a21 lamberhurst to hastings

A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings

Average Speed Camera Study

May 2015

Highways England


Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 21 April 2015 First Issue for Internal Use Only

B 22 May 2015 Second Issue

C 28 May 2015 Third Issue

Issue and revision record

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it

and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned

project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or

used for any other purpose.

We accept no respons bility for the consequences of this

document being relied upon by any other party, or being used

for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which

is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other

parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary

intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties

without consent from us and from the party which

commissioned it.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015


Chapter Title Page

Executive Summary i

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Objective __________________________________________________________________________ 1

2. Existing Conditions 3

2.1 Background ________________________________________________________________________ 3 2.2 Speed Limits _______________________________________________________________________ 3 2.3 Layout and Highway Cross-Section _____________________________________________________ 3 2.4 Personal Injury Collision Data __________________________________________________________ 6 2.5 Associated Schemes for the A21 corridor _________________________________________________ 6 2.5.1 Planned (funded) Works ______________________________________________________________ 7

3. Proposed ASC Scheme 8

3.1 Overview of Proposed Operating System _________________________________________________ 8

4. Proposed Camera Location Sites 10

4.1 Camera Site Locations ______________________________________________________________ 10 4.2 Delivery Design and Engineering considerations __________________________________________ 15 4.2.1 Highway Land _____________________________________________________________________ 15 4.2.2 Power Supply _____________________________________________________________________ 15 4.2.3 Street Lighting _____________________________________________________________________ 15 4.2.4 Communications ___________________________________________________________________ 15 4.2.5 Utilities (Statutory Undertakers Plant) Assessment _________________________________________ 15 4.2.6 Structural Assessment (Desktop) ______________________________________________________ 16 4.2.7 Environmental Assessment (Desktop) __________________________________________________ 17 4.2.8 Geotechnical Assessment (Desktop) ___________________________________________________ 20 4.2.9 Sight Line Assessment ______________________________________________________________ 21 4.2.10 Road Safety and Traffic Engineering Assessment _________________________________________ 21 4.2.11 Speed limit signs ___________________________________________________________________ 21 4.2.12 TechMAC maintenance requirements - vehicle hardstanding and access for operatives. ___________ 22 4.2.13 Consultation ______________________________________________________________________ 24

5. ASC Complimentary Measures 25

5.1 Identified schemes to enhance Speed Limits and proposed Average Speed Cameras _____________ 25

6. Preliminary Scheme Costs 27

6.1 Capital Expenditure Costs (Equipment Supply, Installation and Commissioning) __________________ 27 6.2 Supplementary Construction Costs _____________________________________________________ 28 6.3 Design for Construction Considerations _________________________________________________ 29 6.4 Maintenance ______________________________________________________________________ 30 6.5 Annual Costs and Whole Life Costs ____________________________________________________ 30

7. Conclusions and Recommendations 31

Content

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015


Appendices 32

Appendix A. Project Brief ______________________________________________________________________ 33 Appendix B. Vysionics camera and infra-red pole and foundation details __________________________________ 34 Appendix C. General Layout Drawings (SS-15-8327-1011 – 23) ________________________________________ 35 Appendix D. Camera Site Layout Drawings (SS-15-8327-2601-34) and Typical Grass Grid Hardstanding Detail for

Maintenance Vehicles (SS-15-8327-100) ________________________________________________ 36 Appendix E. Extracts from Area 4 BBMMjv ‘MAYRISE’ Database _______________________________________ 37 Appendix F. Desktop Environmental Assessment ___________________________________________________ 38 Appendix G. BBMMjv LNMS Scheme Drawing Numbers LNMS/13-7058 1201 to 1207 _______________________ 39 Appendix H. BBMMjv A21 ASC Scheme Estimate ___________________________________________________ 40

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

i


The A21 route south of the Lamberhurst Bypass is rural in nature, serving the main urban

areas of Flimwell, Hurst Green, Robertsbridge, John’s Cross and, Woodman’s Green. It

also serves as the main access route to Hastings from London and the north. Highways

England has a desire to install average speed cameras (ASCs) along part of the A21

corridor over a distance of approximately 26km.

Further to discussions between prospective supplier, Vysionics ITS, Highways England

and Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald joint venture, Vysionics ITS has prepared a

budgetary proposal for a SPECS3 VECTOR speed management and enforcement

scheme for the A21. The SPECS3 VECTOR solution would be used to monitor and

control vehicle speeds on the A21 between Lamberhurst and Hastings.

The scheme comprises the provision of 34 ASCs placed along the route, essentially at

locations where there is a change in local speed limit.

Principally, the proposed ASC locations are suitable, however, a number of matters need

to be addressed further prior to the scheme being implemented.

Consultation - Further structured consultation with key stakeholders (local MP,

Sussex Safer Roads Partnership, local parish councils and adjoining property

owners where ASCs are proposed to be situated) is required.

Environmental - There are a number of matters that will be required to be

addressed further including the application of the Record of Determination /

Notification of Determination (ROD/NOD) process and the preparation of an

appropriate assessment screening matrix (AASM). Part of the study area is also

close to an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) and there are likely to be

impacts in terms of cultural heritage and nature conservation. This will therefore

require further environmental assessment reporting as the scheme progresses.

Geotechnical - The majority of the cutting slopes are likely to involve some minor

cutting and re-grading of the slope and installation of some form of erosion

protection and/or reinforcement. The foundations in embankments will be more

complicated, which may require placing additional fill materials or increasing the

depth of foundations. Therefore further geotechnical assessment reporting will be

required as the scheme progresses.

Land ownership - Initial assessment of land boundary information suggests that

land required for works is within the public highway and therefore no land

acquisition is considered necessary.

Executive Summary

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

ii


Structural Assessment - Preliminary information supplied by Vysionics which

has been reviewed internally by BBMMjv is regarded as being appropriate to task.

Further detailed structural assessment of the camera foundations and mountings

at individual sites will be required as the scheme progresses. Furthermore, as the

current intention is to provide ASCs on passively safe posts, on the whole, no

significant provision of new vehicle road restraint systems (VRRS) is required.

Statutory Undertakers’ Plant/Apparatus - The principal concern is the

availability or requirement to provide a robust, independent power supply to a

number of individual camera site locations. This is likely to require the provision of

additional ducting and cabling.

Communications - This will be required between the individual camera locations

in order to process speed data ascertained from the individual ASC sites.

Historically, this has been achieved through fixed communications (e.g. BT phone

line). However, it is understood that there is strong mobile communication signal

available from at least one network. Therefore, the proposed ASC operation will

communicate by means of a 3G data SIM, built into the camera head.

Maintenance - Further consideration will need to be given in terms of the

provision of vehicle hardstanding such that operatives can periodically access the

ASC sites should they need to do so.

Existing Speed Limits - There are a number of current local proposals through

some of the settlements on the A21 route (e.g. Hurst Green, Whatlington) where

existing speed limits are to be reviewed / revised. Furthermore, this proposed

ASC scheme will require the provision of additional signing to advise drivers of the

enforcement measures in place. Therefore, coordination will be needed to ensure

that changes to signing are complimentary and should be addressed through

further consultation with Sussex Safer Roads Partnership.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

1


1.1 Objective

Highways England has commissioned the Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald joint venture (BBMMjv) to

investigate the provision of average speed cameras (ASCs) on the A21, south of Lamberhurst to Hastings

(the northern suburb of Baldslow) (see Figure 1.1 overleaf). The objective is to advance to concept/outline

design stage, a layout for camera locations and to identify the principal constraints to further scheme

development.

This report considers, amongst other matters, the following:

Land requirements (including verge widths);

Visibility (to and from the cameras);

Extent of speed limit;

Utilities and power supply;

Geotechnical constraint; and

Environmental impacts.

It does not seek to justify the appropriateness of the scheme in terms of:

Assess the road safety record of the route section, specifically, analysis of personal injury accident

data; or

Undertake any journey time analysis.

A copy of the study proposal is shown in Appendix A.

The structure of this report is as follows:

Section 2 – overview of existing conditions;

Section 3 – overview of the proposed scheme;

Section 4 – proposed camera location sites;

Section 5 – ASC Complimentary Measures;

Section 6 – Preliminary Scheme Costs; and

Section 7 – Conclusions and Recommendations.

1. Introduction

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

3


2.1 Background

The A21 Trunk Road forms part of a north-south link between the M25 at Junction 5 near Sevenoaks in

West Kent and the Hastings Borough boundary on the south coast in East Sussex. The proposed scheme

relates to the specific section south of the Lamberhurst Bypass the route is rural in nature serving the main

urban areas of Flimwell, Hurst Green, Robertsbridge and John’s Cross plus a number of other local

villages. It also serves as the main access route to Hastings from London and the North.

The route has historically suffered from a poor collision record and anecdotally, ranks high as one of the

Highways England’s routes with such a record. It is also often experiences poor journey time reliability due

to its susceptibility to incidents.

ASCs have been in operation on a number of major highway schemes for many years now, essentially in

support of traffic management measures (i.e. reduced speed limits) during the construction stage. Most

recently, Highways England has witnessed a high degree of compliance with temporary speed limits placed

for the construction works associated with the A23 Handcross to Warninglid improvement in West Sussex.

Senior officers in Highways England, now wish to investigate the introduction of similar ‘permanent’

measures on sections of the all-purpose trunk road (APTR) network following consultation with key local

stakeholders such as elected members and representatives of safety camera partnerships.

The section of the A21 in East Sussex is almost 22km in length, is single carriageway and generally rural in

nature with eight urban/semi-urban sections. These urban/semi urban sections are: Flimwell, Hurst Green,

Robertsbridge, John’s Cross, Woodman’s Green and Sedlescombe.

2.2 Speed Limits

Commensurate with the horizontal and vertical alignment of the A21 throughout the study length and the

provision of frontage access and activity, there are a range of posted speed limits in place. The principal

settlements of Hurst Green and, John’s Cross have a 30mph posted speed limit, whilst Flimwell and Kent

Street are subject to a 50mph posted speed limit.

The remaining sections of the A21 comprise a mix of 40mph, 50mph, 60mph posted limits (or National

Speed Limit applies).

2.3 Layout and Highway Cross-Section

All of the A21 throughout the scheme extents comprises rural single 2-way (S2) carriageway except for a

short section of dual carriageway (D2AP) north of Flimwell (with a 60mph posted speed limit). The

principal settlements noted above, have a high degree of frontage access and associated pedestrian and

vehicular activity. Through Hurst Green there is on road parking by local residents and access is required

to a range of premises including residential, retail, commercial and educational.

Outside of these settlements, the A21 often has a sinuous alignment both in terms of its horizontal and

vertical profile. Being rural in nature, there is a diverse mix of traffic types, including agricultural vehicles

and there is little provision for pedestrians and other non-motorised users (NMUs). During hours of

darkness there is little or no street lighting present.

2. Existing Conditions

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

4


The A21 is mostly unlit during the hours of darkness. However there is a system of high pressure sodium

lighting at: -

The A268 junction in Flimwell;

Northbridge Street Roundabout, Robertsbridge;

John’s Cross Road junction south of Robertsbridge,

John’s Cross Roundabout; and

The section south of the A28 Westfield Lane junction.

The numerous bends and crests together with the narrow verges have resulted in limited forward visibility

at various sections of this route.

The highway cross-section is often limited to 3.5m in each direction with or without a highway edge line or

hard strip.

At the northern end of the scheme corridor, south-east of Lamberhurst, the carriageway is divided by a

central median and further south there is a wide S2 section of carriageway which forms the Robertsbridge

bypass. These sections are subject to the national speed limit for a single carriageway.

Figure 2-1 overleaf shows an overview of the change in speed limits throughout the scheme corridor.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

6


Constraints such as cost, journey reliability and environment have impacted on the justification of

improvement schemes on the A21. The resultant development of the route, as a whole, is inconsistent and

has not kept-up with comparable routes.

Provision for NMUs is scant with many properties that access directly the A21 having no foot/cycleway or

crossing facilities. This limits local travel options and fosters car dependency, the result manifesting in a

concentration of collisions in the built-up areas. Established and growing demand in leisure and utility

cycling cannot be met and bus services are excluded from the most needy patrons.

Overall, from the motorists’ perspective, a scarcity of such facilities detracts from the appearance of the

highway leading to a failure to recognise the need to drive carefully.

2.4 Personal Injury Collision Data

From the BBMMjv report ‘A21 Project Plan Safety Improvements’ dated September 2014, The study

summarised the personal injury collisions (PICs) for the previous past five calendar years (understood to be

2009 – 2013). These were recorded as follows:

• A total 210 PICs. • Of these, there were 10 Fatal, 49 Serious and 151 Slight. • Darkness PICs accounted for 60 (29%). • Inappropriate speed was recorded as a primary contributory factor in 46 of these PICS (22%). • Inappropriate speed/behaviour as a contributory factor accounted for 134 PICs (64%). • Nose to Tail, Access Conflicts and Loss of Control accounted for the most prevalent collision

types.

It is not clear as to the exact extent of the search area. A review of PICs has not been included in this

current study at this stage.

The same September 2014 report acknowledges that case studies of existing ASC sites demonstrate a

potential reduction of between 40% and 70% in all PICs. It, in turn, referred to the earlier 2010 Local

Speed Limit Review of the A21, which estimated a reduction of 42% in all PICs as a consequence of the

installation of ASCs.

2.5 Associated Schemes for the A21 corridor

According to the A21 Project Plan Safety Improvements study, the following is a summary list of proposed

improvement schemes for the A21 corridor within the study area:

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

7


2.5.1 Planned (funded) Works

Works currently planned for construction by March 2015:

North of Hurst Green to Swiftsden

New planned 50 mph speed limit, from the existing 30mph gateway to the north of Hurst Green to include

the A229 at Coopers Corner and to include the BP garages and continue to include the properties to the

north of the B2099.

Whatlington/Woodman’s Green

New planned extension of the existing 40mph speed limit to the south of the village of Woodman’s Green to

include Stream Lane.

Paygate Lane

New planned extension of the existing 50mph speed limit from Kent Street to the north of the B2244, to

include the semi urban area to the north of Kent Street.

Mobile speed limit enforcement

At this stage, it is not clear as to whether the provision of enforcement bays (including signage) will be

required and this will become evident following additional consultation with the Sussex Safer Roads

Partnership.

Renewal Programme

It is understood that there is currently an Area 4 renewal programme for the A21 including resurfacing,

drainage and footway repairs, though the exact location and nature of such improvements has not yet been

defined by the Area 4 BBMMjv team.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

8


3.1 Overview of Proposed Operating System

SPECS is a speed enforcement system, which uses linked Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)

cameras to monitor the average speed of traffic over a section of road, or network of roads. The Highways

Agency has implemented both temporary and permanent SPECS installations on a variety of routes in

order to improve road safety and to encourage more reliable journey times. ASCs are a beneficial tool as

they provide a visual cue to road users to observe speed limits and they are effective over greater

distances than fixed or mobile enforcement systems.

SPECS cameras continuously capture images of vehicles as they pass through the field of view. From this,

ANPR is used to capture vehicle registration plate details and when the same vehicle is recorded by any

other camera connected to the system, the average speed of the vehicle is calculated over the known

baseline distance. If a vehicle passes two or more ASCs within a time, determined by the separation of the

cameras and the speed limit, then the vehicle’s details are recorded and sent to a remote operator who

may issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP).

Highways England supplier, Vysionics ITS, has developed the SPECS3 VECTOR, which is a fully self-

contained compact intelligent camera which integrates all of the functionality of the roadside equipment into

a single camera enclosure. One VECTOR camera is the functional equivalent of two current SPECS3

cameras connected to a single SPECS3 POD outstation. This offers many benefits such as reduced

roadside structures, installation and equipment cost and higher reliability along with some key technical

advances.

Cameras can be installed in front or rear-facing orientation and violations can be recorded between multiple

locations and multiple lanes within the system. Rear facing cameras enable motorcycle number plates to

be read.

Figure 3-1: Configuration types for SPECS3 VECTOR operation

Source: Vysionics Proposal Document (P2143P), September 2014.

3. Proposed ASC Scheme

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

9


Each camera unit has an infrared ANPR camera and an infrared illuminator, which enables number plates

to be read. A colour day/night overview camera is also included, which enables overview images to be

captured in daylight and in most street lit environments. Infrared floodlights can be installed where street

lighting is not available and visible lighting is undesirable, making overview image capture possible in

complete darkness. The key features of this system are:

Every camera can be an entry and/or an exit camera;

Every camera can cover up to 2 lanes of single or bi‐ directional traffic;

All offence data is collected remotely;

Journeys can be calculated between any valid camera locations;

Forward or rear facing links can be configured (cannot mix direction in one link). Rear facing cameras can also record motorcycle number plates;

Any entry lane to any exit lane can be monitored;

Enforcement links can be from 75m to 20km+;

SPECS3 VECTOR can be operated alongside existing SPECS3 equipment; and

Results in lower installation costs when compared to earlier versions of the SPECS system. Vysionics camera and infra-red pole and foundation details are shown at Appendix B.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

10


4. Proposed Camera Location Sites

4.1 Camera Site Locations

Table 4-1 overleaf provides a summary of proposed camera locations based on desktop and site survey

work undertaken by Vysionics in their document ‘Budgetary Proposal SPECS3 VECTOR’ (Doc. Ref.

P2143P, dated September 2014).

The ASCs are proposed at 34 sites which will cover each change of speed limit. The VECTOR3 system

proposed by Vysionics now requires only one camera post per site, and that the proposed posts for

mounting of these cameras are passively safe. Therefore, on the whole, no vehicle road restraint systems

(VRRS) will be required.

Site locations are shown contextually in Drawing Numbers SS-15-8327-1011 to 1016 (at Appendix C) and

individually in Drawing Numbers SS-15-8327-2601 to 2634 (at Appendix D).

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

11


Table 4-1: Summary of proposed ASC sites based on Vysionics Survey Assessment of A21 corridor

MM

Cam

era

Ref.

No

.

Cam

era

Lo

cati

on

(Secti

on

)

Gri

d r

ef.

(T

Q)

Liv

e C

am

era

s

Zo

ne C

am

era

s

Infr

a-R

ed

(IR

)

Co

lum

ns

Verg

e / C

en

t

Rese

rve

Setb

ac

k f

rom

carr

iag

ew

ay

Ro

ad

wid

th

(m)

Co

mm

en

ts

(Po

wer

Su

pp

ly)

1

Section 1 North

67987,35011 2 0 2

N/B Verge

>2m 7.1 There is established street lighting at Scotney Castle Roundabout to the north. Therefore, approximately 100m of ducting and supply may be required.

2

Section 1 Mid

69559,33734 0 2 2

S/B Verge

Limited due to fence

7 Possible supply from overhead lines.

3

Section 1 South

71446,31855

2 0 2

Cent Res

>2m 24m ‐ incl. cent res

Illuminated supply at end of National Speed Limit section

4

Section 2 North N/B

71531,31715 1 0 1

N/B Verge

>2m 7.35 Illuminated supply at end of National Speed Limit section

5

Section 2 North S/B

71549,31729 1 0 1

S/B Verge

>2m 3.9 Illuminated supply at end of National Speed Limit section

6

Section 2 South

71545,31272 2 0 2

S/B

Verge

>2m 13 There is likely to be a supply available due to the presence of traffic signals 75m to the south.

7

Section 3 North

71607,31025 0 2 2

N/B

Verge

>2m 9.7 There is likely to be a supply available due to the presence of traffic signals 150m to the north.

8

Section 3 Mid

71956,29616 2 0 2

S/B

Verge

>2m 8.5 Potential supply from JTIC equipment #2490

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

12


MM

Cam

era

Ref.

No

.

Cam

era

Lo

cati

on

(Secti

on

)

Gri

d r

ef.

(TQ

)

Liv

e C

am

era

s

Zo

ne C

am

era

s

Infr

a-R

ed

(IR

)

Co

lum

ns

Verg

e / C

en

t

Rese

rve

Setb

ac

k f

rom

carr

iag

ew

ay

Ro

ad

wid

th

(m)

Co

mm

en

ts

9

Section 3 South

72458,29139 2 0 2

S/B Verge

>2m 8 Nearby overhead lines, but in field so potential wayleaves required

10

Section 4 North

72570,28926

2 0 2

S/B Verge >2m 8

Nearby power lines, but in adjoining field / property so potential wayleaves required. Alternatively, feeder pillar on opposite side of road

11

Section 4 South

73274,28012 2 0 2

S/B Verge

>2m 11 Feeder pillar north of A229 at Cooper’s Corner, but could be removed under proposed improvements.

12

Section 5 North

73242,27792 2 0 1

N/B Verge

limited due to hedgerow

8 There is likely to be an established supply in Hurst Green. Therefore, potentially an additional 300m of ducting and supply may be required.

13

Section

5 Mid ‐ North

73353,27388 2 0 1

S/B Verge

1m ‐ grassy area 6.5 Nearby street lighting supply in Hurst Green.

14

Section

5 Mid ‐ South

73388,27147 2 0 1

S/B Verge

1m ‐ back of f/way (TBC) 7

Traffic Signals Supply from adjacent PUFFIN crossing to the north.

15

Section 5 South

73542,26683

2 0 1

N/B Verge

1m ‐ back of f/way (TBC) 8 Potential supply from 20mph variable message sign

16

Section 6 North

73571,26510 2 0 2

N/B Verge

1m ‐ back of f/way (TBC) 8

Potential supply from 20mph variable message sign

17

Section 6 South

73767,25932 2 0 2

S/B Verge

>2m 8

Possible power from pole near Beach House Lane, approximately 150m to the north

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

13


MM

Cam

era

Ref.

No

.

Cam

era

Lo

cati

on

(Secti

on

)

Gri

d r

ef.

(T

Q)

Liv

e C

am

era

s

Zo

ne C

am

era

s

Infr

a-R

ed

(IR

)

Co

lum

ns

Verg

e / C

en

t

Rese

rve

Setb

ac

k f

rom

carr

iag

ew

ay

Ro

ad

wid

th

(m)

Co

mm

en

ts

18

Section 7 North

73778,25820 2 0 2

S/B Verge >2m 8

Possible power from pole near Beach House Lane, approximately 320m to the north

19

Section 7 South

74007,24539 2 0 2

S/B Verge

Very limited 8

Traffic signals supply estimated to be approximately 250m away

20

Section 9 North

74149,23847 0 2 2

S/B Verge

>1.5m 8

No immediate power supply source. Street lighting at Northbridge Street roundabout approximately 300m to the north (TBC)

21

Section 9 Mid

73850,22515 2 0 2

S/B

Verge >2m 8.7

Potential power supply from pole supply nearby at Poppinghole Lane

22

Section 9 South

74246,21442 2 0 2

S/B

Verge >2m 7.8

Nearest potential supply at John’s Cross approximately 150m to the south (TBC)

23

Section 11 North

74945,20788

2 0 2

N/B Verge >2m 7.5 Potential supply provided from existing illuminated sign, TSR&GD 505

24

Section 11 South

75925,19992 2 0 2

S/B

Verge >2m

6.4 Power supply available on western side of road

25

Section 12 North

76085,19756

2 0 2 N/B

Verge

>2m 6.5 Possible power supply from local source (TBC)

26

Section 12 South

76680,18784

2 0 2 N/B

Verge

>2m 7 Possible power supply from local source in Whatlington approximately 500m to the north (TBC)

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

14


MM

Cam

era

Ref.

No

.

Cam

era

Lo

cati

on

(Secti

on

)

Gri

d r

ef.

(T

Q)

Liv

e C

am

era

s

Zo

ne C

am

era

s

Infr

a-R

ed

(IR

)

Co

lum

ns

Verg

e / C

en

t

Rese

rve

Setb

ac

k f

rom

carr

iag

ew

ay

Ro

ad

wid

th

(m)

Co

mm

en

ts

27

Section 13 North

76786,18614 2 0 2

S/B

Verge Very Limited 7.3

Possible power supply from local source in Whatlington approximately 600m to the north (TBC)

28

Section 13 South

78030,17117 2 0 2

S/B

Verge Limited 8

TBC - Possible power supply from local infrastructure in Seddlescombe approximately 150mto the south.

29

Section 14 North

78213,16812

2 0 2 N/B

Verge

1.5m (Approx.) 10 Potential Traffic Master supply (opposite Crazy Lane)

30

Section 14 South

78521,16102

2 0 2 S/B

Verge

Very Limited 6.5 TBC – Possible power supply from local infrastructure.

31

Section 15 North

78805,15751

2 0 2 N/B

Verge

>2m 6.5 JTIS Camera #4336

32

Section 15 South

79084,15306

2 0 2 N/B

Verge

1.5m (Approx.) 6.5 Supply for existing VAS ‐ note passive safe disconnect chamber

33

Section 16 North

79209,15080

2 0 2 N/B

Verge

>2m 6.5 TBC – this is situated approximately 150m south of the settlement of Kent Street

34

Section 16 South

79876,13609

2 0 2 N/B

Verge

>2m TBC Adjacent powered street lights.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

15


4.2 Delivery Design and Engineering considerations

4.2.1 Highway Land

Information obtained from the BBMMjv Area 4 land records database indicates that proposed sites for the

ASCs are within area designated as public highway and it is understood that no additional third party land

will need to be acquired.

4.2.2 Power Supply

The locations of many of the cameras are likely to be rural. As such, current permanent electricity supply

may not be provided in places. Therefore, a permanent, robust electrical supply will be required.

Table 4-1 above identifies a number of locations where an additional power supply is required and as such

as part of the scheme development phase, new feeder pillars to all locations are to be installed.

Reference should also be made to nearby powered assets in the Area 4 BBMMjv inventory which are

shown in extracts from the MAYRISE database at Appendix E.

4.2.3 Street Lighting

With respect to street lighting, enforcement during the hours of darkness will be required. As the route

corridor is predominantly unlit, this will require infra-red (IR) lighting units. As part of the proposal,

Vysionics will supply passively safe lighting columns with infra-red lighting units to all locations, to enable

such enforcement. Furthermore, Vysionics has assumed that BBMMjv will install these and that Vysionics

will align the lighting as part of the camera installation process.

4.2.4 Communications

With respect to mobile or fixed communications as the A21 is predominantly a rural environment and as

such, can be susceptible to poor mobile signal. However, Vysionics have identified that there is strong 3G

signal coverage from at least one network provider.

SPECS3 outstations require a network connection with a fixed IP address, usually via a 3G data SIM, built

into the camera head. Vysionics testing and surveys show that all sites do have a 3G communications

signal available on at least one mobile network (although this was weak at some locations).

Mott MacDonald understands that data is retained by the camera unit (outstation) and communicated via a

3G signal when the relevant signal is strong enough.

4.2.5 Utilities (Statutory Undertakers Plant) Assessment

No specific New Roads and Street Works Act (NRWSA) searches have been carried out in connection with

this study. However, preliminary information has been sought from a database of statutory undertakers

plan maintained by BBMMjv as part of the Area 4 commission.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

16


Drawing Numbers SS-15-8327-2601 to 2634 show the proposed layout for the respective ASC sites and

the presence of utilities plant obtained from previous enquiries of the A21 corridor (from current records

held by BBMMjv).

Nevertheless, there will be a requirement to issue the appropriate C1/C2 NRSWA notices as the scheme

develops. From this, specific proposals can be obtained from the relevant power supply company.

Vysionics has indicated that independent power supplies (solar panel or hydrogen fuel cells) can be

incorporated at individual sites however, it would be desirable to have a robust independent network

supply. This will be assessed and determined as part of value engineering and costs of power supply

determined at detailed design.

4.2.6 Structural Assessment (Desktop)

Details pertaining to the ASC pole and foundations have been developed by Vysionics. These have also

been the subject to an internal review by Mott MacDonald.

The key points arising from this initial BBMMjv review are as follows:

Masts may need ‘Structures Approval in Principle’ due to their height.

The poles on which the proposed ASCs are to be mounted are 6 or 9m high. The majority of the

load on the foundation is due to wind pressure however, wind loading should not be a material

factor due to both the distance from the coast and the height above sea level.

Proposed footings for the ASC posts are generally small pad foundations.

It is understood that the posts/columns shown in the Vysionics Drawing No.s S130622-1 and

S130622-are passively safe. Therefore, it is unlikely that specific VRRS will be required.

An anomaly over the planting depth for the column has been identified. Drawing Numbers

S130622-1 and S130622-2 provided by Vysionics shows that the metal column will extend 1200

mm into the ground. Section AA of the supplied Waterman Moylan drawing indicates this as 1m.

From the CCTV mast design, the Waterman Moylan drawings supplied shows a planted foundation

which BD94/07 does NOT permit for CCTV masts. This is preclusion is understood to be so as to

limit lateral deflection/vibration in order to aid picture quality.

An analysis undertaken for the spread footing has assumed the base depth of 1.2 m to be

consistent with the SAPA drawings provided by Vysionics. This gives a slightly larger base with

plan dimensions of 1m x 1m. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 80 kN/m2 has been assumed.

The adequacy of the Vysionics (SAPA) posts has not been assessed. This is understood to be a

proprietary product and therefore assumed that the supplier has already determined allowable

loads.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

17


4.2.7 Environmental Assessment (Desktop)

The proposals have also been the subject of a desktop environmental assessment. The key findings are

presented in Table 4-2 below.

Table 4-2: Summary of Desktop Environmental Assessment

Summary Comment

Requirement for a

Record of Determination

(RoD) and Notice of

Determination (NoD)

The proposed Scheme is located within a “sensitive Area”, High Weald AONB and the total Scheme footprint is likely to be more than a hectare in area. Therefore the RoD/NoD process would be triggered.

Appropriate Assessment

Screening Matrix (AASM)

The proposed scheme would pass over watercourses which flow downstream into Dungeness to Pett Level Special Protection Area (SPA) located approximately 30km southeast and Dungeness SPA and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) located approximately 32km south east. Therefore an Appropriate Assessment Screening Matrix (AASM) would need to be completed following receipt of the final design of the proposed scheme.

Brief Overview of Likely

Environmental

Constraints

Air Quality

The proposed Scheme is not located within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Approximately 600 residential receptors have been identified within 200m of the proposed Scheme. The proposed Scheme is currently at the feasibility stage, and as such, the duration of works and TM details are not known. Adverse impacts would be anticipated as a result of construction activities due to the temporary production of dust. The proposed Scheme would not alter any junction layout or carriageway widths. However, there is the potential for a permanent change in traffic speeds as a result of the proposed scheme, with the proposed scheme likely to result in altered speeds for all vehicle types (i.e. including HGV’s and cars). Therefore there is the potential for operational effects on all 600 residential receptors. This will be assessed in further detail within the IRF 281a Environmental Scoping Assessment.

Cultural Heritage

One Conservation Area (Robertsbridge Conservation Area (located approximately 50m west), one Registered Park and Garden (Scotney Castle Grade I Listed, located adjacent to the east) and over 100 Listed Buildings have been identified within 300m of the proposed Scheme (of which approximately have been identified within 20m of the proposed Scheme). Within 1km of the proposed Scheme a further 400+ Listed Buildings, two Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM) and one Conservation Area have been identified. Various Archaeological remnants have been found within the 1km of the Scheme including Medieval Brickworks 10m to the east of the proposed Scheme. No Registered Battlefields or World Heritage Sites have been identified within 1 km of the proposed Scheme. Despite the close proximity of Scotney Castle Grade I Listed Park and Garden (adjacent to proposed ASC, drawing SS-15-8327-1011) to the Scheme, effects on this heritage feature are unlikely to be significant given good existing screening conditions, with a large number of trees either side of the road. However consultation with the local planning authority is likely to be a requirement, given the height of the ASC structures and the Registered Park and Garden adjacent to the proposed location of an ASC.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

18


Effects on Robertsbridge Conservation Area and all nearby Listed Buildings would be addressed on a case by case basis with potentially significant effects on their local character and setting (effects are not likely on Listed Buildings structural integrity) with the installation of a 6m high ASC’s. Effects on these heritage features would be assessed in full within the IRF 281a Environmental Scoping Assessment. Landscape

The entirety of the proposed Scheme is located within National Character Area 72 High Weald and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). A number of visual receptors are located within the proposed works area. Views are largely intermittent along the A21 alignment with hedgerows and trees present alongside the majority of the A21 road. Adverse effects are likely upon the High Weald AONB and on visual receptors (variable in location) within the vicinity of the Scheme, as a result of the installation of 6m high ASC structures. Measures to minimise effects could be incorporated within the scheme design, this could include siting of cameras (to avoid key views) and sensitive colouring of cameras where possible. Effects on these landscape features and visual receptors would be assessed in full within the IRF 281a Environmental Scoping Assessment. Since the entirety of the proposed scheme would be located within the High Weald AONB, the proposed Scheme would also require consultation with High Weald AONB before works can proceed. Geology and Soils

Excavations may be required. No geologically sensitive receptors have been identified within 50m of the proposed works. However, the section of the A21 road likely to be effected was constructed before 1990. Therefore there is the potential for contaminated land to be present, as fill material used before 1990 can be from an unknown source, with the potential for hazardous material being previously used. This would be addressed within the IRF281 Environmental Scoping Assessment. No geologically sensitive sites are present within 50m of the proposed Scheme, and therefore, impacts on the local geology and soil would be negligible once the proposed scheme is operational. Nature Conservation

