Scrutiny of the impact of
traffic calming measures
on emergency services
vehicles and other road
users
October 2006
Report of
The Road Safety & Traffic
Calming Topic Group
For further information please contact:
Head of Scrutiny
Hertfordshire County Council
County Hall
Hertford
SG13 8DE
Tel: 01992 555300
1
Contents
Executive Summary
2
Findings and Recommendations
3
Glossary of Terms
4
1.
Introduction
6
2.
Traffic calming as a road safety tool
7
Purpose and Policy
7
Benefits and Disadvantages
3.
7
Consultation Process
10
The Process
10
Consultation History
11
4.
Views of the emergency services
12
Police
12
Fire & Rescue
12
Ambulance & Paramedic Service
13
Legal Advice
14
5.
Evidence from other road users
14
Hertfordshire Cyclists’ Touring Club
14
Motorcycle Action Group
15
IHIE Guidelines for Motorcyclists
15
6.
16
Barnet & GLA Inquiry Reports
Barnet Revised Transport Strategy & GLA Scrutiny
16
Pressure to remove Traffic Calming Schemes
16
7.
Education
16
8.
Conclusions
17
Appendix 1 – Membership & list of Meetings
18
Appendix 2 – Types of Traffic Calming Measures
20
Appendix 3 – Consultation details
25
Appendix 4 – Herts Highways Draft TRO Guidelines
27
Appendix 5 – Emergency Service Data
33
Appendix 6 – Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1996
34
Appendix 7 – London Borough of Barnet Transport Strategy
45
Appendix 8 – Greater London Authority (GLA) Report
46
1
Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic Group
Executive Summary
The Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic group was established by the Environment
Scrutiny Committee to:

Determine whether traffic calming measures cause undue delay to emergency
services vehicles when responding to emergencies

Consider if Hertfordshire County Council has the right balance of investment
between education, engineering and enforcement
One of the driving factors was a suggestion by a representative of the Beds & Herts
Ambulance & Paramedic Service at a meeting of the joint Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire
& Luton Health Scrutiny Committee that road humps slow ambulances down whilst
they are responding to emergency calls.
The Topic Group decided to tackle their remit in two phases, concentrating initially on
the perception of delays to emergency service vehicles. As it was evident very early
on in their investigation that there needs to be a balance between:

Accident reduction and speed reductions that may slow down emergency service
vehicles whilst reducing the number of calls they respond to

The benefits of some traffic calming measures such a speed cushions to
emergency service vehicles and their impact on other road users such as cyclists
and motor cyclists
the Topic Group also took evidence from other road users.
This report outlines the findings and recommendations of the Group in respect of the
impact of traffic calming measures on emergency services and other road users. It
also concludes that there would be limited value for money in undertaking any further
research into the balance of resources between education and engineering
measures.
The Topic Group would like to thank officers from within the Environment
Department, the Police, Fire & Rescue and Ambulance & Paramedic Services for
their willingness to provide evidence and information. In particular it would also like to
place on record its appreciation to Margaret Wood of the Hertfordshire Cyclists’
Touring Club and Brian Shewy of the Motorcycle Action Group for their important
contribution to the Group’s work which has informed both the findings &
recommendations in this report and the potential ongoing work programme.
An interim report was made to the meeting of the Environment Committee on 20
June 2006 which endorsed recommendations 2 & 4 below. The final version of this
first report will be presented to the Committee at its meeting on the 17 October 2006.
2
Findings
1.
Traffic calming measures are an effective road safety tool that do not cause
undue damage to vehicles travelling at an appropriate speed, although
requiring a balance between the potential benefits and disadvantages to a
range of road users, including the emergency services.
2.
Bearing in mind the need to balance safety improvements against some
potential delays to ambulance & fire vehicles, there was surprise at the lack of
responses to the formal consultation by the Beds & Herts Ambulance and
Paramedic Service and Hertfordshire Fire & Rescue Service.
3.
The measures taken by Hertfordshire Highways to clarify and record the
engagement of all emergency services during the informal consultation
process are welcomed.
4.
The involvement of the Police during the design and informal consultation
process is satisfactory.
5.
The lack of response from BHAPS to formal consultation and the lack of any
reference to involvement of BHAPS during informal consultation within Herts
Highways guidance documents left some local highway engineers unaware
of BHAPS’ general preference for speed cushions.
6.
There is no value to be added from further consideration of the Barnet
Revised Transport Strategy and GLA Scrutiny reports.
7.
There is no need to change in HCC’s policy for responding to any requests to
remove traffic calming measures.
Recommendations
1.
The Overview & Scrutiny Committee should receive an update in March 2007
of the outcome and implementation of the review of formal and informal
consultation arrangements between Herts Fire & Rescue Service and Herts
Highways.
2.
The East of England Regional Ambulance and Hertfordshire Fire & Rescue
Services should nominate a central point of contact for formal consultation
and local contacts for engagement during the informal process and ensure
that engagement takes place.
3.
A copy of this report is sent to the Chief Executive of the East of England
Regional Ambulance Service seeking confirmation of BHAPS’ previous
support for traffic calming measures and preference for speed cushions.
4.
Herts Highways should be more proactive in seeking a response from the
Ambulance & Fire Services during both the informal and formal consultation
processes.
5.
At an appropriate time, the Highways & Transport Panel should review the
contribution made by the road safety, training & education programmes to the
Strategic Road Safety Partnership and the resources allocated to them.
3
Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic Group
Glossary of Terms
Abbreviation/term Explanation
BHAPS
Beds & Herts Ambulance & Paramedic Service
NB - during the course of the review BHAPs was amalgamated
into the new East of England Ambulance Service
BHL
The Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire & Luton Health Scrutiny
Committee whose remit was to scrutinise the performance
BHAPS. Due to the reorganisation of BHAPS into the new East
of England Ambulance and Paramedic Service, BHL is not
expected to be responsible for this in future.
Chicanes
Road narrowings located on either side of the road which slow
traffic by forcing one stream to give way to the other and
deflecting vehicles through the narrowing.
Flat topped road
humps
Humps that are 75mm high and of variable lengths.
Gateway Features
Features used to mark the entry to a place
GLA
Greater London Authority
Herts Highways
Hertfordshire Highways
Hertfordshire Highways comprises three organisations working
together to deliver the highway service in Hertfordshire. It is not
a legal partnership. The three parties are bound by contracts to
deliver the service, and have made commitments to do so by
working co-operatively, efficiently and effectively.
Hertfordshire County Council
HCC sets the policies, standards, priorities and budgets for the
service and monitors its performance.
Mouchel Parkman
MP acts as the design consultant arm of Herts Highways. They
organise on behalf of Herts Highways all consultation events,
undertake detailed costings and designs of schemes within the
allocated budget, and liaise directly with the contractor.
Amey Lafarge
AL undertakes the construction and maintenance operations
using either their own work force or sub-contractors.
IHIE
Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers
4
Abbreviation/term Explanation
Junction tables
Large flat topped humps constructed across junctions to reduce
the speed of vehicles from all approaches.
Kerb buildouts
Extensions to the footway that are constructed in similar
materials and used to reduce road widths at junctions.
Road narrowings
Width restrictions, which are used to narrow the road on
either one or both sides of the carriageway.
Round topped road Humps that stretch across the whole of the carriageway and
humps
are between 50 and 100mm high.
Speed cushions
Usually installed in pairs and consist of two square raised
areas, side by side.
Traffic islands
Islands in the centre of the road used to narrow the
carriageway
TRO
Traffic Regulation Order – see Appendix 4
VAS
Vehicle Activated Road Signs – these either flash a warning
message to slow down when vehicles exceed the speed limit
20 mph zones
Zones in residential areas with physical traffic calming
measures to ensure that speeds in the area are kept to
around 20mph.
5
Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic Group
The report
1
Introduction
1.1
The need to scrutinise road safety and
traffic calming measures was identified
following suggestions by Members and
a presentation by the Bedfordshire &
Hertfordshire
Ambulance
and
Paramedic Service (BHAPS) at the
Beds, Herts and Luton (BHL) Joint
Health Scrutiny Committee on 20 June
2005.
1.2
The BHL joint committee had noted the
Service’s views on traffic calming, and
in particular the use of road humps
which it was alleged can damage
emergency vehicles and risk patient
safety.
1.3
The subject was added to the Scrutiny
Work Programme at the meeting of the
Overview & Scrutiny Committee on the
13 September 2005 and the Topic
Group established by the Environment
Committee on 18 October 2005.
1.4
1.5
A copy of the scoping document for this
can be viewed on scrutiny pages of the
County Council’s hertsdirect web-site at
www.hertsdirect.org/scrutiny. Appendix
One
contains
details
of
the
membership of the Group and its
meetings.
Remit of the Topic Group
"To consider educational and
safety schemes (excluding safety
camera schemes which are being
looked at by a separate Topic
Group), including:
1. To clarify the issues raised by
Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire
Ambulance and Paramedic
Service (BHAPS) and to
understand the perspective of
all emergency service and their
involvement in the
implementation of traffic
calming schemes.
2. To examine the effectiveness
and deployment of different
kinds of traffic calming features.
3. To examine the effectiveness of
educational schemes and
training programmes.
4. To consider the allocation of
resources across the different
approaches to road safety i.e.
safety engineering, education
and training programmes.
Following initial presentations covering
all of its remit the Group decided to
tackle this in two phases. This report 5. To consider the role of the
County Council as an employer
therefore concentrates on the issue of
whether traffic calming measures
in relation to road safety
damage emergency service vehicles or
risk safety by causing undue delay in emergency services vehicles attending
emergencies.
6
2
Traffic calming as a road safety tool
2.1
Purpose and Policy
2.1.1 At its meeting on 30 January 2006 the Group was presented with an overview
of traffic calming measures the details of which can be found in Appendix
Two.
2.1.2 Reference was also made to the national
and local policies and guidance – for
reference purposes these are detailed in
the box opposite
2.1.3 Along with other road safety tools, such
as engineering schemes, education and
enforcement, traffic calming measures
have a particular role to play in tackling
the following:
Traffic calming policy
and guidance
• Transport White Paper The Future of Transport: a
network for 2030 (July
2004) - Transport Act
(2000)
• The second round of LTPs
 Demonstrable safety problems.
(March 2006) - The Road
 Perceived safety problems where
Traffic Act (1988)(1991)
people feel threatened by the speed
• Hertfordshire Road Safety
and volume of traffic.
Plan, (2006 – 2010)
 Too
much
traffic
considered
unsuitable for a particular street or • Hertfordshire’s Speed
area.
Management Strategy, (July
 Unacceptable disturbance from traffic
2005 )
in terms of visual intrusion, noise or air
pollution.
 Quality of life by achieving the appropriate balance of street use between
vehicles, residents, shoppers and traders.
2.2
Benefits and Disadvantages
2.2.1 The presentation referred to in 2.1.1 above included information on typical
changes expected in accidents of all severity following speed reduction due to
the introduction of traffic calming measures.
% Changes in injury accident frequency by 85% percentile speed reduction
Speed Reduction
Change in Accidents All Severities
0 – 2 mph
-10%
3 – 4 mph
-14%
5 – 6 mph
-32%
7 mph or over
-47%
7
2.2.2 Four case studies were presented to the Group and to demonstrate the
benefits than can be realised an example of the reduction in speeds following
the introduction of traffic calming measures in Oxhey is shown in the following
graph.
Green Lane & Woodwaye Traffic Calming Scheme
Southbound Before/After 85% Vehicle Speeds
45
40
85% Speed (mph)
35
30
25
Before
20
After
15
10
5
0
Green Lane site 1
Green Lane site 2
Woodwaye site 3
Location
2.2.3 There are benefits and disadvantages in respect of each type of traffic calming
measure and it is acknowledged that:
 Round topped road humps
 Flat topped road humps
 Junction tables (see photo to the right)
can cause some problems for emergency
services vehicles and buses but there is
a need to balance the safety benefits
against any marginal delays caused to
emergency services vehicles.
2.2.4 Speed cushions (see photo to the left) are
generally favoured by bus operators
and emergency services but these do
not always slow down larger vehicles
such as lorries.
2.2.5 Speed cushions are not always the
best
product
for
emergency
services/buses if it is likely that cars
will park close to them. In such
circumstances cushions may be less
suitable than road humps.
8
2.2.6 Speed cameras and vehicle activated signs
are other tools available to help control
excessive speed and reduce accidents. The
Safety Cameras Topic Group undertook a
major review of the effectiveness of safety
cameras and concluded that they are an
effective road safety tool.
Finding 4 of the Safety Camera Topic
Group
Safety Cameras are an effective tool to
help reduce accidents are not installed to
produce revenue but to reduce accidents
Vehicle Activated Road Sign
2.2.7
The needs of other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and
motorcyclists also need to be taken into account during the design of any
traffic calming measures.
2.3
Not all traffic calming schemes are installed solely on safety grounds. Most
are undertaken following representation from local residents to add to the
quality of life, e.g. to deter rat running. In some cases there can also be local
pressure to remove schemes and the potential implications associated with
this are touched on in paragraph 3.1.
2.4
The history of insurance claims against the County Council in respect of
damage caused to vehicles by road humps/road cushions etc does not
suggest there is a significant impact on vehicles that cross them at an
appropriate speed.
Table 2
Insurance claims in respect of traffic calming measures
Year
No of Claims
No of Claims Paid
Total (£)
2000
1
0
0
2001
2
1
394.00
2002
11
3
1075.00
2003
13
2
329.00
2004
10
2
272.00
2005
11
2
513,00
Total
48
10
£ 2583.00
Finding 1
Traffic calming measures are an effective road safety tool that do not cause
undue damage to vehicles travelling at an appropriate speed, although
requiring a balance between the potential benefits and disadvantages to a
range of road users, including the emergency services.
9
2.5
The Group expressed concerns over
the lack of ability for district councils
to have powers to take action
against parking on pavements
adjacent to zigzag markings
outside schools or at zebra
crossings.
It
welcomed
the
recommendation of the special
meeting of the Environment
Committee on 07 September 2006
as detailed in the box opposite.
2.6
Special
Meeting
of
Environment
Committee
September 2006
the
07
Conclusion 8 – The Committee
welcomed the prioritisation work
being undertaken with district
councils to seek road traffic orders
for zigzag markings outside of
schools and the Assistant Director's
willingness to seek support for
district councils to have powers to
take action against parking on
pavements adjacent to zigzag
markings outside schools or at
zebra crossings.
The
minutes
of
the
special
Environment Committee meeting are
available on request or can be
accessed via the County Council’s
web site at: www.hertsdirect.org/scrutiny
3
Consultation process
3.1
The process
3.1.1 Before implementing any traffic calming
scheme it requires an assessment of
the benefits to be accrued from scheme
objectives:



slowing down vehicles
reduced risk of conflicts
to satisfy public / councillor
perception
against potential disadvantages to
some road users and it is essential that
effective consultation takes place with
appropriate groups of road users.
3.1.2 Highways Authorities have a number of
mandatory responsibilities with regard
to consultation in respect of Traffic
Regulations Orders (TRO), Pedestrian
Crossings and Road Humps.
Traffic Regulation Orders
TRO Consultation Process
Stage 1
Informal consultation carried out by
the project team, developer or
development control engineer prior
to the submission of a request to
Herts Highways TRO Team for a
TRO to be promoted.
Stage 2
Formal statutory consultation is
carried out by Herts Highways TRO
Team. It consists of sending to the
relevant bodies, under a covering
letter, copies of the draft Public
Notice
Order,
Statement
of
Reasons and Plans (see Appendix
3 for example copies of letters sent
to each of the emergency services).
Section 6(1) of the Local Authorities’
Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England
and Wales) Regulations 1996 specifies whom shall be consulted before
making an order (a copy of Regulation 6(1) can be found in Appendix 3)
10
Pedestrian Crossings
Regulation 23(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 imposes a
requirement upon the Highway Authority to consult the Chief Officer of Police
before establishing, altering or removing a crossing.
Road Humps
Regulation 3 of The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 specifies that
the Highway Authority shall consult the Chief Officer of Police, Chief Officer of
the Fire Service and Chief Officer of the Ambulance Service.
3.1.3 The consultation process used by HCC’s
highway engineers includes both informal
and formal procedures for consulting
emergency services, local residents &
businesses etc and are detailed in the
Herts Highways TRO guidelines – see
box opposite and paragraph 3.2.4 below.
3.1.4 The Herts Highways TRO Guidelines
gives guidance as to the various ways in
which informal consultation may be
conducted, but the method adopted is a
matter for the scheme instigator.
3.2
The Herts Highways Traffic
Regulations Order Guidelines
form part of the Herts Highways
Integrated Management System
and available to all highways
engineers
involved
in
the
development of traffic calming
schemes (see Appendix 4)
Consultation History
3.2.1 An audit of the response from the
three emergency services to
formal consultation in respect of
212 permanent Traffic Regulation
Orders between September 2004
to 31 March 2006 indicate that the
Fire & Rescue and Ambulance &
Paramedic Services did not
always
respond
to
formal
consultation.
Finding 2
Bearing in mind the need to balance
safety improvements against some
potential delays to ambulance & fire
vehicles, there was surprise at the lack
of responses to the formal consultation
by the Beds & Herts Ambulance and
Paramedic Service and Hertfordshire
Fire & Rescue Service.
3.2.2
Twenty of the 212 TROs involved road humps and the Group requested
information on the informal consultations carried out in respect of each of
these. None of this information is held centrally and the Group accepted that
extracting this would be too resource intensive and therefore considered a
case-study in respect of Shephall Way, Stevenage (A Safer Routes to School
project).
3.2.3
Whilst there had been informal consultation by letter in respect of the case
study following the discussion with highways engineers the Group was not
satisfied that there was always adequate engagement of the Ambulance &
Paramedic or the Fire & Rescue Services during informal consultation.
3.2.4
The Hertfordshire Highways TRO
Guidelines
is
included
in
Appendix 4. These do propose
informal consultation with all
emergency services but the form
used to record the process
suggest a variety of approaches
11
Finding 3
The measures taken by Hertfordshire
Highways to clarify and record the
engagement of all emergency services
during the informal consultation
process are welcomed.
is adopted. The form is being adapted so that the engineers must clearly
confirm that they have consulted.
3.2.5
Following the case study more detailed work has been undertaken and a
number of reasons identified for the inadequate level of engagement between
Herts Highways and the Fire & Rescue Service. It has been agreed between
all parties that a comprehensive review of both the formal and informal
consultation processes needs to be undertaken.
Recommendation 1
The Overview & Scrutiny Committee should receive an update in March
2007 of the outcome and implementation of the review of formal and
informal consultation arrangements between Herts Fire & rescue Service
and Herts Highways.
4
Views of the emergency services
4.1
Police
4.1.1 The Group received evidence from PC Andrew Chittenden from Hertfordshire
Constabulary and was satisfied that there is a close working relationship
between the police and Hertfordshire Highways enabling them to work
together during the informal consultation stage. This allows the Police to
consider whether the proposed calming measure is going to do what it is
designed to do and they often have a site visit with the engineer.
Finding 4
The involvement of the Police during the design and informal consultation
process is satisfactory
4.2
Fire & Rescue
4.2.1 Written evidence has been received indicating that Hertfordshire Fire and
Rescue Service support traffic calming measures across the county to reduce
speed and subsequent accidents. Their preference is for schemes that
reduce speed without the use of speed humps, i.e. chicanes. However, it is
accepted that this is not always possible and in such cases they would prefer
the use of speed cushions. Where neither chicanes nor cushions are
practicable it is accepted that speed humps may be required.
4.2.2 TRO consultation letters are usually addressed to the Chief Fire Officer and
do not always find the appropriate person within the Service. This is now
being addressed and discussions have taken place between the Service and
Hertfordshire Highways to improve involvement during the informal
consultation phase.
12
4.3
Ambulance & Paramedic Service
4.3.1 The Group received evidence from
Oskan Edwardson, the then
Director
of
Performance
Management and Mike Bartlett,
Fleet Manager Beds & Herts
Ambulance & Paramedic Service
(BHAPS).
4.3.2 The key issue for BHAPS was their
target response time of 8 minutes
for Category A (life threatening)
calls. The VF Survival Time Graph
(shown above) illustrates the chance
of survival for cardiac arrests drops by 10% per additional minute after 8
minutes. Information on BHAPS’ emergency response times for 2005/06 can
be found in Appendix 4.
4.3.3 The travel mode used by BHAPS relies on the road network and traffic
calming measures directly affect the speed in which vehicles can travel to
emergencies. BHAPS were concerned this can have a direct effect on
survival rates. At the same time road safety measures, including traffic
calming, reduce the number of accidents that BHAPS had to respond to. The
Service therefore supports the need for traffic calming measures.
4.3.4 BHAPS ambulances are fitted with air suspension units at the rear of the
vehicles with an associated cost of £3k per ambulance. This is to control the
type of ride for the patient and to enable treatment to be delivered in the rear
of the vehicle. It was noted that 10-12% of faults with ambulances are
suspension related.
4.3.5 Ambulances are fitted with Satellite Navigation and drivers are familiar with
local roads and are therefore able to select routes accordingly.
4.3.6 The Group also questioned the BHAPS representatives as to whether serious
spinal injuries are compounded by speed humps and were informed that
anything to do with the road surface will have an impact on the quality of
travel. Speed and stability are the key points for BHAPS.
4.3.7 In view of the benefits outlined in paragraph 4.3.3 BHAPS was generally
supportive of traffic calming measures but has a preference for speed
cushions as they enable ambulances to maintain a higher speed.
4.3.8 The rationale for BHAPS not responding to formal consultations was that they
had previously written to Herts Highways expressing their support but they
acknowledged that they should be involved in both formal and informal
consultation processes.
Finding 5
Recommendation 2
The lack of response from BHAPS to
formal consultation and the lack of any
reference to involvement of BHAPS
during informal consultation within Herts
Highways guidance documents left some
local highway engineers unaware of
BHAPS general preference for speed
cushions.
East of England Regional
Ambuance and Hertfordshire
Fire & Rescue Services
should nominate a central
point of contact for formal
consultation
and
local
contacts for engagement
during the informal process
13
4.3.9 BHAPS representatives also informed the
Group BHAPS had noticed a significant
increase in the number of punctures on
vehicles in the past year and that pot holes
in the highway could be a contributory
factor to this.
4.3.10 As BHAPS was amalgamated into the new
East of England Regional Ambulance
Service during the course of the Group’s
investigation, it was agreed that a copy of
the final report be sent to the Chief
Executive of the new service requesting
that they confirm BHAPS previous support
for
traffic
calming
measures
and
preference for speed cushions.
4.4
Recommendation 3
A copy of this report be sent
to the Chief Executive of the
East of England Regional
Ambulance Service seeking
confirmation
of
BHAPS’
previous support for traffic
calming
measures
and
preference
for
speed
cushions.
Legal Advice
4.4.1 Advice was taken from legal representatives within the County Secretary’s
Dept in respect of the legal requirements
for consultation. This concluded that whilst Recommendation 4
HCC currently complies with the letter of
Herts Highways should be
legal requirements it would be better if
there was a more proactive approach to more proactive in seeking a
ensuring responses from ambulance & fire response from the Ambulance
& Fire Services during both
during both the formal & informal process.
the informal and formal
consultation processes
5
5.1
Evidence from other road
users
Hertfordshire Cyclists’ Touring Club
5.1.1 Margaret Wood attended the Topic Group on behalf of the Hertfordshire
Cyclists’ Touring Club to provide an insight into traffic calming measures from
a cyclist’s perspective. The following points were raised:
 Speed cushions do not provide enough room at the side of the road for
bicycles with trailers or tricycles, both of which have an axle width of 84cm
 Inexperienced cyclists find traffic calming measures difficult to contend with
on busy roads
 It was noted that cycle routes on footways are regularly ignored by
pedestrians
 Overbanding around repairs to traffic calming measures can cause
problems for cyclists
 Road surfaces are an important factor when considering road safety for
cyclists. Pot holes and loose chippings can be particularly problematic for
cyclists.
5.1.2 It was noted that Hertfordshire has become one of the first accredited Cycle
Instructor Training Providers as part of the new National Cycle Training
Standard. The Group was informed that a presentation would be made by
Phil Liggett, President of the CTC on 9 June 2006 in the Ballroom at County
Hall.
14
5.2
Motorcycle Action Group
5.2.1 Brian Shewry attended the Topic Group meeting on behalf of the Motorcycle
Action Group to discuss the impact of traffic calming on motorcyclists.
5.2.2 It was noted that a number of the issues highlighted by the cyclist
organisation have a similar impact on motorcyclists. However the following
additional issues were raised:
 Road markings associated with road humps cause problems when faded
or worn away.
 Adhesion is often a problem with mini roundabouts and block paving
humps, especially in the wet
 Road humps and cushions placed near bends affect the line that
motorcyclists take around them and cause additional problems
 It was noted that casualty rates for middle aged males on motorbikes is
increasing nationally
 Future involvement in the consultation process would be welcomed by the
motorcyclist organisations
 Generally motorcyclists are happy with traffic calming measures as long as
they are well maintained and visibility of signs is good.
5.2.3 It was noted that tables showing a breakdown of collisions and casualties will
be published on the Herts Direct website around the end of September.
5.2.4 The Tropic Group’s attention was drawn to information in the Highways (Road
Humps) Regulations 1996 Traffic Advisory Leaflet 07/96 as modified October
11 2005. This suggests that where there are cyclists present it would seem
preferable to increase the channel width between the kerb and the hump to
create a cycle lane. A full copy of the guidance is attached as Appendix 6 and
the Group were informed that this guidance is used as appropriate by
Hertfordshire Highways engineers in the design of schemes.
5.3
IHIE Guidelines for Motorcyclists
5.3.1 To include guidelines as an appendix plus finding and/or recommendation
that the impact of traffic calming measures and actions that could be taken to
accommodate motorcyclists’ needs should form part of any ongoing work
programme.
 are the same maintenance standards applied to road markings on road
humps etc as to normal road markings
 should more be done in respect of education of particular groups
 do we give highways engineers sufficient training in the needs of particular
road users
 is there an adequate appreciation by highway engineers of the need to
balance the different targets facing HCC e.g. accident reduction, green
travel, emergency response etc.
15
6
Barnet & GLA Inquiry Reports
6.1
Barnet Revised Transport Strategy & GLA Scrutiny
6.1.1 A copy of the London Borough of Barnet Revised Transport Strategy is
attached as Appendix 7, with a copy of the GLA’s chair’s foreword and the
GLA report included as Appendix 8.
6.1.2 Topic Group members noted that the
position in Barnet was not one in which
there would be a complete removal of
all traffic calming measures. Rather
that each location would be reviewed
as and when resurfacing work was
undertaken.
6.1.3 In view of the conflicting nature of the
two reports, the Group did not consider
there to be any value added in further
investigation of these issues.
6.2
6.2.1
Finding 6
There is no value to be added
from further consideration of the
Barnet
Revised
Transport
Strategy and GLA Scrutiny
reports.
Pressure to remove Traffic Calming Schemes
Some members of the Group had experienced similar pressures from local
residents to those experienced in Barnet and elsewhere, to remove existing
traffic calming schemes.
6.2.2 The Topic Group took further evidence from Phillipa Tate, a barrister
employed in the County Secretary’s Department, to establish the legal
position in respect of responding to requests to remove schemes, particularly
those which were not installed on safety grounds.
6.2.3 There is no legal barrier to prevent a highways authority from removing traffic
calming measures. However a number of factors would need to be
considered including:
 value for money in public expenditure in removing schemes recently
developed using public money

risk assessment
The risk assessment would include the provision of an alternative measure
where a scheme had initially been put in place for safety measures.
6.2.4
7
7.1.1
Following consideration of all these
factors, the Group did not consider
there was a need to recommend any
change in policy by the County Council
in respect of the response to any
requests to remove traffic calming
measures.
Education
At an early stage during its
deliberations
the
Group
received a presentation from
Theresa Casbard, Head of
16
Finding 7
There is no need to change in
HCC’s policy for responding to
any requests to remove traffic
calming measures.
Road Safety
Hertfordshire.
on
educational,
training
&
publicity
programmes
in
7.1.2
Whilst it is very difficult to assess the direct casualty reduction benefits
accrued from such road safety education programmes, the Group were
supportive of the need for them. In particular, they were keen that
Hertfordshire continues to learn from best practice elsewhere in the country.
7.1.3
At its final meeting the Group was informed that a Strategic Road Safety
Partnership had been formed comprising Hertfordshire County Council,
Hertfordshire Constabulary, Hertfordshire Fire & Rescue Service, Health
Trusts and the Highways Agency. This is likely to be extended to include
other agencies in due course.
7.1.4
At its final meeting the Group reviewed its remit and in particular considered
whether any further investigations were required into the balance of
resources allocated between road safety education and engineering
measures. It concluded that with recent establishment of the Strategic Road
Safety Partnership that it would not be a valuable use of the Committee’s
work programme to undertake further scrutiny of this at present. The
contribution that the road safety education, training & publicity programmes
makes to the work of the Partnership in reducing accidents should be valued
Recommendation 5
At an appropriate time, the Highways & Transport Panel should review the
contribution made by the road safety, training & education programmes to
the Strategic Road Safety Partnership and the resources allocated to
them.
and the resources allocated to this should be reviewed by the Highways &
Transport Panel at an appropriate time.
8
Conclusions
8.1
The Topic Group task was to undertake a review of very important aspects of
road safety and in particular, to establish whether traffic-calming measures
created undue delays to emergency services vehicles. This was found not to
be the case. Nor were road humps or speed cushions found to cause
damage to vehicles travelling at an appropriate speed.
8.2
In the course of its work the Group identified a number of learning points,
particularly in respect of the consultation processes between Hertfordshire
Highways and both the Ambulance and Fire & Rescue Services.
8.3
Traffic Calming measures were found to be an effective tool in reducing both
excessive speed and accidents whilst requiring a balance between these
benefits and the needs of road users. This will only be achieved by effective
communication and consultation and the Group are satisfied that the revised
guidance being used by traffic engineers within Hertfordshire Highways will
help achieve this.
8.4
The availability of a full toolkit of enforcement, engineering and education
measures to all those involved in designing, implementing and promoting
road safety measures is vital if Hertfordshire is to continue to see an
improvement in continued success in reducing accidents on its extremely
busy road network.
17
Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic Group
Appendix 1 – Membership & list of Meetings
Membership
The following County Councillors were appointed to the Topic Group:
Roy Clements (Chairman – Con)
Sally Newton (Con)
John Usher (Con)
Nigel Agar (Lab)
Steve Drury (Lib)
Steve Rackett (Green)
To provide independent support David Moses, Head of Scrutiny, acted as the Lead
Officer. Administrative support was provided by the County Secretary’s Democratic
Services Section.
List of meetings
Minutes of the meetings of the Topic Group can be
www.hertsdirect.org/hccmeetings. Meetings took place as follows:
obtained
30 January 2006
Location: County Hall, Hertford:
 appointment of Chairman
 presentations regarding:
-
Traffic Calming Engineering
-
Education Training and Publicity
-
Promoting Road Safety with Employees of Hertfordshire County Council
 establishment of work programme
6 April 2006
Location: County Hall, Hertford:
 presentations from:
-
Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance and Paramedic Service
-
Hertfordshire Highways
-
Hertfordshire Police Constabulary
 work programme
18
from
12 May 2006
Location: County Hall, Hertford:
 information on the informal and formal consultation processes in respect of the 20
road hump traffic regulation orders reported at the last meeting
 evidence from Hertfordshire Cyclists’ Touring Club
 evidence from the Motorcycle Action Group
 Barnet and GLA inquiry reports
26 May 2006
Location: County Hall, Hertford:
 Traffic Calming Measure Installation Case Study
 IHIE Guidelines for Motorcycling
 Hertfordshire Claim Liability for Traffic Calming Measures Removal
 Legality Issues Associated with the Removal of Traffic Calming Measures
09 October 2006
Location: County Hall, Hertford
 Consultation with Herts Fire & Rescue Service
 Barnet & GLA reports
 Issues associated with requests to remove traffic calming measures]
 Finalising the Groups report
19
Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic Group
Appendix 2 – Types of Traffic Calming Measures
Round Topped Road Humps
Round topped road humps stretch across the whole of the carriageway and are
between 50 and 100mm high.
Advantages
 Affective at reducing speeds
 Self enforcing
 Do not affect parking
 Relatively cheap
 Can discourage through traffic if
sufficient in number
Disadvantages
 Can create increased road noise
 Can cause problems for buses and
emergency vehicles
Effectiveness
When positioned 70m apart average speeds of 15mph can be achieved using 75mm
round top humps.
Flat Topped Road Humps
Flat topped road humps are 75mm high and are variable lengths.
Advantages
 Effective at reducing vehicles
speeds
 Self enforcing
 Does not affect parking
 Helpful to pedestrians
 Can discourage through traffic if
sufficient in number
Disadvantages
 Can create increased road noise
 More expensive than round
topped road humps
 Can cause problems for buses
and emergency vehicles
Effectiveness
When positioned 70m apart average speeds of 20mph can be achieved using 75mm
flat topped humps.
20
Junction Tables
Junction tables are large flat topped humps constructed across junctions to reduce
the speed of vehicles from all approaches.
Advantages
 Reduces
vehicle
speeds
at
junctions
 Highlights junctions to motorists
 Provide a level crossing place for
pedestrians
Disadvantages
 Pedestrians may not take care
when crossing tables
 Can cause problems for buses and
emergency vehicles
 Vehicles may over run the footway
Effectiveness
When used as a measure in a 20mph zone or gateway feature they can reduce
vehicle speeds to 20mph.
Speed Cushions
Speed cushions slow down cars whilst causing minimal inconvenience to buses and
emergency vehicles. They are usually installed in pairs and consist of two square
raised areas, side by side.
Advantages
 Effective at reducing car speeds
 Less visually intrusive than road
humps
 Preferred by bus operators and
emergency services
 Preferred by cyclists (not according
to Margaret Wood)
 Can discourage through traffic if
sufficient in number
Disadvantages
 Affects parking
 Need accurate design and siting
 Some ambulances are adversely
affected
 Does not slow down larger vehicles
e.g. lorries
Effectiveness
Dependant on their height and width, cushions spaced less than 70m apart can result
in average speeds in the region of 25mph.
21
Road Narrowings
Road narrowings are width restrictions, which are used to narrow the road on either
one or both sides of the carriageway.
Advantages
 Reduces
crossing
width
for
pedestrians
 Restricts traffic flow and speeds
 Highlights hazardous sites e.g
school
Disadvantages
 May cause conflicts
 Requires greater levels of driver
skill to negotiate
 Careful signing essential
 Needs adequate forward visibility
Effectiveness
Average speed reductions of 5mph or more has been recorded at these features.
However, vehicles can still be driven at high speeds if there is no opposing traffic
flow.
Kerb Buildouts
Kerb buildouts are extensions to the footway and are constructed in similar materials.
They are used to reduce road widths at junctions.
Advantages
 Reduce crossing difficulties
 Restrict traffic speeds
 Can prevent unsafe parking
Disadvantages
 Usually need bollards to ensure
cars do not park on them
 Can cause difficulties for cyclists
 May be hit in poor weather or at
night (Not happy with this
wording)
Effectiveness
Average speed reductions of 5mph or more have been recorded at these features.
However, vehicles can still be driven at high speeds if there is no opposing traffic
flow.
22
Chicanes
Chicanes are road narrowings located on either side of the road. They slow traffic by
forcing one stream to give way to the other and deflecting vehicles through the
narrowing.
Advantages
 Affective at reducing speeds
 Self enforcing
 Does
not
adversely
affect
emergency vehicles or buses
 Can be used in conjunction with a
single speed cushion
Disadvantages
 Restricts parking space
 Can create conflicts between
vehicles
 Needs a balanced two-way flow
to be effective
 Needs adequate forward visibility
Effectiveness
Chicanes can lower vehicle speeds to around 20mph but this will depend greatly on
the path and angle created.
Traffic Islands
Islands can be used to narrow the carriageway sometimes in a combination with
build outs. This may be as a gateway to indicate the start of a traffic calming scheme,
or as a feature to maintain low speeds.
Advantages
 Narrows the road which can
reduce speeds
 Provides safe crossing point for
pedestrians
Disadvantages
 The proximity of motor vehicles is
often threatening to cyclists when
negotiating localised carriageway
narrowings.
Effectiveness
Narrowing the road with traffic islands can reduce vehicle speeds by several mph.
23
Gateway Features
Gateways have been used over the centuries to mark the entry to a special place. So
it is appropriate that gateway features have been adapted for use as a traffic calming
measure.
Advantages
Provide good opportunities for the
involvement of the public in the
design process.
Disadvantages
Possible long term maintenance
implication.
Effectiveness
Research carried out indicates that gateways can effect speed reductions of up to
6mph. However, where reductions have been achieved, these have not been
sustained over any distance, and speeds within the village have at most been
reduced by only 1 or 2mph.
20mph Zones
20mph zones in residential areas encourage speeds of 20mph or less. Regulations
require physical traffic calming measures to ensure that speeds in the area are kept
to around 20mph.
Advantages
 Very effective at reducing speeds
 Effective in reducing traffic accidents
 Provides safer environment for drivers and residents
 Can discourage through traffic
Disadvantages
 Expensive to install
 Extensive measures usually needed on all roads within
the zone.
Effectiveness
In a study carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory (1996), average speeds
reduced by 9mph. The annual total number of accidents had fallen by 60%
24
Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic Group
Appendix 3 – Consultation details
To include sample letters:
The following list is used to draw the appropriate people/organisations to be
consulted in respect of a Road Traffic Order:
Affected or adjacent County
Councillor
Clerk to appropriate Parish
Council
Chief Executice
Broxbourne Borough Council
Chief Executive
Dacorum Borough Council
Graham Sweedy
Town Clerk
Tring Town Council
Town Clerk
Sawbridgeworth Town Council
Town Clerk
Ware Town Council
Town Clerk
Buntingford Town Council
Anne Fisher
East Herts Council
Executive Director
(Operations)
Customer Services
Hertsmere Borough Council
Town Clerk
Royston Town Council
Chief Executive
North Herts District Council
Town Clerk
Harpenden Town Council
Mid West Herts Highways Area
Chief Executive
Stevenage Borough Council
Clerk to the Parish Council
Abbots Langley Parish Council
Chief Executive
Three Rivers District Council
Linda Baker
Vinci Parking Systems
One Stop Shop
Watford Council
Chief Executive
Welwyn Hatfield Council
Brian Blake
Hertsmere Borough Council
Steve Hunt
Stevenage Borough Council
25
Terry Nickolls
North Herts District Council
Pat Connell
Broxbourne Borough Council
Gina Kellett
St Albans City & District Council
Brian Scott
Dacorum Borough Council
Margaret Edgar
Welwyn Hatfield Council
Andrew Pulham
East Herts District Council
Main Reception
Passenger Transport Unit
Mark Allan
IMU Environment (Hermis)
Deidre O’Sullivan
Mapping Team Herfordshire Highways
Linda Loftin
Land Charges
Road Haulage Association
Freight Transport Association
Chief Fire Officer
Herts Fire & Rescue Service
Beds & Herts Ambulance Service
Mr P Nicholls
Road Policing Strategic Unit
Traffic & Travel Information
Automobile Association
Mrs
M
Wood,
Cycling Cyclists Touring Club
Facilities Co-ordinator
26
Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic Group
Appendix 4 – Herts Highways Draft TRO Guidelines
Draft Only
Title:
Permanent Traffic Regulation Orders
(TROs)
No:
IWP 020
Issue:
Draft
OBJECTIVE
1.
The objective of this procedure is to enable the proposing Engineer to  Decide if a Traffic Regulation Order or Notice will be required
 Decide which type of Traffic Order is applicable and to provide the
Hertfordshire Highways TRO Team with adequate and accurate
information, plans and supporting documents thus enabling the application
to be processed
 Incorporate into the project time scales, sufficient time for the consultation,
drafting and legal processes as well as any possible objections that may
take place
 Understand the processes involved in the drafting and making of Traffic
Orders and Notices
SCOPE
2.
Traffic Regulation Orders fall into one of the following types a) Permanent Orders
b) Experimental Orders
c) Temporary Orders
d) Emergency Notices
e) Special Events Orders
f) Notice Only Schemes
This procedure relates only to a) Permanent Orders b) Experimental
Orders and f) Notice Only Schemes.
c) Temporary Orders, d) Emergency Notices and e) Special Events Orders are
covered by Procedure 042 Temporary TROs
REFERENCES AND DEFINITIONS
3.
Highways Authorities are required under the Road Traffic Regulation Act
(1984), The Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales)
Regulations 1996 and other legislation to raise public awareness of any
restriction in the use of the highway by making Traffic Regulation Orders
(TROs) to regulate  Speed
 Movement
 Parking of vehicles
 Pedestrian movement
 Other movement
27
PROCEDURE
TRAFFIC ORDER TYPES
4.
Permanent Orders are made using the powers contained in the Road Traffic
Regulation Act (1984) and the procedures made in the Local Authorities Traffic
Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
They are used to implement regulations associated with the following types of
restrictions a) Speed limits
b) Waiting restrictions
c) Parking places, loading bays and disabled persons parking bays
d) Prohibition of classes of vehicles by weight, width or description e.g. buses
e) Prohibition of vehicular movements e.g. 'no right turn' or 'one way street'
5.
Experimental Traffic Orders are made under Section 9 of the Road Traffic
Act 1984. This type of order may remain in force for a period not exceeding
18 months. .An order made for less than 18 months and which has not
ceased to be in force may be extended for up to 18 months from the date on
which it came into force but only by the authority by whom the Order was
made.
The initial procedure for implementing an Experimental Traffic Order is the
same as for a Permanent Traffic Order.
6.
Notice Only Schemes
Certain schemes are required by law to be subject to consultation and
Public Notice but do not require a Traffic Regulation Order for implementation.
These schemes will require a Public Notice, Statement of Reasons and scale
plans.
Where schemes include the construction of raised pedestrian crossing facilities,
road humps, speed tables or cushions then early informal consultation with
affected persons, the Police, the Bus companies and the Ambulance and Fire
Rescue Services is vital. Formal public consultation via newspaper
advertising is also required.
Pedestrian crossings, including zebra, pelican, puffin, toucan and pegasus,
which are not part of the type of scheme mentioned above, and are not likely to
be contentious, should be dealt with by an on-site Public Notice placed out by
the proposing Engineer.
All Pedestrian Crossing Notices will be prepared by application to the Highways
House TRO Team. It should be noted that Section 23 of The Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984 places a legal obligation on the Highway Authority to
consult with the Chief Officer of Police when establishing, altering or removing
and Pedestrian Crossing.
28
CONSULTATION PROCEDURE
7.
Permanent Traffic Orders - Early consultation on all Permanent Traffic Order
proposals is vital to the smooth implementation of the scheme. Objections
submitted to the proposals will delay implementation and in some instances
may result in the proposals having to be withdrawn altogether.
Consultation is carried out in two parts  Early informal consultations
 Formal or Statutory consultations
8.
Informal Consultation - This should be carried out by the Project Team or
Developer (under supervision of a member of the Development Control Team)
throughout all stages of the scheme and early consultation is the most
beneficial. It is vital to ensure that any potential objections are resolved
wherever possible before an advertisement is published. There will be
occasions when unexpected objections are submitted but, in order to minimise
procedural disruptions or delays, good early informal consultations must be
carried out.
Informal consultation may take the form of  Meetings, both public and private
 Letter drops
 Personal visits to affected persons
The methods employed may be wide ranging and it is the responsibility of the
proposing Engineer or Developer (under supervision of a member of the
Development Control Team) to ensure that all such consultation is carried out
and documented. The Statement of Reasons supplied with the Traffic
Regulation Order will state which parties have been consulted. If the Statement
of Reasons is subsequently found to be inaccurate this may form a justification
for an objection.
Consultations with local Police, businesses and residents are of particular
importance. A current list of Police contacts can be accessed through the
Procedure 020 Permanent TROs page.
9.
Formal or Statutory Consultation will be carried out by the Highways House
TRO Team with regard
to all Permanent Traffic Orders, Notices for road
humps and pedestrian crossings, including those constructed on a raised hump
or forming part of a road hump scheme.
Consultation will include the sending of a newspaper advertisement, deposit
documents and copies of draft documents to all statutory consultees.
Consultation, by way of placing out an on-site Public Notice for all proposals will
be carried out by the proposing Engineer or Developer. The site notice will be
supplied by Hertfordshire Highways TRO Team in paper format. The proposing
Engineer or Developer will be responsible for arranging for the notice to be
laminated.
Formal or Statutory consultation invites comment and places a time restriction
of 21 days for response. Hertfordshire County Council's policy is to publish for a
period of 21 days plus one working day and allow a week or so for postal
delays.
Any resulting objections must be resolved before the Traffic Order process can
continue. Objections in relation to the reasons for the scheme, restrictions
29
imposed or engineering features will be dealt with by the proposing Engineer,
Developer or Client as appropriate. Objections relating to legal procedure will
be dealt with by the Highways House TRO Team. Good communication
between the proposing Engineer, Development Control Engineer and the
Highways House TRO Team is essential and regular updates on the progress
of objection resolution should be provided by e-mail or letter.
Work required as part of the Traffic Order implementation must not be
commenced until the objection period above has finished and necessary
objections are resolved.
10.
Experimental Traffic Orders differ in that the Order is a made Order from the
outset. Public comment and/or objections are invited on the Order being
continued in force indefinitely. The Objection period is 6 months from the date
of the Order being first advertised. Public Notice and documentation for deposit
are required and, as part of this, consultation is required with the Chief Officer
of Police, Chief Office of the Fire and Ambulance Services and other parties in
line with the procedure for Permanent Traffic Orders. Experimental Orders
remain in force for no longer than 18 months.
APPLICATION PROCEDURE
11.
