V4 (Watling Street) / Dansteed Way Crossing Options Evaluation Report
July 2008
Produced for Milton Keynes Council
Produced by Mouchel
Mouchel Group Knights House 2 Parade Sutton Coldfield West Midlands B72 1PH
T 0121 355 8949 F 0121 355 8901 E @mouchel.com Document Control Sheet
Project Title V4 (Watling Street) / Dansteed Way Crossing Options
Report Title V4 (Watling Street) / Dansteed Way Crossing Options Evaluation Report
Report Number 718369 / R / 001
Revision A Status First Issue
Control Date July 2008
Record of Issue
Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date
A First Issue P Timson, 07/08 D Rogers 07/08 M Sheppard 07/08 G Williams J Grant
Distribution
Organisation Contact Copies
Mouchel Business Services Luc Ashton 4 + 1
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 i Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Contents
Document Control Sheet...... i
Contents...... ii
Executive Summary...... v
1 Introduction...... 1
1.1 General...... 1
1.2 The role of Mouchel...... 1
1.3 Methodology...... 1
1.4 Parties involved ...... 1
2 Existing Condition...... 3
2.1 Site location...... 3
2.2 Masterplan...... 3
2.3 Consultations...... 4
2.4 Planning Status ...... 4
2.5 Existing Carriageway Properties...... 4
2.6 Site Visit ...... 5
2.7 Accident Data ...... 6
2.8 Statutory Undertakers Work...... 6
2.9 Environment / Archaeology...... 6
2.10 Landownership ...... 7
3 Proposed Development...... 8
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 ii Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 3.1 The Western Expansion Area Development ...... 8
3.2 Overview of Highway Improvements...... 8
3.3 Junction Improvements on the V4...... 9
3.4 Junction Improvements on Dansteed Way...... 10
3.5 Desire Lines ...... 11
4 Policy...... 13
4.1 Introduction...... 13
4.2 DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 12...... 13
4.3 National Policy...... 15
4.4 Regional Policy...... 16
4.5 Local Policy ...... 16
4.6 Conclusion...... 25
5 Design Guidance ...... 26
5.1 Introduction...... 26
5.2 General Considerations in Provision for Non-Motorised Users ...... 28
5.3 Crossing Options ...... 30
5.4 Stand-alone At-grade Facilities...... 31
5.5 Crossings at signalled junctions...... 35
5.6 Underpass Option...... 36
5.7 Footbridge Option...... 39
5.8 Conclusions...... 40
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 iii Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 6 Assessment of Crossings...... 42
6.1 General Crossing Options...... 42
6.2 Galley Hill Roundabout ...... 46
6.3 Junction 28 ...... 47
6.4 Junction 4...... 49
6.5 Connection to Carters Lane...... 50
6.6 Junction 27 ...... 51
6.7 Junction 3...... 53
6.8 Junction 26 ...... 55
6.9 Junction 25 ...... 56
6.10 Crownhill Roundabout ...... 58
6.11 Junction 24 ...... 59
6.12 Conclusions of Assessment...... 60
7 Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 68
Bibliography...... 70
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 iv Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Executive Summary
Access to the Western Expansion Area (WEA) development is proposed from six signalised junctions from the V4 Watling Street and two further junctions from Dansteed Way; Redway routes through the development lead to these junctions. The WEA developer has planning consent to provide at grade crossings for pedestrians and cyclists at these junctions. Mouchel were commissioned by Milton Keynes Council to provide an independent review of the existing crossing proposals and assess the feasibility of using underpasses or footbridges to provide alternative grade separated crossings. This report reviews current design guidance and policy documents and assesses the impacts of each crossing option in terms of traffic, safety, environment and user convenience.
Current design guidance and policy aim to encourage sustainable modes of travel by co- locating pedestrian and cycle routes with vehicle routes. It is considered that segregation leads to reduced use as routes are more isolated increasing fear of crime. Use of underpasses and footbridges on this route are shown to produce less direct routes (mainly due to the length of ramps required) leading to increase journey times. The level of inconvenience and the fact that traffic signals will be present with all crossing options may in any case act as encouragement to users to cross at grade; side roads will be retaining as at grade crossings within the signal plan regardless of the chosen crossing option across the V4 and Dansteed Way.
Providing an underpass or footbridge would have significant adverse impact on the local environment. The land required for either option requires the removal of mature trees, the footbridge will impact on local townscape, and the underpass requires extensive retaining features to avoid impacting on local industry. These options also significantly increase construction programme and cost. Grade separating the crossing is considered to have minimal pedestrian and cyclist safety issues.
The benefits of grade separating the crossings are limited whilst there are significant adverse impacts to these options. Providing crossings within the signal plan means crossings are direct and visible to users. The report concludes that the most appropriate crossing option along the V4 and Dansteed Way are the proposed at grade crossings.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 v Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 1 Introduction
1.1 General This Report is presented to Milton Keynes Council in respect of V4 Crossing Options Report and may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this Report.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report, Mouchel Group is obliged to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of the services required by Milton Keynes Council and Mouchel Group shall not be liable except to the extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence, and this report shall be read and construed accordingly.
This Report has been prepared by Mouchel Group. No individual is personally liable in connection with the preparation of this Report. By receiving this Report and acting on it, the client or any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise.
1.2 The role of Mouchel Mouchel have been employed by Milton Keynes Council (MKC) to undertake an independent review of the crossing options of the V4 (Watling Street) and Dansteed Way. The report has been requested by MKC to enable the Council’s Cabinet to have all necessary information available to make an informed decision of the most suitable option for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the V4 (Watling Street) and Dansteed Way.
A copy of the brief received from MKC can be found in Appendix A
1.3 Methodology The crossing options for V4 and Dansteed Way have been assessed by reviewing relevant guidance and policy documents, the existing site and the proposed junction arrangements, to then form a conclusion to determine the most suitable means of crossing option, based on the most practicable and cost effective solution.
1.4 Parties involved The main parties involved in this contract are Milton Keynes Council in partnership with Gallagher Estates. This group is known as Redlawn Land Estates. Historically a framework agreement was entered into between Genesis Land and Milton Keynes Council, however Gallagher Estates then purchased Genesis Land.
Atkins are currently employed by Gallagher Estates as their Consulting Engineers. (Halcrow on behalf of Genesis Land previously undertook this role). Gallagher Estates also employ JMP to undertake traffic modelling for the scheme.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 1 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Information that we have received from these parties has been amended and deemed competent and just. For the purpose of this report any reassessment of the design and assessment is outside the scope of our works.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 2 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 2 Existing Condition
2.1 Site location Milton Keynes is a ‘new town’ development situated within the south east area of England approximately midway between Birmingham and London. Milton Keynes shares borders with the local authorities of Buckinghamshire to the south and west, Bedfordshire to the east and Northamptonshire to the north. As such, good transport links are currently shared between the boroughs and transport links to the rest of the country is served by the M1.
The Western Expansion Area (WEA) encompassing the V4 (Watling Street) and Dansteed Way, located approximately two miles north of Stony Stratford and one mile north east of Two Mile Ash. This is approximately 5 miles away from the nearest motorway link, which is Junction 14 of the M1.
The Western Expansion Area is an integral part of the Local and Regional Development Plans for the Area. In total 71,000 new homes are required by 2031 and around Milton Keynes.
Due to this necessity of housing, several areas of Milton Keynes have been identified to be developed. The WEA is the largest area of new housing allocation in the Local Plan. Often referred to in MKC records as areas 10 & 11 the WEA is to provide 6,550 dwellings varying between affordable housing, to larger more expensive family homes, and is also to feature employment and education facilities.
The area to be considered by Mouchel is the V4 Watling Street from H1 Ridgeway to Crownhill Roundabout and Dansteed Way from Crownhill Roundabout to Grange Farm Roundabout. (Drawing 718369/OA/005 Location Plan – Appendix D).
This expanse of carriageway will form the boundary to the WEA site on the north and eastern side of the development. The V4 Watling Street and Dansteed Way will form boundaries to the existing communities of Fullers Slade, Kiln Farm and Two Mile Ash to the north and Crownhill to the east.
2.2 Masterplan The Masterplan of the WEA has been built up over a period of time. It complies with the Local Development Frameworks (and Local Plan) and places emphasis on empowering the pedestrian so as to achieve a more sustainable transport system within the expansion area.
The Masterplan incorporates a cycling and walking network, with integrated street design for the cyclist and free flow of pedestrian movement within the streets. This will, however, not negate the need for Redways (a shared footway/ cycleway present throughout Milton Keynes), which will link the various local streets to the wider Milton Keynes footway network. Therefore, the Redway junctions will form the basis of
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 3 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 crossings for this report. (Further details of the masterplan and WEA site can be found in section 3).
2.3 Consultations In May 2007 two consultations were undertaken by Gallagher Estates to give the public the opportunity to comment on the development plans for the WEA (referred to as MK West). A further two consultations were then held in November 2007 to allow the public to view the revised design plans. (An example of the consultation documents can be found in Appendix B).
Finally in March 2008 a consultation was undertaken to gauge public opinion would be of crossing options for the new proposal as it was thought that pedestrians and cyclists would wish to cross the V4. The conclusion of the consultation was that 63% of the local community would favour footbridge crossings in comparison to at grade pedestrian crossings. This is contrary to the design and findings of the existing proposals.
2.4 Planning Status Outline planning permission for the development was granted 5/10/07, a copy of the planning permission documentation can be found in Appendix C
This permission is conditional, with a series of planning conditions to be met.
The Section 278 works relevant for this scheme have been submitted to the council. These are also privy to a list of requirements that must be met by Gallagher Estates. The design of the Section 278 works are shown in the design highway code documents for areas 10 & 11 (as shown in Appendix C)
2.5 Existing Carriageway Properties 2.5.1 V4 Watling Street The V4 Watling Street forms one of the grid roads synonymous to Milton Keynes. It (as with all the grid roads in Milton Keynes*) has a speed limit of 60mph. Watling Street is so called because it follows the line of the Roman Road of the same name. It is believed that this Roman Road forms part of the Ilter III that runs from Dover to Wroxeter. * Apart from the V7 between H7 & H9 which reduces to 40mph because of the High Street.
The carriageway in the area of the WEA follows a straight horizontal alignment. The alignment negotiates three roundabouts and two mini-roundabouts and two existing minor road junctions. (See drawing 718369/OA/003 Appendix D). Vertically the alignment of the carriageway is relatively flat, in the centre of the scheme, to the east the alignment has a sag and crest curve and similarly to the west of the scheme. Forward visibility in the areas where a crest curve appears is clearly reduced and as such road centrelines are replaced with warning lines.
The existing single lane carriageway is approximately 9m wide except for in the vicinity of existing junctions where the carriageway widens to provide a dedicated
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 4 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 right or left turn lane where appropriate. An existing 3m wide Redway runs parallel to the length of the carriageway setback approximately 3m from the carriageway on the northern side of the carriageway, separated by a grass verge. The south side of the carriageway has a verge approximately 1.5m wide then mature planting (trees, bushes and hedges), and several accesses to farms, fields and dwellings join with the V4. On the south side of the carriageway two existing public rights of way exist (the first being a footpath that occurs approximately 720m from Crownhill Roundabout and next being 1.75km from this junction); these both appear to be infrequently used as the vegetation around the access to both was overgrown see photographs Appendix G).
The carriageway is lit on both sides along the entire length of the site and for the majority of that length the Redway is subsequently lit. Other street furniture includes bus shelters and directional signs.
Mature planting lines the carriageway on both sides.
The existing housing estates to the north are only accessible by the minor roads which adjoin Watling Street and any Redway accesses.
2.5.2 Dansteed Way Dansteed Way forms part of a horizontal grid road that runs from Wickstead Avenue to Michigan Drive / Tongwell Street. This scheme is concerned with the area between Grange Farm Roundabout and Crownhill Roundabout.
The carriageway is a single carriageway, approximately 7.3m wide. The horizontal alignment is relatively straight and the vertical is also relatively flat. Currently there are two junctions that intersect the carriageway; both of these are on the east side. From the north the first junction formed allows access to Crownhill Crematorium and Cemetery, subsequently a T- junction is formed with Hendrix Drive, following this is Grange Farm roundabout.
Similarly to the V4, a 3m wide Redway runs parallel to the carriageway setback approximately 3m from the carriageway edge on the eastern side, separated by a grass verge. Along the western side of the carriageway a grass verge is present bounded by mature trees (trees are present both sides of the carriageway). Street lighting is present on both sides of the carriageway and, as with the V4, the Redway is also subsequently lit.
2.6 Site Visit A site visit was undertaken on 13/06/2008. It was noted that the carriageway and Redway appear to be in a state of relatively good repair, and in constant use. The alignment of the carriageway appears to be horizontally straight and, with the exception of the eastern end of the V4, the vertical alignment is relatively flat. Mature trees / bushes bound the length of the V4 and Dansteed Way. To the north of the V4 planting appears to run into a ditch north of the Redway.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 5 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 The main type of vehicles on the carriageway were cars and LGV’s, it did not appear highly trafficked with HGV’s during the time of the site visit (although Watling Street is designated a high load route).
Although the Redway is not heavily used there appears to be a steady flow of users. During the site visit it was noted that several cyclists and pedestrians used the route, including a mother with pushchair. The Redway access appears to take account of any disabled users; tactile pavers are present at every minor road junction that the Redway crosses (although in several locations these are of red colour rather than buff, which is not suitable for an uncontrolled crossing and offer no distinction in colour from the Redway). The Redway is wide enough for two wheelchair users to cross side by side. The bollards that occur at the end of the carriageway are clearly contrasting in colour and are more than 1m high. However the gradient does appear to be steep in some areas which may not be suitable for manual wheel chairs, and there is no defined edging at either side of the Redway which is preferable for wheelchair and long cane users.
The site visit took place on a fine dry day so how well the carriageway drainage performs cannot be commented on.
Along both sides of the carriageway street lighting was present and other services were also noted.
2.7 Accident Data In the past three years there have been 10 slight accidents along V4 Watling Street and Dansteed Way in which 13 people in total were injured. Details of these accidents are shown in Appendix B.
2.8 Statutory Undertakers Work Currently there are a number of services present within the vicinity of the V4 / Dansteed Way. The approximate location and type of service is shown on Atkins Drawings 5057743/A10/S278/UT/905 – 913 and 5057743/A11/S278/UT/902 – 904 in appendix E
2.9 Environment / Archaeology There are several environmental and archaeological observations that can be made. As outlined previously, the V4 (Watling Street) runs along a route of the Roman Road Ilter III. The site therefore may be prone to artefacts being uncovered in any excavations.
Present on the site is mature planting which will facilitate potential habitat for badgers, newts (a stream flows close to the High Street and is culverted under the carriageway) and bats.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 6 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 2.10 Landownership Currently the WEA is owned by Gallagher Estates and Milton Keynes Council drawing 718369/OA/002 in Appendix D shows the land ownership boundaries.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 7 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 3 Proposed Development
3.1 The Western Expansion Area Development The masterplan for the WEA was produced in 2005 and covers an initial area of 360 hectares (titled Areas 10 and 11). It is proposed to build approximately 6,550 homes across the area comprising of a mixture of houses and apartments. There is also 16 hectares of land dedicated to employment including a central ‘High Street’ area towards the south east section of the site. Four primary schools, one secondary school, a health and community centre, a library and a number of other public buildings will provide further employment within the WEA along with facilities for the community. The masterplan also proposes 40 hectares of open space and 45 hectares of landscaping. These areas are predominantly along the south western boundary and along the V4 and Dansteed Way highway boundaries (creating a buffer zone). A simplified masterplan for the WEA is shown in drawing 718369/OA/001 in Appendix D
3.2 Overview of Highway Improvements The development of the WEA proposes a series of highway alterations along the V4 (Watling Street) and along Dansteed Way; these proposals are contained within the outline planning consent. For vehicular access to the WEA six new junctions are proposed along the V4 and two from Dansteed Way. Six of these crossings are signalised junctions with the remaining two being an unsignalised T-junction and an additional connection to an existing roundabout.
