recommendations - london borough of harrow › documents › s19622... · 12. congestion occurs...

C:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000691\M00003470\AI00034225\Scrutinycongestionandparkingfinal11060.doc

Meeting:

Sustainable Development and Enterprise Scrutiny Sub-Committee

Date:

28 November 2006

Subject:

Congestion and Parking

Key Decision: (Executive-side only)

Responsible Officer:

Andrew Trehern, Executive Director, Urban Living

Portfolio Holder:

Eileen Kinnear, Public Realm

Exempt:

No

Enclosures:

Appendix 1 – Plan showing congestion hotspots Appendix 2 – CPZ programme

SECTION 1 – SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The report sets out an overview on congestion and parking issues and considers the areas of Stanmore, Wealdstone and Harrow town centres in particular. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Sub-Committee is asked to consider this report.


SECTION 2 - REPORT

Introduction 1. At its meeting of 9 March 2006, this Committee received a report on

parking facilities in Stanmore and resolved that a follow-up review be presented to the Sub-Committee in the form of an information item. The subject matter was subsequently broadened to include parking and congestion issues in Stanmore, Wealdstone and Harrow town centres. This report updates the information on parking in Stanmore and provides an overview of congestion and parking issues with particular reference to Stanmore, Wealdstone and Harrow town centres.

Congestion - background

2. The recent MORI Quality of Life study identified that residents consider dealing with congestion the third highest priority (after road and pavement repairs and level of crime). 38% of residents think it is one of the services in most need of improving. This compares to an average for outer London of 40%.

3. Traffic congestion is growing across London and indeed the country. The forecasts for the future, assuming no intervention, are that there will be significant more traffic trying to use our roads. Forecast growth in housing, population and jobs mean there will be some 400,000 extra cars in London by 2025.

4. The council has limited ability to influence growing demand. The major influences are fiscal (central government role), the economy (also heavily influenced by national trends and central government and not something the council would wish to suppress at a local level) and the design of new development (town planning/development control). Whilst the council does control the latter and indeed tries to ensure that new development is designed using sustainable principles, such a small percentage of land develops per year in Harrow that our overall influence on transport patterns through town planning is very small.

5. One of the bigger influences in town planning in Harrow is how we develop the town centre. The centrepiece of the proposed town centre redevelopment is the creation of a new state of the art 21st century public transport hub – a new and much improved and fully accessible bus and rail station – so that more trips to and from the centre can be done by public transport.

6. Another influence on demand is the way that the council seeks to influence travel behaviour via management of the highway network. This is referred to further below.


Recent studies 7. There have been some recent individual studies of congestion. Later in

this report there are details of studies in Harrow and Stanmore town centres. Also, in 2003/04, as part of the South Harrow New Harrow Project pilot, and in response to resident demand, a study was undertaken of traffic congestion along the A312 Northolt Road area. This involved consultation with residents and businesses. TfL has provided funding for the implementation of measures to reduce congestion. This is mainly being achieved by rationalising the parking and loading arrangements that interfere with traffic flow, including creating further lay-bys. The implementation, which started in 2004/05, will be completed at the end of the current financial year (2006/07).

Policy framework and new priorities 8. The council’s transport strategy is set out in detail in the recently agreed

Local Implementation Plan (LIP). This includes comprehensive policies and programmes for managing the road network and sets out how the council plans to implement the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy. It was agreed by the Mayor of London last month. Harrow is one of a minority of boroughs to receive mayoral approval for its LIP.

9. The LIP includes policies and programmes relating to all aspects of

transport eg. public transport, safety, parking and enforcement, traffic, town centres, maintenance, travel awareness, walking, cycling, accessibility, environment and freight. It includes a section on dealing with congestion hotspots. If sufficient funding is made available, the 16 identified locations will be the subject of more detailed studies over the next five years. A plan showing the 16 identified congestion hotspots is attached at Appendix 1.

10. In addition, the adopted LIP identifies a number of measures that will address congestion. These include:

• using engineering and travel awareness measures to influence

behaviour and encourage modal shift away from the car to other sustainable means such as public transport, cycling and walking

• a programme of controlled parking schemes to manage the demand and supply of parking

• a review of the way that the Harrow’s roads are managed using the powers available to it under the Traffic Management Act 2004

11. In addition, the new administration has reviewed priorities and added the

following, as part of the new key objective to Get Harrow Moving: • Rephasing of inefficient traffic lights • Opening Wealdstone High Street to traffic


• making use of the back roads rather than the main traffic routes for new cycle routes wherever possible

Current approach and options for managing congestion

12. Congestion occurs when traffic flows exceed the capacity of the road network. This occurs either because road works (or other special events) temporarily reduce the capacity of part of the network, or because the volume of traffic (usually at peak hours) has outgrown and exceeds the capacity of the network.

13. Management of road works is dealt with by a Streetworks Co-ordination

Team in the Public Realm Infrastructure Group of Urban Living. Regular meetings are held with all bodies involved in street works eg the utility companies and the council’s own maintenance and new works services. These meetings are facilitated and chaired by the council and aim to co-ordinate street works with each other and any other relevant influence (eg avoiding street works in the vicinity of special events). The objective is to minimise disruption whilst facilitating improvements to the services and road infrastructure. The Streetworks Co-ordination Team also supervise works on the highway to ensure public safety, effective traffic management and satisfactory reinstatement of the highway.

14. The Traffic Management Act 2004 has introduced new powers relating to

managing the road network. The aim of the Act is to reduce congestion and disruption through:

• Proactive management of the highway network • Effective co-ordination, planning and management of street works

and other activities on the highway network • More stringent powers and sanctions over utilities’ street works • Wider civil enforcement powers over traffic contraventions

15. Some key provisions in the Act are being implemented in phases and

some regulations are yet to be issued by the Department for Transport. For example the Act provides for the Government to intervene in managing an authority’s highway network if it fails to do so adequately itself. The intervention criteria have not yet been set. Also, the draft regulations for charges relating to managing utility works have only very recently been issued for consultation. An action plan is being developed to ensure that the council responds appropriately to the duties under this Act.

16. In addition, any works on the Strategic Road Network (principal roads

such as Uxbridge Road, Station Road, Pinner Road, Northolt Road) have to be approved by Transport for London. A key part of TfL’s brief is to ensure disruption on the Strategic Road Network is minimised.

17. The other main cause of congestion is where the volume of traffic

exceeds the capacity of the network. This can be dealt with in three ways:


a) Increase the efficiency of the existing network. This involves using the council’s powers as traffic management and highway authority to manage and improve the existing network. However, there are many factors that have to be considered that can conflict with maximising the capacity of the network eg. pedestrian crossing facilities, on-street parking, servicing facilities, road safety, cycle facilities, bus stops and bus priority measures. How these demands are prioritised influences the effective capacity. For many years improving facilities for public transport, walking and cycling has been seen as an important element of encouraging these sustainable modes and discouraging reliance on the car in the medium and longer term.

18. The new administration has a key priority to ‘Get Harrow Moving’. This necessitates a review of the priorities and a greater priority for increasing (or maintaining) the capacity of the network. All traffic scheme designs are now discussed with the Portfolio Holder at an early stage to ensure the correct balance of priorities. An example of the changed priority is that it has recently been decided that wherever possible new cycle routes should use the back roads rather than the main traffic routes.

19. A critical part of the network is junctions, particularly on strategic or busy routes. Many of these are controlled by traffic signals. A new priority is to review and improve the efficiency of the phasing of signals. Transport for London are responsible for all signals in London and a programme of review and improvement is being developed in partnership with TfL and the council’s partner AccordMP (who have expertise in the design and operation of signals and a strong working relationship with TfL on these matters).

20. One of the difficult issues that is frequently faced in managing signal junctions is the conflict between maximising traffic flow and assisting pedestrians to cross safely. Incorporating (green man) pedestrian crossing facilities at signals almost invariably reduces the green time available for vehicular traffic. There are a number of signal controlled junctions in the borough where there are no controlled pedestrian crossing facilities, but demand to provide some. These include Imperial Drive/The Ridgeway, The Goodwill to All, North Harrow signals, George V Avenue/Pinner Road and Stanmore Hill/The Broadway. At the risk of being over-simplistic there are generally three choices in these circumstances:

i) Incorporate pedestrian facilities at the expense of traffic flow, thereby increasing traffic delay and congestion, but improving pedestrian safety and convenience and promoting walking;

ii) Do nothing, maintaining the dominance of the traffic over pedestrians; or

iii) Improve the size and capacity of the junction such that pedestrian facilities can be incorporated without detriment to traffic flow. Even if possible within existing


highway boundaries, which will often not be the case, such improvements are likely to be very expensive.

b) Increase the capacity of the network

21. Apart from localised traffic management improvements, existing policy only allows the capacity of the network to be increased (eg road widening) to accommodate improvements to public transport, walking and cycling. Even if the council had funding (and it would be extremely expensive) to widen roads or build new ones it is likely to be frustrated by national policy whenever it seeks to compulsorily purchase land. For the same reason the council is limited in what it can require a developer to provide via planning agreement. c) Reduce traffic flow

22. This is done (or at least attempted) in a variety ways: i) Restraining parking (particularly all day/commuter

parking) – see reference to the Controlled Parking Zone programme below.

ii) Improve the alternatives to the car – improving facilities for public transport (especially buses), walking and cycling, such that people have a greater choice and the reliance on the car is not so great. This is a main feature of the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy that the council has a legal duty to implement.

iii) Travel Awareness – raise awareness that continued reliance on the car is not sustainable and promote alternatives to the car. The council employs a Sustainable Transport Officer (recently awarded the London Sustainable Transport Officer of the Year) who undertakes many promotions, mostly funded by Transport for London.

iv) Ensuring new development complies with sustainable principles – this includes restraining car use and including facilities to promote use of sustainable modes.

Parking - background

23. The growth of car ownership and use inevitably leads to increasing parking congestion and competition for limited space around key attractors such as town centres and stations. The primary response to this issue is the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) programme. The programme is reviewed annually by Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel and the Portfolio Holder for Urban Living – Public Realm. A copy of the programme agreed at the last annual review is appended at Appendix 2. The following extract from the last annual report sets out the policy context of CPZs:


24. Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) are a fundamental component of national, regional and local transport policies. CPZs form part of the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy, West London Transport Strategy and are an integral part of the council’s draft Local Transport Strategy. Further restraint based parking standards in new developments as required by national and regional policy cannot be effective unless on-street parking controls exist (otherwise parking can simply take place in local streets rather than lead to reduced car use). Hence there are strong strategic reasons for introducing CPZs as well as the local need to manage parking problems and parking demand as effectively as possible. CPZs also allow the introduction of “resident permit restricted” developments which is in line with the strategy of reducing car parking provision at sites well served by public transport. CPZs incorporating residents parking schemes can improve safety, access and residential amenity and can assist management of parking in town centres to ensure more short stay shopper/visitor spaces are available.

25. There has been strong emphasis on CPZs when dealing with parking

congestion and reluctance to deal with small area piecemeal parking problems. There are a number of disadvantages to a piecemeal approach. Firstly, it is usually the case that if a small area is considered – say one road or part of a road – any solution is likely to displace the parking to adjacent roads, transferring rather than solving the problem. This creates knock-on problems and work and can be divisive within a local community. Treating a wider area (zone) attempts to deal with the knock-on effects at the same time, although fringe problems do of course also occur with wider zones. These are dealt with by reviewing and expanding the zones as part of the on-going CPZ programme.

26. Secondly, it is more efficient to deal with a wider area than a series of

smaller areas. Investigating and designing parking schemes is very labour intensive, much more so than other types of traffic schemes. Consolidating the consultation, reporting and traffic order making is significantly more efficient. It is also easier to programme and prioritise CPZs compared to numerous small parking schemes.

27. A recent exception, and perhaps a sign of increasing parking pressures

outside the CPZ programme, is a programme of small parking schemes related to ensuring better access for refuse and emergency vehicles. Following increasing incidents of refuse vehicles not being able to pass injudiciously parked vehicles, usually at junctions or bends, a separate programme of some 50 small waiting restriction schemes, mainly in residential areas, is currently underway. In some cases ghost capes (hatching around the radius of junctions) are used, but unlike waiting restrictions (yellow lines) ghost capes are not enforceable. To offset this disadvantage a notice has been produced for placing on windscreens of vehicles parked on ghost capes that advises drivers of the obstruction they are causing to emergency vehicles and that the police may prosecute them for causing an obstruction. The notice has been agreed with the police and fire brigade and includes their logos.


28. A review of retail-friendly parking is a new priority and is underway. This will seek to improve the quality, convenience and availability of shopper parking. The study should report in 2007-08.

(1) Stanmore Town Centre

Parking Update 29. A summary of on and off-street public car parking provision in Stanmore

Town Centre is set out in the report considered by the Sub-Committee in March. As a follow-up to the report, usage surveys of available car parks was carried out on 27 and 29 September 2006. The results are shown in Table 1. The car parks available to shoppers in Stanmore are:

(a) Sainsbury’s off Elm Park (b) Lidl on the north side of The Broadway (c) Off-street Pay and Display adjacent to Lidl car park and (d) On street Pay and Display in Buckingham Parade on the north side of

The Broadway.

Table 1: Car Park Usage or Occupancy (%) Wednesday 27 September 2006 Friday, 29 September 2006 Car Park Location and

Survey Date / Time 10:10 hrs

13:15 hrs 16:00 hrs 10:30 hrs 13:00 hrs 16:00 hrs

Sainsbury’s Lower Floor 177 spaces

62.71 70.62 72.33 96.05 94.92 85.31

Lidl Car Park 112 spaces

41.96 62.50 66.07 74.11 76.79 67.86

Off Street Pay & Display 9 spacesweekday, 51 Sat

77.78 100.00 66.67 33.33 100.00 44.44

Buckingham Parade 53 spaces

79.25 84.91 86.79 100.00 100.00 84.91

NB: A further 34 on-street spaces in Church Road (7), Coverdale Close (10) and Merrian Avenue (17) were excluded from the survey

30. Table 1 shows that most of the spaces available in these car parks are not

fully utilised. Overall, there are a considerable number of spaces available for shoppers throughout weekdays, particularly in the Lidl car park, where the maximum usage varies from about 42% on Wednesday morning to around 77% on Friday afternoon. The Sainsbury’s car park became most heavily used (reaching about 96%) on a Friday morning but the intensity of use was confined to the ground floor even though there was space still available on the upper floor. The reluctance to use the upper floor may be due to perceived inconvenience, tight geometry of the ramp leading to the upper floor and possible uncertainty of the status of the parking spaces on the upper floor, many of which are not available to the public. Weather


conditions may also play a part, as the upper floor is open to the elements. Previous parking surveys identified that Saturday parking was less busy than weekday.

31. The appraisal did not extend to the streets outside the controlled parking

zone. A comprehensive parking survey was carried out in 2001 following the closure of the upper floors of the multi-storey car park. This showed that there were approximately 150 cars parking outside the zone (50:50 short/long term) that might potentially use additional off-street parking. It was not possible to be certain how many would actually use a car park, particularly if charges applied.

32. Further work will be required to determine what parking should be

provided in redevelopment of the Anmer Lodge and car park site.

Congestion in Stanmore

33. Congestion occurs regularly in the peak hours, mainly focussed on the junctions along the A410 and throughout the town centre and its approaches. This is common to most if not all town centres in the borough if not London. There is little scope to improve the capacity and performance of the individual signal junctions in the town centre each of which is operating at or very close to their practical capacity:

(a) London Road / Marsh Lane (b) Stanmore Hill / The Broadway / Church Lane (c) Church Lane / Elm Park.

34. However, there may be scope to increase the overall efficiency by introducing a SCOOT/Urban Traffic Control (UTC) system. This would link the signals and optimize the phasings to maximize efficiency. Funding to investigate the feasibility of introducing an urban traffic control system as well as other measures to improve the efficiency of this part of the network is included in the Local Implementation Plan programme for next year (2007-08) for which the settlement decision from TfL is expected shortly.

35. The junction of Church Road with Elm Park has an all-round pedestrian stage and whilst traffic delays could be reduced by reducing pedestrian facilities, there is pressure to maintain and enhance pedestrian facilities at this junction.

36. The situation in Stanmore has been more sensitive in recent years due to the number of significant developments either implemented or proposed.

37. Monitoring has been undertaken to assess the impact on local traffic flows of three of the recent developments, namely residential developments at Brockley Hill and the former RAF Stanmore Park site and the new Sainsbury’s food store in the Town Centre. In all three cases the developments have had little or no measurable impact on the local road network flows. For example, traffic levels have not increased since 1999 on Church Road and the main route through the town centre. Traffic


entering and leaving Elm Park from/to Church Road is half that predicted in the transport assessment report that accompanied the Sainsbury planning application. Much of the ‘new’ traffic that does enter and leave Elm Park is in fact traffic that was on the network before the Sainsbury development. Customers that now shop at Sainsbury are not totally new trips. They previously shopped elsewhere in Stanmore or in other town centres and were therefore already on the network.

38. There are also a number of developments that are not yet implemented or considered by the planning committee. These are

• the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (RNOH) off Brockley Hill,

Stanmore • the ex-Government Works site in Honeypot Lane • “Cloisters Wood” in Wood Lane • BAE site, and • Stonegrove in London Borough of Barnet.

39. The transport assessments for the developments of Cloisters Wood and

the BAE site indicate they will have no measurable impact upon the roads in Stanmore town centre.

40. However, the combined development of the RNOH and Stonegrove will

have an impact on the roundabout of Brockley Hill / London Road / Spur Road / Stonegrove. Any additional traffic generated by either of these developments will exacerbate the existing congestion. With these new developments, the assessment predicts increased queues and delays on all approaches. Barnet’s Section 106 agreement with the developers of Stonegrove includes a provision to improve the Canons Corner junction as part of the planning permission to assist in mitigating capacity problems.

41. Planning guidance requires developers to use sustainable design

principles and to promote the use of sustainable transport modes rather than rely on the car. Whilst Stanmore generally has high car ownership and use, the Planning Inspectorate would not support the assumption that this would apply to new development. Stanmore does not have the best public transport accessibility in Harrow but it does have good public transport accessibility by national standards. It is important therefore that any new development includes measures that promote the use of sustainable transport. In terms of highway improvements it is important that the immediate site access and any major junctions in the immediate vicinity are able to or are improved to cope with traffic going to and from the site, but highway capacity improvements to increase the capacity of the wider network are unlikely to be agreed.

42. Improvements to the immediate access and measures to promote sustainable transport are normally secured via Section 106 planning agreements with the developer. For example, the following is included in the s.106 for the BAE site: • improve the site access lane and its junction with Warren Lane


• improve street lighting within the vicinity of the site • provide pedestrian facilities linking the site to bus stops in the locality

and improve the bus stops • provide a Toucan crossing and a cycle lane on Warren Lane with all

necessary signage and road markings • enhance the pedestrian footways across Stanmore Common • provide a new or extended public transport (bus) service to the site -

(extension of bus route H17 would be favourably considered) 43. The developers of RNOH will provide a similar level of contribution as

BAE. They will also be required to provide traffic calming measures in Wood Lane. Cloisters Wood would use its travel plan to promote a car sharing scheme, public transport, cycling and walking.

44. Officers are still assessing the planning merits of the application to

develop the ex-Government Works site in Honeypot Lane. A study undertaken for the Council by a consultant has concluded that there would be no major impact on Stanmore. It has nonetheless advised the Council that the developers should be required to carry out works to the value of £296,000. Officers are currently in negotiation with the developers for a number of contributions, including:

• Signal control at the site junction • Priority junction in Whitchurch Lane • Contribution to CPZ extension • Enhanced footways on adjacent land • Robust travel plan and car club scheme • Internal parking management system • Public transport contribution • Contribution to mitigate future highway works

45. In addition to developers’ contributions to highway improvements, the

Council has recently implemented an extension of Stanmore CPZ, partly funded by developer contributions. The council’s partner AccordMP has also been commissioned to carry out a study of parking implications of the new National Stadium at Wembley at all stations in the borough and to advise on an event day parking scheme around Stanmore and Canons Park stations. The results of the study will help reduce the impact of the new stadium on Stanmore on major event days. It is anticipated that subject to consultation and relevant procedures, the study’s findings will be implemented in 2007/08.

(2) Wealdstone 46. A study is currently underway looking into the possibility of opening up

Wealdstone High Street for general traffic. This study will address congestion and parking issues in the town centre and is programmed for implementation in summer 2007.


47. An extensive review of Wealdstone CPZ is currently underway. This review considers all elements of parking within the zone as well as reviewing the size of the zone and recommending it is extended.

48. There is a strong overlap between congestion and parking in areas like Wealdstone as on-street parking exacerbates congestion. A key element of the CPZ review has been to identify where parking unduly interferes with traffic flow and to propose measures to address that.

49. Congestion caused by parking, even if of short duration associated with loading, was seen as a particular issue on High Street between the Clocktower and George Gange Way. The use of rear service roads to remove the need to park on the main road is the long term objective. It is recognised that this will not be practical for some time especially on the west side of High Street where no access currently exists. For the time being loading within defined loading spaces and only for the 10am to 3pm period, is considered a necessity for the operation of the businesses. These loading spaces are staggered and on the west side separated from the bus stop that currently causes problems.

50. The CPZ review also proposed double yellow line restrictions especially on distributor roads and roads carrying through traffic to improve junction visibility and safety and reduce congestion.

51. Another part of the review looked at parking difficulties experienced by residents on roads just beyond the current CPZ. The consultation showed strong support for extension of the CPZ.

