20 mph - The Cambridge Experience John Richards Acting Project Delivery & Environment Manager

Background to Cambridge 20 mph  Challenges facing City’sinfrastructure:  Compact city of 120,000 residents, seasonal students and visitors  Historic core  Highest cycling rates in UK  Road casualties  Growth, congestion and pollution  Existing 20 mph areas have proved popular!

History  Early safety driven schemes date from late 80s/early 90s  Engineering ‘heavy’  Awareness of changing national landscape around lower speeds  2010 ‘Trial’ schemes based on signing/road markings alone  Central area within inner ring road  Wulfstan Way / Gunhild Way late 1940s residential estate

Objectives  City-wide 20 mph consistency, rationalise existing areas and signage  Facilitate active and sustainable travel modes  Health and congestion benefits  Improve safety and feeling of security  Reduce noise and pollution  Environmental improvement

New beginnings…  Project established through 2011 motion to Council  City-wide approach  Cross party support  £600k Capital budget over 3 years  Light not heavy handed approach, based on signing and road marking changes  Self enforcing

Consider the function of streets and 20 mph as a catalyst for potential change…

Routes for movement…  ‘Thoroughfare’ dominates  e.g. ‘A’ and ‘B’ category roads  generally unsuited to 20 mph…

Routes for access…  Thoroughfare less dominant  e.g. residential and shopping streets  generally suited to 20 mph…

But what about those in between?  e.g. ‘C’ class or distributor roads these are different sections of same road….

Recommendations based upon:  Function of route within hierarchy  Road and traffic characteristics  Existing traffic speeds (comprehensive surveys)  Levels of public support

Approach  Phased implementation over 2-3 years  Efficient mix of zones and limits  Engagement centred around 4 Area Committees  132 miles, or 85% of city’s roads, included  Project Board aligns key stakeholders and processes (e.g. County Council as Highway Authority)

High Public Engagement expectations  Approx. 60,000 consultation packs delivered to all city addresses  Project web page and online questionnaire  Public exhibitions  Press releases and social media  Area Committee and Environment Scrutiny Committee consideration  Opportunity for public to have say and help shape – encourages ownership

Consultation headlines  Approx. 11,000 responses, 18% return rate  < 4% non city residents  > 2 to 1 in favour  Mixed support on ‘C’ road suitability  Key concerns: enforcement and worsening congestion  Popular misconceptions

Implementation Progress Phase 3 (South and West / Central areas) consultation completed, member review, target implementation next 12 months Phase 1 (North area) completed Phase 2 (East area) TROs in place, implementation Spring 2015

Victoria Road  A busy ‘A’ class route forming part of the city’s inner ring road  Considered ineligible for 20 mph given County policy that excludes ‘A’ and ‘B’ class roads  Road and usage characteristics similar to many ‘C’ class routes included  Public demand and political support  Agreement to advertise, objections determined (by County Council) and now included within project scope

Post implementation monitoring (north area)  On 93% of streets previously above 20 mph, speeds have reduced  Average reduction 1-2 mph typical  3 mph reduction on a busy ‘C’ road (Arbury Road)  Average speeds on roads included now below 24mph, with 56% below 20mph

Further work  Complete city-wide (realise maximum benefit)  Marketing (hearts & minds) and promotion  Enforcement (carrot and stick)  Monitoring of:  Travel choices  Traffic speeds  Casualties  Air quality and noise  Public perceptions, and satisfaction?

Lessons  Development phase  Design phase  Implementation phase

Development phase learning  Ensure sound evidence base  Adequately resource, plan and programme  Establish governance and processes  Challenge assumptions  Flexibility around road and user characteristics rather than classification

Design phase learning  Care around sign positioning  Administrative boundaries  New developments

Design phase learning  Care around sign positioning  Administrative boundaries  New developments

Design phase learning  Care around sign positioning  Administrative boundaries  New developments

Implementation phase learning  Effective procurement and early provider involvement  Forward visibility of programme and constraints  Street Works liaison  ‘Right first time’ construction

Future challenges  Scrutiny around ‘value for money’  Compliance and need for enforcement  Public acceptance and ownership  Maintaining advocacy message  Dealing with inconsistencies and problem streets  Project integrity  What next?

Thank you John Richards Consider widespread 20 mph coverage as a step change in public attitudes around healthy, living, cities And finally…