For pedestrians and cyclists Redway routes (3m wide combined footway / cycleway) are proposed throughout the WEA connecting to the existing routes on the V4 and Dansteed Way. Whilst the Redways through the majority of Milton Keynes are independent of the highway, these proposed Redway routes follow alongside the carriageway. At-grade crossing facilities are proposed at the V4 and Dansteed Way junctions to link the proposed Redways to existing. At the signalised junctions the crossings are incorporated within the phasing of the traffic signals and all include staggered refuges in the centre of the carriageway. These refuges are all 4.0m in width and 15.5m in length. The crossings are 4.0m wide and use pedestrian guardrail to guide pedestrians / cyclists to the crossing points. At the roundabout no controlled crossings are provided. At-grade crossings are proposed on the side roads also within the phases of the traffic signals; currently uncontrolled at-grade crossings are provided on all the side roads along this section of the V4 and Dansteed Way.
The carriageway widening required to construct each junction and the sections of dual carriageway occurs on the development side of the road. This widening requires the diversion of statutory undertaker’s apparatus. As part of the development infrastructure works the proposal is to relocate the relevant services behind the widened kerb line within the 5m wide section between the kerb line and the lighting columns underneath the verge and Redway.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 8 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 3.3 Junction Improvements on the V4 The Galley Hill Roundabout at the north western edge of the WEA (see drawing 718369/OA/005 Appendix D) remains unchanged by the development. Approximately 30m south east of this roundabout the V4 is widened along the southern side to incorporate the layout of Junction 28 (shown on Atkins drawing 5057743/A11/S278/GA/0102B in Appendix E), which is a new junction along the V4 comprising of a signalised T-junction providing access into and out of the WEA. The widening is required to incorporate a right turn lane for eastbound traffic and to widen the V4 to two lanes through the junction. Pedestrian and cyclist crossings are facilitated through pedestrian phases incorporated into the traffic signal plan. There is no Redway on the northbound side of the carriageway from this junction to the Galley Hill Roundabout. Traffic modelling to the year 2016 (when the WEA will be fully developed) shows that whilst for the majority of time the option of a roundabout and signalised junction produces similar delays, during the morning peak severe queues are predicted for southbound traffic. The expected queue length at the worst interval is 552 vehicles causing delays beyond the previous junction.
South east of Junction 28 the V4 is widened to a dual carriageway up to Junction 4 (layout shown on Atkins drawing 5057743/A11/S278/GA/0103B in Appendix E). Here the existing Kiln Farm Roundabout is replaced with a signalised crossroads which includes the access to the WEA. Right turn lanes are provided on both the V4 approaches to this junction; immediately after the junction (heading eastbound) the V4 reduces to a single lane in each direction. Pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities are again provided by incorporating phases within the signalisation; central islands are provided to cross the V4 as described previously but not on the WEA access road or Millers Way. Redways provide access along each arm of this junction. Whilst the traffic assessment for the future year 2016 shows that both this junction layout and the roundabout operate within capacity, delays to traffic during both morning and evening peak periods are reduced for the signalised junction.
The single carriageway continues from Junction 4 along its existing alignment for approximately 525m to Junction 27 (layout shown on Atkins drawing 5057743/A10/S278/GA/0105A in Appendix E). At Junction 27 the carriageway is again widened to two lanes in each direction, further widening is proposed at the junction to incorporate right turn lanes on both approaches along the V4. The layout for pedestrian / cyclist crossings is identical to Junction 27 although there is no Redway route along Tiler Road. The predicted traffic delays in the year 2016 attributed to the junction layout shows that whilst for the majority of the day the difference between a roundabout and a signalised junction is not significant, during the morning peak period a roundabout causes increased delays, particularly for southbound traffic; a roundabout has been estimated to increase queue length by 103 vehicles during the peak hour.
Beyond Junction 27 the V4 remains as a dual carriageway through Junction 3 to Junction 26; all widening occurs on the southern side of the existing road alignment.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 9 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Junction 3 (shown on Atkins drawing 5057743/A10/S278/GA/0106A in Appendix E), replaces an existing double roundabout linking the V4, Monks Way and Calverton Lane with a signalised crossroads. Calverton Lane is an existing route into the WEA site which is retained as part of the works. The Redways do not extend along Monks Way or Calverton Lane; the Redway link from Calverton Lane links to the V4 Redways 40m further north west. At-grade crossings with central islands are included on each arm of the crossroads; no dedicated pedestrian phases have been included in the signal plan but the 4-stage operation of the signals allows pedestrians to cross each arm whilst traffic is stopped. Delays estimated by the traffic model for the year 2016 traffic flow show that the signalised option and roundabout option produce similar delays. The main issue regarding a roundabout occurs along Monks Way. During the morning peak period (7.45am-9.15am) the roundabout creates a queue length of 508 vehicles compared to 42 vehicles for a signalised junction. In the evening peak period the results is similar; a roundabout causes a queue length of 437 vehicles compared to 52 for a signalised junction. This causes queuing beyond the A5 / Monks Way junction 1.11km further north.
At Junction 26 the WEA proposal required an additional arm to be constructed on an existing junction to convert the T-junction into signalised crossroads (layout shown on Atkins drawing 5057743/A10/S278/GA/0107A in Appendix E). Dedicated right turn lanes have been provided on both approaches on the V4 which further widens the carriageway on the southern side of the existing alignment through this junction. There are Redway routes along each of the arms and crossing facilities are provided at –grade; staggered refuge islands are provided at each arm apart from the access into the WEA although on this arm the crossing is located further back from the junction. The traffic model shows no significant difference in delay terms between a signalised junction and a roundabout, although during the evening peak a signalised junction increases queue length by 20 vehicles. Proposing a signalised junction provides consistency along this section of V4.
From Junction 26 the V4 is widened to remain as a dual carriageway to Junction 25 (layout shown on Atkins drawing 5057743/A10/S278/GA/0108A in Appendix E). This junction is similar in layout to Junction 28; a new T-junction introduced to provide access to the WEA from the V4 with right turn lanes provided on the approaches from the V4. At-grade crossings with the staggered refuge are provided on each of the arms of the junction connecting the Redway routes. Delays in the future year are shown to be similar for a signalised junction and a roundabout; proposing a signalised junction retains consistency of junction layout along this section of the V4.
South east of Junction 25 the carriageway narrows back to the existing single lane carriageway. The existing roundabout connecting the V4 to Dansteed Way remains unchanged by the current WEA proposals.
3.4 Junction Improvements on Dansteed Way There are no changes proposed to the existing carriageway along Dansteed Way; the only alterations along this road occur at the two access points into the WEA. The G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 10 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 first is Junction 24 which becomes a staggered priority junction with new road into the WEA and an improved access into a crematorium. The existing carriageway is widened on the western side to incorporate a right turn lane into the WEA from Dansteed Way and a new right turn lane into the crematorium. There is no Redway south of this junction therefore only one crossing has been provided across Dansteed Way between the two T-junctions. This crossing has a staggered refuge.
Junction 1, the Grange Farm roundabout, is currently a three-arm roundabout connecting the H4 Dansteed Way to the start of the V3 Fulmer Street. The existing roundabout has a central island diameter of 40m and an Inscribed Circle Diameter (ICD) of 55m. The proposal is to provide access to the WEA by adding an extra arm to the existing roundabout. An ARCADY (Assessment of Roundabout Capacity and Delay) assessment of the roundabout at 2016 with full implementation of the WEA scheme shows that the 4-arm roundabout will operate within capacity. Pedestrian / cyclist crossing facilities are provided at grade 30m back from the roundabout on the new arm and both Dansteed Way arms.
3.5 Desire Lines The desire lines will be located where it is predicted that pedestrians and cyclists will need and want to travel. For pedestrians it can be assumed that the average length of a journey is 0.6 miles. Cyclists generally will travel a longer distance than this; however between 2 miles – 5 miles will be a maximum distance the majority of cyclists will travel. (DfT statistics) So for the desire line assessment it may be reasonable to assume that pedestrians and cyclists will want to access the most local of amenities.
Policy documents reviewed have stated that as these forms of transport are the most sustainable there is a desire to encourage more walking and cycling. One of the ways in this is encouraged is by promoting walking and cycling to work and school. Therefore it should be considered that walking to work and school will be one of the most encountered desire lines, along with trips to local amenities and services such as the doctors, dentist, shops, educational facilities and places of worship. There are many local amenities present in the vicinity of the site; however the WEA will have several amenities on the site. It should be noted that there is a tendency for residence of a defined areas of Milton Keynes to remain in that specific area for most part.
The determination of desire lines based on the locations of trip attractors such as schools, retail centres, leisure and work activities, etc, both within the WEA development site and beyond, would involve a detailed study to fully establish. This is assumed to have been undertaken in the development of the site master plan and in discussions during the planning stage. An assessment of the extent to which the proposed crossing locations match up to the accepted/predicted desire lines or necessitate a short but acceptable detour has been undertaken and has been summarised in Appendix G.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 11 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 The factors which must impact on the desire lines for pedestrian/cyclist movement such as junction spacing requirements, environmentally sensitive areas, site constraints, cost implications, etc which will adjust the actual provided route accordingly are considered in Appendix G.
As regards the proposed at-grade crossing points at signalised junction locations, their number and frequency suggest that any deviations from straight line links between points of trip origin and destination would be acceptable bearing in mind the above factors (see Appendix G for details). Ramps required for bridge or subway crossings would introduce further deviation from a direct route and increase journey times; this is further commented on later in this report. The number of any grade separated crossings needed to satisfy desire line requirements may also be prohibitive in terms of cost.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 12 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 4 Policy
4.1 Introduction This section of the report aims to look at the existing policies that will have an impact on the V4 / Dansteed Way crossing option scheme. Several policies will be looked at as derived below from standards set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Each of the following policy documents will be summarised and the specific relevance to the V4 / Dansteed Way crossings will be discussed. At the end of this section a general conclusion will be drawn stating what is felt to be the best form of crossing for this specific carriageway based solely on policy.
4.2 DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 12 This section of the DMRB provides guidance on the source of policy documents for a proposed road scheme in terms of the wider context of national, regional, strategic and detailed planning policies.
National Guidance – the Government will issue national guidance to planning authorities after consultation on draft proposals. This and other national policies must be taken into account by authorities when developing plans. Decisions on planning applications must be made on the basis of the development plan. Guidance in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) have been issued, and will be discussed. PPG 13 – Transport has been considered for this scheme.
Regional Guidance – In England the Government‘s Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) suggests a development framework for the region. For schemes in Milton Keynes the document to be considered is the ‘Regional Planning Guidance for the South East’.
Local Guidance – In England and Wales Local Plans are produced by district councils, and set out detailed policies and specific proposals for the development and use of land. Milton Keynes has developed such a document which encompasses the Western Expansion Area.
Hence national guidance will be relevant to the regional guidance and similarly regional guidance will be relevant to local. Figure 4.2 gives an example of this statement showing how Local Plan policy is derived.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 13 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Figure 4.2 Derivation of local guidance
Key Strategies and Policies Key National Strategies and Policies Sustainable Communities: Building for the future The future of Transport : White Paper Planning Policy and Guidance Notes (PPGs)
Key Regional ; Strategies and Policies Regional Planning Guidance (RPG 9), Regional Economic Strategy (SEEDA) Regional Transport Strategy (of RPG 9)
Related Key Local Strategies Related Key National and Policies with Transport Strategies and Policies Impacts with Transport impacts Joint Economic Development Strategy Local Disability Discrimination Act Crime and Disorder Act LOCALIII Transport National Air Quality Strategy Adopted Local Plan Plan Choosing Health White Paper MK Local Agenda 21 Strategy MK Partnership Business MK Learning & Economic Strategy Plan MK Community Strategy
Local Transport Strategies and Policies Sustainable Integrated Transport Strategy Walking Cycling Public Transport Road Safety Rural Transport Traffic Management Parking Freight Bridge Maintenance Road Maintenance
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 14 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 4.3 National Policy 4.3.1 Department of Transport – White Paper - A New Deal for Transport Better for Everyone Some areas of this paper are directly relevant to crossing option appraisal, specifically the section entitled ‘Walking and Cycling a Positive Choice’. However this paper predominantly sets out a hierarchy of needs that is more relevant when outlined at a local level. 4.3.2 Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport Policy PPG13 sets out the transport policy in context, detailing that ‘weneedasafe, efficient and integrated transport system to support a strong and prosperous economy. But the way we travel and the continued growth in road traffic is damaging our towns, harming our countryside and contributing to global warming.’
The objective of this document is to provide guidance in the production of development guidance at a national, regional and local level, which: • Promotes sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight;
• Promotes accessibility to job, shopping and leisure facilities and services by public transport walking and cycling; and
• Reduces the need to travel, especially by car.
The guidance also refers to development plans stating that local authorities should:
• Give priority to people over ease of traffic movement and plan to provide more road space to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport
• Ensure the needs of disabled people as pedestrians, public transport users and motorists are taken into account in the implementation of planning policies and traffic management schemes, and in the design of individual developments consider how best to reduce crime and the fear of crime, and seek by the design and layout of developments and areas, to secure community safety and road safety.
The document continues to outline planning policies, travel demand and implementation.
The key message for this document is that walking and cycling considerations must be made when planning, ensuring that these potential routes are safe and easy to use, they are direct (journey time is not too long) and there is adequate provision for disabled users.
All these factors must be considered when deciding the suitability of crossings.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 15 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 4.4 Regional Policy 4.4.1 Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) – RPG 9 was provided by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, covering the time period to 2016. The guidance refers to London and the Rest of the South East (ROSE) within this policy document; it is this section of ROSE that will affect the WEA. The key vision for the document is to ‘encourage economic success throughout the Region, ensuring a higher quality of environment with management of natural resources, opportunity and equity for the Regions population, and a more sustainable pattern of development… promoting a wider choice in travel options, thereby reducing the reliance on the private car’.
This is a key statement for the crossing options as clearly sustainability is of high importance.
4.5 Local Policy 4.5.1 Milton Keynes Council Local Plan The Local Plan has been the starting point for all planning advice and decisions made by MKC, covering the time frame of 2001 – 2011. This document will have formed the basis of policy for area. However, in June 2005 the Local Plan was replaced by the Local Development Frameworks. As such this is the policy that should be adhered to, although historically and in some policy documents the Local Plan will be referred to.
4.5.2 Western Expansion Area – Development Frameworks The WEA – Development Framework is a text specific to this area of redevelopment, and as such is arguably the most important policy document. It sets out general policies, proposals and design principles specific to the WEA.
MKC and Milton Keynes Partnership (MKP) in consultations with key stakeholders and landowners have prepared this documentation.
Site surroundings and site-specific constraints and opportunities are discussed. Within this subheading the specific constraint of the V4 Watling Street and Dansteed Way severing the local communities is identified and the objective of ‘Overcoming the potential severance effect of surrounding grid roads’ is highlighted. The opportunity to ‘create good integration with existing developments and develop links with the existing Redway network’ is also outlined.
These factors must be taken into consideration when evaluating the options for crossing the V4 and Dansteed Way. Another important factor highlighted by this report is that sustainable methods of transport should be used, and that these can be promoted by safe, direct and attractive routes for pedestrians and cyclists. With the overall objective being ‘to encourage people to walk or cycle within the neighbourhood by the provision of a segregated primary footpath/cycleway network
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 16 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 integrated into the urban form, which is direct, pleasant and safe to use with highway crossings at grade.’
The document also states that links must be provided for the footway / cycleway to access the Redway networks.
This document sets out guidance to how the WEA is to be developed; it takes into account planning and policy for the whole site. Where this plays a role for the V4 crossings is to highlight that good connections must be made so as not to sever the community and for the route to be safer, direct and pleasant.
4.5.3 Sustainable Integrated Transport Strategy The Sustainable Integrated Transport Strategy (SITS) is produced by Milton Keynes Council and envelops the messages set out by the Governments White Paper on the Future of Transport – ‘A new deal for transport – Better for everyone’.
This policy document summarises that, as traffic forecast suggest, in 20 years time vehicle movements will be 47% - 73% higher in Milton Keynes (this is nearly double the national figure). The huge car dependency Milton Keynes relies on is threatening the city itself, due to pollution (which ultimately contributes to global warming) and traffic congestion.
The SITS document aims to put forward a strategy to reduce these effects. By bringing a significant shift from the car to other ways of travelling , such as walking, cycling and public transport. This will encourage social, economic and environmental improvement.
Specifically this has impact on the V4 / Dansteed Way crossing options as the policy aims to:
• Encourage people to walk by ensuring that pedestrian safety and directness of routing is improved, and by promoting walking as a safe, healthy and sustainable way of travelling.
• Encourage people to cycle by ensuring that cycles can be used safely and easily throughout the council area, and by promoting cycling as a safe, healthy and sustainable way of travelling.
• Change public attitude to movement by encouraging drivers to walk, cycle or use public transport for as many journeys as possible as an alternative to the car.
This means that for the V4 / Dansteed Way crossing options all routes and crossings by inference must be direct and convenient to use, they should not be contrived or offer any problems with use, especially for vulnerable users such as wheelchair
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 17 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 bound or partially sighted users. Safety of users with regards to personal safety and accidents is also a main consideration.
4.5.4 Milton Keynes – Local Transport Plan (LTP2) The Milton Keynes Transport Plan takes guidance from National, Regional and Local Polices and Strategies, developing objectives from Local Transport Plan 1.
The transport plan assesses all associated factors that impact on the Milton Keynes transport system, and outlines the challenges and opportunities of the system for improvements in the future.
Eight development objectives have been identified :
• Improving accessibility to schools, shops, jobs and health care; • Improving safety; • Reducing congestion; • Improving air quality; • Improving maintenance; • Improving quality of life; • Encouraging sustainable growth; and • Encouraging a modal shift. These have a specific reference to the V4 / Dansteed Way scheme, with reference to road safety. LTP2 goes on to state that ‘Milton Keynes put a high priority on road safety. 92 people were seriously or fatally injured in 2004. The council aim to tackle this problem by focusing on three key user groups:’
• Children • Powered two-wheelers; and • Vulnerable road users – Pedestrians and cyclists This last group will be users of the V4 / Dansteed Way crossings, although all other groups will utilise the carriageway and Redways. It is therefore this group of users that we will concentrate on in terms of the LTP 2.
‘The off-road traffic free cycle and pedestrian network (Redways) offer many opportunities to promote sustainable and healthy transport modes. However, these are under utilised due to the perception of personal safety in many underpasses, overgrown vegetation and secluded routes………Making the Redways more attractive and putting in place measure to minimise the risks of collision at junctions with the highway network, are of paramount importance in encouraging greater use’.
Reducing congestion will also play a key part in derivation of the scheme as roundabouts were assessed not to be the most suitable form of junction due to the
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 18 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 specific problem of transport congestion, although this form of junction is prevalent around Milton Keynes, this was not deemed to cause any objections.
4.5.5 Department of transport - Road Safety Good Practice Guide This guide is relevant to the crossings, specifically section 4. This outlines statistics of accidents and details the good practice to lower the current levels of casualties. With relevance to the V4 crossings the guidance states
‘For roads with heavy traffic flows the only solution may be to physically separate pedestrians by means of footbridges or subways. There is, however, a need to take account of pedestrians general reluctance or inability to take longer routes or apparently unnecessary steps or slopes, and concern about their own security (eg fear of underground passages and crime). Successful grade separation keeps the pedestrians on the level following their desired path, whilst vehicles undergo the change in level. Important issues such as siting, sight line, lighting, dimensions etc need careful consideration.’
To keep the pedestrian on their desired path would not be viable for the V4 crossings and it would be the pedestrian which changed their level. This is not best practice according to this guidance. Also by inference pedestrians may be unwilling to go out of their way to use grade separated crossings and choose to cross at grade.
4.5.6 Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/04 LTN 1/04 Policy encompasses a number of guidelines and policy documents to give an extensive document that covers various details of policy that is necessary for cycling and walking.
The need to provide for pedestrians and cyclists is emphasised in the Government's Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans and in Transport 2010 - The 10 Year Plan in which the delivery mechanisms for the Transport White Paper are outlined. These documents emphasise the key role of walking and cycling as the main modes used for short trips and in providing access to public transport for longer journeys.
High quality design of townscapes and rural transport infrastructure can help to encourage walking and cycling and assist with tackling social exclusion in many ways (see Towards an Urban Renaissance, DETR 1999, and Making the Connections - Transport and Social Exclusion, Social Exclusion Unit, ODPM 2003).
Statistics show that the government has set out casualty reduction rates in its policy document ‘Tomorrow’s roads safer for Everyone DETR 2000’; most importantly this document outlines the five key design requirements that are common to cyclist and pedestrians:
Convenient: Networks should allow people to go where they want, and new facilities should usually offer an advantage in terms of directness and/or reduced delay compared with existing provision. Routes and key destinations should be properly
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 19 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 signed and street names should be clearly visible. On-street route maps can be particularly helpful in certain locations. Published route maps should also be made available. Ideally, routes should be unimpeded by street furniture, pavement parking and other obstructions which can be particularly hazardous to visually impaired pedestrians. There should be the minimum practicable delay for pedestrians and/or cyclists waiting at signalled crossings, and they should not face long detours along their route. Trip-end facilities should be clearly marked, conveniently located, and appropriate for the likely length of stay. Designers should consider the future ease of maintenance, including access to vehicles for sweeping, trimming grass verges and making surface and lighting repairs along off-road routes.
Accessible: Pedestrian and cycling routes should form a network linking trip origins and key destinations including public transport access points. The routes should be continuous and as direct as possible in terms of distance and journey time (type and colour of surfacing can be used to stress route continuity as appropriate). There should be proper provision for crossing busy roads and other barriers in urban and rural areas, and in some areas there should be a positive advantage over private motorised traffic. As far as is practicable, all parts of each route (including crossing points) should be situated on desire lines. Routes should be provided into and through areas normally inaccessible to motor vehicles such as parks and shopping centres, as this may help to encourage modal shift. Safe access for pedestrians and cyclists should be maintained at all times during road works. The needs of people with various types and degrees of disability should be taken into account at the design stage by consulting local groups representing them.
Safe: Not only must infrastructure be safe, but for the well being of users, it must be perceived to be safe. Traffic volumes and speeds should be reduced where possible in order to create the desired conditions. Reducing the impact of motor traffic also facilitates the implementation of other measures beneficial to pedestrians and cyclists which might not otherwise be viable. Opportunities for redistributing space within the highway should be fully explored including moving kerblines and street furniture, providing right-turn refuges for cyclists or separating conflicting movements by using traffic signals. The potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists should be minimised. Maintenance plays an important part with regard to safe operation, and surface defects should not be allowed to develop to the extent that they become a hazard. Similarly, vegetation should be regularly cut back to preserve available width and sight lines. The latter is particularly relevant with regard to crime and the fear of crime. Apart from long sight lines, the risk of crime can be reduced through the removal of hiding places along the route, provision of lighting, and the presence of passive surveillance from neighbouring premises or other users. Waiting rooms, cycle parking etc, should be sited where people using the facilities can feel safe. In rural areas, the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians should be considered where their routes cross busy roads, and where a satellite village or district is separated from a town or city by a major ring road or bypass.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 20 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Comfortable: Infrastructure should meet design standards for width, gradient, and surface quality etc, and cater for all types of user, including children and disabled people as appropriate. Pedestrians and cyclists benefit from even, well-maintained and regularly swept surfaces with gentle gradients. Dropped kerbs are particularly beneficial to users of wheelchairs, pushchairs and cycles, and tactile paving needs to be provided to assist visually impaired people. Dropped kerbs should be properly flush with the road surface. Even a very small step can be uncomfortable and irritating for some users, especially if there are several to be negotiated along a route. Seating at regular intervals is desirable to enable people to stop and rest. Comfort is enhanced when users are free from the fear of crime.
Attractive: Aesthetics, noise reduction and integration with surrounding areas are important. The walking and cycling environment should be attractive, interesting and free from litter, dog mess and broken glass. If possible, routes should cater for users wishing to stop, chat and rest. The ability for people to window shop, walk or cycle two abreast, converse or stop to look at a view makes for a more pleasant environment. Public spaces need to be well-designed, finished in attractive materials, and be such that people want to stop in them to spend some time there. The surfaces, landscaping and street furniture must be well-maintained and regularly cleaned, and in keeping with the surrounding area. Issues of light pollution should be considered in addition to personal security in rural and semi-rural routes.
(This section is summarised in the following section included in TA 91)
The document also considers the provision of crossings for and the design guidance to be adhered to it does not however give any additional design requirements at a qualitative level.
4.5.7 Encouraging Walking – Advice to local authorities This paper as the title suggests outlines governments strategies to make walking easier, more pleasant and safer than it is now. The advice outlines access stating that pavements, crossings and pedestrian access to public transport should be suitable for:
• Wheelchair and walking aids; • Sight and hearing impairments; • Prams and pushchairs; • All levels of fitness; The crossings must then suit all of these users.
The advice then outlines other aspects such as planning and practical actions, this applies to the V4 crossings as this will improve walking routes:
• Putting crossings where people want them;
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 21 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 • Making crossings wider to keep traffic further away; • Include pedestrian phases in traffic light sequences; • Reducing waiting times at signal control crossings; The guidance highlights that fear of speeding and accidents is one of the main reasons people give for not walking, as is crime or the fear of it, and that shared access tracks for pedestrians and cyclists is not the most preferable solution for pedestrian access (this is contrary to Milton Keynes Redway ethos). However the most important factor this paper highlights is that crossing should be made easier. It states that ‘the general aim should be to provide crossings which are safe, convenient and where people want to cross. In practice this means: • Crossing at street level People find bridges and subways unsafe, difficult or too time consuming. They are tempted to risk dodging the traffic. The aim should be to provide safe crossing at street level where at all possible. • Short waiting times at controlled crossings If people have to wait too long for the green signal, they will risk crossing during the traffic phase. The traffic is then brought to a halt when there are no pedestrians • Reducing the threat of traffic’ The physical design of junctions should be adapted to provide the best safety obtainable. This guidance clearly places preference on at grade crossing of carriageways where practicable. The V4 / Dansteed Way is suitable to cross at grade.
4.5.8 Milton Keynes Walking Strategy This paper discusses the trends in walking activity specifically with relevance to Milton Keynes. The document also states that 80% of journeys under 1 mile (1.6km) long and over 27% of all trips are walked. In Milton Keynes this figure is slightly below national average at 24%
The policy outlines barriers to walking which are faced in Milton Keynes, these must be considered when addressing the V4 crossings as they will have a significant impact on the scheme.
Crime – ‘Crime or fear of crime is a distinctive barrier to walking. On the Redway network, overgrown vegetation, blind corners, poor lighting, vandalism and uninviting underpasses may make pedestrians (and cyclists) feel uneasy and threatened. 1% of all reported crime in Milton Keynes occurs on the Redways, although most incidents are in high crime areas than dispersed across the whole network.’
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 22 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Walking distances – ‘Where a possible route is identified, the individual will need to balance the benefits of making the journey on foot compared to the distance and therefore the time taken to make that journey’.
(Segregation and unauthorised users are also discussed).
The Redway network to which the crossings will connect, accounts for over 250km of footway / cycleway across Milton Keynes. Redways are dedicated to providing a pleasant environment, however these access ways are not free from problems; ‘segregation from other road users, subways, overgrown vegetation vandalism and poor lighting tend to make users feel vulnerable especially at night. Maintenance of the Redway is difficult due to lack of funding.’
These factors must be taken into account when designing the crossings showing that a well lit, low maintenance solution would be preferable.
The strategy aims to take account of the Local Transport Plan, and as such reiterates the objectives of the plan, highlighting the following areas in which the strategy may be delivered, (these are of particular reference to the V4 crossings although these are taken from Central Milton Keynes development Framework):
• Infill of certain underpasses and create at grade crossings;
• Improve at-grade crossings;
• Lighting for aesthetic and safety purposes;
• Uncluttered Streetscape.
Therefore the most suitable crossing option in line with this guidance would be an uncluttered, low maintenance, safe crossing option.
4.5.9 Milton Keynes Cycling Strategy A cycling strategy has also been produced for Milton Keynes; this is not as comprehensive a guide as that for walking strategy, but sets out a similar approach.
4.5.10 Internal Milton Keynes Council Policy It is understood that Milton Keynes Council does not have any specific policy regarding crossing of grid roads within the Milton Keynes.
It is commonly assumed that underpasses are the preferred manner in which pedestrians should cross the grid roads, however this is a historic preference and in new build schemes subways are not necessarily preferred. The historic reason for subways being prevalent in Milton Keynes is the ease in which the subways were first built when the grid roads were initially conceived and constructed. This is not necessarily the case today, and other alternative means of crossing the carriageway
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 23 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 are now being looked at. An example of alternative forms of crossing the carriageway can be seen between Witan Gate and Avery Boulevard where an existing underpass has been replaced by an at grade pedestrian crossing.
4.5.11 Compulsory Purchase Order Compulsory Purchase Orders must be approved by the council and then follow a formal statutory process.
The basic steps are as follows:
Instructions received to make a Compulsory Purchase Order.
Obtain information regarding legal interests in the land including serving requisitions for information, title checks and notification of affected persons that their interests in the land can be sold to the authority in advance of compulsory purchase or an Order will be served in due course.
Draft report regarding compulsory purchase including draft Statement of Reasons for making, and the draft CPO itself to present to Cabinet.
Cabinet approves Compulsory Purchase Order.
The Order is formally made by affixing the Council's Seal, advertisements are placed in the press, formal Notices including a copy of the Compulsory Purchase Order and the statutory forms served upon all persons of legal interests in the land. This allows a 28 day objection period.
(See Appendix F for detailed timings of CPO’s)
If objections are received the Secretary of State will direct a Compulsory Purchase Order Inquiry to be held. This is held within a timescale set by the Secretary of State and will normally involve a Pre-Inquiry Meeting and a formal Open Public Inquiry into whether the Compulsory Purchase Order should be confirmed or not. Once the Inquiry has been completed, the Inspector will put a report before the Secretary of State who will decide whether to confirm the Order as drawn, modify it, or reject the Compulsory Purchase Order.
If there are no objections the Secretary of State, or in certain circumstances the local authority, confirm the Compulsory Purchase Order. Once a Compulsory Purchase Order has been confirmed the Council can serve a General Vesting Declaration or a Notice to Treat / Entry which will transfer the legal interest from the then owner to the Council. After this the development / clearance can begin.
The various Acts lay down a set of rules for compensating persons who have had legal interests compulsorily purchased, based upon putting that individual into a
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 24 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 similar position as before they lost their interest, either by compensating them in monetary terms and / or providing them with alternative accommodation.
This policy will have an impact on the design and timescale of the scheme.
4.5.12 Other relevant policies There are many other government policies that could be referred to such as
• Planning Policy Statement 12 – Local Spatial Planning; • PPG3 – Housing; • Milton Keynes local Agenda 21. However these are not as directly relevant as the other documents discussed.
4.6 Conclusion In conclusion several areas of policy have been looked at, and there appears to be a repetition of key issues, which suggest that the crossing would need to be:
• Safe; • Easy to maintain; • Direct; • Provide a good link so the community is not severed ; • Allow for sustainability within the transport system; • Encourage walking and cycling.
These factors dictate that the most suitable method of crossing for this section will be an easy to access, direct route that pedestrians and cyclists do not feel vulnerable to use which is safe, pleasant and well maintained. This would suggest that:
• Footbridge - May not be suitable as it will not provide direct access across the carriageway as pedestrians will need to walk further to the point where they may cross and this may discourage use, this also will increase journey time; • Underpass – May not be suitable as this may provide pedestrians with a feeling of vulnerability. For an underpass not to appear unwelcome they must be free from graffiti and well lit, this obviously has maintenance implications and costs associated with the upkeep; • At-grade crossing – This appears to be the most suitable crossing option in terms of policy as pedestrians would have a crossing on the desire line that is easy to use, and direct, that does not deter use because of safety concerns, that is at grade with the surroundings hence will not cause a feeling of severance.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 25 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 5 Design Guidance
5.1 Introduction The content of this Chapter is based on design standards, guidance and advice given in the following documents:
• Inclusive Mobility – a Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure (DfT 2002)
This provides guidelines to allow good access facilities for disabled people.
• TA90/05 (DMRB - Volume 6, Section 3, Part 5) The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes
This provides guidance on the geometric design for pedestrian and cyclist off- carriageway routes but does not cover issues of route choice, scheme assessment, signing or more general design aspects.
• TD36/93 (DMRB - Volume 6, Section 3, Part 1) Subways for Pedestrians and Pedal Cyclists Layout and Dimensions
This standard gives the requirements for geometric alignments and cross sections of subways, access ramps and stairs.
