Objection

Officer Comments

Two speed cameras would be more effective than the proposed traffic calming. (3)

Speed cameras would only reduce the speed of the faster vehicles to about 35mph, and only over part of the length where traffic calming is proposed.

Speed humps would be more effective than the proposed traffic calming.

As Aylesbury Road is the route with the highest flow and greatest number of heavy vehicles within Thame Ring Road, it is advisable to be cautious about introducing vertical deflections. They could be introduced at some time in the future with minimal alterations to this scheme.

Proposed traffic island outside No 16 will make use of their proposed vehicle access difficult, and will cause blockage of half the road when vans park to unload deliveries.

The island has been deleted from the scheme. Calming of northbound vehicles will probably be achieved by a SLOW marking on the road and by using a larger "traffic signals" triangular warning sign. If post-construction monitoring shows that further calming is needed the island could be reconsidered.

There is a severe flooding problem south of the bend. Rectifying this is more urgent than traffic calming. A traffic island outside No 16 might obstruct the flow of surface water and make matters worse.

The flooding is caused by overflowing foul and surface water sewers, and therefore is a matter for Thames Water. A small traffic island would not obstruct the flow of surface water; however the island has been deleted from the scheme for other reasons.

Concern that southbound vehicles might collide with the back of the queue from the southern pelican crossing because of limited forward visibility on the bend.

The "traffic signals" warning sign will be located to warn drivers approaching the bend, and the high-friction surfacing on the approach to the crossing will be extended back through the bend.

If the crossing were to be moved further south, many people going to/from Yeates Close would not use it.

Would like the islands to be wider if possible.

The carriageway width is insufficient for the islands to be wider. In most places carriageway widening would require substantial utilities` plant diversions, and either land acquisition or felling of mature trees.

Concern about the sharper curve for northbound traffic at the bend.

The existing adverse camber for northbound traffic will be replaced with superelevation. The island, being on the bend, will give approaching drivers the impression of the width available to them being less than it actually is.

Would like cycle lanes on the edges of the carriageway.

Over most of its length the carriageway width is insufficient for a cycle lane to be added on each side. In most places carriageway widening would require substantial utilities` plant diversions, and either land acquisition or felling of mature trees.

Concern about the absence of traffic calming features between the northern pelican crossing and the island on the bend.

It is not possible there to put in any traffic calming measures which would be effective, safe, quiet, and not too expensive, except for speed cushions. However speed cushions or humps would then be required along the whole length of Aylesbury Road. As Aylesbury Road is the route with the highest flow and greatest number of heavy vehicles within Thame Ring Road, speed cushions would probably not be appropriate.

The traffic islands will prevent larger vehicles from overtaking cyclists.

Advisory cycle lanes are planned to be marked alongside the traffic islands; this will discourage drivers of larger vehicles from attempting to overtake cyclists there (which would be hazardous without the islands being there), and it will also encourage car drivers who overtake cyclists there to be more careful.

Pelican crossing outside CPM will encourage CPM employees to park in Queens Close.(2)

Some temporary staff are not allowed to use the CPM car park because there is not sufficient space for them. It is hoped that the pelican crossing will encourage some permanent staff to walk or use the bus, so that temporary staff who have to come by car can then be allowed to use the car park.

Pelican crossing outside CPM will cause traffic congestion. (2)

That is possible on the approaches to the crossing at the busiest periods. However traffic will then be slower to join the queue at the next roundabout, where the queue will consequently be shorter than at present.

Pelican crossing outside CPM will make it difficult for residents of Nos 72 and 74 to park on the verge between the footway and their frontages.

They should not be parking there. They each have a parking space or garage behind the house. There is enough space in Queens Close for those who need an additional space to park. Discouraging parking on the verge will reduce the incidences of damage to the verge and mud on the footway.

Pelican crossing outside CPM will make it difficult for residents of Nos 72-88 to exit by car from their shared driveways, especially if a traffic island is included. (3)

The traffic island has now been deleted because experience of other schemes show that it could increase the risk of an accident. By holding up traffic, the pelican crossing will actually make it easier for the residents to join the carriageway at busy periods.

The northern pelican crossing is not needed, and in the future a toucan crossing will not be needed.

The crossing will attract pedestrians to it. In the future the network of cycleways in Thame will encourage cycling and will probably justify conversion to a toucan crossing.

A better site for the northern pelican would be just south of No 70.

The northbound bus stop would then have to be moved further south. Stopped buses would then obstruct the vehicular accesses to premises. On the whole the proposed site is considered to be better.

As the northbound bus stop is too near the site for the northern pelican crossing, could the bus stop be moved to north of the CPM access and a bus layby provided?

This would obstruct visibility to the right for drivers of vehicles leaving Mill House, and therefore is not recommended.