Contact: Peter Brown, ext 6256 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out the key findings and interim recommendations following a Service Improvement Review of the activities of the Environment Department in the field of Speed Management. The brief for this review was reported to Environment Policy Review Committee on 1 December 2004 (Item 9) when three Members of the Committee were nominated to take part in the stakeholder consultation part of the review.

1.2 This report's findings have been developed by a core group of officers following an examination of current work activities and the engagement of a group of the service's stakeholders from within and outside the Environment Department. The core group has considered evidence and representations that have required them to challenge the County Council's speed management objectives and consider the most effective ways of achieving them.

2. Corporate Strategy

2.1 This report supports Aims 2, 4 and 5 (Stewardship of the Environment, Building Strong and Safe Communities and Improving Services) of the Corporate Strategy by contributing to a service review intended to make roads safer by reducing road casualties (including fatalities) in line with the Government's and the County Council's road casualty reduction targets and at the same time improve speed management procedures and levels of community satisfaction with speed management.

3. The Gershon Agenda

3.1 Since commencement of the review, the requirement to focus on efficiency gains and productivity improvements has grown in importance. This review therefore seeks to identify possible efficiency improvements or options to make better use of the County Council's resources.

4. Background - Objective, Purpose and Scope of the Review

4.1 The review objective is to consider and identify improvements to the processes and use of resources involved in the design of speed management proposals and schemes.

4.2 The Council's work in Speed Management seeks to address society's concerns about the road safety, environmental and amenity impacts arising from inappropriate (too high) vehicle speeds. Whilst the objectives are quite widespread, the primary justification for the service is tightly focused on the County Council's statutory road safety functions by seeking to reduce the number and severity of road accidents/collisions and consequential casualties. At a broad level, the service has a strong role in seeking to influence (and sometimes restrict) the behaviour of car drivers in line with the authority's approaches to improve quality of life for all.

4.3 Because of the clash of conflicting interests and liberties, ie the right to a safe environment versus the right to drive uninhibited by unwelcome regulation, speed management activities attract much interest and occasional controversy, especially in the media. This is exemplified by the controversy over safety cameras in the UK and the installation of some traffic calming measures.

4.4 Although casualty reduction is a prime objective, proposals are also developed in relation to facilitating new developments for area or route management, strategy objectives and to meet the requests from Members or district and parish councils to help resolve less tangible amenity, environmental and quality of life objectives.

4.5 After over a decade of implementing an extensive programme of various speed management measures, it was felt appropriate to review the experience so far to identify whether any key conclusions can be drawn and whether recommendations can be made for changes in approach or improvements in procedures, leading to improved efficiency and effectiveness. It was hoped that this review could also coincide with the outcomes from a Department for Transport (DfT) review of speed limit policy. Unfortunately this has not been possible because of delays in receiving the DfT's final conclusion.

5. Speed Management Programmes

5.1 Speed management programmes arise from a number of areas of work within the Environment Department.

Highway Safety Group

5.2 The Highway Safety Group uses speed management techniques as a key tool in its work programme to:

(i) deliver road safety schemes, dealing with reducing the number and intensity of accidents at high risk sites. These form a key part of the Casualty Reduction capital programme funded through the Hampshire Local Transport Plan (LTP);

(ii) manage the County Council's participation in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Safety Camera Partnership; and

(iii) deliver key aspects of Road Safety Education, Training and Publicity services by influencing the behaviour of drivers.

5.3 Some £3.2 million of LTP integrated transport capital funding was directed to the group's Casualty Reduction Engineering Programme work in the 2004/05 financial year, together with £1.2 million to the Safer Routes to School programme, including the fees associated with delivery of the schemes in those programmes. That year's programmes at their commencement directed funding to sub-programmes as follows:

(i) low cost safety programme £1,200,000;

(ii) Casualty Reduction Partnership investigations £250,000;

(iii) surface treatment programme - loss of control sites £900,000;

(iv) other larger schemes/named projects at single sites £700,000; and

(v) Safer Routes to School programme £1,200,000

5.4 The effectiveness of such programmes in reducing casualties has been demonstrated by the monitoring of personal injury accident savings achieved through previous years' programmes. Appendix 1 gives more detailed information and case studies of a number of individual schemes. Appendices 2 and 3 provide more information on the personal injury accident and value for money of key strands of the County Council's casualty reduction engineering programmes over the last decade or more. In the majority of cases (approximately 90% of schemes) the measures achieve their casualty reduction objectives and overall the programme gives extremely good value for money. However, many factors are involved and occasionally the measures installed can be less successful than anticipated. Experience has shown the types of programmes that are particularly effective where clear treatable patterns of accidents are identified.

5.5 A further study by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) for the DfT into accident recording systems (TRL report 323) suggested that speed in its own right is present in at least 15% of all accidents, but that the total effects of speed are far higher. The DfT has concluded that "speed is a contributory factor in about one third of all collisions". Evidence suggests that speed plays a similar role in Hampshire collisions and influences the County Council's spending programmes and priorities accordingly.

5.6 As summarised above, most casualty reduction engineering schemes are highly effective and have made a significant contribution to meeting and exceeding national and local casualty reduction targets. By calculating the benefits associated with casualty reduction, lower healthcare costs, less loss of work time, etc, the values for which are calculated by Government, there is no doubt that these schemes continue to achieve an excellent rate of return for the investment made. An assessment of the increased level of benefits arising from the recent fall in casualties in Hampshire was included in the Council's recent efficiencies submission to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Traffic Management Group

5.7 The Traffic Management Group provides a broad range of traffic management services to meet local objectives, including road safety, amenity and environmental improvement. This involves:

(i) provision of advice in response to approaches from County and district Members, parish councils, Police, public and community groups on traffic management issues;

(ii) management of district council agents to ensure consistency in following the correct legal and design procedures; and

(iii) delivery of traffic management schemes, either directly or using consultants as appropriate. In 2004/05 these were funded from the revenue programme (mainly Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs), including speed limits and signing schemes) or the LTP funded capital programme (ie Parish Partnership traffic calming, Area Strategy village initiative schemes and Pedestrian Crossing programmes). In 2005/06 these programmes are now all funded from capital allocations, with the former Parish Partnership programme being combined with the TRO and signing scheme programme into a single Traffic Management programme. The Group also deals with the routeing of abnormal loads on the county's highway network (some 6,000 movements per annum).

5.8 During the last three years the average total staff cost per annum for the Group has been £824,000. This includes average costs of:

(i) £399,000 for the delivery of the revenue and capital programmes;

(ii) £63,000 for preliminary assessment of potential schemes;

(iii) £41,000 managing other projects;

(iv) £215,000 giving advice on traffic management issues to Members and the public;

(v) £29,000 on the abnormal loads service; and

(vi) £14,000 processing tourist signing applications (rechargeable to the applicants).

5.9 Overall, the total annual cost of speed management related schemes implemented from the Traffic Management revenue budget during the last three years has been £241,000, including £105,000 staff costs. In addition, Parish Partnership traffic calming schemes, in the six years since the programme was started, have averaged a total cost of £204,000 per annum, including external contributions and staff costs. These programmes have enabled, on average, the implementation of some 65 schemes per annum, mainly speed limits and rural traffic calming such as gateway treatments with enhanced signing and coloured surfacing. These have been implemented throughout the county, mainly in rural areas in response to demand and to address concerns from local Members and communities, but where there has not been a serious enough accident record to justify the inclusion of a scheme in the casualty reduction programme.

Development Control

5.10 The Development Control team provides advice to district councils on planning applications which have significant highway impacts and negotiates with developers to secure off-site works and/or financial contributions to address any highway impacts arising from development. The team is involved in achieving speed management objectives by ensuring that:

(i) speed management measures are implemented on roads within new developments with clear and consistent design standards;

(ii) access points to new developments provide a safe interface onto existing roads; and

(iii) the generation of new traffic on the surrounding road network does not compromise local safety objectives through increasing the speed and/or volume of vehicles.

5.11 It is not possible to clearly identify how much is spent on meeting speed management objectives, specifically from developer funding, as schemes typically meet many objectives and in part also fulfil existing funding needs or requests. However, it is clear that developer funding is sometimes used to address speed management issues on local roads on a preventative as opposed to corrective basis, ie some speed management measures are initiated to address as yet unproven local highway safety concerns or situations where increases in the volume or speed of additional traffic although real, are unlikely to compromise any technical thresholds in road design or amenity criteria. The development control process therefore can generate or bring forward schemes that would otherwise have a low funding priority to fulfil existing safety priorities or community requests. The need to respond relatively quickly to planning applications can, however, mean that opportunities to consult local users on potential proposals is very limited. There is therefore a lack of consistency in the funding standards applied and consultation undertaken compared with the implementation of schemes.

5.12 Objections and representations about development funded speed management measures, after they have been introduced, can result in changes to or the removal of a scheme. A recent example was at Elvetham Road, Fleet where a traffic calming scheme funded by the Elvetham Heath development gave rise to substantial opposition and has now been removed.

Transport Policy and Implementation

5.13 Speed management objectives are also often achieved as integral, though lower priority, elements of schemes in the transport capital programme, such as:

(i) Route Strategies: These are usually promoted to encourage appropriate use of the road hierarchy and reduce through traffic on inappropriate routes. The overall contribution they make to speed management objectives is less well documented than for schemes with more specific casualty reduction and speed control objectives; and

(ii) Environmental Enhancement Schemes - usually in-built environments with conservation or historic characteristics. These schemes often entail significant levels of consultation and local research and are intricately designed to meet both speed management and community objectives.

5.14 The monitoring of scheme impacts on safety and stakeholder satisfaction is relatively undeveloped. Whilst representations from the public voice opinions of when things have gone "wrong", less evidence is received to confirm when and by how much the overall scheme is "right". Also there is no benchmark evidence of how satisfaction levels justify the higher budgets often implicit with schemes using special conservation area materials.

5.15 Several other sections within the Environment Department are sometimes involved in the design of speed management schemes. The Landscape Planning and Heritage team is the most significant of these. It advises on the aesthetic design aspects and appropriateness of speed management proposed at visually valuable and sensitive sites in both urban and rural locations.

6. Engagement and Consultation with Stakeholders

6.1 A key purpose of this review was to solicit, listen to and consider the views of various stakeholders who have been involved in speed management schemes, either internal within the preparation process or outside as consultees, clients or recipients of schemes. Two meetings held in February 2005 revealed a range of views, concerns and ideas affecting the future of the way speed management measures and programmes are delivered. For the purpose of this report, the responses have been combined and summarised in Appendix 4. Three key issues were consultation, innovation and environmental intrusion of measures.

6.2 Consultation was a major concern in a number of respects ranging from consistency of opportunities, timing, formats and feedback. Stakeholders noted and praised the considerable efforts that are often made to engage local communities in finding fit-for-purpose schemes. However, a number of concerns were raised for which improvements were sought. These included opportunities to be consulted at an early stage on all schemes, including those with only small-scale measures and casualty reduction schemes at high-risk sites. Similar comments were also aimed at schemes arising from legal agreements with developers on which it was felt the community often had no warning or opportunity to comment. Feedback on the Council's decisions was also identified as needing improvement. Improved consultation procedures are now being considered as part of the e-consultation initiative currently being developed. This will also include a better monitoring and feedback system to obtain views on the effectiveness of schemes in meeting objectives.

6.3 Innovation was discussed at the stakeholder workshop, particularly with the suggestion that the County Council might be more innovative in its approach to speed control measures, for example by the use of Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) and Quiet Lanes. Stakeholders were not aware of the innovative approaches that have been employed and the efforts to learn from experience elsewhere, where new ideas are considered to have potential. There have been numerous examples related to speed management which include:

(i) the first national VAS trials at West Meon and Droxford;

(ii) the New Forest Highway Strategy's 40 mph zone and traffic calming trials;

(iii) rippleprint rumble strip trials;

(iv) 'virtual' traffic calming to influence drivers, such as A36 West Wellow; and

(v) visual effects by centre line removal and/or use of edge lines in the New Forest and as part of village traffic calming schemes.

6.4 The Council's approach to date has been to follow an evidence-based approach in considering the benefits of innovative approaches before investing significantly in them. Trials with temporary SID (Speed Indicator Device) signs have shown some benefit and it is proposed to deploy a number of these signs throughout the county in partnership with districts, possibly in association with the Local Public Service Agreement 2 (LPSA2) bid.

6.5 Sign clutter was also raised as an issue since conspicuous signing has increasingly been used in Hampshire and elsewhere during the last few years to attempt to influence driver behaviour and speed. As a technique, conspicuous signing is well established and acknowledged to be effective in helping to reduce accidents by influencing drivers and making them aware or reminding them of hazards. A concern of Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and others is that this approach is leading to an escalation of increasingly conspicuous signing over time, in order to achieve the same level of response. An initiative is proposed in the draft LTP 2006-2011 for two pilot projects to address sign clutter, which would include speed management signing as well as other street furniture.

7. Discussion

7.1 From a quantifiable cost/benefit point of view, in considering the Safety Scheme Capital Programme based on schemes prioritised according to accident records, there is considerable evidence, both in Hampshire and nationally, that such programmes do give extremely good returns in both accident savings and value for money as set out in paragraph 5.2. Within the non-safety Capital Programme and the Traffic Management Programme, where significant accident savings cannot be demonstrated, cost benefit and value for money are much more difficult to quantify.

7.2 Some speed management schemes do have a clear benefit in terms of an enhanced, less intimidating environment. For example, a non-safety traffic calming scheme will give environmental benefits by reducing speed and noise, or diverting traffic to other roads. An example of this is the traffic calming scheme on Beaulieu High Street designed to encourage through traffic to use the by-pass. A reduction of 20% in traffic flows to 2,400 vehicles per day was recorded and the local community was pleased with the environmental benefit achieved, so that further measures were subsequently added. A further example of rural traffic calming is at Selborne where the scheme slows traffic on the approaches to the village and breaks up the constant traffic flow so that conditions are better for pedestrians in the village. However, there is a balance between the perceived benefits of this type of scheme and the environmental impact of the measures themselves. The design should attempt as far as possible to minimise sign clutter and use materials in keeping with the location.

7.3 In the same way, the Traffic Management Programme does not have an easily quantifiable benefit, since there are rarely significant accident savings from these schemes. Speed checks show that speed limits in themselves only have a marginal effect on speeds, a random sample of recently introduced schemes found they produced 0-4 mph reductions in 85 percentile speeds depending on the level of the limit imposed. This can be enhanced to some extent with more conspicuous signing such as "Gateway" treatments incorporating the village name with the speed limit signs and coloured surfacing. This treatment involves an extra cost of some £3,000 and in some cases has been found to achieve speed reductions of some 3-5 mph at the gateway, although this is not necessarily maintained throughout the village.

7.4 Guidance on setting speed limits is issued by the Government and the current guidelines, which form the basis of County Council policy, were issued in 1993. A consultation on revised guidance was carried out by the DfT in 2004 and it was expected that new advice would be published early in 2005. It was therefore hoped to include a review of speed limit policy in this report, but publication has been delayed and it is intended to report separately in due course.

7.5 More significant reductions require the implementation of traffic calming schemes which in villages often involve build-outs or chicanes. These are considerably more expensive and may have disadvantages to offset the benefit of reduced speed. For example, trial build-outs in Littleton (near Winchester) installed in full consultation with the Parish Council as a Parish Partnership initiative have recently been removed following adverse comment from a number of residents most affected.

7.6 Whilst the benefit of a marginal reduction in traffic speed from a speed limit alone is difficult to quantify, particularly where there is no evidence of a speed-related accident problem, there is considerable pressure from parish councils and residents, particularly in villages, for this type of action to be taken. The benefit from these schemes is therefore not so much in measured accident reduction, as in the County Council being seen to take action in response to local demand, and many Members are keen to respond in this way to approaches from villages in their divisions. A survey by the Hampshire Association of Town and Parish Councils (HATPC) of parishes which had been involved in the Parish Partnership programme gave a generally positive response to these schemes. However, there remains the issue raised by the CPRE that this type of scheme adds to sign proliferation in rural areas although there is of course a balance to be struck; parish councils participating in this programme believe the benefits obtained outweigh this concern.

7.7 However, this does present a dilemma in deciding the best use of the resources available. For example, it would be possible to tighten the assessment process for speed management schemes implemented from the Traffic Management budget to prioritise those where accident savings could be expected. From the point of view of value for money to achieve a road safety benefit, this would probably be a better use of the resources currently devoted to non-safety rural speed management. However, most of the accidents in the county are in urban areas or on main roads and few schemes identified in this way would be in villages or on minor rural roads.

7.8 In 1998 an approach was adopted for rural traffic calming whereby the cost/benefit of a proposal was assessed and, if it was felt not to be a high priority for the County Council, the parish council involved was invited to consider whether it would wish to fund or contribute to the implementation of a scheme. Appropriate control was exercised to take account of environmental issues and ensure that relevant criteria were satisfied, but this approach was in line with the provisions in the Highways Act 1980 which includes in Section 274A (as amended):

"A parish council or community council may contribute towards any expenses incurred or to be incurred by a highway authority in constructing, removing or maintaining:

(a) traffic calming works, or

(b) other works (including signs or lighting) required in connection with traffic calming works,

if, in the opinion of the council, the expenditure is or will be of benefit to their area."

7.9 This legislation appears to acknowledge that this type of scheme may not be a priority for the Highway Authority and specifically enables parish councils to use their funds for traffic calming. Since the programme was established in 1998 a total of some 70 schemes has been implemented from this programme, on the basis of sharing the cost of the works, normally at 50% of the initial estimate, but with the design and feasibility work funded by the County Council. The programme has been generally well received and popular with parish councils. Most requests have now been dealt with; there are only 10 schemes in the current programme, which will be completed in 2005/06 and no further requests are outstanding.

7.10 An option would be to advise parish councils that in future any schemes of this type which are not a priority for the County Council would need to be fully or substantially funded by the parish council. Speed management schemes in the County Council's Traffic Management programme, including speed limits, could be prioritised on the basis of expected casualty savings or other quantifiable benefits rather than responding to demand for action where there is concern by the local community. It should be recognised that this approach may not be well received by local communities. MORI polls show that traffic speeds and volumes are one of people's main concerns. However, where schemes are to be taken forward with County Council funding, it does seem reasonable that there should be a clear identification of the benefits to be achieved which could encompass traffic speed, traffic volume, perceptions of safety and any other factors, and the delivery of these objectives should be monitored to inform future decisions on spending priorities.

8. Impact Assessments

8.1 Speed control measures benefit all sectors of the community in terms of safety or environmental improvement. The needs of particular user groups are taken into account in the design of traffic calming schemes as appropriate, for example the use of bus cushions rather than full width road humps to facilitate public transport and emergency vehicles, and cycle by-passes on half width build-outs to assist cyclists.

9. Conclusions

9.1 The actions arising from the review process, including the consultation exercises, can be summarised as follows:

(i) There is no doubt that speed control measures, targeted at locations and routes with a measured Police recorded personal injury accident record, are effective and provide good value for money to the public purse by reducing casualties. While there is unmet demand for non-casualty related speed management, casualty reduction should remain the Council's priority for speed management programmes.

(ii) Scheme benefits are often difficult to quantify where measures are promoted in response to concerns about traffic speeds and requests for a lower speed limit or traffic calming where there is not an injury accident record. Often, in these cases, no casualty savings can be demonstrated, and unless significant traffic calming measures are introduced there may be little effect on traffic speed. Parish Partnership schemes and speed limit changes without traffic calming measures come into this category and, although there is considerable pressure from local communities for this type of scheme, Members should consider whether the balance between safety and non-safety work is appropriate, the extent to which the County Council should fund non-safety work and the criteria they should apply. There may be benefit in prioritising so that there is a focus on a smaller number of well-justified quality schemes, including landscape treatment, rather than a larger number of mainly cosmetic schemes which have little significant effect but merely attempt to respond to local concerns.

(iii) It is important that opportunities for communities to be engaged in the devising of speed management (and other highway improvement) schemes continue and are improved. A system is currently being prepared that will lead to the notification and advertising of a wider range of highway proposals being made available through Hantsweb. It is hoped that this will widen the scope and opportunities for local people to have their say on proposals throughout the design period, starting from project inception. This will not include development related schemes at this time as they are intrinsically linked to the planning application processes of the district councils. However, it is proposed that discussions with district planning officers seek to identify possible solutions.

(iv) Trials have shown temporary vehicle activated signs, such as SIDs, can be effective in support of existing speed limits and raising awareness generally of appropriate speeds through residential communities, urban and rural. It is therefore proposed to develop a strategy in partnership with district council Traffic Management Agents to acquire and deploy a number of these signs. These will seek raised awareness of speeding on routes which do not otherwise meet the criteria for speed cameras or physical engineering measures, but where there is significant concern about vehicle speeds above the posted limit. Again, Members should consider whether to limit their introduction to locations where external funding is available, or there is a casualty problem. Alternatively, if to be funded by the County Council, what criteria will apply and what other areas of spending will be reduced.

(v) It is felt that improvements could be made to the identification, development and design process for off-site speed control proposals associated with new development. Similarly, the development and design process for schemes emerging from Transport Strategy programmes could also be improved. This could be done by involving specialist expertise in the initial development process for these schemes.

Recommendations

1. That the Committee:

(i) considers whether the level of resource devoted to responding to community initiated traffic interventions should be increased, decreased or remain the same;

(ii) advises where resources should be reduced in the event that budget efficiencies need to be realised;

(iii) comments on the following proposals to be developed into an Improvement Plan setting out priorities for future action:

(a) site specific casualty reduction schemes at high risk sites should continue to be a key element of the casualty reduction and speed management strategies in the Local Transport Plan 2;

(b) a strategy be pursued for the deployment of temporary speed indicator devices to support existing speed limits where speeding problems have been identified, with the emphasis on areas identified under Local Public Service Agreement 2 if confirmed;

(c) speed management schemes in the County Council's Traffic Management programme, including speed limits, be prioritised on the basis of quantifiable benefits and that proposed schemes in locations which are not a priority for the County Council be fully or substantially funded by the Parish Council or from other external sources;

(iv) supports measures to improve information and opportunities to comment about emerging speed management proposals, to be undertaken through:

(a) measures being developed to improve e-consultation on all transport proposals; and

(b) discussions with district council planning officers concerning the identification of transport improvements which are conditions of planning consents.

2. That a Speed Management audit be undertaken at an early stage in any proposals for traffic calming emerging from Transport Strategy programmes or for traffic management and calming proposals associated with development.

442/PNB

APPENDIX 1

SPEED MANAGEMENT SERVICE IMPROVEMENT REVIEW

Vehicle Speed Management and Road Casualty Reduction

Introduction

· As the Department for Transport has concluded, the relationship between vehicle speeds and safety is complex. However, from national and international literature and studies, there is overwhelming evidence that lower speeds result in fewer collisions of lesser severity. In general, accident frequency and severity rises disproportionately with increasing speed and the County Council has, for a number of years, highlighted both excessive and inappropriate vehicle speeds as the largest area of contributory factors in road accidents. Recent analysis for the Hampshire road network, including motorways and trunk roads, highlights that speed related factors are some 15% of the total, but also have a part to play in a further 64% of factors summarised as "Driver Error", which includes issues such as driver distraction, behaviour and inexperience.

The County Council's Approaches to Speed Management

In order to address speeding and the part it plays in the road casualty problem on Hampshire's roads, the County Council agreed a Speed Management Partnership Strategy with Hampshire Constabulary some years ago. The County Council was one of the first highway authorities to formally adopt such a local speed management strategy with the local police force and it features in two important documents:

· The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Safety Camera Partnership Operational Case submission to Government (which underpins the deployment of safety cameras throughout the Hampshire Constabulary force area)

· The Hampshire Local Transport Plan (2001-06) and the Hampshire Road Safety Strategy, which is integral to that document.

Issues key to the successful delivery of the strategy were seen to be:

· acceptance by the Hampshire travelling public that speeding is socially undesirable, through programmes and initiatives to educate and inform;

· recognising that effective speed management will only be delivered through a close partnership of enforcement, engineering and public awareness programmes;

· targeting of resources towards areas, routes and locations where speed has proved to be a leading casualty cause or has had a particularly marked effect on the quality of life for local residents.

In order to meet these broad objectives the County Council's programmes of speed management activity are delivered in the following ways:

· addressing the speed management problem within the County Council's programmes of casualty reduction engineering measures;

· working with Hampshire Constabulary to direct speed enforcement resources towards locations where excessive speeds are thought to be leading to a higher than expected casualty rate;

· prioritising speed awareness through the County Council's road safety education, training and publicity programmes, particularly through support for the Government and local Road Safety Councils' speed awareness campaigns and through programmes of driver education and training, including joint speed education and enforcement campaigns at key casualty sites in partnership with Hampshire Constabulary;

· prioritising engineered traffic calming measures (including the deployment of low speed/20mph zones) towards locations with a higher than expected road casualty problem, especially among vulnerable road users including children, and where a managed reduction in self-enforcing typical vehicle speeds is likely to reduce casualty occurrence.

Casualty Reduction Programme - Contributions to Speed Management

Although these programmes are not specifically prioritised towards tackling speed related casualties, given that excessive and inappropriate speed is the largest single contributory factor in casualty occurrence on Hampshire's roads, it is reasonable to assume that the casualty reduction effectiveness of these schemes is addressing speed related casualties at the higher risk locations treated.

The three key programme areas are as follows:

Low Cost Programme (Appendix 2)

The results for these programmes (which the County Council has prioritised as the core of its casualty reduction engineering programmes since the early 1990s) are summarised in Appendix 2.

Some 2,170 accidents have been saved in comparing the three year before and after records of these programmes. Taking the DfT's valuation of £57,760 for an injury accident (June 2002 prices), this would produce a valuation to the community of accidents saved of some £125 million over a three year period. In turn, the annualised valuation of the saving is therefore £42 million approximately.

If it is assumed that speed related casualties may have represented around a third of all accident occurrences treated, then the programme is producing an annual financial saving to the community of some £14 million as associated with reductions in speed related accidents, with the current annual level of investment in the total low cost programme (2004/05) standing at £1.2 million.

Route and Larger Capital Schemes (Appendix 3)

Similarly to the low cost programme, these combined programmes are likely to be saving a total of 170 personal injury accidents (PIAs) per annum, resulting in a financial saving to the community (at DfT June 2002 values) of some £9.7 million. Again, if speed related casualties are assumed to have represented some one-third of treatable PIAs at these locations, the programmes are delivering an annual saving of some 57 PIAs, with an annual valuation to the community of some £3.3 million.

Case Studies - Speed Management through Casualty Reduction Schemes

Case Study - C159 Southampton Road, Ringwood

Southampton Road, Ringwood forms a busy local single carriageway distributor road linking the northern residential estates of Ringwood with both the town centre and the A31 trunk road. It was formally the trunk road itself and remains as a diversionary route for high sided vehicles to the adjacent A31, which has two over bridges. Annual 12-hour two-way flows were approaching 7,000 vehicles, with a pedal cycle volume of some 300 cycles per day.

In the mid 1990s an approximately half kilometre section of the road (which has frontage residential properties and a small number of local shops and businesses) had experienced some 15 personal injury accidents over a three year period, involving six pedal cyclists. 85^th percentile traffic speeds were in the order of 34-36 mph within a posted speed limit of 30 mph by virtue of the street lighting present.

As a consequence, a system of traffic calming measures was installed in 1997, consisting of two small island roundabouts at two junctions forming a "gateway" to the central section of the road (between Broadshard Lane and Gorley Road). Between those junctions, some 17 speed cushions were installed, together with three flat topped road humps. All the devices were 75 millimetres high.

Despite extensive local consultation with local residents and businesses prior to installation and culminating in an exhibition of the proposals, after installation there was considerable pressure from some local residents and shopkeepers for the removal of the speed cushions, with a collected petition. Two primary themes were highlighted through the feedback:

· Noise and vibration intrusion from the road humps

· Some loss of passing trade for shopkeepers and a view that the scale of traffic calming measures were inappropriate and unjustified for a primarily residential area.

Some changes to the construction standard of the road humps was undertaken in response to the concerns and involving testing of alternative cushion profiles by the Transport Research Laboratory. These changes dealt with some of the concerns over noise nuisance, but the County Council concluded the traffic calming measures should remain until the effects on vehicle speeds and accident rates were fully studied.

The key results of the scheme were:

· A reduction in 85^th percentile vehicle speeds to 24 mph (a reduction of some 30% in vehicle speeds)

· A typical reduction in the three year casualty record from 15 to 3 or 4 PIAs.

Due to these savings in casualties and the reduction in typical speeds, the scheme has remained in place, although still unpopular with a small number of local residents due to noise and vibration concerns. The scheme continues to have the support of the local County Councillor and Town Council despite these criticisms.

Case Study - A287 Jackalls Hill (Farnham Road, Crondall), near Fleet

In the autumn of 1995 a casualty reduction engineering programme route treatment was applied to the A287 Farnham Road, Crondall in response to the route's poor road casualty record. There had been a total of 21 PIAs in the three calendar years 1993-95.

The treatment of the route comprised:

· Introduction of a new lower 50 mph speed limit (from the previously derestricted limit) over the section from Jackalls Hill to Mill Lane

· New traffic islands

· Revised road markings and signage, with reduction of previous eastbound dual carriageway to single carriageway

· Coloured surfacings and local gateway treatments, together with a new right turn lane to Bowling Alley (east).

As a result of the measures, which had concentrated on the deployment of engineering and signing measures to achieve a broadly self-enforcing lower speed limit and local treatment of hazardous locations, the 85^th percentile speed regime had reduced from some 60 mph beforehand to some 52 mph afterwards. This would be considered appropriate for a 50 mph speed limit. Without the engineering measures it is very unlikely the measured reduction in vehicle speeds would have been achieved solely as a result of lowering the speed limit.

The three year "after" record to the end of October 1998 showed that PIAs had reduced to some 6 PIAs, a saving of 15 PIAs over a three year period, or five PIAs per annum.

With a scheme value of £64,000 and a PIA valuation (June 2002 prices) of £57,760, the annual financial rate of return of the measures equated to some 450%.

Case Study - A336, Netley Marsh, New Forest District

Although having no previous road casualty record, a series of speed management measures were introduced in stages to the A336 at Netley Marsh in the vicinity of the local infants school and in association with the School's Travel Plan.

The measures consisted of the staged creation of a "school safety zone", with the following effects on the previous 85^th percentile vehicle speeds of approximately 40 mph in a posted 40 mph speed limit:

Stage 1. School flashing "wig wag" signs forming a gateway to either end of the zone with yellow backing boards. Speed reduction - 1.8 mph.

Stage 2. Road markings to visually narrow carriageway, comprising centre hatching and edge markings on approaches. Speed reduction - further 0.19 mph.

Stage 3. Addition of "Rippleprint" proprietary rumble carriageway surface at each end of safety zone. Speed reduction - further 1.1 mph.

Stage 4. Anti-skid surfacing on approaches to Woodlands Road junction (within school safety zone). Speed increase of 0.1 mph

Stage 5. Installation of "splitter islands" at each end of safety zone to provide physical carriageway narrowing. Speed reduction - further 1.43 mph.

The combined results have therefore lowered typical 85^th percentile speeds within the vicinity of the school from some 40 mph beforehand to 35 mph afterwards.

It is clear that the measures having the largest overall effects on speeds are the heightened gateway signing (at approximately 2 mph reduction) and the installation of physical islands (at a further 1.5 mph reduction).

Case Study Results - Discussion

The results for these schemes broadly support a DETR/Transport Research Laboratory report (No. 385) which concluded that prominent signing and marking measures at settlement gateways are likely to produce the largest localised reductions in vehicle speeds - in some cases up to 10 mph where such gateways were especially prominent. In all cases, speed reductions were highest when accompanied by physical engineering measures (eg the installation of the islands in the Netley Marsh scheme and the cushion and road hump placement in the Ringwood scheme).

These results also broadly echo those from the TRL VISP (Village Speed Initiative) study of the early 1990s which concluded gateway signing measures alone could reduce speeds locally to the gateways by between 0 and 7 mph, but reductions were typically no more than 4 mph in the absence of accompanying physical measures within the settlements. If speeds were to be held down through the settlements, further repeat and physical engineering measures would be needed.

APPENDIX 4

Stakeholder Workshops

The responses from the two stakeholder workshops held in February 2005 can be summarised as follows:

a) Ensuring efficient delivery processes

To consider:

· if the preparation of speed management schemes across different teams and branches in the Environment Department is conducive to consistent and effective delivery

· the need to improve the clarity in speed management objectives in schemes generated by means other than casualty reduction

· the development of guidelines to help reduce the amount of time spent on discussions and option investigations that are unlikely to yield change options

· if we can use LTP2 to better manage speed and casualty reduction and if we can include discretionary schemes

b) Focus on shared objectives through better engaging our stakeholders

To consider:

· how to develop our approaches to influencing attitudes to driver speed and translate these into improved driver behaviour

· the importance of continuing to implement speed management schemes generated by casualty reduction as a matter of priority and urgency within the LTP

· measures that enable stakeholder views to be listened to and provide evidence of their consideration

· means to enable earlier involvement in the consultation process with schemes aimed towards environmental and quality of life outcomes, with a view to better informing design objectives and the identification of design options (resulting in design cost efficiencies)

· means to provide feedback at various stages of scheme implementation

· how to improve the monitoring of scheme user satisfaction and perceptions through, for example, parish councils post-implementation questionnaires

· how best to seek the views of those in urban areas where there are no comparable bodies to Parish Councils

· continuing to consult over those methods likely to have a marked effect on the local road environment

· consulting on the County Council's interpretation of national speed limit policies with local stakeholders to check clarity and logic

c) Design issues

To consider:

· how the Department can demonstrate the appropriate consideration and development of innovative approaches to speed management

· whether to develop a programme based on new innovative signing techniques such as vehicle activated signs

· if information exchange and awareness raising could be carried out earlier in the design process and whether this would encourage more effective teamwork

· how to work with colleagues and stakeholders to better integrate the achievement of landscape objectives and means to ensure less visual intrusion/reduced clutter of schemes

d) Making the best use of developer contributions - integrating speed management with new development

To consider:

· the need to have clear consistent guidelines objectives for identification of off-site speed management works brought forward or developed in response to developer contributions

· the need for consultation on off-site highways (including speed management) works to be integrated within or alongside the planning application process

· whether contributions should include separate funds for monitoring of the effect of schemes on vehicle speeds and local perceptions

· the feasibility of introducing claw-back clauses to pay for any necessary corrective works when speed management measures prove inappropriate or unpopular

e) Evidence, Auditing and monitoring the value from outcomes for everyone

To consider:

· allocating resources and developing a monitoring programme to evidence stakeholder satisfaction with speed management schemes and initiatives

· how to measure value invested in preparing schemes and/or giving advice on proposals that result in little or no capital expenditure

· how to ensure the benefits of schemes (and non-schemes) are assessed on a consistent basis

· how to develop and improve auditing procedures for the identification of off-site works intended to have speed management benefits

· auditing the long-term costs of maintaining speed management measures and effectiveness of schemes