Islington council: Crouch Hill improvements/ Hanley Road 20mph zone

Ian · November 2009

Nothing from the council. They have a 10 day window for replying according to the website.

ADGS · November 2009

And that's working days. And from my experiences with housing benefit queries, that 10 *working* days is not measured from when you submit your query, but from when it actually gets to the top of a council worker's inbox and actually gets looked at.

Reg · November 2009

A response: Thank you for your email regarding the Hanley Road 20mph scheme. The consultation carried out in July was used to gauge the opinion of residents regarding the implementation of a 20mph scheme in their area. This was not a referendum and the information was used, in conjunction with other data such as traffic volume and speeds and casualty records, to design a scheme that would achieve the desired outcome of reducing casualties in the Hanley Road area. Although there was a slight overall majority in favour of a scheme without speed humps, when the results are looked at more closely, on some roads there was preference for speed humps and on many there was very little difference. The recommendation by officers was that roads with high speeds use sinusoidal humps to reduce the speeds as this will greatly reduce the severity of injury in case of any traffic collision, particularly in the case of pedestrians and cyclists. The recommendation was presented at the North Area committee meeting in September which was unanimously supported and therefore approved for implementation by all councillors. Research of properties in the London area show that a building would need located less than two metres from a vertical traffic calming measure in order to sustain " superficial cracks from sustained exposure" to ground-borne vibrations and less than one metre for minor damage to occur. Therefore, Government guidelines indicate that whilst vibrations may be felt as a vehicle passes over a speed calming measure, it is extremely unlikely that damage to your property would occur as a direct result of this movement. We are now going through the statutory consultation period for the humps and entry treatments. These will be advertised in the Islington Now resident's magazine and on street near the locations of the proposed humps. If there are legitimate objections to specific speed humps then these can be given to the council in writing to the address given in the notice. Regards, Mike Fletcher Principal Engineer Traffic and Parking Projects Team My reply: Dear Michael, thank you for your reply. Although not a referendum it says on the Islington website that this scheme would be subject to the outcome of the consultation exercise. Could you please let me know what the response would have had to have been for the Council to actually listen to the wishes of the majority? Asserting that some roads were in actually favour and on some there was little difference glosses over the hard fact that on some therefore there *must* then have been an even more convincing majority against to produce an overall 61% against. Do you agree that this was the case? In terms of reducing casulaties, I have seen the incident maps for the area for the last three years and on many roads affected by these works there have been none or very few incidents whatsoever. In fact it looks to me that the roads with bumps on them have worse incident records. Under the Freedom of Information Act, could you let me know the result of the introduction of bumps has been and at what cost? A 1/2mile radius from Hanley Road should be a sufficient with the road name, date of introduction of speed bumps, cost of works and incident data three years either side. If, because of the proximity to the London Borough of Haringey there will be gaps in the information please let me know so I can ask the same question of them. I realise that this scheme is being funded by TfL and therefore members are motivated to accept whatever money is thrown at them so that they can claim 'action' to the electorate but there are clearly intermediate measures that provide more of a compromise and would be less of an intrusion. You say that it will be unlikely (but therefore not impossible) that damage will be sustained to my property by passing vehicles. I assume that therefore if there is damage I have recourse to the Borough for compensation?

poxy · November 2009

Go Reg!

andy · November 2009

I've had a detailed response from Cllr Foxsmith (which I will paste below) and a copy of the report used to make the decision, which you can download [here](http://www.andymartin.net/misc/signedreport.pdf) I also spoke to Councillor Watts about it. From the report, the key inputs into the decision seem to have been: 1. The consultation - which wasn't in favour 2. The evidence about accidents - there haven't been any 3. The £300k funding from TfL - which is legally conditional on traffic calming I have written again to the Councillor asking him on what grounds we can revise this. I would encourage you to do the same, as he does seem amenable to our input on this.

andy · November 2009

*The email from Councillor Foxsmith:* Dear Mr Martin, I apologise for the delay in replying to your email.I recalled that the decision was unanimous, but wanted to check the detail of the (draft) minute of our committee clerk before responding and I now have that.(see below) You have emailed me as "the responsible councillor". Although I hold the transport and environment portfolio, I am not exclusively the responsible councillor for making the decision for the 20mph scheme in the Hanley Road area. That decision was devolved for local accountability to the North Area Committee of which I am a member, but with an equal vote to all others (in the event of a tied decision the committee chair would have had a casting vote).As it happens I voted in favour of the scheme, but had the scheme been voted down I would not have used my position as the executive councillor to try and over-rule it, even if I could have done so constitutuionally (which I doubt). All the members of the committee voted in support of the scheme, including the local ward councillors who of course are very familiar with the roads in question, and who were involved from an early stage in the proposed scheme. Their views based on local knowledge were influential on other members of the committee. I have attached as a pdf the report that was before the committee. The consultation carried out in July was used to gauge the opinion of residents regarding the implementation of a 20mph scheme in their area. This was not a referendum and the information was used, in conjunction with other data such as traffic volume and speeds and casualty records, to design a scheme that would achieve the desired outcome of reducing casualties in the Hanley Road area. Although there was a slight overall majority in favour of a scheme without speed humps, when the results are looked at more closely, on some roads there was very little preference either way. The recommendation by officers was that roads with high speeds use sinusoidal humps to reduce the speeds as this will greatly reduce the severity of injury in case of any traffic collision, particularly in the case of pedestrians and cyclists.

andy · November 2009

*part 2 of the email from Cllr Foxsmith* The recommendation was presented at the North Area committee meeting in September and this was approved by all councillors from both parties. I have cut and pasted the draft minute from that meeting (it has yet to be approved at the next meeting but is usually very accurate):- BEGINS: HANLEY ROAD 20MPH ZONE (Item D1) The Principal Engineer, Traffic and Engineering, gave a presentation, a copy of which would be interleaved with the minutes. In the discussion, the following main points were raised: * Officers were thanked for the well designed scheme. * Concerns were raised that Hanley Road was not included in the scheme. Officers had considered Hanley Road but there were difficulties as it was a bus route and emergency response route and certain measures would restrict parking and cause traffic to build up. Alternative measures that could be used were discussed. These included speed cushions, pinch points and flashing warning signs. * Improvements to the zebra crossing near Almington Road should be made. Councillor Cornwell proposed a motion which was seconded by Councillor Watts and carried. RESOLVED: That the presentation be noted. That the consultation responses set out in Appendix B of the report be noted. That the implementation of an amended 20mph scheme be agreed. That officers write to all addresses in the consultation area advising of the decision and proposed changes (subject to consideration of responses to statutory consultation). That officers provide a further report back on measures that could be taken on Hanley Road. That officers look at how the zebra crossing on Hanley Road near Almington Street could be improved. (ENDS) Although not stated, our committee clerk has confirmed from her notebook that the decision in favour of the scheme was unanimous. I recall there was some concern about Hanley road not having any physical measures,as officers had given weight to the potential inconvenience of the bus service which seemed inconsistent with measures in place elsehere on the bus route eg St Johns way, and some committee members asked what alternatives there might be that could reduce speed on Hanley Road without to great an inconvenience. A request for a further report was made by cllr Cornwell seconded by cllr Watt, and that report will be considered at the meeting this Monday. As for my vote, I was persuaded by the number of accidents in the area(it has to be high for TFL to provide the funding) and more significantly the amount of future accidents that this scheme will prevent. Road accidents causing injury or death have fallen demonstrably and significantly where schemes of this type have been introduced. I also took into account the type of measure-the hump is of the type you may have seen in nearby Ashley Road. On that road residents have petitioned me to raise the height-as they feel they are ineffective! But in fact, the speed surveys conducted before and after show traffic speeds have reduced, although without the heavy impact of the older,higher type of humps (known as "Kens" after the former Mayor who paid for their implementation in other parts of Islington and other Boroughs). Of course, I recognise that the scheme has some supporters and some objectors, so any decision we made will not please everyone. There is no formal appeal-technically, any decision of an Area Committee could be "called in" for scrutiny by the Overview committee within 5 days of the decision, that did not happen here probably not least because it had unanimous cross-party support. Yours sincerely, Cllr Greg Foxsmith

andy · November 2009

Reg - download the report. Some of the answers to your questions are in there. But it's a not 'report' in the sense of being an analysis, it's more of a sales document.

Reg · November 2009

Thanks Andy. I think this is a case of TfL offering money and Islington just grabbing what they can for the sake of it. I love the repeated assertion that in fact some roads were for it and some were indifferent. If this is the case and the majority were against it, this means some roads were heavily against it. Why no mention of this? Feels like a cross between Ken's sham Congestion Charge extension consultation and Blair's sexed up dossier. Democracy; export only?

Ian · November 2009

I've not heard anything from Cllr Foxsmith. I've had the same from Mr Fletcher.

David · November 2009

£300k for a smattering of tarmac lumps? I can see why they're not listening now.

Cllr Richard Watts · November 2009

With apologies for not having posted for a few days, here is the link to the options to be discussed next Monday about what to do with Hanley Road: http://www.islington.gov.uk/Democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=7977&intSectionID=6&intSubSectionID=2.

Do let me know which one of the three options you would prefer.

This paper coming to the North Area committee on Monday does give us the chance to try to re-open the arrangements for the bumps and ask more questions about the consultation. To be frank I think it is unlikely that the scheme will be stopped now, but we could try to get in a review scheduled so that something is in place to see whether bumps are effective or necessary. We have succeeded in getting the arrangements of bumps moved and improved in a couple of streets like Tollington Way.

I don't want to overtly party political about these issues as people rightly aren't interested in political bickering, but... The three Tollington councillors are in a minority on North Area Committee (which is made up of 6 Lib Dem councillors, 1 independent Lib Dem and 5 Labour - of which we are 3) and, faced with a majority who are committed to pushing through bumps, did the best we could to introduce some common sense to the scheme by negotiating to ensure that most of the smaller roads remain bump-less (I recall bumps were originally planned for Pine Grove, Wray Crescent, Turle Rd, Turlewray Crescent, Stonenest Street, Spears Rd and a few other roads). Given we thought we'd got the most concessions that we were ever likely to get, we voted in favour of the scheme. I can understand if that upsets people who oppose bumps but I think it was the least-worst option open to us. Hence, this is why I say we're only likely to get changes to the scheme and not get it cancelled - because the majority on the North Area committee that would not support this.

A speed bump was installed right outside my front door with pretty much zero consultation last year so I can understand people's irritation about this, although I have to say the bump has had precisely zero effect on my life - good or bad.

Finally, I agree with those that who have said that it is disingenuous for Council's to consult on things they are going to do anyway. Although Cllr Foxsmith's point about the accident statistics is obviously total rubbish, his email was at least pretty honest that he is in favour of speed bumps pretty much whatever the result of the consultation. But I think he should have been clear about this going into the exercise and only asked people questions where he might actually have listened to the answer. It is one of the frustrations of being in opposition on the Council that we do not have any control over this kind of thing.

David · November 2009

I'd like Cllr Foxmith to be honest about why he's pro bumps when the stats don't add up.

Reg · November 2009

Because Islington are not paying for it, TfL is and in the cut throat world of local politics 'action' is A Good Thing?

andy · November 2009

This is utterly fascinating: <http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2009/11/20/local-democracy-and-the-strange-case-of-speed-humps-and-20-mph-zones/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed>; As it seems our situation is an exact microcosm of the national picture: *If you like the idea of a 20mph zone but hate the idea of speed humps, cushions, chicanes and the like, you’re on a hiding to nothing. But it must be unusual for residents to be told that in advance, or to be involved in decisions on what the alternatives might be before consultation on a specific traffic calming proposal linked to 20mph zone starts.*

Reg · November 2009

This 'consultation' just gets murkier. Cllr Watts, I assume you're not proud of all this are you? Not only was the public mis-lead but this is also a waste of £100k of 'consultation'. How about asking the question "Are you in favour of a 20mph zone in the event that the ONLY way this can be achieved is through the introduction of speed bumps (of the type that your fellow borough residents consider to be ineffective)" I trust you will be asking some searching questions of your officers who seemed to have royally stitched up this process in order to give themselves something to do?

David · November 2009

That is bizarre. So they can't display the legal limit without attempting to enforce it? Why not? Why arbitrarily introduce this odd behaviour when you get down to 20mph? I take it this isn't the case for a 30mph zone?

ADGS · November 2009

As I understand it, 30 is a default setting for built-up areas, just as 60 is the national speed limit. But I'd be interested to know whether other, more specialised limits (40, 50, the sort of really low ones like you get in parks) come with similar baggage to 20.

Ian · November 2009

[Research from TRL](http://www22.vv.se/filer/41585/traffic_calming_measures_in_built_up_areas.pdf) "Track trials at TRL however showed that the differences in discomfort for cyclists between round-top humps and sinusoidal humps were small. Cyclists proved to be more concerned with the effect of vertical faces or discontinuities at the edge of the hump. The construction costs of sinusoidal humps however are considerably higher." However, they are no better for noise with the sort of traffic on the side roads according to an [EU Literature Review](http://www.silence-ip.org/site/fileadmin/SP_H/SILENCE_H.D1_20070105_DRI_Final.pdf) "For trucks the average noise levels for the narrow cushions were similar to those for level road when normalized to 25 km/h. The other profiles resulted in significantly higher noise levels, on average 10 dB for the wide cushions and 8 dB for the humps. Noise levels for the flat-top hump were on average 8 dB higher than for the round-top hump. Maximum noise levels from the trucks increased by 2.0 dB at the narrow cushions, 8.0 dB at the wide cushions and 2.0 dB at the humps (round-top: -2.0 dB, flat-top: 6.0 dB). The trucks were selected to be worst-case in the sense that they were prone to the generation of body noise. Therefore a more representative sample may lead to lower noise levels. Harris et al. (1999) tests the noise (average and maximum levels) and vibration effects of sinusoidal, round-top and flat-top humps. For light vehicles no differences are found between the various hump designs." Now I'm aware as anyone of selection bias in reading reports, but everything on the DfT research website says "noise".

Ian · November 2009

Got the following from DfT that might be of interest: There are 2 distinct things here – 20mph limits and 20mph zones. Dept is generally in favour of both Councils have lots of flexibility to introduce 20mph limits. These don’t require any sort of engineering measures, just regular signs. The received wisdom is that these work when average speeds are already quite low. However, they’re not so effective otherwise. i.e. introducing a 20 mph limit on a road where people are used to driving quite a bit faster than that doesn’t radically bring down speed on its own. That said there’s some recent evidence from Portsmouth (should be something on web – think we released some stuff a month or 2 ago) that challenges this a bit. (though very early days and also Portsmouth has very narrow streets apparently so engineering perhaps not as necessary) On 20mph zones it is indeed the legal requirement that they are accompanied by traffic calming measures. However traffic calming measures = more than just speed humps. Can also include the speed tables/ cushions, pinch points or chicanes, or even painted surfaces which act to narrow the road. These are all set down somewhere. Idea should be horses for courses. (London assembly transport committee published a report in april which reported good results)

pseudonym · November 2009

The 20 mph zone sign, which needs to be accompanied by traffic calming measures, is the rectangular one with the name of your locality shown below eg 'Hanley Road Death Zone'. They usually get the local council member to scrawl this on in their own handwriting as a personal touch.

The 20 mph limit sign is just a normal circular speed sign and doesn't have to be placed near traffic calming measures.

David · November 2009

So why don't they just try the normal ones for now and at least reflect what the local people voted for?

Ian · November 2009

I have some info back from Michael Fletcher of Islington council - whisper if you want it with your email address. His grasp of stats doesn't fill me with confidence when he describes in one email the 61% to 38% vote against humps as a "slight overall majority in favour of a scheme without speed humps". He also points to only one accident on Regina Road, with no pedestrian injuries but this isn't on the map he sent me - there is one on the corner of Hanley Road and Regina Road, which seems to me to be an issue about that junction. One major thing he says is that there have not yet been objections. Which means our ire for those that have it isn't being channelled very strategically. Some responses folks ...

Cllr Richard Watts · December 2009

Sorry for being off-line for a while. I was told yesterday that there is now a legal consultation period going on about the scheme so if you have comments please do email them to them to michael.fletcher@islington.gov.uk.

The officer concerned did indeed say that he hadn'rt sop far recieved any objections and I have offered to pass on all of the email correspondance that I have recieved on this as responses to the consultation.

Papa · December 2009

As an Islington council taxpayer I think that those responsible for compiling a consultation document costing £100,000, but failed to make it clear that despite it having two options, voting for the first automatically votes for the second, should be sacked.
It is deliberately misleading.

ADGS · December 2009

When the BBC was going to show Jerry Springer - The Opera, and was deluged with complaints, I sent a message of support for the broadcast, and received a form email thanking me for my complaint. But that's the self-flagellating BBC - I imagine that the reverse filing process is taking place with all objections so far sent to the council, and they've all been noted as enthusiastic, grateful and positively urging that those responsible should take pay rises and hold their positions for life.

Mirandola · December 2009

This looks interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/25/diy-streets-clapton-sustrans

Plant pots in Hanley Road?

Ian · December 2009

Folks - I've had a look at the stats and it seems that they are slightly misleading. The way the questions were set as a three strips out much of the opposition from the survey. It seems probable to me that anyone opposing the imposition of a 20mph speed limit also opposes speed humps. Put another way of the 997 that expressed a preference only 257 asked for humps. i.e. it should only be 25.7% in favour of humps. On my road it is slightly more preferable - but only 30% in favour of humps that expressed a view.

graeme · December 2009

Some light relief...

<a href="

">Twenty's Plenty</a>

Mirandola · December 2009

And this: http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/12/07/streets-ahead-in-islington/

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Islington council: Crouch Hill improvements/ Hanley Road 20mph zone

Comments