 
|
Policy contribution
Contribution to Objectives
Case study confirms wider assessments of the measures.
|
Objective
|
Scale of contribution |
Comment
|
|
|
 |
The benefits exceed the costs by far, all impacts included. The value of accidents can influence the efficiency contribution. |
|
|
 / |
The benefits exceed the costs by far, all impacts included. The value of accidents can influence the efficiency contribution. |
|
|
|
Lower speeds in living areas will contribute, e.g. make walking less dangerous and pedestrian crossing easier. |
|
|
|
Speed reduction can reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. There is some uncertainty about the impact on air quality of low speeds. However if lower speed encourage walking and cycling this will benefit the environment. |
|
|
 |
The WHO (2013) describe how road traffic accidents disproportionally impact on vulnerable groups. Lower speed limits can encourage walking and cycling bringing benefits of affordable mobility, improved health through active transport, improved social interaction and participation in society. |
|
|
|
Lower speed is the most efficient way to reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents. Speed limitation and enforcement are more efficient than road marking. |
|
|
|
There may be economic benefits from congestion reduction if road traffic decreases and walking and cycling increase. Reducing the high mortality burden that road traffic places on young and economically active adults may support economic development (see WHO 2013). |
 |
= Weakest
possible positive contribution, |
 |
= strongest
possible positive contribution |
 |
= Weakest
possible negative contribution |
 |
= strongest
possible negative contribution |
 |
=
No contribution |
Contribution to problems
|
Contribution to alleviation of key problems
|
|
Problem
|
Scale of contribution
|
Comment
|
|
Congestion-related delay
|
 /
|
Lower speeds induce individual delays and congestion, but if speed becomes more evenly distributed, this may mean that the capacity is better utilised when traffic is heavy. If walking and cycling increase as a result of lower speed, this can reduce congestion |
|
Community impacts
|
|
By making it easier, less dangerous to cross roads for pedestrians and cyclists. Reduced severance and increased liveability |
|
Environmental damage
|
 / |
Speed reduction at high speeds will reduce energy consumption and CO2, but at lower speeds the effect is opposite. However if lower speed encourage walking and cycling this will benefit the environment. Lower speed will reduce recirculation of dust particles. No evident positive effect on other local pollutants. If increased congestion with uneven (transient) driving, local emissions will also increase. However if lower speed encourage walking and cycling this will benefit the environment |
|
Poor accessibility
|
|
Lower vehicle speed in living areas will make travelling easier for pedestrians and cyclists, many of whom are children, older people and not car-owners |
|
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups
|
|
Lower vehicle speed in living areas will make travelling easier for pedestrians and cyclists, many of whom are children, older people and not car-owners |
|
Number, severity and risk of accidents
|
|
Reducing speed will reduce accident risk and the severity of accidents substantially |
|
Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area
|
|
There may be economic benefits from congestion reduction if road traffic decreases and walking and cycling increase. Reducing the high mortality burden that road traffic places on young and economically active adults may support economic development (see WHO 2013) |
|
|
|
|
| = Weakest
possible positive contribution, | | = strongest
possible positive contribution |
| = Weakest
possible negative contribution | | = strongest
possible negative contribution |
| =
No contribution |
Appropriate contexts
|
Appropriate area-types
|
|
Area type
|
Suitability
|
|
City centre
|
|
|
Dense inner suburb
|
|
|
Medium density outer suburb
|
|
|
Less dense outer suburb
|
|
|
District centre
|
|
|
Corridor
|
|
|
Small town
|
|
|
Tourist town
|
|
| = Least suitable
area type | | = Most suitable
area type |
Text edited at the Institute for Transport Studies,
University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
|
