Issue - items at meetings - Monitoring the Scrutiny Review of 20mph limits/zones

28.1 The Road Safety Manager Phil Clarke presented an update to the Committee following the Scrutiny Review of 20mph limits, summarising the three areas of on-going work. 

28.2 The Speed Limit Review (A&B Class roads) and (20mph Speed Limits) had both been reported to 4 October Environment Transport and Sustainability Cabinet Member meeting. CMM had given permission to consult on reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph on stretches of roads near schools in Neville Road, Hove and Trafalgar Road, Portslade. Permission to consult was also given on two pilot 20mph areas around schools and residential roads in Portslade and the Stanford area. The cost of the pilots areas was approximately £80,000, funded via the Local Transport Plan, LTP3. Replies to both consultations were now being received.

28.3 Taking into account the scrutiny recommendations, a City centre 20mph limit was being investigated, with a view to extending it to more residential and commercial areas. Scoping work was anticipated during this financial year. Future funding would be policy decisions.

28.4 The Road Safety Manager pointed out that the areas agreed for consultation are residential/commercial and not main routes and so already have relatively low average vehicle speeds.  A small reduction in road speed can make a significant difference to the effect of any collision. The proposals were speed limits, rather than ‘zones’ or ‘traffic calming,’ which involved engineering works that would be more costly and potentially more unsightly.

28.5 He went on to answer questions. Regarding signage, as suggested by the Department for Transport, roundels on the road surface can be used, to reduce signposts to the legal minimum requirement. If speed reductions were to be time-relevant (eg day/night), then more street signage would be required.  There were no plans to monitor vehicle emissions in the pilot areas although this was done at various locations across Brighton & Hove.  Removal of speed limits had not been costed, as the intention was to extend areas and make them more affordable. New signage in extended areas would use the roundels as repeaters with the terminal signs being re-used.

28.6 It was clarified (report para 4.1) that the scrutiny panel visited Portsmouth where the UK’s first city centre ‘blanket’ 20mph area had been introduced. Initial results from that scheme (from low numbers) showed a small reduction in average speeds but did indicate that signs and road surfaces can influence driver behaviour for the better.

28.7 Asked about the extent of consultation, the Road Safety Manager explained the standard Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process; proposed amendments are published in the local newspaper and across a wide area, not only the areas directly affected. He would check on consultation with specific groups such as Local Action Teams and Local Residents’ Associations.

28.8 The Police did not expect to be involved in activity-directed enforcement; however would enforce blatant disregard of speed limits if they encountered it.

28.9 Regarding how pilot areas were selected the Road Safety Manager said suitable significant areas around schools were chosen, in line with scrutiny recommendations, to test methodology and effectiveness.  Collision hotspots are kept under continuous review for possible engineering or education measures; they are not being ignored in favour of the pilot schemes. 

28.10 Members welcomed in principle steps to encourage lower speeds in residential areas. It was agreed to ask for a progress update on implementation at a suitable time, with an invitation to the Cabinet Member for Transport and the Public Realm. Further questions included identifying the most suitable pilot areas, to make best use of available funding; and the extent of consultation including with LATs and residents’ associations.

28.11 An answer to a question on the timescale for replacing road traffic signals throughout the City would be provided in writing.

28.12 RESOLVED: (i) that the report be noted

(ii) that the Cabinet Member be invited to provide an update with a further monitoring report to a future meeting.