|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decision Session – Executive Member for Transport
|
17 May 2022 |
|
Report of the Director of Transport, Environment and Planning
|
|
Piccadilly city living neighbourhood – Highway changes
Summary
1. This report summarises the work undertaken so far to develop a preferred design for changes to the highway on Piccadilly (between Tower Street and Merchangate) to deliver the Castle Gateway Masterplan which was approved by the Council’s Executive in April 2018.
2. The executive Member is asked to select one of the options presented in the report to progress changes to the highway in this location by continuing with the implementation of the “preferred option” (Option A) with or without changes proposed in Options B and C, or pausing the work to implement the preferred option whilst a new design is developed (Option D).
Recommendations
3.
The Executive is asked to:
1) Consider the information included in this report and in the Annexes, including Annex C which presents an Equality Impact Assessment for the proposal and approve Option B & C to be implemented together.
Option B proposes to continue to work with developers and Council led projects in the area to implement the “preferred option” as set out above, with the following elements added:
· Creation of an additional “integrated”, on carriageway bus stop (with associated facilities and Kassel kerbs) in front of the Banana Warehouse site;
· Further work to assess the feasibility of implementing an alternative cycle route through quieter streets or segregated cycling provision on Piccadilly (linked to work being undertaken through the City Centre Bus Routing Study/LCWIP/LTP4 processes); and
· Review opportunities to provide additional public seating within the “preferred option”;
· Implementation of a 20mph speed limit on Piccadilly.
Option C adds a Review of on street
parking provision aiming to maximise Blue Badge parking provision,
and to provide a taxi rank and motorcycle parking if
possible.
Reason: to support the
delivery of the Castle Gateway Masterplan approved by the
Council’s Executive in April 2018 and deliver the
Masterplan’s vision for Piccadilly, whilst providing adequate
public transport facilities, considering options to improve cycling
provision and considering options to improve seating and Blue Badge
parking provision. This includes consideration of the
Council’s duties under the Equality Act (public sector
equality duty).
Background
4. The Castle Gateway area sits largely within the city walls on the site of the former York Castle where the River Ouse and River Foss meet. The area covers Clifford's Tower and the Eye of Yorkshire, and runs through to St George's Field, the Foss Basin, the Coppergate Shopping Centre, and Piccadilly.
5. The Castle Gateway Masterplan was approved by the Council’s Executive in April 2018 (https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=48509).
6. For Piccadilly, the masterplan’s vision is to “turn Piccadilly in to a new city living neighbourhood, with wide pedestrian streets and spaces for independent traders at ground floor level and apartments above”. The objectives included:
a. Redeveloping the Spark site, offering more permanent opportunities for independent business in small scale commercial units with apartments above
b. A new apartment building at Castle Mills would offer retail space on to the street frontage, and also provide the link to the new Castle area over the pedestrian cycle bridge
c. Working with the developers of the other sites in the area, to ensure that new development is brought forward, bringing back in to use vacant plots and buildings and securing financial contributions to create a new high quality public street scene.
7. The majority of the development sites on Piccadilly are owned by private developers. Planning permission was first granted for 46-50 Piccadilly (Hampton by Hilton site) in December 2017 (pre-masterplan), and Ryedale House had permitted development rights and obtained planning permission in September 2018 for the addition of commercial units at ground level.
8. When a development is given planning permission, there is an opportunity for the local authority to secure some limited improvements to the surrounding highway. High level principles are usually set out in the planning permission itself, with agreement of the detailed design then delegated to officers.
9. Ordinarily Piccadilly would have proceeded in this manner, with each individual site seeking planning permission and highways officers negotiating and agreeing the detail with the developers. However, through the Castle Gateway masterplan and the number of new private sector developments taking place on Piccadilly, there was an opportunity to coordinate the design, capture a greater level of quality from the private developers, and bring forward the Piccadilly improvements earlier in the masterplan.
10. Consequently the Council’s regeneration team consulted with developers, highways officers and planning officers and reached an agreement that the regeneration team would, through the council’s architects BDP and transport consultants WSP, produce an over-arching design shaped through public engagement under the My Castle Gateway project. The detail of this design would then be agreed between highways officers and individual developers. Later phases for any missing parts of the design that was not connected to a development site would then be completed by the council with future funding asks to the Executive.
11. In agreeing this approach with the various parties, there were a number of factors to be considered:
a. The design would need to work with existing planning permissions;
b. The design would need to be technically achievable; and
c. Where changes were to be conditioned through planning consent, it would need to meet the following planning criteria (as set out in Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework): necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects.
12. The design was produced through the My Castle Gateway public engagement model, using a series of events, blogs and social media to create an open brief for the area in an open and transparent way. This approach also clearly acknowledges that there may be challenges in delivering any project and different people’s aspirations, and seeks to work through these in an open and collaborative way.
13. The design for Piccadilly was developed in response to the open brief (https://mycastlegateway.org/2019/03/12/piccadilly-my-castle-gateway-draft-open-brief/) that was produced for the street by My Future York, formed through extensive public engagement events and social media. The designers worked to this brief in producing the design. The main elements of the open brief are:
a. “Narrow the road: reduce the road (carriageway) width to the minimum allowable and creatively deploy the additional space for a variety of pedestrian uses;
b. Meander the road, slow the traffic: use some of this additional space to meander the road, as part of a range of measures to reduce vehicle speeds;
c. Use the meander to create new mini-public spaces: plan the meander of the carriageway route to create a series of spaces which relate to buildings and side routes. These spaces can be used to encourage different public uses, supported by trees, planting and benches (or other street furniture);
d. Increase community ownership: ownership of the new area of public realm will be key to animating and caring for them, making the early establishment of traders’ and community associations vital;
e. The bridge is for moving and lingering: the new bridge is a key movement route but also creates possibilities for spending time near the Foss, as does the new public space between the Castle Mills buildings; and
f. Seeing the Foss: visual links with the Foss are felt to be important; where we have design control, we should maximise them and elsewhere engagement with developers to achieve this should be encouraged”.
14. One of the key challenges identified during the design process is the layout of the street, narrowing at the northern end, near the junction with Pavement. The carriageway width available at the northern end of the street would not allow for cycle lanes to be provided whilst providing sufficient width for two way bus movements and sufficient footway width for pedestrians in what is a high footfall area.
15. An alternative option considered to achieve a segregated cycle route, was to consider one way traffic only. However, at that stage officers felt that the impact of redirecting the one way traffic on to the much narrower Walmgate area would have a disproportionate impact on that street.
16. Given the constraints described above, the design focused on catering for pedestrians (who are at the top of the transport hierarchy) and for public transport users whilst achieving the best possible option for cyclists. The first aim was to reduce traffic speeds, resulting in the introduction of speed tables and a proposed 20mph speed limit. The second was to reduce on street parking to reduce the risk of car doors opening in to the carriageway and the obstacle of manoeuvring traffic. The third was to provide parking and loading bays for loading activities and waiting taxis, so that cyclists do not have to navigate around parked vehicles in the carriageway.
17. It is important to note that loading bays and space for outdoor seating were not prioritised over segregated cycle lanes in shaping the over-arching design. The need for a two way bus route, a desire not to reduce the width of busy footpaths, meeting the open brief aspirations for the street, and needing to work with existing planning permissions were the context that influenced the design. The focus was on how best to create a safe environment for cyclists given these constraints.
Place making and pedestrian space on Piccadilly
18. The vision for Piccadilly was described as:
a. New heart of a thriving city centre neighbourhood
b. Capitalise on Area for City Centre living;
c. Pedestrian (and cyclist) friendly environment; and
d. Green and ‘healthy’ Street.
19. In order to deliver the vision, the following interventions were identified by the consultants commissioned to develop the design:
a. Reduce carriageway width - to create wider pedestrian footpaths and help to reduce vehicle speeds along street. ;
b. ‘Meander’ the road alignment – to help reduce vehicle speeds, create more opportunities for introducing ‘green’ along the street and spaces for activity / lingering;
c. Proposed tree planting – to break up mass of buildings and create visual and seasonal interest along the street;
d. Improve pedestrian movement – by incorporating wider footpaths, designated crossing points, improved wayfinding;
e. Create safer / more legible cycling routes;
f. Deliver an uplifted, higher quality streetscape – using the CYC Streetscape Guidance Document as a starting point (available here: www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/1747/sd109-city-of-york-streetscape-strategy-and-guidance-2014-);
g. Reduction of visual clutter – rationalising of highway signage, structured approach to positioning of street furniture;
h. Rationalising of servicing requirements for new developments; and
i. ‘Integrated’ bus stop solution (on carriageway stopping area).
20. When considering place making, the designers adopted the following key design principles when developing the “preferred option”:
a. The carriageway width is reduced to 6.75m (to enable buses to pass each other - two way route) allowing for the additional footway/pavement space. The pavement is organised to maintain clear pedestrian access, clear entrance spaces to adjoining buildings and a flexible furniture/activity/loading strip of 2-2.5m wide;
b. A rhythm along the street is defined by sightlines to and from key entrances. These entrances are clearly marked through the use of planting. The remaining flexible zone is maintained as a clear paved area which can be used for loading, drop-off or breakout cafe/seating spaces;
c. The design of planters, benches, litter bins and light columns are all organised within the flexible zones set-out within along the street.
Road layout and cycling provision
21. In 2019, a specific engagement session focused on the walking and cycling routes through St George’s Field, over the Fishergate Gyratory, over the new bridge and into and along Piccadilly.
22. A range of options were considered and modelled to consider the aspirations of the brief, the practical requirements of a bus route, the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, and the need to service commercial buildings such as shops and hotels, which require regular deliveries.
Option 1 - Cycle Lane in the Road – Primary Position
23. One key issue relates to the amount of space available at the northern end of the street. Due to other proposed uses for the space, including large pavements for planting, for street cafes and benches and loading bays for the new hotels, an option explored was to have cyclists share the road in primary position. (Although the current carriageway is generally between 8 and 10.5m, on-street parking effectively reduces the existing carriageway shared by vehicles and cyclists to 6.75m).
24. Having considered all of those constraints, the “preferred option”, put forward by the transport designers and technical officers, was as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Piccadilly “preferred option”
Option 2 - Segregated cycling provision
25. Three sub-options were considered here:
a. 2a) Cycle lane in road – secondary position – This would not allow for the minimum required width of 6.7m to enable buses to pass each other. It would not allow for the loading bay for the new hotels and existing Tesco deliveries at the narrowest section of Piccadilly to be taken off the highway. This would mean servicing vehicle would cause obstructions to buses and sever the cycle lane. It would not create wide enough pavements to accommodate planting, seating and cycle parking.
b. 2b) Cycle lane in the road – secondary positon with greater space for bus passing - This option would allow for the 6.7m required for buses to safely pass without encroaching on the cycle lane, but would require reduction in footway widths, reduced to only 1.3m at the narrowest point.
c. 2c) Segregated two way cycle lane – This option would not allow the space for loading bays to be taken off the carriageway and at the narrow section of Piccadilly there would be no space for planting, seating or activity with a very narrow pavement. As loading bays and servicing would need to be in the road it would also pose a risk to cyclists of delivery drivers and bus passengers crossing over the cycle lane.
26. The following key points were noted following the consultation with cycling groups on these options:
a. There was a very strong feeling at the consultation event that, from a cyclist perspective, Option 1 (cyclists in primary position) was not acceptable;
b. One person said of Option 1: “This has made it worse than it is at the moment – it works ok at the moment”;
c. Others said that if there were no segregated cycling lanes then this would mean that they would not cycle this way;
d. It was argued that the big opportunity of this scheme was to create a continuous cycling route up New Walk over the gyratory into Piccadilly and toward the cycle parking in Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate – and that the current plans were not seen as realising this.
27. Three questions emerged from the discussions to explore further:
a. Can speed be more actively reduced to 20 mph? If this was demonstrably possible would a segregated cycle lane still be needed?
b. What other options might there be for making the segregated cycle lane work all the way up Piccadilly?
c. Is there a way of taking a segregated cycle path up St Denys and to contraflow up Walmgate and Fossgate?
Providing for buses on Piccadilly
28. Piccadilly is currently a key bus route to and through the city centre, with a wide range of services stopping at existing bus stops on Piccadilly. This includes bus routes 8, 10, 12A, 14, 16, 22, 24, 25, 26, 35, 42, 67, 195 & 196, 415, 747.
29. Services stopping on Merchantgate also use Piccadilly. This includes bus routes 35, 36, 66 & 67.
30. A key principle of the design brief was therefore to retain bus access to Piccadilly and continue to offer a route through the city centre for bus services. This required sufficient carriageway width for two buses to be able to pass each other (travelling in both directions) or to pass another bus waiting at a bus stop.
31. It was also decided that the bus stops should be designed as “integrated”, on carriageway stops, rather than in bays, as this tend to be a more efficient use of available road space, improve accessibility through the use of Kassel kerbs (providing level access to the bus), and reduces dwelling times for buses.
32. This is in line with 2018 CIHT guidance (available here: www.ciht.org.uk/media/4459/buses_ua_tp_full_version_v5.pdf) which states:
a. Streets with bus services should provide for bus movement in both directions;
b. The carriageway width should be sufficient to ensure that buses are not obliged to wait to pass oncoming vehicles. To accommodate this, an unobstructed carriageway width of 6.5 metres will avoid buses having to slow to pass one another (or other large vehicles):
c. To ensure the widths are consistently available, the carriageway must be kept clear of parked vehicles. Parking and loading activity should be provided for in parallel off-carriageway bays;
d. Localised widening should be assumed on bends, in line with results of a realistic tracking exercise;
e. Footways should have more generous dimensions on streets with buses or other heavy traffic to help mitigate the impact of noise and fumes but also to reduce intimidation when large or fast-moving vehicles pass close to pedestrians. The minimum footway width on bus routes recommended by CIHT is 2.5 metres;
f. The addition of planted verges or swales can improve the pedestrian and driver experience. Parking bays can also act as a buffer between pedestrians and passing vehicles.
Piccadilly “preferred option” Stage 2
33. Based on the options presented above and feedback from the consultation process, a design (Stage 2) was developed as a “preferred option” by the team working on the Castle Gateway project, focusing on Piccadilly between its junction with Merchantgate and its junction with Tower Street. This is presented overleaf in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
34. This is presented in more detail in Annex A: BDP Concept Design Proposal Draft Stage 2 Report, and Annexes B and C: WSP Highway Scheme.
