Traffic Monitoring November 2017 - 13th anniversary!

As a result of traffic monitoring cables having been installed across the carriageway in various locations along the A639 and A642, this month, the following email has been sent to the Ward councillors, copied to our MP, and the Highways representative from Leeds City Council:   

Councillors

With reference to the traffic monitoring (cables across the carriageway) taking place on the A639 it has been pointed out that yet again the siting of the monitoring equipment on Leeds Hill is not in the optimum location and if the monitoring is for speed measurement, then the results will not be truly representative of the traffic speeds reached along Leeds Hill, and will show lower maximum speeds.  To record the speeds that are being reached the monitoring equipment should be closer to the middle of this stretch of road, as has been proven in the past.

NO action being taken about traffic speeds along the A639/A642

At a recent meeting (7 Feb.2017) with two of the local councillors, and representatives from Leeds City Council Highways Department, and the Police, it was confirmed that the Council was unable to do anything further in connection with traffic speeds, and that West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership was responsible for the introduction of cameras, fixed and mobile:

What are the criteria for getting new cameras installed in West Yorkshire?

These have changed over the years but since April 2009 we have been working to the following conditions based on the number of accidents where someone is Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) and a points system where each KSI accident scores 5 points and slight injury accidents score 1. Fixed camera lengths automatically qualify for mobile enforcement as well and both can be used together.

May 2016 Update

The day of local elections, and the eve of broken promises! 

There will undoubtedly be 'support' for the LAWRRAG campaign from whoever the councillors are for the next 12 months.  The one thing the campaign hasn't gone short of since 2004 is 'support' from councillors and MPs alike.  'Action' on the other hand, which is the thing that is needed, has been non-existent apart from one elected individual who did more than his fair share but came up against the might of petty bureaucracy, and arrogance from non-elected council officers.  The writer attended many meetings with this individual and can confirm that he genuinely did care and did try, which is more than can be said for any councillor or MP since.

The simple fact is that the campaign started in 2004 and things are worse now that they were back then!  For those of us working in the real world this is FAILURE, our elected representatives (those that still communicate with us) seem to believe that as long as meetings are held every few months then progress is being made!

It is interesting to see that one local councillor is a candidate for the position of West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner (and may well be that person by 6 May 2016).  That councillor is aware that every day the law is being broken by thousands of motorists speeding along the A639/A642 and yet has done nothing to deal with this!

Money for old rope!

Latest communication with our MP

This is quite an interesting response from Alec Shelbrooke MP. Whether what he is stating has come about as a result of recent changes I don't know, but we have been told on several occasions that the council does not have any responsibility for speeding, nor does it have any powers to do anything about it.

There's nothing to suggest that any action will be taken, but it does put a different complexion upon things.

"............ I have spoken with colleagues in the Department for Transport this week to get some clarification on this for you.

Under the previous Government, local authorities received funding from central government specifically for speed cameras. This is no longer the case.

Ministers state that local authorities, police and safer road partnerships can still use speed cameras if they wish – however, Ministers will not mandate either the installation or decommissioning of speed cameras. I understand that it is up to these organisations to decide whether to install or decommission speed cameras, and how to use their own funding in this area.

The Government is clear that local government needs increased flexibility to take decisions locally to deliver the solutions that suit them best. Through removing ring-fencing of budgets, I understand that local authorities are now free to determine their own spending priorities and to make decisions on how to achieve cost savings.

If you have been told by Council officers that the Government now prevent them from installing speed cameras then this is incorrect and I would hope that Cllr Bruce would be able to look into this and see than in future only correct information is relayed."

Road map

One of the hot topics at the meeting with Karen Bruce was the issue of 24/7 HGV traffic travelling between Stourton and the M62. We have a catalogue of spurious reasons from council officers as to why nothing can be done about this, such as 'strategic routes', 'distance', 'access', and its worth just revisiting the road map to see what a 'load of cobblers' we are expected to believe.

'NOISE'

There is a short series on TV at the moment, 'Windfarm Wars', about the impact windfarms can have upon individuals and local communities, and the losing battle that these people have with the windfarm developers, local authorities, and the planning system.

The 'jury is out' on the visual impact that windfarms have but of major concern to the windfarm battlers is the NOISE generated by the turbines and the rotor blades. The NOISE is apparently difficult to monitor, and not always perceptible, and in one dispute that went all the way to the High Court the case relied heavily upon the DISTURBANCE to the community that the NOISE would cause. The campaigners were unable to prove that the NOISE would be excessive, and lost the case, had it been proven then the probability is that the windfarm would not have been developed.

The correlation here is that on two separate occasions, on different properties along Leeds/Wakefield Road, perhaps an eigth of a mile apart, sound monitoring has been undertaken by the council, and on each occasion the results have shown "excessive" NOISE from traffic! On each occasion these results have had to be prised out of the council! Sound monitoring is undertaken to standards set down by the World Health Organisation, and their web site contains a mountain of information relative to NOISE and how injurious it can be to health and well-being, TRAFFIC NOISE is a major concern! NOISE has to be taken into account from a development perspective and there is a link on this page to the Planning guideline concerning NOISE and development.

What of the findings of the council? - This type of monitoring is often undertaken when a new housing development is proposed close by an existing busy road. The results from the monitoring would have meant that special consideration would have to have been given to the sound insulation of the houses, and sound defence walls would have to be built along the road to reduce the NOISE impact. If it couldn't be shown that NOISE impact could be sufficiently minimised, then development might be prevented.

Most of our properties were here long before the NOISE became "excessive".

The council must have amazingly thick carpets to be able to brush so much under them!

Further 'Folly' on Leeds Road

You may have noticed the construction of a single vehicle parking area almost at the top of Leeds Hill (Leeds Road). Apparently this has caused intrigue and we have been asked by the Rothwell and District Record if this is anything to do with LAWRRAG? It hasn't, but we can confirm what it is - It is a parking space for a mobile speed camera vehicle. Whether there are more proposed we don't know.

We have on file correspondence from the highways department to our councillors, stating that as the police do not feel that there is a problem with speeding along Leeds Wakefield Road their monitoring of vehicle speeds will be of low priority status. Their monitoring of night time HGV speeds will be non-existant.

Although the signs for mobile speed cameras were put up months ago and it is surely no coincidence that the parking area has been constructed right at the end of the council financial year.

No doubt this 'folly' will be used to show how our councillors are doing everything they can to address the speeding problem.

The truth, the whole truth - or nothing like the truth?

An earlier posting (6th August) contains the following statement - The problems lie much closer to home than most people realise. Just to expand upon this a little we have dug these nuggets out of the archives:

LCC Spokesman's comments - in response to an article in the Yorkshire Evening Post, Wednesday 22 February 2006, about the concerns and the activities of LAWRRAG (see also 'Royds Russian Roulette' posting) - 1) "....the group's concerns were being taken extremely seriously but major traffic problems had yet to be found." 2) "We have asked police to carry out enforcement measures to combat a small element of speeding along the road."

Letter to LAWRRAG from Councillor Steve Smith 24 August 2004 - in response to complaints about HGV traffic - "Please be assured that I will be monitoring the situation on an ongoing basis with a view to achieving a significant reduction in HGV movements along the A639/A642 corridor."

Letter to local MP from Highways department 27 January 2006 - in response to concerns about increased traffic resulting from Aire Valley development link road proposal - "It is not anticipated that the A639 will increase in volume due to the construction of these roads". The writer of this letter had been present and a meeting held on 13 January 2006, with LAWRRAG representatives and senior council officers, where it was confirmed that there would be a higher volume of all types of traffic using the A639/A642 as a result of the Aire Valley development and link road!

Speed monitoring - In November 2004 the council carried out speed monitoring on the A639 and came to the conclusion that there was no excessive speeding! It was pointed out to the council that positioning the monitoring equipment within yards of a set of traffic lights would not give a true indication of average speeds. After much pressure and many months delay monitoring was again carried out, at a spot suggested by LAWRRAG. The results from this monitoring, on the same road, showed that in excess of 80% of all vehicles were speeding, this resulted in the council stating that there was a serious speeding problem!

Police liaison following speed monitoring - It was stated at a meeting held with senior council officers in December 2005 that although it was acknowledged that there was a serious speeding problem, there was only the police that could do anything about it. The council confirmed that they would liaise with the police which they eventually did in August 2006!

LAWRRAG 2004 petition - In the summer of 2004 70+ households signed a petition supporting the campaign for speed control, an HGV ban, and a crossing for Royds School, the petition was presented to the council, through the councillors - that petition was simply ignored!

Sensibly minded people might presume that council members, officers, and ward councillors would be doing everything that they could to help the community, the rate payers.