MAPC Presentation Jan 20 2015 website Physical restrictions or Automatic Number Plate Recognition needed ... Main disadvantages • Large number of traffic signal heads would be required

C13 closure - Melbury Abbas

Introduction & Welcome

Peter FinneyDeputy Leader and Cabinet Member for

Environment and the Economy

Dorset County Council


Introductions

Deborah Croney Dorset CC Councillor – Hambledon

Mike Harries Director for Environment and the Economy

Andrew Martin Head of Highways

John Burridge Chief Engineer - Dorset Highways

Simon Arscott Senior Engineer - Dorset Highways

Danny Alder Senior Ecologist - DCC Natural Environment

Steve Howard Community Liaison - Dorset Highways


Presentation – main topics

• Traffic flows on A350 and C13

• Workstream 1 update – maintaining the road closure

• Workstream 2 update – stabilising the slopes(including discussion on why preferred method was chosen)

• Workstream 3 update – ways of mitigating traffic problems

(including discussion on suggested traffic improvements)

• Workstream 4 update – infrastructure improvements

• Questions


Traffic flows on A350 and C13

Steve HowardCommunity Liaison - Dorset Highways

• Dorset Highways collects traffic data on all the major

roads in the county

• We have data on the A350 and C13 for a number of years

• From this data we can make comparisons between the levels of traffic pre and post road closure


Site 1: A350(just south of Shaftesbury)

Site 3: B3081(near garage in Cann Common)

Site 4: C13(just north of Pimperne junction)

Site 2: A350(north of Steepleton Bends)

Traffic counter locations


Site 1: A350 (just south of Shaftesbury)

Main points:

• 2930 more vehicles now using the A350 at this point

• 5 fewer Other Goods Vehicles (OGVs) now using the A350

• 2 more OGV2s now using the A350 at this point

• OGVs = Any vehicle over 3.5T (inc. large vans and small lorries)

• OGV2 = Large HGVs (4 axle rigid lorries and articulated lorries)


Site 2: A350 (north of Steepleton Bends)

Main points:

• 1897 more vehicles now using the A350 at this point

• 138 more Other Goods Vehicles (OGVs) now using the A350

• 40 more OGV2s now using the A350 at this point


Site 3: B3081 (near garage in Cann Common)

Main points:

• 3817 fewer vehicles now using the B3081 at this point

• 273 fewer Other Goods Vehicles (OGVs) now using the B3081

• 47 fewer OGV2s now using the B3081 at this point


Site 4: C13 (just north of Pimperne junction)

Main points:

• 2778 fewer vehicles now using the C13 at this point *

• 241 fewer OGVs now using the C13 at this point *

• 19 fewer OGV2s now using the C13 at this point *

* using the latest full counter data from June 2014


Workstream 1 update – maintaining the road closure

• Dorset Highway gang working full time on maintaining the road closure:

• Replacing damaged or moved signs

• Filling potholes

• Sweeping roads

• Unblocking drains

• Cutting back overgrowing foliage

• Undertaking small mitigation works (including Boundary Road)


Workstream 2 update – stabilising the slopes

Simon ArscottSenior Engineer - Dorset Highways


Church Bank

• The problem

• Options considered

• Recommended

Solution


Dinah’s Hollow

• The problem

• Options considered

• Recommended

Solution

• Tree-works


Dinah’s Hollow – the problem


Dinah’s Hollow - Options Considered

• Bio Engineering

• Re-grading of slopes

• Retaining Structures

• Soil Nailing


Cross section through Dinah’s Hollow with concrete panels, soil panels and flexible mesh above


Recommended Solution


Protection at toe of slope

Examples of exposed aggregate


Cross section through Dinah’s Hollow showing two HGVs passing each other


Beaminster Tunnel - before


Beaminster Tunnel - before


Beaminster Tunnel - after


Beaminster Tunnel - after


Soil Panels - before


Soil Panels - after


Tree Works – Woodland TPO Application Plan


Workstream 3 update – ways of mitigating problems

Steve Howard – Dorset Highways

• A number of suggestions were put forward as ways of reducing the traffic problems experienced in and around Melbury Abbas

• Highway engineers have assessed each proposal and suggested the “pros and cons” for each one


Discussion on suggested traffic improvement options

Option 1 - Erecting “Unsuitable for HGVs” signing on C13

Option 2 - Formal one-way system (just covering Melbury Abbas)

