DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
REPORT TO CITY CENTRE SOUTH AND EAST PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS AREA BOARD 19 NOVEMBER 2007
REPORT ON LONG LINE – EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC RESTRICTION
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To present the findings of the trial restriction on Long Line, Dore.
1.2 To advise on a way forward to address accidents at the junction of Hathersage Road, Long Line and Cross Lane.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The junction of the A625 Hathersage Road with Long Line and Cross Lane in Dore has a high accident reduction priority based on the Council’s approved assessment method. Between 1 st November 1999 and 31 st October 2004 (the five year period considered at the outset of this investigation) there were fifteen accidents, which resulted in one fatality and twenty-one slight injuries.
Location Plan of Long Line
2.2 A full accident analysis is set out in Appendix A. To summarise: • accidents involve drivers emerging injudiciously from both side roads, • the decision to pull out safely involves being aware of potentially conflicting manoeuvres of other vehicles at the crossroads, • a high proportion of elderly drivers were involved in the accidents, • vehicle speeds on Hathersage Road are not the main issue.
2.3 The broad solution is to reduce the difficulty of making the decision to pull out by removing the traffic emerging from the opposite side road, thereby reducing the number of potential conflicts.
2.4 The allocation of funding on schemes from the Local Transport Plan (LTP) Road Safety budget is determined by a calculation based on the history of injury accidents and whether a cost effective scheme is feasible. Major construction schemes like a roundabout, traffic signals or changes to create a staggered junction, are very costly, and would not represent value for money in relation to accident savings compared with other locations in the city.
3.0 THE IMPLEMENTED EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC SCHEME
3.1 The background to the implemented scheme on Long Line is set out in Appendix B. In summary, the trial restriction prohibits motor vehicles other than local buses, agricultural vehicles and emergency services from turning into the top of Long Line at the junction with Sheephill Road. Cyclists, walkers and horse riders are unaffected. Long Line has not been changed to a one-way road.
3.2 This scheme was proposed by residents following objections to a Council scheme to make Cross Lane one-way from its junction with Hathersage Road. Road Safety Officers and South Yorkshire Police indicated that the proposal relied solely on drivers’ compliance of the road signs, and that it was likely to suffer from widespread abuse. Officers continued to recommend the alternative Cross Lane proposal to Area Board. A Ward Councillor advised Area Board that they had undertaken a door-to-door survey on Long Line that showed overwhelming support for the scheme. On 15 th May 2006 Area Board resolved that the residents’ proposal should be implemented on a trial basis, as an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO). Members wanted to give motorists in the area the benefit of the doubt and test their adherence to the traffic regulations.
3.3 If the restriction was observed, traffic flows on Long Line and at its junction with Hathersage Road would drop – as would the potential for collisions. The disbenefits of the scheme are lengthy alternative routes, reduced accessibility and the potential for driver abuse.
3.4 The purpose of the trial then, was to determine if motorists would comply with the restriction. This trial could also provide very useful research information on drivers’ attitudes and compliance, and the effectiveness of this type of ‘sign only’ restriction in an isolated location. 3.5 The trial scheme was implemented on 12 th February 2007 and traffic counts were carried out at locations around the area to measure traffic on Long Line, traffic going through the restriction, and diversions onto alternative routes.
3.6 Contact details were collected from everyone who showed an interest in the proposals to create a database of potential consultees. The Council installed road signs in the area inviting motorists who use Long Line to contribute to the consultation too. This enabled Officers to collect the views of typical users of the road. All consultees were sent a letter explaining the trial and how it would operate and a questionnaire on their attitude to the trial restriction. There was an excellent response with over four hundred and fifty completed questionnaires being received.
4.0 OUTCOME: TRAFFIC FLOWS
4.1 The full discussion of traffic data results is shown in Appendix C.
Traffic Flow Down Long Line
4.2 The graph below shows the public’s compliance with the restriction. It plots how many drivers per day drove down Long Line before and after the restriction was introduced. The flows during the school holidays have been omitted as the traffic decreases at these times and are not comparable with normal flows. The numbers of exempted vehicles on the road were low.
In summary:
• The flow down Long Line from Sheephill Road was 1235 vehicles per day prior to the restriction.
• When the restriction was implemented, only half of drivers complied with it.
• During the first week, over 4000 drivers broke the law by ‘failing to conform with the Traffic Signs’.
• Since implementation, the number of drivers breaking the law steadily increased.
• Most drivers (64%) currently ignore the signs.
Traffic Flows On Alternative Routes
4.3 Six hundred vehicles per day have been removed from travelling down Long Line. The majority of displaced traffic continues down Sheephill Road to the junction with Hathersage Road, increasing this peak hour flow from 160 to 260 vehicles. Most of these vehicles turn left onto Hathersage Road and right into Cross Lane. The numbers are not significant and have given no cause for concern at the junctions. The numbers making the left turn towards Long Line have not changed; this suggests that most residents of Long Line ignore the restriction and do not take the longer alternative route.
4.4 A small proportion of motorists have transferred their route to Ringinglow Road, and the additional vehicles appear to feed out through the Bents Green area without any problems. A resident expressed concern that Broad Elms Lane and Whirlow Lane might be adversely affected by traffic trying to feed back to Ecclesall Road South, but traffic counts here show that speeds and flows have remained largely unchanged.
4.5 There has been a modest increase in traffic turning right from Sheephill Road into Hathersage Road and then using Whitelow Lane down into Dore. Following implementation of the ETRO, a member of the public reported increased traffic down Whitelow Lane to the detriment of horse riders. The vehicle numbers however are still very low, and within suitable levels for the nature of the lane, for example, an increase during the peak hour from three vehicles in six minutes to four vehicles in six minutes.
5.0 OUTCOME: PUBLIC CONSULTATION
5.1 A total of 472 completed questionnaires were received. The results of the survey are shown in Appendix D. The questionnaires did not include name and address information, so it is not possible to identify views of Long Line residents. Many phone calls, emails and letters were also received which broadly expressed similar views.
5.2 The survey results show that:
• 85% do not want the restriction to be made permanent.
• Of those that complied with the restriction, 62% said they would stop observing the restriction due to the abuse that was already evident.
• Of those that did not comply with the restriction, 80% said they would continue not to, even if everyone else did observe it.
• 75% did not want to see the restriction enforced by Police.
5.3 It is very clear that the restriction is extremely unpopular; about half ignore it; more people will ignore it, and that most people have decided to break the law.
6.0 OUTCOME: OTHER ISSUES
6.1 When the scheme was agreed, South Yorkshire Police stated that, “enforcement will be carried out when resources permit”. Officers have been informed that the Police have not actively enforced the Long Line ETRO.
6.2 The lack of public support for the restriction, the remoteness of the location and the limited likelihood of Police enforcement, led to high levels of abuse of the ETRO. Additionally, once the public realised that there was little enforcement, the abuse started to rise and flows down Long Line are increasing towards the original levels.
6.3 Prior to the ETRO being implemented (and thus Long Line traffic being displaced to Sheephill Road), a request had been received for an HGV ban on Sheephill Road, as it was believed that the number of HGVs using the road caused the road surface to deteriorate. An HGV ban would only normally be considered if they made up greater than 10% of the traffic along the road. Traffic counts show that HGVs make up less than 2% of the vehicles on Sheephill Road and, with some of these seeking access to local premises, a restriction is not considered to be appropriate.
6.4 Petitioners to Board on 21 st August 2006 expressed concerns about speeding on Long Line. These concerns were referred to the South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership. No speed enforcement has been undertaken, as it did not meet their criteria for deployment. South Yorkshire Police have also been unable to commit resources to enforcing the speed limit there. Monitoring since implementation of the ETRO shows traffic speeds to be unchanged.
6.5 There have been a number of references to water run-off that, at wet times, issues from a field and across Sheephill Road, the concern being that during the winter months this may freeze and cause a hazard. This issue has been reported to Street Force who are investigating the matter. Sheephill Road is on a route for gritting during freezing conditions.
6.6 The right turn ban from Hathersage Road into Brickhouse Lane outside the Dore Moor Inn was implemented following requests from local residents during the Open Day in October 2005. Given the reliance on traffic signs, Officers and South Yorkshire Police again had doubts that the ban would be observed, however appreciated the potential benefits if it were, and so the project was progressed. Again, no enforcement has been carried out and traffic counts show that despite local consultation with the public, and the prohibited turn being clearly signed and duplicated, one fifth of drivers are still illegally making the manoeuvre (compared with two thirds at Long Line).
7.0 OPTIONS TO CONSIDER
7.1 The original aim of this wider project was to reduce the accidents at the Long Line / Cross Lane crossroads and there are now several options to consider in order to deliver that. These options are discussed below.
Option 1: Make ETRO Permanent
7.2 The ETRO originally reduced the traffic into the crossroads from one side road by half, which would reduce the accident rate to some degree. However the traffic ignoring the restriction is increasing. This will reduce any safety benefits at the crossroads.
7.3 The restriction has been particularly unsuccessful in other regards:
• There are now 5000 instances every week of drivers breaking the law by illegally driving through the Department for Transport’s prescribed Traffic Signs. The consequence of installing a scheme that is readily abused by the public is that it brings other Traffic Signs and Orders into disrepute, with potential safety implications.
• Accessibility for residents of Long Line has been dramatically reduced.
7.4 The process to make the restriction permanent requires the making of a TRO including advertising of the Order and invitation of letters of objection or support. This process would be likely to generate significant objections to the proposal.
Option 2: Remove ETRO And Do Nothing
7.5 A number of people have expressed the view that the accidents at the junction are related to traffic along Hathersage Road, and that the measures introduced in the last few years to reduce speed and accidents along the road will also therefore reduce accidents at the junction. A further reduction in the speed limit has been suggested for Hathersage Road. A 40mph limit would not be consistent with Department for Transport guidance for this type of road. It would not be supported by the Police and would be ignored by the majority of motorists. A reduced speed limit would have only a limited effect on safety at that junction due to the nature of the accidents here, which are related to the number of conflicting movements.
7.6 In the view of Officers, a ‘Do Nothing’ approach will not reduce the accident rate at the junction to any great degree. Option 3: Remove ETRO And Implement The Originally Proposed Cross Lane One-Way Scheme
7.7 The Cross Lane one-way scheme was previously proposed and described to Board on 15 May 2006. Cross Lane would be one-way away from Hathersage Road; this would remove all traffic entering the crossroads from the Cross Lane direction and consequently have a significant impact on accidents at the junction. Traffic from Dore would be rerouted along Brickhouse Lane. The original proposal is shown in Appendix E.
