CARLISLE to SETTLE RAILWAY
LONG DISTANCE ROUTE
(THROUGH CUMBRIA)
ROAD SAFETY REVIEW
Project Client: Cumbria County Council
January 2005
CARLISLE to SETTLE RAILWAY
LONG DISTANCE ROUTE
(THROUGH CUMBRIA)
ROAD SAFETY REVIEW
CAPITA Symonds for Cumbria County Council
Status Date Author Approved
DRAFT January 2005 Kevin McGeough
ISSUED January 2005 C Hastings
Work Order: IFF9349
Distribution List
Cumbria County Council 2 copies all colour
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority 2 copies all colour
Transport Policy File Copy
Digital File Reference: G:\IFF9349SetCarLDR_RSR
Status: ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0
HADRIAN’S WALL
CONTENTS
1 Summary
2 Road Safety Review (Table 1)
3 Survey Photographs (Index and Thumbnails)
4 Route Map
5 Proposals for Risk Reduction
6 Proposed Risk Reduction Measures (Table 2)
7 Proposed Route Diversions
8 Costs
9 Recommendations
Status: ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
Carlisle to Settle Railway, Long Distance Route (Through Cumbria) Road Safety Review
1 SUMMARY
1.1 Harvey, the ‘Walker’s Map’ makers, intend to produce a strip map of the Carlisle to Settle railway line and superimpose on it a Long Distance Route (LDR) suitable for walkers. The route will include circular paths between the various stations along the route. The idea is a joint venture between the Settle Carlisle Railway Development Company, the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority and the mapmakers. The company also produce the Hadrian’s Wall Path National Trail map in a similar strip map format. The National Trail has been extremely successful and it is hoped that this proposed map will generate interest in walking between the stations on this well-known railway. Following discussions between Cumbria County Council and the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, CAPITA Symonds was engaged by Cumbria County Council to carry out a Road Safety Review for the proposed Long Distance Route through Cumbria.
1.2 The purpose of this Review is:
• To prepare a table that details a road safety review of the sections of the LDR where it crosses or runs along the highway and prioritises the need for risk reduction, • To prepare a strip plan of the sections of the LDR with an indication of the Risk Ranking, and • To propose risk reduction measures with costs for each section.
1.3 A survey of the route was undertaken between Monday 15th and Friday 19th November 2005. The weather was changeable throughout the week but, in general, it was dry and cool. Heavy rain was experienced on the Wednesday for the survey on the southern route to Appleby. The Friday was very cold, and very bright, for the survey of the southern end of the Cumbrian sections of the route. It had snowed on the higher ground on the previous days. By Friday the snow on the roads had melted and the water then froze on the section of route between Garsdale Head and Dent (Galloway Gate). The sign says at Garsdale Head “Winter conditions can be dangerous”; the surveyors lightweight 4 wheel drive had great difficulty climbing the steep tight bend outside Garsdale Station. Galloway Gate would be very difficult for the average pedestrian in these conditions. The results of the survey are set out in Section 2 (Table 1).
1.4 The route was divided into 65 sections, which were either crossings or lengths of road. They were numbered, and the descriptions written, from the perspective of a person following the route from Carlisle to Settle. Refer to the Section 2 (Table 1) for the descriptions and Section 4 for the Route Map.
1.5 Initially the risks were grouped as High, Medium or Low dependant on a number of site factors (see 1.6 over). These groupings where then ranked from 1 to 36, (see Risk / Rank in Table 1) with 1 being the greatest risk with the greatest need for risk reduction measures. The rest of the locations were assessed as low risk and it was considered that further ranking was unnecessary.
