Appendix C AREA 9 SPEED LIMIT REVIEW:PUBLIC CONSULTATION RESPONSES & FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS The public consultation period commenced on 29th Nov 2007 with a deadline for responses of 7th Jan 2008 . Details of the proposals, inviting comments, were sent to: South Bucks District Council , Wycombe District Council, Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, Slough Borough Council, Corporation of London( Burnham Beeches Open Spaces Department) ; Beaconsfield Town Council, Burnham Parish Council, Chepping Wycombe Parish Council, Dorney Parish Council, Farnham Royal Parish Council, Hedsor Parish Meeting, Little Marlow Parish Council, Taplow Parish Council, Wooburn & Bourne End Parish Council, Thames Valley Police, Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust, Fire Brigade, The Road Haulage Association, Freight Transport Association, Chilterns Conservation Board, National Farmers Union, Buckinghamshire Association for the Blind, Living Streets (Pedestrians Association), British Horse Society, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Buckinghamshire Community Action, Sustrans, Motor Cycle Industry Association, On 29th November 2007 an advertisement appeared in The Bucks Examiner and on 30th November 2007 in the Bucks Free Press and the Slough Observer . A press release was circulated to the local media,resulting in articles in local papers. Notices( for pedestrians) concerning the proposals were posted on the length of roads subject to proposals. A copy of the Orders and maps showing the lengths of road referred to, together with the Statement of Reasons were deposited for public inspection at: County Hall Aylesbury,Aylesbury Study Centre,Beaconsfield Library, Bourne End library, Burnham library, Farnham Common library , Flackwell Heath library, High Wycombe Library, Marlow Library,West Wycombe library, Chiltern & South Bucks Area office, Wycombe Area Office. 'Have Your Say' Posters (2.5m x 1.6m) ,to alert drivers to find out about the proposed changes were placed: A40 west of Beaconsfield ,A4155 east of Marlow bypass; A4 west of junction with Hitcham Road and Lake End Road near motorway bridge. Detailed information was available on the Buckinghamshire County Council website. A spreadsheet containing a summary of the consultation feedback was circulated by email to the below listed potential members of the Area 9 Working Group. They were invited to attend a meeting on Tuesday 18th March 2008 in order to consider the feedback and make final recommendations to the Head of Transportation. Any member being unable to attend was requested to advise of any comment or observation that they wished the group to take into account. Those invited were: Buckinghamshire County Councillors: Michael Appleyard,Peter Cartwright, Margaret Dewar,Trevor Egleton,Peter Hardy, Lin Hazell, Bill Lidgate, Peter Smith, David Watson District Councillors : Simon Bazley(Wycombe),Lesley Clark (Wycombe),Maureen Royston (South Bucks),Alan Walters (South Bucks) Thames Valley Police Darren Humphries Traffic Management Officer Buckinghamshire County Council Officers; EricApologies Meek,Christopher were received Schweir, from: DistrictMartin Bolton, Councillor Patricia Lesley Francis, Clarke, Alan Eric Baverstock.Meek(BCC) , Chris Marchant (SBDC) Comments in advance were received from: None Those present at the meeting on 18th March 2008 were: Voting Members - County Councillors : Peter Cartwright; Margaret Dewar ( up to proposal ref 21) , Lin Hazell; Thames Valley Police: Mr .D. Humphries Other members - District Councillors: Maureen Royston (South Bucks),Alan Walters (South Bucks) & Simon Bazley(Wycombe) - Bucks County Council officers: A.Baverstock, M.Bolton, P.Francis, C,Schwier, S.Thomas This document lists the proposals and summary feedback discussed by the Area 9 speed limit review Working Group on 18th March 2008. Below each proposal is the Working Group's recommendation, and that of the Head of Transportation where applicable. Following the numbered proposals are 'new' requests arising from the public consultation. As these are new requests that have not been subject to formal consultation they will not be acted upon at this time but will be carried over and investigated as part of a post implementation review in the future. Following on from 'new' requests are general comments received in response to the public consultation. REF No 1: A40 London Road Loud Current limit: 40mph Proposed: 30mph ( from its junction with Gomm Rd to a point 105 metres southeast of its junction with Thanestead Copse) Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN All changes proposed in the Loudwater Residents' Group area supported by this community group. 47 Y 30 Cllr P. Cartwright The A40 from Loudwater through Old Beaconsfield and beyond towards the M40 link should be 91 Y 30 restricted and enforced to 30mph in obviously built up areas and 40mph elsewhere including White Hill, Y 30 Good idea. Existing change from 40 to 30 is easily missed. 25 30 All traffic seems to treat this 40mph length as a 60/70mph dual carriageway road . Sincerely hope this 81 part of the A40 will have its speed decreased to 30mph as it is now a highly populated area. Unnecessary speed changes lead to confusion, which causes further congestion. 30 (These roads ) not common for pedestrians and there are few residences that are affected by the current speed limit and would neither benefit or be inconvenienced by these proposed changes, so are a waste of public money & purely another tactic to 'nannify' British roads. If limit is reduced, it will ( cause) more congestion and also encourage people to overtake drivers N? travelling at lower speeds, which is more of a hazard than at present. More money should be spent on researching causes of M40 accidents, not dabbling with roads that currently are safe & controlled. Area becoming far too controlled through speed cameras, limits, road bumps and central road divides, which has witnessed cause more accidents than prevent. Stop punishing majority of drivers who are safe & responsible- reckless drivers are a risk whether speed limit is 30,40 or 50. Believes that the current limits are quite adequate on these stretches, as the volume of traffic, at busy 93 N 40 times, has its own limiting effect, and at quieter times, a lower limit is unnecessary. Although mainly a 'built up' area, I would argue that it is 'urban fringe' as it is not part of a town area. 100 N 40 According to BCC's own guidance provided, urban fringe should have a 40mph limit. It is also a wide & straight road with good visibility;2 thinks 30mph is unneccessarily restrictive. Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN Disagrees that 30 limit complies with DfT Circular 01/2006. 108 Existing limit, which has been in place for many years, is the appropriate limit. both under Circ. 01/2006 and as a matter of common sense. Ref Appendix C in Circ 01/2006: 30 limit is the 'standard limit' in built up areas with development on both sides of the road, whereas 40mph is appropriate for " higher quality suburban roads or those on the outskirts of urban areas where there is little development" Arguable which category this length of the A40 falls into. There is certainly not development on both sides of the road for anythinglike its full length. eg from junction with Winchester Court to the junction with Rayners Ave there are no frontages on either side. There is some residential development to the north of the road, but this is accessed from a parallel " service road" which is already subject to a 30mph limit. BCC draws a comparison with the section of A40 closer to High Wycombe centre. THe character of the 108 A40 becomes progressively more urban as one travels towards the town centre. There are noticeably contd. fewer pedestrians and vulnerable road users on the stretch subject to this proposal, which allows the retention of a 40mph limit. It is also logical for the speed limit to become progressively lower as one gets N 40 nearer to the town centre ( as at present).ed limit would start approx. 3 miles from the centre of Wycombe, and it really is uneccessary and undesirable for the standard urban limit to be extended so far. appendix C specifically states that 40 mph limits are suitable on the "outskirts of urban areas" One also needs to consider the actual speed of the traffic and any new limit should be "aligned" so that " 108 the original mean speed driven on the road is at or below the new posted speed limit" ( para 37 of circ contd. 01/2006) This is of fundamental importance, because speed limits are meant to be " evidence -led" and "self- explaining" and should "encourage self compliance" ( para 2) Notes the absence of any information as to the current speeds of traffic on this part of the A40. From my own experience of the road I would expect the mean speed to exceed 30mph. The proposed limit is therefore too low and does not comply with Circular 01/2006, even if the road appears to qualify for a 30mph limit under Appendix C ( which is debatable) Should be remembered that until Circular 01/2006 , speed limits were set according to the 85th %ile speed of traffic, not the mean speed. Mean speeds are generally lower than 85th %ile speeds. If the council is proposing a limit which is below even the mean speed, then that is a cause of concern and I object strenuously. 3 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN Unrealistically low limits cause delays & frustration to drivers and have various other ill effects. ( see para 108 22 of circ 01/2006): " if a speed limit….is unrealistically low, it is likely to be ineffective and lead to contd. 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" N 40 Summary of objections: * does not comply with Circular 01/2006 ,esp.