7.8 The previous consultation on this proposal generated a large number of objections from the Dore community and especially residents of Brickhouse Lane. Concerns related to the environmental implications of the increased traffic on Brickhouse Lane, which residents feel is currently a quiet country lane. Seven cottages along the road have no front garden and due to the increased traffic flow there would be an increase in noise and a loss of privacy for these residents.
Option 4: Remove ETRO And Implement A Revised Cross Lane Scheme That Mitigates Concerns Regarding The Environmental Effect On Brickhouse Lane
7.9 In addition to making Cross Lane one-way away from Hathersage Road, this revised proposal makes Brickhouse Lane one-way towards Hathersage Road. The scheme has the same benefits as the original (i.e. significant reduction in flow into the Hathersage Road / Long Line / Cross Lane junction) but incorporates features to reduce the environmental impact on Brickhouse Lane suffered in the original scheme. It also replaces the abused right turn ban at the Dore Moor Inn with better recognised and accepted ‘No Entry’ signs. A plan of the proposal (TE/12-108/BN337/NS/P02) is shown in Appendix F.
7.10 The traffic leaving Dore would be routed along Brickhouse Lane, so there would be an increase in flow in the westbound direction as before. Reducing the traffic lanes from two down to one, allows that ‘lane’ to be positioned further away from the residential properties. The moving traffic lane would be shifted three or four metres further away from the house frontages by provision of minor kerb buildouts. This will reduce the effects of traffic noise for residents and create a better environment for walking along the road.
7.11 The buildouts would be installed to create ‘pinch points’ which would be designed to keep traffic speeds low whilst still allowing buses and large vehicles to pass through. Wide, sheltered parking areas would be provided for residents’ cars on the side of the road closest to their homes.
7.12 Residents previously described problems caused by two-way traffic, large vehicles and parked cars; this proposal removes those concerns. The ‘into-city’ bus stop currently situated on Cross Lane would need to be replaced with one on Brickhouse Lane. Discussions with the bus operator have indicated that changing the bus route to Brickhouse Lane would be acceptable to them. The exit from Brickhouse Lane onto Hathersage Road is on an uphill gradient. As the road would become a bus route, it would be added to the gritting routes to ensure it was kept clear in freezing weather conditions.
7.13 To protect the rural nature of the lane, the works would be designed to have ‘low-impact’. This would ensure that signs, lines and kerbs are carefully considered to fit in with the existing environment to preserve the character of the area.
7.14 At the Dore Moor Inn, the junction would be narrowed and ‘No Entry’ signs would replace the banned right turn into Brickhouse Lane. These signs are well understood and adhered to by the public and should remove the danger by those drivers who are currently making the illegal manoeuvre.
7.15 Newfield Lane remains unchanged, however motorists accessing there from Hathersage Road would need to turn into Cross Lane and travel up Brickhouse Lane. This would add to the traffic going past the residential properties but the numbers would be relatively small and would be offset to some extent by the removed eastbound flow from the Dore Moor Inn. Additionally, the traffic would be kept further away from the properties, thus reducing any environmental issues.
7.16 Another possible disbenefit of the proposal is that access to the Nursery would be less direct. The majority of customers however, are likely to come from the city direction and so any extra distance would be minimal. Most of the Nursery’s signs face the city direction and along Brickhouse Lane towards Cross Lane, which also appears to confirm that most of their customers approach from that direction. Discussions would be held with the Nursery to help overcome any concerns they may have.
7.17 The length of the detour for residents of the seventeen properties on Brickhouse Lane would only be between a quarter- and a half-mile. This increase in journey length has to be weighed against the expected safety benefits of the reduction in traffic movements at the Hathersage Road / Cross Lane junction.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
8.1 The Long Line proposal was put forward by local residents and was supported by all local members. Officers and the Police anticipated significant abuse of the TRO and did not support the proposal. Members of the Board believed there might be compliance due to the area in which it is located in Sheffield. There has been significant abuse: 5000 instances every week of drivers breaking the law by driving through the restriction.
8.2 Officers believed the Police would not have the resources to enforce the restriction to a degree that ensured compliance or indeed, carry out any enforcement. This has been the case. Further discussion is required with the Police about implementing and enforcing certain TROs in more isolated areas. 8.3 The road safety measures implemented recently along Hathersage Road have not made it safer to cross over from Cross Lane or Long Line to any great degree. The reduction in speed limit will have only a limited effect on safety at that junction.
8.4 There are only two options that will achieve the required reduction in accidents at the Hathersage Road / Long Line / Cross Lane junction at an effective cost. The original Cross Lane scheme produced many concerns regarding the environmental impact on Brickhouse Lane.
8.5 Officers have worked to reduce that environmental impact as much as possible and now propose the Cross Lane and Brickhouse Lane One-Way Scheme, as shown in Appendix F.
9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 The cost of removing the ETRO would be £1500. The estimated cost for design and implementation of the Cross Lane and Brickhouse Lane One-Way Scheme is £50,000. In light of the public interest in this scheme and in order to provide a resolution to this ongoing issue, it is recommended that the £12,000 funding already identified in the Accident Saving Schemes programme for 2007/08 be used to progress the design of the scheme and that funding for construction of the scheme be sought from the 2008/09 budget.
10.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
10.1 The recommended scheme would bring about a reduction in injury accidents at the Hathersage Road / Long Line / Cross Lane crossroads, which would be of benefit to all members of society using the junction
10.2 A high proportion of the accidents at the junction involved elderly people. Elderly people would therefore particularly benefit from the measures to reduce accidents here.
11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
11.1 There would be an increase in traffic on Brickhouse Lane, but measures would be put in place to reduce any impact on residents and also to offset the environmental concerns noted from the consultation on the previous proposal.
12.0 PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS
12.1 There are no known property implications.
13.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
13.1 That the contents of this report are noted.
13.2 That authority be given for the removal of the Long Line ETRO.
13.3 That authority be given to advertise permanent Traffic Regulation Orders for the Cross Lane and Brickhouse Lane One-Way Scheme (shown on plan TE/12- 108/BN337/NS/P02 in Appendix F) and, if there are no objections, for the scheme to be designed and constructed.
13.4 Discussions be initiated between Officers from Sheffield City Council and the other South Yorkshire Highway Authorities, and South Yorkshire Police on implementing and enforcing TROs of this kind, and that a further report be brought to Board regarding the outcome of these discussions.
John Bann Head of Transport and Highways 19 November 2007
APPENDIX A – ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
Summary
Accident analysis of this junction indicated that the majority of the accidents involved drivers emerging injudiciously from both side roads into the path of vehicles travelling in both directions along Hathersage Road. When pulling out from either side road, drivers have numerous factors to take into account when making their decision, for example:
• vehicles waiting to emerge from the opposite side road, • vehicles approaching from different directions at speed, and • eye contact with drivers opposite to determine if they are about to pull out or are giving way.
The accident records indicate that vehicle speeds on Hathersage Road are not the main issue. They suggest that due to the junction layout, the problem is related to the decision required to pull out safely. The accidents have involved a number of elderly drivers.
Typical accidents at this crossroads involve side-road vehicles entering the junction. Consequently, a broad solution to reducing the accidents is to eliminate one of the decisions, i.e. design out the crossroads by removing the vehicle emerging from the opposite side road.
The accidents at the crossroads should not be confused with, or linked to, accidents along the length of Hathersage Road. Those accidents are mainly speed related and as such have been treated differently under a separate scheme. Consequently, this report does not consider the accidents along the further length of Hathersage Road.
Road Safety Officers and South Yorkshire Police reviewed the speed limits on this section of Hathersage Road in conjunction with the Sheffield Speed Management Plan and Department for Transport guidelines during 2005 and the revised speed limits have now been set accordingly. It should be noted that speed limits are set by following guidance relating to factors such as frontage development, traffic flows, existing speeds, etc. Local evidence has shown that reducing the speed limit of a road does not necessarily equate to reduced speeds or consequent road safety benefits. A safety camera enforces the existing speed limit on Hathersage Road and the South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership and South Yorkshire Police would not be able to support or enforce an unrealistic speed limit.
Accident Figures
• Over the five-year period 1 st November1999 to 31 st October 2004, there were fifteen recorded injury accidents at the crossroads of Hathersage Road, Long Line and Cross Lane
• They were classified as 14 slight and 1 fatal accident.
• This caused 21 casualties including 1 fatality.
• The fatality occurred in 2001; driver exited Cross Lane and collided with HGV travelling out of city on Hathersage Road. The driver that emerged from the junction was 83 years old.
• 47% of the accidents occurred when there was an adverse road surface. This is a normal distribution for roads with higher speed limits.
• No accidents occurred in dark conditions, indicating that lighting is not a factor in the accidents.
• Ten of the accidents (including the fatality) involved drivers exiting either Long Line or Cross Lane and colliding with a vehicle travelling on Hathersage Road. There was no dominant direction of travel for the vehicle on Hathersage Road.
• The ages of the drivers that exited the side roads and collided with vehicles on the main road tend to be high – a third of the drivers were over 65 years old.
• Of the five other accidents that occurred at the junction:
Three were caused by a driver overtaking or undertaking a vehicle turning right from Hathersage Road into Long Line. There was one single-vehicle loss of control accident on Hathersage Road in the vicinity of the junction. One involved a collision in the centre of junction (both vehicles exiting opposite side roads and colliding on Hathersage Road in the centre of the junction).
• There are a number of factors to take in to account when exiting the side roads – drivers travelling in both directions on Hathersage Road, and possibly another driver exiting the junction opposite, adding to the complexity of the decision.
APPENDIX B – BACKGROUND TO THE EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC SCHEME ON LONG LINE
2001 Traffic calming gateway scheme implemented on Long Line following requests for speed reduction measures. Residents were very satisfied with the scheme, although monitoring of speeds showed little effect.
4 Mar 2005 Speed Limit Review Meeting Meeting of South Yorkshire Police and Road Safety Officers, considered existing speed data, Sheffield Speed Management Plan and Department for Transport guidelines, and recommended appropriate speed limits for Hathersage Road.
12 Apr 2005 Board Report Considered accidents along the length of Hathersage Road from Limb Lane to Fox House. Proposed a number of measures for Hathersage Road (resurfacing, double white lines, reduction of speed limit, signing) and investigation of options for the Long Line/Hathersage Road/Cross Lane junction (changing Cross Lane to one-way and staggering the junction).
12 Jul 2005 Board Report Describes the proposals for Hathersage Road and reports a petition to slow traffic there. Board approved implementation of the proposals. Regarding Long Line / Hathersage Road / Cross Lane it describes, and provides cost estimates, for staggering the junction (£170k ruled out due to cost), and the Cross Lane one-way (£20-50k). Recommends approval of the one-way proposal; Area Board requested that consultation be carried out on it.
Jul 05 – Aug 06 Construction Resurfacing/reconstruction of Hathersage Road carried out over this period. Also ‘5 killed in 5 years’ signs installed referring to the length of Hathersage Road.
26 Oct 2005 Open Day held To consult on the Hathersage Road safety scheme and the Cross Lane one- way proposal. Over 200 people attended and the majority objected to the Cross Lane proposal. Someone passed out a standard ‘letter of objection’ pro forma, which resulted in many identical objections being received by Officers. A summary of the Open Day comments was reported to Board 16 Jan 2006.
14 Nov 2005 Board Report Describes the objections to the proposals to change the speed limit on Hathersage Road. Board resolved to reduce the limit between Limb Lane and Brickhouse Lane to 50mph.
16 Jan 2006 Board Report Describes the objections to and the safety benefits of the Cross Lane one-way proposals, and recommends the scheme to be approved. Board deferred the scheme to allow consultation to be undertaken with a small group of residents and local Ward Councillors to consider alternative proposals. Independent of this, following suggestions from the public at the Open Day, Board approved a proposed right turn ban from Hathersage Road into Brickhouse Lane.
6 Mar 2006 Residents’ Meeting, Dore Old School Area Panel facilitated a meeting of four Dore residents, also attended by the three local Councillors and a representative each from Dore Village Society, Road Safety and South Yorkshire Police. Residents’ proposals were passed out prior to the meeting. The preferred option was the restriction of access into the top of Long Line (as trialled); the other options were withdrawn. The local Councillors supported this proposal. After investigation, Road Safety Officers and South Yorkshire Police took the view that the proposal relied solely on drivers’ compliance of the road signs, that it was consequently likely to suffer from widespread abuse, and that they could not support the proposal.
27 Mar 2006 Board Report Describes the objections to the right turn ban from Hathersage Road into Brickhouse Lane. Board overruled the objections.
15 May 2006 Board Report Describes the outcome of the Residents’ Meeting on 6 Mar 2006, the original Cross Lane proposal and the residents’ Long Line proposal. South Yorkshire Police state that they would have to register formal objection to the Long Line proposal if a permanent Order were advertised. Road Safety Officers did not support the Long Line proposal and recommended the original Cross Lane proposal. Area Board resolved to trial the Long Line proposal.
May 2006 Officers informed residents of the decision of Area Board. Residents contacted Officers saying they had not heard of the scheme and wished to object to it.
Jun 2006 The Council received a Petition from residents of Long Line objecting to the restriction.
Aug 2006 Construction Right turn ban into Brickhouse Lane from Hathersage Road, 50mph speed limit and other signs on Hathersage Road implemented.
21Aug 2006 Board Report Describing a petition regarding speeds on Long Line. Additionally, the residents’ petition was verbally reported to Board.
Autumn 2006 Long Line ETRO Scheme Design Request for Department for Transport authorisation of restriction signs for ETRO. Installation of monitoring inductance loops on Long Line.
Nov 2006 Construction New road markings installed along Hathersage Road. Vehicle Activated Sign erected.
Winter 2006 Construction Overgrown vegetation cut back and removed opposite Sheephill Road junction to improve visibilty.
12 Feb 2007 Construction Long Line ETRO implemented.
18 May 2007 Public Consultation Public consultation starts after the trial has been operational for three months. Closing date for consultation extended until 16 July 2006 due to high demand.
August 2007 Results of public consultation published on Council website www.sheffield.gov.uk .
Autumn 2007 Board Report Drafting of report on Long Line trial.
19 Nov 2007 Board Report Area Board to decide on Long Line trial.
APPENDIX C – TRAFFIC DATA
The scheme was installed in February 2007; Officers immediately received considerable feedback and this continued for many months. Contact details had been collected from those that had shown interest in the original accident saving proposals, and this continued, eventually creating a comprehensive database of interested parties and thus potential consultees.
After a few months to allow for traffic patterns to settle down, Officers carried out a far-reaching public consultation on the trial. As well as contacting the Long Line residents and those people now on the consultee database, Officers installed a number of road signs in the area that would be seen by users of Long Line which invited motorists who might generally use Long Line to contribute to the consultation too. This enabled Officers to collect the views of typical users of the road; these people are usually under-represented in public consultations as they are difficult to identify, so this was of particular benefit.
Consultees were sent a letter explaining the reasons for the trial scheme and how it would operate and a questionnaire survey on their attitude to the trial restriction (both shown in Appendix D). There was such a continued demand for the survey forms that Officers extended the closing date until the end of June 2007 when it had to be closed to enable analysis of the results. The consultation produced an excellent response with over four hundred and fifty completed questionnaires being received.
In addition to the public’s views, extensive traffic data was collected to determine the alternative routes adopted. Traffic counts have been carried out at locations around the area and are tabulated overleaf. The counts measure:
• Turning manoeuvres at junctions • Traffic volumes on particular roads • Traffic speeds
In order to measure the vehicles travelling along Long Line itself, a pair of ‘inductance loops’ was installed into the road surface near the top end of the road. These are invisible to drivers, but have been constantly counting the numbers and speeds of all vehicles using the road since their installation in October 2006.
Traffic monitoring over the three months prior to the trial being implemented (November 2006 to January 2007, but excluding the school holiday period) showed that the average flow down Long Line towards the Hathersage Road / Cross Lane junction, was 1235 vehicles per day. This figure would include the five buses per day that are scheduled to travel down Long Line and any agricultural or emergency vehicles, but these numbers are so small as to be considered negligible to traffic flow calculations.
Table Showing Locations of Traffic Counts
May 2007 2007 May 2007 May 2007 March 2007 March 2007 May 2007 March After Date After
Continuous Collection Continuous Collection Continuous Before Date Date Before 2007 January December 2005 2005 March 2006 July 2007 January 2006 July Count Type Type Count Manoeuvre CountTurning Manoeuvre CountTurning Manoeuvre CountTurning Manoeuvre CountTurning Flows Speedsand Traffic Inductance from Loops Flows Speedsand Traffic Inductance from Loops Flows Speedsand Traffic Flows Speedsand Traffic Location Location Road Roadwith junction Ringinglow Sheephill and Road Fulwood with Brickhouse Road Hathersage junction Lane with Long Road Hathersage junction Line andCross Lane with Sheephill Road Hathersage Roadjunction Glen Fern from Road Hathersage 50maway Farm Adjacent Line No. Long to 173 House House No. Adjacent Broad to Elms Lane 20 with WhitelowRoad Hathersage junction Lane
14.0 TRAFFIC FLOW DOWN LONG LINE
The graph below shows the public’s compliance with the restriction. It plots how many drivers per day drove down Long Line before and after the restriction was introduced. The flows during the school holidays have been omitted as the traffic decreases at these times and are not comparable with normal flows. The numbers of exempted vehicles on the road were low.
In summary:
• The flow down Long Line from Sheephill Road was 1235 vehicles per day prior to the restriction.
• When the restriction was implemented, only half of drivers complied with it.
• During the first week, over 4000 drivers broke the law by ‘failing to conform with the Traffic Signs’.
• Since implementation, the number of drivers breaking the law steadily increased.
• Most drivers (64%) currently ignore the signs.
15.0 ACCIDENTS AT THE HATHERSAGE ROAD / LONG LINE / CROSS LANE JUNCTION
Due to the random nature of road accidents with respect to time, Road Safety professionals must consider extended periods of data, for example, a minimum of three or ideally five years, to put together a realistic picture of an accident problem and in order to represent accident statistics fairly.
Since implementation of the Long Line ETRO, Officers have only a few months of accident data that would provide no statistical significance, and so are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the accident reduction benefits of the scheme, at this stage.
It follows however that the risk of an accident at the crossroads has been reduced to some degree, as a result of those motorists complying with the restriction.
It should also be noted that those drivers flouting the law place themselves and other innocent drivers at risk. There have been a number of reports of ‘near-misses’ due to conflicts between those illegally turning into Long Line and those legitimately using the road.
16.0 CHANGES TO TRAFFIC SPEEDS ALONG LONG LINE
As noted earlier, residents had concerns that the speed of traffic up Long Line may increase due to the removal of the oncoming traffic. This has not been the case; traffic speeds in each direction have remained unchanged. This is probably due to the fact that the oncoming traffic has not been removed to any great degree as most drivers are ignoring the restriction.
17.0 CHANGES TO TRAFFIC FLOWS ON ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
For practical reasons of data collection, all traffic data analyses require certain assumptions to be made in order to use that data meaningfully. In this case there are two main assumptions:
Morning and evening peak hour figures correspond to the ‘worst case‘ regarding traffic flow; consequently the average of these has been used to represent values for proportional distribution.
Counts cannot all practicably be taken on the same date, so numerical values will not equate exactly, i.e. the data does not provide ‘finite’ values, but have been used to indicate reasonable proportional distribution.
Six hundred vehicles per day have been removed from travelling down Long Line. These are believed to approach from the Fulwood area, i.e. via Fulwood Lane to Ringinglow village.
Less than a fifth have transferred their route to Ringinglow Road. Due to the level of existing flows down this route, this provides no significant increase to the total flow down Ringinglow Road. These negligible additional vehicles appear to feed out through Bents Green area without any problems.
A resident expressed concern that Broad Elms Lane and Whirlow Lane would be adversely affected by traffic trying to feed back from Ringinglow Road to Ecclesall Road South. Traffic counts here show that speeds and flows have remained largely unchanged.
The majority of displaced traffic continues down Sheephill Road to the junction with Hathersage Road, increasing this peak hour flow from 160 to 260 vehicles.
There is a modest increase in the right turn from Sheephill Road into Hathersage Road and this correlates with a similarly modest increase to traffic using Whitelow Lane down into Dore. Following implementation of the ETRO, a member of the public reported increased traffic and speeds down Whitelow Lane to the detriment of horse riders. The vehicle numbers are however still very low, and within suitable levels for the nature of the lane, for example, during the peak hour an increase from three vehicles in six minutes to four vehicles in six minutes.
The left turn from Sheephill Road into Hathersage Road was previously extremely light. The ETRO increased this manoeuvre ten-fold but still to only a relatively small flow. A modest increase to traffic along Hathersage Road correlates this and the right turn into Cross Lane also increased ten-fold but not to any significant number, i.e. less than one per minute in the peak hour.
There have been reports of drivers feeling vulnerable to being hit from behind whilst queuing to make the right turn, but preliminary investigations show that there is adequate forward visibility for drivers approaching any queue at the junction.
The traffic figures show that the increase in vehicles making the right turn into Cross Lane from Hathersage Road broadly correlates with the reduction in motorists previously going straight across from Long Line.
The numbers making the left turn towards Long Line have not changed; this suggests that most residents of Long Line ignore the restriction and do not take the longer alternative route.
APPENDIX D – CONSULTATION RESULTS
A total of 472 completed questionnaires were received. The questionnaires did not include name and address information, so it is not possible to identify views of Long Line residents. Many phone calls, emails and letters were also received which broadly expressed similar views.
The survey results show that:
• 85% do not want the restriction to be made permanent.
• Of those that complied with the restriction, 62% said they would stop observing the restriction due to the abuse that was already evident.
• Of those that did not comply with the restriction, 80% said they would continue not to, even if everyone else did observe it.
• 75% did not want to see the restriction enforced by Police.
It is very clear that the restriction is extremely unpopular; about half ignore it; more people will ignore it, and that most people have decided to break the law.
The bus operator of the service that uses Long Line said the restriction had not affected their service.
DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENT AND LEISURE Development Services Director: D. Curtis, BA, Dip.TP, MRTPI, FIHT Howden House 1 Union Street Sheffield S1 2SH Email: [email protected] Fax: (0114) 273 5002
Officer: Kevin Platt Tel: (0114) 273 6161 Ref: TE/12-146 Date: 6 June 2007
Dear
LONG LINE EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY SCHEME
Thank you for your request for a questionnaire regarding the Long Line vehicle access restriction, which I enclose.
The following general information may be of interest.
The reason for the vehicle restriction in Long Line:
The purpose of the restriction is to bring about a reduction in the accident rate at the junction of Hathersage Road / Long Line / Cross lane. Accident records for that junction show that some have involved vehicles crossing straight over from Long Line into Cross Lane, and also vice versa. By reducing the number of vehicles emerging out of Long Line into Hathersage Road, the frequency of accidents involving that movement should reduce. Also, drivers emerging from Cross Lane, and those on Hathersage Road itself, will potentially have fewer conflicting manoeuvres to contend with at this junction. By reducing the conflict, it is expected that the injury-accident rate should reduce.
One might argue that any such safety benefits are offset by having to continue along Sheephill Road, then turning left onto Hathersage Road, and then right into Cross Lane. We have already received comments from some members of the public that this diversion is itself dangerous. Our view, however, is that there is less likely to be an accident when carrying out those left and right movements, than when going straight across the junction. This is because there are fewer potentially conflicting manoeuvres to contend with, when carrying out each of those two movements. Regarding the 'safety' of the Sheephill Road / Hathersage Road junction, there have been far fewer injury- accidents there than at the Long Line crossroads.
With regard to Sheephill Road itself, we acknowledge that it is twisty and undulating, but the accident records indicate that this section of road is not particularly 'dangerous' (one reported injury-accident only, over a five-year period). We are looking into a problem of water running across the road at one point. The drawback to the scheme is, of course, the extra distance some people now have to travel. That should be weighed against the potential safety benefits in terms of reducing the overall injury rate. Also, the increase in journey distance for some people might only amount to a small part of their overall journey.
The Restriction:
To clarify the current restriction, the only traffic that is now legally allowed to access Long Line from Sheephill Road is local buses, the emergency services, agricultural vehicles, horse riders and cyclists. Long Line has not been converted into a one-way road.
The Area Board:
The Council's Area Board will later this year consider information we are gathering on the level of driver-compliance, traffic speeds, traffic flows on other roads in the area, and comments from the public. Bearing that information in mind, Area Board will decide whether the restriction should be removed or whether steps should be taken with a view to making it permanent. In the latter case, the proposal to make it permanent would need to be publicised, at which time members of the public would be formally invited to object.
A date for the Area Board meeting has yet to be set, but is likely to be this summer. I will write again to you nearer that time to inform you of the date, should you wish to attend, and I will include a copy of the report. The meeting will be held in the Sheffield Town Hall in the city centre. Members of the public will be welcome to attend, to listen to the proceedings. I will include more information on this in my next letter.
I am sending letters and questionnaires to all the residents of Long Line and to other people who have expressed an interest.
Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation.
Yours sincerely
Road Safety Manager Transport and Highways Division ROAD SAFETY CONSULTATION HATHERSAGE ROAD/LONG LINE SCHEME MAY 2007
Q1 Now that the reasoning for the restricted access has been explained in the letter, would you like the trial restriction to be made permanent?
Yes No Don’t know
Q2 There is currently some abuse of the restriction. If you currently comply with the restriction, are you willing to continue doing so even if the abuse of it were to continue at the current level?
Yes No Not applicable
Q3 If you currently do not comply with the restriction, would you be willing to comply if everyone else were to?
Yes No Not applicable
Q4 Would you like to see Police enforcement of the restriction?
Yes No Don’t know
Q5 Do you have any other comments to make?
When you have completed the survey please return before 22 June 2007 to Sue McGrail, Administration Services Manager, in the pre-paid envelope enclosed. Sheffield City Council, Development Services, Howden House, 1 Union Street, Sheffield S1 2SH or by e-mail to: [email protected] Tel: (0114) 273 4404
Results of surveys will be posted on our website end of July 2007: www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/policies-plans-performances/performance
Please also complete form overleaf. Thank you. EQUALITY MONITORING – SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL
Service Delivery
The Council needs to monitor who uses our services in order to ensure they are accessible to all. Please help us to do this by ticking the relevant box in the form below.
White Mixed/Dual Heritage British White and Black Caribbean Irish White and Black African Gypsy/Traveller White and Asian Other White background Other mixed background
Black or Black British Asian or Asian British Caribbean Indian Somali Pakistani Other African background Bangladeshi Other Black background Other Asian background
Other Ethnic Group Chinese or Chinese Yemeni British Other ethnic group Any Chinese background
Other
Disability Gender Do you consider yourself to be a Female disabled person Male Yes No
This document can be made available in large print, Braille, or can be translated into other languages. Please telephone (0114) 2734404
ROAD SAFETY CONSULTATION HATHERSAGE ROAD/LONG LINE SCHEME May 2007
Q1 Now that the reasoning for the restricted access has been explained in the letter, would you like the trial restriction to be made permanent?
Yes 42 8.9% No 402 85.2% Don't know 17 3.6%
Q2 18.0 There is currently some abuse of the restriction. If you currently comply with the restriction, are you willing to continue doing so even if the abuse of it were to continue at the current level? 19.0 Yes 136 28.8% No 219 46.4% Not applicable 86 18.2%
Q3 20.0 If you currently do not comply with the restriction, would you be willing to comply if everyone else were to?
Yes 44 9.3% No 179 37.9% Not applicable 196 41.5%
Q4 Would you like to see Police enforcement of the restriction?
Yes 82 17.4% No 338 71.6% Don't know 28 5.9%
Q5 Do you have any other comments to make?
Journey now more dangerous 86 18.2% Need speed limit 30/40 and auto warning signs/humps 81 17.2% Environmental issues/extra miles& petrol/more traffic at junctions 70 14.8% elsewhere/affects car sharing Should have traffic lights/cameras 61 12.9% Journey now takes longer 55 11.7% Most people do not comply 48 10.2% Ill thought out/poor scheme and waste of public money 43 9.1% Sheephill Rd /Whitlow Rd covered in water/ice & more dangerous/poor 38 8.1% road surface/narrow Change back/reinstate/stop interfering 32 6.8% You are just moving problems from 1 junction to another 32 6.8% Increased traffic/speed/turning right will lead to accidents 30 6.4% Crossroad very dangerous/harder to cross/route 27 5.7% Restriction not justified/unreasonable/unnecessary/excessive 27 5.7% Need to enforce 26 5.5% Reconsider roundabout/mini roundabout 22 4.7% Sheephill/Hathersage Rd /Cross Ln very dangerous junctions/feel 22 4.7% vulnerable Speeding traffic main problem on Hathersage and other roads 19 4.0% Had several near misses from people who are not complying 17 3.6% Police enf waste of their time & money 15 3.2% Need proper signs 14 3.0% Double white lines/extend white lines and earlier speed restrictions 14 3.0% solution at junction Agree & make permanent/no problem/seems safer now 13 2.8% Never seen any accidents on this route 13 2.8% Will not improve safety 11 2.3% Long Line is main route to Dore from Fulwood etc 10 2.1% Restrictions waste of time & annoying 9 1.9% Consultation waste of time & money/sham/don't listen 9 1.9% Restrictions will not benefit users 9 1.9% High level of abuse shows total lack of public support 8 1.7% Restriction wrong way - should be up 5 1.1% Poor road surface Long Line 5 1.1% Extend bottom Long Line to improve view/form 'slip' on to road 5 1.1% Long Line public road and should be open to all to use 5 1.1% Make Cross Ln & Brickhouse1way towards Dore 4 0.8% Hedge height reduction has improved visibility 4 0.8% Word 'local' in sign is confusing - not clear 3 0.6% Make the road 'Access Only' 3 0.6% Hathersage Rd dangerous on event days 2 0.4% Decisions made at meetings based on flawed/misleading data 2 0.4% Would 'left turn only' sign be appropriate/make traffic turn left 2 0.4% Could widen Hathersage road to have central waiting area 2 0.4% Limit further housing development 1 0.2% 'keep Long Line open' placard is distracting and confuses drivers 1 0.2% No Right Turn sign too close to junction 1 0.2% Leave Limb Lane open 1 0.2% Consultation is commendable/good 1 0.2% Additional journey not fair to special needs children/patients 1 0.2% Traffic calming near junctions all that is necessary 1 0.2% Move debris at junct Long Ln & Hathersage Rd 1 0.2% Stop entry at top Brickhouse 1 0.2% Trial both schemes and go with with the evidence gathered 1 0.2%
Q6 Equality Monitoring - please help us do this by ticking the relevant box
British 253 53.6% Irish 10 2.1% Gypsy/Traveller 5 1.1% Other White Background 3 0.6% Caribbean 0 0.0% Somali 0 0.0% Other African background 0 0 .0% Other Black background 0 0.0% White and Black Caribbean 0 0.0% White and Black African 0 0.0% White and Asian 1 0.2% Other Mixed Background 1 0.2% Indian 0 0.0% Pakistani 0 0.0% Bangladeshi 0 0.0% Other Asian Background 0 0.0% Yemeni 0 0.0% Other Ethnic Group 0 0.0% Any Chinese Background 0 0.0% Other 0 0.0%
Q7 Disability
Yes 16 3.4% No 167 35.4%
Q8 Gender
Male 113 23.9% Female 113 23.9%
APPENDIX E – ORIGINAL CROSS LANE ONE-WAY PROPOSAL PLAN
APPENDIX F – REVISED CROSS LANE AND BRICKHOUSE LANE ONE- WAY SCHEME PROPOSAL PLAN