Appendix C AREA 9 SPEED LIMIT REVIEW:PUBLIC CONSULTATION RESPONSES & FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The public consultation period commenced on 29th Nov 2007 with a deadline for responses of 7th Jan 2008 . Details of the proposals, inviting comments, were sent to:
South Bucks District Council , Wycombe District Council, Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, Slough Borough Council, Corporation of London( Burnham Beeches Open Spaces Department) ; Beaconsfield Town Council, Burnham Parish Council, Chepping Wycombe Parish Council, Dorney Parish Council, Farnham Royal Parish Council, Hedsor Parish Meeting, Little Marlow Parish Council, Taplow Parish Council, Wooburn & Bourne End Parish Council,
Thames Valley Police, Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust, Fire Brigade, The Road Haulage Association, Freight Transport Association, Chilterns Conservation Board, National Farmers Union, Buckinghamshire Association for the Blind, Living Streets (Pedestrians Association), British Horse Society, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Buckinghamshire Community Action, Sustrans, Motor Cycle Industry Association, On 29th November 2007 an advertisement appeared in The Bucks Examiner and on 30th November 2007 in the Bucks Free Press and the Slough Observer . A press release was circulated to the local media,resulting in articles in local papers. Notices( for pedestrians) concerning the proposals were posted on the length of roads subject to proposals. A copy of the Orders and maps showing the lengths of road referred to, together with the Statement of Reasons were deposited for public inspection at: County Hall Aylesbury,Aylesbury Study Centre,Beaconsfield Library, Bourne End library, Burnham library, Farnham Common library , Flackwell Heath library, High Wycombe Library, Marlow Library,West Wycombe library, Chiltern & South Bucks Area office, Wycombe Area Office. 'Have Your Say' Posters (2.5m x 1.6m) ,to alert drivers to find out about the proposed changes were placed: A40 west of Beaconsfield ,A4155 east of Marlow bypass; A4 west of junction with Hitcham Road and Lake End Road near motorway bridge. Detailed information was available on the Buckinghamshire County Council website.
A spreadsheet containing a summary of the consultation feedback was circulated by email to the below listed potential members of the Area 9 Working Group. They were invited to attend a meeting on Tuesday 18th March 2008 in order to consider the feedback and make final recommendations to the Head of Transportation. Any member being unable to attend was requested to advise of any comment or observation that they wished the group to take into account.
Those invited were: Buckinghamshire County Councillors: Michael Appleyard,Peter Cartwright, Margaret Dewar,Trevor Egleton,Peter Hardy, Lin Hazell, Bill Lidgate, Peter Smith, David Watson District Councillors : Simon Bazley(Wycombe),Lesley Clark (Wycombe),Maureen Royston (South Bucks),Alan Walters (South Bucks) Thames Valley Police Darren Humphries Traffic Management Officer Buckinghamshire County Council Officers; EricApologies Meek,Christopher were received Schweir, from: DistrictMartin Bolton, Councillor Patricia Lesley Francis, Clarke, Alan Eric Baverstock.Meek(BCC) , Chris Marchant (SBDC)
Comments in advance were received from: None
Those present at the meeting on 18th March 2008 were: Voting Members - County Councillors : Peter Cartwright; Margaret Dewar ( up to proposal ref 21) , Lin Hazell; Thames Valley Police: Mr .D. Humphries Other members - District Councillors: Maureen Royston (South Bucks),Alan Walters (South Bucks) & Simon Bazley(Wycombe) - Bucks County Council officers: A.Baverstock, M.Bolton, P.Francis, C,Schwier, S.Thomas
This document lists the proposals and summary feedback discussed by the Area 9 speed limit review Working Group on 18th March 2008.
Below each proposal is the Working Group's recommendation, and that of the Head of Transportation where applicable.
Following the numbered proposals are 'new' requests arising from the public consultation. As these are new requests that have not been subject to formal consultation they will not be acted upon at this time but will be carried over and investigated as part of a post implementation review in the future.
Following on from 'new' requests are general comments received in response to the public consultation. REF No 1: A40 London Road Loud Current limit: 40mph Proposed: 30mph ( from its junction with Gomm Rd to a point 105 metres southeast of its junction with Thanestead Copse)
Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN All changes proposed in the Loudwater Residents' Group area supported by this community group. 47 Y 30 Cllr P. Cartwright The A40 from Loudwater through Old Beaconsfield and beyond towards the M40 link should be 91 Y 30 restricted and enforced to 30mph in obviously built up areas and 40mph elsewhere including White Hill,
Y 30 Good idea. Existing change from 40 to 30 is easily missed. 25 30 All traffic seems to treat this 40mph length as a 60/70mph dual carriageway road . Sincerely hope this 81 part of the A40 will have its speed decreased to 30mph as it is now a highly populated area.
Unnecessary speed changes lead to confusion, which causes further congestion. 30 (These roads ) not common for pedestrians and there are few residences that are affected by the current speed limit and would neither benefit or be inconvenienced by these proposed changes, so are a waste of public money & purely another tactic to 'nannify' British roads. If limit is reduced, it will ( cause) more congestion and also encourage people to overtake drivers N? travelling at lower speeds, which is more of a hazard than at present. More money should be spent on researching causes of M40 accidents, not dabbling with roads that currently are safe & controlled. Area becoming far too controlled through speed cameras, limits, road bumps and central road divides, which has witnessed cause more accidents than prevent. Stop punishing majority of drivers who are safe & responsible- reckless drivers are a risk whether speed limit is 30,40 or 50. Believes that the current limits are quite adequate on these stretches, as the volume of traffic, at busy 93 N 40 times, has its own limiting effect, and at quieter times, a lower limit is unnecessary. Although mainly a 'built up' area, I would argue that it is 'urban fringe' as it is not part of a town area. 100 N 40 According to BCC's own guidance provided, urban fringe should have a 40mph limit. It is also a wide & straight road with good visibility;2 thinks 30mph is unneccessarily restrictive. Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN Disagrees that 30 limit complies with DfT Circular 01/2006. 108 Existing limit, which has been in place for many years, is the appropriate limit. both under Circ. 01/2006 and as a matter of common sense. Ref Appendix C in Circ 01/2006: 30 limit is the 'standard limit' in built up areas with development on both sides of the road, whereas 40mph is appropriate for " higher quality suburban roads or those on the outskirts of urban areas where there is little development" Arguable which category this length of the A40 falls into. There is certainly not development on both sides of the road for anythinglike its full length. eg from junction with Winchester Court to the junction with Rayners Ave there are no frontages on either side. There is some residential development to the north of the road, but this is accessed from a parallel " service road" which is already subject to a 30mph limit. BCC draws a comparison with the section of A40 closer to High Wycombe centre. THe character of the 108 A40 becomes progressively more urban as one travels towards the town centre. There are noticeably contd. fewer pedestrians and vulnerable road users on the stretch subject to this proposal, which allows the retention of a 40mph limit. It is also logical for the speed limit to become progressively lower as one gets N 40 nearer to the town centre ( as at present).ed limit would start approx. 3 miles from the centre of Wycombe, and it really is uneccessary and undesirable for the standard urban limit to be extended so far. appendix C specifically states that 40 mph limits are suitable on the "outskirts of urban areas"
One also needs to consider the actual speed of the traffic and any new limit should be "aligned" so that " 108 the original mean speed driven on the road is at or below the new posted speed limit" ( para 37 of circ contd. 01/2006) This is of fundamental importance, because speed limits are meant to be " evidence -led" and "self- explaining" and should "encourage self compliance" ( para 2) Notes the absence of any information as to the current speeds of traffic on this part of the A40. From my own experience of the road I would expect the mean speed to exceed 30mph. The proposed limit is therefore too low and does not comply with Circular 01/2006, even if the road appears to qualify for a 30mph limit under Appendix C ( which is debatable) Should be remembered that until Circular 01/2006 , speed limits were set according to the 85th %ile speed of traffic, not the mean speed. Mean speeds are generally lower than 85th %ile speeds. If the council is proposing a limit which is below even the mean speed, then that is a cause of concern and I object strenuously.
