|
Decision Session – Executive Member
for
Transport
|
18th January
2021
|
|
Report of the
Corporate Director of Economy and Place
|
Active Travel Fund
Summary
1.
This paper provides an update on the
projects in the Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) programme
– a set of emergency transport measures designed to promote
social distancing and reduce pressure on public transport,
implemented from May 2020 during the first lockdown.
2.
This paper then discusses
York’s Active Travel Fund (ATF) programme, a DfT programme
with funding allocated in November 2020 to encourage greater use of
active travel, in line with the government’s vision to
increase walking and cycling levels as expressed in the “Gear
Change: A vision to increase walking and cycling” document
(published July 2020).
3.
The paper also makes recommendations
for the development of walking and cycling policies in York more
generally, in particular development of a Local Cycling and Walking
Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) for York.
Recommendations
4.
The Executive Member is asked
to:
1)
Note the updates on the Emergency Active Travel
Programme schemes shown in Table 1.
2)
To make a £600k in-principle
commitment to delivering the ATF programme, with a final match
funding budget set following scheme costing and preparation.
Reason: this will match the original application whilst
leaving City of York Council to determine the most efficient
distribution of match funding once more is known about the cost and
delivery timescales for the programme as a
whole.
3)
To endorse the proposed Consultation
Plan. Reason: This will ensure the best possible
schemes are progressed - addressing the aspirations to increase the
take up of active travel modes whilst minimising the impact on
residents and other road users in compliance with DfT
requirements.
4)
To give officers delegated
responsibility to make decisions about how to resource the ATF
programme. Reason: this will allow timely and
efficient delivery of the programme alongside existing capital
programme commitments.
5)
To allow development a pipeline of
future walking and cycling schemes through working with stakeholder
groups to develop an LCWIP. Reason: this will
assist CYC in attracting central government funds for active travel
projects which will assist in meeting CYC’s transport, health
and air quality objectives.
Background
5.
York’s bid to the Active
Travel Fund (ATF) was submitted on 4th August 2020. At the
time the fund was named the Emergency Active Travel Fund.
Confirmation of the funding was expected by the end of August, but
was delayed. Funding was announced on 13th November with
accompanying guidance from the DfT that was subtly different from
that provided for the initial contest in August. In
particular:
·
A greater weight
has been given to consultation, with Local Authorities required to
publish a consultation plan for their programmes by 11th December
2020. Details of the Active Travel Fund Tranche 2 application and
the Consultation Plan are available as downloads at:
https://www.york.gov.uk/lets-york/active-travel-bid/1
·
Delivery of schemes
is now expected by 31st March 2022, (initially 31/03/21 although
there is still an expectation that commitment to deliver will be
confirmed by 31/3/21.
·
There is a greater
emphasis on schemes being permanent – and the word
“Emergency” has been removed from the fund
title.
6.
From a York perspective there have
also been changes in the external environment to ATF. When
the first tranche of EATF funding was announced in late Spring
there was an emphasis on providing measures which facilitated
social distancing or provided an alternative to public transport
– at that time compromised by social distancing
regulations. However, with the roll-out of covid vaccination
over the next 6 months, the focus will shift from objectives to
facilitate social distancing and providing an alternative to public
transport. In York, too, transport policy has moved on, with
the general adoption of an Economy and Place Covid Recovery Plan
which is now being updated as part of a review of the decade old
Local Transport Plan (LTP).
Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF)
7.
Table 1 sets out the measures in
York’s Emergency Active Travel Fund bid, made in May 2020,
and delivery progress to date.
Table 1: EATF
Measures
|
Measure/
theme
|
Already in CYC
Capital Programme
|
Implementation
progress to date
|
Next
steps
|
|
Space for
Pedestrians
|
|
Bishopthorpe
Rd shopping area
|
No
|
Trial measure
implemented in May 2020, removed in July 2020
|
Further
measures to be considered in LTP4
|
|
Pedestrian
Pinch Points at Coppergate and Piccadilly
|
No
|
Measures
implemented in June 2020. Still in place
|
Decision made
to explore options for making scheme permanent – October
2020.
|
|
Footstreets
Enhancements
|
|
Footstreets
extensions to Blake St, Lendal, Goodramgate, Colliergate, Church
St, Castlegate, Fossgate
|
Yes
|
Measures
implemented in June 2020
|
Decision
by Executive November 2020 to continue this measure.
|
|
Cycle Route
network improvements
|
|
Castle
Mills Bridge (Westbound) pop up cycle lane
|
No
|
Cones for
maintenance scheme of April 2020 left in place after lockdown
ended. Scheme removed October 2020.
|
Further options
to be considered as park of city centre/ Castle Gateway
project
|
|
North
South City Centre Cycle Route inc. Navigation Road
measures
|
Yes
|
Scheme
prepared. Report to February 2021 Decision Session
|
Consultation on
scheme ongoing
|
|
Lendal,
Ouse and Skeldergate Bridges measures to improve conditions for
cyclists
|
No
|
Schemes in
preparation – small scale lining and signing changes to be
implemented
|
NA
|
|
Low
Traffic Neighbourhood
|
|
The
Groves Low Traffic Neighbourhood
|
Yes
|
Experimental
Scheme implemented September 2020. Minor parking and closure
point amendments November 2020.
|
Monitoring of
network impact and evaluation after trial of at least 6
months.
|
|
Park and Cycle
Schemes
|
|
Shipton
Road – new segregated cycle lanes to support park and pedal
from Rawcliffe Bar
|
No
|
Scheme designed
(except for section between Rawcliffe Lane and Clifton Green
junctions.
|
Scheme
implementation between Clifton Green and Bootham Bar in early
2021. Consultation on parking impact and further work
required in ATF programme.
|
|
Tadcaster
Road – improvements to cycle lanes to support park and pedal
from Askham Bar
|
Yes
|
Implemented as
part of resurfacing scheme July 2020
|
Scheme
complete
|
|
Malton
Road – remarking of cycle lanes to support park and pedal
from Monks Cross
|
No
|
Implemented
|
Scheme
complete
|
|
Cycle Parking/
counters
|
|
City Centre
– additional stands
|
No
|
Installation of
168 new spaces in August 2020, other suitable sites also under
consideration.
|
NA
|
|
Rawcliffe Bar
– additional lockers
|
No
|
Installation
October 2020 (doubling capacity from 20 to 40 lockers)
|
Scheme
complete
|
|
Upgrade to
existing cycle counter site and provision of two new sites to
monitor cross-river cycle trips
|
No
|
Installation
October / November 2020
|
NA
|
8.
As can be seen, the majority of the
schemes in the programme have now been implemented or are on the
way to implementation via a consultation process.
9.
Recommendation: The Executive Member
is asked to note progress with scheme delivery.
10.
Reason: this is important contextual
information for considering the Active Travel Programme and its
development.
York’s Active Travel Fund (ATF)
Programme
11.
York’s ATF programme comprised
6 broad schemes, as set out in table 2 overleaf.
Funding awarded and match funding
required
12.
York’s bid made a match
funding pledge of £600,000 towards delivering the
programme. However, because CYC has been awarded £192k
less than bid for there is a question about what match funding
contribution should be made, and the consequent size of the
programme.
13.
It is worth noting that the bid in
August was put together quickly in response to a funding
call. The schemes included within the bid still require
detailed cost assessment, and in some cases option selection.
The costs put forward in the bid are likely to be subject to change
as the schemes are developed.
14.
A further consideration is
timing. The original fund guidelines suggested all projects
should be delivered by 31/03/2021. However, this deadline has
now changed to a preference that they be delivered by
31/03/2022– with potential for later delivery if agreed with
DfT (although a firm commitment to deliver schemes must be given by
Local Transport Authorities by 31/03/21).
15.
There are a number of Options to
resolve the impact of the reduced DfT funding:
·
The budget for the
programme could be amended by:
o
Increasing
the match funding to replace the £192k not allocated to the
programme by the DfT (in which case CYC match funding would
increase to £792k) – a total programme value of
£1,450k. This would allow progression of the complete
programme as bid for.
o
Maintaining
the match funding level identified in the bid (£600k), in
which case the programme budget would need to be reduced by
£192k to give a total programme budget of £1,258k. The
programme could be kept within budget by reducing the
allocations for one or more schemes, or removing a single scheme
from the programme. These changes could be determined now using the
indicative costs or later when further feasibility work had been
undertaken.
o
Increasing
the match funding to £1m to accommodate possible cost
increases as the detailed schemes are developed.
·
Alternatively, a
commitment could be made in principle to provide the match funding
of the £600k set out in the bid, with a final decision about
match funding budgets and distribution between financial years to
be made following an assessment of the Programme and definition of
a detailed Programme Plan.
16.
Recommendation: To make a £600k
commitment in-principle, with a final match funding budget set
following scheme costing and preparation.
17.
Reason: this will match the original
application whilst leaving City of York Council to determine the
most efficient distribution of match funding once more is known
about the cost and delivery timescales for the programme as a
whole.
Delivery
18.
Programme delivery will broadly use
CYC’s “All About Projects” methodology. These
stages are set out in table 3 below.
|
Stage
|
Involves
|
Work undertaken by
|
|
Consultation
|
Consultation on
measures as per DfT Consultation Plan spec
|
CYC comms
supported by i-travel team (see Appendix A of this
paper)
|
|
Feasibility
|
Assess
feasibility of proposed measures and calculate outline.
Costs.
|
CYC supported
by consultants
|
|
Design
|
Detailed design
of measures
|
CYC supported
by consultants
|
|
Contracting and
implementation
|
Purchase of
materials etc, construction of scheme
|
To be decided
on a scheme by scheme basis.
|
|
Post
implementation monitoring and evaluation
|
Assessment of
success or otherwise of measures, lessons learned for future
projects
|
To be decided
on a scheme by scheme basis.
|
Consultation
19.
The success of the ATF programme
will depend on effective consultation to ensure that there is a
clear understanding of the objectives of the individual projects
and to help determine the best solution whilst mitigating as far as
possible potential impacts on residents and other road
users.
20.
A generic consultation plan for the
programme has been published (see Annex A) to meet the DfT’s
deadline for acceptance of the indicative funding allocation, which
is in line with the standard approach taken when delivering
transport schemes across the city. There are two main pre-delivery
consultation stages followed by a monitoring and evaluation
stage:
·
Option Appraisal
Consultation - Schemes with several possible delivery
options
·
Detailed
Stakeholder Consultation - Schemes with a single delivery option
– would follow on from option appraisal stage where
needed.
·
Post-implementation
Monitoring and Evaluation
21.
Different approaches will be taken
for the different schemes in the programme owing to the wide range
of constraints. There is a need to undertake preliminary
feasibility work on all of the schemes to ensure that there are
deliverable potential options. For some schemes, where there are
very rigid physical constraints such as the A1237 bridge where it
is anticipated that there will be only one viable solution, it is
proposed to undertake a single stage consultation.
22.
Recommendation: The Executive Member
is asked to endorse the proposed Consultation Plan
23.
Reason: This will ensure the best
possible schemes are progressed - addressing the aspirations to
increase the take up of active travel modes whilst minimising the
impact on residents and other road users in compliance with DfT
requirements.
Delivery Resources
24.
Other commitments within CYC’s
Capital Programme are fully utilising the existing staff resources
within CYC’s transport team. The ATF programme is
significant and comprises a number of substantial
schemes.
25.
Consequently, there are a number of
options for delivering the ATF programme:
·
The programme could
be delivered using the existing resources within the transport
engineering and sustainable transport teams, accepting that this
would lengthen delivery timescales or reduce the amount of other
work which could be progressed
·
The programme could
have dedicated additional resources allocated to its delivery
funded from the ATF budget, with operational decisions relating to
the division between CYC employees and consultants delegated to
officers.
26.
Recommendation: officers are
delegated responsibility to make decisions about how to resource
the ATF programme in consultation with the Executive
Member.
27.
Reason: this will allow timely and
efficient delivery of the programme alongside existing capital
programme commitments in the light of consultation and feasibility
work prior to the DfT deadline.
Developing a walking and cycling schemes in the
future
28.
Central Government’s
“Gear Change” document makes clear the
Government’s ambition to see substantial development and
delivery of new infrastructure to promote walking and cycling by
local authorities. Local authorities are also challenged to
deliver very high quality cycling infrastructure through the
recently published LTN1/20 document setting out new design
standards for cycling infrastructure.
29.
Active travel has an identified
central government budget line of £2billion over the next 4
years in the most recent Comprehensive Spending Review. This
implies an expenditure of £500m per year – which is
twice the expenditure made in the 2020/21 year under EATF and
ATF.
30.
York has a historic
“pipeline” of cycling infrastructure schemes (Approved
in May 2016 and recently updated to account for delivery - attached
as Annex B) and progress is currently being made on delivering this
programme alongside the EATF and ATF programmes. However, the
new design standards challenge York’s historic programme and
there is a need to check the programme to determine which schemes
could most readily be developed in a way which is compliant with
LTN1/20. Although it is recognised that walking is the most
prevalent mode of transport for city centre residents CYC does not
have a separately identified pipeline of pedestrian schemes. Most
pedestrian improvements are currently progressed as part of wider
cycling, road safety or pedestrian crossing schemes.
31.
In 2017 Government recommended local
authorities develop Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans
(LCWIP). Surrounding local authorities are already developing
their plans. North Yorkshire County Council and East Riding
Council are developing settlement specific LCWIPs, whilst the five
West Yorkshire authorities are developing LCWIPs at a district
level. Work commenced on a York LCWIP in March 2020, through
development of an initial scoping document which examined trip
making patterns in York and set out how CYC might work with
stakeholders to develop an LCWIP for York. This scoping
document is attached at Annex C.
32.
Given the certainty of central
government spend on active travel measures in future years, and the
possibility that funding will be allocated competitively rather
than allocations based on population (as ATF and EATF were
allocated), it is imperative that CYC develops a programme of
pedestrian schemes and LTN 1/20 compliant cycle infrastructure
schemes so that it is able to attract active travel funding to
increase the coherence and connectivity of York’s already
comprehensive cycling/ walking infrastructure.
33.
Increasing walking and cycling in
York will also advance many other areas of Council policy (and
wider regional policies being developed by local Enterprise
Partnerships and Combined Authorities) – for example,
traffic/ congestion reduction, healthy living, obesity reduction,
social equality, air quality improvements and carbon reduction
policies.
34.
Recommendation: CYC develops a
pipeline of compliant future schemes through working with
stakeholder groups to develop and LCWIP.
35.
Reason: this will assist CYC
in attracting central government funds for active travel projects
which will assist in meeting CYC’s climate emergency strategy
to decarbonise transport and improve air quality and
health.
Consultation
36.
Annex A to this report sets out the
consultation protocol to be used in connection with the Active
Travel Fund Programme.
Council
Plan
37.
The measures and outcomes referred
to above make a contribution to the “Travelling
Sustainably” and modal shift objectives in the Council Plan,
and a variety of other CYC objectives around social equality,
public health, air quality and decarbonisation.
Implications
·
Financial:
a match funding
allocation of £600,000 is outlined in the report and will need
to be identified within current Highways and Transport capital
budgets. There is capacity within current budgets and proposed
budget amendments will be included in future capital monitoring
reports taken to Executive.
·
Human Resources
(HR): there will be some recruitment
to deliver the outlined programme – to be determined by
Council Officers under delegated responsibilities.
·
Equalities:
none
·
Legal: the schemes outlined above
will require Traffic Regulation Orders, a straight forward legal
process which CYC already has significant experience in
delivering.
·
Crime and Disorder:
none
·
Information Technology
(IT): none
·
Property: none
·
Other: none
Risk Management
38.
No known risks – schemes are
conventional.
Contact Details
|
Author:
|
Chief Officer Responsible for the
report:
|
Julian Ridge
Sustainable Transport
Manager
Transport
01904552435
|
Neil Ferris
Economy and Place
|
|
Report Approved
|
X
|
Date
|
08/01/21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wards
Affected: [List
wards or tick box to indicate all]
|
All
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
For further information please contact the
author of the report
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annexes
A. Consultation Plan
B. Current CYC Strategic Cycling
Plan
C. LCWIP Scoping Study
List of Abbreviations Used in
this Report
EATF – Emergency Active
Travel Fund
ATF – Active Travel
Fund
DfT – Department for
Transport
CYC – City of York
Council
LCWIP – Local Cycling
and Walking Infrastructure Plan
Further
Reading
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creating-the-transport-decarbonisation-plan
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120
