Page 7 Agenda Item 5

London Borough of Sutton

Sutton Local Committee - 9 September 2010

Report of the Head of Smarter Travel Sutton

SUTTON COMMON ROAD – SPEED & TRAFFIC ISSUES

Ward Location: Stonecot & Sutton North Author(s) and Contact Phone Number(s): Paul Tugwell (020 8770 4122) Area Served: North & Sutton Executive Councillor: Simon Wales

Key Decision Report

Summary This report informs Members of the conclusions made following the review of road safety along Sutton Common Road. Recommendations I recommend the Committee resolves not to proceed with any proposals, given the insufficient justification, as reported below. 1. Background 1.1 During the 10 June 2010 meeting of this Local Committee, consideration was given to its work plan for the future. It was then suggested that Sutton Common Road may have a traffic/speeding issue and should be investigated. 1.2 Officers have been asked to investigate and submit a report to the next meeting of the Sutton Local Committee. 2. Issues 2.1 The B279 Sutton Common Road is classified as a ‘Borough Distributor’ road and so has relatively high traffic flows throughout the day. 2.2 Both the Glenthorne High School and Sutton Common Park attract higher than average numbers of vulnerable road users to their immediate vicinities. Both are served by conveniently located crossing facilities. 2.3 Speed and volume surveys were undertaken for a week, commencing the 6 August 2010, to establish whether speed is a problem.

Agenda Item 5 Page 8

2.4 The locations of the surveys and the results of the surveys are tabulated below: Speed & Volume Surveys – 6 to 12 August 2010 Locations Northbound Southbound Volume 85 th %ile Volume 85 th %ile Speed Speed 1 – Adjacent to property number 4540 37.2 5382 36.3 143. 2 – Adjacent to property number 7043 33.0 7526 32.5 292. 3 - Adjacent to property number 7793 34.2 8477 32.8 420. 4 - Adjacent to property number 7700 34.0 7961 33.0 431.

2.5 The 85 th %ile speed is the speed that 85% of traffic is not exceeding. This is the UK standard of establishing the design specifications of new roads and reviewing the safety of existing ones. 2.6 There have been thirteen reported personal injury accidents (RPIA’s) during the last three years of data (ending the 28 February 2010). Of these, one was serious and the remainder involved slight injuries. The graph below shows the number of RPIA’s for the last ten calendar years:

Number of Report Personal Injury Accidents Per Calendar Year

25 22 20

15 12 11 10 9 9 7 7 7 Accidents

Number of 6 5 3 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Years

2.7 Seven RPIA’s occurred at the junction with the A217 Avenue. Two occurred when eastbound drivers disobeyed the traffic signals and collided with vehicles approaching from the north. Two involved shunts, one involved an

Page 9 Agenda Item 5

injudicious left turn into the A217 Oldfields Road, one involved overtaking injudiciously and the involved a police car (attending an emergency) colliding with another road user. 2.8 On this occasion the junction does not meet the Safety Camera Partnership’s minimum criteria for a red light violation camera. This being a minimum of 1 KSI (killed or seriously injured) and one slight accident along the same arm of the junction, within the most recent three years. Visibility on the approaches to the traffic signals appears to be good, so driver error may be a contributory factor towards the shunts and poor execution of manoeuvres. 2.9 It should be noted that the A217 Reigate Avenue/Sutton Common Road junction is located along a ‘Red Route’ and so is the responsibility of Transport for London. 2.10 Elsewhere along Sutton Common Road, the accidents involves two pedestrians crossing the road injudiciously, a cyclist entering the road in front of a car, a shunt at the mini roundabout located at the junction with Ridge Road and a driver being distracted by something that occurred within their car. Although unfortunate, it would appear that these accidents were predominately related to driver error. Even the signage at the mini roundabout is above and beyond the required standard. Hence, it is difficult to understand why the shunt occurred, unless driver frustration contributed towards it. 2.11 Understandably, all accidents are disappointing, however, there are other roads within the borough with a worse safety record. Therefore, should funding become available, it would be prudent to allocate it to those areas with the most need. 3. Financial Implications 3.1 There is currently no funding for proposals along Sutton Common Road. 4. Influence of the Council’s Core Values 4.1 Should traffic management measures be implemented, they would contribute towards a safer environment for those using Sutton Common Road. 5. Equality Impact Assessment 5.1 Should a scheme be progressed it would cater for all sections of the community along Sutton Common Road. 6. Background Papers None

Committee Rep 2008 V1.3

Page 10

This page is intentionally left blank