Decision Session – Executive Member for Transport	15 November 2022
Report of the Director of Transport, Environment and Planning

Active Travel Programme – People Streets / Ostman Road

Summary

1. 3 preliminary designs that offer pedestrians and cyclists a more appealing, safer environment by which to access Carr Infants and Junior schools have been generated.

2. A decision is required to take this scheme through to Detailed Design, while further funding support is being sought.

Recommendations

The Executive Member is asked to:

3. Approve Option 1 – Approve the progression of the proposed design option presented in Annex A through to detailed design. Incorporate this work into a future bid for additional scheme funding.

4. Reason:

Progressing this scheme through detailed design will result in a ‘shelf-ready’ scheme that will be more likely to attract future funding, thereby increasing the chances of delivery on the ground.

Background

5. The Active Travel Programme aims to improve the amenity and safety of active travel forms such as walking and cycling, promoting the adoption of healthier, more environmentally friendly travel.

6. In 2020, Sustrans carried out a one day trial in which temporary build-outs were placed outside Carr Junior school during peak times to discourage parents from parking outside schools and make the roads safer for children. The trial was popular amongst parents and residents interviewed, and was deemed a success. In response to the Sustrans trial’s success, the Active Travel Programme launched this scheme.

7. In the February 2022 Executive Member Decision Session, the Executive Member for Transport approved the Project Outline for this scheme (Background Paper 1).

8. Feasibility work has been completed and a summary report can be found in Annex I.

9. This report concludes that none of the proposed options are affordable within current budgets, however the recommendation is to seek additional grant funding at the next round of Active Travel funding to allow the scheme to progress to delivery. To achieve this, it is preferable to have a ‘shelf-ready’ scheme, which is more likely to attract funding than a proposal at the preliminary design stage.

10. To strengthen the bid for funding and to not further delay implementation, officers seek approval to progress the lowest cost design option, presented in Annex A, through Detailed Design.

Consultation

11. An electronic consultation has been carried out with local ward councillors for Acomb and external stakeholders. Targeted external stakeholders included residents and businesses on and in the immediate vicinity of Ostman Road, and parents and staff affiliated with Carr Infant and Junior Schools.

12. Refer to Annex G for a summary of the consultation responses received.

13. The majority of respondents (53%) used the street to drop off and collect children from school. Cars were the most prevalent mode of transport used by respondents (43%), with walking the second most common mode (39%) and cycling third (12%).

14. Asked about the conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, the responses indicated that the current provision is not good. Most respondents agreed that action needed to be taken to improve pedestrian safety and amenity on Ostman Road.

15. The purpose of this scheme is to encourage people to walk and cycle to school by improving conditions. 40% of respondents said they would walk / cycle instead of driving if conditions improved. 36% of respondents were undecided on this question, and 25% of respondents indicated they would not change modes even if conditions were improved.

16. This feedback suggests that there is a real possibility of influencing people’s behaviour and that there is a level of support for interventions to re-prioritise the roadspace. There were however several concerns relating to how that would be achieved.

17. In terms of potential changes to restrictions there was no single option that gained majority support, with a restriction on peak time parking being the most popular (47%). 24% of respondents did not support any form of additional parking restrictions.

18. There were several doubts that parking restrictions would be enforced, with concerns raised that those restrictions that are currently present are not effectively enforced. This is a valid concern that will be investigated in more detail at the next stage of the scheme, however officers are confident that an effective enforcement arrangement can be implemented.

19. A common piece of feedback was that parking restrictions would move traffic and parking to neighbouring streets. This is likely correct; based on the consultation feedback officers believe a certain portion of motorists would still drive even if conditions were improved for pedestrians and cyclists. This should be seen as one of the primary downsides of this scheme and officers are not able to offer a complete mitigation to this issue. As with all parking restrictions in the city, there would be an unavoidable level of traffic redistribution.

20. On this point, a common piece of feedback was that a number of respondents indicated that they had no alternative to driving, whether due to their work schedule or other related practicalities. This is understood and it should be understood that this scheme will significantly disbenefit some motorists.

21. Several consultees responded with specific feedback relating to their disability. It should be noted that there were a significant number of these responses that are not included within the attached annex due to the fact that they contained personal data. These responses will be given special consideration here.

22. This feedback generally indicated that they didn’t feel they would be able to access the school at all if restrictions on parking were introduced, either due to mobility related disabilities or due to the specific disabilities of their children, for example learning disabilities. The impact on these users is different to the impact on general motorists and is potentially much more significant.

23. It is therefore proposed that when the parking restrictions are turned into a formal Traffic Regulation Order that exemptions are considered to ensure that users with disabilities appropriately considered. The feedback from this consultation process has been especially helpful in this regard and further more targeted consultation and assessment of any impacts on this issue will be undertaken prior to implementation.

24. Another common point raised by residents of Ostman Road and neighbouring streets was a feeling that they should have some form of priority or special consideration on the street by merit of being a resident. The primary purpose that this is usually achieved is by means of a residents parking scheme, however this is not being proposed in this case.

25. There were several responses that suggested removal or diversion of bus services would improve the situation because buses often get caught up in the traffic and contribute to the congestion.

26. It is accepted that buses do get caught up in traffic and block the street on occasion, however officers do not support the idea of solving this issue by restricting bus access. Public Transport is senior to car borne commuting on the Council’s Road User Hierarchy, and therefore it is proposed that a more strategically consistent approach is to restrict the motor vehicle side of the issue rather than the buses.

Options

27. Option 1 - Note the outcome of the feasibility work for the ‘People Streets at Ostman Road’ scheme laid out in this report and decide to seek further funding before proceeding to implementation. Seek Active Travel grant funding support at the next round of bidding. Progress with detailed design work on ‘Design Option 1’ described in the attach Feasibility report, in advance of receiving additional funding.

Analysis

28. The attached Feasibility report (Annex I) explores 3 preliminary design options that each achieve the objectives of the scheme, but have slightly differing features and cost estimates.

29. Cost Estimates Table

	Design 1	Design 2	Design 3
Preliminary design (already incurred)	£32,239	£32,239	£32,239
CYC internal costs (already incurred)	£1633	£1633	£1633
Other (already incurred)	£2102	£2102	£2102
Further design and development	£58,794	£64,873	£83,308
Construction	£419,959	£463,380	£595,055
Risk margin	£191,501	£211,302	£271,345
Total	£706,228	£775,529	£985,682

30. There are insufficient funds within the budget to deliver any of the proposals. It is therefore recommended that additional funding from the next round of government Active Travel grants is sought prior to implementation.

31. Such a bid would be more likely to be successful if CYC could present a ‘shelf-ready’ scheme with most of the work complete, instead of a broad outline of intentions. The work that has already been completed goes a long way to achieving this, however progressing a specific design proposal to the detailed design stage would go even further to achieving this aim.

32. Officers are recommending that Design Option 1 within the attached report is progressed to detailed design immediately following this decision session. This option achieves the objectives of the project and is the cheapest of the proposals, which will go some way to improving the chances of receiving additional funding.

33. The traffic regulation order that is proposed to be included within the detailed design is a peak-time no-parking zone. This is the restriction that received the most support in the consultation process and officers are confident that it can be implemented in a way that will achieve the objectives of the scheme.

34. Trialling a traffic restriction prior to any built environment changes is not being offered as an option. Advice from the Principal Designer indicates that the built environment changes are an essential part of the scheme in terms of achieving the objectives, and a trial without the physical changes would not be successful, nor would it provide any valuable learning.

35. Recorded personal injury accident data shows there was one incident in this location, ‘slight’ in severity, recorded between 01/01/2017 and 31/12/2021. The incident occurred between a moving vehicle and a parked car. This does not represent a significant trend that can be directly addressed, however design proposals were still created with safety as a priority consideration. Also, despite there not being a significant safety issue recorded on the street, the objectives of encouraging modal shift remain pertinent.

36. Replication of the 2021 Sustrans trial design layout was considered however it was found that this layout could not be implemented permanently to a high standard due to the fact that the carriageway is constructed of jointed concrete, therefore making such a solution extremely cost-prohibitive.

37. The recommended design solution includes the following features:

Gateway markings to indicate a changed priority space and to make restrictions more visible.

Introduction of a peak-time parking restriction between gateway features.

Replacement of concrete footway with improved surface to allow implementation of a shared space facility.

Planting features, benches and public realm improvements to make the route more desirable for active travel users, to encourage modal shift.

Installation of 2 new parallel pedestrian and cycle crossings.

Installation of benches and planting to improve public realm, therefore encouraging modal shift.

Renewal of existing road cushions and speed tables.

38. Implementation of the proposed changes requires the removal of a number of trees. It is proposed to replace these trees, and in greater number.

39. Existing conditions and all design proposals scored Amber on the LTN 1/20 Junction Assessment Tool (JAT). This is due to the only significant junction change being the continuous footway. However, due to the quiet nature of the street, the proposed facilities are considered appropriate.

40. Due to the fact that this scheme is intended to be funded through a government grant, the requirements of LTN 1/20 are especially relevant. Officers are confident that the proposed solution does offer a significant improvement, and that the reasoning provided to Active Travel England via the bid process will be sufficient to address this issue.

41. Existing conditions on Ostman Road scored below the 70% pass threshold at 66% on the LTN 1/20 Cycling Level of Service (CLoS) assessment. Design 1 would increase this score to a pass score of approximately 76%.

42. Surveys carried out on Ostman Road revealed that the majority of pedestrians cross near to the school entrances where there is currently a high occurrence of illegal parking. The TRO restricting parking within the gateway features will reduce the number of parked vehicles, clearing the road and making it safer and easier for pedestrians to cross.

43. Parallel crossings will make it safer and easier for pedestrians to cross the road, as they will be given priority.

44. The enhanced buffer will further separate children from the road, making it easier for parents to safely walk or cycle them to school.

45. Traffic flows along Ostman Road are considered low, meaning that cyclists can use it as an on-street quiet route in line with LTN 1/20 standards. The widened shared footway on the north and south sides of the road also offer space for children to cycle safely beside their parents.

Council Plan

46. Proposed changes will encourage active travel and move priority towards pedestrians, providing children and parents with a safer, greener way of getting to school. Therefore carrying out these works contributes to the ‘Getting around sustainably’ key outcome of the Council Plan.

Implications

Financial

47. The Active Travel programme is funded from a combination of grant funding and council resources allocated through the capital programme. The recommended options within the report maintain the programme within the available budget. This is in line with the previous decision to prioritise schemes once costs were known for individual schemes. Where schemes cannot be delivered DfT confirmation will be needed before the grant funding can be reallocated.

Human Resources (HR)

48. There are no HR implications

Equalities

49. The Council needs to take into account the Public Sector Equality Duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other prohibited conduct; advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it in the exercise of a public authority’s functions).

An Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out and is annexed to this report at Annex H.

Legal

50. The It is the duty of a local authority to manage their road network with a view to achieving, so far as may be reasonably practicable having regard to their other obligations, policies and objectives, the following objectives:

(a) securing the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority’s road network; and

(b) facilitating the expeditious movement of traffic on road networks for which another authority is the traffic authority.

Local authorities have a duty to take account of the needs of all road users, take action to minimise, prevent or deal with congestion problems, and consider the implications of decisions for both their network and those of others.

If the decision is made to give permanent effect to the temporary traffic order in this report, the decision maker should consider the criteria contained within section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and in particular the duty to make decisions to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians).

Crime and Disorder

51. There are no Crime and Disorder implications.

Other

52. Disruption during construction – Constructing this scheme inevitably means a certain level of work on the adopted highway, with an associated level of delay and disruption to pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Such works will be scheduled and planned to minimise this disruption, and sufficient information and notice will be given to affected parties.

Risk Management

53. Every project within the Active Travel Programme is managed in line with the Corporate Risk Management Strategy. This involves action by assigned Project Managers to identify, manage, and mitigate specific risks to delivery.

Contact Details

Author:	Chief Officer Responsible for the report:
Christian Wood Programme Manager Christian.wood@york.gov.uk	James Gilchrist Director of Transport, Environment and Planning
	Report Approved	√	Date	07/11/2022
Wards Affected:  Acomb Ward
For further information please contact the author of the report

Background Papers:

Background Paper 1 – Active Travel Programme – July 2022

https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=738&MId=13548&Ver=4

Annexes

Annexe A – Preliminary Design 1

Annexe B – Preliminary Design 2

Annexe C – Preliminary Design 3

Annexe D – LTN 1/20 Cycling Level of Service

Annexe E – LTN 1/20 Junction Assessment Tool

Annexe F – Ostman Road School Street Audit

Annexe G – External Consultation Details

Annexe H – Equalities Impact Assessment

Annexe I – Principal Designer’s Closure Report

List of Abbreviations Used in this Report

CYC – City of York Council

DfT – Department for Transport

ATP – Active Travel Programme

ATF – Active Travel Fund

CLoS – LTN 1/20 Cycling Level of Service

JAT – LTN 1/20 Junction Assessment Tool