Local authorities
132. Local authorities, working with the police,
health authorities and others, implement many of the necessary
measures. Their policies are put forward in Local Transport Plans.
Local authorities:
"Must..examine where accidents and casualties
occur and plan cost-effective remedies as one element of an overall
strategy. Through this wider remit, the LTP also ensures that
enforcement, education, training and publicity are considered
along with engineering measures".[215]
133. The DTLR presented a relatively optimistic view
of what was being achieved:
"It is envisaged that some 8,200 smaller scale
improvements will be carried out, mainly focussing on road safety
and including 20 mph zones outside schools , other traffic calming
measures, safe routes to school, and school travel plans".[216]
134. Others were less sanguine. While a few local
authorities had done an excellent job, others had achieved little.
They had spent too little. The SSI pointed out that in the UK
we spend 10p per head on traffic calming; in the Netherlands the
sum is £1.60p.[217]
Hull City Council's memorandum enables us to compare its achievements
with the national record:
Road Casualties
|
Hull
|
Great Britain
|
|
1994
|
2001
|
Change |
1994
|
2000
|
Change |
All casualties |
1546 |
1225
|
- 21% |
306020 |
320283
|
+ 5% |
Child casualties |
292 |
218
|
- 25% |
45151 |
39715
|
- 12% |
All pedestrians |
388 |
246
|
- 37% |
48653 |
40665
|
- 16% |
Child pedestrians
|
174 |
107
|
- 39% |
19263 |
16184
|
- 16% |
Adult pedestrians
|
212 |
139
|
- 34% |
28091 |
24481
|
- 13% |
All cycle casualties
|
296 |
233
|
- 21% |
24813 |
20612
|
- 17% |
Child cycle casualties
|
68 |
58
|
- 15% |
8075 |
6260
|
- 22% |
Adult cycle casualties
|
228 |
175
|
- 23% |
16074 |
13630
|
- 15% |
135. Several reasons were put forward to explain the poor performance,
including:
- funding, both capital and revenue, was inadequate;
- traffic calming was often impossible to justify on cost-benefit
grounds;
- many local authorities did not make road safety a priority;
and
- DTLR did not provide adequate incentives to take the right actions.
136. There is no doubt that local authorities have too few skilled
staff to design and oversee the implementation of traffic calming
and road safety schemes. This is because spending on staff in
highway departments is not a priority for expenditure. The capital
funding for these schemes comes from £8.4 bn provided for
local authorities to implement their Local Transport Plans over
the next 5 years. This is a large increase on previous years,
but it must cover a wide range of other items, including road
maintenance.[218] Despite
the increased expenditure, the Local Government Association argued
that because effective physical measures were expensive, local
authorities could not afford them. There is an element of truth
in this: the money is inadequate for the £3bn of necessary
traffic calming measures proposed by TRL in 1997. Nevertheless,
the money already available could fund many more schemes than
in the past.
137. Another concern raised by a few local authorities was the
difficulty in showing that road safety schemes were cost-effective.[219]
Bath and North East Somerset Council was concerned about sites
where there were problems caused by speeding traffic, but because
of the low accident rate it was "difficult to justify expenditure
on these schemes on the basis of traditional rate of return criteria".[220]
There is a problem that conventional assessment has put immense
value on saving drivers' time. Nevertheless, the evidence is that
using a more accurate and appropriate cost benefit analysis local
road safety schemes are very cost-effective. TRL Report No. 512
shows that they generate first year average returns of 500%. Moreover,
the DTLR has improved the assessment method. We were informed
that "...there is no requirement for local authorities to
treat only those sites with a proven accident record Local authorities
must instead examine where accidents and casualties occur and
plan cost effective remedies as one element of its overall strategy...".[221]
138. However, since some local authorities have been able to install
an impressive array of measures, it is hard to believe that either
shortage of funding or narrow methods of assessment projects can
fully explain poor performance. A number of witnesses blamed local
authorities because they placed insufficient emphasis on road
safety and spent too little on it; many still gave priority to
road building rather than saving lives. The SSI argued that:
"Only a fraction of the £1.5 billion allocated in this
year's local transport settlement will be spent on safety schemes
and even less on schemes to control traffic speeds... the single
most important change local authorities could make would be to
stop rationing local safety schemes..."[222]
The CPRE told us about the situation in Dorset:
"An average of 25 children a year were killed or seriously
injured from 1994-98 in the county and the actual numbers have
been rising, to 30 in 1999 and 37 in 2000. The county has allocated
£8,500 to each of 12 schools to improve safety in their vicinity.
At that rate it would be 2028 before each of the 338 schools in
the county were to benefit from road safety funding. In contrast
the County Council is able to allocate £728,000 to further
the case for the Weymouth relief road scheme".[223]
139. The DTLR's task is to ensure road safety is given adequate
priority by local authorities. The DTLR does monitor Local Transport
Plans: the Department's memorandum stated:
"The road safety element of the LTPs will be assessed and
monitored on an annual basis...DTLR has also commissioned research
to monitor annual progress with LTPs and to ensure that safety
objectives, scheme performance and value for money are achieved
and maintained".[224]
However, it could do more: witnesses argued that it should provide
additional guidance about tackling speed in Local Transport Plans
and use financial incentives to improve performance. For instance,
Mr Silcock argued that funding should be linked to having speed
management strategies in place, which should include a review
of speed limits.[225]
140. A few local authorities have taken very effective measures
which have saved lives and led to major improvements in the quality
of life. Others, however, have done much less. All should aim
to reach the standards which the best have now achieved. Local
authorities do face funding difficulties: there are too few revenue
funds (which means that are too few skilled staff) and too many
obstacles to getting cost-effective schemes approved. Although
it is insufficient for the programme outlined by the TRL in 1997,
there is more capital available than before. The principal problem
is that too few councils have made road safety and speed reduction
a priority.
215
RTS49 Back
216
RTS 49. Back
217
Killing Speed, Slower Speeds Initiative (2001). Back
218
RTS 49; the IHT has concerns that the move to the Single Capital
Pot will make matters worse (RTS 38); the Government is also encouraging
an expansion of 20mph zones (£3.5m) home zones (£30m
fund) funding five demonstration projects to improve safety on
mixed priority urban routes (£5.5m). Back
219
RTS 17. Back
220
RTS 32. Back
221
RTS 49. Back
222
RTS 34. Back
223
RTS 31. Back
224
RTS 49. Back
225
RTS 12. Back
| 
