Petition Culliford Crescent

AGENDA ITEM 7

BOROUGH OF POOLE

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP – 20 SEPTEMBER 2012

REPORT OF HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

petition requesting crossing in mount pleasant road

PART OF THE PUBLISHED FORWARD PLAN: NO

1. Purpose of Report and Policy Context

1.1 To consider a petition to introduce a pedestrian crossing in Mount Pleasant Road.

1.2 The Council’s Transportation Strategy aims to :

(a) Encourage sustainable modes of travel such as walking

(b) Achieve a reduction in injury accidents on our roads.

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that the Portfolio Holder:

2.1 Note the concerns of the petitioners, but

2.2 They be advised that it is not possible to justify introducing a crossing facility here at present for the reasons set out in this report.

3.Information

3.1 A petition was received by Council on 17 July 2012 which has been signed by a total of 141 local residents living in various blocks of flats in and around Mount Pleasant Road. These properties include Homedene, Hanover House, Homeview, Claremont and Buckingham Court, The petition simply calls “for a Pedestrian Crossing in Mount Pleasant”

3.2 Mount Pleasant Road is some 350 metres in length and runs northeast-southwest between the A35 Parkstone Road and Kingland Road/Seldown Bridge roundabouts. The road is an average of 8 metres wide, with continuous ‘no waiting’ parking restrictions along the whole route and is subject to a 30mph limit. Around 14,000 vehicles a day use the road. A plan of the road is included at Appendix A.

3.3 It is understood that the preferred location of the pedestrian crossing as suggested following a meeting with the petitioners is as close as possible to the junction with Seldown Lane. This would allow older or less mobile people living in sheltered accommodation in the vicinity of this junction to enjoy access to Poole Park.

3.4 The road traffic collisions records for the 5 year period up to the end of May 2012 indicate that there has been one road traffic accident resulting in personal injury in Mount Pleasant Road. This occurred in September 2011 and involved a slight injury to an elderly male pedestrian crossing the mouth of the roundabout and failing to look properly.

3.5 There is an existing Pedestrian Crossing Request priority assessment procedure within Poole. This takes into account factors such as the volume of traffic, the number of pedestrians (in particular the elderly and children), personal injury accident records, the difficulty in crossing the road and whether there is an alternative crossing point nearby. The locations are prioritised on this basis and then funded within the “Better Safety Security and Health” Category of the Capital Programme.

3.6 Currently the Mount Pleasant Road crossing facility is ranked 14th on the Pedestrian Crossing Assessment list, with a score of -0.5. This is based on an assessment carried out in September 2011 and includes an allowance for the pedestrian injury that occurred in this month, albeit that this collision record had not been received at that time. This result has been scored on the basis that the facility provided will either be a Zebra or Pedestrian Refuge at a cost of around £15,000.

3.7 If a Puffin were the preferred option the effect the additional cost would have the effect of reducing the ranking score further to -1.0 and in consequence would push the crossing down to 20th place on the rankings. This is because the cost of providing a Puffin (i.e. signalised) Crossing is estimated to be at least £40,000 but may be even higher if High Friction (Anti-Skid) Surfacing is required or if it was deemed necessary to relocate the nearby bus stop.

3.8 When the survey was carried out the greatest pedestrian crossing movements were fewer than 30 pedestrians per hour. This, together with the fact that there is already an alternative facility for pedestrians to cross using the nearby traffic islands with tactile paving at the roundabout has also had an adverse impact on the ranking score. Although pedestrian numbers crossing will undoubtedly increase if a formal facility is installed, this same measure of “latent demand” is used to assess all requests and is common to all locations. There is a bus stop nearby which means alternative locations for the crossing are limited.

3.9 The Capital Programme for 2012/13, approved at 16 February 2012 TAG, includes £35,000 for pedestrian crossing facilities. The fact that there are currently other locations with a higher assessment score means that it is currently difficult to justify funding a crossing here at the present time. Typically 3 pedestrian crossings are provided from this budget every year, at which rate Mount Pleasant Road would not be considered for another 4 – 5 years, unless there was the opportunity to combine this with other schemes or funded by nearby developments.

3.10 As and when future development arises in this area involving transportation contributions then it may well be possible to bring forward this scheme for implementation. At present we are awaiting contributions from nearby redevelopments in this area which have to be spent on a list of approved schemes in order to satisfy the requirements of the planning function. The crossing in Mount Pleasant Road is on this approved list of schemes, however there are a number of other competing schemes in the area that also qualify, as well as other more strategic schemes that would equally be able to lay an legitimate claim.

4.FINANCIAL INFORMATION

4.1An initial costing design exercise has been undertaken for this location. The estimated cost of introducing a Zebra crossing facility here is approximately £15,000, while a Puffin (Pedestrian) Crossing facility would be £40,000.

Both of these would be subject to a full survey being carried out and the provisos set out above.

5.LEGAL IMPLICATION

5.1There are no legal implications.

6.RISK MANAGEMENT

6.1For reasons set out in this report any expenditure cannot currently be justified here based on the assessment criteria.

6.2Even if the pedestrian crossing facility were provided there would still be a risk of injuries if drivers fail to stop at the crossing point. It is considered that the risk of an incident involving a pedestrian injury is lower than at other locations but that the likelihood of it being serious in nature is medium to high.

7.EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

7.1Pedestrian facilities are beneficial to those who do not have the benefit of a car and who are less confident in crossing busy roads.

8.CONCLUSIONS

8.1On the basis of the approved criteria by which the Pedestrian Crossing Requests programme is currently assessed and targeted, it is not possible to justify funding any pedestrian crossing facility in Mount Pleasant Road at the present time.

Julian McLaughlin

Head of Transportation Services

Name and Telephone Number of Officer contact:

Martin Baker (01202) 262073

16 August 2012

Appendix A – Suggested Crossing Point and Collision Location

TAG200912T3C

1

Appendix A – Mount Pleasant Road : Suggested Crossing Point and Collision Location

1