Accessibility & Traffic Management Consultation - Claremont & Kellie Place, Alloa

Component  referred to

Comments

One -way

As a resident of Kellie Place E, I would like to say that I am in favour generally of the proposals, and specifically those for Kellie Place E. I would add, however that you might consider width restrictions at the Mar Place junction.

Not infrequently we have large vehicles travel along Kellie Place, and with no width restriction, your pavement works at the west end of the street at the Ludgate junction may be damaged by longer vehicles making the narrow turn onto Ludgate going south.

I think the one way system is a good idea, although it may encourage 'more enthusiastic' drivers to speed down our street 'knowing' that nothing is coming the other way.

Raised Table

Humps

Localised narrowings

Pedestrian crossing

First of all, your own admission that there is no serious concern in Claremont, makes me question why you are considering wasting tax payers money on yet more of these measures.

Claremont has now so many cars and vans parked on the road that often trying to do 20miles speed is near impossible. I do not believe we need any raised table at the end of Claremont. I am not against localised narrowing at certain points perhaps two in the whole street. I do not believe speed bumps are necessary as they cause untold damage to cars and create pollution. A controlled pedestrian crossing at the end of Claremont/Kellie place would be very useful. I think these measures are not urgent seeing the state of the Wee County finances.

The junction at the end of Victoria Street and Claremont is very dangerous, visibility is poor as there are always cars parked near the junction. This should be looked at before there is a major accident.

Speed sign (VAS)

Traffic calming

Speed limit

One-way

I would first like to ask if there is a great demand for these sorts of actions within Claremont?

Secondly I believe that the frankly obnoxious speed reactive sign has not stopped anybody speeding in Claremont. Which by all accounts is a good thing. Claremont is by no means a narrow street and it is my opinion that it should be a 30. Bending over to suit some scared coffin-dodgers that are ****-blasted about having the sanctity of their £100000000000000 house disrupted is entirely obscene. The one half-wit whom I went to school with who was going 60 and smashed himself and his pregnant(?) girlfriend into a wall at the top of Alexandra drive a few years back would have done so on ANY other road regardless due to his boy racer, moronic character traits. I feel this was a contribution to Claremont being dropped to a 20 zone. Punishing the majority for the actions of one reprobate.

If the council chooses to waste good funding on traffic calming on this area that by no means needs it is unnecessary and insulting.

Making Kellie place a one way is arguably an even worse possibility. It provides a handy shortcut as opposed to going all the way around the town hall because lets face it, time is money.

Humps

Road markings

Speed limit

Parking regulation

1.The introduction of a 20mph speed limit has done nothing to reduce driving speeds on Claremont. There are no disincentives to drive slowly. Speed cameras have never to my knowledge been used on Claremont. We regularly have cars speeding at 50mph. I am genuinely concerned that a serious accident is waiting to happen.

2.The number of vehicles parking on Claremont has significantly increased since I moved to Claremont 8 years ago. In particular, at the beginning of the road, just after the turn off at the one way system, cars are parked on the left very close to the junction. It is usually difficult to see if vehicles are coming down Claremont until you are on the road. All too often emergency type stops are needed to avert an incident.

3.Again, at the beginning of Claremont, which is the busiest part of the road, parked cars on both sides of the road make it very difficult and dangerous. I have noticed that despite the large houses on this part of the street having lots of private parking, they use street parking. Some of the houses in this stretch now run businesses from the premises introducing customer parking that did not exist a few years ago.

I am in agreement with a number of measures being taken to make Claremont safer.

1.I am in favour of speed bumps and traffic calming. I have no strong opinion on the type, so long as it is fit for purpose.

2.Double yellow lines should be introduced on one side of Claremont up the the junction with Victoria Street. This would ensure parking on only one side of the road, easing traffic flow.

3.House owners and business owners should be encouraged to use their own land for parking. Businesses should have off road customer parking.

One-way

I received your consultation letter regarding the new proposed traffic management system for Claremont and Kellie Place. I reside Kellie Place and wholeheartedly agree with your proposals. The one way system onto Kellie Place should make a huge difference to those who live in the area and experience the many buses, lorries and volume of traffic using this residential street as a short cut.

Narrowings

Humps

Raised table

We do not feel that speed is a particular issue on our street. We reverse onto our drive several times a day and have no trouble or issues doing so. We never feel concerned or troubled by any speeding vehicles. We are open to a raised table and vehicle reactive signs however do not feel that narrowings are necessary nor speed humps or cushions. It is an extremely busy road with many parked cars and we feel it would be more of a hindrance than a help.

Speed humps

I am baffled as to why you think there is a perceived perception of road danger in the Claremont area. I would have thought that now both schools  I.e. Claremont Primary and Alloa Academy have been relocated to other sites most of the traffic problems in Claremont have been resolved. When the schools were localised to Claremont we had busy traffic flow at opening and closing times as well as increased foot traffic of pupils walking to and  from the school at these times  - these have now ceased. As a resident for the past 30 plus years in Claremont I think I am aware of only two/three accidents having occurred in the street in that time. That speed reduction sign serves a purpose but no-one is monitoring the few offenders which may be exceeding the speed limit and I am sure the police force have more important crimes to deal with than the few drivers who speed excessively up /down Claremont on a regular basis. Speed bumps would not - in my opinion -stop car drivers who regularly disobey the speed limits. And I am aware of the damage to cars who have to negotiate speed bumps on a regular basis. I would like the council to provide statistics as to why these are deemed to be necessary.

In conclusion I am not in favour of these plans being implemented.

Narrowings

Speed humps

I would be extremely pleased to see traffic controls on Claremont as detailed in plan B. The current control of a 20 mile an hour alert does not work to slow traffic on my part of the road (early 70's) as even those who have slowed down for the warning sign tend to speed up by the time they get to my section of the road. The left hand side of the road offers easy opportunities for drivers to speed as it is generally unimpeded by parked cars. In addition there is a slight curve in the road just before my house which means that it is difficult to see traffic as we are pulling out of the drive or crossing the road. Finally, although Alloa Academy and  Claremont Primary have now closed, many children and young people continue to use the road in order to access the new schools and consideration needs to be given to their safety. As a result I would be in favour of the construction of both localised narrowing and speed humps along the entire road.

Traffic calming

Raised Tables

I am pleased that traffic calming measures are being considered on Claremont.  Since the building of the new estate and it's traffic calming measures , the speed of the traffic in the rest of Claremont has dramatically increased, often well above 30 mph. 

There are some regular culprits and many of the vehicles delivering to the new estate are driving at speed.

While I accept this does not cause a problem for pedestrians, most walk up one side of the other, not often crossing over, it does cause a problem for residents who are often woken up by the noise of the speeding traffic as it is not confined to daytime.

I find that the road humps with the flat platforms are more effective in slowing traffic and that where there is road narrowing drivers tend to be more considerate of each other.

Traffic speed

Parked cars

Traffic calming

'I have concerns about the speed of traffic on the bend around 70-78 Claremont'

'I am happy that parked cars slows vehicles'

'I would support traffic calming using humps so long as it does not adversely effect drainage'

Road narrowings

Raised tables

'I do not like the idea of road narrowings at it would restrict parking which may be required for medical purposes'

'I would like to see raised tables instead of narrowings'

'I would like to see parking deterred at the east end of Claremont and for residents and others to park responsibly'

Road narrowings

I have concerns that should road narrowings go ahead it would make my driveway inaccessible to a second vehicle as having the street narrow would make manoeuvring at a narrow access impossible. I have concerns that street parking will also be compromised and that visitors would have to park on adjacent streets. I do understand the need for safety and the curbing of speed but I feel that the responsible members of the community are being penalised for the recklessness of others. The disfigurement of our street is the result of irresponsible people-not the people who will have to live with it. I would recommend that those that are responsible should be caught and dealt with. We should be looking to preserving the integrity of one of Alloa's historic streets. I really do hope that this is a true consultation process and not a 'fait accompli'. I hope that you will seriously consider scrapping this road narrowing. Your decision not to go ahead with this part of the road plan would be very much appreciated.

Road narrowings

One -way

I would consider the use of anything but road narrowing in the area around the Claremont, Alexandra Street and Victoria Road.

I think the one-way system on Kellie Place is an excellent idea.