Application for a Permanent Traffic Order
11.1 The proposing Engineer or Developer (under supervision of the
Development Control Engineer) completes an Internal Request for Services Traffic Regulation Order (IWP 020-1) form. All fields in this pro forma are
mandatory. Any omissions may result in delays in processing the form.
The application must also be accompanied by a) Scale plans on a maximum of A3 sized paper -A4 is preferred where
possible. The plans must only contain information relevant to the actual Traffic
Order.
The following must be included  Road names
 Building numbers
 Kerb lines
 Restriction markings relevant to the proposal
 Pedestrian crossings (including proposed pedestrian crossings)
 A compass point with a North bearing to the top of the page (no skewed
compass points will be accepted)
The following should not be included  Engineering references
 Utility markings
 Engineering features (such as anti-skid surfacing)
The reason for such a plan accompanying a TRO application is to enable a
member of the public
to understand what legislation is being proposed and how road users and
others will be affected.
An example of the expected standard of plan can be accessed by contacting
the Highways House TRO Team (see the Contact List on the Procedure page).
30
b) Statement of Reasons - this is an explanation in easy to understand terms
as to  What is being proposed
 Why it is being proposed, with supporting evidence (e.g. reduction in
collision casualties)
 Who has been consulted and whether support is being offered
An example of a Statement of Reasons (IWP 020-2) is attached to this
procedure's page
11.2 The completed application form, together with the relevant required
documentation, must then be sent to the Highways House TRO Team for
logging and processing. The TRO Team will allocate a unique reference
number to each application. This unique reference number should be quoted in
any correspondence related to the application.
Any applications with errors or omissions that cannot be readily resolved will be
returned to the applicant for amendment prior to any work being carried out on
the processing of the application.
On submission of an application the proposing Engineer (or Development
Control Engineer in the case of a Developer) should arrange for a Purchase
Order number to be raised to enable the Order to be advertised. The Purchase
Order is the County Council SAPS finance reference. The Highways House
Team are able to arrange Hertfordshire Highways Purchase Order numbers for
Highways House based schemes. Area Office and Development Control
applications should be submitted with Purchase Order numbers already
allocated.
11.3 The Highways House TRO Team will process the application and prepare
the draft Order, Notice and Statement of Reasons for publication and final
consultation. Time scales for this work must be flexible as each application is
different. Some applications may be complex and time consuming to prepare
and check, while others may be more straightforward.
Applications are processed in order of receipt, unless it can be argued that a
particular application must become a priority over other applications. Please
note that insufficient time allowed for the processing of the TRO during planning
stages or political pressure are not considered grounds for prioritising an
application.
As a guide, at least 12 weeks should be allowed from commencement of work
by the Highways House TRO Team to the end of the objection period.
Thereafter the Sealing or Making of the Order is dependent on the objection
process and the actual works.
This process is explained in the Permanent Traffic Order Regulation
Process (IWP 020-3) flow chart which can be accessed form the procedure
page.
11.4 Any Public Notice which results in objections being received will then
become subject to the objection procedure and, until the objection is resolved,
withdrawn or overruled, the process is placed on hold. The other alternative is
for the Highway Authority to drop the proposal.
31
Works relating to the restriction signage must not be commenced until after the
objection period has finished.
12.
Application for an Experimental Traffic Order
12.1 Application for an Experimental Traffic Order is carried out using the same
form, Internal Request for Services - Traffic Regulation Order (IWP 020-1),
and the same basic process.
To apply - the form is completed in full by the proposing Engineer and is then
submitted to the Highways House TRO Team, together with scale plans and a
Statement of Reasons (An example of a Statement of Reasons (IWP 020-2) is
attached to this procedure's page).
The Statement of Reasons must include a) What the experiment consists of
b) Why it is being carried out
c) How the results will be measured
d) What consultation has been carried out and with whom
12.2 The Highways House TRO Team will check the application and prepare
documentation for advertising in the same way as for Permanent Traffic orders.
The process then differs in the way that the Highways House TRO Team deal
with the application. The Order will be advertised and made. An Objection
period of 6 months then follows during which objections may be made in
respect of the Experimental Order being continued in force indefinitely.
12.3 At the conclusion of the experimental period any comments on the
Experimental Traffic Order and objections made to it being in force indefinitely
are considered in line with the objections procedure. Following this the
Experimental Traffic Order may be made permanent.
13. Application for the Sealing or Making of a Permanent Order
Towards the completion of the works relating to restrictions, the proposing
Engineer (or Development Control Engineer in the case of a Developer) must
notify the Highways House TRO Team by e-mail, of a date at which it is
expected that the relevant signage will be in place and provide an additional
Purchase Order number for the second Public Notice. If any changes have
been made to the proposals (e.g. because of objections), then new plans and
schedules must be supplied to the Highways House TRO Team who will then
offer a timetable for the making of the Order. (If objections were made then
unless the request to seal is accompanied by written withdrawal of the objection
by the objector or documentary evidence of the objection being overrulled by
the Joint Member Panel, the Order will not be sealed/made).
The Highways House TRO Team will then arrange for the Order to be made
and complete the process. The effective date of the Order will be approximately
two weeks later
14.
FORMS
Internal Request for Services - Traffic Regulation Order (IWP 020-1)
Statement of Reasons (IWP 020-2) - example only
Permanent Traffic Order Regulation Process (IWP 020-3) flow chart
Guidelines to Permanent TROs by Type (IWP 020G)
32
Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic Group
Appendix 5 – Emergency Service Data
BHAPS Emergency Calls
The number of category A calls received by BHAPS from April 2005 to March 2006 is
54,137.
1,905 of these calls from April 2005 until February 2006 were Cardiac Arrests, of
which 826 cases resuscitation was started and the survival percentage was 3.3%.
Therefore, early resuscitation has a greater effect on survival rates and the Bradley
report “Taking Healthcare to the Patient” is aimed at treating patients more quickly
and effectively in the community, as evidence shows that early effective resuscitation
definitely improves survival rates.
The following graph shows the number of calls between 8 and 9 minutes that BHAPS
attended during 2005/06. These 2988 calls could be affected by crews having to slow
down for additional traffic calming measures. On the other hand the absence of traffic
calming measures could increase the number of calls.
33
Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic Group
Appendix 6 – Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1996
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 07/96 (modified October 2005.
Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1996
Contents
Introduction
Purpose
Rumble Devices
Special authorisations Consultation
Road Hump Dimensions
Heights
Longitudinal profile
Transverse profile
Ramp gradients
Road Hump Lengths
Spacing between humps
Location
Pedestrian and Cycle Crossings
Lighting
Signing
Road markings for road humps
Markings at pedestrian crossings
Markings for Speed Cushions
Markings for "Thumps"
20mph Zones
34
Introduction
Since the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1990 were introduced, considerable
research has been carried out into the performance of road humps. This has paid
particular attention to those types of humps which did not conform to the 1990
regulations, such as speed cushions, and narrow thermoplastic humps known as
"thumps".
The results of this work have helped indicate that the very prescriptive nature of the
1990 regulations was unnecessary. As a result, the 1990 regulations have been
replaced by the very much simplified Highways (Road Humps) Regulation 1996,
leaving the actual design and location of road humps a matter for local highway
authorities to determine. Since the Road Humps (Scotland) Regulations remain
unchanged, the contents of this leaflet are not generally applicable to Scotland. The
advice in Traffic Advisory leaflet 3/91 remains current.
The primary legislation is the Highways Act 1980, sections 90A to 90F, and this
remains unchanged. It makes it clear that road humps can only be constructed on
roads which have a speed limit of 30mph or less (sections 90A and 90B); contains
requirements to advertise and consult the police (sections 90C); and contains the
assurance that road humps constructed in accordance with regulations, or specially
authorised, or constructed prior to adoption of the highway, are not treated as
obstructions (section 90E).
The new regulations provide local highway authorities with considerable flexibility in
the design and placement of road humps. However, the regulations make local
highway authorities responsible for the design and placement, so authorities will
need to ensure that an adequate duty of care is exercised.
Purpose
The purpose of this leaflet is to provide general advice on the use of road humps
under the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1996. It does not attempt to cover
every eventuality, and it is for local highway authorities to ensure that designs do not
compromise safety. Previous technical advice issued on road humps is still generally
relevant. With the exception of Traffic Advisory Leaflet 2/90 and 3/91 (which
contained advice on the previous Road Hump Regulations), information contained in
this leaflet is intended to enlarge on, rather than replace, previous advice. This
guidance should be read in conjunction with the Highways (Road Humps)
Regulations 1996 themselves.
35
Rumble Devices
The use of rumble strips and rumble areas is enabled by the Highways Act 1980 (as
amended by the Traffic Calming Act 1992), and the Highways (Traffic Calming)
Regulations 1993. Advice is contained in TA Leaflet 11/93. The maximum height
permitted under the Traffic calming regulations for a rumble device is 15mm.
Technically, rumble devices with heights larger than this could be specially
authorised, but it is likely that in most cases the requirements of the road hump
legislation would have effect.
Special authorisations
With the simplification of the regulations there should be very little need for road
humps to be specially authorised. An exception would be where a road hump was of
a design where its height could be varied mechanically. Special authorisation would
also be needed for a hump higher than 100mm or lower than 25mm, though a very
detailed supporting case would need to be put forward for any proposal where the
road hump exceeded 100mm in height.
Consultation
The requirement in the Highway Act 1980 (Section 90C) to consult with the police
and to advertise proposed road hump schemes still applies. In addition, the new
regulations require the fire and ambulance services to be consulted, as well as
organisations or groups representing people who use the road. This should certainly
include bus operators, and residents of the street where the road humps are to be
installed. Bus operators need to be consulted not only about roads which have bus
routes, but also on adjacent roads, so that the operators are aware should the need
for bus diversions arise. Also, depending on the type of road and the area, it may be
appropriate to seek the views of agricultural and haulage interests.
It is recommended that the consultation process is not limited just to carrying out the
statutory duties, but should open up a dialogue with all interested parties to ensure
that as far as possible there is a consensus in favour of the scheme. At times it may
be necessary for the highway authority to demonstrate their willingness to modify
schemes in order to obtain an acceptable compromise. The Fire and Ambulance
services will be concerned about response times; the advice in Traffic Advisory
Leaflet 3/94 is still relevant.
Road Hump Dimensions
The only dimensions now constrained by the regulations are: maximum and
minimum heights of 100mm and 25mm respectively; a minimum length of 900mm;
and no vertical face to exceed 6mm in height.
It should be noted that the tolerances included in the 1990 Road Hump Regulations
do not apply to the new regulations. So exceeding the 100mm height, without
authorisation. So exceeding the 100mm height, without authorisation, would be likely
to mean that Section 90E of Highways Act 1980 did not apply, with the result that the
road hump could be viewed as an obstruction. (Humps constructed prior to the 1996
regulations will not be affected by this). Additionally it is not considered good practice
to deliberately choose heights which are either higher or lower than those prescribed,
on the grounds that
the regulations would not then apply. This again would mean that Section 90E of the
Highways Act would not apply with consequences for the highway authority in
providing the device was not an obstruction.
36
Heights
It will be appropriate to vary the height of the hump, in accordance with:
circumstances of the location (e.g. strategic route or residential); speed reduction
required (mean "between hump" speeds of about 30mph, or 20mph); and the type of
the road hump feature. Table 1 indicates general height dimensions for road types in
accordance with approximate "between humps" mean speeds. Spacing between
humps will also affect speed between humps: the lower the height the smaller the
spacing to achieve suitable speed reductions. Ramp gradients may also influence
mean "between hump" speeds. "Thumps" in excess of 50mm high may cause
considerable discomfort to vehicle occupants and are not recommended.
Kerb to kerb flat top humps, of whatever type, cannot generally be laid to footway
level without the kerbs being "dropped". Standard kerb heights between 125mm to
150mm high would exceed the prescribed 100mm height for road humps.
Table 1 - Appropriate Road Hump Heights for Approximate "Between Hump"
Mean Speeds
Road Hump Type
Mean
"Between
Hump"
Speed
(approximately)
30mph
Mean
"Between Suggested
Hump"
speed maximum on/off
(approximately)
ramp gradient
20mph
Round Top
50mm - 75mm(1)
75mm(1)
N/A
Flat Top
50mm - 75mm(1)
75mm(1)
1:10
Raised Junction
50mm - 100mm
75mm - 100mm
1:10
Cushion
60mm - 75mm
Without
other 1:8
measures may not
be appropriate
"Thump"
35 - 45mm. Up to
50mm
heights
have been used,
but may cause
unnecessary
discomfort
Not
really N/A
appropriate where
low speeds are
required.
Note:
(1) Heights above 75mm are not generally recommended
Longitudinal profile
Hump profiles will generally be either curved, or flat top with ramps. Combinations of
both curved and flat top road humps have been used but little design or performance
information is available on them, so care should be taken if adopting such designs.
The profile of curved ramps in the UK has generally been a segment of a circle. In
other countries different shapes, such as sinusoidal curves have been used. The new
regulations will allow such curves, but caution should be exercised as these may be
difficult to form, and hence expensive. Information on the performance of sinusoidal
humps, or similar is available based on research carried out abroad, however, this
may not be entirely applicable to conditions in this country.
Transverse profile
The new regulations allow freedom for the designer to decide on the type of
transverse profile
37
adopted. However, it is recommended that generally the profile chosen follows
previous advice. In the case of tapered humps, other than as described below, the
channel should not be greater than 200mm in width and the width of the side ramps
should be between 150mm to 300mm. It has been advocated that the width of the
side ramp should be increased to allow an easier ride for cyclists. However, where
there are cyclists present it would seem preferable to increase the channel width to
create a cycle lane.
"Thumps" should normally finish within 200mm of the kerb to assist drainage. Where
cyclists are likely to be present it may be an advantage to increase the gap, up to
750mm.
For speed cushions, the gap between the foot of the side ramp and the adjacent kerb
should normally be not less than 750mm, to allow two wheeled vehicles (cycles and
motorcycles) to avoid the cushions. This may be decreased if the nearside cushion
(particularly in a three in line arrangement) is continually parked over, but in that
event 500mm should be regarded as the minimum. The gap between adjacent
cushions laid transversely in line, as measured between the foot of the respective
ramps, should also normally be not less than 750mm. Smaller gaps have been used,
but this may cause problems for two wheel vehicles, and makes it difficult for bus
drivers in aligning their vehicles to straddle the cushions. Widths less than 500mm
are not recommended, and should only be adopted in extreme situations. Maximum
widths between cushions, or a cushion and a kerb, should not normally be greater
than 1200mm, with 1000mm an ideal maximum. Widths greater than this will
encourage drivers to aim for the gaps, which can cause concern to other drivers if it
occurs in the centre of the carriageway, and to pedestrians if it is adjacent to the
footway.
Ramp gradients
To limit the effects of vehicles grounding, it is recommended that the on/off gradients
of road humps should not be steeper than those indicated in Table 1. Other
considerations (see TA Leaflet 2/96) such as inclines, presence of buses etc. along a
route, may demand shallower gradients. For speed cushions, the side gradients
should not be steeper than 1:4 to avoid problems arising to cyclists and
motorcyclists.
38
Road Hump Lengths
The minimum length of 900mm referred to in the regulations will generally only be
appropriate for "thumps". Other types of road humps should have minimum lengths
as indicated in Table 2.
Table 2 - Recommended minimum and maximum lengths for road humps
Road Hump Type
Minimum
(m)
Length
Maximum
(m)
Length
Comments
Round Top
3.7
3.7
The performance of
longer humps has
not been researched.
Speed reduction is
likely to be lower.
Flat Top
2.5 (plateau length)
None
Along bus routes a
minimum
of
6m
(plateau length) is
preferred by bus
operators. Plateaux
greater than 20m are
not
generally
recommended.
Raised Junction
None
None
It may be appropriate
to extend raised area
into side streets for a
minimum length of
5m in front of give
way markings to
allow a car to wait on
level surface.
Cushion
About 1.9
3.7
It may be appropriate
to have a minimum of
3m
to
prevent
lengthways
straddling by cars.
"Thump"
0.9
1.5
Little advantage in
having
lengths
greater than 0.9m.
Spacing between humps
Except in the case of speed cushions, it is recommended that road humps should not
be closer than 20m apart. But where, for instance, speed cushions are used to
protect a pedestrian crossing, the spacing between them may be as little as 5m. With
such an arrangement care should be taken to ensure that drivers can manoeuvre
adequately through the feature. The maximum spacing between road humps will
influence the mean "between hump" speeds (see TA Leaflet 2/96) and spacing in
excess of 100m may increase the "between hump" speeds significantly. Spacing in
excess of 150m, for any type of hump, is not recommended. For speed cushions and
"thumps" spacing in excess of 100m is not recommended, and a maximum spacing
of 70m would be appropriate.
Location
Under the 1996 regulations it will be possible to install road humps on trunk and
principal roads, having speed limits not greater than 30mph, without special
authorisation. However, regard needs to be given to the likely approach speeds, and
39
the concerns of the emergency services. The 1996 regulations do not require a
speed reducing feature to be located in advance of road humps, whether a single
hump, or a series of them. It is strongly recommended that a speed reducing feature
should be used to ensure that as far as possible the speed limit is not exceeded
when the vehicle meets the first hump. Such features could include a junction
immediately before encountering humps, or a bend of 70 degree or more, or give
way markings at a pinch to create priority working. Conspicuous gateways can
achieve, in their immediate location, quite high reductions in speed. Even so, they
may not reduce speeds to 30mph and this will need to be borne in mind if gateways
are to be used as speed reducing features.
Where a speed reducing feature is used, it should be less than 60m from the first
hump to obtain the maximum benefit.
If a single road hump is used at an entry treatment on a side road, a speed reducing
feature on the side road approaching the hump will normally not be necessary.
However, authorities should ensure that when approaching the hump along the side
road it is clear to the driver that there is a junction ahead.
Road humps at entry points should normally be signed.
Where a gateway is considered to be appropriate as a speed reducing feature it may
be preferable for the road hump to be located a short distance after it, say 10m to
20m away. This will ensure that drivers have sufficient opportunity to reduce their
speed before encountering the hump, but denying them the opportunity to accelerate
before reaching it.
Other than when used as an entry treatment, single road humps are not
recommended, unless they can be used in conjunction with a speed reducing
feature.
Where a side road leads into a road with road humps, it is recommended that a road
hump should be met within a distance of at least 70m in order that drivers are not
encouraged to increase their speed above 30mph. Where the side road carries
through traffic, it is suggested that the first road hump should be met within 40m of
the junction.
Road humps, other than in 20mph zones, are required to be placed at right angles to
the centre line of the carriageway. This should not normally be a problem, but in the
case where this cannot be achieved, other than in a 20mph zone, special
authorisation will be required.
Pedestrian and Cycle Crossings
Road humps may be used at pedestrian and cycle crossing places. These include
uncontrolled crossings, Pelican Crossings, Zebra Crossings, Toucan Crossings and
Puffin Crossings. Where there are controlled areas, indicated by zig-zag lines, a road
hump constructed at the crossing place may extend into that area. This will enable,
for example, a 6m plateau length to be constructed to assist buses, though still
maintaining a normal 2.5m to 3m crossing width. However, a road hump of whatever
type must not be installed in a position where it is wholly contained within the area
bounded by the zig-zag lines (controlled area).
Only flat top kerb to kerb road humps should be used at a crossing place.
It may be appropriate to locate speed cushions on each approach to an uncontrolled
crossing, staggered in relation to that crossing. Some schemes have used cushions
both on the entry and exist sides of a crossing. At one such site the result appeared
to be a larger noise variation, which may have contributed to complaints about traffic
noise. Advice on road humps and their effect on noise is contained in TA Leaflet
40
6/96. Speed cushions should not be placed on the crossing itself, as this could
interfere with the safe passage of pedestrians.
Lighting
Other than in a 20mph zone, road humps should be lit by means of a system of road
lighting, extending over the length of the road in which the road humps are installed.
This must either consist of at least three lamps placed not more than 38m apart from
each other, or comply with the requirements of BS 5489 (1992). It will be for the local
highway authority to satisfy itself as to the appropriate standard of road lighting to be
adopted, within the guidance provided by BS 5489. Where road lighting is not
present, then lighting will need to be specially provided. In such cases the highway
authority will need to ensure that the standard of lighting installed provides road
users with sufficient illumination to be aware of the presence of the road humps at
night. It is likely that such lighting would, as a minimum, provide for lighting columns
to be installed on each approach to each road hump along the road.
Signing
Signs (including markings) for road humps are contained in the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 1994. The parts concerning the signing of road
humps are being revised, and further will be issued when changes are made.
Appropriate signs are illustrated in Figure 1. Signs to diagram 557.1 (road humps
ahead) must be illuminated during the hours of darkness. It will be for the local
highway authority to determine what signs will need to be erected to warn of the
presence of road humps.
Figure 1: Signs appropriate for road humps (Part 1) (Not to Scale)
Figure 1: Signs appropriate for road
humps (Part 2) (Not to Scale)
F
41
Refer
to
the
Traffic
Signs
Regulations and General Directions
1994 for appropriate dimensions
Figure 2 illustrates the type of signing
that could be employed where road
humps are used on adjacent roads
within an area. Appropriate signs
should be erected at all the entrances
to the area. Relatively short "culs de
sac" with not more than 100 dwellings,
which adjoin the roads with road
humps, but do not themselves have
road humps, should not need signs
erected on them to warn of road humps
on the adjoining road.
Figure 1: Signs appropriate for
road humps (Part 3) (Not to Scale)
Figure 2: Example of possible sign
layouts for a section of road
Note for Figure 2
A - Signs on both sides of the
carriageway may be appropriate
where it is considered that emphasis
needs to be given to the prescience
of road humps ahead.
B - Signing of humped and Zebra and
Pelican Crossing signs will generally
only be necessary if spacing between
the adjacent humps is greater than
100m.
C - Distance plates should indicate
the distance that the series of road
humps extends along the road to
which the sign immediately applies.
D - Side roads with road humps do
not need to be separately igned,
provided the first hump in the side
road is within 40m of the junction.
Similarly, these same side roads do
not have to warn of road humps on
the main road if the humps on the
main road are within 40m.
E - Cul-de-sac leading to a road
having road humps do not need signs
to warn of humps if the cul-desac
only serves around 100 dwellings.
42
Whether or not warning signs need to be erected on both sides of the carriageway
will be determined by individual circumstances. Where a gateway is to be used as
speed reducing feature it is recommended that signs are erected on both sides of the
carriageway, and incorporated into the gateway. Where several adjoining roads have
road humps, the distances on the sign plates to Diagrams 557.2 and 557.3 need to
be assessed. They should be based on the distance over which the road humps
extend along the road where the sign is erected, or immediately relates to. Separate
signing for adjoining roads should not be necessary, providing the first hump in the
adjoining road is within 40m of the junction of the two roads. Similarly, traffic from the
side road should not need to be warned of road humps on the main road if road
humps are within 40m of the side road junction.
Where road humps are installed only on one road, signing will be similar to Figure 2:
signs will need to be erected on each entrance to the road, other than at short cul-desac's. If the road humps are spaced more than 150m apart, each individual hump
should be signed.
Road markings for road humps
Figure 3: Road markings suitable for road humps (Not to Scale)
43
Markings at pedestrian crossings
Pedestrian crossings regulations are to be revised. Currently, signs to Diagram 1061
(TSRGD) are not appropriate for road humps at Zebra or Pelican Crossings. For
Puffin and Toucan Crossings, triangular markings on the ramps may be appropriate,
but not centre line nor edge line markings. At uncontrolled crossing places, markings
in accordance with Diagram 1061 (TSRGD) should be used.
Markings for Speed Cushions
A single triangle, which currently requires signs authorisation, should be used on the
approach ramp of each cushion. In the case where vehicles from both directions
might be driven over a cushion the triangular marking should be used on both ramps.
It is not appropriate to use any edge line marking across the top of the cushion as a
warning of the side ramps. Where there are centrally positioned cushions which may
be traversed by vehicles in both directions, hatched markings to Diagram 1040
(TSRGD) could be used on both approaches to the cushion.
Markings for "Thumps"
Where a thump is constructed from yellow reflective thermoplastic material no
markings are necessary. Where other material is used, then unless it can be
constructed in a suitable alternative yellow reflective material, it should not be
coloured yellow but should incorporate the markings
shown in Figure 3, which at present require signs authorisation. Triangular markings
should extend from the base to the centre of the thump. The number of markings to
be used will be determined by the particular circumstances. There should not be less
than two on a side, nor more than four. Having a total of four triangles per side would
be the norm, and in the case of a one way road they should be applied across the full
width of the carriageway.
20mph Zones
Road hump markings and warning signs are not required within 20mph zones.
Markings may be used if it is considered appropriate, particularly to enhance the
conspicuity of the road humps. It should not be necessary to use warning signs, as
the zone signs will be sufficient. It will not be necessary to seek special authorisation
if road humps are not formed at right angles to the centre line of the carriageway
within a 20mph zone. However, this is generally not advised other than in the case of
speed cushions within a chicane or pinch point.
44
Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic Group
Appendix 7 – London Borough of Barnet Transport Strategy
Extract from a report of the London Borough of Barnet detailing its revised
transport strategy:
“Each year about 1800 people suffer personal injury as a result of road traffic
accidents in Barnet. Around three-quarters of these are on roads for which the
Council is responsible. There is a substantial personal, social and economic cost
resulting from these accidents.
The Council is committed to making Barnet’s roads safer by better management of
the road network with a consistent and strategic approach across the Borough.
Increased car use and congestion is placing greater demands on drivers and other
road users which can lead to mistakes being made. Stop-start traffic and an array of
traffic calming features, signs and surfacing materials can distract driver’s attention
away from potential hazards. Delays due to congestion can also lead to erratic or
aggressive behaviour which can increase the risk of accidents.
The use of traffic calming to restrict movement and available routes, previously the
main way the Council addressed road safety concerns, has now been shown to have
adverse effects, particularly on the emergency services, bus passengers and nearby
residents. The majority of traffic calming has sought to discourage rat-running from
residential roads. The Council’s policy of improving traffic movement on the major
road network will reduce the desire to rat-run and make this kind of traffic calming
unnecessary.
Poorly managed works on the public highway can also lead to accidents both
directly, and indirectly through the effects of increased congestion.
Better
management of these works will help to keep traffic flowing and reduce accident risk.
Improved safety can also be achieved through a range of measures including better
junction control, high quality road and footway maintenance, appropriate traffic signs
and markings and, where justified, the control of conflicting movements and the
provision of pedestrian facilities.
High quality street lighting also has a vital role to play in helping road users to be
aware of each other and of obstacles and hazards in their path. The Council
acknowledges this and will continue to improve and upgrade street lighting in the
Borough. Improved lighting, along with CCTV, can also make people feel less
anxious about their own personal safety.
The importance of education has
been recognised and a range of
initiatives are being developed with
schools including the promotion of
safer routes to school, particularly
for those walking and cycling. The
Council is also responsible for
school
crossing
patrols
and
‘Lollipop’ people have proved to be
a popular and enduring feature of
road safety.”
ACTION
The Council will continue to place a high
priority on improving safety for all road users,
and will introduce appropriate, well-designed
measures to improve the operation of the road
network in order to reduce accident levels.
The Council will also work with schools to
promote safer travel to school with less
reliance on the car.
45
Road Safety & Traffic Calming Topic Group
Appendix 8 – Greater London Authority (GLA) Report
Chair’s foreword to a Greater London Authority scrutiny report on the “Impact
of Speed Humps to Londoners Lives”:
Humps saved lives and serious injuries. They were cheap and quick to implement
and spread like rashes across our boroughs.
We are some years on now from the first appearance of the hump on our streets. As
they have proliferated – questions have began to arise about their effectiveness, the
possibility that they cost lives through slowing down emergency vehicles, damage to
cars and property, noise, pollution and discomfort caused to vulnerable passengers.
The clamour has grown to fever pitch as the Borough of Barnet has begun to remove
humps from their roads and the London Ambulance Service has claimed that they
could probably save more lives if the overall traffic flow were to be improved.
The purpose of the London Assembly’s investigation is to examine the available
evidence and bring some analysis and fact into a debate that has appeared at times
to be more heat than light.
The evidence is overwhelming in terms of the success of humps in reducing death
and serious injury.
The challenge for this scrutiny has been to make
recommendations that will help improve the design and implementation of traffic
calming schemes in future years.
Humps are only one option in the hierarchy of traffic calming measures. Better use
needs to be made of the range of speed reduction alternatives that now exist. The
Boroughs and the emergency services must work together to create a local strategic
road plan for each borough. And we need accurate monitoring of the effectiveness of
each scheme and the dissemination of results and best practice across London.
I hope that this report sends out a strong message to London that humps save lives
and that any borough removing humps must replace them with an equal or better
alternative but – at the same time – that humps are neither the only nor necessarily
the best tool in the box.
I commend it to you.
Lynne Featherstone
Chair, London Assembly Transport Committee
46
ALG Transport and Environment
Committee
GLA Speed Humps
Report by:
Damian Price
Date:
17 June 2004
Contact
Officer:
Damian Price
Telephone:
020 7934 9909
Summary:
Recommendations:
Item no: 15
Job title: Principal Transport Policy
Officer
Email:
damian.price@alg.gov.uk
This report sets out:

The Greater London Assembly Transport Committee
recommendations following its scrutiny work on the issue
of speed humps as published in its report ‘London’s got the
hump’.

The ALG draft response to the GLA’s set of
recommendations.
The Committee is recommended to:



Note the GLA Transport Committee recommendations on
speed humps.
Comment on the GLA Transport Committee
recommendations, particularly those relating to the ALG,
London boroughs and the Pan London Road Safety
Forum.
Comment on the ALG’s draft response to the GLA
recommendations.
Introduction
1. As part of its work programme for 2003-4, the Greater London Assembly’s
Transport Committee agreed to undertake scrutiny work on the issue of
speed humps. The findings of the committee’s inquiry, along with a set of
recommendations, were published on 26 April 2004. This report summarises
the main findings of the report and outlines the transport committee’s
47
recommendations. It also then sets out the proposed ALG response to how it
could facilitate those recommendations concerning activities of the ALG, the
London boroughs and the Pan London Road Safety Forum to be forwarded to
the GLA as per their request to the ALG.
Background
2. On 15 May 2003 the London Assembly’ Transport Committee agreed their
work programme, which included undertaking scrutiny work on the issue of
speed humps. The investigation was launched in September 2003. The
Committee decided to concentrate its investigation on traditional speed
humps, vertical devices across the entire carriageway and from kerb to kerb,
rather than looking at speed tables, speed cushions or other forms of traffic
calming measures. (Speed tables are generally used at junctions and larger
in size than speed humps. Speed humps go from kerb to kerb and cover the
entrance to the junction so that the whole of the junction is raised. Speed
cushions are narrower than speed humps and do not go from kerb to kerb but
are positioned in the middle of the road or the middle of the lane).
3. The Committee requested evidence on the following questions:
 Do speed humps affect delivery of emergency services?
 Do speed humps damage residential properties?
 Do speed humps increase air and noise pollution?
 Do speed humps increase congestion in residential areas?
 Do cars try to make up time by speeding between zones?
 Do speed humps damage cars?
 Are there any alternative cost effective measures to speed humps and
if so, which measures would you favour? (For example, home zones,
safety camera technology, speed limiters)
 What is your experience of the effectiveness of road humps in
preventing and reducing the number of fatal injuries and traffic
collisions?
GLA Transport Committee Recommendations
4. In general the Committee investigated the issue in some detail. However,
both in the report and the evidence given to the committee there was
evidence of an ambiguity in the use for the term ‘speed humps’. In some
instances the terms is used in the narrow definition described in paragraph 2,
above. In other cases the term is used in a more general sense to cover all
types of physical traffic calming, or, at least, those involving vertical
deflections. It is important that these distinctions are made clear. In this
report, the narrower definition is used.
5. Following its investigation, the Committee made a series of twelve
recommendations. These recommendations are set out below with
background information as to why the GLA Transport Committee has reached
them. There then follows an ALG draft response to each recommendation.
48
Recommendation 1:
6. Recommendation: Transport for London and the boroughs should continue
working closely together to reach an agreement on the period covered by
funding for traffic calming schemes, which would enable the boroughs to
undertake better design, consultation and implementation of the schemes.
7. Background to recommendation: Currently, funding of traffic calming schemes
is agreed on an annual basis. The Transport Committee heard from a number
of boroughs which said this timescale puts pressure on boroughs to consult,
design and implement schemes within a year. TfL confirmed to the
Committee that it was in discussion with the London boroughs to explore
alternatives what would allow funding support for schemes to be spread over
more than one year.
8. ALG response: The ALG agrees to this recommendation that boroughs
should have longer duration to enable better design, consultation and
implementation of traffic calming schemes. The ALG is keen to work with TfL
and the boroughs to facilitate longer periods covered by funding.
Recommendation 2:
9. Recommendation: Transport for London should take more account of the
borough’s consultation process on traffic calming schemes to ensure that the
emergency services and other stakeholders’ views are given serious
consideration by the boroughs before capital funding is allocated by TfL to the
boroughs.
10. ALG response: It is not the case that boroughs receive funding for schemes
before consultation takes place, though it is likely that allocation decisions will
be made before consultation takes place. To delay allocation until after
consultation will produce delays of about a year in implementation as
allocations are only made annually and it is not clear that the benefits of such
a delay are commensurate. Such a delay could also involve the borough in
abortive and un-financed work if TfL were subsequently to determine that the
consultation was not sufficient.
11. In any case, consultation and consideration of responses is a quasi judicial
process and governed by legal rules and standards. It would not be
appropriate for TfL to impose its own standards or to insert its own judgement
on the results of consultation if it did not agree with the borough. The ALG,
therefore, does not think this recommendation is appropriate.
Recommendation 3:
12. The Association of London Government and Transport for London should
ensure that all London boroughs collect and publish data to an agreed
methodology to determine whether or not the scheme in question is effective
at reducing accidents and saving lives. The ALG and TfL should ensure that
this information is collated, published in an annual report with some analysis
and circulated to boroughs.
13. Background to the recommendation: Some responses received by the
Committee suggested that the measurement by TfL of the effectiveness of
schemes was not sufficiently comprehensive. The committee acknowledged
that a number of boroughs do collect before and after accident figures but it
could not be sure that this was consistent practice across London.
49
14. ALG response: The ALG agrees that standardised traffic accident data that
indicates the success (or otherwise) would be welcomed and many boroughs
do already produce such data. TfL, through the London Accident and Analysis
Unit (LAAU), collates London-wide accident data and encourages boroughs
to sign up to the Traffic Accident Database (TAD). Boroughs can then,
through TAD, submit scheme implementation details and results can be
obtained. Therefore it should not be difficult to provide London-wide data on
traffic calming schemes that would be available in a standardised format and
could then be used by boroughs for inputting in to their own reporting
purposes.
Recommendation 4:
15. Recommendation: Given the overwhelming evidence of the reduction in
deaths and serious injuries resulting from the presence of speed humps, any
removal of speed humps by the boroughs should be accompanied by
equivalent or more effective alternative speed reduction measures. If speed
humps were not to be replaced then the boroughs should provide
independent research to show that it was safe for their removal. However, we
would argue that improved safety is due to traffic calming measures and if
they were removed then this would jeopardise the safety and lives of
Londoners.
16. Background to the recommendation: The Committee reported that TfL and
most boroughs had provided evidence to them that speed humps are an
economical way of reducing speeds and saving lives. TfL commissioned the
Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) to investigate the effectiveness of
20mph zones that primarily use speed humps. The Committee reported that
this and other research by the Department for Transport (DfT) found that
home zones and speed humps were effective at reducing speeds and
casualties. It noted though, that home zones were considerably more
expensive to implement than speed humps.
17. ALG response: The ALG agrees that traffic-calming measures in general do
make a significant contribution to road safety and accident reduction.
Generally, when boroughs remove speed humps, it is to replace them with
alternative traffic calming measures (such as speed cushions). The removal
of speed humps across London without replacement of alternative road safety
measure is not a common occurrence. If independent research does indicate
that there is still a speed related accident problem after the removal of speed
humps, boroughs should investigate and implement other road safety
measures, including alternative traffic calming initiatives.
Recommendation 5:
18. Recommendation: The ALG and London boroughs should set up several pilot
studies across London, where noise levels are measures and photos of the
exterior and interior of houses are taken before and after the implementation
of traffic calming measures, including speed humps.
19. Background to the recommendation: TRL told the Committee that research
they had carried out indicated that risk of damage from traffic passing over
speed humps to surrounding buildings was minimal. TRL stated that vibration
can be measured in terms of peak amplitude of particle velocity in mm/s. TRL
reported that vibrations from speed humps induced noise rarely exceeds 1.5
mm/s at the foundations for a property. Since the threshold for minor building
50
damage is 10 mm/s, the risk of damage from smaller levels of traffic is
minimal. To incur damage from Heavy Goods Vehicles, properties would
have to be less than one metre from the speed hump on London clay soil,
reported TRL. Some boroughs gave evidence on this that they too could find
no conclusive evidence to indicate that traffic induced vibrations from speed
humps caused building damage. However, some residents that submitted
evidence to the GLA Transport Committee inquiry had indicated that
vibrations could be significantly higher than TRL’s forecast. Some residents
also complained about noise resulting from speed humps. The boroughs that
submitted evidence do not see vehicles driving over speed humps as a noise
problem, although they accept that there may be isolated noise issues that
they need to deal with on specific schemes. Because there was no conclusive
evidence to challenge TRL’s work, the GLA Transport Committee felt that a
number of pilot studies across London would be beneficial.
20. ALG response: The ALG feels that evidence from pilot studies to examine the
effects of traffic calming on noise levels and building structures would be
useful. However, there is uncertainty over how this could be achieved. More
investigation is needed into the practicalities over such studies. This
recommendation should be made towards the DfT who are in a better position
to take forward such investigations.
Recommendation 6:
21. Recommendation: The DfT should consider checking its systems for
communicating the results of commissioned research to the ALG and
boroughs across London to ensure that these authorities are kept fully
informed and are aware of any implications arising from the research.
22. Background to the recommendation: Boroughs told the GLA Transport
Committee that they were not aware of any air quality statistics or research
that suggest that air pollution is caused by traffic calming. The DfT indicated
to the Committee that research has indicated that emissions from vehicles
may increase with implementation of traffic calming measures, however, the
reduction in the volume of traffic caused by these measures means that
overall changes in air quality are neutral.
23. ALG response: The ALG agrees that the Department for Transport should
consider checking its systems to ensure that research results and associated
implications are made fully available to the ALG and London boroughs.
Recommendation 7:
24. Recommendation: The Metropolitan Police Authority, London Fire and
Emergency Planning Authority and Department of Health should ensure that
the emergency services respond fully to borough consultations on traffic
calming and consistently attend and take part in local traffic management
meetings held by boroughs.
25. Background to recommendation: The Committee heard evidence from the
emergency services. The London Ambulance reported that removal of speed
humps could save hundreds of lives through reduced journey times to reach
destinations. However, it could not provide any evidence to support this.
Therefore, the Committee concluded that there was no empirical evidence to
demonstrate that more lives could be saved if speed humps were removed
and traffic flows improved. However, it did acknowledge that longer journey
51
times could have an impact for certain critical incidents. It also noted that the
level of involvement by the emergency services in borough traffic calming
proposals was not uniform. In particular, some boroughs commented that
involvement by the London Ambulance Service in consultation processes was
difficult to obtain. The Committee concluded that better consultation between
the emergency services and the boroughs on traffic calming proposals may
improve the situation.
26. ALG response: The ALG agrees that the emergency services should respond
fully to borough consultations on traffic calming and be part of borough traffic
management meetings where applicable. The ALG feels that there may be a
role for the Pan London Road Safety Forum to assess how this could be
taken further forward and potentially facilitate the process.
Recommendation 8:
27. Recommendation: The Pan London Road Safety Forum should be more
proactive in publicising its work on road safety in London and should be used
to discuss important issues that affect boroughs and the emergency services.
It could discuss and issue best practice guidance on the consultation process,
discuss and resolve traffic calming issues that affect both inner and outer
London boroughs; and, also ensure that best practice on traffic calming is
shared across London.
28. Background to the recommendation: The GLA Transport Committee noted
that the Pan London Road Safety Forum was not mentioned in any
submission.
29. ALG response: The ALG agrees that the Pan London road Safety Forum
should be proactive in publicising its work on road safety. The forum steering
group considered this at its last steering group meeting and is currently
assessing how to take this forward. The Forum could produce an annual
report on its activities to submit to ALG TEC, the Mayor and the GLA,
Transport for London, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
and the Metropolitan Police Authority. The ALG agrees that the forum should
be used to discuss important issues that affect the emergency services and
the boroughs and it could have a role in considering how best to develop best
practice on the consultation process. The ALG also agrees that the Forum
could assist in dissemination of best practice across London. However, the
ALG feels it is not the role of the Forum to resolve traffic calming issues that
affect both inner and outer boroughs. The Forum’s role is to facilitate the
debate on such issues, research potential answers and provide alternatives.
The Forum should not be too prescriptive. The Forum’s role is to facilitate
debate on road safety and assist co-operation between relevant bodies
across London.
Recommendation 9:
30. Recommendation 9: The DfT should change the regulations to make it
possible for London boroughs to set up local pilot schemes that use speed
cameras, or speed limiters, to enforce 20mph zones instead of speed humps
or other engineering measures.
31. Background to the recommendation: Some local authorities told the
Committee that they would like to see legislation changed that would enable
the use of speed cameras or speed cameras to enforce 20 mph zones.
52
32. ALG response: The ALG supports this recommendation and is keen to see
legislation that gives boroughs choice across as wide a range of road safety
measures as possible. More research is needed on newer initiatives such as
in-vehicle GPS based speed limiters.
Recommendation 10:
33. Recommendation: The members of the Pan London Road Safety Forum
should ensure that they share information and best practice about alternative
traffic calming measures across London. They should also establish pilot
schemes across London to test the new vehicle responsive humps.
34. Background to the recommendation: The Committee heard about a wide
range of new traffic calming measures that are being investigated by London
boroughs, TfL and the DfT.
35. ALG response: The ALG agrees that the members of the Pan London Road
Safety Forum should ensure that they share information and best practice.
Indeed, this is one of the main purposes of the Forum. The ALG does not
agree that the Forum should establish pilot schemes across the capital to test
the new vehicle responsive humps. Individual organisations within the forum
may wish to take this forward but it should not be a responsibility of the Forum
itself. Trials of the new vehicle responsive humps have already been
undertaken by the Corporation of London at Puddle Dock in London but
results have not been conclusive.
Recommendation 11:
36. Recommendation: Each London borough together with the emergency
services should agree on their own local strategic network. This
recommendation should be taken forward by the Pan London Road Safety
Forum.
37. Background to the recommendation: Following evidence submitted by
boroughs, the Committee concluded that there is a need for greater cooperation between local authorities and the local emergency services in
agreeing their local strategic road network for emergency vehicle operations.
The Committee noted that some boroughs and emergency services have a
good working relationship and have regular meetings but that this good
practice should be introduced consistently across London.
38. ALG response: The ALG accepts that each borough should be able to agree
on its emergency strategic road network with the emergency services. This
information could then be shared with neighbouring boroughs as appropriate.
The Pan London Road Safety Forum could play a role in bringing together
boroughs and the services.
Recommendation 12:
39. Recommendation: The Pan London Road Safety Forum should discuss and
agree the implementation of a traffic calming framework and the
establishment of a traffic calming database for traffic calming schemes across
London.
40. Background to the recommendation: The Committee was concerned that
traffic-calming schemes were developed on an ‘ad hoc’ basis across London.
Therefore, there should be a more planned approach to implementation. The
53
Committee also felt that there should be a database of existing schemes so
that boroughs and other stakeholders are able to ascertain the location of
these measures and delays are kept to a minimum.
41. ALG response: There would be some benefits of a London-wide framework
for the implementation of traffic calming measures as outlined by the GLA
report. However, local determination must still be retained. Therefore, there is
probably the case for London-wide best practice guidance on the issue, rather
than a rigid framework applied across the capital. The forum could input into
the process of best practice development and advise. There is little point in
the development of a traffic-calming database as boroughs will already have
details of their own schemes that can be made available to other interested
parties. If the emergency services inputted into the process as detailed in the
recommendations above, then they would be working with the boroughs to
identify best routes in relation to location of schemes.
Conclusion
42. The GLA Transport Committee makes a number of useful recommendations
on how to take forward the issue of speed humps, traffic calming and road
safety in general in London. Particularly that the Forum should be more
proactive in promoting and publicising its own and related relevant work on
road safety issues.
43. The ALG, the boroughs, TfL, the DfT and the emergency services need to
look at the recommendations made by the GLA Transport Committee and
determine how best to take forward those issues that the ALG TEC deem
appropriate. The steering group intends to use the next Road Safety Forum
event, planned for July 2, to discuss this.
44. The ALG does feel that the GLA Transport Committee does not fully
understand the role of the Pan London Road Safety Forum. The Forum is set
up to bring all the relevant stakeholders together to share information and
work together to facilitate the development promotion of road safety in the
city. The forum’s role is not a prescriptive one and neither is it a vehicle for
resolving conflict. (Although it could act as a facilitator and encourage debate
on specific road safety issues).
Financial Implications
None
Legal Implications
None
Equalities Implications
None
54
For further information about this report please contact:
David Moses OBE
Head of Scrutiny
Hertfordshire County Council
County Hall
Hertford
SG13 8DE
Tel: 01992 555300
E-mail: scrutiny@hertscc.gov.uk
For further information about scrutiny within Hertfordshire County Council visit:
www.hertsdirect.org/scrutiny
HRecommendation 2
Herts Highways should be more proactive in seeking a response from the Ambulance & Fire
Services during both the informal and formal consultation processes
H
55