Who is submitting the proposal?
|
Directorate:
|
Place |
|||
|
Service Area:
|
Transport |
|||
|
Name of the proposal :
|
Cycling in High Petergate |
|||
|
Lead officer:
|
Mike Durkin |
|||
|
Date assessment completed:
|
30 June 2021 |
|||
|
Names of those who contributed to the assessment : |
||||
|
Name |
Job title |
Organisation |
Area of expertise |
|
|
Mike Durkin |
Engineer (Transport Projects) |
CYC |
Transport engineering and road safety |
|
Step 1 – Aims and intended outcomes
|
1.1 |
What is the purpose of the proposal? Please explain your proposal in Plain English avoiding acronyms and jargon. |
|
|
To allow cycling along High Petergate in a one way direction from Bootham Bar to Duncombe Place during the “footstreet” hours (i.e. between 10.30 and 17.00). Cycling is already permitted at other times of the day, and there is a current a trial taking place which allows cycling during this footstreets period. This has been implemented via an Experimental Traffic Order which came into effect on 3 March 2020, and consideration is being given to replacing this by a permanent Traffic Order with effect from 3 September 2021. |
|
1.2 |
Are there any external considerations? (Legislation/government directive/codes of practice etc.) |
|
|
Under national traffic regulations, and relevant guidance issued by the Department for Transport, it is possible to allow cycling within pedestrianised streets. This does introduce a risk of collisions, and is therefore not recommended for all situations. However, research indicates this risk is very low if certain conditions exist. This is covered in more detail in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/93, and the following key points are considered to apply in the case of High Petergate:
· Exemptions for cyclists should be considered if satisfactory routes for around a pedestrian zone do not exist or cannot be created. · Accidents between pedestrians and cyclists in pedestrianised areas are rare. · Cyclists tend to respond to pedestrian density, modifying their speed and taking other avoiding action where necessary.
|
|
1.3 |
Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests?
|
|
|
Cyclists – many would benefit from being able to cycle along High Petergate during the footstreet hours and avoid using St Leonard’s Place, which is busy with vehicular traffic. Surveys in 2019 showed that around 30 people per hour chose to cycle along the street illegally. Pedestrians – the street has a very high footfall and narrow footways. Many choose to walk in the carriageway, especially during the designated footstreet hours (about 850 per hour in a 2019 survey). Local Businesses – the street has many retail and hospitality outlets, and most rely on the high footfall the street attracts. |
|
1.4 |
What results/outcomes do we want to achieve and for whom? This section should explain what outcomes you want to achieve for service users, staff and/or the wider community. Demonstrate how the proposal links to the Council Plan (2019- 2023) and other corporate strategies and plans. |
|
|
Improved road safety and convenience for cyclists, without compromising the safety of pedestrians and other road users. The route is more attractive and safer than the route via St Leonards Place. Allowing cyclists to use High Petergate will encourage getting around sustainably. Increased use of cycles which in turn would promote good health and wellbeing, and a greener and cleaner city.
|
Step 2 – Gathering the information and feedback
|
2.1 |
What sources of data, evidence and consultation feedback do we have to help us understand the impact of the proposal on equality rights and human rights? Please consider a range of sources, including: consultation exercises, surveys, feedback from staff, stakeholders, participants, research reports, the views of equality groups, as well your own experience of working in this area etc. |
|
|
Source of data/supporting evidence |
Reason for using |
|
|
Video surveys
|
“Before” and “after” video surveys were carried out to assess the effects of introducing the proposed change on an experimental basis. The videos enabled numbers of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users to be accurately counted. The video footage also enable any incidents and areas of conflict between road users to be identified. |
|
|
Consultation |
Consultation was undertaken with local residents and businesses, Ward Councillors, and a wide range of stakeholder parties/organisations |
|
|
Road Safety Assessment |
A Road Safety Assessment was carried out by Highway Safety Engineers independent of promoting, designing, or setting up the trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
Step 3 – Gaps in data and knowledge
|
3.1 |
What are the main gaps in information and understanding of the impact of your proposal? Please indicate how any gaps will be dealt with. |
|
|
Gaps in data or knowledge |
Action to deal with this |
|
|
There are not considered any significant gaps in information or understanding. The video surveys produced very robust data, and the Road Safety Assessment did not raise any significant issues. Although the consultation process did not result in as many responses being received as expected, this can be seen as an indication of low concern.
|
None proposed |
|
Step 4 – Analysing the impacts or effects.
|
4.1 |
Please consider what the evidence tells you about the likely impact (positive or negative) on people sharing a protected characteristic, i.e. how significant could the impacts be if we did not make any adjustments? Remember the duty is also positive – so please identify where the proposal offers opportunities to promote equality and/or foster good relations. |
|||
|
Equality Groups and Human Rights. |
Key Findings/Impacts |
Positive (+) Negative (-) Neutral (0) |
High (H) Medium (M) Low (L) |
|
|
Age |
Potential impact on older pedestrians and children who may not be aware of any changes to restrictions. The number of cyclists using the route, which is limited to one direction, is relatively low. Segregated raised footways area available along the route to provide a safe route for pedestrians. Clear signage will be in place to ensure that pedestrians are aware of the restrictions.
|
Negative |
L |
|
|
Disability
|
Potential impact on pedestrians with a sensory impairment increasing the risk of conflict with cyclists who they may not be expecting to be in the area. The number of cyclists using the route, which is limited to one direction, is relatively low. Segregated raised footways area available along the route to provide a safe route for pedestrians. Clear signage will be in place to ensure that pedestrians are aware of the restrictions. Potential positive impact for people living with reduced mobility who use cycles as a mobility aid
|
Negative & Positive |
L |
|
|
Gender
|
No Impacts identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Gender Reassignment |
No Impacts identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Marriage and civil partnership |
No Impacts identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Pregnancy and maternity |
No Impacts identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Race |
No Impacts identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Religion and belief |
No Impacts identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Sexual orientation |
No Impacts identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Other Socio-economic groups including : |
Could other socio-economic groups be affected e.g. carers, ex-offenders, low incomes? |
|
||
|
Carer |
No Impacts identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Low income groups |
No Impacts identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Veterans, Armed Forces Community |
No Impacts identified. |
0 |
L |
|
|
Other
|
No Impacts identified. |
|
|
|
|
Impact on human rights: |
|
|
||
|
List any human rights impacted. |
None |
0 |
L |
|
Use the following guidance to inform your responses:
Indicate:
- Where you think that the proposal could have a POSITIVE impact on any of the equality groups like promoting equality and equal opportunities or improving relations within equality groups
- Where you think that the proposal could have a NEGATIVE impact on any of the equality groups, i.e. it could disadvantage them
- Where you think that this proposal has a NEUTRAL effect on any of the equality groups listed below i.e. it has no effect currently on equality groups.
It is important to remember that a proposal may be highly relevant to one aspect of equality and not relevant to another.
|
High impact (The proposal or process is very equality relevant) |
There is significant potential for or evidence of adverse impact The proposal is institution wide or public facing The proposal has consequences for or affects significant numbers of people The proposal has the potential to make a significant contribution to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights.
|
|
Medium impact (The proposal or process is somewhat equality relevant) |
There is some evidence to suggest potential for or evidence of adverse impact The proposal is institution wide or across services, but mainly internal The proposal has consequences for or affects some people The proposal has the potential to make a contribution to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights
|
|
Low impact (The proposal or process might be equality relevant) |
There is little evidence to suggest that the proposal could result in adverse impact The proposal operates in a limited way The proposal has consequences for or affects few people The proposal may have the potential to contribute to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights
|
Step 5 - Mitigating adverse impacts and maximising positive impacts
|
5.1 |
Based on your findings, explain ways you plan to mitigate any unlawful prohibited conduct or unwanted adverse impact. Where positive impacts have been identified, what is been done to optimise opportunities to advance equality or foster good relations? |
|
Signage for the restriction has been in place throughout the ETRO period. Signs and road markings will be reviewed to ensure that all road users are aware of the revised restrictions.
|
|
Step 6 – Recommendations and conclusions of the assessment
|
6.1 |
Having considered the potential or actual impacts you should be in a position to make an informed judgement on what should be done. In all cases, document your reasoning that justifies your decision. There are four main options you can take: |
|
|
- No major change to the proposal – the EIA demonstrates the proposal is robust. There is no potential for unlawful discrimination or adverse impact and you have taken all opportunities to advance equality and foster good relations, subject to continuing monitor and review. |
||
- Adjust the proposal – the EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. This involves taking steps to remove any barriers, to better advance quality or to foster good relations.
- Continue with the proposal (despite the potential for adverse impact) – you should clearly set out the justifications for doing this and how you believe the decision is compatible with our obligations under the duty
- Stop and remove the proposal – if there are adverse effects that are not justified and cannot be mitigated, you should consider stopping the proposal altogether. If a proposal leads to unlawful discrimination it should be removed or changed.
Important: If there are any adverse impacts you cannot mitigate, please provide a compelling reason in the justification column. |
||
|
Option selected |
Conclusions/justification |
|
|
No major change to the proposal
|
Consideration of all the evidence gathered as part of trial has not highlighted any potential for unlawful discrimination or adverse impacts. If the measure were introduced on a permanent basis monitoring of the situation would be continued, and opportunity for further review if unforeseen issues became apparent. |
|
Step 7 – Summary of agreed actions resulting from the assessment
|
7.1 |
What action, by whom, will be undertaken as a result of the impact assessment. |
|||
|
Impact/issue |
Action to be taken |
Person responsible |
Timescale |
|
|
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 8 - Monitor, review and improve
|
|
How will the impact of your proposal be monitored and improved upon going forward? Consider how will you identify the impact of activities on protected characteristics and other marginalised groups going forward? How will any learning and enhancements be capitalised on and embedded? |
|
|
If the measure is introduced on a permanent basis officers would continue to monitor the situation including thorough observation, assessment of any external feedback (e.g. from road-users or Ward Councillors), and the ongoing review of accident data received from the Police. There would be opportunity for further review and to consider possible changes if unforeseen issues became apparent.
|