Issue - decisions

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.