Agenda item

ES20080

The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking explained that the report had been generated to put forward options to improve traffic and pedestrian safety at the junction where Scott’s Lane and Downs Bridge Road crossed Bromley Road. This was a location where accidents had occurred for many years; most of these accidents had been non-serious but a few were serious. This particular location had been on a list for possible safety scheme improvements for some time. Members had asked officers to look into the possibility of what could be done, because this area was on the periphery of the Shortlands Liveable Neighbourhood, and therefore funding was available from TfL for improvement works to be undertaken. The Assistant Director felt that in the main, Ward Members were supportive of the application, although he was aware that they  had their own comments and suggestions to put forward.

The report suggested that a mini roundabout be installed at the junction, and this would therefore mean that traffic would have to reduce speed, thus minimising the risk of accidents and avoiding injuries. Members had also asked officers to consider what could be done for the benefit of pedestrians, as many pedestrians crossed in that area. The Assistant Director informed the Committee that current pedestrian counts were not available due to the Covid 19 lockdown and so therefore the pedestrian counts had to be estimated.

However, pre-existing vehicle counts were available which could be taken into consideration. It was felt that a refuge was needed for the deflection of traffic on the mini roundabout. The Assistant Director explained that it may also be possible to install a zebra crossing for the benefit of pedestrians. So various options were being considered in the report, and it was hoped that the Committee could feedback to the Portfolio Holder before he made his final decision on how to proceed and which option should be implemented.

A Member (who was also a Ward Councillor) explained that the Ward Councillors had been campaigning for changes at this location for some time and so he was delighted that a scheme was being planned. He said that the Ward Councillors, (broadly speaking), were in favour of the recommendations of the report. However, the Ward Councillors felt strongly that the 227 bus shelter should be re-located. It was felt that if the bus shelter stayed where it was, it would hold up traffic--which was likely to tail back to the roundabout. It was suggested that the bus shelter be moved further forward and that this should be costed in to the plans.

The Member (and Ward Councillor) addressed the matter of whether or not a refuge should be installed—or a pedestrian crossing. He preferred the option to install a pedestrian crossing, as he felt that this would have a more calming effect on the traffic flow. He stated that he was sceptical as to the value of the cost benefit analysis undertaken. He concluded by saying that the recommendation of the Ward Councillors would be for the installation of the mini roundabout with a Zebra Crossing. There was no preference regarding the  use of tegular or granite paving. This would therefore mean that the preference would be for option 1 as outlined in the report, with the caveat that the bus shelter be relocated.

A Member noted that the proposed scheme was being developed outside the normal Department for Transport guidance and so he queried the significance of this. He also drew attention to the fact that the stage one safety audit had not been undertaken, and asked if this would pose any risk to the completion of the project. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking responded that it had to be borne in mind the guidance from the Department of Transport was not of a statutory nature but it was in fact just guidance. In this case the roundabout was being developed with four arms, and it was acknowledged that generally speaking, mini roundabouts would work better with three arms, so there may be some limited imbalance in traffic flows. However, it was definitely the case that the proposed development of the mini roundabout with four arms would be preferable to the current situation, and would address the safety concerns that had been raised by Ward Councillors and residents.

With reference to the safety audit, when the detailed design was completed then a second stage road safety audit would be undertaken by an independent consultancy. At this stage any other additional safety concerns would be flagged up. From past experience it was noted that generally speaking a second stage safety audit did not normally derail a project, in fact it could result in tweaks that made the project better. Any recommendations from the second stage safety audits would be considered before the implementation of the scheme.

Members were informed that bus shelters were not built or designed to be relocated after being taken down, but rather a new bus shelter would need to be constructed at a new location if it was agreed that this was the way forward. The cost of construction of a new bus shelter was in the region of £20,000.

The Chairman commented that a 40% contingency figure had been factored into the plans, and he wondered why this was the case, as 40% seemed to be rather excessive for a standard road traffic improvement scheme. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking answered that this had been advised by the scheme designers as due to time constraints, not as much initial site investigation had been undertaken as would normally be the case. This could therefore mean that as the project progressed, an issue with utility infrastructure could be detected, and this was the reason for the 40% contingency figure being factored in to the project. If no issues of this nature were encountered, then it was expected that the contingency figure would reduce.

A discussion took place concerning the usefulness or otherwise of the PV2  calculations used, where P equated to pedestrians and V equated to vehicles. 

RESOLVED that:

1)  The project design should move forward and that the option to be implemented would be ‘option 1’, which was the option to install a mini roundabout with a zebra crossing and tegular paving.  

2)  The 227 bus shelter should, if possible, be relocated in consultation with TfL.

3)  The costs of the scheme should be met from TfL funding for the Liveable Neighbourhood Transport Scheme.

4)  Delegated authority with respect to design amendments be granted to the Director of Environment and Public Protection, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder.