Meeting documents
Highways Committee (DCC)
Friday 24 October 2008
Meeting: Highways Committee (County Hall, Durham - Committee Room 2 - 24/10/2008 10:00:00 AM)
Item: A3 Request for a Puffin Crossing on A182 Front Street, South Hetton
 | |
| Report of John Richardson, Corporate Director, Environment | |
1.0 Purpose of Report
1.1 To advise Members of the outcome of a request to provide a formal light controlled pedestrian crossing on the A182 Front Street, South Hetton (see attached plan).
1.2 This report requests that Members support the installation of this crossing in accordance with the current County Council policy.
2.0 Background
2.1 As part of the Urban Renaissance Programme, South Hetton was identified as an area for potential regeneration works to be undertaken subject to external funding being approved.
2.2 During the consultation phase for the scheme, which included a drop-in session attended by 35 people, residents requested that in addition to the proposed footway and street lighting improvements, consideration be given to the provision of a light controlled pedestrian crossing. Residents believe that this would improve facilities for pedestrians and would serve the residential care home, the health centre, the adjacent school and the Community Association.
2.3 The provision of a light controlled crossing is subject to national guidance, national design guidelines and a local policy developed by Durham County Council which was adopted by Cabinet in May 2004 (copy of report enclosed).
2.4 The first requirement as part of the design and assessment is a site survey which includes classified vehicle counts, vehicle speeds and classified pedestrian counts in prescribed time intervals.
2.5 The current policy stated that if the PV² is above 0.75 then a crossing should be provided where resources permit. The policy then goes on to say that if the PV² is below 0.75 but above 0.3 then a crossing may be provided if external funding can be found and subject to consideration by the Highways Committee. When a figure of 0.3 is achieved, additional weighting factors are considered to reflect local need. These factors are site specific and relate to
· The percentage of elderly pedestrians crossing
· The percentage of unaccompanied children
· The percentage of HGV’s (above 7.5t)
· The average time taken to cross the road
· The traffic speeds
· The number of recorded personal injury pedestrian accidents.
2.6 When the above factors were added to the original value of 0.3, the figure rose to 0.36, still well short of the 0.75 figure normally sought for this type of facility.
2.7 A low figure would normally lead to a decision not to introduce a crossing as resources could not be found externally. However, as this scheme is in receipt of funding from Europe, further investigation was progressed to detailed design stage which has revealed a number of other potential conflicts with regard to the provision of this crossing.
2.8 It is normal practice to ensure no junctions within 20m of a crossing but in South Hetton there are access roads on either side of the road as close as 5m from the proposed crossing location.
2.9 Safety Audit has identified the following concerns:-
· The proposed crossing location is between two adjacent side roads which are close together and which will allow traffic to access the A182 without activating any of the normal signal detection loops.
· The proposed crossing location is between two adjacent side roads which are close together and drivers turning left from the side roads may be looking to their right for oncoming traffic and not see the traffic signals or any pedestrians on the crossing.
· The footway on the southern side of the A182 is only 1.2m wide, below the desirable minimum for a footway, and this will be further reduced due to the provision of the signal post at the rear of the footway.
2.10 However, the provision of a crossing will undoubtedly introduce a number of local benefits assisting the community. The surveys clearly show a high demand for pedestrians to cross at this location.
2.11 One solution may be the introduction of traffic calming on the adjacent side roads to reduce vehicular speeds. However, due to the need to deliver the works to the tight timescale required by grant funding, this could not be delivered prior to the crossing being introduced.
2.12 Verbal consultations with the Police have indicated that they share the concerns previously identified and a formal written response is awaited.
2.13 The local MP, John Cummings, is fully supportive of the proposal.
3.0 Recommendation and Reasons
3.1 It is recommended that Members endorse the proposal to introduce the crossing at this location on the understanding that further works may be required if the safety of pedestrians using the crossing is considered to be compromised.
Background Papers
Report to Cabinet on 13 May 2004 item no A8
Copies of correspondence have been placed in the Members’ Resource Centre.
Appendix 1: Implications 1.1 To advise Members of the outcome of a request to provide a formal light controlled pedestrian crossing on the A182 Front Street, South Hetton (see attached plan).
1.2 This report requests that Members support the installation of this crossing in accordance with the current County Council policy.
2.0 Background
2.1 As part of the Urban Renaissance Programme, South Hetton was identified as an area for potential regeneration works to be undertaken subject to external funding being approved.
2.2 During the consultation phase for the scheme, which included a drop-in session attended by 35 people, residents requested that in addition to the proposed footway and street lighting improvements, consideration be given to the provision of a light controlled pedestrian crossing. Residents believe that this would improve facilities for pedestrians and would serve the residential care home, the health centre, the adjacent school and the Community Association.
2.3 The provision of a light controlled crossing is subject to national guidance, national design guidelines and a local policy developed by Durham County Council which was adopted by Cabinet in May 2004 (copy of report enclosed).
2.4 The first requirement as part of the design and assessment is a site survey which includes classified vehicle counts, vehicle speeds and classified pedestrian counts in prescribed time intervals.
2.5 The current policy stated that if the PV² is above 0.75 then a crossing should be provided where resources permit. The policy then goes on to say that if the PV² is below 0.75 but above 0.3 then a crossing may be provided if external funding can be found and subject to consideration by the Highways Committee. When a figure of 0.3 is achieved, additional weighting factors are considered to reflect local need. These factors are site specific and relate to
· The percentage of elderly pedestrians crossing
· The percentage of unaccompanied children
· The percentage of HGV’s (above 7.5t)
· The average time taken to cross the road
· The traffic speeds
· The number of recorded personal injury pedestrian accidents.
2.6 When the above factors were added to the original value of 0.3, the figure rose to 0.36, still well short of the 0.75 figure normally sought for this type of facility.
2.7 A low figure would normally lead to a decision not to introduce a crossing as resources could not be found externally. However, as this scheme is in receipt of funding from Europe, further investigation was progressed to detailed design stage which has revealed a number of other potential conflicts with regard to the provision of this crossing.
2.8 It is normal practice to ensure no junctions within 20m of a crossing but in South Hetton there are access roads on either side of the road as close as 5m from the proposed crossing location.
2.9 Safety Audit has identified the following concerns:-
· The proposed crossing location is between two adjacent side roads which are close together and which will allow traffic to access the A182 without activating any of the normal signal detection loops.
· The proposed crossing location is between two adjacent side roads which are close together and drivers turning left from the side roads may be looking to their right for oncoming traffic and not see the traffic signals or any pedestrians on the crossing.
· The footway on the southern side of the A182 is only 1.2m wide, below the desirable minimum for a footway, and this will be further reduced due to the provision of the signal post at the rear of the footway.
2.10 However, the provision of a crossing will undoubtedly introduce a number of local benefits assisting the community. The surveys clearly show a high demand for pedestrians to cross at this location.
2.11 One solution may be the introduction of traffic calming on the adjacent side roads to reduce vehicular speeds. However, due to the need to deliver the works to the tight timescale required by grant funding, this could not be delivered prior to the crossing being introduced.
2.12 Verbal consultations with the Police have indicated that they share the concerns previously identified and a formal written response is awaited.
2.13 The local MP, John Cummings, is fully supportive of the proposal.
3.0 Recommendation and Reasons
3.1 It is recommended that Members endorse the proposal to introduce the crossing at this location on the understanding that further works may be required if the safety of pedestrians using the crossing is considered to be compromised.
Background Papers
Report to Cabinet on 13 May 2004 item no A8
Copies of correspondence have been placed in the Members’ Resource Centre.
| Contact: Don Waller Tel: 0191 383 3773 |
| Local Government Reorganisation None Finance URRI, Urban 2 funding. Staffing There are no adverse implications. Equalities and Diversity There are no adverse implications. Accommodation None Crime and Disorder There are no adverse implications. Sustainability None Human Rights There are no adverse implications. Localities and Rurality A182 South Hetton Young People No change from existing situation and conditions. Consultation Full consultation was carried out prior to commencing the Urban Renaissance scheme. Health There are no adverse implications. |
Attachments
Item 3.pdf