has anyone found any guidance on the process for removing a signalised junction? We have a junction that used to be on a main route that has now become a minor route. We would like to replace it with a controlled pedestrian crossing (poss Zebra or Puffin)
I don't think there is anything specific as you are only changing the method of control, therefore your normal design standards / practises would be consulted. You would need to go through the legal processes required to establish a formal crossing at its new location.
http://www.freelists.org/archive/tcug
As I think this has been raised before there may be something in the TCUG archives, from experieince there is very little recent guidance available for changing a signal controlled crossing to a Zebra.
There won't be any guidance on this subject. The value judgement is with you and, having initiated this type of removal before, I think good public /councillor consultation and displaying of appropriate public notices is good practise in case any criticisms come your way.
I'm advised that there will be an item on this subject on R4's "material world" this Thursday 4th March 16:30. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r2cm7 once it's broadcast I'll post a link to "listen again" and Podcast site
unfortunately due to the recent tragic earthquakes in Haiti and Chile the item covering traffic signals was "bumped" I'll try and advise of when it is to be broadcasts as and when I know
After reading the comments associated with the article it does make me wonder of the public have hit the nail on the head.
We have recently taken out a set of signals which had been installed as part of a development which after doing a similar trial had no benefit to being there and no benefit if they where not there (no pedestrian facilities). However, it did prove to our councillors and the public that the 'congestion' wasn't caused by the signals as it still has the same level of congestion!
In answer to Ray's initial question, there is nothing on the removal of junctions only pedestrian crossings Zebras. As Bernie says consult, consult, consult and then consult some more.
The Bristol article is interesting, far more interesting though are the comments from local people who know the junction better than I do. It does seem a strange junction to use as a trial based on those comments. What initially strikes me is the suggestion that a week of monitoring before and after will give a sound basis to make a report to Council. This is a totally inadequate length of time, not the least that both drivers and pedestrians will be taking extra care with this new unusual situation. The real assessment should be based on longer term monitoring when no signals have become the norm.
When I removed two sets of Pelican crossings the local Parish and council was very anti the scheme, fearful that we were trying to save money by putting their parishioners at risk. The fact of the matter is though that the replacement Zebras work much better for everyone and their fears were un-founded. It was however very time consuming to carry out the discussions / reports and this has put others off undertaking similar schemes because of the hassle factor!
Perhaps slightly off topic, but some of you may know that in the last few years TfL introduced a signal justification criteria, which was squarely aimed at the seeming proliferation of traffic signals in the Capitol. More recently I have been attempting to reverse engineer the criteria to produce a tool which would aid the identification of sites which are suitable for consideration of removal. Whilst ultimately Consultation is a necessary part of removals and / or amendments, there is also a piece of work to be done on indetifying sites which have the potential for removal. Just some additional thoughts on this topic.