Archived decisions

Decision Maker:

Executive Member - Environment

Date of Decision:

30 April 2009

Decision Title:

Project Appraisal: Beeches Hill, Bishops Waltham

Decision Reference:

700

Report from:

Director of Environment

Contact name:

Mandy Ware

Tel:

01962 892873

Email:

[email protected]

1) Summary:

The following decision was made:

1.1 That this Project Appraisal for the provision of chicane traffic calming on Beeches Hill, Bishops Waltham, at an estimated cost of £29,870, be approved.

2) Reasons for the decision:

2.1. The introduction of chicane traffic calming will:

(i) improve road safety;

(ii) reduce the proportion of short-cutting traffic on a narrow rural road; and

(iii) reduce traffic speeds to a level more appropriate for a village and 30 miles per hour (mph) speed limit.

2.2. The scheme supports the County Council's corporate objective `Hampshire Safer and More Secure for All'.

3) Other options considered and rejected:

3.1. Various options of physical traffic calming have been considered such as pinch- points and priority build-outs. The decision to install trial chicane traffic calming was based upon analysis of the traffic pattern. Chicane traffic calming is most effective in situations where little opposing traffic flow exists over the majority of the day, as the measure produces a speed reduction through the deviation of a vehicles route as well as the need to stop and give way to opposing traffic.

3.2. Option 1: An alternative layout to reposition the edge of carriageway markings to provide a `virtual footway' to accommodate both pedestrians and passing two-way traffic on the northbound carriageway was considered in detail following concerns raised and suggestions made by a resident. The carriageway width available for the application of physical traffic calming is limited and the chicane build-outs cannot accommodate the minimum width of footway plus a vehicle lane. In order to achieve such a feature the chicane build-out on the southbound carriageway would require a significant reduction in width and would then provide little deviation for passing traffic, compromising the achieved speed reduction. The progression of this option is likely to result in traffic speed returning to the unacceptable pre-traffic calming level. Furthermore, this alternative would result in traffic generally travelling closer to the property entrances alongside the southbound carriageway which will cause difficulties for residents exiting their properties on this side.

3.3. Option 2: In addition the same resident has suggested that a continuous dedicated pedestrian and cycle lane be provided within the current carriageway of Beeches Hill, in accordance with diagram 956 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) which defines a `route for use by pedal cycles and pedestrians only'. This suggestion has been evaluated but is not considered feasible for the following reasons:

(i) the sign to diagram 956 of TSRGD, `route for use by pedal cycles and pedestrians only', indicates a shared use cycleway. These are off-carriageway routes where formal footway space is converted, by resolution, to allow use by both cyclists and pedestrians. The cyclists and pedestrians share the space and can travel in both directions over a width of at least two metres;

(ii) it will require cyclists to travel unsegregated in contra-flow on a narrow, well trafficked, two-way carriageway with rural street lighting;

(iii) it will require almost half the carriageway width and prevent traffic from proceeding two-way over the entire length of Beeches Hill. There is no suitable alternative route avoiding Beeches Hill for the level and type of traffic;

(iv) vehicles cannot be physically prevented from entering a mandatory cycle lane. A white edge line is not sufficient for segregation, particularly when the remaining road width will be insufficient for many vehicles;

(v) a two-way operation within such a narrow running carriageway width will create congestion and confusion, creating the potential for accidents bearing in mind the limited forward visibility in some areas due to the bends in the road alignment. A motorist meeting with another approaching motorist will be unable to pass;

(vi) an advisory cycle lane that did not seek to prevent vehicle entry will be continuously overrun and therefore not offer the benefit to cyclists or pedestrians. The associated intermittent lining could be confused for centre lining and therefore encourage motorists to travel closer to the road edge; and

(vii) a cycle lane would require much improved street lighting. Beeches Hill is a rural community and the current street lighting standards reflect this. For this reason significant improvement is undesirable. Furthermore, the current street lighting is placed on private land and improvement will be difficult to achieve.

3.4. Option 3: The resident has also suggested road humps as a suitable alternative. However, this type of measure cannot be recommended for Beeches Hill. Road humps are subject to legislation and can only be applied where a 30 mph speed limit is operational with a high standard of street lighting. The street lighting on Beeches Hill is of a rural standard and not sufficient to enable road humps to be considered. Furthermore, road humps are generally applied as part of a traffic calming system to maintain low speeds where already reduced by other traffic calming features. There are noise issues associated with road humps, and although many properties on Beeches Hill are set back from the carriageway, those that are not are likely to experience increased noise and disturbance, particularly in view of the level and type of traffic which uses Beeches Hill.

4) Conflicts of Interest:

4.1. Conflicts of interest declared by the decision-maker:

None

4.2. Conflicts of interest declared by other Executive Members consulted:

None

5) Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee:

None

6) Any reasons for the matter being dealt with if urgent :

None

7) Statement from the Decision Maker:

A further submission was made by Mr J Hayter, an objector to the proposed scheme (who was unable to attend the meeting), which clarified his comments. The submission was discussed and considered during the meeting. Officers explained the alternative option suggested by Mr Hayter, of a 0.8m wide strip on one side of the carriageway delineated by a white rumble strip, infilled with red tarmac, and the implications of such an approach.

Approved by:

--------------------------------------------------

Date:

30 April 2009

Councillor M J Kendal

Executive Member - Environment