North Yorkshire Council
Executive
04 July 2023
Review of 20MPH Speed Limit and Zone Policy
Report of the Corporate Director - Environment
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To seek approval from Executive for the development of a North Yorkshire speed management strategy and countywide programme of speed limit reviews, in order to generate a pipeline of schemes, to be delivered over a number of years.
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 This report makes the case for adopting a more proactive approach towards reviewing and setting speed limits in North Yorkshire. It, therefore, seeks to redress the fragmented and piecemeal nature of the current network of speed limits, which has evolved over time.
2.2 In so doing, the report aims to place the introduction of 20mph speed limits and zones in North Yorkshire as one element of a broader, more strategic and planned approach to managing speed in the county.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.2 More recently, as part of the regular Area Constituency Committee feedback, on 08 November 2022, the Executive considered the following resolution from the Harrogate and Knaresborough ACC from their October 2022 meeting:
- “that the Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee wishes a 20mph speed limit to be piloted throughout towns and villages in the constituency area where a need has been identified, and that the Executive be asked to recommend the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee, when it considers the County Council’s 20mph Speed Limit and Zone Policy on 19 January 2023, to consider appropriate amendments to the existing policy to enable such a pilot to be introduced”.
3.3 Executive requested Cllr Duncan, as Executive Member for Highways and Transportation to investigate the resolution further in order to make an evidence-based assessment. As part of this work, Cllr Duncan wanted to consider factors such as road safety, environment, value for money and enforcement. He also considered it sensible to look at the approach taken by other authorities and asked officers to consult with relevant stakeholders, in order to establish a rounded and informed view on the Council’s existing approach to 20mph speed limits and indeed, to managing speed more generally.
4.0 REVISED 20MPH SPEED LIMIT AND ZONE POLICY: OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE
4.1 The revised policy represented a step change in how 20mph speed limit requests were to be assessed. Whilst vehicle speed and collision data sets remain key criteria, the broadened scope to include the evaluation of the sense of place and community and the role a 20mph speed limit can help achieve those broader ambitions, was a demonstrable step forward.
4.2 Since the revised policy was adopted, all new applications have been assessed against the revised criteria and work continues to review a number of previous applications to determine if there is now merit.
5.0 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN AND RESPONSES
5.1 Officers have engaged with internal teams and external stakeholders and partners, as part of the review of the Council’s 20mph Speed Limit and Zone Policy and critically input from all North Yorkshire (County) Councillors was also sought.
5.2 All of the comments were insightful, informed and gratefully received and have helped steer the direction of the review. With their connections to communities across North Yorkshire and strong grasp of local views, including on the subject of road safety, the input from members was especially valuable and has proved instrumental in shaping the proposals and recommendations set out in this report.
5.3 Local Member Consultation:
5.3.1 Cllr Duncan invited all members to contribute to the review. Members had an open opportunity to provide any comments as they saw fit, however member were provided with suggested topics to base their response around. These ranged from local road safety concerns to views on strategic speed limit policy and what kind of role the Council, local members and the public should have in speed limit setting. They were also asked to comment on the effectiveness of speed enforcement and what improvements they would wish to see, in order to achieve better speed limit compliance.
5.3.2 In total, 33 Members responded to the consultation, a 37% response rate and there was a good distribution across the political spectrum.
5.3.3 The strongest support was for lower speed limits to be introduced around schools and other high footfall areas, including where vulnerable road users congregate. In addition, there was notable concern over the introduction of default 20mph speed limits and whilst there were also comments in their favour, there was less unanimity on the circumstances in which a default speed limit should apply.
5.3.4 Concerns were also expressed over the lack of enforcement, which was considered particularly important in the context of 20mph speed limits and there was strong support for a strategic and proactive approach to the setting of speed limits. Similarly, members felt that broad public support was an important factor when considering lower speed limits and that policy setting and decision making should be evidence led.
5.3.5 Other themes coming through in the results included support for considering the feasibility of fixed and/or average speed cameras, use of local funding to support scheme introduction, the importance of maintaining a focus on rural, as well as urban, road safety and concern over the fragmented nature of the current network of speed limits.
5.3.6 The following table summarises the key themes resulting from the members’ consultation exercise and how their views have informed the policy proposals, set out further in this report:
|
THEME |
ACTION |
HOW IT IS SHAPING POLICY |
|
Lower speed limits outside schools and other high footfall areas |
Agreed
(Note, also resolution from the February 2023 Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee)
|
Recommendation 3 Paragraph 7.4.2 |
|
Default 20mph speed limits |
Not proposed to be taken forward, rather each location to be considered on a case by case basis, as part of a planned programme of speed limit reviews |
Recommendation 2 Paragraph 7.3
|
|
Speed limit enforcement |
Subject is already under active discussion with North Yorkshire Police |
- |
|
Strategic and proactive approach to speed limit setting |
Agreed, links to planned programme of speed limit reviews |
Recommendation 3 Paragraph 7.4
|
|
Public and member support required when proposing new speed limits |
Agreed |
Included as part of Recommendations 3 and Paragraph 7.5 and proposed assessment process, see paragraph 8.3 |
|
Evidence led decision making and policy setting |
Agreed |
See paragraph 14.3 |
|
Investigate fixed and/or average speed cameras |
Agreed, NYC already in active discussions with North Yorkshire Police |
- |
|
Use of local funding to support scheme development/implementation |
Agreed, forms part of proposed prioritisation methodology |
See paragraph 10.1 |
|
Maintain focus on rural road safety |
Agreed, forms part of the planned approach to speed limit reviews |
See Recommendation 3 Paragraph 7.4 and Section 12 |
|
Address fragmented nature of existing network of speed limits |
Agreed, considered an essential element of the proposals |
See Recommendation 3 Paragraph 7.4.3 |
5.4 North Yorkshire Police and Office of the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (OPFCC)
5.4.1 North Yorkshire Police was involved in the TEE O&S Scrutiny Review and their views sought as part of that process. More recently, the York and North Yorkshire Road Safety Partnership was made aware of the new policy on its adoption in 2022 and how it has been updated to reflect the importance of more qualitative factors such as sense of Place.
5.4.2 The Police’s approach to speed enforcement and road casualty reduction, is to take a data led and evidenced based approach. They do support 20mph speed limits when applied in accordance with DfT Circular 01/2013 Setting Local Speed Limits, so do expect them to be self-enforcing, in order to be consistent with the national guidance, considering enforcement to be a last resort activity.
5.4.3 In addition, through the York and North Yorkshire Road Safety Partnership, the Council is working with North Yorkshire Police and the OPFCC’s office, on development of NYP’s planned review of speed enforcement, in part to ensure that the appropriate links are made between the recommendations set out in this report, but also from an engineering and wider speed management perspective.
5.5 Public Health
5.5.1 The Public Health (PH) team is very supportive of the report and its recommendations and is keen to input further. This is from both a general ‘Health in All Policies’ perspective, but also more specifically, in relation to development of the criteria and assessment framework for the proposed speed limit review process.
5.6 Climate Change
5.6.1 The North Yorkshire Council Climate Change Draft Strategy and York and North Yorkshire Routemap to Carbon Negative supports lower speeds and speed limits generally, in order to encourage active and sustainable travel, improve air quality and to reduce transport related carbon emissions. Cyclist and pedestrian safety are some of the key concerns to overcome, in order to encourage walking and cycling.
5.7 Place Shaping
5.7.1 The Economic Development, Regeneration, Tourism and Skills team is also supportive and is keen to see proposals that make our market towns more attractive with safety a priority in and around our schools and town centres. Links to Manual for Streets was highlighted, as was linking lower speed limits in with other measures to encourage walking and cycling.
5.8 20‘s Plenty
5.8.1 As part of the review process, there has been direct engagement with the campaign group 20’s Plenty for Us Founder and Director, Rod King MBE, the purpose of which was to offer the opportunity for 20’s Plenty, as the leading campaign group for default application of 20mph speed limits, to provide information on any latest developments and research they considered pertinent to the review. Advice was received and this was fed into the review process.
5.8.2 20’s Plenty also made an offer to assist the Council in developing a strategy for introducing 20mph as the norm in North Yorkshire. Their stated ambition is for a speed limit of 20mph to be normal on residential streets and in towns and village centres, unless consideration of the needs of vulnerable road users allows a higher limit on particular streets.
6.0 LITERATURE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY REVIEW
6.1 The most detailed and broadest study remains the DfT/Atkins National 20mph Research Study published in 2018, the main findings of which, are attached as Appendix 1. It was this study which informed the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee in-depth review of 20mph limits and approval of the revised 20mph Speed Limit Policy. Since then, there has been a range of studies of varying detail into the performance of 20mph speed limits and zones.
6.2 Outputs from these studies and reports are set out in Appendix 2 and these have been considered as part of the scope of this latest review.
6.3 Prior to the publication of the DfT/Atkins Study, the Council was reluctant to change its earlier 20mph Policy in-part due to conflicting data coming out of the various trials and studies and lack of academic scrutiny or comprehensive review of the effectiveness or otherwise of signed only 20mph speed limits.
6.4 Though the results of these more recent studies are encouraging, in particular, of signed only 20mph speed limits, they need to be read in context, e.g. North Yorkshire is not directly comparable to Edinburgh, in that it does not have an existing culture of 20mph speed limits. In Belfast, the trial was much smaller, focused on the city centre only. The outcomes of that were relatively minimal, which the report suggests was due to the smaller scope. Similarly, the experience from the pilots in Wales ahead of the planned rollout in September 2023, is that a number of roads within the town of Coldicot, Monmouthshire, have since reverted back to 30mph due to the adverse impact on traffic movement and the cause of congestion and delay.
6.5 Most recently in May 2023, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety published LUSTRE: Low Urban Speed Limits in Europe – What does the evidence show? It sets out the details of its research project (funded by The Road Safety Trust) focusing on the performance of 20mph speed limits in the UK and comparable European countries. One of the key findings was that signed only speed limits have a much-reduced impact on vehicle speed and generally poor compliance in comparison to those that include traffic calming.
6.6 In addition, the example of the Pannal Ash 20mph scheme in Harrogate further highlights the risks attached to introducing a signed only 20mph speed limit on a road, which does not have the look and feel of a lower speed limit, without the introduction of physical features in order to ensure speed limit compliance.
6.7 In summary, signed only speed limits have only a marginal benefit in reducing speeds, resulting in poorer overall compliance and they perform much better, when supported by traffic calming, especially when prevailing speeds were higher. Further, whilst there is less evidence emanating from the studies reviewed, to quantify modal shift and active travel uptake for example it can be concluded that 20mph speed limits have a positive role to play as part of a wider approach to speed limit setting, in terms of their beneficial impact on reducing the number and severity of collisions and in helping create the right conditions for encouraging active travel and in securing wider public health benefits.
6.8 The benefits associated with 20mph speed limits in the right context are recognised and it is accepted that the current arrangements in North Yorkshire, whereby speed limits are only reviewed following a request from a local community, represent an ad hoc and potentially inconsistent approach to the important function of managing speed on the county’s road network.
6.9 It is considered that the conclusions from the studies, which formed part of the literature review, serve to support the Council’s current 20mph speed limit policy position, in that a default application is not appropriate for North Yorkshire and they should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
6.10 Until such time that the DfT undertakes a further empirical study of the collective results of 20mph implementation and considers changes to the national speed limit guidance, in particular on 20mph speed limits, it is considered that the Council’s current 20mph Policy is appropriate and that any proposal to recommend 20mph as a default speed limit in urban areas should not be supported.
7.0 SPEED LIMIT POLICY REVISION PROPOSALS
7.1 In light of the 20mph speed limit review and the shortcomings attached to the current reactive approach to managing speed limits in North Yorkshire, the following recommendations are proposed:
7.2 RECOMMENDATION 1: That the core criteria for introducing 20mph speed limits and zones, as set out in the existing 20mph Speed Limit Policy should remain unchanged.
7.2.1 It is considered that the requirements, as set out in Circular 01/2013, for signed only 20mph speed limits and 20mph zones, are still fit for purpose. This is supported by the DfT/Atkins study, which did not recommend any changes to the existing national speed limit guidance, in terms of the criteria that should be met for 20mph speed limits and zones.
7.3 RECOMMENDATION 2: That area-wide or default 20mph speed limits are not supported.
7.3.1 Recognising the often unique nature of different locations, which present their own challenges and opportunities, it is proposed that each area will be considered on its own merits and so default 20mph speed limits are not proposed as part of this review. In all circumstances, there should be community support for the introduction of 20mph limits and zones, especially from the local member.
7.3.2 Nevertheless, the Council recognises the critical role that appropriate speed limit setting has on road safety and given speed limits across the county have evolved over time, leading to a piecemeal application, the following recommendation is considered appropriate:
7.4 RECOMMENDATION 3: To undertake a series of planned speed limit reviews, which are underpinned by a speed management strategy for the local urban and rural road network, delivered over a defined period and which will generate a pipeline of schemes.
7.4.1 Given rural road safety remains a key issue in North Yorkshire, and therefore represents an ongoing priority for the Council and its road safety partners, it is important to note that the scope of these reviews will include all speed limits across the whole road network, so they are not focused solely on the urban environment. Recognising that speed is one of a number of personal injury collision causations, Appendix 3, for example shows the distribution of Killed and Seriously (KSI) casualties across all speed limits in North Yorkshire, illustrating the scale of the road safety challenge on the higher speed, rural, road network.
7.4.2 For the urban reviews, there will be a particular focus on considering priority locations, such as schools and other high footfall areas, including those with greater concentrations of vulnerable people. These locations and their surrounding areas will attract a higher weighting in the proposed prioritisation process and where there is strong community support and where feasible, will take the form of signed only 20mph speed limits where speeds are already 24mph or below and 20mph zones where speeds are in excess of 24mph.
7.4.3 This recommendation seeks to redress the fragmented or piecemeal nature of the current network of speed limits, which has evolved over time and aims to place the application of 20mph speed limits as one element within a broader, more strategic and planned approach to managing speed and improving road safety across the whole of the road network.
7.4.4 As the existing 20mph Speed Limit and Zone Policy is consistent with the recommendation to adopt a planned reprogramme of reviews, no change to the Policy is proposed.
7.4.5 The expectation is that the speed management strategy will take approximately six months to produce. It is proposed to delegate approval of the detail of the speed management strategy to the Corporate Director for Environment and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation. Its development will not delay the review programme commencing.
7.5 The Council understands the significance of community engagement and so will ensure that local voices and opinions are an essential ingredient in identifying the problems and in building a consensus around the solutions. Moreover, it recognises the important role that lower speed limits can play in how a place feels and the wider benefits to be derived, especially when lower speed limits form part of an integrated approach to place shaping, which include other measures designed to promote active travel and encourage social interaction. This is especially important in the context of strategic policy and strategy, e.g. as part of the next Local Transport Plan and indeed, Local Plan, both of which are currently in development.
8.0 ESTABLISHING A SPEED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
8.1 The aim of a speed management strategy would be to provide a safer road network and environment for all users by applying a consistent approach countywide in setting out how speed would be managed on the roads in North Yorkshire. It would be informed by other key policy drivers including the emerging Local Transport Plan with its expected focus on Place shaping, carbon reduction and on the importance of encouraging active travel, as well as Public Health and the current Speed Management Protocol, which the Council is involved in, along with its York and North Yorkshire Road Safety Partnership partners. The expectation is that it will also inform and be informed by a planned enforcement review by North Yorkshire Police.
8.2 Additionally, it would include the tools available to the Council and its partners to manage speed, based on the principles of the 3 Es of Education, Engineering and Enforcement:
8.2.1 Education: informed by road casualty statistics, working with our road safety partners on and different road user groups on attitude and behavioural change programmes;
8.2.2 Engineering: collision investigation and analysis, including cluster site and route analysis and fatal collision investigation, as well as initiatives such as the Temporary Vehicle Activated Sign (VAS) Protocol and 20mph Speed Limit Policy.
8.2.3 This will also include reference to the Code of Practice ‘Well Managed Highway Infrastructure’ with respect to setting speed limits according to the function of a road and linkages to neighbouring authorities’ speed limit setting on cross-boundary parts of the road network;
8.2.4 Enforcement: Support for North Yorkshire Police on their core activity.
8.3 Speed Limit Review Assessment Process
8.3.1 It is proposed that the Strategy would also set out the assessment process to be followed when undertaking the proposed reviews and in addition to being informed by the national guidance document, Circular 01/2013 (Setting Local Speed Limits), it will essentially follow the same lines as that set out in the 20mph Speed Limit and Zone Policy, including reference to:
a. Analysis of collision history;
b. Traffic Data Collection: including speed, volumetric data and traffic composition, where necessary and proportionate. The Council already possesses a large data source from its Temporary VAS Protocol and from the Speed Management Protocol, which can all be used to inform and streamline the site investigation and assessment process. Therefore, maximum value will be obtained from the use of existing data, in order to ensure data capture and analysis does not unduly impede the review and implementation process;
c. Consultation with the Community: with local parish and town councils is a key component in the process, as is seeking local member input, which is guaranteed. Stakeholder involvement is also vital, e.g. with the emergency services and bus companies;
d. Inclusion of Public Health priorities;
e. Sense of Place, including the potential and opportunities for encouraging or switching to active modes;
f. Distributional impacts on different road user groups, including concentration of vulnerable road users;
g. Air Quality, including levels of pollutants and whether Air Quality Management Area (AQMA);
h. Network Hierarchy: incorporating the function and character of the road.
9.0 PIPELINE OF SCHEMES
9.1 Implementation of the reviews will in turn generate a pipeline of schemes, which will need to be prioritised according to an objective methodology, which is currently in development. It is proposed to delegate approval of the prioritisation methodology to the Corporate Director for Environment and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation and this will then be used to generate an annual improvement works programme and reserve list of schemes.
10.0 PROPOSED PRIORITISATION METHODOLOGY
10.1 A draft scheme prioritisation methodology is currently in development, which incorporates a range of criteria, including a quantitative assessment of speed and collision history, as well as the level of stakeholder and community support and contribution towards emerging LTP strategic priorities. The potential for external funding or financial contributions from the community to expedite delivery, will also be a consideration as part of the objective prioritisation framework. Further work is required to get this to a point where it can be submitted for approval by the Corporate Director for Environment and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation.
11.0 GOVERNANCE AND APPROVALS
11.1 In a similar way to the identification and implementation of the Highways Capital Maintenance Works Programme, it is intended that the annual improvement works programme would be submitted to the Corporate Director for Environment and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, for approval in advance of the delivery year, with further periodic update reports on programme progress and delivery. This would provide a forum for democratic accountability. Local member input, which is key, would be sought from the outset and maintained through consultation on the individual speed limit reviews and schemes as they are identified and generated.
12.0 WHAT WOULD SPEEED LIMIT REVIEWS LOOK LIKE
12.1 Planned Approach
12.1.1 In order first to identify a speed limit review programme, it is proposed that the following criteria be used:
a. ‘All collision’ data in urban areas (40mph or less) by settlement: In order to ensure a large enough population size, it is proposed to use ‘all collision’ data, to be ranked by a weighted severity factor to give a ‘collision score’. These data can then be expressed as a ‘per capita’ collision ‘rate’ to incorporate a risk rating and scored accordingly. The intention is then to combine collision and per capita scores, in order to create a prioritised list of settlements; and
b. ‘All collision’ data in rural areas (over 40mph): In a similar way to the methodology for identifying ‘urban’ collision data and prioritising the settlements, according to risk, rural collision data will be given by a weighted severity factor and given a ‘collision score’, which can then be ranked by road length and expressed as a ‘collision score per kilometre’, in order to produce a prioritised list of rural roads.
12.1.2 Starting with the highest risk ratings and working down, the expectation is that reviews would be undertaken simultaneously on both urban settlements (40mph or less) and rural routes (over 40mph), with the whole process likely spanning a minimum of five or so years. Settlement and route proximity though will be important when undertaking the reviews. Therefore, a sensible approach would be to consider the connections between the urban and rural network, in order to ensure that from a practical as well as a community engagement perspective, the reviews are joined up and not perceived as lacking coherence. There will, therefore, be a level of flexibility and pragmatism attached to the actual order in which the reviews are carried out. The urban and rural lists would be produced annually, in order to ensure the latest collision data is used to inform the order in which the reviews are undertaken.
12.2 Ad Hoc Requests
12.2.1 In addition to the planned approach, there would still be the ability to accommodate ad hoc requests that come from individual communities, seeking a review of speed limits in their local area. The intention is that they would be assessed and prioritised in the same way as schemes generated from the planned reviews and placed on a reserve list of schemes, should they meet the required criteria. Appendix 4 sets out an indicative high level speed limit review process map.
13.0 BENEFITS OF A SPEED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND PLANNED PROGRAMME OF REVIEWS
13.1 Taking forward the recommendations set out in this report will address the current fragmented and piecemeal nature of speed limits in North Yorkshire, which have evolved over time. In so doing, it will provide a greater level of coherence for the road user and improve road safety across all modes of transport and across the whole network, not just focusing solely on 20mph speed limits.
13.2 It will also ensure that local communities and their elected representatives are at the heart of local decision making and a speed management strategy could be guided by and be used to support the aspirations of the emerging Local Transport Plan.
13.3 In this way and considering the most appropriate delivery model for undertaking speed limit reviews and schemes implementation, means that 20mph speed limits for example, can then be more effectively integrated into wider sustainable transport type projects, incorporating other active travel elements, such as walking and cycling improvements and crucially, behavioural change programmes.
14.0 THE PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THE PROPOSALS ARE BASED
a. Empowering local communities and being more responsive to their needs;
b. Evidence based and data led;
c. Consistent with national guidance;
d. Supporting the wider land use and transport policy agenda.
15.0 CONTRIBUTION TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES
15.1 Critical to the success of the proposed speed management strategy and programme of reviews will be how they key into the Locality and Place agendas, empowering communities and providing them with a level of control and involvement in the decision-making process.
16.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED
16.1 As part of the review process, the following alternative options have been considered:
a. Review of 20mph Speed Limit Policy: the review process was initially focused on the effectiveness of the revised 20mph speed limit policy only, but given the current absence of a planned approach to managing speed limits, it was considered appropriate to broaden the 20mph speed limit policy review and seek to establish an overarching speed management strategy, incorporating all speed limits; and
b. Default 20mph speed limits: Around the same time, in November 2022, the NYCC Executive was asked to consider a 20mph speed limit pilot in the Harrogate and Knaresborough ACC constituency area. This follows interest from a number of parish and town councils for default, signed only 20mph speed limits, the merits of which have been considered as part of the scope of the 20mph speed limit policy review and which have in turn contributed to the proposals and recommendations set out further in this report.
17.0 IMPACT ON OTHER SERVICES/ORGANISATIONS
17.1 Establishing a speed management strategy and delivering a planned programme of speed limit reviews will require input and support from the Council’s York and North Yorkshire Road Safety Partnership partners, namely North Yorkshire Police.
18.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
18.1 The Council spends approximately £40M per annum on delivery of its highways capital works programme. Alongside planned maintenance activity, this budget already includes funding for improvement works, such as road safety engineering. It is proposed to manage the costs of the planned reviews and pipeline of schemes as part of the overall management of the capital works programme. In addition, schemes generated from the reviews, of all speed limits, not solely 20mph schemes, will be assessed and ranked against a planned prioritisation methodology in order to ensure most effective use of the available funding.
18.2 In this way, the cost implications of the proposals set out in this report are met from within existing service budgets, with no additional funding required. Further, individual schemes may also be funded using grant offers, e.g. from the Active Travel Fund, should the opportunity exist, or via third party contributions, such as from town and parish councils.
18.3 At the same time, these and other alternative funding sources have been and are continuing to be investigated, to ascertain the extent to which they may be able to contribute towards the cost of the planned reviews and schemes implementation. These include:
a. Community Infrastructure Levy: Previously administered by the district and borough councils, responsibility for allocation of CIL now rests with North Yorkshire Council. It is a charge which can be levied on new development and is an important tool that local authorities use to help deliver the infrastructure needed to support development.
CIL funds can only be used towards provision, maintenance, operation, replacement of infrastructure to support the development of its area (s216 Planning Act 2008). s216B(2) defines infrastructure as including roads and other transport facilities. The levy can only apply where a local authority has consulted on and approved a charging schedule, which has been published in advance. CIL rates should also have been set out in an infrastructure funding statement, which has been through Local Plan examination. Therefore, this potential option may be more one for consideration as part of the North Yorkshire Local Plan development;
b. S106 contributions: Obligations under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) are a mechanism, which make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms that would otherwise not be acceptable. They are focused on site specific mitigation of the impact of development.
In the context of lower speed limits and/or the infrastructure necessary to engineer speeds down, they could be sought for example where the additional traffic generated by new development may exacerbate an existing speeding related problem. Therefore, their use is likely to be applicable in only certain specific circumstances;
c. Office of the North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner funding: This will continue to be explored;
d. Devolution funding: This will continue to be explored;
e. Grant opportunities, e.g. Active Travel Fund: Every opportunity will be taken to utilise grant funding where possible;
f. Town and Parish Council Precept: The expectation is that this may be offered on a case-by-case basis and utilised as part of individual scheme requests and planned reviews. Where it is offered, it is planned to be a consideration in the prioritisation and ranking methodology, to expedite scheme delivery;
g. Member Locality Budget: As noted in f. above
19.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
19.1 The policy revisions and proposals set out in this report are required to be consistent with the Department for Transport Circular 01/2013, Setting Local Speed Limits. In addition, it is acknowledged that the establishment of any 20mph speed limit or zone will be subject to the appropriate statutory legal process for the making of Traffic Regulation Orders for speed limits and traffic calming measures.
20.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
20.1 Consideration has been given to the potential for any adverse equalities impact arising from the recommendations of this report. It is the view of officers that the recommendations included in this report do not have any adverse impacts on any of the protected characteristics identified in the Equalities Act 2010 or NYC’s additional agreed characteristics. The completed Equalities Impact Assessment screening form can be found in Appendix 5.
20.2 All individual proposals for a reduced speed limit will be subject to a full consultation exercise providing the opportunity for stakeholders to make representations on the proposal.
21.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS
21.1 Consideration has been given to the potential for any adverse impacts on climate change arising from the recommendations of this report. A climate change assessment has been completed and included as Appendix 6 to this report.
22.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS
22.1 The priorities in the emerging LTP will be used to inform the criteria in the proposed scheme prioritisation methodology.
23.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
23.1 The detailed reasons underpinning the recommendations contained in this report are set out further in Section 7. In summary terms, their introduction will result in a safer, more inclusive and more coherent network of speed limits in North Yorkshire.
|
24.0
24.1 |
RECOMMENDATION(S)
For Executive to approve the following recommendations:
|
|
|
ii. That area-wide or default 20mph speed limits are not supported;
iii. To undertake a series of planned reviews, which are underpinned by a speed management strategy for the local road network, delivered over a defined period and which will generate a pipeline of schemes; and
iv. To delegate to the Corporate Director for Environment and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, approval of the: a. Content and detail of the proposed speed management strategy; and b. Prioritisation methodology for ranking proposed speed limit schemes. |
|
|
|
APPENDICES:
Appendix 1 – DfT/Atkins Study – Main Findings;
Appendix 2– Literature Review – Outputs;
Appendix 3 – KSI Casualties by Speed Limit
Appendix 4 – Speed Limit Review – Process Map.
Appendix 5– Initial Equality Impact Assessment Screening Form;
Appendix 6 – Climate Change Impact Assessment;
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: None
Karl Battersby
Corporate Director – Environment
County Hall
Northallerton
20 June 2023
Report Author – Allan McVeigh
Presenter of Report – Allan McVeigh
Note: Members are invited to contact the author in advance of the meeting with any detailed queries or questions.
DfT/Atkins Study – Main Findings
Level of support – The study shows that 20mph limits are generally supported and there is little call for the limit to be changed back to 30mph; even though most residents and users do not perceive vehicle speeds to have changed. Local residents and other road users generally perceive the 20mph limits as beneficial for local residents, pedestrians and cyclists. From a driver perspective, they make driving at a slower speed more acceptable
Speed outcomes – Journey speed analysis (based on in-car GPS data) shows that in the case study areas, the majority of drivers are travelling less than 24mph (i.e. at speeds close to 20mph): 70% in residential areas and 86% in city centre areas. This represents a small increase on the before situation: 65% in residential areas and 79% in city centre areas. The nature of the roads where the limits have been introduced means that in many cases lower speeds were already ‘self-enforced’. Reducing the speed limit to 20mph has helped reinforce this process.
Following the introduction of 20mph limits (signed only) the median speed has fallen by just under 1mph, with faster drivers reducing their speed more. The evidence suggests that this is partly due to the implementation of 20mph limits, but also reflects background trends in speed on urban roads.
• In residential case study areas, the introduction of 20mph limits is estimated to have resulted in a 0.8mph reduction in median speeds and a 1.1mph reduction in 85th percentile speeds on ‘important local roads’.
• In city centre case study areas, the analysis shows a 0.6mph reduction in median speeds and a 1.0mph reduction in 85th percentile speeds. These figures are in addition to a small background reduction in speeds which appears to have occurred on urban roads with similar characteristics to the case study areas
The modest scale of speed reduction is not surprising, as a substantial proportion of drivers were already travelling at speeds close to 20mph prior to the introduction of the new limits
The study has shown that the speed at which people drive is influenced more by the look and feel of the road, than whether a 20mph or 30mph limit is in place. It appears that some roads where 20mph limits have been implemented are naturally ‘self-explaining roads’ where drivers ‘instinctively’ drive more slowly (because their length provides less opportunity to build-up speed, visibility may be limited, drivers do not feel that they have sufficient space to drive faster or feel that it is appropriate to do so, and because they serve local start/end destinations only). In other cases, the look and feel of the road naturally encourages higher speeds. In many cases the implementation of a 20mph limit has simply formalised existing behaviour.
More realistically it needs to be about changing how drivers think about driving in residential areas and locations with significant pedestrian and cycle activity. This is likely to require high profile and integrated engagement activity. 20mph schemes have the potential to deliver a range of transport and other benefits (particularly relating to health and community). This provides an opportunity for scheme promoters to work and engage with a range of policy and interest groups to reinforce messages
Enforcement – Although 20mph limits are intended to be self-enforcing, policy makers need to acknowledge that the most common area of concern amongst the public was around compliance, with most focus group and survey participants of the opinion that stronger enforcement measures are needed if 20mph limits are to be effective. There is a widespread view amongst the public that 20mph limits are not enforced, and the likelihood of being caught exceeding the limit is very small. This is one of the reasons why bigger reductions in speed have not been observed in scheme areas
Walking and cycling – Feedback from local residents and road users suggest that slower speeds are one of a combination of factors required to improve the environment for walking and cycling. In the case study areas, there continues to be a range of barriers which discourage walking and cycling. Time constraints, journey distance, and a general preference for driving remain important considerations.
What has been the change in residential areas? – The comparator analysis indicates that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there has been a significant change in collisions and casualties following the introduction of 20mph limits in residential areas, in the short term (based on the post implementation data available to date). Although the absolute number of collisions and casualties (per km, per year) has reduced in the residential areas, there has also been a reduction in the corresponding 30mph comparator areas
Overall findings – The evidence available to date shows no significant change in the short term in collisions and casualties, in the majority of the case studies (including the aggregated set of residential case studies). There is some evidence to suggest a positive 20mph impact in one location (Brighton Phase 1), where a blanket 20mph limit was introduced covering both major and minor roads, and where there is sufficient data to indicate a statistically significant change in collisions and casualties relative to the 30mph comparator area. It should be stressed that this represents just one case study, and the extent to which the findings are transferable to other locations is unclear.
Literature Review – Outputs
Edinburgh and Belfast
Following the earlier DfT/Atkins study, perhaps the next most detailed and more recent example is an academic study into the installation and performance of signed only 20mph speed limits in Edinburgh and Belfast, carried out by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, titled:
Developing and implementing 20-mph speed limits in Edinburgh and Belfast: mixed-methods study
3.2 The focus of the report was on health-related outcomes (casualties and active travel) that may lead to public health improvements. An additional objective was to investigate the political and policy factors (conditions) that led to the decision to introduce the new speed limits.
3.3 The academic report is extensive at 198 pages, its conclusions were;
§ Collisions and casualties – the overall percentage reduction in casualty rates was 39% (the overall percentage reduction in collision rates was 40%) in Edinburgh.
§ The percentage reduction for each level of severity was 23% for fatal casualties, 33% for serious casualties and 37% for minor casualties.
§ In Belfast there was a 2% reduction in casualties, reflecting differences in the size, reach and implementation of the two schemes.
§ Perceptions – in Edinburgh there was an increase in two factors (support for 20 mph and rule-following after implementation) supported by the qualitative data.
§ Liveability – for both cities, there was a small statistical increase in liveability.
§ Speed – speeds were already low in both study areas, mean and median speeds reduced by 1.34 mph and 0.47mph (Edinburgh)
3.4 Importantly it acknowledges the study had a number of limitations, perhaps most importantly that it could not measure the active travel or economic benefits, stating:
The impact of these interventions can be primarily demonstrated through the reduction in collisions and in the number and severity of casualties. It was not possible to demonstrate the effectiveness of the 20-mph speed limits on other outcomes such as active travel (walking and cycling). However, although changes in casualties can be achieved through altering the speed limit, changes in active travel depend on changes in perceptions of safety related to speed. This consideration needs to be factored in to any roll-out of this intervention if seeking to increase active travel
3.5 The report also makes a number of recommendations to other authorities considering a broader application of 20mph speed limits. The key ones being
§ Undertake further work on perceptions to establish (1) whether or not there are sustained changes in support for the intervention over time and (2) the relationship between perceptions around safety and support, and change in speed and other outcomes.
§ Further research is needed to assess the differential effectiveness of changes to speed, and effects on different socioeconomic groups and communities.
§ Further research using direct observation of walking and cycling following the introduction of speed restrictions is needed. Direct observation, rather than relying on reported behaviour, will provide much more objective evidence to inform future planning and decision-making.
§ Undertake a full economic evaluation of 20-mph speed limit interventions
3.5 To provide some additional context, 50% of the streets in Edinburgh were already subject to 20mph speed limits and this trial extended that to another 30% of streets with the remining 20% staying at 30mph.
3.6 This is an important consideration in the fact, there was already an extensive and established culture of 20mph roads in the city rather than it being an entirely new approach. In Belfast, where speed limits were 30mph, but actual mean speeds were already low resulted in minimal change.
3.7 It could be argued that the Belfast scenario in some of the County’s busier more congested towns, could be more comparable to that finding,
3.8 Scottish Borders
Edinburgh Napier University’s Transport Research Institute were appointed to carry out an independent evaluation of the trial and have concluded that:
· There has been significant speed reductions after the introduction of the 20mph speed limit
· There has been a shift from mean speeds from 25mph to 22mph
· Speed reductions seem to be maintained over time (8 month period)
· Where speeds were higher pre-trial, these sites have seen the biggest reductions
It also made the following recommendations:
Have all roads at 20mph: this approach was taken at the start of the trial due to grant terms and conditions and the time constraints. Having had the opportunity to interact with Local Members, community Councils and feedback from Police Scotland and the public this approach is not recommended as it does not take into account particular streets and their particular needs. This approach is not recommended.
Blended 20mph and 30mph: recognising that one size does not fit all and the unique needs of each settlement this is the recommended approach. Taking into account historic crash information, road layout, housing density/presence and the likelihood of compliance as well as previous complaints, Local Member, Community Council, Police Scotland, Transport Scotland and resident feedback, this nuanced approach to speed limits is the recommended approach.
In broader Terms Scotland aims to make 20mph the default speed limit on most of its roads by 2025.
Wales
In July 2022, The Senedd passed The Restricted Roads (20 mph Speed Limit) (Wales) Order 2022 legislation which means speed limits on most restricted roads in the country will reduce from 30mph to 20mph from September 2023. It is recognised, not all roads will be suitable to be lowered to 20mph.
This follows the trial of 20mph speed limits in eight areas:
A number of roads within the town of Coldicot, Monmouthshire, have since reverted back to 30mph due to the adverse impact on traffic movement and the cause of congestion and delay. The Welsh government provided clarification around the terms of implementation of the trial 20mph speed limit allowed exceptions to be made dependent upon the layout of local roads and their use. In addition, further changes were made to introduce 30mph buffer zones and a part time 20mph speed limit.
Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety
Findings
The magnitude of the results of individual studies varies, both within countries and between them. However, there is enough commonality to draw the following findings, based on the UK and six European case studies.
• 20 mph limits without physical measures result in modest speed reductions – typically 1-2 mph where before speeds are approximately 25 mph, and reductions of 3-5 mph where before speeds are approximately 30 mph.
• 20 mph limits without physical measures result in approximately 11% fewer casualties than before in the UK.
• For the European case studies, there were approximately 18% fewer casualties after 30 km/h limits were introduced but this figure was for all schemes, including some with physical measures. There were too few studies of sign only schemes to provide an average.
• Some 20 mph limits would have been accompanied by other measures, such as cycling infrastructure which might have contributed to any casualty reductions.
• Compliance with 20 mph limits without physical measures is poor.
• 20 mph limits with physical measures have substantially greater speed and casualty reduction effects than those without.
• Very few studies have attempted to assess the outcomes in relation to other goals set, such as increasing walking and cycling, air quality, noise etc. If speeds did not reduce by perceptible amounts, it seems unlikely that there would be any significant change in other behaviours. It may be that these goals were achieved as a result of complementary measures, such as cycling infrastructure, to which the lower speed limit contributed.
Calderdale Council
targeted investment in ‘hearts and minds’ driver education and social marketing of 20mph’s many benefits. Specialist public health staff were employed to run the scheme, who intelligently conceived and applied a plan of ‘Love our Streets’ branded initiatives of people friendly, healthy streets. These included press releases, stalls and a bespoke website, positive street photo images, a 20mph phone app with educational materials e.g. self quizzes, competitions, Facebook, discounted dashboard cameras, videos and much more. All that, and enforcement by the police, appears to have had a very positive effect on compliance and brought high levels of popular support.
Oxfordshire County Council
Oxfordshire county council state, “the introduction of 20mph restrictions in our 2021/2022 pilot areas has already reduced speeds by up to 4mph. This has really benefitted the local communities and it will help to reduce the frequency and severity of accidents.”
The initiative is not compulsory and needs to be supported by the parish/town council and by the local county councillor. The authority will support measures from a simple change of speed signs to more complex engineered solutions in areas that can range from a whole village or a single street. Officers will work with local bodies to establish the best methods for ensuring compliance within their areas.
Any areas whereby there is a mixture of vulnerable road users and vehicles will be considered if the existing speed limit is 30mph. The area of the proposed restriction should not have a speed limit that is greater than 40mph.
In general, a new 20mph limit should be in an area with features that justify a lower speed limit to drivers, for example, an area that has:
Funding of £8 million to deliver the programme was approved by cabinet in February 2022.
CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER COUNCIL APPROVE BOROUGH-WIDE 20MPH
Cheshire West and Chester Council approved the roll-out of mandatory 20mph limits for most residential roads throughout the borough.
The council has approved a plan to deliver this important initiative in communities across the borough over a 4 year period.
The cabinet approved the following :-
(1) To approve the implementation of 20 mph limits on residential roads across the Borough where mean speeds on most roads are currently less than 24 mph and around schools where the mean speed is currently less than 30 mph.
(2) To endorse the preparation and development of a report detailing which areas would benefit the most from the revised speed limit how the schemes would be prioritised and a work programme formulated for consultation.
(3) Include £200,000 per year for four years within the Council’s capital programme to be funded from LTP grant or other available external funding.
(4) To approve appropriate delegated powers and authority to enable the Head of Service (Place Operations) in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Infrastructure, to develop and implement the programme for roll out of 20 mph speed limits in residential areas and around schools.
(5) To approve the change to consultation requirements, to streamline the process for introduction of 20 mph speed limits.
Consultations will be conducted in the normal manner within the Traffic Regulation Orders. social attitude surveys consistently show support of 60-80% of people in favour of 20mph limits for residential roads, as well as strong support from public health, emergency services, child and elderly organisations and central government.
Pannal Ash, Harrogate
Where the mean speed of a road through a town or village is at or around 30mph and a signed 20mph speed limit is introduced without physical restriction or change to the highway environment, then drivers are unlikely to conform.
Pannal Ash Road, Harrogate is a prime example, where as a signed only 20mph speed limit has been introduced (historic application) on a road that is not suitable in its existing layout and operation and has for many years been the cause of dissatisfaction and complaint that drivers do not conform.
The issues arise as a consequence of the physical nature of Pannal Ash Road and the demand and function as a local distributor road. Its characteristics are not consistent with the application of a 20pmh speed limit, it is generally straight (in 2 sections) and flat in alignment, is relatively wide with grass verges, footways and properties set back from the highway.
Combined, those features and broad aspect have a significant influence on driver perception of their environment and sense of what is a safe speed to travel i.e. 30mph or greater and considered appropriate for that road/environment. This is especially relevant given Pannal Ash Road is the same or very similar in form, appearance and operation to the surrounding road network where 30mph speed limits apply. Travelling at 20mph may seem unnecessarily slow with little visible evidence to a indicate why this road commands lower vehicle speeds. A 30mph speed limit on Pannal Ash Road would not be unreasonable given its function and form. Even if the surrounding roads were reduced to 20mph for consistency, it is highly likely drivers would still exhibit the same behaviour on those roads too because the environment does not support it.
20mph speed limits and zones must be self-enforcing by virtue of formalising existing driver behaviour i.e. the road has a mean speed of 24mph or lower, the physical nature of the road allows only for 20mph speeds or traffic calming measures are introduced to physically restrict vehicle speeds. 20mph speed limits or zones should not have a reliance on the police for enforcement.
Such characteristics are not present on Pannal Ash Road and likewise on many other roads in the county that would be subject to a 20mph should a default application were applied. Therefore, to achieve compliant vehicle speeds (20-24mph) it would be necessary to re-engineer the road through the introduction of traffic calming measures. Given there are numerous side road junctions and private driveway accesses, this limits what can be done in terms of longitudinal/horizontal measures, which are preferable over vertical traffic calming such as speed cushions. Such issues are found at many other towns and villages in the county.
Sheffield
Sheffield City Council has approved a programme of part-time advisory 20mph speed limits outside schools (subject to the outcome of consultation) as a low-cost method of reducing speeds at the start and end of the school day in the vicinity of the school. It is expected they they act to slow drivers at the time of day when vulnerable young people are walking to or from school.
Schools on the list have been scored according to how many accidents have taken place near the school, whether there are crossings or crossing patrols, pavement width and nearby high speed limits
Work is also taking place on the introduction of 20mph zones for other residential areas in the latest 20mph zones to be approved after trial
The council has applied a criteria whereby, residential roads on which average speeds are 24mph or below will automatically be considered suitable. The inclusion of roads with average speeds of between 24mph and 27mph will be considered on a case-by-case basis using current Department for Transport guidelines.
Roads on which the average speed is above 27mph will not be included unless additional capital funding can be identified for appropriate traffic-calming measures to help encourage lower speeds.
Wakefield
The council is being asked to consider extending the speed reduction on all areas of high pedestrian activity, including high streets. A motion proposed by an Elected Member states:
“Wakefield Council does not currently have a policy regarding speed limits surrounding schools and, rather than acting proactively, the highways department will not consider introducing a 20mph limit in the vicinity of a school unless there have already been injury-related road traffic accident.
The motion also refers to research carried out by the 20’s Plenty for Us campaign group and proposes to:
– Produce and implement a policy of 20mph speed limits in areas of high pedestrian activity, especially streets surrounding schools.
– Carry out review of speed limits in all towns across the district, with a view to introducing a 20mph limit in these areas.
- Request government funding to implement the scheme.
|
Initial equality impact assessment screening form This form records an equality screening process to determine the relevance of equality to a proposal, and a decision whether or not a full EIA would be appropriate or proportionate.
|
|||||||
|
Directorate |
Environment |
||||||
|
Service area |
Network Strategy |
||||||
|
Proposal being screened |
Revisions to existing 20mph Speed Limit Policy |
||||||
|
Officer(s) carrying out screening |
Allan McVeigh |
||||||
|
What are you proposing to do? |
To produce a speed management strategy and implement a planned programme of speed limit reviews and generate a pipeline of schemes |
||||||
|
Why are you proposing this? What are the desired outcomes? |
Following a review of the existing 20mph speed limit policy, to take a more proactive and strategic approach to setting speed limits in North Yorkshire. Desired outcomes are a safer and more legible and coherent network of speed limits. |
||||||
|
Does the proposal involve a significant commitment or removal of resources? Please give details. |
It will require a budget of circa £500K over an approximate five year period |
||||||
|
Impact on people with any of the following protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010, or NYCC’s additional agreed characteristics As part of this assessment, please consider the following questions: · To what extent is this service used by particular groups of people with protected characteristics? · Does the proposal relate to functions that previous consultation has identified as important? · Do different groups have different needs or experiences in the area the proposal relates to?
