Speed Limits - creation of a review working group

STATES OF JERSEY

SPEED LIMITS: CREATION OF A REVIEW WORKING GROUP

Lodged au Greffe on 27th October 2008 by Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to re q uest the Minister for Transport and Technical Services –

1. to establish a Review WorkingGroupto review the implementation, operation and suitability of the current SpeedLimits Policy (P.1/2004) as approved by the States on 15th March 2005 (setout in Appendix  1);
2. to appoint 3 States members as membersof the ReviewWorking Group of whomat least 2, including the Chairman,shallnotbeMinistersorAssistantMinisters, with the WorkingGroupto receive appropriate assistance from relevant officers; and
3. to present the conclusions ofthe Review Working Group with any associated recommendations for change to the Assembly before 30th June 2009.

DEPUTY I.J. GORST OF ST. CLEMENT

REPORT

Over the course of the last 3 years I have been contacted on several occasions by a number of Parishioners, who have themselves been in contact with the Transport and Technical Services Department, requesting changes to speed limits on various Parish and States roads (in some cases for over 10 years), all to no avail.

Both the Connétable and I have, on a number of occasions, spoken with the Department about speed reductions; a Parish meeting last year requested a parish-wide speed limit of 30 m.p.h. Unfortunately our concerns about speeding, traffic safety and pedestrian safety (particularly school children) have either made very slow progress or have fallen on deaf ears completely.

Some of these requests for speed reductions might have fallen outside of States approved policy (attached at Appendix 1) but this is not clear, whilst other areas or stretches of road clearly meet the policy requirements for reduced limits e.g. the St.  Clement Coast Road to Green Island and the village centre surrounding the Church and Church Hall .

It is therefore as a matter of last resort that I have been left with little choice but to lodge this proposition. I suspect that other parishes have been encountering similar problems and could provide their own examples of inconsistency of application. I am also conscious that traffic safety and speeding is an Island-wide issue as highlighted during the recent Senatorial hustings.

This proposition requests that a working party be formed (possibly similarly constituted as the previous group) to review how the policy was implemented and why there appears to be areas of discrepancy in application, whether the policy is operating as envisaged and whether it remains fit for purpose; this area might usefully be dovetailed into work on the integrated travel and transport plans.

It is best practise' to review the operations of all risk areas of any business. Safety and speeding can place people's lives at risk. I hope that Members will support this review which might allow for the correction of some anomalies with regards to the implementation and operation. This report is purposefully short and to the point.

Financial and Manpower Implications

The working party recommendations might result in financial implications however it is not possible to quantify these without second guessing any outcomes. The cost of the working party should be minimal with States Members and officers doing the majority of the work. There will of course be an opportunity cost with regards to officers spending time undertaking this review.

SPEED LIMITS: REVISED POLICY (P.1/2004)

As adopted, as amended, on 15th March 2005

Speed Limits Policy (P.1/2004) as adopted as amended on 15th March 2005

THE STATES, adopting a proposition of the Environment and Public Services Committee, as amended – (a ) ap p roved a revised policy with regard to speed limits on roads, as follows –

(i ) a 4 0 miles per hour speed limit on all public roads not subject to lower limits or Green

Lane status with vehicles with a laden weight of 3.5 tonnes or over being subject to a 30 mile per hour limit on these roads;

(i i) a 3 0 miles per hour speed limit –

  (1 ) o n ro a d s t h r ough urban, built up areas with development on both sides;

(2 ) o n le n g t h s o f road under ½ mile long in partially built up areas which are situated

between 30 miles per hour limits and therefore not long enough to stand on their own as roads with a 40 miles per hour limit;

( 3 ) o n r o a d s with development in depth on one side only producing significant

numbers of vulnerable road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists;

( 4 ) o n ro a d s through built up villages where there are frequent junctions with

inadequate visibility for higher speeds, and pedestrian crossings;

(i ii ) a 2 0 miles per hour speed limit –

  (1 ) o n ro a d s in housing estates and discrete residential areas which are not main routes

and which have little or no through traffic;

  ( 2 ) o n ro a d s in bays which are not main routes and which have significant tourist

pedestrian activity with such limits applying only during the summer season in appropriate cases;

(3 ) i n a r e as o u ts ide schools where there are part time electronically signed speed limits;

( 4 ) in other areas such as may be agreed following consultation between individual

Parishes and the Committee;

( iv ) a 1 5 miles per hour speed limit in all Green Lanes and on no other roads (subject to a

review of Green Lanes).

(v ) n o sp eed limit on roads being used for road racing.

(b ) a g reed that the Environment and Public Services Committee should be required to consult with

the Connétable of the Parish in which a road is situated before making an Order setting a speed limit on any road;

(c ) re q uested the Home Affairs Committee to conclude its investigations into appropriate measures to

deter road users from exceeding the speed limit and to report back to the States with its recommendations by July 2005; and

(d ) ch  arged the Environment and Public Services Committee to take all necessary steps to give effect

to the revised speed limit policy.

Report accompanying P.1/2004 lodged by the then Environment and Public Services Committee

1. I n t roduction

1. T h e  previous  Public  Services Committee, under the Presidency of  Deputy  Hacquoil, approved the creation of a workinggroup to review speed limits, to be Chaired by the Connétable ofSt. Helier, with representatives from the Home Affairs Committee, Comité des Connétable s, States Police and Road Safety Panel.
2. T h e groupwasformedasfollows –

C o n n étable Crowcroft – Public Services Committee

C o n n étable De la Haye – Comité des Connétable s and Home Affairs Committee C o n n étable Coutanche – Comité des Connétable s

D e p u ty Bridge – Home Affairs Committee

M r . P hilip Blake – Road Safety Officer

In s p e ctor Nigel Trustcott – States Police

M r . D avid St.  George – Senior Traffic Engineer, Public Services Department

3. T h e  group held  several  meetings  including  site visits  and its  recommendations were subsequently endorsedbytheEnvironmentand Public ServicesCommittee. A consultationexercise to assess the views of therelevant authorities and the general public on thoserecommendationswas then carriedout and a substantial majorityofsupporthasbeenidentified.
4. A l though the power to set speed limits isvestedintheEnvironment and Public ServicesCommittee (under the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956) the Committee believes that this sometimes contentious matter affects the whole communityand therefore has decided toseekthesupport of the whole States of Jersey Assembly beforeimplementing its policy.
5. T h e Committee feels obliged to doso particularly in view ofP.22/99passedby the States in March 1999, whichgavethepowertoset30 m.p.h.speed limits on by-roads to the individual Parish Authorities. This might lead to inconsistency with its proposed policy.

2. T h  e needfor a review Public perception of existing limits

1. Je r sey'sspeed limits havegrownconsiderably in number and variety, particularly since the first 30 m.p.h. speed limits were introduced in 1988, and GreenLanesin 1994. Compliance with the existing speed limits is poor, particularly where inappropriate limitshave been set. Criticism that they are too varied is often received, but conversely requests for lowering ofspeed limits on particular roads are received regularly, whichifapproved,wouldlead to a substantial increase in the numberof different speedlimit zones,  and  the incidences of non-compliance. The  Committee  currently  has 28 outstanding  requests requiring a decision,andneeds a policy inplace, so that a consistent approachcan be applied.
2. G r eenLanes,though legally controlled byEnvironment and Public Servicesbydesignationof a 15 m.p.h. speed limit, are considered tobe a Parish initiative, and have lacked consistencybetweentheParishes. They have added to the profusion oflimitsandthe feeling that a rationalisation isneeded.

Senator Shenton's Proposition

3. I n addition to the individualrequests, the Committee needed to considertheimplications of Senator Shenton'samended proposition P.32/98whichwas approved by the States on 16th March 1999 and

which requested the (then) Public Services Committee –

" t o i n tr o d u ce  a  30  mile  an  hour  speed  limit  on  all  by-roads  recommended  by  the  Parish Authorities, and introduce additional traffic calming features where appropriate including the restriction to 20  miles an hour of heavy goods vehicles in built up areas and villages"

( N .B  . W  o r d ing in bold added following a successful Amendment from Deputy P.  Rondel;"30"

changed from "20" following a successful amendment from Deputy G.  Baudains.)

Public Concern

4. T h e States Police Plan 2002 identified that, in a recent publicsurvey,speeding motorists were perceived to be the greatest problem in local neighbourhoods.

Sustainable Transport Policy

5. In its Sustainable Transport Policy the Committee (as previously constituted) proposed toinvestigate the feasibility ofcreating a 20 m.p.h. speedlimit within theSt. Helier ring road and inall buil-tup areas.

Previous Policy

6. T h e policy of previous PublicServicesCommittees has been as follows –

"Green Lanes" (Rural narrow lanes with low traffic

volume) 15  m.p.h.

Housing Estates and other discrete residential areas with

little or no through traffic 20  m.p.h. Built-up areas and villages 30  m.p.h. All other roads 40  m.p.h.

7. H  owever, the above policy has not been rigidly applied. Under this  policy the  20  m.p.h. zones in St.  Peter's Village and St.  Mary should be 30  m.p.h., but the Parish Authorities did not support an increase inthose limits. The interpretation of the built upareacausesmuchdebate and the areas subject to 30  m.p.h. limits have grown significantly since the original areas were set.Some30 m.p.h.zones ar clearly not in a built-up area. La Grande Route de Faldouet for example was recently designated a 30  m.p.h. limit following receipt of a petition from residents, although it is not within a built up area. Clarke Avenuewasrecentlydesignated a 15 m.p.h. speedlimit although it is not a GreenLane.

3. O  p tions/Issues

0. T h e workinggroup considered a numberof issues andoptions in the search for a policy that would contribute to road safety andbe better acceptedbythepublic.These are discussedbelow.

All-Island 30  m.p.h. limit

1. The Speed limits workinggroup considered that anall-Islandmaximum speed limit of 30 m.p.h. would be unreasonablylow, given that accidentrates in Jersey are lowwhen compared toelsewhere.Thegroup was mindful that the main purposeof a speedlimitwas to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents. Therewas insufficient evidence to suggest that such a significant changecouldbe justified or that it would have a significant effect onaccident rates. In a J.E.P. poll, 577 out of634 people votedagainstan all-Island 30 m.p.h. limit. Althoughan all-Island 30 m.p.h. limit, with no other differing limits, would produce significant reductions in signing, and avoid confusion, itis inevitable that calls forlowerlimit zoneswouldcontinue, and the need to sign differing speed limits would notdisappear.

"Default" 30  m.p.h. limit

2. T h e group considered a "default" speed limit of30 m.p.h., with roadstobesignedat40 (or 20)where considered appropriate.The conclusion of thegroupwas that there were very few roadsof significant length where a 40  m.p.h.limitcouldbesigned and not challengedbylocal residents as being too high, if the majority ofroads had a 30 limit. The likely outcomewas that only Victoria Avenue and LaGrande Route des Mielles (FiveMile Road) would besigned at 40 m.p.h..Again the group felt that this would result in anunpopularand unreasonably low speed limitfor the remainderof the Island.Although the lengths of road where40 m.p.h. is a reasonablespeed limit are short, they are reasonably numerous.

35  m.p.h. all-Island maximum with 25  m.p.h. speed limits in built-up areas

3. A t a jointmeetingbetweentheHome Affairs and Public ServicesCommittees, the possibility oftwo(35 and 25 m.p.h.)speed limits, instead of the current four limits (15, 20,30and40)wassuggestedas a means of reducing the number of speed limits.

T h e g roup did not consider that such a system would produce an acceptable solution. It is not the variety

of speed limits but the number of changes to speed limits, which was of concern. Changes in limit would still be numerous and some roads, which were currently subject to a 30  m.p.h. limit, would likely be increased to 35  m.p.h., to the considerable dissatisfaction of residents of those areas.

20  m.p.h. for built-up areas

4. T h e Sustainable TransportPolicyrecommends that consideration isgiven to a 20 m.p.h. limit within the ring road and in all built-up areas. Thegroup considered that the ring road was not a logical startpoint for a lowerspeedlimitasmanyroads with similar characteristics andproblems lay immediatelyoutsideof the ring road.Itfelt that the town centre, where the highest pedestrian activity and the highest pedestrian accident rates occurred, had relatively low traffic speeds, which would beunlikely to be affected by a 20  m.p.h. limit. Quality town centre physical traffic calmingschemes would be more appropriateand more effective in such locations.
5. T h e group gave consideration to applying a 20 m.p.h.limit to the village areas,as currently applies to St.  Peter's Village. It wasnoted that despite good enforcement, the speedlimitinSt. Peter's Village was poorly respectedby motorists. It wasagreed that 30 m.p.h. was a more appropriatespeedlimit for main routes through built-up areas, and wherespeedsneeded to be reduced further in village centres traffic calming wouldbemore effective. It wasnotedhowever that traffic calmingonmain routes neededtobe mindful of the emergencyservices' concerns that measuressuchasspeedhumpscould have a significant detrimental affect onresponse times. Traffic calming is discussed below.

Part Time 20  m.p.h. limits at schools

6. P reviousPublicServicesCommitteeshave approved the proposal to have electronically signed mandatory part time speed limits atschools.The electronic signs would flash atschool opening and closing times,so drawing motorists' attention to the need to slow down (to 20 m.p.h.) because of the presenceofschool children on the road.The two most common reasons fornon-compliance with a speedlimit are failure to notice the signing of the lower limit, and failure to respect theneedforthelower limit. This proposal should overcome both these issues. Thegroup fully supported this proposal.

Senator Shenton's Proposition

7. O n 16thMarch 1999, the States approved an amended proposition P.32/98 from SenatorShenton –

" t o i n tr o d u ce  a  30  mile  an  hour  speed  limit  on  all  by-roads  recommended  by  the  Parish Authorities, and introduce additional traffic calming features where appropriate including the restriction to 20  miles an hour of heavy goods vehicles in built-up areas and villages".

8. T h e group did notsupport this proposalas,ifindividualParishescouldchoose to apply a 30 m.p.h.limit on by-roadswithout reference to an Island-wide policy, there was a likelihood of inconsistency. The majority of accidents occurredon main roads and inbuilt-up areas, notonParishby-roads,whichwere predominantly rural, where the volumeof traffic was lower,and speeds tendedtobe contained by road geometry.30 m.p.h.speed limits onParish by-roads in mostcaseswouldserve little purpose,other than to add to the proliferation ofsignage.

O n l y one Parish, St.  Clement, had asked the Committee to introduce speed limits on its by-roads in

accordance with the Proposition. On 15th April 2003, a Parish Assembly voted 47 to 45 in favour of lowering the limit to 30  m.p.h. on all its by-roads except those which were Green Lanes. The Committee has deferred action on this request pending the outcome of this review.

Lower speed limit for large vehicles

9. T h e restriction of20 m.p.h. for heavy goods vehicles in built-up areas was included in SenatorShenton's proposition following an amendment from Deputy Rondel.It would be difficult to sign or legislate for if applied for someareas and not others at the request of the Parishes. There is currently anall-Island maximumspeedlimitof30 m.p.h. for vehicles over 2.5t unladen weight. This ispoorly respected by drivers of large vehicles. Manyoftherequests the Departmentreceives for a lowering ofthe40 m.p.h. speed limit relate tothe speed of large vehicles, which are already subject to a 30 m.p.h.limit. Better enforcement of this provision could improve road safety without the need for newlowerspeedlimit zones. Thegroupsupported a previous recommendationto the Committee that inorder to assist in the enforcement of this provision, largevehicles should be required to display a 30 m.p.h. plate, and inorder to avoidconfusion, the provision should be changedtoapply to vehicles over 3.5tladenweight, to tie in with driving license categories.

Green Lanes

10. T hegroup considered that the Green Lane systemwasin need of review. The current 15  m.p.h.speed limit is not adhered to, and the application of the Green Lane system varies between Parishes. It maybe that future legislation could control the use ofGreenLanesbygiving priority to pedestrians, rather than by applicationof a speed limit. Whateverfuture control wasapplied, the group considered that Green Lanesshould be considered separately from this Speedlimitreview.The intention of the GreenLane system was that it would be the province of the Parishes, and it was therefore for the Comité des Connétable s to initiate such a review.

Traffic calming

11. T hegroupconcluded that the provisionofphysical traffic calmingneededtobeconsideredwhere there was strong justification for low traffic speeds, suchas high pedestrian activity oraccident rate. Evidence showed that speed limits in themselves are ineffective in significantly reducing traffic speedswithout strict enforcement,which will always be constrained by limitations inmanpower.
12. B ecause traffic calmingis known tobe effective in reducingthespeedof traffic, the groupfelt that significant benefits to road safety were more likely to be derived from its use than from speed limits, which are prone to abuse. Quality traffic calming schemeshowevercanbe costly and would take many years to implement in all the areas they couldbe justified. Quality schemes convey to the driver that it would bewholly inappropriate and antisocial to drive at other than a lowspeed. A variety ofmeasures such as speedhumps,chicanes, central islands, road narrowing,gateways,miniroundabouts,orsimply different surface treatmentstoremove the impression that the car has priority, could beused. Residential side roadscouldbe calmed to guarantee very lowtrafficspeeds and give pedestriansequal priority. Main routes canalsobetrafficcalmedbut the methods used neededtoallow for the higher volumesof traffic, and the use of the routebyemergency services, buses and general commerce.

Enforcement

13. T hegroup felt that enforcement was a key issue. The States Police,mindful that the public rated speeding traffic  their greatest concern  in local neighbourhoods, have  carried out several  speed enforcement campaignsinrecent times. Despite the public'sconcern, there was a reluctance to view speedingas a serious offence,and a feeling from some that the Policeshouldconcentrateonother issues. Educating the public to drive at more appropriatespeeds cannot beachieved in theshortterm.However the Public's attitude to drink driving has changed in the past fewdecades, and itishoped that it will becomeless acceptable in the public'smindto break a speed limit in the years tocome.Thegroup'sbriefwasto review what speed limits are appropriatefor the Island, not howto enforce those limits. Nevertheless the groupviewedenforcement as crucial,and considered that the deterrence to speedingcould be increased, particularly through increased likelihood of disqualification, which would havethe benefit ofremoving gross speeders from the roads.
14. S peed cameras would enable enforcementin crucial areas to be improved but have significant cost and administration implications,whichwould need tobe thoroughly investigated before a decisioncouldbe made on their appropriateness for Jersey. The issue of enforcement would be for the Home Affairs Committee to progress.

4. P r o posedpolicy

1. A f ter much debate thegroupconcluded that there was insufficient justification for significant sweeping changes to Jersey speed limits andwhatwouldbe perceived asonerously low limits in certain areas. It therefore concluded that a continuationof the current policy with a more stringent application of the criteria for roadsto be subject to a 30or20 m.p.h.speedlimitas set outbelowshouldberecommended.
2. W h ere very low speedsare considered necessaryphysical traffic calming shouldbeused. Traffic calming for main routescouldalsobe considered but would have to take account of the need for the Island's population to goabout its business.
3. T h e criteria should be applied to the current requests, andchangesto current limits made asappropriate. Where  existing limits  did  not  fit  these criteria,  these  should be identified  and reviewed with  the appropriate Parish. Agreementtoraise a speed limit would need approval of a ParishAssembly.
4. O n ce set, further alterations tospeed limits, wouldnot be considered unless accident rates identified a particular problem, orsignificantchangesto the area justified a review of the speed limit.
5. The proposed criteria areas follows –

cases during the summer season only).

Part-time electronically signed 20  m.p.h. speed limits at schools.

15  m.p.h. 15  m.p.h. to continue to apply to Green lanes, at least until a review of

the green lane system has been completed. 15  m.p.h. would not be applied to any other roads.

5. C  o nsultation

1. T h e  Committee, aware that  speed limits  could be contentious,  were  anxious  to  assess  whether its proposals were representative of what the public wanted. A balance needstobe struck between the Committee's obligation to continue toimprove road safety, andthe need to allow the public to goabout its business without unreasonable restrictions. Aswellas consulting all the relevant official bodies, it also advertised its proposed policy in the local media to give the general public the opportunity tocomment.
2. T h e consultation exercise identified a significantlevelof support forthe proposals from official bodies. In particular itissupportedby the Home Affairs Committee, States Police,Comitédes Connétable s and Road Safety Panel.
3. T h e Connétable s agree that a reviewofGreenLanes is needed. As part of that review they intend to considerwhether20 m.p.h. would be a more appropriatespeedlimit than 15.
4. T h e Parish of St.  Helier Roads Committee isthe only consulted organisation that doesnotsupport the proposals. Itrecommends that a 20 m.p.h.speedlimitbe applied to all roadswith high pedestrian activity. The Committee does not believe that this is practical, as itwould need toapply it to the entire townarea. This has been discussed above (section 3.4).
5. D e spitetheissueseeming to generate strong views and significant media interest, only 25 membersof the public responded to the request forcommentsthrough media statements and a JerseyEveningPost notice. 14 were infavour, 3  against,and 8  neither for noragainst. A smallnumberof States membersresponded independently, the majority infavour.
6. S p eed limits have not been applied consistently inthepast.To achieve a more consistent approachitmay not only benecessary to reduce the speedlimiton particular roads, but to increase certain limits, although this would not be done without the approval of the relevant Connétable and Parish Assembly. It is proposed that the Road Traffic Law be amended so that the Committee is required to consult the relevant Connétable beforemakinganOrderprescribingspeed limits. This would normally be done as a matter of course, but it is notatpresent a legalrequirement.Although the Comitédes Connétable s supports the proposals it has stated that the 20 m.p.h. zones by St.  Mary's school, in St.  Peter's Village, and the 30  m.p.h. zone onLaGrande Route de Faldouet should remain.TheCommittee will discusswith the Connétable s of the relevant Parishes whether alterations to those speed limits combined with other measures,couldbe acceptable to the residents andusers of thoseareas whilst being consistent with the proposed policy.

6. C  o nclusions

1. T h e Committee isconfident that its proposed policy will besupportedby the public,and is a sensible balance between the obligation to addresstheissuesof road safety, and the need to allow thepublictogo abouttheirbusiness without unreasonable restrictions.
2. T h e States are askedto approve the policy as detailed above.
3. T h e proposals have nomanpowerimplications.Signage for newspeed limits will becarriedoutby existing staff.

4. T h e majority of the proposals have modestfinancialimplicationsand would becoveredby the Public Services Departmentannualbudget for maintenanceofsigns. The signage of part-timespeed limits at schools however would involve installation of electronic equipment with powersupplies.Althoughin some cases the existing school warning flashing lights would beadapted, it is estimated that to install electronically signed part-timespeed limits at all 35 schools would cost approximately£100,000. It would therefore be necessary to assessthose locations where the need is greatestandthose locations where it would be unnecessary, and to install the speed limits over a period ofup to five years to enable the cost to be metwithin the Public Services Department'sexistingbudget.