Portas Pedal Powered Parking Pickles

the latest salvo in the "war against the motorist" has been fired by every local government officer's favourite politician, Eric Pickles MP, the Communities Secretary and MP for Brentwood & Ongar.

The Daily Telegraph has reported the Rubber Knickers Manufacturer's Association Spokesman (look it up!) as saying

The man himself. Image from The Times.

“Thirteen years of Labour's war on the motorist have created an over-zealous culture of parking enforcement... Extending CCTV, not to catch criminals, but to catch you out the moment you park on a yellow line. A rigid state orthodoxy of persecuting motorists out of their cars, with no concern about its effect in killing off small shops... Councils should allow more off-street parking spaces, to take pressure off the roads... They should end dodgy town hall contracts which reward and encourage the proliferation of fixed penalty notices... I believe we need to give people the good grace to pop into a local corner shop for 10 minutes, to buy a newspaper or a loaf of bread without risking a £70 fine.”  

Space for one car or lots of bikes? Image from Google Streetview

As Easy As Riding A Bike and Cyclists In The City have both covered this in more detail from the political and economic points and so I won't repeat their excellent work. Instead, this post will be looking at just how easy it is to install on-street cycle parking using the ubiquitous cycle hoop compared to on-street car parking because as we all know, a bike is a very easy way to pop to the corner shop rather than sod about with getting the car out. 

Oh, and my basic reply to Pickles is that his Government has singly failed to do anything to help people who don't drive everywhere and to those who get parking tickets (unless wrongly issued of course), thanks for keeping the revenue flowing in!

Before I go on, I will mention TV's Mary Portas (otherwise my clever post headline doesn't work). Rather than to go to all of the fuss of commissioning planning, transport and economic experts, Mary Portas undertook a review into the future of our high streets for Messrs Cameron and Clegg. One of her recommendations was for "free controlled parking schemes that work for their town centres" which must be music to our Eric's ears (and assumes that town centre parking is controlled by Councils - much is not). 

Completely unrelated to her review is some of Ms Portas' other consultancy work for quirky high street brands such as Westfield and sustainable transport systems experts Mercedes-Benz. Any interest in cars and parking at shopping centres is of course entirely coincidental.

So, how would Eric's 10 minutes of free parking work? Quite simple really (well, perhaps not!). We would need to design a suitable area for a parking bay marked on the carriageway and then come up with a simple sign to explain that people have 10 minutes to park for their loaf and paper, but also, there is a charging regime in place for those staying longer as we still need to cover operational costs of providing the parking (I have chosen pay-and-display - P&D). 

We would then need to advertise and consult on a Traffic Regulation Order (Notice of Making) which sets out the proposals. 

Next, a committee or delegated officers would decide whether or not to implement the scheme taking objections into account and then the scheme could be implemented with the Traffic Regulation Order "made" (signed and sealed by the Mayor and delegated officer) with a Notice of Making explaining that it is coming into force.

I am not 100% sure that the dual-use arrangement of 10 minutes parking and pay-and-display is quite permitted; the Regulations are a bit complicated even for an old hand and so I would want to check with the Department for Transport (who are quite rightly sticklers for getting it right). I think this sign is correct, but one can also get special authority from DfT for non-standard layouts so long as they are logical and sensible - this can take 3 months, but I am sure Eric could put in a good word.

Enforcement is not simple. Those at the sharp end of the persecution of the motorist enforcement are the Civil Enforcement Officers (or parking wardens etc etc). They would need to constantly check the bays for people exceeding 10 minutes rather than with the simple P&D test of "are they displaying a ticket". 

In my experience enforcement is done on a rota basis around an authority area and certainly with the smaller shopping centres, there are not CEOs wandering around all day. As the revenue from free parking is bugger all, employing legions of staff is not an option and besides, why should non drivers subsidise a parking scheme, after all, the Market will decide!

For the 10 minute option, they would have to find someone without a ticket, note the time and take photos of evidence (position of a wheel valve is often used) and then wander back after 10 minutes to check - cue, "come on mate, I was only there 11 minutes". With the money the CEOs are paid, discretion is not their job. What I am getting at is 10 minutes free parking is labour intensive (costly) and puts some of the most low paid people working for Councils and their contractors right in the firing line.

My opinion (from experience of designing, consulting and implementing many on-street parking schemes) is that it is the early morning trade who get caught out nipping into the shops on the way to work and this is the realm of newsagents, bakeries and sandwich shops etc. So, start the paid-for parking scheme at 9:30am and you have dealt with a greater part of the objections. 

Aside from the arguments about whether or not on-street parking by shops is desirable, people who are driving elsewhere anyway (or coming back) aren't a bad target for passing trade and a paid-for system makes sure there are spaces available rather than being blocked by all day parkers such as commuters and the businesses' own staff (which happens all the time).

Right, time for me to stop pandering to the car as it does not follow that parking helps local shops as those on foot, bike or public transport spend more over time.

Let's see what we can do for cycle parking using the humble hoop. This diagram is pretty much to scale and takes a standard 1.8m wide/ 6m long on-carriageway parking bay and turns it from a single car space to 6 cycle parking spaces. One of the most used cycle hoops is the Sheffield stand which is made by many manufacturers as it is very simple - bend a steel tube a couple of times and possibly weld fixing plates at the ends. They come in all sorts of colours, although I do like stainless steel as it is maintained by rubbing a damp rag over it every few years and there is no paint to chip or scratch (a lot more expensive to buy initially though)

I have two of my own concreted into my front garden for cycle parking which is as simple and easy to use as car parking! I got mine from from bollards.co.uk which is essentially the on-line retail arm of Broxap. Mine were cheap (powder-coated green) and easy to install. They gave me 4 spaces (2 bikes per hoop). If we are a bit worried about cars hitting the bikes, then 5 hoops protected by bollards is very simple to install. 

They don't need to be in the carriageway of course, they can go in the footway, but if you are designing a layout, don't forget that a bike is much longer than the hoop as we don't want to block the footway for those walking (allow 1800mm x 500mm for the "footprint" of the bike).

Dimension-wise, these hoops are about 700mm long and should be mounted with about 700mm out of the ground (some manufacturers make a "junior" version which is lower for children). They should be spaced at least 1 metre apart (1.2m is better) to get a bike in either side with the next hoop and so the end hoops need at least 500mm clearance (600mm is better) to other features (walls, kerbs etc). 

There are two options for installation. First, concreted in involves digging two holes and setting the posts into poured concrete. The ends of the posts are either crimped or have a small plate on the end to stop anyone pulling the hoop out of the ground. The concrete can be left below surface level to allow the paving to be matched above. The other option is to bolt down the stands. In my opinion, this is only of use when fixing to an existing concrete slab otherwise a concrete foundation is needed anyway. Bolting to paving and tarmac never works. Bolting involves drilling holes into the concrete slab and then chemically or resin-fixing bolts to which the stands are fixed. The nuts into the bolts then need to be spot welded to stop anyone undoing them.

I have used Bikedock Solutions as an installer several times using both techniques and where high-quality paving is concerned, they are very good at drilling out a hole through paving to create the foundation, so it should keep the urban designers happy.

In terms of cost, a basic Sheffield stand, concreted in and with the paving reinstated by a contractor will be around £300 a go. Compared to Eric's 10 minute parking bay - this is a little bit more than one parking sign and post at about £250 a go (but a bay will need several and if with P&D, that will be £4k per machine). Stainless steel will cost about £550 a site - of course, a larger scheme will attract a saving. My own hoops at home cost about £45 each (hoop, ballast and cement) to install, it just took a bit of time, but anyone with DIY skills can do it - just be careful digging holes in front gardens - that is where utilities come in and if you hit power, it can kill you! So, when your Council says that they cannot afford to install cycle parking, but they put in vehicle parking schemes, they are essentially lying. Perhaps parking departments need to be harassed to pay for a few cycle parking schemes - it might then make it more mainstream!

The beauty of hoops is that they can be put anywhere. At work, we have a little cycle parking compound right by the staff entrance. It is fenced off and covered by CCTV and is entered with our electronic door passes (so access is restricted). The area was a small piece of unused land which was not doing much other than attracting smokers (sorry guys) and so with a few hoops thrown in, it is pretty good. It would be nice to have it covered, but the space is well used and popular. Hoops can be placed in groups (with a separate canopy to protect the bikes) or singly and are so very flexible. 

The important point is that cycle parking can be placed right at the places users wish to visit and the high street is no different. 

Here is a Google Streetview image of some cycle hoop parking outside Borough Market in London. The market was a destination for me for regular training runs last year whereby I got there just before 8am on Saturdays. After a couple of hours wandering around (I can really recommend it!) they were all taken. I am looking forward to going back when the weather warms up!

What Transport for London could do here is put a few more hoops in. If they fill up, put a few more in and so on. In my day job, we did the same thing at a high street near a railway station where we started with 5 hoops. Over the next few years, we did other schemes in the area and threw a few more in which got filled up, so we threw a few more in and now we have 15 (30 spaces). I think that being outside a bakers helps balance the exercise those arriving have just undertaken!

And yet, across the gulf of the high street, minds 

immeasurably superior to ours regarded this space 

with envious eyes, and slowly and surely, they drew 

their cycle parking plans against us.

Legislation-wise, highway authorities have powers under S62 of the Highways Act 1980 for;

"the provision of subways, refuges, pillars, walls, barriers, rails, fences or posts for the use or protection of persons using a highway"

This is nice and vague as it is part of general powers to improve the highway, but in essence, allows highway authorities to provide "things" which can be "used" by or for the "protection" of users of the highway; that is, cycle hoops to park at and bollards to stop them being hit. 

Powers for the provision of "racks" or "devices" for securing cycles and motorcycles is contained within S63 of the RTRA1984.

One issue which can come up is motorcycles being parked at hoops - this can be controlled by a Traffic Regulation Order, but I have never needed to resort to it. If motorcycles are an issue, then perhaps they need to be provided with some dedicated parking places. In some authorities, a senior member of staff will need to sign-off a formal decision to install cycle hoops - I have used this to "cover myself" in the event that politicians moan (and they do sometimes). 

So, there you have it Eric and Mary. Cycle parking is cheap and easy to install in the high street. For every car space, we can provide 5 or 6 cycle parking places and we can provide hoops right outside the door of popular destinations. 10 minutes free parking for cars? I can get to my local shops and back for the paper in less time by bike, even with my rubber knickers on!

High Speed Few

with the mayor of london announcing "nearly" a billion pounds* for cycling in the capital, we may have forgotten a "public" transport scheme which dwarfs this plan in scale and cost. (*over ten years!)

Phwoar! A bridge over a canal, what an engineering-fest. Photo from
HS2 website.

I refer of course to High Speed 2 or the friendlier HS2 which will connect London with Birmingham and if we are lucky, Manchester and Leeds at some point in the future, possibly.

Here is a summary of some statistics to start us off:

• The whole scheme (including a spur to Heathrow) will cost £34.5bn
• It will create "benefits" of £47bn (over 60 years)
• It will raise fare revenues of £34bn (over 60 years)
• The level of spending on the project spread over 20 years is expected to be less than £2bn a year
• If the whole scheme is built, it will create 330 miles of track
• 18 trains per hour in each direction when fully operation
• Up to 1100 people per train

So, by my rough maths, that will be £104 million a mile - or a bit more than the Mayor's proposed (and not quite funded) annual cycle budget for the entire city. 

Here is part of my route to work, the carriageway

is shot. The surface is bad enough, but the water 

has got in underneath and it is falling apart from 

the deeper layers. Still, if a few people can get 

from London to Birmingham a little bit quicker,

that will be fine.

Or looking at infrastructure already built, this year it is estimated that there is a highway maintenance budget shortfall of £829m in England or to bring the road network in England and Wales (including London) back up to standard will need a £10.5bn (I realise the survey is undertaken by a trade body, but it gets an awful lot of replies from local authority engineers). There is estimated to be 245,000 miles of roads in the UK. 

I am not interested in who pays what for the roads as we all pay one way or another and we all benefit, but it is a scandal that the UK has left its biggest piece of public infrastructure to crumble like is has and for so long. 

The motorways and trunk roads are in pretty good nick and so most of the neglect is on the local streets we rely on to get to work, school and the shops; our day to day travel.

I know I am a highways person and I don't have much professional interest in rail, but with the state of our existing transport infrastructure, HS2 seems like something we can ill afford. 

I am just not sure who needs to travel across the UK on all the time and why doing it a bit quicker will help the rest of the UK. If we need to spend on rail, we need schemes like Crossrail and London Overground in major UK cities to get people in and out efficiently and safety, plus it will free up road space for cycling and essential city functions like deliveries and waste collection.

HS2 tells us there will be many advantages;

• Creating crucial space on crowded routes
• Releasing room for freight
• Better journeys between cities
• Economic benefits and jobs
• A whole new passenger experience
• Positive environmental benefits
• Regeneration

The Institute of Economic Affairs is less convinced, they state "The estimated cost of £34 billion to construct HS2 is equivalent to £1000 per UK income-tax payer. Most taxpayers will derive no benefit from the scheme." HS2 Action Alliance is not in agreement with the scheme and rebuts HS2's positives. So, just who are we building this scheme for?

I don't commute long distances between major cities and I don't know anybody who does. I know people in Brighton and Stevenage who work in London and get there by train, pay the insane rail ticket costs and HS2 certainly won't help them. I know sales reps who travel all around the country selling their wares and HS2 won't help them. 

HS2 is essentially about linking up London with Birmingham and then (probably) spurs to Manchester and Leeds, but it will do nothing to help people move around these cities. Will people switch from their cars stuck on the M40 and M6 for HS2? Will HS2 help children walk to school? Will HS2 improve transport in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Will HS2 do anything for East Anglia's hammering by freight lorries using the eastern ports?

HS2 will do nothing to sort out local transport problems like the
traffic congestion on Oxlow Lane, Dagenham, when the school run is
on. We need to make places like this easy for pedestrians and cycle
users so they don't need to sit in traffic, like the bus from which this 
photo was taken!

I am less worried about the various arguments for and against HS2 and more worried about whether it is the right scheme for the UK, even though it will keep many of my fellow professionals in a job. The trade press is full of articles praising the project and it is a bonanza to the private sector which is advising the Government on the project and who will build and operate the scheme (like HS1).

Against the backdrop of the ongoing scandal of our (literally) crumbling local roads and people's daily travel needs, this project is in my opinion, yet another centralised bit of political vanity. Imagine if this money was invested in walking, cycling and public transport in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds?

Update October 2023

Ten years on and this is the one post I no longer stand by, but I am leaving it up as a reminder to never trust the Institute of Economic Affairs because they are terrible people and to perhaps try and learn more about the subjects you have strong opinions on. In this case, the writings and rantings of Gareth Dennis where I have learned so much about the project in terms of how it relates capacity for local services and freight.

However, Perhaps my scepticism for the legs beyond Birmingham were well-founded given how the UK Tory government has behaved at the start of this month. I am happy to leave this up as a testament to the need to change our minds.

20mph Speed Limits, Their Design and The Police

Following a comment by a high ranking police officer, that the police do not enforce 20mph speed limits, i thought I would give some of my own views on the issue, explain the process we have for making 20mph speed limits and give some design thoughts. sorry, but this will be a long post.

As Easy As Riding A Bike reported comments made by ACC Mark Milson this week at the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group Inquiry on 4th March.

ACC Wilson, of West Yorkshire Police said:

"We are not enforcing 20mph speed limits at this moment in time"

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) hastily issued a press release soon after which stated;

"In most cases, 20 mph limits will follow Department of Transport guidance and include features such as speed bumps or traffic islands designed to slow traffic. ACPO guidelines include thresholds for enforcement across all speed limits to underpin a consistent policing approach. However it is for local police forces to apply a proportionate approach to enforcement of 20mph limits based on risk to individuals, property and the seriousness of any breach. Where drivers are exceeding the speed limit through wilful offending, we would expect that officers will enforce the limit and prosecute offenders."

This has now been followed up by the ACPO lead for roads policing, Chief Constable Suzette Davenport (Gloucestershire). In a letter to the Inquiry as follows;

Clarification of the ACPO position on 20 miles per hour speed limits

I write further to the recent All‐Party Parliamentary Cycling group evidence session on ‘Get Britain Cycling’. ACC Mark Milsom represented the ACPO roads policing portfolio to address the group’s questions from a policing perspective.

"Following a very specific line of questioning on the subject, we believe the police service position on the issue 20 mph speed limits requires further clarification. For accuracy, we would be grateful if you would reflect this correspondence in written evidence for your eventual report.

We can clearly state that it is incorrect to say that police officers are not enforcing 20mph speed limits.

20mph zones are predominantly introduced in residential areas where road safety has been raised as an issue by those who live locally. The approach of neighbourhood policing teams in every community is built around ensuring that local crime and disorder issues and concerns are identified, so that a police force delivers an appropriate policing response. This applies to enforcement of 20mph zones as to any other area of policing.

Police and Crime Commissioners are now responsible for setting strategic policing priorities for each police force and in areas where 20mph zones are a local concern, may include enforcement within local policing plans.

In most cases, 20 mph limits will follow Department of Transport guidance and include ‘road calming’ features such as speed bumps or traffic islands designed to slow traffic. Wherever possible, we agree with the Department of Transport that 20mph zones should be ‘self‐enforcing’ through the use of such features. The guidance states:

“Successful 20 mph zones and 20 mph speed limits are generally self‐enforcing, i.e. the existing conditions of the road together with measures such as traffic calming or signing, publicity and information as part of the scheme, lead to a mean traffic speed compliant with the speed limit.

To achieve compliance there should be no expectation on the police to provide additional enforcement beyond their routine activity, unless this has been explicitly agreed.”

ACPO speed enforcement guidelines (attached to this letter) include thresholds for enforcement across all speed limits, intended to underpin a consistent policing approach. Within that framework local police forces will take a responsible and proportionate approach to enforcement of 20mph limits based on their assessment of risk to individuals, property and the seriousness of any breach. Where drivers are regularly and wilfully breaking the law we would expect that officers will enforce the limit and prosecute offenders.

I trust that this sets out our position clearly. Please do not hesitate to contact us for further information."

ACPO's speed enforcement guidelines can be downloaded here, but there is a table which essentially gives a guide to what speed thresholds will be enforced and what will happen and I have reproduced it below;

I am going to concentrate on the 20mph speed limit here, the rest is another debate, but essentially, my impression of this is that you are fine to drive at just under 25mph or 25% above the speed limit. If you are caught above this, then you will get a fine and 3 points.

If you are caught at 35mph or 75% about the speed limit, then you have the summons to appear before the magistrate. My view has to be that speed limits are just that. They are not targets, they are maximums. 

I accept that speedometers are not 100% accurate and there is room for error, but anyone with a driving licence can surely manage to not put themselves into a fixed penalty situation? What about 35mph - I am not sure that is a speeding offence any more. It must be more serious and this speed has been reached by choice, surely?

What is ACPO?

Before I go on, it is worth explaining what ACPO is. It is essentially a professional institution for senior police officers at ranks of Assistant Chief Constable or higher (Commander in the Metropolitan and City Police) plus senior police staff equivalents (a total of 334 members). It is kind of akin to the professional engineering institutions I link on my homepage. Like ACPO, these institutions represent a profession of members rather than a representing people like a union or staff association would.

Like the professional engineering institutions, one of ACPO's roles is to give guidance and leadership to its members. Roads policing and therefore the speed enforcement guidance is one of these things it provides. Of course, guidance is not the law and any speed above the limit is technically an offence. 

However, the government has essentially co-opted this guidance as the de facto way in which the law is enforced. ACPO does not make the law, it suggests practical ways in which it can be enforced and stuffing the courts full of people driving at 23mph in a 20mph Zone is clearly daft.

Of course, ACPO should not be making policy - that is the Government's job and I wonder if ACPO have too much of a say.


The joke of all of this is that the police are suggesting (despite the back pedal) that they are not too interested in supporting 20mph speed limits unless the guidance is slavishly followed. I cannot see what the problem is, if we are looking at urban areas which are residential, high street and business park type arrangements, whether 30mph or 20mph, there are still the same number of roads for the police to enforce the law on, or is it that they don't bother too much with speed enforcement full stop? Are they worried about the "war on the motorist"? Is ACPO and the Home Office too cosy? Perhaps they are too busy playing poker (sorry, this is our current office joke about the police who do suggest that everything is down to the council to deal with!).

What is a 20mph speed limit?

A bit of history first (here is a good general background to speed limits). 30mph as the default urban speed limit was created by the Road Traffic Act 1934. Before that, the default urban limit changed from a bloke with a red flag walking in front of the vehicle to 20mph, then no limit and then the RTA1934. So, 30mph has been the default for nearly 80 years!

Confusingly, we have two kinds of 20mph speed limits. We have 20mph Zones and 20mph limits. 

Limits are provided with terminal signs (the signs as you travel in and out of the limit as expected elsewhere) and smaller repeater signs. Department for Transport Guidance, "Setting Local Speed Limits" (which I have commented on before) suggests that if traffic is already at 24mph or below (just under the ACPO fixed penalty threshold!), then limits are more likely to be successful as drivers will essentially slow down to the lower limit. 24mph will be the 85th percentile speed (i.e. 85% of traffic will be travelling at 24mph or lower) which is speed highway engineers select to cover most situations, although the latest guidance is looking at average speeds which will be a lower value.

20mph Zones are generally used to treat an area (but not exclusively) and rely on traffic calming (this links to a really old piece of guidance!) to force traffic speeds down to 20mph (or at least 24mph, so people don't get nicked). I have designed 20mph Zones and seen many go in. The problem I still have with them is as they often still allow through traffic, heavy traffic calming is needed which is no fun as a cycle user.

How to make a 20mph limit or Zone

This a pretty simple process. So, your current urban speed limit is 30mph, a roads with this is also known as a "restricted road". It is 30mph because it is lit, you only need signs where you enter or leave this speed limit and in the absence of anything to the contrary a road is 30mph by default. This is contained in S81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act. Compare with an unlit road, where the National Speed Limit applies (60mph for cars). Any change from that arrangement requires a Traffic Regulation Order.

Any change from the default 30mph urban speed limit requires a Traffic Regulation Order made under S84 of the RTRA1984 and this includes 20mph limits and Zones. To implement a TRO, a highway authority gives public notice of its proposals, consults certain organisations and anyone else the highway authority sees fit. This is covered in the snappily titled The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedures)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (sorry Scotland!). The Act is what you do, the Regulations are how you do it.

After a period of notice and consultation, the highway authority can then decide if it wishes to proceed with implementing the TRO. There will be a committee (or board - such as TfL) decision or political sign-off procedure for the highway authority. 

The highway authority then "seals" the TRO which is literally the olde worlde seal of the Council stuck on the original paper version of the TRO which is then dated as coming into force and signed by an elected person (often a mayor) and a designated officer (often a senior council solicitor). The highway authority then advertises a further notice that the TRO is coming into force on the correct date and the new speed limit can be enforced (hopefully the scheme will be built and the speed limit signs uncovered on the right day!). There are processes to challenge decisions, but this is even more dull than this post so far!

Design of 20mph limits and Zones

Chapter 3 - Mmmmm purple...

This is the more interesting and creative bit of course. If I wanted to play with TROs all day, I would have become a solicitor! 

20mph limits are straight forward. You stick the right signs (sometimes lit) in the right places (page 105 onwards in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual will help). 

You will also need the odd repeater sign or road marking and there you have it (a tiny bit more involved, but that's my day job). The whole process is simple, not particularly costly and that is why many highway authorities such as Portsmouth, Camden and Islington are putting in blanket 20mph speed limits.

20mph Zones were often used around schools and will have road humps or other physical features to slow the traffic. For example, if simple round-top humps are installed every 60 metres, I will pretty much guarantee traffic speeds will be within 20mph. The trouble is, if this is a through route, then it will still be traffic dominated, horrible for cycling and humps cost about £3k a go.

Below is a diagram of an estate which had a 20mph Zone installed several years ago and yes, I was involved as a local authority engineer. It is a little stylised, but the important elements are the trunk road (red) running east to west at the top, the local A-road (green) running east to west at the bottom, the local A-road (green) running north to south (west of the estate) which connects the trunk road to the other A road and the local road to the west of the estate which connects the trunk road to the east-west local A-road. The junctions with the trunk road are both signalised and all movements permitted. 

The local A-roads in London are part of the London Strategic Road Network (SRN) and the trunk roads in London are part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). You will see a roundabout at the confluence of the two local A-roads and this is the edge of the local town centre.

In terms of traffic, the trunk road is busy going west in the morning and busy going east in the afternoon. The roundabout at the edge of the town centre is busy much of the day as traffic heads towards it in the morning and away in the evening. The road to the east of the estate is busy heading away from the trunk road in the morning and busy towards it in the evening.

The estate within the four roads around the edge is the 20mph Zone and speeds are controlled with road humps which pepper the area. There is also a primary school in the middle of the estate and being a faith school, its catchment has many pupils driven in from an area beyond the trunk road and A-roads, but many local children walk to the school too.

In taking the scheme forward, the entire estate was consulted along with the school, the emergency services (no bus routes involved) and the decision to proceed was taken by a committee. There was good local support for the scheme, but almost immediately after installation, some residents started complaining that people were still speeding, they wanted more humps, higher humps etc. A few tweaks were made to add some humps, but it has been operating for several years unchanged. 

The scheme was originally proposed because of casualties within the estate as a whole and long-term, there have been no other casualties. So, it was generally successful from that point of view and was the kind of thing we did a few years ago.

The problem I have with the scheme looking back, is that because of the congestion on the main roads and the road to the east, the area is still a rat-run during the weekday peaks and indeed at weekends (shopping traffic). It was a rat run before the scheme, it is just that people now rat-run a bit slower and are not having crashes which hurt people any more.

In my Rethinking the Little Things post, I discussed limiting vehicle movements to stop rat-running and so I have looked at the "traditional" layout with this in mind to achieve the same reduction in speed, but without stuffing the area full of humps. 

This plan shows the same estate with several roads closed to through traffic, but with cycle users still catered for. There are either loops or turning heads for refuse/ delivery lorries, although they may be a little more inconvenient for them to use.

I have kept a few (about a third) of the humps in order to manage the behaviour of the inevitable few residents and visitors who will speed, but the older style layout will be more self-enforcing as the rat-runners have been removed and those using the roads have a reason to be there.

Of course, humps are not the universal answer. We could put entry treatments in on the main road junctions or speed tables across whole junctions in the zone. We would also want a few 20mph logos painted on the road surface. Essentially, a simpler and better scheme could be provided for the same cost and it would not only deal with casualties, but remove rat-running and make the area more civilised for walking and cycling. I would also argue that the estate is subjectively more safe and this would be very useful to those walking the school who may have more fear of traffic.

There are negative impacts. The rat-running traffic will be forced to use the congested main roads (which could affect walking and cycling on those), getting in and out of the estate roads may be more difficult and this could create casualty problems elsewhere.

There is detailed guidance in S6.1 of the DfT guidance "Setting Local Speed Limits (linked above) on what constitutes traffic calming and this is far more relaxed that was set out previously. The new guidance allows use of signs and road markings (stating "20") as features in a 20mph Zone and very few physical measures are now needed - but as my example sets out, they may still be needed.

Controversy

The use of 20mph speed limits and zones have been controversial with considered and objective reporting in respected technical journals such as the Daily Mail and The Sun plus those representing "Britain's beleaguered drivers", the Association Alliance of British Drivers. 

Actually, with ABD, I cannot find out how many members it has as it doesn't turn up in any search on their website (which is frankly deranged and misses the point on 20mph as a speed limit), but Wikipedia reports that it may not be particularly high. 

The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT) of which I am a Fellow, on the other hand proudly states that it has over 12,000 members on its website home page. CIHT recently responded to the revised guidance on setting speed limits I linked to above and in response to it being published, welcomed the guidance, but suggested that because of the limited experience of installing blanket 20mph limits, this needed to be kept under review. 

Although I would like CIHT to be a bit bolder sometimes, its views are formed from debate by technical boards and through its (+12,000!) membership and so I would suggest it provides more thoughtful and measured observations than the headline chasing press and unrepresentative nutters such as the ABD.

Some of the press coverage linked to above cries out at casualties increasing in areas with a 20mph limit - duh! If we take a town with 7 20mph Zones and 1 injury in each of them, that is 7 injuries at 20mph. If the town then triples the number of 20mph Zones to 21 and the casualty rate stays the same (1 per zone), then casualties in 20mph zones triples to 21! Of course, if the rate drops to 0.5 per zone (on average), then with 21 zones, we have 10.5 injuries at 20mph which is still more than when we started, but a good result - I hope you understand my clumsy explanation!

With more people walking and cycling on streets with 20mph limits, quality of life will improve and when we get more experience and data, I am convinced they will prove effective in the longer term. But, we need to get the engineering right and close those rat runs!