If for any characteristic it is considered that there is likely to be an adverse impact or you have ticked ‘Don’t know/no info available’, then a full EIA should be carried out where this is proportionate. You are advised to speak to your Equality rep for advice if you are in any doubt.
|
|||||||
|
Protected characteristic |
Potential for adverse impact |
Don’t know/No info available |
|||||
|
Yes |
No |
||||||
|
Age |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
Disability |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
Sex |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
Race |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
Sexual orientation |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
Gender reassignment |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
Religion or belief |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
Pregnancy or maternity |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
Marriage or civil partnership |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
|
|||||||
|
People in rural areas |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
People on a low income |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
Carer (unpaid family or friend) |
|
ü |
|
||||
|
Does the proposal relate to an area where there are known inequalities/probable impacts (e.g. disabled people’s access to public transport)? Please give details. |
No |
||||||
|
Will the proposal have a significant effect on how other organisations operate? (e.g. partners, funding criteria, etc.). Do any of these organisations support people with protected characteristics? Please explain why you have reached this conclusion. |
No
|
||||||
|
Decision (Please tick one option) |
EIA not relevant or proportionate: |
ü
|
Continue to full EIA: |
|
|||
|
Reason for decision |
The use of 20mph speed limits is designed to improve the safety and overall experience of all users. People with protected characteristics would see benefits with any locations where such a scheme was implemented.
Additionally, those areas where there is a higher concentration of vulnerable people are part of the decision process on whether an area should be considered for a 20mph speed limit. |
||||||
|
Signed (Assistant Director or equivalent) |
Barrie Mason |
||||||
|
Date |
06/06/2023 |
||||||
Climate change impact assessment
The purpose of this assessment is to help us understand the likely impacts of our decisions on the environment of North Yorkshire and on our aspiration to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2030, or as close to that date as possible. The intention is to mitigate negative effects and identify projects which will have positive effects.
This document should be completed in consultation with the supporting guidance. The final document will be published as part of the decision making process and should be written in Plain English.
If you have any additional queries which are not covered by the guidance please email climatechange@northyorks.gov.uk
Version 2: amended 11 August 2021
 |
|
Title of proposal |
Review of 20mph Speed Limit Policy |
|
Brief description of proposal |
To produce a speed management strategy and implement a planned programme of speed limit reviews, in order to generate a pipeline of schemes and ensure a more coherent approach to setting speed limits in North Yorkshire |
|
Directorate |
Environment |
|
Service area |
Highways and Transport |
|
Lead officer |
Allan McVeigh |
|
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the impact assessment |
- |
|
Date impact assessment started |
18 May 2023 |
|
Options appraisal Were any other options considered in trying to achieve the aim of this project? If so, please give brief details and explain why alternative options were not progressed.
c. Review of 20mph Speed Limit Policy: the review process was initially focused on the effectiveness of the revised 20mph speed limit policy only, but given the current absence of a planned approach to managing speed limits, it was considered appropriate to broaden the policy review and seek to establish an overarching and proactive speed management strategy;
d. Default 20mph speed limits: The latest academic studies and trials associated with default, signed only 20mph speed limits was included in the scope of the 20mph speed limit policy review, which following careful consideration, is not proposed to be pursued, as it remains the Council’s view that the appropriate speed limit for individual locations should be informed by a range of variables, including the often unique circumstances of each individual location. One size, therefore, does not fit all and there remain concerns, over the ability of signed only speed limits to reduce mean speeds, in some areas, where they are already high.
|
|
What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?
Please explain briefly why this will be the result, detailing estimated savings or costs where this is possible.
In seeking to reallocate a proportion of an existing service budget, the proposal does not place a pressure on existing Council budgets, therefore, in net terms, there is no impact. The costs to deliver the proposals are approximately £500K per annum.
|
|
How will this proposal impact on the environment?
|
Positive impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant) |
No impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant) |
Negative impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant) |
Explain why will it have this effect and over what timescale?
Where possible/relevant please include: · Changes over and above business as usual · Evidence or measurement of effect · Figures for CO2e · Links to relevant documents |
Explain how you plan to mitigate any negative impacts.
|
Explain how you plan to improve any positive outcomes as far as possible. |
|
|
Minimise greenhouse gas emissions e.g. reducing emissions from travel, increasing energy efficiencies etc.
|
Emissions from travel |
ü |
|
|
Lower vehicle speeds can contribute to reduced emissions and air quality improvements. This though is not absolute and 20mph zones which require traffic calming measures are reliant on driver behaviour to achieve positive benefits. |
Through intelligent design and applying the appropriate measure at the appropriate location. |
|
|
Emissions from construction |
|
|
ü |
Potentially a negative impact due to the construction of traffic calming measures and use of concrete materials. |
This though will be restricted to implementation only and could be negated in part by using recycled materials. |
|
|
|
Emissions from running of buildings |
|
ü |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
Emissions from data storage |
|
ü |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
ü |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
Minimise waste: Reduce, reuse, recycle and compost e.g. reducing use of single use plastic |
|
ü |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
Reduce water consumption |
|
ü |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
Minimise pollution (including air, land, water, light and noise)
|
ü |
|
|
Lower speed limits can reduce air pollution through lower vehicle emissions and also reduce noise. |
|
|
|
|
Ensure resilience to the effects of climate change e.g. reducing flood risk, mitigating effects of drier, hotter summers |
ü |
|
|
The potential for reduced emissions will contribute to the overall resilience to climate change. |
|
|
|
|
Enhance conservation and wildlife
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Safeguard the distinctive characteristics, features and special qualities of North Yorkshire’s landscape
|
ü |
|
|
Lower vehicle speeds, emissions and noise will have a positive effect on improving the highway and surrounding natural and built environments. |
|
|
|
|
Other (please state below)
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any recognised good practice environmental standards in relation to this proposal? If so, please detail how this proposal meets those standards. |
|
|
|
Summary Summarise the findings of your impact assessment, including impacts, the recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.
The provision of largely lower speed limits should have an overall positive effect on road user safety, air quality and reduced impact on the natural and built environment in the county. In circumstances though where 20mph zones are implemented, which include systems of traffic calming, there is a reliance on motorists travelling at a consistent speed rather than speeding up and slowing down between measures, which can negate any positive benefits associated with reduced emissions and noise.
|
|
Sign off section
This climate change impact assessment was completed by:
Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Barrie Mason
Date: 06/06/2023
|