Croydon Road User Form - July 2004 Minutes

Document Sample
Croydon Road User Form - July 2004 Minutes Powered By Docstoc
					                         CROYDON ROAD USER FORUM

                        Minutes of the fourth meeting held on
                         Monday 26th July 2004 at 2.00pm


Councillor Adrian Dennis – Chair               Don Talbot             LDRSC
                                               Ms Oriel Weekes        THBM&WTNP
Norman Balding         CE&WNP                  Phillip Wright         LDRSC
Michael Buckley        LDRSC
G.S. Chesswright       LDRSC                   TfL
Ken Coates             N&UNNP                  Jason Wilton
Peter Collier          LDRSC                   Peter Hewitt
Tony Harris            LDRSC
A. Holyoake            NA&FNP                  Tramlink
Victor Huber           LDRSC
Robin Hunter           Mobility Forum          Roger Harding
Jim Mansell            SNSNP                   Stephen Duckering
Miss Dorothy Mellor    IAM
Peter Morgan           SLDRSC                  Officers
John Rapp              LDRSC
Phil Reed              P&KNP                   Dave Szostak
Mrs Rosemary Rigden    SS&CHNP                 Junia Cleary
Hugh Roberts           LDRSC                   Roy Clark

012/04     Apologies for absence

           1.1 Received from Councillor Donald Speakman, Councillor Martin
               Tiedemann, Patricia Bonham, Ron Rowland, PC Basil Jeffery, Leigh
               Jackson, Leon Mannings, Brian Court, Leigh Paynter, Pauline Tree, Jim
               Carden, and Christopher Lawton.

           1.2 The Forum heard of the death of Tony Hollidge, a member of the Forum
               and Chair of the old West LDRSC. A prominent member of the Broad
               Green RA and owner of a shoe business in the borough. A moment’s
               silence was taken in his memory.

013/04     Minutes of the meeting held on 11th March 2004.

           1.1 Correction noted. There seemed to be some concern over the wording of
               the penultimate sentence however, this is as quoted directly from the

014/04     Matters arising

         1.1 (03/04 3.1) Pre-meeting – It was noted that the pre-meeting was an officer
             and Chair meeting was to clarify items on the agenda and is not attended
             by anyone else. This is normal practice for all Council meetings. PM
             asked for an additional sheet showing those items raised but not on the

         1.2 (03/04 3.1.1) Transport and General Workers Union Representative – No
             reply had been received from the letter sent to the Union. Mr
             Chesswright, a member of the TGWU indicated that it should be stated
             that he is already attending the meeting when a reply is received.

         1.3 (03/04 3.3) Express Bus Service – It was noted that the 726A bus might
             be considered for an express service but consultation has yet to take place
             with the Council. There was a view expressed that the 726 route should
             stay as it is and not be changed to an express service. It was also pointed
             out that the original request was for an express bus service from Norwood
             to Croydon. It was asked if there is a TfL policy regarding express bus
             routes.     Action: TfL to respond

         1.4 (03/04 3.4) Children Seat Belt Poster – This was now on order.

         1.5 (03/04 3.2) Beulah Road/ Parchmore Road Traffic Lights – although there
             was some doubt expressed, these lights are now working normally.

         1.6 (005/04 5.1) A23 Fiveways – this would be covered in the TfL report.

         1.7 (005/04 5.5) London Assembly Transport Committee leaflet – this was
             attached to the minutes of the last meeting.

015/04   Motorcycle Working Group – Report on progress

         1.1 As Leon Mannings was not able to be present a statement was read out as

             “There was an extremely productive meeting between Leon Mannings
             and two officers from TfL Street Management on 1st June 2004. TfL
             welcomed the proposal from Croydon to discuss extending the current
             trials of PTW bus lane use to include other bus lane routes in the
             Borough. All agreed that the next stage of discussions would most
             usefully occur after the results of the TfL trials are published in
             September. Unofficial reports so far, have raised expectations that the
             trial of PTW’s using bus lanes has proved successful on a selection of
             radial routes, including the A23 in and on neighbouring sections of
             Croydon. If the early positive signs prove to be correct, the current
             experiment in London will have replicated the results of similar trials in
             other cities. In all tests of this safety enhancing practice so far, the net

             impact has been positive. A more comprehensive account of these
             important developments should be available in time for the next Forum

         1.2 The issue of left turning traffic using bus lanes and the safety issues
             when left turning vehicles had to cross the path of buses and possibly
             motorcyclists was raised for consideration by LM and TfL.
             Action LM/TfL

O16/04   Transport for London Matters

         1.1 A report was attached to the agenda. Jason Wilton
             ( introduced himself and
             confirmed that he will be the contact for the A23 from now on.

         1.2 Peter Hewitt went through the items affecting the bus schemes.

         1.3 Consultations - There was concern over the lack of consultation in respect
             to new bus schemes and it was felt that this should take place prior to
             proposals being decided. This is especially important when removal of
             trees, narrowing of pavements, widening of roads and increased
             congestion for other road users is to take place. TfL replied indicating that
             all consultations are as per their standard formula and take place by
             issuing leaflets with the returns being evaluated. In respect to the Norbury
             Schemes it was decided to consult again, as there was a lot of
             disagreement. It was asked why the CRUF had not been involved in these
             consultations and whether they could be in the future. TfL stated that they
             consulted LBC and it was for the Council to decide what local groups to
             inform or consult.

         1.4 Brighton Road northbound/ southbound bus lanes – It was questioned why
             the northbound bus lane had been made 24 hrs, as this will cause
             unnecessary delay to other traffic especially those turning left. Also
             concern was expressed that the southbound bus lane was only a proposal
             two months ago and now appears to be finalized. TfL indicated that there
             had been a delay with the northbound consultation due to the Mayor
             elections. TfL indicated that the consultation reports were available at the
             meeting. TfL were asked to respond giving the reason why the lane was
             made 24 hours. Action TfL

         1.5 Fiveways junction - it was asked if there was a proposal for a left-hand
             filter from Stafford Road towards Waddon? TfL could see the merit in
             traffic terms of progressing the scheme to provide an extended left-turn
             lane from Purley Way southbound into Stafford Road towards Croydon,
             but the plan has been set back due to substantial costs owing to Croydon

     Council selling off the land required. The facts relating to this matter were
     requested. Action: LBC

 1.6 It was requested that if TfL makes changes to any proposals that these are
     informed to those involved in the specific consultation as soon as possible.
     It was also asked if consultation documents could be circulated to this
     Forum for the purpose of discussion. It was also suggested that a sign be
     erected on the highway to alert drivers to any changes. TfL indicated that
     updates would be something that would have to be considered and if
     achievable would hope to do it. The signs that can be erected on highways
     are controlled but this will be checked. There was also concern about how
     much of the road was being carved up for bus lanes and whether tidal
     flows were taken into account. TfL indicated that the schemes on the A23
     at Norbury would not take space from any other road user and that parking
     boxes would be put in, allowing loading from 7.00am to 1.00pm. It was
     felt that overall the scheme would benefit buses and it was confirmed that
     tidal flows were taken into account. Action: TfL

 1.7 There was concern over the shared use of footways by cyclists in Brighton
     Road as street furniture and junctions can cause problems for cyclists. TfL
     indicated that there did not seem to be any alternatives but would look into
     it and come back. Action TfL

 1.8 Route 119 A232 Shirley Road – it was generally felt that this scheme
     would do nothing to speed up the 119 route at this point. Why was this
     route selected? It was felt that consultation had been poor. TfL responded
     indicating that London Transport had identified this route as one with a
     high level of usage and therefore improvements to its reliability were
     given a priority. Leaflets had been distributed to residents along Shirley
     Road and the surrounding area and many had been returned. There was a
     perception, noted at the Tram & Rail Liaison meeting, that there would
     only be one lane of through traffic but in fact there would continue to be
     two plus a bus lane. Some footway would be taken as well as a small part
     of the central reservation, which should only affect 3 trees, all of which
     would be replaced. No tree is removed lightly.

 1.9 Coulsdon new road – it was reported that there is an application to build a
     bus workshop/ depot in Ullswater Crescent where some 70 buses will
     leave the depot in the peak period. It was asked if this had come before the
     planning Committee of the Council. In response the Chair indicated that
     he had not seen it as yet.

1.10 TfL consultation on the westward extension to congestion charging – this
     item was not discussed but Croydon’s response to the consultation was

016/04   Parking Matters

         1.1 Review of parking in Croydon – a review has been promised. It is thought
             that there will be a review shortly.

         1.2 Consultation on parking charges – the Parking Plan outlines the policy of
             the Council on this matter in more detail.

