Slow and Nice

Now that the snow and ice is disappearing it is perhaps time to become a little nostalgic about it. Of course there were problems with ungritted pavements (as I may have mentioned) and neglected cycle paths, but every cloud has a silver lining and so with the snow and ice - it radically reduced the speed and volume of traffic which is the holy grail for many environmentally minded campaigners. At a stroke Mother Nature achieved what we mere humans can only dream of - a city where cars were rarely used, where everyone drove slowly and cautiously, where walking became the default mode of transport and where people suddenly found that they had time to stop and talk to each other.

Others have waxed lyrical on the same theme. Even hard case Evening Post columnist Mike Ford (the Bedminster Bigmouth) seems almost human in his latest column. Those commentators attribute the change in the public mood to the snow and ice but I suggest that it was as much the secondary effect of dramatically suppressing vehicular traffic which transformed out streets from hazardous race tracks to places to enjoy at a gentle walking pace. So many people have remarked on how much more sociable our local streets became over the last few weeks with neighbours stopping to talk to each other for perhaps the first time ever.

In part I think this renaissance in sociability was down to the fact that the street itself (and not just the narrow footways at the side) became a relatively safe place to walk, or just to stand and chat. The presumption that the street was the exclusive domain of vehicles was called into question by the impassable nature of the snow and ice covered footways. Everyone seemed to recognise this and even the 4x4 brigade seemed a little less arrogant. On almost every street except those that had been cleared most people took to walking down the middle of the road out of sheer necessity.

So can we reclaim something of that pedestrian friendliness and sociability by slowing and restraining traffic as a matter of course? That is certainly what many hope and the widespread support for the 20's Plenty (20 mph) campaign is I believe based largely on such aspirations. I'm tempted to ask whether we should perhaps abandon pavements in some streets and encourage people to walk down the middle of the road instead. This approach is known as 'shared space' but remains very controversial with many feeling that pedestrians would then be at the mercy of bullying motorists. At least let's all think about the lessons that we can learn from the Slow and Nice experience of the last few weeks.

It's Total Twenty (well almost).

Bristol City Council have just issued a Press Release on their 20 mph proposals for south and east Bristol. The number of roads excluded from the 20 mph coverage has been pared right down. The south Bristol is now 'Total Twenty' with no exclusions except the fragments on Clarence Road and York Road along the Cut which are effectively outside the scheme area. The whole of the A38 (West St - Malago Road - Bedminster Parade) is now included as 20 mph.

In east Bristol the exclusions (shown red below) are the M32 - Newfoundland Way - Newfoundland St, Easton Way -Lawrence Hill Roundabout - Barrow Road, Lawrence Hill - Church Road,
Old Market - West Street - Lawford Street/Lamb Street/Lawfords Gate/Trinity Road - Clarence Road (the A420). No one ever expected the M32 and Easton Way to be included so effectively it's just the A420 that has been excluded. That will still disappoint some but the gains compared to the officers' original proposals are enormous.



The proposals will have to be the subject of Traffic Regulation Orders before they can be implemented and it is possible that there might be objections, but it looks as though the overwhelming degree of public support for 20 mph proposals has carried the day. Credit to all those who have contributed to the consultations and debate, especially to 20splenty4Bristol, Bristol Living Streets, Bristol Cycling Campaign and above all to Jon Rogers for pushing so hard for the minimum of exclusions. We must also recognise the willingness of the officers themselves to listen to the public and to reconsider their initial position

20 mph - Jon Rogers says No to Officers

Councillor Jon Rogers, Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability, has sent in a comment (below) on his council's 20 mph proposals which we've been covering extensively on this blog.

The most contentious issue is the number of streets to be excluded from the 20 mph coverage within the pilot areas, with the officers taking a predictably cautious approach with the exclusion of all streets which already have an average speed above 24 mph (so excluding the ones that most need calming).

Jon Roger's rejection of his officers' report and insistence on fewer exclusions represents a major showdown on a matter that Jon Rogers clearly feels very strongly about. Jon's comment -

Morning all

I would appreciate some help.

I have this week rejected the officer report on 20mph areas.

To be fair, they had added the following previously excluded roads to the list of 20mph roads...

Inner East Bristol:
Mina Road
Ashley Rd
Stapleton Rd (part) – between its junctions with Easton Way & Robertson Rd.

Inner South Bristol:
North St (part) – between its junctions with Dean Lane/Cannon St & Luckwell Rd
Dean Lane
Cannon Street
West Street
East St/Bedminster Parade.

I hope we all would agree to those.

However, officers had recommended that I reject residents calls for the following streets to be included as 20mph.

Inner East Bristol:
Whitehall Road
Easton Road
Church Road (western end)
Ashley Hill
Sussex Place
Sevier Street
James Street
York Street
Fishponds Rd (between junctions with Robertson Rd & Muller Rd)
Old Market
Pennywell Rd
Lamb Street/Lawfords Gate

Inner South Bristol:
St Luke’s Road
Greenway Bush Lane
North Street (between junctions with Luckwell Rd & Ashton Rd)
Ashton Road
Duckmoor Road
Luckwell Road
Smyth Road
Malago Road

I know very well and use regularly only the five in Ashley Ward...

Ashley Hill
Sussex Place
Sevier Street
James Street
York Street

I had previously emphasised (as Ashley ward councillor) to officers, that in my opinion, they should include all these 5 roads in the pilot (as well as Mina Road and Ashley Road, which they have supported).

This would mean that on entering Ashley ward, there would be a 20mph speed on ALL our residential roads. This could reduce the need for 20mph signs, limiting them to the entry roads, and perhaps reminders along the main routes.

I therefore, on the basis of what I know about Ashley ward, rejected the report.

However I can see that some of these roads should be kept at 30 mph, for example major bus routes or where the police have major concerns over enforcement.

What I need help on is the other roads. Does the same apply to them, or are officers right to recommend exclusion.

Comments?

Jon

View 20 mph in Bristol in a larger map

I've marked up the roads listed on my 20 mph map which you can get a better view of by clicking on it. The streets now accepted for inclusion are marked boldly in green (of course). Those remaining excluded (at 30 mph) are in red. The 20 mph pilot area boundaries are marked in blue.

So let's have your comments and freedback, particlularly for those areas in south Bristol and east Bristol that you know best.

Total Twenty for Bristol

Just a quick post to remind you all that today is the last day of the formal consultations on the proposed 20 mph pilot areas so please get your comments in if you haven't already (see here for details). But the campaign doesn't stop here so let's keep plugging away at local councillors and officers so that they know this issue isn't going to go away.

The big issue is not whether the pilots go ahead but whether they go ahead as Total Twenty areas where all residential streets are covered, or as timorous, tepid twenty/thirty areas where speed limits chop and change in a confusing way. The streets the officers want to keep as 30 mph  are the streets where cyclists and pedestrians are in the most danger, have the most difficulty crossing and are subject to the most harassment. Leaving these streets unchanged renders the whole exercise largely pointless since the streets currently proposed for 20 mph already have speeds of that order anyway.



Many of us have questioned the need for Pilot schemes in the first place. We already know 20 mph areas of the sort proposed bring some benefits so what is there to trial? But what we don't know in detail is how much more might be achieved by a Total Twenty approach including all residential streets without exception. That would be something worth trialling, giving some purpose to the Pilot schemes. In the unlikely event that a Total Twenty approach turned out to be counter productive then something useful will have been learned.

And if Total Twenty proves to be an altogether better approach then that would surely be something that Bristol could be very proud of having pioneered. Bristol likes to think of itself as innovative and entreprising. Well here's a chance to prove it. After all what's the worst that could happen with Total Twenty? It's hardly likely to deliver worse conditions that we have with the 30 mph limit. If the city council can't find the courage to seize this opportunity to make a step change then they will show themselves truly deserving of the odium heaped upon them by certain bloggers.

Twenty's Plenty Needs You

I know I covered this just two weeks ago but this is IMPORTANT and needs action from all of us. As you may have noticed I'm generally pretty cynical about what Bristol City Council do in the name of sustainable transport and in this case too they are set to make a fundamental error. But this time it really matters because the 20 mph concept is our best chance, perhaps our only chance, of making a real change to the character of our streets so that ultimately they are no longer thought of as inherently dangerous places for people on foot or on bicycles.


The A420 Church Road, 20 mph in Redfield, Bristol.

As I explained before the main issue is the proposed exclusion of so many streets within the proposed 20 mph pilot areas. We know that the highway engineers are generally hostile to the idea of 20 mph areas and I suspect the proliferation of excluded streets is their way of undermining the scheme. We also know that some Councillors, notably Executive Member Jon Rogers, are very keen to get 20 mph implemented and he is on record as being unhappy with the number of excluded streets.

Now you may think 'why doesn't Jon Rogers, our elected representative, just tell the officers to cut the excluded streets?'. Well it seems that the levers of power aren't that simple or direct. He cannot do this alone and needs our support. We need to demonstrate the extent of popular support for the 20 mph concept and opposition to the excluded roads. And we need to do it by the end of this month when the formal consultation comes to an end.



One of our allies in this is George Ferguson, whose 'By George' column in today's Evening Post makes the case very well. I know I've had a pop at George on many occasions but that's just the iconoclast in me. In mostly makes a lot of sense and makes it very eloquently, especially in this case. To quote a few salient points from George's piece:-

"Having given the (20 mph) area a clear boundary, the document then complicates the issue by suggesting leaving certain routes through the area at the current 30mph limit. The fact is that these key routes are also key cycling and walking routes, and go past some of the seven primary schools within the area.

The trouble with traffic measures is that they are generally planned by highway engineers, who – however well-meaning – tend to think in terms of roads and traffic flow, and have very different criteria from those of us who occupy the streets for shopping and walking to school or to work and who regard them as social territory."

Great stuff. But we need more support and that means YOU. I know, we're all busy, etc. So I'm going to make it easy. Below is my own submission. Please use it as a template for your own comments. Delete anything you're uncomfortable with, add anything you think is missing, but PLEASE send something to 20mph@bristol.gov.uk (and copy it to Jon Rogers and your local councillors) and please do it now.

I strongly support the general principle of 20 mph as the general speed limit for all residential and shopping areas in Bristol.

The benefits are numerous, including of course less danger and intimidation of pedestrians and cyclists, easier and safer crossing of streets, less noise and pollution, less stress and even less traffic. The costs could be minimal if signing were kept to a minimum.

I would like to see the introduction of 20 mph over the whole of Bristol's residential areas, or at the very least the whole inner city where streets are generally narrower and/or heavily parked. I do not see the point in limiting it to two pilot areas since this increases the perimeter to area ratio so requiring more signing at more public expense for a given area.

However the major flaw in the current proposals is that the pilot areas have 'excluded' streets. In most cases these are the streets which most need lower speeds, where danger and intimidation is greatest, where most crossing movements take place, where people shop, walk and cycle, where schools are accessed and where noise, pollution and stress are greatest.

Excluding these streets will totally undermine the stated purpose of the 20 mph scheme. It will greatly increase the amount of signing required and hence the cost of the scheme and it will the create confusion by making it unclear whether a particular street is 20 mph or 30 mph without constant reference to signs which is impractical and a dangerous distraction in urban areas.

Apart from clearly non-residential roads like Easton Way there should be no exclusions within the 20 mph areas. In practice actual speeds will vary around the 20 mph mark according to local conditions, as they should, and on some streets the average may be significantly higher, but even speeds slightly above 20 mph will be a big improvement on speeds slightly above 30 mph.

Getting the 20 mph scheme right is of fundamental importance for the credibility of Cycling City, the Council's Walking Strategy and indeed the Council's overall 'Green' aspirations. The current proposals with the excluded streets have already been widely criticised and there can be little doubt that a 20 mph based on the current proposals will be seen as a failure of nerve on the part of the Council.

Twenty's Plenty for Bristol

Bristol City Council have announced plans to trial a widespread 20 mph speed limit in two areas of the inner city, centred on Easton and Southville as shown in the map below bounded by the blue lines. Consultation on the general arrangements takes place this month but there will be an opportunity to object to specific Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) when these are subsequently put forward. Implementation is planned for next spring. The plans were actually leaked back in January and the current proposals are much the same as those shown on the leaked maps.


View 20 mph in Bristol in a larger map

The idea is that 20 mph should replace 30 mph as the normal, default speed limit in residential areas of the city although without the introduction of physical traffic calming measures or police enforcement. Some people have expressed scepticism about the effectiveness in the absence of such enforcing measures but experience elsewhere suggests that average speeds will be slightly reduced as a consequence of changing the notional limit. Nevertheless the idea seems surprisingly popular with the general population so very much an idea whose time has come.

But there is, predictably, a major problem with the current proposals, leaving aside the enforcement issue. The plans exclude most main roads in the areas concerned (red lines in the map above), even when those main roads are also shopping streets, designated cycle routes and serve schools and parks. Precisely the sorts of roads that most need to have lower speed limits. The two most glaring examples are perhaps Mina Road in St Werburgh's and Dean Lane in Southville, but there are many others like North Street (Southville) and Stapleton Road (Easton), both important shopping streets that serve as focuses (or foci if you like) for their respective communities.



So what is the big problem about applying 20 mph limits to main roads? It's actually been tried and tested here in Bristol with a short stretch of the A420 Church Road in Redfield (pictured above and shown as a green line on the map). Admittedly it's not very obvious that it makes much difference, but then it is still the exception to the general 30 mph rule and unlikely to be taken much notice of. But at least it establishes that 20 mph on main roads in residential and shopping areas does not bring the world grinding to a halt. Everything carries on much the same but with speeds gradually edging downwards.



Another big problem with having so many streets excluded is the need to sign all the transitions from 30 to 20 and back, as pictured above with the existing 20 mph zone just south of Church Road. Not only do all the signs cost us money but they add to the general clutter on our streets and result in road users losing track of whether they are in a 20 mph or 30 mph street.

What we need is for 20 mph to replace 30 mph as the general speed limit on all urban streets except those roads that are clearly not residential like Easton Way, the Portway and of course the M32. The 20 mph default needs to be consistent and ubiquitous and not something confined to backwaters where speeds rarely exceed 20 mph by much anyway. The current propsals, even though claimed to benefit cyclists and pedestrians and to be funded by Cycling City money, will do little for cyclists or pedestrians where they experience the most intimidation and danger, on the main roads which are set to be excluded.