Thursday 6 August 2009

Leeds/Wakefield Road speed limit to rise!

Don't panic - the header is a bit of red-herring, but it could have been used some while back had the blog been in existence then. There has been no mention of an increase in the speed limit for over 12 months. It is doubtful that the simple matter of 'compensation' was ever even considered by council officers when this originally blew up.

Those new to this must wonder why the speeding problem can't quite simply be resolved - we're all aware of government campaigns - 'speed kills' etc, speed cameras seem to be everywhere (else!), getting caught travelling at 30mph above the speed limit results in an automatic ban, etc etc etc. This posting highlights some of the stumbling blocks.

In August 2006 the Department for Transport published DfT Circular 1/06 new guidance on setting local speed limits, which can be found here . Considering that the Lawrrag campaign to do something about speeding was well underway, and that the council speed monitoring figures resulted in them accepting that there was a 'serious problem', one might wonder why a senior member of staff within the Leeds City Council Highways Department thought it acceptable to write to Colin Challen MP stating that new guidance gave the authority the right to increase the speed limit(?)

The document is available for all to see, and the very first line of the Introduction to the Dft Circular reads "Balancing the need to travel with the need to improve quality of life is a key objective of the Department for Transport." with one of the Key points being "Traffic authorities set 'local speed limits' in situations where local needs and considerations deem it desirable for drivers to adopt a speeed which is different from the national speed limit. Local speed limits could be reduced or increased, depending upon the conditions and evidence." Clear, concise, and unambiguous? It is interesting that the council officer didn't also suggest to our MP that the speed limit could be reduced.

With regard to the Police, a spokesman has stated that in their opinion a 50mph limit would be a more suitable. The Police have also stated that as there are so few accidents, Leeds/Wakefield Road is low priority insofar as dealing with speeding goes!

The problems lie much closer to home than most people realise!

HGV Ban hypocrisy?

It is acknowledged that the unacceptable increase in HGV traffic along Leeds/Wakefield Road is directly related to the industrial and distribution developments in Stourton, and Cross Green, and that in turn this growth is directly related to the construction of the M1-A1 link, now a few years old. Without the M1-A1 link the scale of industrial and distribution development would have been significantly reduced because of planning and highways issues.

The M1-A1 link opened up acres of developable land, and what better location for industrial and distribution developments than right next to the M1 motorway with direct links to both the M62 and the A1 - no real argument.

Interesting then to consider the justification for the M1-A1 Link, Lofthouse - Bramham, that can be found here Roads review - what role for trunk roads in England?

........to relieve congestion, improve the environment and enhance road safety on the local road network by removing through traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles, from unsuitable roads in Central and East Leeds and to provide additional capacity to meet future predicted traffic growth.

Meeting with Shadow Transport Minister

On Monday 3rd August, a small delegation of local residents had a brief and informal meeting with Alec Shelbrooke, Conservative parliamentary candidate for this area, and Robert Goodwill MP, Shadow Transport Minister. The meeting was held in a lay-by on Leeds Road and above the noise of the traffic, and within feet of speeding HGV's, the concerns of local residents were outlined to Robert Goodwill who listened and commented understandingly.

Special thanks must be given to Alec Shelbrooke for arranging the meeting and for contributing positively on our behalf.