Luard Road – Sedley Taylor Road Traffic Calming

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009. 1:21am

Map of Luard Road Cambridge

I attended the Cambridge Traffic Management Area Joint Committee on the 26th of January 2009. While the County Council is the Highways Authority for Cambridge they delegate many highways decisions a joint committee made up of both City and County Councillors. County Councillor John Reynolds (Girton) is a member of the committee, as the lone Conservative he was to a degree acting as a representative of the ruling Conservative group on the County Council and was often a lone voice.

Luard Road – Sedley Taylor Road Traffic Calming Measures

Officer’s Report
This item was presented by John Isherwood, who in this context was described as the “Engineering Client Officer”. He is often described as Cambridge City Council’s Senior Engineer. The proposal is for:

  • Priority “Give Way” – single lane entry to the roads with one way given priority.
  • Speed Humps
  • Extension of parking restrictions at junctions

The Cambridge Cycling Campaign had submitted a letter to members of the committee, all councillors appeared to have a copy and it formed the basis for much of the discussion on this item. Cllr Walker noted the cycling campaign had asked why speed humps as opposed to speed cushions were proposed. Mr Isherwood replied that this was due to the presence of parked cars on the streets. Mr Isherwod said that the sinusoidal speed humps specified had been selected specifically to reduce discomfort for cyclists, he said these were the best option when speed cushions were not appropriate.

Cllr Walker asked how the proposed humps met cycling demonstration town standards. County officer Richard Preston responded saying: “It is not a question of meeting standards, I’m not sure that standards exist”.

Cllr Walker then asked why a 20 mph limit could not be introduced on its own, without humps or cushions. This prompted what is a regular debate at various council meetings on the County policy of only allowing a 20 mph limit to be introduced when the mean average traffic speed in a street is already 20 mph. This meant it was only introduced when the traffic calming features on a street essentially self-enforce the speed limit. Councillor Baker proposed a 20 mph speed limit in addition to the speed cushions. County Council officers said this would still be against policy, because the speed had to be reduced to 20 mph first, the fact that the cushions were expected to reduce the speed was not sufficient. The officer pointed to Grange Road, where he said the introduced traffic calming measures have not been as effective has had been anticipated. It was agreed by officers that doing the 20 mph zone at the same time as the humps would be the cheaper option. Many councillors suggested that the County Council’s policy on introducing 20mph zones was on its way out, Mr Reynolds did not refute this suggestion.

Cllr Baker introduced this 20mph zone proposal at the meeting, no views of residents on this, or even views from the South Area Committee were available for councillors.

Cllr Rosenstiel made an impassioned contribution; saying: “why are we going ahead with this scheme if we’re not almost certain it is going to be effective, if there are serious doubts then we shouldn’t be spending this money”.

It was reported that the current average speed was 26 mph.

County officers warned the committee that if they resolved to introduce the 20mph zone and the other changes at the same time they would not be able to go-ahead with the scheme until it had been considered by the County Council’s executive committee.

Councillor Blencowe spoke against the 20mph zone, he thought the traffic calming measures alone would be sufficient. He asked what the additional point of the zone was if traffic speeds were going to be reduced anyway and was told that; “it was all about averages”, even if the average speed was dropped to 20mph there would still be some people traveling at over 30mph, this would make this an offence. There was no suggestion though that the police would actually enforce this if it was brought in.

The meeting voted in 7:1 in favour of the scheme going ahead with a 20 mph zone added to the proposals.

The Central Cambridge 20 mph Zone

A number of times during discussion of this item Liberal Democrat councillors, particularly Cllr Blair, said: “The whole of central Cambridge is a 20 mph zone”. Labour councillors and Mr Reynolds looked puzzled but unsure enough themselves to challenge this.

The central Cambridge 20 mph zone is badly signed, and by no means comprehensively covers any area recognisable as “the city centre”. There are no repeater signs within the area, which makes it unlikely any prosecution will ever succeed, the signs on the way into the zone are almost all included on larger signs containing a huge amount of information, and the signs are usually only on one side of the road. It is hardly surprising that we saw the following in a Cambridge News Article titled : Traders urge action over bus speeds

Andy Campbell, manager of Stagecoach, Cambridge, said: “I have asked the council for a detailed map of all 20 mph speed limits to give drivers.

This is analogous to the problem we have with cycling in the City Centre, the rules are not made clear by the signage and we have people asking for maps showing what is permitted and where, this shows that those responsible for the roads in the city centre are not working effectively.

The committee did not discuss signage of the 20 mph zone they were proposing at Luard Road – Sedley Taylor Road at all, perhaps as they didn’t think the County Council’s executive would actually let it go-ahead.

7 comments/updates on “Luard Road – Sedley Taylor Road Traffic Calming

  1. Geoff

    Maybe hey should experiment with removing all the signs and white lines so as to make it totally ambigous, I seem to remember some experiments in Holland that seemed to indicate this reduced speeds considerably!
    Are you thinking of becoming a councillor at some point in the future?
    Many thanks for these excellent reports!
    Would be interested in hearing what the latest is on the motorway style lighting in Kings Parade and maybe getting a comparison of accidents/incidents comparing the ‘dark’ Trinity Street viz Kings Parade.

  2. J. Steen

    There are alternatives to awful speed humps – proven solutions that don’t increase traffic noise, slow fire trucks, ambulances and other emergency vehicles, endanger bicyclists or wreck the bottom of your car. Radar speedcheck signs, crosswalks, and pedestrian overpasses for instance, each have merit worth examining.

    Speedcheck signs – those displays that alert drivers to their own speed – provide additional advantages like collecting traffic data and allowing scheduled operations such as flashing lights during school zone hours and other particularly dangerous times.

    Those interested may want to check out a website that reviews a number of options. has lots of good information for neighborhoods looking to slow traffic – including links to studies and ideas on funding.

    Let’s make sure that whatever investment we make in traffic calming, that it is safe, effective and within our budget.

  3. Richard Article author

    City Council officer Dinah Foley-Norman presented these proposals to the South Area committee on the 2nd of April 2009.

    It was reported that officers had dealt with all objections by talking to residents.

    Cllr Taylor asked if any objectors had mentioned the discomfort caused by speed humps to those with disabilities, particularly those in wheelchairs. She was told none of the objectors raised that point.

    Cllr Taylor was assured that the gradient of the humps would be fairly modest, and that they would be sinusoidal.

    Cllr Stuart asked for clarification of why curb to curb humps were being installed rather than speed cushions. She said she preferred the cushions as she could go round them, rather than over them, when cycling, she cited Coronation Street as an example of a good implementation of speed cushions.

    Contradicting John Isherwood’s reason which he gave to the transport area joint committee Dinah Foley-Norman reported that the humps proposed were due to county council standards and installing “is a county council requirement that we have to carry out”.

    The committee voted unanimously to approve the scheme (noting they’d discussed and voted on it many times before), they approved the spending of money this time, though it has to go back to the Transport Area Joint Committee again in April for some, unexplained, reason.

  4. Chris

    Additional parking restrictions and Priority Give Way Luard Road.

    The Hills Road end of Luard Road was a good place to Park of an evening to attend night school at Hills Road. A wide road, little traffic, and not obstructing driveways. Now we have to park near the houses.

    I do not want to pay to park in the nearby leisure complex three times a week, with the resulting anxiety of returning after dark to a cavernous car park to pick up my car.

    Why also the Priority Give Ways?

  5. Richard Article author

    As I recall improving safety and reducing speed were the reasons given for all this work.

    The impression I gained was that the parking restrictions, and priority give way, were simply a consequence of introducing the speed reduction measures.

    A good place to go and ask about this is the South Area Committee on Thursday 24th September, 7pm at The Science Lecture Room, 1st Floor, Hills Road Sixth Form College, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 8PE

    This is body which approved the works; both city and county councillors and appriopriate officers will be present.

    One problem with the way both the city and county councils do consultation is that users of areas often are not made aware of proposals whereas residents are. In Cambridge there is a more general problem with this as so many “users” of the city – those who work, shop, and spend their leisure time here live outside the city.

  6. Richard Article author

    During the break in the South Area committee on the 24th of September Cllr Taylor approached me; first expressing surprise that I had not asked a public question on Luard Road and Sedley Taylor Road traffic calming and also offering me a December 2007 Lib Dem leaflet in which the public demand for the scheme was mentioned:

    100 people want traffic calming on Luard Road and Sedley Taylor Road

    The South Area committee heard that the work was now completed with the exception of lighting of the signs which is to come. It was reported that there are also two problems with trees obscuring signs. One household has been asked to trim a tree/hedge; and council officers were asked to move another sign which is obscured by a significant branch.

    Cllr Taylor told the meeting that residents of Luard Road and Sedley Taylor Road were happy with the way the scheme had been implemented.

Leave a Reply to Richard Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.
Please consider saying where you are from eg. "Cambridge".
Required fields are marked *


Powered by WP Hashcash