A21 Route Treatment Project Feasibility Study Report

A21 Route Treatment Project

Feasibility Study Report

May 2016

Prepared for:

A21 Route Treatment Project Feasibility Study Report

@ Mouchel Consulting 2015



Page (ii)

Executive Summary

Highways England has commissioned Mouchel Consulting to undertake a feasibility

study of additional effective safety, accessibility and sustainability improvements that

will work with, and complement, the installation of Average Speed Enforcement

Cameras (ASEC), between Scotney Castle roundabout (south of Lamberhurst), and

Hastings (Baldslow) on the A21.

The A21 is an all-purpose trunk road serving as the main access route to Hastings

from London and the North. The route forms a north-south link between the M25 at

Junction 5 near Sevenoaks in West Kent and the Hastings Borough boundary on the

south coast in East Sussex. The northern section of the route between the M25 and

Lamberhurst is mostly dual carriageway.

This study concentrates on the A21 south of the Lamberhurst bypass, from Scotney

Castle roundabout to Baldslow. This 26km section of the route is a predominantly rural

single carriageway which is considered to be of poor quality. It serves a number of

villages and settlements in addition to forming part of the strategic road network. The

main settlements on the route have a high degree of direct frontage access and there

are also agricultural accesses throughout.

Conflict between strategic through traffic and local trips, combined with the below-

standard highway alignment, results in collision rates which are above the national

average for severity ratio. As the route is single carriageway, recovery time from

incidents is slow and this impacts on journey time reliability.

Pedestrian facilities are generally only provided in and on the approach to the more

built up village settlements and very little designated provision is available for Non-

Motorised Users (NMU’s) to cross the A21. With the exception of village locations,

there are generally no clearly identifiable footways serving bus stops, and a number

of the existing bus stops are not sign posted. The only cycle facilities within the study

area are at Scotney Castle Roundabout, and no specific equestrian facilities exist

within the highway boundary.

In the project brief, Highways England recognise that the A21 is a challenging route

due to its complexity and the need to treat the route issues holistically. There are no

easy blanket fixes and large scale projects have fallen short of the required economic

benefit threshold at value management workshops in the past. In addition to these



Page (iii)

challenges, the A21 runs through areas sensitive to environmental concerns including

the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, (AONB).

The project brief also states that the A21 has the worst personal injury collision record

on the trunk road network and there is an imperative to improve that using a variety of

measures. Currently Highways England has no major projects programmed for the

route and as such there is an urgent need to address the issues on-line.

The key aim of this desk based feasibility study is to propose consistent and strategic

measures to improve safety, accessibility and sustainability along this section of the

A21. This approach has been developed to compliment the planned installation of

average speed enforcement cameras and Managing Agent Contractor, Balfour Beatty

Mott MacDonald, (BBMMjv) safety and cycle facility improvement schemes. In addition

to these known schemes, this report identifies potential route wide measures and

specific treatments which may be considered and taken forward for outline design

development and assessment as future schemes.

It is intended that the combination of bespoke local schemes and consistent route

treatments (in areas such as signing and road markings) will create an operational

regime which is easily understood by road users, encourages compliance with speed

restrictions and therefore contributes to improvements in the road safety performance

of the A21.

In order to understand the route and develop our proposals, data collection, review

and analysis has been undertaken including a review of two reports detailing the

BBMMjv proposed safety and cycle facility improvement schemes. (See Section 1.3

and Chapter 3 for further details). Following the review of existing reports, analysis of

the most recent five years (2010-2014) of personal injury collision data for this section

of the A21 was undertaken from the STATS19 database and this is reported in the

A21 Collision Analysis Report, Mouchel Consulting, April 2016. (See Section 4.1 for

further details.)

Information on existing Non-Motorised User (NMU) facilities was sourced and collated

in the A21 Route Treatment, Lamberhurst to Hastings, NMU Context Report, Mouchel

Consulting, April 2016, which includes identification of NMU objectives. (See Section

5.1)

Stakeholders were also consulted through the Average Speed Enforcement Camera

(ASEC) Working Group.



Page (iv)

A21 route assessment workshops were then carried out. The first of these workshops

focused on the identification of proposals to improve safety along the route and the

second focused on NMU improvements. The workshops enabled the Mouchel project

team to better understand the route, the existing layout and constraints, and they

highlighted the current lack of route consistency.

Following the safety workshop a strategy for measures to improve consistency and

asset condition that would have positive safety benefits when applied for the entire

route was developed, and a tiered standardised safety treatment structure for both the

mainline and at junctions was developed. This tiered structure was then applied to

address the individual areas which were identified as requiring intervention during the

workshop. Chapter 4 of this report details our route safety proposals.

A similar route wide strategy was developed for measures to improve accessibility and

sustainability following the second workshop, and specific areas were also identified

for treatment. Chapter 5 of this report details the NMU proposals.

The main recommendations of this feasibility study include the following:

- Undertake a detailed network review and technical surveys for the full length

of the study area to identify and then implement measures to improve

consistency and driver understanding of the route to encourage appropriate

driver behaviour. (E.g. signing, road markings, consolidation of street furniture,

coloured and high friction surfacing and visibility improvements.)

- Regularly undertake all maintenance treatments which are likely to have road

safety benefits (including replacing areas of worn road surfacing and road

markings, cleaning signs and cutting back vegetation which is obscuring

visibility and signing).

- As the dark collisions without street lighting are above the national average,

the installation of intelligent, or self-lit, road studs may be beneficial in some

locations and should be investigated further.

- Undertake a detailed review of direct vehicular access onto the A21 from

private properties and farms to determine whether any accesses can be

rationalised or relocated onto local roads.

- Consider a local road safety awareness campaign for the A21 targeted at both

motorised and non-motorised users.

- Consider further development of the proposals at identified safety treatment

sites in Section 4.4 of this report.



Page (v)

- Apply the standardised safety treatment structure for junctions and the

mainline carriageway at areas where collision numbers and severity require

intervention as a starting point to develop future improvement schemes.

- Undertake a network review and survey focussing on accessibility and

sustainability for the full length of the study area to identity opportunities to

locally improve NMU facilities and identify wider existing and predicted future

NMU usage patterns, including trip origins, key destinations and desire lines.

- Consult with User Groups and work in partnership with Local Authorities to

identify opportunities to provide new NMU facilities (to connect key

destinations, other NMU routes and public transport) as off carriageway routes,

outside the highway boundary where appropriate. Cycle facilities in particular

should be provided as off carriageway routes for safety reasons.

- Undertake specific reviews and surveys for the full length of the study area to

identify and then implement measures to improve NMU facilities (e.g. signing,

upgrading footways, consolidation of street furniture, upgrading access to bus

stops and bus stop facilities and NMU crossings.)

- Regularly undertake maintenance treatments to NMU facilities (including

replacing areas of worn surfacing and road markings, cleaning signs and

clearing vegetation growing over and obstructing footways and accesses to

public rights of way, or obstructing visibility at NMU crossings).

- Consider further development of proposals at identified NMU treatment sites

in Section 5.3 of this report.

- All improvement proposals progressed by others should be designed to ensure

that route consistency is maintained.

- Provision of facilities for NMU’s should be considered in any proposed

schemes which are being developed by others.

- If the schemes outlined in the BBMMjv Project Plan are not progressed, these

locations should be reviewed in the context of safety, accessibility and

sustainability.


Page (vi)

Contents

Document Control Sheet ......................................................................................... i

Executive Summary ................................................................................................ ii

Contents ................................................................................................................. vi

Figures ..................................................................................................................... vii

Tables ...................................................................................................................... vii

1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project History .................................................................................................. 6

1.2 The need for the study ..................................................................................... 7

1.3 Project Scope ................................................................................................... 7

2 Methodology ................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Data Collection, Review and Analysis .............................................................. 9

2.2 Stakeholder Consultation ............................................................................... 10

2.3 Route Assessment ......................................................................................... 12

3 Managing Agent Contractor Proposed Schemes ...................................... 13

3.1 Programmed Speed Limit Revisions .............................................................. 13

3.2 Safety Improvement Schemes ....................................................................... 14

3.3 A21 Cycle Facility Improvement Study ........................................................... 17

4 Route Safety Proposals ............................................................................... 20

4.1 Collision Assessment Summary ..................................................................... 20

4.2 Safety Treatment Scope ................................................................................. 23

4.3 Standardised Treatments ............................................................................... 27


Page (vii)

4.4 Identified Treatment Sites .............................................................................. 37

5 Non-Motorised User Proposals ................................................................... 51

5.1 Non-Motorised Users Context ........................................................................ 51

5.2 Non-Motorised User Treatment Scope ........................................................... 53

5.3 Identified Treatment Sites .............................................................................. 56

6 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 59

Appendix A ............................................................................................................ 62

Figures

Figure 1: A21 Route Treatment, Feasibility Study Location. ...................................... 2

Figure 2: A21 Route Treatment, Feasibility Study Extents. ........................................ 3

Figure 3: Showing Highways England A21 Complementary Measures.................... 11

Tables

Table 1: Posted Speed Limits on the A21, information provided by Highways England

........................................................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Total Collision Summary within the Study Area against National Average,

from 2010 – 2014. ............................................................................................ 21

Table 3: STATS19 Contributory Factors with Description ........................................ 22



Page 1

1 Introduction

Highways England has commissioned Mouchel Consulting to undertake a feasibility

study of additional effective safety, accessibility and sustainability improvements that

will work with, and complement the installation of Average Speed Enforcement

Cameras (ASEC), between Scotney Castle roundabout (south of Lamberhurst), and

Hastings (Baldslow) on the A21. Detailed design of the ASEC system is currently also

being delivered by Mouchel Consulting.

The key aims of the A21 route treatments, when implemented, will be to:

- effect significantly improved compliance with speed restrictions,

- improve driver behaviours,

- improve accessibility,

- provide facilities for sustainable transport measures for residents living in the

villages along the A21, and

- adhere to environmental legislation and ensure improvements are sensitive to

environment issues and concerns.

The A21 is an all-purpose trunk road serving as the main access route to Hastings

from London and the North. The route forms a north-south link between the M25 at

Junction 5 near Sevenoaks in West Kent and the Hastings Borough boundary on the

south coast in East Sussex. The northern section of the route between the M25 and

Lamberhurst is mostly dual carriageway. However, south of the Lamberhurst bypass

the route is single carriageway which is considered to be generally of poor quality.

This study concentrates on the 26km section of the A21 from Scotney Castle

roundabout (south of the Lamberhurst Bypass) to Hastings (Baldslow) as shown on

Figure 1 below. The northern section of the route, between Scotney Castle roundabout

and Flimwell, is located in Kent. The remaining 22km (approx.) of the route, to

Baldslow, is in East Sussex.



Page 2

Figure 1: A21 Route Treatment, Feasibility Study Location.



Page 3

The route is largely rural in nature. It passes through the High Weald Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and serves the settlements of Flimwell,

Swiftsden, Hurst Green, Silver Hill, Northbridge Street, Robertsbridge, John’s Cross,

Vinehall Street, Whatlington/Woodman’s Green, Sedlescombe and Kent Street.

Figure 2 shows the extents of the study area.

Figure 2: A21 Route Treatment, Feasibility Study Extents.



Page 4

Throughout the study area, the A21 comprises single 2-way (S2) carriageway. The

section of the route that bypasses Robertsbridge is wide single (WS2) carriageway.

There was a short section of dual carriageway (D2AP) to the north of Flimwell.

However, this has been narrowed to single carriageway in both directions using

carriageway markings and hazard marker posts, with the central reserve retained. The

Average Speed Camera Study, May 2015, report prepared by the Area 4 Managing

Agent Contractor, Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald (BBMMjv) states that the typical

carriageway cross-section is frequently limited to a width of 3.5m in each direction and

in some locations there are no edge lines.

The alignment of the A21 consists of numerous bends and crests, and this, together

with narrow verges and overhanging vegetation, limits the forward visibility at various

locations on the route.

The main settlements on the route have a high degree of direct frontage access for

residential, commercial and retail properties as well as community facilities and

schools, all with associated pedestrian and vehicle activity. There are also agricultural

accesses throughout. Alignment of adjoining roads to the A21 are largely sinuous in

nature, and there is high frequency of splayed junctions.

For the most part the A21 is unlit, however there are discrete sections where the

carriageway is lit with high pressure sodium lighting. This is concentrated at major

junctions and roundabouts.

There are a range of posted speed limits in place along the route, from 30 mph to 60

mph or National Speed Limit. Proposals to implement further speed restrictions are

being progressed separately by others. It is assumed that the speed restriction

proposals will be implemented before these route treatment proposals are delivered.

Table 1 below indicates the proposed speed restrictions along the route, and they are

also shown on the A21 Feasibility Study Drawings, HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-

100-01 to 07 in Appendix A.



Page 5

LOCATION: SPEED RESTRICTION:

SCOTNEY CASTLE TO FLIMWELL 60mph

FLIMWELL 40mph

FLIMWELL TO SWIFTSDEN 60mph

SWIFTSDEN 50mph

HURST GREEN 30mph

SILVER HILL VILLAGE 40mph

SILVER HILL TO NORTHBRIDGE STREET 50mph

NORTHBRIDGE STREET 40mph

NORTHBRIDGE STREET TO JOHN'S CROSS 60mph

JOHN'S CROSS 30mph

VINEHALL STREET 50mph

WHATLINGTON / WOODMANS GREEN 40mph

SEDLESCOMBE (MARLEY LANE STRAIGHT) 60mph

SEDLESCOMBE TO KENT STREET 50mph

KENT STREET 50mph

KENT STREET TO BALDSLOW 50mph

Table 1: Posted Speed Limits on the A21, information provided by Highways England

Pedestrian facilities are generally only provided in and on the approach to the more

built up village settlements. Footway facilities vary and are inconsistent along the route

and very little designated provision is available for pedestrians to cross the A21. With

the exception of village locations, there are generally no clearly identifiable footways

serving bus stops, and a number of the existing bus stops are not sign posted. The

only cycle lane facilities within the study area are at Scotney Castle Roundabout, and

no specific equestrian facilities exist within the highway boundary.



Page 6

1.1 Project History

The A21 from Lamberhurst to Hastings has been considered in studies aimed at

improving route management, and more recently the identification of investment needs

on the strategic road network, including the A21 London to Hastings, Route Management

Strategy, March 2004 and the South Coast Central Route Strategy Evidence Report,

April 2014.

The Area 4 Managing Agent Contractor has also formed a project strategy to deliver a

number of road safety improvement schemes by the end of 2017. This is outlined in the

BBMMjv report Project Plan: A21 Safety Improvements and Average Speed Cameras

(ASC), September 2014. Background information on these schemes and what the

proposals include are discussed within Chapter 3 of this study.

The schemes include the proposed installation of an Average Speed Enforcement

Camera system. BBMMjv prepared the outline design for this system and identified

the principal constraints to further scheme development. This information is presented

in the BBMMjv report A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings, Average Speed Camera Study,

May 2015. Mouchel Consulting is in the process of preparing a detailed design for the

scheme.

In the project brief, Highways England recognise that the A21 is a challenging route,

due to its complexity and the need to treat the routes issues holistically. There are no

easy blanket fixes for the route and large scale projects have fallen short of the

required economic benefit threshold at value management workshops in the past. In

addition to these challenges, the A21 runs through areas sensitive to environmental

concerns including an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, (AONB).

The South Coast Central Route Strategy Evidence Report states that input from

stakeholder and road user groups linked to the route has been used to inform the

development of the report. Within this report key challenges and opportunities have

been identified as follows:

• Sections of the A21 are seen by stakeholders as not “fit for purpose” (as part

of the Strategic Road Network).

• Non-motorised user (NMU) issues have been identified by a number of

stakeholders; with concerns focusing on the expectation of being able to

cross the A21, and on community severance.



Page 7

1.2 The need for the study

The Highways England project brief states that the A21 has the worst personal injury

collision record on the trunk road network and there is an imperative to improve that

using a variety of measures. Currently Highways England has no major projects

programmed for the route and as such there is an urgent need to address the issues

on-line.

Information provided by Highways England, and studies carried out by the Area 4

Managing Agent Contractor, BBMMjv identify the route to be of poor quality overall.

The character of the route is one which allows road users very little margin for error,

even for the most minor of mistakes or misjudgements. The A21 is a vital link to the

strategic road network for commuter towns on the south coast including Hastings and

Bexhill. Conflict between strategic and local traffic has added to safety and capacity

issues on the route. However, as stated in the South Coast Central Route Strategy

Evidence Report, the route suffers from limited investment as even though capacity

issues are experienced during peak periods, traffic flows are lower than on other

sections of the strategic road network.

Villages are poorly served by the route for non-motorised user’s movements and

accessibility is considered to be difficult throughout. Frustration for strategic

north/south traffic is high, there are limited opportunities for overtaking and there is a

diverse mix of traffic types using the route, including agricultural vehicles.

The congested nature of adjacent roads, together with the limited scope for traffic

divergence onto alternative routes, means that small incidents on the network can

rapidly escalate into major congestion problems and delays. Issues such as these

result in a poor quality service for users leading to customer dis-satisfaction.

1.3 Project Scope

The key aim of this feasibility study is to propose consistent and strategic measures

to improve safety, accessibility and sustainability along the A21 between Scotney

Castle roundabout (south of Lamberhurst) and Hastings (Baldslow). This approach

has been developed to compliment the planned A21 Average Speed Enforcement

Camera and BBMMjv Safety Improvement schemes. In addition to these known

schemes, this report identifies potential route wide measures and specific treatments

which may be considered and taken forward for outline design development and

assessment as future schemes.



Page 8

It is intended that the combination of bespoke local schemes and consistent route

treatments (in areas such as signing and road markings) will create an operational

regime which is easily understood by road users, encourages compliance with speed

restrictions and therefore contributes to improvements in the road safety performance

of the A21.

This study has considered, amongst other information, the following route proposals:

- BBMMjv, A21 Safety Improvements schemes (outlined in the report Project

Plan: A21 Safety Improvements and Average Speed Cameras (ASC),

September 2014).

- The recommendations of the BBMMjv A21 Cycle Facility Improvement Study,

March 2011.

- Detailed Design for the provision of Average Speed Enforcement Cameras

(ASEC).

- Changes to existing speed limits, which have been agreed and are being

implemented by others (as shown in Table 1).

We are aware that some schemes have been further developed by BBMMjv (or others

including URS), however information on these proposals could not be obtained during

the Feasibility Study period. We have therefore baselined all information regarding

existing known schemes to the data available in the reports listed above. As the full

current status of these schemes remains unclear, this study does not review, further

develop or assess the improvement schemes proposed by others, or consider further

changes to posted speed limits along the route.

Information from the following reports, prepared by Mouchel Consulting as part of this

project, has been used in the development of potential route treatments:

- A21 Collision Analysis, Mouchel Consulting 2016.

- A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings NMU Context Report, Mouchel Consulting 2016.

In accordance with the project brief, the focus of this study has been on identifying

measures to improve safety, accessibility and sustainability. We have not investigated

wider considerations such as network capacity, journey time reliability, economy and

environmental constraints. These criteria will need to be considered if any proposed

improvement schemes are to be taken forward to the next stages of design

development.



Page 9

2 Methodology

This feasibility report has been compiled to record the outcome of the desk based

study of safety, accessibility and sustainability improvements that will work with and

complement the installation of Average Speed Enforcement Cameras (ASEC) on the

A21 between Scotney Castle roundabout (south of Lamberhurst) and Hastings

(Baldslow).

Site surveys have not been undertaken for the purpose of the Feasibility Study as

surveys are considered more appropriate for subsequent stages of development.

However, a drive-through survey has been undertaken and the footage from it has

been reviewed and considered in the study. Google Earth and Streetview have also

been utilised in the development of route wide and site specific proposals.

2.1 Data Collection, Review and Analysis

As outlined in Section 1.1, the A21 has in recent years been considered in several

route reviews and studies. Our feasibility study commenced with a review of the

reports provided to us by the Highways England Project Sponsor and the Area 4

Managing Agent Contractor, BBMMjv to enable us to understand the key challenges,

opportunities and constraints of the route and improvement schemes which have

already been proposed. The reports we have reviewed are listed as follows:

(i) A21 London to Hastings, Route Management Strategy, Volume 1&2 – Report, March 2004;

(ii) South Coast Central Route Strategy Evidence Report, April 2014;

(iii) Project Plan: A21 Safety Improvements and Average Speed Cameras (ASC), September 2014 (BBMMjv);

(iv) A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings Average Speed Camera Study, May 2015 (BBMMjv);

(v) A21 Cycle Facility Improvement Study, March 2011 (BBMMjv);

As discussed in Section 1.3, we are aware that some of the improvement schemes

proposed in the BBMMjv Project Plan have been further developed by BBMMjv (or

others) and we assume this is also the case for the recommendations of the A21 Cycle

Facility Improvement Study. Further information on these proposals could not be

obtained during the feasibility study period so we have baselined the schemes and

recommendations to the data included in the BBMMjv reports. It is therefore assumed

that all projects listed within the BBMMjv Project Plan will be implemented before the



Page 10

end of 2017. The scope of the BBMMjv improvement schemes have been summarised

in Chapter 3 of this document.

Following the review of existing reports, the most recent five years (2010-2014) of

personal injury collision data on the A21 from the STATS19 database was obtained

from BBMMjv. A collision analysis was undertaken and this is reported in the A21

Collision Analysis Report, Mouchel Consulting, April 2016. (See Section 4.1 for further

details.)

Information on existing Non-Motorised User (NMU) facilities was sourced and collated

in the A21 Route Treatment, Lamberhurst to Hastings, NMU Context Report, Mouchel

Consulting, April 2016, which includes identification of NMU objectives.

Plans showing the boundaries of land currently owned by Highways England

alongside the A21 were received from the Project Sponsor.

2.2 Stakeholder Consultation

An Average Speed Enforcement Camera (ASEC) Working Group has been set up for

the A21 Route Treatment project. This group meets monthly and consists of

representatives from the following organisations:

- Highways England

- Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald BBMMjv

- Sussex Police

- Sussex Safer Roads Partnership

- East Sussex County Council

- Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership

- Kent County Council

- Mouchel Consulting

During a presentation to the group at the February meeting, Mouchel Consulting

requested that the attendees contribute ideas on safety, accessibility and sustainability

measures which would work with and compliment the ASEC. Some of the proposed

schemes from the BBMMjv Project Plan report were listed as examples. The slide from

the presentation is shown below:



Page 11

Figure 3: Showing Highways England A21 Complementary Measures

It was stressed that we were not only interested in civils-type interventions, but also

suggestions for general improvements such as renewal of white lining and mobile

variable message signs.

Feedback was received from Sussex Police who suggested that, as a minimum, a full

run of the A21 should be undertaken to ensure that all lines and signs are in a good

state of repair, lines are refreshed, signs are cleaned and vegetation is cut back. The

Police also identified the that BBMMjv A229 Coopers Corner roundabout proposals

and improvements to the A265 junction in the centre of Hurst Green, in the form of

either a mini roundabout or a signalised junction, should be considered further.

Correspondence between Highways England and local residents has also been

passed to Mouchel Consulting by the Highways England Project Sponsor. This

included suggestions for improved signing at the Woodman’s Green bend and junction

with Whatlington Road (dated April 2015), an update of safety measures being

implemented at the Woodman’s Green bend and further safety measures which are

being considered at this location, including ASEC (dated February 2014), and a trial

of Type 2 ribbed centrelines, providing this does not pose an unacceptable risk to

motorcycles (dated April 2014).



Page 12

2.3 Route Assessment

A21 route assessment workshops were then carried out in two stages, each lasting a

day. The first of these workshops focused on the identification of proposals to improve

safety along the route. The feedback received from Stakeholders was considered and

drawings for the full length of the study area showing collision data, NMU facilities,

proposed ASEC camera locations, speed limits, Highways England land ownership,

Annual Average Daily Flow (AADF) traffic volumes (where available), and the

proposed BBMMjv schemes were reviewed alongside Google Earth, Streetview and a

spreadsheet containing detailed information on collisions. After identifying potential

causes to collision hotspots, improvements were suggested. These improvements

were then developed further post workshop.

The second workshop focused on the accessibility and sustainability issues along the

route. The Mouchel Consulting project team concentrated on the information and

objectives presented in the NMU Context Report. The drawings from this report,

marked up to include the proposed speed limits, BBMMjv Project Plan schemes and

BBMMjv A21 Cycle Facility Improvement Study recommendations, were reviewed

alongside Google Earth and Streetview. We assessed the route for potential

improvements to NMU facilities, community severance and promoting sustainable

travel.

Each workshop involved the Mouchel Consulting project manager and members of the

study team, and the A21 within the study area was reviewed in its entirety. The

workshops enabled the team to better understand the route, the existing layout and

constraints, and they highlighted the current lack of route consistency.

Following the safety workshop a strategy for measures to improve consistency and

asset condition that would have positive safety benefits when applied for the entire

route was developed, and a tiered standardised safety treatment structure for both the

mainline and at junctions was also developed. This tiered structure was then applied

to address the individual areas which were identified as requiring intervention during

the workshop. Chapter 4 of this report details our route safety proposals.

A similar route wide strategy was developed for measures to improve accessibility and

sustainability following the second workshop, and specific areas were also identified

for treatment. Chapter 5 of this report details the accessibility and sustainability

proposals.



Page 13

3 Managing Agent Contractor Proposed Schemes

As outlined in Chapters 1 and 2, BBMMjv has produced a project plan proposing road

safety improvements for the A21, Project Plan: A21 Safety Improvements and Average

Speed Cameras (ASC), September 2014 (BBMMjv). The Project Plan states that

these proposed improvements are planned to be delivered over three years, from 2015

to 2017. With limited knowledge on the current status of these schemes, we have

assumed for the purposes of this study that all the planned schemes are to be

implemented by 2017.

The feasibility of providing cycle facilities on the A21 has also been investigated by

BBMMjv. The recommendations from this study are reported in the A21 Cycle Facility

Improvement Study, March 2011. The current status of the proposals are unknown.

3.1 Programmed Speed Limit Revisions

The BBMMjv Project Plan: A21 Safety Improvements and Average Speed Cameras

(ASC), September 2014, includes the following speed limit review works planned for

construction by March 2015:

- A new 50mph speed limit, from the existing 30mph gateway to the north of

Hurst Green, to include Coopers Corner (A229 junction) and the BP garages,

through to include the properties to the north of the junction with the B2099.

- An extension of the existing 40mph speed limit to the south of the village of

Woodman’s Green to include Stream Lane.

- An extension of the existing 50mph speed limit from Kent Street, to the north

of the B2244, to include the semi urban area situated to the north of Kent

Street.

The drawings appended to the Project Plan, 14-8327/010 and 11 also show the 50mph

speed limit extended from Kent Street to the Hastings boundary.

It has been confirmed by Highways England that speed restrictions along the route will

be in line with those listed in table 1 (Section 1).



Page 14

3.2 Safety Improvement Schemes

The following sub-sections summarise the proposed BBMMjv Project Plan schemes

by location. These proposals are also shown on the A21 Feasibility Study Drawings,

HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-01 to 07 in Appendix A.

3.2.1 Flimwell

The proposed treatment at Flimwell is to provide a new gateway north of the Forest

Edge Motel.

3.2.2 Garage at Ringden

The BBMMjv Project Plan drawings reference the Flimwell to Hastings cycle route at

this location. (The A21 Cycle Facility Improvement Study, March 2011, recommends

localised widening, including resurfacing of the footway between Flimwell and

Cooper’s Corner for use as a cycleway and provision of cyclist warning signs and

dropped kerbs at the car sales garage south of Flimwell at Ringden.)

3.2.3 B2099 Junction

It is proposed that the existing footway is extended and a pedestrian refuge is provided

at this junction.

3.2.4 Swiftsden

Swiftsden does not present a village environment to motorists. Proposals

recommended by BBMMjv to support a potential future reduction in speed limit to

40mph include upgrading the footway to a lit cycle track, enhanced signs, Vehicle

Activated Signs (VAS) and central traffic islands.

We understand that there are no plans to reduce the speed limit at Swiftsden until

speed reducing engineering measures have been implemented by Highways England

to the satisfaction of Sussex Police.

3.2.5 BP Garages North

Due the high frequency and severity of the collisions occurring over this section of the

route adjacent to two BP Garages, which are located on either side of the road,

BBMMjv has proposed an improvement scheme to improve the turning and pedestrian

crossing facility. In addition it is proposed to upgrade the existing footway in the

southbound verge to a cycle track. Street lighting and new VAS are also proposed

through this section.



Page 15

3.2.6 Coopers Corner (Merriments Gardens)

Proposed junction improvements at Coopers Corner include the provision of a new

roundabout. The BBMMjv report states that this would help to balance the flow of cross

country traffic at peak times, to improve NMU facilities and aid calming the speed of

traffic flow south towards Hurst Green and north towards Swiftsden.

Options that have been considered by BBMMjv include single lane dualling, traffic

signals and a roundabout. These options were presented to the residents of Hurst

Green who provided feedback in favor of a roundabout. Additional benefits anticipated

by the residents were improved access to the A21 allowing safer maneuvers in and

out of their properties.

3.2.7 Hurst Green North 30mph Gateway

A new village gateway is proposed north of Hurst Green.

3.2.8 Hurst Green (Station Road) Proposed Mini Roundabout

BBMMjv propose to improve the junction of the A21 with the A265 in the centre of

Hurst Green. The aim of this scheme is to alleviate congestion at peak times, and to

improve the interaction between the East Sussex County Council and Highways

England networks. BBMMjv state that the proposals are welcomed by residents in

Hurst Green, and an additional benefit for the village is that a mini roundabout would

act as a throttle to the traffic flow, assisting the turning movements of larger vehicles

and slowing the traffic within the village.

3.2.9 Silver Hill Gateway

Just south of the Beech House Lane junction in Silver Hill, BBMMjv has proposed to

construct a new village gateway. In addition it is planned to install new VAS.

3.2.10 Robertsbridge South Gateway

A new village gateway is proposed south of John’s Cross Road.

3.2.11 Vinehall Street N Terminal

The BBMMjv Project Plan drawings reference a proposed cycle track from Vinehall

Street to Whatlington.

3.2.12 B2089 Junction Vinehall Corner

Junction improvements have been proposed by a landowner at the junctions of the

B2089 and B2090 with the A21. The Landowner is willing to provide East Sussex

County Council (ESCC) with the land to construct a single junction to current standards



Page 16

in a more suitable location, to replace the existing two junctions. When the BBMMjv

Project Plan was produced this scheme was in the early stages of pre development.

This is expected to be a Developer/Local Authority lead scheme.

3.2.13 Woodman’s Green Bend and Pub

Woodman’s Green bend is a collision hotspot. BBMMjv has proposed a new village

gateway showing speed limits and VAS on the approach to the junction of the A21

with Stream Lane to the south. A new footway is proposed between the Royal Oak

Pub northwards to the B2089 junction, and the existing footway to Vinehall School is

to be upgraded. Street lighting is also proposed.

3.2.14 Whatlington South Nameplate

A new gateway is to be installed south of Stream Lane for the extended 40mph speed

limit.

3.2.15 B2244 Tollgate Road Junction

The BBMMjv Project Plan states that this junction has been subject to minor

improvements which have reduced collisions, but locally the impression remains that

the junction layout is inherently unsafe. A nearby commercial development offers

scope to finance the conversion of this junction to a roundabout and enhance non-

motorised user facilities. When the BBMMjv Project Plan was produced this scheme

was in the early stages of pre-development.

3.2.16 Sedlescombe Golf Club

BBMMjv propose NMU improvements adjacent to Sedlescombe Golf Club, including

extending the existing footway to a new proposed crossing opposite the golf course.

3.2.17 Kent Street North Gateway

Kent Street has no footway and poor bus facilities. A new village gateway is proposed

together with street lighting through the village and changes to existing VAS and the

addition of new VAS. In addition BBMMjv has proposed a footpath on private land to

serve dwellings.

3.2.18 Bluemans Lane

Improvements are proposed to the bus stops at the Bluemans Lane junction together

with a pedestrian crossing.



