"Street Lighting"
Our Thanks go to Ken Mann of Slough Borough Council for his intervention into a long term issue of replacing faulty timers on some street Lamps.
"HOT Street"
Operation HOT STREET was a great success, Royal Berkshire Fire Service fitted 26 homes with smoke detectors. They have promised to come back and fit the remaining. Children enjoyed sitting in the fire engines.
Many Thanks to the following people for arranging the event.
Jeff Tewkesbury , Annie Tewkesbury, Ann Farmer, Sarah Henderson.
Abdullah Khalid for lending a hand.
Amar & Billie for their hospitality.
Special thanks to Coordinators and the participating residents.
Pictures of the event are available.... send us an email
surrey@northslough.org
"Fly Tipping"
The dumped gas cylinders have now been removed from the alley, Thanks to Sylwia ( Our Warden ) who has worked very dilligently to resolve several issues on our behalf.
"20 mph zone"
Many Surrey Avenue residents feel the council proposal to reduce speed is not stringent enough. They wrote to the council, below are the email exchanges.
First email from Peter to the Council about 20 Mile Zone on Surrey Avenue
Council’s Response to Peters Email
Dear Mr Biernat,
Thank you for your email dated 1 October 2006. I apologise for the delay in replying.
I agree with you that the particular traffic calming measures chosen, called speed cushions, would have minimal effect on motorcycles as they would go between the cushions when there was no on-coming traffic. I also agree with you that the presence of on street parking near or at a pair of speed cushions would mean an emergency vehicle would be unable to straddle the cushions properly.
Nevertheless, the emergency services have shown a preference for speed cushions even though they are aware that on street parking at some locations, at certain times of the day, may mean they cannot straddle them properly. The week day time situation is such that most speed cushion sites can be traversed without problem since on street parking is much reduced. The night time situation, I agree may be the reverse. Because of these differing time situations, the emergency services still prefer speed cushions. The Council has had to take into consideration the advantages that the emergency services clearly see in the use of speed cushions against the disadvantages caused by the fact that motorcycles and lorries would be largely unaffected by the speed cushions. In making a decision on which measures to propose, it was noted that motorcycles and lorries are a very small proportion of total traffic volume in these roads and therefore the speed cushions would be effective on most of the vehicles using these roads. There are also advantages for cyclists (see paragraph below). The Council believes that the correct balance has been achieved by proposing these measures.
With regard to your comments about leaving a gap of a foot or so at the kerb edge for drainage purposes if standard road humps were used instead, I am afraid that the regulations governing road humps do not legally permit this to be done. The road humps are required to straddle the whole width of the carriageway. I believe the reason why the legislation was made in this way, was because it could be harmful to cyclists who may catch the edge of the hump whilst cycling along. The normal way of dealing with water at these locations is to install additional gulley pots connected to the surface water drainage upstream of the hump or install a drainage system within the kerb to bypass the obstruction. Standard road humps also have the disadvantage of forcing cyclists to go over them whilst speed cushions do not. The Council has a long term policy of encouraging cycling for reasons linked to climate change, which I am sure you have seen debated in the media recently. Speed cushions therefore are more cycle friendly and therefore will not deter cycle use per se.
I hope I have explained the Councils reasoning for proposing the use of speed cushions to your satisfaction even though I recognise you may not agree with them.
Yours sincerely
Michael Symons
Maurice’s email to Council
Dear Mr Symons,
With reference to the proposed 20 Mile Zone, which includes Surrey Avenue, I think this is an excellent step forward in trying to protect the safety of residents, particularly young children.
What I do not think has been thought out properly is the method of trying to reduce speed.
Two speed pads side by side will certainly slow most motorists / motor cyclists down, but they are unlikely to stop the speed merchants who use this street any time of day or night - they will just speed through the gap between the humps.
The only answer is a full width hump, and if it means drainage has to be diverted, so be it. As Council Tax payers we want Safety, and value, for our money.
To say that the Emergency Services want pads instead of humps does not hold water. We get very few Ambulances along this road, fortunately, but Elliman Avenue, one of the main routes to Wexham Park Hospital has some of the most vicious humps I have come across.
That also is a 20 Mile Zone, and also a bus route, why were pads not put along there?
Can I ask that you, and others, give this matter some more careful thought, and take on board thoughts of residents who have had to put up with speed-hogs for many years. It is not too late to change your plans - the work hasn't started yet!
I hope common sense will prevail in this matter.
Regards,
Maurice
Council’s Response to Maurice’s email
Dear Mr Bales
Thank you for your e mail and your support for the introduction of a 20 mph zone, which is much appreciated.
I agree with you that individually, standard full width road humps are more effective than speed cushions in reducing speed. “Before and After” speed surveys taken at other similar schemes across the country have shown this to be the case.
However, we are required to consider comments made by the emergency services. The speed cushion designs allow emergency vehicles, when there is no adjacent parking, to pass through the speed cushions, thus minimising delay to those vehicles. In an emergency situation, that may well prove to be critical. The speed cushion design also allows cyclists to pass through without going over a hump. The Council policy is not to introduce schemes that may well discourage people who cycle now or may well cycle in the future.
In doing so, we are aware that the speed cushions will also allow other large vehicles and motorcycles to pass through in a similar manner. However no traffic management scheme is a panacea and should not be thought of in those terms, when considering whether it will achieve its aims or not.
Despite the fact that individually, speed cushions are not as effective as road humps, we are confident that the design, the frequency of spacing of the speed cushions, raised entry treatments from the main roads and combined with the many junctions in the area, we will achieve the main aim of the scheme, which is to bring down the speed of the majority of vehicles to about 20 mph and thus reduce reported personal injury accidents as well as the severity of those accidents in the area.
You mention the Elliman Avenue scheme, which is quite an old scheme and was probably put in before speed cushions were permissible by law. This is one of the schemes we have been asked to review by the emergency services and the bus company with a view to making it easier for their vehicles to use. At the moment, there are no funds available to do this, but I envisage that any future scheme will lead to the replacement of the road humps with some other speed reducing features that are more “friendly” to the emergency services, buses and cyclists.
You mention we ought to take on board the thought of the residents. We have. Anyone who commented at the exhibition or communicated with us in writing, by e mail or phoned were listened to very carefully. Where feasible, the scheme details were changed to meet their comments. It must be borne in mind however, that 79% of respondents to the consultation were in favour of the scheme without change and their view cannot be ignored.
The contractor is authorised to start works today and we expect that the majority of the works will be completed by the end of the financial year.
I hope I have convinced you of our best intentions, but as you can see, it is not possible to keep everyone happy; but we do our best.
Finally, I would advise you that we have done “before” counts and will be doing “After” counts in due course. The change in the reported personal injury accident rate will also be monitored. Should this objective data show any need to review the scheme, we shall not hesitate to make appropriate recommendations for change.
Yours sincerely
Michael Symons
Rajesh’s email to Council
CC Farnham ward Councillors ( Joginder Bal, Sukhjit Dhaliwal, Rob Anderson)
Dear Mr Symonds
I must say you have to take some very tough and sometimes unpopular decisions. I understand the pressures of your job can be immense at times. I do appreciate the road safety initiative of 20 MPH zone you are currently implementing in Manor Park Slough. I welcome the scheme in general.
However, here in Surrey Avenue we do suffer from speedy racers ( Cars & Motorbikes ), and all the associated ills that speed racers bring to our street. Residents of Surrey Avenue suffer from increased noise, pollution and danger to other road users. It is of immense importance to us that we have effective measures to reduce speed on our Street and surrounding area. This is probably is the best time as you are in the process of implementing the speed reduction measures to do something effective rather than a half hearted measure.
We have discussed the issue at 3 separate meetings with the Surrey Avenue Neighbourhood Watch Scheme members, and reached the conclusions that we would prefer speed humps instead of the speed cushions. We also (8 of us) came to see you in person at the Manor Park Hall when you had a road show about the 20Mph zone. You made a note in your booklet of our concerns. We also mentioned that the corner on Salisbury Avenue and Surrey Avenue is very dangerous, as motorists coming Salisbury Avenue into Surrey Avenue are almost always in the middle of the road, and this has led to many minor incidents. To eradicate this issue we also requested that two speed humps could be placed at either end of that corner to force road users to slow down. Although you may not be aware of this as you only work on the statistics of KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured), but we wish you to act on this before a fatality happens. These two speed reduction measures could be speed cushions to reduce cost.
To best of my understanding, you had a public consultation, and 79% of people were in favour of the scheme. Also only 5 percent of residents responded to your survey. You sent out 3500 questioners. And five percent response means that only 175 people responded, and 79% of them means only 138 people were in favour of the whole scheme. ( figures from North Slough Residents Forum meeting)
Here in Surrey Avenue, out of 70 households, eight of us came to see you in person; several sent back your questionnaire requesting the humps instead of the cushions. Many have emailed you about our wishes to have speed humps than cushions. You probably have had the best response to your survey from Surrey Avenue, than any other street.
I do understand that the plateau (speed table) may a more expensive than the cushions. We therefore would compromise and prefer the road humps. Plateau would be ideal.
I do also understand your arguments about the ambulances, cyclists and buses can go over the cushions with greater ease.
Firstly, Surrey Ave is not a bus route.
We do not have a hospital, nursing home or even a Doctors surgery on our street, therefore only ambulances which come to our street are the ones we will be calling for. Elliman Avenue is a much busier street for buses and ambulances and does have very effective system of reducing speed.
The cyclists on residential roads with speed cushions are more dangerous than the roads with road humps as they try and sharply swerve to go between the speed cushions. ( I am a cyclist, motorist, and have been a motorcyclist.) I have seen motorists go to the wrong side of the road to go over a speed cushion evenly, where parked cars were blocking part of the speed cushion.
I understand that you immediate concern is reducing KSI ( Killed or Seriously Injured) in Manor Park, And we all support you on that initiative.
But please pay due attention to our requests, as you are doing this for our Safety.
If cost is the issue, then we may even consider paying in part for the speed humps. It would be really nice of you to come and see us on any evening where residents can air their views to you.
Hope to hear from you very soon.
Many Thanks in advance.
On behalf of the concerned Surrey Avenue residents.
Best Regards
Rajesh Mehmi
PS Ken (Ken Wright Chairman,of North Slough Residents Forum) Can you please forward this email to the Gentleman who came with Mr Symons to our last meeting.
I don’t have his email address. Thanks
rajesh@mehmi.net
www.mehmi.net
Council’s response to Rajesh’s email
Dear Mr Mehmi
Thank you for your e mail dated 11 February 2007. I apologise for the delay in replying which is due to me being on leave.
Also thank you for your sympathetic comments about the need for the Council to take some tough and sometimes unpopular decisions. Fortunately that was not the case in this instance because 79% of residents who responded to the consultation supported the proposals.
I am also pleased to see that you personally appreciate the 20 mph zone and welcome the scheme in general.
Thank you for letting me know about the meetings held by the Surrey Avenue Neighbourhood Watch Scheme members and the conclusion they came to, namely a preference for road humps rather than speed cushions.
You will recall that some residents had raised with me at the exhibition that they thought the Salisbury/Surrey Avenue junction was dangerous. The reason given to me was that some drivers took the corner too fast and on the wrong side of the road. As a result of those comments, the plan was amended to incorporate an extra pair of speed cushions to the south of the bend and move the pair of speed cushions to the north of the bend nearer the bend. In addition, white centre line hazard carriageway markings will be laid around the bend to help drivers remain on the correct side of the road.
You are quite correct in saying that we monitor reported personal injury accidents. These include accidents that fall into the “slight injuries” category and not just KSI s’. The KSI figure is used for target reduction purposes and for meeting certain criteria, for example the justification for speed cameras. The problem we face is that “damage only” accidents do not legally, have to be reported to the police and more often than not, are not. However we do know from national insurance returns roughly how many damage only accidents there are for every personal injury accident, but this data should be used with extreme caution for obvious reasons. In the case of this particular junction, there have been no reported personal injury accidents in the last 3 years. This period of time is the nationally recognised one for any data to be considered of statistical significance.
I would agree with you that probably the best response rate to the consultation was indeed from the residents of Surrey Avenue and we are grateful for that. There were in fact 11 responses from the consultation document from Surrey Avenue residents. 8 were in favour and 3 were against. No one under “further comments” said they preferred road humps. 3 said they would like to see the speed cushions moved nearer the junction or additional cushions put in. Only 1 e mail was received from a Surrey Avenue resident in order to expand on his consultation document response. It is also important to note that whilst 79% of respondents were in favour of a 20 mph zone, only 55% were in favour of speed cushions (question 3). The majority of those who said “no” and who also gave “further comments” did not want any traffic calming features at all. Only 1 person indicated they preferred a more stringent form of traffic calming. A reading of these results would seem to indicate that a majority of these residents, whilst supporting a 20 mph zone, did not want to see too stringent traffic calming features introduced, such as speed tables or road humps. In addition to the residents’ views, we are obliged, by law, to consider the views of the emergency services. They have shown a preference for speed cushions for reasons explained to you previously. The Council also has a policy of encouraging cycle use. In this case we took the view that speed cushions were more “friendly” to cycle use than standard road humps, again for obvious reasons. In making the decision to use speed cushions instead of road humps, we were obviously aware of their drawbacks, namely that they are not as effective at slowing down large vehicles and motorbikes. However our observations indicate that heavy goods vehicle and motorbike usage is not high, although I note that at least one resident would not agree with this observation regarding motorbikes at night. Given these facts, I believe that the use of speed cushions has achieved the right balance and reflect the majority of residents views and those of the emergency services. Also as explained at the Forum meeting, which took place after the close for formal comments on the scheme, any change in design now would require a further consultation with the residents. At some stage, I think you would agree, the Council has to make a decision, otherwise nothing would ever get done. Given these facts,
In your e mail, you have introduced a new traffic calming concept, namely the possible use of speed tables instead of speed cushions. This is the first time any resident has made such a suggestion, although, in fact we did consider its use before we went to consultation. The same argument from the emergency services and the Council about not being “friendly” to cycle use applies here as well. Cost was not an issue in deciding what traffic calming measure to use in this particular case.
You mention the Elliman Avenue road humps scheme. This is a fairly old scheme, probably introduced before it became legal to use traffic calming devices such as speed cushions. The bus company have asked us to review this scheme to make it more “bus and passenger friendly” and the Council is minded to do so, given its support to encourage more use of sustainable transport in the interests of climate change. This will probably be done some time in the future when resources allow.
You say that speed cushions are more dangerous for cyclists than standard road humps. That is not the view of national and regional cycling organisations or cycle clubs up and down the country.
You say that you have seen drivers drive on the wrong side of the road to go over a speed cushion when there is parking on the near side. I have seen this myself on the odd occasion. This usually happens when the driver is aware there is no opposing flow and therefore believes there is no danger in making such a manoeuvre. It is not a practice that we condone. No traffic management scheme should be regarded as a panacea; they all have their drawbacks. In our view, road humps have more drawbacks than speed cushions for this particular scheme for reasons already given.
I hope I have adequately explained the reasons why speed cushions have been chosen within the zone. Do not forget there will be raised entry treatments on most of the entry point to the zone. These will be very effective in slowing down vehicles and combined with the 20 mph signing, will send a message to drivers about what speeds are acceptable within the zone.
Thank you for your offer to meet with residents again. I would suggest that this would be best once the scheme has had a chance to settle down. The current position is that the Council have agreed to proceed with the scheme as formally advertised. The 20 mph zone signs have been erected and the civil works have started.
Yours sincerely
Michael Symons
John’s Email to Council
Hi Michael
Attached below is your email to Mr Biernat. I am very happy about the principle of traffic calming in Manor Park and Surrey Avenue but unhappy about its implementation so far and the specific proposal for Surrey Avenue. I totally agree with the (inferred) criticisms Mr. Biernat raised and find all your arguments invalid.
An important aspect of your case seems to be that parking is mostly absent during about 9am to 5pm. This is inaccurate, there is significant parking in Surrey Avenue during those hours, I (and probably others) would be happy to accurately monitor parking during those hours if that is useful. It is totally evident that parking between 5pm and 9am utterly invalidates any of your argued benefits from 'cushions' as opposed to 'humps' during that two thirds of time (more, if one considers weekends).
A significant aspect of night-time disruption in Surrey Avenue is motorcycle. I'd guess that residents would overwhelmingly say that. Your solution totally fails to address that, so will not address that aspect of the nuisance.
Your argument that emergency vehicles, like ambulances, will be adversely affected by humps rather than cushions is not applicable. Surrey Avenue is not en route to anywhere else, unlike roads such as Essex Avenue, Elliman Avenue, Granville Avenue - where you HAVE implemented full road humps.
I note that you say: "In making a decision on which measures to propose, it was noted that motorcycles and lorries are a very small proportion of total traffic volume in these roads and therefore the speed cushions would be effective on most of the vehicles using these roads." This totally neglects to consider the inconvenience aspect: late night motorcycles are a major inconvenience and your proposal totally fails to address it. We have (in Surrey Avenue) near zero lorry traffic. Surrey Avenue is not a route to anywhere, it is a nice, quiet road for people to try motorbikes on, your cushions do NOTHING to address that problem.
There is an optimal solution: central humps that occupy approx 50% of the road. Cycles could go by either side, perhaps - if not too much parking; no significant positive or negative affect on emergency services; motorcycles and speeding cars would be constrained. The cost should be no more than cushions.
Several Surrey Avenue residents spoke to you at a recent meeting and expressed their preference for humps rather than cushions, I think I made a similar comment in written response to your survey last October. You will probably receive several emails expressing a strong preference for humps rather than cushions, you will probably receive no communications expressing a preference for cushions rather than humps.
When I talk to folks hereabouts they unanimously agree with the idea of traffic calming around Manor Park but they also unanimously seem to disagree with almost all implementations of your traffic calming so far. The stupidity (yes, I think that a fair word) of many of the traffic calming measures you have done seems self apparent to people who live in this neighbourhood, we can suggest more effective implementations, we think we could do it better. Either you are not listening, or we are not speaking loudly enough or ...
But, as evidenced by many other aspects of your road policy, you won't listen to this and you will get it wrong yet again. I will make the point of informing councillors of this and your almost inevitable ignoring of these rational and locally supported arguments and opinions. It would be nice if I am pleasantly surprised but I won't hold my breath.
John L. Church
PS. I totally agree with the policy of encouraging cycling, I cycle myself. It's probably time Slough started to think about 'peak oil' as well, current best predictions for that are 2012 +/- 2 years, but I have a nasty feeling it might be here as soon as late 2008 if we are unlucky (I have seriously researched it for the last 5 years, if you want to know: ask and I will dump info on you, including local UK and US municipal inititiatives). Yes, you have heard of climate change but I have the unpleasant feeling that is merely a trojan for peak oil which will smack harder and sooner.
Council’s response to John’s Email
Dear Mr Church
Thank you for your e mail dated 11 February 2007. I apologise for the delay in replying which is due to me being on leave.
I am pleased to see that you support the principle of traffic calming for the 20 mph zone. I am of course sorry to hear that you are not convinced by my arguments given to Mr Biernat.
The day time parking level was not an important aspect in deciding what traffic calming measure was appropriate for this scheme, but thank you for your offer to monitor parking levels in your street. I would be interested though, if you were able to monitor motorcycle usage at night time as you say this is a significant problem. When we do manual classified counts, we normally summarise these in quarter hour intervals over the period of interest. Thus, counting the number motor bikes over the period of annoyance, would allow us both to make an objective assessment of the scale of the problem.
With regard to the Essex Avenue and Elliman Avenue road hump schemes, we have been asked to review these schemes by the bus company in order to make them more bus and passenger friendly. These schemes are quite old and were probably introduced before it became legal to use traffic calming devices like speed cushions. The Council is minded to do so, given its support to encourage more use of sustainable transport in the interests of climate change. This will probably be done some time in the future when resources allow. Granville Avenue road humps may be amended for the emergency services some time in the future, but again this would be dependant on availability of resources.
You refer to a written response you sent me in October. I regret to say I did not receive this. I do however have your consultation document response in which under further comments you said; I prefer moving one of the 4 humps on Surrey Avenue to just south of the bend on Salisbury Avenue (approx. outside no 57). This bend is quite dangerous; people often drive too fast and on wrong side of road when approaching from south.
As several residents had made similar comments, we responded by amending the plan. An extra pair of speed cushions was incorporated into the plan south of the bend and the pair of speed cushions north of the bend was moved nearer the bend. In addition, white centre line hazard carriageway markings are to be laid around the bend to help drivers remain on the correct side of the road.
With regard to e mails, apart from Mr Biernats e mail, I have not received any other e mail expressing a preference for road humps.
Whereas the last question on the consultation document was; Do you agree with the use of speed cushions within the zone and a speed table at Canterbury Avenue/Ardrossan Close? 55% of respondents said yes. The majority of those who said no and who also gave further comments, did not want any traffic calming features at all. Only I respondent indicated they preferred a more stringent form of traffic calming. A reading of these results would seem to indicate that a majority of these residents, whilst supporting a 20mph zone, did not want to see too stringent traffic calming features introduced, such as speed tables or road humps. Given these facts, I believe that the use of speed cushions has achieved the right balance and reflect the majority of residents views and those of the emergency services.
The current position is that the Council have agreed to proceed with the scheme as formally advertised.
Yours sincerely
Michael Symons
Rajesh’s response to Council’s response
Dear Mr Symons
Many thanks for your reply and listening to our concerns and acting upon them, about the Surrey / Salisbury Junction.
We welcome you adding an extra set of cushions to that dangerous corner. I think most the drivers in the area would appreciate that.
In our appreciation we would like to publish (on our web site) your responses ( and our emails to you) to all the emails you have sent to the residents, If that is ok with you. Please let us know
Although I do not agree with many of the arguments you have given, but I do understand you have a brief to follow.
Many Thanks for attempting to make our road safer.
Sincere Regards
Rajesh Mehmi
Council’s response to Rajesh’s response
Dear Mr Mehmi
Thank you for your kind words.
I welcome your wish to publish my responses on your web site.
We are only too well aware that views on this subject are diverse.
The consultation document had limited space, so all of the Council reasoning could not be given for the proposals. There was also a need to keep the consultation document simple and short, because our experience is that people do not respond well to long winded documents. I feel sure that publication of the responses will help a better understanding of where the Council is coming from.
The Council has considered carefully every response made to the consultation and bearing in mind the responses made in their totality, has made amendments to the proposals to meet those comments wherever feasible.
After implementation, we look forward to receiving any further comments from residents on how well (or not, as the case may be), the scheme has achieved it aims, so that we make take these views into consideration at the review stage.
Yours sincerely
Michael Symons
If you have any views/concerns write to the address below or contact us on
surrey@northslough.org
Michael Symons
Consultant Engineer, Traffic Management
Transport Department, Slough Borough Council
PO Box 580, Wellington House
High Street, Slough
SL1 1FB
Tel no: 01753 87 5622
Fax no: 01753 87 5665
E mail: michael.symons@slough.gov.uk
|
