That was the question put by Leo Hickman in his Ask Leo and Lucy column for the Guardian last week :-
There an estimated 450 20mph speed limit zones across the UK, many of which are located near schools. Since the first ones were introduced in 1991, they have become an increasingly popular traffic calming measure. Bristol, Portsmouth, Leicester, Oxford and a number of other towns now have city centre-wide 20mph limits.
Although they cut down on accidents, do they trigger other unintended consequences, such as increased pollution (both carbon dioxide and particulates) and traffic tail-back further afield? As ever, please share your thoughts on this subject below and I'll be back on Friday to add my own thoughts to the discussion.
We replied as follows :-
First, lets deal with this myth about cars being most efficient at 50-60 mph.
A study, by Peter De Nayer, a former AA fuel efficiency expert, involved fitting cars with a fuel flow meter and testing them at Millbrook proving ground in Bedfordshire. He found that a Citroën C4 1.6 diesel achieved 99.6mpg at 20mph but only 29.3mpg at 90mph.
The average car consumes 38 per cent more fuel at 70mph than it does over the same distance at 50mph. At 60mph it uses 34 per cent more than at 40mph.
The study, commissioned by What Car? magazine and based on five cars of different sizes ranging from a 1 litre Toyota Aygo to a 2.2 litre Land Rover Freelander, found that the most efficient speed was below 40mph for all five and as low as 20mph for two.
It was found that for most cars there was a variation of between plus or minus 10% in fuel economy between 20 and 30 mph. This was dependent upon gearing and engine characteristics. Hence for steady speeds there is probably no difference between 20 mph and 30 mph when averaged out across all cars.
However, as has been pointed out, it is acceleration and particualrly repeated acceleration that uses most fuel. By capping the speed at 20 mph the ALL acceleration between 20 to 30 mph is removed.
Whilst advocating wide area 20 mph limits for urban and residential areas we would prefer to see behaviour change used rather than speed bumps to control the speed of motor vehciles.
Where speed bumps are used it would seem perverse to reason that one only needs to travel slowly on the bumps and it is expected to speed up between them. If they exist within a low speed limit then it is actually illegal to speed up between them. Hence any argument that claims that speed bumps (where used) causes increased pollution through repeated acceleration is flawed by the fact that such acceleration is at best unwise/unnessecary and at worst illegal.
Reference can also be made to a report on pollution within Belgian 30 kph zones. This suggested that they reduce particulates and may be found at the 20's Plenty for Us website together with a wide range of other pertinent reports See :-
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/reports.htm
Of course the points made about modal shift to walking and cycling are very pertinent and I endorse the view that streets with 30 mph speed limits will never encourage active travel and will always by child unfriendly.
I do note that the question specifically relates to pollution caused by carbon dioxide and particulates. However maybe we should widen our perspective on "pollution" and ask how much our streets have become blighted by the presence and speed of so many vehicles in those public spaces between the houses where we live.
Rod King
20's Plenty for Us
Leo's conclusion was :-
So, if reducing emissions is your goal, the all-important factor seems to be what traffic-calming measures you use to ensure speeds are reduced from 30mph down to 20mph. It seems there's universal agreement, though, that speed humps are not the way to go.
I think Rod King of 20's Plenty for Us raises some very interesting and valid points on this issue. And I agree with the point made by Rod and others that 20mph limits assists in encouraging a modal shift away from residential streets being predominantly the domain of motorised vehicles and not pedestrians and cyclists. My own vote would be for more, not fewer, 20mph limits, regardless of whether evidence exists to suggest they might create marginally more emissions.
The full article may be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/34g2oey
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Article published in Local Transport Today
The recent DfT report on "Pedestrian casualties in reported road accidents:2008", which was referred to in LTT 539, misses a worrying trend that since 2004 road fatalities in the UK have become increasingly skewed towards pedestrians. From pedestrians being 20.8% of road deaths in 2004 we have seen this increase this every year. (2005 - 21%, 2006 - 21.3%, 2007 - 21.9%, 2008 - 22.5%).
The report identifies that for pedestrian safety the UK does less well than other EU countries based on pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people. In fact, it puts us 8th out of the EU 19. However when comparing the %age road fatalities that are pedestrians then United Kingdom comes 17th out of 19. Only Hungary and Poland are worse. (European Road Safety Observatory)
Whilst absolute pedestrian casualties have been reducing, this has been at a far lower rate than that experienced by other forms of transport. Hence in the UK a road death is more likely to be a pedestrian than any time since 2001. Our road danger reduction is simply not working for pedestrians.
With 96% of pedestrian casualties on built-up roads, then now is the time for radical action to create a "paradigm shift" in the way we share roads with pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle users.
Whilst the DfT has recently made steps to encourage the use of lower speed limits for all residential roads through the use of "Total 20" schemes as in Portsmouth, it needs to relax its signage requirements and enable local authorities to make 20 mph the default speed limit (without repeaters) unless otherwise signed.
By providing clear "gateways" to 20 mph limited areas then no additional 20 mph signage should be required. In order to enable progressive local authorities to move forward with "Total 20" then the government should commit to underwrite any current signage erection and removal costs in the event of them retrospectively changing the default signage requirements on a national basis.
Such a move would overcome one of the major factors inhibiting local authorities from implementing this civic and life enhancing initiative. It would also enable them to meet many LPT3 targets at a far lower cost and greater value for money.
Note: Local Transport Today is the publication read by transport planners and officers in the UK.
The report identifies that for pedestrian safety the UK does less well than other EU countries based on pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people. In fact, it puts us 8th out of the EU 19. However when comparing the %age road fatalities that are pedestrians then United Kingdom comes 17th out of 19. Only Hungary and Poland are worse. (European Road Safety Observatory)
Whilst absolute pedestrian casualties have been reducing, this has been at a far lower rate than that experienced by other forms of transport. Hence in the UK a road death is more likely to be a pedestrian than any time since 2001. Our road danger reduction is simply not working for pedestrians.
With 96% of pedestrian casualties on built-up roads, then now is the time for radical action to create a "paradigm shift" in the way we share roads with pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle users.
Whilst the DfT has recently made steps to encourage the use of lower speed limits for all residential roads through the use of "Total 20" schemes as in Portsmouth, it needs to relax its signage requirements and enable local authorities to make 20 mph the default speed limit (without repeaters) unless otherwise signed.
By providing clear "gateways" to 20 mph limited areas then no additional 20 mph signage should be required. In order to enable progressive local authorities to move forward with "Total 20" then the government should commit to underwrite any current signage erection and removal costs in the event of them retrospectively changing the default signage requirements on a national basis.
Such a move would overcome one of the major factors inhibiting local authorities from implementing this civic and life enhancing initiative. It would also enable them to meet many LPT3 targets at a far lower cost and greater value for money.
Note: Local Transport Today is the publication read by transport planners and officers in the UK.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
“It’s the speed of motor vehicles stupid”
The following article was published by ACT Travelwise in their recent newsletter
“It’s the speed of motor vehicles stupid”
In 1992, during the American presidential campaign Bill Clinton had a sign in his office proclaiming “It’s the economy stupid”. At the same time the German town of Hilden in North-Rhine Westphalia on the outskirts of Dusseldorf was looking at its falling cycling and pedestrian numbers. The urban planners recognised that the safe mobility of their citizens was one of the key tasks of municipal self determination. Their conclusion was that “It’s the speed of the motor vehicles stupid” and they introduced 30 kph (18.5 mph) speed limits on all residential streets and some main roads. They did so with a great deal of public engagement and appropriate police enforcement. Their reasoning was that reducing the differential speed between road users that was the biggest factor in road danger reduction. And now with 24% of in town trips by bicycle and 25% by public transport they have a successful and sustainable transport model that some UK towns would die for.
So many of our towns in the UK are blighted by policies which see transport issues in terms of the movement of motor cars rather than people. And if we look at the percentage road deaths that are pedestrians, then in 2005 in the UK it was 21%, one of the highest in Europe. And since then it has risen to 21.3% in 2006, 21.9% in 2007 and 22.5% in 2008.
When the DfT found that we were being knocked off our previous Road Safety pedestal by France and Finland and Japan and Sweden and Germany and Portugal and the Netherlands and Denmark and Switzerland, who all now have lower child road deaths per 100,000 population than the UK, then the alarm bells started ringing. Its recent “A Safer Way” White Paper recommended that “highway authorities, over time, introduce 20 mph zones and limits into streets that are primarily residential in nature”.
A reduction in perceived road danger is key to any significant promotion of cycling or walking. Almost half of the public questioned (47%) strongly agree that “the idea of cycling on busy roads frightens me”, with a further 27% agreeing with this.
Whilst we can attract some new “fit and brave” cyclists onto the roads and also create off road routes that may work for a few people who live in the right place, unless we address this very real fear then any progress on modal shift will have limited returns.
And of course, unless we can get towards 20% of all in-town trips being made by bicycle then we fail to make any real reduction in the unsustainable transport to which those initiatives are targeted.
We need a “paradigm shift” in our thinking which starts to recognise that the spaces between houses that we call streets are there to be used equitably by all, regardless of their wealth, health, age, or choice of transport mode.
We need to ask ourselves how moral it is to promote walking and cycling if at the same time we do not make our streets safer places for people to cycle and walk.
We need to ask whether “speed becomes greed” when it keeps the elderly in their homes and our children “bussed” to schools by parents through fear of traffic.
And in town halls throughout the country these questions are being asked and there is gradual recognition that “It’s the speed of the motor vehicles stupid”.
Portsmouth was the first city to take advantage of the changes in the DfT Guidance in 2006 which lowered the “before” speed threshold for implementing 20 mph speed limits without traffic calming. The circular also recommended the use of 20 mph speed limits in residential areas and in the vicinity of schools where there is a high presence of vulnerable road users.
In2008 Portsmouth completed the setting of 1,200 residential streets at a 20 mph speed limit. The cost was just £475,000 or £333 per street. And now the DfT have reported on its audit of the 1st year of operation with results which show a 7 mph drop in average speeds on roads where previously the average was above 24 mph. There was also a 15% reduction in casualties. Ongoing audits will confirm the effect of this “collective community commitment” to safer roads on cycling and pedestrian activity.
The reduction in speeds is also leading to the delivery of contraflow cycling on one-way streets so increasing cycling permeability and accessibility. There is also evidence that air-bourn PM10 diesel particulates are reduced at 20 mph .
And it’s not just Portsmouth. Local authorities representing over 1.5 million residents in the UK are now in the course of implementing 20 mph as the default speed limit for all residential streets. And in doing so their communities are debating just how they want to create a better environment for children to walk and cycle, for the elderly to shop and for everyone to have real choice in their transport choices.
Such a move is hardly controversial, with over 75% of drivers in favour of a 20 mph limit for residential streets .
Whilst we cannot do anything about the mistakes of the past, we can all start to create urban road networks that recognise equality and respect the safety of all our citizens. The time has come for communities to demand that “20’s Plenty where people live”.
“It’s the speed of motor vehicles stupid”
In 1992, during the American presidential campaign Bill Clinton had a sign in his office proclaiming “It’s the economy stupid”. At the same time the German town of Hilden in North-Rhine Westphalia on the outskirts of Dusseldorf was looking at its falling cycling and pedestrian numbers. The urban planners recognised that the safe mobility of their citizens was one of the key tasks of municipal self determination. Their conclusion was that “It’s the speed of the motor vehicles stupid” and they introduced 30 kph (18.5 mph) speed limits on all residential streets and some main roads. They did so with a great deal of public engagement and appropriate police enforcement. Their reasoning was that reducing the differential speed between road users that was the biggest factor in road danger reduction. And now with 24% of in town trips by bicycle and 25% by public transport they have a successful and sustainable transport model that some UK towns would die for.
So many of our towns in the UK are blighted by policies which see transport issues in terms of the movement of motor cars rather than people. And if we look at the percentage road deaths that are pedestrians, then in 2005 in the UK it was 21%, one of the highest in Europe. And since then it has risen to 21.3% in 2006, 21.9% in 2007 and 22.5% in 2008.
When the DfT found that we were being knocked off our previous Road Safety pedestal by France and Finland and Japan and Sweden and Germany and Portugal and the Netherlands and Denmark and Switzerland, who all now have lower child road deaths per 100,000 population than the UK, then the alarm bells started ringing. Its recent “A Safer Way” White Paper recommended that “highway authorities, over time, introduce 20 mph zones and limits into streets that are primarily residential in nature”.
A reduction in perceived road danger is key to any significant promotion of cycling or walking. Almost half of the public questioned (47%) strongly agree that “the idea of cycling on busy roads frightens me”, with a further 27% agreeing with this.
Whilst we can attract some new “fit and brave” cyclists onto the roads and also create off road routes that may work for a few people who live in the right place, unless we address this very real fear then any progress on modal shift will have limited returns.
And of course, unless we can get towards 20% of all in-town trips being made by bicycle then we fail to make any real reduction in the unsustainable transport to which those initiatives are targeted.
We need a “paradigm shift” in our thinking which starts to recognise that the spaces between houses that we call streets are there to be used equitably by all, regardless of their wealth, health, age, or choice of transport mode.
We need to ask ourselves how moral it is to promote walking and cycling if at the same time we do not make our streets safer places for people to cycle and walk.
We need to ask whether “speed becomes greed” when it keeps the elderly in their homes and our children “bussed” to schools by parents through fear of traffic.
And in town halls throughout the country these questions are being asked and there is gradual recognition that “It’s the speed of the motor vehicles stupid”.
Portsmouth was the first city to take advantage of the changes in the DfT Guidance in 2006 which lowered the “before” speed threshold for implementing 20 mph speed limits without traffic calming. The circular also recommended the use of 20 mph speed limits in residential areas and in the vicinity of schools where there is a high presence of vulnerable road users.
In2008 Portsmouth completed the setting of 1,200 residential streets at a 20 mph speed limit. The cost was just £475,000 or £333 per street. And now the DfT have reported on its audit of the 1st year of operation with results which show a 7 mph drop in average speeds on roads where previously the average was above 24 mph. There was also a 15% reduction in casualties. Ongoing audits will confirm the effect of this “collective community commitment” to safer roads on cycling and pedestrian activity.
The reduction in speeds is also leading to the delivery of contraflow cycling on one-way streets so increasing cycling permeability and accessibility. There is also evidence that air-bourn PM10 diesel particulates are reduced at 20 mph .
And it’s not just Portsmouth. Local authorities representing over 1.5 million residents in the UK are now in the course of implementing 20 mph as the default speed limit for all residential streets. And in doing so their communities are debating just how they want to create a better environment for children to walk and cycle, for the elderly to shop and for everyone to have real choice in their transport choices.
Such a move is hardly controversial, with over 75% of drivers in favour of a 20 mph limit for residential streets .
Whilst we cannot do anything about the mistakes of the past, we can all start to create urban road networks that recognise equality and respect the safety of all our citizens. The time has come for communities to demand that “20’s Plenty where people live”.
Monday, 26 October 2009
Article published in World Streets
Here is an article that was recently featured in the World Streets on-line magazine. See http://www.worldstreets.org/.
On 14th May 2008 in a United Kingdom House of Commons Transport Committee evidence session the respected head of the Netherlands Road Safety Institute, Fred Wegman, commented :-
“Until 2000 we were always looking to the United Kingdom when it came to road safety. You were the inventors of many good activities and polices. All of a sudden, somewhere in 2000, you stopped doing things and we continued with our efforts. A simple figure to illustrate that is that, compared to 2000, in 2006 you had 7% fewer fatalities in this country. We have one third fewer.”
The resultant critical review of road safety in the UK by the Transport Select Committee was tellingly entitled “Ending the Scandal of Complacency: Road Safety beyond 2010”
Experts will debate the reasons for the slow down in better safety on UK roads. Some will put it down to an over-reliance on engineering measures which may well simply keep prevailing vehicle speeds higher and inevitably make it more dangerous for our vulnerable road users. Indeed whilst the number of total road fatalities has dropped from 3,221 in 2004 to 2,538 in 2008, the percentage of these which were pedestrians has been steadily rising from 20.83% in 2004 to 22.54% in 2008. In fact UK’s skewing of road fatalities towards pedestrians is one of the highest in Europe where the average across the EU14 countries in 2005 was just 14%. In 2005 in the Netherlands it was just 9.4%.
However, things are changing. In 2006 the Department of Transport issued some new guidelines to Local Authorities for setting speed limits. One city, Portsmouth, seized upon a slight change in the guidelines for 20 mph limits without traffic calming and decided to embark upon a new initiative based upon the premise that 20’s plenty where people live.
And last week at a special conference “Portsmouth – Britain’s First 20 mph City” the presentations in the Guild Hall in Portsmouth may well have created a pivotal point in road danger reduction in the UK.
Until now, speed management has mainly been implemented by means of localised interventions on streets to make the driver slow down. Whether they are speed cameras, or speed bumps the essential engagement has been with the driver on the road whilst he or she is driving.
At the conference, Portsmouth City Council and the Department for Transport reported on the results from the completely different approach taken by Portsmouth when in March 2008 they completed their setting of all residential roads, bar arterial routes, with a speed limit of 20 mph. 1,200 streets were set to 20 mph over a 9 month period. No bumps or humps, but most importantly a decision not just made by Traffic Officers but by the whole community as they sought a way to deliver lower speeds and a better quality of life for their residents. Quite simply, Portsmouth people decided to slow down wherever people live!
Of course, setting lower speeds with traffic calming is so expensive that one only usually does it where you have excessive speed problems. But when you make the decision as a community to slow down wherever people live then it is inevitable that many streets will already have speeds below 20 mph. In fact in Portsmouth they monitored 159 sites. 102 already had mean speeds of 20 mph or less. 36 were between 20 mph and 24 mph, whilst on a further 21 the mean speed was above 24 mph.
And because of that mix it was found that overall the mean speed for all the roads did not change very much. In fact it reduced by just 1%. But what was very significant was the fact that in those streets where speeds previously were 24 mph or above then a huge 7mph reduction in mean speed was recorded.
Whilst casualties also fell by 15% and total accidents by 13%, more time will be needed to establish statistically significant collision figures.
Portsmouth’s success is as a community that has debated how the streets should be shared more equitably and has gone through the due political, democratic and administrative process to take that community commitment and turn it into a framework within which everyone can take their part in making their city a better place to live. One where casualties reduce and people have quieter streets with more opportunities for cycling and walking.
The spaces between our houses, which we call streets, will never be the same in this country. Portsmouth has shown that communities can change their behaviour and sensibly embark on a 20’s Plenty Where People Live initiative that delivers real benefits to every road user. More and more towns, cities and villages are following this trend to put citizenship back into the way we drive and share our roads. The same plan is proposed in Oxford, Leicester, Newcastle, Norwich and Islington, with widespread trials being conducted in Bristol and Warrington.
But people in Portsmouth are perhaps no different from us all. But what they have found is a way to enable them to turn an aspiration for safer and more pleasant streets into a reality. I suspect there will be plenty more similar communities saying 20’s plenty for them as well. And that may well put the United Kingdom back on track in improving the safety of vulnerable road users and bringing a little more calmness to our urban and residential streets.
On 14th May 2008 in a United Kingdom House of Commons Transport Committee evidence session the respected head of the Netherlands Road Safety Institute, Fred Wegman, commented :-
“Until 2000 we were always looking to the United Kingdom when it came to road safety. You were the inventors of many good activities and polices. All of a sudden, somewhere in 2000, you stopped doing things and we continued with our efforts. A simple figure to illustrate that is that, compared to 2000, in 2006 you had 7% fewer fatalities in this country. We have one third fewer.”
The resultant critical review of road safety in the UK by the Transport Select Committee was tellingly entitled “Ending the Scandal of Complacency: Road Safety beyond 2010”
Experts will debate the reasons for the slow down in better safety on UK roads. Some will put it down to an over-reliance on engineering measures which may well simply keep prevailing vehicle speeds higher and inevitably make it more dangerous for our vulnerable road users. Indeed whilst the number of total road fatalities has dropped from 3,221 in 2004 to 2,538 in 2008, the percentage of these which were pedestrians has been steadily rising from 20.83% in 2004 to 22.54% in 2008. In fact UK’s skewing of road fatalities towards pedestrians is one of the highest in Europe where the average across the EU14 countries in 2005 was just 14%. In 2005 in the Netherlands it was just 9.4%.
However, things are changing. In 2006 the Department of Transport issued some new guidelines to Local Authorities for setting speed limits. One city, Portsmouth, seized upon a slight change in the guidelines for 20 mph limits without traffic calming and decided to embark upon a new initiative based upon the premise that 20’s plenty where people live.
And last week at a special conference “Portsmouth – Britain’s First 20 mph City” the presentations in the Guild Hall in Portsmouth may well have created a pivotal point in road danger reduction in the UK.
Until now, speed management has mainly been implemented by means of localised interventions on streets to make the driver slow down. Whether they are speed cameras, or speed bumps the essential engagement has been with the driver on the road whilst he or she is driving.
At the conference, Portsmouth City Council and the Department for Transport reported on the results from the completely different approach taken by Portsmouth when in March 2008 they completed their setting of all residential roads, bar arterial routes, with a speed limit of 20 mph. 1,200 streets were set to 20 mph over a 9 month period. No bumps or humps, but most importantly a decision not just made by Traffic Officers but by the whole community as they sought a way to deliver lower speeds and a better quality of life for their residents. Quite simply, Portsmouth people decided to slow down wherever people live!
Of course, setting lower speeds with traffic calming is so expensive that one only usually does it where you have excessive speed problems. But when you make the decision as a community to slow down wherever people live then it is inevitable that many streets will already have speeds below 20 mph. In fact in Portsmouth they monitored 159 sites. 102 already had mean speeds of 20 mph or less. 36 were between 20 mph and 24 mph, whilst on a further 21 the mean speed was above 24 mph.
And because of that mix it was found that overall the mean speed for all the roads did not change very much. In fact it reduced by just 1%. But what was very significant was the fact that in those streets where speeds previously were 24 mph or above then a huge 7mph reduction in mean speed was recorded.
Whilst casualties also fell by 15% and total accidents by 13%, more time will be needed to establish statistically significant collision figures.
Portsmouth’s success is as a community that has debated how the streets should be shared more equitably and has gone through the due political, democratic and administrative process to take that community commitment and turn it into a framework within which everyone can take their part in making their city a better place to live. One where casualties reduce and people have quieter streets with more opportunities for cycling and walking.
The spaces between our houses, which we call streets, will never be the same in this country. Portsmouth has shown that communities can change their behaviour and sensibly embark on a 20’s Plenty Where People Live initiative that delivers real benefits to every road user. More and more towns, cities and villages are following this trend to put citizenship back into the way we drive and share our roads. The same plan is proposed in Oxford, Leicester, Newcastle, Norwich and Islington, with widespread trials being conducted in Bristol and Warrington.
But people in Portsmouth are perhaps no different from us all. But what they have found is a way to enable them to turn an aspiration for safer and more pleasant streets into a reality. I suspect there will be plenty more similar communities saying 20’s plenty for them as well. And that may well put the United Kingdom back on track in improving the safety of vulnerable road users and bringing a little more calmness to our urban and residential streets.
Friday, 9 October 2009
Letter to the Parish Council!
I recently heard of a response from a Parish Councillor explaining that at the parish level not much could be done to influence 20 mph speed limits. At 20's plenty for us we believe the reverse is true.
Here is the email I sent to our own local parish councillors in anticipation of lower speeds being debated at the next council meeting :-
I am delighted that Lymm Parish Council is going to be discussing the issue of speed limits for Lymm village on Tuesday night.
I will be looking forward to attending and if my experiences can be of help in assisting the discussion then I would be pleased to have an input.
As you may be aware, the whole “20’s Plenty for residential streets” idea is having huge interest in communities around the country. Cities and towns with diverse architecture and street plans are realising that lower speeds not only reduces danger on our roads but creates a far better quality of life for residents whether they drive, cycle or walk. But I am sure that you do not need convincing of the benefits of 20 mph in places where people live. You will be far more interested in the methodology for achieving it.
Communities thrive on social interaction and people interact and engage when walking, cycling or driving slower in manner which is near impossible at 30 mph and above. Its not the Spring Fair or May Queen which really creates a community spirit but the acknowledgement of faces met, smiles exchanged, people remembered and comments about the weather exchanged in everyday interactions on a streets which binds us all together.
And so it is that 20’s Plenty provides the opportunity for so much more of these positive interactions to take place within an environment of mutual respect and tolerance rather than one where traffic is feared and the outside treated as a danger.
I would therefore like to correct the thought that the Parish Council has limited input into this. My own opinion is that the Parish Council is at the heart of most communities and that is where the 20 mph policies are made or broken. The whole 20’s Plenty movement is not just about what local authorities can facilitate in reducing speed limits, but how local communities debate that essential question of “how do we wish to share our roads?”. 20’s Plenty is not some traffic management scheme devised in the Town Hall, but the outcome of a cultural change which has already happened in our communities. We all know that almost everyone we ask will tell us that for those who walk or cycle, or simply stand an chat on or next to our roads then the speed of vehicles is too high.
But some of the same people when in the comfort of their car may well forget the difference between their perceived safety when behind a steering wheel and their effect on others at the side of the road. Its not intentional, but conditioned by the high levels of comfort and safety within modern cars when contrasted with the vulnerability of us all when walking, cycling or using the pavements. And because of this the success of 20’s Plenty lies not in the decisions that individuals make when seeing a speed limit on the road, but the decisions made in the home, or work, or with family when the whole idea of lower speeds where people live is debated. Its that community debate at family, street, district and town level that means we all make lifestyle decisions to change our behaviour when driving between other people houses.
And, of course, our Parish Councillors may well be powerless in the actual implementation of 20 mph limits. Indeed with widening its implementation to be a borough rather than parish intervention being such an important ingredient in the Portsmouth initiative, it is necessary for this to done at borough level. But we should never underestimate the power of the Parish Council to act as a catalyst for that community debate on lower speeds. Without it entering the fray, debating the gains, considering the disadvantages and marshalling support then we dis-empower the community and its ability to evolve and grow.
What really stands out from the Portsmouth 20 mph success is that it confounded the experienced traffic managers. Hitherto it had been said that with signage alone only a 1 mph reduction in speed limit would be achieved. But of course the most important factor which had never been built into DfT experiments before was the willingness of communities to change their habits and behave differently. The streets in Portsmouth which the DfT suggested would be least likely to reduce their speed (those previously above 24 mph) in fact had a whopping 7 mph reduction. What was also noticeable was the reduction in speeds on 30 mph roads and also the lower “pace” of traffic when accelerating from lights or junctions.
This was not because of the signs or the enforcement, but because the council provided a framework for social change. It enabled the good citizens of Portsmouth to discuss and decide what they wanted and then put into place a speed limit regime which enabled them to say that 20’s Plenty where people live.
Of course you will be aware of the moves in Warrington towards lower speeds, and I am sure you will be aware of my criticism and impatience with the current 20 mph pilots which merely tinker with signs rather than really engaging with communities. But I believe that in Lymm we have a community which is crying out for a change in the way we share our roads. I trust that the Parish Council will be able to empathise with the aspirations of Lymm people and take a very active role in promoting 20 mph limits for the residential roads of Lymm. Of course whether Higher Lane should be included in such a scheme would be up to the Traffic Officers. But certainly I can conform that wider and busier and more strategic roads than Higher Lane have been set at 20 mph in Portsmouth.
Having been involved in debate around the country, not only with community meetings, but also in meetings with DfT, London Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly Members, Members of Parliament and even in Brussels with the European Transport Safety Council, I am aware of the benefits and also the challenges of creating a better environment and quality for life for us all. I do trust that here in Lymm we can similarly take stock of our opportunities for betterment and improvement in our lives. And I trust that all of us, as residents, parish councillors, borough councillors, pupils, employees, employers and retired can all take part in this opportunity for change.
Here is the email I sent to our own local parish councillors in anticipation of lower speeds being debated at the next council meeting :-
I am delighted that Lymm Parish Council is going to be discussing the issue of speed limits for Lymm village on Tuesday night.
I will be looking forward to attending and if my experiences can be of help in assisting the discussion then I would be pleased to have an input.
As you may be aware, the whole “20’s Plenty for residential streets” idea is having huge interest in communities around the country. Cities and towns with diverse architecture and street plans are realising that lower speeds not only reduces danger on our roads but creates a far better quality of life for residents whether they drive, cycle or walk. But I am sure that you do not need convincing of the benefits of 20 mph in places where people live. You will be far more interested in the methodology for achieving it.
Communities thrive on social interaction and people interact and engage when walking, cycling or driving slower in manner which is near impossible at 30 mph and above. Its not the Spring Fair or May Queen which really creates a community spirit but the acknowledgement of faces met, smiles exchanged, people remembered and comments about the weather exchanged in everyday interactions on a streets which binds us all together.
And so it is that 20’s Plenty provides the opportunity for so much more of these positive interactions to take place within an environment of mutual respect and tolerance rather than one where traffic is feared and the outside treated as a danger.
I would therefore like to correct the thought that the Parish Council has limited input into this. My own opinion is that the Parish Council is at the heart of most communities and that is where the 20 mph policies are made or broken. The whole 20’s Plenty movement is not just about what local authorities can facilitate in reducing speed limits, but how local communities debate that essential question of “how do we wish to share our roads?”. 20’s Plenty is not some traffic management scheme devised in the Town Hall, but the outcome of a cultural change which has already happened in our communities. We all know that almost everyone we ask will tell us that for those who walk or cycle, or simply stand an chat on or next to our roads then the speed of vehicles is too high.
But some of the same people when in the comfort of their car may well forget the difference between their perceived safety when behind a steering wheel and their effect on others at the side of the road. Its not intentional, but conditioned by the high levels of comfort and safety within modern cars when contrasted with the vulnerability of us all when walking, cycling or using the pavements. And because of this the success of 20’s Plenty lies not in the decisions that individuals make when seeing a speed limit on the road, but the decisions made in the home, or work, or with family when the whole idea of lower speeds where people live is debated. Its that community debate at family, street, district and town level that means we all make lifestyle decisions to change our behaviour when driving between other people houses.
And, of course, our Parish Councillors may well be powerless in the actual implementation of 20 mph limits. Indeed with widening its implementation to be a borough rather than parish intervention being such an important ingredient in the Portsmouth initiative, it is necessary for this to done at borough level. But we should never underestimate the power of the Parish Council to act as a catalyst for that community debate on lower speeds. Without it entering the fray, debating the gains, considering the disadvantages and marshalling support then we dis-empower the community and its ability to evolve and grow.
What really stands out from the Portsmouth 20 mph success is that it confounded the experienced traffic managers. Hitherto it had been said that with signage alone only a 1 mph reduction in speed limit would be achieved. But of course the most important factor which had never been built into DfT experiments before was the willingness of communities to change their habits and behave differently. The streets in Portsmouth which the DfT suggested would be least likely to reduce their speed (those previously above 24 mph) in fact had a whopping 7 mph reduction. What was also noticeable was the reduction in speeds on 30 mph roads and also the lower “pace” of traffic when accelerating from lights or junctions.
This was not because of the signs or the enforcement, but because the council provided a framework for social change. It enabled the good citizens of Portsmouth to discuss and decide what they wanted and then put into place a speed limit regime which enabled them to say that 20’s Plenty where people live.
Of course you will be aware of the moves in Warrington towards lower speeds, and I am sure you will be aware of my criticism and impatience with the current 20 mph pilots which merely tinker with signs rather than really engaging with communities. But I believe that in Lymm we have a community which is crying out for a change in the way we share our roads. I trust that the Parish Council will be able to empathise with the aspirations of Lymm people and take a very active role in promoting 20 mph limits for the residential roads of Lymm. Of course whether Higher Lane should be included in such a scheme would be up to the Traffic Officers. But certainly I can conform that wider and busier and more strategic roads than Higher Lane have been set at 20 mph in Portsmouth.
Having been involved in debate around the country, not only with community meetings, but also in meetings with DfT, London Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly Members, Members of Parliament and even in Brussels with the European Transport Safety Council, I am aware of the benefits and also the challenges of creating a better environment and quality for life for us all. I do trust that here in Lymm we can similarly take stock of our opportunities for betterment and improvement in our lives. And I trust that all of us, as residents, parish councillors, borough councillors, pupils, employees, employers and retired can all take part in this opportunity for change.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Portsmouth – changing the way we share our streets.
The presentations made yesterday in the Guild Hall in Portsmouth may well have been a pivotal point in road safety and danger reduction in the UK.
Until now, speed management has mainly been implemented by means of localised interventions on streets to make the driver slow down. Whether they are speed cameras, or speed bumps the essential engagement has been with the driver on the road whilst he or she is driving.
Yesterday Portsmouth City Council and the Department for Transport reported on the results from the completely different approach taken by Portsmouth when in March 2008 they completed their setting of all residential roads, bar arterial routes, with a speed limit of 20 mph. No bumps or humps, but most importantly a decision not just made by Traffic Officers but the whole community as they sought a way to deliver lower speeds and a better quality of life for their residents. Quite simply, Portsmouth people decided to slow down wherever people live!
Of course, setting lower speeds with traffic calming is so expensive that one only usually does it where you have excessive speed problems. But when you make the decision as a community to slow down wherever people live then it is inevitable that many streets will already have speeds below 20 mph. In fact in Portsmouth they monitored 159 sites. 102 already had mean speeds of 20 mph or less. 36 were between 20 mph and 24 mph, whilst on a further 21 the mean speed was above 24 mph.
And because of that mix it was found that overall the mean speed for all the roads did not change very much. In fact it reduced by just 1%. But what was very significant was the fact that in those streets where speeds previously were 24 mph or above then a huge 7mph reduction in mean speed was recorded.
