Archived decisions

Contact: Peter Bayless, tel 01962 846882 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report reviews the recently published Department for Transport (DfT) national guidance to local highway and traffic authorities on the setting of local speed limits. It recommends a policy for the assessment and consistent application of speed limits on roads throughout the county in the light of this guidance, to ensure that they are appropriate for the road conditions and in line with current national advice.

1.2 On 8 August 2006 the DfT published Circular 01/2006, `Setting Local Speed Limits', following extensive consultation nationally on draft updated guidance in March 2005, to which officers responded. The guidance retains and builds upon many of the underlying principles of the earlier advice contained in Circular Roads 01/93 and subsequent guidance, but also reflects some of the important developments in national speed management policies and research, including the extended knowledge of the relationship between speed and the risk of collision and severity of injury, and of the actual speeds being driven on rural roads. The guidance also gives some examples of the type of roads on which particular speed limits might be suitable and sets out key elements of speed limit legislation, including signing rules and requirements.

1.3 Traffic Authorities are advised to set local speed limits in situations where local needs and consideration deem it desirable for drivers to adopt a speed which is different from the national speed limit. However, it should be recognised that it may be appropriate for local speed limits to be reduced or increased, depending upon the conditions and evidence.

1.4 The guidance is intended to be used for setting all local speed limits on single and dual carriageway roads in both urban and rural areas. Traffic Authorities are asked to review the speed limits on all of their A and B roads as a priority, and implement any necessary changes by 2011.

1.5 It is concluded that, in general, the guidance is to be welcomed and is recommended for adoption in setting and implementing speed limits throughout the county road network, including a review of speed limits in villages, where Government policy is that a 30 miles per hour (mph) speed limit should be the norm where appropriate. The possible need for increased enforcement in order for this approach to result in improved speed management in Hampshire's villages should be taken up through the Safer Roads Partnership for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and, in consultation with the Hampshire Association of Town and Parish Councils (HATPC), a public attitude survey could be undertaken to establish the level of support from Hampshire residents for this approach.

2. Background

2.1 Traffic Authorities continue to have the flexibility to set local speed limits that are right for the individual road, reflecting local needs and taking account of local considerations. However, local speed limits are only one element of speed management and are more likely to be effective in terms of delivering a safer driving environment when part of a package with other measures, which may include engineering and landscaping standards, education, driver information, training and publicity or targeted enforcement. Within overall network management responsibilities, these measures should enable the delivery of speed limits and driven speeds that are safer and appropriate for the road and its surroundings.

2.2 The key objectives of adopting revised DfT guidance are to ensure consistency with other Traffic Authorities in the application of speed limits across the country and the setting of appropriate limits according to the conditions that reflect the needs of all road users, not just motorised vehicles. This should lead to improved quality of life for local communities and a better balance between road safety, accessibility and environmental objectives, especially in rural areas. For road users this should improve the recognition and understanding of the risks involved on different types of road, the speed limits that apply and the reasons why, leading to improved compliance with speed limits and continued reductions in collisions, injuries and deaths in which inappropriate speed is a contributory factor. An extract from the Circular setting out the objectives is attached as Appendix 1.

3. Underlying Principles

3.1 Although the County Council as Traffic Authority is responsible for determining local speed limits on the county network, in order to reflect wider road safety partnership working arrangements it is important, as the DfT commends to local authorities, to continue working closely with Hampshire Constabulary, with whom the County Council has had a joint speed management strategy for some years. Wide consultation with elected representatives, affected communities and others with a particular involvement is also vital if a successful outcome is to be achieved.

3.2 The underlying aim of any strategy should be to achieve a `safe' distribution of speeds which reflects the function of the road and the impacts on the local community, whilst taking into account the needs of vulnerable road users. In proposing a new or amended speed limit the benefits also need to be assessed against the potential disbenefits. Many of the relevant factors do not have monetary values but assessment of the level of public anxiety, community severance, the environmental impact of speeding traffic, the cost and visual impact of signing and other measures, and the cost of enforcement should all be considered alongside traffic flow and safety issues.

3.3 The revised advice is that mean measured speeds should now be used as the basis for determining local speed limits. These are underpinned by extensive research demonstrating the well proven relationship between actual speed and accident frequency and severity, and also reflect what the majority of drivers perceive as an appropriate speed to be driven for the road. It is also felt to be easier for road users themselves to understand as the original concept of 85th percentile speeds (the speed at or below which 85% of traffic is travelling) was not widely understood. An extract from the section of the Circular dealing with this is attached as Appendix 2.

3.4 Other guiding principles are that speed limits should generally not be less than 600 metres in length to avoid too many changes along the route, although there may be occasions when shorter lengths are unavoidable due to local circumstances. Short lengths of `buffer' speed limit are generally not recommended, except where immediate speed reduction would be likely to cause difficulty or be less effective, and speeds limits should not be used to attempt to solve the problem of isolated hazards where targeted signing, traffic management or other safety measures are likely to be more effective.

4. Urban Speed Management

4.1 The national speed limit in urban areas is 30 mph, representing a balance between mobility and safety of road users, although higher speed limits may be appropriate on higher quality suburban roads or those on the outskirts of urban areas where there is little development.

4.2 There has been no change in the national guidance on 20 mph speed limits. These can be implemented as 20 mph zones in traffic calmed areas (ie with supporting engineering measures) or simply as signed 20 mph limits where the character of the road network is appropriate, as demonstrated with low existing traffic speeds. There was a national trial a few years ago of variable 20 mph limits outside schools at school opening and closing times, one of the trial sites being at Velmead Road, Fleet. The trial showed that these were not effective and were relatively expensive since the variable message signs required put the cost up to some £10,000 per site. The DfT does not therefore commend their further use to highway authorities. Short lengths of 20 mph speed limit in force at all times outside schools, although cheaper to implement at some £2,000 per site, would not be respected and could not be effectively enforced. At non-school times when there was clearly no need for the limit to be in force, it would be seen as unreasonable by drivers. A list of existing 20 mph limits is attached as Appendix 3.

5. Rural Speed Management

5.1 The national speed limit on the rural road network for cars and light vehicles is 60 mph on single carriageway roads and 70 mph on dual carriageways. The majority of drivers do not, however, reach or exceed the speed limit on many single carriageway roads because it is often difficult to do so. This is especially evident on the minor road network where the geometric characteristics usually include narrow sections, bends, junctions and accesses. Speed can also be a factor in the severance of local communities from essential facilities and can lead to a significant loss of quality of life.

5.2 As a consequence of this, Traffic Authorities are encouraged by the DfT to seek to improve speed management in rural areas, and in particular to help drivers further to understand underlying risks and tackle the problems caused by inappropriate speed (which may often be below the posted speed limit). Speed limits on single carriageway rural roads should take into account traffic and road user mix, the road's geometry and general characteristics, its surroundings, and the potential safety and environmental impacts. The key points on Rural Speed Management given in Section 6 of the Circular are attached as Appendix 4.

6. Village Speed Limits

6.1 Village speed limits are a particular issue for rural communities and Government policy is that, where appropriate, a 30 mph speed limit should be the norm in villages. To assist in defining the suitability of a village in consideration of a 30 mph limit, two simple criteria are proposed relating to frontage development and distance. These are that there should be 20 or more houses on one or both sides of the road with a minimum length ideally of 600 metres but with an absolute minimum of 300 metres. Section 6.3 of the Circular dealing with villages is attached as Appendix 5. The Traffic Advisory Leaflet (TAL) 01/04, Village Speed Limits, referred to in paragraph 112 of the Circular is attached as Appendix 6.

6.2 In following the Circular's advice, a particular problem is where existing measured speeds are significantly higher than 30 mph and therefore how any new lower speed limit can be made effective and respected by the majority of drivers. The guidance indicates that speed reducing engineering measures should be considered, or that where these are not practicable or cost effective to achieve a 30 mph limit, Traffic Authorities should consider 40 mph or 50 mph limits.

6.3 Further work would be needed to establish the number of villages involved and estimated costs, but a preliminary assessment is that approximately 200 villages already have a 30 mph limit and some 75 villages a limit of 40 mph or more. If it were decided that a 30 mph limit in these villages is appropriate an approximate average cost of £5,000 would imply a budget requirement of some £375,000. This would not include any significant speed reducing engineering measures of the types described in TAL 01/04.

6.4 There are many examples of Parish Partnership schemes where speed reducing features have been introduced in villages to support a speed limit. However, where this approach is not considered appropriate or affordable, enforcement resources are likely to be needed where existing traffic speeds are significantly higher than the proposed speed limit. It is recommended that the options be explored through the newly formed Safer Roads Partnership for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, in order to establish how increased enforcement in Hampshire villages might be achieved within the priorities and resources of the Partnership, as a possible alternative to engineering measures. Of note also is the County Council's and Hampshire Constabulary's current trial of Community "Speedwatch" type initiatives with four Hampshire Parish Councils. The results of these trials (implemented over a year) are expected in late spring 2007.

6.5 Although there is pressure from many village communities for lower speed limits, it is not completely clear whether an approach based on 30 mph limits in all villages, coupled with increased enforcement, would command support among the wider Hampshire public. In this respect, further dialogue with the HATPC, which took place over the County Council's Speed Service Review in 2004/05, followed perhaps by a public attitude survey, could represent the best way of informing future approaches and the assessment of resource demands and priorities.

7. Conclusion

7.1 This report outlines and reviews the revised national guidance on setting local speed limits contained in DfT Circular 01/2006. This has been the result of a long process of review and consultation and reflects the developments in speed management policies and research which have emerged since the previous guidance was published in 1993. The approach taken in Hampshire in recent years, for example with the Parish Partnership programme for speed management in villages, is broadly in line with the principles of the revised guidance and it is felt that it would be appropriate to adopt Circular 01/2006 for use in assessing speed limits on the county road network.

7.2 DfT has asked however that Traffic Authorities review the speed limits on all of their A and B roads and implement any necessary changes by 2011. It is felt from an initial assessment that most existing speed limits on A and B roads in Hampshire will still be appropriate under the new guidelines and that it would be practical to undertake this review as part of normal traffic management programmes, subject to further consideration of resources and priorities in the period to 2011. There will be particular issues where A and B roads cross the boundary with neighbouring authorities, where it may well be desirable to review those limits in liaison with adjacent authorities in order to ensure maximum consistency to the road user.

7.3 Other local speed limit assessments, particularly in villages, could also be undertaken as part of normal traffic management programmes unless extra resources can be made available. Since the demand for this work could be extensive, and may in some cases have implications for other traffic management priorities and programmes, it is felt that it would be helpful for priorities to be agreed locally. It is suggested that the Hampshire Action Teams could take the lead in this respect.

8. Impact Assessments

8.1 It is considered that the actions proposed in this report should not have any detrimental impact on equalities or race discrimination. Appropriate speed control is of benefit to all sections of the community.

Recommendations

1. That the Department for Transport Circular 01/2006 `Setting Local Speed Limits' be approved for use as a basis for the assessment and setting of all speed limits on the county road network.

2. That a review of speed limits on all A and B roads be undertaken as priorities permit in the traffic management programme to meet the Government's completion target of 2011.

3. That other speed limits, particularly in villages, be reviewed in accordance with the guidance and according to locally determined priorities through the Hampshire Action Teams.

4. That options be explored through the new Safer Roads Partnership for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight as to how increased compliance with village speed limits in Hampshire might be achieved within the resources and priorities of the Partnership.

5. That the Hampshire Association of Town and Parish Councils be consulted with a view to commissioning a public attitude survey with Hampshire residents to assess the acceptability of lower speed limits and increased enforcement to achieve compliance in villages.

1087Rpt/PDB

APPENDIX 1

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CIRCULAR 01/2006

OBJECTIVES

20. The key objectives of this guidance are:

· the provision of up-to-date and consistent advice to traffic authorities

· improved clarity which will aid greater consistency of speed limits across the country

· the setting of more appropriate local speed limits, including reduced or increased limits where conditions dictate

· local speed limits that better reflect the needs of all road users, not just motorised vehicles

· improved quality of life for local communities and a better balance between road safety, accessibility and environmental objectives, especially in rural communities

· improved recognition and understanding by road users of the risks involved on different types of road, the speed limits that apply and the reasons why

· improved respect for speed limits, and in turn improved self- compliance

· continued reductions in the number of road traffic collisions, injuries and deaths in which excessive or inappropriate speed is a contributory factor.

21. Speed limits are, however, only one element of speed management. Local speed limits should not be set in isolation. They should be part of a package with other measures to manage speeds which includes engineering and landscaping standards that respect the needs of all road users and raise the driver's awareness of their environment, together with education, driver information, training and publicity. Within their overall network management responsibilities, these measures should enable traffic authorities to deliver speed limits and driven speeds that are safe and appropriate for the road and its surroundings, as well as help drivers to be more readily aware of the road environment and assess their own appropriate speeds at all times.

