cc: [name elided], Headteacher, Greenfields Junior School

I have also published these notes at http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/article/4017

Dear Sir/Madam:

As described at http://hartleywintney.org.uk/ the calming measures for Green Lane comprise three parts:

1. “Gateway” picket-fence markers on either side of Green Lane, some distance either side of the school
2. “Buildouts” narrowing Green Lane to a single carriageway with priority, close to the school entrances
3. A “Raised Table” of brickwork, at the T-junction of Sandy Lane and Green Lane

With close examination of the area, and some local knowledge, several issues become evident with the proposal:

1. Gateways: at the New Road end, the full width of Green Lane comprises the roadway, a paved pedestrian footpath, a deep drainage ditch, and the common to either side; to present conspicuous signage the southern half of the gate will need to be mounted in the drainage ditch, else it will be obscured by the Mildmay Oaks; even then it is unlikely to be seen, and likely to impinge upon the footpath.
2. Gateways: Visually, such gates will obscure pedestrian foot-traffic and children cycling from the common, past the Womens’ Institute (WI) Hut and down to Green Lane; similarly at the western end, the gate will draw drivers’ eyes from vehicles and pedestrians entering Green Lane from side roads and driveways.
3. Buildouts: There is no provision in the buildouts to permit bicycle traffic to pass through without obstruction, forcing it instead to merge with other road traffic. There is a considerable amount of cycle traffic along Green Lane, not to mention the cycling schoolchildren whom these measures are evidently meant to protect. Forcing cyclists to merge with motor traffic would not be good. At least 1m, preferably 1.5m of existing roadway should be reserved to permit cycle traffic.
4. Buildouts: Road Width: Green Lane is not a wide road, and the schoolbuses, vans, rubbish collection and (locally based) recovery vehicles which pass along it frequently overhang the centre line; short of widening the road for its full length there is little that can be done about this issue, however that does imply that further *narrowing* of the road would be problematic for legitimate traffic flow.
5. Buildouts: High Traffic: There is no escaping the fact that Green Lane is already a busy road. Beyond the school there is traffic due to the Church – weddings and funerals frequently reduce Green Lane to single lane traffic, and it’s a nightmare to navigate at those times. Also there is a weekly WI Market which takes place between the two buildouts; and there is also the regular summertime funfairs which bring heavy traffic to the road.

   Even excluding hypothetical extra traffic due to Dilly Lane expansion – traffic which this proposal aims to restrict – any solution for traffic calming on Green Lane must be founded on the fact that many and large vehicles already use Green Lane for access, and also that Green Lane is frequently parked-upon for much of its length.

6. Buildouts: Bottlenecking: The proposals for Buildouts are clearly designed to inhibit the flow of traffic which leaves the school, rather than that which arrives at the school. The western buildout blocks traffic leaving westbound, and the eastern buildout blocks traffic leaving eastbound.

   Perhaps this is what the designers wanted, but the net effect will be to “bottle” traffic in the vicinity of the school, with frustrated parents trying to leave the area whilst other traffic tries to arrive. In the worst-case scenario of an accident at the Buildout, the rest of the area would gridlock because cars would be unable to leave. Instead, it would make more sense to permit parents to leave easily, but arrive more slowly.

7. Table and Buildouts: Social Context: most of the fast traffic on Green Lane are small to medium cars being driven by young drivers to and from Mitchell Avenue; once out of the Mitchell Avenue U-bend, the drivers sense some form of liberation, and accelerate hard. With the suggested placement of Buildouts young drivers can accelerate from Mitchell Avenue all the way past the school entrance, and then brake for an exciting chicane: rather than slow down for the Sandy Lane “Raised Table” they will instead cut through the Junior School car park, rally-style. Similarly, return traffic tends to accelerate from the Church to the WI Hut, and there would be no actual impediment to speed until (again) the drivers are past the school exit.

   The intention of traffic calming ought to be to promote making progress at a reasonable 30mph, with a 20mph zone near the school; the proposal as given does nothing to actually address this “sprint” behaviour, and given the nature of many of the faster drivers it may actually make conditions more exciting for them.

   The best way to promote a constant speed along Green Lane is in as emotionally boring a manner as possible; since it’s not a built-up area there is no opportunity to follow a continental model of integrating public and pedestrian traffic, so instead installing road humps every 100m, with discreet signage, might be more effective than the proposal.

8. Gateways & Buildouts: Grafitti: There are regular cases of spray-paint grafitti on signage in the area; the fencing and illuminated bollards will just be another target.
9. Gateways: Visual Impact: The picket-fence gateways are simply out-of-character for the Common’s end of the road.
10. Raised Table: At least one of the school buses serving the area, frequently performs a reverse three-point turn at the bottom of Sandy Lane; I have no idea how the Table will impact this behaviour, but it certainly can’t make it more easy.

These are just some of my perspectives upon the proposals for traffic calming on Green Lane; like many of the residents of the area I have been affected by bad traffic on the road, however I do not believe the proposal is a fit solution for the problem.

Yours,