Whilst casualties also fell by 15% and total accidents by 13%, more time will be needed to establish statistically significant collision figures. However, the presenter noted the changes in child and elderly casualties in before and after numbers :-
| | Children (0-15) | Elderly (70+) |
| Pedestrians | -4% | -25% |
| Passengers | -22% | -25% |
| Driver/Rider | -9% | -36% |
| All Casualties | -8% | -31% |
Portsmouth’s success is as a community that has debated how the streets should be shared more equitably and go through the due political, democratic and administrative process to take that community commitment and turn it into a framework within which everyone can take their part in making their city a better place to live.
The spaces between our houses, which we call streets, will never be the same in this country. Portsmouth has shown that communities can change their behaviour and sensibly embark on a 20’s Plenty Where People Live initiative that delivers real benefits to every road user. More and more towns, cities and villages are following this trend to put citizenship back into the way we drive and share our roads. People in Portsmouth are perhaps no different from us all. But what they have found is a way to enable them to turn an aspiration for safer and more pleasant streets into a reality. I suspect there will be plenty more similar communities saying 20’s plenty for them as well.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us. 30th September 2009
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
How 20's Plenty works without physical calming
Hi
I recently was in discussion with a councillor in Preston whose experience of an isolated signage only scheme led him to believe that physical calming was necessary on any 20 mph limit. Here is my reply. I post it because it may be relevent to other communities :-
I certainly do understand your concern. Many Councillors and officials do have experience of where they have attempted to reduce speeds by simply creating an Experimental Traffic Order and putting signs up. There are many reasons why such an initiative may not produce any appreciable slowing down of vehicles. However to assume from this that 20 mph limits will not work without physical calming is incorrect.
I apologise if I sound a little arrogant, but I have been watching and working on this issue for the last 5 years and in that time I have gained a great deal of insight into what will work and what will not.
Firstly, experience and experiments show that with just signage and no other interventions you will get a 2 mph drop in average speeds. And I agree that this may not be enough on that particular stretch of road to render it safe or anywhere near your target average speed.
So what are the additional interventions, apart from physical calming, which can be employed. These are as follows :-
1) Deliver benefits to the drivers. So often, the drivers whom you are wishing to influence live outside the street concerned. They probably live on a 30 mph street. What degree of respect do you expect them to give the residents of the 20 mph street if you do not equally give the same benefits to their street, family and children. Therefore making an area-wide or authority-wide 20 mph policy for residential roads maximises the % age of drivers who themselves benefit from a 20 mph road. This increases compliance and therefore increases the average speed drop obtained.
2) Engage with your whole community about the benefits of lower speeds. Treat it as a positive enhancement to the quality of life of the residents rather than just an imposition on the drivers. If you are doing this for a whole authority then the democratic process ensures a wide understanding of the issues and a full debate community and press engagement. Then your 20 mph streets can be “owned” by the community rather than being the “mindless acts of a few councillors and officers” (Note that these would not be my words).
3) Widen the benefits of 20 mph in your discussions to go far beyond road safety. It reduces noise, reduces pollution, increases child and elderly mobility, increases the accessibility for those without motor vehicles. All of these are positive and far better to associate with rather than simply going slower to avoid an accident. Remember that the vast majority of motorists have never “killed a child”. It is not therefore in their minds as a possibility. You have to move the debate away from things that most people think will never happen onto things that always happen. You always frighten children when you travel 3ft away from them at 30 mph. You always cause so much more noise at 30 mph. Accelerating up to 30 rather than 20 always makes our streets less pleasant.
4) Use community engagement through the schools. In Portsmouth a leaflet on the 20 mph proposals was distributed to every child in school. It was made something which was then discussed in the family home. “Daddy, if cars go slower, then can we walk to school instead of driving”. The time when people make a commitment about compliance is then moved from the driving seat and into the home. What better place to discuss and agree that going slightly slower until you get to the main road will not cause any real delays, but will increase the safety of your family.
5) Use enforcement. But only when you have done all of the above. Then it is the Police enforcing the community’s rather than the council’s wish. And ACPO have revised their guidelines and are now enforcing 20 mph limits in many towns.
All of these can and do work. The old way was to just put up an isolated 20 mph zone with physical calming. All this measure does is then ask people to “speed up” when they leave the zone and enter a 30 mph street.
The new way is to use the leverage of community aspirations. To recognise that our culture has changed to one that looks for less car-dependency and a better quality of street life. To be smart with our communications and use a basket of interventions, including enforcement. And finally in the minority of places where you may just need some calming then selectively and retrospectively put this in place. Get all of your other things right and this will be minimal.
A better quality for street life for our children, our parents, our disabled, our walker, our cyclists and even ourselves is possible. But we owe it to all of them to be engaging, smart and assertive in our methodology. Simply paving Preston with speed bumps and tables is neither smart, economic or necessary.
And yes, I would be pleased to visit Preston and to talk to councillors and residents about their aspirations for a better street life and how these may be achieved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