         1.3 It was suggested that the Council were imposing parking zones in areas
             where the residents do not want them. The Council replied that they are
             required to consult on these issues and if the majority of residents are
             against them, then they are not imposed.

         1.4 It was asked that if car parking on pavements had been allowed but due to
             recent pavement works the lines on the pavement are not put back, can
             cars still be parked half on the pavement? Council responded by
             confirming that the traffic order would still be in place and therefore the
             regulation would still be applicable.

         1.5 It was asked what the term ‘underused’ car park means. Council response
             indicated that this will vary according to the car park and each is
             considered on its merits. Why is the Council determined to reduce the car
             parking capacity in Purley and Coulsdon? The Council response was that
             the council is not out to reduce it but to ensure that it makes best use its
             resources. There are no car parking proposals affecting Coulsdon or
             Purley at the present. The Council has made it clear that they fully
             understand that there is a requirement for parking and the need to at least
             retain the present amount of parking.

         1.6 Request for the plan showing where all the pavement parking is situated in
             the Borough was requested. This will be provided. Action LBC

017/04   Council position of hierarchy of importance of different road user

         1.1 The Croydon Plan entry was noted.

018/04   Borough Spending Plan

         1.1 The Council has forwarded its Borough Spending Plan for 2005/6 to TfL
             for a total of £9.9million of which £1.4million is for road safety purposes.

         1.2 It was asked if it was possible for the Forum to have an opportunity to
             express their views on where the money could be spent? Also does TfL
             allow for money to be moved from one area to another if it is thought
             necessary? The Council is dictated by the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and

            Transport for London’s Business Plan in term of what transport projects
            we can make bids for and money cannot be moved around to different
            transport topics without prior approval of TfL. In respect to the input of
            the Forum in this process, this is something that the Council would like to
            explore on future bids. However, London is now moving towards the next
            stage of setting down its transport strategies for the future and Croydon,
            along with all the London Boroughs, will be expected to produce a Local
            Implementation Plan for 2006/7. This is a statutory document and will
            probably mean that we will have to consult our stakeholders on the
            development of that document anyway.

19/04    Croydon Road Accident Statistics 2003

         1.1 It was noted that the overall total of accidents and casualties for 2003 is
             the lowest for many years however the number of fatal casualties has gone
             up over the last couple of years.

         1.2 It was asked what Croydon was doing to encourage people to be aware of
             road safety. The Council responded by explaining that most of the
             resources were spent in schools, ensuring that children are given priority
             and have good road safety knowledge to help them in future life. Other
             aspects also covered included pre-schools, the elderly, driving courses,
             cycle training and support for government campaigns.

         1.3 It was asked how many people were injured on public transport. In
             response TfL indicated that they thought the details would be available. It
             was thought however, that if someone were injured within the bus, which
             is not due to a road accident, this would not be recorded as a road traffic

         1.4 The view was expressed that in order to be able to compare and assess
             properly, accident statistics should be accompanied by an indication of the
             number vehicles in each mode and distance traveled. It was asked if these
             figures were available. No data on travel appears to be available in the
             form that would be useful. TfL indicated that there is bus data they use but
             may not be up to date. There are traffic counts around London at specific
             sites but this only gives data for that particular road.

020/04   Speed Humps Cost-Benefit Assessment Report

         1.1 Recommendation 9 – 20mph zone on Waddon Estate are cameras going
             in? Cameras are only needed where the speed limit is not enforced by road
             humps and therefore no cameras will be put in.

         1.2 It was pointed out that there seems to be no attempt to cost journeys which
             may be delayed by humps or delays to emergency services. Ambulance

            services in particular say they do not want humps. Could we also have
            post evaluation? In response the Council indicated that they put the cost of
            saving lives as the top priority but do balance that against any impact on
            the emergency services. As a consequence we now use cushions instead of
            full width road humps which have less impact on, in particular,
            ambulances. We do take seriously the comments made by the emergency
            services and try to accommodate their views. In respect to the hump in
            Green Lane, two surveys were carried out to determine the alleged noise
            problem and the judgement was that it should remain as its benefits
            outweighed the disbenefits. The emergency services are always consulted
            on every traffic-calming scheme that we propose to introduce and their
            comments are taken into consideration. It was suggested that the Forum
            should be involved in consultations on traffic management/ road safety
            schemes in a similar way to the Cycle Forum. LBC agreed to consider this
            and report back.             Action LBC

021/04   Public Transport Matters

         1.1 Tramlink Park & Ride – Council have introduced a number of parking
             restrictions near tram stops and a request was made for parking places to
             be made available to encourage park and ride. There is a recognition by
             TfL that park & ride would be beneficial for the tram service and it is
             believed that TfL has completed a report on this matter. Tramlink
             indicated that they have been disappointed that there has not been more
             formal park & ride schemes available. TfL and LBC were asked to
             consider this point further.   Action: LBC/TfL

         1.2 Extensions – Tramlink were not able to talk much about the proposals for
             extensions as TfL do not consult with Tramlink operations. However,
             there is general awareness that there are discussions going on between the
             Council and TfL, and Tramlink would welcome any developments as this
             has potential for reducing congestion caused by buses and other vehicles.
             It was confirmed that the Council has been looking at options but not in
             any great detail. It was reported that the Full Council and Fairfield NP had
             received presentations on the extension ideas. It was also pointed out that
             the map showing the proposed changes to the Network by 2016, produced
             by TfL, included the proposed extensions to the trams. It was requested
             that when enough detail is available on the proposals that they are brought
             to the Forum for discussion. This was agreed. Action TfL/LBC

         1.3 Tamworth Road – in respect to the new shopping centre (Centrale) and as
             part of the section 106 agreement, this did provide for a tramstop there.
             However, if this extra stop was provided it would affect the existing
             timetable which would make it difficult for trams to get back to
             Wimbledon due to the delays along the line. TfL are also concerned about

            the disruption of the timetable, which would upset the reliability of the
            service. Tramlink is working with TfL to try and find a solution.

         1.4 Bingham Road/ Lower Addiscombe Road tram crossing – It was reported
             that there still seems to be a problem with the traffic lights which can
             cause unnecessary delay. Tramlink would check this out to ensure they
             are working properly.                Action Tramlink

         1.5 Bus Passes – Oyster cards need to be passed over the sensor at the tram
             stop. 80% of travelers have a pass of some form and therefore only a
             minority of passengers need to buy a ticket when travelling. Ticket
             inspectors do catch fare dodgers although these figures are fairly low. It is
             not felt that increasing the inspections would increase the rate of detection.

         1.6 Bus Priority Measures and how cost benefits are assessed and justification
             for 24/7 restriction on bus lane running from Purley Rise to Purley Knoll –
             it was felt that this impedes traffic wishing to turn left and causes
             congestion. TfL responded and explained how the cost benefits were
             calculated. In respect to the left turn, every scheme goes through a safety
             audit and these pick up any problems that may be evident from a safety
             point of view and these are addressed. Action TfL to provide a
             statement covering these points

022/04   Other Road Safety Matters

         1.1 Concern was expressed about vehicles stopping and blocking the junction
             of High Street/ Parchmore Road in Thornton Heath making it difficult for
             vehicles exiting from Parchmore Road. It was felt that this was only likely
             to happen occasionally and was not a significant problem. However, the
             whole junction including the timing of the lights, is subject to review.

         1.2 London Road User Forum – it was asked if the Forum supported this idea.
             It was suggested that the Mayor of London should be approached and if he
             asks Croydon for our view we will give it.

         1.3 A23, London Road, Thornton Heath, inadequate provision for
             pedestrians/wheelchair users near Lidi’s supermarket – it was pointed out
             that there is a zebra crossing to the south of this area. However, crossing
             provision would be investigated and answers provided.           Action TfL

         1.4 Gloucester Road/ Northcote Road junction – It was confirmed that there is
             no pedestrian push button at these lights which makes it extremely
             difficult for pedestrians and wheelchair users to cross especially now
             Tesco Express has opened. It was pointed out that any pedestrian phase
             here would cause severe disruption and delay to general traffic and buses.
             However, pedestrian facilities would be investigated and answers

            provided. TfL indicated that they were investigating a bus priority scheme
            as part of a road safety scheme for the traffic signals at this junction and
            would be consulting shortly. Action LBC/TfL

         1.5 Consultation papers referred to in the TfL report were available after the

         1.6 It was asked if an extension to the consultation time available for the
             proposed traffic calming in Tollers Lane could be given so that local
             consultation could be held.

         1.7 Those items that require written answers will be included in the minutes.

023/04   Times and Dates for future Meetings

         1.1 Request for paper 12.1 to be completed. It may be possible to put in some
             evening meetings if there is a demand. It may turn out that there will be a
             mixture of daytime and evening meetings in future. Actual dates will be
             included in the minutes.

            [After Note: The results of the questionnaire on times of meetings
            were 6 for Morning, 12 for afternoon and 9 for evening (this included
            those giving more than one alternative). It is therefore recommended
            that there should be one evening meeting and three afternoon
            meetings each year.]

         1.2 It is hoped that the minutes will be circulated within a couple of weeks of
             the meeting or as soon after that as possible. Answers to questions often
             have to come from others, which can then delay a written response being
             given in the minutes. Due to the lateness of the July meeting it was
             suggested that the next meeting should be early in October. This was
             agreed. It was suggested that an open-ended meeting would not be
             convenient. Apologies were given for the lack of refreshments, which
             although ordered, did not materialize.

         Written answers to those items under ‘Any Other Business’ not discussed
           at the meeting.

         12.3 Web site – page for CRUF minutes: This is proving to be more
              difficult than expected but it is still being worked on and will hopefully
              be resolved shortly.

         12.4 Priority restriction in Highfield Road: The traffic calming measures in
              Highfield Road, including the traffic throttle, were introduced in July
              1997 as part of the A23 Priority 'Red' Route scheme being developed by
              the Traffic Director for London (TDfL). Consultant’s acting for the

     TDfL identified Highfield Road as a route used by trunk road traffic
     avoiding delays on the A23 in Coulsdon and Purley and recommended
     that traffic calming measures should be introduced as a means to
     discourage main road traffic from using residential roads. When
     consulted the residents of Highfield Road and nearby Hillcrest Road, in
     Sutton, voted overwhelmingly in favour of the proposed action.

     In order for speed cushions to be lawfully introduced on Highfield Road
     it was necessary, at the time, to construct a slowing feature at the eastern
     end of Highfield Road in advance of the first set of cushions. This is
     because the signal controlled junction of Purley Way / Edgehill Road
     was not considered, in law, to provide the necessary reduction in vehicle
     speeds, particluarly when the traffic lights were green for motorists
     traversing Highfield Road from Edgehill Road. For this reason, a give-
     way system had to be introduced on Highfield Road in order to provide
     the necessary slowing feature and to ensure that the scheme complied
     with “The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1996. The give-way
     lines, built into the throttle, had to be in advance of the first set of speed
     cushions for traffic approaching from the east so as to provide the
     necessary reduction in traffic speed.

12.5 Why there is no pedestrian phase at the junction of Coombe Road/
     High Street/ South End/ Lower Coombe Street: Response to this has
     been given directly to John Osborne.

12.6 Street Lighting: A comprehensive answer has been provided by the
     Street Lighting Engineer to Mr Buckley.

12.7 Coombe Road /Park Hill junction – proposals to experiment with
     one-lane entry at mini-roundabout – can reasoning be explained:
     Concerns have been raised in many quarters over the last 3 to 4 years
     about the distinct lack of pedestrian crossing facilities in Coombe Road
     between the junctions of Park Hill Road and South Park Hill Road.
     Some time back the westbound carriageway was reduced from two lane
     to single lane to aid pedestrian crossing movements by reducing the
     crossing width to the traffic island. Despite this being done there is still
     lobbying from local residents, the local MP and Ward Members for
     Croham for further improvements to be made for pedestrians on this
     stretch of road. In an effort to address the concerns the Cabinet Member
     for Environmental Services, as was, agreed that the feasibility of
     reducing the eastbound carriageway to single lane would be looked into.
     This decision was taken after ruling out the possibility of siting a formal
     pedestrian crossing at safe/reasonably close locations within / on either
     side of these two junctions or providing a fully signalised junction with
     an “all red” pedestrian stage built in. Officers will be looking to seek
     approval from the Traffic Management Cabinet Committee shortly to

     introduce the experiment thus allowing the impact of such a scheme to
     be properly assessed and monitored by officers.

The dates and times of the next three meetings plus a provisional date for
   July 2005 all in the Council Chamber are as below:

Monday 18th October 2004 2.00pm – 4.30pm.
Monday 17th January 2005 2.00pm – 4.30pm.
Monday 11th April 2005 2.00pm – 4.30pm.
Monday 11th July 2005 6.00pm – 8.30pm. (Provisional)


Shared By: