Decision Session – Executive Member for Transport	19 October 2021
Report of the Director of Transport, Environment and Planning

Tadcaster Road Sustainable Modes Improvement Scheme

Summary

1. Tadcaster Road is one of York’s busiest transport corridors. The route not only provides access in and out of the city but also to key employment and education sites such as York College, York Racecourse, and a cluster of secondary schools in the Mount area of York. The existing cycling and walking infrastructure are of variable quality and the cycle route is disjointed. Bus journeys along this route regularly experience delays.

2. This report sets outs the feasibility work that has been undertaken to determine measures to improve the corridor for sustainable modes within the budget available to be delivered with the major highway maintenance scheme which is due to commence in spring 2022.

3. A review of the results of the consultation undertaken in August/September 2021 on an outline design (Appendix. A) and proposes changes through the design process to address the comments raised. A record of the consultation responses is included in Appendix B

4. It is proposed to fund the scheme from the Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) which is administered by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) and the Department for Transport’s Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund.

5. There is an overarching aspiration to create continuous cycle routes in both directions along the constrained road space available on this corridor however the funding is not currently available to deliver the full ambition at this stage. By integrating the works into the delivery of the highway maintenance project the most effective and best value scheme will be achieved within the funding currently available. Further funding could be sought to deliver the more costly items, such as the Moor Lane roundabout upgrade, as future phases of the improvements.

Recommendations

6. The Executive Member is asked to

1) Approve Option C - to support the officer recommendations for design revisions as summarised in the table at para 119:

Reason: To address the comments raised during the consultation.

2) Approve the progression of the detailed design with approval of the final layout delegated to the Director of Transport, Environment and Planning in consultation with the Executive Member

Reason: to ensure the final design addresses the comments raised in the consultation.

3) Approve the procurement of the works with the Tadcaster Road core works maintenance scheme and delegate to the Director of Place (in consultation with the s151 Officer and Director of Governance or their delegated officers) the authority to take such steps as are necessary to procure, award and enter into the resulting contracts.   

Reason: to ensure best value for money and to minimise disruption to local residents

4) Should the budget not be sufficient for the scheme once detailed design and further costing work has been undertaken a report to the Executive Member for Transport will be prepared to determine priorities.

Reason: to determine the priorities for delivery as the budget may not be sufficient to deliver the whole scheme.

5) Approve entering into a Funding Agreement with West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) in respect of the Transforming Cities Funding (TCF) and delegate to the Director of Place (in consultation with the s151 Officer and Director of Governance or their delegated officers) the authority to take such steps as are necessary to negotiate and enter into the final agreement.

Reason: to enable the scheme to be funded by the Transforming Cities Fund.

Background

7. City of York Council (CYC) and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) received £1.43m funding allocation from the Department for Transport’s Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) to make improvements on the Tadcaster Road for sustainable modes of travel.

8. The scheme objectives are:

· Increase numbers of bus users on the corridor

· Increase the number of pedestrians and cyclists using the route

· Improve safety and amenity for cyclists using Tadcaster Road

· Improve the journey times and reliability of bus services using the corridor

9. In addition, CYC has secured £5m funding from the Department for Transport’s Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund to carry out essential maintenance and improvements to the drainage, lighting and carriageway and footway surfaces.

10. Both schemes are proposed to be delivered simultaneously so that disruption to residents, businesses and the users of Tadcaster Road can be minimised.  Simultaneous delivery also gives scope for significant cost savings which will enable the delivery of a greater number of interventions for the same cost.  The cost saving from progressing the TCF funded elements alongside the maintenance scheme is estimated by the consultants advising CYC on the work package to be approximately 15%, implying that £200k “more” measures can be delivered using the allocated £1.4m than would be possible if the scheme was being progressed independently of the maintenance scheme.  The design development of the TCF funded elements has therefore been expedited to “catch up” with the maintenance scheme and there is a continuing need to progress the scheme at pace if the opportunity to reap the savings available from simultaneous delivery of the transport and maintenance scheme is to be made.

Consultation

11. A feasibility design for the TCF funded scheme was undertaken during Spring 2021 with stakeholder engagement and public consultation undertaken in Summer 2021.  The consultation plans are provided as Appendix A.

12. Reflecting the significance of the Tadcaster Road corridor, over 500 responses were received during the public consultation process.  Consultation respondents stated that their key priorities were improving facilities for people on bikes and improving the road surface quality. This was followed by improving air quality, reducing bus journey time/improving reliability, and improving facilities for people on foot. A common priority for the respondents based on the comments received in the survey and via email was improving traffic speeds and flow for cars. The Consultation Report is provided as Appendix B.

13. A wide range of comments were received during the consultation.  These ranged in their views: a significant number of respondents commenting that they were not in favour of some of the interventions intended to improve conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and bus passengers (especially the new signalised crossings); conversely, we received large numbers of comments that the provision for cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers did not go nearly far enough.  A number of alternative schemes were proposed, or alternative uses of the funding, including suggestions that all of the funding should be allocated to a single intervention, such as substantial modifications to Moor Lane roundabout to improve it for cyclists.

14. Delivering a scheme which was fully compliant with the government’s Local Transport Note on the guidance and good practice for Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN 1/20) would involve a minimum of:

· Rebuilding or replacing Moor Lane roundabout

· Stepped cycle lanes on Tadcaster Road itself, enabled by highway widening in some areas which would involve felling mature trees and/ or third party land take

· Tightening the approach/ egress radii on most of the side roads off Tadcaster Road and providing tables across the roads, aligned with the footway

· Rebuilding of several of the major junctions (e.g. St Helen’s Road, Sim Balk Lane), again requiring felling of mature trees and/ or third party land take.

15. Undertaking all of these interventions would result in a scheme which vastly exceeded the budget that is available.  As such, scheme design has focussed on a set of interventions which are affordable, tackle the most serious shortcomings in the corridor, with a particular focus on improving the reliability of bus services and providing as continuous as possible cycle lanes.  This was the scheme contained with Annex A and consulted upon. This does not preclude further interventions at a later date which may emerge through York’s fourth Local Transport Plan and the Local Cycling, Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) which will form a part of it.

16. In more general terms, developing the Tadcaster Road scheme contains lessons which will be applied to the other Active Travel Fund (ATF) schemes – in particular the need to prioritise funding to make the greatest possible overall benefit, but accepting that, at current funding levels, schemes which comply with every aspect of LTN 1/20 may not always be possible.

17. The following key themes and locations have been assessed in more detail in the sections below:

· General Themes

i. Segregated cycle lanes

ii. Pedestrian crossings

iii. Road space reallocation

iv. Bus Stops

v. Kerbside parking

· Area Specific Interventions

i. Sim Balk Lane / York College area

ii. Moor Lane roundabout

iii. The Horseshoes (vicinity)

iv. Slingsby Grove shops

v. St Helen’s Road junction

vi. The Knavesmire

vii. Knavesmire Road (vicinity)

viii. The Mount

18. Each of the response themes and interventions are considered with some design options and analysis and an officer recommendation as to what is proposed for the next stage of design.

19. A summary of the recommendations is included at para 119

Segregated cycle lanes

Summary

20. LTN 1/20 guidance recommends that for the traffic flows and vehicular speeds experienced on Tadcaster Road protected space should be provided to make the route attractive to all types of cyclists. Comments received during the consultation highlighted high demand for segregation to make this route more attractive to both new and existing cyclists. A number of comments were received making the case that without the protection they were unlikely to change their travel behaviour.

21. Design options for whole route segregation were considered early in the feasibility design stage with the most appropriate arrangement for Tadcaster Road considered to be a stepped cycle track as shown in Figure 2.1A below:

Figure 2.1A – Example stepped cycle track

Source: LTN 1/20

22. Based on unit cost information provided by DfT for a similar stepped cycle tracked scheme in Cambridge, the cost of implementing a stepped cycle track on both directions along Tadcaster Road key route section is estimated at £3m+.  This is significantly above the current funding allocation for the corridor.

23. Given the budgetary limitations, an alternative approach is to provide localised segregation at key locations along the corridor using bolt down infrastructure, often referred to as ‘light segregation’, an example of which is shown in Figure 2.1B below:

Figure 2.1B – Example ‘light segregation’

Source: Transport for London (Euston Road)

Design Options

24. Design Option 1: Proceed with consultation scheme

Proceed to detailed design with cycle lane proposals as indicated on the consultation plans.

25. Design Option 2: Modify consultation scheme proposals

Proceed to detailed design with cycle lane proposals as consulted upon subject to the following additional design development:

· To investigate the provision of ‘light segregation’ features such as ‘pole wands’ where viable to do so subject to:

o maintaining a minimum effective cycle lane width of 1.5m in accordance with LTN 1/20

o maintaining a desirable minimum general traffic running lane width of 3.25m, with an absolute minimum of 3.0m over localised constrained sections and where appropriate

o maintaining access to side roads, bus stops, parking area and private driveways

o ensuring light segregation features are in keeping with the local environment along the route

o budgetary constraints.

26. Light segregation can help to ‘prove the concept’ of segregation.  Subject to monitoring outcomes there remains the potential to revisit and implement stepped cycle tracks (or similar) along the Tadcaster Road corridor as a subsequent phase of works should additional funding become available.

27. Officer Recommendation

Design Option 2.  Proceed to detailed design including investigation into the provision light segregation along the route where width permits.

Pedestrian crossings

Summary

28. Given the key objective of providing enhanced facilities not just for cyclists but also for pedestrians along the Tadcaster Road corridor, a review of pedestrian crossing facilities has been undertaken.  There are three key component elements as follows:

29. Refuge crossings – a total of eleven existing refuge crossings have been reviewed.  Of these, five are proposed to be retained and improved; two replaced with traffic signal controlled crossings on the same alignment reflecting a key desire line; and four removed.  The justification for removal of the four existing refuge crossings is firstly sub-standard existing provision, with three of the four currently informal crossings without dropped kerbs and tactile paving; secondly, the close proximity of alternative crossing facilities; and thirdly removal provides the opportunity to reallocate roadspace (see Section below) to provide LTN 1/20 compliant cycle lane width.

30. Signal controlled pedestrian crossings - Three new signalised pedestrian crossing are proposed for the route, namely:

o north of the junction with Knavesmire Road – this facility provides a controlled crossing facility for all types of pedestrian serving this key desire line to/from York Racecourse and environs, replacing the existing sub-standard refuge crossing.  Removal of the existing refuge also provides the opportunity to reallocate roadspace to provide LTN 1/20 compliant cycle lanes and improve the outbound bus stop provision.

o north of the junction with Middlethorpe Grove - this facility provides a controlled crossing facility for all types of pedestrian serving this key desire line connecting Middlethorpe residential estate to Slingsby Grove shops, replacing the existing sub-standard refuge crossing.  Removal of the existing refuge also provides the opportunity to reallocate roadspace to provide LTN 1/20 compliant cycle lanes.

o north of the junction with Nelson’s Lane.  This crossing was proposed following consultation with Ward Members concerned about access to the Knavesmire and bus stops in the area.

31. Consultation feedback on the above signal-controlled crossings was mixed.  Whilst some respondents commented they would provide a safer crossing option for them (or their children), others raised concerns about the impact that additional signal-controlled crossings would have on general traffic flows along the corridor.  Concerns were also raised about potential impacts on accesses and the location/positioning of the signal poles, specific comments which will be reviewed as part of the next stage of design.

32. It would be proposed to install Puffin style crossings with near side indicators if this option was approved in line with the city’s current policy. Near-sided indicators encourage the users to look in the direction of approaching traffic as they wait.  Mounting in this position also helps those with visual impairments see the red / green man. Research has shown that compared to existing pedestrian signal facilities, Puffin facilities can reduce both driver and pedestrian delay at junctions, and improve pedestrian comfort (particularly for older pedestrians and those with impaired mobility). Research has also indicated safety benefits.  City of York council have been installing the Puffin near sided pedestrian indicators for many years and now the majority of signalised crossings in the City are Puffins.

33. Side road crossings – whole route improvements to side road junctions have been incorporated within the core works in the form of consistent dropped kerb and tactile provision.  It is recognised that there remains the opportunity to tighten side road radii and potentially to upgrade side roads to continuous crossings, subject to additional funding as a later phase of works.

34. Several suggestions were made during the consultation process for different types of crossings along the corridor, for example Zebra crossings.  The use of Zebra crossings was considered during the feasibility design stage but not progressed given traffic volumes of approximately 1,200 veh/hr (two-way) and free flow speeds.

Design Options

35. Design Option 1: Proceed with consultation scheme

Proceed to detailed design with pedestrian refuge proposals and three new traffic signal controlled crossings as indicated on the consultation plans and described above.

36. Design Option 2: Modify consultation scheme proposals

Proceed to detailed design with proposed pedestrian facilities as consulted upon subject to the following additional design development:

· Proceed to detailed  design on the three proposed signal-controlled pedestrian crossings (north of the junction with Knavesmire Road; north of the junction with Middlethorpe Grove; and north of the junction with Nelson’s Lane)

· Develop a preliminary design option to improve pedestrian and cycle segregation at the York College Toucan crossing (see specific section below)

· Develop a preliminary design option to improve existing sub-standard Toucan crossings located north and south of Moor Lane roundabout (see specific section below)

· Retain existing refuge crossing located immediately south of the junction with The Horseshoe (see specific section below)

· Minor amendments only to the refuge crossing located north of the junction with Ainsty Grove given the proposed removal from the current scheme of widening into the Knavesmire (see specific section below)

· Review signal-controlled pedestrian crossing green man time at the controlled crossing of Tadcaster Road north of Dalton Terrace

37. Officer recommendation

Design Option 2.  Proceed to detailed design with proposed pedestrian facilities as consulted upon subject to the provision of additional information as indicated above.

Road Space reallocation

Summary

38. Due to existing width constraints along sections of the Tadcaster Road corridor there are locations where on-carriageway cycle lanes are either not provided at all or are provided at widths lower than the desirable minimum (2.0m) or even absolute minimum (1.5m) as stated in LTN 1/20.  An example of a discontinuous cycle lane is provided as Figure 2.2 below:

Figure 2.2 – Example of discontinuous cycle lane (southbound adjacent to The Knavesmire)

Source: Site visit video footage (Dec-20)

39. In order to address this sub-standard / discontinuous provision for cyclists the proposed scheme as shown in the consultation plans is based on a roadspace reallocation strategy comprising the following key elements:

§ Removal of sub-standard right turn pockets – there are nine locations where existing right turn pockets for vehicles reduce the available width for ahead cyclists and general traffic resulting in a pinch point with the cycle lane frequently compromised by encroaching vehicles.  In accordance with the scheme objectives of providing continuous and, where possible, protected cycle lanes for the major (ahead) cycle movements, the removal of the existing right turn pockets is proposed.

§ Rationalisation of existing pedestrian refuge crossings and removal of redundant splitter islands - section above sets out the proposed pedestrian refuge crossing strategy.  This rationalisation and redesign provides the opportunity to provide continuous cycle lane widths along these route sections in accordance with LTN 1/20.

§ Amended inbound bus lane sections – by removing the right turn pockets and rationalising pedestrian refuge crossings there is opportunity to widen existing inbound bus lane sections to improve provision for both buses and cyclists.

§ Localised carriageway widening - localised widening into the verge is also proposed northbound in the vicinity of Middlethorpe Drive in order to achieve minimum cross section width.  No trees will be affected by the proposed widening. 

40. Consultation feedback on this road space reallocation strategy has been mixed.  There is support for providing facilities which improve journeys by cycle along Tadcaster Road by widening the bus and cycle lanes.  Concern was however expressed about how residents will turn into and off the Tadcaster Road corridor in a car or on a cycle following the removal of the right turn pockets.

Design Options

41. Design Option 1: Proceed with consultation scheme

Proceed to detailed design with the road space reallocation strategy as indicated on the consultation plans and described above.

42. Design Option 2:  Amend proposed design to retain existing right turn pockets

With this design option the existing problem of sub-standard cycle lane widths adjacent to right turn pockets will not be addressed, thereby affecting the major ahead cycle movements.  Retaining the right turn pockets would also mean there would not be sufficient space to widen existing bus lanes to reduce existing bus/cycle conflicts within the bus lane, thereby not achieving one of the scheme objectives of improving bus journey time reliability.  Furthermore, there are a number of existing side roads along the corridor without a right turn pocket – for example at the junction with Middlethorpe Drive – so removing the right turn pockets as indicated would be consistent for whole route treatment.  Existing right turn pockets are also typically below the 2.5m minimum width as stated in CD123 (Rev 2).  As a consequence of the above, this design option is not recommended.

It is recognised that existing right turn pockets can assist with cycle movements into and out of side roads, a point made during the consultation process.  However, the benefit of providing enhanced facilities for the major ahead movement of cyclists is considered to outweigh retaining right turn pockets.

43. Design Option 3: Modify consultation scheme proposals.

Proceed to detailed design with road space reallocation proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following additional design development:

· Through detailed design undertake a review to confirm space constraints prevent the inclusion of right turn pockets and to double check the justification for their removal.

· As part of the detailed design process ensure bus lane widths avoid the critical 3.2m-3.9m width as defined in LTN 1/20.

44. Officer recommendation

Design Option 3.  Proceed to detailed design with road space reallocation proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the additional design development as detailed above.

Bus stops

Summary

45. In total there are 20 bus stops along the Tadcaster Road corridor.  At three locations where space and site constraints permit – namely opposite York College (northbound); York College (southbound); and opposite Slingsby Grove shops (southbound) - a bus stop bypass is proposed whereby the cycle track runs behind the bus stop as shown in Figure 2.4 below.

Figure 2.4A – Bus stop bypass layout

Source: LTN 1/20

46. Mixed consultation feedback has been received for the proposed bus stop bypasses.  Concerns include the environmental impact of using the green space in the case of Slingsby Grove and the removal of trees opposite York College (northbound).  Concerns were also received about the increased likelihood of interactions between cyclists and pedestrians.

47. At the remaining 17 bus stop locations a conventional arrangement is proposed where the bus stop cage is aligned the cycle lane as there is insufficient space and/or site constraints such that it is not possible to provide bus stop bypasses.  A variant as raised during the consultation process is to provide a bus stop boarder as shown in Figure 2.4B.  However, as recognised in LTN 1/20, this technique is not common, and research is ongoing into the impacts, in particular between bus passengers boarding/alighting bus passengers and cyclists.  Such an intervention would also require additional funding.

Figure 2.4B – Bus stop boarder layout

Source: LTN 1/20

Design Options

48. Design Option 1: Proceed with consultation scheme

Progress to next stage of design with three bus stop bypass proposals as indicated on the consultation plans and described above.

49. Design Option 2: Do not include bus stop bypasses in the scheme

Remove all three of the proposed bus stop bypasses.  This option is not recommended due to the potential for cycle/bus conflicts in particular opposite York College (northbound).  Removal is also not in keeping with the principles of LTN 1/20.

50. Design Option 3: Modify consultation scheme proposals

Proceed to detailed design with bus stop proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following additional design development:

· Amend bus stop bypass proposal at York College (northbound) to avoid tree removal

· Reflecting LTN 1/20, clarify design detail relating to interactions between cyclists and pedestrians at the proposed bus stop bypass locations.

51. Officer recommendation

Design Option 3.  Proceed to detailed design with bus stop proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the additional design development as detailed above.

Kerbside parking

Summary

52. Consultation feedback included providing a buffer zone between kerbside parking areas and adjacent cycle lanes to account for car door opening into the cycle lane (0.5m minimum buffer strip is recommended in LTN 1/20). Other feedback queried if it is possible to realign the on-carriageway cycle lane to provide a cycle track between parked vehicles and the footway to provide a higher level of service in terms of safety and comfort than having a cycle lane on the offside of parking/loading areas as shown in Figure 2.5 below.

Figure 2.5 – Cycle track bypass at parking areas

Source: LTN 1/20

53. In total there are six locations along the Tadcaster Road corridor with kerbside car parking.  The consultation plans show a cycle track bypass at one of the six locations, namely opposite Slingsby Grove shops southbound.  Although not visible on the consultation plans due to scale, the design principle is to provide a 0.5m buffer strip at four of the remaining five locations, with a wide bus lane provided adjacent to the fifth location (The Mount northbound).

54. In terms of cycle track bypass options at the remaining five parking areas it is not possible to provide a cycle track bypass at two of the locations, namely opposite Knavesmire Road northbound (due to trees); and The Mount northbound (due to cobbles and trees).  Further investigation work is recommended to confirm the viability and cost implication of providing a cycle track bypass at the remaining three locations

Design Options

55. Design Option 1: Proceed with consultation scheme

Progress to next stage of design with cycle lane proposals adjacent to kerbside parking as indicated on the consultation plans and described above.

56. Design Option 2: Modify consultation scheme proposals

Proceed to detailed design with cycle lane proposals adjacent to kerbside parking as consulted upon subject to the following additional design development:

· Review design opportunity and cost of providing cycle track bypasses at Slingsby Grove shops (northbound); Library (northbound); and Mayfield Grove (northbound).

· Subject to the above review not being viable/beyond the scheme budget, show 0.5m buffer strip adjacent to kerbside parking areas at the above locations.

57. Officer recommendation

Design Option 2.  Proceed to detailed design with cycle lane proposals adjacent to kerbside parking as consulted upon subject to additional design development as detailed above.

Area specific interventions

58. A number of area specific issues were raised during the consultation process.  A commentary responding to the issues raised is provided below, working from south to north along the corridor.

Sim Balk Lane junction / York College area (Consultation Sheet A9)

Summary

59. Consultation responses broadly supported the proposed improvements in this location.  Specific feedback is summarised below:

· concerns about shared use space and the risk of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists

· concerns over removal of trees in order to accommodate the northbound bus stop bypass

60. In recognition of the significant operational impact of the existing signal-controlled crossing serving York College due to the frequency of the crossing being called, in particular during peak periods, the feasibility study included considering subway crossing options at this location.  A viable layout was developed but not progressed due to an estimated cost of £1.5M which is significantly beyond what is available and would not fit with the funding conditions.  A subway option would also be subject to land take and further design, assessment and consultation as a later phase of work.

Design Options

61. Design Option 1: Proceed with consultation scheme

Progress to next stage of design with scheme proposals as indicated on the consultation plans.

62. Design Option 2: Modify consultation scheme proposals

Progress further design, assessment and costing work on a variant option which:

· widens the existing sub-standard shared use footway (subject to land availability) in order to provide segregated facilities

· realigns the proposed inbound bus stop lay-by and bus stop cycle bypass to avoid removal of existing trees

· provides segregated pedestrian and cycle facilities at the controlled crossing serving York College.

63. Officer recommendation

Design Option 2.  Progress further design, assessment and costing work on a variant option as detailed above. 

Moor Lane roundabout (Consultation Sheet A8)

Summary

64. It is recognised that the current provision for pedestrians and cyclists negotiating Moor Lane roundabout is not to the desired standard and requires circuitous navigation of the roundabout using predominately staggered Toucan crossings.  Existing facilities are also not designed for people using non-standard cycles.

65. As part of the feasibility design process, two major scheme options were investigated for Moor Lane roundabout, namely a cycle friendly roundabout and a pedestrian/cycle friendly traffic signal-controlled junction (‘CYCLOPS’).  High level cost estimates suggest both options would cost circa £3m and are therefore significantly beyond the currently agreed TCF funding.  In addition to cost implications, there would also be a requirement for detailed traffic modelling to understand the impact on capacity and journey times, in particular for buses.  The insights/consultation feedback from people travelling across this roundabout with the existing arrangement will be helpful in shaping our approach for further funding applications at this strategically significant junction.

66. CYC have considered an interim solution for Moor Lane roundabout as outlined below in Option 2.

Design Options

67. Design Option 1:  Do nothing (pending major scheme)

Progress detailed design of consultation scheme with no specific measures at Moor Lane roundabout.  Seek separate funding for a major long-term scheme which satisfies DfT guidelines and offers considerable improvement for pedestrians and cyclists compared to the existing arrangement.

68. Design Option 2:  Investigate interim scheme solution

Undertake further design, assessment and costing work on a potential interim scheme solution which:

· reduces Tadcaster Road to single lane approaches (currently two lanes) to provide more space for widened and segregated footways/cycle tracks

· replaces existing sub-standard staggered Toucan crossings with straight across segregated pedestrian/cycle crossings on Tadcaster Road north and south of Moor Lane roundabout.  This variant would also provide the opportunity to address specific consultation comments regarding northbound cyclists wishing to turn right into Principal Rise and the southbound re-entry for cyclists.

69. Whilst it is recognised this interim option would not provide enhanced cycle facilities for more confident on-road cyclists through Moor Lane roundabout, it would provide improved off-road facilities for less confident cyclists.  Explore any joint funding opportunities re the junction and traffic signals and the potential to recycle traffic signal equipment in the event of securing funding for a major scheme at this location.

70. Officer recommendation

Design Option 2.  Progress further design, assessment and costing work on Design Option 2. 

The Horseshoe (Consultation Sheet A7)

Summary

71. Consultation respondents expressed limited benefit in widening footways in order to achieve the 1.8m desirable minimum, but were supportive of localised widening of the carriageway in order to achieve wider cycle lanes.

72. There was also a request to retain the existing pedestrian refuge crossing located south of The Horseshoe.

Design Options

73. Design Option 1: Proceed with consultation scheme

Progress to next stage of design with scheme proposals as indicated on the consultation plans.

74. Design Option 2: Modify consultation scheme proposals

Proceed to detailed design with scheme design as consulted upon subject to the following additional design development:

· Remove proposed footway widening along this route section

· Review design opportunity to retain existing pedestrian refuge crossing located south of The Horseshoe, ensuring minimum cycle lane widths are maintained.

75. Officer recommendation

Design Option 2.  Proceed to detailed design with scheme design as consulted upon subject to the additional design development as set out above.

Slingsby Grove Shops (Consultation Sheet A6)

Summary

76. Consultation responses showed strong support for improving the inter-visibility sight lines for vehicles exiting Slingsby Grove, achieved by relocating the northbound bus stop and amending the parking bays adjacent to the shops.  However, the relocation of the northbound bus stop also received several objections from residents and business owners.  Several suggestions were made for the parking at the shops or library to be removed instead.

77. Other suggestions included ensuring an LTN 1/20 compliant car door ‘buffer strip’ between the northbound parking bays and cycle lane (or potentially creating a northbound cycle bypass on the inside of the parking bays); measures to reduce likelihood of pedestrians and cyclists conflicting when using the southbound bus stop bypass; and adding additional cycle stands.

Design Options

78. Design Option 1: Proceed with consultation scheme

Progress to next stage of design with scheme proposals as indicated on the consultation plans.

79. Design Option 2: Modify consultation scheme proposals

Proceed to detailed design with scheme proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following amendments:

· review alternative location for relocated northbound bus stop

· review incorporation of a buffer strip between the northbound parking bays and cycle lane

· review opportunity and cost of creating a northbound cycle bypass on the inside of the parking bays

· incorporate additional cycle parking serving Slingsby Grove shops

· reflecting LTN 1/20, review design detail relating to interactions between cyclists and pedestrians at the proposed southbound bus stop bypass.

80. Officer recommendation

Design Option 2.  Proceed to detailed design with scheme design as consulted upon subject to the additional design development as set out above.

St Helen’s Road Junction (Consultation Sheet A5)

Summary

81. Consultation responses broadly supported the proposed improvements at the junction.  Specific feedback is summarised below:

· request that the early start for northbound cyclists is triggered by detection and not requiring manual push button operation

· recognised difficulty for southbound cyclists turning right into St Helen’s Road with the existing arrangement and a query if it is possible to provide a southbound cycle bypass to avoid delay at the junction

· queried whether the proposed signal upgrade is justified at this location in cost/benefit terms given recent junction refurbishment as part of the city-wide Traffic Signs Asset Renewal (TSAR) programme.

Design Options

82. Design Option 1: Proceed with consultation scheme

Progress to next stage of design with scheme proposals as indicated on the consultation plans.

83. Design Option 2: Modify consultation scheme proposals

Proceed to detailed design with scheme design as consulted upon subject to the following additional design development:

· specify cycle detection for approaching northbound cyclists

· remove the signal upgrade from scheme proposals and incorporate bus detection using existing traffic signal technology.

84. During the feasibility design stage consideration was given to more significant changes to the junction layout to provide improved facilities for southbound cyclists for both the ahead movement and the right turn movement into St Helen’s Road.  However, whilst a geometrically viable layout has been developed it would necessitate the removal of the southbound right turn lane into St Helen’s Road.  This is anticipated to have significant capacity impacts including for buses and, as such, has not been included within the proposed TCF package of works.  This option could be revisited as a later phase of works pending separate funding.

85. Officer recommendation

Design Option 2.  Proceed to detailed design with scheme design as consulted upon subject to the additional design development as set out above.

Widening alongside The Knavesmire (Consultation Sheets A5, A4 & A3)

Summary

86. The route section from Ainsty Grove to St George’s Place is characterised by varying road width, reducing to less than 8.5m in some locations.  This results in existing sections of discontinuous on-road cycle lanes as shown in Figure 2.5. Opportunities to widen the carriageway to achieve minimum cycle lane widths as defined in LTN 1/20 are restricted by the presence of mature trees. There are also heritage constraints including The Tyburn in the vicinity of the Pulleyn Drive crossing.

Figure 2.5 – Existing discontinuous cycle lanes (adjacent to York Clinic for Integrated Healthcare)

Source: Site visit video footage (Dec-20)

87. Without removing trees there is insufficient space to provide continuous on-road cycle lanes in both directions or to sufficiently widen the existing footway/shared use space adjacent to The Knavesmire to create segregated off-road provision. The current proposal provides a compromise, providing the greatest possible widths for more confident cyclists who wish to stay on-road and a shared use off-road space for less confident cyclists adjacent to The Knavesmire.

88. Feedback on this proposal highlighted strong support for widening the existing footway adjacent to The Knavesmire and widening the inbound on-road cycle lane, but raised concerns about the off-road space being shared use. Feedback also highlighted a need for protection to be added to the on-road cycle lanes and concern about any changes that could damage the trees in this area.

Design Options

89. Design Option 1:  Progress with proposed scheme (3.0m shared use route adjacent to The Knavesmire)

Develop the detailed design of a shared use route adjacent to The Knavesmire as per the consultation version comprising two component elements:

· re-designation of existing 3.0m segregated facility between St George’s Place and Hob Moor Toucan crossing to 3.0m unsegregated shared use in accordance with LTN 1/20 guidelines.  Scheme to extend 3.0m section to Knavesmire Road; and

· widen and redefine the existing eastern footway between The Tyburn and Ainsty Grove to a 3.0m shared use path to ensure consistent off-road provision along the length of The Knavesmire on the eastern side of Tadcaster Road.

90. It is recognised that Design Option 1 does not satisfy the consultation feedback of segregated provision.  It is also one of the more expensive cost items of the scheme.

91. Design Option 2:  4.5m segregated facility adjacent to the Knavesmire

Widen the shared use path to 4.5m to provide segregated off-road walking and cycling facilities. This is likely to incur considerable additional costs, meaning other elements of the scheme cannot be delivered. It will also require the felling off an estimated 12 mature trees and the associated time delays whilst permissions and further consultation takes place. High concern has been raised throughout the consultation about any measures which may change or remove green space or trees. An alternative variant of Option 2 could be to provide a 4.5m off-road segregated facility through The Knavesmire, along the broad alignment of the existing informal route, reducing the potential for tree removal significantly. This variant option would also likely require additional street lighting and would require separate funding.

92. Design Option 3:  Widen footway on eastern side of Tadcaster Road adjacent to The Knavesmire

Whilst this option would improve provision for pedestrians, it would not address the current gap in provision for cyclists.

93. Design Option 4:  Do nothing (pending further funding)

Under this option discontinuous on-road cycle lanes will be retained. It is recognised the scheme will not have addressed concerns about a safer and continuous route for people travelling by cycle along the full length of the corridor.  Further funding will need to be sought to deliver an alternative off-road intervention in this area.

94. With Design Option 4 there would no longer be the requirement to amend the existing pedestrian refuge located north of the junction with Ainsty Grove to accommodate cyclists.  As such, this element of the scheme would be removed.

95. Officer recommendation

Design Option 4.  In light of the clear request for segregated provision for cyclists and pedestrians alongside The Knavesmire (east side of Tadcaster Road), remove the proposed widening of the existing footway to 3.0m shared use from the scheme.  Further work is required to explore alternative off-road options that achieve desired widths for segregating pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with LTN 1/20 without impacting on trees.  This alternative option will require a different funding stream and could be delivered separately/independently of the Tadcaster Road scheme.

Vicinity of Knavesmire Road junction (Consultation Sheet A2)

Summary

96. Consultation responses broadly supported the proposed improvements at this location.  Specific feedback is summarised below:

· incorporate buffer strip between the northbound parking bays and cycle lane (this was already included in the consultation plans)

· localised amendments to the proposed controlled pedestrian crossing facility to the north of the junction with Knavesmire Road to avoid driveway accesses

· address poor inter-visibility for drivers exiting Knavesmire Road.

Design Options

97. Design Option 1: Proceed with consultation scheme

Progress to next stage of design with scheme proposals as indicated on the consultation plans.

98. Design Option 2: Modify consultation scheme proposals

Proceed to detailed design with scheme proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following additional design development in response to consultation feedback:

· realign the proposed controlled pedestrian crossing facility to the north of the junction with Knavesmire Road to avoid driveway accesses

· review maintenance requirements to improve visibility for drivers existing Knavesmire Road.

99. The scheme proposal includes removing a short section of inbound bus lane south of the junction with Knavesmire Road.  As part of the broader road space reallocation strategy described above, the justification for the removal of this localised section of bus lane is to reduce friction for all modes.  This provides the opportunity to provide LTN 1/20 compliant cycle lane widths in both directions and a full width right turn pocket for the significant right turn movement into Knavesmire Road such that the northbound ahead movement (buses and general traffic) is not impeded.

100.Officer recommendation

Design Option 2.  Proceed to detailed design with scheme design as consulted upon subject to the additional design development as set out above.

The Mount (Consultation Sheet A1)

Summary

101.Specific issues raised during the consultation process included:

· concern about the proposed removal of the existing sub-standard refuge crossing near the junction with Mill Mount due to the perception of excessive delays to pedestrians using the controlled crossing as part of the traffic signal arrangement at the junction with Dalton Terrace.

· queried the value of the proposed short section of new southbound bus lane on The Mount between the junctions with Scarcroft Road and Dalton Terrace

· dislike expressed about the existing off-carriageway southbound cycle track due to the loss of priority across side roads; the requirement to use shared space either side of the junction with Albermarle Road; and poor surface quality plus difficulties for cyclists safely re-joining Tadcaster Road southbound south of the junction with Albermarle Road.

102.Regarding the final bullet point above, with the exception of ensuring a safer re-entry onto Tadcaster Road for southbound cyclists south of the junction with Albermarle Road, broader/more significant changes to the junction with Dalton Terrace/Albermarle Road including amendments to the existing off-carriageway southbound cycle track are beyond the scope of this project and would require separate funding and delivery timescales.

Design Options

103.Design Option 1: Proceed with consultation scheme

Progress to next stage of design with scheme proposals as indicated on the consultation plans.

104.Design Option 2: Modify consultation scheme proposals

Proceed to detailed design with scheme proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following additional design development in response to consultation feedback:

· review opportunities to maximise the green man period for pedestrians using the controlled pedestrian crossing at the junction with Dalton Terrace (as an alternative to the existing sub-standard refuge crossing)

· use micro-simulation modelling to test the impact of the proposed new section of southbound bus lane.

105.Officer Recommendation

Design Option 2.  Proceed to detailed design with scheme design as consulted upon subject to the additional design development as set out above.

Options

106.There are four options to be considered

107.Option A: To progress the current designs that were consulted upon as per Annex A through detailed design and proceed to implementation.

108.Option B: To engage further on the active travel elements before detailed design.

109.Option C: To progress as per the officers recommendations detailed in the table at para 119 through a process of detailed design.

Analysis of Options

110.Option A: To progress the current designs that were consulted upon as per Annex A through detailed design and proceed to implementation.

111.The scheme contained with Annex A has been through significant feasibility work already.  But to progress with this design through the detailed design process would not respond to the comments of residents and users of the Tadcaster Road Corridor.  Therefore this is not recommended option

112.Option B: To engage further on the active travel elements before detailed design.

113.Recognising that a perfect solution is not possible with the budget or space available and that the public response was often mixed, this options pause the sustainable travel improvements to the Tadcaster Road Project.  It would see the delivery of the maintenance elements of the scheme commencing in 2022.  This would allow time to consult and attempt to negotiate more of a consensus on the design.

114.The whole project could not be paused and delayed as the time limited nature of the funding for both the maintenance scheme and the Sustainable Travel scheme would be put in jeopardy.  Even this approach would put the funding for the Sustainable travel elements of the scheme at risk.

115.Option C: To progress as per the officers recommendations detailed above and summarised below in para 119 through a process of detailed design.

116.Recognising the comments from the consultation to progress as per the officer’s recommendations, which in the main seek to address the themes that emerged through the consultation. By progressing through a process of detailed design further work to address the comments received will be undertaken.  It would recognising the challenges that widening alongside the Knavesmire poses and remove this from the current proposals.

117.Should the budget not be sufficient for the scheme a report to the Executive Member for Transport will be prepared to determine priorities.

118.This project is constrained by the budget.  The detailed design work will impact upon the cost estimates.  Therefore it is proposed to bring a report back to the Executive Member once the design work and costing has been undertaken s that a final prioritised list of affordable interventions to improve sustainable modes of transport on the Tadcaster Road corridor can be commissioned

119.Summary of Design Option recommendations

Item	Officer Recommendation
General Themes
Segregated cycle lanes	To investigate the provision of ‘light segregation’ features where viable to do so subject to: § maintaining a minimum effective cycle lane width of 1.5m in accordance with LTN 1/20 § maintaining a desirable minimum general traffic running lane width of 3.25m, with an absolute minimum of 3.0m over localised constrained sections and where appropriate § maintaining access to side roads, bus stops, parking area and private driveways § ensuring light segregation features are in keeping with the local environment along the route § budgetary constraints.
Pedestrian crossings	Proceed to detailed design with proposed pedestrian facilities as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following additional design development: § Proceed to detailed design on the three proposed signal-controlled pedestrian crossings (north of the junction with Knavesmire Road; north of the junction with Middlethorpe Grove; and north of the junction with Nelson’s Lane) § Review opportunities to improve pedestrian and cycle segregation at the York College Toucan crossing § Review opportunities to improve existing sub-standard Toucan crossings located north and south of Moor Lane roundabout § Retain existing refuge crossing located immediately south of the junction with The Horseshoe (south) § Minor amendments only to the refuge crossing located north of the junction with Ainsty Grove given the proposed removal from the consultation scheme of widening into the Knavesmire § Review signal-controlled pedestrian crossing green man time at the controlled crossing of Tadcaster Road north of Dalton Terrace
Road space reallocation	Proceed to detailed design with road space reallocation proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following additional design development: § Through detailed design undertake a review to confirm space constraints prevent the inclusion of right turn pockets and to double check the justification for their removal. § As part of the detailed design process ensure bus lane widths avoid the critical 3.2m-3.9m width as defined in LTN 1/20.
Bus Stops	Proceed to detailed design with bus stop proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following additional design development: § Amend bus stop bypass proposal at York College (northbound) to avoid tree removal § Reflecting LTN 1/20, clarify design detail relating to interactions between cyclists and pedestrians at the proposed bus stop bypass locations.
Kerbside parking	Proceed to detailed design with cycle lane proposals adjacent to kerbside parking as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following additional design development: § Review design opportunity and cost of providing cycle track bypasses at Slingsby Grove shops (northbound); Library (northbound); and Mayfield Grove (northbound). § Subject to the above review not being viable/beyond the scheme budget, show 0.5m buffer strip adjacent to kerbside parking areas at the above locations.
Area Specific Interventions
Sim Balk Lane / York College area	Progress further design, assessment and costing work on a variant option which: § widens the existing sub-standard shared use footway into adjacent land subject to availability. § realigns the proposed inbound bus stop lay-by and bus stop cycle bypass to avoid removal of existing trees § provides segregated pedestrian and cycle facilities at the controlled crossing serving York College. Subject to the outcome of the above review, progression to detailed design with the variant option will be an officer decision in consultation with Executive Member.
Moor Lane roundabout	Progress further design, assessment and costing work on an interim option which would improve off road facilities for cyclists and pedestrians pending a future, separately funded major scheme intervention at this location.
The Horseshoes (vicinity)	Proceed to detailed design with scheme proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following additional design development in response to consultation feedback: § remove proposed localised widening of footways to 1.8m desired minimum § retain existing pedestrian refuge crossing located south of The Horseshoe.
Slingsby Grove shops	Proceed to detailed design with scheme proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following amendments: § review alternative location for relocated northbound bus stop § review incorporation of a buffer strip between the northbound parking bays and cycle lane §  review opportunity and cost of creating a northbound cycle bypass on the inside of the parking bays § incorporate additional cycle parking serving Slingsby Grove shops § reflecting LTN 1/20, review design detail relating to interactions between cyclists and pedestrians at the proposed southbound bus stop bypass.
St Helen’s Road junction	Proceed to detailed design with scheme design as consulted upon subject to the following additional design development: § specify cycle detection for approaching northbound cyclists § remove the signal upgrade from scheme proposals and incorporate bus detection using existing traffic signal technology
The Knavesmire	In light of the clear request for segregated provision for cyclists and pedestrians alongside The Knavesmire (east side of Tadcaster Road), remove the proposed widening of the existing footway to 3.0m shared use from the scheme.  Further work is required to explore alternative off-road options that achieve desired widths for segregating pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with LTN 1/20 without impacting on trees.  This alternative option will require a different funding stream and could be delivered separately/independently of the Tadcaster Road scheme.
Knavesmire Road (vicinity)	Proceed to detailed design with scheme proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following additional design development in response to consultation feedback: § realign the proposed controlled pedestrian crossing facility to the north of the junction with Knavesmire Road to avoid driveway accesses § review maintenance requirements to improve visibility for drivers existing Knavesmire Road.
The Mount	Proceed to detailed design with scheme proposals as shown on the consultation plans subject to the following additional design development in response to consultation feedback: § review opportunities to maximise the green man period for pedestrians using the controlled pedestrian crossing at the junction with Dalton Terrace (as an alternative to the existing sub-standard refuge crossing) § use micro-simulation modelling to test the impact of the proposed new section of southbound bus lane.

Council Plan

120.The Council Plan has Eight Key Outcomes:

· Well-paid jobs and an inclusive economy

· A greener and cleaner city

· Getting around sustainably

· Good health and wellbeing

· Safe communities and culture for all

· Creating homes and world-class infrastructure

· A better start for children and young people

· An open and effective council

121.The Tadcaster Rd Scheme supports the prosperity of the city by improving the effectiveness, safety and reliability of the transport network, which helps economic growth and the attractiveness for visitors and residents. The scheme will improve public transport, provide better facilities for walking and cycling, and address road safety issues.

122.Enhancements to the efficiency and safety of the route will directly benefit all road users by improving reliability and accessibility to other council services across the city.

Implications

123.The following implications have been considered:

        Financial:

124.It is proposed to fund the £1.43m Transport elements of the Tadcaster Rd scheme from the Transforming Cities Fund which is administered by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. An indicative allocation has been secured from the overall TCF allocation with the receipt of funding subject to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority’s assurance and governance processes. Following the approval of the business case a funding agreement will be prepared between the Council and the Combined Authority to access the funding.

125.The latest scheme cost estimate for the TCF funded package of sustainable transport focussed transportation improvements along Tadcaster Road is £1.63m.  Reflecting the stage of design, this includes a 22% risk contingency of £294k.

126.The cost of the scheme will be kept under review as the detailed design is progressed to keep within the available budget. Cost reductions are anticipated as:

· there are a number of design amendments to be undertaken as detailed in this report requiring associated updates to the scheme cost estimate

· the risk contingency allowance will reduce as the scheme progresses to detailed design

· savings are anticipated as a result of simultaneous delivery with the core works maintenance scheme, in particular in terms of site management and traffic management costs.

127.Should the final designed scheme cost above the indicative TCF allocation it will be necessary to either reduce scope of the scheme or  identify other highway and transport capital funds for example LTP.

· Human Resources (HR):There are no HR implications

· Equalities: Within the constraints of the highway space available the facilities will be designed to accommodate all road users.

· Legal:

· Procurement - Any procurement activity will be carried out in accordance with the council’s Contract Procedure Rules and the Pubic Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCRs), as appropriate.

· WYCA Funding - It is noted that funding will be received from TCF (via WYCA). Legal Services will review the funding agreement once it is received which will be based on the standard template agreement with WYCA.

· As part of the review of the funding agreement an analysis of the funding in respect of the Subsidy Control Regime (previously State Aid) will need to be undertaken.  It is likely the funding will not amount to a subsidy as CYC will contract with contractors to deliver the approved delivery and procurement strategy and will ensure a compliant procurement route is followed in accordance with the Pubic Contracts Regulations 2015.  This therefore satisfies the requirement that trade between the UK and the EU is not affected.

· Crime and Disorder: There are no Crime & Disorder implications.

· Information Technology (IT): There are no IT implications.

· Property: There are no Property implications.

· Other: There are no other implications.

Risk Management

128.The project management and construction risks will be minimised by integrating the delivery of the transport elements into the overall Highway Maintenance scheme delivery.

129.The changes to the highway layout could lead to a road safety risk. This will be minimised by ensuring that the designs are undertaken in accordance with current standards and Road Safety Audits are undertaken prior to the construction of the works.

Contact Details

Author:	Chief Officer Responsible for the report:
Author’s name: Julian Ridge Title: Sustainable Transport Manager Dept Name: Transport Tel No. 01904552435	Chief Officer’s name: James Gilchrist   Title: Director of Transport Planning & Environment
	Report Approved	√	Date	8/10/21
Specialist Implications Officer(s)  List information for all Financial:                                        Legal: Name: Patrick Looker                     Name: Cathryn Moore Title Finance Manager                    Title Legal Manager Tel No.                                             Tel No.
Wards Affected: Micklegate, Dringhouses and Woodthorpe					All
For further information please contact the author of the report

Background Papers:

Appendices

Appendix A Consultation Drawings

Appendix B Consultation Report

List of Abbreviations Used in this Report

ATF – Active Travel Fund

CYC – City of York Council

LCWIP – Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan

LTN 1/20 – Local Transport Note Guidance and Good Practice Cycle Infrastructure Design

MOVA – Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation

TCF – Transforming Cities Fund

TSAR – Traffic Signal Asset Renewal

WYCA – West Yorkshire Combined Authority