A331 permanent 50mph speed limit introduced
Discussion
It's not an especially good environmental move as it makes it more worthwhile to drive through town than take the 'bypass'.
It used to be an equal time to come off the A331 at North Camp or Aldershot to get home. With the new limits on the A331 and also on the A325 between Farnborough and Aldershot (down from NSL to 60) the quickest route is now through the Garrison/Wellesley area.
It used to be an equal time to come off the A331 at North Camp or Aldershot to get home. With the new limits on the A331 and also on the A325 between Farnborough and Aldershot (down from NSL to 60) the quickest route is now through the Garrison/Wellesley area.
LHRFlightman said:
Drove from M3 all the way to beyond Coleford Bridge Rd at the new 50 mph tonight. For some reason is still NSL beyond that. At least to Ash.
99% of everyone else on the road was doing 70+. There's going to be an almighty accident on that road.
Mark my words.
Why?99% of everyone else on the road was doing 70+. There's going to be an almighty accident on that road.
Mark my words.
How many accidents were there when it had a 70 limit?
I went from the A331 to A31 to A3 like I usually do these days to avoid the M3 to M25 with a 40/50 limit, where you are lucky to do 10mph.
But today the A331 had a new speed limit of 50 until Ash - why?
I used to think the A roads were my solution to nonsense "moron in a control centre with nothing better to do" tail-backs on Motorways - now it looks like I may need to find a B road solution to messed up A roads!
This isn't progress - we're going backwards.
Well they seem to have messed this up, as it's only enforceable on one side, as they haven't put the speed limit signs in on the other side (unless they've fixed it in the last day or 2)
Traffic seems more congested as you have some sticking to 50 and below and others wanting to press on, but sit up the arse of the car in front.
Traffic seems more congested as you have some sticking to 50 and below and others wanting to press on, but sit up the arse of the car in front.
Trevatanus said:
krisdelta said:
It's normally a free flowing bit of road, which I've used regularly for 10+ years without thinking "this is too quick", I can't see the need for this at all.
It's to reduce pollution apparently.Trevatanus said:
It's to reduce pollution apparently.
Oh well that's just fine then! And how exactly is that approach going to reduce overall pollution?
Stopping 20 or so cars on the A331 just so 3 or 4 vehicles can get out of Sainsburys must make sense to someone, even if not me!
Is there a local councillor with a big supermarket shareholding by any chance?
After all you can't beat a vested interest!
DuckSauce said:
Well they seem to have messed this up, as it's only enforceable on one side, as they haven't put the speed limit signs in on the other side (unless they've fixed it in the last day or 2)
Traffic seems more congested as you have some sticking to 50 and below and others wanting to press on, but sit up the arse of the car in front.
Proper signage now up on the northbound carriageway as well..Traffic seems more congested as you have some sticking to 50 and below and others wanting to press on, but sit up the arse of the car in front.
Mr Tidy said:
Oh well that's just fine then!
And how exactly is that approach going to reduce overall pollution?
Stopping 20 or so cars on the A331 just so 3 or 4 vehicles can get out of Sainsburys must make sense to someone, even if not me!
Is there a local councillor with a big supermarket shareholding by any chance?
After all you can't beat a vested interest!
The section between the M3 and A30 has been 50 for ages, although I agree with you reference Sainsbury's - not that there's much choice I guess.And how exactly is that approach going to reduce overall pollution?
Stopping 20 or so cars on the A331 just so 3 or 4 vehicles can get out of Sainsburys must make sense to someone, even if not me!
Is there a local councillor with a big supermarket shareholding by any chance?
After all you can't beat a vested interest!
The latest 50 section is south of the M3 and really is pointless, imho..
The only plus point of the extended lower limit is they've finally decided to put some fresh tarmac down. Bit late though given how many years we've had to dodge various potholes, previous filled repairs (to varying degress of success), etc.
One or two people still trying to push 80+ down the new 50 at the moment which is resulting in some interesting closing speeds, tailgating, people getting headlight flashed, others stupidly moving into the left land into gaps that are barely suitable (especially when other cars are on the Coleford Bridge slip road trying to head M3 bound).
One or two people still trying to push 80+ down the new 50 at the moment which is resulting in some interesting closing speeds, tailgating, people getting headlight flashed, others stupidly moving into the left land into gaps that are barely suitable (especially when other cars are on the Coleford Bridge slip road trying to head M3 bound).
It's about NOx levels (see June SCC Cabinet meeting minutes).
Had a quick trawl through some of the council meetings to try to see any background to the decision making process. It hasn't been included on the minutes to any cabinet meetings over the last 12 months except the most recent one which just an addendum to correct the reason for it (emissions)
June 2018 - draft transport strategy was published for consultation. I'm not aware of any consultation on it having happened though.
Sept 2018 - Discussion about DEFRA identifying emissions non-compliance on the BVR at the Environment Select Committee
May 2019 - cabinet member for waste & enivorment - a ministerial direction was served on SCC (19th March) to improve air quality on the BVR. Secretary of state for the environment (Gove) requires a full business case to be submitted (19th May).
The business case can be found here
https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments....
And extracted from it:
Last year SCC increased council tax by 6% because they can't afford decent social care.
The cost in extra signage; and the road will be compliant 1 year ahead of the Do Nothing case.
Priorities, anyone?
I've a good mind to raise a complaint.
I have had just about enough of this st.
Had a quick trawl through some of the council meetings to try to see any background to the decision making process. It hasn't been included on the minutes to any cabinet meetings over the last 12 months except the most recent one which just an addendum to correct the reason for it (emissions)
June 2018 - draft transport strategy was published for consultation. I'm not aware of any consultation on it having happened though.
Sept 2018 - Discussion about DEFRA identifying emissions non-compliance on the BVR at the Environment Select Committee
May 2019 - cabinet member for waste & enivorment - a ministerial direction was served on SCC (19th March) to improve air quality on the BVR. Secretary of state for the environment (Gove) requires a full business case to be submitted (19th May).
The business case can be found here
https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments....
And extracted from it:
Annex3 Full Business Case Draft said:
1.7 The Preferred Option
The completion of detailed transport and air quality modelling has provided clarity on what
options will achieve the required improvements in air quality and public health. Further detail
on the option appraisal process can be found in the Economics Case.
Under a business as usual scenario, a link of the A331 that passes through Rushmoor and
Surrey Heath will not achieve compliance until 2022. Following a revised options appraisal
process, it has been determined that a speed restriction of 50mph, along this section of the
A331, will be sufficient to bring about compliance by 2021. Other options have been
discounted as not meeting the primary spending objective of bringing compliance in the
shortest possible time or for having unintended adverse consequences with regards air quality
and traffic redistribution. The reasons for discounting a charged Clean Air Zone are further
discussed in Section 2.2
As set out in Table 10 and Section 2.4 the current average weekday speeds are between 61.8
and 63.6 mph depending on direction (99-101 kph).
Atkins has modelled a range of different average speeds, as set out in Table 7, to assess the
various scenarios, from a minor reduction in average speeds of only 3mph to an optimistic
50mph average speed being achieved. Their modelling indicates that for the average speed
scenarios assessed, all would be predicted to achieve compliance in 2021.
Table 7 Range of average speed scenarios modelled
Measure Census ID Average Speed
modelled
Modelled Roadside
Annual Mean NO2
Concentration (µg/m3)
2021
73600
Do-Nothing 41.78
60 mph
restriction
95 kph (59 mph) 40.49
90 kph (56 mph) 39.60
50 mph
restriction
93 kph / 97 kph22 40.38
85 kph (53 mph) 38.13
80 kph (50 mph) 37.60
Modelling of speed restrictions to both 60mph and 50mph are shown to achieve compliance
but due to uncertainties over air quality dispersion modelling, behaviour change and the
Blackwater Valley Group’s assumption that there would be limited impact on average speeds
from a reduction to 60mph (partly due to the characteristics of the road and notwithstanding
reference to the formulae within the Department for Transport’s speed appraisal tool
associated with setting local speed limits23), the 50mph speed limit gives greater assurance
that compliance will be achieved.
The preferred option therefore is to proceed with a 50mph speed restriction with additional
signage signifying the air quality purpose of the limit. Modelling predicts that even with a
relatively minor reduction in average speeds, compliance of the EU limit value will be achieved
by 2021. Should a greater average speed reduction be realised then compliance will be
achieved by a greater margin.
With average speeds in the AM & PM peaks already well below the 70mph limit of this stretch
of highway, there will be little impact on journey times during these periods, as explained in
more detail in the economic case. As such, this option is anticipated to have a limited impact
on the surrounding road network and will effectively be an extension of a 50mph speed
restriction already in place on the northern section of the A331 (see figure 6).
Once compliance has been achieved, the 70mph speed limit will be reinstated following
submission of evidence to demonstrate that compliance with the EU limit value will be
maintained in its absence.
Section 1.9 discusses average speed cameras, so these are very much on the council's radar, although the Police it seems are on our side.:The completion of detailed transport and air quality modelling has provided clarity on what
options will achieve the required improvements in air quality and public health. Further detail
on the option appraisal process can be found in the Economics Case.
Under a business as usual scenario, a link of the A331 that passes through Rushmoor and
Surrey Heath will not achieve compliance until 2022. Following a revised options appraisal
process, it has been determined that a speed restriction of 50mph, along this section of the
A331, will be sufficient to bring about compliance by 2021. Other options have been
discounted as not meeting the primary spending objective of bringing compliance in the
shortest possible time or for having unintended adverse consequences with regards air quality
and traffic redistribution. The reasons for discounting a charged Clean Air Zone are further
discussed in Section 2.2
As set out in Table 10 and Section 2.4 the current average weekday speeds are between 61.8
and 63.6 mph depending on direction (99-101 kph).
Atkins has modelled a range of different average speeds, as set out in Table 7, to assess the
various scenarios, from a minor reduction in average speeds of only 3mph to an optimistic
50mph average speed being achieved. Their modelling indicates that for the average speed
scenarios assessed, all would be predicted to achieve compliance in 2021.
Table 7 Range of average speed scenarios modelled
Measure Census ID Average Speed
modelled
Modelled Roadside
Annual Mean NO2
Concentration (µg/m3)
2021
73600
Do-Nothing 41.78
60 mph
restriction
95 kph (59 mph) 40.49
90 kph (56 mph) 39.60
50 mph
restriction
93 kph / 97 kph22 40.38
85 kph (53 mph) 38.13
80 kph (50 mph) 37.60
Modelling of speed restrictions to both 60mph and 50mph are shown to achieve compliance
but due to uncertainties over air quality dispersion modelling, behaviour change and the
Blackwater Valley Group’s assumption that there would be limited impact on average speeds
from a reduction to 60mph (partly due to the characteristics of the road and notwithstanding
reference to the formulae within the Department for Transport’s speed appraisal tool
associated with setting local speed limits23), the 50mph speed limit gives greater assurance
that compliance will be achieved.
The preferred option therefore is to proceed with a 50mph speed restriction with additional
signage signifying the air quality purpose of the limit. Modelling predicts that even with a
relatively minor reduction in average speeds, compliance of the EU limit value will be achieved
by 2021. Should a greater average speed reduction be realised then compliance will be
achieved by a greater margin.
With average speeds in the AM & PM peaks already well below the 70mph limit of this stretch
of highway, there will be little impact on journey times during these periods, as explained in
more detail in the economic case. As such, this option is anticipated to have a limited impact
on the surrounding road network and will effectively be an extension of a 50mph speed
restriction already in place on the northern section of the A331 (see figure 6).
Once compliance has been achieved, the 70mph speed limit will be reinstated following
submission of evidence to demonstrate that compliance with the EU limit value will be
maintained in its absence.
Annex3 Full Business Case Draft said:
1.9 Stakeholder Engagement.
Highways England
The initial shortlist of options presented within the initial Local Plan did contain measures that
could be implemented at and around junction 4 of the M3 motorway. Highways England were
therefore identified early as a key partner in this project and were invited to attend the
Blackwater Valley Strategic Group and the Technical Officers Group.
In a letter dated 13 April 2018, Highways England confirmed that, based on Highways England
policy, they would not be “in a position at this time to support any interventions that encompass
the strategic road network and associated junctions to effect traffic movements along the A331
sorely for the mitigation of NO2 concentrations at the adjoining public access. Nor would
Highways England support any measures on the A331 that had the potential to affect traffic
movements on the strategic road network, in particular the M3, to determinant [sic] of existing
properties alongside the M3”.
Highways England own policy in relation to public access states:
“As a general guide we do not consider mitigation is required for public access (footpaths)
because there would be no relevant exposure for the annual mean averaging period. Where
there was evidence of NO2 concentrations above 200µg/m3 (1 hour mean), then it would need
to be established whether there is a continuous footpath of 2 miles or more (assumed an
average walking speed of 2 to 3mph) or a café or other facility where individuals would be
likely to reside for an hour or more, so there would be continued exposure for the hour”.
Speed Limit Order (SLO) (to be updated)
A statutory consultation forms part of the SLO process. The procedure for both Surrey and
Hampshire County Councils is outlined below;
1. Hampshire County Council will act as the lead authority, with Surrey County
Council obtaining agreement that the lead authority can act on their behalf. This
will be done by Surrey County Council delegating powers in section 84 of the Road
Traffic Regulation Act (1984) under local government delegation powers, subject
to both authorities agreeing to this process.
2. Both authorities to seek the necessary police and councillor authority as normal.
? Within Hampshire, preliminary approval is via Hampshire County Councils
Local Area Traffic Manager, the local County Councillor and Hampshire Police.
? Within Surrey permission to advertise a SLO is delegated to the Local
Committees / Joint Committees.
3. The lead authority prepares the paperwork which includes normal deposit points
for both authorities.
4. Once approved by the relevant committees / stakeholders the SLO must be
advertised for 21 days. This involves informing other relevant stakeholders, placing
a notice in the relevant newspapers, on relevant websites and advertising on site.
5. After the objection period both authorities seek to obtain permission to implement.
? If representations are received that cannot be addressed or a large number of
representations are made then a decision will be required as to whether to
progress making the Oder. In Surrey, this will be referred to the Surrey County
Council Surrey Heath Local Committee. In Hampshire this will either be at
Senior Officer level or by the Executive Member.
If the decision is made to proceed then the SLO can be made. The order is then
sealed by each authority with the other authority doing so a week before the lead,
both to agree the implementation date. Once sealed a notice of making the order
is published in the press stating that the SLO has been made and when it will come
into force. There is a six week period from the date of making the order during
which a challenge to the order may be made.
The Police (to be updated with results of formal consultation)
Surrey Police were consulted regarding the proposal to lower the speed limit along the A331.
Whilst they acknowledged the rationale behind the speed limit change, their concerns
included:
• inappropriate speed limits increasing the risk of drivers not complying, and bringing
into disrepute all other speed limits;
• the need for compliance to be understood by drivers;
• concerns surrounding average speed camera introduction in terms of cost,
resource and the capacity to process offences, the lack of court slots and the
availability of Driver Improvement courses.
Due to these concerns, Surrey Police have reserved the right to object to the proposal in
response to the formal consultation on the SLO. Formal response is found in Appendices 1c.
Hampshire Police’s advised that they would not be able to support the use of average speed
camera enforcement for the following reasons:
• having to focus and prioritise their work around killed and serious injury reduction
and deaths on local roads.
• the proposal not meeting or supporting Hampshire Constabulary Road Safety
Priorities in causality reduction.
• there are concerns around normal business as usual offences and constraints at
their offices. (Limited capacity both in terms of staffing and building space for those
additional staff to work)
Hampshire Police have advised that whilst they could not support this measure, they will not
object to it.
I'd be objecting. The modelling shows they expect a drop from 42 microg/m3 to 38, i.e. a 10% drop on average, assuming full compliance to the new limit; air quality is a factor in 5% of deaths in Surrey.Highways England
The initial shortlist of options presented within the initial Local Plan did contain measures that
could be implemented at and around junction 4 of the M3 motorway. Highways England were
therefore identified early as a key partner in this project and were invited to attend the
Blackwater Valley Strategic Group and the Technical Officers Group.
In a letter dated 13 April 2018, Highways England confirmed that, based on Highways England
policy, they would not be “in a position at this time to support any interventions that encompass
the strategic road network and associated junctions to effect traffic movements along the A331
sorely for the mitigation of NO2 concentrations at the adjoining public access. Nor would
Highways England support any measures on the A331 that had the potential to affect traffic
movements on the strategic road network, in particular the M3, to determinant [sic] of existing
properties alongside the M3”.
Highways England own policy in relation to public access states:
“As a general guide we do not consider mitigation is required for public access (footpaths)
because there would be no relevant exposure for the annual mean averaging period. Where
there was evidence of NO2 concentrations above 200µg/m3 (1 hour mean), then it would need
to be established whether there is a continuous footpath of 2 miles or more (assumed an
average walking speed of 2 to 3mph) or a café or other facility where individuals would be
likely to reside for an hour or more, so there would be continued exposure for the hour”.
Speed Limit Order (SLO) (to be updated)
A statutory consultation forms part of the SLO process. The procedure for both Surrey and
Hampshire County Councils is outlined below;
1. Hampshire County Council will act as the lead authority, with Surrey County
Council obtaining agreement that the lead authority can act on their behalf. This
will be done by Surrey County Council delegating powers in section 84 of the Road
Traffic Regulation Act (1984) under local government delegation powers, subject
to both authorities agreeing to this process.
2. Both authorities to seek the necessary police and councillor authority as normal.
? Within Hampshire, preliminary approval is via Hampshire County Councils
Local Area Traffic Manager, the local County Councillor and Hampshire Police.
? Within Surrey permission to advertise a SLO is delegated to the Local
Committees / Joint Committees.
3. The lead authority prepares the paperwork which includes normal deposit points
for both authorities.
4. Once approved by the relevant committees / stakeholders the SLO must be
advertised for 21 days. This involves informing other relevant stakeholders, placing
a notice in the relevant newspapers, on relevant websites and advertising on site.
5. After the objection period both authorities seek to obtain permission to implement.
? If representations are received that cannot be addressed or a large number of
representations are made then a decision will be required as to whether to
progress making the Oder. In Surrey, this will be referred to the Surrey County
Council Surrey Heath Local Committee. In Hampshire this will either be at
Senior Officer level or by the Executive Member.
If the decision is made to proceed then the SLO can be made. The order is then
sealed by each authority with the other authority doing so a week before the lead,
both to agree the implementation date. Once sealed a notice of making the order
is published in the press stating that the SLO has been made and when it will come
into force. There is a six week period from the date of making the order during
which a challenge to the order may be made.
The Police (to be updated with results of formal consultation)
Surrey Police were consulted regarding the proposal to lower the speed limit along the A331.
Whilst they acknowledged the rationale behind the speed limit change, their concerns
included:
• inappropriate speed limits increasing the risk of drivers not complying, and bringing
into disrepute all other speed limits;
• the need for compliance to be understood by drivers;
• concerns surrounding average speed camera introduction in terms of cost,
resource and the capacity to process offences, the lack of court slots and the
availability of Driver Improvement courses.
Due to these concerns, Surrey Police have reserved the right to object to the proposal in
response to the formal consultation on the SLO. Formal response is found in Appendices 1c.
Hampshire Police’s advised that they would not be able to support the use of average speed
camera enforcement for the following reasons:
• having to focus and prioritise their work around killed and serious injury reduction
and deaths on local roads.
• the proposal not meeting or supporting Hampshire Constabulary Road Safety
Priorities in causality reduction.
• there are concerns around normal business as usual offences and constraints at
their offices. (Limited capacity both in terms of staffing and building space for those
additional staff to work)
Hampshire Police have advised that whilst they could not support this measure, they will not
object to it.
Last year SCC increased council tax by 6% because they can't afford decent social care.
The cost in extra signage; and the road will be compliant 1 year ahead of the Do Nothing case.
Priorities, anyone?
I've a good mind to raise a complaint.
I have had just about enough of this s
t.Edited by 2gins on Wednesday 10th July 15:02
Like a few on here I suspect, I'm still using this daily.
My morning run through this zone, (0600-0610 typically) consists mostly of lane 1 cars doing an 55-60mph.
Lane 2 70mph+
The return home (1620-1640 typically) Lane 1 doing 50-55 with vans and cars driving way to close, mainly in an attempt to hurry them up.
Lane 2, 70mph+.
None of this has done a thing for road safety, it's now a section of road I'm really conscious of due to the variable speed everyone is travelling at.
Another SCC screw up.
My morning run through this zone, (0600-0610 typically) consists mostly of lane 1 cars doing an 55-60mph.
Lane 2 70mph+
The return home (1620-1640 typically) Lane 1 doing 50-55 with vans and cars driving way to close, mainly in an attempt to hurry them up.
Lane 2, 70mph+.
None of this has done a thing for road safety, it's now a section of road I'm really conscious of due to the variable speed everyone is travelling at.
Another SCC screw up.
Gassing Station | Thames Valley & Surrey | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff