|
Return
to Items for Decision
|
Division(s):
Brightwell-cum-Stowell, Warborough, Benson
|
ITEM CMDT2
CABINET
MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT – 14 SEPTEMBER 2006
SHILLINGFORD
BRIDGE SIGNALISATION
Report by
Head of Transport
Introduction
- This report is
concerned with the introduction of single-lane traffic control across
Shillingford Bridge, which is required because the bridge is inherently
weak at the edges. Annex 1
sets out the detail of the bridge problems, proposed solution and longer-term
measures. The plan at Annex 2 (download
as .doc file) details the proposals.
Public consultation
- Because this bridge
maintenance scheme involves introduction of traffic lights the County
Council consulted with residents and local businesses in the immediate
area of the bridge (between 22 June and 31 July) in order to address
as many concerns as practical with the proposed scheme.
- Consultation was
undertaken 142 residents, Thames Valley Police Traffic Management, Oxford
Ambulance Services, local Parish Councils, South Oxfordshire District
Council, Area Engineer, Thames Travel, Cyclists Touring Club, Road Haulage
Association and County Councillors David Robertson and Tony Crabbe.
- 31 replies were
received (14 letters, 7 e-mails and 10 telephone enquiries) Ffour of
these fully supported the proposed scheme raising. The remaining 27
enquiries raised 41 different questions and concerns and these are detailed
at Annex 3 with officer comment. Some questions were raised by more
than one person.
- Shillingford Hill
Residents Association and Benson, Brightwell-Cum-Sotwell and Warborough
Parish Councils all supported the proposed scheme but had particular
concerns.
- Five replies thought
the scheme inappropriate.
- Three residents
thought that the County Council had no right to permanently disrupt
and inhibit traffic flow and cause long-term inconvenience to motorists.
- A reply from
a local business adjacent to the bridge thought that the scheme would
have a hugely detrimental effect on their business in visual terms,
noise and traffic flow.
- The fifth, a
local business who gave a telephone response is concerned that the
length of the road closure and the timing of the closure could have
a detrimental effect on their business. They were also concerned about
the safety implications of stationary vehicles on Shillingford Hill.
- The County Council
is aware that pre-Christmas and the months of January and February are
busy periods and in an effort to minimise the impact to the Hotel and
Caravan supplier will be having further discussions before finalising
the programme of works.
- In addition to
the concerns of the two businesses, other main concerns related to the
combined footpath and cycling, safety, traffic speed, signals and the
works programme.
Footpath and Cycling
- Pedestrian use
is low and the Residents Association and Parish Councils considered
that one footpath was more suitable with a separate cycle-way or alternatively
a shared footpath/cycle-way more appropriate.
- The primary
purpose of the footpaths is to direct traffic into the centre of the
bridge. A secondary but intended benefit is to provide safer use of
the bridge by pedestrians.
- The footpaths
ensure that vehicles are restricted to the centre of the bridge, which
reduces loading on weak edges and keeps them away from inadequate
parapets.
- The main reason
for not including cycle-ways on the bridge is that parapets are lower
than the minimum recommended 1.4m height required for bridge parapets
adjacent to cycle-ways. In places, the parapet is less than one metre.
Safety and Speed
- Residents and
Councillors expressed concern regarding access from properties and stationary
vehicles on Shillingford Hill. In particular, the measures being under
taken to prevent vehicles travelling north bound towards Shillingford
from skidding when approaching traffic queues on the hill.
- Residents are
also concerned about the speed of vehicles in the area. Traffic speed
measured in November 2005 produced peak averages over a 5 day period.
Easterly 32.5 to 33.5mph ; westerly 30 to 33.5mph; southerly 38.9 to
56.8mph and northerly 47.1 to 48.5mph.
- Since November
2000, there have been four accidents. Three of these accidents were
on Shillingford Hill where traffic speeds have measured a maximum of
33.5mph. In three of the accidents, there were slight injuries. In one
accident, the driver received fatal injuries. In that incident, the
driver was not wearing his seatbelt.
- We will be taking
speed measurements in September 2006 (after the school summer holidays)
and then six months after the signals are installed. This will enable
the effects of the scheme on traffic speed to be measured. Up to date
accident data will also be considered.
- Brightwell-cum-Sotwell
Parish Council were concerned about safe access from the hotel area
and the road access to North Farm. Related questions and answers are
provided at Annex 3.
- Measures to prevent
vehicles from skidding when approaching traffic queues on the Shillingford
Hill and to meet concerns regarding speed will be met through the introduction
of ‘soft traffic calming’ in the form of 30mph road markings (roundels),
slow signs, signals warning signs, temporary "new traffic signals ahead"
signs combined with introduction of new high friction surfacing (anti-skid).
- The safety concerns
about access to and from residential properties at the northern end
of the bridge have been addressed.
Traffic Signals
- In the main signal
related questions related to their configuration and operation. A significant
question related to the position of the traffic lights on the south
side of the bridge.
- Simpler two-phase
shuttle working with signals positioned adjacent to either end of
the bridge were found not to be practical following swept path analysis
for HGV movements. It was consequently determined that a 3-way system
incorporating the Hotel entrance as an additional phase was the only
practical option.
- Traffic lights
positioned at the top of the hill would not conform to required safety
standards due to the inter-green period being 57 seconds. Traffic
queues would be 90 metres or more. Full details of the reasons for
the unsuitability of this option are contained in the ‘Signals’ section
at Annex 3 (download as .doc file).
The Works Programme
- The intended eight-week
closure of Shillingford Bridge is causing particular concern to two
local businesses. The proposed programme of works was set by the contractor
who is a very experienced highway contractor. The County Council has
examined the programme and supports it but subject to agreement with
the contractor it may be possible to secure a reduction.
- Prior to commencement
of any construction work consultation will be undertaken with affected
businesses in order to minimise any detrimental effect of the works.
- Thames Travel
have been asked to ensure continuation of bus services although some
changes to timetables are likely to occur.
- Initially it was
envisaged that signalisation and construction of the footway would be
carried out together. This has proved impractical because of the delay
in obtaining listed building consent, which is required for construction
of the footways but not for the proposed signalisation. Hence, two stages
of work are required to enable completion of the programmed work in
this financial year.
- Stage 1 is the
re-surfacing of Shillingford Hill in mid October 2006. The installation
of traffic signals is planned to commence in either November 2006 or
January 2007 and will take six weeks. Road closures will be minimal.
This later portion of work is subject to the signing of an agreement
for placing one on the traffic signals heads on private land.
- Stage 2 involves
removal of the bridge road surface, repairs to the concrete slab, waterproofing,
laying ducting for permanent signal cabling and provision of new footpaths
before resurfacing. A maximum of an eight-week road closure is required
to carry out this work and the likely earliest start date for this work
will be January 2007.
- A third stage
being planned is an extensive stonework repair scheme, which requires
separate listed building consent and other approvals. This would be
carried out predominately from below the bridge, once the new waterproofing
had allowed the stonework to dry out and therefore should not have a
significant impact on road users.
Listed
Building Consent (Application S.15/06)
- English Heritage
has advised that they support the measures in principle, which will
assist in protecting the Grade II listed bridge and welcome the use
of natural stone and granite for the footways.
- English Heritage
has asked for some minor amendments to the proposed tactile paving.
They have stated that the bridge should remain uncluttered and suggested
that the traffic lights be located more discreetly. These points are
being discussed with the scheme designers.
- After the consultation
period, but within the consultation period for Listed Building Consent
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Parish Council and Warborough Parish Council
made a formal objection to the listed building consent. Their questions
with officer response are set out at Annex 3 (download
as .doc file).
- The listed building
consent requires approval by the Secretary of State and the timescale
for this is uncertain.
How the Project Supports
LTP2 Objectives
- Cabinet funding
for structural maintenance of road and bridges is allocated through
the Local Transport Plan (LTP) to keep the network available for use
and to preserve this asset for the future.
- This scheme and
future planned work fulfils both objectives of the LTP funding.
Financial Implications
(including Revenue)
- The approved budget,
previous expenditure and predicted expenditure are set out in the table
below. Funding is Supported Capital Expenditure.
|
|
Previous
years
|
2006-07
|
2007-08
|
Total
|
|
Budget
|
£53K
|
£250k
|
£10k
|
£313k
|
|
Expenditure
|
£53K
|
£380k
|
£30k
|
£463k
|
- Increased costs
are has detailed:
|
Details
|
Costs
|
|
The
costs of the bridge stonework assessment is higher
|
£35k
|
|
The
original design stipulated re-constituted stone whereas natural
stone paving and granite are required.
|
£20k
|
|
Additional
traffic signals on the adjacent side road and legal fees associated
with the location of these.
|
£10k
|
|
Repairs
to the existing road surface and additional high friction road
surfacing to mitigate accidents
|
£22k
|
|
Traffic
management and interim scheme additions
|
£14k
|
|
Additional
interim design fees, safety audit and works supervision fees.
|
£20k
|
|
Works
contingency.
|
£29K
|
|
Total
|
£150k
|
- This additional
budget requirement will be found from within this years bridge maintenance
allocation of £1.893K or from a funding re-allocation within the E&E
Capital Programme Review in either September or November 2006.
- These costs do
not include stage three repairs to the bridge stonework. This will be
funded separately from within future bridge maintenance funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- The Cabinet
Member is RECOMMENDED to:
- approve
stage one of the works programme for carriageway repairs on
Shillingford Hill and introduction of signalisation for single-way
traffic control on the bridge; and
- subject
to listed building consent approve stage two of the works programme
for bridge waterproofing and footpath installation.
STEVE
HOWELL
Head of Transport
Background papers: Consultation documentation
Contact
Officer: Gary Critchlow-Smith, Tel 01865 815817
September
2006
Return to TOP
|