Status: ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
1.6 The Risk was assessed based on the following factors:
For all Locations: • The perceived speed of traffic and whether or not the site was subject to a speed limit (speed surveys were not undertaken) • The amount, type and size of the traffic
For Crossings: • Visibility to and from the crossing point • How clearly defined the crossing is • How wide the carriageway is at that point • Is there a verge or footway to wait on
For sections of path along the highway: • Visibility into and out of the section and forward visibility along the length of the section • How wide the highway is • Whether or not there is a footway or verge and the condition / width of either
1.7 As could be expected, the locations, where the route crossed or ran along the major roads were assessed as the higher risks. A66(T) ranked 1 and 2 A684 Garsdale Head ranked 4 A686 near Winskill ranked 5 A685 Winton ranked 6
1.8 The ‘odd one out’ is Eden Bridge, south of Kirkoswald. The bridge is a ‘pack horse’ style hump back bridge on the B6413. It is only wide enough for one-way working. Both approaches are at right angles and the approach parapet walls, especially at the eastern end, reduce visibility. The existing sign assemblies of ‘road narrows from both sides’ triangle, the old ‘single track road (with width?)’ plate and the ‘road narrows from both sides’ triangle, are in a poor state of repair. It is suggested that the Area Engineer is requested to confirm the appropriateness of these sign faces and considers replacing them with sign assemblies, which include a warning of ‘pedestrians in road ahead’, as soon as possible.
1.9 Temple Sowerby is the highest ranked location because, although the road is restricted to 40mph, the amount and size of the traffic that use the A66(T) is daunting. The map indicated that pedestrians should head west from the village centre and find somewhere to cross the road. A simple ‘mapped’ diversion sending pedestrians eastwards, along the footway or local service road, to a pedestrian refuge crossing facility, which is protected with hatched markings on a red surface, will provide a much safer crossing.
1.10 In Kirkby Thore the map gives the pedestrian a choice, either continue along the south side of the road taking a southerly route to Appleby, or cross the busy road and take a northerly route to Appleby station and the town. Unfortunately there is little to do to improve the situation for those trying to cross the road here. A village bypass is long overdue. There are already a number of warning signs and carriageway repeater speed limit markings. Further warning signs for pedestrians would appear unnecessary.
Status: ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
1.11 Generally, at road crossings in the higher risk categories, it is suggested that warning signs to diagram 544.1 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (Pedestrians in road ahead) be erected on each approach to the crossing. The distance to the crossing and size of sign should be determined from the approach speed of traffic.
1.12 Where the route is along a road with neither a footway nor a usable verge and the location is in the higher risk categories, it is suggested that the signs detailed above be sited at either end of the section of road and that the associated sign plate to diagram 547.3 var (No footway for XX yds) be erected beneath the warning sign.
1.13 Where the route passes through a village that is not subject to a speed limit, the Highway Authority should consider introducing a 30mph speed limit in accordance with its own policy. In exceptional circumstances this could be reinforced with ‘gateway treatments’ at either end of the village.
1.14 Three other locations all with Low risk assessments were found to have simple remedial measures or other measures, which could reduce the low risk assessment further to the benefit of all road uses. These measures are included in the risk reduction measures for consideration and are denoted with an asterisk in the Rank columns of both Tables 1 and 2 and in the breakdown of costs spreadsheet.
1.15 Other sections of this report set out the recommendations, explanation and costs of remedial measures for each location.
Status: ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
Carlisle to Settle Railway, Long Distance Route (Through Cumbria) Road Safety Review
2 ROAD SAFETY REVIEW (Table 1)
2.1 Officers from the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA) carried out a preliminary desktop study of road safety implications as part of the feasibility study for the route. The results were presented in a spreadsheet format and gave a description and existing usage of the sections of route, together with a category of risk assessment and suggested risk reduction measures.
2.2 Their findings are incorporated into Table 1, which follows, in note format. The number allocated to each section by YDNPA is included in the description. The section numbers used in this Review are from the perspective of a person following the LDR from Carlisle to Settle.
2.3 Indications of Visibility and Speed are perceived values as no speed measurements were undertaken and measurements of visibility splays would only be taken in exceptional circumstances. Road widths are only noted in the table when they had a bearing on the Risk Assessment.
Status:ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
Carlisle to Settle Railway, Long Distance Route (Through Cumbria) Road Safety Review
3 SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS (Index and Thumbnails)
3.1 The photographs taken during the survey are stored on the enclosed CD in .jpg format and are printed out as thumbnails in this section.
Main Folder: SurveyKMcG Each days photographs are stored under the survey date e.g. 151104
Section Photograph numbers Notes number Folder 151104 Prefix DSC_ 2 0001 – 0004 4 0005 5 0006 - 0008 0007 shows fingerpost 6 0009 - 0012 0009 shows bend warning sign 7 0013 – 0016 9 0017 – 0020 10 0021 - 0029 0027 shows warning sign 11 0038 - 0040 0047 shows warning signs 12 0031 – 0037 and 0041 – 0043 13 0045 – 0048 14 0049 – 0051 15 0052 - 0054 0052 shows warning sign 16 0055 17 a & b 0057 - 0067 0057 shows warning sign to north, 0065 & 0067 shows warning signs to south 18 0068 - 0071 Folder 161104 Prefix DSC_ 33 0072 - 0075 35 0076 - 0077 36 0078 - 0080 37 0081 – 0083 38 0084 39 0086 – 0088 40 0089- 0090 43 0091 – 0097 46 0099 – 0101 47 0102 - 0105 48 0106 – 0110 49 0111 – 0120 0111 &0113 show warning signs 50 0121 – 0124 51 0125 – 0131 52 0132 – 0132 53 0134 – 0135 & 0137 – 0142 54 0146 – 0148
Status:ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
Location Photograph numbers Notes
Folder 171104 Prefix DSC_ 27 0001 - 0004 Folder 181104 Prefix DSC_ 28 0059 – 0071 24 0072 25 0073 - 0077 22 0082 – 0084 23 0086 – 0087 21 0088, 0092 – 0093 20 0094, 0108 - 0109 Folder 191104 Prefix DSC_ 56 0113 – 0119 57 0120 – 0125 58 0149 - 0154 59 0155 – 0156 60 0157 - 0161 62 0216 - 0219
Status:ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
Carlisle to Settle Railway, Long Distance Route (Through Cumbria) Road Safety Review
4 ROUTE MAP
4.1 The route map, that follows, has been produced in CorelDRAW by superimposing the LDR on the 1:50,000 Ordnance Survey map. A purple continuous line is used to indicate those sections of the LDR that run along the highway. A blue dashed line indicates the off-highway sections.
4.2 The extent of each section is shown. It is identified by its Section number ‘site (Location)’ and its Risk Ranking. ‘L’ indicates those sections assessed as Low Risk. An asterisk identifies those sections assessed as Low where a simple remedial measure could reduce the risk further to the benefit of all road users.
4.3 No proposed diversions are shown on this route map. Details of the diversions are on figures in Section 7.
Status:ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
Carlisle to Settle Railway, Long Distance Route (Through Cumbria) Road Safety Review
5 PROPOSALS FOR RISK REDUCTION
5.1 Table 2 in Section 6 details the proposed risk reduction measures for each of the sections surveyed. Where possible alternative routes ‘off road’ are recommended. These alternative routes are recommended changes to the proposed strip map. The proposed diversions are shown on plans in Section 7.
5.2 Where a suitable alternative route is unavailable it is suggested that the appropriate warning signs be erected along the highway to warn approaching traffic that the LDR crosses (or runs along) the road and therefore more pedestrians than usual may be encountered. The appropriate warning sign is to diagram 544.1 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (Pedestrians in road ahead). In many cases an existing warning sign e.g. for a bend or T-junction, would give a convenient location point and the pedestrian sign could be mounted on an extension post on top of the existing assembly. In many cases, it is suggested that this sign will be sufficient warning either side of a staggered ‘path to path’ junction.
5.3 Where the LDR runs along a narrow highway for a distance, and there is no footway or usable verge, then the warning sign should be supplemented with the associated plate to diagram 547.3 (No footway for xxx yds).
5.4 During the survey, a number of existing sign faces and sign assemblies were observed in various states of dis-repair. The more obvious are reported here, however there may be locations were the existing sign is in such dis-repair that the recommendation of adding a ‘sign on an extension post’ to an existing assembly is not practicable. The sign may need replacing as a whole. The estimate of cost, in this study, is based on a usable existing sign assembly.
