The Strategic Director, Place will submit Document “U” which considers five objections received to advertised proposals to install two sets of speed cushions (one set on each approach to a proposed pedestrian refuge) on a section of Park Road close to its junction with Lady Lane, Bingley.

Recommended –

(1)       That the objections be overruled and the proposed traffic management scheme as shown on drawing no. DG/THN/103505/CON-1A (attached to Document “U” as Appendix 1) be approved and implemented as formally advertised.

(2)       That the objectors be informed accordingly.

(Environment & Waste Management Overview & Scrutiny Committee)

(Simon D’Vali – 01535 618256)

The Strategic Director, Place submitted Document “U” which considered five objections received to advertised proposals to install two sets of speed cushions (one set on each approach to a proposed pedestrian refuge) on a section of Park Road close to its junction with Lady Lane, Bingley.

The Senior Engineer provided a summary of the report.  He stated that, in recent years, concerns had been expressed regarding the difficulty in crossing this section of Park Road to access the Prince of Wales Park and the school off Lady Lane.  In addition to the five objections, four letters of support had also been received regarding the scheme proposals.

The Chair stated that on his way home recently in adverse weather conditions many vehicles, particularly smaller ones, had struggled to drive up Park Road.  He raised concerns that the addition of speed cushions would make this situation worse.

In response to Member’s’ question, the Senior Engineer stated that:

·         Speed cushions were proposed to slow drivers down and did not require vehicles to stop.

·         The proposed ‘keep clear’ bar markings would be informal and unenforceable.

·         The 48% of vehicles that had exceeded the 30mph speed limit during the speed and volumetric survey included traffic flows from both directions; a breakdown was not available.

·         The cost of introducing chicanes would far exceed the cost of the proposed scheme and would require significant deflection of the existing footway.

An objector to the proposals addressed the Committee to state that he had no objection to the proposed crossing island but did not support speed cushions being introduced as he considered they could be too severe on a gradient and he had previously damaged his vehicle due to speed cushions. 

A Member stated that one of the letters in support of the scheme had only supported the crossing island and not the speed cushions.

A supporter of the scheme, who was also a Bingley Town Councillor, addressed the Committee to state that she supported the proposed crossing island as there had been a lot of concern about pedestrians crossing the road and speeding traffic at the location.  She added that a controlled crossing would have been ideal.  She considered measures were needed to slow down traffic, although this did not necessarily have to be speed cushions.

In response to points raised, the Senior Engineer stated that the cost of a zebra crossing was in the region of £20,000 and a pelican crossing £40-45,000.  Due to financial constraints, such measures were not feasible.  The cost of the proposed scheme was in the region of £7,500.

A Bingley Town Councillor addressed the Committee and urged Members to consider environmental issues and additional emissions that would be caused by vehicles slowing down for speed cushions and speeding up afterwards.  He stated that he had undertaken a Speedwatch in the area with the Police and had not found there to be many vehicles speeding.  He considered alternative measures than speed cushions should be considered to slow traffic down and suggested ‘ghost’ speed humps, as they had worked well in areas like Hawksworth, they gave the illusion of speed humps and were proven to slow down traffic.  He stated bus companies did not like speed cushions and some had stopped using routes because of them.  He urged the Committee to introduce measures involving signage and painted lines in place of the proposed speed cushions and review the scheme at a later date.

A Member disagreed with the statement made regarding speeding traffic as there was evidence in the survey carried out that 48% of the traffic had broken the 30mph speed limit.

A Member stated that he considered the best course of action would be to implement the proposed traffic island to assist pedestrians to cross Park Road and that the proposed speed cushions be removed from the proposals and be replaced with painted signs on the road.

Resolved –

(1)  That, following consideration of the objections, the proposed traffic management scheme as shown on drawing no. DG/THN/103505/CON-1A (attached to Document “U” as Appendix 1) be approved and implemented as formally advertised with the following amendments:

(i)            That all of the vertical speed cushions be omitted from the scheme proposals.

(ii)          That ‘false’ speed cushions be painted flush on the carriageway in place of the proposed vertical speed cushions, and associated signage and lineage be included as part of the scheme.

(iii)         That, when implemented, the scheme be monitored with a view to possibly considering further works at the site if deemed appropriate and funds permitting.

(2)       That the objectors be informed accordingly.

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: Environment and Waste Management

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place