Tilehurst Triangle – improvements for pedestrians

Last Wednesday I attended a meeting of Tilehurst Globe which discussed improvements for School Road and the area around The Triangle. The meeting was addresed by Simon Beasley, the Traffic Manager at Reading BC. Afterwards we came up with the following proposals which were agreed unanimously.

Tilehurst Globe

TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT: TILEHURST TRIANGLE

Tilehurst Globe welcomes the initiative to enhance pedestrian safety and improve the environment at Tilehurst Triangle. The Triangle is the shopping hub of Tilehurst Village and in addition to shops it also contains schools, the public library, banks, dentists and cafes. There is a history of traffic accidents with pedestrians in the Triangle and a petition has recently been presented by parents at Park Lane School asking for better pedestrian facilities.

Two other petitions have been presented to TMAP over recent years concerning the lack of a safe crossing over Westwood Road as it enters the Triangle.

The objectives of the changes are to:

1. Improve pedestrian safety.
2. Improve the environment for shoppers and traders.

Our proposals are as follows:

1. 20 mph zone from Park Lane School to the Norcot Road lights, including approximately 100 metres of Westwood Road, Corwen Rd and St Michaels Rd. The 20mph zone to be marked by road surface changes as well as signage.
2. New pedestrian crossing outside Jo-Jos Hairdressers.
3. Replace the current Pelican crossing at the chemist with a pedestrian crossing further north (towards the Norcot Road traffic lights) to better serve the pedestrian desire lines.
4. Railings at Dunstall Close and School Road up to the replacement pedestrian crossing above (to prevent illegal parking blocking School Road).
5. New pedestrian crossing 20 metres down Westwood Road from School Road.
6. New pedestrian crossing outside the Laurels/Public Library.
7. Mitigating measures against speeding through traffic in Westwood Road, Chapel Hill, Oak Tree Road and Overdown, including stopping pavement/verge parking and removing parking restrictions.

These proposals will help reduce traffic speed in the 20 mph zone along the stretch of School Road that includes the shops and schools. The impact of the new pedestrian crossings will be to slow drivers who would otherwise be tempted to put their foot on the pedal. By increasing the number of formal crossings and placing them at the desire lines, pedestrians will be encouraged to use safe crossings rather than attempting to cross the road in opposition to traffic and the pedestrian crossings will also address the needs of parents who have to make the journey between The Laurels and Park Lane Schools. The chief benefit of these changes is to improve pedestrian safety, but the reduction in speeds and the ease of road crossing will enhance the shopping experience. In addition, traffic delays will be reduced through replacing the Pelican by a pedestrian crossing, which require shorter traffic stops.

A key benefit for the schools will be the safer route between the two schools necessitating only one crossing (by JoJo’s).

These Triangle Proposals will impact a number of other roads, including Westwood, Oak Tree, Chapel Hill and Overdown Road, as through traffic may increase as some vehicles divert down these roads in order to avoid the Triangle. The measures of stopping pavement/verge parking and removing parking restrictions already proposed at TMAP will produce informal chicanes, and tend to control speeding. Mandatory chicanes and changes of road surface at specific danger points should be implemented in the future if there is negative impact of the changes in these roads or others in the area.

Potential Problems

In addition to many benefits that these proposals may bring it is fair to point out that the presence of so many zebra crossings over School Road may actually cause blockages of traffic along School Road and that by eliminating pavement parking along Westwood Road we may be causing problems for buses where cars are parked on both sides of the road.

Also, if the Triangle is seen as problematic for through traffic then drivers may well look for alternative routes (Oak Tree and Westwood roads for example) so these need to be considered.

Gratwicke Road school run

We hear a lot of comments locally and at surgery about the top of Gratwicke Road being blocked every morning as mums drop their kids off to school by the junction with Corwen Road. Well the council have proposed a double yellow line along the inside of the bend in Gratwicke Road from the Corwen Road junction to the first houses. Just along one side and with no loading allowed during the school drop-off and pick-up times.

I spent this evening talking to some of the local residents and most appear to be in favour although they worry about pushing the parking problem further down Gratwicke Road. However the proposal makes sense to just about everybody as a way of keeping the junction clear, maintaining visibility round the bend and keeping Gratwicke Road free for passing traffic.

This will take some time to work its way through council procedures but it does look like an improvement that locals are generally happy with.

There also remains the question of enforcement and whether the council has the means to enforce any new restrictions when it struggles to maintain compliance with existing parking restrictions.

Wide Area 20 mph Limits Encourage Cycling and Walking

From the 20’s Plenty Campaign

Slowing speed limits from 30 mph to 20 mph contributes to increasing the attractiveness of cycling and walking relative to other options. 20 mph increases physical activity and reduces traffic.

With the exceptions of road closures and congestion charging, it is hard to prove that any single traffic intervention results in raising active travel. A choice to walk or cycle is complex, involving factors like distance, route knowledge, safe routes, weather, topography and cycle parking. Yet, it is well researched that traffic speeds are a major barrier to choosing to walk or cycle. Perception of risk is strongly involved in the “how shall I get there?” decision.

Volumes and speeds of traffic are inversely correlated to walking and cycling levels – when one side of the equation rises, the other falls. Interventions that reduce traffic speed and volume are likely to promote walking and cycling and thus result in public health gains.[i] This is compounded by critical mass effects. Where there are more cyclists or walkers, safety increases due to its visibility and popularity, making drivers more conscious of vulnerable road users.

The key prerequisite for sustainable travel is creating the conditions in which walking and cycling are more attractive than car use. Reviews have found methods that pull people toward active travel include increasing the percentage of the local road network where speeds are limited e.g. to 20 mph (30 km/h)[ii] Unsurprisingly, in Europe 30km/h speed limits are the foundation of cycling and walking policies in Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

In Portsmouth, which implemented 20 mph limits on 94% of its roads in 2008, “over 40% of respondents stated that since the introduction of the scheme, there has been a safer environment for walking and cycling; and as a result, around a third of respondents felt that there had been an increase in pedestrian and cyclist activities in the local areas.”[iii]

Health professionals see lower traffic speeds as a foundation for increasing “active travel” leading to a healthier nation. The Association of Directors of Public Health with the National Heart Forum have developed a “position statement” on the benefits of 20mph as the default limit for residential and urban areas.[iv]

It is time to give people a real choice in how they travel by removing the fear of fast traffic from community streets. The authorities of over 6 million people have committed to do so.

More information at www.20splentyforus.org.uk
________________________________________
[i] Jacobsen,PL; Racioppi,F; Rutter,H (2009) Who owns the roads? How motorised traffic discourages walking and bicycling, Injury Prevention, v15, pp369-373.
[ii] Oja,P; Vuori,I (2000) PROMOTION OF TRANSPORT WALKING AND CYCLING IN EUROPE: Strategy Directions, The European Network for Promotion of Health-Enhancing Physical Activity. http://www.panh.ch/hepaeurope/materials/HEPA%20Walking%20and%20Cycling%20Strategy%20.pdf
[iii] http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/20mphPortsmouth/
[iv] http://www.adph.org.uk/files/ourwork/policies/NHF_PositionStatement20mph_2010.pdf

Civilians cannot use speed guns

Just sometimes I do feel totally let down by the police and tonight was one such time. I arrived late at the Tilehurst NAG (Neighbourhood Action Group) at the tail end of a discussion on using speed guns. It turns out that ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) have ruled that no civilians should be allowed to use mobile speed guns. It means that not only can residents not use speed guns themselves, but neither can local PCSOs. Apparently we need to wait for the already hard-pressed police officers to find time to spend an hour or two tracking speeding motorists. As if they have not got enough other things to do.

As a community we have been trying to help the police tackle what is one of Tilehurst’s three main issues, that of speeding cars (for reference the others are vandalism and rowdy youths). I think ACPO are afraid of ‘civilians’ using speed guns and being involved in an accident but they would all need to be trained up first anyway. I just think that occasionally the police need help to perform their duties and they should be glad that the community actually wants to work with them.

So for the moment we cannot push ahead with our intended use of the speed guns. We had planned actions in various roads in Tilehurst where speeding motorists would have been tracked and then written to by our local police inspector pointing out that they had been caught speeding and the dangers they were causing to residents.

Mow it seems we will need to tyake this battle forward to Westminster and see if we cannot get more sense from ministers on the use of speed guns.

Don’t Speed in Tilehurst !

Speedwatch in TilehurstWell it has been a while since I last posted but I think I need to get back into the groove.18 months ago I managed to get the council to purchase a number of mobile speed guns for use by the local neighbourhood police teams. They have been used with some success by local police in Tilehurst but over the last few months the delightfully named NAG (Neighbourhood Action Group  – a forum which brings together the local police team and local residents) has tken the initiative further. Under a dynamic new NAG Chairman, David Webber, local residents have been trained to use the guns and have been out on patrol, accompanied by PCSOs, on roads in Tilehurst. These ‘Speedwatch’ actions have been very popular with residents and many of them have come out to congratulate those volunteers who instead of suitting and moaning, have been enabled to take action against speeding motorists who are the bain of many people’s lives in Tilehurst.

The NAG is now offering to help any group of local residents who want to carry out a ’speedwatch’ action in their street  and similar speedwatch actions are slowly being taken up in other parts of Reading.

Before we bought the speed guns  there was no attempt to enforce speed limits in residential roads apart from occasional actions by traffic police a few times a year. Now residents feel empowered to act for themselves and I am happy to have been the one that provided the tools to let them do so.

Don’t speed in Tilehurst  –  you have been warned.

Speed Guns in Tilehurst

Speed Gun in Action Picture

Well they have finally arrived and I have been out to see them in action, along with my Lib Dem colleagues from Tilehurst Ward, Cllr Chris Harris and Cllr Pete Beard. We were out in Wetswood Road, Chapel Hill and Halls Road and everywhere we went we had residents come up to congatulate us on taking action on an issue they were really concerned about.

Up till now we have had very little deterrence to make motorists think about sticking to the speed limits. Well now the Lib Dems have got the Council to provide 5 speed guns for use by local Neighbourhood Police Teams.  Whilst this is far from a complete solution to a serious problem on many of our local roads  it does give local police teams a chance to deter speeding motorists.

Several tickets have already been issued in Tilehurst.

You have been warned !!

Who Believes in Park & Ride ?

On Monday, together with my Lib Dem colleagues Kirsten Bayes and Daisy Benson (our Wokingham colleagues have also called in the similar decision made by Wokingham as this is a joint service between the two councils), we called in the Labour Administration decision to increase the fares for the bus service to Loddon Bridge Park & Ride. Never mind that the increases are many times the current rate of inflation, this Administration, aided and abetted by the Tory ‘opposition’, gave a two fingered salute to those of us who are desperate to get commuters out of their cars and to reduce congestion in Reading.

Despite the amazing ease with which Reading uses TIF (Transport Innovation Fund, money given by central government to help reduce congestion)  funds to support bus services elsewhere in the borough (several times this year already), when in comes to Park & Ride they prefer to see more cars drive into Reading.

One explanation might be that the users of Park & Ride at Loddon Bridge do not tend to be voters in Reading whereas users of subsidised bus servcies within Reading do, or am I being too cynical.

The TIF bid for future funding includes money for replacing Loddon Bridge with an alternative Park & Ride site, its future is secure, so why reduce the bus service and put up fares by 20% ?

Local Labour and Tory politicians  should be asked to explain their action given that they have been trying to convince the rest if us that they support Park & Ride schemes.

Speeding Yet Again

I note that this week’s TMAP (Traffic Management Advisory Panel) meeting will receive a report on the current Road Safety Awareness Campaign. The campaign consists of erecting signs (including a Smiley Sid flashing speed warning sign) along known traffic speeding hotspots for two weeks at a time, then moving on to the next hotspot. The theory is that you make an impact in the first two weeks but that beyond that time, the impact falls away dramatically as drivers get used to the signs.

The good news is that the Smiley Sid signs also detect average  vehicle speeds from each site where they are installed so RBC now have useful data on average traffic speeds. The not so good news is that they have no action plan on how to deal with the speeding hotspots now that they know definitely where they are. They have spent a year on a campaign that has told them where the hotspots are, something that local councillors already knew pretty well, and their only plan of action is to ask the local neighbourhood police to enforce speed limits at these hotspots.

You may remember that it was me that came up with the idea of providing local neighbourhood police with speed guns (see my post from March this year) and that I got them inserted into the budget for 2009-10 months after the Speed Awareness Campaign had kicked off. Well my information is that council officers have only ordered 2 out of 4 speed guns and we are still some weeks off seeing them in action. None of which says very much about the effectiveness of our coyuncil when it comes to tackling speeding even though it is a major issue for many residents, especially those living in the outer suburbs where traffic flows freely and motorists speed by default.

I did not realise what a struggle it would be to get speed guns into the hands of neighbourhood police teams. It seemed like such a straightforward solution to the problem of speeding which required some form of enforcement.  Anyway, some of them will be available for use soon and I look forward to seeing them in action, especially on the Tilehurst Roads where residents regularly complain to me about speeding cars.

The issue about speeding is not that is just dangerous (which it patently is) but that it also creates the perception in residents minds that there is nothing that can be done about it and that  their own streets are no longer safe places to walk in or to let children walk in. This is not good enough. The council and police, between them, need to re-assure our residents that speeding is taken seriously. We have never really tackled this issue before as it has been too difficult and we did not have the technology.

Speeding is a bit like crime, every time you hear about or see  an incident, it creates more fear that you or your children will be the next victims. It takes a long period with very few incidents to re-assure the public and change their perception.

In the meantime I look forward to some explanation of why it has taken the council so long as I intend to ask questions at this week’s TMAP meeting.

Road Safety in Reading – Again

Another month, another councillors’ surgery. Last Saturday I was regaled again with residents angry at what they see as the council’s non response to road safety issues. For many years the council has stuck by its policy of only putting in traffic calming measures after major accidents have occurred that caused death or serious injuries. They seem incapable of understanding that residents do not feel safe on their own streets any more.

Despite the many petitions and angry residents that have come to TMAP (the Council’s  Traffic Management Advisory Panel), we never seem to get very far. The only advance I have seen in my two and a half years on the council is the decision to buy speed guns for the use of local neighbourhood police teams, something that I pushed through into this year’s budget with the help of my fellow Lib Dem councillors.

For the rest, the Administration and the council officers seem to represent a brick wall, they are certainly not listening to the public they are supposed to work for. The latest Speed Awareness campaign targets a road every few weeks, puts up a few palstic signs and, if you are lucky, one Smiley Sid flashing warning light. At the end of two weeks they are moved on to another road with very little lingering effect. It is a fine example of the council trying hard to be seen to be doing something but not really making a difference.

There is no effort to put up more Smiley Sid signs, no discussion of 20mph speed limits, no use of speed guns until the Lib Dems came up with  the idea – just a refusal to think about humps or chicanes or anything until there are serious accidents and blood on the road.

We simply have to address road safety as a council, we can no longer turn away and ignore residents calls to make their streets safe for young and old, able and disabled alike. For many years anti-social behaviour was also ignored by local and central government and only after many years campaigning has this been turned round. Nowadyas we finally have neighbourhood police teams taking responsibility for local law and order and also taking their priorities from local people.

Speeding must be the next issue to tackle.

Parking Spaces

Any urban council these days has a real problem with car parking. Many older streets were never built for cars and barely have one place on the road per house. Modern conversions of houses to multiple flats exacerbates this problem no end. Every resident assumes an automatic right to park his/her car outside their house. We can use residents parking schemes to avoid issues with outsiders taking up parking places but if there is not enough road space for all the required cars, somebody will get upset when they cannot find a space for their car.

On new developments we can make better rules but if this is done without thought we still end up in a mess as we have done on the Kennet Island development. Everyone selling the houses there knew that there were limited spaces available for parking cars. Everyone buying a house there should have been informed. That has not stopped new residents getting angry and upset when told that there is no room for the second car even if both partners sharing a house need them to get to work.

There is no easy answer, to build new housing with 2, 3 or 4 car parking spaces will require vast more new tracts of land to be made available (and consequently less green and pleasant land to live in) or for developers to build less houses per hectare. We already have a chronic shortage of affordable housing in Reading and across South East England. 

There is no answer without a modal shift to alternative forms of transport. We need to wean residents away from 100% dependence on cars to buses, trains, bikes and even (shock, horror) walking. We could add car clubs which provide cars on demand for their members for occasional trips.

We all know what needs to be done to get away from car dependence but often lack the will to do it. Public policy should aim to make alternative modes of tarnsport as appealing as possible. We do have a great bus service in Reading, we are making a start on implementing safe routes for bikes, we want more children to walk to school and not have mums clog up the roads with very short school run trips.

The reality is that we are going to have to suffer a great deal of collective pain on this subject over the next decade or two until we finally convince ourselves that there are alternatives to the car and that we have no automatic right to a parking place in the road outside our front door.