5.5 The LDR runs through a number of villages that do not have speed restrictions. It is recommended that all these villages be assessed for speed restrictions, and that the introduction of the LDR be used in part to justify them where appropriate.
For example, the village of Winskill, just south of Hunsonby, which shares a common approach road, does not have a speed restriction even though the road separates dwellings from a children’s recreation area. Hunsonby does have a speed restriction which starts where one turns into Hunsonby, off the Winskill road.
5.6 The locations ranked 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 10 are marked with an ‘exclamation mark’ hazard symbol on the proposed map. It is recommended that other symbols be added at locations 58, 28, 32 and 43 (ranked 4, 5, 8 and 9 respectively). The proposed map also shows the hazard symbol at the locations 37 Long Marton and 39 Brampton Tower (ranked 32 and 33, both Low to Medium risks) and at the location 27 Langwathby (Low). These symbols are still considered appropriate because the first two have a higher risk crossing at one end of the section. The symbol at Longwathby highlights that the route runs through the Pye Bibby Agricultural Mill and that the pedestrian needs to be aware of this.
5.7 Three locations (13b, 52 and 5), all with a Low risk assessment are denoted with an asterisk in the Rank column in Table 2 Section 6. At each location a simple measure by others could help reduce the overall risk to all users at that location and these measures are included in the risk reduction measures for consideration.
Status:ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
Carlisle to Settle Railway, Long Distance Route (Through Cumbria) Road Safety Review
6 PROPOSED RISK REDUCTION MEASURES (Table 2)
6.1 Table 2 details the proposed risk reduction measures for each section of route assessed in Risk categories above ‘Low’.
6.2 Three sections with ‘Low’ risk assessments, and denoted by an asterisk in the table, were found to have simple remedial measures or other measures, which could reduce the low risk assessment further to the benefit of all road uses. These measures are included in the risk reduction measures for consideration.
6.3 The measures include changes to the proposed strip map. These are either route diversions (see Section 7) or further locations were the hazard ‘exclamation mark’ symbol would be beneficial.
Status:ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
Carlisle to Settle Railway, Long Distance Route (Through Cumbria) Road Safety Review
7 PROPOSED ROUTE DIVERSIONS
7.1 The following figures detail the proposed diversion to the strip map.
Figure 1 Temple Sowerby Section 34 Rank 1
Figure 2 Winton to Hartley Fold Section 53 Rank 12
Figure 3 Wetheral Section 8 Rank 16
Figure 4 Kirkby Thore Section 35 Rank 26
Status:ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
Carlisle to Settle Railway, Long Distance Route (Through Cumbria) Road Safety Review
8 COSTS
8.1 The estimates of costs that follow, are based on the Schedule of Rates from the Highway Maintenance Term Contract 2005/12 with an ‘add on’ of 10% to cover contingencies.
8.2 The following supply and erect costs are estimated as above:
750 mm Sign, plate and posts £340.00 Sign and posts £285.00 600mm Sign, plate and posts £320.00 Sign and post £260.00 Sign on extension post £120.00
SLOW carriageway marking £60.00
The estimate for Location 10 (Ranked 18) is based on a 600mm sign on an extension post, a 600mm sign on a new post and 4 x ‘SLOW’ carriageway markings
8.3 A summary of Costs for the Risk Reduction measures, detailed over, is shown below:
Risk Risk Reduction Cumulative Costs Measures High 0 £0 High to Medium £1820.00 £1820.00 Medium to High £3180.00 £5000.00 Medium £2220.00 £7220.00 Medium to Low 0 £7220.00 Low to Medium £900 £8120.00 Low 0 £8120.00
8.4 The ‘Measures required from others’ consist of:
Map and Map (!) Changes to the proposed strip map HA Bypass Maintenance The existing sign or sign assembly needs maintenance AE village name plates The Area Engineer is requested to consider erecting village name plates AE speed limit The Area Engineer is requested to consider implementing a village speed limit
This study has not detailed all the signs that require maintenance. Those that were particularly noticeable are detailed in Table 2 Section 6. There are others where the assembly may be in too poor a condition to accept an extra sign on an extension pole.
The following spreadsheet gives a full cost breakdown by risk ranking:
Status:ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
Cost in £ Risk Rank Sect. Measures Detail Size No. Unit Cost for Cost for Cumulative No. required from Cost Rank Risk Cost others Category 1 34 Map 0 High 2 35 HA 0 3 17b Maintenance 0 0 0 High 4 58 Map (!) Sign, plate and post 750 2 340 680 to 5 28 Map (!) Sign and post 750 2 285 570 Med 6 51 Sign and post 750 2 285 570 1820 1820 7 11 (Maintenance) Sign on ext. post 600 1 120 120 8 32 Map (!) Sign on ext. post 600 2 120 240 Med 9 43 Map (!) Sign, plate and post 600 2 320 640 to 10 49 Sign on ext. post 600 2 120 240 High 11 50 Sign, plate and post 600 2 320 640 12 53 Map 0 13 56 Sign and post 600 2 260 520 14 17a Maintenance Sign and post 600 1 260 260 15 57 Sign and post 600 2 260 520 3180 5000 16 8 Map 0 17 6 Sign on ext. post 600 1 120 120 18 10 Sign and post, sign on ext. post, SLOW markings 600 1 620 620 19 41 Sign, plate and post 600 1 320 320 Med 20 38 Maintenance 0 21 15 Sign on ext. post 600 1 120 120 22 13a Sign and post 600 2 260 520 23 14 AE village nameplates 0 24 55 Sign and post 600 2 260 520 25 22 AE speed limit 0 2220 7220 Med 26 36b Map 0 Low 27 48 AE speed limit 0 0 7220 28 20 Sign and post 600 2 260 520 Low 29 18 Sign and post 600 1 260 260 To 30 23 AE speed limit 0 Med 31 31 Sign on ext. post 600 1 120 120 32 37 Map (!) 0 33 39 Map (!) 0 34 60 Monitor 0 900 8120 35 26 AE speed limit 0 36 46 Monitor 0 8120 8120 * 13b AE 'no through road' sign * 52 AE speed limit * 2 Carlisle City ?
Status:ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 HADRIAN’S WALL
Carlisle to Settle Railway, Long Distance Route (Through Cumbria) Road Safety Review
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 It is recommended that all the mapped diversions and additional ‘exclamation mark’ symbols, detailed in Table 2 Section 6, be considered and incorporated into the final production map.
9.2 It is recommended that the Area Engineer be requested to confirm the appropriateness of the sign assemblies on each approach to Eden Bridge (South of Kirkoswald – Location 17b Rank 3) and, because of their poor state of repair, considers replacing them with sign assemblies that include ‘Pedestrians in the road ahead’ signs.
9.3 It is further recommended that the Area Engineer be requested to consider the various village treatments detailed in Table 2 Section 6, and implement them ALL. The risk assessment ranking may help in the phasing of the measures.
9.4 It is recommended that all the measures detailed in the ‘High to Medium’ Risk category (Rank 4 to 6) be considered for implementation when the map is produced. All of these measures are on busy and or fast roads and pedestrians are being advised to cross.
9.5 It is recommended that all the other measures should be considered in due course as the success of the map becomes apparent. Many of the risks assessed in this study will only become issues as increasing numbers of pedestrians use the various routes.
9.6 It is likely that all of the ‘Medium to High Risk category (Ranked 7 to 15) measures will become necessary in a very short time. As in 9.3 above, the risk assessment ranking may help in the phasing of the measures, which may be necessary because of finance or design considerations.
9.7 The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, together with the mapping company, issue a reply paid questionnaire with its maps and other guides. The last question is:
“Did you experience any problems with following the route of a footpath or bridleway in the National Park or find any obstructions or other problems? (Please attach details)”
The results of these questionnaires together with local monitoring of the route will help advise on the need for the various risk reduction measures.
Status:ISSUE JANUARY 2005 Rev 0 QUALITY SYSTEM MANUAL
REPORT CHECKLIST
Page 1 of 1 Status: Issued for Use Rev C 2.4B Report Checklist 21/8/02