BOROUGH OF POOLE
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP
THURSDAY 13 OCTOBER 2005
REPORT OF HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ON
BOURNE VALLEY ROAD RAILWAY ARCH ROAD SAFETY
1. Matter for Consideration and Policy Context
1.1 A request from the Planning Committee that highway issues raised by objectors to the renewal of the temporary consent for the Branksome Triangle Park and Ride site should be referred to the Transportation Advisory Group for their consideration.
1.2 The Transportation Strategy aims to improve safety for all by improvements to locations where there is a potential for conflict between road users.
2. Recommendations
2.1 It is recommended that the Planning Committee’s request be noted but that the response be that there is currently no justification for any additional highways improvements in Bourne Valley Road.
3. Background
3.1 In April 2001 a temporary planning consent was granted for the use of a site off Bourne Valley Road as a park and ride facility for Liverpool & Victoria staff. Britannia Parking, who operate the facility, recently applied for renewal of the temporary planning permission and this was considered by the Planning Committee on 14 July 2005 (Item 5, Application No. 05/10057/061/T).
3.2 The Planning Committee agreed to the Officer’s recommendation to grant consent for temporary renewal, subject to a number of conditions. The Planning Committee requested that the Transportation Advisory Group consider spending developer contributions on highways improvements in the area.
1 3.3 Planning Committee Members suggested that issues and concerns raised in resident’s letters of objection to the planning application be considered. These include:
Abuse from passing motorists and the volume of traffic made it difficult for Bourne Valley Road residents when attempting to park on their own drives;
Traffic from the park and ride facility rarely gave way at the exit onto Bourne Valley Road;
It is considered to be unreasonable to expect residential roads in this locality to continue to accommodate the additional volumes of traffic the park and ride facility brought to this area, as well as increased noise and air pollution;
There were concerns about the priority road system under the railway arches with a suggestion that the priority should be reversed.
3.4 The Planning Officer’s report on the renewal application considered the impact the current use of the facility has had on highway safety. The report also noted the Transport Impact Assessment submitted with the original application, which concluded that the park and ride facility would not add significantly to overall traffic flows or to the existing junction capacity problems.
3.5 The Police Road Traffic Accident records for the immediate vicinity of the two railway bridge arches have been studied. These indicate that in the 4- year period prior to the implementation of the Park and Ride site there were two slight injury accidents. During the period of the temporary consent, that is between April 2001 and April 2005, there was only one slight injury accident. It should be noted that no recorded injury accidents resulted from a collision between vehicles under the bridge arches or have resulted from failure to give way at the priority system.
4. Possible Highway Scheme Options
4.1 When the original application for temporary consent was approved, developers contributions of £35,000 were secured, to be spent on highway improvements in the area. From this £15,000 has gone towards the scheme to signalise the Poole Road/Bourne Valley Road junction in the current years’ Capital Programme, leaving £20,000 for other improvements in the Bourne Valley Road area.
4.2At the time that the Poole Road junction signalisation was being designed, various options were considered for the section of Bourne Valley Road near the Park and Ride entrance and these were reported to the 14 April 2005 TAG. Consideration was given to one-way operation, by means of traffic signal control, under the railway bridge on Bourne Valley Road.
2 Initial studies indicated that shuttle signal operation was feasible but could not be justified in road safety terms. It was suggested that these options might be pursued with future developer contributions associated with possible future planning applications and developments within the vicinity of the bridge.
4.3Three options for available for this location for consideration:
Option 1, a two stage signal arrangement with stop lines either side of the bridge. Estimated cost was £50,000.
Option 2, a three stage signal arrangement with a third stop line for the Park and Ride entrance at an estimated cost of £45,000.
Option 3, Reversing the existing priority direction through the bridge
4.4Option 1 : The two stage signals were designed to allow large southbound vehicles to pass through and also allow vehicles from the Park and Ride site to access the stop line. The benefit with this layout is that all signal heads are visible from the required minimum distances and it would minimise delays through the railway arches. This arrangement would require the use of a yellow box at the entrance to the Park and Ride site to allow vehicles to access the car park. The danger with this layout is that if the yellow box is not observed by southbound vehicles then the system could lock up with no vehicle able to proceed. Option 1 will cost more than option 2 because it will require alterations to kerb lines.
4.5Option 2 : The three stage signals includes for a stop line on the car park entrance. This would remove the potential for locking up the system by right turning vehicles accessing the car park and no kerb realignments are necessary. The problem with this option is that it will significantly add to delays through the bridge, allowing for longer “intergreens” and cycle times. It will also mean substandard visibility to signal heads, particularly on the approach from the northernmost railway arch.
4.6These signal improvements can not be justified on road safety terms because of the low accident numbers reported here. In addition, there are insufficient developer funds available to construct either of these two options.
4.7Option 3 : The third option of reversing the priority could be completed with the available funds but is not recommended. Visibility from the southbound direction is inferior to that currently available from the opposite direction. There is also a danger that northbound vehicle speeds through the arch would be much higher. Both of these factors would suggest an increase in collisions may occur if the priority system were reversed.
3 JAMES T BRIGHT - Head of Transportation Services
Appendix A – Option 1
Appendix B – Option 2
Name and Telephone Number of Officer Contract:
Martin Baker (01202) 262073
TAG131005T3A
4