Agenda Item No 7 Revision of Speed Limits: A257 To: Dover Joint Transportation Board, 9 June 2011 Main Portfolio Area: KCC – Environment, Highways and Waste By: Head of Transport & Development, Kent Highway Services Classification: Unrestricted Ward: Little Stour and Ashtone, Little Stour Division : Sandwich Summary: The report summarises the proposal of altering the current speed limit on the A257. For Recommendation 1. Introduction 1.1 Members will recall that a report on this subject was tabled at the Dover JTB of 12 th April 2011. Unfortunately it was not possible to organise the advertising of the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) prior to that JTB, as such it was decided to return to this JTB with any objections received. 1.2 The Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to implement the proposed two new sections of 50mph and extension of the 30mph at the Western end of Wingham was advertised by Kent County Council (KCC) on the 8th May 2011 in the Kent on Sunday. Statutory and non statutory Consultees were also written to outlining the proposed TRO and the details were posted on the KCC website. 1.3 The closing date for comments was the 31 st May. Due to this final report being required prior to this closing date for comments, any additional comments received after this date will be reported to the JTB verbally. Comments that have been received can be seen in Appendix 1. 1.4 To date, two representations have been received from the Association of British Drivers and Kent Police. The former states that there is no crash data or speed check data to back up the proposal; the proposed limit is below the perceived safe speed limit of the road; and that drivers are capable of adjusting their speed to suit hazards in the road ahead without applying a blanket lower speed limit. 1.5 Kent Police have commented that the speed limit review recommended that the two stretches of national speed limit either side of Littlebourne should not be changed and they still support that stance. They state that divers will not view the road environment as a 50mph limit and the poor compliance will bring other 50mph limits into disrepute. The classification of the road prohibits any major engineering works that would assist in reducing speeds and therefore actual driven speeds will be unlikely to alter. There does not appear to be a pattern to the crash record and only one crash could possibly be attributed to excessive speed. 4 Kent Highway Services’ Comments 1.6 Although both objectors have raised valid points, observed speeds of the majority of vehicles are already sufficiently low to justify a 50mph speed limit, and therefore the proposed reduction in speed limit will not adversely affect the majority of drivers. 1.7 The extent of the proposal is shown on the two drawings in Appendix 2 and is being funded from the Member Highway Funds of Mr Ridings and Mr Northey 2. Recommendation Subject to the views of this Board, it is recommended that the proposed speed limit alterations (The Kent County Council (A257 Canterbury, Littlebourne, Ickham and Well and Wingham) (50pmh Speed Limit) Order 2011) are progressed and implemented. Due to part of the A257 falling within the Canterbury District, the approval of the Canterbury JTB will also be necessary for this scheme to be progressed (21 st June 2011). Contact Officer: Tony Jenson, Transportation Engineer – Dover and Shepway Background Papers Appendix 1: Copies of responses to TRO advertisement Appendix 2: Dover JTB Committee report Revision of Speed Limits: A257 12 April 2011 5 APPENDIX 1 – Copies of responses to TRO advertisement 1. Kent Police 2. Association of British Drivers 6 The Association of British Drivers. Kent Branch 8, Sussex Gardens Herne Bay Kent. CT6 8DU 18 th May 2011 The Transportation and Development Manager East Kent Area Kent Highway Services Javelin Way Ashford. TN24 8AD Your ref:- (A257 Canterbury, Littlebourne, Ickham and Well and Wingham) (50MPH Speed limit) Order 2011 Dear Sir We wish to OBJECT to the above Traffic Regulation Order. We believe the current speed limit of 60mph should not be reduced. We have listed several points which we would like you to consider:- 1 You have not listed any speed related accident figures to warrant lowering of the current limit. Kent Highway Services accident figures prove that most accidents occur within the already restricted areas, further speed reduction measures will not seem to serve any useful purpose, other than causing driver frustration and increasing the risk of prosecution whilst driving safely. Further inspection of accident figures seem to show that most accidents are within nationally recognised statistics, ie, rear end shunts, turning and failed to look properly categories and very few for speed per se. 2 You have not supplied any speed check data to warrant claims of excessive speeding. Has a traffic volume/speed census ever been done along this road to determine the accident rate in any three year period? If we assume that 15,000 vehicle movements a day is the norm, then that equates to about 16.5 million vehicle movements over a three year period. If as we suspect the rate is negligible, then lowering the speed limit will not reduce the number of casualties, as you claim it will do in your Statement of Reasons. 3 Lowering the speed limit by 10 mph, will only increase those ‘speeding’ and so increasing the conviction rate of perfectly safe drivers, driving over a downgraded limit, that is well below the generally perceived safe speed limit for this stretch of road. This simple fact is backed-up by similar views of Kent Police, who also stated that any downgrading of the current limit, would “bring other 50mph speed limits into disrepute” 7 4 On roads of this character drivers expect to encounter many types of hazards at various levels at certain periods of the day and you adjust your driving to suit. This simple fact is lost on those that think ‘driving by numbers’ is the panacea for preventing accidents. No road has a ‘safe’ speed, it all depends on prevailing conditions. While bearing in mind the above statement, the current 60mph is not a target speed and if you have done any speed checks, then you will have found that the vast majority of drivers think that this speed limit is perfectly safe for certain sections of the A257 especially on a rural road with limited housing density where a ‘blanket’ reduction would be un-acceptable. 5 May I quote from your own report by Mid Kent Transportation Manager dated 11 th July 2006. “It is our view that the introduction of an inappropriate limit is likely to breed contempt, lack of compliance and lack of respect for the law and place undue pressure upon the Police” It also says “ In setting any limit the Police and the County Council are seeking limits that foster compliance and as much self-enforcement as possible.” Similar views are set out in the DfT’s --- Setting Local Speed Limits 01/2006, and we repeat, that Kent Police have stated a similar view. In Conclusion. Your past experience will tell the average pedestrian/resident vastly over estimates traffic speeds, (your own traffic speed surveys will confirm this) and very often it is also traffic density that can be an underlying theme to demanding some sort of action. These schemes are so often generated by a few vocal residents and chased up by local councillors chasing a few votes come the next parish election. Do all these people, religiously follow speed limits when driving past somebody else’s house? The volume of so called ‘speeding drivers’ (which does not mean dangerous) tells us, they do not! As mentioned earlier, no traffic volumes, speed related accidents or speed survey tables have come with this TRO, so we assume it is more of a ‘rant’ from a few local people, which nowadays seems to be the driving force behind such measures. But in Setting Local Speed limits 01/2006 the opening line says ” Speed limits should be evidence- led” to pre-empt such ‘rants’ distorting statistical evidence. As in previous DfT Circulars, Setting Local Speed Limits 01/2006 says that “Speed limits should not be used to attempt to solve the problem of isolated hazards” , therefore, just lowering the speed limit is not the first option. We must state here that we find it totally unacceptable that experienced Police advice and DfT guidelines are being totally ignored and that the personal views of a few councillors and two MP’s are being used to push this TRO through. Thanking you for your time and we would like a written response to the points we have raised. We also wish to be given the opportunity of presenting our case at the meeting where these proposals will be decided. Yours sincerely Terry Hudson Kent area co-ordinator 8 Tel:- 01227 374680 (evenings/weekends only) E-mail:- [email protected] Brian Macdowall Secretary Tel:- 01227 369119 Mobile:- 07930 113232 Ian Taylor Assistant co-ordinator Tel:- 01304 203351 Mobile:- 07850 259499 Could you please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail. 9 Traffic Management Unit, Tactical Operations, London Road, Aylesford, Kent ME20 7SL Telephone: (01622) 798542 Fax: 01622 798549 Mrs. Lorna Day Kent Highway Services Invicta House Maidstone Kent ME14 1XX You Ref: LD/MJ Our Ref: 165/TRO/11826/11 Date 20 th May 2011 The Kent County Council (A257 Canterbury, Littlebourne, Ickham and Well and Wingham) (50mph Speed Limit) Order 2011. The Kent County Council (A257 Canterbury Road, Wingham) (30mph Speed Limit) Order 2011.