ANNEX B

Our Big Transport Conversation

February 2024

 

 

 

 

Note: This report presents interim findings from the Our Big Conversation online/ paper questionnaire. It has been produced to show the amount of agreement or disagreement with the questions put to respondents in the Our Big Transport Conversation Consultation which was open between November 24th 2023 and 4th February 2024.
 Much information was collected during the engagement period. Although this report shows analysis of responses to the questions in the questionnaire, in future reports there will be additional analysis presented. This will be to:
 § Show the answers given to the 15 questions where respondents were asked to plot their responses on a map
 § Cross-tabulate responses to explore the views of different groups in York in greater depth
 § Look at the many comments made in “free text” boxes in the questionnaire where people were able to provide contextual information in support of their response
 § Incorporate the invaluable information collected during the many face-to-face engagement events – this information is only incorporated in this report at a very superficial level
 Future engagement on York’s new transport strategy will also give an opportunity to engage with groups who are under-represented in the response data in the current sample. To an extent, under-representation of some groups (for example, younger people) was anticipated and addressed through targeted face-to-face engagements (e.g. at schools and colleges), but further work with the sample here may reveal need for more engagement with some groups.

 

 

 

 

 

City of York Council

Transport Strategy

Place Directorate

West Offices

Station Road

York

Introduction

This document reports the “Our Big Transport Conversation”, questionnaire which was open between 24th November 2023 and 4th February 2024.  The document also includes some comments made at face-to-face events although further work is required on the analysis of this material.

All materials in the consultation were written and designed to meet City of York Council’s (CYC)  accessibility standards, and particular attention was paid to ensuring technical information was represented in an engaging, informative and accessible way. CYC received 1,342 online responses to the questionnaire, plus a further 35 responses to the survey on paper.  Alongside the online/ paper questionnaire, CYC staff also organised and attended over 50 face-to-face events.  Officers used existing networks such as ward committees but also proactively reached out to community groups and organisations to arrange to go and see residents in their own communities (for example lunch drop-ins at the Foxwood Community Centre, York’s Self Advocacy Group and the monthly Deaf Café). This ensured the consultation did not rely solely on those who had time or access to the online platform.  Only locations which were fully accessible were used for engagement events.

These events were a mix of drop-in sessions in York city centre, meetings with wards facilitated by councillors and meetings with groups who had a particular use of or interest in the transport network.  Some sessions, for example our city leaders/ business seminar, were held online.

Special sessions were held to speak to groups in the community who were less likely to respond to an online questionnaire.  These sessions were arranged to speak to primary and secondary schoolchildren, elderly people, disabled people and some other groups.  Although officers held meetings in several rural wards in York, they also travelled on the mobile library to villages east and west of York.  Consultations were also held with large local employers, such as York University and the NHS, and were held with business groups and tourist industry representatives.  The face-to-face consultations are estimated to have reached over 1,000 people, with 200 to 300 hours of staff time devoted to the events.  Locations of the consultation are shown on the map overleaf.

A note on language:
 Before and during the engagement there was discussion with disability groups about what wording best captured the needs of wheelchair and other mobility aid users alongside pedestrians, cyclists and non-disabled people using other wheeled transport, such as electric scooters. In this report the term “walking, wheeling and cycling” is used to denote all forms of active travel including wheelchair and mobility aid use. This is in-line with definitions used by groups such as DfT and Active Travel England (see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61d32bb7d3bf7f1f72b5ffd2/inclusive-mobility-a-guide-to-best-practice-on-access-to-pedestrian-and-transport-infrastructure.pdf). The point is explicitly made here that this language is not intended to suggest that users of mobility aids do not have specific needs of the transport network, and a number of questions specific to users of mobility aids are within the questionnaire, especially under PFA1 Accessibility. We are grateful to the people who have told us about their experiences travelling around York. Their input will help us shape policy for the future. 
 
 To ensure the widest possible geographical spread of awareness, paper copies of the ‘short’ version of the questionnaire, ten policies and privacy notice were also sent out via the Explore Libraries network, with posters to advertise the fact that the materials were available. These materials also advertised assistance that could be offered to those who may need different formats or languages. In addition, an Easy Read version of the short questions was produced and used in several face-to-face sessions with people with learning disabilities.

There was extensive coverage of the consultation in local media, and CYC also placed advertisements in Facebook, Linked In and other social media platforms, collectively seeing over 100,000 impressions.  Posters advertising the consultation were placed at bus stops across York, and shown on the information screens at bus stops.  All local councillors were offered a suite of materials for their wards; asked to forward information about the questionnaire to their mailing lists and to publicise it in ward newsletters.  Large employers and other groups were asked to publicise the consultation to their employees and members.  In January 2024, to mark ‘one month to go’, refreshed graphics were produced and pushed out to audiences. CYC officers worked with colleagues in the communities and access teams to ensure information – blurb, links, events info – was sent to community groups including faith groups, disability campaigners, childrens and family services. Many, for example the Friends of Rowntree Park, York College and York University, sent the information out in their own newsletters and internal communications, further spreading the message and encouraging people to take part. In addition, 130 emails were received into the consultation inbox and every one of them was responded to and logged. The questionnaire used to collect information online was comprehensive and detailed, taking around 30 minutes to fill in (for the shortest version), and longer than that for respondents who wished to go into the issues in detail.  Whilst this is likely to have reduced the response rate in comparison to shorter questionnaires in York, it meant that CYC received a very broad range of information on the topics being considered.  In this document we are combining the information collected through the online questionnaire with some of the insights gained through the face-to-face meetings and the detailed representations made to CYC by groups and individuals who had particular specialist needs of York’s transport networks.  However, at this early stage of reporting, much work remains cross-tabulating responses by different groups and sorting through the wealth of information in open comments in the questionnaire and collected during face-to-face discussion.

As York’s Local Transport Strategy progresses, we will also, where appropriate, incorporate information gathered through other CYC transport or transport-related consultations which take place.  Whilst these consultations are not part of this engagement they nonetheless provide valuable insights into some of the issues around transport in York.  Separate consultations we are aware of are about:

§  Changes to the bus network

§  York’s 4th Air Quality Management Plan

§  Cashless parking

An important piece of engagement to improve access for people with disabilities is also taking place as this document is being finalised.  This work is not reported in this document because it is ongoing, but will be incorporated into York’s new Local Transport Strategy as it progresses.  More generally, the information gathered in this report is only part of a developing evidence base on transport in York and will be added to in future.

We thank all those who gave up time to complete the questionnaire, send an e-mail or letter to us or attend one of the face-to-face events

 


 

This document

This document has a number of sections.  Broadly:

§  Section Two talks about the sample of people answering the online questionnaire.  It also discussed transport use in York, as assessed through the consultation.  It compares the results of the 2023-4 consultation with a consultation undertaken in Spring 2021 (at the end of the COVID lockdowns) and draws out the differences between the two and implications for the changing use of transport in York

§  Sections Three to 13 work through the 10 “Policy Focus Areas” (PFA) which formed the basis of the online questionnaire.  For each PFA we report the results of the questionnaire, list the representations we received and then set out the insights we gained through face-to-face consultations.  Each section is concluded with a set of remarks about the implications the information collected during Our Big Transport Consultation has for York’s new Local Transport Strategy


§   

2. Our sample and their use of transport

This section of the report details the sample who responded to the questionnaire.  Overall, we received 1,342 online responses plus a further 35 responses on paper.

Characteristics of the respondents

In terms of age, we received substantial number of responses from the age groups above 25 years old, but relatively few responses from people aged 24 and under.  Face to face engagement took place at primary and secondary schools, York College, University of York and with York Youth Council to increase their representation, and there will be a need for further exploration of young peoples’ needs of the transport network as the Local Transport Strategy is developed. The relationships and connections made during the first phase will help greatly here.

Gender representation was broadly equal, although non-white ethnicities are under-represented in the sample.

Most respondents said that they had no religious beliefs.

 

 

 

Ethnicity

Number of respondents

Proportion of respondents

Any other Asian background

2

0.2%

Any other Black/Black British/African/Caribbean background

2

0.2%

Any other Mixed/multiple ethnic background

3

0.2%

Any other White background

80

6.5%

Any other ethnic background

3

0.2%

Asian - Indian

5

0.4%

Black - Caribbean

1

0.1%

Mixed - White and Asian

9

0.7%

Mixed - White and Black African

1

0.1%

White - English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British

1121

90.5%

White - Irish

12

1.0%

TOTAL

1239

 

 

Just over a quarter of respondents said they had a physical or mental health condition expected to last 12 months or more – comparable with Census data for York.  Of those who did consider themselves to have a physical or mental health condition lasting more than 12 months or more, 42% said their condition did not affect their ability to carry out day to day activities, 45% said it affected this “a little” and 13% “a lot”.

Around one-fifth of respondents had a carer responsibility.

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent postcodes showed a good spread of respondents across York.  There were a small number of respondents from outside York.  Of those specifying postcodes, 937 were within York, a further 111 from Yorkshire, but outside York (of which 72 were from North Yorkshire, 28 from East Riding, 9 from West Yorkshire and 2 from South Yorkshire).  There were 8 respondents from outside Yorkshire.

More work will take place to assess the differences in perception (e.g. of quality of transport modes) between the different areas of York.  This will be reported as the Local Transport Strategy is developed.  The face-to-face engagement events made it clear that perception of the quality of many aspects of transport (e.g. highway quality, buses, cycle infrastructure) varied substantially between different areas.




Respondents and their use of transport

Respondents were asked how they travelled for a range of journeys.  Overall, walk and car use were the most-used modes, with cycling and bus also important.  Comparison of the figures for how respondents travel to work or study suggests (in comparison to 2011 census figures) that cyclists are slightly over-represented in the sample – however, there remains a fair representation of users of other modes such that we do not think over-representation of cyclists distorts or invalidates the results (which by and large are emphatic in any case).

·         17% of respondents said they undertook more than 80% of their journeys by car

·         12% said they didn’t travel by car at all

·         24% expected their car use to fall in the next 5 years, with 15% expecting it to increase

·         61% did not expect their car use to change.

Comparing this exercise with the same question asked in 2021 (at the end of the second lockdown period) suggests that fewer people are now expecting their car use to fall (in 2021 over 30% expected it to fall).   To some extent this is probably reflective of different expectations about travel habits since the end of the covid pandemic.

 

 

 

Within the sample there was substantial use of different transport modes – with, for example, only around 10% of respondents not using either walk, car, bus or rail and only about one-third not cycling.   Analysis of respondents’ preferences for travel suggests that more people would prefer to travel by sustainable modes than currently do (comparison of “preferences” chart with how people currently travel).  This all tallies with previous questionnaires and surveys in York which suggest that (a) travel behaviour in the city is fairly sophisticated with people using several modes to get around, according to assessments of the needs of different journeys (which includes an assessment of the environmental implications of some transport choices) and (b) people say they would prefer to use sustainable travel more than they do now.

 


 

Respondent Satisfaction with current provision

Respondent satisfaction was highest with (respectively) pavements and walking routes, rail services, and taxis; and lowest with cycling routes, bus routes and the road network.  There was dissatisfaction with EV charging points, but the number of respondents to this question (187) was significantly lower than the number of respondents to the other questions analysed here (all between 750 and 1,100 respondents except “taxis” (606 respondents)).

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Assessment of problems

Respondents were asked to what extent they viewed various aspects of York’s transport network as “problematic”.  In all but one case (personal security) the number of people who viewed any given aspect of the system as “very serious” or “fairly serious” problems was above the number of people who viewed it as “Not at all serious” or “Not very serious”.  In most cases, far more of the respondents saw the problems as “very serious” or “fairly serious” than not serious.  This was particularly true for congestion, air pollution, noise, climate change. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

3. Policy Focus Area 1: Accessibility

Respondents were asked whether they agreed with the Accessibility vision.

 

Policy focus area 1: Accessibility - Shape a city that is accessible to everyone – so that everyone, including young people, women, disabled people and anyone with a protected characteristic, is able to access all the facilities which they need, and all areas of the city, and its villages, have accessible, reliable and affordable bus services to key destinations

 

90% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with the vision.  Only 5% of people disagreed or strongly disagreed with the vision.

Over a quarter of respondents said that they feel buses and trains in York are not accessible to them at the moment.  This is similar to the proportion of respondents who said they suffered from a disability and further work in the Local Transport Strategy – and the associated project on Accessibility – will look into this in more depth.

 

4. Policy Focus Area 2: walking, wheeling and cycling

Policy focus area 2: Improve walking, wheeling and cycling – so that cycling, walking and wheeling become more attractive and offer better alternatives to the car. Key to this will be creating a continuous network of safe and high-quality cycle, walking and wheeling routes, and giving all active travel users greater priority on roads and at junctions. Effectively integrating new modes like e-bikes into York’s transport network will also be important. These changes will achieve a doubling of active travel journeys by 2030.

 

 

 

85% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with the vision.  Only 8% of people disagreed or strongly disagreed with the vision.

 

61% of respondents said they did not walk, cycle or wheel as much as they would like.  The top 3 reasons given for not walking, cycling or wheeling as much as respondents would like were that there were no suitable cycle routes, that they did not feel safe and that there was no suitable cycle parking.

 

 

 

 

 

Our big transport conversation was an opportunity to test attitudes to York’s hierarchy of transport modes, which had been in use for over 20 years.  73% of respondents agreed with the hierarchy.

During the face-to-face consultation some suggestions were made about possible refinements to the modal hierarchy, including widening the current “disabled” categories to include other vulnerable transport users (for example, children and elderly people) and/ or uses of the highway which did not involve movement (for example, roadworks and parked vehicles).  These will be considered further in York’s new Transport Strategy and the York Movement and Place Plan.


 

Respondents were asked what improvements could be made, including a question where they were asked to rank improvement preferences.  The respondents said that they preferred infrastructure improvements such as cycle lanes segregated from other traffic, continuous cycle lanes and wider pavements.  Better maintenance of road surfaces was also considered important.

 

 

Finally, over 50% of respondents saw e-bikes as an important future mobility option in York.

5. Policy Focus Area 3: Shaping Healthy Places

Policy focus area 3: Shape Healthy Places: – to encourage physical activity by ensuring that all communities in York are inclusive, feel safe and offer all the facilities which people need on a daily basis within easy reach whether walking, wheeling, cycling or travelling by public transport. We will improve district centres so that people can meet more of their shopping, work and leisure needs locally, without having to travel by car.  We will improve streets and spaces in York to help us adapt to future climate change and for the benefits of all users, including people who have limited mobility, hearing or sight loss.  We will focus on planting, lighting, surfaces and the quality and feel of streets and spaces in York.  We will improve broadband connectivity to enable people to work, study and shop from home.

 

 

 

85% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with the vision.  Only 7% of people disagreed or strongly disagreed with the vision.

 

 

As with walking, wheeling and cycling, respondents were asked to rank their preferences for action.  “Nearby key services”, ”Improved cycle routes and parking” and “Improved walking routes and pavements” were seen as the most preferred improvements.  More engagement on these matters will take place through preparation of York’s Movement and Place Plan.   

Intrusion of traffic was seen as the aspect which works least well in local areas.

 

Between 20% and 30% of respondents said they would use either a deliveries or mobility hub, with around 40% uncertain of their use.  More work with the data will be needed to assess how this varies between different areas of York.

Developing a Supplementary Planning Document for new developments (a Local Plan commitment) was supported by a large majority, and a large majority of respondents also supported applying a healthy streets approach in York.

 

 


 

74% of respondents supported the development of home zones in York, with only 10% opposing this.  20mph limits, more trees and planting and reduced on-street car parking were seen as the 3 most useful/ important aspects of a home zone.

 

 

The three most concerning aspects of road safety in York were seen by respondents as “poor quality road/ pavement surfaces”, “close passing by vehicles” and “speed of traffic”.  The project team were also often told this during the face-to-face consultation, with road/ pavement repair concerns being reported at nearly all of the meetings attended.

Respondents showed high levels of support for making Health Impact Assessments of large transport infrastructure schemes and also supported greater use of “Decide and Provide” methods for scoping new transport projects.  However, some respondents reported that these areas are very technical and they did not feel qualified to reach judgements on them.  This suggests that future engagements on transport will need to provide greater explanation of some of these concepts to aid discussion.

 


 

6. Policy Focus Area 4: Improving Public Transport

Policy focus area 4: Improving Public Transport: so that all areas of the city have good and reliable public transport access. Key to this will be extending the bus network, ensuring effective and reliable early and late services when people need them, and upgrading high frequency bus services – in some cases into bus rapid transit services or possibly light rail transit systems.  We will also work to upgrade heavy rail services where they play a local role or support our other policies. Not only will this result in a 50% or greater increase in bus patronage by 2030, it will also enhance the viability of public transport and protect its future

 

 

88% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with the vision.  Only 6% of people disagreed or strongly disagreed with the vision.

 

City of York Council is already advancing a significant programme of improvements to bus services under its Bus Service Improvement Plan.  Knowledge of this amongst respondents (who would be expected to be more engaged with transport in York than most people in the city) is relatively low at present – but we would expect this to increase as improvements on the bus network become more visible (e.g. through new ticketing projects and works on the ground).

 

Respondents saw the biggest issues with buses in York being poor reliability, routes not going where respondents wished them to go and quality of bus stops.  168 of the 1560 responses we received to this question cited “affordability” as a problem, which is lower than in previous surveys and likely to be a response to the £2 maximum fare policy currently in place.

Face-to-face events revealed that views on the quality of local buses were very varied according to location.  There were particular problems in areas where bus service levels had recently been reduced or were under threat.

48% of respondents said they would use buses more if there was more bus priority, with 35% saying they would “maybe” use buses more if there was more priority.  Only 17% of respondents said that more bus priorities would not lead to them using buses more – this is only a slightly higher proportion than the respondents who say they do not use buses at all at the moment.

72% of respondents agreed with the principle of providing more priority routes for buses and sustainable modes, with only 11% of respondents opposing this.

A clear challenge for York’s new Local Transport Strategy will be turning the overall “in-principle” support for improving bus reliability and providing more bus priorities into support for individual schemes which may involve difficult choices about reallocation of road space, which is currently available to all vehicles or used for on-street parking, to buses or other sustainable transport modes.

 


 

Just over one quarter (217 of 718) of respondents said they would make use of a community transport scheme, with nearly two-thirds (397 of 715 respondents) saying they would use a city centre shuttle bus.

Further work on public transport options will be needed to assess the feasibility of these types of schemes in York.

 


 

75% of 714 respondents supported the principle of converting the current Park and Ride terminals into multi-modal hubs offering a wider range of transport services (e.g. access to longer distance buses, car sharing).  Projects to do this are already being taken forward as part of York’s Bus Service Improvement Plan programme.

 

In terms of bus fare measures, respondents saw improving affordability of bus fares as being the measure most likely to encourage bus use, followed by simplifying fares.

 

Amongst people who considered accessible taxis to be important to them, 39% said that they would find more wheelchair accessible taxis helpful, with 15% saying they “may” find it helpful.  This will be explored more through the Council’s wider work on accessibility.

Just over one-quarter of 650 respondents said they would use a park and sail service, with nearly half saying they would not.  This underscores that any such service would only be of use to those who do journeys which could also be undertaken on the River.  Obviously, detailed work on viability of a park and sail service would have to take place before there was any commitment beyond the current Summer-only service which operates commercially to/ from Acaster Malbis.    

 

 

 


 

7. Policy Focus Area 5: Safeguarding our environment

Policy focus area 5: Safeguarding our environment by cutting carbon, air pollution and noise - we will encourage the take-up of electric vehicles because they have no tailpipe emissions. However, we know that simply converting existing internal combustion-engine trips to electric vehicle trips will not be enough to meet Climate Change targets, reduce congestion, or improve air quality and health sufficiently. We must achieve reductions in the absolute number of car miles travelled too.

 

74% of respondents agreed with the vision, with 17% disagreeing with it.  Whilst still a large majority in favour of the vision, this was the lowest level of agreement with any of the “visions” for York’s local transport and it is possible that respondents, whilst agreeing with the overall objective of safeguarding the environment, did not agree with the proposed change to electric vehicles or reducing distance driven.  Achieving change in both of these areas will be critical to delivering York’s new Local Transport Strategy and additional engagement will be required with York residents to understand views around these subjects more generally.

Respondents were asked what steps they could take to reduce congestion and pollution in York.  The most popular steps proposed were “taking public transport more”, “walking for more of my trips”, “travelling by bike” and “shopping more locally and ordering online for large or heavy items”

Over three-quarters of 600 respondents agreed that public EV charging facilities should be expanded, and 59% of respondents thought that people should be encouraged to use EVs or hybrid vehicles.  Changes to parking charges for EVs were seen as an important lever to encourage take-up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Nearly three-quarters of respondents thought that “heavy vehicles” (for example, heavy goods vehicles) should be included in the existing bus-only “clean air zone” on and inside York’s inner ring road.  There was also overwhelming support amongst respondents for taking carbon impacts into account when planning new transport infrastructure, developing green infrastructure networks and that new developments in York should support environmental improvement.

80% of respondents agreed that tourists should use sustainable transport to travel around York, with only 3% of respondents opposing this.  This will need to be explored in more depth in the Movement and Place Plan.  This will also need to consider how to manage the impact of big tourist events (for example, the Christmas Markets or Races) on York’s transport networks.  This came up regularly during face-to-face events.

 

 

 


8. Policy Focus Ares 6: Movement and Place Plan

Policy focus area 6: Manage the road network for Movement and Place we will develop a Movement and Place Plan which reallocates road-space to create safe and connected networks for walking, wheeling, cycling, public transport, cars and freight for residents, businesses and visitors alike – helping deliver York’s economic and environmental strategies and draft Local Plan by making walking, wheeling and cycling more attractive and buses more reliable. The Movement and Place Plan will also identify how best to balance the needs of streets as travel corridors and as places where people live, shop, go to school and enjoy their leisure. It will facilitate all kinds of journey including trips to and from outside of the city, and will recognise York’s place in the wider region.  A key to the Movement and Place Plan will be using York’s new traffic models to minimise congestion, along with new ways to manage and construct highways to minimise their environmental impacts and work with partners to deliver any required interventions and schemes.

 

81% of respondents agree with the “Movement and Place” vision in Policy focus area 6 and 80% agreed, specifically, that York should produce a “Movement and Place Plan”, with only 7% of the 682 respondents opposing this.  This clearly indicates that a large majority of respondents see developing a Movement and Place Plan as a priority.

Over three-quarters of respondents said that York should produce a network plan for each mode of transport.  This can be considered more in the emerging Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan and various pieces of work on the bus network, as well as the Key Route Network (of major roads) being produced with North Yorkshire Council for the new Mayoral Combined Authority. 

 

Only 15% of respondents agreed with the statement that York’s Inner Ring Road is “fit for purpose”, with 70% of respondents thinking it is not fit for purpose.  Of course, there are multiple reasons why respondents may be saying York’s Inner Ring Road is not fit for purpose – it could be because of perceived congestion, unreliable public transport, unsafe active mode journeys or poor amenity, unacceptable levels of air and noise pollution or traffic intruding into historic areas of the city.  It is possible that many respondents are seeing the Inner Ring Road as failing in several of these areas.  The Movement and Place Plan will undertake more engagement to improve understanding in this area.

Respondents also said they wanted the Council to use the various network management tools at their disposal to achieve sustainable transport objectives, particularly prioritising sustainable modes and reducing air pollution.

71% of 588 respondents to the question supported the introduction of 20mph zones as “a default speed limit through residential areas, near schools, in villages and at retail areas and parks to make the area safer for road users”, with 29% of respondents not supporting this.

 

 

Only 20% of respondents thought the Council were “currently maintaining our highways while minimising disruption and delays” with many people disagreeing with this.  It is worth pointing out that there are many reasons why respondents may be of this view – including thinking the council were not effectively maintaining highways (earlier questions showing that satisfaction with highway and pavement surfaces is low).  The response may also have been influenced by recent large-scale roadworks on, amongst others, Tadcaster Road.  However, it does highlight the need to consider how roadworks are managed in future – particularly because a change of transport strategy for York could imply large scale roadworks as new highways interventions (for example, segregated cycle lanes) are introduced.

As in Section 3, a majority of respondents agreed with adopting a “decide and provide” methodology for new transport infrastructure and developments.  


 

9. PFA7: Reduce car dependency

Policy focus area 7: Reduce car dependency - we will provide safe and comprehensive networks so that alternatives to the car are the obvious choice for a growing proportion of transport users, whilst enabling those who have to use motorised vehicles to get about more easily. We will manage parking to provide access for shops and business, while discouraging car use for journeys which could be made by sustainable modes. New developments will be planned so that active travel and public transport are the obvious choice. We will also promote behavioural change by supporting people as they switch travel modes, for example, through travel planning. Together these changes will reduce the number of miles travelled on York’s roads by at least 20% by 2030.

 

78% of 788 respondents agreed with the vision to “reduce car dependency” with only 14% opposing it.  As the vision includes a commitment to reduce mileage driven on York’s roads by 20%, support of the vision can be seen as an acceptance of that target by the respondent group, which includes large numbers of drivers (see Section 2 of this report).

 

Potential interventions to reduce car dependency were considered.  Amongst respondents the most popular bus improvements were seen to be better/ cheaper ticketing, more extensive bus routes and more frequent/ reliable buses; for traffic interventions more low traffic neighbourhoods and 20mph zones were seen as important; pro-cycling interventions were safer/ dedicated/ better lit/ better maintained cycle routes with pro-pedestrian interventions being routes away from main roads (and better lit).  Better shops and local services, and flexibility from employers about working from home were seen as crucial in reducing overall demand for travel.

 

 

 

Respondents were keen that walking and cycling to school should be encouraged.  Whilst there are many reasons why active travel to school is beneficial, it should be remembered that journeys by vulnerable road users such as children may need supporting measures to enable them, such as better walking and cycling infrastructure, reduced speed limits on the journey to school, secure cycle parking at schools and so on.

Respondents did not see support from their employer as being critical to their adoption of more sustainable travel habits, although over half (276 of 543 respondents to this question) considered that they were already travelling sustainably.  

 


 

56% of 558 respondents said they would support more campaign work to encourage people to travel more sustainably, with only 19% of respondents not supporting this.  54% of 524 respondents agreed that car clubs within 500m of where people live should be supported, with only 20% opposing this. 

75% of 543 respondents (overleaf) agreed that CYC should develop a parking strategy to encourage people to use park and ride, bus, rail and active modes, with only 14% of respondents opposing it.

47% of 491 respondents agreed that residents parking schemes should be extended to new areas, with 27% of respondents disagreeing.  This measure was much commented on during face-to-face sessions and will need to be explored in further engagement in the Movement and Place Plan.  

Respondents also agreed that parking standards for new developments should discourage car use.  This will need to be explored in the Supplementary Planning Document on transport and new development.

 

 

 

 

A final question in this section asked respondents where they find out about travel options.  Most respondents revealed that they found out online, with many also using apps.  The most used offline method of finding out travel information was “bus stops”.  


 

10. Policy Focus Area 8: Freight

Policy focus area 8: Improving freight & logistics - so that York’s businesses have efficient access for their supplies, goods and services, while at the same time reducing the impact of heavy lorries and light goods vehicles on carbon emissions, air pollution, safety and damage to heritage.

 

The freight vision was agreed with by 84% of 517 respondents.  Other questions to reduce impact of freight movements on York, increase use of cargo bikes and develop clearer freight networks were also supported. 

There will be a need to engage further, including with businesses and the freight/ logistics industry, to form a view about what measures can be taken forward successfully.  This will need to form part of the Movement and Place Plan engagement.   However, there is clear support in the responses for developing a freight strategy which manages freight movements in York more effectively.

 

 

 

 

 


 

11. Policy Focus Area 9: Effective maintenance and enforcement and management of streetworks

Policy Focus Area 9: Effective maintenance and enforcement and management of streetworks so that the condition of York’s transport networks enables the transition to greater use of sustainable transport.  Enforcement of traffic rules and effective management of street-works will be a key tool in achieving our stated objectives.

 

84% of 592 respondents agreed with the “Effective maintenance and enforcement and management of streetworks” vision, with only 6% not agreeing with it.  This should be considered alongside the assessment that CYC is not “currently maintaining our highways while minimising disruption and delays” as expressed under Policy Focus Area 6. 

Over three-quarters of respondents agreed that effective enforcement would assist in meeting York’s sustainable transport ambitions. 

 

12. Policy Focus Area 10 Monitoring the transport network and financing the changes

Policy Focus Area 10 – Monitoring the transport network and financing the changes – so that the effectiveness of our policies can be monitored, and funding attracted to deliver York’s new transport strategy as effectively as possible.

81% of 534 respondents agreed with the Monitoring/ Funding vision, with 295 respondents saying they would be willing to join a transport focus group (to help develop transport policy).

 

 

 


 

The final question (before collection of demographic information) asked respondents what interventions they thought should be prioritised in York.  Most popular were schemes to make cycling safer, followed by schemes to “ease congestion” and improve bus reliability.