52. The recent policy change by which business permits can be used for parking in permit bays, which previously had been restricted to residents and their visitors displaying a permit, should be beneficial to the operation of businesses.

53. Concerns by businesses that CPZs dissuade shoppers and visitors are being addressed by more on street pay and display. The restriction times will also be displayed on all permit bay signage to make it clear that these are restricted only between 10-11am and 2-3pm Monday to Friday.

54. There has been extensive consultation and support for the current proposals, that have been modified to reflect the consultation feedback. The proposals have been agreed by Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel and the Portfolio Holder and subject funding, traffic order making procedures and consideration of any objections to the orders should be implemented in Spring 2007.


(3) Harrow Town Centre

Parking 55. There are around 3,500 publicly available parking spaces within Harrow

town centre. In addition, there are about 1,700 private non-residential (PNR) spaces that are specifically designated for retail or commercial use. Surface off-street car parking accounts for approximately 35% (1,236) of these spaces, a further 57% (2,033) are contained within multi-storey car parks (MSCP’s) and 8% (270) on–street. The off-street car parking spaces are contained within 11 key car parks (see Table 2).

Table 2: Summary of Harrow Town Centre Off - Street Public Car Parks

Car Park Total No of Spaces

Business Permits

Disabled Spaces

Parent & Toddler Type of Parking

Gayton Rd 292 - 2 - Long Stay Davy House (Lyon Rd) 97 - 1 - Short Stay St Johns Rd 17 - 1 - Short Stay Greenhill Way 274 31 12 - Short Stay Greenhill Rd 45 8 1 - Short Stay St Ann’s MSCP 940 69 16 35 Short Stay / Long Stay St Georges MSCP 643 100 30 0 Short Stay Queens House MSCP 450 420 - Long Stay / Shoppers Vaughan Rd 48 - 3 - Long Stay Harrow on the Hill Stn 88 88 - - Permits Only Tesco 375 - 20 15 Short Stay (2 hrs Free) TOTAL 3269 716 86 50

56. In terms of type of car park from a length of stay perspective, 70% (2492)

of total spaces are designated as short stay car parking spaces with 30% (1047) designated as long stay parking spaces. The long stay spaces include 716 contract spaces distributed within various car parks across the town centre. The largest contributor being Queens House MSCP during the week.

57. Analyses of current ownership/control of off-street car parks within the

town centre highlights that 37% (1223) of total spaces are currently within Harrow Council’s control. A further 49% (1583) are privately managed and contained within shopping centres. Tesco and NCP (at the Railway Station) control the remaining 14% (463) of spaces. Disabled provision accounts for 3% of overall town centre spaces of which 86 spaces are in off-street car parks and 13 on street.

58. Consultants, Peter Brett Associates (PBA), are currently undertaking a

study and preparing a town centre parking strategy for consideration by council. Using indicators such as floor area, pedestrian flows and type of use, the study has identified five key destinations within the town centre that are the main generators of parking demand. These are:


• Debenhams, • Lyon Road Commercial Centre, • St Ann’s Shopping Centre, • Harrow on the Hill railway station, and • St George’s Shopping Centre.

59. PBA has also assessed the quality of the publicly available car parks

within the town centre using three key performance indicators (KPIs): accessibility, internal environment and parking cost. Accessibility (weighted as 55% of the overall quality index) is ranked the most important with internal environment (weighted 30%) given secondary importance and cost of parking (weighted 15%) as the final influential factor. Harrow town centre has an average Quality Score of 73%. This equates to a good rating and is typical of a town centre where a significant proportion of parking is contained within the proximity of the key anchor points and is generally of a reasonable standard in terms of overall quality.

Table 3: Summary of Retail/Parking Information for Competing Centres Town or Centre

Retail Space (in sq. metre)

Public Parking Spaces

Retail/spaces ratio Short Stay Average Hourly price

Long Stay Daily Rate

Harrow 81,300 3,269 1 space : 24.87m2 60p-90p/hour £3.40/day Watford 126,710 6,050 1 space : 20.94m2 60p/hour £2.50/day Uxbridge 101,000 2,560 1 space : 39.45m2 60p/hour £6.50/day Brent Cross 80,000 6,500 1 space : 12.31m2 FREE FREE Ealing 133,300 3,129 1 space : 42.60m2 £1/hour £2/day

60. In order to establish how Harrow town centre competes with nearby towns

in terms of parking and retail facilities, a comparison has been made with four locations, namely: Watford Town Centre, Hillingdon (Uxbridge), Brent Cross, and Ealing. The results are summarised in Table 3.

61. Table 3 indicates that Harrow town centre has a similar level of parking

spaces to Watford when considered in relation to the level of retail floorspace within the town centre. From an overall parking pace perspective Harrow town centre offers a similar number of car parking spaces to Ealing, less spaces than Watford and Brent Cross but significantly more spaces than within Uxbridge town centre. From a short stay perspective, Harrow is slightly more expensive than Watford and Uxbridge, although this depends on the car park used. Harrow is generally cheaper than Ealing town centre. In respect of Long Stay parking, Harrow is more expensive than Watford and Ealing but cheaper than Uxbridge. Brent Cross has the distinct advantage of offering free parking all day to shoppers and visitors to the shopping centre.

62. Analysis has been undertaken of the existing demand for car parking

within the town centre. This has used a variety of sources including car park utilisation data recorded in March 2003 and PBA’s survey in May 2006. A summary of the above information is contained within Table 4 for short and long stay car parks.


Table 4: Summary of Off Street Car Park Utilisation Rates: Harrow Town Centre

1. Short Stay Car Parks Proportion of Available Space Utilised (%) March 2003 9th May 2006

Car Park No of Spaces (2003 figures in brackets) Fri Sat 8am-6pm

Davy House (Lyon Rd) 97 45.36 53.61 44.33 St Johns Rd 17 100.00 94.12 100.00 Greenhill Way 274 36.13 74.09 34.31 Greenhill Rd 45 28.89 62.22 33.33 St Ann’s MSCP 871 (740) 67.57 67.57 35.25 St George’s MSCP 543 N/A N/A 76.24 Tesco 375 N/A N/A 80.00 On Street Parking 270 N/A N/A 80.00 Sub Total 2492 N/A N/A 56.42

2. Long Stay Car Parks Gayton Rd 292 76.37 49.66 100.00 St Ann’s MSCP 69 (200) 95.00 N/A 100.00 St George’s MSCP 100 N/A N/A 100.00 Queens House MSCP 450 59.11 14.00 85.11 Vaughan Rd 48 47.92 16.67 93.75 Railway Station 88 N/A N/A 52.27 Sub Total 1047 N/A N/A 89.30 Overall Total 3539 N/A N/A 66.15

63. Table 4 shows that out of the total 3,539 spaces available, demand is

likely to be on average for about 1,406 (56% of available short stay spaces) for short stay parking and 935 (89% of available long stay spaces) for long stay parking. This equates to a total of 2341 (or 66% of available long and short stay) spaces. It should be mentioned that demand varies according to time of day and time of year. This leaves approximately 44% of the short stay parking supply free for use by others and about 11% of the long stay parking supply. This reflects a standard weekday situation within the town centre. Clearly, at weekends and busy periods such as Christmas utilisation is considerably higher and often is likely to be around 90 to 100% for short stay car parks.

64. Table 4 shows that out of the total 3,539 spaces available, demand is

likely to be on average for about 1,406 (56% of available short stay spaces) for short stay parking and 935 (89% of available long stay spaces) for long stay parking. This equates to a total of 2341 (or 66% of available long and short stay) spaces. It should be mentioned that demand varies according to time of day and time of year. This leaves approximately 44% of the short stay parking supply free for use by others and about 11% of the long stay parking supply. This reflects a standard weekday situation within the town centre. Clearly, at weekends and busy periods such as Christmas utilisation is considerably higher and often is likely to be around 90 to 100% for short stay car parks.

65. In respect of the supply of parking spaces there is an aspiration to retain

parking supply in line with demand, particular in respect of short stay provision, in order to remain competitive with neighbouring towns. From a long stay perspective and in line with national and local policy directives


and guidance, there is a long-term aspiration to reduce the level of long-stay parking provision available within the town centre.

Congestion in Harrow town centre

66. We have obtained information on the level of congestion in Harrow town

centre from a study of traffic undertaken for the Council by Jacobs Babtie. A recent study has been undertaken for the council by Jacobs Babtie. The study analyses traffic flow and congestion and estimates how new development and traffic growth will affect congestion in future. The study was based on extensive surveys of pedestrian and vehicular movements undertaken in May 2003 and a forecast of how these would change in the period to 2016 with a number of options for development identified in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for Harrow. The study makes extensive use of a VISSIM model. This models the flows for different assumptions eg traffic growth and road layout.

67. The congestion experienced at peak times is largely considered to be as a

result of through trips (that is traffic passing through) rather than specific trips to the town centre. The study also shows that vehicular delays and queues are highly variable, but are most noticeable on the approaches to Headstone Road/Greenhill Way and towards the Pinner Road/Bessborough Road roundabout.

68. The study concluded that isolated junction improvements will not assist in

keeping traffic moving unless they are linked with adjacent junction control that is vehicle actuated and responsive. It also indicated that major junction improvements to increase capacity may not derive local trip benefit as it is likely to attract additional through traffic. However, beneficial improvements could be provided as bus priority measures or as increased entry/exit capacity.

69. The report also suggests that by 2016 traffic demand is likely to grow

across the network by up to 16.2% in the weekday morning peak period, 12.2% in the evening peak and 13.4% all day on Saturday. Using VISSIM, the impact of the growth on some selected junctions has been evaluated. The report concluded that:

“The VISSIM do-nothing tests in future years predict that the westbound

traffic in the PM on the section between the Headstone Road / Greenhill Way junction and the northern Bessborough Road (Roxborough Bridge) roundabout is subject to a high density of vehicles and related queuing. It was also observed in the VISSIM model that the AM peak eastbound queue on Greenhill Way/Headstone Road junction occasionally stretched back to the northern Bessborough Road (Roxborough Bridge) roundabout. Additionally, Bessborough Road (Roxborough Bridge) itself, between the roundabouts, was starting to have difficulty in maintaining sufficient priority and capacity for all turning movements, resulting in queues to all traffic, including through traffic, in all modelled peak periods. This in turn affects access to/from the town centre.” (See paragraph 6.4.4, Jacobs Babtie report, September 2006)


70. When account is taken of all UDP-related developments, traffic congestion

would become considerably worse on the approach to some sections of the following junctions:

• Bessborough Road (Roxborough Bridge) Roundabouts • Greenhill Way / Headstone Road Junction • Greenhill Way / Station Road • Kenton Road / Peterborough Road / Tyburn Lane Junction • Kenton Road / Sheepcote Road / Watford Road

71. For example, the model predicts that with the addition of UDP-related

developments, the problems at the Bessborough Road/Lowlands Road roundabout would be worst during the Saturday peak. By 2009, queues on the Bessborough Road (Roxborough Bridge) southbound approach to the southern roundabout would fluctuate between 250 and 330 metres. This would cause blocking back to the Bessborough Road/Pinner Road roundabout, with maximum queues on the Pinner Road approach ranging from 150 to 200 metres in length.

