BOROUGH OF POOLE
BEARWOOD AND MERLEY AND BROADSTONE AREA COMMITTEE
4 February 2004
REPORT OF HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
ON TRAFFIC CALMING - MERLEY PARK ROAD
1.Purpose of Report and Policy Context
1.1To review previous area committee considerations of requests for traffic calming measures in Merley Park Road.
- Recommendations
- It is recommended that the previous decisions taken by the Canford Heath and Canford Magna Area Committee be noted, and endorsed.
3.Information
3.1The Canford Heath/Canford Magna Area Committee considered a report on a request for traffic calming measures in Merley Park Rd on 15 January 2003 – the report is attached at Appendix A. The report summarised the Council’s road safety policy and explained that funding would not be available for a traffic calming scheme in Merley Park Rd for the forseeable future. The area committee asked for Merley Park Road to be added to the waiting list for “Travelwise” signs, and alsa asked for a more detailed investigation of the feasability of introducing a lorry ban.
3.2The area committee considered the report on a possible lorry ban on 2 April 2003 – the report is attached at Appendix B. The number of lorries using the road was so low that the committee did not feel able to justify the cost of imposing the ban. The committee did, however approve the marking of a “30” roundel to compliment the existing 30mph speed limit signs in the road.
3.3At the last meeting of this area committee, the resident repeated her requests for measures to prevent lorries using the road. In view of the concerns expressed about the validity of the original traffic survey, an automatic traffic counter has been placed in the road to give information over a longer period. An automatic survey cannot give any indication of whether the vehicles are using the road for access or as a through route. The results of the survey, summarised in the table below, confirm the validity of the previous survey.
Date / Car, Van, Car & Trailer / HGVs / TotalWeds (07/01/2004) / 1378 / 0 / 1378
Thurs (08/01/2004) / 1353 / 0 / 1353
Fri (09/01/2004) / 1410 / 0 / 1410
Sat (10/01/2004) / 1179 / 0 / 1179
Sun (11/01/2004) / 952 / 2 / 954
Mon (12/01/2004) / 1286 / 18 / 1306
Tues (13/01/2004) / 1378 / 1 / 1379
3.4It should be borne in mind that a lorry ban would have to exempt vehicles accessing premises in the road – the survey cannot indicate how many vehicles this would involve. Imposing a weight restriction would cost approximately £3,500 to £5,300 (depending on the method of imposing the ban) and the Police would not give a high priority to enforcement. The volume of HGV’s using the road is so low that residents would notice little benefit if a lorry ban were imposed.
3.5The committee also asked for a summary of alternative options for calming Merley Park Rd:
a)Road Humps – The regulations do not allow individual humps to be installed in isolation, they can only be used in a series, introduced by some other speed-reducing feature. At least 12 humps would be required in Merley Park Rd, which would cost approximately £60,000.
b)Narrowings/chicanes – the speed reducing effect is most marked at the narrowing itself, and a series of narrowings is the most appropriate way to calm a length of road. They do lead to concerns that oncoming drivers do not give way, and need to be sited where they can be clearly seen. It would be possible to introduce two pairs of chicanes in the 30mph section of the road(approx £14,000), but these would not reduce speeds in the derestricted section, where there would be no appropriate sites for additional chicanes
c)Speed limit – Speeds are most effectively regulated by the layout of the road itself and there is little evidence that reducing the speed limit would actually reduce traffic speeds in this road. The residential section at the eastern end of the road is already subject to a 30mph limit, and extending this would involve removing all speed limit signs from the most critical section of the road. Extending the speed limit would cost approximately £3,000.
APPENDIX A
BOROUGH OF POOLE
CANFORD HEATH/CANFORD MAGNA AREA COMMITTEE
15 January 2003
REPORT OF HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
ON TRAFFIC CALMING- MERLEY PARK ROAD
1.Purpose of Report and Policy Context
1.1 To consider a request for traffic calming in Merley Park Road
1.2The Council’s Road Safety Policy includes policies and targets on road casualty reduction.
2.Recommendations
2.2It is recommended that:
a)The request be noted and the resident informed that traffic calming measures cannot be justified in Merley Park Road.
b)Merley Park Road be added to the waiting list for Travelwise signs.
3.Information
3.1This committee regularly receives requests for measures to restrict vehicle speed throughout the area and has considered reports on general speed enforcement and traffic calming at several previous meetings. The Council’s Road Safety programme is firmly targeted at casualty reduction, with a reduction in child casualties as a particular priority. The 5 year Road Safety capital programme gives priority to schemes where it can be demonstrated that the largest number of casualties will be saved in the most cost effective way. Appendix A shows the list of schemes proposed in the Road Safety Policy for the 5 year period 2000/01-2005/06.
3.2Merley Park road is a relatively narrow winding country road. The few residential properties are concentrated primarily at the eastern end of the road where there is already a 30 mph speed limit.
3.3Five injury collisions have been reported in the whole of Merley Park proad and the section of Higher Merley Lane within, over the 4 year period up to the end of November 2002. Four of these collisions were in the derestricted section of the route, one in the 30mph section. The Council’s road safety programme tends to concentrate on individual locations with an accident record of over 4 injury accidents in a 4 year period. Traffic calming measures would not achieve funding from the road safety programme in the forseeable future.
3.4Requests are regularly received for a 30mph speed limit to be applied along the whole route. This has never been progressed as the layout of the road already has some deterrant effect, and a speed limit is unlikely to have any additional effect on those drivers who drive too fast for the conditions. Imposing a 30mph limit could also lead to higher speeds through the residential section, as the existing 30 mph signs would have to be removed.
3.5“Travelwise” speed reminder signs were erected in this road in September 2001 . These signs are moved to a new location each month, as experience indicates that they quickly lose their impact if they remain in place for any significant time. The signs have proved very popular with residents and there is a lengthy waiting list for them (there are three sets in circulation, and the waiting list is currently over a year). It is suggested that Merley Park Road be added to the waiting list for signs to be erected for a further month.
JAMES T BRIGHT
HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Name and Telephone Number of Officer Contact
Steve Dean (01202) 262071
APPENDIX B
BOROUGH OF POOLE
CANFORD HEATH/CANFORD MAGNA AREA COMMITTEE
2 April 2003
REPORT OF HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
ON WEIGHT RESTRICTION - MERLEY PARK ROAD
1.Purpose of Report and Policy Context
1.2To consider a request for a weight restriction on Merley Park Road.
2.Recommendations
2.2It is recommended that:
c)The request be noted and the resident informed that a weight restriction cannot be justified in Merley Park Road.
d)A “30” roundel be marked in Merley Park Road to supplement the existing 30mph signs.
3.Information
3.1This committee regularly receives requests for measures to restrict vehicle speed throughout the area and has considered reports on general speed enforcement and traffic calming at several previous meetings. The Council’s Road Safety programme is firmly targeted at casualty reduction, with a reduction in child casualties as a particular priority. The 5 year Road Safety capital programme gives priority to schemes where it can be demonstrated that the largest number of casualties will be saved in the most cost effective way.
3.2Merley Park road is a relatively narrow winding country road. The few residential properties are concentrated primarily at the eastern end of the road where there is already a 30 mph speed limit.
3.3Five injury collisions have been reported in the whole of Merley Park proad and the section of Higher Merley Lane within, over the 4 year period up to the end of November 2002. Four of these collisions were in the derestricted section of the route, one in the 30mph section. The Council’s road safety programme tends to concentrate on individual locations with an accident record of over 4 injury accidents in a 4 year period. Traffic calming measures would not achieve funding from the road safety programme in the forseeable future.
3.4When the road was considered by this Area Committee at the last meeting, it was suggested that a weight restriction should be investigated. A Traffic Survey was carried out at the junction of Ashington Lane with Merley Park Road. Only 7 HGVs used the road during the 12 hour survey, 2 of which were using Merley Park Road for access to and from Ashington Lane It is not possible to say how many of the remaining vehicles are using the road as a through route. A weight restriction would only apply to through traffic and would normally have an exemption for access traffic. Appendix A shows the traffic survey and the turning movements.
3.5Introduction of a weight restriction would require liasing with Dorset County Council to inform them of the restrictions due to the displaced vehicles and diversion route the vehicles would take. There would be a cost implication of installing signs at a minimum of 2 locations at a cost of approximately £1700 per location. The Council cannot enforce a weight restriction, as it is a Police matter, and it would be a low enforcement priority for the Police.
4.Conclusion
4.1The volume of HGV’s using the road is so low that residents would notice little benefit if a weight restriction was imposed at an estimated cost of £3400 to £5100.
4.2The residents have expressed concern about vehicle speeds, and these would be unaffected if a weight restriction were applied. The survey emphasises how little traffic uses the road, and it would be hard to justify any form of traffic calming. It could be beneficial, though, to mark a 30 roundel on the carriageway at the start of the 30mph limit.
JAMES T BRIGHT
HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Name and Telephone Number of Officer Contact