• TA91/05 (DMRB, Volume 5, Section 2, Part 4) Provision for Non- Motorised Users
This highlights the needs of the pedestrian and cyclist and provides guidance on provision of both Off-Carriageway Routes (OCRs) and on-carriageway facilities, including crossings and junctions.
• HD42/05 (DMRB Volume 5, Section 2, Part 5) Non-Motorised User Audits
Non Motorised Users (NMU) Audits should promote consideration of pedestrian and cyclist interests in order to achieve optimum provision within any design constraints.
• TA 68/96 (DMRB Volume 8, Section 4, Part 5) The Assessment and Design of Pedestrian Crossings
This provides advice on the assessment and design of pedestrian crossings as contained in the Local Transport Notes 1/95 (The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings) and 2/95 (The Design of Pedestrian Crossings). These LTNs provide details of practices to be followed with at-grade pedestrian crossings.
• BD29/04 (DMRB Volume 2, Section 2, Part 8) Design Criteria for Footbridges
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 26 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 This standard specifies non-structural criteria for the design of footbridges for use by pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.
• Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/05 – Pedestrian facilities at Signal Controlled Junctions
This discusses ways to provide crossing facilities, geometric layouts, phasing, staging and detection.
• The National Cycle Network : Guidelines and Practical details, Issue 2 (Sustrans and Ove Arup & Partners, 1997)
This document heavily references Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Traffic Advisory Leaflets, Local Transport Notes for guidance on determining the appropriate form of crossing.
• Safer Places – The Planning System and Crime Prevention (ODPM February 2004)
This guide encourages greater attention to the principles of crime prevention and to the attributes of safer places.
• Local Transport Note 1/95
Describes an assessment method to be used when considering the provision and type of stand-alone at-grade pedestrian crossings.
• Local Transport Note 2/95
Recommends practices to be followed when planning, designing and installing at- grade pedestrian crossings. It describes all types of crossings other than those at signalled junctions.
• Manual for Streets
This document is expected to be used predominantly for the design, construction, adoption and maintenance of new residential streets. A street is defined as a highway that has important public realm functions beyond the movement of traffic, streets should have a sense of place.
The standard for trunk roads is the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). The strategic nature of trunk roads means that traffic movement is their primary function and, as such, the MfS does not apply to trunk roads and so DMRB is not an appropriate design standard for most streets.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 27 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 5.2 General Considerations in Provision for Non-Motorised Users In order to determine the appropriateness of crossing locations and type, routes provided for pedestrian and cyclists should consider a series of factors as outlined below. These are key to the successful implementation of a crossing facility. Their assessment in relation to the development proposals is outside the scope of this report but their importance in assessment of crossing options requires that full consideration is given.
In determining the appropriate form of pedestrian and cyclists provision it is important to consider the range of potential users, key destinations and latent demand. Local issues such as access to schools, leisure facilities, retail areas, rights of way, woodland and country parks will also impact on level of provision. Provision should be designed on the basis of a 15 year design life and so take into account potential increases in pedestrian and cyclists usage.
Facilities for pedestrian and cyclists should offer positive provision that reduces delay, diversion and danger. The National Cycle Network guidelines (and principles developed in ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’ (IHT, 2000) identify core principles as being:
• Convenience: pedestrian and cyclists facilities should allow people to go where they want, and new facilities should usually offer an advantage in terms of directness and/or reduced delay compared with previous provision. Where safety considerations permit, crossing points should also coincide with desire lines. This is particularly important on identifiable local routes such as school routes. There should be appropriate opportunity to cross quickly and efficiently at designated crossing points without pedestrian and cyclists being required to wait for long periods. In addition, long stretches of enclosing guardrails at crossings should be avoided;
• Accessibility: NMU routes should form a network linking trip origins and key destinations. The routes should be continuous and as direct as possible. There should be proper provision for crossing busy roads and other barriers. Crossings should respond quickly and safely to demand from pedestrian and cyclists;
• Safety: Not only must facilities be safe, but for the well being of users, they must be perceived to be safe. Users should feel safe and should not feel intimidated by motorised traffic. The speed of approaching vehicles should be taken into account. Crossings should be wide enough to accommodate peak demand and, in particular, signalled crossings should respond quickly and safely to demand;
• Comfort: Facilities should meet appropriate design standards, and cater for all types of user;
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 28 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 • Attraction: Aesthetics, noise reduction and integration with surrounding areas are important. NMU facilities should be attractive and interesting to help encourage their use.
In order to assess the most appropriate route the following should be considered:
• General design principles;
• Likely existing and latent demand;
• The need to achieve links with key destinations;
• Landscape and ecological impacts;
• Construction and technical issues.
Additionally, for routes to be viable for pedestrian and cyclists they should:
• Not give rise to road safety or personal safety concerns;
• Directly facilitate the desired journey without undue deviation or difficulty;
• Link origins and destinations;
• Be attractive and comfortable to use;
• Be accessible to disabled users and people with children and pushchairs;
• Be continuous and not subject to severance or fragmentation.
Any determination of an appropriate route should consider:
• Flow of pedestrian and cyclists;
• Flows and speeds of motorised traffic;
• Existing and future land use;
• Desire lines;
• Trip generators;
• Existing NMU routes;
• Transportation modelling (if appropriate);
• Accident data;
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 29 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 • The views of relevant user groups, highway authorities, the police and public transport operators.
DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, part 8 gives guidance on assessing a scheme’s impact on the journeys which people make in its locality. It provides a method for establishing existing local travel patterns of journeys on foot and a detailed procedure for predicting changes in journey length
5.3 Crossing Options Options for NMU crossing facilities are given in the table below:
Grade Control Crossing Type
At-grade Informal Pedestrian and Cycle Crossings (with or without a refuge)
Formal Uncontrolled Zebra Crossing
Formal Signalised Pelican Crossing
Puffin Crossing
Toucan Crossing
Pedestrian and cyclist Stages at Traffic Signals
Grade Separated Underpasses
Bridges
Manual for Streets states that pedestrians and cyclists should generally be accommodated on streets rather than routes segregated from motor traffic. However, short pedestrian and cycle-only links are generally acceptable if designed well. All such routes in built-up areas away from the carriageway should be barrier-free and overlooked by buildings.
Cyclist should generally be accommodated on the carriageway with no dedicated cycle lanes if traffic volumes and speeds are low. There is evidence that cycle tracks adjacent and parallel to a main road are a safety issue for cyclists crossing the mouth of side roads and so these routes are more hazardous to cyclists than the equivalent on-road route.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 30 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Grade separated crossings can be particularly beneficial where high volumes of pedestrian and cyclists need to cross high flows of fast moving traffic. For subways the height of water table may be a significant issue.
Regarding selection of a NMU route, Safer Places includes a section on access and movement and makes a number of comments and recommendations:
• ‘Routes for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles should, in most cases run alongside one another, and not be segregated’;
• ‘Where footpaths are required, they should be as straight as possible and wide, avoiding potential hiding places. They should also be overlooked by surrounding buildings and activities’;
• ‘Crime and antisocial behaviour are more likely to occur if pedestrian routes are poorly lit, indirect and away from traffic’;
• ‘The separation of traffic and pedestrians at different levels can lead to under- used, isolated and unsafe environments’;
• ‘Keeping pedestrians and vehicles at the same level will avoid creating intimidating spaces such as subways, footbridges, underpasses and areas below viaducts’;
• ‘Where subways are unavoidable, they should be as wide and as short as possible with the exit visible from the entry, natural light introduced into the centre and high levels of artificial light. They might also incorporate measures to discourage vehicular use’.
These comments clearly suggest the benefits of at-grade facilities.
5.4 Stand-alone At-grade Facilities 5.4.1 Types of Crossing These may be in the form of Zebra, Pelican, Puffin and Toucan crossings. Local Transport Note 1/95 describes an assessment method to be used when considering the provision and type of stand-alone at-grade pedestrian crossings.
Where there are sufficient crossing opportunities in the vehicle flow most people are able to cross without the provision of a crossing. At sites with higher vehicle flows, pedestrians, in some cases particular groups of pedestrians, may require a crossing facility before they feel secure enough to cross.
There is little difference in the average rate of personal injury accidents at Zebra and signal-controlled types. At individual sites, however, the type of crossing selected and its location may have a considerable effect on the future accident record.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 31 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 The assessment involves a site survey measuring relevant information for existing roads and estimations where future development is likely. The level of traffic flow is assessed along with mix of vehicle types and vehicle speeds.
When assessing the effect of introducing a crossing on accidents, a comparison with statistics for other local sites should be made. It has not yet proved possible to make general predictions about how the accident incidence or rates at a site might change following the introduction or change of type of crossing. It is recommended that a safety audit is completed for the option being considered.
Factors most likely to have a bearing on the choice of pedestrian crossing type are:
• Difficulty in crossing – the majority of pedestrians will accept a gap of 4-6 seconds at normal urban vehicle speeds to cross two lanes of traffic. Other groups may require gaps of 10-12 seconds or even longer;
• Vehicle delays during peak periods – if a Zebra crossing is installed and crossing flows are very high then number of vehicle stops and their duration will be far higher than a signalled crossing;
• Carriageway capacity – in addition to delays at the crossing, the reduction of carriageway capacity may have an effect on the local network;
• Local representations;
• Cost (including maintenance);
• Vehicle speeds.
5.4.2 Zebra crossings Where a crossing is thought necessary but crossing flows are relatively low and traffic flows are no more than moderate, then a Zebra crossing may be suitable. Vehicle delays are typically 5 seconds for a single abled person crossing but can be much more where irregular streams of people cross over extended periods. The effect of delay on motor vehicles must be considered but will not normally over-rule the provision of a crossing where there is a clear difficulty for cyclists and pedestrians. Where traffic speeds are higher than 30mph people will require longer gaps in the traffic flow or be exposed to the risk of more serious injury if precedence is not conceded for any reason. Zebra crossings should not, therefore, be installed on roads with an 85th percentile speed of 35mph or above.
5.4.3 Signal controlled crossings Signal controlled crossings are used where:
• Vehicle speeds are high, and other options are thought unsuitable;
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 32 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 • There is normally a greater than average proportion of elderly or disabled pedestrians;
• Vehicle flows are very high and pedestrians have difficulty in asserting precedence;
• There is a specific need for a crossing for cyclists;
• There is a need to link with adjacent controlled junctions or crossings;
• Pedestrian flows are high and delays to vehicular traffic would otherwise be excessive.
Caution should be exercised where pedestrian flows are light as drivers who become accustomed to not being stopped at the crossing may begin to ignore its existence, a problem accentuated as vehicle speed increases.
Roundabouts can pose particular danger for cyclists; accident rates for cyclists on roundabouts are approximately 2-3 times higher than at traffic signals. It is therefore important to consider carefully whether the cycle route can be designed to avoid existing dangerous roundabouts.
5.4.4 Vehicle delay Local Transport Note 2/95 gives details on the design of pedestrian crossings. In order to cross both pedestrians and cyclists at a stand alone signalised crossing a Toucan Crossing is required. This has the same form of vehicular detection as a Puffin Crossing and it is intended that the Puffin operational cycle will become the standard for pedestrian crossings at stand-alone crossings and junctions. The Puffin Crossing uses near-side pedestrian signal heads and an extendable all-red crossing period which is instigated by a push button request accompanied by a pedestrian detector demand. Pedestrian detectors are kerb-side and on-crossing. The on- crossing detectors extend the all-red time. The timings of the signal phasings will introduce delay to vehicular traffic dependent on settings:
• Stopping amber signal to vehicles – 3 seconds;
• Allredperiod–3seconds where 85th percentile traffic speeds exceed 35mph;
• Green aspect for pedestrians – 6 to 9 seconds (where carriageway width exceeds 11m);
• All red period – 1 to 5 seconds;
• On-crossing detectors, if a pedestrian is detected, will extend the all red period – up to 25 seconds;
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 33 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 • Red and amber aspect for vehicles – 2 seconds.
Thus the vehicular delay could be of 47 seconds duration with this type of crossing facility. Similarly, pedestrian/cyclist delay is introduced by the above all-red timings and the additional time between pedestrian demand and the commencement of the above sequence. This is generally a maximum of 30 seconds, though up to 60 seconds is available in exceptional circumstances.
5.4.5 Crossing location Crossings should be located away from conflict points at uncontrolled junctions, this distance will depend on the geometry of the junction and type of side road. However, a minimum distance of 20m is suggested for a signal controlled crossing (and an absolute minimum of 5m for a Zebra crossing).
When crossings are needed on the approaches to a roundabout, special care is needed in the siting. Where a crossing must be provided within the junction layout a Zebra crossing is preferred as it avoids any ambiguity as to priority that a signal- controlled crossing can create. If a signal controlled crossing is provided, it should preferably be of the staggered type to avoid excessive delays at the exit points blocking circulation.
Where a stand-alone crossing is required in the vicinity of a traffic signalled junction the use of signal controlled crossings is often selected to avoid any conflict in control methods. Traffic queuing should be considered in spacings and a linked signalling system may be considered appropriate. The distance between crossing and signalled junction will vary with traffic conditions but 100m would be a likely minimum.
Drivers visibility of crossings are given in Table 1 of LTN 2/95 for differing traffic speeds; for a 50mph 85th percentile approach speed a desirable minimum visibility of 150m is given, the absolute minimum being 115m.
5.4.6 Selection criteria Informal at-grade crossings should not be provided on dual carriageways of 3 or more lanes per carriageway and would not normally be appropriate where Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) flows (two-way) are greater than 25,000 (for a dual carriageway).
Zebra crossings should not be introduced on roads with an 85th percentile speed of 35mph or above.
For stand-alone signal controlled crossings the 85th percentile speed must not exceed 50mph.
Signal controlled cycle crossings should be considered where cycle flows in excess of 30-40 per hour require crossing a road with 500 vehicles per hour.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 34 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 In urban areas where 85th percentile speed exceeds 50mph, speed reduction measures should be taken before an at-grade crossing such as a Toucan crossing is introduced.
The National Cycle Network guidelines provide criteria for selection of type of crossing as given in the table below:
Crossing facility 85th percentile speed Vehicle Flow (two-way)
Signal control <50mph >8000 vehicles per day
Grade separated >50mph >8000 vehicles per day
5.5 Crossings at signalled junctions The detailed design layout and signal phasing for any crossings proposed at signalised junctions have not been reviewed in this report. This work has been undertaken elsewhere and has not been validated or repeated to confirm accordance with design guidance. The design and subsequent road safety audit by others is assumed to have provided acceptable crossing facilities, both in terms of physical layout and signalising arrangement.
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/05 states that, while the overall road safety record in this country is one of the best in Western Europe, performance on pedestrian safety is only near average, and accident rates for child pedestrians, although improving rapidly, are still higher than in many other comparable Western European countries. This may be due to a number of factors though pedestrian compliance with the ‘red man’ signal is thought to be generally poor. The document goes on to state that a signalised junction with no pedestrian phase or stage will be the least popular with pedestrians. This arrangement can be intimidating, especially for the more vulnerable pedestrian and this option should be seen as an exception. However, offering a full pedestrian stage has the worst effect on junction capacity, as the additional time lost to vehicle movement is made up of an ‘intergreen’ period with the addition of crossing time. It can also produce a long cycle time and a pedestrian arriving at the end of the ‘invitation’ to cross period may have a lengthy wait.
Crossing arrangements should be in accordance with all current design guidance, for example:
• TD50 - The Geometric Layout of Signal-Controlled Junctions and Signalised Roundabouts. This standard identifies those aspects of signal control which have an effect on geometric layout design, chapter 4 provides details of road users’ specific requirements including that for cyclists and pedestrians;
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 35 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 • TA15 – this sets out the measures which can be adopted to assist pedestrians to cross carriageways at signal controlled junctions and provides guidance on the overall requirements for staggered and displaced pedestrian crossing facilities;
• Inclusive Mobility - Where refuge islands are provided they can be an absolute minimum of 1200mm in width (LTN 2/95) but to cater for wheelchair users they should be at least 1500mm and preferably 2000mm. If the island is at the centre of a staggered crossing there should be a minimum clear width (between guard rails) of 2000mm: sufficient to allow two wheelchair users to pass one another;
• Inclusive Mobility - Level or flush access is essential for the majority of wheelchair users. The minimum width of the flush area should be 1200mm (up to 3000mm where there are heavy pedestrian flows). Where the dropped kerb is provided at a controlled crossing it should be the same width as the crossing itself (minimum 2400mm).
• Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/05 – Pedestrian facilities at signal controlled junctiosn
5.6 Underpass Option 5.6.1 General requirements for ramps There is general agreement among guidelines from many countries that an 8% (1 in 12) slope is the maximum that may be used; anything greater than this will cause difficulties for manual wheelchair users. Most guidelines also agree that 5% (1 in 20) is preferred. The standard of 5% should be borne in mind when designing new footpaths. A gradient in excess of 5% would be termed a ramp. The longer the ramp the less severe the gradient that is feasible and BS8300 gives the maximum going of a flight for a given maximum gradient:
Maximum gradient Going of a flight
1:12 Not greater than 2m
1:15 Not greater than 2m
1:20 Not greater than 2m
Additionally, if this requires provision of more than one flight then rest places of at least 1.5m length and having a shallow (1:50) gradient.
For cyclists, stopping distances increase significantly on gradients in excess of 5%. Where it is not practicable to provide gradients less than 5%, steeper gradients may
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 36 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 be considered over short distances. At the base and top of gradients exceeding 2%, a level plateau at least 5m long is desirable in advance of give way or stop lines.
HD39/01 (DMRB Volume 7, Section 2, Part 5, Footway design) recommends longitudinal gradient of a footway is 1.25% to 5% with an 8% maximum. The Manual for Streets recommends pedestrian and cycle routes have a maximum 5% longitudinal gradient.
The report of the European COST 335 project on Passengers’ Accessibility of Heavy Rail Systems states that ramps should never be longer than 132 metres in total and preferably no longer than 50 metres. No individual flight of a ramp should have a length of more than 10 metres (or rise of more than 500mm).
5.6.2 General Geometric Requirements Design speed for a cycletrack normally 20mph (30kph) or down to 6mph (10kph) such as at approaches to subways.
For cyclists a design speed of 30km/h should be adopted for most off-carriageway cycle routes. However, where a cyclist would expect to slow down (such as on the approach to a crossing or subway) the design speed may be reduced to 10km/h. For any route shared with pedestrians, design speed should be based on cycle use.
Forward visibility should allow appropriate Stopping Sight Distance (SSD), for a 10km/h design speed a minimum of 10m SSD is preferred, while for 30km/h a 30m SSD is preferred. A visibility splay should also be provided on the approach to crossings and junctions.
Changes in horizontal alignment should normally be via simple circular curves, rather than straight sections with occasional sharp curves. The preferred minimum radius for cycle routes is 25m. For sections of the route where the design speed is 10km/h, a preferred minimum radius of 4m should be provided.
5.6.3 Specific Subway Requirements TA91 states that underpasses can be difficult for disabled people unless they are designed on the basis of enhanced criteria for disabled use, as outlined in TD36. This document succinctly gives the factors affecting subway provision and which are summarised below:
• Volume of pedestrian and cycle traffic;
• Elements of road to be crossed such as road type, width, traffic volumes, traffic mix and speeds;
• Use by particular groups such as school children, elderly, visually impaired or disabled people;
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 37 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 • Environmental aspects;
• Cost.
The siting of the subway should reflect the main line of travel for the majority of subway users in order to maximise the use of the facility. Buried services may affect the siting of a subway if these cannot be re-routed economically and without significant disruption to highway users.
Personal security aspects will help to minimise pedestrians’ personal safety fears by means such as wide approaches, subway alignments with good visibility, good lighting, being within view of passing pedestrians and passing traffic, avoidance of places of concealment.
Height clearances for subways incorporating cycle use are a minimum of 2.4m where the subway is shorter than 23m in length and 2.7m where it is 23m or longer
Sight distances of 4.0m or more should be provided at corners and changes of direction. To determine visibility requirements pedestrians can be assumed to be 0.4m away from an adjacent vertical wall. Inside corners rounded off to a radius of 4.6m will meet these criteria.
Stopping sight distances for cyclists should be provided within the subway and on the approaches as indicated in the table below. These mirror the pedestrian values as noted in the above paragraph where design speed for cyclists are less than 10km/h.
Design speed Minimum Stopping Minimum radius of Minimum radius of Sight Distance curvature of walls curvature of walls adjacent to cycle adjacent to track footpath
10km/h or less 4.0m 4.6m 4.6m
25km/h or less 26.0m 68.0m 28.5m
These values are further explained diagrammatically within this design standard.
Alternatively, where the number of cyclists is expected to be small then the cycle track could be terminated either side of the subway such that cyclists dismount before entering the subway.
In order to allow access for cyclists and visually impaired or disabled people the access must necessarily be in the form of a ramp. These should:
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 38 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 • Not run into the subway to avoid any height clearance issues;
• Provide landings at changes of direction and gradient;
• Provide landings where the total rise between landings is not greater than 3.5m (these landings to be approximately horizontal and have a minimum length of 2.0m);
• For pedestrian only ramps gradients of 5% or shallower are preferred where a significant number of disabled persons or heavily laden shoppers are expected to use the subway. In other situations gradients shallower than 8% are preferred, but gradients up to 10% are permitted for short lengths in exceptionally difficult sites;
• For ramps used by cyclists, gradients should preferably be shallower than 3% in order both to discourage high speed cycling but also limit cycling effort to reasonable levels. Gradients should not normally exceed 5% though if space is very restricted a gradient of up to 7% may be adopted (in which case some deterrent to cycle speeds such as staggered barriers would be desirable);
• An effective way of controlling cyclist speeds at or near entrances to subways to less than 10km/h is to introduce staggered barriers.
5.7 Footbridge Option The general comments on ramp gradient and geometric factors as described in the above section on underpasses apply equally to the footbridge option.
TA91 states that bridges with steps or steep ramps represent the least suitable form of crossing for disabled people and should therefore only be provided when other forms of crossings are not deemed appropriate. Footbridges cannot generally be used by disabled people unless they are designed on the basis of enhanced criteria for disabled use, as outlined in BD29.
The position of the footbridge should be chosen to maximise the use of topography so as to avoid or minimise the need for stairs or ramps.
Access ramps shall be as short and direct as practicable and follow the desire line of the main pedestrian flow wherever possible, avoiding long detours and unnecessary climbing
Straight ramps with 180o turns or multiple levels should be avoided where possible. Spiral ramps can be very effective, with larger radii generally being more visually pleasing. However, the absence of landings in spiral ramps may lead them to being more difficult or even impossible to negotiate for mobility impaired users, particularly wheelchair users.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 39 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Access to the deck of a footbridge should be provided by both ramps and stairs wherever practicable. Access stairs and ramps are often the most noticeable and environmentally damaging elements of a pedestrian bridge and should be minimised where possible. The appearance of a footbridge should be appropriate for its site. It should be aesthetically pleasing, enhance the environment and encourage people to use it. Advice on the appearance of footbridges is given in the publication ‘The Appearance of Bridges and Other Highway Structures’ (Highways Agency, 1996) and more general advice in BA41 (DMRB Volume 1, Section 3, Part 11) ‘The Design and Appearance of Bridges’.
The vertical clearance to the carriageway is a minimum of 5.7m (or 6.45m for high load routes) with an addition for any sag curve compensation factor.
The horizontal clearance from the edge of the carriageway to the bridge supports shall be a minimum of 4.5m.
Deck slope should normally be no steeper than 1 in 20.
Plain ramps should not be steeper than 1 in 20. A steeper ramp, preferably no steeper than 1 in 15 (but no steeper than 1 in 12) may be used for reasons of keeping the access on the desire line, or to avoid long diversions, or to avoid damage to the environment, or for reasons of limitations of space. Where the ramp is steeper than 1 in 20, for safety reasons there should normally be a significant change of either direction or in horizontal alignment at least at every 3.5m rise of the ramp at an intermediate landing.
Spiral and curved ramps should be the same gradient as plain ramp. The minimum inside radius of walkway surfaces shall be 5.5m.
For straight and spiral ramps of gradient 1 in 20 landings of minimum 2m length are required at equal intervals of maximum rise 2.5m. For gradients flatter than 1 in 20, intermediate landings are not required. For straight ramps of greater than 1 in 20 landings are required providing a maximum rise between landings of 650mm.
5.8 Conclusions Design guidance and standards from various sources has been reviewed in order to establish relevant factors in the provision of road crossings for pedestrians and cyclists. The guidance is quite consistent and offers much assistance in considering crossing options.
The summary comments in this Chapter gained from these sources may be used to critically assess V4 and Dansteed Way crossing positions proposed for at-grade, underpass and footbridge options.
Grade separated crossings by either footbridge or subway may be achieved by ramp gradients, alignments and visibility requirements as given in this Chapter which will
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 40 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 allow access for those with disabilities. At-grade crossings offer the benefit of reduced actual or perceived safety and crime issues which may encourage their use.
Any stand-alone crossing point would need to be of a signal controlled type due to traffic speeds and volume. However, an at-grade crossing such as a toucan crossing will require speed reduction measures to be introduced to ensure that 85th percentile speeds do not exceed 50mph. Particular care in siting near roundabout or signalled junctions should be taken. The impact of consequent vehicular traffic delays will need to be assessed.
The implications of these design requirements have been considered elsewhere in this report as they apply to the proposed crossing locations in terms of cost, land take, etc.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 41 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 6 Assessment of Crossings
The crossing locations points to be assessed within this report have been provided by Milton Keynes Council; assessment of the relevance of these desire lines is contained in Section 3.5 of this report.
The eight at-grade crossings are situated on the assumed desire lines created by the new Western Expansion Area (WEA) access points along the V4 and Dansteed Way; these have all been incorporated into the VISSIM (software used to model transit and traffic flow in urban areas) model produced by JMP Consulting for Gallagher Estates and are therefore considered within the junction capacity assessments. The nine potential sites for underpasses have been identified by stakeholders and the four possible bridge locations by the WEA development team. Other locations where bridges / underpasses could be beneficial and be constructed within the existing constraints have been considered in the assessment below.
The proposed locations of the crossing points assessed are shown in drawings 718369/OA/005 in Appendix D.
6.1 General Crossing Options 6.1.1 At-grade crossing The proposal for the WEA is to provide at-grade crossings at each of the junctions which provide access to the site. The intention of this section of the report is to assess the general implications relating to providing at-grade crossings instead of grade separated alternatives. It is assumed that issues relating to land take, diversion of statutory undertakers apparatus, environment and programme regarding the at-grade crossing option are included in the original junction assessment undertaken for the WEA development. These will therefore act as a baseline for comparison with other options (i.e. underpass and footbridge).
The traditional layout of Milton Keynes grid roads consists of roundabouts crossed by underpasses. The 60mph speed limit on these roads means that stand alone at- grade crossings are not considered acceptable in terms of safety; the majority of grid roads in Milton Keynes are dual carriageways. The decision to use signalised junctions provides the opportunity to consider at-grade crossings at these locations due to the likely reduced traffic speed along the V4. It is considered that the close proximity of signalised junctions along the V4 will reduce traffic speed, especially at the locations where pedestrians / cyclists are likely to wish to cross the carriageway (i.e. after being guided to the V4 and Dansteed Way by the Redways within the WEA). The traffic assessment carried out for the development using the VISSIM model calculates that the maximum existing average speed (calculated during peak hours) between Junction 5 Galley Hill Roundabout and Junction 2 (3.0km) is 34mph. Following the proposals this average speed is reduced to 26mph. Whilst traffic speeds will be reduced during peak hours compared to the rest of the day the figures do show a general reduction in traffic speed on the V4 of almost 25%.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 42 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Accommodating cyclist routes within the highway does create an additional hazard for cyclists. Whilst the Redway does separate cyclists from motorists it introduces a conflict point at junctions (unless grade separated crossing points are provided). This hazard has been reduced on the V4 by the signalisation of each of these junctions; the risk is further mitigated by the provision of controlled crossings for cyclists as well as pedestrians.
Design guidance (See Section 5 of this report) advises that pedestrians and cyclists should be accommodated on streets rather than along separate routes which does not ‘fit’ with the traditional Milton Keynes approach to create a pedestrian / cyclist network independent of the road network.
In terms of at-grade junction options guidance says that the use of a pedestrian phase within a traffic signal plan is the most suitable due to the speed limit and traffic levels along the V4. There will be a level of inconvenience for pedestrians / cyclists due to the crossing delay as they wait for the correct traffic signal phase to cross the road.
6.1.2 Underpass The standard underpass construction within Milton Keynes (provided by Milton Keynes Council) consists of pre-cast concrete sections with internal dimensions of 8.35m wide by 3.7m high; the wall thickness is typically 0.6m and a minimum cover of 0.7m is required from top of concrete to top of carriageway. Once complete the headroom provided through the underpass is 2.7m and the Redway through the underpass is 5.0m wide. There is a 1.0m wide verge provided on either side through the underpass. The gradient of ramps produced as part of this assessment is 3% (in accordance with TD36/93) and a minimum radius of 4.6m has been on corners (this is the minimum recommended for cycle routes within TD36/93).
Use of underpasses to connect the Redways on either side of the road would be consistent with the traditional approach used throughout Milton Keynes. The Redway routes create a pedestrian / cyclist network independent of the road. The underpasses reinforce this independence as the pedestrian / cyclist can pass underneath grid roads without being inconvenienced and delayed by traffic. This also removes the risks of an accident; in the UK in 2006 27,937 pedestrians were injured or killed by collision with one or more vehicles (excluding collisions with cyclists). However, in 2006 it was reported that 202 pedestrians were injured through collisions with pedal cycles; 3 of these collisions resulted in a fatality. Generally side roads within Milton Keynes are crossed at grade.
The existing Redway system within Milton Keynes was built and planned along with the grid roads during the development of the area which meant that underpasses could be planned and accounted for during the design of the new road. As Watling Street existed on its current alignment prior to the conception of the preferred layout for Milton Keynes, construction of an underpass has a number of implications particularly in terms of land take and apparatus in the northern verge; these
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 43 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 implications will be reviewed on an individual location basis. Site investigation work to date has not considered the extra land that would be required to excavate and construct underpasses along this route therefore there is a risk of increased costs and delays caused by unknown conditions below the ground. As Watling Street is a Roman road there is a risk of disturbing archaeological remains during any excavation.
The likely additional diversion of statutory undertaker’s apparatus and the increased complexity (e.g. construction of an underpass will require increased traffic management, excavation to the required depth of 5.6m will be below the water table, etc) caused by the replacement of the at-grade crossing proposals with an underpass will increase the construction programme. Diversions will need to be discussed and agreed with the relevant organisations. It should be noted that as the at-grade crossing is included within the phasing of the traffic signal plan the impact on the construction programme of removing this section of work will be negligible.
Use of underpasses for crossings segregates pedestrians and cyclists from traffic therefore is not in line with guidance. Underpasses are generally recommended in areas where there are high levels of vulnerable road users such as the elderly, visually impaired or disabled, but there is no indication of existing or future high levels of vulnerable road users along this route. Whilst figures from Thames Valley Police (2007) suggest that crime levels relating to Redways and underpasses within Milton Keynes are falling (from 250 reported incidents in 2003/2004 to 134 in 2006/2007), guidance such as “Safer Places – The Planning System and Crime Prevention” suggests any route that includes isolation from traffic and possible hiding places will intimidate users. Non motorised users may then look for an alternative at- grade crossing, whether a facility is provided or not with resultant road safety issues.
A well as increased construction issues an underpass also increase maintenance issues; it is important that an underpass is well maintained if it is to be used. Underpasses can attract graffiti and litter which leads to the perception that the route is unsafe. Poor lighting caused by lack of maintenance also increases the fear of crime. Drainage will be an important consideration during the design of any underpasses. As the underpass is being constructed 5.6m below the surrounding ground level it will be below the nearby drainage outfalls further complicating design issues. The drainage system will require frequent maintenance in order to remove any flooding risk which would discourage use.
The cost of an underpass of 44m length to the dimensions stated above may be of the order of £656,000; this cost accounts for materials and construction including minor diversions of statutory undertaker’s apparatus. The estimate does not consider preliminaries, traffic management and the purchase of land. At this stage no consideration has been given to the use of retaining walls as a method of reducing land take.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 44 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 6.1.3 Footbridge Footbridges are less frequently used within Milton Keynes but offer an alternative grade separated crossing to underpasses. This would allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the carriageway without waiting for a break in traffic or the pedestrian phase of the traffic signal plan. The separation of pedestrian and cycle movement from live traffic would provide benefit in safety terms by removing the conflict point. Again the grade separated crossing would only be provided to cross the V4 and Dansteed Way, all side roads would be crossed at grade.
The footbridges proposed are of steel construction with a width of approximately 2.5m; the usable walkway is 2.0m wide. Ramps and steps have been provided at either end of the footbridge for access. The gradient of the ramps is 1 in 20; the available headroom is greater than the desirable minimum of 2.4m.
A footbridge is likely to be least convenient for pedestrians and cyclists as it is a diversion from their desired route thus increasing journey time. The ramps required are ideally at a 1 in 20 gradient, although this can be increased to 1 in 12. This creates a significant increase in distance from one side of the carriageway to the other. Unlike underpasses where corners are limited to a minimum 4.6m radius the bridge ramps turn sharply through 180º requiring cyclists to slow considerably. The increased level of inconvenience may encourage crossing at-grade without a formalised crossing.
Construction of a footbridge would have similar impacts to the underpass option. Both steps and ramps (to the standard gradient described in Chapter 5 of this report) would be required in land beyond the Redway thus requiring land take. The excavation of foundations for the bridge is likely to require the diversion of some apparatus in the verges; the impact on land take and statutory undertaker’s equipment is again considered on a junction specific basis. Excavating for the bridge foundations may impact on archaeological remains adjacent to site of the Watling Street Roman road. The footbridge option also impact negatively on townscape. As the V4 is a high load route headroom of 6.45m is required. The bridge will be visible from the surrounding area which could have a negative impact aesthetically along the route; if in a residential zone the bridge will also overlook properties.
As the removal of at grade crossings from the construction programme is unlikely to reduce timescales significantly (as the traffic signals are still required) the inclusion of a footbridge is likely increase the programme length. In traffic management terms this work would require a full closure of the carriageway to lift a prefabricated steel bridge deck into place.
A footbridge does still segregate pedestrians and cyclist from traffic and, as it is a cycle route over a 60mph dual carriageway, it requires parapets of 1.4m high. This will still create the perception of isolation which may discourage use. A bridge requires more frequent maintenance than an at grade crossing.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 45 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Typical costs of a steel footbridge up to 3m wide with 44m span and 6.45m headroom may be in the region of £472,000. This includes 140m access ramps and 2 concrete footings; minor diversion of statutory undertaker’s apparatus from under the footing towards the carriageway is also included to allow comparison with the underpass option.
6.2 Galley Hill Roundabout Currently the only pedestrian / cyclist route near to this roundabout is across the northern side of the V4, and along the northern arm of Ridgeway around into the northern side of Queen Eleanor Street. The only crossing therefore on this roundabout is across the Ridgeway arm; this is an uncontrolled crossing using the splitter island. It has been proposed that an underpass be located here to link the existing pedestrian / cyclist routes to a proposed new Redway running alongside the southern arm of Ridgeway for 200m before turning into the WEA .This would link the WEA to the shops, school and youth centre on Galley Hill. An initial layout of the underpass is shown on drawing 718369/OA/010 in Appendix D.
No works are currently planned at this junction as part of the WEA development. Construction of an underpass at this location would require 3817m2 of land to the north of the V4 and 216m2 of land to the south. The land required north of the V4 is designated as ‘Transport Corridor’; development of this land would require the removal of a large number of mature trees reducing the buffer between the highway and a residential estate. The land to the south is either development land or land designated as ‘Transport Corridor’ but leased to Milton Keynes Parks Trust. Construction on this area of land would require the removal of a sub-surface structure (a disused reservoir).
In order to fit the paths into land available the routes from the west and south of the underpass are not direct. With the underpass being 40m in length the time taken for a pedestrian to cross (assuming a standard pedestrian speed of 1.79m/s) from the more direct eastern arm to the southern side is 22s. If an uncontrolled at grade crossing was located on the eastern arm of this roundabout (the V4 towards Dansteed Way) similar to the uncontrolled crossing on the northern Ridgeway arm the crossing time would be dependent on traffic levels. Furthermore, the diversion of the existing alignment of the footway / cycleway from Ridgeway crossing along the V4 to cater for the underpass increases pedestrian journey time by 78s.
No information is available regarding statutory undertaker’s apparatus at this roundabout as it is outside the development area. However, assuming the apparatus identified further east within the V4 highway boundary continues to the Galley Hill roundabout and from observations from the site visit it is likely the construction of an underpass would require significant diversion of services.
The accident data provided by MKC within this area shows no accidents at this junction between 1 May 2005 and 30 April 2008. This shows the existing situation on Ridgeway is working adequately therefore reducing the argument for an underpass
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 46 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 at this junction. As no works are currently included at this junction as part of the WEA development any significant proposals such as the underpass would increase the construction programme duration. The traffic management required to construct an underpass at the Galley Hill roundabout would impact on each arm of the roundabout causing significant delays on the V4 and H1 Ridgeway.
Currently there is no cost for works included within the development budget at this location therefore any proposals for an underpass would increase construction cost.
It is likely that those people living in the WEA would use the similar facilities within the development rather than travel to Galley Hill therefore it is doubtful that this route would become a pedestrian / cyclist desire line. It is therefore considered that there are minimal benefits in constructing an underpass at this location, whilst the adverse impacts are significant.
6.3 Junction 28 The location of Junction 28 coincides with the proposed location of an at-grade crossing, underpass and a footbridge; all three options will be assessed. It is a new junction created by the access requirements of the WEA; the only existing pedestrian / cyclist facility at this junction is a Redway along the northern verge side. As no junction currently exists at this location there is no existing pedestrian desire line across the V4. The pedestrian desire line is created by the WEA and pedestrians / cyclists are guided to this point by the Redways within the development.
6.3.1 At-grade crossing Junction 28 is to be a signalised T-junction with the V4 and the new access into the WEA. The proposed traffic signal plan consists of four phases, one of which is an ‘all pedestrian’ phase. The scenario modelled by the VISSIM model shows that the junction operates within capacity with minimal queue lengths; the inclusion of a crossing increases delay per vehicle by a maximum of 19 seconds at this junction.
The horizontal alignment of the V4 on the approach to this junction provides adequate visibility for a 60mph carriageway (215m in accordance with DMRB TD9/93). It is anticipated that the approach along the WEA access will be designed to the appropriate geometrical standards therefore will also provide the desirable minimum visibility to the junction. The traffic signals will therefore be clearly visible on the approach to the junction allowing pedestrians and cyclists to cross the carriageway safely during this phase in the signal plan. Whilst the design speed of the V4 is 60mph vehicle speeds will be limited by the proximity of junctions in both directions (350m to the north west and 220m to the south east); this reduction in traffic speed will facilitate safer crossing of the carriageway. No personal injury accidents have been recorded at this location during the period from 1 May 2005 to 30 April 2008.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 47 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 6.3.2 Underpass (drawing 718369/OA/011) The Redway on the northern side of the road would only require minor diversion down to the underpass entrance. On the southern side of the road the route links to the proposed Redway at the access to the WEA.
The underpass would require 2345m2 of additional land take (compared to the at- grade option) on the northern side of the carriageway impacting on the ‘Transport Corridor‘ and the turning head at the end of Malvern Drive; a large number of mature trees would need to be cleared for these works. 4424m2 of land on the southern side of the carriageway would be required impacting on the development area for the WEA. The additional land take can be reduced by the use of retaining walls; this would have a significant impact on the scheme cost and programme.
Removal of the pedestrian / cyclist crossing phase would only reduce delay per vehicle by a maximum 19 seconds therefore negligible impact on traffic; it is likely to cause more of a delay to pedestrians. The routes into the underpass have been designed in order to limit impact on land take and also to comply with the gradient and radius constraints within the design standards. This has meant that on the southern side the pedestrian / cyclist is diverted 113m from the most direct route increasing their journey time by 63 seconds (for an ‘average’ pedestrian). This level of delay may cause pedestrians and cyclists to cross at grade without a controlled crossing.
There is a large number of statutory undertaker’s apparatus in both the northern and southern verges at this junction. The services on the southern side may require further diversion beyond that proposed; the cost of this is likely to be limited to design / administration charges from the owner of the apparatus. Along the northern verge no diversion works have been proposed as part of the current scheme. The existing BT and electricity services in the northern verge would be affected by works to construct an underpass although it is likely they could be maintained in their current horizontal location and raised to fit between the carriageway and top of underpass.
6.3.3 Footbridge (drawing 718369/OA/006) The footbridge at Junction 28 is proposed immediately west of the junction and has a 44m span across Watling Street. The ramp and stairway on the northern side is set behind the existing Redway; the length of the ramp would be 90m at a 1 in 12 gradient or 130m at the more desirable 1 in 20 gradient. On the southern side the ramp begins at the proposed Redway at the end of the WEA access. The ramp length is identical to that on the northern side. An additional 50m of new Redway would be required to connect the stairway on the southern side to the current limits of the proposed Redway.
Similar to the underpass, the provision of a footbridge would only reduce the delay by a maximum of 19 seconds per vehicle through the removal of the all pedestrian phase in the traffic signals. This will have minimal impact on traffic but will increase
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 48 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 journey times for pedestrians and cyclists. At a speed of 1.79m/s a pedestrian will take 170 seconds to travel from one side of the bridge to the other. If pedestrians and cyclists consider the bridge to be inconvenient they will cross at grade without a controlled crossing increasing the risk of an accident, especially as traffic islands will still be present for the traffic signals allowing people to cross in stages.
The construction of a footbridge at this location would require 410m2 of additional land to the north and 245m2 to the south. To the north the land required is designated as a ‘Transport Corridor’; the land required for the footbridge would reduce the buffer zone between the highway boundary and properties (currently 35m). Site clearance of the land required north of the V4 will require the removal of a number of trees and dense vegetation. The height of the footbridge and proximity to a residential area means the bridge will be visible from and overlook properties. To the south the land required is development land reducing the size of the development (a 10m wide buffer zone would still be required from the edge of the highway boundary to the development boundary).
The bridge foundation will impact on services in the footway along both sides of the road. On the north side the telecoms and LV electricity will need to be diverted back beyond the bridge foundation. Diversions are already proposed on the southern side although the footbridge option will require these to be set further back than originally proposed.
6.4 Junction 4 At Junction 4 the two crossing options proposed for review are an at-grade crossing and an underpass. The crossing links the development south of the V4 to the Redway routes on the north side of the road leading east-west and north along Millers Way.
6.4.1 At-grade crossing Junction 4 is an existing junction along the V4 with an extra arm added to access the Western Expansion Area. The proposed signalisation of the new junction consists of 5 phases, one of which is a pedestrian phase allowing pedestrians and cyclists to cross the carriageway. Removal of this phase from the signal plan would result in the maximum reduction in traffic delay of 21 seconds per vehicle.
The visibility along all existing approaches to this junction is considered adequate (using contour plans provided by Atkins and acceptance within the Halcrow Road Safety Audit) for the current speed limit along the V4. It is anticipated that the WEA access will be designed to the appropriate geometrical standards to attain the required forward stopping sight distance. The junction is on a crest of a shallow gradient and as visibility is above the desirable minimum standard then traffic signals and waiting pedestrians / cyclists will be visible to oncoming traffic. On the approach from the west traffic speed will be limited by the proximity of Junction 28 (200m away); to the east Junction 27 is approximately 780m away which will allow traffic to speed up to 60mph.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 49 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 6.4.2 Underpass (drawing 718369/OA/012) On Millers Way (the northern arm of this junction) the Redway it situated on the western side of the carriageway. As the intention of the underpass is to link Redway routes together it is considered most beneficial to construct an underpass on this side of the junction; the highway boundary is also set further back on this side reducing the required area of land purchase.
The underpass required would be approximately 24m long with Redway route linking it to the existing Redways on the northern side of the V4 and along Millers Way, and to the new Redways along the southern side of the V4 and on the development access.
On the southern side of the V4 an additional 4725m2 of land will be required impacting on proposed development land. A 10m boundary will still be required from the edge of the highway boundary to the edge of development. On the northern side the additional land requirement is 4616m2 impactingonanareaofmaturetrees between a housing estate and the carriageway.
As the provision of an underpass would allow the removal of the pedestrian phase of the traffic signal plan it would produce a maximum time saving of 21 seconds per vehicle. Whilst there is a time saving for vehicles the underpass will increase journey time for pedestrians and cyclists. In order to provide access to the underpass in accordance with standards and within the existing constraints the route is not direct considering the desire line created by the Redway from the WEA; it is estimated that travelling westbound on the north side of the V4 to the WEA would take an additional 244 seconds due to the 437m increase to the route.
Excavation for the underpass would impact on a number of statutory undertaker’s apparatus in the northern verge; namely telecoms and LV electricity. The services that are close to the northern kerbline could be incorporated in the space between the carriageway and top of underpass requiring only a minor diversion. There are however cables belonging to NTL and the electricity supplier set further back from the kerb; these would require more significant diversion.
6.5 Connection to Carters Lane This location is shown as a route linking the access to the development to the northern carriageway and a possible new Redway between the industrial units leading to Carters Lane. It is situated 250m east of Junction 4. From the current development masterplan to use this crossing from the WEA a pedestrian / cyclist would need to exit the development via the Redway routes at Junction 4 or 27. Crossings opportunities are already proposed at these junctions. Access to the industrial units are from Millers Way, Tilers Road, and from a Redway link 150m west of Junction 27. A new Redway access from the V4 would require land take between industrial units.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 50 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 The speed limit along the V4 is too high to propose a Toucan crossing at this location therefore a signalised controlled crossing is the only at grade option. This form of crossing is likely to increase driver delay along the V4 by a minimum of 20 seconds (from LTN 2/95).
An underpass would require 4500m2 of land to the south of the V4 impacting on the development area. On the northern side of the carriageway 3849m2 of land would be required impacting on buildings within the industrial estate. Use of retaining walls would reduce this impact although space is restricted between the buildings to carry out this construction. Retaining structures would also significantly increase the cost of works. An initial layout of this underpass is shown in drawing 718369/OA/013 in Appendix D).
Only minor diversions from the existing pedestrian routes would be caused by the introduction of an underpass therefore it is not considered that this option would significantly increase journey times.
No details of Statutory Undertaker’s apparatus are available along this section (as it was not covered in the current WEA scheme). It can however be assumed that the telecoms and electricity cables continue from the junctions either side of this location in the northern verge. These would need to be diverted as part of the underpass works.
As the proposal to construct a crossing point at this location is additional to the WEA proposal any works will result in an increase in the construction cost.
6.6 Junction 27 At Junction 27 there is an existing Redway along the southbound verge side which crosses Tilers Road at grade (uncontrolled crossing). There is another existing Redway link 150m north of this beside a Sikh Temple. The proposed Redway routes are along the northbound verge and on both sides of the WEA access. Consideration needs to be given to providing an underpass or footbridge at this location as well as assessment of the proposed controlled at grade crossing. A crossing at this junction links the WEA to the Kiln Farm industrial estate, a major employer in the area.
In the three year period from 1 May 2005 to 30 April 2008 there were two accidents at this junction. Both involved vehicles pulling out of or into Tilers Road and would therefore be less likely to occur with the junction improvement. None of the accidents involved pedestrian / cyclist movements.
6.6.1 At grade crossing The current signal plan for this crossroads has five phases, one of which is an ‘all pedestrian’ phase allowing pedestrians and cyclists to cross at each of the arms; some of the other phases allow crossing to the central islands on the V4. The length of this ‘all pedestrian’ phase is 20 seconds. It can be assumed therefore that this
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 51 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 phase of the signal plan adds a delay of 20 seconds per vehicle to traffic at this junction.
The visibility along all existing approaches to this junction is considered adequate (using contour plans provided by Atkins and acceptance within the Halcrow Road Safety Audit) for the current speed limit along the V4. It is anticipated that the WEA access will be designed to the appropriate geometrical standards to attain the required forward stopping sight distance. As visibility is above the desirable minimum standard then traffic signals and waiting pedestrians / cyclists will be seen by oncoming traffic. On the approach from the west traffic speed will be limited by the proximity of Junction 3 (300m away); to the west Junction 4 is approximately 780m away which will allow traffic to speed up to 60mph from this direction.
6.6.2 Underpass (drawing 718369/OA/014) The proposal from stakeholders is to construct an underpass to the west of Junction 27. An initial review of this proposal concluded that an underpass at either of these locations would have a detrimental impact on a number of buildings (the temple, offices and an industrial unit). Immediately east of the junction there is an area of undeveloped land. It is proposed that this is a more feasible location for an underpass therefore it is this location that will be assessed.
The proposed underpass is 44m long. Due to constraints the underpass has been extended to beyond the existing / proposed Redways on either side of the road; this allows a single Redway to be connected from the underpass to the link to the existing / proposed network.
Separating the pedestrian and cyclist movements from traffic movements will allow the ‘all pedestrian’ phase to be removed from the signal plan; this will provide a maximum reduction in delay of 20 seconds per vehicle. The layout designed due to constraints will increase journey time for all pedestrians / cyclists using this crossing. The winding nature of the underpass access increase the journey distance by 501m adding an extra 281 seconds to a pedestrians journey time (using the accepted standard pedestrian speed on 1.79m/s). This level of delay may result in pedestrian and cyclists crossing the V4 at grade using the phases in the traffic signals, especially if they are already crossing the access to the WEA or Tilers Road at grade. Pedestrian guardrail will discourage uncontrolled crossing on the V4 but will notstopittakingplace.
Construction of an underpass would require additional land either side of the V4. To the south an additional 3248m2 of land would be required. This land is currently designated as development land. To the north of the V4 2919m2 of land is required. As mentioned previously this land is currently undeveloped but site clearance would require the removal of a large number of mature trees.
Telecom and low voltage electricity cables are present along the northern verge. These would need to be diverted as part of any underpass construction works; it may
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 52 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 be possible to divert the services to within the 700mm of cover from the underpass to carriageway. Service diversions are already proposed in the southern side of the carriageway although these may need to be reassessed if an underpass is progressed.
6.6.3 Footbridge (drawing 718369/OA/007) The proposed location of the footway is 180m west of Junction 27 near to the existing Redway route leading to the Kiln Farm industrial estate and Pitfields. The bridge spans the V4 for a distance of 39m and has ramps of 90m for a 1 in 12 slope or 140m for the preferred 1 in 20 slope. The bridge links the proposed Redway on the southern side of the V4 to the existing routes on the northern side.
By provided a footbridge over the V4 at this location the pedestrian phase in the proposed traffic signal plan can be removed resulting in a maximum reduction of 20 seconds delay per vehicle. The impact of removing this phase on the construction of the junction would however be minimal and traffic islands are still required for the signals. Whilst there is a saving for traffic the provision of a footbridge is likely to cause some delay to pedestrians and cyclists. The route across the bridge using ramps is 319m resulting in a journey time of 178 seconds at the standard pedestrian pace; this journey would take longer for those users who need to use the ramp as opposed to the stairway. The journey time would increase for a user travelling from Tilers Road to the WEA as the bridge is situated 180m from the junction.
The construction of a bridge requires an additional 245m2 of land to the north of the V4 requiring land belonging to the Kiln Farm industrial estate; the ramp and steps would be situated approximately 3m from the edge of an industrial unit. To the south of the V4 370m2 of development land would be required to construct a footbridge reducing the area of developable land; consideration would also need to be given to redirecting the proposed Redway from alongside the access road through the WEA to the bridge.
Bridge foundations at this location would require the diversion of a high voltage electricity cable in the northern verge and a 10” asbestos cement water pipe in the southern verge.
6.7 Junction 3 Junction 3 is proposed to be a signalised crossroads linking the V4 to the H3 Monks Way. There is an existing road through the development site at this location called Calverton Lane. Instead of alongside the carriageway the proposed Redway route through the WEA passes along Calverton Lane; to the north of the V4 the Redway runs alongside the carriageway. There is no pedestrian or cycle route along Monks Way. At this location the options to be assessed are the proposed at grade crossing and an underpass.
Only one personal injury accident occurred at this junction in the 3 year period assessed and was caused by misuse of the roundabout; the roundabout will be
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 53 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 removed as part of the WEA proposals. The accident did not involve pedestrians or cyclists.
6.7.1 At grade crossing The traffic signal plan at Junction 3 involves five stages. No ‘all pedestrian’ phase is planned within the plan as each arm can be crossing within the traffic phases. Starting at any point the user can travel around all roads back to the starting point within the five stages. This signal plan means that there is no actual delay caused to traffic by implementing at-grade crossings at this junction.
This junction is situated 300m from both Junction 27 to the west and Junction 26 to the east and the traffic signals at Junction 3 are visible from each of these junctions. This will mean vehicle speed is unlikely to be high on the approach to Junction 3 and crossing pedestrians will be clearly visible. There is considered to be little risk to pedestrian / cyclists of this proposed crossing arrangement.
6.7.2 Underpass (drawing 718369/OA/015) The proposed underpass at this location is situated to the west of the junction connecting into the end of Cavlerton Lane and is approximately 40m in length. The underpass is accessible from Calverton Lane and the proposed Redway on the southern side of the road, and from the east-west running existing Redway on the northern side of the road.
As pedestrian / cyclist crossing phases are incorporated into the traffic phases of the signal plan there is no benefit in terms of delays to traffic in removing the at-grade crossing option; there is however an increase in pedestrian / cyclist journey time caused by the introduction of an underpass. To travel from Calverton Lane with the intention of heading east along the northern side of the road the journey time for a standard pedestrian is increased by 92 seconds due to the length of the 1 in 33 gradient ramp required to link the underpass to the existing Redway. If a pedestrian was travelling west on the northern side of the road and wished to travel to the footway along the WEA access the journey time would be increase further to a total of 195 seconds.
An underpass at this junction would have a significant impact in terms of land. To the south of the V4 2504m2 of development land would be required. The works would also require the removal of the end section of Calverton Lane. North of the V4 5623m2 of land would be required beyond the highway boundary. This would require the removal of a large number of mature trees and overlies the access and turning circle for Centurion Court which houses businesses. Retaining walls would limit the impact in terms of land take but would increase the cost of the works.
Excavation for an underpass would impact on statutory undertakers apparatus in the area. It is likely that minor diversionary works would be required to the electricity and telecommunication cables under the existing Redway; these cables could be diverted to lie within the 700mm of cover between the underpass and ground level.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 54 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 The main impact would be on water pipes. Two 10” asbestos cement water pipes run along Calverton Lane as does a further water pipe. There would need diverting away from the excavation area. It is also likely that the proposed diversion of services south of the V4 would need to be reassessed if an underpass is progressed at this junction.
6.8 Junction 26 Junction 26 will be converted from a T-junction to a signalised crossroads as part of the WEA works. Farm buildings to the west of the WEA access will be demolished as part of the development although a historic building to the east of the access is to be retained; this building will be protected by a High Vertical Concrete Barrier (HVCB) as the junction improvement reduces the distance from the building to the carriageway. One personal injury accident occurred at this junction within the timescale; the accident did not involve a pedestrian or cyclist.
The desire line at this location is between the amenities proposed within the WEA and the existing amenities within Two Mile Ash.
6.8.1 At grade crossing There are four phases to the proposed traffic signal plan at this junction. No ‘all pedestrian’ phases has been required within this plan as pedestrian / cyclist crossing times have been incorporated in the traffic phases. The result of this is that traffic is not delayed by pedestrians / cyclists crossing the carriageway.
Junction 3 is situated 300m west of Junction 26, and Junction 25 is 500m east. Junction 26 is clearly visible from both approaches therefore drivers will have adequate sight of traffic signals and waiting pedestrians / cyclists. The Road Safety Audit undertaken by Halcrow did highlight one concern relating to visibility at this junction the presence of the HVCB in front of the historic building will hinder visibility from the development access. The audit recommends changes to the exit from Two Mile Ash High Street allowing the at grade crossing to be situated further west improving its visibility. Whilst pedestrian / cyclist crossing times will be controlled a user crossing outside of the appropriate phase would be less visible to traffic from the development. This will increase the risk of an accident although overall risk to pedestrian / cyclist safety is still considered to be low.
6.8.2 Underpass (drawing 718369/OA/016) At Junction 26 the most suitable location of an underpass is considered to be immediately east of The High Street. The underpass would need to be approximately 57m long to extend beyond the existing / proposed Redways either side of the road. The location and length is restricted on the southern side by the historic building to be retained. The access routes to the subway are as compact as possible to reduce land take and link the underpass to the existing / proposed Redways alongside the V4.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 55 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 The lack of an ‘all pedestrian’ phase in the proposed signal plan means than grade separating the crossing has no impact on traffic delay; there is however an adverse impact on pedestrian / cyclists journey times. Whilst pedestrians and cyclists will have to wait for the correct time to crossing the V4, they will be able to do so within the cycle of the traffic signals. Using the underpass will add an extra 377m distance from one side of the road to the other; this equates to an increase of 210 seconds at the standard pedestrian pace. This level of perceived inconvenience may result in users crossing at grade rather than using the underpass. The at grade crossings on The High Street and the WEA access will be retained even if an underpass is progressed.
An underpass will require 2807m2 of land mainly designated as development land to the south of the V4 and 2475m2 to the north; a large number of mature trees will be removed by the underpass construction reducing the buffer zone between a residential estate east of The High Street and the junction. There is a watercourse running alongside the area where excavation will occur and a pond within the southern area of land take. The presence of water adjacent to any excavation will further complicate construction increasing programme time and cost.
Construction of an underpass at Junction 26 will require the diversion of telecoms and electricity cables (which are considered to be minor diversionary works at this stage) along with a 10” asbestos cement water pipe and a gas pipe. The water and gas services will require more significant diversions as they cross the excavation approximately 20m from the underpass entrance.
6.9 Junction 25 Three crossing options are to be assessed within the vicinity of Junction 25; a footbridge, an underpass, and the proposed at grade crossing. The junction is a new connection to the V4 required due to the access to the WEA as opposed to an amendment of an existing junction.
6.9.1 At grade crossing The current proposal is to introduce at grade crossings with central refuge islands on each of the three arms to the junction. No ‘all pedestrian’ phase is planned in the signal plan; pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross the road within the traffic phases of the junction. Three phases are planned at Junction 25. By incorporating crossing movements within the traffic phases of the signal plan no delay to vehicles can be attributed to the pedestrians and cyclists crossing the carriageway. The exception to this is for eastbound V4 traffic. One phase stops flow to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the eastern arm of the junction; this results in a maximum delay of 18 seconds per vehicle in the eastbound direction.
Visibility on the eastbound V4 approach to the junction and on the access from the WEA is considered to be within the desirable limits. The Road Safety Audit highlights the fact that on the westbound V4 approach visibility is reduced by a crest curve 120m east of the junction. Visibility over the crest curve is reduced to 90m and
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 56 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 visibility to the junction stop line is 160m; the desirable minimum for a 60mph road is 215m. This increases the risk that vehicles will not be aware of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the road. The audit does provide some recommendations which must be considered during further development of the WEA design. The reduced visibility does increase risk of an accident for those crossing the westbound carriageway.
6.9.2 Underpass (drawing 718369/OA/017) The underpass has been situated on the west side of the junction and is approximately 34m long. On the north side Redways are provided heading east and west from the underpass entrance. On the south side of the road constraints mean only one route is provided linking to the proposed Redway adjacent to the westbound carriageway.
Removal of the at grade crossing facility would only impact on eastbound V4 traffic, providing those drivers with a maximum time saving of 18 seconds per vehicle. The layout of the Redway from the underpass on the south side of the road would result in an increase of 129 seconds to a pedestrians journey time (based on a standard pedestrian speed of 1.79m/s). This level of delay and the route required to enter the underpass from the development side of the V4 may results in people crossing at grade without a controlled crossing. The access to the WEA will retain its at grade crossing if an underpass is built.
Construction of the underpass will require 2924m2 of development land and will require the clearance of an area of environmental significance where vegetation was to be retained adjacent to the carriageway. On the north side of the carriageway 1230m2 of land is required; a large number of mature trees will need to be removed should an underpass be progressed. Removal of these trees will reduce the buffer zone between the V4 and residential properties, in some cases there will be virtually no tree cover between residences and the V4.
In the northern verge there are services belonging for telecoms and electricity. These will require diverting as part of the works to construct an underpass.
6.9.3 Footbridge (drawing 718369/OA/008) A footbridge across the V4 at this location would have to span 45m and would link the Redway routes on either side of the carriageway. The ramp would be 140m for a 1 in 20 gradient. The proposed footbridge is situated 90m east of Junction 25.
The benefits in terms of traffic delay are identical to the underpass option in that only eastbound traffic would benefit by an 18 second reduction in delay per vehicle. All other traffic would be unaffected by the removal of the at grade crossing due to the design of the traffic signal plan.
In terms of land requirements the footbridge would need up to 225m2 of land currently designated as part of the WEA development. The land in the WEA is
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 57 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 proposed as ‘Employment’. North of the V4 up to 270m2 land would be required requiring the clearance of mature trees which currently separate the houses in Two Mile Ash from the V4.
There are currently telecommunications and electricity cables within the northern verge. These may need to be diverted in order to construct the bridge, although a design could be produced to avoid impacting on these services; this may require additional land take north of the V4.
6.10 Crownhill Roundabout Currently there are Redway routes around three quarters of the roundabout linking the northern verge of the V4 to Great Holm to the east and the crematorium to the south east. Where these Redways cross the northern and eastern arms of the roundabout underpasses are provided.
The proposal put forward by stakeholders is to construct an underpass (drawing 718369/OA/018 in Appendix D) along the southern arm of the roundabout to allow pedestrian / cyclist access from an employment area within the WEA to the crematorium and Crownhill. No works are currently planned at this junction as part of the WEA development.
Construction of an underpass at this location would be consistent with the other arms of the roundabout. However, further assessment would be required as to whether this will become a pedestrian / cyclist desire line following the completion of the WEA. People from the Crownhill area wishing to enter WEA and those exiting the crematorium will be closer to the crossing at Junction 24 (situated 220m south of the proposed underpass). Anyone travelling from Great Holm will be more likely to use the existing underpass across Dansteed Way (northern arm of the roundabout) and travel along the V4 Redway to the WEA entry point. The layout of the employment area will be important in whether this will be a desire line although the employment area is separated from Dansteed Way by a balancing pond.
An initial design of an underpass at this location shows that it would require negligible amount of development land therefore would have little impact on the masterplan. However, currently there is no Redway along this side of the carriageway to connect to; a route has been assumed to the V4 for the sake of this assessment although it may connect directly into the WEA. No earthworks would be required on the east side of Dansteed Way as it is assumed that the existing Redway level from the underpass on the eastern arm of the roundabout is at the correct level for the new underpass access.
As the roundabout is currently outside the development plan there is no information available regarding Statutory Undertaker’s apparatus therefore no comment can be made on the implication of an underpass to existing services
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 58 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Currently there is no cost for works at this junction included within the development budget therefore any proposals would increase construction cost as well as programme.
6.11 Junction 24 At Junction 24 the options to be assessed are the proposed controlled at grade crossing and a footbridge. No underpass has been suggested at this location. Within the three year period assessed one accident occurred at this junction caused by a vehicle colliding with the rear of another vehicle waiting to turn into the crematorium. The proposed junction layout would provide a right turn lane for the crematorium removing this sort of incident. This accident did not involve pedestrians or cyclists.
There is an existing desire line across Dansteed Way at this location created by the bus stops located on each side. The access to the WEA will further increase use.
6.11.1 At grade junction The at grade junction proposed at this junction is not controlled. The proposal is to construct a central refuge island so that crossing can be undertaken in two stages. Whilst the crossing will be uncontrolled it is an improvement on the existing situation. Currently there is a desire to cross this single carriageway but no central island is available. The lack of accidents reported shows that there is no problem with the existing situation.
As the crossing will not be controlled it will have no impact on traffic delay along Dansteed Way.
Visibility along Dansteed Way seems acceptable so that pedestrians and cyclists wishing to cross the road will be clearly visible to traffic.
