The Mayor of London’s Roads Task Force (RTF) has published a ‘bold new vision’ for the future of London’s roads and streets.
Its vision for London includes: roofing over arterial roads to create new surface space and reconnect severed communities; shifting HGVs and freight to out of peak hours and making more deliveries by van, bike or powered two wheeler; encouraging a greater shift to more sustainable modes such as walking, cycling and powered two wheelers and new capacity for these modes, including dedicated bridges and lanes; and more area-wide 20mph zones to “improve liveability and safety”.
The RTF estimates that delivery of the vision will require substantial, long-term investment of at least £30bn over the next 20 years.
Boris Johnson, mayor of London, said: “I welcome the Roads Task Force report and the bold approach it proposes for London’s 21st century roads and streets.
“It is in tune with my 2020 Vision, our plans on cycling and for investment in London’s roads and streets.”
The report has been welcomed by the 20’s Plenty for Us campaign. Jeremy Leach, 20’s Plenty London coordinator, said: “London has come a long way on slower speeds this year.
“The Task Force stresses the importance of 20mph to encourage Londoners to walk and cycle. It would be great to see the Task Force’s vision embraced by TfL, and TfL to commit to 20mph on far more roads in urban London in its action plan.
Click here to download the RTF report.
Agreed Nick
I think that at the core of this report is a radical re-think about how “transit” is approached in London with a far greater emphasis on preserving community life and sustainability. The issue of limits is just one suggested intervention amongst many to make London a better place to live and get around.
Here’s an interesting article about Lord Roger’s views on how there is “No place for cars” in cities of the future. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3816510.ece
Rod King, Cheshire 20’s Plenty for Us
0
All
Thanks for your various contributions to the 20mph debate in this thread, which I’m going to close off for now in order to avoid repetition. There will be plenty of opportunities to return to this subject in the near future, I suspect!
Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety GB newsfeed
0
Rod
I was not selective – I took every 20mph scheme for which data was readily available, and none of them provided any evidence or argument that 20mph had improved road safety (when adjusted for trends and traffic volume).
If I pull four apples out of a bag and each is rotten, I will assume all the apples in the bag are rotten. All you need to do is find one good apple – one scheme where 20mph has improved road safety. It certainly isn’t Portsmouth where it has got so bad that they have stopped issuing reports.
If 20mph improved road safety, I would expect to see your website presenting the details – it does not.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Just ban non-commercial or non-essential traffic from most of central London. Driving there is slow, frustrating and unpleasant most of the time anyway and the public transport is pretty good. Just increase parking at stations etc where the band starts.
Dave, formerly of Greater London
0
Eric
The conclusions you present are not credible because you are so selective about the data. As an example, with regards to Warrington you put great emphasis on the Town Centre increase in serious casualties from 1.8 to 3 yet completely ignored the reduction in the much larger Orford area of 3.5 down to 2. You presented the 1.8 to 3 as a “scary” 66% increase without reference to the actual numbers. You also ignored the views of local professionals in the Warrington report who put these into context.
The decimal places take account of the prevailing change in other parts of the town which is far more reliable than looking at countrywide comparisons.
Warrington like so many other councils implementing wide-area 20mph limits are simply NOT convinced by your arguments.
Rod King, Cheshire 20’s Plenty for Us
0
Those who oppose 20 mph speed limits point to apparent increases in accidents in these areas and say that it is because of the lower speed limits that these have happened, in which case they should demonstrate this by reference to the actual accidents that occurred and explain the direct link or, explain how the accidents wouldn’t have happened if the limit had remained at 30, which I presume is what they’re implying. Without this hard evidence people will remain unconvinced.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Rod
Dave’s statement is certainly credible.
To underpin your claim that “20mph speed limits “always” increase serious casualties is simply not credible”, all you have to do is find ONE example where a reduction in serious casualties better than national trend can be attributed to the introduction of the 20mph limit. I’ve asked you for this on many occasions, but you have been unable or unwilling to reply. My selection of schemes presented at the 20mph Places Conference last year showed every scheme increasing serious injuries. Your call.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Higher serious injury rates following speed limits lowered to 20mph is not “hearsay”, Rod. As you know, this is the evidence in the Portsmouth reports (the largest 20mph experiment in Britain), also here in Slough (Manor Pk North, South and central) and other places. I am not aware of any 20mph areas which have not seen increases in serious injury rates but I haven’t performed an exhaustive search.
I congratulate you on your successes in your 20mph political campaign both in influencing decision makers everywhere and upon receiving your OBE but, as an engineer, I believe it necessary that all interventions that affect public safety should be properly tested.
I understand your worry that the results of such trials might damage your political campaign, but surely you can see the need to have a solid foundation of the best evidence where lives are at stake?
Dave Finney, Slough
0
Dave
I really don’t want to go over the same ground as has already been debated but your quote that “serious injuries increase everywhere 20mph limits have been implemented” is based on “heresay” and not any evidence. What I can’t understand is why you are so keen on “scientific analysis” and “evidence”, yet seem to be so willing to abandon this and repeat such unproven and dogmatic comments. Surely even those most opposed to lower limits can see that a claim that 20mph speed limits “always” increase serious casualties is simply not credible.
Rod King, Cheshire 20’s Plenty for Us
0
I do have a suggestion.
I think that money could be better spent on maintenance (for all modes of transport) rather than wasting money on experiments (eg. blanket 20 mph speed limits, reduction of road space, closing roads to traffic and other anti-motorist measures). That is something that has been neglected for a very long time.
I also think the politicians need to think very carefully about any potentially serious knock-on effects before implementing half-baked/half-thought out ideas.
Phil, Kent
0
That’s a tall order, Nick, asking Phil to solve London’s future traffic problems in 150 words!
I am concerned and interested to know why 20mph would “improve safety” in London when it appears to have increased serious injury rates everywhere else that it has been tried. Are London’s roads somehow fundamentally different to elsewhere, or are the report’s authors unaware that 20mph has already been tried up and down the country?
There is also a great opportunity in London to run 20mph in scientific trials. An opportunity that, if the report is implemented as written, will be missed yet again. Before spending such enormous sums of our money, wouldn’t it be best to properly evaluate the effects of the proposed interventions?
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trials.htm
Dave Finney, Slough
0
Phil – given that you are so unimpressed with the RTF’s ideas, perhaps you’d care to share with us your vision for London’s roads?
Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety GB newsfeed
0
A typical half baked pie in the sky idea that simply won’t work. I think money should be spent elsewhere.
Phil, Kent
0