Latest on A46 for Whiteshill residents

Glos County Council Highways have confirmed they are not promoting using Whiteshill as an alternative route to the A46. See my blog on Saturday for email I sent to Highways.

Photo: Entrance to Whiteshill

Highways have been asked to stop parking in Whiteshill, to ease traffic flows, but as this will only encourage more traffic, they have refused this request. I agree. The good news is that they've arranged for a new 7.5 tonne weight limit, with an exception for busses, to at least keep the larger vehicles away.

The VAS (flashing speed sign) at Edge has not yet been connected so this is now on a priority list. And I understand from Julie Shirley, the Whiteshill and Ruscombe Clerk that they have had confirmation that Whiteshill does not qualify for a VAS. In order to qualify for VAS it must meet three out of the four criteria: vehicle speeds, accident history, traffic flow and environmental factors (See below how Whiteshill scored).

Highways say they are also looking at any measures they can put in around the school to reduce traffic speed, but note that "so far nothing obvious is springing to mind". As we know only too well this has been the problem all along - I have asked if their might be a chance of a 20mph through Whiteshill under some temporary arrangement. Other ideas welcomed!!

As Randwick Parish councillor Martin Rendell pointed out the closure of the road at Puckshole will also have a significant impact on increasing traffic when schools start as parents and others have a long route round either via Whiteshill/Ruscombe or Cainscross roundabout. Both the A46 and Puckshole will not be fixed "for several months" - hopefully a better idea will emerge when surveys are completed.

Whiteshill scores for a VAS (flashing speed sign)

In order for a site to qualify for VAS a road must meet three out of the four criteria: vehicle speeds, accident history, traffic flow and environmental factors. On the basis of this criteria Main Road in Whiteshill does not qualify for VAS. Below is an explanation as to how this decision was reached and how we failed on 3 out of 4 criteria but were allowed traffic volumes as it was close to the 2000 required:

• Accidents
Required: 3 injury accidents over the last 3 years within 500m of site.
Main Road: no injury accidents within last 3 years ✗

• Speeds
Required: 85%ile speeds must be above speed limit + 10% + 2mph, which for Main Road would be 35mph.
Main Road: 85%ile speeds for two locations (recording both northbound and southbound flows) were between 29mph and 34mph. ✗

• Traffic Volume
Required: over 2000 vehicles per day.
Main Road: northbound had recorded flows of 1875 between 07:00 and 19:00. ✓

• Environmental Factors
Required: site sensitive in terms of accessibility, community severance and is adjacent to a school.
Main Road: close to a school and splits the community. ✓