Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: No
To consider the implementation of Phase 3 of the project covering South and West/Central areas.
Public Question
Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.
1. Dr Goyal-Rutsaert raised the following points:
i.
Took issue with the
consultation basis and cost benefit analysis of the evidence base.
ii.
Suggested that
residents should have been given more information on the impact that the 20mph
limit would have on them eg air quality. Suggested
that residents had been misinformed by consultation letter details.
iii.
Referred to the
experiences of other local authorities such as Portsmouth. Local authorities
had not gained many benefits from imposing a 20mph limit, but had been affected
by high implementation and enforcement costs. The schemes were poor value for
money and led to higher levels of congestion and pollution.
iv.
Suggested the
outcome of the consultation would have been different if people were aware of
all the facts. Requested the evidence base be reviewed.
2.
Mr Sewell raised the following points:
i.
Unenforced laws
encouraged disrespect for the law. The speed limit should be 30mph as per the
existing law.
ii.
20mph could contribute
to accidents and be more harmful to cyclists.
iii.
Was unaware of any
adequate evidence to favour a speed limit of 20mph instead of 30 mph.
iv.
Expressed concern
that the Police had asked for volunteers to help with enforcement action.
v.
Had undertaken a survey
on Grange Road where the speed limit was 20mph already. This was not observed
by vehicles.
vi.
Invited
Councillors to drive along Grange Road at 20mph prior to taking a decision to
change the speed limit to see the impact it would have.
The Project Delivery & Environment
Manager responded to both members of the public:
i.
Some initial evidence based work
had been undertaken by the Council to support the initial funding allocation
and involve key stakeholders in the 20mph scheme to get their views. The level
of detail involved was proportional to the scale of the project, and the
anticipated impacts. A key objective was to bring speed limit consistency
between Cambridge areas which were a mix of 20 and 30mph.
ii.
Most roads affected were in residential
and commercial areas where typical average speeds were already relatively low.
iii.
Many of Cambridge’s C class roads
were wide and open in nature and likely to present more of a compliance
challenge. Therefore Councillors needed to consider which to include as
enforcement action was likely to be needed. The Police were happy to do this
where average speeds were low and roads complied with Department for Transport
guidance.
iv.
Research showed the introduction
of a 20mph speed limit generally led to benefits with few disadvantages. The
cost of implementing area wide schemes could be quite significant but there
were clear benefits particularly in terms of consistency and safety.
v.
The 20mph limit could be expected
to lead to an average reduction of 1-2mph, where the observed level of change
for the north of the city so far implemented was consistent with national
guidance. This, in turn, could be expected to lead to a 5-10% reduction in
casualty figures.
vi.
This project was intended to
provide a largely self-enforcing speed limit.
Traffic delays were more influenced by junctions than the speed limit.
Many of Cambridge‘s streets were already congested, particularly at peak times,
so average traffic speeds were already relatively low and conducive to the
introduction of 20mph control.
3. Dr Goyal-Rutsaert and Mr
Sewell raised the following points:
i.
There
may be some benefits, but people may not be aware that the lower speed limit
may lead to higher transport costs (ie longer travel
times led to higher fuel bills) and increased pollution.
ii.
Took
issue with the concept of a self-enforcing scheme.
iii.
Observed
that Officers had acknowledged that the expected impact of the 20mph speed
limit was limited as traffic was already slow due to congestion.
Matter for
Decision
To provide infrastructure (signs and lines) for a
new 20mph speed limit on the public highway across West/Central and southern
areas of the city. The new 20mph infrastructure would include
repeater signs mounted on existing lamp columns, and white coloured 20mph roundel
road markings. Entry into new 20mph limits would be via entry points
highlighted by larger 20mph terminal signs, roundel road markings and on more
main roads, patches of coloured road surface material.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport
Implementation recommendations:
i.
Approved the inclusion of all unclassified
roads in the South and West/Central areas.
ii.
Approved the inclusion of
the following ‘C’ Class roads:
·
Both north and south sections of Grantchester Road.
·
Castle Street.
·
Church Lane and Maris Lane in Trumpington.
·
Cherry Hinton High Street.
iii.
Include the following ‘C’ Class
roads, as recommended for inclusion by South Area Committee on 02/02/15:
·
Teversham Drift/Hinton Road
north of Church End, Cherry Hinton.
·
Cherry Hinton Road east of Walpole Road.
·
Queen Ediths’ Way east of
Mowbray Road.
iv.
Approved the exclusion of the following ‘C’
Class roads, as recommended by South Area Committee on 02/02/15 and
West/Central Area Committee on 05/03/15:
·
Brooklands Avenue.
·
Fulbourn Road.
·
Victoria Avenue.
v.
Supported work to encourage
the introduction of 20mph control in new developments on the City’s fringes.
Financial recommendations:
vi.
Approved the commencement of the
implementation of Phase 3 (South and West/Central areas) of this scheme, which
is already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan.
·
The total cost is estimated to be £251,400 funded
from the 20mph project capital allocation SC532.
·
There are no on-going revenue costs for the
project.
Procurement recommendations:
vii.
Approved the carrying out and
completion of the procurement of:
·
Phase 3 Traffic Order making process including
street notices - £16,000.
·
Commencement of implementation of Phase 3 (in line
with the roads recommended for inclusion above) -£150,000.
·
Commuted sum maintenance contribution to
Cambridgeshire County Council for Phase 3 - £41,400.
·
Phase 3 post implementation automatic traffic count
(ATC) monitoring - £8,000.
·
Subject to:
o
The permission of the Director of Business
Transformation being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum
exceeds the estimated contract.
o
The permission from the Executive Councillor being
sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more
than 15%.
Recommendations from
South (02/02/15) and West/Central
(05/03/15) Area
Committees (as superseded by the implementation recommendations outlined
above):
· Inclusion of all
unclassified roads in the south and west/central phase area.
· Inclusion of the
following ‘C’ class roads:
o
Teversham Drift/Hinton Road
north of Church End.
o
Both north and south sections of Grantchester Road.
o
Castle Street.
o
Church Lane and Maris Lane in Trumpington.
o
Cherry Hinton High Street.
o
Cherry Hinton Road east of Walpole Road.
o
Queen Ediths’ Way east of
Mowbray Road.
· Exclusion of
the following C class roads:
o
Brooklands Avenue.
o
Fulbourn Road.
o
Victoria Avenue.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Project Delivery and
Environment Manager. He said the report contained a typographical error listing
“vi Cherry Hinton Road west of Walpole Road” instead of “Cherry Hinton Road
east of Walpole Road”.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Residents had been involved in the consultation process, there had been expressions of support for a 20mph
speed limit. Key stakeholders eg the Cambridge
Cycling Campaign and Ambulance Service had expressed support for the 20mph
limit.
ii.
Speed limits currently varied across the city, this
scheme could standardise them to 20mph.
iii.
Recommended that the speed limit on new
developments be 20mph instead of 30.
iv.
Lowering the speed limit to 20mph would lead to safety
benefits. This outweighed cost implications.
v.
Costs may be charged to the City Council, but the
benefits would go to the NHS (ie lower accidents).
These came from the same public pot in effect.
vi.
Taxi fares should be unaffected as they were based
on distance not travel time.
vii.
Congestion led to slow travel speeds in some areas
already, so the 20mph limit may have less impact in these areas.
viii.
20mph could be enforced. It would be expensive to
do so and take time to change drivers’ behaviour, but a positive change was
expected.
In response to Members’ questions the Project Delivery and Environment
Manager said there was conflicting evidence on the impact of 20mph on air
quality, with no clear advantages or disadvantages for a change from 30 to
20mph for an area such as Cambridge. Whilst vehicle born pollutants increase
with congestion, there were less emissions from
traffic consistently travelling at 20mph compared to varying speeds. A shift in
travel modes (eg walking and cycling instead of
vehicular) could be expected if people felt safer on the roads due to the lower
speed limit, with some consequent reduction in vehicle pollutants.
Councillors requested a change to the Officer recommendations. Councillor
Smart formally proposed to amend the following recommendation from the
Officer’s report (amendments shown as bold and struck through text):
· Consider the inclusion of Include the following ‘C’ Class roads,
as recommended for inclusion by South Area Committee on 02/02/15:
The Committee unanimously approved this amended
recommendation.
The
Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended.
The Executive
Councillor approved the recommendations. He made the following points:
i.
Thanked the public speakers for their comments. These
had raised the profile of the debate.
ii.
In 2012 the Council allocated £400,000 to the
20mph scheme subject to public support, this was generally received. This was a
cross party decision across the Council.
iii.
Referred to the projects original aims and hoped
these would lead to more walking and cycling.
iv.
The impact of the scheme could not be judged
solely on the results in the north city area for just one year.
v.
The 20mph scheme should rationalise isolated
20mph zones into a consistent speed limit across the city.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Publication date: 22/05/2015
Date of decision: 17/03/2015