22. Indeed, if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and injuries.

APPENDIX 2

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CIRCULAR 01/2006

THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES

35. On rural roads there is often a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a reasonable balance between risk of an accident, travel efficiency and environmental impact. Higher speed is often perceived to bring benefits in terms of shorter travel times for people and goods. However, evidence suggests that when traffic is travelling at constant speeds, even at a lower level, it may result in shorter and more reliable overall journey times. With inappropriate speed for the conditions also come costs, the greatest of which is death and injury to people, increased community severance, and environmental impacts. The objective should be to seek an acceptable balance between costs and benefits, so that speed-management policies take account of environmental, economic and social effects as well as the reduction in casualties they may achieve.

36. Mean speeds and 85th percentile speeds (the speed at or below which 85% of the traffic is travelling) are the most commonly recorded characteristics of speed. Traffic authorities should continue to routinely collect and assess both, but mean speeds should be used as the basis for determining local speed limits. This is a change from the use of 85th percentile speed in Circular Roads 01/93 (DoT, 1993). As explained in paragraph 17, the use of mean speeds is underpinned by extensive research demonstrating the well proven relationship between speed and accident frequency and severity. They also reflect what the majority of drivers perceive as an appropriate speed to be driven for the road, and are felt to be easier for road users themselves to understand.

37. For the majority of roads there is a consistent relationship between mean speed and 85th percentile speed. Where this is not the case, it will usually indicate that drivers have difficulty in deciding the appropriate speed for the road, suggesting that a better match between road design and speed limit is required. It may be necessary to consider additional measures to reduce the larger than normal difference between mean and 85th percentile speeds or to bring the speed distribution more in line with typical distributions. The aim should be to align the local speed limit so that the original mean speed driven on the road is at or below the new posted speed limit for that road.

APPENDIX 3

20 MILES PER HOUR SPEED LIMITS

1. Pilot 20 mph Speed Limits using Conventional Terminal and Repeater Signs

Date Implemented

(i) The Quomp, Ringwood 2001

(ii) Fairfield Road area, Havant 2001

(iii) Crondall Village 2002

2. 20 mph Zones with Zone Entry Signs and Traffic Calming

Date Implemented

(i) The Avenue, Liphook 1991

(ii) Upper Brook Street, Winchester 1992

(iii) Glen Road, Fleet 1993

(iv) Parchment Street, Winchester 1993

(v) Middle Brook Street, Winchester 1994

(vi) West Street, Portchester 1994

(vii) Herrett Street area, Aldershot 1997

(viii) Alton Town Centre 1998

(ix) Leigh Park, Havant 1999

(x) Great Binfields Southern Access Road, 2001

Basingstoke

(xi) Beechwood Crescent, Chandlers Ford 2001

(xii) Leafy Lane, Whiteley 2001

(xiii) Wildern Lane, Hedge End 2001

(xiv) Shakespeare Road, Eastleigh 2002

(xv) Gull Coppice, Whiteley 2002

(xvi) The Square, Liphook 2002

(xvii) Petersfield Town Centre 2003

(xviii) Fairfields Road Area, Basingstoke 2003

(xix) Casterbridge Lane/Blissmore Lane, Weyhill 2003

(xx) St Michael's Road, Basingstoke 2003

(xxi) Swing Swang Lane, Basingstoke 2003

(xxii) School Lane, Yateley 2003

(xxiii) Home Zone Area, Portchester 2004

(xxiv) Chequer's Road, Basingstoke 2005

(xxv) Reeves Way, Bursledon 2005

(xxvi) Havant Town Centre 2005

3. 20 mph Variable Speed Limits

Date Implemented

(i) Velmead Road, Fleet 1995

APPENDIX 4

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CIRCULAR 01/2006

SECTION 6 - RURAL SPEED MANAGEMENT

This section provides specific guidance on the setting of local speed limits in rural areas.

Key points

The national speed limit on the rural road network is 60 mph on single carriageway roads and 70 mph on dual carriageways.

The majority of drivers do not reach or exceed the 60 mph limit on many single carriageway roads because it is often difficult to do so because of the characteristics and environment of the road.

Nonetheless in 2004 some 46% of serious road casualties, and more than half of road deaths, occurred on rural roads.

Speed can be a major factor in the severance of local communities.

The speed limit on single carriageway rural roads should take into account traffic and road user mix, the road's geometry and general characteristics, its surroundings, and the potential safety and environmental impacts.

Building upon the Institution of Highways and Transportation's rural safety management guidelines (IHT 1999), traffic authorities are encouraged to adopt a two-tier hierarchical approach that differentiates between single carriageway roads with a strategic or local access function.

Higher speed limits should be restricted to `upper tier' or high quality strategic single carriageway roads where there are few bends, junctions or accesses.

Lower speed limits would be appropriate on `lower tier' single carriageway roads passing through a local community, or having a local access or recreational function. They would also be appropriate where there are significant environmental considerations or where there is a high density of bends, junctions or accesses, or the road is hilly.

A speed assessment framework has been developed to help achieve an appropriate and consistent balance between safety and mobility objectives on single carriageway rural roads. Traffic authorities are initially encouraged to consider its use on those roads with high accident rates or simply as a way of helping decisions in borderline cases where the choice of the appropriate speed limit is not clear-cut.

Rural dual carriageways with segregated junctions and facilities for vulnerable road users would generally be suitable for 70 mph limits. However, a lower limit may be appropriate if, for example, an accident history indicates that this cannot be achieved safely.

It is Government policy that, where appropriate, a 30 mph speed limit should be the norm in villages.

It is recommended that the minimum length of a village speed limit should be at least 600 metres. However, traffic authorities may lower this to 400 metres, and in exceptional circumstances to 300 metres.

APPENDIX 5

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CIRCULAR 01/2006

SECTION 6.3 - VILLAGES

111. Fear of traffic can affect people's quality of life in villages and it is self-evident that villages should have comparable speed limits to similar roads in urban areas. It is therefore Government policy that, where appropriate, a 30 mph speed limit should be the norm in villages.

112. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 01/04 (DfT, 2004) sets out current policy on achieving lower speed limits in villages, including a broad definition of what constitutes a village. For the purpose of applying a village speed limit of 30 mph, a definition of a village can be based on the following simple criteria relating to frontage development and distance:

· 20 or more houses (on one or both sides of the road); and

· a minimum length of 600 metres.

113. If there are just fewer than 20 houses, traffic authorities should make extra allowance for any other key buildings, such as a church, shop or school.

114. The above criteria should give an adequate visual message to drivers to reduce their speed. However, many drivers are unlikely to reduce their speed to the new 30 mph limit if it is over a very short stretch of road, particularly if the end of the limit can be seen at the entry point. It is therefore recommended that the minimum length is at least 600 metres to avoid too many changes in speed limits along a route. Traffic authorities may, however, lower this to 400 metres when the level of development density over this shorter length exceeds the 20 or more houses criterion and, in exceptional circumstances, to 300 metres. Shorter lengths are, however, not recommended.

115. In some circumstances it might be appropriate to consider an intermediate speed limit of 40 mph prior to the 30 mph terminal speed limit signs at the entrance to a village, in particular where there are outlying houses beyond the village boundary or roads with high approach speeds. For the latter, traffic authorities might also need to consider other speed management measures to support the message of the speed limit and help encourage compliance so that no enforcement difficulties are created for the local police force. Where appropriate, such measures might include a vehicle-activated sign, centre hatching or other measures that would have the effect of narrowing or changing the nature and appearance of the road.

116. Where the speed limit commences at the village boundary, the village nameplate sign and speed limit roundel may be mounted together using the format prescribed in diagram 2402.1 of TSRGD. The combined sign should be located as near as practicable to the start of the development, so that drivers see housing at the same time as the signs, reinforcing the visual message for reduced speed.

117. If there are high approach speeds to a village, or the start of the village is not obvious, village gateway treatments can also be an effective way to slow drivers down. Further guidance on the use of gateway and entry treatments is included in Appendix B of this guidance. Advice can also be found in Traffic Advisory Leaflets 13/93 Gateways (DoT, 1993a), 01/94 VISP - A Summary (DoT, 1994a) and 01/04 Village Speed Limits (DfT, 2004).

118. In situations where the above criteria for a village are not met and there is a lesser degree of development, or where engineering measures are not practicable or cost-effective to achieve a 30 mph limit, but a reduction from the national 60 mph speed limit is considered appropriate, traffic authorities should consider alternative lower limits of 40 or 50 mph.

119. It may also be appropriate in some larger villages to consider 20 mph limits or zones, or Home Zones if lighting and other considerations allow. Such limits should not, however, be considered on roads with a strategic function or on main traffic routes.