[TCUG] (no subject)
- From: "Matthew Smith" <MASmith@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:36:54 +0100
Chris,
I've just de-commissioned two pelicans at a de-trunked site, these have been
replaced by zebras. It was a real battle and locals are (and remain) sceptical
assumming that the big bad council is penny pinching.
The following is extracted from a document I prepared during the approval
process.
Purpose
1. To seek approval for the de-commissioning of two existing pelican
signal controlled crossings and replacing them with zebra crossing facilities
on x in x (see Appendix A).
Background
2. The pelican crossings, in the vicinity of x. and x. (see Appendix B),
are at the end of their design life and attracting higher maintenance charges
resulting from their increased unreliability.
3. The pelican crossings were commissioned in August 19x when x formed
part of the Ax trunk road. This route was de-trunked following completion of
the Ax in 19x. Lorry control measures were introduced along the route in 19x
with all heavy goods vehicles being directed away from the village centre onto
the Ax and other suitable routes. Traffic calming measures were then installed
along the route during 19x.
4. Since the completion of the Ax and the imposition of lorry controls
through x, the traffic flows have reduced by some 34%.
5. Traffic speed surveys carried out along this route during November 2005
recorded relatively low speeds of 18mph in both directions.
6. A recent survey was carried out to ascertain the level of pedestrian
usage of the two pelican crossing facilities. This revealed that approximately
half the pedestrians observed within the zig-zag controlled area crossed the
road without the benefit of the green man signal indication. Many pedestrians
also chose to cross the road in the gaps in the traffic flow without calling
for the green man signal indication.
7. Accident information was interrogated for a five year period (to June
2006) and this has shown that there have been no reported pedestrian injury
accidents occurring within 50m of either crossing installation.
8. Research carried out on the comparative safety to pedestrians crossing
a pelican or a zebra crossing concluded that there was little difference in the
pedestrian accident rate between the two crossing types. Other research has
concluded that the zebra crossings cause lesser delays to pedestrians.
Financial Implications
9. The renewal cost of the two pelican crossings would be of the order of
£30k (@ £15k per location). The on-going maintenance costs (including energy
and communications costs) over a 15 year life of the installation is of the
order of £16k (@£1050k per year). This equates to a 'whole life' cost of
£46k.
10. The cost of de-commissioning the two pelican crossings and replacing
them with zebra crossing would be of the order of £14k (@ £7k per site). The
maintenance and energy costs over a 15 year period would be of the order of
£650 (@ £42 per year) and lamp replacement costs would be £2.4k (@£800
every 5 years). This equates to a 'whole life' cost of approximately £17k.
11. The cost analysis clearly indicates that there would be a substantial
saving if the pelican crossings were changed to zebra crossings.
TRRL report 895 " The comparative safety of pedestrian crossings" is a useful
document
As are the papers published in TEC October 1984 which looks at delays at Zebra
crossings
Good luck.
Matt
----------------------------------------
Here in Blackburn Ive been tasked with trying to get our asset management
systems in to place and aprt of this process is identifying which of our oldest
kit is in direst need of replacement. =20 Now, I read at the symposium a while
ago (JCT kindly sent me another copy of the paper last week) Mick Hoppers paper
about challenging the need for retention. I quite blatently cribbed this policy
for here, but Ive hit a stumbling block with our Road Safety people (surprise
surprise). Their argument is that crossings are there for a reason and that
they create a "black hole" insofar as the accident stats are concerned.
Regardless of the fact that a full traffic survey will be carried out. =20 The
problem is, there is no way we will have the money to replace all of the sites
that are at present held together with rust and flyposting before they fall
down. Has anyone out there actually successfully removed a signalised crossing
in favour of something softer? If so, what justifications did you use? And any
other wonderful tips in guiding our Road Safety colleagues in the right
direction would also be greatly appreciated!
Cheers,
Chris Pearson
Traffic Signals Engineer
___________________________________________________________________________
Support your local council workers in this yearâ??s National Council Worker of
the Year Awards by clicking:
Vote for Jane Dabrowska -
http://www.localgovernmentchannel.com/awards/c/innovation/v/jane_dabrowska/y/2008/
Vote for Lee Fradsham -
http://www.localgovernmentchannel.com/awards/c/bravery/v/lee_fradsham/y/2008/
___________________________________________________________________________
Leicestershire County Council - rated a 'four-star' council by the Audit
Commission
___________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not
the intended recipient, any reading, printing, storage, disclosure, copying or
any other action taken in respect of this e-mail is prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately by using the reply function and then permanently delete what you
have received.
Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance
with Leicestershire County Council's policy on the use of electronic
communications. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to a request
under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The views expressed by the author may not necessarily reflect the views or
policies of the Leicestershire County Council.
Attachments to e-mail messages may contain viruses that may damage your system.
Whilst Leicestershire County Council has taken every reasonable precaution to
minimise this risk, we cannot accept any liability for any damage which you
sustain as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own
virus checks before opening any attachment.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
