Agenda item - Evidence-gathering Session

To hear evidence from:

 

• Environment Cabinet Member Councillor Geoffrey Theobald.

 

• Councillor Ian Davey, proposer of Council Notice of Motion

 

• Representatives from Residents Associations, Local Action Teams, Community Groups and other Organisations

 

 

Please note the agreed Scrutiny Panel Terms of Reference, also attached.

 

 

 

18.1    The panel heard evidence from a number of witnesses.

 

18.2a  Evidence from Environment Cabinet Member, Councillor Geoffrey Theobald 

                       

Members of the panel were thanked for taking the time to look into the issue of 20 mph speed limits and 20 mph zones. It was acknowledged that this was an extremely complex issue, which was why it had been referred too scrutiny in order to enable an in-depth study to be undertaken. A number of requests to date for various 20 mph schemes have been made to the Environment Cabinet Member, and a number of these have been approved. The advantages of 20 mph are apparent; however, the introduction of any 20 mph scheme should not have an adverse effect on the flow of traffic in the city, nor should it have an adverse economic impact on the city.

           

There are a number of different types of roads in Brighton & Hove. Along roads such as Dyke road, London Road, Kings Road and the A259 from Peacehaven for example, if traffic was to travel at 20 mph then there would be a lot of congestion which could contribute to the city becoming grid locked. Any 20 mph scheme would need to take this into account. The Bus Company has already advised the panel that slower buses would not help the movement of traffic in the city. There are a number of issues which need to be considered when introducing any 20 mph scheme; road safety, air quality, pollution, traffic displacement and traffic flow. All of these areas need to be studied and considered by the panel. A one size fits all blanket approach to a 20 mph scheme is unlikely to be a solution for the city.

 

There exist already in the city a number of 20 mph schemes in the vicinity of schools and busy shopping areas. In Patcham Ward residents have campaigned for a 20 mph stretch on one road by a primary school and it has been implemented with the support of the Environment Cabinet Member and Sussex police. Any 20 mph scheme introduced needs to be made, as much as possible, self enforcing with engineering measures included when necessary. 20 mph schemes indicated by signs only are not necessarily easy to enforce so not everyone will comply with them, which is why a 20 mph scheme needs to be self enforcing in order to ensure that the scheme has the maximum impact that it can. This is a view which is also held by the Department for Transport and by the Association of Chief Police Officers that 20 mph schemes should be self enforcing.  

 

The effect of traffic displacement is an important one to be considered. There is evidence to suggest that in some areas where 20 mph zones have been introduced, such as in Hartington Road, average traffic flow is reduced in the area. For example in Hartington Road traffic flows reduced by 13% after the installation of a 20 mph zone. Based on evidence from other local authorities, 20 mph zones tend to be more effective than 20 mph speed limits. However, the engineering works that are needed for 20 mph zones are obviously more expensive. These are all things which the panel will need to weigh up and consider, particularly in a time of restricted finances.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment indicated that he would certainly support 20 mph zones in busy shopping streets and outside schools. The difficulty of 20 mph becomes more apparent when other areas are contemplated; however, the panel’s consideration of this issue will be most welcome. 

 

18.2b  The panel thanked Geoffrey Theobald for his time and contributions.

 

18.2c  Members of the panel noted that they have had evidence that a blanket 20 mph scheme across the city would be the best way to implement a speed reduction scheme as when a driver enters a 20 mph area there is less confusion, if the signage is good enough, and less entering and exiting into and out of different speed limits. The panel has also heard evidence that suggests that the average speed across the city is only about 17 mph anyway.

 

18.2d  The panel heard that a blanket 20 mph speed limit indicated on the boundary of the city may be easier to understand. However, average speeds across the cities boundaries are unlikely to be 17 mph, and are much more varied than this. For example traffic on the A23, London Road, Lewes Road, Warren Road, around the universities etc is probably not travelling as low as 20 mph. Indeed in some areas of the city drivers would have to apply the brakes all the time whilst driving in order to keep under 20 mph. It is also not productive to implement a scheme which will not be complied with.

 

18.2e  Members of the panel noted that the council had received a lot of requests for traffic calming and 20 mph zones and the zones have been to date incrementally introduced, and calls for further measures have been increasing. Members of the panel asked in terms of policy what has been driving the consideration and implementation of 20 mph zones; was it road safety and accident reduction? Members of the panel also asked when the local authority looks at a junction when there have been calls to make it safer, eg by introducing traffic signals, and residents in the area fear that negative traffic displacement will occur in the area, is a 20 mph zone considered as part of the works to make the area safer. 

 

18.2f   The panel heard that decisions are based on the advice of professional officers, consideration of the accident figures, and the possibility of an accident occurring in the area. As far as traffic signals are concerned traffic displacement is probably considered as secondary to the accident figures. Some sort of criteria is required when deciding on whether to implement a scheme or not, and the leading criteria which has been used is that of the number of accidents in an area, and the possibility of accidents occurring in an area.

18.2g  Members of the panel asked if after the introduction of a 20 mph zone have resident surveys been conducted to monitor the impact of the zone and how residents feel about the scheme. 

 

18.2h  The panel heard from the Road Safety Manager that the evaluation was more quantitative and based around traffic flow and speed variation using before and after data and that he was not aware of any public satisfaction data.

 

18.2i   The panel thanked Geoffrey Theobald for his time and contributions.

 

18.3a  Evidence from Councillor Ian Davey, proposer of Council Notice of Motion on 20 mph

           

Councillor Ian Davey also echoed his appreciation of the time and effort which the panel were putting into the scrutiny review. It was noted that, in recent years, Brighton and Hove City Council has led the way in introducing many sustainable transport projects; for example, New Road, a bus partnership, provisions for cyclists, talking bus stops, and urban realm improvements to the seafront and North Road. What has been achieved so far has been a great start.

 

There have been a number of 20 mph zones introduced into the city, and these have proved very popular with residents who live in the zones. There are, however, difficulties with the current mode of implementing 20 mph zones as all too often they rely on the use of speed bumps and humps, which are unpopular with buses, cyclists and the emergency services. Residents living by the speed bumps also find them to be noisy and they are expensive to implement and to maintain. There are problems with the incremental approach to introducing 20 mph zones which the council has favoured to date. For example, whilst 20 mph zones outside schools are an excellent safety measure for those travelling directly outside schools, it does nothing to improve the safety of those journeying greater distances to go to school.

 

There have been no big new safety schemes introduced recently into the city. Residents requesting 20 mph zones in their areas are being told that if there aren’t accidents in their area, then 20 mph zones will not be introduced. This means that residents think that they have to wait for someone to be killed before they get to have a zone in their area; and this is clearly too little too late. There needs to be another way forward to tackling high speeds on our cities roads, particularly with the current budget pressures which the council is facing.

 

Portsmouth City Council has introduced 20 mph speed limits onto the majority of its road network at the cost of about £500,000. No speed humps or bumps were introduced. The 20 mph speed limit was a signs only scheme, and was introduced almost two years ago. As a result of this scheme there has been a reduction in mean speeds of up to 7 mph on some of the roads where traffic was previously moving at its fastest. There was a 13% reduction in the number of accidents and a 15% reduction in the number of casualties with older people and younger people benefiting greatly. Additionally, not only did pedestrians and cyclists experience fewer accidents but car occupants did too. Clearly it is still early days and the data on the impact of the Portsmouth scheme is still emerging, however, what has happened in Portsmouth is clearly important to consider.

 

In order for any 20 mph scheme to be a success it will require community buy-in. A 20 mph scheme should be driven by community demand, and its implementation should involve community and stakeholder engagement. Any area chosen to be part of a 20 mph scheme should be large, coherent and consistent, and in an area where the average speeds are not that high. Enforcement is also important and any scheme implemented should have police support through educational activities and encouragement by police to comply with the limit. Most importantly any scheme introduced should be backed up with community engagement activities, and this should be maintained throughout. 

 

There are many local authorities across the country that are pursuing 20 mph schemes, and the Department for Transport has revisited its guidance recently on this issue.

 

A 20 mph scheme in Brighton and Hove could be introduced in two phases. Firstly, a 20 mph scheme could be introduced into a residential area where there is a high volume of retail and pedestrian activity and already low average speeds. An area such as the city centre would be an ideal starting place, with all roads in the area reduced to 20 mph as average speeds are already quite low. The second phase would then involve looking at other residential areas within the local authorities boundaries to identify areas which could form part of a 20 mph area whilst leaving arterial roads at 30 mph.

 

18.3b  The panel thanked Ian Davey for his time and contributions.

 

18.3c  Members of the panel noted that they will be undertaking a site visit to Portsmouth to see for themselves the scheme which had been introduced there.

 

18.3d  The panel thanked Ian Davey for his time and contributions.

 

18.4a  Evidence from Christina Summers, representative from the London Road Area Local Action Team

 

The London Road Area Local Action Team has 90 members on its regular email list of which approximately half are residents and businesses with the rest being local services and agencies. The area that the LAT covers is very diverse so traffic speeds present different problems from rat running through residential areas to straight forward speeding along arterial roads.

 

In the Viaduct Rise area (the area between Viaduct Road and Ditchling Rise) there is already a 20 mph zone with signage and speed bumps. There have been no complaints about the zone but the area is constantly used as a rat run between Beaconsfield Road and Ditchling Road in both directions. There are two main problems with the zone. Firstly, the signage is not clear; the signs are too small and not obvious. Secondly, big lorries cut through from Ditchling Road into Ditchling Rise in the early hours of the morning heading for the waste depot in Hollingdean and it is this which causes residents the most amount of distress, in fact, it probably overshadows other problems in the area, including the breaking of the current 20 mph speed limit. As well as clearer 20 mph speed limit signs the area would benefit from being closed to commercial vehicles, especially lorries.

 

There have been complaints made to the LAT from Kingsbury Road residents about rat running between Baker Street and London Road. Two elderly residents in the area are particularly concerned about their safety as cars travel so quickly along the road and have even been known to mount the pavement outside their house. Introducing 20 mph speed restrictions in these areas would be a great start. A 20 mph speed limit in all of these mixed residential and retail business roads would be a good start.