72. The study has identified and evaluated means of dealing with the congestion

and many other transport-related problems. Its key recommendation is that the Council should adopt a strategy for the town centre, which seeks to manage vehicular trip growth, encourage public transport, encourage walking and cycling and use highway capacity improvements to assist bus priority measures as a sustainable method of improving transport capacity. It sees wider efficiency benefits from enhancing the signal system, via improved junction control and signal linking and wider network optimisation with SCOOT. It also calls for the improvement of key pedestrian crossing points to reduce the severance caused by the peripheral traffic levels around Greenhill Way and Lowlands Road and the intensification of bus priority measures as an alternative to the car.

73. In order to address these issues, the Council is in the process of appointing

consultants to prepare a comprehensive town centre access strategy. When finalised, the access strategy will help achieve the objectives of the adopted Town Centre Development Strategy. It will also dovetail with the on-gong development of the Public Realm Strategy. The study will consider the best practical and financially viable way of dealing with congestion and other related transport problems, including:

• Bus priority improvements: Proposals will include changing the nature

and location of the existing bus station to provide much more seamless interchange with train services.

• Junction improvements: The study shows that some of the key locations giving rise to congestion are the signalised junctions of Greenhill Way with both Headstone Road and Station Road, and of Peterborough Road with Kenton Road and Lowlands Road. The key challenge is how to keep traffic moving whilst ensuring an appropriate degree of access for other road users especially buses, pedestrian and cyclists.


• Encouraging greater pedestrian movements: In many parts of the town centre, provision for pedestrian movements could be improved. For example, Greenhill Way acts as a barrier between the residential area to the north and the shopping core.

74. The challenge for the imminent Town Centre Access Study is how to

reduce the conflicts between different modes by developing a workable and holistic access strategy that takes account of the desire lines as well as the origins / destinations of each transport mode.

Financial Implications 75. There are no specific financial implications arising out of this report. 76. One of the factors that influences the rate of progress dealing with

congestion and parking issues is funding. The majority of funding for traffic schemes is received from Transport for London (TfL). TfL designate a number of ‘transport areas’ that boroughs can bid under. These are for example: safety, bus priority, cycling, walking, freight, bus stop accessibility, station access, school travel plans/safer routes to schools, 20mph zones. TfL to date have not allocated funding for boroughs to deal with congestion, although the boroughs are encouraged to do so (at their own cost) by the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. There are signs that this may change next financial year and as mentioned above the LIP identifies a programme of congestion ‘hotspots’ to be tackled, for which funding may be received from TfL.

77. Funding for CPZs has come from a variety of sources. TfL funded a lot of

outer London CPZs in connection with the implementation of the central London congestion charging scheme (aimed at managing parking problems around stations for drivers that transferred to train). However, TfL funding for CPZs has ceased and TfL expect boroughs to fund their own CPZs using income from parking charges and enforcement. The present programme is therefore funded by an allocation of £300k (2006-07) in Harrow’s capital programme.

78. Funding for parking controls is also secured via S.106 planning

agreements associated with new development. Examples of this include Wembley Stadium, Sainsbury Stanmore and Prince Edward Playing Fields.

For consideration


SECTION 3 - STATUTORY OFFICER CLEARANCE Chief Finance Officer √ Name: Anil Nagpal

Date: 15.11.06 Monitoring Officer √ Name: David Galpin

Date: 15.11.06 SECTION 4 - CONTACT DETAILS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact: Steve Swain (extension 2538) / Tunde Raji (extension 2986) Background Papers: Appendix 1 – Plan showing congestion hotspots Appendix 2 – CPZ programme Harrow Town Centre Micro-Simulation Study, Final Report, Jacobs Babtie, September 2006 IF APPROPRIATE, does the report include the following considerations? 1. Consultation N/a

2. Corporate Priorities YES

3. Manifesto Pledge Reference Number B1, B3, B4, B5


Appendix 1


APPENDIX 2 – CPZ Programme

Controlled Parking Zones and Resident Parking Schemes

Priority list for financial year 2006/07 and 5 year Draft Borough Spending Plan Programme from April 2006 to March 2011

Seven main factors govern the programme: Implementation date of last review for this area (if applicable), staff availability, current implementation programme, funding, Council (Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel) meetings (4 per year), Environment and Transport Portfolio Holder decisions and favourable consultation results. Where considered appropriate reports and objections will be dealt with directly by the Portfolio Holder in order to speed up decision making. The programme is also subject to change depending on other Council decisions, such as whether there is a Scrutiny Committee “call in”, referrals to Council Cabinet, other priorities, workload and available resources as they emerge during the year. All reviews will consider the need for on street business permits with the exception of Harrow Town Centre.

Prioritised by Target Completion Date

Scheme Indicative Timescales

1.

Stanmore CPZ Review

Target completion: March 2006

2. South Harrow Stage 2 Extension Review and Stage 3 (Dudley Gardens to Northolt Park Station, in principle stage).

Advertise traffic orders: Spring 06 Consider objections (if any): Summer 06 Target completion: Autumn 06

3. Howberry Road Area Advertise traffic orders: Summer 06 Consider objections (if any):

Autumn 06 Target completion: Winter 06-07

4. Canons Corner “Pay and Display” Advertise traffic orders: Summer 06 Consider objections (if any):



5. Whitchurch Lane Lay-bys “Pay and

Display” Consultation: Winter 05-06 Consultation results: Spring 06 Advertise traffic orders: Summer 06 Consider objections (if any):


6.

Wealdstone Review and Possible Extension

Consultation: Winter 05 -06 Consultation results: Spring 06 Advertise traffic orders: Summer 06 Consider objections (if any):


7. Harrow Town Centre Review and

Possible Extension (To include the Flambard Road area; Harrow View area (south of Cunningham Park); Pinner Road area (east of Pinner View); and Bessborough Road area. Pinner Road area to include investigation into HGV access and manoeuvring problems in Neptune Road industrial estate. Also to include Pinner Road, West Harrow – Pay and Display and Vaughan Road and Butler Avenue areas as well as localised reviews within existing zone.

Further stakeholder meetings: Winter 05-06 to Spring 06 Consultation: Pinner Road Area in two stages, start : Winter 05-06 Consultation (other areas, staged): Spring 06 to autumn 06 Consultation results: Winter 05-06 to Autumn 06 Advertise traffic orders: Spring 06 to Autumn 06 Consider objections (if any): September 06 to March 07 Target completion: Winter 06-07 to Summer 07

8. Rayners Lane Review and Extension

Stakeholders meeting: Winter 05- 06 Consultation: Spring 06 Consultation results: June 06 Advertise traffic orders: Autumn 06 Consider objections (if any): Winter 06-07 Target completion date: Spring 07

9. Edgware (Canons Park Estate only)

Stakeholders meeting: Spring 06 Consultation: Summer 06 Consultation results: September 06 Advertise traffic orders: Winter 06-07 Consider objections (if any): March 07 Target completion: Summer 07


10. Stanmore (Wembley Stadium Event Days)

Stakeholders meeting: Summer 06 Consultation: Autumn 06 Consultation results: March 07 Advertise traffic orders: Summer 07 Consider objections (if any): November 07 Target completion: Winter 07-08

11. Hatch End Shopping Centre Service Roads “Pay and Display”

Stakeholders meeting: Summer 06 Consultation: Autumn 06 Consultation results: March 07 Advertise traffic orders: Summer 07 Consider objections (if any): November 07 Target completion: Winter 07-08

12.

Harrow Weald (Fontwell Close area) Review


13.

Pinner Review and Extension


14. Honeypot Lane Service Road Area (Wemborough Road Junction)

Stakeholders meeting: Summer 07 Consultation: Autumn 07. Consultation results: December 07 Advertise traffic orders: Spring 08 Consider objections (if any): June 08 Target completion: Autumn 08

15. Sudbury Hill Stations Area Review and Possible Extension

Stakeholders meeting: Spring 08 Consultation: Summer 08 Consultation results: December 08


Advertise traffic orders: Spring 09 Consider objections (if any): June 09 Target completion: Autumn 09

16. South Harrow Stage 3 Review Stakeholders meeting: Spring 08 Consultation: Summer 08 Consultation results: December 08 Advertise traffic orders: Spring 09 Consider objections (if any): June 09 Target completion: Autumn 09

17. Kingsbury Circle Area

In Principle Stakeholders meeting: Summer 08 Consultation: Autumn 08 Consultation results: December 08 Detailed Design Consultation on detailed design: Spring 09 Consultation results: June 09 Advertise traffic orders: Autumn 09. Consider objections (if any): December 09 Target completion: Spring 10

18. Kenton Station Area Stage 1 Review and Possible Extension

In Principle Stakeholders meeting: Summer 08 Consultation: Autumn 08 Consultation results: December 08 Detailed Design Consultation on detailed design: Spring 09 Consultation results: June 09 Advertise traffic orders: Autumn 09. Consider objections (if any): December 09 Target completion: Spring 10

19. Wealdstone Review and Possible Extension

Stakeholders meeting: Spring 09 Consultation: Summer 09 Consultation results: December 09 Advertise traffic orders: Spring 10


Consider objections (if any): June 10 Target completion: Autumn 10

20.

Edgware Stage 2 Review and Extension

Stakeholders meeting: Spring 10. Consultation: Autumn 10 Consultation results: December 10 Advertise traffic orders: Winter 10-11 Consider objections (if any): June 11 Target completion: Autumn 11

21. Stanmore Review and Possible Extension

Stakeholders meeting: Spring 10. Consultation: Autumn 10 Consultation results: December 10 Advertise traffic orders: Winter 10-11 Consider objections (if any): June 11 Target completion: Autumn 11

MN 5/1/06 mn/R-CPZ Appendix D-2006


APPENDIX D (cont’d)

CONTROLLED PARKING ZONES/RESIDENT PARKING SCHEMES Unprogrammed Schemes (not in priority order) Belmont Circle Burnt Oak Broadway (probable joint scheme with Barnet) Canons Park Station Area (including Station Parade and Donnefield Avenue) Harrow on the Hill (including Roxeth Hill/Ashbourne Avenue Area) Harrow Weald (Courtenay Avenue Area) Kenton Road near Kenton Park Road/Avenue Letchford Terrace North Harrow (to be reviewed following the occupation of the supermarket re-development) Queensbury Circle/Honeypot Lane Area Queensbury Station area Westfield Lane, Kenton MN 11.1.06 scrutinynov06

recommendations - london borough of harrow › documents › s19622... · 12. congestion occurs...

Documents