A379 (Exeter Road) & Sea Lawn Terrace junction

I understand that under the Freedom of Information Act I can request the information below. All questions below relate to the cycle route on the shared pavement along the Exeter Road/A379 in Dawlish:

1. When was the first section (Warren Road to 4A Exeter Road) of the divided shared pavement opened?

Pre-November 2008, we do not have an exact date.

2. When was the dividing line of the shared pavement removed and the shared pavement extended from 4 Exeter Road to Lanherne? (In this request for information I have referred to this date simply as 2016)

End March 2016.

Has the council:-

3. carried out a risk assessment and/or a safety audit?

Yes

4. consulted with and/or informed stakeholders? Has this included the public, the frontagers and/or the users of the shared pavement and/or the junction at Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace?

Yes stakeholders consulted with/informed, consultation undertaken for the original scheme. This has included frontagers and the public consultation will have allowed users of the shared pavement and the junction to provide their views.

5. kept a record of any complaints, comments, incidents and/or accidents, if any, received from the public, or the police, etc. relating to the shared pavement both prior to and post the changes made in 2016?

Yes, but no incidents have been recorded regarding the shared pavement.

Complaints and comments have been made received about the positioning of the pavement particularly in the context of the proposed works.

6. kept a record of any complaints, comments, incidents and/or accidents, if any, received from the public, or the police, etc. relating to road priority over the shared pavement at the junction of Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace, both prior to and post the changes made in 2016?

Yes, but incidents in the area do not all relate to the issue of road priority
for example one incident has been recorded which related to a ladder falling off a lorry.

We can confirm, however, that one incident was recorded on 16th September 2013 where a cyclist failed to stop at the give way markings which were in place at the time and collided with a vehicle emerging from Sea Lawn Terrace. This incident occurred before the road priority markings were removed in 2016.

7. actively sought out complaints, comments, and reports of incidents and/or accidents or has the council relied on information being supplied to them? How was this information gathered? Also, what mechanisms are in place within the council to ensure that any complaints, comments, and reports reach the appropriate part of the council?

Yes, via public consultation prior to the main works. Accident record data from the police is examined as part of the Safety Audit process. Queries that come in from the call centre are directed to the appropriate department and not closed out until the relevant officer has responded and contacted the member of the public raising the query.

8. considered the type of cycle path it wishes to create?
In other words why did the council decide to create a shared pavement rather than create a cycle lane along this section of the A379? This would have automatically given cyclists priority over all side roads. Is the cycle route along the shared pavement aimed at all cyclists?

Yes, the type of path most appropriate would be dependent on variables such as volume and speed of traffic on the main road and expected user groups. In this case, the route is expected to be used heavily by leisure riders and families with young children on bikes. The A379 is used by large numbers of vehicles including many large/heavy vehicles. The preferred solution here was to use the wide footways and verges along much of the route to separate these vulnerable road users from large traffic volumes using the main road. The shared cycleway also offers improvements which pedestrians, disabled and mobility scooter users will benefit from too.

9. considered how it can make its intended use of the shared pavement clear to all users?

Yes, this has been done by use of the prescribed signs at regular intervals as specified within Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016) and the Traffic Signs Manual. The prescribed signs are present along the path indicating that the path is for shared use, these are supplemented by cycle and pedestrian symbols marked on the path.
For further information, please refer to the websites:

http://tsrgd.co.uk/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual

10. visited the site to understand the nature of the shared pavement and any obstacles including the junction of Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace when first planning and later extending the cycle route? If yes, when did these site visits take place, what issues where identified and what resolutions were planned? Again, as with all these questions, for both the first project and the second in 2016?

Yes, the site will have been visited to identify obstacles along the route prior to provision of the original segregated cycleway and again as part of the works in 2016. These dates are not specifically recorded. The site may have been visited a number of times before the designs was concluded. The scheme which included the removal of the central segregation marking and more recently to review proposals for treatment of the junction of Sea Lawn Terrace and the cycleway have been Audited.

11. monitored the effect of the cycle route on pedestrian use of the shared pavement?

Yes. The scheme is Safety Audited 12-18 months after completion to review any concerns raised or accidents recorded in order to determine if any issues are present that require further attention.

12. observed the number of vehicle movements a day at the junction of Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace?

No.

13. identified that Sea Lawn Terrace, although un-adopted, is public access (including access to a business) with a kerbed entrance and over a hundred vehicle movements a day? And that public access not only includes emergency services, council refuse collection, taxis and deliveries (up to 9 metres in length) but also at times access for Network Rail (including vehicles and trailers over 9 metres in length)?

It has been identified that there is an access here. Network Rail access would have been a temporary occurrence as a result of the storm damage, and not a regular occurrence going forward. If high volumes of traffic to this road were noted during site visits within the design processes for the original scheme and subsequent works then further consideration would have been given to this access.

14. monitored the speed of cyclists and motorists approaching and crossing the junction of Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace?

No.

15. considered that the Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace junction is on a major road, the A379, where although the speed limit is 30mph this is frequently exceeded, since there are no traffic calming features?

The busy nature of this A-Road would have been a big consideration in the design of the cycle path.

16. considered the maximum desirable speed for cyclists sharing the pavement (also bearing in mind the intended users of the route) with pedestrians, and crossing private driveways and going past gates and even a front door which opens immediately on to the shared pavement? Further, if there is a maximum desirable speed, what is this speed?

Yes this would have been considered within the design and considered at the Safety Audit stage too. It is not envisaged that cyclists will exceed 20mph on this cycle route. Typically speeds are expected to be 12-15mph.

17. considered the need for traffic calming to reduce the speed of, and for, all users of the junction with the shared pavement at Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace?

A need for traffic calming was not identified at this access previously. The current proposal gives priority to cyclists over Sea Lawn Terrace, so there would be no traffic calming for cyclists proposed. Expected speed of cyclists and lack of a previous accident record would not warrant investment in traffic calming for cyclists.

18. considered the need to indicate obstacles such as private driveways, garden gates and even a front door which opens immediately on to the shared pavement?

Yes. At various points along the path consideration of these features has been given. This is a balancing act as it is widely recognised that excessive signing can result in the signing being ignored.

19. observed how vehicles (including cycles) and pedestrians use the junction at Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace and their positions on the approaches to the junction (on both the minor and major roads and on the shared pavement)? And further, how this is effected by the parking spaces each side of the junction?

Yes, the way in which cars and cycles approach this junction has been reviewed. The way in which cars emerging from Sea Lawn Terrace onto the A379 has not been reviewed in details as this is not the issue we are seeking to address. Having said that it has been acknowledged as part of recent works that a large amount of on road parking would need to be lost in order to create improved visibility.

20. considered how it can discourage or prevent illegal parking on the shared pavement?

Yes, in places bollards have been installed to in places to discourage this, on the whole this was not recognised as a problem here.

21. carried out a ‘driveability’ check (including a visual assessment of the junction on all approaches from the driver’s eye view to ensure visibility requirements are met and the junction can be readily understood by drivers)?

Yes, it has been identified that inter-visibility is poor at the junction of Sealawn Terrace with the cycleway, to improve this we proposed a revised layout on the cycleway.

22. measured visibility on all approaches to the Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace junction to ensure compliance with Standards for Roads for improvements to minor junctions, and considered the additional impact of any vans and/or lorries using the parking bays to each side of the junction?

The scheme has been examined in relation to the existing situation with a view to not make it worse and improve it where possible.

23. considered visibility on all approaches to the Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace junction (from the minor and major roads and from the shared pavement) at night?

Yes.

Further queries:

24. When did the council decide to create a standard junction at the junction of Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace?

This was suggested; early 2017 in response to a previous email from the requester. However given that all our works are required to be Safety Audited, this would have been subject to approval of the design by Safety Audit. Once design and Safety Audit had been undertaken it was determined that this is not a suitable layout for the location hence pursuing the current proposal.

25. When did the council decide to no longer create a standard junction at the junction of Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace and what were the reasons behind this decision?

Following discussion with Safety Audit Team October 2017 as set out above.

26. As it is a legal requirement that local publicity must be given to the change of priority of a junction, I understand that at present the Exeter Road/A379 and Sea Lawn Terrace junction remains road priority, not shared pavement priority. Is this correct?

Between 2008-2016 there were no markings to indicate priority between pedestrians and cars at this junction. As it stands, this continues to be the case.

27. Which legislation is the council relying on if it wishes to impose a change of priority at a junction, in existence since before 1870, which has to date been vehicle priority (as evidenced by the green marking on the road, the give-way signs on the cycle route as visible on Google Street View, and the kerbed entrance at the junction with the A379)?

The council is not imposing a change of priority at a junction; the council is carrying out permitted development with the extent of the highway boundary and falls within permitted development.

The relevant legislation for permitted development is The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015

28. Can the council impose a change of priority at a junction where the junction improvement would no longer meet the mandatory visibility standards as set out by standardsforroads.co.uk for road improvements? If yes, which legislation is being relied upon?

There would need to be good reason for changing the priority in this circumstance, most likely this would come about to resolve another issue which may carry more weight.

29. Will the council consult with the users and properties which will be affected on a daily basis by the proposed changes? This includes the 59 properties in Sea Lawn Terrace and Riviera Terrace (including 4A Exeter Road) plus 4 Exeter Road and the properties in San Remo Terrace with rear access via Sea Lawn Terrace and in addition those properties on the shared pavement itself. If full consultation is not possible for any reason will the council at least notify these stakeholders of the proposed changes, giving opportunity for feedback?

Yes, the council shall consult with the properties which are affected.

30. On the shared pavement itself is there any requirement for cyclists to slow down and give way to pedestrians and dog walkers, including to those entering or exiting from their garden gates and in the case of one property from their front door straight on to the shared pavement?

There is no requirement, but path users would be expected to give consideration to other path users. Residents who have access onto the path would be expected to be aware of their surrounding and this aware that they access onto a path where they cyclists may be present.

31. Where there is a shared pavement with cyclist priority at a junction do pedestrians have the same priority as cyclists at this type of crossing? If yes, which legislation is being relied upon here?

If for instance there is a give-way line for the Access which crosses a shared path, then the priority would be with the users of the shared path be these cyclists, pedestrians or any other path user. The legislation relating to the road markings is found with TSRGD 2016 as referred to above in question 9.

 

32. On the whole route from Dawlish Warren to Dawlish town centre, at which points do cyclists currently need to slow down, to give way, to stop and/or to dismount? Where are these points and what does a cyclist need to do?

 

Pinewood close – route crosses road, cars have priority over cycles waiting to cross.
Marine Garage – route crosses accesses to garage, no clear markings, under review.
The Rockstones – Cycles rejoin carriageway, traffic within carriageway would have priority over cycles joining.
Entrance to Lanherne – Route crosses a road, traffic within carriageway would have right of way over cycles waiting to cross.
Station Road – Route crosses a road, traffic within carriageway would have priority over cycles waiting to cross road.
Station Road Crossing – Cyclists and pedestrians have right of way over traffic.