Strang Road traffic calming

Summary

A request was made for details regarding the Strang Road traffic calming scheme, including resident consultations, risk assessments, and accident statistics. The Department of Infrastructure provided most information via appendices but refused to supply accident statistics, citing that they do not hold the data.

Key Facts

• The Department of Infrastructure responded to the request on 2017-03-14.
• Resident discussions and comments are contained in Appendices 1, 2, and 3.
• The Department does not use a pro-forma for risk assessments but assesses risks to road users.
• Accident statistics were not provided as the Department does not hold this information.
• The Department uses UK technical guidance documents, such as TAL 9/94 and LTN 1/07, for traffic calming design.

Data Disclosed

• 2017-02-16
• 2017-03-14
• 25 July 2016
• 103 pages
• 6 months
• TAL 9/94
• TAL 12/97
• TRL 385
• TAL 1/04
• TRL 641
• LTN 1/07
• LTN 1/08
• LTN 1/11

Exemptions Cited

• Section 11(2)(b) practical refusal
• Section 11(3)(a) information not held

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF

Dear

FOI Reference No: IM78359I Strang Road traffic calming Request under The Freedom Of Information Act 2015 (“The Act”)

Thank you for your request dated 16 February 2017.

You requested

I would like to make a freedom of information request on the recent traffic scheme undertaken on strang road. 1. (a) what discussions were held with the residents on imposing a traffic calming scheme (b) what were the replies/comments? 2. What were the replies/comments from the residents after telling them what type of traffic calming was to be implemented? 3. what alternative methods for traffic calming were discussed why were they dismissed?
4. Has the current bus stop position been considered within the scheme in regards to its location and its impact on other traffic when stopped? 5. Was any thought given to the current parking bays in relation to the traffic calming scheme and layout? 6. Has there been a risk assessment undertaken? and can you provide a copy? 7. Can the Department provide accident statistics on Strang road before and after the traffic calming scheme was introduced and make comments on the findings? 8. Are there any standards relating to traffic calming in this type of manor? 9. Can the Department provide proof that the scheme is working. Are the speeds down, is there less traffic and are people driving in a more consistent manor? Or are people speeding between the plant pots, in a more erratic manor and is the road still taking the same volume of traffic. 10. Finally if the scheme is working, and it has reduced the volume of traffic using that 'A' road does the Department know where additional traffic is going and what knock on effects this may cause.

Response to your request

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide some of the information you have requested; the reasons and statutory exemption sections are shown as part of the corresponding answers below.

1. (a) The information you have requested is contained in Appendix 1

(b) The information you have requested is contained in Appendix 2

2 The information you have requested is contained in Appendix 2

3 The information you have requested is contained in Appendix 2 and 3

4 The information you have requested is contained in Appendix 4

5 Yes, the Department did look at it. All the information you requested is contained in Appendix 5

6 Yes, the Department does assess the risk to other road users but, not on a pro-forma.

7 Under section 11(2)(b) a practical refusal applies, referencing section 11(3)(a) the public authority does not hold…the information that the applicant has requested.
Alternatively you may wish to consider submitting a request to the Isle of Man Constabulary. Should you submit this question to the Constabulary it would be really helpful if you could clarify the time frame for the information you require.

With regards to the second part of your question - it is best practice to undertake the post implementation assessment approximately 6 months after a highway scheme has been installed, therefore until this assessment has taken place we are unable to provide final comment.

8 Though various jurisdictions have technical guidance on the design of traffic calming, in practice the Department has historically used many of the UK produced traffic related guidance documents as a useful starting point when undertaking the design of both highway and traffic management schemes within the context of Isle of Man legislation.

Please note the list below is not an exhaustive list. • TAL 9/94 Horizontal Deflections; Department for Transport (1994) • TAL 12/97 Chicane Schemes; Department for Transport (1997)
• TRL 385 ‘Traffic calming in villages on major roads: Final report; TRL (1999)
• TAL 1/04 Village Speed Limits; Department for Transport (2004) • TRL 641 ‘Psychological’ traffic calming; TRL (2005)
• Manual for Streets; Department for Transport (2007)
• LTN 1/07 Traffic Calming; Department for Transport (2007)
• LTN 1/08 Traffic Management and Streetscape; Department for Transport (2008)
• Designing Streets; The Scottish Government (2010) • Manual for Streets 2; CIHT (2010) • LTN 1/11 Shared Space; Department for Transport (2011)

TAL – Traffic Advisory Leaflet TRL – Transport Research Lab LTN – Local Transport Note

9 The information you have requested is contained in Appendix 6

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2 From:
Sent: 25 July 2016 20:37 To: Almond, Kevin; Gawne, Phil (MHK) Cc: Robinson, Jeffrey; Quayle, Howard (MHK) Subject: RE: Strang Road traffic calming measures Attachments: Car Parking.7 doc.doc; Kevin Almond 3.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Consultation Dear Mr Almond I refer to your letter left at my house late this afternoon which informs me that there will be a delay in starting your latest traffic calming scheme. This gives you added opportunity to consider your reply to the following four questions raised in my letter and email sent to you on 20 July which were in reply to your letter and email of the same date (both attached below): 1. I suggested speed bumps at four areas, but you consider the road would need them at seven. I bow to you professional judgement. So, why cannot there be suitably engineered speed bumps, the preferred solution of the residents, reinstated at regular intervals? 2. You accept that parked vehicles do have an effect on vehicle speeds. But you have failed, for whatever reason, to answer my simple question, just how does removing any number of parked cars along a road help in any way to slow down passing traffic? 3. Linked in with number 2 above, I fail to understand your conclusion that ‘The proposed scheme has therefore, been designed to overcome factors”. In what way does clearing 1 to 24 parked vehicles (no matter what types of vehicle or durations of stay) from large areas along Strang Road help slow down passing vehicles? 4. Are Minister Phil Gawne and Middle MHK Howard Quayle happy with your scheme? I fail to understand why you consider that 13 ugly planter boxes allied with 7 substantial no parking areas are more suitable than just 7 simple speed bumps. More thoughtful drivers slow down at bumps, but your latest scheme gives speeding drivers of private and public vehicles a lovely clearway to race through. The long suffering residents who have been affected by the speeders for a long time will continue to be so, but will also lose up to 24 parking spaces. This is not fair. A cheap and more satisfactory method is the use of properly engineered speed bumps. The whole purpose of the scheme has been turned on its head over the last year. Someone has changed the agenda. I look forward to your reply. Regards, ---- Original message ----

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:49:12 +0100 (BST) From:
Subject: RE: Strang Road traffic calming measures To: "Almond, Kevin" ,"Gawne, Phil (MHK)"
Cc: "Robinson, Jeffrey" ,"Quayle, Howard (MHK)"

Dear Mr Almond I attach my response to your letter of today which I also attach for the reference of the others. As you know, Minister Phil Gawne has been talking with Middle MHK Howard Quayle on the matter. You ask that if I require any further information then I should contact you, which 25 25 I now do. A straightforward and early reply from you, Jeffrey Robinson and/or Phil Gawne is looked forward to. Regards, ---- Original message ----

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:37:59 +0000 From: "Almond, Kevin"
Subject: RE: Strang Road traffic calming measures To:

Dear I attach my response to your recent letter.

If you require any further information please feel free to contact me. Kevin Almond 25 25 25 cc. J. Robinson, Director of Highway Services; P. Gawne, DOI Minister; H. Quayle, Middle MHK

Mr K. Almond Traffic and Transportation Manager Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building Douglas IM1 2RF 2 July 2016 Dear Mr Almond Strang Road traffic calming measures

I refer to your letter dated 29 June 2016.

I am disappointed that you have dismissed the concerns of the residents living along the Union Mills end of Strang Road by your continued proposal to install a number of planter boxes, paint a series of no-parking yellow lines and do away with up to sixteen on-road parking spaces. Your proposal will simply allow motorists to speed between and past the boxes and to continue to speed along the new no-parking stretches.

From having no traffic calming plans along the Strang end of Strang Road, you have abandoned the increased speed limit choice and propose to have boxes and no-parking yellow lines.

A couple of strategically placed full width speed bumps on each of the two sections of the road and an improvement to the road crossing at Ballanawin are all that would be needed to slow down the traffic and protect the residents and the pedestrians.

But if you are adamant not to use speed bumps then a compromise might be acceptable to the residents which would still have the boxes but without the no-parking yellow lines on the north side of the road, thereby allowing parked vehicles to become part of the speeding deterrent. You propose to have two boxes on either side of the road outside ‘Cummal Veg’ and ‘Hy Holme’ and just up the road from ‘Glenburn’ at which parking will be allowed. This situation could equally be applied elsewhere along the road and could also include an alteration from one big box to two small boxes on each side of the road near ‘Tymescot’ and outside ‘Avondale’ and ‘Glentraugh’ to slow down traffic whilst at the same time enabling parking. Something similar could be done near the top of the hill to allow parking outside ‘Thumper Cottage’ and to protect vehicles exiting from it and the other houses.

I would be obliged if you would respond to the above points and, in particular, inform me how no-parking stretches on a road help slow down traffic better than parked cars.

I look forward to your early reply.

Yours sincerely,

25 25 From: Almond, Kevin To: Cc: Hardinge, Alan Subject: RE: ETA for tall plants in Strang Road planters Date: 09 February 2017 11:03:35 Thank you for your observations. I am pleased that you are able to position your car downstream of the planter opposite your property with minimal impact on the traffic flow. It is unlikely at this juncture that parking upstream will be allowed following ongoing feedback from Bus Vannin. The current planting will be reviewed once they have time to establish themselves but it is still our intention to incorporate taller plants as per our original design. Regards, Kevin Almond -----Original Message----- From Sent: 31 January 2017 14:03 To: Almond, Kevin Cc: Robinson, Jeffrey Subject: ETA for tall plants in Strang Road planters Dear Kevin, Further to last week's meeting and my follow-up email, I am happy to report that use of the downstream planter shadow for parking is proving to be very successful: there is both plenty of depth, and more than enough width to accommodate an average-sized car without obscuring the road signs. As mentioned previously, I do hope it will be feasible to leave the upstream shadow free of double yellow lines too, as an overflow space. My main point concerns the planters. You indicated that taller ones should have been put in. You also mentioned that assessing the success of the new traffic calming scheme would be done in multiple stages, with a later part noting traffic flows after people had got used to the new scheme. With the latter point in mind, don't you need to get the taller plants in as soon as possible? In any event, I think they will significantly enhance flow regulation, because more care will (as you mentioned) then be needed to navigate round the planters. At present, there is probably a tendency to speed up through the planter sections when no opposing traffic is visible. Do you have an ETA for installation of the tall plants? Thanks, 25 25 25 25 25 2016-02-17 Department of Infrastructure (Attn. Mr N. Black, CEO) Sea Terminal Douglas IM1 2RF Dear Mr. Black, I write to object to the Strang Road - Rural Roads (Speed Limits) (Amendment) Order 2016, Ref: PER39. The reasons are as follows: • The DOI’s stated intention is to discourage traffic from using Strang Road as a shortcut, and reduce speeds of said traffic. This is in line with what was agreed after the hospital opened in 2004, and which has been reiterated in very recent communications from the department. Increasing a speed limit on half of a section of the road in question will not reduce either the volume or speed of traffic - quite the reverse. • Plans are in hand to provide traffic calming measures on the other half of the road, between Ballanawin and Union Mills. There is no sense in treating the two halves of the road differently. Whatever measures are put in place should also be applied to the section between Ballanawin and the Strang, rather than relaxing the current speed limit. • I regret to say there has been a demonstrable and serious lack of professionalism over the way the whole subject of traffic calming on this road has been approached. The evidence is in two parts, and I believe shows that the whole subject needs revisiting: 1. After the resurfacing was completed, no calming measures at all were put in place for several months. Naturally, this encouraged higher traffic volumes and speeds, as shown by your own department’s figures. Next, residents were told that marked parking bays were expected to have a beneficial effect. They had no useful effect. (Again, as per your own department’s figures). 2. After it was admitted (again by your own department) that the parking bays were useless in calming traffic, a trial was carried out of two chicanes. These not only failed to calm traffic (because they had to be wide enough to accommodate buses), but took away roadside parking near this house, which has no offroad parking. Your officers later admitted that they had failed to notice there was no driveway, and said that if they had done, the chicane would not have been put outside. The most charitable response to this is that at least they were honest about this truly astonishing blunder, and apologised. • Residents have overwhelmingly requested additional traffic calming measures, not fewer. Your own department’s survey clearly showed this, and the input should be acted on. Yours faithfully, 25 25

Mr K. Almond Traffic and Transportation Manager Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building Douglas IM1 2RF 15 November 2016 Dear Mr Almond Strang Road traffic calming measures

Thank you for your

[Response truncated — full text is 82,263 characters]