Worthing 20mph to be Abandoned?

On 4 September 2013, Worthing County Local Committee, the group of county councillors who now have decision-making power over transport projects in the borough, will meet.

They will most probably decide to spend nearly a million pounds on re-vamping Montague Street, in the process using up all the money previously allocated to implementing 20mph speed limits in the town and more.

If you have the ability to read Council reports, here are the recommendations from the horse's mouth: http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/clc/w/w040913i6a.pdf

20mph has Popular Support

Implementing 20mph limits on all residential streets is a popular move (typically 75% of people survey support lower speeds in their streets) and had already been prioritised by a unanimous vote of Worthing Borough Councillors. The scheme is backed by a strong local group as well as related groups such as Transition Town Worthing and the Worthing Revolutions cycle campaign. It's particularly important for Worthing, which has the highest numbers of deaths and serious injuries for pedestrians and cyclists of any West Sussex town.

The Montague Street scheme has no popular support, as the population are unaware of the project. However because it is apparently supported by West Sussex County Council, Worthing Borough Council, and the Town Centre Initiative (well, they would support it, wouldn't they!) this apparently trumps the need to ask local residents.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

Implementing 20mph limits conforming to current national government guidelines would cost around £400,000. The benefits of doing this are proven in Portsmouth, Brighton, parts of London, as well as most towns and cities in continental Europe. This is nothing new, it has many benefits, and costs relatively little. Schemes like this typically pay for themselves in reduced congestion and reduced health and emergency services costs within a year or two. Making it easier for local residents to get to the shops in Worthing without needing to drive will result in more local shopping and less congestion. Even the car parks will be less packed, allowing more people to visit from out of town, and helping to push parking charges down as demand drops.

The Worthing CLC now plan to spend more than double that amount, £1,000,000 in total, on refurbishing Montague Street. No doubt Montague street will look nicer with a re-vamp, but this will do nothing to improve safety on Worthing's streets. Nor will it make it any easier or more pleasant for Worthing residents and visitors to reach the shops in Montague Street: the surrounding roads will still be dominated by fast-moving and dangerous motor traffic. It is not clear what benefits this scheme will bring, or even whether it will result in any more people shopping in Worthing than currently. It certainly won't make any difference to local transport congestion, nor road safety. It is a shopping initiative, not a transport one.

Queue Jumping the Process

This Montague Street plan has apparently queue-jumped the new planning process. It should have been added to the local Community Issues List, and then councillors should have discussed the relative priorities of all the schemes on the list with experts and with Worthing residents and visitors. Then, and only if the scheme was judged to be one of the top priorities, would the scheme be allocated funding and started.

Instead we have a scheme that no-one has yet seen any details of, that has not been publicised at all, and that hasn't even been listed on the Community Issues List. Yet councillors are talking as if the money has been allocated to it, and that it will be given the go-ahead. Worse still, the 20mph scheme which has followed the correct process, and which has strong community support, is being thrown out to make way for it.

Are the CLC breaking their own procedures to rush this scheme through, and, if so, why?

Is this democracy and localism in action?

Illogical Plans - designed to be thrown out?

West Sussex County Council have spent considerable sums on carrying out traffic speed surveys on some of Worthing's streets.

Here is the map of "Option 1" where all roads, other than A, B, and local distributor roads, are changed to have a 20mph speed limit (click to enlarge):

This is by far the simplest option, and the most cost effective. Drivers will soon become used to driving slower on all Worthing streets, other than the more major roads.

Here is the recommended "Option 2" map, showing the areas with 20mph limits and the few small areas where 30mph will remain the speed limit (click to enlarge):

Can you spot the differences?

How does this make any more sense than just making all residential roads in the Borough 20mph? It will need more signs, to indicate where 30mph is the limit, and it will confuse drivers who suddenly find themselves on a 30mph street in an otherwise-20mph town.

Perhaps the plans are deliberately daft, so the CLC councillors can say that they are daft, and thus can throw the whole idea out?

If you are concerned about road safety in Worthing, or would like more pleasant streets where you live or work or shop, or just think that planning processes should be followed properly, please come along to the CLC meeting on 4 September 2013 at the Heene Centre.

No LSTF millions for Worthing or Crawley

In June 2012, West Sussex County Council was awarded £2.46 million (that's £2,460,000) for three years to provide Local Sustainable Transport in the county. That's a very useful amount of "free" additional money[1] in a county that doesn't really prioritise sustainable transport much at all.

But although the bid included schemes in Chichester, Horsham, Worthing and Crawley, only the first two towns are seeing any of this money.

