Agenda item

HOLLINGWOOD LANE, BRADFORD, TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES - OBJECTIONS

The Strategic Director Place will submit a report (Document “C”) which sets out objections received to recently advertised proposals for traffic calming measures on Hollingwood Lane, Bradford.

 

Recommended –

 

(1)       That the objections be overruled and the proposed traffic calming        measures and traffic island be constructed and implemented as    advertised.

 

(2)       That the objectors be informed accordingly.

 

Overview and Scrutiny Committee: Regeneration and Environment

 

(Andrew Smith – 01274 434674)

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Strategic Director Place submitted a report (Document “C”) which set out objections received to a recently advertised proposal for traffic calming measures on Hollingwood Lane, Bradford.

 

The Principle Highways Engineer explained that the scheme had been progressed following historic concerns around speeding traffic and accidents on the length of Hollingwood Lane.  He explained that the five year casualty rates showed that there had been 10 collisions, resulting in 12 casualties.

 

Following advertising of the traffic calming scheme, 7 objections had been received, one of which had since been withdrawn, as well as a 24 signature petition against the proposal, the details of which were set out in the report.  However there was also overwhelming support for the proposals from local residents and Ward Councillor, and the Area Committee was recommended to overrule the objections and approve the scheme.

 

In response to a question regarding the differential costs and the maintenance regime between installing rubber humps as appose to the tarmac type, the Principle Highways Engineer stressed that the differential cost was negligible between the two, however the rubber humps did require more maintenance in  the long run and hence the tarmac type were considered the more cost effective option.  In either case, as long as drivers adhered to the speed limit and negotiated the humps accordingly, there would be no resulting vehicle damage. 

 

In response to a question regarding the re-siting of the proposed humps, where a driveway would be affected, the Highways Engineer confirmed that this had been done where feasible.

 

A number of objectors were present at the meeting and they made the following comments:

 

What evidence was there of the complaints and record regarding speeding on Hollingwood Lane?

 

Why were residents not consulted prior to devising the scheme?

 

That 10 collisions had been recorded, to the previous 7; of which how many were severe; how were pedestrians/vehicles involved and what speeds were these vehicles travelling at?

 

That most roads in the district would record that vehicles were driving to excessive speeds, however it was no feasible to put traffic calming on every road and in addition the proposed humps would cause vehicle damage.

 

In response to the points raised the Highways Engineer stated that although he did not have detailed accident records at hand, the previous concerns raised on Hollingwood Lane over a number of years by residents and Ward Councillors had resulted in the scheme coming forward.  In addition the casualty figures alone, meant that a scheme was included in this years’ programme, and a consultation exercise was undertaken, and hence the report today.

 

The Highways Engineer also confirmed that of the 10 accidents, two had resulted in serious injures and the others were slight; speed data regarding the collisions was not available, however the loss of control in two of the incidents, suggested that speed was a significant factor.  In addition it was important to get speeds within safe limits and whilst traffic calming measures on their own were not 100% effective, they did contribute to reducing vehicle speeds, collisions and ultimately reduced the number of casualties.

 

A resident spoke in support of the proposed traffic calming measures as speeding  and reckless driving had been a long standing issue and concern in the area and that he and other residents welcomed the proposal.

 

In response to the accident figures, it was stressed that these were recorded accidents, where the emergency services had to be in attendance, however the number of minor collisions probably far exceeded the officially recorded number.

 

A further objector stated that a mini roundabout along with other measures might be afford a better solution to the proposed scheme, as the problem was more prominent on certain parts of Hollingwood lane.  In response the Highways Engineer stressed that a mini roundabout was not a feasible option.

 

A objector questioned the impact of the proposed traffic calming on increasing air pollution as more emissions would be released by vehicles slowing and then accelerating; in addition this could lead to more congestion in the area and create more issues going uphill, particularly during inclement weather, as well as impacting on cyclist. 

 

In response the Principle Highways Engineer stated that as with any proposal there were ultimately pros and cons, however he did not envisage that there would be a measurable impact on air pollution and ultimately cyclist would be benefit from reduced vehicle speeds.

 

In response to a question regarding lighting and speed cameras, the Highways Engineer explained that although there were proposals to improve lighting across the district, they did not form part of this scheme and that the installation of speed cameras were costly and dictated by different criteria.

 

During the discussion Members expressed broad support for the proposals and commented that given the long standing issues on Hollingwood Lane, the proposed scheme could only be seen as a positive.  The presence of a school and park were also cited as a further reason to install traffic calming, as vehicle speeds and driver behaviour was a factor and funding for these type of schemes was already scarce, and it was therefore:

 

Resolved –

 

(1)       That the objections be overruled and the proposed traffic            calming measures and traffic island be constructed and           implemented as advertised.

 

(2)       That the objectors be informed accordingly.

 

ACTION: Strategic Director Place

 

Overview and Scrutiny Committee: Regeneration and Environment

 

 

 

Supporting documents: