Character Area/Stretch
Stakeholder Problems & Issues
Stakeholder Possible Solutions
Opportunities
General
• Biodiversity and wildlife must be taken into account • Too many HGVs • European SPAs area - where NOx pollution - congested traffic -ordinary traffic will harm the heathland but there must be no road widening here • Excess Pollution • Traffic Congestion • Lighting too high - want darker skies • 20mph will increase emissions • Risk of too much lighting being installed - then faster speeds - (sodium lighting preferred) • Lights too close • Nowhere for foxes/cats to cross • Congestion • Image of the road • Native Trees- e.g - Oaks along A325 • Protect biodiversity - drains and kerbs for hedgehogs-reptiles-toads • Pollution zone – only one in East Hants exceeding EU limits • 30mph already but little enforcement • IRR is fundamental to any proposals - effect on surrounding area • Great increase in traffic in surrounding area • Separating further community • This rural area not urban • HCC are perennially bad at providing crossing facilities for NMUs (e.g. Frith End - I cannot reach the bus alongside the SDNP) • Too many traffic lights • Whatever facilities there are in W/B will affect users outside the town (e.g. NMUs will need to feel confident to use minor roads outside the town in order to reach it initially) • Upkeep of buildings facing the A325 need to be improved • Public transport stops are inadequate • If a town can be eco it needs to have very little traffic. • A325 kept open 2 way traffic • Bus stops could be better placed • Horses cross A325 at Whitehill x-roads from Forest Road – Pegasus crossing requested here and at Frith End • A325 causes community severance
• Department of Transport study found that creating avenues/ hedges/tree lines forced motorists to reduce their speed, because roadside greenery reduced their peripheral vision and helped to reduce average speeds. • Appropriate lighting needed – will encourage more safer and also careful driving by both improving and reducing sight distances depending on location • More appropriate lighting • Pedestrian Friendly • Different speed limits depending on time of day • Design principles – biodiversity/wildlife interests missing • No to 20mph but enforce 30mph • More trees less lighting • Reduce lighting (pollution) • Greater priority for E-W / W-E movement within town • Less signage • New public transport to include transport for disabled • There should be a scheme to take the traffic off the A325 and out of the village to the west of it (e.g. A31 to A3/M3) • Pegasus crossings requested at FP44, also Frith End, also Sleaford junction, also north fire station x-roads, Osney Lane- if the traffic is going slowly enough it should not cause tail end shunts • Land Bridges to cross A325 • Planting to dampen noise/pollution in more areas - native planting only - graded planting i.e. grasses/hedges/trees • IRR - A325 links other than N and S? • More underpasses
• gateway treatments; • tighter geometry; • reduced surface differentiations (e.g. lower or at points no kerbs; flush or near flush surfaces, mountable kerbs – particularly for parking and loading in certain sections); • visual narrowing; • reduced forward visibility or adjacent context-enhancing features; • intentional geometric ambiguity; • localised surface treatments; • informal courtesy crossings; • on-street cycle provision; • wide unsegregated and segregated pedestrian and cycle paths; • general de-cluttering, inclusive of removal of painted centrelines over certain sections of road; • low central median (to both narrow vehicular way and provide central refuge for crossing pedestrians); • carefully considered approach to edge design particularly in commercial/business areas (e.g. ladder-grid approach to pedestrian crossing arrangements where possible and appropriate)” • removal of signalised control where possible and sensible (chalet hill and station road); • horizontal displacement (like pinch points and simple road narrowing) where suitable and appropriate; and • vertical deflection measures where suitable (like extended speed tables).
Town Council Meeting • Problem with the sequencing of traffic lights at all junctions • T/L’s do not allow a ‘green wave’ for traffic travelling at the correct speed • Concern with the environmental impact of a 20mph speed limit • The trees need to be maintained and strengthened • Cyclists do not mix well with pedestrians • Reduced army presence should reduce the impact of lorries along A325 • Need to maintain local access for lorries • Need to reduce not increase street lighting
Town Council Meeting • We should use traffic lights to control the speed of progress along A325 • Use road surface treatment to differentiate the traffic and other priorities along A325 - but not until the IRR is open • Not keen on changing the priorities at existing junctions, at least until IRR open • Keen on roundabouts to interrupt speeding traffic • Less keen on signal controls and priority junctions that create stop start traffic conditions • Need cycle path along whole of A325 in WB • Either combine with traffic (which has been ‘calmed’) or provide a third lane with physical separation. • HGV’’’s should be made to use IRR • LED good for energy saving but not good for wildlife • Need to make sure that drainage is ‘friendly’ for wild life • create and not destroy habitat for reptiles/amphibians
Table 8.1: Consultation Responses from Workshop 1
A325 Urban Design and Traffic Management Study
99