South Milford & Lumby - North Yorkshire

(This letter was scanned in and there may be some errors due to the scanning technique used)

NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL SELBY AREA COMMITTEE
11 June 2007
SOUTH MILFORD TRAFFIC CALMING SCHEME (ELECTORAL DIVISION - SHERBURN IN ELMET)
NB: the items in red are the observations of the Village People
1.0 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.1 To advise Members of the effectiveness of the Traffic Calming scheme in South Milford and consider representations from a residents' organisation known as "The Village People".
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 A report advising members of the receipt of a petition signed by 378 people was considered at your meeting on 20 November 2005. The petition called for the removal of the road humps on Low Street and Milford Road, South Milford, and implementation of a scheme planned 'with the residents',
2.2 At that meeting Members resolved that;-
(1) The road humps would be left in place and that monitoring of the vehicle speeds accidents and noise would take place.
(2) The Area Committee receive a further report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the traffic calming measures.
2.3 A plan of the scheme (dwg no. A087/16A) is attached as Appendixl
3.0 REACTION TO THE SCHEME
3.1 The South Milford Parish Plan, which was prepared in 2004/05, shows that the top priority, medium term project is to "Replace Low Street speed bumps with more village friendly measures (cameras, speed sensors (3Omph) etc)". An extract from the Parish Plan is attached as Appendix 2 In May 2006 The Village People' undertook a survey of residents' views regarding the road humps
3.3 A report was received from The Village People' in August 2006 which contained the results of that survey. A copy of the Village People's report is attached as Appendix 3.
3.4 The Village People asked for the report to be taken into consideration when the effectiveness of the scheme is reviewed.
3.5 The survey gave residents of South Milford and Lumby the opportunity to comment on the Traffic Calming scheme. The analysis of the survey responses contained in Appendix 3 shows that 235 out of approximately 850 survey forms were returned, giving a response rate of 27.6%. A total of 213 replies of the 285 (75%) (should be 235 - 90.6%) did not support the existing traffic calming scheme.
3.6 The main reasons given for objections to the scheme were;-
o Damage to vehicles
o Traffic driving in the centre of the road between speed cushions
o Noise
o Traffic not slowing down.
3.7 The report and subsequent letters from The Village People claim that the scheme has not brought about a reduction in the number of accidents.
4.0 SPEED MEASUREMENTS
4.1 Speed surveys were undertaken in 2000 & 2002 before the scheme was implemented in March 2004 and again in July 2004 following its completion.
4.2 Speed surveys before the scheme's installation showed 85% speeds between 31 and 40mph. 85th percentile speeds reduced to between 24-31 mph following the scheme's installation. This represents a reduction in the 85th percentile speeds of between 7-10mph. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are travelling.
4.3 Speed surveys were repeated on Low Street and Milford Road in October 2006, and again on Milford Road in January 2007. These recorded 85%ile speeds between 26 and 32mph. These results show that vehicle speeds in the village were still significantly lower than before the scheme's installation.
4.4 It is possible that a traffic calming scheme could have been introduced without the use of speed cushions, however it is unlikely that the reduction in speeds would have been so great.
4.6 Analysis of the results of other forms of traffic calming measures used elsewhere indicates that the other schemes suggested by residents would not have reduced traffic speeds as effectively as speed cushions

5.0 ACCIDENT HISTORY
5.1 In the three years before the traffic calming scheme was installed (March 2001-March 2004) there had been 4 Personal Injury Accidents on Low Street and Milford Road. This included one fatality and two accidents resulting in serious injury.
5.2 In the 3 years since the scheme was installed, (April 2004- April 2007), there have been 7 Personal Injury Accidents, one of which has resulted in serious injury, the other 6 resulting in slight injuries.
5.3 In the first year after the scheme was installed 4 accidents occurred. One of these involved a drunk driver and one occurred when a bus hit the bus shelter on Low Street. The shelter had initially been constructed in the incorrect location. The shelter has now been moved to its intended location to avoid a repeat of this accident.
5.4 There have been a further 3 accidents in the following two years, two in 2005 on Low Street & one in 2006 on Milford Road. (1 accident in 2005 and 1 in 2004 were directly caused by the speed bumps)
5.5 The Village People report notes that before the scheme's installation there had been 4 accidents at the Low Street / Sand Lane junction and that t 4 out of 12 accidents in South Milford in 7 years occurred here. Our analysis of records for the year 7 period before the scheme was installed indicates 3 accidents at this location, one of which one resulted in a fatality.
Since the scheme was installed there has been one accident at this location, which resulted in a slight injury. (50% of the accidents prior to speed bumps occurred at the Sand Lane/Low Street junction)
5.6 There are no reports of accidents due to vehicles driving in the middle of the road between the speed cushions.
5.7 Since the introduction of the traffic calming measures on Milford Road/Low Street the severity ratio of the accidents has reduced in that a lower proportion of the accidents has resulted in death or serious injury. In the three years before the scheme 3 out of the 4 accidents (75%) resulted in death or serious injury. In the three years since the scheme 1 out of the 7 accidents (14%) has resulted in death or serious injury. This reduction in severity ratio is an expected consequence of reduced traffic speeds. The annual accident statistics show that the accident numbers have reduced year on year since 2004 (4 accidents in 2004 since then the accident figures are the same as prior to the speed bumps)
6.0 NOISE MEASUREMENTS
6.1 A resident of Milford Road has issued High Court proceedings against the County Council claiming that the traffic calming scheme has caused him noise nuisance and should be removed. The case is scheduled to be heard in October 2007.
6.2 The speed cushions were rebuilt in April 2005 in order to comply with the contract specifications and, apart from the Village People report, the number of complaints received has reduced significantly since then. In the first year after the scheme's installation the County Council received 20 complaints. In the two years since the speed cushions were reconstructed there have been seven complaints. (The Village People are acting on behalf of the residents)
6.3 Noise surveys were carried out, on behalf of the County Council, in Low Street and in Milford Road in July 2004 and also in Milford Road in February 2006. The surveys recorded traffic noise levels that would normally be expected from passing traffic.
6.4 An acoustic consultant, working on behalf of the County Council, carried out a noise survey in January 2007 in order to further assess the noise situation. His survey results do not support the claim that additional noise caused by the road humps constitutes a nuisance.
7.0 OTHER ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
7.1 Other options for traffic calming schemes that are suggested in the Village People report were considered in the planning of this scheme. Not all were feasible in South Milford. Of those that were feasible, none were considered to be as effective at reducing accidents as the scheme that was implemented. (the speed bumps have not been effective in reducing accidents)
7.2 There is a 7.5Tonne weight limit on Milford Road. Two local companies are exempt from this limit in order to reach their depots. They are the haulage company, G.W. Sissons & Son and the waste recycling company, Mytum and Selby, who operate a fleet of 12 skip lorries from their depot in Sherburn in Elmet.
7.3 Mytum and Selby are hoping to open a recycling plant east of the South Milford bypass. It is uncertain what effect this would have on roads in South Milford.
7.4 Sissons' depot is now based on the A162 South Milford bypass. Their depot in Sherburn in Elmet is now only used for fuelling and servicing of vehicles. They have also reduced the size of their fleet from 60 vehicles to 14. This has reduced the effect that their vehicles have on South Milford.
8.0 OFFICER COMMENT
8.1 It is normal practice to compare the accident record for three years before installation of a traffic calming scheme with the accident record for three years after installation in order to judge the scheme's effectiveness.
8.2 Following an initial increase in the accident rate in the first year, the number and severity ratio of accidents has reduced. This is expected to continue given the reduction in vehicle speeds. (ambiguous statement).
8.3 If the speed cushions were removed without providing an effective alternative, the County Council could be considered negligent for removing features intended to improve safety.

9 RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 It is recommended that;-
I. The receipt and contents of the Village People survey are noted.
II. The speed cushions are left in place and continue to be monitored.
III. The Village People are notified of the above.
Gordon Gresty
Corporate Director, Business and Environmental Services
Background papers:
Report and letters from the Village People
Letters from Mr Brown
Report by ANV, Noise Consultant employed by the County Council