Transport

Transport Working Group

Due to the uncertain future of NPs (and the Transport Working Group in particular), following the Mayor’s current round of budget proposals, the Meeting on the 17 January 2017 is likely to have been the last held under the Council’s current structure.

Please scroll down this page to access Notes from previous Meetings and Reports from BCC’s Highways function.

The latest edition (Issue 28) of NP3′s Highway Open Issues and their current status can be seen here: Open Issues (28)  and the closed issues can be seen here: Closed Issues (28)

The Transport Working Group is chaired by WoT resident Alan Aburrow, who reports: “from the beginnings of our NP, the “Transport Group” took a lead on traffic matters. However, the Group’s original ethos was rather esoteric and sometimes felt like it was attempting to solve all the traffic problems in the UK, let alone in our NP. This was subsequently rationalised by establishing the Group’s original quasi-autonomous existence under some strong, well-defined, “Terms of Reference” and morphing into the current “Transport Working Group” in mid-2010”.

Since then, the Group has formalised its agenda and now meets on a regular quarterly basis. As such, the Group now reports back formally to the NP and the NP’s Forum Meetings. The Group maintains a live “Highways Issues” document, which records all new and progressing issues within the NP.

The Group’s meetings are well attended by elected NP representatives and members of the public. A fundamental “plus point” for the Group is that there is a standing invitation for an Officer from the Council’s Highways and Traffic Team to attend the Group’s meetings. This arrangement has worked very well, bringing professional guidance and advice to the Group’s deliberations. However, the level of expertise that the Group has developed has been recognised by BCC Officers and is acknowledged as a model that leads the way across the city.

Notes from previous Transport Working Group Meetings can be accessed from the links below:

17 January 2017: Notes of Working Group Meeting 17 Jan 2017

31 October 2016: Notes of Working Group Meeting, 31 Oct 2016

21 July 2016:  Notes of Working Group Meeting 21 July 2016

20 April 2016: Notes of Working Group Meeting 20 April 2016

19 January 2016: Notes of Working Group Meeting 19 Jan 2016

27 October 2015: Notes of Working Group Meeting 27 Oct 2015

16 July 2015:  Notes of Working Group Meeting 16 July 2015

29 April 2015: Notes of Working Group Meeting 29 April 2015

20 January 2015: Notes of Working Group Meeting 20 Jan 2015

21 October 2014: Notes of Working Group Meeting 21 Oct 2014

24 July 2014: Notes of Working Group Meeting 24 July 2014

Reports published by BCC Highways,  include:

Safety at Tesco Exit on The Drive, Henleaze (RS12058): Feasibility study – The Drive

Chock Lane, Post Scheme Review: Chock Lane – Monitoring Report

Study into safety at Tesco entrance on Henleaze Road (RS12058): Henleaze Rd Tesco – Feasibility Study

Henleaze Road Mini-roundabout: Henleaze Road miniroundabout – Feasibility Study

Southmead Road Zebra Crossing: Southmead Road – Technical Report

Coldharbour Road Zebra Crossing: Coldharbour Rd Zebra – Technical Report

West Broadway, Traffic-calming Options: West Broadway – Feasibility Study (Final)

Chock Lane, Feasibility Study and Proposals: Chock Lane – Feasibility Study (Draft) Please note that this pdf is in “SECURED” format for “Read Only” and therefore the contents are not printable.

Eastfield Road, Feasibility Study and Proposals: Eastfield Road – Feasibility Study (Draft) Please note that this pdf is in “SECURED” format for “Read Only” and therefore the contents are not printable.

Passage Road/Greystoke Ave Junction: Feasibility Study into the banning of right turn movements from Passage Road into Greystoke Avenue and vice versa: Greystoke Ave-Passage Rd Junction, Feasibility Study FINAL

Falcondale Road traffic lights Review:  Falcondale Road Traffic Signals Report

Stoke Hill/Old Sneed Avenue Junction, Feasibility Study and Proposals: Feasibility report 10TM064

 

5 Responses to Transport

  1. David Mayer says:

    Well done Alan for this update, once again setting the standard.

  2. Geoff Beynon says:

    Ref.Falcondale Road/Henbury Road traffic lights.
    I have been living at 146 Falcondale Road for over 5 years and am very concerned that the traffic lights might not be upgraded for at least 5 years.I have lost count of the number of accidents that have occurred during the time that I have lived here.Is it possible to obtain from the police details of the accidents they have attended at this location in the recent pass?I am aware of at least one fatality related to traffic management in this area.
    Regards
    Geoff Beynon

  3. Alan Aburrow says:

    BCC’s prioritisation for the upgrading of signal-controlled junctions is based on the age of the signals equipment at each particular site. The signals equipment at the Henbury Road/Falcondale Road junction is 20 years old and BCC currently have 52 sites where the signals equipment is older than this – the oldest being 32 years.

    BCC’s Traffic Signals Team has an annual renewal budget which allows them to update approximately 5 junctions/crossings per year. However, opportunities to improve old equipment also arise from major capital projects, such as the GBBN. Therefore, within current budgetary constraints and at the current rate of replacements, it will be around 5 years before the Henbury Road/Falcondale Road traffic lights will be upgraded.

    Road Traffic Accident data for the last three years can be found on the Council’s website at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/explore-bristol by checking the box at the very bottom of the left-hand dropdown list (under “Transport”).

  4. claire Scourse says:

    Hi Alan,

    I am a parent of two children at St Ursula’s EACT Academy. I am very concerned about the road safety there – no bollards, signs, speed humps or zebra crossings. Further the school is expanding by 90 children every year while it grows to full capacity over the next few years. Could you please advise how I can get some momentum behind getting this resolved? In advance, many thanks.

    Claire Scourse

    • Alan Aburrow says:

      In the first instance, any proposed expansion of the school site should, under normal circumstances, be subject to a formal Planning Application. In the course of progressing such an Application, the applicant should highlight the consequences of any expansion and address the means of mitigating the effects on the surrounding neighbourhood, such as the provision of adequate car parking for staff.

      The Council’s Road Safety Team would normally be involved in any discussions related to improvements for the safety of children attending the school. This would include such issues as upgrading the current advisory Keep Clear markings and the provision of pedestrian guard railings at the entrance points to the school. Depending on the results of a safety review, any minor improvements identified would ultimately be funded from the Safer Routes to School budget. However, anything major, such as a pedestrian crossing, would need to go through the NP and be selected as a scheme for funding from their devolved Minor Traffic Schemes budget. This presupposes that any such measures are quantified as being necessary.

      I am not aware that the school has previously requested any traffic management measures in Brecon Road. From the Council’s records, there has only been one recorded injury accident on Brecon Road in the last five years. This was recorded as a ‘slight injury’ and involved an adult pedestrian in 2011.

      Also, I am not aware that the school has a School Travel Plan (STP) in place. However, the best course of action would be for the parents to talk to the school, determine what stage the STP is at and join (or form) the STP Committee. Any outcomes from the STP could be assessed and put forward to the NP for possible funding.

      Obviously, the first stage would be to determine how much of a problem there is by conducting speed and pedestrian counts to support a feasibility study for any additional capital works. This would establish whether physical traffic calming is required, or whether simpler measures are all that are needed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *