Agenda item

In attendance for this item were:

Worcestershire County Council:

Sally Everest, Network Control Manager

Lynsey Keir, Transport Infrastructure Commissioning and Project Office Manager

Sarah Gilmour, Intelligent Transport Systems Manager

Cllr Ken Pollock, Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Infrastructure and Environment

(Safer Roads Partnership / West Mercia)

Rod Reynolds, Safer Roads Partnership Manager

David Perridge, Operations Manager Safer Roads Partnership

Bob Haynes, Traffic Management Advisor (Worcestershire) Safer Roads Partnership

The Chairman welcomed the guests for the discussion about traffic calming, which he was aware was a big issue for many parishes and therefore the Panel was keen to learn what work was being done in Worcestershire.

The Council’s Network Control Manager explained that the Council monitored all accidents. In appraising accidents there were many avenues which could be taken, one of which was traffic calming, and this could also be used to benefit the environment.

The Network Control Manager summarised the main points of the Agenda report, which included background around justification for implementing traffic calming, the process for road safety improvement schemes, examples, the community improvement scheme route, types of traffic calming features available, information on what other local authorities do, speed limit history, examples of speed limit use, and delivering improvements for walking and cycling.

The Chairman invited questions and the following main points were raised:

·         Referring to the process for road safety and the five examples given of issues and resultant schemes, the Chairman asked how many schemes had been done over the last 12 months. The Transport Infrastructure Commissioning and Project Office Manager advised that three schemes were pending and two underway, and then clarified that the question was complex since smaller traffic calming measures formed part of a variety of different projects, not just specific traffic calming ones. She clarified that roughly 5 standalone traffic calming schemes would be done over 12 months, but as a team approximately 60 schemes.

·         The Chairman suggested that Worcestershire did not favour road humps and the officers agreed that they were not popular and confirmed that none had been added in the past 5 years.

·         A member reported problems in his division with vehicle access and parking around speed cushions and the officers suggested any such issues would probably relate to historical rather than current schemes, since parking was examined as part of considering a scheme.

·         A member sought clarification about the sign-off process for progressing community improvement schemes, specifically if the scheme would be stopped if objections were expressed by one of the organisations consulted.  The Transport Infrastructure Commissioning and Project Office Manager explained that potential schemes had to be advertised and local members would also receive a copy of the report. She pointed out that lack of support, say from the Police would prompt the Council’s officers to also question and review the scheme since objections did need to be taken into account. In such cases officers would contact those objecting to understand and discuss and that consensus was usually reached.

·         When asked whether the local member would still have the final say in cases where the Police had raised objections, the Traffic Management Advisor from the Safer Roads Partnership (SRP) explained the role of the Police as a consultee; advice would be given on the occasions asked, which usually occurred for schemes combining speed bumps etc with a crossing. In response to further queries, he confirmed that the Police would give advice but that the final decision about the scheme was the Council’s. The Network Control Manager pointed out that if feedback from consultees indicated a potential safety aspect had been overlooked, the officers would need to look at this and would liaise with the local member. When asked whether officers therefore had the final say rather than the local members, the Network Control Manager advised that in cases where the local member did not support the decision, the officers would discuss with the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways (CMR).  Further clarification was sought about the role of CMR at this stage and the officers reiterated the process, whereby a report was produced taking all information into account and indicating whether or not the proposals were supported for implementation – this was the extent of the officers’ knowledge of the process.

·         Another Panel member reported his experience of requests for traffic calming action not being addressed on roads where a number of pedestrians had been hit or where he was trying to encourage cycling and walking; this left him feeling helpless and frustrated.

·         Acknowledging the contentiousness of the sign-off process for community improvement scheme routes, the Chairman invited comment from the CMR for Economy and Infrastructure who was present, and he suggested that the Council would be unwise to override Police advice. If a local member was concerned about objections to a scheme they were able to contact the CMR for Highways, who could look into the problem, however there were strict legal requirements which officers needed to adhere to.

·         Panel members agreed that more clarity was needed on the process for approving community improvement schemes and the grounds for rejection so that they understood the reasons for schemes being turned down and who they could discuss this with. The Chairman pointed out that as a scrutiny panel there was the option to explore further these issues.

·         A Panel member who had paid for a vehicle activated sign, asked about their effectiveness and both the Council officers and SRP representatives said that research indicated they were effective but worked best if moved around. The officers were aware of a report about this which could be circulated.

·         The Chairman requested details of numbers of each traffic calming feature which had been installed over the past 12 months.

·         The SRP representatives advised that there were various traffic calming measures which could be implemented, but that care and balance were needed in selecting the right option and taking account of consequences such as additional noise and pollution. They pointed out that if a road looked dangerous, in actual fact it was likely to be safer than one which looked safe.

·         When asked about practices elsewhere, the Network Control Manager highlighted Gloucestershire’s toolkit which encouraged communities to help themselves. She had discussed the benefits of the toolkit with the SRP representatives who were very receptive and had undertaken to do some work on it. The ideas in the toolkit worked better when promoted on an ongoing basis with community groups such as schools. The Panel supported this way forward and asked for the toolkit to be circulated. 

·         The officers also referred to Herefordshire’s use of vehicle activated signs which were used in a more controlled and joined up way, which may increase effectiveness, although officers would not want to deter their use in Worcestershire.

·         The SRP representatives displayed a road safety leaflet designed for foreign nationals, which would also be circulated.  The SRP Manager spoke about the Police and Crime Commission road safety scheme, to which some councils had made applications.

·         The SRP representatives highlighted Community Speed Watch as a fantastic way to engage the community, with 10 schemes in Worcestershire and further expansion was encouraged, although recruiting and retaining volunteers was a problem. Community Speed Watch was controlled and funded by West Mercia at no cost to the Council.

·         A member expressed the view that the main problem with community speed watch was getting agreement from West Mercia about where volunteers could stand and the SRP representatives agreed that safety was important and that some roads were not suitable.  Nonetheless Panel members were very interested in learning more about the scheme and information would be circulated.

·         Turning to speed reduction schemes, members asked for clarification on enforcement of 20 mph limits and the Operations Manager for the Safer Roads Partnership/West Mercia confirmed that 20 mph speed limits could be enforced by the Police but best practice guidance stated they should be self-regulated, and also recommended reducing speeds beforehand. Offenders could be written to or visited.

·         A member reported the dramatic effect on driver behaviour of average speed cameras, which though prohibitively expensive may be more attractive if more revenue went back into the local area and this was something he had highlighted to the Home Secretary. The SRP Manager agreed that average speed cameras were very effective and advised that the SRP was bidding for a scheme at a cost of around £440,000 on the A449 which would be the first of its kind in Worcestershire, and everyone agreed this was a good news story if it helped to save a life. The timescale for this was 12 months.

·         The Chairman asked about ‘think!’ signs and referred to a resident’s suggestion for a local road which had seen three recent deaths. The SRP representatives said that there were different schools of thought, with some concern about adding distractions for drivers. He also pointed out that not all collisions were necessarily speed related, although there were areas where they were.

·         Cllr Jenkins asked about 20mph speed limits outside schools and the Council officers pointed out the need to determine the benefit if existing speeds levels were close and would provide further information outside of the meeting.

·         The Transport Infrastructure Commissioning and Project Office Manager spoke about the team’s focus of work which had to be evidence-led. All incidences were looked at and prioritized, however this only included reported accidents.

·         When asked, the SRP representatives reiterated that only accidents where someone had been injured (including slightly injured) or killed were reviewed, since damage-only incidents were non reportable.  However they also highlighted new technology which would enable the Police to use tablets to record accident data which would greatly speed up the process.

·         The Chairman pointed out that the importance of ‘near misses’ in health and safety review and expressed concern that serious incidents were not factored in simply because no one had been hurt, giving the example of a junction in his division and concern from parishes who had tried to get measures taken. The SRP representatives acknowledged this point and said that a common complaint was people advising them about accidents which had not been reported, and not having detail about an accident made it difficult to review. The Council’s Intelligent Transport Systems Manager explained that her team required an in-depth accident report in order to look into any measures; if the evidence was there then measures could be considered but it would be very tricky and resource intensive to review damage only incidents in the absence of this detail. This issue was also referred to by other Panel members, and therefore flagged up as a comment for the Police to consider.

·         The Transport Infrastructure Commissioning and Project Office Manager displayed some photos to demonstrate examples of schemes where measures had been implemented to address residents’ concerns about speed and improve access for walking and cycling and the overall the environment -  including resurfacing a bridleway, highlighting cycle use at junctions, signage, widening paths, and linking new developments with town centres. Members present were aware of the success of schemes and praised their effectiveness.

·         Much of the Transport Infrastructure Team’s work was funded by money from local members and from S106, and often very simple, cost effective work could be very effective. When asked how the team’s work compared with elsewhere, the Project Office Manager believed that work in Worcestershire was not far off at all and reported the go ahead for a new project on the Alcester Road.

·         In response to a question about use of 3/2/1 signs before road hazards, the Council’s officers believed these had been removed from the regulations and therefore no longer permitted but would check.

·         When asked about the use of coloured tarmac on the approach to villages, crossings etc, the Council’s officers confirmed it was expensive and the application used initially for this wore out very quickly.  Different colour tarmac was still used to highlight crossings but was now included within the structure of the highway itself.

·         The Chairman spoke about the cyclist Chris Boardman’s work to get more, cheaper crossings introduced, and would send photos to the Council officers.

·         The chairman thanked the SRP for use of mobile speed cameras in his division, which were having a real effect.

·         The SRP representatives pointed out the importance of educating drivers, since recent analysis showed that increased risk-taking and rushing were the overriding factors in road accidents, rather than just speed. Also, a common problem was increased traffic volumes on roads not designed for such use. The value of influencing younger drivers who were the next generation was stressed, and schemes delivered in liaison with the Council and Fire and Rescue Services, such as Green Light and Dying to Drive were referred to, about which further details would be provided.

·         A member commented that while he was happy to fund traffic calming initiatives (through councillor divisional funding), he would like to understand the rationale for schemes being rejected.

The Panel requested the following information:

·         recent data/reports on the effectiveness of vehicle activated signs

·         numbers of each traffic calming feature implemented over the past 12 months (with the exception of vehicle activated signs, which were done by parishes)

·         details of the grants available for traffic calming

·         Gloucestershire County Council’s toolkit on how communities can help themselves

·         road safety leaflet for foreign nationals

·         details of young driver campaigns (Green Light and Dying to Drive)

·         community Speed Watch information