Agenda item

(Report by Director, Kent Highway Services)

(1)     In November 2006, a report on the feasibility of introducing a Kent-wide policy of 20mph limits outside all Kent schools was considered by the Board. The report recommended retention of the existing policy for 20mph limits and zones but did not propose an extension to all schools due to cost and practicality of enforcement without traffic calming. A further report on the issue had been requested by Members.

(2)     The safety of children particularly in the vicinity of the school gate was of the highest importance. However, whenever introducing 20mph limits or zones, the County Council must address a number of issues:-

·               Would the introduction of such a policy actually reduce child pedestrian casualties?

·               What type of limit should be used and at what cost?

·               Could an enforceable and acceptable countywide policy be introduced?

(3)     The existing policy allowed the introduction of 20mph limits or zones at any location where such measures could be justified, primarily in crash savings terms. The policy also included other factors such as the socio-economic profile of an area along with the presence of local shops and schools, however, it did not provide a specific priority for roads outside schools.

(4)     A study of three areas had been carried out, which covered a total of 154 schools. The study looked at crashes involving child pedestrians who were injured between the hours of 07:00 and 09:00 in the morning and 15:00 and 17:00 in the afternoon during the 3 years 2005 to 2007. Saturdays and Sundays were excluded, as was the month of August.

·               The study revealed a total of 211 crashes (2 fatal, 18 serious, 191 slight). Of these 36 (0 fatal, 4 serious, 32 slight) or 17% were located 300m either side of the school gate.

·               However, the study showed considerable variation between areas with the highest percentage of 31% and the lowest percentage of just 8%.

·               All of the fatal crashes and 78% of the serious crashes occurred away from the school gate.

·               In one area even if all 6 reported crashes had happened at different schools 57 out of the total of 63 schools had gone three years without an incident being reported by the Kent Police.

(5)     A further study of all child pedestrian fatalities (up to and including 16 years old) during the last ten years showed that of a total of 29 fatalities none occurred within 300m of the school gate at the start or finish of the school day.  The figures suggested that the introduction of a Kent-wide policy of 20mph limits and zones outside schools, as a crash reduction measure would be ineffective in reducing the majority of child pedestrian crashes.

(6)     It was likely that the new crash reduction target beyond 2010 would feature further reductions in child pedestrian crashes particularly those involving fatal injuries. We would need to target our limited resources at those areas where crashes were being reported.

(7)     Outside most schools, the congestion caused by parents picking up or dropping off children combined with large numbers of pedestrian and cyclists created a slowing of traffic at the very time that it was most needed. The crash figures indicated that despite the chaotic and dangerous appearance outside schools, crashes were more likely to happen away from the school where the speed of traffic was not constrained in this way.

(8)     A vital policy issue was what type of 20mph limit should be adopted outside its 611 schools (not including independents), permanent, part time, part-time advisory or a combination of these.  Permanent limits would see the limit operating all day every day. They would require the introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and road signs. The estimated cost for each site would be approximately £7,150 which included signs, posts, implementation, design fees, safety checks and in street lit areas lighting of the signs as required in the Traffic Signs and General Regulations and Directions (TSGRD) EDF connection and the TRO. This equated to some £4.1m for all 611 schools. This cost estimate did not include traffic calming.

(9)     Part-time limits also required a TRO and it was likely that special authorisation would be required. Such limits would require specialist signs that would operate on a timer system. Signs currently used in Scotland had a 20mph speed limit sign with flashing lights at the top and bottom of the sign. The signs were not currently included in TSRDG and would also require special authorisation. Timers would need to be reset annually to take account of any changes to the schools start and finish times and holidays. The estimated cost here would be some £9,400 per school, as well as the costs described above all signs would require an electricity supply. The estimated cost for all schools would be £5.7m.  Further costs associated with the signs included a higher level of maintenance and for re-setting the timers.

(10)   Part-time advisory limits were basically the same as the system described in paragraph (8) above, except that being advisory no TRO was required, so the cost would be about £8,100 per site or £5m.

(11)   Most activity outside schools took place at the start and finish of the school day, so logically the limit should be consistent with those times. The limit would not be appropriate at weekends or during school holidays and the lower speed limit should be in place only at those times to be self-enforcing and understood by the motorist. It should be noted that when variable limits were monitored in trials outside schools very little reduction in speed was observed, unless speeds were already low, typically not above 24mph.  Research for the Department of Transport on the effectiveness of 20mph limits stated “that where speed limits alone were introduced, reductions of only about 2mph in ‘before’ speeds are achieved. 20mph speed limits are, therefore, only suitable in areas where vehicle speeds are already low (the Department would suggest where mean vehicle speeds were 24mph or below), or where additional traffic calming measures are planned as part of the strategy”.

(12)   The view of the Kent Police was that 20mph zones and limits should be self-enforcing. This meant that the majority of limits and zones outside Kent’s schools would require traffic calming features. Not only would this be restrictively expensive but with many schools on “A” and “B” class roads, such features, particularly road humps could not be used. In addition, traffic calming features would be permanent and this did not fit with the need to have the limits only in place when they were actually needed. Drivers were likely to resent having their speed physically reduced when the need for slower speed existed only at start and finish of school days. Members had also concluded previously that physical traffic calming measures should be seen only as a last resort to specific crash and speed problems.

(13)   If a countywide policy were adopted then a priority rating system would need to be developed to see which schools should be done first. Crash data would play a part however the speed, levels of traffic and HGV flow might all need to be taken into account. Such a process would require a very considerable amount of work and a number of years to implement. It was believed that we would be challenged as schools discovered how far down the list they were. Even if we progressed at 50 schools per year starting from next year 09/10 it would take approximately another 13 years to achieve.

(14)   On the three key issues there appeared to be no case for implementing a countywide policy for the introduction of 20mph limits outside all Kent’s schools. Crash savings would be minimal and unlikely to significantly contribute to any new crash reduction target. The cost was prohibitive, the speed limits would be unenforceable and the time frame to implement such a policy excessive.

(15)   The Board supported the proposals for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste that:-

(a)     the County Council should not adopt a county-wide policy for the introduction of 20 mph limits or zones outside all Kent schools;

(b)     the County Council should retain its existing policy of implementing 20 mph limits or zones at locations where there was a clear and justifiable need for the scheme; and

(c)     the effects of advisory part-time limits in the county should be investigated further and a pilot involving 6 sites where this could be implemented should be developed. The potential costs and objectives of the scheme would be brought back to the Board towards the end of the financial year, seeking funding during 2009/10. If this proved effective then further schemes could be considered.