Road narrowings

Speed humps

Enforcement

'Narrowing the road in the Alexandra and Victoria Street  junction area would, I feel, make it difficult for me to access my drive'

'Claremont is a traditional street and I wouldn't want it full of speed humps like Ashley Terrace'

'I have lived on Claremont for 30 years and do not feel that speeding motorists are a real problem here. Most drivers are responsible, obeying the rules of the road and keeping their speeds below 30mph'

'Enforcement of offences would be preferable'

Accessibility

Speed humps

I am in agreement with  Plan A, except for the suggestion of additional speed humps or cushions (bullet point 3). I find speed humps are very bad for the suspension on cars even when driving very slowly and we seem to have far too many of them in Alloa already.

Traffic calming

Speed Humps

Narrowings

Traffic Speed

Speed reactive sign

In correspondence to your letter about traffic management on Claremont, I believe that traffic calming including speed narrowing and speed humps would be a great benefit to this street. The fast amount of traffic using Claremont with all the new houses that have been built and still in the planning it has become a very busy and fast road.

With the new primary school walking distance for the children from the area using Claremont is simply a task sometimes as the traffic (cars, heavy construction lorries, motorcycles) go at incredible speeds.

Drivers take little notice of the speed reactive sign. The sign never stops flashing as some drivers go as fast as 50mph and in some cases even faster than that speed. This happens during the day and also during the night with taxi's and other fast cars, it's simply not safe for residents, small children and animals.

Entering Claremont from  any of the side streets like Victoria Street is also challenging as the cars drive so fast on Claremont, an accident is waiting to happen as it did a few years back.

I believe that plan B and C should definitely be put in place, localised narrowing's and speed humps in the form of  humps or cushions. This might encourage people to walk more often instead of taking their cars as the schools and town are close by.

Speed humps

Narrowings

Noise

Traffic Speed

Raised tables

'I would be concerned about road humps being installed near my house as they might generate noise, either people speeding up and breaking sharply. If plans do go forward I would prefer that raised tables were used rather than  speed cushions as these slow all road users. We hear motorbikes travelling above the speed limit at night'

'I don't like the idea of road narrowings, especially if they were to be like those used at St.Mungo's Wynd in Alloa. They seem to encourage a free for all where people do not give way to each other. If narrowings were to be used they should be signed so that drivers know who has priority even though it is a 20mph limit.'

'I am concerned about traffic speed on Claremont'

Speed humps

Narrowings

Noise

Traffic speed

'I would have concerns about the noise if a raised table were to be installed at my home but would consider it if my noise concerns were addressed. I'd also consider the use of cushions although it is a shame that all residents are being punished for the poor behaviour of a few. I have no real concerns regarding speed in the area.'

Traffic calming

I am writing to confirm my support for the proposed traffic calming plans for Claremont.  It is dangerous reversing my car out of the drive as many drivers come round the corner onto Claremont far too fast. I am often aware of cars driving at speed up and down Claremont and there are often cars parked on both sides of the street.

Traffic calming

I am writing to confirm my support for the proposed traffic calming plans for Claremont.  It is dangerous reversing my car out of the drive as many drivers come round the corner onto Claremont far too fast. I am often aware of cars driving at speed up and down Claremont and there are often cars parked on both sides of the street.

Footway widening

One -way

Traffic Speed

The pavements at Tulligarth need widening and the double lane road needs narrowing to stop speeding and overtaking which is a regular occurrence. This should be a single lane road. The one way proposal on Kellie Place east should be accessed from the A907 circular, as all the congestion comes from Mar Place, with Kellie Bank bound vehicles using it as a rat run.

Speeding vehicles entering Kellie Place east from Kellie Place west should be slowed down at the latter, this would also address the real speeding problem on the Ludgate Railway Bridge bend. The way it is at the moment makes the footpath unsafe e.g. in the 4 years that I have resided here the pollards on the bend have been knocked over by speeding vehicles losing control twice and the railway bridge parapet wall has been knocked over once for the same reason.

Narrowing of the north pavements of Kellie Place (Ludgate) will make it even more difficult for daily commercial vehicles to enter than it is at the present time and the Kellie Place corner is already victim of daily HGV/Artic damage without making it stick out even further. E.g the 20mph speed sign has been knocked sideways from the very first day it was erected and the corner has notable tyre marks.

Raised table

Speed reactive sign

Narrowings

Speed bumps

One-way

 1: Would you like to see a raised table and vehicle speed reactive sign installed on Claremont.

  Yes, both these things would be a good idea. 

 2: Are you happy that we construct localised narrowings on Claremont and what form would you prefer these        narrowings to take?

  No, I think these are a bad idea & will cause issues with parking. 

 3: Do you think that the addition of speed humps or cushions is necessary. 

  No. 

 4: Would you support the implementation of a one-way system on Kellie Place?

  Yes.

 5 : Are there other measures that you would like us to consider.

  No. 

Traffic Speed

Noise

General scheme

With reference to your letter dated 26 June 2015, I am baffled as to your statement that upon monitoring speed on Claremont it was found not to be at a level to cause serious concern. I am a housewife at home most of the day I do not need to visually monitor speed I can hear it from various parts of the house and garden. This street is subjected to constant wanton disregard of speed limits.

Since moving here I have been witness to several accidents including one that resulted in the partial demolition of my neighbours garage. I have on at least 3 occasions been overtaken as I turn right into my driveway. One such time the car actually mounted the pavement screeching to a halt to avoid a collision. These near misses have left me badly shaken up not to mention the fright my young children have had.

Then there is the noise pollution caused by speeding cars and motorbikes especially at night and the early hours. What has been surprising that despite the parking increasing in our area this has not slowed down traffic instead the danger has increased - you need your wits about you when getting into or exiting your car.

I truly hope that this scheme goes ahead and will have gained support from residents and neighbours who are now not only fed up with the situation but are subjected to alarm and distress caused by inconsiderate and dangerous drivers - are we to witness a fatality before the council takes action?

Raised table

Speed reactive sign

Speed bumps

Raised table

One-way

Traffic speed

I am writing to you regarding the proposed traffic calming scheme for Claremont, Alloa, and would ask you to consider the following points.

I agree to a raised table at the entrance of Claremont. The current speed reactive sign on Claremont has had no effect on the excessive speeds that are evident along this stretch of road. It would be an unnecessary and wasteful expenditure to install a second speed reactive sign.

There is a definite need for speed bumps more so than a narrowing of the street. The speed bumps should go continually from curb to curb and should not be of the cushion variety as motorbikes can avoid these.

A one way system at Kelly place would be supported.

I would recommend that more speed bumps be placed in the section from Fenton Street to Victoria Street to prevent the speeding up of vehicles in this wide part of the avenue.

In conclusion Claremont is a residential road not a main thoroughfare which at the moment is subjected to nearly every driver exceeding the speed limit.

Raised tables

Vehicle speeds

One-way

Narrowings

Speed bumps

20mph signage

Pedestrian crossing

Alloa Community Council response

Generally everyone is in agreement that there is a need to reduce the speed of some motorists on the Claremont stretch of road.  It is a long, uninterrupted, road from Braehead to the foot of Claremont and does see a fairly large proportion of drivers exceeding the 20mph limit, most of which are resident in the area.  Taking the suggestions submitted by Clackmannanshire Council, I have made suggestions as to how each would fair in the goal of speed reduction/traffic flow.

Plan A:

CLAREMONT - Generally no issues with anything that is being proposed here.  A raised table at the start of Claremont brings the fact that there is traffic calming in place clearly to a driver’s attention and hopefully makes them more aware and compliant with the speed limit in the area.  It would be helpful to reinforce this with a large 20 painted on the road surface just after the table, again to put no doubt in a drivers mind as to what the limit is.  This table will also act to slow vehicles approaching the one way system coming out of Claremont making it safer for pedestrians crossing.  We understand the Council’s reluctance to install a crossing at this junction but if plastic bollards, the flexible type that won’t damage vehicles too much if hit, were placed around the hatched zone already there, we feel that this would enhance the safety aspect at this crossing point.  We realise that the Council’s preferred route into Alloa by foot is along Kellie Place but people will always go for the perceived shortest route and cross at the junction to continue down Claremont.  There was mention of a crossing on Claremont to/from the park entrance.  This is not shown on the plan?

KELLIE PLACE – No problem with making it one way if that is what the residents in the street feel is best for them.  Always was a difficult exit onto Mar Place during busy periods

Plan C:

Narrowing the carriageway does help reduce speeds and it would have been good if the total length could have been narrowed by creating a cycleway along Claremont.  Not sure how that would work as cars park along this stretch and we don’t want cyclists having to swerve round parked cars. 

Speed Bump/Raised Table.  Speed bumps are not very effective as 4x4 vehicles, vans etc can straddle these easily.  This speed bump on this stretch should be removed and replace with a second raised table placed West of the junction with Alexandra Drive/Victoria Street  Traffic entering Claremont from these arteries would be reminded of the speed limit by the table, reinforced by a 20 painted on the road. This would also serve to slow traffic approaching the junction which has reduced visibility for traffic entering from Victoria Street.

Alloa Community Council response continued

Plan B:

As stated earlier, speed bumps are not very effective in slowing traffic.  Larger vehicles will ignore them and others, that find them an annoyance, will divert via Redwell Place causing increased traffic in an area that is already congested at peak times [8.30 – 9.15 and 2.30 – 3.15] due to school access by both foot and vehicular traffic.  There will also be an increase in “Normal” traffic use on Redwell Place / Carse Terrace as the new Claremont housing development will not have direct traffic access to Claremont and is likely to use Redwell Place to access the A907.

I suggest that a raised table be placed at the junction with Academy St / Gean Rd, removing the suggested speed bumps and inserting two sections where traffic is narrowed to one lane with a “Give Way To Oncoming Traffic” signage in the appropriate direction.  This method has been used effectively on main routes in small villages and definitely reduces speed in the areas where used.

Raised table

20mph signing

Localised narrowings

Speed reactive signs

Speed bumps

One -way

Pedestrian crossing

Traffic speed

Accessibility

1.       Yes, I would like to see a raised table on Claremont but more than one for it to be of any use. One at the end as you propose is not adequate enough. The ONLY way you will slow traffic down, and by that I especially include motorbikes is by putting in these tables at regular intervals on Claremont. However they need to be of sufficient magnitude to actually force drivers / riders to slow down and be spaced close enough to deter speeding between them. Per my Fig.2 below, the type which work well are currently in place on Forthside Way in Stirling. The ones that are in place at present at the West end of Claremont are as good as useless as they are of insufficient height to slow drivers by any degree. The design of these should be of the monoblock style as this creates a strong perception of a pedestrianised area, as exampled in Fig.4 below of the Drip Road in Stirling and also used on the Forthside Way type.

With regards to a speed activated sign; save your money and put it towards large scale 20mph painting off the street, just like the ones again on Forthside Way, Stirling, shown in my Fig.3 below. The sign facing West on Claremont at present was a novelty at first for speeders but has zero effect now. I can see it from my house and it is not having the desired effect (irrespective of the fact it is half covered by foliage).

2.       I would like to see localised narrowings on Claremont, enough to create a perception when combined with speed tables slows drivers down. See Fig.1 for the one used on Forthside Way which works well. However this could be improved by combining it with speed tables of the monoblock style.

3.       I think speed humps are necessary but only if they can actually slow traffic. Speed tables are a better option as they also slow motorbikes which speed bumps don’t. There are too many instances of motorbikes screaming up Claremont.

4.       I would support the implementation of a one way system on Kellie Place.

5.       The key omission as I have earlier indicated is the absolute pressing need for a SAFE crossing at the top of Kellie Place.  You have continually ruled out a Zebra style crossing citing that drivers may not see pedestrians stepping out. The easiest solution therefore is to install a button activated crossing with traffic lights. There then would not be an issue with drivers having to stop for a red light. My proposed closure of this route for traffic has been dismissed without proper scrutiny of potential options, therefore I ask you not to waste money on unnecessary kerb work further down Kellie Place which will not be utilised. You need in the Council to accept the fact that this crossing is the quickest, most convenient and most used by pedestrians heading to town or the West End park and therefore you have a duty as a taxpayer funded body to facilitate this need for people and make it safe to use.

To round up my comments I want you to recognise that there is a serious issue with speeding traffic on Claremont. Your consultation letter is dismissive of this fact and your own survey last summer indicated some ridiculous speeds on the street (81mph!!). I am disappointed that you didn’t spend more time on personally seeing the issues for yourself and that your short spell with the Police was disingenuous in that it was at the far end of the street and not where the crux of the problem lies. I am pleased however that at long last this consultation has come out and I look forward to seeing an appropriate and effective (and therefore worth the money requiring spent) set of speed reduction measures being implemented during the remainder of 2015, as you promised at our last meeting.

Accessibility

Footway widening

Raised table

Speed reactive sign

Speed humps

One-way

1.   Accessible Walking Route to Alloa Town Centre from Claremont - Could we not consult on the possibility on removing the right hand lane (A907) to ensure that the shorter route past Tulligarth can be achieved by widening the pavements.  If that's the best option and we are looking to encourage more people to feel comfortable making short journey on foot or bike, then it would seem remiss not to put this suggestion forward?  Surely if the long term sustainable solution is a move away from cars for short journeys then only decisive actions and decisions like this would demonstrate this commitment.   The removal of this lane would surely aid the reduction of speed of cars entering Claremont which is highlighted as a potential issue.

2.  Accessible Walking Route to Alloa Town Centre from Claremont - No problem with raised table and in fact would probably sit with my suggestion above.  If the speed is not at a level to cause serious concern then could we not give consideration the placement of second vehicle reactive sign for vehicles heading east on Calremont first before speed humps etc is re-evaluated. 

3 One-Way System on Kellie Place (east) - Agree.

Questions

Would you like to see a raised table and vehicle speed reactive sign installed

on Claremont? Yes

Are you happy that we construct localised narrowing on Claremont and what

form would you prefer these narrowing to take? No.  If you travel along Claremont regularly I'm not sure that there is the space for these to be positioned.  It can sometimes be quite slow to travel down claremont with lots of giving way to oncoming (west) vehicles. 

Do you think that the addition of speed humps or cushions is necessary?

No.   If this was proposed I believe the number listed seems disproportionate to the length of road.   Also if this is to go ahead could the public be involved in selecting the type of humps speed cushions?   The speed cushions in Clacks compared with Fife seem very 'harsh'.   It also seems strange timing for installation of speed cushions considering the two Schools have recently closed, when the road limit was 30.  

Would you support the implementation of a one-way system on Kellie Place?

Yes

Are there other measures that you would like us to consider?

As per (1) above.  Have we considered any impact on adjacent streets that if this package goes ahead traffic might move into accessing A907 or Tullibody road via minor roads, which may have negative implications? 

Claremont has been resurfaced twice in the last two years apart from the section Norwood Avenue to Academy Street.   There is a large section of that stretch, that is suffering from vehicle stress and would seem more appropriate to fund re-surfacing work for that section rather than speed cushions/humps?

Pedestrian Crossing

Traffic Speed

I can only regard with astonishment the latest proposal to the long running, very expensive saga (at least to the tax payer) When you suggested that the people of Claremont who wanted a pedestrian crossing you contemptuously retorted "send them down Paton Street" now that has come back to haunt you. You have declared that the quickest way into town or the West End Park is dangerous therefor you have devised another route.

Instructions to pedestrians/Claremont into town etc..

Go down Kellie Place, cross at the top of Ochil Street, cross Ludgate again go down the pavement which is declared unsafe to where a pedestrian crossing for access to the park has been provided.

This will entail the lowering of 10 kerbs, the cost of the pedestrian crossing. I think that enough money has already been spent on this (shall I say project) and I am calling for a moratorium until an acceptable solution can be achieved. The route to the railway bridge, whose pavement you now declare dangerous for pedestrians is indicated by lowered kerbs, a hard surfaced pathway leading to an unsafe pavement on the railway bridge. How do you justify allowing hoards of Academy pupils to use this route when the Council provide the crossing to an "unsafe route"? Through Freedom of Information I require an answer to this.

It seems that you are incapable to ensure the safety of the crossing already indicated and, of course, the preferred route into town and park. As for your "survey" carried out by yourself and member/s of the police force this was carried out at a narrow part of Claremont where there is on street parking and at a staggered cross roads. In other words where traffic would slow down. You ignored the "speed track" stretch of the street.