6.11.2 Footbridge (drawing 718369/OA/009) A footbridge at this location would have a span of 32m with ramps of 125m for a 1 in 20 gradient. It would be situated south of Junction 24 and would connect an existing Redway on the east side of Dansteed Way to a new Redway on the west side. The proposed Redway may need extending from the WEA access point to the bridge.
As vehicles are not delayed by the at grade crossing proposals there are no traffic benefits to providing a footbridge. Whilst no accidents have occurred in the three year period assessed relating to people crossing Dansteed Way at this location providing a grade separated crossing would remove the conflict between pedestrians / cyclists and vehicles therefore does have some benefit in terms of safety.
The land requirement for the bridge construction is up to 320m2 on the west side of Dansteed Way and 235m2 on the east side. The land on the west side is listed in the masterplan as having vegetation to be retained suggesting it has environmental importance. On the east side the construction would reduce the buffer zone between the road and properties and would also require the removal of several mature trees.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 59 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 From the information provided all statutory undertaker’s apparatus is close enough to the carriageway kerb line to be unaffected by the works.
6.12 Conclusions of Assessment The issues at each junction will be reviewing individually to order to make an independent assessment of the most appropriate form of crossing at each. The key issues relating to crossings on each of the junctions are summarised in the following tables. It should be noted that the at grade crossings is the baseline for comparison; where ‘no impact’ is stated this refers to no impact beyond the current development proposals
6.12.1 Galley Hill Roundabout Uncontrolled at grade crossing Underpass Traffic No impact No impact Pedestrian / Crossing reliant on traffic levels Journey Time increased by up to Cyclist 78 seconds. Convenience Questionable whether this is a potential desire line
Safety Consistent with existing crossing Removal of the conflict with traffic layout on Ridgeway (no accidents Route is isolated increasing fear of reported) crime
Land No additional land required 4033m2 of land required Environment No impact Removal of mature trees Statutory No impact Diversion of apparatus likely Undertakers
Programme Minor additional work Significant increase in work including works to subsurface reservoir structure Cost Negligible £656k additional cost Table 6.12-1 Summary of Galley Hill Roundabout crossing assessment
It is not considered that this route will be a well used pedestrian / cycle route to justify the adverse impacts of constructing an underpass. The recommendation therefore is to do nothing at this stage, although if there is a Redway link from the development to this junction consideration should be given to constructing an uncontrolled at grade crossing on the eastern arm of the roundabout consistent with the existing crossing on the northern arm.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 60 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 6.12.2 Junction 28 At grade crossing Underpass Footbridge
Traffic 19s delay / veh. 19s delay removed 19s delay removed Pedestrian / 1 ‘all pedestrian’ Journey Time Journey Time Cyclist phase and increased by up to 63 increased by up to Convenience opportunity to cross seconds 170 seconds. some arms during traffic phases Safety Traffic speed limited Removal of the Removal of the by proximity of other conflict with traffic conflict with traffic junctions on V4 Route is isolated Route is still isolated Consistent with increasing fear of increasing fear of approach on side crime crime roads Land No additional land 6769m2 of land 655m2 of land required required required Environment No impact Removal of mature Removal of mature trees trees Adverse impact on townscape Statutory No impact Diversion of comms Diversion of comms Undertakers and electricity cables and electricity cables
Programme No impact Significant increase in Increase in construction time construction time
Cost No impact £656k additional cost £425k additional cost Table 6.12-2 Summary of Junction 28 crossing assessment
The benefit of grade separating the crossings is that it will improve safety for pedestrians / cyclists by removing the potential conflict point, but the level to which a grade separated crossing would be used is questionable. The access route to the underpass is not direct across the desire line and would increase journey time for pedestrians and cyclists; this may result in people crossing at grade. The fact that traffic is stopped by the signals in phases will further act to encourage at grade crossing.
Providing an underpass or footbridge has significant impact the environment, cost and the construction programme, whilst the removal of the pedestrian phase from the signal plan will have negligible impact. It is considered that as the junction is to be signalised an at grade crossing within the phases will provide more benefit to users; it is also consistent with the crossings to be implemented on the side roads.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 61 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 6.12.3 Junction 4 At grade crossing Underpass
Traffic 21s delay / veh. 21s delay removed Pedestrian / 1 ‘all pedestrian’ phase and Journey Time increased by up to Cyclist opportunity to cross some arms 244 seconds Convenience during traffic phases
Safety Traffic speed limited by proximity Removal of the conflict with traffic of other junctions on V4 Route is isolated increasing fear Consistent with approach on side of crime roads Land No additional land required 9341m2 of land required Environment No impact Removal of mature trees Statutory No impact Diversion of comms and electricity Undertakers cables
Programme No impact Significant increase in construction time
Cost No impact £656k additional cost Table 6.12-3 Summary of Junction 4 crossing assessment
Construction of an underpass at this location would have significant impact on construction time and cost, as well as the local environment. The access route into the underpass is indirect and would add up to 244 seconds to the pedestrian’s journey time (at a standard pace) which is likely to discourage use; instead pedestrians / cyclists may cross as grade within the phases on the traffic signals. The radii on the Redway into the underpass will slow cyclists further adding inconvenience.
The benefits of constructing an underpass in terms of pedestrian safety are outweighed by the adverse impacts of such a proposal. It is recommended that an at grade crossing is progressed within the traffic signal plan. This is also consistent with the crossings to be implemented on the side roads.
6.12.4 Connection to Carters Lane It is not appropriate to introduce an at grade crossing at this location due to the speed along the V4. The options assessed are therefore a grade separated crossing (underpass) or to do nothing. It is not considered that this location is a significant desire line to justify the adverse impacts (in terms of environment and land take) of an underpass. The recommendation is to provide no crossing at this location; alternative crossing opportunities are provided at Junctions 4 and 27.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 62 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 6.12.5 Junction 27 At grade crossing Underpass Footbridge
Traffic 20s delay / veh. 20s delay removed 20s delay removed Pedestrian / 1 ‘all pedestrian’ Journey Time Journey Time Cyclist phase and increased by up to increased by up to Convenience opportunity to cross 281 seconds 178 seconds. some arms during traffic phases Safety Traffic speed limited Removal of the Removal of the by proximity of other conflict with traffic conflict with traffic junctions on V4 Route is isolated Route is still isolated Consistent with increasing fear of increasing fear of approach on side crime crime roads Land No additional land 6167m2 of land 615m2 of land required required required impacting on commercial land Environment No impact Removal of mature Removal of mature trees trees Adverse impact on townscape Statutory No impact Diversion of comms Diversion of HV Undertakers and electricity cables electricity cables
Programme No impact Significant increase in Increase in construction time construction time
Cost No impact £656k additional cost £425k additional cost Table 6.12-5 Summary of Junction 27 crossing assessment
As with Junction 28 above, comparing the adverse impacts of constructing an underpass or footbridge with the benefits show that there is lack of justification in providing grade separated crossings. At Junction 28 the land take impacts adversely on businesses as well as the environment. It is considered that some pedestrians / cyclists will use the phases of the signalisation to cross at grade even if no pedestrian phase is included. A pedestrian phase would still be required on the side roads. It is recommended that an at grade crossing is provided at this junction within the traffic signal plan.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 63 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 6.12.6 Junction 3 At grade crossing Underpass
Traffic No delay (no all pedestrian No impact phase) Pedestrian / Crossing permitted within traffic Journey Time increased by up to Cyclist phases of the signal plan 195 seconds Convenience Safety Traffic speed limited by proximity Removal of the conflict with traffic of other junctions on V4 Route is isolated increasing fear Consistent with approach on side of crime roads Land No additional land required 8127m2 of land required Environment No impact Removal of mature trees Statutory No impact Diversion of comms and electricity Undertakers cables as well as 3 water pipelines Programme No impact Significant increase in construction time
Cost No impact £656k additional cost Table 6.12-6 Summary of Junction 3 crossing assessment
As well as the environmental, construction programme and cost related impacts an underpass at Junction 3 would also likely require retaining walls in order to avoid earthworks on an access to businesses (at Centurion Court). The phasing of the signal plan avoids delays to vehicles and allows the pedestrian / cyclist to cross within the traffic phases rather than having an ‘all pedestrian’ stage; this is considered favourable in terms of user convenience compared to the additional journey time created by the route through the underpass. It is not considered that the proposed at grade crossing will create a significant hazard to users; the at grade crossing is the recommended option at this junction.
6.12.7 Junction 26 Table 6.12-7 shows the keys issues related to the choice of pedestrian / cyclist crossing at Junction 26. An underpass would have a negative impact on the local environment, construction programme and scheme cost; it is also likely to increase pedestrian journey time, especially for the elderly or disabled (as the journey time assessment used a standard pedestrian speed of 1.79m/s). Pedestrians are likely to consider this additional distance inconvenient, especially as the signalised junction will still provide opportunity to cross at grade during traffic phases of the signal plan. It is recommended that the crossing option at this junction be an at grade crossing as proposed.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 64 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 At grade crossing Underpass
Traffic No delay (no all pedestrian No impact phase) Pedestrian / Crossing permitted within traffic Journey Time increased by up to Cyclist phases of the signal plan 210 seconds Convenience Safety Traffic speed limited by proximity Removal of the conflict with traffic of other junctions on V4 Route is isolated increasing fear Consistent with approach on side of crime roads Land No additional land required 5282m2 of land required Environment No impact Removal of mature trees Statutory No impact Diversion of comms and electricity Undertakers cables as well as 3 water pipelines Programme No impact Significant increase in construction time Cost No impact £656k additional cost Table 6.12-7 Summary of Junction 26 crossing assessment
6.12.8 Junction 25 An at grade crossing at this junction will cause 18 seconds delay to vehicles travelling eastbound on the V4 and will have reduced visibility of the crossing from the WEA access (although the Road Safety Audit includes recommendations to limit the impact of this); the visibility to the traffic signals on the WEA access is to the required distance. The risk to pedestrians / cyclists of this crossing layout is considered low.
Replacing the at grade junction with a grade separated junction has some significant adverse impacts; it is recommended that these options are not progressed and the current proposal retained.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 65 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 At grade crossing Underpass Footbridge
Traffic Delay for eastbound Removal of 18s delay Removal of 18s delay V4 traffic of 18 seconds Pedestrian / Crossing permitted Journey Time Journey Time Cyclist within traffic phases increased by up to increased by up to Convenience of the signal plan 129 seconds 181 seconds. Safety Traffic speed limited Removal of the Removal of the by proximity of other conflict with traffic conflict with traffic junctions on V4 Route is isolated Route is isolated Consistent with increasing fear of increasing fear of approach on side crime crime roads Visibility on one arm reduced by HVCB Land No additional land 4154m2 of land 495m2 of land required required required impacting on commercial land Environment No impact Removal of mature Removal of mature trees trees Adverse impact on townscape Statutory No impact Diversion of comms No impact Undertakers and electricity cables
Programme No impact Significant increase in Increase in construction time construction time
Cost No impact £656k additional cost £425k additional cost Table 6.12-8 Summary of Junction 25 crossing assessment
6.12.9 Crownhill Roundabout At Crownhill Roundabout the assessment was either provision of an underpass or ‘do nothing’. An underpass would be the best of option as it would be consistent with other crossings around the roundabout and impacts on less land than other underpass locations (depending on the importance of the land required where vegetation was to be retained as part of the WEA works). However, it is not considered that this location would become a desire line following the completion of the WEA therefore a ‘do nothing’ option is recommended.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 66 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 6.12.10 Junction 24 At grade crossing (uncontrolled) Footbridge
Traffic No delay No impact Pedestrian / Crossing time dependent on Journey Time increased by up to Cyclist traffic levels 158 seconds. Convenience Safety Consistent with existing layout – Removal of the conflict with traffic no safety issues reported Route is isolated increasing fear of crime
Land No additional land required 555m2 of land required Environment No impact Removal of mature trees and vegetation previously to be retained Adverse impact on townscape Statutory No impact No impact Undertakers
Programme No impact Increase in construction time
Cost No impact £425k additional cost Table 6.12-10 Summary of Junction 24 crossing assessment
The options considered at this junction were a footbridge and an uncontrolled at grade crossing. There is an existing uncontrolled crossing at this point on Dansteed Way linking bus stops; no safety issues have been reported at this crossing. The proposal will introduce a central island improving safety. Whilst a footbridge would remove the risk associated with pedestrian / cyclist conflict when crossing the carriageway the adverse impact associated with the structure result in an overall dis- benefit; an at grade crossing is considered most suitable at this location.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 67 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 7 Conclusion and Recommendations
The issues relating to the provision of at grade crossings (controlled and uncontrolled), underpasses and footbridges on the V4 and Dansteed Way as part of the WEA have been assessed within this report in terms of policy (national, regional and local), design guidance, and impact (in terms of traffic, environment, safety etc).
Design guidance does not recommend stand alone pedestrian / cycle crossings on a national speed limit carriageway therefore unless speed limit were to be lowered if at grade crossings are provided they would need to be at junctions; this compliments the predicted desire lines produced by the proposed Redway route within the development. If roundabouts were the preferred junction format at each of the WEA accesses then grade separated crossings would likely be recommended, but as signalised junction have been shown to be most appropriate (from the VISSIM model assessment) there is an opportunity to provide at grade controlled crossings. This agrees with guidance on street design which advises that footways and cycleways are provided alongside the carriageway rather than on independent routes.
The co-location of pedestrian / cyclist routes with vehicle routes is further emphasised by policy. It is considered that segregation from traffic leads to a feeling of vulnerability and a fear of crime therefore underpasses are generally not recommended. Policy also requires that routes provided for pedestrians and cyclists be direct and visible to encourage sustainable modes of transport. The pathways into underpasses tend to lead the user away from their desired pathway and footbridges increase journey time over the carriageway therefore can not be recommended in terms of policy.
As the traffic signals will be in place with or without the crossing facility it is likely users will follow the desire line and cross within the traffic phases on the signal plan. The side roads will be crossed at grade within the signal plan irrespective of the final crossing choice on the V5 and Dansteed Way. This will lead to inconsistency along the route.
In environmental terms the grade separated options on this route have significant adverse impact. Construction of footbridges or underpasses would require the removal of a large number of mature trees that line the V4 and Dansteed Way; there are also areas of vegetation previously labelled as ‘to be retained’ that would require clearing. Footbridges could also impact negatively on townscape and would, in some cases, overlook residential areas. The topography in the area does not easily lend itself to discrete placement of footbridges.
Grade separated options, in particularly the underpass, would impact significantly on land. They would reduce the buffer zones between properties and the carriageway and impact on businesses adjacent to the V4. These options would also reduce the
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 68 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 area of developable land impacting on the masterplan and increase construction cost and programme.
It is recommended that the use of at grade crossings within the traffic signal plan is the most appropriate crossing facility on the V4 and Dansteed Way. This will provide a consistent method of crossing along the route and is in line with design guidance and policy. It is considered that the adverse impacts associated with grade separating crossing on this route will result in little benefit in progressing these options.
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 69 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008 Bibliography
Atkins General Arrangement Plans (Section 278 drawings) Western Expansion Area Masterplan – Redlawn / Gallagher Estates VISSIM Report – JMP consulting Road Safety Audit – Halcrow Department of Transport Road Casualties Great Britain 2006 Atkins Underpass Drawings Milton Keynes Accident Statistics Milton Keynes Intelligent Observatory National Statistics Online John Best, 1999, Sustainable Integrated Transport Strategy for Milton Keynes: Milton Keynes Council. Milton Keynes Council, 2005, Local Plan : Milton Keynes Council. Milton Keynes Council, 2006, Milton Keynes Local Development Scheme: Milton Keynes Council. Department Environment Transport Regions, 2001, Regional Guidance Plan for the South East (RPG 9) London, The Stationary Office. Department for Transport, 2007, Manual for Streets, London: Thomas Telford Publishing. Philip R Oxley, 2002, Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure, United Kingdom, Department for Transport. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (various relevant sections), The Stationary Office Department Environment Transport Regions, 2001, Regional Guidance Plan for the South East (RPG 9) London, The Stationary Office. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004: Compulsory Purchase and Compensation (Compulsory Purchase Procedure), London, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Department for Transport, Cycling in Great Britain (Statistics) Department for Transport, Walking in Great Britain (Statistics)
G:\TRANSPORT JOBS\718369 Western Expansion Area V4 Crossings\15 Reports & Photographs\15_01 70 Issued\718369_R_001.doc © Mouchel 2008