Contact: Peter Bayless, ext 6882 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 A review of speed management is proposed, including traffic calming and other methods of speed control. This report advises Members of the Review Brief, and invites nominations to participate in the review.

2. Corporate Strategy

2.1 This report supports Aim 5 of the Corporate Strategy (Improving Services), by contributing to a service review intended to improve procedures and levels of stakeholder satisfaction.

3. Background

3.1 The subject of speed management generates considerable interest and is often controversial, for example in relation to camera enforcement and traffic calming measures. These techniques have been introduced as a major element of road safety strategy to reduce the number and severity of accidents and also in response to pressure to control speeds as traffic flows and vehicle performance have increased.

3.2 In the last ten years or so extensive programmes of speed management measures have been implemented, including speed limits, traffic calming of various types and enforcement by camera. It is felt that it would be appropriate to review this experience to see what conclusions can be drawn and whether recommendations can be made for changes in approach or improvements in procedures.

4. Review Brief

4.1 A copy is attached of the Review Brief, covering the process of data collection, workshops, consultation and developing recommendations.

4.2 Speed management schemes can arise from a number of sources, particularly for casualty reduction, in relation to development proposals or area strategy objectives and as requests from Members or District and Parish Councils. It is therefore proposed to involve a range of relevant disciplines in the review covering Safety Engineering, Traffic Management, Development Control and Transport Policy, together with representatives of the Police, elected Members, District and Parish Councils and road user groups.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Several factors have arisen recently to prompt a review of speed management strategy and procedures, particularly controversy regarding some traffic calming schemes and the development of new technology such as vehicle activated signs and speed cameras which are being operated in partnership with the Police. It is suggested that Members may wish to note the proposed review and nominate Policy Review Committee representatives to participate in the consultation process. A report will be made to the Committee when the review is concluded.

Recommendations

1. That the proposed Speed Management Review and the Review Brief be noted.

2. That Members of the Committee be nominated to take part in the consultation part of the review.

9089/PDB

ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

SPEED MANAGEMENT SERVICE IMPROVEMENT REVIEW BRIEF

Purpose and Scope of Review

To consider and identify improvements to the processes and resources involved in the design of speed management proposals and schemes (see appendix).

The review will principally involve reviewing the role of operations and resources expended on the current Speed Management Strategy in partnership with the Hampshire Constabulary and speed management schemes arising from other sources, such as Development Control, with a view to maximising the satisfaction of the stakeholders affected by the development of proposals, undertaking of works and scheme outcomes.

Review Process

This will be in four key stages

1. Preparation - Compilation of current evidence

- Our objectives

- Our Performance - what we do, what we achieve

- Assess our economy, efficiency and effectiveness

- Prepare initial thoughts on key service improvement objectives

- Are our objectives still relevant

- What do we want to achieve / improve?

- What do we think our stakeholders want?

- Devise list of key stakeholders

- Consider pre-consultation questionnaire

- Prepare an issues and performance paper for discussion with stakeholders and staff.

2. Consultation and Analysis

- Circulate Issues Paper and questionnaire. Invite early feedback and set up consultation meetings for more in-depth discussions

- Hold facilitated discussion groups with key staff and stakeholders. Share information on past performance and stakeholders questionnaire responses. Seek thoughts from key stakeholders/service partners on key improvement areas/topics.

- Compile findings and views. Identify key opportunities for change/improvement in view of known performance and performance information gaps (from an EFQM analysis) together with the resource implications.

- A focus group could also be convened to consider an in-depth issue/question. This could tie-in with information requirements identified for Highway Maintenance.

3. Implementation

- Prepare report of findings and recommendations.

- Undertake assessment of wider benefits and disbenefits to derive a value for money assessment.

- Consider implications for consultees, partners and internal resources and share interim conclusions.

- Integrate agreed recommendations into proposed work programme.

4. Prepare Final Report

Key Personnel, Consultees and Resources

Review Sponsor Alison Quant

Review Leader Peter Bayless

Review Manager Peter Brown

Staff involved Graham Carter, Tim Cheesebrough and all staff of the Traffic Management and Road Safety Teams.

Reps from Design & Implementation Branch

Transport Policy (LTP and Highways Development Control)

Performance Team.

Network Management staff from Highway Units/District Councils

Consultees Elected Members

to include: Hampshire Constabulary

Road Safety Council reps

Speed Camera Partnership

District Council Planning and Engineering reps.

Parish Council reps

Reps of road user groups (cyclists, pedestrians, drivers, disabled, etc)

Reps of civic/residents groups

Emergency Services

APPENDIX

1. It would be sensible for a review to encompass all forms of speed control, i.e. the Speed Management Strategy, methods of influencing vehicle speeds and the justification for doing so. Schemes can arise from several sources:

i) accident reduction safety measures;

ii) pressure from local communities e.g. Parish Partnership schemes;

iii) Area Strategy generated schemes;

iv) Development Control generated schemes.

2. The range of measures included in these schemes and covered by the Speed Management Strategy includes:

i) speed limits with normal signing and methods to reinforce speed limits by signing enhancements (gateway treatments, Vehicle Activated Signs and Speed Indicator Devices, white lining) and coloured surfacing;

ii) physical measures:

a) refuges/islands, build-outs on one or both sides, combinations;

b) surface treatments: rumble strips/grid bars/ripple print;

c) vertical deflections: humps/cushions/tables;

d) ROUA type environmental enhancement schemes;

e) combinations of various types and speed limit zones, e.g. urban 20 mph zones; New Forest 40 mph zone;

iii) enforcement with cameras; other Police action;

iv) encouragement/campaigns: Road Safety Councils - notices/speedwatch.

3. Compilation of current evidence could include:

i) Review of existing schemes to give a summary of the overall picture. There is a large number of successful schemes of various types throughout the County, and most should be identifiable from a trawl of capital and TRO programme records.

ii) Records may be patchy but in many cases it should be possible to review effectiveness against objectives, i.e. accident records, speed surveys, congestion / journey time effects, resident satisfaction / perception surveys. Resident surveys would need careful consideration - they may only generate debate unnecessarily - and would require funding, but we may be able to make some assessment of local views e.g. through local Members.

iii) Review of procedures and resources for various types of scheme, i.e. which sections in the Department are involved in various stages of scheme delivery; how schemes originate and are justified/organised/funded/resourced/audited etc.

iv) An assessment of preparation costs including devising, consulting, designing and delivering schemes and looking at the costs associated with long running requests for schemes that do not materialise. This should also investigate fees to works ratios. Comparing with objectives achieved should help produce a value for money indicator.