Page 17

3.2.19 Kent Street South Gateway

To coincide with the new gateway north of Kent Street, a gateway has been proposed

for the south and the 50mph speed limit is to be extended to the Hastings boundary.

A new cycle track is also proposed through the village. BBMMjv has stated that the

Kent Street proposals are intended to create a built-up environment, both as a visual

message to motorists and to assist NMU’s, to support a potential future reduction in

speed limit to 40mph through the settlement.

We understand that there are no plans to reduce the speed limit at Kent Street until

speed reducing engineering measures have been implemented by Highways England

to the satisfaction of Sussex Police.

3.2.20 A28 Junction (Hastings)

Major improvements are proposed to the junction of the A21 with the A28 and A2100

to link in with East Sussex County Council planned improvements and the extension

of the Hastings to Bexhill Link Road. The BBMMjv Project Plan states that this is to

improve the functionality and reliability of the junction and to pre-empt the increase to

the already difficult congestion issues experienced on the local road network.

The BBMMjv Project Plan also states that it is intended to install technology based

measures that will be complimentary to the installation of ASEC’s including variable

message signs and CCTV.

3.3 A21 Cycle Facility Improvement Study

The study area for the BBMMjv A21 cycle facility improvement study extended from

the junction 5 of the M25 to Hastings. The route was divided into a total of eleven

sections based on carriageway characteristics. Sections 6 to 11 of the BBMMjv report

fall within the boundaries of our study area. The extents of these sections and the

recommendations proposed by BBMMjv are listed below.

These recommendations are also shown on the A21 Feasibility Study Drawings,

HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-01 to 07 in Appendix A.

3.3.1 Section 6: Scotney Castle to T&J Motel

(i) Realignment of the dropped kerbs on the eastern side of Scotney Castle

roundabout;

(ii) Provide cyclist warning signs on the A21 approach to Scotney Castle

roundabout and on the Furnace Lane approach;



Page 18

(iii) Further investigations to establish whether extending the shared use path

from Scotney Castle roundabout to Bewlbridge Lane is feasible;

(iv) Introduce signs to direct cyclists onto Bewlbridge Lane and around Bewl

Water, and

(v) Liaise with Southern Water, Kent County Council and East Sussex County

Council with regards to the use of Local Authority and private roads and

routes around Bewl Water.

3.3.2 Section 7: T&J Motel to Flimwell

(i) The report did not recommend any cycle facilities for Section 7 due to the

existing highway layout constraints and safety considerations.

3.3.3 Section 8: North Flimwell to Cooper’s Corner

(i) Liaise with East Sussex County Council regarding an alternative route to

Bedgebury Forest;

(ii) Provide cyclist warning signs near the Forest Edge Motel;

(iii) Liaise with Flimwell residents regarding parking on the verge (near Forest

Edge Motel);

(iv) Provide a cyclist dismount sign at the signalised junction with the B2987 in

Flimwell;

(v) Provide cyclist warning signs and dropped kerbs at the car sales garage

south of Flimwell at Ringden, and

(vi) Localised widening, including resurfacing of the footway between Flimwell

and Cooper’s Corner for use as a cycleway.

3.3.4 Section 9: Cooper’s Corner to Silver Hill

(i) Sign for cyclists to cycle on the road (A21) between Cooper’s Corner and

Beech House Lane, Silver Hill, and

(ii) Provide cyclist warning signs on the main carriageway.

3.3.5 Section 10: Silver Hill to Robertsbridge

(i) Liaise with East Sussex County Council regarding the provision of an

alternative route between Silver Hill and Robertsbridge via quiet lanes,

pending the completion of a safety study, and

(ii) Provide a cyclist dismount sign on the footpath between Rotherview and

the A21.



Page 19

3.3.6 Section 11: Robertsbridge to Baldslow

(i) Liaise with East Sussex County Council regarding an alternative route and

signing through Robertsbridge, pending a safety review;

(ii) Provide cyclist warning signs on the A21 near the lay-bay south of

Robertsbridge;

(iii) Provide signs to direct cyclists along the Bridleway to Poppinghole Lane,

and

(iv) Liaise with ESCC regarding the alternative route and signing from

Poppinghole Lane to Baldslow, pending a safety review.



Page 20

4 Route Safety Proposals

The A21 has been described within the South Coast Central Route Strategy Evidence

Report, as not being fit for purpose as a strategic link between Hastings (south coast)

and the M25 (north). Between the A229, at Coopers Corner, and Hastings the A21 is

regarded as one of the highest risk roads on the UK’s Strategic Road Network in terms

of road safety. It was historically designated as one of the most dangerous busy road

routes nationally (EuroRAP risk rating 2006-2012).

The A21 not only forms part of the Strategic Road Network, it also performs a

significant local traffic function. This creates conflict between through traffic and local

trips, and the routes ability to provide for strategic traffic is undermined. This is

combined with below-standard highway alignment, resulting in collision rates which

are above the national average for severity ratio. As the route is single carriageway,

recovery time from incidents is slow and this impacts on journey time reliability.

Stakeholders consulted in the production of the South Coast Central Route Strategy

Evidence Report identified the main safety challenges for the A21 as the discontinuous

standard of the road (reducing from dual to poor quality single carriageway), a lack of

alternative routes for non-motorised users resulting in potential conflicts with vehicles

and severance impacts through urban areas. Stakeholders suggested various

measures which might improve the A21 road safety record. These included better

facilities for informing road users of network events / incidents, a review of NMU

facilities and offering training to frequent A21 users. There was also a view that a

more holistic strategic approach to the problem could be more successful than historic

local tactical measures.

4.1 Collision Assessment Summary

Mouchel Consulting has, in parallel to this study, undertaken a collision analysis of the

most recent five years (2010-2014) personal injury collision data on the A21. The data

has been provided from STATS19 in two sections, A21 Flimwell to Baldslow and the

A21 Sutton Scotney to East Sussex County Boundary. The report identifies trends of

collisions that are occurring across the A21 study area and offers a comparison to

national averages (Road Casualties Great Britain 2014). The key findings of this

analysis is summarised below. Greater detail and examination of the collision data is

available in the A21 Collision Analysis Report, Mouchel Consulting 2016.



Page 22

The months in which the collision frequencies are highest are listed below:

- February (21 collisions),

- July (27 collisions),

- September (25 collisions), and

- October (22 collisions).

Collisions are occurring in typical peak hours, with 11% in the morning peak, 16% at

lunchtime and 24% in the evening peak periods.

Junction manoeuvres make up 32% of the total collisions on the A21, with rear end

shunts making up 15% and loss of control making up 14%. Fatigue and alcohol related

collisions amounted to nearly 12% of the total collisions across the study area.

A total of 47% of all collisions occurred at junctions on the A21, with 97% of all junction

collisions occurring at a give-way or uncontrolled junction.

The majority of collisions occurred within sections of carriageway subject to a 60mph

speed limit.

4.1.2 STATS19 Contributory Factors 306 & 307

The STATS19 system, used by British police to collect data and record collision type

includes the contributory factor categories 306 and 307.

STATS19 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS

CATEGORY:

DESCRIPTION:

306 Exceeding speed limit. Driver/rider caused, or contributed to the

accident, by exceeding the posted speed limit.

307 Travelling too fast for conditions. Driver / rider was travelling within

the speed limit, but their speed was not appropriate for the road

conditions and /or vehicle type [including towing], and contributed

to the accident.

Table 3: STATS19 Contributory Factors with Description

It is important to note that it may be difficult for a police officer, attending the scene

after an accident has occurred, to identify certain factors that may have contributed to

a cause of an accident. The contributory factors are therefore different in nature from

the remainder of the STATS19 data which is based on the reporting of factual

information.



Page 23

4 serious and 5 slight collisions have been attributed the contributory factor of 306

making up 2.8% of the total collisions.

1 fatal, 3 serious and 4 slight collisions have been attributed to the contributory factor

of 307 making up 3.4% of the total collisions.

It should also be noted that codes 306 and 307 may have been used several times on

one collision, depending on the number of vehicles involved. Reporting of code 306

also depends on admission, and / or robust evidence, so it can be under-reported.

4.1.3 Fatal Collisions

Across the A21 study area a total of 11 fatal collisions occurred between 2010 and

2014. 4 collisions occurred when drivers lost control of their vehicles, 2 collisions

occurred due to manoeuvres at junctions, 2 collisions occurred due to fatigue, 1

collision occurred due to the driver being under the influence of alcohol and the final 2

involved a head-on collision and/or drifting.

4.2 Safety Treatment Scope

The A21 offers a complex problem regarding the proposal or application of any type

of online improvement scheme. In their Project Plan, BBMMjv reported that constraints

such as cost, journey time reliability and environment have impacted on the

justification of past improvement schemes. These factors have led to route

improvements being implemented in an ad-hoc fashion and as a result the A21 has

become inconsistent and ambiguous for road users when compared with similar roads.

The Project Plan also indicates that the route is difficult to compare with other

Highways England roads because of its specific local constraints. These combine to

create an environment where collision locations are sporadic and traditional

engineering methods alone are not sufficient to bring about the required safety

improvements.

ASEC has therefore been suggested as a measure to more effectively influence driver

behaviour. This, working in tandem with physical improvement works, is likely to be

more effective in reducing the frequency and severity of incidents which, regardless of

the unpredictability of their location, are always costly and disruptive.

This feasibility study identifies potential safety treatment options focused on improving

route consistency in order to improve driver familiarity and understanding of the route,

and to reinforce required driver behaviour. The treatments are intended to compliment



Page 24

the proposed BBMMjv road safety improvement schemes (see Chapter 3) and the

installation of ASEC.

The safety treatments Mouchel Consulting has developed have been based on the

following design standards and guidance:

(i) TA 85/01 Guidance on Minor Improvements to Existing Roads,

(ii) TA 87/04 Traffic Calming on Trunk Roads a Practical Guide,

(iii) TD 42/95 Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions,

(iv) TA 81/99 Coloured Surfacing in Road Layout (Excluding Traffic Calming)

(v) Traffic Signs Manual:

- Chapter 2 Directional Informatory Signs on Motorways and All Purpose

Roads,

- Chapter 3 Regulatory Signs,

- Chapter 4 Warning Signs,

- Chapter 5 Road Markings.

4.2.1 Entirety of Route

It is recommended that a detailed network review and technical survey is carried out

for the full length of the study area to identify measures which would improve route

consistency and encourage appropriate driver behaviour. Identified below are

particular areas that would benefit from a review and where consistency could improve

overall route safety:

(i) Informatory, Regulatory and Warning Signs, all fixed plate signing

should be consistent, clearly visible, and located in accordance with

current standards throughout. An example of an inconsistency in signing

is on the southbound approach to the Church Lane junction where there is

a non-standard advance direction sign. In addition there does not appear

to be a sign to warn of the junction ahead despite forward visibility to the

junction being restricted by trees and vegetation and warning signs being

provided at other junctions along the route.

The use of florescent yellow backing boards to fixed plate signs should

also be applied consistently, but only in locations where increased visibility

is needed, and where it is appropriate to the vista behind the sign (e.g. a

grey backing board would be more effective than a yellow one in front of a



Page 25

field with a yellow crop such as rapeseed on a route used by seasonal

tourist traffic, such as the A21).

The installation of Vehicle Activated Signs can be beneficial when clear

fixed plate signing hasn’t shown a safety improvement over a defined

period (up to 3 years) of monitoring. However, they should be used with

care as too many signs can have a diminished impact on drivers as they

become complacent to them. These signs also require maintenance which

increases road worker safety risk.

(ii) Street Furniture, removal of redundant assets, rationalisation and

consolidation of signing, to reduce sign clutter will reinforce a consistent

message, minimise driver uncertainty and will also reduce maintenance

costs. For example, Google Earth, Streetview and the drive through video

shows two gateways at Hurst Green, one located at either side of the

junction with the A229, Cooper’s Corner.

(iii) Road Markings, delineators, reflectors and road studs, ensuring a

consistent approach is maintained through the route will aid driver

familiarity and understanding of the road layout and it will reinforce required

behaviour. An example of an inconsistency is south of the junction with the

B2244 Tollgate Lane, where there are no edge markings on the section of

carriageway adjacent to Blackbrooks Garden Centre.

As the dark collisions without street lighting are above the national average

on this section of the A21, consistent provision of edge of carriageway lines

and also the installation of intelligent, or self-lit, road studs may be

beneficial.

(iv) Visibility Analysis, ensure appropriate forward visibility for the mainline

road speed is provided wherever possible at junctions, bends and crests.

This may require, cutting back vegetation to clear visibility splays at

junctions or bends, re-location of street furniture, localised vertical re-

profiling of dips, or landscape planting to restrict excessive forward visibility

on a bend.



Page 26

(v) Coloured and High Friction Surfacing, ensure that coloured and high

friction surfacing is applied consistently throughout the route, but only in

high risk areas in order to provide maximum effect and prevent driver

complacency.

The use of patches of coloured surfacing is proposed under road markings

at high risk locations and under hatched markings in the centre of the

carriageway at severe bends and through junctions where the layout

requires extra emphasis. This is inconsistent with the current application of

coloured surfacing at the bend at the Royal Oak Pub in Flimwell where red

surfacing is provided on the running lanes rather than under the central

hatched markings.

The use of buff coloured high friction surfacing can sometimes have a

detrimental effect as drivers see it as a ‘safe’ surface and may not reduce

their speed appropriately for the conditions, Where high friction surfacing

is needed, a grey/slate coloured variety could be considered and when the

carriageway is next due for resurfacing a new surface course with a PSV

of 68+ would negate the need for high friction surfacing.

The survey should also identify:

(i) Any physical indications of the potential for collisions to occur, such

as skid marks on the carriageway, damage to carriageway surfacing or

street furniture and over-running of verges. There is evidence of over

running on the southbound carriageway verge opposite the Rosemary

Lane junction, and skid marks on the carriageway on the northbound

approach to the junction with Marley Lane.

(ii) Locations where maintenance treatments would be beneficial to road

safety. Google Earth Streetview indicates that there are areas of worn

road surfacing and road markings, and signs which are obscured by dirt

and overhanging vegetation. Opportunities to incorporate some minor

safety improvement measures into maintenance schemes could also be

considered to reduce disruption and provide cost efficiencies.



Page 27

A detailed review of direct vehicular access onto the A21 from private properties and

farms would also be beneficial to determine whether any accesses can be combined

or relocated onto local roads.

The BBMMjv safety improvement proposals include provision for thematic gateways

for every village and settlement. As the speed restrictions through settlements are

different along the route, consideration could be given to providing slight variations to

the standard gateway treatment for each different speed, 30pmh, 40mph and 50mph,

to draw driver’s attention to the differences in speed restrictions and the need to drive

appropriately.

A local road safety awareness campaign for the A21 targeted at both motorised and

non-motorised users may also be beneficial.

4.3 Standardised Treatments

During a Mouchel Consulting safety treatments workshop (described in Section 2.3)

the STATS19 collision information along the A21 from Scotney Castle roundabout to

Baldslow was reviewed. Proposed measures to improve consistency throughout the

route (Section 4.3.1) and a tiered standardised treatment structure for both the

mainline (Section 4.3.2) and at junctions (Section 4.3.3) were developed. The system

forms a hierarchy, with each additional treatment level providing a greater degree of

intervention. Core measures have been identified for each tier and additional

measures have also been identified to emphasise and support the proposed core

treatment. It is intended that these additional measures are used at high risk areas

only to provide maximum effect. The additional measures have a common trend

running through each tier to promote route consistency by using similar improvement

measures at particular hazard locations, to reinforce the message to the driver on the

nature of the hazard.

We have identified locations that we consider would benefit from intervention through

analysis of the collision data, A21 Annual Average Daily Flow (AADF) traffic volumes

(where known), Google Earth / Streetview and a drive through video. At these hotspot

locations, we have proposed potential treatments from the hierarchy. These are

discussed in Section 4.4.

It should be noted that these treatments are concept proposals and further data

gathering (e.g. obtaining mainline and side road AADF’s at junctions), site surveys and

preliminary assessment of information will be required before the proposals can be



Page 28

confirmed and combined into scheme options for which outline design and

assessment can be progressed.

The alignment of the A21 has not been reviewed in detail as part of this study, but

potential treatments have been included in the mainline hierarchy to address any

issues identified with vertical alignment in subsequent stages of scheme development.



Page 37

4.4 Identified Treatment Sites

This section details locations identified for treatment based on clusters of collisions.

These locations have been shown alongside the proposed BBMMjv Safety

Improvement Schemes on drawings HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-01 to 07 in

Appendix A.

At each of the collision clusters we have proposed a level of treatment based on the

tiered hierarchy outlined in Section 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. It is intended that all core

measures for the relevant treatment are implemented and additional measures are

considered as appropriate. This study does not go into sufficient detail to identify where

it may be appropriate to implement all the additional measures suggested in the

treatment hierarchy. For example, we have not considered whether florescent yellow

backing boards to signs would be appropriate at each treatment location. This should

be undertaken during future stages of design development.

As outlined in Section 4.3, our proposals are possible improvements developed using

high level information. Further investigations should be undertaken at each location to

fully understand the existing problems, geometry, traffic volumes and movements and

constraints in order to identify options for proposed improvements.

4.4.1 Scotney Castle Roundabout

The A21 directly south of Scotney Castle Roundabout has experienced 7 collisions

based on the most recent 5 years (2010-2014) personal injury data. 4 out of these 7

collisions have been attributed to vehicles losing control when exiting the roundabout

onto the A21 to Flimwell.

North of the roundabout, the A21 (Lamberhurst bypass) is dual carriageway (D2AP).

However, south of the roundabout the route is single carriageway (S2) which is

considered to be generally of poor quality. The national speed limit applies.

The minor treatment measures listed below may be beneficial. However, In order to

fully treat the causes of collisions at this location, we recommend further investigation

and surveys to understand driver behaviour and determine vehicle movements and

speed on exiting the roundabout.



Page 38

� Tier 1 Junction Treatment: Signs, Lines and Markings

> Encourage discipline on A21 southbound exit arm by road markings

and hatching, using embossed markings between the carriageways to

give an audible warning of overrun.

> Addition of coloured surfacing under hatching to emphasise treatment.

4.4.2 Church Lane Junction

The junction between the A21 and Church Lane has been the site of 8 collisions

between 2010 and 2014, with the majority of collisions (6 out of 8) recorded as Rear

End Shunts (RES) of which 4 involved traffic waiting to turn or turning right.

The A21 through this section is national speed limit with narrow verges and trees and

vegetation creating a tunnel effect on the route. Visibility from Church Lane also

appears to be restricted by the vegetation.

A ghost island junction layout is proposed to remove the conflict between through

traffic and traffic waiting to turn right.

� Tier 2 Junction Treatment: Ghost Island Junction

> Coloured surfacing under hatched markings to emphasise junction

layout.

There is a property access directly opposite the junction and this will need to be

considered in the development of any improvement proposals. There may also be the

opportunity to relocate the farm access directly south of the junction from the A21 onto

Church Road. This should be investigated.

4.4.3 Rosemary Lane Junction

The Rosemary Lane junction is situated on the outside of a bend. 3 of the 4 collisions

at this location are attributed to loss of control and 1 was a rear end shunt.

There is a field access directly opposite the junction and Google Earth shows tyre

mark evidence of a vehicle overrunning on the southbound verge. This section of the

A21 is subject to the national speed limit.



Page 39

Mainline and junction treatments are proposed at this location.



layout.

� Tier 1 Mainline Treatment: Signs, Lines and Markings

> Coloured surfacing under central hatched markings.

> High friction surfacing.

Re-location of the field access would also be beneficial.

4.4.4 Lady Oak Lane Junction

3 of the 6 collisions recorded at the A21 Lady Oak Lane Junction have involved a

turning vehicle. The remaining collisions were attributed to overtaking and rear end

shunts. The junction is positioned on a crest which may limit visibility of the layout for

approaching drivers.

This section of the A21 is inconsistent with the rest of the route. The carriageway in

this location has previously been dual (D2AP). However, this has been narrowed to

single carriageway in both directions using carriageway edge markings. Green

surfacing and hazard marker posts have been installed in the redundant lanes and the

central reserve has been retained. Highways England has advised that these changes

were carried out as a previous safety improvement scheme to address collisions at

the end of the former dual carriageway. The speed limit is posted as 60mph.

The minor treatment measures listed below may be beneficial. However, In order to

fully address the causes of collisions at this location the history of the decisions made

in the implementation of the previous changes must be understood.


> Encourage discipline through the junction and discourage overtaking

using road markings. Consider adding hatched markings to southbound

junction approach.

> Coloured surfacing through hatched markings to emphasise junction

layout.




Page 40

4.4.5 Picnic Area Junction

A junction providing access to a picnic area is located directly south of the Lady Oak

Lane junction, within the 60mph section of carriageway that has been narrowed from

dual to single carriageway. Although there are no recorded collisions at this junction

in the last five years, it may be beneficial to apply a similar treatment to this junction

as proposed for Lady Oak Lane, due to the proximity of the junctions, in order to

reinforce route consistency.



layout.

High Friction Surfacing has not been considered at this location as there is no evidence

that it would be beneficial.

4.4.6 Royal Oak Pub, Flimwell

A speed limit reduction from 50mph to 40mph is being implemented by others through

Flimwell. This reduction is in line with Table 1 in Section 1. 3 collisions have been

recorded on the A21 outside the Royal Oak Pub. 1 collision was loss of control and

the other 2 involved vehicles pulling out of the pub car park onto the A21. There are

central hatch markings through the bend directly north of the Royal Oak pub and the

carriageway is surfaced in red coloured screed. This is inconsistent with the proposed

treatments where red surfacing is proposed under the central hatched markings at

severe bends.

For route consistency, it is recommended that the carriageway is resurfaced and

coloured surfacing is applied only in patches under road markings and under the

central hatched markings.

� Tier 1 Mainline Treatment: Signs, Lines and Markings

> Resurfacing with a material with PSV 68+,


It is also recommended that liaison is undertaken with the landowner of the Royal Oak

Pub to develop proposals to rationalise and improve access to the pub car park.



Page 41

4.4.7 South of B2087 Flimwell Junction

South of Flimwell the speed limit increases to national speed limit. 3 out of the 4

collisions occurring on the sweeping bend south of the B2087 Flimwell Junction have

been attributed to driver loss of control.

The A21 is bordered by trees through this section although the west verge is relatively

wide through the inside of the bend.

Curve widening is proposed at this location.

� Tier 2 Mainline Treatment: Curve Widening


> Rumble devices positioned across the full width of the carriageway on

the approaches to the bend, providing visual, audible and vibration

signals to drivers of a change in conditions that requires a change in

behaviour.

> High friction surfacing or resurfacing with a material with PSV 68+,

4.4.8 B2099 Junction

A speed limit reduction from the national speed limit to 50mph has recently been

implemented from the properties north of the B2099 junction, through Swiftsden, to

the existing 30mph gateway north of Hurst Green. The junction has a cluster of 5

recorded collisions, 3 of these collisions involved vehicles turning onto the A21 from

the B2099.

The junction is a ghost island right turn and a right turn lane is also provided for access

into a private property opposite the junction.

It is proposed that the tier 1 junction treatment is implemented to ensure that signing

is in accordance with current standards, and consistent with the rest of the route, and

that the junction layout is emphasised using coloured surfacing.



layout.



Page 42

4.4.9 A21 south of B2099 Junction to A229 Junction (Coopers

Corner)

This section of the A21 between the B2099 junction and Coopers Corner (A229

junction), approximately 2km to the south, has a high frequency of recorded collisions.

Over 22 collisions have occurred along this stretch of the A21 alone from 2010 to 2014.

With 2 fatal and 8 serious collisions, this section of the route poses a high risk to road

users.

Two BP petrol stations are located on opposite sides of the A21 between the B2099

junction and Coopers Corner and there is conflict between through traffic and turning

movements.

BBMMjv has proposed improvement schemes at the BP Garages and Coopers

Corner. These improvements need to be fully understood before any further

improvement measures can be proposed. For further detail on the scope of these

schemes refer to Section 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 of this report and drawing HE553662-MOU-

GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-03 in Appendix A.

It is recommended that the proposals to improve route consistency outlined in Section

4.2.1 are applied as part of the design approach to the above works

4.4.10 A265 Hurst Green (Station Road) Junction

The junction of the A21 with the A265, Station Road, in the centre of Hurst Green has

a cluster of 3 recorded collisions. 1 collision was serious and 2 were slight. The A21 is

subject to a 30mph speed limit through Hurst Green and the current junction layout is

a ghost island.

BBMMjv has proposed an improvement scheme at this junction. For further detail on

the scope of this scheme refer to Section 3.2.8 of this report and drawing HE553662-

MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-03 in Appendix A.

We recommended that the proposals to improve route consistency outlined in Section

4.2.1 are also applied as part of the design approach to the above works

4.4.11 Beech House Lane Junction

The A21 junction with Beech House Lane is located to the south of Hurst Green in the

settlement of Silver Hill. The speed limit at this location is 40mph. The junction is

situated on the outside of a bend on the A21.



Page 43

There are 2 recorded collisions at this location. One was attributed to the driver losing

control on the bend and the other was a collision between a vehicle turning onto the

A21 and a vehicle travelling south on the A21. Exceeding the speed limit was recorded

as a contributory factor for this collision.

Mainline and junction treatments are proposed.


Consideration could also be given to providing central hatched markings through the

bend to separate opposing traffic flows if geometric constraints allow.

4.4.12 A21 North of Robertsbridge

The A21 between Silver Hill and Robertsbridge includes a tree lined section of S2

carriageway approximately 1km in length which lies between two sections with higher

geometric standards. There are consecutive tight bends through this stretch of the A21

with 3 out of 5 collisions attributed to loss of control and a further collision recorded as

drifting. Travelling too fast was recorded for 2 of the collisions. A speed limit reduction

from national speed limit to 50mph is being implemented by others south Silver Hill

and the speed limit changes from the proposed 50mph to an existing 40mph limit within

this section. The speed reduction is in line with Table 1 in Section 1.We propose that

two of the mainline treatment options are considered in this location as follows:

� Tier 2 Mainline Treatment: Curve Widening


> Rumble devices positioned across the full width of the carriageway on

the approaches to this section of carriageway, providing visual, audible

and vibration signals to drivers of a change in conditions that requires

a change in behaviour.

Alternatively, upgrading this section of the route to meet current horizontal and vertical

geometry design standards. However, it is recognised that this would be a costly

option.

� Tier 4 Mainline Treatment: Horizontal/Vertical Realignment



Page 44

4.4.13 Redlands Lane Junction

Redlands Lane junction is located south of the A21 Northbridge Street roundabout on

the national speed limit, wide single carriageway (WS2) Robertsbridge by-pass. 2 out

of the 4 collisions in the vicinity of the junction have been found to be a result of drivers

overtaking.

The junction layout is a ghost island. Visibility from Redlands Lane appears to be

restricted by vegetation. It is proposed that the visibility issues are addressed as part

of the visibility analysis proposals for the entirety of the route (Section 4.2.1) and the

tier 1 junction treatment is implemented. To discourage overtaking through the junction

we propose the use of longitudinal lines and coloured surfacing under the central

hatching.


> Coloured surfacing under hatched marking to emphasise junction

layout.

Alternatively, single lane dualling could be considered if overtaking is a persistent

problem and flows on the minor road support this option.

� Tier 3 Junction Treatment: Single Lane Dualling

4.4.14 John’s Cross Road Junction

The John’s Cross Road junction provides access to Robertsbridge and it is located at

the southern end of the Robertsbridge bypass. 4 out of the 6 collisions at this junction

are attributed to vehicles pulling out of, or turning into the junction with 3 of the 4 pulling

out of the junction onto the A21. 1 collision was attributed to overtaking and 1 collision

was a rear end shunt on John’s Cross Road with a vehicle waiting to turn onto the

A21. 3 of the collisions were recorded as serious.

The junction layout is a ghost island located on the outside of a bend. It is illuminated

by street lighting.

We proposed that the tier 1 junction treatment is implemented to ensure that signing

is in accordance with current standards, and consistent with the rest of the route, and

that the junction layout is emphasised using coloured surfacing.



Page 45

� Tier 1 Junction Treatment


layout.


> VAS positioned on the approaches to this section of carriageway if clear

fixed plate signing and the other proposed treatments do not show a

safety improvement over a defined period (up to 3 years) of monitoring.

Alternatively, upgrading the junction to single lane dualling or a roundabout could be

considered here if minor road flows support these options.

� Tier 3 Junction Treatment: Single Lane Dualling

� Tier 4 Junction Treatment: Roundabout

4.4.15 B2089 Junction Vinehall Corner

There are 8 recorded collisions on the A21 between the B2089 and B2090 junctions

at Vinehall Corner. 1 of these collisions was fatal, 1 was serious and 6 were recorded

as slight. The 50mph speed limit reduces to 40mph within this section directly north of

the B2090 junction.

A developer lead improvement scheme is proposed at this junction. For further detail

on the scope of this scheme refer to Section 3.2.12 of this report and drawing

HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-05 in Appendix A.


4.2.1 are applied as part of the design approach to the above works

4.4.16 Woodman’s Green Bend / Whatlington Road Junction

The Whatlington Road junction is situated on the outside of a bend through the

settlement of Woodman’s Green. The speed limit on this section of the route is 40mph.

BBMMjv has proposed treatments through the Woodman’s Green bend and

Whatlington road junction. For further detail on these treatments refer to Section 3.2.13

of this report and drawing HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-05 in Appendix A.

A third of all collisions at this location (2 out of 6) have been attributed to vehicles

losing control through the bend and 1 of these collisions was fatal.


4.2.1 are applied as part of the design approach to the above works, and that a warning



Page 46

sign is installed on the southbound approach to the bend to show that queuing traffic

is likely (as identified in a letter from a local resident dated April 2015) if this has not

already been provided.

Alternatively, this section of the A21 could be upgraded to current design standards

by bypassing Woodman’s Green to the east of the properties. However, it is

recognised that this would be a costly option.

� Tier 3 Mainline Treatment: Horizontal/Vertical Realignment

4.4.17 Stream Lane / Riccards Lane Junction

The Stream Lane/Riccards Lane Junction forms a crossroads with the A21. An

extension of the 40mph speed limit through Woodman’s Green to the south of the

Stream Lane Junction is being implemented by others.

3 collisions are recorded at this junction. 2 collisions are as a result of vehicles pulling

out of Stream Lane and 1 was a rear end shunt on the A21.

The A21 directly north of the junction is overhung by trees. Visibility from Stream Lane

appears to be restricted by vegetation. It is proposed that the visibility issues are

addressed as part of the visibility analysis proposals for the entirety of the route

(Section 4.2.1). In addition, the following junction treatment is proposed:



Alternatively, a junction improvement to realign one of the minor roads to create a

simple staggered junction could be considered if traffic volumes support this.

4.4.18 Marley Lane Junction

Located south of the River Line, Marley Lane junction is a significant collision hotspot

with a total of 2 fatal collisions near the junction. One fatality involved a vehicle pulling

out of Marley Lane onto A21 and the other was attributed to fatigue. A large majority

of the collisions are a result of vehicles pulling out of or turning into the junction, 6 out

of 9.

This section of the A21 is national speed limit and the current junction layout is a ghost

island. Visibility from Marley Lane appears to be restricted by vegetation. It is proposed

that the visibility issues are addressed as part of the visibility analysis proposals for

the entirety of the route (Section 4.2.1) and the tier 1 junction treatment is implemented



Page 47

to ensure that signing is in accordance with current standards, and consistent with the

rest of the route, and that the junction layout is emphasised using coloured surfacing.


> Coloured surfacing under hatched marking to emphasise junction

layout.


> VAS positioned on the approaches to this section of carriageway if clear

fixed plate signing, visibility splay clearance and the other proposed

treatments do not show a safety improvement over a defined period (up

to 3 years) of monitoring.

There has been a further fatal collision north of the junction where the A21 crosses the

River Line. The existing road restraint system is not in accordance with current

standards as it does not have the appropriate length of safety barrier in advance of

and beyond the hazard. Hence it is recommended that this is upgraded.

