How can the city improve roads?

Scrap the humps, says Liz Edge

ABOUT ten years ago, a friend who works as a Government highways inspector visited York while attending a meeting in the area.

I had the job of chauffeuring him and, as expected, my first task was to apologise for the delays caused by cyclists, and traffic humps etc.

I expounded on our beautiful ancient city with its narrow streets, which did not really lend itself to modern transport.

My friend, who lived in London, thought this was quite funny.

Traffic levels in York at that time were reportedly decreasing and certainly bore no resemblance to the chaotic London roads.

His view was that traffic problems in York were, in fact, self-inflicted because transport experts appeared to ignore the cardinal rule that to cut down on pollution, delays etc., you must keep the traffic moving. His comments on further examples of bad traffic management in other parts of the city were many and were summed up by his criticism of the highways authority: "too much desk-top theory and not enough practical experience".

Since then the situation has become much worse.

Despite the fact that there has reportedly been a decrease in the number of cars in and around the city, traffic has now virtually ground to a halt because of the increase in cycle tracks which force cars to stop and start, continually adding to pollution levels, delays etc.

In addition to this you have an increase in the main cause of pollution - the Government's words, not mine: buses.

I have carefully studied the use of buses during the past six months and the largest number of people I have seen on any bus during that time was 15.

Normal usage is between two and eight passengers, but one of the pollution-spewing "bendy" double buses at Tesco's last week actually held 15 people.

Add this monstrosity's pollution levels to the pollution levels from car drivers having to continually stop and start, and I have to admit my friend was correct.

Our traffic problems are self-inflicted and the answer is in our own hands.

This incident was brought back to me by an item on GMTV on the benefits, or otherwise, of traffic calming.

My friend's words were repeated on television by yet another expert: "local authorities tend to forget that to keep pollution levels down, you have to keep traffic moving".

The pro-humps speaker started with her statistics on the reduction in accidents. However, the anti-humps speaker gave an even more frightening picture of the very large number of deaths caused by delays in ambulances getting to hospitals because of the problems caused by the traffic calming measures in place.

After complaints by the emergency services and memebers of the public the situation is so serious that a number of cities are now having traffic-calming measures completely removed.

GMTV's telephone poll found 86 per cent of the public opposed to speed humps.

It would be interesting to see if these figures were reflected in York and if so, what the council was prepared to do about it.

Not a lot, I suspect.

Liz Edge is a former Labour city council who lives in Holgate

Invest in technology, says Ann Reid

THERE is overwhelming national and international evidence that lower road speeds result in fewer collisions of less severity.

Hit by a car at 40 mph, nine out of ten pedestrians are killed.

Hit by a car at 20 mph, one out of ten pedestrians are killed. Every one mph reduction in average speed brings a five per cent reduction in the number of crashes.

This means that even marginal reductions in speed can result in major road safety gains.

In York the number of casualties are a serious problem with more than 800 people being injured per year.

Most people agree that we must reduce this figure but many drivers think it is someone else's bad driving not theirs.

Altogether, 97 per cent of road casualties are caused by human error.

Inappropriate speed is a big problem and, although most people call crashes road accidents, they are the predictable consequence of people taking too great a risk.

More than 3,000 people die nationally in road crashes. Road casualties have huge human and financial costs.

One in 20 of us will be injured in a road crash at sometime in our lives. The total cost of road crashes in York in 2002 is estimated at £57 million.

More than two thirds of drivers admit to regularly breaking urban speed limits, and it is a recognition that drivers cannot be trusted to slow down without being prompted that has led to the use of the rather blunt instrument we know as traffic calming.

To date, the options other than traffic calming have been very limited, because the police who would otherwise enforce speed limits, have diverted their over-stretched resources on to other crime priorities.

Traffic calming was, therefore, the only option and in York it has been very successful at reducing speeds on our local roads.

In areas where it has been introduced, speeds have been reduced by an average of 11 mph and casualties by a half.

York's casualties have largely been eliminated from residential roads because of the speed management plan.

Public consultation during its development in 1996 showed that 88 per cent of residents agreed that it was important for the city council to have a policy to manage traffic speeds and reduce accidents.

Our challenge now lies in trying to reduce casualties on the busier traffic routes.

In meeting this challenge a new set of tools are now becoming available which are based on innovative new technology.

A trial is now being carried out in Leeds with in-car speed limiters linked to global positioning satellites.

This enables local speed limits to be transmitted to cars, which automatically slow the vehicle down.

In other words the speed limit traffic signs can talk to the car direct.

The Leeds trial is part of a national trial, which could see the system being introduced within five years.

Until then, unfortunately, if we want to reduce speeds to prevent accidents then the ubiquitous road hump is here to stay.

Ann Reid is a Liberal Democrat councillor and executive member for planing and transport

Updated: 10:16 Wednesday, March 31, 2004