The proposed Scheme would pass over watercourses which flow downstream into Dungeness to Pett Level SPA (located approximately 30km southeast) and Dungeness SPA and SAC (located approximately 32km south east). Two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) have been identified within close proximity of the proposed Scheme including: Combwell Wood SSSI (located approximately 10m from A21 near High Weald) and Scotney Castle SSSI (located approximately 5m from A21 near Lamberhurst). Therefore further assessment in the form of an Appropriate Assessment Screening Matrix (AASM) would need to be completed following receipt of the final Scheme design. Non-statutory ecological designations have been identified within 300m of the proposed Scheme including: Sussex and Kent coastal and floodplain grazing marsh, lowland meadows, ancient and semi-natural woodland, deciduous woodland, traditional orchard and wood pasture and parkland BAP priority habitats. The presence or likely absence of protected species in the area is unknown. However, over 100 ponds have been identified within 500m of potential ASC locations (approximately 76 within 250m). Due to the requirement for excavations within the highways verge and likely ducting requirements for the Scheme, further habitat suitability appraisal would be required to determine the likely presence/ absence of GCN within the work extents, and to determine the requirement for targeted ecological surveys.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

19


ASCs are anticipated to be installed within close proximity to Combwell Wood SSSI and Scotney Castle SSSI. The qualifying features of Combwell Wood SSSI are unlikely to be effected by the proposed Scheme. Dormice are a qualifying feature of Scotney Castle SSSI. Therefore, although it is unlikely that works would be undertaken outside of HA land in those locations (thus ruling out the requirement for CROW assent); adverse effects on the qualifying features of Scotney Castle SSSI could result from the Scheme. In addition, further habitat suitability appraisal would be required to determine the likely presence/ absence of dormice within the work extents, and to determine the requirement for targeted ecological surveys. Materials

If works fall above the BBMMJV £150k threshold, a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) would be required. Noise and Vibration

Over 1000 residential receptors have been identified within 500m of the proposed Scheme. Two areas designated as ‘first priority locations’ (Whisketts Farm and Stonecrouch) and two ‘other’ priority locations (High Weald) would be located within the Scheme extents. The effect of the proposed Scheme upon the noise environment for these properties would be dependent upon the duration of the works and the type of construction plants involved. Details regarding time and duration of works are yet to be confirmed. The potential requirement for working time restrictions would be controlled by setting out appropriate mitigation measures in Appendix 1/9 ‘Control of Noise and Vibration’ of the specification of highways works. The measures would be agreed in consultation with the Local Authority’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO), and where appropriate, mitigation in accordance with BS5228 ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites’ would be specified once sufficient construction details are known. Adverse effects during construction are anticipated with a number of residential receptors located within close proximity of works. The permanent change in speed limits and installation of ASCs has the potential to result in noise level changes, with the potential for a change in traffic speeds. The addition of ASCs to the A21 road also has the potential to discourage vehicle travellers to continue using this road and could increase traffic flows on other roads in the wider area. These issues would be fully addressed following receipt of the final design of the Scheme within the IRF 281a Environmental Scoping Assessment. Effects on Travellers

No cycle paths have been identified alongside the proposed scheme. However, various footpaths and Public Rights of Way have been identified within the vicinity of the proposed scheme in residential areas such as Hurst Green. Details of TM and duration of works are yet to be confirmed. Overall effects on all travellers are not likely to be significant as a result of the proposed scheme. However, the aim of the Scheme would be to improve road safety for users, and as a result, Beneficial effects are anticipated for All Travellers following the implementation of the scheme. Impacts on non-motorised users are likely to be minimal during construction and operation periods. Community and Private Assets

The section of A21 road affected several settlements (including Hastings, Robertsbridge, Hurst Green etc.) and passes within 500m of a number of key community facilities including: schools, museums and places of worship. Works are unlikely to be undertaken off HA land. Adverse effects are anticipated on community facilities during works as a result of delays due to traffic management. . However, significant effects would be unlikely during the construction and operation phases; with severance of community facilities unlikely to occur and temporary/ permanent land acquisition unlikely to be required.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

20


Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Over 100 ponds have been identified within 500m of the 32-34 individual ASCs. The proposed Scheme would not be located within a Groundwater Protection Zone. Three primary rivers run underneath the section of A21 road under consideration; including: the River Bewl, the River Rother and the River Line. The proposed Scheme would not require drainage works; however works to ducting are likely be required. If best practice methodology is employed in accordance with CIRIA C532 Control of Water Pollution from construction sites during construction, then the risk of pollution to waterbodies within 500m is low and no residual impacts on the Water environment would be anticipated

The full (desktop) Environmental Assessment is provided at Appendix F.

4.2.8 Geotechnical Assessment (Desktop)

BBMMjv’s Geotechnical Team based at Kings Hill has undertaken a preliminary desktop assessment of the

proposals in order to identify any initial material matters that would need to be addressed should the

proposals develop to detailed design and implementation stage.

Based on the information supplied, the following camera locations may have an impact on the geotechnical

asset: These are summarised as follows: -

Camera Site No. Comment

5 2m set back will involve removing part of a cutting slope

6 May require removing part of a cutting slope depending on the exact location of the

camera

9 2m set back may cause the foundation to affect the crest of an embankment slope

17 2m set back will involve removing part of a cutting slope

19 May affect the crest of a low height embankment depending on the exact location

20 Depending on offset, the crest of an embankment slope may be affected

21 May affect a cutting slope but is unlikely


24 Offset is likely to involve removing part of a low height cutting slope


27 Will involve removing part of a low height cutting slope

33

May require removing part of a cutting slope depending on the exact location of the camera.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

21


The majority of the cutting slopes are likely to involve minor cutting and re-grading of the slope and

installing some form erosion protection and/or reinforcement. The foundations in embankments will be

more complicated depending on their location relative to the slope crest/slope. These may require placing

additional fill materials or increasing the depth of foundations.

In order to assess this fully we will need confirmation of the exact location of the camera foundations and

possibly topographic surveys of these to obtain slope geometry.

The proposal for the scheme also identifies that street lighting and ducting will be required. Progression to

detailed design will also require details of these locations and the foundation type of the lighting columns to

be assessed.

As this scheme is an improvement a ‘Statement of Intent’ in accordance with HD22/08 will be required to

inform Highways England of the scope of the works, the geotechnical risk and the extent of future

geotechnical reporting.

Should further geotechnical design be required, all of the HD22 reports (Preliminary Sources Study,

Ground Investigation Report and Geotechnical Design Report) are able to be covered in a single

Geotechnical Report.

4.2.9 Sight Line Assessment

From initial site inspections carried out by Mott MacDonald on 5th and 13

th March, it is considered that there

are sufficient sight lines afforded to the respective camera locations.

4.2.10 Road Safety and Traffic Engineering Assessment

Standard details provided by Vysionics indicate that camera columns / posts as frangible and therefore,

passively safe.

In most instances, vehicle road restraint systems (VRRS) are not required. At Site 3 (Section 1 South), the

proposed ASC location is in the central median which currently has VRRS, understood to be for

separation/protection of opposing traffic flows. In the event that the scheme progresses, it is considered

prudent to assess and where applicable extend / replace the existing VRRS.

4.2.11 Speed limit signs

BBMMjv drawing numbers LNMS/13-7058/1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206 and 1207 (in Appendix G)

show proposed alterations to the existing speed limits at Hurst Green, Whatlington and Sedlescombe.

The Department for Transport (DfT) circular 01/2007 Use Of Speed and Red Light Cameras for Traffic

Enforcement: Guidance on Deployment, Visibility and Signing provides information on the type and location

of signs in support of ASCs. Sections 38 – 44 of the 01/2007 sets out the parameters for the type, location

and conspicuity of speed camera signs.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

22


For fixed speed and red-light enforcement, a camera sign must be placed not more than 1 km from the first

camera housing in the direction being enforced (including or excluding side roads at the discretion of the

partnership). For fixed speed enforcement, co-located camera and speed limit repeater signs, or the sign

shown in diagram 880 where appropriate, must be placed to allow the signs and speed camera to be

visible to the driver in the same view.

Hence new speed camera signs to TSR&GD reference 878 and 880 will be required to be placed at regular

intervals along the scheme corridor.

Figure 4-1: Typical signing requirements

Sign Ref. to TSR&GD 878 (prefixed with ‘Average’) Sign Ref. to TSR&GD 880

Notwithstanding, the conspicuity of ASCs will need to be considered with camera installations

predominantly yellow in colour to enhance road user awareness. However, in some heritage sensitive

areas, alternative column colours (e.g. moss green) may be required or be appropriate.

4.2.12 TechMAC maintenance requirements - vehicle hardstanding and access for

operatives.

It is understood that maintenance operations post-implementation will fall under the TechMac Framework

contract.

Although the footprint of the ASC installations is relatively small, the installations may periodically require

convenient parking nearby. The A21 for much of the length of the scheme is narrow, with wooded

sections, embankments etc. on either side. A suitable maintenance bay may require significant

engineering in some locations. At the northernmost end of the scheme there is a section of grasscrete.

However, in most locations there is currently no suitable provision.

Provision of additional vehicle hardstanding or footway links (for maintenance operatives) may require

additional environmental consideration in terms of vegetation removal and disturbance to wildlife habitats.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

23


Table 4-2 provides a summary of maintenance vehicle parking consideratios where there is currently no

provision or limited to scope to provide such a facility.

Table 4-3: Summary of Maintenance Vehicle Parking Considerations

MM

Cam

era

Ref.

No

.

Cam

era

Lo

cati

on

(Secti

on

)

Dir

ecti

on

Maintenance Vehicle Parking Considerations

4 Section 2 North N/B

N/B Potential for wide verge side parking on northbound verge. Construction of hardstanding may impact on visibility for adjoining property accesses. Confirm with TechMac provider.

5 Section 2 North S/B

S/B Potential for maintenance vehicle to utilise Flimwell Close (private Road) to the north of Camera Site 5. Otherwise TM potentially required for maintenance activities. Confirm with TechMac provider.

6 Section 2 South

S/B Parking available in forecourt on northbound carriageway. TechMac Contractor would be required to cross the A21 at Flimwell traffic signals. Confirm with TechMac provider.

8 Section 3 Mid

S/B Parking available in public lay-by on northbound carriageway. TechMac Contractor would be required to cross the A21 adjacent to this. Confirm with TechMac provider.

12 Section 5 North

N/B Potential for verge side parking on northbound verge. Construction of hardstanding may impact on frontage of residential property. Confirm with TechMac provider and liaise with property owner.

15 Section 5 South

N/B Potential for maintenance vehicle to park in car park for Hurst Green Primary School. Confirm with TechMac provider and liaise with school.

16 Section 6 North

N/B ** Limited scope for provision of parking for maintenance vehicle. Potentially relocate Camera Site 16 to eastern side of A21.

19 Section 7 South

S/B Parking available in public lay-by on northbound carriageway. TechMac Contractor would be required to cross the A21 adjacent to this. Confirm with TechMac provider.

20 Section 9 North

S/B ** Limited scope for provision of parking for maintenance vehicle on A21 Robertsbridge Bypass

22 Section 9 South

S/B Parking available in public lay-by on southbound carriageway. TechMac Contractor would be required to walk approximately 150m in nearside verge adjacent to the A21. Confirm with TechMac provider.

25 Section 12 North

N/B TM Maintenance activities to be undertaken under Temporary Traffic Management (TTM)

32 Section 15 South


33 Section 16 North


34 Section 16 South


300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

24


4.2.13 Consultation

Consultation has been undertaken by Highways England and BBMMjv with key stakeholders, namely

Sussex Police, Sussex Safer Roads Partnership, local Parish and County Councillors and Members of

Parliament and the scheme carries this support. The scheme also carries the support of the relevant

Highways England Director (David Brewer, NDD). Further consultation on enforcement will be required as

the scheme develops, particularly with respect to locations of ASCs in villages and other similar areas

where properties may be affected.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

25


5. ASC Complimentary Measures

5.1 Identified schemes to enhance Speed Limits and proposed

Average Speed Cameras

A range of complementary safety focussed or speed reducing engineering measures are being developed

by BBMMjv in addition to those mentioned above including, improved pedestrian and cyclist facilities,

crossing facilities, as well as appropriate signing to further enhance the route and impress the village

environment upon motorists.

The following is a list of location specific improvement measures identified in the BBMMjv A21 Project Plan

Safety Improvements and Average Speed Cameras note (dated September 2014): -

Vinehall Street, Whatlington

Junction improvements have been proposed by a property owner at the junctions of the B2089 whereby

they are willing to provide East Sussex County Council (ESCC) with the land to construct a single modern

junction, to standard, in a more suitable location. This will then reduce the number of entrances onto the

A21 from two sub-standard, to one high quality junction. This is in early stages of development, however, it

is understood that discussions as to feasibility of this have been held with ESCC and this is likely to be a

developer/local authority lead scheme.

B2244 Tollgate Road Junction, Seddlescombe

This junction has been subject to minor improvements in the past, which have reduced collisions but

locally, the impression remains that the junction layout is inherently unsafe. Nearby commercial

development offers the scope to finance the conversion of this junction to a roundabout and enhance

provision for non-motorised users. It is understood that this proposal is in the early stages of development,

but would greatly compliment the proposed A21 ASC Scheme.

Kent Street, north of Hastings

Kent Street currently has no footway provision and sub-standard bus stop facilities. Proposals to support

the 40mph speed limit through this village include measures to create a village environment both as a

visual message to motorists in order to encourage them to adhere to posted speed limits and assist

pedestrians and other NMUs. Proposals include the provision of additional street lighting, a shared-use

cycle track through the village to and improvements to the bus stops at the Blueman’s Lane junction.

Swiftsden, near Hurst Green

Swiftsden, like Kent Street does not present a village environment to motorists. Identified proposals to

support a 40mph posted speed limit include upgrading the footway to a lit cycle track, providing better signs

and vehicle actuated signs (VAS) as well as providing new centre of road traffic islands.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

26


Mobile and/or Permanent Variable Message Signs (VMS)

There is a desire by Highways England to install and utilise fixed or mobile variable message signs (VMS)

which can display relevant information to road users which can positively influence the driver experience.

These units are capable of advising of a range of scenarios including informing of delays, emergency works

and congestion whether planned or live. They can also advise of actual journey times between locations,

underpinning Highways England’s mission statement for safer roads, reliable journeys and informed

travellers.

CCTV cameras

Appropriately positioned closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras can enhance the information available to

Highways England and the service provider. It can be used to manage the deployment of response teams,

and can be used to provide the VMS signs with live information. It is not clear at this stage to what extent

additional CCTV is to be provided.

Additional measures required to support the ASC Project

In addition to the ASCs, some existing highway features will need to be replaced or altered and some new

signs will need to be installed. These primarily relate to ensuring that speed limit signs and signs warning

of camera enforcement are provided and correctly located.

Junction improvements are also being provided at Baldslow (north of Hastings) and Coopers Corner (north

of Hurst Green). In addition gateway treatments for all villages and settlements along the A21 are being

considered by Highways England in addition to the provision of enhanced gateways where they already

exist.

Identified improvements to the existing village environment are proposed for Whatlington (which would

benefit from a shared-use facility throughout), along with the Silver Hill, Sedlescombe, Woodman’s Green,

Vinehall Street, John’s Cross and Northbridge Street.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

27


6. Preliminary Scheme Costs

6.1 Capital Expenditure Costs (Equipment Supply, Installation and

Commissioning)

Vysionics have provided initial budgetary costs for the supply of camera equipment for the route, and give

an indication of budgetary requirements. Detailed costs would be based on further surveys to be carried

out with BBMMjv.

Two Vysionics costing summaries have been provided and are set out in Tables 6-1 and 6-2 as follows: -

Option1 – all rear-facing camera configuration; and

Option 2 – front & rear facing camera configuration.

In addition, preliminary costings have been collated for design and construction activities to be undertaken

by BBMMjv as enabling works for the ASC project. These are shown at Table 6-3.

Table 6-1: Summary of Vysionics Scheme Costs – Option 1

Element Description Cost

Roadside 60 x Live VECTOR Cameras 6 x Zone VECTOR Cameras 33 x SPECS Camera Columns 63 x Infrared Lighting Columns and Lighting units

Item

Back office 3 x additional ERCUs Item

Set‐up SPECS3 VECTOR Installation and calibration – ANPR Team

30 days

Support Engineering and Project Management Item

Item

Total Solution Cost

Source: Vysionics Proposal Document (P2143P), September 2014.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

30


6.4 Maintenance

There will be a requirement for maintenance activities associated with the Vysionics supply, installation and

commissioning of ASC equipment. This will comprise camera calibration, inspection and cleansing of

equipment. In addition to the above, there will be annual Area 4 BBMMjv and TechMac activities

associated with routine maintenance of inventory added to the Highways England network.

6.5 Annual Costs and Whole Life Costs

Annual costs and whole life costs for the ASC scheme are considered to comprise of the following principal

elements: -

Annual power supply;

Annual TechMac maintenance requirements;

Residual Area 4 maintenance for increase in assets (e.g. grasscrete hardstandings and footways);

Operator resource requirements through the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership;

Deployment and operation of Mobile VMS;

Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) associated with the above; and

Purchase / retention of stock of ASC units;

These will need to be assessed as part of the detailed design process.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

31


7. Conclusions and Recommendations

The broad conclusions and recommendations of this report are as follows; -

1. There are considered to be no material constraints to the proposed provision of Average Speed

Cameras (ASCs) along the A21 route corridor from a structural, environmental or geotechnical

perspective.

2. Implement proposed posted speed limit changes at Kent Street and Swiftsden and review existing

and proposed speed limit signs throughout the study corridor.

3. Undertake current statutory undertaker’s apparatus search (NRSWA C1/C2 notices) for the 34

average speed camera (ASC) site locations proposed.

4. In most instances, no additional vehicle road restraint systems (VRRS) are deemed to be required.

5. Some further geotechnical assessment work will be required to establish mitigation works for

camera positions adjacent to cuttings or embankments.

6. Bespoke power supplies will need to be established for a number of the proposed ASC sites.

7. Additional signing will need to be provided in accordance with the Department for Transport (DfT)

circular 01/2007 ‘Use of Speed and Red Light Cameras for Traffic Enforcement: Guidance on

Deployment, Visibility and Signing’.

8. Exact TechMac requirements will need to be established for residual maintenance activities and

costs.

9. Annual power supply costs, residual Area 4 maintenance costs for increase in assets (e.g.

grasscrete hardstandings and footways), operator resource requirements (through the Sussex

Safer Roads Partnership), deployment requirements for the operation of mobile VMS and purchase

/ retention of stock of ASC units will need to be determined;

10. Additional structured liaison with stakeholders as to proposed camera locations will be required.

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

32


Appendix A. Project Brief ______________________________________________________________________ 33 Appendix B. Vysionics camera and infra-red pole and foundation details __________________________________ 34 Appendix C. General Layout Drawings (SS-15-8327-1011 – 23) ________________________________________ 35 Appendix D. Camera Site Layout Drawings (SS-15-8327-2601-34) and Typical Grass Grid Hardstanding Detail for

Maintenance Vehicles (SS-15-8327-100) ________________________________________________ 36 Appendix E. Extracts from Area 4 BBMMjv ‘MAYRISE’ Database _______________________________________ 37 Appendix F. Desktop Environmental Assessment ___________________________________________________ 38 Appendix G. BBMMjv LNMS Scheme Drawing Numbers LNMS/13-7058 1201 to 1207 _______________________ 39 Appendix H. BBMMjv A21 ASC Scheme Estimate ___________________________________________________ 40

Appendices

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

33


Appendix A. Project Brief

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

34


Appendix B. Vysionics camera and infra-red pole and foundation

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

35


Appendix C. General Layout Drawings (SS-15-8327-1011 – 23)

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

36


Appendix D. Camera Site Layout Drawings (SS-15-8327-2601-34) and Typical Grass Grid Hardstanding Detail for Maintenance Vehicles (SS-15-8327-100)

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

37


Appendix E. Extracts from Area 4 BBMMjv ‘MAYRISE’ Database

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

38


Appendix F. Desktop Environmental Assessment

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

39


Appendix G. BBMMjv LNMS Scheme Drawing Numbers LNMS/13-7058 1201 to 1207

300274SS05/MAC/ITD/001/C 28 May 2015

40


Appendix H. BBMMjv A21 ASC Scheme Estimate

a21 lamberhurst to hastings

Documents