Option 3 - Formal HGV one-way system on A350 / C13

Option 4 - Informal HGV one-way system on A350 / C13

Option 5 - HGV width restriction covering Melbury Abbas

Option 6 - Signalised shuttle working through Melbury Abbas

Option 7 - HGV weight restriction covering the length of the C13

Option 8 - HGV weight restriction covering Melbury Abbas


Option 1 - Erecting “Unsuitable for HGVs” signing on C13

Main advantages• Would dissuade a proportion of HGVs from travelling through Melbury Abbas

• Could reduce the damage to slopes in Melbury Abbas caused by HGVs• Would reduce the instances where HGVs get stuck in Melbury Abbas• Would improve the “quality of life” for residents of Melbury Abbas

• Would not require Police involvement• Easily and quickly installed

Main disadvantages• Relies on the cooperation of hauliers to adhere to the advisory signs

• Large additional signs would be required, creating an increased visual impact• More HGVs would use the A350• May result in HGVs using unsuitable side roads to circumnavigate Melbury Abbas

• HGVs would be required to travel longer distances• Would require the assistance of freight companies


Option 2 - Formal one-way system (just covering Melbury Abbas)

Main advantages• Would prohibit a proportion of HGVs from travelling through Melbury Abbas

• May reduce the damage to slopes in Melbury Abbas that the HGVs cause• Would reduce the instances where HGVs get stuck in Melbury Abbas• Would improve the “quality of life” for residents of Melbury Abbas

Main disadvantages• Large amount of additional signage would be required to sign the restriction

• More traffic would use the A350• More HGVs using other local villages and hamlets

• More vehicles using unsuitable side roads to circumnavigate the one-way system• Difficult for the Police to enforce

• Would reduce the resilience of the highway network in north Dorset• Traffic would be forced to travel longer distances• Would increase vehicle speeds through the village

• Would be opposed by the freight companies• The TRO is likely to attract objections from the travelling public


Option 3 - Formal HGV one-way system on A350 / C13

Main advantages• The “hurt” caused by HGVs would be more equably shared out

• Would prevent approximately 50% of HGVs from travelling along the A350 or C13• May reduce the damage to slopes that the HGVs cause in Melbury Abbas• Would reduce the instances where HGVs get stuck in Melbury Abbas

• Would improve the “quality of life” for residents of Melbury Abbas

Main disadvantages• Large amount of additional signage would be required to sign the restriction• More HGVs would use the A350

• More HGVs using unsuitable side roads to circumnavigate the one-way system• Almost impossible for the Police to enforce

• Would reduce the resilience of the highway network in north Dorset• HGVs would be forced to travel much longer distances• May increase vehicle speeds through villages

• TRO likely to be opposed by freight companies and other local communities


Option 4 - Informal HGV one-way system on A350 / C13

(HGVs voluntarily using the A350 in a southerly direction and the C13 in a northerly direction)

Main advantages• Would reduce the proportion of HGVs travelling through Melbury Abbas• Should reduce the damage to slopes in Melbury Abbas that the HGVs cause• Would greatly reduce the instances where HGVs get stuck in Melbury Abbas• Would improve the “quality of life” for residents of Melbury Abbas• Would partially overcome any resistance from hauliers to an HGV ban• Re-balances the number of HGVs that local communities have to endure

Main disadvantages• Not enforceable

• Reliant on the assistance / cooperation of large proportion of hauliers• Will not prevent some HGVs from still using the C13• Traffic might be forced to travel longer distances

• May increase vehicle speeds through the village• May be opposed by some freight companies


Option 5 - HGV width restriction covering Melbury Abbas

Main advantages• Would prohibit a large proportion of wide vehicles from travelling through village

• Would reduce the instances where wide vehicles get stuck in Melbury Abbas• Could reduce the damage to slopes in Melbury Abbas caused by wide vehicles• Would improve the “quality of life” for residents of Melbury Abbas

Main disadvantages• Emergency vehicles unable to use the C13 through Melbury Abbas• Physical restrictions or Automatic Number Plate Recognition needed• Large amount of additional signage would be required to sign the restriction

• More HGVs and wider vehicles would use the A350• More wider vehicles using unsuitable side roads to circumnavigate the restriction

• Would reduce the resilience of the highway network in north Dorset• HGVs and wider vehicles would be forced to travel longer distances

• TRO likely to be opposed by freight companies and other local communities


Option 6 - Signalised shuttle working through Melbury Abbas

Main advantages• Would help eliminate the instances where HGVs get stuck in Melbury Abbas

• Would improve the “quality of life” for residents of Melbury Abbas• Will reduce the damage to slopes in the centre of village caused by the HGVs

• Could possibly allow the construction of a footway through Melbury Abbas• Still allows the C13 be used in the case of a closure of the A350

Main disadvantages• Large number of traffic signal heads would be required• Each property on the road in Melbury Abbas may need its own signal head

• Significant visual impact on such a rural setting• Roads would need to be widened to accommodate the waiting traffic• Would produce long vehicle delays (at least 2 minutes wait)

• Significant delays for local residents (at least 2 minutes wait)• May result in vehicles using unsuitable side roads to circumnavigate village

• HGVs would be forced to travel longer distances• The signals would reduce the vehicle capacity of the C13• Would have a detrimental effect on air quality in the village



General

• Installing a 7.5T weight restriction on the C13 is theoretically possible and would

require a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)

• TRO will include a caveat that allows HGVs wishing to make deliveries within the area covered by the ban

• A weight restriction does not cover buses and coaches and so would need another TRO and the associated additional signing

• An HGV ban does not cover vehicles such as large vans, horseboxes and some

farm machinery, many of which are as equally wide as an HGV


(examples of signing required)

Draft plan of suggested HGV ban on C13



Main advantages• Would prohibit a large proportion of HGVs from travelling through Melbury Abbas

• Would reduce the instances where HGVs get stuck in Melbury Abbas• Would improve the “quality of life” for residents of Melbury Abbas

Main disadvantages• Large amount of additional signage would be required to sign the restriction• More HGVs would use the A350

• More HGVs using unsuitable side roads to circumnavigate the weight restriction• Very difficult for the Police to enforce

• Would significantly reduce the resilience of the highway network in north Dorset • HGVs would be forced to travel much longer distances• Would be opposed by freight companies

• The TRO is likely to attract objections from other local communities



General• Installing a weight restriction just covering Melbury Abbas is theoretically

possible and would require a TRO. However, a suitable “alternative route” will need to be found.

• At the Win Green junction, HGVs to make decision on how to get to Shaftesbury:

• Scenario 1 (as shown on next slide)

• Continue north to Birdbush past other properties, turn left at blind junction onto busy

A30 and then negotiate traffic calming through Ludwell. This route is approximately 3.5

miles longer than the route through Melbury Abbas

•Scenario 2 (as shown on next slide)

• Turn left and negotiate Zig-Zag Hill, then drive through East Melbury and Cann

Common, before turning right onto the B3081. This route is approximately 3 miles

longer than the route through Melbury Abbas

• Both scenarios would require significant improvements to Boundary Road (the Compton Abbas Airfield Road)


Draft plan of suggested HGV ban covering Melbury Abbas



Main advantages• Would prohibit a large proportion of HGVs from travelling through Melbury Abbas

• Would reduce the instances where HGVs get stuck in Melbury Abbas• Would improve the “quality of life” for residents of Melbury Abbas• Approximately 26 properties fronting onto the C13 are affected

Main disadvantages• Large amount of additional signage would be required to sign the restriction

• More HGVs would use the A350• More HGVs using unsuitable side roads to circumnavigate the weight restriction

• Very difficult for the Police to enforce• Would significantly reduce the resilience of the highway network in north Dorset

• HGVs would be forced to travel much longer distances• Would be opposed by freight companies• The TRO is likely to attract objections from other local communities

• Pushes the HGV issues onto other communities – one in Wiltshire



Main disadvantages (continued)

• More HGV traffic trying to negotiate Zig Zag Hill

• Birdbush and Ludwell would see significantly greater numbers of HGV traffic

• There are approximately 20 properties fronting onto road in Birdbush (plus those

fronting onto A30 – approx. 43) that would be affected

• East Melbury and Cann Common would be subjected to significantly greater numbers of HGV traffic

• There are approximately 45 properties fronting onto B3081 in East Melbury and Cann Common that would be affected


Other suggested options for consideration ?


Workstream 4 update – infrastructure improvements

Deborah CroneyDorset CC Councillor – Hambledon Division


Questions ?

Thank you for listening

Documents

MAPC Presentation Jan 20 2015 website Physical restrictions or Automatic Number Plate Recognition needed ... Main disadvantages • Large number of traffic signal heads would be required