Public Document Pack Gravesham Joint Transportation Board
Members of the Gravesham Joint Transportation Board of Gravesham Borough Council are summoned to attend a meeting to be held at the Civic Centre, Gravesend, Kent on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 at 7.00 pm when the business specified in the following agenda is proposed to be transacted.
Sarah Kilkie Assistant Director (Communities)
Agenda
Part A Items likely to be considered in Public 1. Apologies
2. To sign the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 June - minutes (Pages 1 - 10) herewith.
3. To declare any interests members may have in the items contained on this agenda. When declaring an interest members should state what their interest is.
4. To consider whether any items in Part A of the agenda should be considered in private or those (if any) in Part B in public
Reports
In accordance with the principle adopted by other JTB’s it is assumed that members are familiar with the reports submitted and officers will not be required to introduce reports.
5. Highway and Transportation Scheme: Progress report 2008/09 herewith. (Pages 11 - 16)
6. Manor Road, Gravesend - report herewith. (Pages 17 - 20)
7. Satellite Navigation Devices (Satnav) - report herewith. (Pages 21 - 24)
8. A2 Pepperhill to Cobham Widening Scheme - report herewith. (Pages 25 - 26)
Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend Kent DA12 1AU 9. New Cycle track to North West Kent College in Dering Way - report (Pages 27 - 30) herewith.
10. A227 Wrotham Road - report herewith. (Pages 31 - 32)
11. Verge Parking: Consultation - report herewith. (Pages 33 - 46)
12. Petition for Bays in Grange Road, Gravesend - report herewith. (Pages 47 - 62)
13. Petition - Parking Martins Close, Lower Higham - report herewith. (Pages 63 - 64)
14. Highways Board Reports - submitted for information only (please note there (Pages 65 - 92) will be no discussion on these items). 1. Quiet Surfacing Prioritisation Methology. 2. Traffic Regulation Order: Electronic Consultation. 3. Capital Works for 2008/09 Assessment, Strengthening and Structural Maintenance of Structures. 4. 20 MPH Speed limits outside schools. 5. 2007 End of year crash and casualty numbers and progress against National 2010 Casualty Targets. 6. Smarter Choices – 2008 Progress Report.
15. Any Other Business which by reason of special circumstances the Chairman is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency.
16. Exclusion To move, if required, that pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 that the public be excluded from any items included in Part B of the agenda because it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted that if members of the public are present during those items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
Members
County Councillor Michael Snelling (Chairman) Cllr William Dyke (Vice-Chairman)
Councillors: Colin Caller Greta Goatley Sara Langdale Richard Smith Jane Cribbon (KCC) Leslie Christie (KCC) Maureen Newell (KCC) Ray Parker (KCC)
Note: Each of the parishes within the borough is invited to send a representative to the meeting. In addition a representative of the Association of Parish Councils and the United Taxi Group are invited to attend. Page 1 Agenda Item 2
Gravesham Joint Transportation Board
Wednesday, 18 June 2008 7.00pm
Present:
County Councillor Michael Snelling (Chairman) Cllr William Dyke (Vice-Chairman)
Cllrs: Colin Caller Sara Langdale Jane Cribbon (KCC) Leslie Christie (KCC) Maureen Newell (KCC) Ray Parker (KCC)
Note: Cllrs Leslie Hills, Patricia Oakeshott and David Turner were also in attendance
Others in attendance:
Mr W Fisher, Meopham Parish Council Mr S Wright, Higham Parish Council
Officers:
Kevin Burbidge, Director (Business) Paul Gibbons, Service Manager, Operations (Parking & Amenities) Nick Channon, Democratic Services Officer Rob Bright, Senior Engineer (Development) Mr D Aspinall, Operations Manager (KCC) Mr C Martin, (KCC) Mr P Slaughter, (KCC) Mr M Wybraniec, (KCC)
1. Apologies
Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Greta Goatley and Richard Smith.
2. Minutes
The Minutes of the meeting held on 26 March 2008 were signed by the Chairman. It was stated that County Councillor Maureen Newell was listed in both those present and under those members who had submitted apologies.
County Councillor Newell had not been in attendance.
With reference to Minute 59 (Parking on Footways and Verges) it was noted that Vale Road had been added to the preliminary list of roads to be included in the trial.
Page 2
3. Declarations of Interest
No declarations of interest were made.
4. A2 Pepperhill to Cobham Widening Scheme
The Board was updated on the progress of the A2 Pepperhill to Cobham widening scheme since the last meeting of the Board.
On 11 January 2008 the London bound entry slip road from Pepperhill junction was temporarily closed initially for a period of six weeks in order to make sewer connections. Due to unforeseen difficulties with the work it necessitated a redesign of the connection causing a suspension of the work. At the time of the last meeting of the Board it was anticipated that the works would be completed by early April. However, this proved to be extremely optimistic and the slip road had only been reopened on 23 May 2008.
London bound traffic was diverted to use the new alignment on the night of 21 April, however this has given rise to two main problems, being excessive queues off the slip road at Tollgate and at times on the A227 coming from Istead Rise although these had been lessened with the reopening of the Pepperhill London bound on-slip.
Problems were also being experienced by pedestrians walking between Istead Rise and Coldharbour Road and beyond. Pedestrians are now required to cross a minimum of two slip roads whereas they would not have to cross any main roads before and remedial action is being explored.
The closure of both the Marling Cross and Singlewell coast bound off-slips were carried out on Sunday, 1 June to enable gas main works to be undertaken. The Singlewell off-slip will now be permanently closed and there will be no exit for coast bound traffic at Marling Cross until the new junction is completed in November 2008. The coast bound on-slip at Marling Cross (Valley Drive) will remain open for the duration of the scheme. Diversion routes have been put in place to encourage drivers to use the Ebbsfleet junction and Wainscott bypass and more locally to use Wrotham Road and Old Road.
It order to pre-empt any congestion problems with extra traffic east bound on Cross Lane, a temporary "no entry" has been imposed for west bound traffic at Echo Square. This has generally been well accepted by local residents of Cross Lane, but should it prove to be unnecessary as drivers get used to the slip road closure, it will be removed.
In respect of the Pepperhill coast bound on-slip, closure will take place on the evening of 18 June for a week to enable tying in works, lighting works and statutory undertaker works to be carried out. Diversions will be signed via the Ebbsfleet junction.
In respect of coast bound traffic two lanes had been diverted to the new alignment with one lane remaining on the old alignment to enable tying in works to be completed at each end of the scheme.
In respect of programmed works Hever Court Road will remain closed for a major gas diversion until it is re-aligned to the new Marling Cross junction in November/ December 2008. The Marling Cross bridge remains closed to enable construction of the new junction layout and a vehicular connection across the A2 at this point will not be possible until the new junction is complete in November/ December. All coast bound traffic will be diverted onto the new alignment on the evening of 20 June.
Page 3
The future of Downs Road, Istead Rise was reported to the meeting of the County's Highways Advisory Board on 8 May and the recommendation of the Board was that the road should remain open to limited classes of motor vehicles with the introduction of weight restrictions but the situation should be reviewed in one year after the road is re-opened. The scheme design and traffic regulation orders are being progressed with a view to them being in place for the reopening in October 2008.
Concern was expressed at the shortness of the entry slip from Pepperhill junction on the London bound A2 in that cars had to stop at the end of the slip and then egress onto a very busy road. There were also limited access points onto the A2 and better signage was needed, particularly at Thong Lane.
The Chairman stated that a presentation would be given to all borough councillors on the proposals for the linear park to which County Councillors will be invited. County officers stated that the points raised by Members would be investigated.
Resolved that the report be noted;
Note: Cllrs Leslie Hills and David Turner spoke with leave of the Chairman on this item.
5. Shared-use footway/cycleway from Tollgate to Istead Rise
Members were updated on plans to create a cycle route to Istead Rise, Northfleet.
An outline design for the cycleway had been drawn up which proposed to widen the footway of Wrotham Road to three metres from the turning called Istead Rise to house number 305 Wrotham Road. The intention is to provide improved visibility for drivers emerging from private driveways so it is easier for them to see cycles and pedestrians approaching on the path.
The outline design has been assessed in a Stage One Safety Audit and the auditor was asked, in particular, to consider the width of the central section of the path. Kent's Cycling Strategy states that paths proposed to have a width of less than 2.5 metres must be discussed with the safety auditor and need to take into account such factors as the levels of the expected pedestrian and cycle usage. The safety audit raised no concerns about the width of the path to Istead Rise.
Consultation with residents of properties fronting the route has been carried out and it is understood that no residents have made objections.
Preliminary works had been undertaken comprising cutting-back of bushes and trees where they overhang the path and removing detritus and grass accumulating at the side of the path and narrowing its effective width.
Some reservations had been expressed about younger children using the route. It was envisaged that the scheme would be put in place during the second half of the current financial year.
Mr Fisher, Meopham Parish Council, enquired whether the footpath would be extended from the Lewis Road junction with the A227 through to Meopham. It was stated that Jacobs had been commissioned to investigate this and was included as a proposal in the provisional work programme up to 2010/2011.
Page 4
Resolved that
(1) the proposal to re-designate the improved footway as a shared use cycle track on the west side of the A227 Wrotham Road between the A2 trunk road and Istead Rise be endorsed;
(2) a further report be submitted to the Board once the scheme had been implemented.
Note: (1) Cllr David Turner spoke with leave of the Chairman on this item.
(2) Mr W Fisher, Meopham Parish Council, spoke under the terms of the agreement.
6. A227 Wrotham Road – Proposed extended southbound cycle lane and shared-use cycle paths
Members were informed about proposals to connect cycle lanes on the Wrotham Road north of the A2 trunk road to the planned footway/cycleway to Istead Rise and the planned footway/cycleway along the length of the planned A2 linear park.
The improvements include the creation of a shared-use footway/cycleway approximately forty metres long on the existing footway between the driveways of houses 396 and 404 Wrotham Road which would create a link for cyclists between Wrotham Road and the adjacent service road. A 2.5 metre wide shared-use footway/cycleway could be built from near to the house 400 Wrotham Road to the splitter island on the north side of the roundabout where Coldharbour Road joins Wrotham Road. The path will cross an area of cut grass which is highway land and the alignment of the path follows a pedestrian desire line to the splitter island. It is proposed to provide drop kerbs at the crossing point on either side of Wrotham Road and on the splitter island.
The existing south bound advisory cycle lane on Wrotham Road would be extended by approximately 135 metres so that it ends at the service road by house number 370 Wrotham Road.
A shared-use footway/cycleway will be created on the west side of Wrotham Road between the Coldharbour roundabout and the point approximately ten metres north of property 551 Wrotham Road. This scheme proposes an off-carriage route as there is no room for an on- carriageway cycle lane at the turning to Chalky Bank.
The proposals now reported will be the subject of consultation and a safety audit and it is intended that all the proposals will be funded as part of the already approved Istead Rise cycleway scheme during the current financial year.
Resolved that
(1) the proposal to re-designate the footway as a shared-use cycle track between houses 396 and 404 Wrotham Road, Istead Rise be endorsed, provided that no objections are raised in consultation or from the safety audit;
Page 5
(2) the proposal to re-designate the west footway at Wrotham Road as a shared- use cycle track between Coldharbour Road roundabout and a point ten metres north of 551 Wrotham Road be endorsed, provided that it is improved as detailed in the report and that no objections are raised in consultation or from the safety audit.
7. Responses to the Public Notice for changes to Waiting Restrictions, Dering Way, Lower Higham Road, Farriers Close, Rochester Road and Ingoldsby Road
Members were advised of the responses received to formal notices of proposed waiting restrictions in Dering Way, Lower Higham Road, Farriers Close, Rochester Road and Ingoldsby Road.
The restrictions were proposed in conjunction with the development of the North West Kent College under the title of the "Borough of Gravesham (Prohibition and Restriction of Waiting) (Consolidation) (Amendment No. 5) Order 2008".
The public notice had been open for comment or objection until 24 March 2008 and two written responses were received which were both in respect of proposals in the vicinity of Lower Higham Road/Farriers Close. One was an eleven signature petition in support of the proposals in relation to Farriers Close. The second was a letter of objection from the residents of 1 Farriers Close which actively sought a site meeting with officers before the matter was progressed.
A site visit took place on 7 May 2008 and at this meeting residents of 1 Farriers Close confirmed the reason they objected to the original proposal was that it reduced the opportunity for them and their visitors to park near their home. They also commented that parking has taken place on the eastern side of Farriers Close for many years without detriment to road users and confirmed that the proposed restriction to the eastern side of Farriers Close and along Lower Higham Road (double yellow line - no waiting at any time) did not target the college related parking activity which occurs day time only.
The residents of 1 Farriers Close suggest that instead of double yellow lines on the eastern side of Farriers Close, a single yellow line (no waiting 8am to 6.30pm, Monday to Saturday - as on adjacent lengths of Lower Higham Road) with no restrictions at the vehicular crossover to the new property would address the parking problems caused by visitors to the college whilst maximising opportunities for residents and their visitors.
The restriction proposed by the residents in relation to the east side of Farriers Close and the short section of Lower Higham Road before the existing restrictions begin do not compromise safety significantly. Their proposal maintains restrictions during the day time addressing the concern about parking by visitors to the college, but allows parking overnight when the demand from residents is greatest and when movement into and out of the close is limited. The petition in support of the restrictions is still satisfied to a degree by the provision of the day time restriction.
The alternative proposal by the residents of 1 Farriers Close can be introduced without re- advertising proposals as it is less restrictive than the original proposal and this is acceptable to Kent Highway Services.
Page 6
Resolved that
(1) the alternative restrictions proposed in appendix 4 to the report are an acceptable compromise and should be adopted as a permanent measure; (2) the lead petitioner and objector be advised on the alternative proposals.
Note: Cllr L Hills spoke with leave of the Chairman on this item.
8. Briefing note on Footway/Verge Parking Experimental Order
Further to the meeting of the Board on 26 March 2008, officers had met with colleagues from Canterbury City Council to discuss how that Council carried out consultation and introduced their orders. Gravesham Borough Council officers intend to use the same process that works for Canterbury.
Officers propose to consult with residents of the affected areas during July and the beginning of August 2008. The roads considered for inclusion are:-
• A227 Wrotham Road between Station Road and Meopham Green; • A227 Wrotham Road between Zion Place and Old Road West; • Thong Lane between Rochester Road and Vigilant Way; • Old Road East between Lion Roundabout and Valley Drive; • Springhead Road between The Hill and Thames Way; • Hall Road between Springhead Road and Coldharbour Road; • Lewis Road, Istead Rise between Arcadia Road and Upper Avenue; • Northfleet High Street between The Hill and Station Road; • Vale Road, Northfleet between the railway bridge and Thamesway; • Pepperhill.
