

(ii) Eastleigh Borough Council;

(iii) West End Parish Council;

(iv) Moorgreen Road Residents' Association;

(v) Emergency Services;

(vi) Disability Consultation Group and Association for the Blind;

(vii) Solent Blue Line;

(viii) Moorgreen Hospital;

(ix) School Crossing Patrol Coordinator; and

(x) Utility Companies.

Community Cooperation - careful consideration has been given to ensuring the local residents affected by the construction are fully aware of the proposals.

The school and residents association strongly support this scheme and what it aims to achieve. They feel the road as it is permits vehicles to travel too fast, making it feel unsafe and threatening when walking their children to school. Therefore many parents prefer to drive and add to the perceived safety problem. Many parents have expressed the desire to be able to walk with their children if the traffic speeds were reduced and safer crossing facilities were available. The appointment of a school crossing patrol person has gone some way to improve the situation, however the implementation of the traffic calming features is necessary to further instil confidence in parents.

The modification to the Capital Programme was subsequently agreed by the Executive Member for Environment on 23 January 2004.

A Traffic Regulation Order for the change from 40 mph to 30 mph will be required. However, this will not be implemented until the scheme has been constructed. This also ties in with Eastleigh Borough Council's `decriminalisation of parking' procedures. The Police traffic management officer for the area is fully supportive of this reduction.

7.5

Policy Considerations

The proposals are consistent with those of the Solent Area Transport Strategy.

7.6

Environmental Impacts

This scheme is constructed within the existing highway boundary, thus minimising the need for a full environmental impact assessment.

In addition an ecologist has been consulted as there is a highway soakaway within the scheme which is to be piped. It has been confirmed that no environmental impacts will be caused.

7.7

Land Requirement

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

7.8

Alternative Arrangements

Road humps were briefly considered, however these were not considered suitable as Moorgreen Road serves a bus route. In addition, humps cause undue noise to residents by way of vehicles continually slowing then speeding up.

7.9

Local Member's View

The local Member, Councillor Mrs Boulton, supports the proposals.

7.10

Equalities

These proposals aim to reduce traffic speeds and so will benefit all road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists. The improved crossing points with their tactile paving will be of assistance to the mobility impaired.

7.11

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

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

7.12

Sustainability

These proposals are designed to make the route a safer and more attractive environment for pedestrians, particularly those on the journey to school, and it is envisaged there will be some modal shift away from the use of the private car for this journey. In addition these features may discourage current `rat-runners'.

8.

Financial Arrangements

8.1

Expenditure

£'000

Funds Available

£'000

Design Fee

60

Developer or Local Transport Plan Funding (to be determined by Executive Member for Environment on 13 July 2004)

200

Supervision

10

Project Works

130

Land

nil

____

____

Total

200

Total

200

____

____

8.2

Revenue Implications

£'000

% Variation to Committee's budget

Net increase in

current expenditure

6

0.007

Capital Charge

18

0.019

____

____

Total Expenditure

24

0.026

____

____

8.3

Maintenance Implications

The additional street furniture and specialist surfacings will have an impact on maintenance. However, this 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

None