Why is that? Well, when DfT were deciding on the amounts to award each authority, they communicated with Officers. The response to a Freedom of Information Act request details the decision-making process in action.

First the DfT asked WSCC for their top priorities in their bid:

18 May 2012

Hi Darryl,

As discussed on the phone just now, Ministers are currently discussing Tranche 2 bids with a view to making an announcement shortly, and we’ve been asked to follow up a few issues with various bidders. In the case of your bid, Ministers would like to know what your prioritisation would be for the four towns you highlighted in your bid, in order from most to least significant.

If it is possible, it would also be helpful to have some approximate figures for what your request for funding would be from the DfT for these four towns separately.

I appreciate this is very short notice, but if you’re able to respond with some responses by the end of today (or 10am Monday at the latest if this afternoon is too soon), I’d appreciate it. We are meeting with Norman Baker MP again on Monday morning, and it would be very helpful to have a response to take to him if he wants to follow up.

I should stress also that Ministerial decision-making has not yet concluded, and that this request for further information should not be viewed as any indication as to the status of your bid.

Many thanks in advance,
Tricia 

Darryl responded:

21 May 2012

Hi Tricia,

In the time available it has not been possible to discuss this with our members who, if we are successful, may very well choose to take a different approach. That said, in the time available we have identified the following priority list:

1. Chichester
2. Horsham
2. Crawley
4. Worthing

I will aim to provide more detail on costs later today but initially we estimate the a package for the 3 highest priority towns would cost (to DfT) £1.9m capital and £1.75m revenue. I hope that information is helpful. If you would like to discuss this further then please email as I am out of the office today.

Kind regards,
Darryl

And a little later:

21 May 2012

Hi Tricia,

Further to my earlier email we have disaggregated the bid costs into the 4 towns and those activities which are intended to operate across all the towns. For those activities which are
common to each of the towns, it is difficult to estimate in the time available, the cost saving which could be achieved by dropping 1 or more of the towns from the programme. For the
time being these are therefore highlighted. Hopefully this provides you with the information you need but please let us know if anything else is required.

	Capital	Revenue	Total
Chichester	£590,639	£262,075	£852,714
Crawley	£710,411	£400,675	£1,111,086
Horsham	£607,560	£432,575	£1,040,135
Worthing	£798,903	£432,575	£1,231,478
All LSTF towns		£763,400	£763,400
Total	£2,707,513	£2,291,300	£4,998,813

Kind regards.
Darryl  

Tricia replied, asking for more prioritisation:

22 May 2012

Thanks for this, Darryl, this is very helpful.

In your email of Monday morning, it looks like you’re giving Crawley and Horsham an equal ranking as both second in priority. In our discussions with Norman Baker MP, he was asking for a second and third ranking for these two towns, from your perspective. Would you be able to provide us with that ranking, please?

Many thanks for your swift turnaround on these queries,
Tricia

And Ian Steane replied:

22 May 2012 

Hi Tricia,

Darryl's out of the office at the moment but has asked me to reply to you.  In response to the Minister's question we would prioritise Horsham above Crawley.  As mentioned previously we have not discussed this with Members yet, who may take a different view on the order.  If there is a successful announcement we would prefer the towns not to be named individually so we can have these discussions with Members to gauge their opinions. 

Kind regards
Iain 

Note that he specifically says:

we have not discussed this with Members yet, who may take a different view on the order

and:

we would prefer the towns not to be named individually so we can have these discussions with Members to gauge their opinions

meaning that the decision to award the money to only Chichester and Horsham was taken by WSCC officers without any consultation with elected representatives on the council. The officers were planning to discuss the final allocation of funding with elected members after any award had been made.

Finally, the LSTF money was awarded, as follows:

11 July 2012 

Dear Mr Hemmings,

West Sussex Sustainable Travel Towns

Thank you for your tranche 2 bid to the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, submitted in February. This letter is to inform you that Ministers have decided to provide partial funding for this bid.

This bid contained a comprehensive programme of measures focussing on journey to work and schools and has a clear commitment from bus operators. Funding has been approved for the two top priority locations, Chichester (£853k) and Horsham (£1,111k), and half the additional programme-wide costs have also been approved (£381.75k) to support these priorities. The Department would be happy to provide further feedback and advice if you require. Please contact the team at [email address].

The Department’s funding contribution to the project takes effect from 27 June, and will
be paid as resource and capital grant as follows:

£k	Revenue	Capital	Total
2012/13	92	124	216
2013/14	532	71	603
2014/15	453	1074	1527
Total	1077	1269	2346

We will write to you shortly with a formal offer of grant under Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. The letter will include the terms under which the grant is to be provided. It will also explain that there will be no opportunity to carry forward any unspent funds into subsequent financial years.

Thank you for taking the time to develop your bid to the Fund. My team and I look forward to working with you and we wish you every success in implementing the project and realising the benefits for your local communities.

Yours sincerely,
Pauline Reeves  

Oh dear, they mentioned the towns explicitly! That's embarrassing, as democratically-elected members can't now have a say. WSCC just blamed DfT for specifying the towns, when, as we can see, it was WSCC officers that made this unaccountable decision.

Can you also spot the error: they've awarded the amount allocated for Crawley to Horsham! Horsham should be pleased to get that extra £71,000 they weren't expecting!

So that's why Worthing and Crawley missed out potentially hundreds of thousands of LSTF money for sustainable transport.

[1] However even two million over three years isn't that much if you compare it to the fifty million annual county Highways budget (£52,400,000 allocated for 2013/2014). In fact it's an increase of only 1.6% in spending.

Inverse Logic for setting Speed Limits

West Sussex County Council uses a rule to decide whether 20mph speed limits, popular with around 75% of the population according to almost every survey taken, should be implemented.

The rule is:

The urban speed limit can only be reduced to 20mph if the average speed recorded on most roads is already less that 24mph.

This means that WSCC will only agree to install 20mph speed limits if the majority of motorists already drive slowly. Which means the effect of lowering the speed limit can only be small, and it will only happen if there isn't an existing problem with speeding.

On residential roads where speeding is a problem, WSCC will refuse to make any changes to lower speed limits, because drivers are driving too fast! So roads where lower speed limits would have the biggest impact are excluded from becoming safer.

So we seem stuck in a Highways planning system where motorists, and not local people, decide how fast motorists should be allowed to drive. If the residents of a street decide that they want a 20mph limit to make their street safer, quieter, and generally more pleasant to live in, all motorists have to do is speed down that street a lot, and the 20mph limit will not be introduced.

This nonsense is probably because politicians don't want to be seen to upset "the poor beleaguered motorist" who appears so often in our newspapers. Possibly also because for some odd reason the Police don't like 20mph limits as an idea, even though they would surely benefit greatly from fewer road traffic incidents on our urban streets.

West Sussex Highways and Transport would be a whole lot more popular with West Sussex residents if they realised that this rule is absurd, and if they listened to residents as well as motorists when setting speed limits.

Arbitrary Planning

West Sussex County Council used to do some Highways and Transport planning, but they don't any more. Planning is now devolved to County Local Committees, 14 groups of councillors to cover the whole county.

So, in the past, WSCC might have had a stated plan to reduce motor traffic congestion by encouraging sustainable transport modes such as walking and cycling. They then might have drawn up County-wide plans on how this might be done, through "soft" measures such as TravelWise and through building suitable infrastructure.

These days there is no joined-up planning at all. Each CLC meeting decides what they'd like to change for the highways in their area, based on the personal preferences of councillors and limited feedback from local people.

Even worse, each CLC is limited to an arbitrary maximum of three TROs per year, so making any progress even on local requirements is painfully slow.

So getting something like National Cycle Network Route 2 completed between Worthing and Littlehampton (a big gap in this national cycling network) is now effectively impossible.

West Sussex Transport would be an awful lot better if there was a county-wide strategic plan instead of a multitude of disconnected local ideas.

Only Three Changes per Year

To make a change to a public highway, for example to add:

• Double-yellow lines
• A pedestrian crossing
• A cycle lane
• A new parking space
• A new loading bay
• A taxi rank
• A one-way street

the Highway Authority, in our case West Sussex County Council, has to create a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This is a legal document that describes exactly what will be changed, and it has to be published for 21 days to allow people to object to the changes. If there are objections then these are discussed by the Transport Committee, who decide whether the TRO should be "sealed" and legally enforceable. If there are no objections, then the TRO can be sealed without any further discussion.

Oddly, West Sussex County Council limit the number of TROs each County Local Committee can apply for to just three per year. This low limit means that each District has a very long "waiting list" of things they'd like to do, such as introducing new pedestrian crossings where there's a great need.

The silly thing is that it's perfectly legal to combine many changes into a single TRO, especially if the changes are related. But WSCC don't appear to want to do that.

While West Sussex currently have just three TROs being consulted on in the whole county, Brighton and Hove are consulting on twenty!

It almost seems as though WSCC Highways and Transport don't want to see any change.

West Sussex Transport would be an awful lot better if WSCC could pull their finger out and process more TRO applications more quickly.