Consultation will also take place with the Highway Authority, Police and other statutory consultees. Once any objections have been considered the experimental order can be introduced as soon as practicable.
Resolved that
(1) Pepperhill be added to the roads to be included in the scheme;
(2) a Panel of Members comprising the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, County Councillors Leslie Christie and Jane Cribbon be set up to consider any objections received.
9. Taxi Access into New Road at Bath Street/New Road/ Darnley Road Traffic Signals
The United Taxi Group (UTG) had requested that taxis be permitted access to New Road and Garrick Street from the Bath Street/New Road/Darnley Street Road traffic signal controlled junction.
The reason for seeking this provision is because the UTG wish taxis to be treated the same as buses and because "taxis can use almost any bus lane in the U.K. but are not allowed to use them in Gravesend".
Page 7
The taxi rank in Bath Street and New Road is accessed from Bath Street and if taxis enter at the New Road/Bath Street/Darnley Road signals it is unlikely they will be able to join the taxi rank as the queue normally extends into Bath Street.
Taxis entering from New Road or Darnley Road would therefore, in most instances, either be dropping off passengers or using the New Road/Garrick Street link to Barrack Row and their route to their next pick-up. Taxi journeys are specific to the user unlike buses which must follow a fixed route and timetable. It was stated that any relaxation on the current restrictions will adversely affect the operation of the taxi rank and bus bays in New Road and Garrick Street.
Resolved that the request be noted, but not pursued as it will have a negative effect on traffic movement around Gravesend town centre.
10. Additional Taxi Ranks
The Board was advised of an experimental order to introduce additional taxi ranks around the town centre.
An approach had been received from the United Taxi Group (UTG) to consider extra bays being made available during the night to assist with the night time economy and general safety.
It is proposed to convert a number of loading bays situated around the town to be dual use bays by using ones situated near to major pubs and clubs in the town area. An order could be made allowing hackney carriages to park only in the nominated bays between 10pm and 5am and still operate within the parameters of their licence and ply for trade.
The experimental scheme would last 12 months and involve regular assessment of its suitability. If the pilot scheme proves successful the order could be made permanent during the time frame of the experimental order.
After consulting with the Department for Transport the bays would be indicated primarily as loading bays on the ground but with additional signage for the taxi rank giving the times of operation. The benefits of having such a scheme would be:-
• the prevention of large groups of people moving around the town; • assisting in getting people home quicker and safer; • contributing to community safety and the consideration to section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act.
Resolved that the experimental order be supported and that a number of loading bays be made available as dual use bays around the town centre.
11. Petition requesting limited waiting bay outside Meadows Store, Forge Lane, Higham
Members were advised of the receipt of a petition requesting a time limit waiting bay to assist the operation of this village shop.
A petition containing 361 signatures had been received in support of a time limited waiting bay in front of the Meadows Store, Forge Lane, Higham. The request is for waiting to be limited to a maximum of 30 minutes between 5am and 9pm, Monday to Friday in order to provide opportunities for customers and suppliers to park near the shop. Page 8
The proposal acknowledges that there is generally an increased demand for parking by residents and visitors at weekends, and deliveries are not arranged for Saturday or Sunday so the bay is only requested for week days. Higham Parish Council support the proposal and would like to see the measure introduced as soon as practicable.
Resolved that
(1) the proposal be supported and added to the existing work programme and formally advertised with any objections reported back to the Joint Transportation Board;
(2) the shop owner be advised of the agreed actions.
Note: Cllr Patricia Oakeshott spoke with leave of the Chairman on this item.
12. Request for one-way traffic - St Marks Avenue, Northfleet
Both County and Borough Councillors for Northfleet had been made aware of local concerns regarding congestion on St Mark's Avenue, Northfleet. The congestion was due to a combination of high level on-street parking, narrow roads and the fact that St Mark's Avenue provides the only vehicular route from the Beaumont Drive area towards the A226 and was therefore the only route onto the local road network.
There was significant local support for one-way traffic to be introduced on St Mark's Avenue and local residents have stated this would improve traffic flows and reduce conflict between drivers travelling in opposite directions.
Under PIPKIN (Prioritising Investment Programmes on the Kent Integrated Network) the proposal for St Mark's Avenue achieved 16 points. Schemes with around 50 points are included in the current work programme.
County Councillor Christie stated that he, together with County Councillor Parker, had undertaken a public consultation exercise whereby 430 residents in the vicinity of St Mark's Avenue were asked to indicate whether they were either in favour or against a one-way system being introduced. 206 residents had responded (48 per cent) of which 88 per cent were in favour of a one-way system being introduced.
It was also stated that it had been previously agreed that Members of the Board would receive training on PIPKIN in order for them to gain an understanding on how the programme worked. It was proposed that a decision on St Mark's Avenue be deferred until training on PIPKIN had been given to Board Members and that officers and Members meet with residents of the area to explain the situation to them and how the PIPKIN programme operates.
Resolved that
(1) a decision on the request for one-way traffic in St Mark's Avenue be deferred until Board Members have under gone a training session on the PIPKIN programme;
(2) members and officers attend a public meeting with the residents of the St Mark's Avenue area to explain the situation to them and particularly how the PIPKIN programme operates.
Page 9
Note: Mr Aspinall stated that the overall strategy of county officers within the Highways Department attending evening meetings had been reviewed and, under the policy introduced, it was unlikely that officers of the Highways Department would attend the proposed meeting with local residents of St Mark's Avenue.
13. Highway and Transportation Scheme Progress Report 2008/9
The Board was updated on progress on the 2008/09 Kent Thameside (Gravesham) Urban Package 2008/09; the Gravesham Rural Package 2007/08; the Gravesham Local Transport Plan, Outstanding Highway Improvement and Crash Remedial Schemes 2007/08.
Arising from this item the following points were made:
• County officers would investigate the obstruction at the Victoria Shades Public House in Manor Road which needed to be removed; • The formal pedestrian crossing facilities to be added to be existing traffic signals at Darnley Road/Dashwood Road, Gravesend would be completed by September 2008.
Resolved that the report be noted.
14. Highway Board Reports
The following reports which had been submitted to the Highways Advisory Board on 8 May 2008 were now submitted to Members of the Joint Transportation Board for information.
• The Director's Update; • Operation Stack - Lorry Park; • Satellite Navigation Devices - an update; • Tactical Diversion Routes; • Proposed KCC Permit Scheme; • Management of Footway Parking; • Transportation and Safety Package Programme.
During consideration of these items the following issues were raised:-
• Mr Aspinall stated that the North and West Kent area would be served by the highway's officers based at Double Day House in Aylesford due to the decision to withdraw from the Wrotham site; • Members were updated on the problems with certain sat nav operations.
Resolved that
(1) a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Board on the problems with satellite navigation in the Gravesham area;
(2) subject to (1) above the report be noted.
Close of meeting
The meeting ended at 9.14 pm.
Page 10
This page is intentionally left blank Page 11 Agenda Item 5
Gravesham Borough Council
Report to: Joint Transportation Board
Date: 10 th September 2008
Reporting officer: Head of Countywide Operations
Subject: Highway and Transportation Scheme Progress Report – 2008/9 Purpose and summary of report: This report advises members of the progress of highway and transportation schemes in Gravesham.
Recommendations: For information and comment.
1. Background.
1.1 Following the acceptance of the proposed schemes for the 2008/9 Urban and Rural Packages, and Highway Improvement schemes, this report shows the progress on these schemes to date.
1.2 Appendix 1 shows each scheme within the Kent Thameside (Gravesham) packages; Gravesham Rural package and Crash remedial Schemes. Progress to date and anticipated progress prior to the next Joint Board is detailed. Also detailed are those schemes from the 2007/08 financial year that were still to be completed in the last report.
1.3 For Members’ information on the progress on these schemes
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: The background papers pertaining to this report are held on the Kent Highways Services files.
All requests to inspect the above documents MUST be directed in the first instance to the Committee Section of the Democratic Services Department
Contact Officers: See last column in Appendix 1 (tel 08458 247 800). Highway and Transportation Scheme Progress Report – 2008/9: APPENDIX 1
1. Kent Thameside (Gravesham) Urban Package 2008/09
Kent KHS Location Description of Works Current Progress Anticipated Actions for next 3 Highway Ref months Services (Prior to next JTB) Contact
Original 2008 - 09 - 09 2008 2008 – 09 – 09 2008 allocation allocation 08458
Forecast Out-turn Out-turn Forecast 247800
08-ITS- A226 Rochester Sites for permanent traffic UTMC – Traffic Works programmed with GR-01 Road / Stonebridge monitoring equipment £50k £50k Ray Dines congestion information contractor Rd – Gravesend identified.
Sites identified and 08-ITS- Equipment purchased and John Turner / Off vehicle ticketing & discussions with GBC re GR-02 Fastrack – Route B works provisionally £390k £390k David Page 12 CCTV CCTV locations and programmed. George procurement are ongoing.
08-ITS- Hall Road / Cycle route & pedestrian Discussions regarding possible Peter Outline design to be GR-03 Coldharbour Road improvements. purchase of 3 rd party land £20k £20k Slaughter / progressed – Northfleet underway. Geoff Dance
Pedestrian crossing & Detailed design completed – 08-ITS- Tender documents to be Hall Rd / A2 Slip cycle improvements & works are part of package in GR-04 returned and works £60k £60k Julian Cook roads. - Northfleet removal of old traffic West Kent to be put out for provisionally programmed. signals equipment. Tender in September 2008.
1. Kent Thameside (Gravesham) Urban Package 2008/09 (continued)
Kent Anticipated Actions for next 3 Highway KHS Location Description of Works Current Progress months Services Ref (Prior to next JTB)
turn Contact Original 200809- 2008– 09
Allocation 08458
ForecastOut- 247800 Formal Pedestrian Darnley Road / Works commenced 26 th 08-ITS- crossing facilities to be Dashwood Road. August – due for completion Works completed £90k £95k Julian Cook GR-05 added to existing traffic Gravesend mid September 2009 signals
CRM - B261- Old 08-ITS- Rd West / A227 Junction improvements Works completed. N/a £5k £5k Geoff Dance GR-09 Wrotham Rd - – signing & lining Gravesend.
Page 13
Discussions with Gravesend Access Group underway to Pedestrian crossing Rebecca 08-ITS- Various locations – identify further locations. The Works programmed with improvements – various £25k £25k Scoot- GR-07 Gravesend. detailed design as commenced contractor locations Beaulieu on those locations already identified.
Detailed design completed – Tender documents to be 08-ITS- Thames Way – works are part of package in GR- Extension of cycleroute. returned and works £47k £30k Julian Cook Northfleet . West Kent to be put out for 010 provisionally programmed. Tender in September 2008.
2. Gravesham Rural Package 2007/08
Kent KHS Highway Ref Anticipated Actions for Services Location Description of Works Current Progress next 3 months (Prior to next JTB) turn Contact Original 200809- 2008– 09
Allocation 08458
ForecastOut- 247800
Pedestrian crossing Works programmed to th 08-ITS- B260 – Longfield improvements – provision of commence 20 Simon Works completed £50k £50k GR-06
Road – Meopham . dropped kerbs at various October 2008 Allsopp Page 14 locations
Topographical survey
08-ITS- Wrotham Rd – completed and Works programmed with Andy Extension of cycle route £30k £30k GR-08 Istead Rise detailed design is contractor Padgham
being progressed
08-ITS- Forge Lane - Footway widening scheme GR- Works completed Monitoring £6k £4k Julian Cook Higham outside nr j/w Hermitage Lane. 010
3. Gravesham Local Transport Plan, Outstanding Highway Improvement and Crash Remedial Schemes 2007/08
Kent Anticipated Actions for Highway KHS next 3 months Services Ref Location Description of Works Current Progress (Prior to next JTB)
turn Contact Original 200809- 2008– 09
Allocation 08458
ForecastOut- 247800
Dene Holm Road – Further carriageway works near 07-ITS- Traffic Calming – junction with Painters Ash Works completed N/A £6k £5k Julian Cook GR-09 Painters Ash related to vibration issues.
Hall Rd, Northfleet
07-ITS- New zebra crossing in Hall Page 15 – SRTS - Zebra Works completed N/A £35k £34k Julian Cook GR-07 Road, nr to school entrance. crossing
Kings Street &
Gravesend Town General safety improvements
07-ITS- Centre Traffic involving Princes Street, King Andy Works completed N/A £25k £25k GR-03 Management Street, Queen Street, Terrace Padgham
Issues – Street & Darnley Road.
Gravesend Traffic orders have been advertised
Detailed design Tender documents to be Wellington Street Reversal of one way system to 07-ITS- completed – works are returned and works Colin Martin / and Peacock Street assist with the operation of the £20k £20k GR-06 part of package in provisionally Julian Cook – Gravesend. traffic signals in Ordnance Road. West Kent to be put programmed.
out for Tender in September 2008. Watling Street 07-ITS- Junction improvements and junction with Works completed N/A £35k £40k Julian Cook GR-08 High Friction Surfacing. Parkfields –
Higham .
Page 16
Page 17 Agenda Item 6
Gravesham Borough Council
Report to: Joint Transportation Board
Date: 10 th September
Reporting officer: County engineer
Subject: Manor Road
Purpose and summary of report: To advise Members of the decision by the Highways Advisory Board and state options available to progress this matter.
Recommendations: For information and discussion.
1. Introduction.
1.1 Members of this Board requested an update of the Highways Advisory Board decision on this matter and details of options for change/improvement acceptable to Kent Highway Services.
1.2 The Highway Advisory Board considered this matter on 8 th May 2008; they were advised of the traffic usage, 10 year crash record and risks associated with the provision of an un-manned gate.
1.3 The Highways Advisory Board reached the following decision which was recorded in the minutes to their meeting. “Although drivers did ignore the restrictions the Board agreed that there were no overriding safety reasons for a gate to be introduced for safety reasons”.
1.4 The options outlined in the next section of this report have been suggested in response to the request from the Joint Transportation Board. It should be noted that none of these options are likely to be of sufficient priority to be included in the County Council’s programme of Integrated Programme in the foreseeable future.
2 Options.
2.1 Set out below are options which have be considered. Brief comments have been added as appropriate. Page 18
OPTIONS COMMENTS
Road Humps Acceptable if constructed to KHS highway standards.
Rising Bollard
There are concerns about reliability /maintenance for which GBC would be required to establish agreed procedures to overcome. There are also concerns about the management and issue of permits or “electronic tags” which GBC would be required to address to the satisfaction of KHS.
Manned Gate Acceptable if manned when access is permitted. All construction and staff costs would have to be met by GBC.
Police Enforcement. This has been carried out and is believed to be ongoing.
Camera Enforcement. Driving straight through Manor Road is a moving traffic offence; this would be a matter for the Police to consider. The Police are considering camera enforcement at two locations in Kent , but there are no schemes currently in operation where traffic management measures are enforced using evidence recorded by camera (except safety cameras for speeding).
Change the Access Restrictions. The consultation carried out by GBC in October/November 2007 did not reveal support for this action from the businesses.
This could be revisited, but there cannot be a guarantee that this will provide the desired outcome – the businesses may seek greater access.
No Entry Sign This sign can only be used with a sub-plate stating “Except buses” or “Except local buses”. It cannot therefore be used with the current access arrangements.
2 Page 19
Redesign Entry from Railway Place Due to the site constraints it is debateable whether improvements could be achieved.
2.2 The option of road humps was considered by GBC in the past to be funded from their budgets, but not pursued.
2.3 The option considering the use of no entry signs has been included because there is often a perception that such signs are more effective than the all vehicles prohibited sign. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions does not allow a “no entry” sign to be used where there are exceptions for access unless the exception is for buses.
2.4 The Police and Camera Enforcement options are not directly controlled by G.B.C or K.H.S although they could improve compliance with the current restrictions.
3 Conclusion.
3.1 The options above are presented for Members consideration; there is no current financial provision in the County Council’s budgets to implement changes in this road and any such works are likely to be a low priority for inclusion in future year’s programmes.
BACKGROUND PAPERS: The background papers pertaining to this report are held on the Kent Highway Services files at Joynes House, Gravesend.
All requests to inspect the above documents MUST be directed in the first instance to the Committee Section of the Democratic Services Department
3 Page 20
This page is intentionally left blank Page 21 Agenda Item 7
Gravesham Borough Council
Report to: Joint Transportation Board
Date: 10 th September
Reporting officer: County engineer
Subject: Satellite Navigation Devices
Purpose and summary of report: To provide an update on KHS plans to have unsuitable routes removed from Satellite Navigation databases. .
Recommendations: For information and discussion.
1. Introduction
1.1 Following a report that was presented to the Highways Advisory Board 0n 13 November 2007, Kent Highway Services have initiated a project that is committed to reducing the problems associated with Satellite Navigation Systems (sat nav) on Kent’s Roads.
1.2 Due to the increase in the use and reliance on sat nav by HGV and other large vehicle, drivers, the reports of disruption and damage caused by these vehicles on Kent’s roads has increased significantly over the last few years.
1.3 These reports highlight vehicles getting stuck on narrow lanes, having to turn or reverse, striking buildings and structures or damaging verges, street furniture and roadside vegetation.
1.4 These problems can not all be blamed on sat nav as drivers often ignore restriction signing or the signing is damaged or missing. There are also cases where signage is insufficient.
1.5 As part of this project, signing will be investigated at selected sites (keeping in mind the need to reduce roadside clutter) and a revised “Advisory lorry route map” will be printed and distributed through all freight transport partners.
1.6 This project is being undertaken and managed by Officers in the Network Management service group. Page 22
2. Progress
2.1 KHS have identified all reports of sat nav associated problems reported through the Contact Centre over the last 30 months.
2.2 All KHS staff have been consulted and their own knowledge of problem areas has been collated
2.3 A letter was sent to all Parish and Town Councils (over300) across Kent requesting any information on problems specific to roads in their Parishes. To date over 200 responses have been received.
2.4 All of this information is being collated and entered onto a spread sheet identifying the location of each street, the problems being caused and the frequency of occurrences.
2.5 To date there are over 400 entries (Gravesham area attached at appendix.1) with approx 100 still to be entered and more expected from those still to respond.
2.6 The information that has been sent in by the Parishes, is in some instances, more of a wish list that a list of known sat nav problem sites. This will cause a greater work load than initially anticipated as further investigation will be needed to identify those routes that are not accessible to large vehicles and those that are unsuitable. However both categories will be passed to sat nav providers.
2.7 It is intended that the information is provided to the sat nav providers by the end of this calendar year and the advisory lorry maps distributed by the end of the financial year.
3.0 Conclusions
3.1 Members are asked to consider this report and to offer details of problem areas known to them that are not included at this time.
BACKGROUND PAPERS: The background papers pertaining to this report are held on the Kent Highway services files at Invicta House Maidstone.
All requests to inspect the above documents MUST be directed in the first instance to the Committee Section of the Democratic Services Department
2 SAT NAV RELATED NUISANCE CAUSING TURNING/ GETTING TO ROAD DISTRICT PARISH No STREET NAME ONLY DAMAGE REVERSING STUCK FREQUENT INFREQUENT SAT NAV COMMENTS GRAVES COBHAM HALFPENCE LANE XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX GRAVES COBHAM LODGE LANE XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX GRAVES COBHAM SOLE STREET XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX GRAVES COBHAM THE STREET XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX GRAVES GRAVESEND D6472 RANGE ROAD XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX GRAVES GRAVESEND D6537 SOUTH HILL ROAD XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX Ignoring 7.5T weight GRAVES GRAVESEND WELLINGTON STREET XXXXXXX XXXXXXX limit GRAVES GRAVESEND WINDMILL HILL XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX Problems on parallel GRAVES NORTHFLEET D6445 PIER ROAD & BURCH ROAD XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX roads GRAVES SHORNE BREWERS ROAD XXXXXXX XXXXXXX ignoring width signs GRAVES SHORNE GREEN FARM LANE XXXXXXX XXXXXXX ignoring width signs Page 23 GRAVES SHORNE PEAR TREE LANE XXXXXXX XXXXXXX ignoring width signs GRAVES SHORNE SHORNE IFIELD ROAD XXXXXXX XXXXXXX ignoring width signs GRAVES SHORNE THE RIDGEWAY XXXXXXX XXXXXXX ignoring width signs GRAVES SHORNE THONG LANE XXXXXXX XXXXXXX ignoring width signs
Appendix .1
Routes identified to date in Gravesham district Page 24
This page is intentionally left blank Page 25 Agenda Item 8
Gravesham Borough Council
Report to: Joint Transportation Board
Date: 10 September 2008
Reporting officer: Head of Transport & Development KHS
Subject: A2 Pepperhill to Cobham Widening Scheme
Purpose and summary of report: This report is to advise Members of progress with A2 widening scheme.
Recommendations: The report is for information only.
1. Introduction
1.1 There is a directive from this Board that there is an update report given on the progress of the A2 Pepperhill to Cobham widening scheme at every Board meeting. This report gives said update.
2. Major events since the last report
2.1 There have been no major events since the last Joint Board. However, there have been a series of lane and slip road closures on various nights to enable completion of tying in works but these should be complete by the time of this Board meeting.
2.2 The A2 northern footway between Pepperhill and Tollgate has had to be closed due to landscaping works taking place on the section of the old A2 and problems keeping motor cyclists off it. There is a signed diversion route using parallel County Roads in place.
2.3 The Coast bound on slip at Marling Cross (Valley Drive) will remain open for the duration of the scheme. Diversion routes are in place, involving over 75 signs to encourage drivers to use the Ebbsfleet Junction and Wainscott Bypass and more locally to use Wrotham Road and Old Road.
2.4 The Temporary ‘No entry’ into Cross Lane from Echo Square , which was installed to pre-empt any congestion problems with extra traffic eastbound due to the closure of the coast-bound off slips at Singlewell and Valley Drive has been working well. The local store has complained about some loss of passing trade Page 26
but several residents of Cross Lane have expressed their wishes for the ‘No entry’ to remain. Hence, it is proposed to keep the measures in place for a few weeks after the A2 works are complete to enable this situation to be tested.
3. Programmed works
3.1 Hever Court Road remains closed for tying in works to the new Marling Cross Junction and will open once the new junction is complete. The major gas main diversion works here are essentially complete.
3.2 Marling Cross bridge remains closed to necessitate construction of the new junction layout. A vehicular connection across the A2 at this point will not be possible until the new junction is complete which is now programmed to be by the end of November this year. This is some 3 or 4 weeks earlier than previously reported and is due to better than expected work progress.
4. Former Singlewell slip road behind Manor Hotel
4.1 A lot of discussion has taken place over the best way to treat this section of redundant County road. It has been decided that to avoid it becoming a dumping ground it will be fenced off and included as far as possible within the landscaped corridor of the former A2. Access for statutory undertakers will be via the old A2 corridor. At its eastern end, junction with Hever Court Road, the junction will be closed off by carrying the verge and fence across it. Adjacent to the entrance to the George Public House, there will be a pedestrian chicane barrier and cycle entrance to the old A2 corridor, whilst the rest of the road width will be closed by high kerbs and a red and white road closure barrier. A Prohibition of driving Order is to be advertised shortly for this section of road.
BACKGROUND PAPERS: The background papers pertaining to this report are held on the Kent Highway services files WC/P4, GR/080 & wT/G/111.
All requests to inspect the above documents MUST be directed in the first instance to the Committee Section of the Democratic Services Department
CONTACT OFFICER : Colin Martin 01474 544074
2 Page 27 Agenda Item 9
Gravesham Borough Council
Report to: Joint Transportation Board
Date: 10 th September 2008
Reporting officer: Head of Transport and Development
Subject: New cycle track to North West Kent College in Dering Way
Purpose and summary of report: This report is to update Members about the plans to create a cycle track to NW Kent College, and to make recommendations about changing the status of three footways.
Recommendations: 1. It is recommended that Members endorse the proposal to redesignate the footway as a cycle track on the east side Dering Way between the north exit from the NW Kent College and the Lion roundabout, as described in this report.
2. It is recommended that Members endorse the proposal to redesignate the improved footway as a cycle track on the north-west side of the Lion roundabout.
3. It is recommended that Members endorse the proposal to redesignate the footway as a cycle track on the south-west side of the Lion roundabout, between house 182 Rochester Road and the crossing over Old Road East, including the island of the crossing.
1. Introduction
1.1 In connection with development at the North West Kent College campus on Dering Way, it is proposed to create an off-carriageway cycle route between the college and Rochester Road.This will also be a step towards linking the existing cycle track in Rochester Road to the cycle track built by developers on land to the north- east of Damigos Road.
1.2 A key part of this project is to widen the footway to 3 metres on the east side of Dering Way between the north exit from NW Kent College and the Lion roundabout.
2. Proposals
2.1 It is proposed that cycling should be permitted on the widened footway along Dering Way, between the northern exit from NW Kent College and the Lion roundabout. In this proposal the path would be marked for “segregated use” with a Page 28
white line approximately down the centre; the half adjacent the carriageway would be marked for cycle use and the other half reserved for pedestrian use.
2.2 The southernmost tip of the route, at the start of Lower Higham Road would need to be a 1.68 metres wide shared-use path, as it is not possible to widen the path at this location.
2.3 In order to provide an off-carriageway route for cyclists from the college to the cycle track alongside Rochester Road, it is proposed to widen to 3 metres the footway at the north-west side of the Lion roundabout over a length of approximately 30 metres. In this proposal the widened path would also be marked for “segregated” use as described above.
2.4 It is intended that the two proposals above would be paid-for by North West Kent College as a planning condition for developments on the college campus.
2.5 The third proposal is to make a small extension to the existing Rochester Road cycle track which extends from St John’s School as far as house 182 Rochester Road, approximately 30 metres short of the Lion roundabout. In this proposal, cycling would be permitted on the existing footway on a shared-use basis from house 182 Rochester Road as far as (and including) the crossing at the start of Old Road East.
2.6 The length of the proposed shared-use path would be approximately 50 metres. The width of the path varies from 2.28 metres to over 5 metres, most of the path being over 3 metres wide. The width of the crossing island is approximately 3.2 metres.
2.7 No engineering measures would be necessary for this third proposal apart from small amount of signing and lining.
3. Additional information
3.1 The legal term used to describe a way (constituting or comprised in a Highway) over which the public have rights of way on pedal cycles is “Cycle Track”. The legal basis for redesignation of all or part of a footway to a cycle track is sections 65 and 66 of the Highways Act 1980.
4. Appendices
4.1 Appendix A: Drawing showing the cycle paths proposed in this report.
BACKGROUND PAPERS: None
All requests to inspect the above documents MUST be directed in the first instance to the Committee Section of the Democratic Services Department
CONTACT OFFICER : Peter Slaughter 01474 544124
2 Page 29
Appendix A
3 Page 30
4 Page 31 Agenda Item 10
Gravesham Borough Council
Report to: Joint Transportation Board
Date: 10 th September
Reporting officer: County engineer
Subject: A227 Wrotham Road.
Purpose and summary of report: To advise Members of a proposal to reclassify the A227 to a B class road
Recommendations: For information and discussion.
1. Introduction.
1.1 The A227 has been identified as a route that will be under increasing traffic pressure in the future with the development of Kent Thameside. It will be preferable for traffic travelling between Gravesend and Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells to be directed via the A2, M25 and A21 rather than the A227. The recent and on going improvements to the A2 and M25, and a proposed improvement of the A21 Trunk Road at Castle Hill, Tunbridge Wells in 2010 also support this suggestion.
1.2 The proposal to downgrade the A227 to a B class road was included in the provisional 5 Year Local Transport Plan for the period 2006/11. It still has to be studied in detail, and would need to be subject to public consultation in due course.
1.3 The potential for through traffic (cars and commercial vehicles) to use the A2, M25 and A21 route, and measures to reinforce such a change need to be considered. These could typically include additional traffic calming features, width and/or weight restrictions and improved signs. The overall costs and benefits of the scheme also need to be formally assessed against the County Council’s agreed Transport Objectives.
1.4 It is accepted that some heavy vehicles will still need to use the route to service shops, other businesses, farms and residential properties along and adjacent to it. Page 32
1.5 A PIPKIN priority assessment has already been carried for the section of this route in the Tonbridge District for possible inclusion in the 2009/2010 works programme but this achieved a very low score. A combined scheme for Gravesham and Tonbridge and Malling will be reassessed for possible inclusion in the 2010/11 programme.
2 Conclusion.
2.1 The information above is presented for Members to consider, there is currently no financial provision in KHS budgets to implement changes in this road.
BACKGROUND PAPERS: The background papers to this report are held on Kent Highway Services files.
All requests to inspect any papers MUST be directed in the first instance to the Committee Section of the Democratic Services Department .
CONTACT OFFICER: Martin Wybraniec (01474) 544042
2 Page 33 Agenda Item 11
Gravesham Borough Council
Report to: Joint Transportation Board
Date: 10 September 2008
Reporting officer: Service Manager, Operations (Parking and Amenities)
Subject: Proposed verge and footway parking restrictions
Purpose and summary of report: To inform members of the recommendations from the sub group of the Joint Transportation Board.
Recommendations: 1. The sub group recommend to the Board that, except for Hall Road, Springhead Road and Old Road East, the proposed trial goes ahead in the other 7 areas listed in the report. 2. That further investigations are carried out in Hall Road, Springhead Road and Old Road East to try to alleviate the parking and verge problems and that this is reported to the JTB at a later date.
1. Introduction
1.1 At the Joint Transportation Board meeting on the 18 June 2008 it was agreed that consultation with residents of the proposed trial sites would be carried out and that a sub group would meet to consider any objections.
1.2 The sub group consisted of Cllr Snelling, Cllr Dyke, Cllr Cribben, Cllr Christie, Cheryl Russell and Paul Gibbons and met on the 12 August to consider the objections that had been received as part of the consultation process.
2. Consultation process
2.1 On 25 th June 1,085 households were consulted by letter on the proposals, as shown in appendix A. Each household was only consulted on their direct area. For example, people in Vale Road were only invited to comment on Vale Road.
2.2 Residents were given until 4 August to return their responses either by e mail or in a letter. By the 4 August 136 responses had been received, equal to a 12% response rate. There have been no further responses since the closing date. Page 34
3. Results of the consultation
3.1 Of the 136 responses received 69 are in support of the enforcement and 67 are against.
In Against the Letters Support scheme Total Sent Responses Vale Road 25 3 2 5 (from the railway bridge to Thames Way) Lewis Road, Istead Rise 77 9 2 11
Hall Road 99 14 13 27 (between Springhead road and Coldharbour Road) High Street, Northfleet 74 1 1 2 (between The Hill and Station Road) Old Road East 114 0 19 19 (between the Lion roundabout and Valley Drive) Pepperhill, Northfleet 100 3 3 6 (The Road and not the general area) Springhead Road 100 5 14 19 (between The Hill and Thames Way) Thong Lane 167 12 4 16 (between Rochester Road and Vigilant Way) Wrotham Road, Meopham 200 17 9 26 (the A227 between Station Road and Meopham Green) Wrotham Road, Gravesend 129 5 0 5 (the A227 between Zion Place and Old Road West) 1085 69 67 136
3.2 A full list of comments received is attached to this report at appendix B.
4. Conclusions from the sub group
4.1 The Sub group and officers feel that the proposals for Vale Road, Lewis Road, High Street Northfleet, Pepperhill, Thong Lane, Wrotham Road Meopham and Wrotham Road Gravesend should proceed because Residents are generally supportive and officers can carry out any necessary enforcement. It is also felt that there will be little or no effect on congestion in the area.
4.2 One of the counter arguments for enforcing restrictions on pavement parking is that the vehicles could start to park on the road instead and this, in turn, could cause congestion to through traffic.
2 Page 35
4.3 It is felt that this would not be a problem for the roads listed in paragraph 4.1 above.
4.4 However, the group recommends that further investigation is carried out, in conjunction with colleagues in Kent Highway Services, for Hall Road (where the response rate was only 27%), in Old Road East (response rate 16%) and Springhead Road (response rate 19%) to search for alternative solutions to the verge and footway problems, as it is also felt that the current proposals could cause congestion in these areas.
3 Page 36
Appendix A
Housing and Environment Ask for: Paul Gibbons The Occupier Direct Line: (01474) 33 75 94 Fax: (01474) 33 75 77 My ref: Your ref: Date: 01 September 2008
Dear Occupier
Trial scheme to stop verge and footway parking
Kent County Council and Gravesham Borough Council regularly receive complaints from the public about motor vehicles parking or stopping on pavements and verges.
This widespread practice often causes damage to the paths and verges and compromises the safety of pedestrians who have to step into the road to pass round the vehicle.
To tackle these problems and many others, Gravesham Borough Council intends to introduce an experimental scheme to ban parking on pavements and verges for a trial period of 12 months, in your road and at 9 other locations in the Borough, from September 2008.
We are seeking the views of affected residents before we decide whether or not to proceed. Signs will be put up at the locations to warn drivers that parking on pavements and verges is not permitted and fines will be issued for those who choose to ignore the signs.
The effect of this scheme will be to impose a total ban on all verge/footway parking without exception. Signs will be put up at the locations to warn drivers that parking on pavements and verges is not allowed and fines will be issued for those who fail to comply.
If the scheme goes ahead, there will be further consultation after 6 months of operation, and then a decision will be taken on whether to continue with or extend the experiment at the end of 12 months.
The Council would like to hear your comments, positive or negative regarding the scheme. You may put your comments either in writing to the Parking Office at the address below or via e mail to [email protected]
All comments should be sent to the Council by the 4 August 2008 as after this date consideration will be given to continuing with the trial scheme.
Yours sincerely
4 Page 37
Paul Gibbons Service Manager, Operations (Parking and Amenities) Appendix B
Consultation Area VALE ROAD NORTHFLEET Name Address Comments J Hammerton 45 Vale Road Agrees with the scheme…..(+) S Moody 37 Vale Road Agrees with the scheme (+) Mrs Ayres 63 Vale Road In support of the proposal (+) Mrs Matthews 49 Vale Road Not in favour of scheme. Claims that not enough places to park and people can get past the cars on the verge. (-) Mr & Mrs Vale Road Do not support the scheme as need to park on the Rowley other side of the road and pedestrians do not use it either. (-)
Consultation Area LEWIS ROAD ISTEAD RISE Name Address Comments Alan 20 Lewis Road, In favour of the scheme as many park on Lewendom Istead Rise. pavements near the shops in Lewis road rather than use the car park nearby. (+) Mr C Boyce Lewis Road Istead Supports the proposal but concerned that more Rise parking will be on the road and traffic flow will be reduced. (+) A P Woolaway 46 Lewis Road In favour of the scheme (+) Mr D Godden 74 & 74A Lewis Road In support of the scheme. (+) Peter Herbert 72 Lewis Road In favour of the scheme but is concerned that vehicles will park in the road and this would cause congestion. (+) Roy Davies 19 Lewis Road In favour of the scheme (+) Mr B Lewis Road In favour of the scheme but concerned about Henderson double parking if vehicles are made to go into the road, especially around the memorial hall. (+) Mr T Goble Lewis Road In favour of scheme and would like to see parking restrictions down one side of the road as well. (+) Mr Buggs 63 Lewis Road In favour of the scheme as had to walk in the road many times and is elderly. (+) Mr Cannings Lewis Road Thinks that if parked in the road that it will cause more congestion and it would be impossible to pass along the road, especially around the memorial hall. (-) Mr S Webb 43 Lewis Road Not in favour of the scheme as claims the pavement is wide enough and also if people parked in the road it would get blocked. The current system of 2 wheels on the kerb works well and they do not consider there to be any issues. (-)
5 Page 38
Consultation Area HALL ROAD NORTHFLEET Name Address Comments David and Hall road Agree in part as grass verge being damaged but Marlene think consideration should be given to where people are to park. (+) Mrs Webster 147 Hall Road In favour of the scheme as she thinks the grass verges are a mess with the vehicles on them. (+) Mr & Mrs 189 Hall Road In favour of the scheme as the grassed areas are Burrow getting damaged (+) Mrs Card 191 Hall Road In favour of the Scheme (+) Mr Pearce 187 Hall Road In favour of the scheme due to damage to grass but thinks the lay by should be increased in this area. (+) Mr Maynard 19 Hall Road In favour of the scheme as the verge near him looks bad. (+) Mrs Raynor 85 Hall Road Agrees with the scheme (+) Mr & Mrs 187 Hall Road In favour of the scheme but thinks more of a lay Pearce by should be created (+) Mr Hobdell 93 Hall Road Part in favour of the scheme but thinks verge should be altered to take more cars and this would help with the congestion. (+) Mr & Mrs Down 197 Hall Road In favour of the proposal but thinks that wooden posts are better as they stop the damage to the verge completely. (+) Mr & Mrs 183 Hall Road In favour of the scheme. (+) Gunner Ms Kemp 79 Hall Road In favour of the scheme (+) Mrs M Riley 175 Hall Road Supports the scheme as most have rear access (+) Mr Clarke 31 Hall Road In favour of scheme but thinks vehicles should be allowed on the hard standing that crosses the verge as these areas are designed for cars. (+) Ross Gorvan 153 Hall Road Part agrees with the scheme but wants Northfleet consideration of where residents can park. They could park in road but this would cause greater congestion on an already busy route….(-) Mrs Cockerham 145 Hall Road Concerned about not being able to be picked up by patient transport as disabled.(-) T & P 121 Hall Road Not in favour of scheme as it will cause more Cunningham congestion as vehicles park in the road. Claims residents park as they do to allow free flow of traffic. (-) Miss Baker 113 Colyer Road Received a phone call from a concerned resident to say that if we stopped cars in Hall Road a lot of them would end up in Colyer road which is bad enough as it is at the moment. She feels residents in Colyer Road would be contacting the council as a result. Asked that the council think carefully about what it does. (-)
6 Page 39
J & J Springall 105 Hall Road Opposes the scheme fears traffic congestion and also wonders of vehicles would get a ticket for parking on the cross over part and wants clarification. (-) Mr T Brown 105 Colyer Road Worried that vehicles would be displaced to this area and so asks the council to think again and spend some money on colyer road (-) Mrs Burnett 24 Colyer Road Worried about displaced parking in her road to the rear of Hall Road. Thinks the verge should be made more for vehicles as wide enough. (-) Ms D Finch 195 Hall Road Not enough parking in the area for the residents and therefore against the scheme. (-) Mr M Graham 61 Hall Road If vehicles did not park on the drive ways and part verge there would be severe congestion in the road all along Hall Road. It would make it more difficult to see when coming off his drive if vehicles were in the road. (-) Lisa Dalley 113 Hall Road Thinks it will cause more congestion and not really a problem at the moment as the path way is free. (-) Mrs J Kaur 89 Hall Road Thinks it is a bad idea as would cause congestion in the road and should really look at the problems the school cause. (-) David Johncock 63 Hall Road Not in favour of the scheme as this will cause congestion onto a main route in to town and also put more pressure on the adjoining streets. Parking on the hard standing should be allowed. (-) June Horrocks 91 Hall Road Not in favour of the scheme as would cause congestion in the road and also areas of hard standing have been created and the footpath is set back from this very wide verge and so pedestrians have somewhere to walk. Woman has carers come all the time with her shopping and this would seriously affect them calling (-)
Consultation Area HIGH STREET NORTHFLEET Name Address Comments Ms Strickland 25 High Street In favour of the scheme. (+) Mr DaCosta 41 The High Street Not in favour of the scheme as disabled and would have further to walk. With the building of flats nearby this is just going to make parking worse. (-)
Consultation Area OLD ROAD EAST Name Address Comments Mrs Hall 213 Old Road East Can understand scheme but parks on a wide pavement near their house. She is also concerned that vehicles would park in the road and cause
7 Page 40
congestion issues with vehicles trying to get past. Thinks the pavement is wide enough for vehicles and pedestrians and sent in a strong e mail opposing the scheme (-) Mr Alder 271 Old Road East Thinks the implication of the scheme in this area would increase congestion as the vehicles park on a wide kerb to keep out of the road. Parking in the road would cause congestion as there are a number of vehicles in the evening all along the road and this would make it difficult for vehicles to pass. (-) Ms Bowman 285 Old Road East Against the scheme as does not see this as an issue in the area. If went ahead it would cause more problems with vehicles parking in the road and causing congestion. (-) S Farrell Old Road East Against the scheme as no where for the vehicles to park and parking in the road would cause congestion. (-) T Pilcher 295 Old Road East Against the scheme as no where to park and also parking in the road would cause congestion problems. Feels it is unfair and would like ctax rebate to be considered as affects there home. (-) Tony Bartlett 225 Old Road East Against the scheme as this would cause congestion when the vehicles parked in the road and as a main route would have more problems than being on pavement. States look at it at 6pm and would see the problems that the scheme would cause not cure. (-) Mr F Murphy 275 Old Road East Feels the restriction would cause congestion as vehicles park in the road and not on the pavement. (-) Mr D Akers 184 Old Road East Feels the council has not researched this proposal properly. Feels a public meeting is needed if the proposals go ahead. (-) Mr K Smith Old Road East Against the scheme except up by the Lion roundabout and concerned about congestion. (-) Mr M Bonney 182 Old Road East Against the scheme. (-) Mrs T Savill 217 old Road East Strongly against the scheme and thinks it will lead to more congestion and a problem with traffic flow. (-) S Freeman 279 Old Road East Strongly against the scheme as thinks it will cause and C Haskins more congestion and parking problems in the area. (-) Mr M Johnson 186 Old Road East Strongly disagrees with the scheme going ahead. Concerns over increased congestion. Concerned a money making scheme and wonders where the comments have come from for this area. (-) R D Mills 250 Old Road East Against the scheme as concerns over the congestion and friction as parking becomes a problem in the area. (-) Mr & Mrs Old Road East Thinks that if vehicles have to come off the Strong pavement it will cause congestion. Also the pavement is wide enough to accommodate vehicles and pedestrians and even has two different road
8 Page 41
surfaces. (-) Mrs J Wells 180 Old Road East Thinks it will cause congestion as vehicles park in the road and thinks that the pavement is wide enough at this location. (-) C Norris Old road east Against the scheme as the council needs to realise that if the parking is taken away where are the vehicles going to go. Thinks it would cause a lot of congestion in the road. (-) Mr Attaway 273 Old Road East Worried about congestion and where everyone will park (-) Ms L Minikin 249 Old Road East Against the scheme as thinks it will cause major congestion and problems with finding areas to park. (-)
Consultation Area PEPPERHILL Name Address Comments Mr S Marshall 39 Pepperhill Long overdue. Concerned over the damage to Northfleet pavements. (+) Mr Hopkins 93 Pepperhill Supports the scheme. (+) Mr Bristow 1 Fleet Road In favour of the scheme as the grass verges are looking a mess (+) Mr Clark 78 Pepperhill Agrees in part by think s vehicles should be Northfleet allowed to park with 2 wheels on kerb to ease congestion in the road. Thinks still enough space on pavement if do this. (-) Mr P Bennett 11 Pepperhill Opposes the scheme as does not see it as an issue in his area. Questions where the complaints have come from and surveyed the area himself to find that on a particular day only one vehicle was parked partly on the pavement due to a party. (-) Ms A Davis 81 Pepperhill Not in favour of the scheme as think would cause more problems for vehicles parked on the road and thinks it is not an issue vehicles parking on the pavement. (-)
Consultation Area SPRINGHEAD ROAD Name Address Comments Mr Siggers Springhead Road Supports the change but concerned that vehicles would park in the road and cause congestion. He thinks wider consideration should be given by looking at one way streets and parking bays as additional measures. (+) Ms S Jones 84 Springhead Road Thinks that the whole road should be looked at as whilst a good idea there will be congestion issues if vehicles are in the road and residents have no where to park. (+)
9 Page 42
Neil Fisher 17 Springhead Road In favour of the scheme but as there are restrictions in the road this will place extra burden on other roads and the whole road should be looked at. Concerned about cyclists as well. (+) Mr D Platt 48 Springhead Road Part in favour of the scheme but thinks other measures should be used as well to improve the street. (+) J Leary 14 Springhead Road In favour of the scheme. (+) Ms G Love Springhead Road It would be inconvenient for them as they have a Northfleet baby. Does not think it is an issue in her road as she does not have a problem with her pram. (-) Mr D Stunt 92 Springhead Road Completely against the idea as they claim they Northfleet would be unable to park outside of their homes. (-) Mrs Hoadley 79 Springhead Road Thinks it would cause more congestion in the street and is against the scheme. (-) Carrie Law Springhead Road Only option is to park on the pavement as to be in the road would cause congestion. Considers the path to be wide enough. (-) Mrs S Phillips Springhead Road Against the scheme as it would put pressure on parking in the road and also in surrounding areas. Already a major problem and thinks the pavements are wide enough to cope with cars slightly on the pavement. Residents would be concerned if the scheme were to go ahead. (-) Mr D Burgess 45 Springhead Road Against the scheme as it would cause even more problems in the road through congestion and thinks a wider look should be taken of this road and area to deal with the vehicles that use the road at speed or the huge lorries. (-) Ian Golding Springhead Road Opposes the scheme as vehicles parked in the road would cause congestion in this area. Thinks the whole road should be looked at for a better scheme, parking bays, one way etc. Worried the council will not listen to residents. (-) Mrs Welling 82 Springhead Road Disagrees with plan as it would be difficult to park in this road and would cause congestion. (-) Mr A 46 Springhead Road Thinks that it would cause greater congestion and Lipscombe wider issues need to be considered on this scheme. (-) Mr C Jackson 69 Springhead Road Disagrees with the scheme as thinks it would cause too much congestion in the area and thinks that further consideration should be given to the wider issues for the road (-) Ms L 61 Springhead Road Against the scheme as would cause more Hambridge congestion and thinks a wider scheme should be considered for the area as a number of vehicles get damaged by lorries and not enough space for residents. (-) Mr M Evans 72 Springhead Road Not in favour of the scheme as need to use the hard standing on the verge to park cars. Thinks that the surface has been constructed for that purpose as well. (-) Paul Simmons 97 Springhead Road Not in support of the scheme and thinks that
10 Page 43
other issues in this area should be considered. (-) Mr E Clifford 68 Springhead Road Not in support of the scheme thinks that there are many other issues that need addressing in the road. (-)
Consultation Area THONG LANE Name Address Comments Mr and Mrs 45 Thong Lane In principle they agree with the scheme. People Stuart Gravesend should be encouraged to use their drive ways and garages and not block sight lines when leaving your own property. (+) Ms Hana 14 Thong Lane Approach, rationale and introduction appreciated and support the initiative and hope will be a permanent feature (+) Mrs Cooper 58 Thong Lane Welcomes the scheme as the verge is looking a mess and parking is an issue on the pavements (+) Mrs Webb 10 Thong Lane Supports the scheme as problem with cars on kerb outside their house. (+) P Henderson 53 Thong Lane In favour of the scheme but concerned about where people are to park. (+) Mr J Piggott 20 Thong Lane In favour of the scheme (+) Mrs Y Piggott 20 Thong Lane In favour of the scheme (+) Mr C Freed 55 Thong Lane In favour of the Scheme (+) Mr & Mrs 87 Thong Lane In favour of the scheme (+) Taylor Paul Elliott Thong Lane In favour of the scheme but concerned about the congestion in the road as vehicles start to park off the pavement as there is no restriction. One of the biggest problem areas is the pavement by the sports field where cars park all along the pavement and then go off to play football. (+) Mr M Sawyer 76 Thong Lane In favour of the scheme as finds it difficult trying to walk along the pavement at times and so does his wife with their pram. (+) Mrs Sawyer 76 Thong Lane Concerned about the football matches that are held on a Saturday as that is when the worst parking will be as many vehicles park on the kerb. (+) Mr Khaira 35 Thong Lane Agrees with the scheme but is concerned that the vehicles will mark fully in the road and therefore cause the road to be narrow. (-) Tracey Cannon 98 Thong Lane Against the scheme as feels it would cause more congestion with vehicles parking in the road. Does not see it as a problem where she lives. (-) Mr S Moor 34 Thong Lane Not in favour of the scheme as this would cause congestion as vehicles park on the road and not part on the path. (-) Mrs S Dand Three Points Thong Thinks it will cause a lot of congestion as Lane vehicles will be parked in the road and so other measures have to be thought of. It is bad around the time of football games. (-)
11 Page 44
Consultation Area WROTHAM ROAD MEOPHAM
Name Address Comments Lynne Bull Barnside Cattery In principle thinks it is a good idea. No Meopham Green objections. (+) Mrs Woodham Wrotham Road Agrees with the scheme as has problems in the Meopham area around school times and congestion issues. (+) Mr P Brooker Wrotham Road Supports the scheme (+) Meopham Mr N Petrie Etche Ona Wrotham Supports the scheme (+) Road Mr Seal Elmbank Wrotham Supports the scheme (+) Road Mr D Wells Evenden House Supports the scheme (+) Wrotham Road Mrs Ford The Old Vicarage In favour of the scheme (+) Mr D Gill Stable Cottage Supports the scheme. (+) Mr D Day Glenmore Camer Supports the scheme as concerned over the Corner damage to the pavements and verges. (+) Mr P Burton Harlenly In favour of the scheme. (+) Mrs Russell St Briavels In favour of the scheme (+) W and L Fisher Shirley Camer corner In favour of the scheme and a Meopham parish councillor. (+) Mr Carley Wrenbury In favour of the scheme (+) Mr Eldridge Bartellas In favour of the scheme but concerned about more signage on the road side. (+) Mr Cientanni Northdown Not in favour of the scheme as it would cause more congestion. (+) Mr I Curties 5 Kent Terrace Concerned about side roads that are not within Wrotham Road this scheme, no other objections. (+) Mr B Boughton 1 Oddfellows Cottages Partly in agreement but thinks that owners should be allowed to have dropped kerbs and park in their gardens otherwise there is no where to park other than in the road way. (+) Mr Tyrell Camer Lea Against the scheme as they need to park on the verge area as no where else to park. Also visitors to the property would not be able to park near to the house. Requests planning restrictions on drive ways be altered if this sort of scheme is to go ahead. (-) Mr G Green Wrotham Road Does not support the scheme as not an issue in his area and thinks additional signage will make the area look worse and also the enforcement of the area will prove difficult. (-) Mrs M Warren 3 Oddfellow cotts Thinks it will cause congestion and if it goes Wrotham road ahead she thinks she should be allowed to park
12 Page 45
on her front garden.(-) Mrs J Collier Wrotham Road Thinks it is a waste of money and time and not Meopham many problems in the area near Neville place shops. (-) Mrs V Russell 2 Oddfellows Cottages Not in favour as it is not possible to park on the a227 without using part of the pavement. Had two cars damaged before when parked in the road. Thinks could a lay by be created or permission to convert their front garden be a better solution. (-) Mr D Holland 4 odd fellows cottages Partially in favour of the scheme but thinks more should be done for the motorist and not just concentrate on the pedestrians. Thinks lay bys are a good idea or chicanes to slow traffic down. (-) Mrs Gray Greenthorne Wrotham Against the scheme as would cause congestion Rd thinks it would be better to have yellow lines and a time restriction to stop people parking all day. (-) S Gardiner and Beckenreid Wrotham See long letter received but in essence against S Welch Road the scheme. (-) Ms R Smith 2/3 Kent Terrace In some areas vehicles have to park on the Wrotham Rd pavement partly so vehicles and pedestrians can get past. (-)
Consultation Area WROTHAM ROAD GRAVESEND Name Address Comments C Tillson 82 Wrotham Road Agrees with the scheme (+) Dr Khan Wrotham Lodge Agrees with the scheme as the walk into town is often blocked by cars on the pavements. (+) Mr N Broad 163 Wrotham Road In favour of the scheme as pedestrians have a lot of problems walking along the pavement in this stretch of road. (+) Mr G Loughlin 149 Wrotham Road In favour of the scheme as vehicles park on the kerb near to the shops in Wrotham Road. (+) Dhiman 35 Wrotham Road Understands the problems but is concerned about where to park. (+)
13 Page 46
This page is intentionally left blank Page 47 Agenda Item 12
Gravesham Borough Council
Report to: Joint Transportation Board
Date: 10 September 2008
Reporting officer: Service Manager, Operations (Parking and Amenities)
Subject: Petition requesting additional resident bays in Grange Road
Purpose and summary of report: To advise Members of the receipt of a petition requesting the extension of residential bays in Grange Road. Recommendations: Members endorse the recommendations set out in item 4.1
1. Introduction
1.1 A residential parking permit scheme was introduced in Grange Road providing a number of bays for residents to park in. As a result of dropped kerbs being introduced later, a number of bays had to be removed. This resulted in a reduction in the number of permit spaces available.
1.2 Petitions from 6 residents out of 10 homes affected in the northern part of Grange Road have requested an extension to the residential parking bays at the northern end of Grange Road.
1.3 The petition letters along with a letter to the local Councillors can be seen in appendix A
1.4 There currently exists a Traffic Order for residential parking bays and should the scheme go ahead the additional bays could form an amendment to this Order.
2. Discussion
2.1 Currently a single yellow line restriction between the hours of 8am and 10 am exists where the bays would be placed and the introduction of the bays would not present any hazard to vehicles using the road, as outside of these time vehicles are permitted to park.
2.2 The bay would match the current ones, in that parking is limited to 2 hours (no return within one hour) between 7am and 7pm Mondays to Saturdays, except for Residents’ or visitor permit holders. The location of the proposed bays can be seen in appendix B. Page 48
2.3 Officers feel that the introduction of the bays would address the need for more residential permit parking and also assist with preventing commuter parking in this area.
2.4 The petition shows strong support for such an amendment and has been supported by Cllr Makhan Singh.
3. Conclusion
3.1 Officers feel that if the scheme was supported by members it may be possible to add this proposal to measures already agreed in March for the 2008/2009 TRO programme.
4. Recommendations
4.1 The proposal is supported, added to the existing work programme and formally advertised, with any objections reported back to this Board.
2 Page 49
Appendix A
3 Page 50
4 Page 51
5 Page 52
6 Page 53
7 Page 54
8 Page 55
9 Page 56
10 Page 57
11 Page 58
12 Page 59
13 Page 60
14 Page 61
15
Appendix B
Page 62
PROPOSED RESIDENTS’ PARKING BAY OUTSIDE 41-51 GRANGE ROAD (VALID BETWEEN 7am & 7pm MON TO SAT)
ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS PARKING ALONG GRANGE ROAD (not to scale) GRAVESHAM JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD - 1Oth September 2008 Joint Transportation Board Report – 10 th September 2008
Page 63 Agenda Item 13
GRAVESHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL
Report to: Joint Transportation Board
Date: 10 th September 2008
Reporting officer : Director (Business)
Subject: Petition requesting Parking Restrictions in Martins Close, Lower Higham Purpose and summary of report: A petition has been received requesting the extension of the Controlled Parking Zone in Higham to prevent obstructive parking by commuters in the vicinity of the junction of Martins Close and Lower Rochester Road.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Members agree to the recommendations contained within Section 4.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The petition was initiated by one of the residents of Martins Close and signed by 29 persons from a total of 17 addresses within Martins Close. The accompanying letter advises that commuter parking on Lower Rochester Road at Martins Close is causing a problem to residents of the Close as they leave the area in their cars. Their concerns are based on the obstruction of exit visibility, coupled with the high speeds that vehicle travel along the major road.
1.2 The petitioners request an extension to the “restricted parking zone” as a means of stopping commuters parking at this junction.
2. DISCUSSION
2.1 Higham’s Controlled Parking Zone was introduced in 2004 centred around the railway station with a general parking ban between 9.30 and 10 am Mon to Fridays with some exemptions for permit-holders. The zone currently extends north of the railway line to cover Chequers Street and a short length of Lower Rochester Road up to its junction with Gore Green Road.
2.2 The residential area enclosed by the triangle of Gore Green Road, Lower Rochester Road and Sandyhill Road (which includes Martins Close) currently has unrestricted parking. Martins Close is a residential cul de sac of 16 houses, many of which have their own on-plot parking.
2.3 Lower Rochester Road is a classified route which gives the most direct access to Lower Higham (including the Hoo Junction Industrial Site) from Page 64
the Medway Towns and Wainscott Bypass. While Lower Rochester Road is undeveloped on its south side, it has frontage development on its north side between Gore Green Road and Sandyhill Road. Martins Close falls within this section and has short lengths of footway either side of the junction which are discontinuous and appear to attract parking.
2.4 The petitioners are asking for yellow lines to be extended along Lower Rochester Road to include its junction with Martins Close to stop long term parking by commuters which obstructs their exit visibility.
3. OFFICER COMMENT
3.1 This matter was last considered by the Board in March 2006 following a consultation amongst residents in the Gore Green Road/ Lower Rochester Road area when it was resolved that the CPZ should not be extended at the present time but the situation reviewed in 12 months “if further representations are received”. At that time, it was reported that there was no clear majority in favour of extending the zone.
3.2 Officers have visited the area on several occasions. The odd vehicle has been observed parking in Lower Rochester Road in an overrun area on the south side of the road. Occasionally, vehicles are observed parking wholly on the footway areas adjacent to Martins Close. Although such parking is not to be condoned, the negative effects of this are minimal.
3.3 It is understood, from the Parish Clerk, that local Wardens may have been putting notices on windows of parked vehicles and this may have avertied the problem.
3.4 The process of imposing further restrictions on parking will involve a Traffic Regulation Order and the normal process of consultation and public notice. While any parking at road junctions is a potential hazard, no overriding case for more yellow lines has been made in this instance.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 No action to be taken at the present time on extending the Higham Controlled Parking Zone to include any further areas of Lower Rochester Road or Martins Close.
4.2 Officers carry out monitoring on site with a view to reconsidering this as a scheme for the 2009/10 TRO programme if the evidence demands it.
4.3 Those making recommendations be informed of the decision.
5. BACKGROUND PAPERS
5.1 Petition and photographs supplied by residents.
5.2 All requests to inspect the above documents MUST be directed in the first instance to the Committee Section of the Democratic Services Department.
2 Page 65 Agenda Item 14 ITEM 666 Quiet Surfacing Prioritisation Methodology
A report by the Director of Kent Highway Services to the Highways Advisory Board on 8th July 2008
Introduction
1. This paper sets out a methodology for prioritising the County Council’s investment in quiet surfacing schemes and puts forward a robust and transparent process for determining the priority of re-surfacing quiet surfacing schemes within Kent. The prioritisation methodology considers both the potential noise benefits associated with re- surfacing a given section of road, the impact that will have on local residents and the cost of undertaking the resurfacing scheme; thus providing an indication of the cost- benefit of each scheme.
2. Road traffic noise is widely considered to be a genuine nuisance to those people who live, work and attend school or college in the vicinity of a culpable road(s). In the most prominent cases, constant or regular exposure to high levels of traffic noise can have a detrimental impact on the quality of life experienced by local people and can potentially result in a significant proportion of the population be bothered by it. Although KHS has no influence over vehicle tyre types or engine manufacturing, it can take steps to reduce vehicle type noise by specifying the type of road surface installed at a particular location and thereby seek to improve people’s quality of life.
Road Traffic Noise
3. Noise is measured in units called decibels (dB). As traffic noise fluctuates continually, it is necessary to define it in a manner that can be related to the subjective response of those experiencing it. Attitude surveys have indicated a relationship between the annoyance caused by traffic and the sound level exceeded for 10% of the time during an 18 hour period between 0600 and 0000 (midnight). Road traffic noise is generated as vehicles travel along a road and is a major contributor to environmental noise exposure to premises, including residential properties, located nearby. The main sources of road traffic noise are:
Engine and Powertrain Noise; engine and vehicle exhaust noise tends to be the dominant source of noise when traffic is moving slowly, particularly when traffic comprises a large proportion of heave goods vehicles. Tyre Rolling Noise: tyre noise is likely to be experienced when traffic is free flowing, especially at moderate to high speeds. Body Rattle Noise: this noise occurs when a vehicle, particularly a heavy goods vehicle, passed over a traffic hump, pothole or sunken trench in the carriageway; thus causing the vehicle body, and sometimes its goods, to rattle. Other Factors, these include; vehicle speed, volume of traffic, heavy goods vehicle composition, gradient of the road and surface type.
Predicting Noise
4. The proposed methodology for predicting road traffic noise is taken from an existing approach provided by the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN). This method is based on acquiring accurate traffic information relating to the traffic composition and vehicle speeds over set period. Additional information is also collected and includes; road gradient and surface type and can be acquired using the JCAM (carriageway condition survey) technology. The CRTN deems that valid noise prediction levels can be made within 300m of a road; therefore this determines that properties within this distance of a targeted road will be included. 6.1 Page 66
Quiet Surfacing Prioritisation Methodology ______
5. The proposed methodology also provides an ability to measure the influence of the road surface on noise generation and allows for a comparison of different surfaces and standard measurement conditions. This approach has been incorporated into the noise test provided by the Highways Authorities Product Approval System (HAPAS) and is currently used in the UK for the approval and certification of road surfacing products for use on public roads. Therefore, a comparison can be made for given road surface type against that for a standard Hot Rolled Asphalt (HRA) surface.
Impact of Surface Type on Road Noise
6. Studies have shown that surfaces with a smaller aggregate size are quieter. This is as a result of the different vibrating frequency as the tyres pass over the surface. For example, a surface dressing with a 6mm aggregate has been shown to be approximately 2dB(A) quieter than one with a 10mm aggregate and approximately 2.5dB(A) quieter than one with 14 mm aggregate. It should be noted, however, that in some cases of surface dressing, by reducing the aggregate size, a loss of durability may occur. Modern TSCS (also know as Quiet Surfacing) can be significantly quieter than dense HRA and surface dressed surfacing of the past. The influence of a road surface on noise will also be determined by vehicle speed; generally speaking, the greater the vehicle speed, the greater the level of noise reduction.
Safety
7. TSCS provides a surface that is safe under wet skidding conditions as water on the road can escape from beneath the tyre patch through interstices in the surface as well as the texture depth and type tread. There are no known incidences of higher rates of pedestrian crashes as a result of quieter surfacing being applied.
Proposed Quiet Surfacing Assessment Methodology
8. The proposed methodology also seeks to quantify the proportion of people “bothered” by road noise. The Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) provides industry standard noise nuisance levels for human response to noise. It provides the percentage of people annoyed by road traffic noise, defined as ‘bothered very much or quite a lot’. The relationship between nuisance and noise is based upon research undertaken by TRL. Using this relationship, the total number of people bothered by road traffic noise in a given scenario can be predicted.
9. Information relating to the existing road surface can be acquired via the JCAM carriageway condition survey and integrated with the noise reduction level at the analysis stage in order to determine the scope of reducing road traffic noise. The key stages of the assessment methodology comprise:
Based upon the predicted noise level, noise nuisance levels for each receptor would be calculated using the tables contained within DMRB. For residential properties an average occupancy of 2.36 would be assumed. Where schools are present the approximate number of pupils would be confirmed. The total number of people bothered by noise would be calculated for the two scenarios and compared. The cost of resurfacing the road would be calculated and divided by the reduction in people bothered by road traffic noise for each scheme. All sites proposed for resurfacing are then ranked with those providing greatest noise benefits and lowest cost being preferable to those with least noise benefits and highest costs. The priority list will be presented to the Highways Advisory Board on an annual basis for their recommendation to approve the programme of works.
6.2 Page 67
Quiet Surfacing Prioritisation Methodology ______
10. In order to rigorously test and calibrate the proposed methodology and the noise prediction model component, a brief Pilot Study is recommended. The study is planned for the Summer 2008 and will identify two suitable roads and seek to quantify potential noise reduction levels at each site and prioritise where investment should be made based on the reduction in people bothered and the cost-benefit at each scheme. If supported, the results of the survey will be presented to the HAB.
Conclusions
11. The Highways Advisory Board views are requested on the proposed methodology for prioritising quiet surfacing schemes and that it supports a Pilot Study, which will run during the Summer 2008.
Contact Officers: Kim Hills (01622 221095)
6.3 Page 68
This page is intentionally left blank Page 69
ITEM 777 Traffic Regulation Order --- Electronic Consultation
A report by the Head of Network Management to the Highways Advisory Board on 8th July 2008 ______
Introduction
1. This report provides information on the proposed traffic regulation order electronic consultation process that will allow the public to view and comment on Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) via the website.
2. KHS occasionally receives complaints from County Members and the general public when traffic regulation orders are being implemented stating that they were not adequately consulted through the process. It is clear that another method of reaching a greater number of Members and residents throughout Kent would be helpful. Therefore KHS proposes to use the KCC web site to reach these, and potentially other people.
3. All Local Highway Authorities must comply with statutory legislation when conveying information about TROs to the public. This legislation requires LHAs to advertise the TROs in a newspaper in the area in which any road or other place to which the order relates is situated. To ensure that KCC complies with this legislation, KHS uses a countywide newspaper known as the Saturday Observer and the Kent on Sunday newspapers supplied by the KOSmedia Group to advertise TROs in Kent. These newspapers are free papers and rely upon the public to pick them up at supermarkets, garages, etc. KOSMedia Group prints and distributes approximately 160,000 newspapers in Kent that cover all parts of Kent.
4. The population of Kent including Medway is over 1million people and approximately 80% of the population have Internet access. Therefore using the KCC web site as an additional means to advertise TROs would reach a greater number of residents of Kent provided it was avertedly sign posted.
5. The TRO Notice would appear on the web site on the same day as the Notice appears in the newspaper and would remain there for the full 21 day consultation period. There would be an opportunity for the public to make their observations or objections to the proposals by clicking in a box on the web page and typing in their reasons for either support or objection of the TRO. They will be advised of the date by which they must reply and if necessary what date their comments will be reported to the relevant Joint Transportation Board. This will reduce the amount of letters to and from officers.
6. The pages that will appear on the web site will be a front cover (giving information and directions of how to proceed), a copy of the Notice of proposals, the proposed Order and a statement of abput why the proposals are being advertised.
7. When the observations and/or objections have been considered and after the Joint Transport Board the same process will be used when making the Order.
Conclusion
8. Promoting the TRO information in a variety of media such as the newspapers, which is a statutory obligation, and the website will capture a wider audience in Kent and would benefit those members of the public who often use technology to keep up to date with current affairs within Kent County Council.
7.1 Page 70
9. The Highways Advisory Board are asked to give their support to the introduction of a TRO Electronic Consultation via the KCC website.
Traffic Regulation Order - Electronic Consultation ______
Accountable Officers: Lloyd Holliday, Network Performance Manager, Kent Highway Services 01622 696940 [email protected]
7.2 Page 71
ITEM 8 KKKentKent Highway ServicesServices,,,, Capital Works for 2008/09 Assessment, Strengthening and StructurStructuralal MMaintenanceaintenance of Structures
A report by the Director, Kent Highway Services, to the Highways Advisory Board on 8 th July 2008 ______
Introduction
1. This report advises Members of the schemes from which the programme of capital works on highway structures will be delivered in 2008/09
2. The capital allocation made for the Assessment, Strengthening and Structural Maintenance of highway structures in 2008/09 is £1.666 million. This is below the bid in the Local Transport Plan of £4.17million intended to work towards a regime of ‘Good Asset Management’ as recommended in the ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures’ by 2011 and to meet the targets in the LTP for the Strengthening Index and Bridge Stock Condition Indicators.
3. It is also less than the figure of £3.3 million identified in a report to the Director of KHS in August last year, prepared in response to concern about the potential for closure of weak bridges due to delays in the remedial programme. This sum was aimed at completing the strengthening programme by 2012 whilst hopefully maintaining the status quo on overall condition of the asset.
4. A programme of works is being prepared to enable output to be managed both within this original allocation but also in anticipation of any improved funding should additional resources become available.
The Strategy
5. A case has been made and bid submitted for a share of any additional funding which might become available later in the financial year with the aim of delivering as much as possible of the programme outlined in the report to the Director referenced above.
6. To manage delivery within budget at whatever amount, the planned works have been scheduled at three levels as detailed below and are being prepared for staged implementation through the year.
7. ‘Unavoidable Works’ These comprise of schemes which are:- (a) already in progress (b) essential safety works (c) committed through the completion of advanced ecological works and/or approvals. (d) where land agreements have agreed access times and terms which it would be detrimental to rearrange.
8. “Must do” works are those where there is real potential for risk now in failing to deal adequately and timely with the existing situation.
9. “Should do” works are those remaining schemes which are made up of the programme identified in the report in (3) and (5) above.
8.1
Page 72
Kent Highway Services, Capital Works for 2008/09 Assessment, Strengthening and Structural Maintenance of Structures ______
10. The total budget needed to deliver the scheme s is variously: (a) “Unavoidable” Works - £1,435. (b) “Must do” Works + (a) - £2,835 (c) “Should do” Works + (b) - £3,355
11. Decisions on the implementation of schemes will be made at the time when/if additional monies become available but in any event in July, September and December.
12. Schemes will none the less be fully prepared to take advantage of any situation or ultimately, for an April 09 start.
13. All the schemes are listed in the accompanying Appendix A.
Other Potential Influences
14. Three review initiatives are underway which may produce further contingency opportunities in relation to works of maintenance and upgrade on structures:
(a) Finalising the Capital Programme of Work for ensuring the requirements of the EU Tunnel Safety Directive (2004) and the Road Tunnel Safety Regulations 2007 are met in respect of Ramsgate Tunnel. (b) A review to locate bridges of significant strategic importance to the highway network and identify what action is necessary to mitigate their potential non- availability. This was the subject of a report to the Alliance Board in April. (c) Implementing the Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures which will focus more attention on improving maintenance regimes. This too was reported to the Alliance Board in April.
Conclusion
15. The scheme preparation programme for 08/09 is being progressed to facilitate the ability to respond to any additional budget provision which might become available during the financial year.
16. Taking advantage of such opportunities is essential to ensure delivery of a Structure Asset which is both fit for purpose and moves towards the recommendations for Good Asset Management detailed in the ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures’ as they relate to the KHS defined levels of service.
17. Members are asked to note this report. ______
Accountable Officer: Tony Norfolk, Structures Manager 01622 221083 E-mail address: [email protected]
Background Documents: • Local Transport Plan 2006 to 2011 • Report to Director KHS; Bridges Vulnerable to Closure – Status Report August 2007 • Identification of Strategically Important Structures. A report to the Alliance Board 24/4/08 • Implementation of The Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures – Current Status within KHS.
8.2
Structures Management Appendix A 2008/09 – Planned Capital Programme of Bridge Assessment, Strengthening and Structural Maintenance Road Bridge Name Bridge Funding Comments and Area Number Required in 08/09 - £‘000s Schemes marked ‘A’ are ‘Unavoidable’ Works, ‘B’ are ‘Must do’ Works and ‘C’ are Incl.design fee ‘Should’ do’ Works as described in paras 7,8 and 9 of the report. R is a reserve scheme. Structures on PRN A25 Botany Bay 332 50 A Essential brick arch repairs. Awaiting track possessions to do work. Extent of work may vary as a result. Structures on ‘A’ Road Network Eastbound Vauxhall Br. 74 150 A Reconstruction of failing head and tail walls. Deferred from 07/08 due to ecological restrictions. A21 Road Tonbridge Slip. WK
Page 73 Structures on Remainder of Adequate Network
U/C Harnet Street Culvert, 1946 30 A Strengthening/relining of rapidly deteriorating culvert in critical junction location. Difficult EK Sandwich access limits options for ongoing maintenance. Carry over from 07/08. Complete.
B???? EK Barham (Valley Road) 254 350 A Replacing weak bridge and increasing capacity. £100k from drainage flood relief budget. Advance works started in March in prep. for Utility work and main scheme. In progress.
B2162 MK Twyford Bridge, Yalding 73 100 A Realignment of west end wing wall to eliminate restrictive dog-leg to facilitate unrestricted use and protect the public on and below the bridge. Deferred in 07/08 awaiting EH sanction which has now been received.
B2188 Longbridge 129 15 A Anti scour works and brickwork repairs
B???? Royal Parade Viaduct 3245 150 A Replacement of spalling balusters. Phase 1 essential safety work over public thoroughfare. Could be extended. In progress.
1 Structures Management Appendix A 2008/09 – Planned Capital Programme of Bridge Assessment, Strengthening and Structural Maintenance Structures on Other Routes
C186 MK Bilsington Bridge 385 10 A Reconstruction of bridge, which had failed it structural assessment, in accordance with over Royal Military Canal strategy for bridges over Royal Military Canal. Carry over from 07/08. Bridge Bilsington strengthening programme. Complete. Road Bridge Name Bridge Funding Comments and Area Number Required in 08/09 - £‘000s Incl.design fee C185 Stone Reaches 671 200 A Replacement of weak and weight restricted bridge. Bridge strengthening programme. Carry over from 07/08. In progress.
C696 Radnor Bridge 2351 170 B Phase 4 and completion of restoration work to eliminate risks from falling render and Page 74 EK Folkestone protect fabric of structure. Overpainting. Track possessions agreed for summer.
U11340 Stile Farm Br. Chilham 1637 610 B Reconstruction of bridge over R. Great Stour, weight restrictured to 3T due to failed MK assessment. Bridge strengthening programme.
U11475 Paternoster Ford Br. 706 200 C Reconstruction of bridge which has failed its structural assessment currently weight EK St Mary in the Marsh restricted at 3T. Bridge strengthening programme
U/C Salters 732 100 C Strengthening weak bridge. Bridge strengthening programme
D1455 Lansell Cottage 2766 100 C Replacement of weak and weight restricted bridge. Bridge strengthening programme
D1589 Barkley 80 140 B Reconstruction of weak and weight restricted cast iron beam bridge. Bridge strengthening programme
C55 Shipland 148 130 B Reconstruction of weak bridge. Bridge strengthening programme
Tannery Footbridge 3466 (50) R Replace deteriorated laminated timber footbridge Need being reviewed with local stakeholders. Reserve scheme.
U/C Seaview Terrace, Ret. 6708 45 C Possible joint scheme with Thanet District Council to strengthen retaining wall by infilling EK Wall, Margate toilet block and provide vehicle barrier. Deferred to allow further discussion with Thanet DC.
2 Structures Management Appendix A 2008/09 – Planned Capital Programme of Bridge Assessment, Strengthening and Structural Maintenance U23785 Barham “The Street” 231 (225) R Reconstruction of bridge to secure increase in flow capacity recommended on this EK Bridge, Barham section of the Nailbourne following flooding a few years ago. Scheme will also resolve structural weakness identified in parts of the structure. Reserve scheme.
Road Bridge Name Bridge Funding Comments and Area Number Required in 08/09 - £‘000s Other Works
Various Sites 150 B Replacement of ageing Aluminium parapet in accordance with national guidelines. Slipped from 07/08. Various Sites 20 A PTSI and Half Joint investigations. Carry over from 07/08. In progress.
Page 75 Various Sites 75 C Structural maintenance works. Dealing with backlog of structural defects
Interim Measures 10 A Ongoing protection of bridges awaiting strengthening.
Assessments and 200 A Ongoing programme to meet cycle of principal inspections which are the first stage of Principal Bridge bridge assessment reviews and undertaking any necessary structural assessments. Inspections
Various design and site 200 A Completing scheme preparation, supervising site works, on site design and prep.of as supervision / built records B
Forward design for 09/10 100 B Will be allocated as the year progresses for 09/10 schemes. schemes
3 Structures Management Appendix A 2008/09 – Planned Capital Programme of Bridge Assessment, Strengthening and Structural Maintenance Implementation of new 50 B Gap Analysis, Data Collection and Development of Database. Required to meet Code of Practice for Government requirements for Good Asset Management and Resource Account and Management of Highway budgeting. Agreed by Alliance Board Structures.
Total £3,405,000 Original allocation is £1.666million. Income of £100k sought from drainage flood relief fund. Outturn will be managed within final budget
Page 76
4 Page 77
ITEM 9 20 mph Speed Limits outside Schools
A report by the Director of Kent Highway Services, to the Highways Advisory Board on 8th July 2008.
Summary
1. In November 2006, a report on the feasibility of introducing a Kent-wide policy of 20mph limits outside all Kent schools was considered by this Board. The report recommended retention of the existing policy for 20mph limits and zones but did not propose an extension to all schools due to cost and practicality of enforcement without traffic calming. A further report on this issue has been requested by Members.
Introduction
2. The safety of children particularly in the vicinity of the school gate is of the highest importance. However whenever introducing 20mph limits or zones, the County Council must address a number of issues:-
• Will the introduction of such a policy actually reduce child pedestrian casualties? • What type of limit should be used and at what cost? • Could an enforceable and acceptable countywide policy be introduced?
Existing policy
3. The existing policy allows the introduction of 20mph limits or zones at any location where such measures can be justified, primarily in crash savings terms. The policy also includes other factors such as the socio-economic profile of an area along with the presence of local shops and schools however, it does not provide a specific priority for roads outside schools.
Will the introduction of such a policy actually reduce child pedestrian casualties?
4. A study of three areas has been carried out, this covered a total of 154 schools. The study looked at crashes involving child pedestrians who were injured between the hours of 07:00 and 09:00 in the morning and 15:00 and 17:00 in the afternoon during the 3 years 2005 to 2007. Saturdays and Sundays were excluded, as was the month of August.
• This study revealed a total of 211 crashes (2 fatal, 18 serious, 191 slight). Of these 36 (0 fatal, 4 serious, 32 slight) or 17% were located 300m either side of the school gate.
• However, the study shows considerable variation between areas with the highest percentage of 31% and the lowest percentage of just 8%.
• All of the fatal crashes and 78% of the serious crashes occurred away from the school gate.
• In one area even if all 6 reported cashes had happened at different schools 57 out of the total of 63 schools have gone three years without an incident being reported by the Kent Police.
• Plots of the three areas are on display for Member’s information.
9.1 Page 78
20 mph Speed Limits outside Schools ______
5. A further study of all child pedestrian fatalities (up to and including 16 years old) during the last ten years shows that of a total of 29 fatalities none occurred within 300m of the school gate at the start or finish of the school day.
6. These figures suggest that the introduction of a Kent-wide policy of 20mph limits and zones outside schools, as a crash reduction measure would be ineffective in reducing the majority of child pedestrian crashes.
7. It is likely that the new crash reduction target beyond 2010 will feature further reductions in child pedestrian crashes particularly those involving fatal injuries. We will need to target our limited resources at those areas where crashes are being reported.
8. Outside most schools, the congestion caused by parents picking up or dropping off children combined with large numbers of pedestrian and cyclists creates a slowing of traffic at the very time that it is most needed. These crash figures indicate that despite the chaotic and dangerous appearance outside schools, crashes are more likely to happen away from the school where the speed of traffic is not constrained in this way.
What type of limit should be used and at what cost?
9. A vital policy issue is what type of 20mph limit should be adopted outside its 611 schools (not including independents), permanent, part time, part-time advisory or a combination of these.
10. Permanent limits would see the limit operating all day every day. They would require the introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and road signs. The estimated cost for each site would be approximately £7,150 which includes signs, posts, implementation, design fees, safety checks and in street lit areas lighting of the signs as required in the Traffic Signs and General Regulations and Directions (TSGRD) EDF connection and the TRO. This equates to some £4.1m for all 611 schools. This cost estimate does not include traffic calming.
11. Part-time limits also require a TRO and it is likely that special authorisation would be required. Such limits would require specialist signs that would operate on a timer system. Signs currently used in Scotland have a 20mph speed limit sign with flashing lights at the top and bottom of the sign. These signs are not currently included in TSRDG and would also require special authorisation. Timers would need to be reset annually to take account of any changes to the schools start and finish times and holidays. The estimated cost here would be some £9,400 per school, as well as the costs described above all signs will require an electricity supply. The estimated cost for all schools would be £5.7m. Further costs associated with these signs include a higher level of maintenance and for re-setting the timers.
12. Part-time advisory limits are basically the same as the system described in paragraph 10, except that being advisory no TRO is required, so the cost would be about £8,100 per site or £5m
Could an enforceable and acceptable countywide policy be introduced?
13. Most activity outside schools takes place at the start and finish of the school day, so logically the limit should be consistent with those times. The limit would not be appropriate at weekends or during school holidays and the lower speed limit should be in place only at those times to be self-enforcing and understood by the motorist. It should be noted that when variable limits were monitored in trials outside schools very little reduction in speed was observed, unless speeds were already low, typically not above 9.2 Page 79
20 mph Speed Limits outside Schools ______
24mph. Research for the Department of Transport on the effectiveness of 20mph limits states “that where speed limits alone were introduced, reductions of only about 2 mph in ‘before’ speeds were achieved. 20 mph speed limits are, therefore, only suitable in areas where vehicle speeds are already low (the Department would suggest where mean vehicle speeds are 24 mph or below), or where additional traffic calming measures are planned as part of the strategy”.
14. The view of the Kent Police is that 20mph zones and limits should be self-enforcing. This means that the majority of limits and zones outside Kent’s schools would require traffic calming features. Not only would this be restrictively expensive but with many schools on “A” and “B” class roads, such features, particularly road humps could not be used. In addition, traffic calming features would be permanent and this does not fit with the need to have the limits only in place when they are actually needed. Drivers are likely to resent having their speed physically reduced when the need for slower speed exists only at start and finish of school days. Members have also concluded previously that physical traffic calming measures should be seen only as a last resort to specific crash and speed problems.
15. If a countywide policy were adopted then a priority rating system would need to be developed to see which schools should be done first. Crash data would play a part however the speed, levels of traffic and HGV flow may all need to be taken into account. Such a process would require a very considerable amount of work and a number of years to implement. I believe we would be challenged as schools discovered how far down the list they were. Even if we progressed at 50 schools per year starting from next year 09/10 it would take approximately another 13 years to achieve.
Conclusions
16. On the three key issues there appears to be no case for implementing a countywide policy for the introduction of 20mph limits outside all Kent’s schools. Crash savings would be minimal and unlikely to significantly contribute to any new crash reduction target. The cost is prohibitive, the speed limits would be unenforceable and the time frame to implement such a policy excessive.
Recommendations
17. Subject to the views of this Board, it is proposed to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste that:
(i) The County Council should not adopt a county-wide policy for the introduction of 20mph limits or zones outside all Kent schools;
(ii) The County Council should retain its existing policy of implementing 20mph limits or zones at locations where there is a clear and justifiable need for the scheme;
(iii) The effects of advisory part-time limits in the county should be investigated further and a pilot involving 6 sites where this could be implemented should be developed. The potential costs and objectives of this scheme will be brought back to this Board towards the end of the financial year, seeking funding during 2009/10. If this proves effective then further schemes could be considered.
Accountable officers: Ian Procter 01622 666375 Jim Pearce 01622 666372 9.3 Page 80
This page is intentionally left blank Page 81
ITEM 101010 2007 End ooff Yf YearY ear Crash and Casualty Numbers and Progress aagainstgainst National 2010 Casualty Targets
A report by Head of Network Management to the Highways Advisory Board on 8th July 2007 ______
2007 Crashes and Casualties Figures
1. The crash records for 2007 for Kent were finalised in May. These totals are used in establishing best value performance indicators, government targets and establishing trends.
2. In 2007 91 people were killed on roads in Kent (excluding Medway), 632 received serious injuries and 5743 were slightly injured. There were 4779 crashes. Appendix 1 shows crashes and casualties by severity for 2007
2010 Government Target
3. To help focus on achieving continuous improvement in road safety the Government has set a national target for reducing casualties by 2010. Compared with the 1994-98 average the target is:
• A 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents (KSI) – KCC as part of PSA2 intend to achieve this target by the end of 2007
• A 50% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured.
• A 10% reduction in the slight casualty rate expressed as the number of people slightly injured per 100million vehicle kilometres (MVKm). Kent does not have a traffic model appropriate for KCC roads. Therefore a simple 10% reduction in slight casualties has been used to set targets in Kent.
Current Progress against National Targets
4. Compared with the 2010 target KSI, casualties on Kent roads including motorways and trunk roads) are within ½ % of the 2010 target and at target, rounded to the whole number it is the 40% target ( Appendix 2). Child KSI casualties have exceeded the 2010 target. Slight casualties show a reduction of 3.5 %. Appendix 3 shows that on the roads for which KCC is responsible, the KSI 2010 targets have been exceeded.
5. From Appendix 5 it can be seen that the 47 child KSI casualties in 2005 appear to have been an exceptionally low year. It demonstrates the variable nature of year on year totals as shown on the trend graph from 1994 for child KSI casualties, although the overall trend is downward.
6. The 2007 total KSI casualties on Kent roads showed a 3.2 % reduction compared with 2005. KSI casualties on the roads for which KCC is responsible, however, had a 4.8% increase compared with 2006; despite this there was a 41.8% reduction compared with the 94-98 average on KCC roads. The overall trend may be flattening out or even increasing (see Appendix 2 and 4). The casualties on the Highway Agency’s roads in 2007, however showed a 27.1% decrease. The 2007 figure is consistent with the overall trend and 2006 may have been an abnormally high year for casualties on the HA roads (Appendix 4)
10.1 Page 82
2007 End Of Year Crash And Casualty Numbers And Progress Against National 2010 Casualty Targets ______
7. 2007 slight casualties on Kent roads have shown a less than 1 % reduction compared with 2006 (see Appendix 2). Slight casualties on roads for which KCC are responsible have shown a 4.6 % increase although the 2007 figure compared with 2005 shows a 5.5% reduction and compared with the 1994-98 average there has been a 7.7% reduction. This reflects the volatile nature of slight casualties (Appendix 6).
Conclusion
8. Overall KCC‘s performance is good, as we have achieved the 2010 KSI targets. The trends in casualties show a well established downward pattern albeit that it does now appear to be flattening out. The challenge over the next 3 years, 2008 to 2010, is to maintain and better the government’s targets. It is vital that we continue to deliver programmes of work aimed at both improving the road infrastructure and road user behaviour. In addition to this to achieve a down turn in these figures the casualty reduction links fostered with the Highway Agency, Police, Fire and Rescue and the other partners must be further developed into strongly focused measures aimed at influencing the road user across the County. The developed partnership working activities on the strategic network need to be extended to the local network. It should however be noted that despite a co-ordinated approach to reducing casualties, these targets are outside the direct control of this highway authority, as the daily decisions of each and every road user of Kent will affect the outcome. This target could therefore still be missed in 2010 because of random fluctuation and circumstances outside the control of the highway authority
Recommendation
9. Members are asked to note the contents of the report.
Contact Officer: Jo Horton (01622) 696850
Background Documents:
10.2 Page 83
APPENDIX 1
KCC/HA KENT COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAY AGENCY Kent SPLIT ROADS ROADS (KCC and HA) Crash and Casualty 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 Figures Summary
Crashes - all ages
Fatal 65 53 71 21 27 13 86 80 84 Serious 458 424 432 77 116 87 535 540 519 Slight 3589 3245 3401 642 887 775 4231 4132 4176 Total 4112 3722 3904 740 1030 875 4852 4752 4779 KSI 523 477 503 98 143 100 621 620 603
Casualties - all ages
Fatal 68 56 76 22 34 15 90 90 91 Serious 561 503 510 106 154 122 667 657 632 Slight 4847 4376 4578 988 1372 1165 5835 5748 5743 Total 5476 4935 5164 1116 1560 1302 6592 6495 6466 KSI 629 559 586 128 188 137 757 747 723
Crashes - involving children under 16
Fatal 5 5 8 0 4 2 5 9 10 Serious 53 72 53 2 6 7 55 78 60 Slight 503 471 448 39 61 34 542 532 482 Total 561 548 509 41 71 43 602 619 552 KSI 58 77 61 2 10 9 60 87 70
Casualties - children under 16
Fatal 2 2 5 0 3 1 2 5 6 Serious 44 63 53 1 6 2 45 69 55 Slight 575 543 515 55 86 53 630 629 568 Total 621 608 573 56 95 56 677 703 629 KSI 46 65 58 1 9 3 47 74 61
10.3 Page 84
APPENDIX 2
KENT (Including Highway Agency Roads and excluding Medway)
Kent 2010 94-98 2005 2006 2007 2007 %change 2007 % change Casualties Target Average compared with compared with (original (original reported reported 94-98 Average 2006 numbers) numbers)
Total *KSI 716 1194 757 747 723 39.45% 3.21% reduction reduction
Child *KSI 74 147 47 74 61 58.50% 17.57% reduction reduction
Total 5356 5951 5835 5748 5743 3.50% 0.09% reduction Slight reduction
Child 717 797 630 629 568 28.73 % 9.70% reduction Slight reduction
Total Casualties 6072 7145 6592 6495 6466 9.10 % 1.47 % reduction reduction
Child 708 944 677 703 629 33.37% 10.53% reduction Casualties reduction
Note Data taken from BVPI tables * Killed or seriously injured (KSI)
APPENDIX 3
KCC ROADS
KCC Area 2010 94-98 2005 2006 2007 2007 %change 2007 % change Casualties Target Average compared with compared with (original (original reported reported 94-98 Average 2006 numbers) numbers)
Total *KSI 604 1006 629 559 586 41.75% 4.83% increase reduction 57.66% Child *KSI 69 137 46 65 58 reduction 10.77% reduction
Total Slight 4466 4962 4847 4376 4578 7.74% 4.62% increase reduction
Child Slight 639 710 575 543 515 27.46% 5.16% reduction reduction Total 5070 5969 5476 13.50% Casualties 4935 5164 4.64% increase 0 reduction
Child 708 847 621 608 573 32.35% 5.76% reduction Casualties reduction Note: Data taken from BVPI tables *Killed or seriously injured (KSI) 10.4 APPENDIX 4 - 2010 Target a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI
1400
1200 Kent (exc Medway)94-98 ave 94-98 ave
1000 KCC 94-98 ave
Kent (exc Medway) 800 Page 85 Kent Target Line KCC Casualties 600 KCC Target Line
400
Highway Agency HA 94-98 ave 200
HA Target Line Based on KCC 0 targets 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year a
10.5 APPENDIX 6 -2010 Target a 10% reduction in slight injury casualties
7000
Kent (excl Medway) 6000 Kent (exc Medway) Kent (exc 94-98 ave medway Target Line 5000 KCC 94-98 ave KCC Page 86 KCC Target Line 4000
Casualties 3000
2000
HA 94-98 ave Highway Agency
1000 HA Target Line Based on KCC targets
0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year
10.6 APPENDIX 5 - 2010 Target a 50% reduction in the number of children killed or serioulsy injured (KSI)
180
160
Kent (excl Medway 94-98 ave 140 KCC 94-98 ave
120
100
Kent (excl Page 87 Casualties 80 Medway Target Line Kent (excl Medway) 60 KCC Target KCC Line
40 HA 94-98 ave
20 HA target Line Highway Agency Based on K CC 0 ta rgets 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year
10.7 Page 88
This page is intentionally left blank Page 89
ITEM 121212 Smarter Choices ––– 2008 Progress Report
A report by the Head of Transport and Development to the Highways Advisory Board on 8th July 2008 ______
Introduction
1. Smarter Choices is about improving sustainable travel options and encouraging people to use alternatives to the car to help tackle congestion and reduce pollution. Initiatives include travel planning with schools and businesses, improving public transport, marketing, car sharing, car clubs and tele/flexible working.
2. Research has shown Smarter Choices contribute cost effectively to national and local priorities improving accessibility and social inclusion, encouraging regeneration, reducing pollution and carbon emissions and increasing levels of physical activity. For Kent this initiative is a key part of delivering statutory duties and policies in Travelling to School; Choosing Health, Every Child Matters, the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and our Local Transport Plan (LTP2).
3. This report provides an update on the initiatives reported to this Board on 1 May 2007 and seeks continued member support for their implementation. With the recent substantial increases in fuel prices, this report is especially timely.
Kent’s Sustainable Travel to School Strategy
4. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 places a duty on local authorities to promote the use of sustainable travel and transport on the journey to school. Kent’s Sustainable Travel to School Strategy was duly published as a consultation draft on 31st August 2007 and is due to be published in its final form on 31st August 2008.
5. Good progress is being made on the delivery of the Strategy and its development has led to improved joined-up working between directorates involved in co-ordinating travel to school, including KHS, CFHE and Commercial Services.
6. As part of its Area Based Grant, Kent receives £112,865 per annum (5 years from 2007/08) from Government to support the delivery of this strategy. Core work areas currently include:
• An infrastructure audit, highlighting sustainable transport provision at all Kent schools • A Sustrans Bike IT officer promoting cycling to schools in Ashford • Partnership funding for the Kent and Medway Walking Bus Group Charity • Improving web based travel information for schools, pupils and parents • Additional project staff to support the promotion of sustainable travel to schools
School Travel Plans
7. 2007/08 has been another very successful year for improving travel to school, with a further 87 schools developing travel plans. This brings the total to 413, and equates to approximately 68% of all Kent schools. We are on target to achieve 100% of Kent schools by 2010. School Travel Plans have now secured over £2.5 million of additional capital grants for Kent schools to spend on infrastructure in the school grounds.
12.1 Page 90 Smarter Choices 2008 Progress Report ______
8. This year Government funding is being supplemented by funding through the Local Transport Plan with schools invited to bid for additional grants on the basis of their delivery against Travel Plan objectives and targets.
9. Kent’s School Travel Plan initiative is funded by Government through to March 2010 as part of its “Travelling to School Initiative” and from 2008/09 this funding will form part of the Kent Agreement 2 and contribute to delivering against National Indicator NI 198: ”Children travelling to school – mode of transport usually used.”
10. All Kent schools are now required to complete information relating to mode-share on the journey to school as part of their annual census returns. Data from 2006/07 provided evidence of a 5% increase in walking to school at primary schools for the first time in several decades.
Bike IT
11. As part of funding secured to support statutory duties in the Education and Inspections Act, a Bike IT officer has been appointed in a match funding arrangement with the sustainable engineering charity Sustrans. Bike IT officers work with schools to encourage cycling through training, teaching basic cycle maintenance skills and projects to enthuse children about cycling.
12. The emphasis is on safety, but there are plenty of fun activities to get the message across that cycling has both health and environmental benefits. Bike It, has seen a ten- fold increase in cycling levels in participating schools in other UK towns and cities – bucking the trend in declining numbers of children cycling to school. Early indications are that similar results are starting to be achieved in Ashford. A bid has been made to Sustrans for a second officer covering schools in Kent Thameside.
Walk to School Initiatives
13. KCC’s partnership with the Kent and Medway Walking Bus Group Charity (including Medway Council) continues to deliver outstanding results on walking to school. Kent has some 50 buses, the most walking buses of any local authority in the UK. A new risk assessment procedure and the appointment of a part-time co-ordinator has helped to ensure that these buses, which rely on parent volunteers, continue to be properly managed and monitored.
14. The partnership has also delivered two new Walk to School initiatives as part of the KM Green Footsteps Challenge, namely the Walking Bug and Walk on Wednesday (WOW). Over 140 schools across Kent and Medway have taken part in WOW and The Walking Bug during 2007/08. This has involved some 35,000 pupils and their parents. It's estimated that between October 2007 and May 2008, the schemes have taken over 110,000 school-run journeys off Kent roads.
15. In 2006 Government announced a £15 million fund to provide grants of £1,000 to state funded infant/primary schools wishing to establish or expand a walking bus scheme. Grants are available for 3 years, subject to an annual review of progress. As a result over 131 schools were supported with successful applications, levering in a further £95,500 for Kent schools to spend on supporting walk to school activities. Approximately two thirds of these schools have met the obligations of their funding and retained funding for the second year of funding in 2008/09.
12.2 Page 91 Smarter Choices 2008 Progress Report ______
Workplace and Residential Travel Planning
16. National, regional and local planning policy requires that assessment is made of the impact of new development on the highway network, that consideration is given to the accessibility by all transport modes and that Travel Plans are produced for developments that generate significant demand for travel.
17. The number of Travel Plans secured through the planning process has increased substantially in recent years leading to a requirement for improved tracking, monitoring and enforcement. Unlike the preparation of a Transport Assessment, developing a Travel Plan is not a one off exercise which can be carried out to secure planning consent and then ‘shelved’. Commitment is required on an ongoing basis to deliver against the targets within it.
18. Guidance on Transport Assessments and Travel Plans has been developed and we are working with the Kent District Councils to improve practice and support the emerging Kent Regeneration Strategy.
Car Club
19. In January 2007 the Maidstone Car Club was launched in partnership with Streetcar, the largest operator of car clubs in the UK. The scheme currently operates with two VW Polo Blue Motions in designated bays outside Sessions House and utilises web-based and Smartcard technology to book and use the cars. The key objective is to provide County Hall employees and Members requiring adhoc use of cars during the working day, with an alternative to driving to work at congested peak times, thus helping to alleviate congestion and parking pressures at and around County Hall as well as for nearby residents and businesses.
20. The scheme has been very successful as a pool car initiative for KCC employees and excellent feedback has been received concerning the quality and cleanliness of the vehicles and the reliability of the service. The scheme effectively now pays for itself, albeit with usage of the vehicles recharged to the relevant business unit.
21. In recent months, the concept of the pay-as-you-go car has gradually gained credence among local residents and businesses, leading to a marked increase in use by nearby residents. A major promotional push in April 2008, culminated in the potential for a third car to be located centrally to support the Travel Plan for the new Maidstone Borough Council offices. Discussions are also taking place with other districts regarding the possible expansion of the scheme to other parts of the County.
Kentcarshare
22. Kentcarshare is KCC’s web-based journey matching facility, developed in partnership with Liftshare. It continues to be a flag-ship initiative for sustainable transport in Kent and has expanded rapidly since its launch in September 2005.
23. Kentcarshare is a free, secure, internet-based service that's easy-to-use. The service allows you to register your journeys, and find passengers or drivers to share regular or one-off journeys. With rising fuel prices, the potential cost savings of sharing a journey just once or twice a week are substantial, not to mention the benefits for rush hour congestion.
24. To date, it’s estimated that the scheme has saved over 1.5 million miles and 481 tonnes of CO2, the equivalent that would be absorbed by 160 000 trees.
12.3 Page 92 Smarter Choices 2008 Progress Report ______
Promoting Sustainable Travel
25. KHS are supporting a number of national and local events during the summer highlighting sustainable travel and transport and the wider ‘green agenda. These include:
National Liftshare Day – 9 th June
Promotion of Kentcarshare to all KCC employees and a competition to win tickets for the Hop Farm Music Festival.
National Green Transport Week – 16 th to 22 nd June
This week involved the promotion of sustainable transport to all KCC employees as part of the development of a KCC wide travel plan. Communication via the Directorate Team Briefings encouraged managers and their teams to discuss ways to improve efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of their business travel. This included the publication of a manager’s checklist and a number of green travel tips. Free breakfast vouchers for cyclists at a number of KCC offices were also very popular.
Maidstone Goes Green Week – 23 rd to 30 th June
The development of an exciting new partnership between KCC, Maidstone Borough Council, The Maidstone Town Centre Management Group and Maidstone’s three main shopping centres (The Mall, Fremlins Walk and Royal Star Arcade) led to opportunities to promote sustainable transport in the town under the umbrella of ‘Maidstone Goes Green’. Free space was made available in all three of the shopping centres to promote KCC led ‘green’ initiatives and it’s hoped that this activity will prelude a major event on ‘In Town Without My Car Day’ on the 22 nd September. This is traditionally the culmination of European Mobility Week (13 th -21 st September).
European Mobility Week – 16 th to 21 st September
Plans are currently being developed to build on ‘Maidstone Goes Green’, leading to activities promoting sustainable transport and travel, culminating in a fun family oriented event to celebrate ‘In Town Without My Car Cay’ on 22 nd September.
Conclusion & Recommendation
26. The success of Smarter Choices relies on developing partnerships with people and organisations across Kent. A fundamental principal of Smarter Choices is to develop and deliver highway schemes and services, which are aligned with people’s travel needs. This can be achieved by continuing to engage with the public and other stakeholders to raise awareness and ownership, leading to the development of effective schemes that deliver real behavioural change.
27. Smarter Choices gives Kent an opportunity to make good progress towards improving access, tackling congestion and delivering sustainable development as defined in the LTP2. The plan builds on good practice and is achievable and cost effective. Members are asked to note the good progress being made and continue to support the delivery of the programme. ______
Accountable Officer – Graham Tanner (01622) 696 819
12.4