4.4.19 B2244 Tollgate Road Junction

A total of 5 out of the 7 collisions at the B2244 Tollgate Road Junction were attributed

to vehicles turning. All were recorded as slight. The current junction layout is single

lane dualling and an extension of the 50mph speed limit at Kent Street is being

implemented to extend north through the junction. This is in line with Table 1 in Section

1.

A developer funded improvement scheme is proposed at this junction. For further

detail on the scope of this scheme refer to Section 3.2.15 of this report and drawing

HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-06 in Appendix A.


4.2.1 are applied.

4.4.20 A21 Kent Street

The speed limit through the settlement of Kent Street is 50mph. 3 out of the 5 collisions

on this stretch of the A21 have been recorded as being loss of control. 1 collision was

attributed to exceeding the speed limit, 1 collision was recorded as travelling too fast

and 3 of the collisions were serious.

BBMMjv has identified this location for improvements which are intended to create a

built-up environment, both as a visual message to motorists and to assist NMU’s. The



Page 48

scope of these improvements are covered in Section 3.2.17 to 3.2.19 of this report and

shown on drawings HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-06 and 07 in Appendix A In

addition we recommended that the proposals to improve route consistency outlined in

Section 4.2.1 are applied as part of the design approach to the above works.

4.4.21 Bluemans Lane Junction

3 collisions are recorded at this junction. 1 collision was as a result of a vehicle pulling

out of Bluemans Lane and 1 collision was a rear end shunt into a vehicle waiting to

turn right into Bluemans Lane.

The Bluemans Lane Junction is located directly opposite a private access. The speed

limit at this location is 50mph. Visibility from Bluemans Lane appears to be restricted

by vegetation. It is proposed that the visibility issues are addressed as part of the

visibility analysis proposals for the entirety of the route (Section 4.2.1) and that the tier

1 junction treatment is implemented to ensure that signing is in accordance with

current standards, and consistent with the rest of the route.


4.4.22 Moat Lane Junction

Located just to the north of Claremont School, Moat Lane junction has a cluster of 3

collisions all involving rear end shunts, of which 2 were collisions with vehicles waiting

to turn right into Moat Lane. Proposals to reduce the speed limit from the national

speed limit to 50mph, from Kent Street to the Hastings boundary, are being progressed

by others this reduction is in line with Table 1 in Section 1.

Vegetation is tight to the edge of carriageway at several locations through the junction

and it appears to be impeding sightlines from Moat Lane. It is proposed that the

visibility issues are addressed as part of the visibility analysis proposals for the entirety

of the route (Section 4.2.1).

At present there is red coloured surfacing on the carriageway through the junction.

This is inconsistent with our proposed treatments where coloured surfacing is

proposed as patches to emphasise road markings and under central hatching. For

route consistency, it is recommended that the carriageway is resurfaced with material

of PSV 68+ and coloured surfacing is applied only in patches under road markings

and under the central hatched markings.



Page 49


Alternatively, upgrading the junction to a ghost island junction could be considered if

traffic flows support this option.


Re-location of the field access located directly opposite the junction may also be

beneficial.

4.4.23 A21 Claremont School

Claremont school, north of Hastings, is sited on the east side of the A21 directly north

of a right hand bend. The speed limit in this location is 50mph. 2 out of 4 of the

collisions that have occurred outside the school have been recorded as loss of control

and 2 as rear end shunts. The carriageway through this section is enclosed by trees

and is narrow at ~7m. Directly south of the school the route is in cutting with minimal

verge width.

At present there is red coloured surfacing on the northbound carriageway extending

through the bend to the school access. This is inconsistent with our proposed

treatments, where coloured surfacing is proposed as patches to emphasise road

markings and under central hatching. For route consistency, it is recommended that

the carriageway is resurfaced with material of PSV 68+ and coloured surfacing is

applied only in patches under road markings and under central hatched markings.

Edge to edge surfacing could also be considered on the west verge through the bend

to provide a slight improvement in carriageway width and visibility.

� Tier 1 Mainline Treatment: Signs, Line and Markings

> Resurfacing with a material with PSV 68+,

> Consider edge to edge surfacing on west verge.

4.4.24 A28 Westfield Lane Junction

Located at the southernmost extent of the study area, the junction of the A21 with the

A28 and A2100 has been identified for major improvements by BBMMjv. The speed

limit at this location is 40pmh. A total of 6 out of the 8 collisions at this junction were

attributed to vehicles turning. 6 were recorded as slight and 2 as serious.

For further details on the scope of the BBMMjv scheme refer to Section 3.2.20 of this

report and drawing HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-07 in Appendix A.



Page 50


4.2.1 are applied as part of the design approach to the above works.



Page 51

5 Non-Motorised User Proposals

Vulnerable road users’ needs and access requirements are of particular importance

on the A21. There is a high level of local accessibility needed for both access to towns

and village centres, and for recreational users accessing local sites and attractions.

Accessibility issues are compounded by the fact there are limited adjacent local routes

off-line from the strategic road network.

Accessibility for Non-Motorised Users (NMU’s) and the provision of sustainable travel

facilities on the A21 between Lamberhurst and Hastings are scarce. Many of the

properties that directly access the A21 have no footway or crossing facilities. This, in

conjunction with limited local travel options, has probably contributed to increased car

dependency along the route.

Stakeholder feedback gained from the consultations carried out during the production

of the South Coast Central Route Strategy Evidence Report identifies that concerns

centre on an expectation for NMU’s being able to cross the A21 and on community

severance. In addition to the need for more crossings, the stakeholders identified

further challenges as being the lack of alternative routes for NMU’s and the need for

segregated paths for pedestrians and cyclists, with provision of off-line cycle routes

wherever possible.

5.1 Non-Motorised Users Context

A Non-Motorised Users (NMU) Context Report has been prepared by Mouchel

Consulting for the A21 from Lamberhurst to Hastings. (A21 Route Treatment,

Lamberhurst to Hastings, NMU Context Report, Mouchel Consulting, April 2016.) The

objectives set out in this report for the A21 route treatment proposals are:

(i) To ensure that appropriate consideration and provision can be made for all NMU’s

in the preparation of the Feasibility Study. The study should identify effective

safety, accessibility and sustainability improvements which complement the

Average Speed Enforcement Camera proposals between Lamberhurst (Scotney

Castle Roundabout) and Hastings (Baldslow), and in particular opportunities to

improve:

- accessibility at junctions;

- accessibility at schools;

- footway accessibility;



Page 52

- pedestrian crossing facilities at key sites (where deemed appropriate and safe);

- bus stop provision and signage;

- cycling facilities and signage (where deemed appropriate and safe);

- residential access where properties front the A21;

- general signage provision;

(ii) To ensure that any improvements that are proposed do not create additional safety

hazards for NMU’s.

These objectives have been considered in developing the proposals included in

Section 5.2 and 5.3 of this study.

The existing NMU facilities within the study area are shown on both the A21 Feasibility

Study drawings, HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-01 to 07, and the A21 NMU

Context Report drawings HE553662-MOU-ENM-A21-DR-Z-100-01 to 07. The

feasibility study drawings are located in Appendix A of this report.

As noted previously the A21 is rural in nature and has significant variations in NMU

provision and highway characteristics. The carriageway width along the A21 varies

and the BBMMjv Average Speed Camera Study, May 2015 states that the highway

cross section is often limited to 3.5m in each direction with or without an edge line or

hard strip.

There are a significant number of residential and business properties that have access

directly onto the A21. Some residential accesses are not clearly visible to motorised

users of the A21, and some of these accesses do not have any footway provision or

NMU connectivity.

Pedestrian facilities vary and are inconsistent along the route. Due to the rural nature

of the route, footways are generally only provided in and on the approach to more built

up settlements. The main section of existing footway extends for approximately 6km,

from a point south west of Flimwell to the London Road section of the A21 at the minor

junction east of Silver Hill. Very little designated provision is available for pedestrians

to cross the A21.



Page 53

There are a number of existing Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and recreational

footpaths that adjoin or cross the A21 which have limited access and no pedestrian

crossing facilities.

There are 28 bus stops situated within the study area. Most of the existing bus stop

facilities are inadequate and, with the exception of village locations, there are generally

no clearly identifiable footways serving bus stops. It is noted that most of the bus stops

do not appear to be sign posted which does not encourage use of the services by

those who may be unfamiliar with the route.

With the exception of Scotney Castle Roundabout, there are no cycle lane facilities

within the study area. The high speed and heavily trafficked nature of the route, at

grade junctions and substandard horizontal and vertical alignment is not considered

suitable for on road cyclists because of the limited opportunities for vehicles to safely

overtake.

An A21 Cycle Facility Improvement Study, March 2011, has been carried out by

BBMMjv detailing sections of the A21 from Sevenoaks to Baldslow for opportunities to

introduce cycle facilities. A summary of the proposed cycle facilities for the study area

are provided on drawings HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-01 to 07 in Appendix

A.

A number of bridleways are located near to and adjoining the A21. No specific

equestrian facilities exist within the highway boundary.

5.2 Non-Motorised User Treatment Scope

As described in section 4.3 of this study, the A21 presents a complex problem

regarding the proposal or application of any type on online improvement scheme. This

includes NMU improvements.

This feasibility study identifies potential improvements to accessibility and

sustainability along the A21 from Scotney Castle roundabout to Balsdlow, again

considering route consistency in proposals in order to improve both motorised and

non-motorised users familiarity with, and understanding of the route and to encourage

appropriate behaviour. The suggested improvements are intended to compliment the

proposed schemes outlined in the BBMMjv Project Plan report, which include a

number of accessibility and sustainability improvements, and the BBMMjv A21 Cycle

Facility Improvement Study, March 2011 (as summarised in Chapter 3) and also the

installation of ASEC.



Page 54

The accessibility and sustainability improvements that we have identified have been

based on the following design standards and guidance:

(i) TA91/05 Provision For Non-motorised Users,

(ii) TA90/05 The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian

Routes

(iii) TA68/96 The Assessment and Design of Pedestrian Crossings, Local

Transport Notes 1/95 and 2/95,

(iv) Traffic Signs Manual:

- Chapter 2 Directional Informatory Signs on Motorways and All Purpose

Roads,

- Chapter 3 Regulatory Signs,

- Chapter 4 Warning Signs,

- Chapter 5 Road Markings.

5.2.1 Entirety of Route

It is recommended that a network review and survey focusing on accessibility and

sustainability is undertaken in addition to the safety network review and survey

proposed for the full length of the A21 study area in Section 4.2.1.

In addition to identifying opportunities to locally improve NMU facilities, this should

include a wider identification of existing and predicted future NMU usage patterns,

including origin destination surveys and desire lines. Consultation with User Groups

and Local Authorities is also recommended. Due to the nature and constraints of the

route, it may be more appropriate for new NMU facilities (to connect key destinations,

other NMU routes and public transport) to be provided as off carriageway routes

outside the highway boundary in some locations. Cycle facilities in particular should

be provided as off carriageway routes (either within or outside the highway boundary)

for safety reasons. Working in partnership with the Local Authorities is recommended

to enable the most appropriate overall improvements to be progressed.

Specific reviews and surveys are also recommended for the following areas to identify

improvements to existing facilities:

(i) Signs, and where appropriate, lines and road markings, for NMU

facilities should be consistent, clearly visible and located in accordance

with current standards throughout the study area. A review of Google Earth

/ Streetview and a drive through video of the route indicates that the



Page 55

provision of warning signs to pedestrian crossings is currently inconsistent

with signs being provided at some uncontrolled crossing locations but not

others. For example Google Earth Streetview indicated that warning signs

are provided at the uncontrolled crossing 1km south of Flimwell but not at

the uncontrolled crossing 0.5km south of Flimwell.

Signing of access points to public rights of way also appears to be

inconsistent. Consultation with the relevant Local Authorities could enable

improvements to be made.

(ii) Locations where maintenance treatments would be beneficial to

NMU’s. Google Earth Streetview indicates that there are areas where

vegetation is growing over and obstructing footways and accesses to public

rights of way, however it is recognised that interventions may have

occurred since the imagery was recorded. As set out on the UK

Government website Public rights of way: landowner responsibilities, public

rights of way must be kept visible and landowners must not obstruct or

endanger users.

(iii) Footways, cycleways and bridleways, the geometry of existing facilities

should be upgraded to current standards wherever possible. Consideration

should be given to widening stretches of narrow footway, for example north

of Coopers Corner. With the exception of advanced stop lines at signalised

crossings, on carriageway cycle facilities are not recommended on this

section of the A21.

(iv) Street Furniture, relocation of any assets which impede NMU facilities. It

has been identified that street furniture is obstructing the footway in some

locations. An example of this is the gateway sign north of Hurst Green

which has been erected with a post in the footway.

(v) Bus stops and laybys, wherever possible existing facilities should be

upgraded to current standards and / new facilities provided such that

access is appropriate for all users of public transport.

Google Earth indicates that there are bus stops located throughout the

route, however there is no evidence on Streetview of posted bus stops in

many of these locations. An example of this is on the approach to Flimwell



Page 56

from the north, immediately prior to the B2087 Flimwell Junction. Two bus

stops are recorded but no visible evidence of them can be found. A full

route analysis of bus stop provision in conjunction with stakeholders

including the bus service providers and Local Authorities would be

beneficial, and this should be extended to include provision of footways to

bus stops.

(vi) NMU crossings, adequate visibility is integral to maintaining safety.

Appropriate visibility for the mainline road speed should be provided at

existing NMU crossings. This may require, cutting back vegetation to clear

visibility splays, re-location of street furniture or localised vertical re-

profiling at dips.

NMU desire lines should be identified to determine locations where

provision of new crossings may be beneficial. Assessment should be

undertaken at these locations, including site surveys and option

assessment, to determine whether the provision of a new facility is

appropriate and safe.

Provision of facilities for NMU’s should also be considered in any proposed schemes

which are being developed by others.

5.3 Identified Treatment Sites

This section covers specific locations identified for accessibility and sustainability

improvements. These locations have been shown alongside the proposed BBMMjv

improvements on drawings HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-01 to 07 in

Appendix A. The BBMMjv proposed improvements are also summarised in Chapter 3

of this report.

Mouchel Consultings proposals are based on high level information. Further

investigation and consultation is recommended to fully understand existing problems,

geometry, available land for accessibility and sustainability improvement proposals,

NMU usage patterns and desire lines, and constraints in order to identify options for

design development.

5.3.1 A21 through Flimwell

We have identified four locations in and around Flimwell for improvements that could

further benefit and aid accessibility and promote sustainable travel.



Page 57

The first location extends between the B2087 Flimwell junction and the picnic area

immediately to the south of the junction of the A21 and Lady Oak Lane. We propose

that the viability of provision of a shared use footway / cycleway facility is investigated

adjacent to the northbound carriageway. This would extend the proposed BBMMjv

Flimwell to Hastings cycle route (drawing HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-02,

“Garage at Ringden”) to the designated picnic area.

A second proposal for consideration at Flimwell would be to investigate the viability of

providing signal control to the single remaining uncontrolled crossing on the B2087

Flimwell Junction with High Street.

The third location identified is approximately 0.5km south of Flimwell. Consideration

should be given to providing pedestrian warning signs on the approaches to the

uncontrolled crossing at the garage at Ringden. This is a rural location subject to

national speed limit where the footway provision changes from the west to the east

verge of the A21.

The final location is located approximately 1km to the south of the B2087 Flimwell

junction (refer to the appended drawings for exact location). The crossing at this

location does not currently line up with the existing public right of way joining the A21

and requires pedestrians to walk along a narrow verge adjacent to the carriageway.

Consider the re-location of the existing crossing point if it is safe to do so and provide

the required visibility for pedestrians at the crossing and stopping sight distance

appropriate to the national speed limit.

5.3.2 A21 through Swiftsden, BP Petrol Station

BBMMjv has proposed a safety improvement scheme on the section of the A21 at the

BP garages located between Swiftsden and Hurst Green (Ashdene Service Stations).

There are no formal designated crossing facilities at this location however there is a

non-standard improvised crossing point that links directly onto the forecourt of the

Ashdene North Service Station. Removal of paving stones (which may suggest to

customers that this is an authorised crossing point) is recommended. Liaison with

the property owners may also be required to agree that gaps in the forecourt walls

should be blocked off.



Page 58

5.3.3 A21 Robertsbridge Bypass

There are two locations on the Robertsbridge Bypass where potential improvements

have been identified. The first is immediately south of the change in speed limit (from

40mph to national speed limit) south of the Northbridge Street roundabout where there

is an existing crossing point for a public right of way. The road restraint system in this

location appears to have been designed with a gap to allow NMU’s to cross the

carriageway. Investigation into whether the public footpath can be diverted under the

carriageway via an access track adjacent to the River Rother is recommended in

conjunction with the Local Authority. If this is viable, the gap in the road restraint

system can be closed.

The second is at the junction of the A21 and John’s Cross Road. The footway at this

location appears narrow and widening should be considered if the cross section is

below current standards.

5.3.4 John’s Cross

To the north of John’s Cross roundabout on the A21, the current footway provision for

Barracks Cottages is below stand. Consideration could be given to widening the

footway to the highway boundary to provide more suitable access for pedestrians.

5.3.5 Blackbrooks Garden Centre

The BBMMjv Project Plan identifies a proposed developer funded improvement at the

A21/B2244 Tollgate Lane junction, opposite Blackbrooks Garden Centre. An

uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is sited south of this junction. Improvements to the

crossing would need to be considered in the context of the junction improvements.

Based on the current layout, it is proposed that warning signs are provided and the

existing footway is extended north from the crossing to the garden centre to further

improve accessibility.



Page 59

6 Recommendations

The recommendations of this feasibility study of additional effective safety,

accessibility and sustainability improvements that will work with, and complement the

installation of Average Speed Enforcement Cameras (ASEC), between Scotney

Castle roundabout (south of Lamberhurst), and Hastings (Baldslow) on the A21 are

listed as follows:

- Undertake a detailed network review and technical surveys for the full length

of the study area to identify and then implement measures to improve

consistency and driver understanding of the route to encourage appropriate

driver behaviour including:

� Consistent provision of signing.

� Rationalisation and consolidation of street furniture.

� Consistent application of road markings, delineators, reflectors and

road studs.

� Consistent provision of coloured and high friction surfacing at areas

where the road layout or conditions require extra emphasis.

� Improve visibility at junctions and bends.

.

- Regularly undertake all maintenance treatments which are likely to have road

safety benefits including replacing areas of worn road surfacing and road

markings, cleaning signs and cutting back vegetation which is obscuring

mainline and junction visibility and signs.

- As the dark collisions without street lighting are above the national average,

the installation of intelligent, or self-lit, road studs may be beneficial in locations

where the road layout or conditions require extra emphasis.

- Undertake a detailed review of direct vehicular access onto the A21 from

private properties and farms to determine whether any accesses can be

removed, combined or relocated onto local roads.

- Consider a local road safety awareness campaign for the A21 targeted at both

motorised and non-motorised users.



Page 60

- Consider further development of proposals at identified safety treatment sites

in Section 4.4 of this report to develop schemes which can be taken forward to

the next stages of design development and assessment.

- Apply the standardised safety treatment structure for junctions and the

mainline carriageway at areas where collision numbers and severity require

intervention as a starting point to develop improvement schemes.

� Undertake a network review and survey focussing on accessibility and

sustainability for the full length of the study area to: Identity

opportunities to locally improve NMU facilities.

� Identify wider existing and predicted future NMU usage patterns,

including trip origins, key destinations and desire lines.

- Consult with User Groups and work in partnership with Local Authorities to

identify opportunities to provide new NMU facilities (to connect key

destinations, other NMU routes and public transport) as off carriageway routes,

outside the highway boundary where appropriate. Cycle facilities in particular

should be provided as off carriageway routes for safety reasons.

- Undertake specific reviews and surveys for the full length of the study area to

identify and then implement measures to improve:

� Consistency of signing to NMU facilities, and where appropriate, lines

and road markings.

� Footways, upgrade to current standards wherever possible.

� Rationalisation and consolidation of street furniture, including

relocation of any assets which impede MNU facilities.

� Bus stops and laybys, wherever possible existing facilities should be

upgraded to current standards and / new facilities provided such that

access is appropriate for all users of public transport.

� NMU crossings, ensure adequate visibility is provided at existing

crossings and identify desire lines to determine locations where the

provision of a new crossing may be beneficial.

- Regularly undertake maintenance treatments to NMU facilities including

replacing areas of worn road surfacing and road markings, cleaning signs and

clearing vegetation growing over and obstructing footways and accesses to

public rights of way, or obstructing visibility at NMU crossings.



Page 61

- Consider further development of proposals at identified NMU treatment sites

in Section 5.3 of this report to develop schemes which can be taken forward to

the next stages of design development and assessment.

- All improvement proposals progressed by others should be designed to ensure

that route consistency is maintained throughout the schemes.

- Provision of facilities for NMU’s should be considered in any proposed

schemes which are being developed by others.

- If the schemes outlined in the BBMMjv Project Plan are not progressed, these

locations should be reviewed in the context of safety, accessibility and

sustainability.



Page 62

Appendix A

Proposed Safety Accessibility and Sustainability Improvements:

HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-01

HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-02

HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-03

HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-04

HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-05

HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-06

HE553662-MOU-GEN-A21-DR-Z-100-07

Documents

A21 Route Treatment Project Feasibility Study Report