Transcript Title added - Histon & Impington Parish Council

20 mph - The Cambridge Experience
John Richards
Acting Project Delivery & Environment Manager
Background to Cambridge 20 mph
 Challenges facing City’s infrastructure:
 Compact city of 120,000 residents,
seasonal students and visitors
 Historic core
 Highest cycling rates in UK
 Road casualties
 Growth, congestion and pollution
 Existing 20 mph areas have proved
popular!
History
 Early safety driven schemes date from
late 80s/early 90s
 Engineering ‘heavy’
 Awareness of changing national
landscape around lower speeds
 2010 ‘Trial’ schemes based on
signing/road markings alone
 Central area within
inner ring road
 Wulfstan Way /
Gunhild Way
late 1940s
residential estate
Objectives
 City-wide 20 mph consistency,
rationalise existing areas and signage
 Facilitate active and sustainable travel
modes
 Health and congestion benefits
 Improve safety and feeling of security
 Reduce noise and pollution
 Environmental improvement
New beginnings…
 Project established through 2011
motion to Council
 City-wide approach
 Cross party support
 £600k Capital budget over 3 years
 Light not heavy handed approach,
based on signing and road marking
changes
 Self enforcing
Consider the function of
streets and 20 mph as a
catalyst for potential
change…
Routes for movement…
 ‘Thoroughfare’ dominates
 e.g. ‘A’ and ‘B’ category roads
 generally unsuited to 20 mph…
Routes for access…
 Thoroughfare less dominant
 e.g. residential and shopping streets
 generally suited to 20 mph…
But what about those in between?
 e.g. ‘C’ class or distributor roads
these are different sections of same road….
Recommendations based upon:
 Function of route within
hierarchy
 Road and traffic characteristics
 Existing traffic speeds
(comprehensive surveys)
 Levels of public support
Approach
 Phased implementation over 2-3
years
 Efficient mix of zones and limits
 Engagement centred around 4 Area
Committees
 132 miles, or 85% of city’s roads, included
 Project Board aligns key stakeholders and processes
(e.g. County Council as Highway Authority)
High Public Engagement expectations
 Approx. 60,000 consultation
packs delivered to all city
addresses
 Project web page and online
questionnaire
 Public exhibitions
 Press releases and social
media
 Area Committee and
Environment Scrutiny
Committee consideration
 Opportunity for public to have say and help shape
– encourages ownership
Consultation headlines
 Approx. 11,000 responses, 18%
return rate
 < 4% non city residents
 > 2 to 1 in favour
 Mixed support on ‘C’ road suitability
 Key concerns: enforcement and
worsening congestion
 Popular misconceptions
Implementation Progress
Phase 1
(North area)
completed
Phase 2
(East area)
TROs in place,
implementation
Spring 2015
Phase 3
(South and West /
Central areas)
consultation completed,
member review, target
implementation next
12 months
Victoria Road
 A busy ‘A’ class route forming part of the city’s inner ring road
 Considered ineligible for 20 mph given County policy that excludes
‘A’ and ‘B’ class roads
 Road and usage characteristics similar to many ‘C’ class routes
included
 Public demand and political support
 Agreement to advertise, objections determined (by County Council)
and now included within project scope
Post implementation monitoring
(north area)
 On 93% of streets previously above
20 mph, speeds have reduced
 Average reduction 1-2 mph typical
 3 mph reduction on a busy ‘C’ road
(Arbury Road)
 Average speeds on roads included
now below 24mph, with 56% below
20mph
Further work
 Complete city-wide (realise
maximum benefit)
 Marketing (hearts & minds) and
promotion
 Enforcement (carrot and stick)
 Monitoring of:





Travel choices
Traffic speeds
Casualties
Air quality and noise
Public perceptions, and satisfaction?
Lessons
 Development phase
 Design phase
 Implementation phase
Development phase learning
 Ensure sound evidence base
 Adequately resource, plan and
programme
 Establish governance and
processes
 Challenge assumptions
 Flexibility around road and user
characteristics rather than
classification
Design phase learning
 Care around sign positioning
 Administrative boundaries
 New developments
Design phase learning
 Care around sign positioning
 Administrative boundaries
 New developments
Design phase learning
 Care around sign positioning
 Administrative boundaries
 New developments
Implementation phase learning
 Effective procurement and
early provider involvement
 Forward visibility of
programme and constraints
 Street Works liaison
 ‘Right first time’ construction
Future challenges
Scrutiny around ‘value for money’
Compliance and need for enforcement
Public acceptance and ownership
Maintaining advocacy message
Dealing with inconsistencies and
problem streets
 Project integrity
 What next?





And finally…
Consider widespread 20 mph coverage as a step
change in public attitudes around healthy, living, cities
Thank you
John Richards
[email protected]
01223 458525