|
|
|
Woodmill lights proposal resurfaces |
|
|
|
|
Monday, 21 December 2009 |
 Woodmill residents made a deputation to the Council and handed in a
100-strong petition opposing the idea - that could be back on the
agenda - of introducing traffic lights at Woodmill Bridge – at an
estimated minimum cost of £100,000.
A budget for traffic lights is apparently being
considered for inclusion in the capital programme for the year after
next. The deputation against lights was made by the Woodmill Action
Group at the full council meeting on November 18, 2009, and the
petition was signed by over 100 people - almost all of the local
residents in Oliver Road, Mead Crescent and Woodmill Lane, west of the
bridge.
The Group says the Council is still considering putting
in lights even though they say “no discernible benefit would arise as a
result”. They claim the eventual cost could be double the £100,000
figure. They also claim that even the City's own traffic management
officers advise that lights would actually reduce traffic flow, thereby
increasing journey times, queue lengths and pollution levels.
The
issue became somewhat confused when temporary lights were installed out
of necessity to accommodate much-delayed repair work on the Bridge. At
this time Bitterne Park councillors said that 2,500 people responded
to a survey and 80% of these wanted to see permanent lights introduced
on the Bridge. But the design and distribution of the consultation
survey, including the online version, was criticised by some who attended a meeting to discuss the issue in November 2007.
“If
you ask drivers who come through here if they’d like lights, by and
large they’ll say that they would because they view the Bridge as a
place that’s in the way from where they are to where they want to get
to,” said one Woodmill resident who spoke at the meeting.
In the
end the decision was taken leave the Bridge as it was – without traffic
lights - and monitor the situation. And that is how it has remained.
The
full text of the deputation is reproduced below. If anyone would like
to write an article for the website making the case for installing
lights on the Bridge, please contact us.
Deputation by
Woodmill Residents
to
Southampton Full Council Meeting
18th November 2009
Good afternoon,
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the Council this afternoon.
I
am here to voice concerns of residents living near Woodmill bridge, who
are worried about the prospect of permanent traffic lights being
installed.
Woodmill is Southampton's forth road bridge over the Itchen.
The
bridge is used by cars, vans, bicycles, pedestrians, school-children
attending the Activity Centre, and even the occasional deer making it's
way down the green corridor from Itchen Valley Country Park.
It
is a busy and unique place, that may become even busier if plans to
move the Swaythling Youth Club to the Activity Centre, are approved.
In
2004 the northern bank of the road across the river at Woodmill needed
repair. For nearly four years residents and drivers alike had to put up
with temporary traffic lights that caused long queues, day and night,
and made the bridge about as pedestrian friendly as the Blackwall
tunnel.
So you will understand that the idea of installing permanent lights on the bridge is a controversial one.
There
are residents on the east of the river some of whom want lights, and
there are residents living close to the bridge, who almost universally,
do not.
We all know the frustrations of being stuck in traffic queues. The commuter's plight is our plight also.
The longer that cars have to wait, the worse the air quality becomes.
We all seek the same things; to make the bridge as safe and efficient a place as possible.
For us the bridge is a place around which we live;
a place we cross to walk to the shop or the park,
a place where children explore nature, where mums push prams,
dog walkers exchange “hello”s
and canoeists for reasons best known to them, hurl themselves into freezing water.
We all use the bridge, and we all realise that there are competing demands made of it.
We just feel that some people have been mislead into thinking that traffic lights will improve matters.
They will not.
Both
the Traffic Flow and Accident Reports for Woodmill indicate that
traffic flow has remained relatively constant at about 10,000 vehicles
per day for the last 19 years, with or without traffic lights.
The basic constraint is the single track section of road.
The
City's own Traffic Management officers advise that lights would
actually reduce traffic flow, thereby increasing journey times, queue
lengths and pollution levels.
Even if lights did increase flow
locally, drivers would still end up at the next set of lights on the
junction with Swaything High Road, or at the double mini roundabouts at
the junction with Manor Farm Rd.
Lights will not help anyone, they will in fact, actually make matters worse.
The
most efficient system, given the limitations of the road itself is the
give-and-take system that's been in place for as long as anyone around
here can remember.
This system allows three or four cars to cross in both directions at once, using a passing place in the middle.
Research
undertaken by ourselves shows that the system adapts quickly to
changing demand, easily managing to deliver twice the volume in one
direction than the other, and able to reach a 'free flow' state within
30 seconds of a queue clearing from one side or the other.
Most
importantly, it is difficult for cars to speed across the narrow
section of the bridge, as they need to give way to the cars they meet
in the middle.
If drivers keep their speed below 20mph, they
keep eye contact with pedestrians and accidents are avoided. And this
is just what happens under the current system, particularly at busy
times.
So the current system is safe, efficient, and in-line with current best practise.
If
lights were installed experience shows that cars speed over the bridge
and jump lights after they have turned red, endangering pedestrians and
delaying the queue at the other end, who have to wait on green.
Even
options offered by city officers to local residents in 2008, to
mitigate some of the problems with lights, have since been withdrawn.
Firstly:
Intelligent
lights, which turn green as cars approach, cannot be installed on the
bridge, due to the long cycle time (of 2 ½ minutes) and the heavy
traffic flow.
And secondly:
The lights can not be turned off at night, as this would apparently 'confuse drivers'.
So,
for those living close to the proposed lights, life would be made
intolerable by night-time queues, and particularly by the
boom-boom-boom of in-car entertainment systems in the early hours of
Saturday and Sunday mornings.
It therefore appears that the only justification for traffic lights is for the ‘clarity’ given to drivers looking for priority.
And that 'clarity' may, in fact, work against safety.
As stated in Stroud Council's Better Streets:
“Traffic
lights are only necessary where streets are designed for vehicle speeds
above 30 mph. They do not necessarily reduce accidents. Uncontrolled
junctions encourage lower speeds and greater caution, and can reduce
delays to vehicles and pedestrians. Across Europe, many traffic lights
are being removed at busy intersections with positive results.”
Concerns
expressed by the Woodmill Activity Centre over the safety of those in
their care, as they cross the road outside the centre, could be met by
the provision of a “lollipop” and high visibility jackets. Staff could
use them to ferry children across the road in safety, without the need
for the expense of a pedestrian crossing.
Local Government finances are very tight, while the city's roads are in a dreadful state.
Yet,
the council is apparently still considering budgeting £100,000 to
install lights, when no discernible benefit is to be had, and the
eventual cost might be more than twice that sum.
We are
astonished that this proposal has resurfaced, there being so many other
projects to which this budget could be usefully applied.
There are significant downsides to spending the money in this way including....
Commuters will actually take longer to get to and from work
Traffic queues will be longer
Pollution levels will be higher
Pedestrian safety will be compromised by speeding cars and vans
And the bridge will become a threatening place that cyclists and pedestrians will be deterred from using.
Whereas a decision not to install lights will bring benefits including...
The freeing up money to mend some of our broken roads
The retention of a safe and efficient system that is, in fact in-line with current best practice.
And demonstrating that council decisions are based on policy and fact.
With
our increasing awareness of the impact of vehicle pollution on health,
and the promotion of alternative forms of transport, does this proposal
not fly in the face of the Council's transport strategy to encourage
the development of cycling and walking and attempt to reduce congestion
and traffic volumes?
Should we not be spending our limited
resources on making our roads safer for cyclists, installing pedestrian
crossings and cycle lanes, rather than encouraging yet more 24hr
traffic queues and helping to ruin a small gem in Southampton's crown?
The
residents here at Woodmill are united against these plans and I
therefore present to you this petition signed by over 100 local people
(that is nearly the whole of the local population) calling on the
council to resolve this matter.
Once again, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to raise this with you.
 |
|
|
|
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed