100K funding for Wightman Road

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by matt on June 28, 2009 at 20:23

At current three controlled pedestrian crossing points we need raised tables and (I forget the technical term) gritted approaches either side. They I think cost about 20G each so maybe money for another controlled crossing point on the hill near Hewitt Rd (?).

Thanks Karen

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on June 29, 2009 at 20:32

Anti-skid surfacing was laid at crossings on Wightman some time ago - a year? 18 months ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alison P on June 28, 2009 at 21:27

There were a number of posts about this a few months back - the most relevant one is here. Particular points of contention were speed humps and the traffic islands. Personally I would like to see another controlled crossing near where Matt suggests, or perhaps a little further south towards Pemberton. But I'd sacrifice that for something that really does slow the traffic down in a controlled way... Whether that can be done on the budget I don't know ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on June 28, 2009 at 22:14

Please, no speed bump / table at the crossing by Hampden Road. It would shake our building to bits.

£!00 K should pay for a couple of cops for a year to be permanently assigned to enforce speed limits and respect for traffic lights.

If the money HAS to be spent on gadgets let's have a couple of speed cameras at the crossings where they can also nab people running the lights.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on June 29, 2009 at 11:55

John: you're right to be worried about the shaking effect on buildings.

I've got a "table" outside where I live and its on the W5 bus route. I'm worried about the effect of frequent shaking.

Wightman Road may one day have to carry fully laden trucks coming out of the new concrete batching plant. I'm talking up to 38 tonnes on just four axles. These may cause damage even without speed tables.

With speed tables or humps, we can only guess at the effect on close by buildings.

I'm in favour of speed calming measures, but why are these always humps and bumps? What would the master road builders, the Romans have thought?

Why not road narrowing or pinching as a means of reducing excessive speed?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on June 29, 2009 at 12:21

I have a speed hump outside my house and the noise from smaller vehicles with unsecured loads (tradesmen in the morning) is awful too.

I think Clive is onto something, we need to get some kind of pinching/narrowing in before these monster trucks start using the road, they're much bigger and heavier than the W1 bus will be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TTTH on July 24, 2009 at 10:56

I agree with John Mc ideas, there are more inventive ways of slowing traffic than speed bumps (which apparently are out of favour now due to affects on emergency services vehicles like Ambulances). Traffic islands, pinch points and home zones are some ideas to slow traffic that could be used on Wightman Road. Any good local authority should have a public consultation to discuss these types of proposals

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on June 28, 2009 at 22:52

Part of the reasoning behind our (i.e WRN4RA's) push for a new controlled crossing between Mattison & Pemberton junctions has been to serve the pupils/parents of SHS and the worshippers at St Augustine's on Mattison, in much the same way as the three existing crossings serve NHS on Falkland, the Train stations, St Paul's, St John's and the Mosque.

The raised tables and non-skid approaches, mentioned by Matt, would certainly be good at all four controlled crossings.

Eventually, with our 20mph limit, cameras in the vicinity of all crossings would make WR safer for all of us - and more amenable to the smooth running of the W1 Bus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by WightmanPaul on June 29, 2009 at 12:01

It is very positive that Highways are mindful of the views of the elected representatives and - by implication - the residents. I am concerned, however, that we do not lose sight of the aim which I believe is the core of people's concerns. That is to make the street safer and more civilised. I would caution against us becoming too embroiled in suggesting our own technical solutions given that few of us are traffic engineers or have knowledge of costs. It seems to me that we should be asking the Council to produce costed plans which address our concerns and that the discussion at this stage should centre on establishing a concensus around those aims. It may be that £100k is not sufficient to fund such a plan and that future funding might need to be sought. I would hate to see us fobbed off with a poorly funded part solution and told, subsequently, 'well that's what you asked for!'.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on June 29, 2009 at 12:18

Good idea.

@Karen, can we have some alternatives for what 100K would get us in respect of making the road better for residents? Traffic calming, controlled crossings and some way of enforcing the controlled crossings (they are not enforced at the moment and are therefore VERY dangerous). e.g. How much does a controlled crossing cost?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Khadir Meer on July 7, 2009 at 15:05

I think this is the most sensible, strategic and sustainable approach. Can we not ask the Council to spend a portion on the 100k on scoping exercise that outlines various options that address the range of issues, (volume and speed of traffic, street scene, environmental improvements etc) and that provides us with a comprehensive plan for the road?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Caroline on June 29, 2009 at 13:41

Is the purpose of the money to slow the traffic, or to make the road more acceptable for pedestrians. They are not always the same thing. I know that I am being totally partisan here but the section of pavement from Jewsons to the railway bridge is impossible: the pavement is very uneven; the fence is collapsing which makes it difficult to get past the cars parked on the pavement; and a stream crosses the pavement just to the north of the bridge which makes it almost inevitable that you will get splashed by passing cars.
I fully support the need for an additional pedestrian crossing, and cameras on the exisiting pedestrian crossings would be nice (although probably too expensive) because, at the moment, people seem to speed up on amber.
I think that we should do everything we can to avoid speed humps and raised tables which only exacerbate the problems caused by heavy vehicles. Pinch points might be a good idea. The ones on Wolves Lane which give alternate priority seem to work well.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page