3 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN Unrealistically low limits cause delays & frustration to drivers and have various other ill effects. ( see para 108 22 of circ 01/2006): " if a speed limit….is unrealistically low, it is likely to be ineffective and lead to contd. disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant and avoidable enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and injuries" N 40 Summary of objections: * does not comply with Circular 01/2006 ,esp. Para 37 * Proposed limit is unrealistically low * Proposed limit is unnecessary as character & environment of the road allow a 40mph
40 I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 1 67 This may have "Similar character" to other 30 limits but it's wider and straighter than most and has a bus lane separating drivers from pedestrians. 40 is a safe limit with no accidents claimed but reducing to 30 N may cause crashes. There are a range of hazards which require drivers full attention and if they are constantly having to check their speed, attention may be diverted. Pedestrians may also be lulled into a false sense of security and fail to look properly. There is no safety problem at present so we are risking creating one. The bus lane itself is confusing and probably quite a high safety hazard maybe made worse if reduced to 67 a 30mph limit. Many drivers are already not using the bus lane when they should be and if drivers contd. continue to do this but at even lower speeds then many other drivers may be tempted to pass on the left. It may create a safety nightmare and the safest solution would be to start, not by reducing to 30mph, but to remove that bus lane to allow drivers a safer road that is much less confusing whilst also improving traffic flow and aleviating driver frusration. Frustrated drivers are not safer drivers. In summary, there is no safety requirement for this speed limit reduction.
4 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN ? Reduction inappropriate:- 78 * relatively few people who walk along the pavements on either side of this part of the A40, so only a small risk of pedestrian accidents. * the 3 sets of lights down this stretch automatically slow down speeds to below 40 through a large proportion of the day. * may lead to an increase in traffic along some alternative routes, as no longer be a difference in speed N limits between them and the main route ( eg Abbey Barn & robinson Road ( his own road) *May increase congestion at Jtn 4 of the M40 as many people currently use Jtn 3 as an alternative to get into Central and East Wycombe. Also refers to Rayners Ave traffic signals issues & cars racing at the lights ,people going straight on being upset when a right turner cannot make the turn due to traffic in the opposite direction– do not think a reduction in speed will help this situation
Comment: 111 A40 London Road Loudwater – The road sign names the junction as being with Thanstead Copse, not Thames Thanestead as listed. Valley N/A Police BCC comments:
In support: 3 individuals plus Loudwater Residents group. 6 objectors who prefer no change. The proposed limit is primarily to benefit local residents in a predominately built up area. Between Knaves Beech roundabout and Gomm Road (there are approximately 50 dwellings direct accessing the A40, plus business premises, together with 4 significant junctions with other roads and several service road junctions. Although the southern side has a length which is not built up, it would not be appropriate to introduce a shorter length of 40mph limit for this specific section only. Likewise, it could be considered inappropriate to retain the residential lengths either side at 40mph. Approx. 25,000 vehicles per day use this route . A lower limit will not create congestion- at busy times traffic speeds will be well below 30mph due to weight of traffic and will be constrained by the flow through junctions along the route. A wide /straight road does not assist residents greatly in crossing the road on foot, or entering /leaving the road by vehicle. Average speeds near Thanstead Copse in July 2001 were 36-37mph, with only 15% of drivers travelling faster than 40mph. Between Hammersley Lane and Gomm Road average speed was 30mph, with 25% of drivers exceeding 35.5mph. Thanstead has been confirmed as correct spelling ( although shown with an 'e' on mapping!) .
5 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN Approx. 25,000 vehicles per day use this route . A lower limit will not create congestion- at busy times traffic speeds will be well below 30mph due to weight of traffic and will be constrained by the flow through junctions along the route. A wide /straight road does not assist residents greatly in crossing the road on foot, or entering /leaving the road by vehicle. Average speeds near Thanstead Copse in July 2001 were 36-37mph, with only 15% of drivers travelling faster than 40mph.Between Hammersley Lane and Gomm Road average speed was 30mph, with 25% of drivers exceeding 35.5mph. within the previous DfT guidance, a 30mph speed limit was appropriate where the 85th %ile speed ( that exceeded by only 15% of vehicles) was 37mph or less.
THe most recent crash data for the 3 years to 31/12/07 shows that 24 crashes took place, mostly slight in severity. Unlikely that drivers will use 'parallel routes' are 'rat runs' if a 30 limit was provided for A40- more tortuous, some are traffic calmed .
Thanstead has been confirmed as correct spelling ( although shown with an 'e' on mapping!) .
Working Group discussion & recommendation: 15 minutes discussion. Concern about potential rat run on parallel routes if 30 implemented. However, the most likely alternative routes already subject to 30 limit, some with traffic calming, so not likely to attract many drivers. Section between Kingsmead business Park and Hammersley Road is not so developed as other sections - so this section more suited to a 40 limit. However, if this section of the road to have a different limit to those sections on either side of it this would lead to too many changes in limit along the length. The decision had to be either the whole length under consideration to be 40mph, or the whole length to be 30mph. A suggestion was made to extend 30 a shorter distance east, but counter argument that this would leave the section nearest Knaves Beech roundabout, which was the most built up with residential housing, in the higher 40 limit, which would not be appropriate. The average speeds were thought by one member to indicate that speed was self governing, but others argued that speeds outside of peak times would be much higher . The presence of the bus lane was a factor affecting driver behaviour.
No consensus- vote taken :- 2 agree with 30mph, 1 support retention of 40mph, 1 abstain. RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30MPH LIMIT.
6 REF No 2 : A40 London Road / Knaves Beech / White Hill Loudwater. ( from a point 105 metres southeast of its junction with Thanestead Copse to a point 167 metres east of j/w Whitehouse Lane)) Current limit 50mph Proposed 40mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL Y N Example of road with good visibility and excellent surface- existing limit should remain. The constant changing of speed limits means that drivers have to apply N 50 their brakes and accelerate more frequently, so reducing the efficiency of their vehicles. Strong opposition, having examined the documentation . Uses road virtually every day and at no time has the present speed limit caused problems. As one approaches Beaconsfield Old Town from the west the 'entrance' to the town is well marked and effectively promotes speed reduction, and, as one leave the town there is absolutely no case for reducing the speed limit. Strongly suspect that the various changes are being proposed to facilitate further infill development for which South Bucks has the exceedingly dubious honour of being the national leader. N 50 The council is doubtless obliged to be seen to be 'doing something' about road safety so in the style typical of Buckinghamshire a cop-out option is adopted. It is unimaginative and will have no significant impact. Remember that the statistics will be completely skewed by a single incident. There appears to be no case from Thames Valley Police- if there were one may be better disposed towards the proposed changes. The cost of implementing the proposed changes must be made avaialble. In view of the extraordinary cost of moving a single pedestrian crossingthe raft of changes must represent a considerable expenditure for the county and as a school governor I am certain that the money would be better spent on Buckinghamshire schools and educational facilities. Resident of Whitehouse Lane for more than 12 years & use road several times a day. Sees no evidence of more traffic or an increase in accidents that warrants speed limit changing. Turning onto the A40 is easier when traffic is able to move faster. A constant stream of traffic at slower speed makes it more difficult to turn out onto the A40. When a car travels at 30mph on this stretch the tailback can be significant. N? If the speed limit is changed then, for safety reasons, I would ask that you consider a mini rbt at the Whitehouse Lane junction. If you don't then you are more likely to cause more accidents by reducing the speed limit. People are more likely to take chances to pull onto the road and thus more accidents are likely to happen. More reason for concern re the 2 car showrooms at this junction. They constantly park cars that obscure the view for drivers turning out on either side of the road. It's not a speed issue but is more likely to cause an accident than keeping the speed limit at 50mph. Believes that the current limits are quite adequate on these stretches, as the volume of traffic, at busy times, has its own limiting effect, and at quieter times, a N lower limit is unnecessary. Can only assume that many of my local 50mph roads, A40 Loudwater/Beaconsfield, A4155 Bourne End/Marlow are going to be reduced to 40mph. In my opinion this will have little effect. Speed,though a factor in collisions is rarely the primary cause as proven by numerous studies over the years. N 50 I understand this project has been undertaken with good intentions .I worry that you're trying to enforce the belief of a few who have taken the time to complain about people's speed as they themselves are less confident behind the wheel.
Average speed on this road is at or just below the speed that is being proposed. As stated elsewhere, there is a dislike of frequent changes in speed limits. The N 50 50 limit currently in place is in keeping with the road continuing into Beaconsfield. I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 2 This road is safe to drive at 50mph at none busy times, at busy times it can be very busy and the speed limit becomes irrelevant due to traffic. The 85th %ile is closer to 50 than 40 and is probably only as low as 45.5 due to traffic. The real free flowing 85th %ile is probably very close to 50. N 50 The Police have refused to give ANY information about why the crashes on this stretch happened so it is impossible to know if lowering the limit would help. In summary, no improvement to safety has been demonstrated for this speed limit reduction and enforcement may lead to erratic driver behaviour and greater number of crashes (as appears to have happened elsewhere).
7 Unnecessary speed changes lead to confusion, which causes further congestion. (These roads ) not common for pedestrians and there are few residences that are affected by the current speed limit and would neither benefit or be inconvenienced by these proposed changes, so are a waste of public money & purely another tactic to 'nannify' British roads. If limit is reduced, it will ( cause) more congestion and also encourage people to overtake drivers travelling at lower speeds, which is more of a hazard than at N? present. More money should be spent on researching causes of M40 accidents, not dabbling with roads that currently are safe & controlled. Area becoming far too controlled through speed cameras, limits, road bumps and central road divides, which has witnessed cause more accidents than prevent. Stop punishing majority of drivers who are safe & responsible- reckless drivers are a risk whether speed limit is 30,40 or 50. Whole length of road between Beaconsfield & Holtspur should be max. 40 limit as is fairly narrow & there are a lot of turnings into residential and other roads. Y 40 40 but Very supportive- but feel should extend east to Holtspur rbt, rather than at Watery Lane junction. extend Proximity of bus stops serving school transport. Students cross road on a regular basis& are forced to wait close to carriageway for their buses. HGVs passing Y east at 50mph is concern. Feel happier if vehicles were already travelling at 40mph rather than slowing down to comply with a newly established speed restriction. wards All changes proposed in the Loudwater Residents' Group area supported by this community group. Y 40
The A40 from Loudwater through Old Beaconsfield and beyond towards the M40 link should be restricted and ennforced to 30mph in obviously built up areas 30/40? and 40mph elsewhere including White Hill, Comment: A40 London Road/ Knaves Beech/White Hill, Loudwater, Chepping Wycombe, Woodburn– The road sign names the junction as being with Thanstead Copse, not Thanestead as listed. N/a
BCC comments: 9 objectors preferring current 50 limit is retained. 3 in support ( including Loudwater Residents' Group & requests for eastwards extensions of proposed 40 Accident data: most recent 3 years ( to Dec 2007) shows no crashes between Knaves Beech rbt & j/w Watery Lane. Any reduction in speed limit would be on the basis of a scattered community. There are approx 25 dwellings between KB rbt & j/w Whitehouse Ln , plus junctions with Knaves Hollow & Hedley View residential roads, Background info: Houses along one side of road,junctions with Watery Ln & Whitehouse Lane,several business premises attracting turning movements. Includes busy roundabout junction with access to Mway & supermarket. 6 accidents in 3 yrs on A40,13 on rbt. Speed south east of Knaves Beech rbt : Ave 40.1 SE & 36.8 NW. 85th %ile : 45.5 SE & 41.1 NW Meets 40mph criteria in terms of being on outskirts of Urban area/ some devpt only
Working Group discussion & recommendation: ( 8 mins) A concern was raised re implications on planning decisions for further development if 40 applied ,as would change status to that of an urban road with differing planning constraints to a rural road. General consesus was that potential planning issues were not the grounds on which decisions about sped limits should be based and that other factors prevailed when decisions were made by District Council on the suitability of a site for development Discussion re requirements of residents along the road and actual/potential hazards associated with road junctions /accesses along this length., with reference to the terminal points for this limit.
RECOMMENDATION: TO IMPLEMENT 40 LIMIT AS PROPOSED
8 ID refs
58
89
89 contd 72
93
106
56
67
9 30
25
15
47 ( Cllr P. Cartwright) 91
111 Thames Valley Police
: most recent 3 years ( to Dec 2007) shows no crashes between Knaves Beech rbt & j/w Watery Lane. Any reduction in speed limit would be on the basis of a scattered community.
Houses along one side of road,junctions with Watery Ln & Whitehouse Lane,several business premises attracting turning movements. Includes busy roundabout junction with access to Mway &
A concern was raised re implications on planning decisions for further development if 40 applied ,as would change status to that of an urban road with differing planning constraints to a rural road. General consesus was that potential planning issues were not the grounds on which decisions about sped limits should be based and that other factors prevailed when decisions were made by District Council
Discussion re requirements of residents along the road and actual/potential hazards associated with road junctions /accesses along this length., with reference to the terminal points for this limit.
10 REF No 2a : A40 known as White Hill / Oxford Rd, Loudwater and Oxford Rd/ Wycombe End, Beaconsfield ( from east of its junction with Whitehouse Lane to 108 metres west of j/w Butlers Court Rd) Current limit 50mph Proposed : no change Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL Y N Due to the large amount of traffic that enter/exit from the various petrol stations and side turnings I feel that the current 50mph limit should 56 Y 50 remain. Y 50 Agrees with retention of 50 limit 93 Can only assume that many of my local 50mph roads, A40 Loudwater/Beaconsfield, A4155 Bourne End/Marlow are going to be reduced to 106 40mph. In my opinion this will have little effect. speed,though a factor in collisions is rarely the primary cause as proven by numerous studies 50 over the years. I understand this project has been undertaken with good intentions .I worry that you're trying to enforce the belief of a few who have taken the time to complain about people's speed as they themselves are less confident behind the wheel. Y 50 See comments under SLR Ref 2 89 * no objection to retaining extg. 50mph limit east of the Wooburn Green Rd rbt. 108 * Objects to failure to upgrade to NSL section west of B4440 rbt to near junction with Whitehouse Lane:- -part of an upper tier road with few bends, junctions & accesses and its accident rate is well below the threshold for a 50mph limit. Certainly suitable for the NSL and the council should take this opportunity to remove the anomolous 50mph limit. Reason given for retaining the 50mph limit is that " public responses elsehwere to date indicates a preference for continuous lengths of one limit rather than more frequent changes. " However, low limits on open A roads are also unpopular, as the Council acknowledges. So are changes of speed limit for no apparent reason, which does not apply here because the character of White Hill is different from the A40 NSL immediately before and after. In any case, the stretch of road in question is 800 metres long, comfortably more than the 600 metres minimum part W of recommended in para 30 of circular 01/2006, for the avoidance of too -frequent changes. ( Under Circ Rds 01/93, the predecessor Circular, B4440 the minimum recommended rbt length was half a mile, roughly the same as 800 metres.) As a member of the driving public, I can assure the council that applying the NSL to this road will not be unpopular. The reason given for retaining the 50mph limit does not stand up to scrutiny. Summary: * W of B444) qualifies for NSL under circular 01/2006. *Extg. 50 mph limit should not be retained. Whole length of road between Beaconsfield & Holtspur should be max 40 limit as is fairly narrow & there are a lot of turnings into residential 25 part E part 40 and other roads. White Hill probably needs to have higher limit of 50mph
W part 40 limit should extend east from ref 2 to Holtspur rbt, rather than at Watery Lane junction.(See their comments re ref 2) 15 part 40 N 40 Prefer 40 as it is so difficult to join the A40 from all the side roads at the moment. 34 Strong view that A40 from Beaconsfield Old Town to Holtspur roundabout should be reduced to 40mph .Vehicles often travel in excess of 44 Cllr M 40 B'fld 70mph and there have been many accidents on this stretch of road particularly near to the Jet garage as there is a 'hidden dip' at this point. Dewar to N When M40 is closed, traffic greatly increases, making the road impossible to cross with such fast moving traffic. Holtspur rbt
11 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL Y N Previously proposed 40 limit should apply between Burkes Rd & j/w B4440. 77 Many accesses & junctions, substantial development & considerable numbers of vulnerable road users. Whilst the A40 and its verges are all within the green belt, a reduction in the speed limit would only require the replacement of signs on posts which already exist- so no further damage to visual or physical amenity. Junctions/accesses 2 rbts, main junction & 6 other junctions all within this stretch, as is the Esso petrol station. The main jtn ( Broad Lane) is also the access to the large-scale Springfield Farm complex. Substantial devpt. Additional 35 dwellings proposed for North Drive, 4 more at 'Cromerton' on A40 and an application for 14 at the 40 A40/burgess Wood Rd South jtn. The scale /scope of the Springfield Farm complex has increased greatly. ( Burkes N Rd to Vulnerable road users Many elderly people living in the vicinity of North Drive Green, including Kiln Court Shelered accommodation. A B4440) pedestrian refuge in the vicinity of Broad Lane has been requested- footpath continues from A40 to the cemetery. New dwellings are family homes ( with parking spaces for 1.5 cars each) so likely to be a significant increase in number of people cycling on the A40 or crossing it to reach bus stops Refers to proposal 3 at Beacosnfield End, and whether which end of the A40 between B4440 and Beaconsfield has the poorest safety record, more significant junctions ,more residential devpt. And more vulnerable road users. Environmental/landscape Fringe of urban area but in green belt. Reducing the speed limit would improve safety without incurring significant cost in environmental or financial terms.
The A40 from Loudwater through Old Beaconsfield and beyond towards the M40 link should be restricted and enforced to 30mph in obviously 91 N 40/30 built up areas and 40mph elsewhere including White Hill,
Would wholeheartedly support reduction in 50mph limit between Beaconsfield and Holtspur roundabout. 40 Prefer 30 limit . Amount of traffic and speed and related noise & wind creation as vehicles pass by is appalling. Concerned by large vehicles using road , N 30 many exceeding 50mph limit. Kiln Court has elderly/disabled residents, many of who cross the A40 to visit the cemetery on Broad Lane/ access bus stops. Suggests pedestrian refuges to aid safer crossing nr bus stops- fast traffic leaves little time to cross road safely- elderly cannot run across the road. BCC comments/summary : 4 responses in favour of retaining 50 limit Objections: 1: NSL preferred west of B4440 rbt.- on grounds that does not meet DfT criteria for 50mph limit.(upper tier road with few bends, junctions & accesses and its accident rate is well below the threshold for a 50mph limit) 6: 40 preferred for all/part of length ( mostly requesting 40 between Holtspur rbt & Beaconsfield) - on grounds that there are many side turnings, difficult to access A40 from side roads, difficult to cross the road, nos of accidents, vulnerable road users ( mainly elderly) 1: 30 preferred - amount of traffic/speed/noise - provision for elderly/disabled residents.
12 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL Y N Other info: 2 distinct lengths :- (1) Length from nr. Whitehouse Lane to B4440 Wooburn Green Rd rbt: Upper Tier rd- 12,000vpd,2 crashes in 3 yrs over 0.8km- ( crash rate 19.0 per 100 mvkm.) Current mean speed NK-no data.Only 2 accesses . This length had been considered for NSL, but decided to retain as 50 to avoid too many changes of limit along the road length, which has been identified in feedback surveys as an issue with the general public. (2) B4440 Wooburn Green Rd rbt to west of Butlers Court Rd, Beaconsfield : 10 junctions (7 'std' jtns into housing estates, 1 main jtn ( Broad Lane > 4000vpd) & 2 rbts( >8000 vpd at j/w B4440)).Further devpt of 14 dwellings underway ( Waldenbury Place) nr Wbn Green Ln rbt. Mean speed over length 42.5 mph,85%ile 48mph. Flow: Ave 13800 vpd in 2004 18 crashes in 3 yrs over 2.1km = crash rate of 60 per 100 mvkm. 40mph recommended initially by a majority decision of Working group,( some opposition to this within the group) Further to some negative driver feedback on reduced limits elsewhere on 'open' stretches of A road, it has been decided to advertise retention of current 50mph limit & then reconsider this decision in light of public consultation feedback. As an Upper Tier rd : 50mph : where lower quality A rd with a relatively high no. of bends,junctions,accesses or > 35 pias in 100 mvkms, or where mean speeds below 50mph, so limit does not interfere with traffic flow. 40mph : can be considered where there is a high no of bends, junctions or accesses / substantial devpt / considerable nos. vulnerable road users, or as a community limit where there is a suburban area or a community with less density than a village..
Options for consideration : * Retain 50 limit over length from Whitehouse/Watery Lane to Old Beaconsfield( or to Butlers Court Rd) * Retain 50 limit as above, but with NSL from Watery Lane to Holtspur roundabout * Retain 50 limit between Whitehouse/Watery Lane & Holtspur roundabout, with 40 limit between Holtspur rbt & Old Beaconsfield * Provide NSL between Whitehouse/Watery Lane & Holtspur roundabout, with 40 limit between Holtspur rbt & Old Beaconsfield
13 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL Y N Working Group discussion & recommendation: over 20 mins discussion No further comments re re retaining 50 length up White Hill.
Considerable discussion on section between Holtspur & Beaconsfield. Query as to whether a rural or urban road and so which criteria applied. Officers advised that it should be considered as a rural length. Local councillors stressed local concerns re road and long term demands for a 40mph limit on the stretch from Holtspur rbt to Beaconsfield. Councillors concerned that previous Working Group had recommended 40 limit, but proposed length had been advertised as retaining the existing 50 limit. Officers explained that since 2005, when this was initially recommended by the Working group, many speed limits had been introduced elsewhere.Some negative feedback had been received ,from the business community in particular, where A road speed limits had been reduced outside of communities. Several participants strongly felt that ,despite this, that a 40 limit should be implemented. Officers advised that this would require re-advertising this length as a proposed 40 mph limit because the current consultation had only been on introducing a reduced length of the current 50mph limit. Several responses already indicated opposition to a limit below 50mph. Similar responses would be received,and potentially more of them,if a 40 limit was advertised. Officers advised that despite apparently low average speeds, it was felt that majority of drivers would have difficulty complying with a 40mph limit as the road character was wide and relatively straight . Crashes over 6 yrs had been analysed .These were not dispersed along the length but formed 3 main clusters (at the junctions with Broad Lane and Burkes's Rd and a smaller cluster, with more diverse accident types, in vicinity of the Jet garage). Other crashes were shunts or miscellaneous ones of an individual nature at the Holtspur roundabouts , 1 or 2 involving drivers emerging from Butlers Court Rd/ Walkwood Rise,plus one further crash of an individual nature. It may be appropriate to fully examine whether other measures could be identified to tackle these crashes and concerns about crossing the road to access bus stops, rather than to pursue a reduction of the speed limit..
In the light of the previous working group recommendation and concerns of local residents, reflected in the public consultation feedback, a vote was proposed on whether this should be re-advertised for public consultation as a 40mph speed limit ( between Holtspur rbt & Beacons field) No consensus- :- 2 agreed , 2 opposed.
RECOMMENDATION: * DISCUSS WITH HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION THE POSSIBILITY OF READVERTISEMENT OF LENGTH FROM HOLTSPUR TO BEACONSFIELD AS A PROPOSED 40 MPH LIMIT. * RETAIN EXISTING 50 LIMIT ON WHITE HILL( between proposed 40 limit terminal near Whitehouse Lane & Holtspur roundabout)
Head of Transportation : READVERTISE LENGTH OF ROAD BETWEEN TOP OF WHITE HILL AND BEACONSFIELD FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION AS A PROPOSED 40MPH LIMIT. Representations were made to the Head of Transportation by local councilors, expressing the considerable local concern about this length of road. This further consultation will provide further opportunity for all parties ( residents and road users) to put forward their views on a potential reduction of the current 50mph speed limit. Public consultation to take place in summer 2008.
.
14 REF No 3 : A40 London Road ,Beaconsfield ( from near its junction with Butlers Court Rd to 300m west of j/w Windsor End, Old Beaconsfield) Current limit 50mph Proposed 40mph Agree with Pref. ID Summary of feedback proposal SL refs Y N Example of road with good visibility and excellent surface- existing limit should remain. The constant changing of speed limits means that 58 N 50 drviers have to apply their brakes and accelerate more frequently, so reducing the efficiency of their vehicles. Can only assume that many of my local 50mph roads, A40 Loudwater/Beaconsfield, A4155 Bourne End/marlow are going to be reduced to 106 40mph. In my opinion this will have little effect. speed,though a factor in collisions is rarely the primary casue as proven by numerous studies over the years. N 50 I understand this project has been undertaken with good intentions .I worry that you're trying to enforce the belief of a few who have taken the time to complain about people's speed as they themselves are less confident behind the wheel.
Strong opposition, having examined the documentation . Se road virtually every day and at no time has the present speed limit caused 89 problems. As one approaches Beaconsfield Old Town from the west the 'entrance' to the town is well marked and effectively promotes speed reduction, and, as one leave the town there is absolutely no case for reducing the speed limit. Strongly suspect that the various changes are being proposed to facilitate further infill development for which South Bucks has the exceedingly dubious honour of being the national leader. The council is doubtless obliged to be seen to be 'doing something' about road safety so in the style typical of Buckinghamshire a cop-out option is adopted. It is unimaginative and will have no significant impact. Remember that the statistics will be completely skewed by a single 50 incident. There appears to be no case from Thames Valley Police- if there were one may be better disposed towards the proposed changes. The cost of implementing the proposed changes must be made available In view of the extraordinary cost of moving a single pedestrian crossing the raft of changes must represent a considerable expenditure for the county and as a school governor I am certain that the money would be better spent on Buckinghamshire schools and educational facilities. There is a dislike of frequent changes in the speed limit,in this case 50 to 40 to 30 in a few hundred metres. The traffic island on entering 56 N 50 Beaconsfield is enough encouragement to observe the 30mph limit when entering the town.
50 wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 3 67 This is easily wide enough and straight enough to be safe at 50. In fact this would be an absolute classic entrapment spot to prosecute drivers for technical infringements of speeding. Enforcement here at 40 could trap thousands upon thousands of motorists and they won't all be hardened criminals or joyriders. There is no claimed safety benefit so it's a completely wasted excersize (unless making lots of cash from everyday safe drivers is the intention?). Also 40mph here will bring speed limits generally into disrepute. In summary, there is no safety requirement for this speed limit reduction.
N Agree with Pref. ID Summary of feedback proposal SL refs Y N Unnecessary speed changes lead to confusion, which causes further congestion. 30 (These roads ) not common for pedestrians and there are few residences that are affected by the current speed limit and would neither benefit or be inconvenienced by these proposed changes, so are a waste of public money & purely another tactic to 'nannify' British roads. Extg N If limit is reduced, it will ( cause) more congestion and also encourage people to overtake drivers travelling at lower speeds, which is more of a (50) hazard than at present. More money should be spent on researching causes of M40 accidents, not dabbling with roads that currently are safe & controlled. Area becoming far too controlled through speed cameras, limits, road bumps and central road divides, which has witnessed cause more accidents Thethan A40prevent. from StopLoudwater punishing through majority Old ofBeaconsfield drivers who and are beyondsafe & responsible-towards the M40reckless link driversshould arebe restricted a risk whether and ennforced speed limit to is 30mph 30,40 inor obviously50. 91 Y built up areas and 40mph elsewhere including White Hill,
40 Whole length of road between Beaconsfield & Holtspur should be max 40 limit 25 Y extend disagree with buffer zone on the basis of frequent changes in limits over a short distance. Counter-propose extending the 30 limit to the brow of 93 Extend N the hill outside the BP Petrol Station, to cover this blind spot and the parking area ahead of the current start point of the 30 limit. Bfld 30
BCC comments/summary: 6 objectors- wish to retain 50 limit 1 objector- prefers 30 2 supportive - but feel 40 should be more extensive.
Background info: Proposed as buffer limit for vehicles entering Beaconsfield. May encourage drivers to slow down earlier on entering the town and provide protection for parked cars & drivers/passengers emerging from them. Includes petrol station & junction with Butlers Court Rd ( includes garden centre accesses ) . Bus stops by Butlers Court Rd included within proposed 40 limit. Outskirts of town- pedestrian access into estate.Road on outskirts of urban area
Working Group discussion & recommendation: At the Beaconsfield end, an argument was put forward for extending the 30 limit, rather than providing a 40 buffer- otherwise no strong views from Working group in opposition to this 'buffer' limit.
RECOMMENDATION : IMPLEMENT 40 MPH LIMIT AS PROPOSED ( NB. Officer note: This implementation should perhaps be delayed until a decision is reached on the length to the west of this , to avoid unnecessary expense re changes of signing which may result ) REF No 5 : B4440 Wooburn Green Lane/Holtspur Lane ( from a point 100 metres northeast of its junction with Holtspur Avenue to its junction with A40) Current limit NSL mph Proposed 50mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Does not make sense to reduce the speed limit if, ( as stated in the Area 9 documentation), it is likely to increase the accident rate. 56 N NSL Upper tier rural single carriageway road of reasonably high quality. Wide, has streetlighting and a footway. Has a relatively good 108 accident history. None of reasons for imposing a 50mph limit is convincing. BCC state that limit should be the same as on the adjacent A40, because public feedback indicates a dislike of frequent changes in limits. This argument cuts both ways and could equally justify increasing the A40 limit. N NSL Frequently changing limits are unpopular when they are not aligned with changes in the surroundings and when they occur along a single route, forcing drivers to make frequent adjustments to their speed. This is not a consideration here because the A40 and B4440 are entirely different roads and anyone passing from one to another must slow down anyway to negotiate the junction. Low limits on open roads, such as the B4440, are unpopular. * Although current speeds are below 50mph, should be noted that the road is a steep hill for much of its length. Hardly surprising 100 that the mean average is only 39mph if taken as the average for both flows of traffic- smaller engined cars or lorries would find it difficult to maintain a higher speed on the uphill stretch. Therefore, it is not really appropriate to use the 'mean speed' clause within the guidance, to justify a 50mph limit when the crash rate makes the road below the threshold fo a 50mph limit. * Crash rate indicates that this road is not an accident blackspot and rate is below threshold for a 50mph. * There are few access points ,and mainly clustered at one end of the stretch. * TRL spreadsheet indicates that 'a 50mph limit may slightly increase accident rate' - surely this is reason enough in itself to retain theSaid existing that many limit. would query why this road was left at NSL if the A40 retained/gained a lower limit. One reason could be the 100 N NSL B4440's superior accident record (24 per 100mvkms ,as against 60) contd. BCC's final justification is the existing low mean speed of the traffic ,said to be 39mph. however, appendix D of circ -1/2006 clearly states that the NSL is recommended for most high quality upper tier roads ( of which B4440 is one) The statement that 50mph can be considered where mean speeds are below 50mph arguably refers only to lower quality A & B roads which do not have an accident rate of above 35 injury accidents per 100mvkms. anoither way of looking at the 39mph figure ( & 45mph %ile speed), is that traffic speeds are already low and that imposing a 50mph limit will serve no purpose. speeds could even increase if the new 50mph limit becomes a 'target speed' Summary: * Proposed limit unecessary & ought not to be imposed on principle. * Proposed speed limit probably does not comply with Circ 01/2006
17 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 5 67 Are you seriously suggesting a speed limit change that "may slightly increase acc rate"? Surely the primary goal should be to REDUCE crashes? Who will take the blame if someone dies as a result? It would seem 50mph is suggested here because if left at 50mph it would make the A40 limit look daft and speed limits that N NSL change often are disliked. So a driver being prosecuted for speeding here after the new limit is imposed would be being punished in order to stop the council looking silly! This should NEVER be how road safety policy should be decided! Also the NSL tells drivers to think for themselves and drivers are doing that with the majory below 45mph. There is a danger that 50mph will encourage drivers to speed up a little and take less care. In summary, there is a safety requirement NOT to change this speed limit.
Comment: B440 Wooburn Green Lane/Holtspur Lane – Open country road with little frontage, if any. The 50mph is clearly inappropriate for this 111 road, but it links in with the limit on the A40. Thames N/a Valley Police
Agree 93 Y 50 BCC summary /comments : 4 objectors- prefer to retain NSL on basis of good safety record & because of potential increase in accidents indicated by TRL spreadsheet TVP: comment only 1 Supportive response. Background info: 900m length 2004 data: flow 8500, 85%ile 45mph, mean ave 39mph. 6 dwellings at N end, access to Glory Hill farm and to car park/picnic site. It was been decided after FC to propose same limit as on adjacent length of A40 -public feedback on previous SLR areas indicates a dislike frequent changes in speed limits .Many would also query why this was left at NSL if adjoining A40 retained/gained a lower limit Upper tier road. ?( 9000vpd) 2 crashes in 3 yrs over 0.9km- = crash rate of 24 per 100mvkm- below threshhold for 50 limit as an accident remedial measure, but current mean speeds below 50mph so can consider a 50 limit within guidance. (TRL spreadsheet indicates that a 50mph limit may slightly increase acc rate , but reduce other costs & a 40mph limit may potentially slightly reduce accidents , but with small increases in time/fuel costs- not very conclusive .)
Working Group discussion & recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION : in principle, should be same as 2a, to avoid a further speed limit change . This limit will therefore need to be reconsidered when a final decision is reached on proposal 2a ( Holtspur to Beaconsfield), but to remain at National speed limit in the interim.
18 REF No 5a : B4440 Holtspur Lane, Wooburn Common ( From The Green to a point 100 metres northeast of its junction with Holtspur Avenue) Current limit 40/30 mph Proposed 30mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 5a 67 N 40 There is no information given as to current speeds and no accident history. In summary, there is no safety requirement to lower this speed limit N? disagree.( no reasons given) 93 Y 30 Welcomes proposal 1 BCC summary /comments : This proposal will just extend the current 30mph limit to include all of the village area It is a community lim it, rather than one proposed for crash reduction. Short extension of extg 30 limit into current 40 stretch to include j/w Holtspur Ave & first group of 5 houses on Holtspur Lane within the village speed limit. 30 limit would commence at existing village name plate At start of village -30 limit include all residential properties.
Working Group discussion & recommendation: Objectors not take into account reasons for proposing extension of this community speed limit. One concern re difficulty of braking on downhill approach to meet 30 limit- but excellent forward visibility on approach allows time to adjust speed in a controlled manner.
RECOMMENDATION: PROCEEED WITH PROPOSED SHORT EXTENSION OF EXISTING 30MPH SPEED LIMIT. REF No 6 : Broad Lane ( from its junction with A40 to a point 38 metres northeast of its junction with Hedsor Lane) Current limit NSL Proposed 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Large lorries visiting gravel pits. 40 Y 30 Elderly people from Kiln Court visiting cemetery on foot, also joggers. Many vehicles travel along Broad Lane & Wooburn Cmn Lane at excessive speed, making it dangerous for walkers,cyclist, horse riders & 12 Y 40 other motorists Y 40 Strongly in favour. Visibility around the bends is very poor,winding road, easy to misjudge the bends at speed. 25 Fast & dangerous road. Particularly concerned with the quality of the road surface, as it varies considerably along its length. The central 90 white lines are fading in places and the cats eyes are old & ineffective. Numerous potholes. Has contacted highways numerous times but Y 40 they keep saying that there isn't enough funding for the repairs. Road confirmed as being overdue for re-surfacing.
Agrees with introducing a limit, but considers that 50mph would be sufficient. Uses the road almost every day, at different times, and seldom 93 N 50 sees evidence of excessive speed. Considers that most drivers already allow for the bends. I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 6 67 Current speeds of "Ave: 43mph85th %ile: 50.45" would mean that MOST drivers could be threatened with prosecution if it was changed to 40 and they didn't lower their speed. eg I have heard of drivers threatened with prosecution for 32 in a 30 and I am in the process of obtaining proof of this. Are we trying to make out most British drivers are naturally dangerous drivers? N NSL There were "12 crashes in 3 yrs over 3 km" but we aren't told severity or why, would they have been prevented by a 50mph limit? There is no information of this on the proposal and the Police refuse to give any information that would establish whether 40 could improve road safety. In summary, there is no demonstrated safety improvement to justify lowering this speed limit.
Average speed is generally below 40mph so the proposed restriction appears a waste of money. 84 N NSL BCC suggests it is suitable for a 40mph limit because it is l;ower tier and has an accident rate above 60 per 100mvkm.This does not follow 108 from appendix D, which also requires consideration of the road's function. Only if the road has a 'predominately local,access or recreational function, of if it forms part of a recommended route for vulnerable road users" should a 40mph limit be considered. If the road has a mixed function a 50 or 60mph ;limit should be considered. Broad Lane clearly does have a mixed function, , with some through traffic. That is clear N NSL from the traffic flow figures if nothing else: 4300 vehicles per day at one point. Therefore, if a local speed limit is to be considered at all, it should be 50mph, rather than 40mph. It is notable that appendix D does not recommend 50 or 40mph limits for any type of lower tier road , simply that such limits should be 'considered'. It is therefore proper to ask whether the proposed 40 limit is reasonable and what it will achieve.
20 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN N NSL Para 31 of circ 01/2006 says a key factor when setting a speed limit is what the road looks like to users. This road looks like a typical 108 country lane and the maximum 'safe' speed varies constantly as its geometry changes and hazards present themselves.It cannot fairly be contd. said that it is never safe to exceed 40mph here, and it is not right to criminalise anyone who drives at 41mph when it is safe to do so. A certain degree of driver skill is required to negotiate roads like this safely, and the blunt instrument of a speed limit can never be a substitute for that. Existing mean traffic speeds are said to be 36.7, 38, 43mph. this rules out a 40mph limit along the whole length because existing mean speeds exceed the proposed limit in at least one place ( para 96 Circ 01/2006, final sentence). It also means, by definition, that approximately half of all drivers are going faster than those mean speeds, and will suffer needless delays if the proposal is given effect.
The vulnerable road users cross Broad Lane 'at many points' is no reason to impose a speed limit because such persons are present only at certain times- when of course, drivers ought to slow down for them. A speed limit is by definition a maximum, not a target speed. But the 40mph speed limit will be in force 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, delaying motorists when there is no need. This soprt of heavy handed regulation brings speed limits generally into disrepute. The Council should have carried out a study of the accidents along this road ; ( para 26 Circ 01/2006) There is no evidence this has been done and therefore no evidence that any of the accidents was speed related. Para 26 goes on to say" alternative options should always be considered before proceding with a new speed limit" . These options could include extra warning signs, perhaps vehicle activated ones, and repairing the badly surfaced road. In one respect, the introduction of a speed limit will certainly have a deleterious effect on road safety: it will need repeater signs which will present a collision hazard at the roadside, especially to motorcyclists. Summary of objection: *40mph is unreasonably low as an absolute maximum will not be an effective means of reducing casualties *Repeater signs will be a collision hazard. * No evidence that para 26, Circ 01/2006 has been complied with * Circular 01/2006 does not allow a 40mph limit where mean speed is 43mph. Fine as it is,does not need to be changed. Fairly quiet, has few if any houses along it and it seems crazy to think that drivers are going to 49 N NSL lose control at 45mph! Pointless to change. Leave at National speed limit which is reasonable. Suggests that majority of accidents along this stretch result from 'joy riders' . Frequent incidents of stolen vehicles being dumped/torched. 58 ?? No joy rider will observe a speed limit so these accidents will continue to occur. Comment (not an objection: )Broad Lane – this has the appearance of a country road with nothing to suggest why it should have a speed limit. BCC figures 111 th put the current average speed at 38mph and the 85 percentile at 44mph in the southern sections. It is unlikely that speeds will be reduced as a result of this Thames th Valley limit in this section. The speeds in the northern section are listed as 43mph (ave) and 50 (85 percentile) which is far too high for the imposition of this Police limit. Enforcement would be, at best, difficult. The limit does, however, meet DfT guidelines.
21 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN BCC summary /comments : 4 support proposed 40 ( 1 preferring a 30 limit) 5 oppose ( 1 prefers 50, 4 prefer NSL) 2 other comments Some signing improvements underway this Spring ( local safety scheme ) Crash record: 17 crashes in 5 yrs to 31 Dec 2007. 3 serious, rest slight.1 involved stolen vehicle. 2 alcohol.Contributory factors for others : 6 listed excessive speed or too fast for conditions, & a further 1 careless/reckless/in a hurry. .12 crashes involve loss of control in various circumstances.1 ped injured Background info at public consultation: Road has many bends, 3 side road junctions, cemetery, sand quarry & reservoir accesses, farm traffic& vulnerable road users ( pedestrians/cyclists/horseriders) on Rights Of Way network which crosses road at many points. Flow: 4300 vpd June 2004 N j/w Windsor hill & 1300 vpd N of j/w Wash hill Speed: N j/w C103 ( Windsor Hill) :Ave 38 mph.85th %ile 44mph Betw Springfield & Lillyfee:-Ave: 43mph85th %ile: 50.45 NE j/w Wash Hill:Ave: 36.7 mph 85th %ile: 43.4 mph Overall, length has accident rate of > 60 per 100mvkm,inferring its suitability , as a lower tier road, for a 40mph speed limit. It had 12 crashes in 3 yrs over 3 km (= crash rate of 85 per 100mvkm) The TRL spreadsheet indicates small accident reduction is possible with a 40 limit, but with 3% potential journey time increases.
Working Group discussion & recommendation:
PF reported that under a local safety scheme sign and road marking renewal is taking place and surfacing being investigated at some sites along lane. One expression of concern that a 40 limit would confer urban status on the lane, with potential implications on future building development
General consensus that crash rate along Broad Lane justified a lower limit and that the potential benefits outweighed any potential disadvantages.
RECOMMENDATION: PROCEED WITH PROPOSED 40MPH SPEED LIMIT
22 REF No 6a : Berghers Hill private road
Current limit NSL ( advisory sign for 15mph) Proposed 40mph ( to prevent need for NSL signs at entry if Broad Lane becomes 40mph)
Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Has to endorse as a resident, the proposed reduction in the speed limit that legally applies to our road. 58 Y agrees in principle to lowering Berghers Hill limit to 40mph, to comply with new proposed Broad Lane speed limit, on the basis that the 90 advy. 15 15mph advisory speed limit sign remain in place. 15mph is a more suitable speed limit for our road
supports in association with a similar limit for Broad Lane 12 Y
BCC summary /comments : This limit need only be introduced if 40mph goes ahead for Broad Lane. A letter was sent to all residents of this road explaining why the 40mph was proposed i.e.:-If no limit applied, NSL sign would need to be provided at start of this private road, which has its own privately signed advisory 15mph speed limit. However, If the same limit applies here as on adjacent Broad Lane, then due to the road being shorter than 350 metres, no speed limit signs will be needed anywhere along this residential length.
Working Group discussion & recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION: PROCEED WITH PROPOSED 40MPH SPEED LIMIT. (NB OFFICER NOTE: The existing advisory 15 mph signs can remain in place,at the entrance to Berghers Hill, as are erected on private land, but will have no legal status ref enforcement) REF No7,7a,7b,7c,7d : Burnham Beeches perimeter roads Current limit: NSL Proposed :40mph ( Egypt Lane/Stewarts Drive/ Bedford Drive, Hawthorn Lane/Punpkin Hill/Curriers Lane,Grove Rd) Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN Y 40 In support of a speed limit being imposed. Concerned at high speed of cars travelling down Egypt Lane. It would protect ( her) 62 family who regularly travel along this road which is narrow with blind corners. It is in the rural setting of Burnham Beeches and feel unsafe on bicycles /walking the dog, due to the high speed of many of the vehicles driving along our road.
N NSL I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 7 67 This is a perfect example of why NSL at 60mph is correct. This is a tricky road with a very wide range of hazards including wildlife. Safe speeds will range from 10mph to perhaps 55mph, even the best drivers will be doing 10mph in places. Drivers MUST have their FULL attention on the road ahead and ANY distraction could cause an accident. The last thing we want is drivers dawdling along, not paying attention and constantly looking down at their speedos. Furthermore an actual speed limit (40mph) may lead less advanced drivers to assume that this is a recommended speed only to find corners that cannot be taken at even half that speed. The NSL limit tells all drivers that they must think for themselves and that encourages caution. This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit. In summary, there is every reason to believe that any change in speed limit can only damage safety.
I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 7a 67 Apparently there have been a "cluster of crashes on bend" and I suspect I know the bend (the Police refuse to say which bend). contd. That bend cannot be taken at 40mph anyway so a new 40mph limit will completely fail to address this problem, in fact 40mph may well cause MORE crashes! With NSL no driver would ever try 60mph into that corner, but a 40mph signpost might fool less competant drivers to assume 40mph was safe - and then they WILL crash! This is another perfect example of why NSL at 60mph is correct. This is a tricky road with a very wide range of hazards including wildlife. Safe speeds, even in ideal conditions, may range from about 10mph to perhaps 55mph, even the best drivers may be doing 10mph in places. Drivers MUST have their FULL attention on the road ahead and ANY distraction could cause an accident. The last thing we want is drivers dawdling along, not paying attention and constantly looking down at their speedos. The NSL limit tells all drivers that they must think for themselves and that encourages caution. In summary, there is every reason to believe that any change in speed limit can only INCREASE crashes.
I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 7b 67 This is a perfect example of why NSL at 60mph is correct. contd. This is a tricky road with a very wide range of hazards including wildlife. Drivers MUST have their FULL attention on the road ahead and ANY distraction could cause an accident. The last thing we want is drivers dawdling along, not paying attention and constantly looking down at their speedos. Furthermore an actual speed limit (40mph) may lead less advanced drivers to assume that this is a recommended speed only to find hazards that should not be approached at anything like that speed. The NSL limit tells all drivers that they must think for themselves and that encourages caution. This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit. In summary, there is every reason to believe that any change in speed limit can only damage safety. ( Same comments for ref s 7c & 7d)
Page 24 Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN N NSL Objects primarily on environm,ental grounds. Terminal & repeater signs will be an ugly intrusion into the attractive scenery of the 108 Burnham Beeches Nature Reserve. The council prays in aid paragraph 92 of circular 01/2006, but if this recommendation is applied rigidly, the very areas which are most attractive will be the ones disfigured with speed limit signs. Para 92 has to be read in conjunction with para 97, which states " widespread implementation of speed management over the whole minor rural road network could require a costly and envoronmentally sensitive increase in the level of signing. Traffic authorities should seek to ensure that a sensible balance is achieved. " Likewise, appendix D ( speed limits for signelcarriageway roads in rurla areas) has a rider that the recommended limits are " subject to their meeting local needs & considerations". There is no need to impose 40mph limits on these roads because the mean speeds are already extremely low. The environment will be cluttered with signs for no purpose. Is well aware that 40mph limits have already been put in place on comparable roads elsewhere, eg Black Park. Objected to those 108 as well & the council cannot use its own actions on previous occasions, in the face of objections, to justify the present proposal. contd. Summary : * limit will require unsightly signs that will spoil the visual environment. *limit is unecessary.
N NSL? Objection to 7a-7d Egypt Lane, Stewarts Drive, Bedford Drive, Hawthorn Lane, Pumpkin Hill, Grove Road – Existing speed counts 111 are in line with speed limit being requested. The limit merely adds road signs. There is barely any point along these roads where Thames speed enforcement could be carried out. There is barely any collision history along these roads. Drivers seem to be controlled by Valley the road. Understand that the limit is for the benefit of the leisure users. Police
N 30 narrow road, barely 2 way 3 flows probably higher now due to A355 congestion & will increase when new flats built & new Sainsbury's opens- road used as alternative route. Accidents increasingy- mainly wing mirror damage but likely to get more serious opposing trucks cannot pass route is series of accidents waiting to happen Also requests additional traffic calming measures introduced in near future N 30 Uses the road to visit friends in the area & drop child off most mornings at a friends house& take other child to Dair House school. 105 Frequently walks the road as part of family's use of Burnham Beeches. Has noted with great alarm the speed at which cars & vehicles use this road. sometimes is truly frightened by the many narrow escapes has had to being side-swiped ( lives off Templewood Lane, which is also narrow & winding, but doesn't have as many kerbs, so pulling off to the side is easier than on Egypt Lane) On walks, have noted many ( > 10-15) car side mirrors, indicating that others have been less fortunate than him.
Top speed on the lane should be a maximum of 30mph. Because it will never be partolled also thinks speed bumps should be 105 placed there to force drivers to slow down. Really dangerous- only a matter of time before a cyclist. pedestrian or worse is killed. contd.
Page 25 Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN 30 Feel v. strongly should be 30 limit for the entire length of section 7. ( preference would be for road to be closed to through traffic 79 with barrier at the cottages at Egypt near the triangle) * current speeds/level of traffic is inappropriate to the size of the roads and the local users. Cars ( particularly commuters cutting through from the A355 toward Slough trading estate ) overtake on blind bends- regular occurrence * Much of length is too narrow for 2 vars to pass comfortably, and it is dangerous meeting anything larger becaise of the speeds most people drive at along this road. Egypt Lane & Hawthorn Lane have houses along their length. Similarly built up ropads in the Stoke Poges area have been designated 30mph ( also Littleworth Common proposals) * People regularly walk, cycle and ride horses along these roads and because of the speed and volume of traffi there are regularly 79 near misses. Used to cycle to work from Egypt Lane, round these roads to the Grove Rd junction, to /from work, but had to stop contd. because too dangerous. One morning nearly knocked off 4 times ,this is not acceptable. * Refers to comments re Littleworth common proposed 30s re 'strong local feeling regarding safety & quality of life'- this also applies to Egypt Lane. There may not be a school, but the presence of Burnham Beeches encourages families to visit the area and walk the roads. Currently feel that their way of life is compromised by the traffic that uses these roads. N 30 Roads around Burnham Beeches should be 30 ( Note:mistakenly thought proposal was for 30mph) Very narrow, scenic routes, 25 visitors in particular may be travelling slowly & maybe not giving full attention to the road. N 30 *roads ( refs 7,7a,7b,7c & 11 ) used extensively by visitors to Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation and should be 14 shared space between cars, walkers, cyclists and horseriders. 30mph limits have been proposed at refs 10,10b,10c and 13 & does not see why 30 should not be applied here. *Links between these roads and 10,13,12 show a 60mph limit- feels these should be reduced to 30mph-40mph. 30 or Over 15 yrs have seen significant increase in volume of traffic using lane & an even more dramatic increase in the speed at which 63 close this traffic flows.( especially bad inlast 12 months since installation of One Pin Lane traffic lights) road Lane used as a 'rat run' to the Slough Industrial estate, and is no longer safe to walk,even on the verges, in the morning or evening. Verges are being destroyed by vehicles trying to avoid each other- tragic for Burnham Beeches woodland. Ideal solution( except for essential access ) is to close the Lane. Failing that, imposition & enforcement of a 30mph speed limit would help.
Page 26 Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN 30 ( or * Lane is used as a 'by pass' to Farnham Common village- noted an increase in traffic since new signals on A355 at One Pin Lane. 88 close *No need for lane to be used by through traffic as the A355 is the major road and heads to identical location. To access the main road) Burnham Beeches car park ( & Hawthorn Lane) Beeches Rd is more capable of taking traffic ( also a 30mph road) .As a 'rat run' to Farnham Lane, this also encourages drivers to drive at speed past the Caldicott School on the corner of Crown Lane & Hawthorn Lane. * no footway between the top end of the lane and entrance to Burnham Beeches forest at Gypsy cottage ( Dukes Drive)- when walking with children to the forest, down the lane, or to the shops, we must walk in the road. This is on a blind corner and is very dangerous. ( Refers to car leaving road at that point in Dec 2007) * Major recreational route for cyclists, runners and wal;kers. Lack of a speed limit makes this inherently dangerous,particularly at the bend but throughout, particularly at the speeds people travel at.
* Many young families live in the area. They and their visitors, which include many young people, are horrified by the speed at 88 which people travel down the lane contd * Entering and leaving our drive is dangerous and difficult. Vehicles travel at a speed which is excessive and are unable to stop to let us into the road. visitors & tradesmen have often commented on how those using the lane are 'maniacs' and the speed they travel at is excessive & dangerous. * road is dangerous & is made more so by the speed at which vehicles are permitted to travel at ( ref to turning off 50mph A355 onto NSL Lane) Regulalry collct wing mirrors and other vehicle debris from outside their house. Egypt Lane sign and give Way sign at junction both been knocked down. Regularly note dead animal carcasses along lane which have been struck by speeding vehicles. Notes 40mph proposed. With due respect this recognises the issue but takes insufficient steps to address it given the nature of the road & the users ( residential,leisure, school,and a bypass for a major A road. * suggests road be closed- failing that ,should be a 30mph zone in defference to the requirements of the users, the residential nature of the lane, the number of children and the proximity to both the recreational area and the Caldicott School. This would bring it in line with any number of similar roads in the area which have limits on the speed at which they may be used. * Issue is well overdue for attention & action
N 20 lived in Egypt Lane for past 20 years. Noticed increased volume of traffic and excessive speed. Has lost 3 wing mirrors, 2 cats and 86 been hit once.( Refers to accident previous week in which a car rolled & entered a garden) Generally, not local trafficbut traffic cutting through to Slough Trading Estate, mainly early mormning & evening.Is woken up with the noise 5 mornings a week. Feels 30mph ( thought proposal was 30) is still too fast& should be reduced to 20mph, but this would have to be monitored. how about speed bumps- sure they would be the most effective.
Page 27 Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN BCC summary/comments: Comments received for lengths 7a-d generally referred to all the perimeter roads, not just a specific length. 1 in support of 40 limit 3 object: prefer NSL 5 object/not support 40 : prefer 30mph ( including 2 who prefer road to be closed) 1 object: prefer 20mph Crashes: 15 in 5 yrs to 31 12 07 on Burnham Beeches perimeter roads ( excluding Park Lane- no crashes): 3 serious, others slight. most common collision type was loss of control , 1 accident involving cyclists , 1 involving a pedestrian.Slippery road surface/bends common contributory factors Dft were asked for feedback on departing from Circ 1/2006 re 30mph speed limits ( for this & other Burnham Beeches road lengths- refs 7- 7d) .The response received was : "It is of course for local authorities to set what they deem to be an appropriate limit based on all the local evidence. Looking at the average speeds, then on the basis of the guidance, 40mph would seem appropriate. I am not aware of any general precedent for 30mph limits in AONBs etc - our guidance had assumed 40mph - but this does not mean that 30mph limits may not have been set in some areas. Local speed limits are of course set without the consent of the Secretary of State. We only normally become involved when special authorisation is requested to use alternative signing regimes to minimise environmental intrusion"
Working Group discussion & recommendation:
PF read comments from the County Council's AONB Transport Officer re the special environmental status of Burnham Beeches & the Burnham Beeches Transport Strategy, indicating support for reduced speed limit and also the (above) statement from the Department for Transport re the potential for providing a 30mph speed limit around Burnham Beeches.
Police emphasised that enforcement of any speed limit would be difficult with very few suitable locations to do this and limited resources at present to carry this out. Side roads, not included within the proposed limit ( as a 40 limit would be inappropriately high), would require NSL signing, which elsewhere had become a contentious issue as some people equated these signs with an invitation to drive at 60mph.( generally an unsubstantiated perception, but arousing much vociferous concern) th View expressed that 40mph signs will just get people to do the speed which they are doing already- average speeds currently mid to low 30s- with 85 %ile speeds around 38-43mph.- the Beeches' perimeter roads are self enforcing due to their width & layout. Also concern that a 40mph limit may encourage some drivers to travel faster than they do at present when they exercise their own judgement under NSL - average speeds currently mid to low 30s- with 85 Concern re the required signing of a speed limit lower than National speed limit - environmentally intrusive- even if obtained authorisation for surface repeater roundel markings instead of upright repeater signs. Concern re long term visibility of such markings ( mud/leaves etc) & their environmental impact. ( One Wkg Gp member expressed views as a member of the Chilterns Conservation Board)
RECOMMENDATION: RETAIN EXISTING NSL . (DO NOT PROCEED WITH PROPOSED 40MPH LIMIT. )
Page 28 Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN Head of Transportation : RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT 40 MPH LIMIT He reached this recommendation after making a site visit , considering the public feedback , the Working Group's comments and also feedback from the City of London's Consultation Group meeting of 24rd April 2008 . The latter referred to • visitor pressures and recreational use of Burnham Beeches, which has in excess of 500,000 visitors a year • That the Beeches has the highest level of environmental protection at a European level. • The Transport Strategy is looking to promote more sustainable options to local visitors and reduce reliance on the car , without a lower limit its unlikely that any more cycling, walking horse riding to the site could be encouraged • there are a number of minor collisions/vehicles leaving the carriageway on bends that go unreported • the lanes do not meet the current DfT Guidance of 1000vpd and 85%ile of 35mph for Quiet Lanes so this is not a viable alternative.
Special authorization would be sought from the Department for Transport to enable upright repeater signs not to be used, and for 30mph roundel road surface markings to be provided instead, in order to reduce the environmental impact of such signs.