There are known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns

The bill for the 20mph traffic calming measures in Ilkley remains outstanding ...

The seemingly protracted, highly divisive, poorly conceived, badly executed and costly scheme to introduce 20mph traffic calming measures in Ilkley in early 2024 was one of the key items hotly discussed, at length, by councillors at the recent full council meeting of Ilkley Town Council (ITC), with members of the public also chipping in for good measure beforehand.

There’s nothing quite like speed bumps, in particular, to rub people up the wrong way – and it’s certainly been a bugbear of many residents in the town since the scheme was rolled out (with legitimate reason, too, with one resident at the meeting providing useful insight into the negative impact that vehicles hitting speed cushions next to her home is having on her family).

On the agenda, specifically, were the next steps that the parish council should take with regard to its financial obligations under the terms of the section 278 agreement that it entered into with Bradford Council. ITC has committed itself to paying, according to the above arrangement, to “make a contribution of 50% of the final scheme cost subject to a maximum contribution of £87,500”, with Bradford Council paying the rest.

That seems to suggest that whatever the final cost – which has, according to reports, a total budget of £187,500 (although, alarmingly, no one currently appears to know what the actual final figure is/will be) – ITC’s financial contribution will be capped.

Not that it’s any consolation to many residents. As Sean Spence, Conservative councillor for Ben Rhydding, noted, when locals were asked back in October 2023 whether they supported ITC spending £87,500 on the scheme – as part of a wider parish poll seeking to clarify public sentiment towards the then proposed 20mph speed restrictions (which itself cost a hefty £44,637.24 of taxpayer money and resulted in the majority of respondents voting against the scheme), Olicanians overwhelmingly said that they didn’t.

Moot point, perhaps, because the pricey poll, dubbed, at the time, a “zombie poll” by Karl Milner, Labour councillor for Ilkley South, had no legal power or authority, which, as an aside, was also true of the 2016 Brexit referendum, yet, well … let’s save that ongoing omnishambles for another day.

So, thanks for your views, but no thanks, we know what we’re doing, Although, that said, to Bradford Council’s credit, the council did say back in February last year, via Alex Ross-Shaw, Labour councillor for Windhill and Wrose and portfolio holder for regeneration, planning and transport, that “the amount of traffic calming being installed is half the amount originally proposed, which we amended based on feedback through the consultation process”. So, there you have it – your say can have some sway. Democracy. You gotta love it sometimes.

The reason ITC wanted to discuss this matter at this meeting, as we understand it, is that nothing much seems to have happened since David Kirkpatrick, described as being the principal highways engineer for Bradford Council, gave an update on the scheme at an ITC meeting back in December.

He was quoted as saying that the bulk of the work had been completed but that the council was “compiling a list of the elements of the scheme still to be completed”. Moreover, he explained that they were still awaiting the final costs from the contractor and that a completion certificate would only be issued when work on the traffic calming measures scheme had been finished in its entirety (why it has taken this long to fully implement is still unclear).

That was six months ago. As far as we know, a completion certificate hasn’t been sent to ITC, nor a final bill. It isn’t clear what has been done, how that squares up with what was agreed and promised, what, if anything, is outstanding in terms of work and whether or not it is fit for purpose (which opens up a wider discussion over what is the safest, most cost effective and agreeable way of managing certain speed limits. Empirically (observation, experience), bumps seem to be preferred for 20mph and speed cameras for 30mph and above, with the latter, as a control measure, much more preferable to the former (for 20mph limits).

In short, nobody seems to know – at least that’s how it appears. After all, half a year has passed since that update was given and we’re none the wiser. This sort of reminds us of that time in 2002 when the then US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about the lack of actual evidence that proved Iraq was supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, responded by saying:

“As we know, there are known knowns – there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns – that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.” His 2013 memoir would be titled Known and Unknown.

In light of these known unknowns, the question turns to how much ITC is obligated to hand over. As David Nunns, Conservative councillor for Ilkley North, explained at the meeting, if, according to his calculations, only one-third of the original scheme has been delivered (done, dusted, signed, sealed and delivered), then arguably that shifts the dial.

You’re hardly going to pay for a particular “quantification of work”, as Nunns put it, if what, in the end, is a smaller if not incomplete (deficient) job. A way of assessing this, he continued, would be for ITC to get its peepers on the original cost budget for the scheme.

Which begs many questions. Did ITC not see a breakdown of costs in the first instance? And if not, when it committed to paying its share of £87,500 for the scheme, on what basis was this decision made (did nobody, at the time, query what this cost involved)? Was there ever a timeline with key stages, deadlines and responsibilities outlined? Were there regular communications, in person, via email, between ITC and Bradford Council during the installation of the traffic calming measures? And if not, why not? Was a steering group with members from ITC, Bradford Council and, we suppose, the contractor(s), ever set up? Again, if so, what did they discuss and how were key parties held to account? And if not, why not?

All in all, speaking as objectively as we can and, it has to be said, from a position where we’re not not privy to all the facts, this entire scheme has all the qualities of an ill thought, botched up, potentially still ongoing job that did not (does not) have the overwhelming backing of many residents in Ilkley – at least according to that one contentious poll which saw approximately 34.71% of Ilkley’s then electorate of 11,950 have their say – who have to deal with its unfortunate, subsequent consequences.

Noise. Vibrations. Uneven speed cushions. Cushions next to driveways. Cushions cluttered with cars (over them, next to them). Drivers having to drive on the other side of the road to travel clearly over a cushion because the other one is blocked. Damage to cars. Traffic. Potentially more pollution. A poorer driving experience. A decline in the aesthetic quality of urban areas. And so on.

But, the counterarguments may go, speed calming measures make roads, towns and cities safer. Take speed cushions in a 20mph zone. They do slow cars down. And while they may not be as effective as strictly intended, drivers are, in general, forced to slow down to or close to a desired speed (although, it is true that 20mph limits will often be ignored in-between speed bumps, one of the reasons why some prefer some sort of automated speed camera alternative that can’t really be gamed).

Sure, you can travel over a cushion over the expected speed limit, say, at 30mph in a 20mph zone, but many won’t. There are three reasons for this. One, motorists will follow the rules of the road, whatever they think about the measures in place. Two, they know it’s not a pleasant driving experience to hit a bump at speed and would therefore rather avoid it. And three, they’re aware that it risks damaging their car. And that’s an inconvenience and an expense that isn’t worth it.

So, speed limits, traffic calming measures, they’re a good thing. They make sense. In fact, we’d even go so far as to say that 20mph zones in Ilkley are welcomed with open arms – just give the bumps a miss and invest in speed cameras instead. But there has to be genuine reasoning behind it on a case-by-case basis – not as a generic, district-wide response that someone, some councillor, cooked up one not-so-literal day.

Is there, for example, any data that suggests speeding had become a significant issue in Ilkley? Was there any data suggesting an increase in road accidents? Was the town generating too much car pollution in proportion to its size? Has there been a take-up in alternative modes of transport? Is there any evidence that people now think Ilkley is more “pleasant” as a result of the 20mph speed limits and bumps? In response to all of the above, none that we know of (and we very much welcome any detail to the contrary).

Whatever the final bill, whatever subsequent, costly changes – upkeep or outright removal – there were so many better ways for that money to have been spent if at all. The council, being as cash-strapped as it is, “facing a debt over £1b billion with consequential financing costs”, didn’t need to sign off on this (with ITC). And yet they did. You reap what you sow – and, in the interim, locals are left to deal with the mess.