Letter to CPRA from MSDC Dated Friday 21st April 2006
Dear Mr Willison-Gray
Thank you for your Association's letter regarding the distributor road. Let me
apologise for the delay replying and for the fact that SCC will not be able to
have an officer present at your meeting Friday evening, I did explain the
reasons to Mr Hillyer.
The lozenge island was originally designed to be used without traffic signals as
it does split and segregate the traffic lanes meaning the pedestrian has only
to cross one direction of flow at a time. At the moment we are concluding
negotiations with Crest Nicholson (Eastern) Ltd for them to place a toucan
crossing at the formal lozenge crossing. They are talking to manufacturers and
I am hopeful for an early conclusion. No detail design exists at the moment and
that will need to undergo a safety audit procedure before installation. It is
not considered that further toucan facilities are needed on the distributor
road and that the existing aids to crossing such as dropped kerbs etc will
assist safe crossing.
The issue of barriers at the ends of each lateral footpath and cyclepath was
considered in an email response to Emily Metcalfe from Stowmarket and District
Road Safety Committee. I have copied the response below so that you will not
need to cross refer.
This road has a segregated cyclepath/footpath on the northern side with
designated crossing points at two identified locations along the route. There
are also similar crossing points at the side road junctions generally
associated with roundabouts along its length.
The cyclepath/footpath route is marked with red and black surfacing and on
approaches to crossing points bollards carrying the diagram 957 segregated
cyclepath/footpath logo are in position giving a visual reminder together with
corduroy paving denoting the cyclepath/footpath routes on the ground. Beyond
this there is a short section of black surfacing demarking a common area for
both cyclists and pedestrians in advance of the tactile paving at the
junctions. The tactile paving is aligned at 180 degrees across the junction and
a similar signing and lining layout is mirrored on the opposite side of the
road. This is the current recognised layout for such crossing situations.
The use of barriers is not considered appropriate given that cyclists generally
do not dismount at each and every junction and tend to ride round barrier
facilities particularly where the roadway has associated verges alongside. This
is the situation on the local distributor road. This is the normal arrangement
for a roadway of this status.
With regard to the speed of traffic on the distributor road I have heard a
number conflicting claims. At the moment the road is adequately signed for a
30mph limit. As you know not all of the road is adopted but the police have
informed me that they will be able to enforce the limit. Mr Whittle has
requested additional 30mph repeater signs on the road on leaving the Cedars
Link A1120 roundabout. I have explained to Mr Whittle that this is not
technically possible as the positioning of these signs will invalidate the
speed limit that is there by virtue of the street lighting. You have requested
radar actuated 30mph warning signs. I have arranged for SID (Speed Indicator
Display) to visit the site and independently review the speed of traffic. This
will consist of three unannounced visits and the results will be ranked against
other sites in the county. For further information on SID the attached www link
can be viewed.
https://www.csduk.com/CSD/Transportandstreets/Roadsafety/Speed+indicator+display.htm
You have not mentioned parking at the western end of the road by builders
working on the Taylor Woodrow site which is considered a problem. Crest is in
discussion with Taylor Woodrow with the view to eliminating the parking
obstruction.
I trust the above deals with the points raised but notwithstanding what is said
I would be happy to meet you on site to discuss any outstanding points or
matters of clarification after your meeting.
Yours sincerely
Alan Newman
|