 

A complaint has been received by the LAT that traffic in New England Road, Preston Circus and Viaduct Road constantly break the current speed limit of 30 mph and that enforcement of the 30 mph speed limit is a problem. A question was put to the Cabinet Member for Environment at Full Council in December 2009 asking for quick inexpensive measures to be taken such as the introduction of a speed camera. However the response, which appears to be the same for any enquiry of this kind, was that this can not be done without the accident and injury statistics to prove the need for an intervention. The problem with such an approach as this is that it will be too late for some people and it leads to the perception that the general well-being of pedestrians and cyclists is not considered important. If the whole junction, and the roads leading into it, were made a 20 mph zone with large, clear signage then this visible change could possibly make drivers think about the speed they are travelling.

 

York Place, like Preston Circus is designed for car drivers, not for pedestrians or cyclists despite the large numbers who use these particular roads to access amenities such as shops and a church. Traffic appears to break the 30 mph speed limit and a Pedestrian Crossing doesn’t appear to slow the traffic down nor make people feel safer. A number of accidents have, it is understood, taken place here with pedestrians. Traders along York Place constantly refer to this problem at LAT meetings. A reduction of the speed limit to 20 mph with very clear signage and a zebra crossing would be welcomed by those in the London Road LAT area.

 

The key is not in making piecemeal changes in response to complaints, or worse, accidents, but to have a total shift in thinking so that, rather than caging pedestrians off the roads by means of railings and other such deterrents in the name of safety from vehicles, main traffic routes should be part of larger open spaces giving pedestrians and cyclists equal travelling rights to car drivers. The car has priority on motorways and perhaps major routes approaching the city but this should not be the case within the city itself.

 

The London Road LAT area would benefit from clearer, larger 20 mph zone signage, being a no access area to large commercial vehicles in these zones, proper enforcement of speed limits on main/arterial routes, and in the longer-term, changes to the layout and road surfaces. Speaking from a personal perspective, there needs to be more consistency across the city to avoid confusion and the excuses made by car drivers that there are too many variations in the speed limit. A 20 mph speed limit across the city should be introduced. If there is one thing which the council could to do improve road safety in the city, it would be to adopt a risk assessment led approach to notoriously bad areas, rather than an accident led approach to introducing road safety initiatives.

 

18.4b  The panel thanked Christina Summers for her time and contributions.

 

18.4c  Members of the panel asked whether members of the London Road Area Local Action Team had a particular traffic calming measure which they preferred.

 

18.4d  The panel heard that it depends as the area covered by the action team is fragmented with some areas experiencing specific traffic problems of their own. To prevent rat running it is felt that signage is important, and something needs to be done to prevent large vehicles travelling through the area. Whilst an agreement has reduced the numbers of large operatives using the roads a number of smaller operatives still cut through. The London Road Area is a confusing configuration as shops and residents reside side by side.

 

18.4e  Members of the panel noted the concerns raised and that clearly speeding is not the only problem experienced on the roads and that heavy traffic moving through residential areas can also cause problems. 20 mph may not offer a complete solution to all the problems of road safety.

 

18.4f   Members of the panel noted that it was important to consider the extra benefits that may arise from 20 mph.

 

18.4g  The panel thanked Christina Summers for her time and contributions.

 

18.5a  Evidence from Mike Birri, representative from Lansdowne Area Residents’ Association

 

            The Lansdowne Area Residents’ Association represents residents living in Lansdowne Place and its neighbouring areas. Over the years the association has made many representations to the council and have managed to substantially improve the environment of the area. Improvements have involved flower baskets, lamp posts, cycle racks, trees and other aspects. However, over the years, access to the main arterial routes in the area have been greatly effected by the closure to traffic of through passage in Brunswick Square as well as the narrowing of exits and entrances to various roads. The opening of a Tesco store in the area has led to bottlenecks in traffic flows and the soon to be opened Sainsbury store will cause more traffic jams and an increase in delivery vans. There has been a substantial increase in the volume of traffic in the Lansdowne area. 

 

            Lansdowne Road is a very narrow street and driving at 30 mph can be a serious hazard; it has also become a rat run. If the speed limit were to be reduced to 20 mph then it would deter drivers from driving along the road and so improve the safety of school pupils using the roads in that area. Lansdowne Place is also a very busy road as it provides cycle access to other roads, lots of children are in the near vicinity and delivery lorries use it to access the city from the seafront. This road is also an invitation to speed as the road is very wide and as traffic leave the traffic problems of the seafront and Western Road they tend to put their foot down. A traffic island has been installed to improve safety but it has had no impact.

 

            The buildings in the Lansdowne area are all Grade 2 listed and the vehicles have an impact on their structures. Tescos have agreed to reduce the size and speed of their delivery lorries and this has helped. However, if all traffic were to reduce their speed it would greatly improve the local environment, reduce pollution, and increase the quality of life of residents living in the area.

 

18.5b  The panel thanked Mike Birri for his time and contributions

 

18.5c  Members of the panel noted that these are problems which are replicated right across the city. The movement of large vehicles along roads, which with the state of the roads as they are, causes excessive vibration; 20 mph speed restrictions would perhaps ease this.

18.5d  Members of the panel asked for clarification as to whether the problems in the Lansdowne area were the result of the increase in traffic in the area, or the speed of traffic in the area.

 

18.5e  The panel heard that it was probably both. Since the closing off of Brunswick Square  and the narrowing of several other roads, traffic has become funnelled through the area. On top of this, however, lorries travel through the area at quite a speed which makes the buildings shake and the traffic is a real danger to children trying to cross the road.

 

18.5f   The panel thanked Mike Birri for his time and contributions.

 

18.6a  Evidence from Councillor David Smart, representing Hangleton and Knoll

 

            The Hangleton and Knoll ward contains within it what was once the main east west route of the A27 where traffic is subject to a 40 mph speed limit. The ward also contains the old by-pass road where traffic is subject to a 30 mph speed limit. There have been numerous petitions to the council from residents in this ward over the last 7 years concerning traffic problems in this area. In general there is a view within the ward that there is a problem with the speed of traffic. The Old Shoreham Road, Hangleton Road and Hangleton Way have particular problems with speeding traffic.

 

            The ward does not have any 20 mph areas currently but there are zones with traffic calming on the Knoll Estate, and these are particularly hated by car drivers although perhaps not by all residents. There used to be two routes to get into the north of the ward, but a no right turn was placed at the top of Olive Road and this resulted in all the traffic being pushed onto the other road and speed bumps where then introduced to calm the traffic.

           

            An estimated 70% of residents in the Hangleton and Knoll ward would probably be in favour of a 20 mph speed limit with signs only. The rest would probably prefer a traffic calmed zone with signs and some means of forcing traffic down. Many residents in this area are against the use of speed bumps so would want other traffic calming measures to be used. In the main the ward would be in favour of a default speed limit of 20 mph on certain roads with some wanting this applied across the city although no one stated a preference for having 20 mph on main through roads in the city.  

 

            The most coherent method of introducing 20 mph speed limits would be through the use of signs. However there is a concern about levels of pollution which may rise as a result of a citywide 20 mph speed limit. Cars do not run at their most efficient at 20 mph, additionally, introducing lower speeds would not necessarily encourage more walking and cycling. 

           

            The national road safety advertising campaigns are very effective, such as the ‘alive at 30 mph and dead at 40 mph’. The council could undertake a local campaign around the benefits of 20 mph and survival rates.

 

18.6b  The panel thanked Councillor David Smart for his time and contributions

 

18.6c  Members of the panel asked if they could have some clarity around the particular roads which residents in Hangleton and Knoll would perhaps support 20 mph speed limits on. Where these main roads or side roads?

 

18.6d  The panel heard that it would most likely be on roads around hospitals and schools and some select priority areas. For example, Goldstone school is served by a single entry system and in areas such as council estates where it is mainly residents and a few delivery vehicles then these would be ideal 20 mph areas. Initially specific areas could be suggested, but then these could be added too to develop linked areas of 20 mph speed limits, although not one large citywide 20 mph area.

 

18.6e  Members of the panel asked whether residents in the Stapley Road area were in favour of the measures taken to lower speeds in that area and whether they were in favour of just signs or signs with other measures.

 

18.6f   The panel heard that signing alone in this area would probably be good enough. In all these areas the problem is not specifically speed but the use of goods vehicles travelling through the area. The roads themselves often act as good speed limiters. However, 20 mph speed limits need to be enforced by Sussex Police and if Sussex Police do not have the capacity to do this then any 20 mph scheme that is introduced is not likely to be effective.

 

18.6g  Members of the panel said that it is interesting to hear what residents further out of the city centre may think of 20 mph initiatives in their area. Members of the panel asked whether Old Shoreham Road is a problem within this ward, and whether residents would support a speed reduction on all residential areas of the ward bar, or including, main roads, and whether residents would support a signs only approach to this.

 

18.6h  The panel heard that it is difficult to say but that possibly a speed reduction on all residential areas in the ward would be largely supported. Old Shoreham Road is the main exit out of the city and Hangleton Road is used to by-pass the city centre, to put these roads to 20 mph would probably be considered an error, but 30 mph would be strongly supported on the Old Shoreham Road which is currently 40 mph in the Hangleton and Knoll ward. However, on residential roads and in council estates most residents would probably support areas of 20 mph with the use of signs but not bumps, if enforced by Sussex Police.

 

18.6i   The panel thanked Councillor David Smart for his time and contributions.

18.7a  Evidence from Councillor Melanie Davis, representing the Goldsmid Ward

 

            Speeding traffic is probably the single issue which residents are most concerned about in this ward. Well over 20 petitions have been submitted to the council from Goldsmid ward on issues of speeding traffic. Residents living in this ward feel unsafe, there are constant near misses and there is a perception of a lack of safety in the area. There are concerns that the council is not listening to the resident’s worries over this matter, and it is beginning to reflect badly on the council.

 

Goldsmid Ward is characterised by arterial roads, such as Old Shoreham Road, which traffic shoots along to avoid red traffic lights. On The Drive a number of schools are situated, and the pupils attending these face constant danger from the lack of safety in the area and from the vehicles shooting through traffic lights to avoid a red light. There are two east to west roads which cut through the ward, the Old Shoreham Road and parallel further south the Cromwell/Davigdor/Goldsmid Roads which are being used by drivers as short cuts. Residents feel that to try to cross these roads they are taking their lives into their own hands. There are a number of care homes in this area and older people are in danger from speeding traffic. There are also problems of speeding traffic around the park and outside the many schools in the area. It is difficult to enforce single stretches of 20 mph speed limits when surrounding roads have higher speed limits.

 

            Speaking personally, most people in the ward would probably feel that 20 mph speed limits offer a safer way to live. Whether this is achieved through signage, traffic calming or, what is probably more likely, a bit of both. There is a general consensus within the ward that the streets are being used as rat runs and cut-throughs and the safety of young children, families, and older people are not being taken into account. The arterial roads in the ward are just plain dangerous and would probably need to have 20 mph speed restrictions place on them as well.

 

18.7b  The panel thanked Councillor Melanie Davis for her time and contributions.

 

18.7c  Members of the panel asked whether 20 mph speed limits would be best on just the north to south roads in the area or on the east to west roads of the area as well. Would residents want to see a blanket 20 mph speed limit across the ward?

 

18.7d  The panel heard that a piecemeal approach to reducing speed limits may not work. Whilst the arterial roads do have bus routes on them, they are also the roads which residents are most scared to cross. Additionally, if arterial roads are not included in a 20 mph scheme in the ward and reductions occurred on just the side roads then this would possibly be more confusing for drivers.

 

18.7e  Members of the panel noted that a mixture of signage and traffic calming may be needed in the area. Members of the panel asked whether safety issues on the arterial roads in the ward would be improved if pedestrian crossing facilities were introduced in the area with pedestrian desire lines taken into account.

 

18.7f   The panel heard that there were over 3,000 children going to school near junctions on the Old Shoreham road, yet despite the large numbers of school children in the area there are patches of road were there were no safe places for pedestrians to cross. What type of crossing was required is difficult to suggest, but something needs to be done to slow the traffic down and something other than just signs and bumps will be needed.

 

18.7g  The panel noted the urgent need for pedestrian crossings in this area.

 

18.7h  Members of the panel asked if, just to be clear, some residents in the Goldsmid ward would be keen for a blanket 20 mph speed limit in the ward.

 

18.7i   The panel heard that any 20 mph scheme may not work in the ward unless the arterial roads in the area were also slowed down. Because of the grid like nature of the ward a 20 mph scheme may not have an impact unless all roads are included in a 20 mph scheme.

 

18.7j    The panel thanked Councillor Melanie Davis for her time and contributions.

 

18.8a  Evidence from Councillor Denise Cobb, representing Westbourne/Poets Corner

 

            This evidence is based on email responses received by Councillor Denise Cobb to the questions circulated to the representatives a few days prior to today’s meeting.

           

            There is a perception amongst some residents in Westbourne that traffic does speed in some areas of the ward, but also there is a perception that generally traffic does not travel too fast for the conditions. Rat running is often associated with delays due to road works, to avoid traffic lights or when the volume of traffic is excessively high. Rat running has been reported from the Pembrokes, the Princes and the Poets Corner areas. There are 20 mph zones in the ward and these have not been very successful; the 20 mph limit is often ignored, particularly at night.

 

It would be a very nice improvement to have some pavements widened and the remaining roads finished with paving stones. That would probably slow the cars to even less than 20 mph. The benefit of such environmental improvements is that it does not criminalise drivers. If there are not the resources available to undertake environmental changes such as this one, to encourage a naturally lower speed of traffic then changes should not be implemented. To artificially lower the speed limit on roads where it is not appropriate to drive at a slow speed will criminalise drivers. Draconian traffic laws and excessive ugly signage are not going to benefit the city. If an area requires slow speeds then most drivers will adapt and drive slower to suit the conditions. Road safety should not be used as an excuse to penalise car drivers and victimise car users.

           

            20 mph speed limits could be extended in some areas of the city, but to cover the whole city with a blanket 20 mph speed limit would be a major error. It can be more dangerous to drive at 20 mph in some situations and driving at this speed will increase the levels of carbon emissions in the city. Fines collected from parking and speed cameras should be used to tackle traffic problem areas. 20 mph zones could be introduced, for example, outside schools instead of installing cycle racks that save no ones lives. Law abiding motorists should not be targeted and convictions should not be used as a form of collecting money. Most cars are designed to drive efficiently at 35 to 40 mph. It is difficult to drive at 30 mph in some areas, and drivers should not be further criminalised.

 

            Introducing lower speeds will not increase walking and cycling in the city. There are numerous out door activities which residents can engage with should they choose to do so and they are more likely to walk along the seafront then stroll around the city’s residential streets. Some cyclists will only cycle when the weather is fine, when they are not in a hurry and when they don’t have big items to carry.

 

            If the council is serious about introducing 20 mph speed limits then it should be done in a way that makes it a natural speed for vehicles to travel at, for example, the changes which have been implemented in New Road. However this would require substantial investment and it is more important to introduce other initiatives such as a park and ride service than to reduce the speed limit.

 

            Why introduce a 20 mph speed limit and not a 25 mph speed limit? Speed is not always the killer in an accident; it is speed in the wrong time and place. Any changes undertaken to the speed limit in the city will need widespread consultation with emergency services and local residents. It is a concern that only the views of pressure groups and those with the loudest voices will be heard on this matter.

 

18.8b  The panel thanked Councillor Denise Cobb for her time and contributions.

 

18.8c  Members of the panel asked how many residents had responded to the questions which Councillor Denise Cobb had emailed.

 

18.8d  The panel heard that in the short amount of time that was available about half a dozen had responded and their views were very informative.

 

18.8e  Members of the panel asked for clarification as to whether Councillor Denise Cobb was representing the views of those residents which had responded to her email, or whether she was expressing her own views on this matter.

 

18.8f   The panel heard that Councillor Denise Cobb was responding based on the views which she had gathered, but felt that a number of very important issues had been raised by the residents who had responded to her email. The rebuilding of the local environment to better incorporate traffic would be welcomed, and this especially needed to be applied to cycle routes. Cycle routes in the city need to be better planned and developed to ensure that cyclists do not cycle in the wrong area. The city needs to be better developed to incorporate all of these changes.

 

18.8g  Members of the panel asked for clarification as to whether 20 mph zones in the Westbourne/Poets Corner had been successful or not.

 

18.8h  The panel heard that based on the information received from residents the speed bumps in the area didn’t work as cars speed up in between the bumps and slow down to travel over the bumps. It is the same with speed cameras; drivers will slow down for the camera but will speed up once it has travelled past it. The success of any scheme introduced is down to enforcement and compliance.

 

18.8i   The panel thanked Councillor Denise Cobb for her time and contributions.

 

18.9a  Evidence from Larry Halley, representing the Woodingdean Speedwatch Group

 

It should be noted that Councillor Geoff Wells is a member of the Woodingdean Speedwatch Group; however, he was not present when this issue was discussed by the group.

 

About a year ago questionnaires were sent out to residents in Woodingdean. The returned questionnaires indicated that there was a perception that excessive speeding was occurring on side roads and main roads in the Woodingdean area. As a result of this perception the Woodingdean Speedwatch Group was set up to investigate the matter further. Speed tests have shown that on certain main roads in the area traffic speeds are currently in excess of 30 mph with speeds of 49 and 47 mph recorded. Speeds of over 40 mph were recorded on straighter parts of the road where the speed limit was supposed to be 30 mph. Interestingly when speeds were being monitored by the group, the speed of the traffic on the other side of the road which wasn’t being monitored slowed down whilst some traffic in the lane being monitored were recorded as travelling at 40 mph. 

 

The Woodingdean Speedwatch Group would not be in favour of 20 mph speed limits being introduced across the ward, as it would increase pollution in the area and 20 mph would not solve the problems on all the roads in the ward. Blocking one road in the area solved rat running in some areas of the ward. 20 mph restrictions on some roads in the area and around some schools would work, but there are other traffic problems which exist such as drivers stopping on zig zag lines.

 

The groups’ main concern is that speed limits in the area would, if enforced effectively, probably be suitable; whether enforced by police officers or by physical engineering. Where the narrowing of roads has been undertaken it does appear to work and slow traffic down. In other cities chicanes have been widely introduced and they also appear to slow traffic down. It is the physical environment that needs to change to encourage more appropriate driving. 

 

The evidence collected by the Woodingdean Speedwatch Group shows that there are problems with speeding traffic in the area. Out of the five speed watches the group has undertaken, traffic was recorded as speeding on two occasions. However, other drivers who were not speeding sometimes slowed down so much during the speed watched they caused problems.

 

18.9b  The panel thanked Larry Halley for his time and contributions.

 

18.9c  Members of the panel noted that there is definitely a problem with rat running in the Woodingdean ward which is exacerbated by the number of pedestrians trying to cross many of the roads in the area. Speed has also been a historical problem in the area. It was asked as to whether the Woodingdean Speedwatch Group felt if there were particular types of traffic calming measures which would be appropriate for the Woodingdean area.

 

18.9d  The panel heard that the Woodingdean Speedwatch group didn’t have a particular opinion on the matter. However from the representatives’ personal perspective it was noted that the road restrictions introduced in Bexhill had helped to slow the traffic. One problem with chicanes is that scooters and small vehicles can still speed through them. One thing to note was that the Woodingdean Speedwatch Group has only been able to work at certain times; they can not monitor traffic in the evenings. Chicanes and other physical restrictions are in the roads 24 hours day so may work to slow traffic in the evenings when police officers are less likely to be about. 

 

18.9e  Members of the panel asked as to whether the Group had any evidence to suggest that a blanket 20 mph across the city wouldn’t work. It was noted that if police could enforce the current limits then this would be a great help to residents living in areas with speeding traffic. However, seeing as there is a perception that the police do not enforce the current speed limits and would not enforce 20 mph speed limits then introducing lower limits may not make much difference to the situation. The physical environment may need to be changed to influence drivers to drive more slowly.

 

18.9f   The panel heard that changing the physical environment is the key to success across the city. Examples from cities in Europe show that if you change the physical environment then traffic has to slow down regardless of the time of day and the conditions on the road. However, this is an expensive option to take.

 

18.9g  Members of the panel asked if chicanes can sometimes cause traffic to travel faster as cars end up competing for road space.

 

18.9h  The panel heard from the Road Safety Manager that yes sometimes cars will speed up to get through a chicane before an oncoming vehicle. This tends to be more of a problem however when traffic is light, at peak times it is less of a problem. The distance between chicanes, as well as other types of traffic calming measures, is what often causes the problems of speeding up and slowing down traffic within a 20 mph zone.

 

18.9i   The panel heard that in Ditchling because of the large number of parked cars and other restrictions in the area the traffic has slowed down.

 

18.9j    Members of the panel noted that in Ditchling chicanes are indeed in place but the large amount of congestion which is caused by parked cars appears to have had a bigger impact on slowing traffic than the chicanes have had. It was also noted that in an area such as Woodingdean physical measures are likely to provide a solution to speeding traffic. However, due to the expense of 20 mph zones with traffic calming measures and due to the large demand for zones in the city, 20 mph areas with signs only may need to be considered as an option. Traffic calming could then be introduced should a 20 mph speed limit not change the attitude of drivers. 

 

18.9k  The panel heard that throughout Woodingdean there are a number of signs in place to inform drivers that there is a speed camera in the area and that speed checks are taking place. However there are drivers that will still speed through the cameras. There is a minority of drivers who will always speed no matter what is done.

 

18.9l    The panel thanked Larry Halley for his time and contributions.

 

18.10a Evidence from Mag Morris, representing Friends of Queens

Park/Queens Park Local Action Team

 

There is a general view within the Queen’s Park area, supported by up to 50 recent emails on this matter, that traffic calming measures would be welcomed to slow down traffic. In particular, something needs to be done to slow traffic in the East and West Drive. There is not so much a problem of rat running in the area, but there is a problem with boy racers. There are a lot of cars parked around Queens Park, and there is a chicane in place on West Drive at the junction with Albion Road. This means that traffic from the northern end of the Queens Park area tends to slow as it travels south. However, as there are parked cars on only one side of the road further south, the traffic will speed back up again before slowing down by the archway. There is a problem of speeding and slowing traffic in the area with vehicles not travelling at a constant and manageable speed. 

           

There are no 20 mph speed limits in the Queens Park area. The area has a number of nursery and primary schools and so the streets are very crowded with lots of pedestrians trying to cross the roads. There are no signs in the area to indicate that there are children about so something needs to be done to slow the traffic down. During school time and during the school holidays it can be really quite dangerous. There have been no fatal accidents in the area; however traffic calming is wanted to prevent one from happening. Residents would have a preference for not having speed humps in the area but some other form of traffic calming measure. 

 

There should be a 20 mph speed limit around the park and the adjoining streets, may be even on Queens Park Road as traffic tends to speed on this road, but there shouldn’t be speed limits on the bigger roads such as Eastern Road. No residents thought that it would be a good idea for 20 mph speed limits to be introduced across the city.

 

18.10b The panel thanked Mag Morris for her time and contributions.

 

18.10c Members of the panel noted that boy racers in the area sounded like an immediate problem which needed to be addressed and enquired as to whether a mobile speed camera in the area would help the problem.

 

18.10d The panel heard that this may be a good idea as drivers do tend to

tear around the park and its adjoining roads. There is a one way street just off the park and drivers often do not realise this as they are travelling too fast and as a result the one way system is often ignored and an accident is quiet likely to happen in that area very soon. May be a camera would also deter this kind of behaviour.

 

18.10e Members of the panel noted the potential of a 20 mph speed limit to

solving some of the problems in the area around Queens Park particularly the problems with speeding. It was asked as to whether a 20 mph speed limit indicated by signs only would be welcomed in the area.  

 

18.10f The panel heard that there are buses which use this area so 20 mph

speed limits may be problematic. However a 20 mph speed limit on East, West and North Drive would definitely make life safer for many residents in this area. Friends of Queens Park and the Queens Park LAT have received many concerns about traffic around the park and the schools and about trying to cross some of the roads in the area. Something needs to be done. 

 

18.10g The panel thanked Mag Morris for her time and contributions.

 

18.11a Heike Feldpausch, representing the Lewes Road for Clean Air

Group

 

Lewes Road for Clean Air (LR4CA) has submitted a written statement about their views on 20 mph speed limits and zones. The LR4CA are local residents and people who use the Lewes Road. The group’s aims are to breathe clean air, help prevent climate change and further improve the quality of life and strength of the local community. The group currently has about 300 members. The LR4CA supports 20 mph speed limits across Brighton in built-up area for four key reasons. These are: to improve air quality, to increase road safety, to increase people’s confidence in being able to cycle and walk in the city, and to encourage stronger communities with safer and cleaner roads.

           

The LR4CA campaigns for new ways to improve air quality for all residents in their neighbourhood. There are a number of residential roads in the area which currently have speed bumps. However the LR4CA group feels that a general 20 mph speed limit signified by signs rather than bumps would be a critical factor in trying to reduce the speed of traffic and improve air quality.  A reduction in the general speed of traffic would cut down the current practise of braking and accelerating between road obstacles used to calm traffic and road junctions. Breaking and accelerating is noisy and can lead to increases in emissions of harmful particulates, other pollutants and carbon. A steady speed of 20 mph is likely to reduce emissions, pollution and noise.

 

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents suggests that a pedestrian struck at 20 mph has a 97% chance of survival. At 35 mph this falls to just a 50% chance of survival. Children are the most vulnerable type of pedestrian and they stand to benefit the most from a lowering of the limit to 20 mph. Living streets note that historically the 30 mph speed limit was introduced in 1934 when there were just 2 million cars in the UK. Today there are over 28 million. This is roughly one car for every two people in the UK. From a crossing the road point of view, 30 mph was a far more appropriate speed in the 1930s than it is today. The relative rarity of a car on the street meant that crossing it in good time was a simple matter. With today’s increased car use, sufficient gaps in 30 mph traffic are much harder to come by, and on the main arterial roads in this city one could venture a guess to say that there are no gaps. A 20 mph speed limit puts people first and gives them the confidence to cross the road where they live without fear for their safety. 

 

Other cities across the UK; London, Portsmouth, Norwich, Warrington, Leicester, Newcastle and Hull have all introduced 20 mph speed limits. A 20 mph speed limit in built-up area allows for the safe mixing of motorised and non-motorised people. It ensures equality in that it makes it easier for pedestrians and cyclists to enjoy the same direct and safe routes for their journeys as motorists. Anecdotal reports suggest that many cyclists are put off cycling because of the speed and volume of traffic. LR4CA believe that slower moving vehicles will encourage a voluntary modal shift to more sustainable forms of transport. The LR4CA group believes that the volume and speed of traffic through residential areas divides and weakens communities. A study from the Commission for Integrated Transport in 2001 found that where cities have 20 mph speed limits covering between 65% and 85% of the street network, they are transformed from being noisy, polluted places into vibrant people-centred environments. The Hanover area which has had a 20 mph limit for about 15 years shows the value of 20 mph schemes. It was the first area in Brighton & Hove to have a limit and in that sense it was a pioneer. It has made the area safer for children and pedestrians, it has reduced rat running and thus made it more pleasant to walk around.

 

A greener, cleaner, and more traffic calmed city is not only more beneficial to the health of its residents, but it is also likely to be a more attractive destination for visitors and tourists. The LR4CA would urge the council to adopt a citywide 20 mph speed limit and to include this measure in the Sustainable transport Strategy for our city.

 

18.11b The panel thanked Heike Feldpausch for her time and contributions.

 

18.11c Members of the panel noted that due to the volume of traffic, traffic

already moves quite slow in the Lewes Road area. The problem instead appears to be cars turning off Lewes Road, because of the number of traffic lights in the area, and speeding through the side streets. As Lewes Road is already an Air Quality Management Area slowing down the traffic any further in that area won’t necessarily make it any cleaner.

 

18.11d The panel heard that LR4CA were aware that many cars driving at

lower speeds are not necessarily more efficient. However, one option to take would be to reward car drivers travelling at 20 mph with, for example, a green wave of traffic lights, particularly at night when it is pointless to sit at traffic lights. A green wave for traffic travelling at a constant speed has been tried and tested successfully in Islington. LR4CA supports for definite 20 mph on residential roads and would ideally like to see 20 mph speed limits on arterial roads along with some sort of scheme to avoid criminalising drivers.

 

18.11e Members of the panel noted that the LR4CA appeared to be indicating

that they wanted an extension to the approach used in Hanover to residential streets off Lewes and London Road, the use of a green wave system to help traffic to keep moving and, an over arching policy of removing unnecessary traffic journeys in the area, and that such measures would probably help solve the air quality problem in the Lewes Road area.

 

18.11f The panel heard that this was the case. If a 20 mph speed limit was

introduced across the city there would probably be less cars on the roads as local people will not be quite so tempted to make small journeys by car. Lower emissions and pollution are thus achieved by less cars being on the road as a result of speed restrictions.

 

18.11g Members of the panel asked if the LR4CA group would be willing to

accept that there may be increases in pollution levels if speed limits were dropped from 30 to 20 mph. 

 

18.11h The panel heard that members of the LR4CA are aware that a vehicle

travelling at a lower speed is not a less polluting car, however, by introducing a lower traffic speed and by encouraging a steadier flow of traffic and having a no idling policy whereby cars have to be turned off when stationary, as well as other smart measures, then this will help to reduce pollution levels.

 

18.11i Members of the panel noted that they had heard evidence from the

council’s air quality officers to suggest that a modal shift in transport use in the city would help to reduce levels of pollution and increase air quality. It was asked as to whether there LR4CA supported 20 mph speed limits with signs only in residential areas and arterial roads.

 

18.11j The panel hear that ideally arterial roads should be reduced to 20 mph,

however, this may be a lot to ask for, so for the time being, the group were mainly calling for 20 mph speed limits on residential roads. It was noted that a more in-depth study or survey on this issue would better reveal what residents in the area would be willing to support, and the LR4CA would be very happy to undertake or support such a project.  

 

18.11k The panel thanked Heike Feldpausch for her time and contributions.

 

18.12 The panel thanked everyone who had attended today’s meeting to represent the views of some of the residents groups from across the city. 

 

18.13  The Panel noted that this concluded the public evidence gathering process of the panel and that the next step of the scrutiny review would be to start drawing together the panel’s conclusions and observations.